Vantage Point

Warning: contains spoilers for the movie ‘Vantage Point’

A couple of days ago I went to the debut of ‘Vantage Point’. Admittedly, I went on account of an interesting promo and the expected presence of Ayelt Zurer (this is the weird way her name is spelled in the credits). I came out after a great thriller, superbly edited and directed, excellently acted (yeah, Ayelt did as well as the rest of the cast) and serving a tight plot. Having the Oscars in mind, I definitely thought of this movie as an Oscar nominee, if not for ‘Best Picture’ then for directing, editing or acting.

Imagine my surprise reading a mediocre (at best) review which complained the movie was “right-winger’s wet dream”. The critic complains the terrorists are presented in a shallow fashion, not having even the “shadiest of motives”. Muslim terrorists are “all dark haired, dark-skinned, and dark-eyed, of course”. He feels its ludicrous that the movie seems to show “a Spanish government apparently incapable of providing even a modicum of security to an intergovernmental summit that, we’re told, is one of the most important of its kind”.

Suspension of disbelief
The movie has its unrealistic plot devices, of course. This is why we need the concept of ‘suspension of disbelief’ when going to the pictures. A summit press conference in what is probably a security staff’s worst nightmare location (the middle of an urban open space), a middle-aged overweight American tourist successfully pursuing trained security guys and a young Spaniard cop (AND speaking Spanish), endless car crashes (just the good guy, bad guys seem to be immune to crashes even while talking on the phone and shooting with both ends while driving) and possibly the biggest unrealistic plot device – a small terrorist group which manage to infiltrate the Spanish police, CNN (labeled ‘GNN’ in the movie) and the President’s security team at the same time.

But this stuff just happens in the movies. You have to accept it in order to enjoy all action movies, and most others – even so-called ‘true stories’ (usually reduced and edited to fit a budget and a movie-length time).

So what about the specific criticism the review draws? Some of it I can credit to the feeling I get that the critic just didn’t understand the movie’s aim – it didn’t span a narrative of years, it just focused on about 30 minutes in ‘realtime’. You don’t get a look into the terrorists’ motives (aside of the mentioned neo-con which sheds a light on the neo-con more than on the terrorists) in the same way you don’t get an overview of the President’s motives. The film maker avoided addressing these, allowing the viewer to interpret the plot using his own knowledge of the world. Similarly we don’t get the full story of the relationships of the terrorists’ one with the other, although there are obvious fractures and tensions in the group – we can only figure some of it by dialogs and events happening during the movie.

The problem with Righteous Liberals
But I think the problem runs deeper. Since I arrived here to California, I heard (mainly on public radio) a lot of opinions which seek to do the same as the reviewer – mock the ‘black and white’ view of the war on terrorism. The ‘shades of grey’ argument is dominant in a lot of discussions. But in the guise of this argument, some truths may be missed.

Ever been to Spain? Morocco? Middle East? How many of the natives are blue-eyed? Blondes? Freckle skinned? So why wouldn’t a terrorist group be consisted of just ‘dark eyed, dark skinned and dark haired’ people (which by the way, are not that look-alike in the movie)? Should terrorist groups practice a ‘diversity in employment’ policy as fashionable in California?
And is the Spanish government so efficient in diverting Islamic terrorist? The horrible Madrid train bombings in 2004 happened well after 9/11, Bali bombings and Istanbul bombings, to name just a few of the major Islamic terrorist attacks of the time. Yet the Spanish government not only failed to prevent the Madrid attacks, it also failed to recognize the attackers until much later (the ruling party at the time blamed the ETA).

Yet the criticism the reviewer makes which seems to me the most problematic is the one about motives.

I am poor\oppressed\religious, so I’m bombing innocent people
Don’t get me wrong, I’m fully aware that a terrorist doesn’t come out of the blue. I’m all in favor of dealing with the root causes that lead people to be part of a terror act, be it world conflicts, poverty, extremist religion or education. But insisting that the motives of the terrorists are important to understand the possible horrific results of a terrorist act (well portrayed by the movie, I think), or the subtle mechanisms used by terrorists to coerce, deceive and encourage people to be terrorist, that insistence is questionable. It hides the notion of emphasizing with these terrorists – after all, they had motives to do what they did, so I condemned it but I can understand them.

[Side note: I’m not getting into the discussion of what constitutes a terror act and what doesn’t. I’m sure each of us can think of enough examples of non-controversial terror attacks such as the examples I gave before.]

The liberal person who first seeks to understand the motivation (and only then inspect the act), is not only committing moral discrimination (putting the justification of the killers above the innocence of their victims) but is also facing a factual impossibility – almost any group of 10 people in the ‘terrorist community’ has a different motive or agenda. Some are more ‘justifiable’ (‘my whole family was murdered by American missile in Iraq’) and some are less so (‘I hate the symbols of the decadent west, away with McDonald’). Investigating into the motives of each group, discerning them into categories and going about resolving them on the basis of merit, that is ludicrous, as the reviewer puts it.

And Wrong, as Buffy would have said – sometimes you just have to kill the monsters.

And we walked off to look for America

I'm leaving Israel tomorrow and relocating to the US of A. It took a long while to accomplish this goal, something I worked towards at least a year and has been on my mind for several years now. The shipping company has been at our apartment on Sunday and packed everything, to be sent ahead of us to California. On the evening before I had a whim to listen to Simon & Garfunkel, and once all my other CD's were packed and sent, I had a week to listen over and over again to their 1981 Concert in Central Park. Which brings me back to America.

Paul Simon wrote amazing melodies and lyrics, both simple and layered with meanings. I think that one aspect of his songs that always captured my heart, was the way the American way of life and its politics was evident. Most of the songs in their 1981 concert were written by Simon for the duo's albums in the 60's and Simon's early solo career in the 70's. The mood of that troubled time in the USA is very much there.

Kathy I'm lost, I said
For me, 'America' and 'American Tune' both describe a deep feeling of how USA has lost it's sense of purpose. I think many Americans felt, especially after the end of World War II, that their country has a role in human history, that it stood for Good wherever you find it. America saw itself as the ultimate democracy, promoting human rights, equality, justice and the courage to fight for all of these. This self-image was not undermined by realities such as minorities discrimination and bigotry, by the cruelness done by all parties at the war or by the way the corporate world of America was growing during the 50's and 60's. But by the early 70's this image was badly shaken by the cold war, the Vietnam war and the reaction it had in the public, by the 'summer of love' and the rock'n'roll culture and by a growing detachment between government and people. Nixon's escapades were just the tip of the iceberg. Many Americans doubted their country and what it set out to achieve in the world.

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Simon's songs echo the 'lost' feeling not only in the loss of purpose, but also in nostalgic form. They celebrate the heroes-of-old, those who acted heroically out of their modest, private nature. The undertone of most of the songs is very personal, seeing the world from the 'common' person point-of-view. The past is somewhat glorified like the black and white of Kodachrome pictures. Simon's music relied on the folk songs of middle America, much like Bob Dylan's early albums. A tinge of religious music, Hispanic influences, a reverence of 50's rock'n'roll. This music intentionally takes the listener back in time to a simpler world (as opposed to the psychedelic music of the 70's), less angry (as opposed to punk or even Rolling Stones), more common. It speaks to everyone, it never shouts.

Life I love you, all is Groovy
What comfort does Simon & Garfunkel offer? In contrast of the drugs-inspired feel of 'Feelin' Groovy', escape is not the answer - one should accept the hardship of life while trying to find an inner compass. The real 'salvation' according to Simon lies in the 'American spirit', such common decency, headstrong sense of what's right and what's wrong, the kind that the pilgrims (supposedly) had. While I'm not partial to the simplistic nature of such a view, I do relate to the feeling that the complexity of modern world is taking away our ability to stick with the Good side. When all shades are grey, it doesn't really matter if you're greyer than most.
America certainly didn't become simpler since 1981, if anything its the other way around. At the same time, the voting percentage is dropping each election, and it seems that along with the vision of its place in the world, USA has lost the kind of virtues that united the American people. This is the country I'm relocating to, and I wonder if things will seem differently once there.