EXODUS (1961)

Growing up, I would see paper-towel editions of Leon Uris’s books always on display at the neighbourhood market, always flanked by Victoria Holts, Wilbur Smiths and Danielle Steels. And I would wonder why. While size didn’t necessarily matter, the back covers would suggest vastly different contents and yet, the shop owners would unhesitatingly place the four piles together.

Deterred by the company they kept, I never got around to reading any Urises. Having watched Exodus some days ago, I really wish I had read the book, just in case it is different! The film, a 1960 adaptation directed by Otto Preminger, was a disappointment.

Exodus is the story of post-war creation of the State of Israel. The movie begins in 1947, Cyprus, with the determination of Haganah leader Ari Ben Canaan’s determination to transport the entire population of one Jewish refugee camp to Palestine.

At that time, Palestine was a British protectorate, with a predominantly Arab population. Jews, among them survivors of holocaust, had intensified their claims to a Zionist state, and in the short term, were seeking entry into Palestine. Palestinian Arabs resisted both aims, and in the absence of a solution of the former issue, the British felt it imprudent to allow the latter – i.e. immigration of large numbers of Jews into the protectorate.

Restrictions were placed on Jewish refugees to prevent travel to Israel, which, in the film, Ben Canaan was determined to violate. With forged orders he took aboard more than 600 refugees. The ship set sail for Palestine, but before it could leave the harbor, the British officials in Cyprus came to know. The harbor was sealed and the passengers asked to return. Instead, the passengers started a hunger strike. Following an impasse of several days, the British relented and the ship was allowed to sail to Palestine.

The next part of the film focuses on events in Palestine, as the British are preparing to leave and the question of partitioning the land into separate states of Israel and Palestine is being debated at the UN, and culminates in the immediate aftermath of the announcement of November 29, 1947 confirming the partition. It follows the fortunes of the Ben-Canaan family and their friends and associates.

After they land in Palestine, we are told that Ari’s father Barak is a leader in the Haganah (depicted as the mainstream Jewish organization seeking peaceful settlement of the Israel question) and head of the Jewish settlement of Gan Dafna. One of their closest family friends is Taha, the headman of the neighbouring Arab village. Ari’s uncle Akiva on the other hand is one of the leaders of Irgun, an extremist group relying on bombing British installations as its principal mode of expression. Other characters include the young explosives expert Dov, and a Danish refugee, Karen. Dov is a victim of sexual and emotional abuse at a Nazi concentration camp who survived because he was recruited as a Sonderkommando. Dov joins the Irgun and together with Akiva orchestrates a series of bombings on British installations. Karen, brought up by foster parents in Denmark has lost her mother and siblings, but believes her father, a famous scientist, is alive and in Palestine. She finally locates him, but he is by now unable to recognize or respond to her.

A series of events including the capture of Irgun members by the British, a dramatic jail breakout orchestrated by Ari, UN announcement of partition, outbreak of violence between the Arabs and the Jews, a dangerous walk in the night as 150 children from the village are taken across the mountain to protect them from Arab armies and a bloody end, with the discovery that Taha and Karen have been killed by Arab extremists.

According to Gideon Bachman [1], Exodus has achieved the status of a historical epic, despite no claims to accuracy other than the fact that it weaves in references to some ‘real’ events. One such real event is attempt to sail to Palestine from Cyprus, but the fate of that ship, the real Exodus, was different. Its passengers were driven to Germany and into another refugee camp. The film is littered with similar faux-historic, unsubstantiated episodes. This is a relevant criticism, but not the focus of this post.

The greater tragedy of the film is this: the film was shot against the backdrop of an enormously complex epoch in the history of this region, with a cacophony of issues providing any director with material rich enough for about 20 films (and posts on international law); it was shot in the region itself, and in the wake of a tremendously successful book so that it was assured of a large audience before release; it was a long film with a run time of three and a half hours; and yet there was barely a scene which engaged.

In the attempt to tell the full story of the ‘birth of Israel’ as well as a few love stories, the director glossed over the following: ethnic nationalism, territorial identity, religious nationalism, self-determination, refoulement, forced internment, terrorism, status of protectorates, buffer states, the United Nations, legitimacy of trials, rules targeting particular communities etc. This is not a laundry list conjured out of nowhere, the film actually refers to all of these issues, but in the attempt to depict all, addresses none.

So, you have a ship being forcibly prevented from sailing to Palestine suddenly allowed to go with no explanation why, beyond the hunger strike; passengers taken to Haifa and dropped off to roam at will; a UN General Assembly meeting in which the scene focuses on the votes of Panama and Peru; no explanation for why UN member states decided on partition; no explanation of the role the ever-present British regime played in the unfolding events. There were radio announcements of special curfews for Jews with no follow-up; award of capital punishment to Akiva and his cohort under a targeted provision, to which no further attention was paid.

Even worse, the film infantilized both causes: Jewish and Arab. To only mildly caricature, from the depiction it would appear that the legitimacy of one group’s cause was owing only to the record of abuse and torture under the Nazi regime, with no portrayal of their centuries-old claim to that land; while the other side’s claim was pure bloody-mindedness, not even redeemed by an iota of passion or dedication to any particular ‘cause’.

The multiplicity of views among the Jewish community was collapsed into two schools – and these barely explained - Barak’s and Aviva’s, peace loving moderates and the violent extremists. Only in one scene is any attempt made to tell a more complex tale: Barack goes to see Aviva (from whom he has been estranged for years), before he is hanged, finds himself yet unable to speak to his brother and leaves, but not before he tells his son that he cannot see his brother dying at the hands of the British. Just this one insight into a common feeling and then the scene shifts. The next time we see Barak, he is celebrating the UN resolution.

The only Arab we see is the good Taha, apart from the disembodied split second appearance of the mufti, only to shake hands with a German ex-Nazi and declare death to all Jews. Otherwise, we are expected to go along with a vague sense of poor hostile multitudes ready to kill and be killed at the first ringing of the clarion.

To get a sense of just how much Exodus manages to avoid accomplishing, one need only look at The Battle of Algiers, a film from the same period and a disturbing, emotionally wringing account, of another struggle between opposing causes. In Exodus, the vitals of Israel-Palestine conflict appear to have been shoehorned into the exigencies of an exotic love story - or three.

[1] Gideon Bachmann, Review, 14(3) Film Quarterly 56 (1961)

The Battle of Algiers

Mathieu: The word "torture" does not appear in our orders. We have always spoken of interrogation as the only valid method in a police operation directed against unknown enemies...twenty-four hours...the time necessary to render useless any information furnished ... What type of interrogation should we choose? ... the one which drags on for months?

Journalist: The law is often inconvenient, colonel...

Mathieu: And those who explode bombs in public places, do they perhaps respect the law? ...it is a vicious circle...All the newspapers, even the left-wing ones wanted the rebellion suppressed. And we were sent here for this very reason. And we are neither madmen nor sadists…We are soldiers and our only duty is to win...I would now like to ask you a question: Should France remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences.

“Mathieu”, “France” and “Algeria” are possibly the only words that set the context for this exchange, replace these and this could be a transcript of current date. Exhibit A.

The Battle of Algiers, scripted by Franco Solinas and directed by Gillo Pontecorvo, provides insight into an important puzzle for international lawyers: the terror v. torture debate. In the war against terrorism, is it acceptable to torture suspected terrorists? If so, what about the violation of their human rights and rights under humanitarian law? If not, then what of the risk to the lives and property of others, including innocent civilians?

Article 2 of the Convention Against Torture provides: “1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Other prescriptions include: torture must be included as a criminal offence in the domestic law of every member state (Art 4), victims of torture must be entitled to redress (Art 14), and statements made as a result of torture must not be admissible as evidence (Article 15). Torture is also prohibited by the ICCPR, the UDHR and regional conventions including the ECHR, the ACHR, and the Banjul Charter. In Filartiga, the 2nd Circuit declared that the torturer is ‘hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind’. In Furundzija, the ICTY recognized torture as a crime erga omnes, and the prohibition on torture as jus cogens.

Following 9/11, the Committee Against Torture, while condemning the attacks, also reminded State parties, “of the non-derogable nature of most of the obligations undertaken by them … [Articles 2, 15 and 16] are three such…whatever responses to the threat of international terrorism are adopted by the State parties…will be in conformity with [these obligations]."[1]

However, even as they cited these decisions and statement, the judges of the House of Lords in ‘A’ and others felt unable to insist that it would be unlawful for the executive arm of the government to rely upon information obtained through torture: “If under torture a man revealed the whereabouts of a bomb…, the authorities could remove the bomb and…arrest the terrorist who planted it” In other words, a judgment replete with contempt for acts of torture and confirmatory of the absolute nature of the prohibition against the same, could not yet declare information obtained through such acts worthless for all purposes. The growing incidence of terrorism is gradually carving out an (only in fact) exception to states’ commitment to refrain from torture. This is reflected in the film as well, the scenes of torture are gruesome, yet it is not possible to describe Colonel Mathieu’s argument as lacking all merit.

The context for the ‘Battle of Algiers’ is Algerian nationals’ struggle for independence from France. Algeria was a French colony for about 120 years, but the desire for greater autonomy had begun to take root towards the end of the first quarter of the 20th century. The end of the second quarter saw the formation of the Front de Libération Nationale [FLN] – the group depicted in the film - which launched the call for the formation of an Algerian sovereign state; in other words, they demanded full independence from the French. A six year ‘War of Independence’ followed, in which the Battle of Algiers was one of the major episodes. Armed revolt was the route preferred by the FLN; gradually other groups were persuaded or coerced to join cause with it. The government responded first by harsh police measures, then by bringing in the military.

Both sides were guilty of attacks on civilians and torture of captured persons. The laws of war were flagrantly violated. Though the film carries no express reference to humanitarian law, France was a party to the Geneva Conventions at the time of the Algerian war. The FLN, a non-state actor was not a party to the convention, but had been in direct contact with the ICRC throughout the war. Even so, the film indicates that there was little effort made by either side to contend with the protections afforded by the Geneva conventions:

On at least two separate occasions we see Colonel Mathieu offering a fair trial to the members of the FLN if they give themselves up without using force. The ICRC notes however that the French refused to admit that the Geneva conventions were applicable. “It did not matter to France, which drew on the full range of penal law to counter the rebellion, whether those “captured while in possession of weapons” were in line with the law of war or not…Far from being seen as instruments of the State – as in the case of international conflicts – [the Algerians] risked being given heavy sentences simply for having taken part in the fighting.”

In any case, the French made little attempt to differentiate between the “soldiers” and the civilians among the Algerian nationals; the film makes a reference to the napalm bombs used to wipe out entire villages. The film also shows that the pied-noirs, i.e. the European colonists, indiscriminately abusing all Algerian nationals for acts of violence, even as they employed Algerians in their factories and homes. The police too is seen as making little effort to collect actual evidence prior to making arrests, and in one incident an innocent Algerian road worker is arrested, ‘interrogated’ and his house and neighborhood in the Algerian quarter (the “Casbah”) bombed by the Police Commissioner and his friends as an act of revenge against the random acts of violence perpetrated by the FLN. The fate of the worker is not disclosed. According to the ICRC, though the broad policy was to bring the Algerians before magistrates’ courts, “disappearances” were widespread. The ICRC had very limited access to prisoners; film makes no mention of any ICRC presence at the detention centers.

On the Algerian side, the film faithfully showcases the actual events during the Battle of Algiers, including: guerrilla attacks by the FLN; bombing of popular civilian sites; and the general strike timed to coincide with the UN debate on Algeria. One of the most notorious incidents was the simultaneous bombing of a crowded restaurant, a milk bar and the Air France building by three women, as a reprisal against the French police’s actions in bombing the Casbah, and in restricting Algerians’ movement to and from the Casbah. The women, Hassiba Ben Bouali, Djamila Bouhired and Zohra Drif were all active members of the FLN, as were several others. Though not in this instance, in general the FLN capitalized on the fact that for reasons of cultural propriety, French soldiers would not search Algerian women for concealed weapons as they searched Algerian men.

Children also played a role in FLN operations; the character of petit Omar, who acted as the go-between for FLN leaders like Ali La Pointe and Saadi Yacef, and who was pressed into service to plant bombs for the FLN when their adult membership began to decline, is taken from real life. Omar was Yacef’s nephew and was finally killed by a French bomb, when hiding with La Pointe and Ben Bouali. Another role for children, according to the film, was to help the FLN in its drive to weed out gamblers, drug-takers, alcoholics and prostitutes, described as products of the ‘colonial’ influence: “Corruption and brutality have always been the most dangerous weapons of colonialism. The National Liberation Front calls all the people to struggle for their own physical and moral redemption -- indispensable conditions for the reconquest of independence. Therefore beginning today, the clandestine authority of the NLF prohibits the following activities: gambling, the sale and usage of all types of drugs, the sale and usage of alcoholic beverages, prostitution and its solicitation. Transgressors will be punished. Habitual transgressors will be punished by death.” One of the most gut- wrenching moments of the film is the brutal lynching of a drunk man by a group of children.

Another issue touched upon in the film is the question of choice of methods in the independence struggle. As described above, the FLN pursued a policy of armed revolt that could have been described as terrorist. However, at the time of the Algerian War, there was considerable debate on whether or not there should be a ‘freedom fighter’ exception to the definition of terrorism, such that acts of violence committed in the quest for independence would not be slotted under terrorism. During the Cold War, in most cases of anti-colonial struggle, one of the two power blocs would express support for ‘freedom fighters’; the other would condemn violence. The result was obfuscation of the permitted means to self-determination. Even today, though the period of anti-colonial struggles has come to an end, the international community has not been able to resolve the problem of separating ‘legitimate freedom fighters’ from terrorists; this has prevented the finalization of the Draft Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism. The Security Council displays increasing unwillingness to include any exceptions to the definition of terrorism, on the other hand the Arab and African regional anti-terrorism conventions except acts performed in the course of the struggle for freedom.[2]

Another important feature is the French military’s reaction to the week long strike, including a freeze on hostilities, declared by the FLN. Through a general strike the FLN intended to showcase the popular support among the Algerians for full independence from the French; the strike was timed to coincide with the UN Debate on Algeria. The French military used it as an excuse to raid the Casbah. Despite the peaceful nature of the strike, all striking Algerians, regardless of the fact of their affiliation/non-affiliation with the FLN were treated as insurgents; participants were randomly selected, arrested and tortured in order to obtain information about the FLN.

These tactics helped the military to identify and crush the leadership of the FLN, and so win the Battle of Algiers. Another blow to the FLN’s campaign was the UN Resolution which only expressed “the hope that, in a spirit of co-operation, a peaceful, democratic and just solution will be found, through appropriate means in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”[3]

However, in the long run, these military tactics undermined France’s position in Algeria, as military brutalities promoted popular uprising among the Algerians some months after the battle, and accelerated the decline in international support for the French colonial government in Algeria. In 2003, the Pentagon organized a screening of the film, apparently as an attempt to think creatively about the US military’s role in Iraq. The flyer stated: “How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film.”[4]

A remarkable feature of the film is its faithful and unbiased representation of the events that transpired. A major factor was the assistance Pontecorvo received from Saadi Yacef, who co-produced the film. Yacef also played himself in the film, other roles were played by Algerians, all non-actors; only one professional actor was included in the cast – Jean Martin playing Colonel Mathieu, a fictionalized character loosely based on General Jacques Massu, the commander of the French troops in Algiers. The film was shot in Algeria, using the actual locations where the incidents had occurred. Moreover, it was shot very soon after the actual events had transpired. According to Charles Paul Freund, in 1965 when internal differences broke out between different factions of the FLN, and one faction surrounded another with tanks, the people of the capital literally thought another scene was being shot for The Battle of Algiers.[5]

The film was criticized for its condemnation of torture by both General Massu and his deputy in Algiers, General Paul Aussaresses. Massu was to later regret the military’s actions in Algeria, but Aussaresses continues to maintain that these tactics had been necessary. In 2002 he published “The Battle of the Casbah”, in which he defended his use of torture. The French government subsequently tried and convicted Aussaresses for ‘justifying war crimes’.

[1] Statement of the Committee against Torture, CAT/C/XXVII/Misc.7, 2/11/2001.
[2] See Thomas Weigend, The Universal Terrorist, Journal of International Criminal Justice 2006 4(5):912-932
[3] GA Res 1012 (XI). The Question of Algeria (15 February 1957).
[4] Michael T. Kaufman, Film Studies, The New York Times, http://www.rialtopictures.com/eyes_xtras/battle_times.html
[5] http://www.slate.com/id/2087628/#correct2

Munich

Munich, A Steven Spielberg film on the events following the massacre of Israeli athletes during the 1971 Munich Olympics, by gunmen from a Palestinian group, Black September.

Partly for vengeance and partly as deterrence against future attacks, Israel decided to launch Operation Wrath of God – whose mission was to identify and assassinate those who had been part of the Black September campaign. Mossad, the intelligence and special operations agency took the lead, putting together a special team (some claim, several special teams) for this purpose and a series of attacks were made upon key Palestinians. The Operation was subjected to a great deal of criticism especially in the aftermath of the "Lillehammer affair" in which a team of Mossad Agents mistakenly killed a Moroccan waiter in the town of Lillehammer, Norway – mistaking him for Ali Hassan Salameh, believed to be the mastermind behind the Munich Killings. International outrage over this incident led to a temporary suspension of this operation, but it was revived under after change of Israeli leadership – from Golda Meir to Menachem Begin – and Salameh was eventually found and assassinated.

Munich is described by Spielberg as “historical fiction” that builds upon these events. The story revolves around an assassination squad of five people led by a junior Mossad agent who are entrusted with the job of tracking down and killing 11 Black September terrorists. The plot develops with some deviations from the actual sequence of events - the Lillehammer affair does not find a mention - however the Beirut affair ("Operation Spring of Youth") is included as is the long hunt for Salameh. An addition to the plot is a confrontation scene with some PLO operatives, where the parties launch into a discussion of middle-east politics. Towards the end of movie, the growing insecurity – as they are subjected to counter attacks - and disillusionment of the 5-man squad as they grapple with questions of morality and value of the task undertaken by them, begin to take the fore ground.

The film – which was not a box office success, though it was nominated for the Academy Awards – received a mixed response. Indeed, many people who claimed to have enjoyed the movie per se, did not see it as a representative account of the Operation Wrath of God. Some took issue with the projection of the Mossad squad as a disillusioned bunch; some also protested against the fact that Spielberg told the story from a neutral point of view. Many of the others felt that Munich was not sufficiently rigorous intellectually and its attempt to examine issues of self determination, competing nationalisms, international crimes, counterterrorism, use of force etc was rather superficial.

In one review carried by the Chicago Tribune, Alisson Benedikt states that Munich is “a competent thriller, but as an intellectual pursuit, it is little more than a pretty prism through which superficial Jewish guilt and generalized Palestinian nationalism look like the product of serious soul-searching.” She goes on to ask “Do we need another handsome, well-assembled, entertaining movie to prove that we all bleed red?”. Adds Blogcritics’ Alan Dale, suggesting the Spielberg has reduced the film to a good action flick but not much else “the brow-scrunching and ethical debates don't grow out of the assassinations, they merely follow them, and are not only inadequate but irrelevant.” Quite to the contrary, Kirk Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter claims Munich is “a thought-provoking, highly charged inquiry into the political, moral and historical ramifications of terrorism and the effort to combat this scourge. While “Munich” does not lack for action and intrigue -- indeed it brims with it -- Spielberg deliberately mutes the tone of these events so the film can address the ethics of counterterrorism, in this case assassinations.” Mick LeSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle adds “Munich” will be looked to as a popular document from early in America's terrorism struggle… [It] captures the bewilderment of its historical moment. It's an emotional film disguised as a thoughtful film, an artfully executed wail of frustration. As such, it's the most complete post-Sept. 11 time capsule since Spike Lee's “25th Hour.”

Nationalism; guilt; counterterrorism; ethics; political, moral and historical ramifications of terrorism; post September 11 time capsule - the movie is meant as a journey from the immediate aftermath of a terrorist strike – when the adrenalin is flowing and one wants instant and bloody vengeance, to the gradual ebbing away of the certainty in your cause, in the face of its violent ghastliness. It is well worth a watch just to answer whether it is an adequate rendition of the same.

Note: The picture is a photo of the Israeli Olympic team to the 1971 Munich Olympics, taken from Wikipedia.

Syriana

The tagline of Syriana is “everything is connected” and this is exactly what the movie portrays. Principally a tale about the oil industry, the tale the movie tells is spun across USA, Switzerland, the middle east, south asia and the far east. A missile disappears in Iran, a Geneva-based consultant group covets the role of economic advisor to the heir of an Emirate,; the heir to the Emirate, Prince Nasir, awards an oil contract to China, the immigrant Pakistani workers of the US firm which previously held this contract lose their jobs, and are inducted into a fundamentalist group, the US firm merges with a smaller company which has landed an oil contract in Kazakhistan, the Department of Justice is worried about this merger, the companies hire a law firm to ensure the merger is pushed through, the CIA meanwhile plots to kill the heir Emir and set up his weaker pro-America brother on the throne to secure American oil interests. A CIA agent, a young economist, a laid-off worker and some lawyers are pulled into these complex webs like so many flies.

The exact plot line of the movie is difficult to describe, for it is non-linear [1] and the plot only comes together – if at all – towards the end of the film. Indeed in his review, Roger Ebert makes a valid point when he states “The more you describe it, the more you miss the point. It is not a linear progression from problem to solution. It is all problem.”

At one level the root of this problem revolves around the lengths to which the American government would go to maintain its supplies from the wells of the Middle-East. Indeed, ex-CIA Agent Robert Baer, whose book See No Evil was the inspiration for Syriana, told Washington Post that “[i]t’s a fictional place, a term used inside the Beltway, to describe redrawing the borders in the Middle East to suit our interests. It’s a made-up name. For example, Iraq is very much an artificial country and that is one reason we’re having so many problems there because the Iraqis are not a people with a common identity.” The film's website also states that ‘Syriana’ is a very real term used by Washington think-tanks to describe a hypothetical reshaping of the Middle East [to suit Western interests]. As the story indicates, the reshaping need not only be geographical – the term can also refer to political interference – such as the CIA plan to kill Prince Nasir.

At another level however the movie rises above being merely a powerful indiction of American quest for oil. Syriana spins an intricate tale of corruption and vested interests at every level as each state, each group within the states and each individual within the group tries to realize their/his desired ends. What emerges most clearly is that there is hardly anybody who is capable of grasping, let alone controlling the whole process – the American oil interests are but one variable, as are the ambitions of the heir to the Emirate and his brother, the dreams of the retrenched immigrants, the goals of the law firm, the ambition of its individual lawyers, the motives of the oil companies, etc. It offers a window into the complications which are often very simplistically subsumed within labels such as “US foreign policy”; “Islamic terrorism”; and “spreading democracy”.

The film is remarkable for the fact that throughout the course of its complicated narrative, it endeavors to bring the different shades in the characters of each of its major actors, whether by exploring their backgrounds, or through clever dialogue. In addition it makes a bunch of small points which go into bolstering its overall attempt to give the viewer a sense of the complexity of such affairs. To mention a few of these:

• The laid-off Pakistani workers feel a sense of alienation in the Emirates, for even though it is a muslim country, it is very unlike their own. Furthermore this is not because of sectarian Shia/Sunni differences, but because of ethnic and linguistic dissimilarities. This may appear to be an obvious point but is usually missed by films that lump together the entire ‘Muslim world’.


• In one instance Prince Nasir claims his plans for rebuilding the Emirate are constantly obstructed by the American government forcing him to buy their products – like outdated aircraft – at exhorbitant prices, in order to combat the growing unemployment in the manufacturing sector.


• There is an interesting dialogue on the nature of the Caspian sea – is it really a sea, or is it a lake and what the implications of this are, in terms of rights over its waters and its deep sea oil fields. The dialogue also explores how the countries surrounding it prefer to characterize it and why.

Lauded and criticized for its complex story; reviled by some as an anti-American film - Charles Krauthammer in an Op-Ed published in the Washington Post states “Osama bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction”; praised by others because it does not descend to this level of simplification; a winner of several major awards, Syriana is a visible, moving film, well worth a watch – or as some suggest, two back to back viewings, to truly appreciate its intricacies.

[1] A good synopsis is available on the film’s official website http://syrianamovie.warnerbros.com/.