The Adventures of Chester: "The War Within": Within what?
The War Within
Directed by Joseph Castelo
Distributed by Magnolia Home Entertainment
The most striking aspect of the film "The War Within" is, well, its distinct lack of a portrayal of the kind of internal war that the title evokes. Instead, it takes the easy way out. Here's an excerpt from the back cover of the film:
A Pakistani engineering student is imprisoned and interrogated by Western intelligence services for suspected terrorist activities. Formerly only an intellectual supporter of jihad, Hassan undergoes a radical transformation and embarks upon a terrorist mission, covertly entering the United States to join a cell based in New York City. After meticulous planning for an event of maximum devastation, all the members of the cell are arrested, except for Hassan and one other. With nowhere else to turn, Hassan must rely on the hospitality of his friend Sayeed, who is living the American dream with his family in New Jersey. What unfolds is a profound human and political drama as we tensely observe the state of mind of a suicide bomber as he tries to decide whether or not to carry out his deadly mission.This film does not fulfill the expectations it proposes in the above description. Rather than showing us the inner workings of the mind of a man who makes rational choices to choose jihad and martyrdom, nearly every single thing that happens to Hassan is an outside influence that forces decision upon him. He never really has to choose his paths, for the circumstances align such that they are usually chosen for him, and he takes the path of least resistance.
We are not given a glimpse of his life before his imprisonment; at no point are we shown that he was an "intellectual supporter of jihad." Instead, he is walking along the street when some American thugs throw him in a van. The next we know, he's on a military cargo jet to Pakistan. So, did he choose to be a terrorist? No, it's the Americans' fault. That at least is the implicit assumption.
In prison, he shares a cell with a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Do they have lengthy and detailed conversations about jihad, Muslim philosophy, geopolitics, religion in general? No. We are left to assume that such discussions took place. We're left to assume that becoming a jihadist is just what happens to someone who is imprisoned. That may be the case. But the film doesn't portray any sort of transformation, epiphany, religious conversion, or other sort of mental strife.
The next we see Hassan, he is smuggling himself into the US in a cargo container, meeting handlers who set him up temporarily until he can contact with the rest of his cell. The film misses another huge chance here to explore the mindset of jihad: what role did he have in planning the act he has sworn to commit? Is he a worker bee or an operational planner? How committed is he to the cause? In short, despite the outrage of his unjustified imprisonment, how has he convinced himself that the taking of innocent life is warranted?
Maybe the film seeks to make the point that once a Muslim has been wronged by the West -- and really, they all have -- that they are justified in the most extreme forms of retaliation. I don't think that's the point here. But it might as well be, since we just aren't exposed to the inner workings of Hassan's mind. Instead, we are left with an image of Muslims as a sort of robot: wrong them and by Allah, they'll be blowing themselves up. They can't think you know; they only have one switch with two settings: "resentment" and "jihad". Do anything whatsoever to flip the switch and it's curtains for you! I think that this line of thinking wrongs Islam, and casts terrorists as something other than what they are, and by mischaracterizing them, makes it more likely that we'll choose poorly in how we opt to defeat them.
Back to Hassan: he didn't choose to be imprisoned; he therefore didn't choose to be a jihadist, but became one anyway; then his fellow schemers are foiled by the FBI. So he has to choose, with the other surviving cell member, whether to go on or not. Even here, Hassan only jokingly recommends that the two of them press on alone -- and probably wouldn't have done so if his co-conspirator had said no.
Without giving away too many plot details: at every turn, the film could have given Hassan clear choices, but instead all of his actions are reactive in nature, not proactive. This is the work's key failing. I submit that as a culture we are in dire need of a psychological study of suicide bombers, and the making of jihadists. Other films have tried: Syriana's suicide bomber is an unemployed Pakistani living in Saudi Arabia, laid off by a multi-national oil company, and radicalized in a madrassah. The direct causality from oil to jihad is a bit of whimsy, but at least we see that he is instructed in extreme Islam by one of its teachers. That film too though, failed to show us his inner workings. Perhaps we need something in the first person, a book, or film, that will fill this gap. What we lack is insight into what Paul Berman, in Terror and Liberalism
A mental war was visible in Afghanistan too -- a clash of ideologies, sometimes on the most sophisticated level, doctrines in massed formations, chasing each other back and forth across the landscape . . . The Terror War was fated to be fought on that same plane -- on the plane of theories, arguments, books, magazines, conferences, and lectures. It was going to be a war about the "cultural influences" that penetrate the Islamic mind, about the deepest concepts of modern life, about philosophies and theologies, about ideas that draw upon the most brilliant of writers and the most moving of texts. It was going to be, in the end, a war of persuasion -- a war that was going to be decided in large part by writers and thinkers whose ideas were going to take root, or fail to take root, among the general public.Yes, that's the "war within" that I wanted to see.
To be fair, the film is at its best when it doesn't try to draw attention to Hassan's plight (whether it is of his own making or not) and instead when it involves the nice Muslim family in Jersey that houses him. This is where the film shines. Here we have a typical American family, but Muslim: the father a doctor, the mother a housewife, the son a regular boy, the sister a professional and independent woman, all of them living in the Jersey suburbs. Here is where the war within is fought. As Sayeed, the doctor, begins to wonder about Hassan, he must decide how to handle him. Is he as extreme as he seems? Is he a danger to the family? Should he trust his old bonds to his childhood friend and overlook his mysterious and newfound piety? Here are where the choices are made that show conviction. Unlike the story of Hassan, whose entre into jihad is contrived, Sayeed's own choices are solely his alone, and how he handles them rings true. There must be hundreds, if not thousands of Muslim families in the US who deal with similar issues of loyalty to faith, kin, blood, or adopted nation on a daily basis, and must remain true to their convictions at all times. Here is where the real "war within" is taking place. If only this movie had focused its energies there.
Despite my criticism, and the shortcomings of the film, I recommend it. First, heck, it's a lot better than much of the dreck out there. If you've got a choice between this and Tristan and Isolde, that's pretty much a no-brainer. Second, at least it gets one thinking about these issues, even though I suspect that many readers will be frustrated with the work for similar reasons. And finally, I find immigrant communities in the US to be fascinating subcultures. Probably because I'm married into one. In short, check it out for yourself and see if I'm off the mark.
Thanks to the folks at Special Ops Media for sending me a copy for review.
Posted by Chester on January 31, 2006 10:50 PM to The Adventures of Chester