The American film industry displays its empathy this time with the movie "Syriana," which won George Clooney the supporting actor Oscar, after the "Kingdom of Heaven." The film, Syriana, boldly says: "We, Americans, are trying to lay down rules in the world under the name of the war against terrorism, and we believe that we represent the good in the war between good and evil; but this is not the reality." In fact, the industry speaks unequivocally, bravely and without “buts” in a modern sense. The film, Syriana, focuses on the crises experienced in the Middle East with regards to the US dependence on oil and recalls allegations that corruption is an inseparable part of US capitalism. Most importantly, the film elevates its voice against the expression "you're either with us or against us" and determines without mumbling: "We will have more headaches as long as America remains dependent on oil." Syriana, released on Monday in Turkey, also implies that the conscious premise of the US is "to relieve the world by criticizing itself." The message is so powerful that it leads Westerners in the street to think calmly by illustrating the missile delivered to some people in Iran through an agent, acted by Clooney, working on the CIA Middle East desk, who is used by al-Qaeda militants in blowing up a tanker carrying oil for American companies. The film teaches us that complex relations developed around the world's power equilibrium are linked and that the root cause of many conflicts which later turns into wars of religion and civilization is the problem of energy sharing; and also shows that "closeness and cooperation" of a Muslim is the factor used in determining "a good or bad Muslim,” in the eyes of the United States.
US intervenes in the film
Director Stephen Gaghan is trying to draw a picture of his own in Syriana, without heroic pretence and legendary solutions, as he did once in “Traffic” when he tried to depict that powerful states are all involved in global drug trafficking, a movie that received extensive applause. Prince Nasir, the son of the emir, (an excellent performance by Aleksandir Siddik) who behaves like a real Muslim with common sense and awareness of global facts, has a particular mission. Prince Nasir reminds us of the role of Selahaddin Eyyubi along with the role of a sheik that Syrian actor Hassan Messud played in the Kingdom of Heaven and the “Valley of Wolves: Iraq,” respectively. That is to say, he is playing the role of a decent, brave and just Muslim man. The positive messages that Gaghan attached to his moderate character, with a liking for dialogue apart from his consciousness to make sense of the Islamic world, is the challenging clichéd image of bearded Muslim terrorists which Hollywood created. Although it is possible to construe this type of characterization as one step to win over the Muslim audience, we need to congratulate both Gaghan and Clooney for their bravery, since we all know that there is growing hatred towards Islam, a mentality Hollywood has been glued to. A look at their stances, both before the movie project was launched and after the movie was completed, would show the connection to their outlook on war in the movie. At the same time, Clooney, who spent his own money to be a co-producer of this movie, said: "We are not intent on deterring anybody from their own views. We only want to show that what we have been going through cannot be explained as black and white. We thought our addiction to oil might set off a discussion on such issues." Gaghan, on the other hand, said: "We are very confused about the situation we are in. There are no good and bad men, and there are no easy answers either, that we tend to understand in the general sense." In saying this, Gaghan is actually defining the mission of making people ask questions, a project that "See No Evil," by Robert Baer, tried to realize. He is not wrong to do that. As Louise Keller an Australian journalist and critic, said, Syriana is likely to create a breathtaking debate. This debate has already begun in America, since the movie has been in cinemas for a long time. Inspired by the movie itself, there have been many occasions when the US addiction to oil in the Middle East has been questioned. We should meanwhile note that another film by George Clooney, “Good Night and Good Luck,” another Oscar nomination, is highly politicized for a purpose that is most obvious when we see the McCharty period handled in the movies. Here is Clooney speaking to us: "There were questions that needed to be asked, and I tried asking them in a period when people were pressed to remain silent. We should be able to talk about the kind of things that create terrorism, just as we remain firm in our fight against terrorism.”
Heavy pressure on the director
Clooney is still resolute although some American magazines almost accused him of treachery, saying, "Why shoot such films nowadays when we need unity and cooperation!" The actor says "I will go as far as I can. Those days, the ones around me, although in whispers, were saying that I was successful and expressed their support. It was hard to speak. Someone had to ask something" and expresses his satisfaction with political questionings, "It is the first time during the tenures of this government that the questions, 'What are you doing? And why are you doing?' have been asked so frequently. Opposition to our films has stopped. That is, something is changing.’" Film critics also consecrate the appropriateness of its message. John Venable says in Supercala.com, "Syriana, acting upon the fact that the US is the top oil consumer, displays the dreadful reality we face in an impressive way," while Australian Andrew L. Urban sees the most impressive and powerful message of the film in the depiction of two jobless but optimistic Pakistani youths turning into suicide assailants. In brief, James Bowman, an academic and film critic at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, criticizes the film, saying, "Probably one should be a director in Hollywood to be able to contend that the major threat to the progressive forces of democracy, economic liberalization and women's rights in the Middle East comes not from terrorist jihadists but from the CIA and big oil companies!" However, the film deserves being watched and discussed since, at least, it meticulously communicates the message, "addiction to petroleum may cause states to get involved in some illegal actions," in the light of many ticklish issues occupying the world agenda. Especially if we recall Bush's remarks in his State of the Union Address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world and this will go on for some time"…
(*) Syriana is a concept made up by the think tanks in America to refer to restructuring plans about the Middle East.
'Oil is determining factor in the US foreign policy…’
“Syriana, though its fiction is confusing, is a realistic film. As I closely follow these topics, I can fill in the gaps with the names and places from my memory, but this may be difficult for average cinema goers. Oil addiction is an important factor in US foreign policy. This has been the case since President Roosevelt met with Saudi Sultan Abdul Aziz on February 14, 1945 and laid the foundation of an oil-based alliance. There is no need to watch films to understand this. To understand the importance of Persian Gulf oil in terms of US foreign policy, it will be enough to look at the Carter Doctrine (dated January 23, 1980) which states that to guarantee the shipment of oil through the Gulf, the US can use its armed forces if needed. Iraq's occupation in 2003 can also be seen as the continuation of this conflict. The importance of addiction to the Middle East oil for US foreign policy will increase in the future, because domestic production is dropping and demand for imported oil is increasing.”
MICHAEL KLARE, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Massachusetts University, and writer of the book entitled, Oil and Blood.
'No room for conspiracy in the global role of the US'
“Addiction to oil and excessive oil import are real problems; but Syriana falls short of understanding these facts. It is a weak guide to understand American foreign policy and there is no room for conspiracy theories in the analyses made to understand the US role around the globe. We also see a parallelism between conspiracy theories and socio-political and economic developments of a country. Briefly, Syriana is only a fantasy. The US did not occupy Afghanistan and Iraq purely for energy-related issues. Iraq's oil is for Iraqis. Saddam declared war on Iran in 1980 and caused the deaths of 1 million Muslims in the war, which lasted for eight years. He was removed from Iran by the United Nations. He killed 400,000 of his own people and banished four million Iraqis. The American attack in 2003 took place since Saddam defied the UN resolutions binding his country as well. The conflict in Iraq is a result of Saddam's strategic threat to the region.”
ROBERT JB. LIEBER, Professor of International Relations at Georgetown University
Ali Çimen, Amsterdam
22 March 2006, Wednesday
Click here to read the commentary on TodaysZaman
Click here to return to the main menu
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder