T

he documentary, released on Netflix to celebrate The New Yorker ‘s 100th anniversary, may initially appear as a retrospective of a publication, but it can be interpreted as a way for the field of cultural production to construct and legitimize its own autonomy. From the perspective of Pierre Bourdieu’s “field” theory, this production can be considered a case study illustrating the process of transforming economic capital into symbolic capital and how property relations are marginalized in this process.

“The Rejection of the Economy” and the Illusion of Autonomy

In his work *The Rules of Art* (2019), Bourdieu characterizes the field of cultural production as “an inverted economic world.” In this unique field, the exclusion of economic profit and commercial success as legitimate goals is a constitutive precondition for the accumulation of intellectual authority and prestige (symbolic capital). According to Bourdieu, the autonomy of cultural production is largely made possible by the denial of the economic and the presentation of production as if it were devoid of market rationality.

Throughout the documentary, editorial rigor and fact-checking processes are highlighted as if they were sacred rituals; however, the fact that the journal was acquired by Samuel Irving Newhouse in 1984 and now operates under the Advance Publications media group is silently overlooked, which can be seen as a manifestation of this theoretical denial mechanism. This concealment of the journal’s underlying capital contributes to elevating the presentation of its editorial processes from a purely commercial activity to a purely intellectual level.

At this point, the concealment of the ownership structure can be interpreted not as a simple oversight, but rather as a structural necessity employed by the magazine to maintain its image of autonomy at the pinnacle of the intellectual sphere. Indeed, The New Yorker can only distinguish itself from its commercial sister publications —Vogue or Vanity Fair— which directly cater to fashion and consumer culture, by maintaining a sterile distance that rejects this economy. Within Advance Publications’ broad portfolio, The New Yorker is positioned as a flagship publication representing the group’s cultural prestige, not its economic profit.

This situation allows economic capital not only to be concealed but also refined and transformed into a form of “intellectual legitimacy.” For Advance Publications, The New Yorker functions as a symbolic fortress, stripped of the cold rationality of profit and loss statements, providing a moral and cultural shield for the group’s other commercial operations. The crude financial power that Vogue derives from luxury consumption is equated with lofty values ​​in The New Yorker ‘s editorial rooms, where comma placement or ethical standards are debated. Thus, this editorial rigor is not merely a matter of professional ethics; it is a strategy by which capital, by concealing itself behind a veil of intellectual benevolence, registers its dominance within the field as a “universal authority.” Ultimately, this quiet and profound operation of ownership bestows upon the magazine a sanctity independent of market fluctuations, while granting the owner a field of cultural hegemony that money cannot buy.

Habitus and the Construction of the Distinguished Reader

In Bourdieu’s sociology, habitus refers to the ways in which individuals think, perceive, and act that are specific to the social class to which they belong. The language and aesthetics that The New Yorker has constructed over a century are not merely a production of content, but also a reproduction of a particular habitus. The sophisticated tone frequently emphasized in the documentary actually functions as a judgment of taste (distinction) that affirms the cultural capital of the magazine’s reader and distinguishes them from other social classes.

The magazine’s readers follow it not only to gain information, but also to feel part of that intellectual community and to affirm their own cultural capital. The sterile world presented in the documentary integrates the magazine’s symbolic authority with the reader’s identity by conveying the message, “You too are part of this elite and rigorous world.” Therefore, the documentary celebrates not only the history of the magazine, but also the social privilege that reading it represented.

Meta-Information and the Construction of “What Matters”

As Bourdieu emphasizes in his book On Television (2015), the most critical intervention in the media field is not the information itself, but its framing. Bourdieu expresses this situation as follows: “The most decisive part of information sharing, that is, the knowledge about information (meta-knowledge) that serves to decide what is important and what 41is not, and what can and cannot be transmitted, comes largely from other sources.” (Bourdieu, 2015, p. 31)

The New Yorker ‘s century-long emphasis on elitism and quality can be read precisely as a process related to the construction of this meta-knowledge. The sterile world presented in the documentary decides which story will be on the cover or which details will be deemed unnecessary and discarded, arguably based not on absolute truth, but on a particular habitus and power relations within the field. Indeed, as Wesley Lowery puts it, this “pyramid of subjective decisions” tends to position the way those who hold meta-knowledge see the world as a universal standard.

The movie Sound of Freedom goes beyond entertainment to highlight a pressing global issue with terrifying implications. The film tells the true story of Tim Ballard, a former U.S. Homeland Security agent who embarks on a dangerous mission to rescue children from the clutches of the child sex trade. It opens with authentic, disturbing real-life footage of children being kidnapped off the streets and being trapped in the networks that are later portrayed.

The story is set in Honduras, where a desperate father, Roberto, unwittingly falls for the fraudulent promises of a former beauty queen called Giselle. She tricks Roberto into believing that his children Miguel and Rocío will work as models, but then they disappear into the dark world of child trafficking. Tim Ballard, stationed in Calexico, California, takes it upon himself to infiltrate the trafficking networks and pose as a predator to capture the traffickers and rescue the children.

While Tim successfully rescues Miguel, Rocío remains in captivity and is sold to Colombian rebels. Undaunted, Tim assembles a team to rescue the missing children, facing many challenges and setbacks along the way. The film underscores the horrific reality of modern-day slavery and highlights the ongoing global fight against child sex trafficking.

The film Sound of Freedom is not afraid to show deeply disturbing scenes that depict the harsh reality of child sex trafficking. While emotionally draining, these scenes show that child sex trafficking remains a lucrative industry that profits from the exploitation of defenseless children. As the film says, “Unlike drugs, which can only be sold once, children can be sold multiple times in a single day,” underlining the urgency of tackling this widespread problem.

Critiques and controversies

Despite its noble intentions, Sound of Freedom has found itself at the center of a storm of criticism and debate, with several aspects of the film coming under scrutiny. One prominent criticism revolves around the film’s alleged association with “QAnon conspiracies”. Critics argue that the film serves as a “QAnon dog whistle”, leading to debates about the film’s underlying motives and messages. This association has raised questions about the film’s ability to resonate with certain conspiracy theorists.

Peter Bradshaw’s review in The Guardian also suggested that Sound of Freedom might appeal to the QAnon community. Bradshaw criticized Jim Caviezel’s performance as Tim Ballard, describing it as wooden. He questioned the film’s underlying intentions, suggesting that it might promote ideas other than child sexual abuse and the need for intergovernmental cooperation.

Owen Gleiberman’s Variety article gives a mixed review of the film. He criticizes its overt Christian overtones and its association with right-wing media, suggesting that the film may appeal to the paranoia of the alt-right, which stems from platforms such as 4Chan and QAnon, which he sees as unfounded conspiracy theories.

Although the film has a few characters of Christian faith, what might be called ‘Christian undertones’ don’t go any further than a few lines like “God’s children are not for sale”.

Another point of contention is the film’s narrative simplicity. Viewers and critics alike have noted that Sound of Freedom takes a straightforward narrative approach, presenting Tim Ballard as an unwavering, incorruptible hero on a mission to fight pedophiles. While this narrative approach is consistent with the film’s goal of depicting real-life events, it has also sparked discussion about the lack of complexity in the narrative.

However, renowned Canadian psychologist, author and media commentator Jordan Peterson praised the film’s unique approach to the complex issue of human trafficking. He emphasized that the script conveys complex ideas through effective particularization, focusing on a specific case to address the broader issue of slavery and human trafficking, particularly child sex trafficking. Peterson praised this approach for giving the film a solid and emotionally engaging narrative foundation.

Criticism also came from various suspicious quarters, including the controversial writer Noah Berlatsky, who articulated his concerns in a Bloomberg article entitled “QAnon and ‘Sound of Freedom’ Both Rely on Clichéd Hollywood Elements”. Berlatsky’s perspective should be viewed with caution, given his affiliation with the “Prostasia Foundation”, an organization focused on destigmatizing “MAPs” (minor attracted people). The sinister aims of this organization include attempts to reframe pedophilia in the context of “sexual orientation”.

Unmasking the horrors of child sex trafficking     

In a recent interview with Prager U, Tim Ballard gave a chilling account of a cartel-controlled region where a child sex trafficking organization had reached unimaginable proportions. This criminal group was involved in trafficking children as young as six. Their sinister method involved recruiting vulnerable children from a charitable foundation ostensibly dedicated to helping the underprivileged, offering food and clothing in exchange for access to these innocent victims. The shocking revelation came to a head during a second undercover meeting when the traffickers arrived accompanied by police. In a shocking twist, the police actively assisted the traffickers by providing them with protection in marked vehicles with blue lights while they negotiated the sale of children. This horrific account underlines the urgent need for continued efforts to combat child trafficking and protect the most vulnerable members of society.

In another interview conducted by Jordan Peterson on his YouTube program, Tim Ballard responded to various criticisms of him and his operations, shedding light on the veracity of certain claims. In particular, he addressed questions about his connection to the QAnon conspiracy theories.

Ballard said: “Over the years, our FAQs have consistently expressed our disagreement with most conspiracy theories. While some of these theories may contain elements of truth, they are often overshadowed by a variety of falsehoods. Our FAQs therefore immediately refute these claims, as they ultimately undermine the credibility of our movement. I would even consider the possibility that certain individuals with vested interests are spreading these conspiracy theories to cast doubt on our cause.”

In the same episode, Ballard recounted a conversation on Capitol Hill in which a congressman asked for advice on how to raise awareness of the problem of unaccompanied minors entering the United States without proper tracking. Ballard replied, “The challenge is that we are not connecting the dots. We need to recognize the different ways in which children are at risk.” Not only are there some 85,000 missing children potentially exposed to the largest child sex market in the world, but we also see groups trying to replace the term ‘pedophiles’ with ‘minors attracted people’. At the same time, there’s a worrying trend towards the sexualization of children. For example, teachers in California and other states are advocating these practices under the guise of sexual liberation or sex education. There are also laws that allow a 13-year-old to consent to sex-altering procedures with potential reproductive consequences.

We’ve been here before?

While Sound of Freedom has sparked discussions about child trafficking and pedophilia, the film has been scrutinized and debated for its message, narrative approach, and potential societal impact. However, some might argue that we have seen this before with the Jeffrey Epstein case. It received a great deal of media attention, but some argue that certain aspects of the media attempted to downplay the seriousness of the case through sensationalist and tabloid-style coverage. Some media outlets focused more on the scandalous aspects of Epstein’s life and his connections to high-profile figures, celebrities, and politicians, rather than the actual allegations of sexual abuse and human trafficking.

Sound of Freedom‘s unflinching portrayal leaves no doubt: the scale of this operation rivals that of the drug trade, and to dismiss it as a mere “conspiracy theory” is a disservice to those who have suffered and continue to be victimized. While the world is plagued by various sinister activities, none compares in scale or moral turpitude to those who seek to diminish the scope and significance of the child sex trade. It is a stain on humanity that demands our unwavering attention and commitment to its eradication.

I

n today’s age of ubiquitous social media influence, The Social Dilemma remains a chilling reminder of the strong impact of big social media companies on society. It paints a simultaneous picture of dystopia and utopia. The documentary adeptly highlights the addictive nature of social media and the profit-driven motives of giants like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, even at the expense of promoting questionable content. This raises significant ethical concerns, especially for vulnerable young users.

Through interviews with tech industry insiders, engineers, ethicists, and psychologists, the documentary exposes the algorithms and design choices responsible for turning social media into an addictive and polarizing force. These insiders provide firsthand accounts of how tech giants prioritize engagement and profit over user well-being and societal harmony.

The Social Dilemma raises vital ethical questions about tech companies’ power and responsibility. It underscores how the race for user attention and ad revenue has fueled the spread of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and divisive content on these platforms. Now, the burden falls on individuals, companies, and governments to chart a path forward.

Greatest Risk of Social Media: Imperceptible Change

There is an ironic transition from the information age to the disinformation age, even though we have greater access now to information than ever before, we still find it difficult to reach the truth. “Imperceptible change” is planted within us, obstructing our intellectual defense as to whether an information that we get is true or not.

In The Social Dilemma, “imperceptible change” refers to the gradual and often subtle ways in which social media platforms and their algorithms manipulate and influence user behavior without the users themselves being fully aware of it. This concept highlights how these platforms are designed to keep users engaged and addicted by making subtle, unnoticeable adjustments to what content is shown and when it’s shown to maximize user interaction and time spent on the platform.

For example, the algorithms might show you certain posts or ads at specific times when they predict you are most likely to engage with them, or they might prioritize content that aligns with your existing beliefs and interests. Over time, these imperceptible changes can have a significant impact on how users perceive the world, reinforcing their existing beliefs and preferences and keeping them hooked on the platform.

The documentary introduces the concept of “imperceptible change,” illustrating how social media subtly manipulates user behavior through algorithmic adjustments. These alterations, like showing content at specific times or prioritizing like-minded content, shape users’ perceptions over time. It serves as a warning about these platforms’ power and the need for users to be more aware of their online experiences.

Social media companies will soon have to go further 

For a really long time, the users’ only real weapon against the detrimental effects of social media was their willpower and media literacy. Basically, they were on their own.

In 2018, when Mark Zuckerberg testified in the congress over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, he stated, “It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.” Has anything changed since then?

Succumbing to pressure, platforms are beginning to pay attention to their users’ experience. Instagram, YouTube and TikTok have introduced various tools that alert users of their extended usage and even put parental controls. YouTube and Instagram remind teens to take breaks since 2021. Meanwhile, TikTok announced a passcode entry regulation for minors after an hour on the app.

The documentary’s interviews with experts and industry insiders emphasize the urgent need for more substantial regulation and responsible use of technology. The exploration of the addictive pull of social media, akin to the stimulating effects of slot machines on our brains, mirrors the concerns that various countries are now addressing.

China’s has taken measures to limit screen time for children under eight and Utah’s imposition of a digital curfew for minors are just two examples of this growing trend. France’s requirement for manufacturers to install parental control systems also underscores the global recognition that action is needed. In June, France passed a law that prohibits the promotion of certain practices – such as cosmetic surgery and smoking. The penalties for non-compliance can go up to two years in prison and a fine of €300,000.

However, the most recent and thorough move yet comes from the European Union. The EU is leading the charge with its Digital Services Act —overseen by the European Commission. The EU’s Digital Services Act, which became effective on August 25, imposes new rules on platforms, including assessments of societal impact and measures to prevent addictive behavior and targeting of vulnerable groups. The Act aims to make platforms more responsible and protect minors.

The new EU rules will allow researchers to access data inside company servers. The platforms will undergo a yearly assessment of the impact of their design, algorithms, advertising and terms of services on a range of societal issues. Then, according to the findings of the assessment, propose and implement measures inspected by the European Commission, researchers and an audit company.

The EU is actively teaming up with tech firms, industry groups, and organizations focused on children to figure out how to create platforms that better protect minors. They’re working towards a set of guidelines by 2024 called the Code of Conduct on Age-Appropriate Design. This code would lay out a list of steps that the European Commission wants big social media companies to take in line with the new laws.

However, as The Social Dilemma suggests, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the complex problems posed by social media. A nuanced approach is crucial, focusing on specific people, platforms, and features that are most risky. Additionally, the call for more data and a precautionary principle when it comes to minors is both reasonable and responsible.

Only time will reveal the effectiveness of these measures and potential loopholes, but the Act open a chapter of thorough examination of social media companies’ practices.

Reviewed by Batuhan Aça, Şeymanur Melayim, Muhammet Ali Oruç, Shahd Qaid, and Ezgi Yaramanoğlu.

Written by Dilara Özer

O

n June 27, 17-year-old Nahel M of Algerian descent was killed in France for fleeing such a routine procedure. According to the testimony of the two motorcycle police officers who carried out the identity check, Nahel was shot in the heart in self-defense. In the video footage, described by the interior minister as “shocking” and confirmed by the French news agency AFP, one of the police officers can be seen pointing a gun at Nahel M while the other can be heard saying “You will be shot in the head.”

Nahel did not have a driver’s license and had been out with a friend in a borrowed car. Two weeks earlier, Alhoussein Camara, a 19-year-old French teenager of Guinean origin, was killed by police during an identity check on his way to work in the southwestern town of Angoulême. According to French media reports, he “had a regular job, a driver’s license, and his car was insured.” Since 2022, 13 people have been killed by police during routine identity checks in France.

After Nahel M’s death, a silent protest, attended by his mother, turned into a violent demonstration in a few hours and gripped the whole country. France witnessed a riot of this magnitude for the first time in 18 years. In 2005, in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, 15-year-old Bouna Traore and 17-year-old Zyed Benna were returning from a soccer match when they ran away from a police identity check, drove into a transformer, and burned to death.

In the last 50 years in France, children and teenagers, on foot, ridding a scooter or in a car, have tried to evade police checks and died: Youssef Khaïf (Mantes-la-Jolie, 1991), Malik Oussekine (Paris, 1986), Lahouari Ben Mohamed (Marseille, 1980), Mohamed Diab (Versailles, 1972). Following the killing of these young men, who were all of Arab or African origin, there were protests and outbreaks of violence.

Since the riots in the suburbs of Lyon in the 1980s, in the last 40 years, there have been no more than ten suburban riots in France; some local, some in big cities, and the largest in 2005. Both in the past and now, people in the suburbs have not been able to organize themselves like other social protest movements in the country, nor have they been able to turn their reactions into permanent political pressure.

Romain Gavras’s movie Athena, which was broadcast on Netflix last year, ended with the message that those who burn and destroy end up burning and destroying themselves and their relatives. Similarly, quoted on a front-page interview in the newspaper Liberation, a father who participated in the weeks-long events of 2005, said to his son, now involved in Nahel’s protests and violence: “I swear to you, this is not helping anything.”

Of course, it is not acceptable or excusable to disrupt public order, no matter how justified the cause. Yet, this is not a method of protest and rioting specific to the suburbs or to young people of Muslim origin or Black youth. This time, suburban youth have led a popular uprising; such uprisings  have taken place in the streets since the French Revolution in 1789, which laid the foundations of the Republic.

Suburban youth were not present in the spiral of violence of burning, destroying, and looting that accompanied the protests that began in November 2018, which lasted for months in response to the rise in energy prices. However, the current suburban youth uprising has been joined by the yellow vests, extreme leftists, and those angry with government policies. According to official data, more than 6,000 vehicles and 12,400 garbage bins were set on fire, 147 attacks on municipal buildings and libraries were recorded, and 3,700 people were detained, a third of them children.

There are millions of silent people like the mother in Gavras’s Athena, whose 13-year-old child is killed just like Nahel and who weeps in silent prayer with her neighbors with an imam at their head.  They too are worried about the youth rebellion, no matter what happens. If these people were to suddenly leave the country, France’s hospitals, the post office, the subway, and the train company RATP would collapse and the whole system would be paralyzed.

The movie mentions them for a few minutes, but it does not focus on them. Instead, it focuses on a small minority among these millions of people and their anger: Karim, who attacks the police station with a Molotov cocktail after the news that his brother was killed by the police and starts a rebellion with his friends; his older brother Abdel, who fought for the French army in Mali; and his older brother Moktar, a drug dealer.

Abdel, who initially tried to suppress Karim and the rebels, was accused of being a “harki,” a traitor, by his sister, and he confronted Karim. The only historical reference in the movie appears indirectly in this scene. During the Algerian National Liberation Front’s war against France on the road to independence in Algeria, Muslims who stayed loyal to the French army under the mistaken impression that they were caught between two fires were called “harki.”

As for the brother, Moktar, the drug dealer, it is no secret that in some neighborhoods in the suburbs it is not easy to manage the tensions between crime and law enforcement. In many suburbs there is drug trafficking, petty crime, and gangs. Many of the young people involved in these incidents have no ties to their homeland, do not recognize the authority of their parents, and even threaten to turn to the police if their parents pressure them, reminding them that they are in France.

They are a small minority, often trying to exist in a state of hatred and resentment. But the aggression and impunity of law enforcement in France is no secret. The trial of two police officers charged in the 2005 riots centered on a police radio statement that “if they enter a transformer, there is little chance of getting out alive.” Both were acquitted in 2015.

Moreover, a new law passed in 2017 authorizes the police to use weapons in five controversial circumstances in case of failure to obey a “stop” warning.  In addition, young people often evade identity checks because they are bored of being subjected to them and want to outsmart the police fueled by the anger they feel towards them.

What remains after the riots in the suburbs end is the image of the police with shields, batons, and tear gas canisters, on one side, and the youth throwing objects at them, burning cars, fireworks, and mortars. Whether reporting favorably or against the riots, they are always reported with the same headlines, analyzed the same way, and after the events are over, they are not talked about until the next one. Not only according to the far right, but also according to society at large, the suburban youth are the most likely group to be scapegoated for such incidents, and they are sidelined until the next incident.

In today’s world where reality and fiction are blurred, the movie Athena is being revisited on social media and in the French press, with some going as far as to claim that the movie is an inspiration for young people. In addition, the murderer in the movie is not a police officer, as initially believed, but a far-right militant wearing a police uniform.

Karim, who never believed he was a police officer and started the rebellion, eventually loses his life in the film, while the film labels Abdel, who has won the admiration of the French state and integrated into the system, a potential criminal: after Karim’s death, Abdel is driven by this pain to organize the continuation of the rebellion.

Even though President Macron introduced some of the most Islamophobic legislation in Europe during his first term and Muslims have become a minority in France that is routinely targeted and discriminated against, Macron has shown restraint on this occasion. During the 2005 events, Sarkozy, who was minister of the interior at the time, called the protesters a “rabble” and talked about purging them.

On the contrary, in his first statement after Nahel’s murder, Macron strongly condemned the incident, calling it “unforgivable.” As for his electoral rivals, on the far left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon refused to “call for calm”; far-right Eric Zemmour likened the suburban riots to the “prodromes of a civil war”; and, on the right, Les Republicains president Éric Ciotti called the rioters “barbarians.” Far-right theorists such as Renaud Camus have long labeled them “invaders” and their smear propaganda goes as far as arguing that “they will colonize us.”

An article in Le Monde stated, “Although many forget and don’t want to see it, what has led to the violence in recent days is indeed a sense of injustice that makes one weep.” The banner on the Paris ring road outside the Parc des Princes stadium simply reads, “God rest Nahel’s soul.”

The story of Iranian-Danish director Ali Abbasi’s latest movie, Holy Spider, which garnered a lot of attention at the 75th Cannes Film Festival, is based on the serial murders that took place in the Iranian city of Mashhad in the 2000s. Saeed Hanai, who is the subject of the film, killed 16 female sex workers in Mashhad between July 2000 and August 2001, and was executed in April 2002. The story of the man known as the “Spider Killer” has been the subject of three films: Maziar Bahari’s original 2003 film And Along Came a Spider, The Killer Spider by Ebrahim Irajzad in 2020, and finally Holy Spider, directed by Abbasi in 2022.

Over the last 20 years, there have been multiple incidents of serial murders in Iran that have been striking not only for the horrific nature of the crimes involved, but also for how they were received by the Iranian public. One such case was that of Gholamreza Khoshroo, 32, who raped and murdered nine women before being caught and hanged in 1997. Another was the 2005 case of Mohammed Bijeh, a 22-year-old who raped and killed 41 boys.

However, Holy Spider, beyond addressing Hanai’s criminal case, offers references to the Iranian social and political contexts. Hanai’s case is one of the most controversial and mysterious criminal cases in Iran’s judicial history after the Islamic Revolution, and is still surrounded by a lot of speculation and doubt.

Although Holy Spider has the tone and theme of a crime-thriller, it answers the “whodunnit” question at the very beginning. With the identity of the murderer made known, the director creates tension by exploring a much different and larger question that lies behind the case. Hanai’s murders represent a much larger problem and dilemma. We realize the array of reactions to the murders among the public and authority figures, and the social picture that can be derived from these becomes the film’s main subject.

Holy Spider is a reflection of Iranian women’s position in society as it addresses the difficulties women face in all their quests and efforts. This is also the case for the film’s heroine, a journalist who is investigating the main case and is held back at almost every moment and on every turn of her research, simply because she is a woman. The director uncovers the tensions present in Iranian society and stemming from its contradictory nature, where women can be highly trained professionals such as doctors and engineers but are also subject to strict controls over what they wear and how they look in public.

As Abbasi stated, although the film is based on Saeed Hanai’s murders, it is not a documentary, so it does not adhere to the realities of the events. The purpose of the film is not to inform us about the serial murder case with a documentary-like approach. What makes the film distinctively insightful is that it analyzes Saeed Hanai’s character on the basis of what exactly motivates him to kill by especially analyzing the religious and political beliefs that influence his decisions and actions.

Roya Karimi Majd is a veteran journalist and reporter for Radio Farda with a focus on societal issues, including women’s rights. During the making of And Along Came a Spider, she worked with Maziar Bahari in researching the details and fallout from the Hanai case from different angles. Karimi interviewed Hanai and recalls that “Saeed Hanai was a very simple and honest person but not very intelligent.” “In a lot of murder trial footage, or even when watching films about him, you sometimes feel you’re watching an actor: someone whose every movement has been planned to influence the judge’s verdict. But in the interview with Hanai, I never felt he was hiding anything or lying.”

Hanai was remarkably candid in the interview about not just how he had gone about the killings but his motivations for doing so. Karimi says he also sometimes brought up seemingly unrelated matters that gave some clue as to his psyche: most importantly, having been the victim of violent abuse from his mother as a child. The discussion was not included in the final cut of the film, but Hanai told Karimi that his mother used to try to bite off chunks of his flesh, and his body always showed the marks left by her fingernails.

It seems that some social groups want to believe that Hanai is telling the truth and that he killed the sex workers for religious reasons as this scenario is more in line with the Iran they describe. Yes, Iran has problems in terms of human rights and women’s rights, and it cannot be said to be a democratic and free country. The whole world knows this! However, the screenwriter, like the opposition to any government or regime anywhere, is solely concerned with sending a specific message to international viewers, and not with the truth about Iranian society and politics.

The rapists and traitorous men in this movie all have religious and government profiles. For example, all such men wear an agate ring, which the director repeatedly highlights with multiple zooms. In the Holy Spider, men of all levels and positions in Iran look at women in a derogatory manner or as commodities to meet their sexual needs: filmmaker, hotel worker, police, and judge – every man in every position has some sexual disorder! Some get satisfaction by humiliating women, some by raping them, and some by killing them. Iranian society on the whole is presented as disturbingly sick, and it comes as little surprise that someone like Saeed Hanai would emerge from it.

Of course, Hanai’s story could be a compelling subject for a crime, police, or horror movie, but the way this story is handled is ideological. At the same time, it should be noted that the Iranian regime is to blame for how easy it is to persuade the audience of this line of thinking. In several scenes of the movie, the judge tries to deny the connection between Saeed Hanai’s actions and his religious and revolutionary past, and to convince the audience that his decision was an arbitrary act that was not accepted by the government and the law. However, his efforts fail, and based on the viewers’ knowledge of the regime’s existing views on women, the viewers feel that Hanai’s actions were fully in line with the regime’s constant preaching of “commanding good and forbidding evil.”

When it becomes clear that a state oppresses a part of its people – in this case, women – with the excuse of protecting their “chastity” or “decency” by interfering with what they can wear, who they can have relations with and how, etc., it is easy for the audience to think that in such an atmosphere, any individual may find it in themself to “educate” or “cleanse” society of “corruption.” In this way, the audience easily establishes a connection between Hanai and the Iranian regime that enabled his abominable actions, and, in turn, it identifies Hanai’s actions with the Iranian regime.

W

hen the Guardian reported on the negative Israeli reaction to the Netflix release of the film Farha (2021), the debut feature by Palestinian-Jordanian director Darin J. Sallam, they gave away a crucial part of the plot. It is difficult to discern whether this was a deliberate act of sabotage to ruin the film for potential viewers or a clumsy mistake by Bethan McKernan, the Guardian’s Jerusalem correspondent.

What is undeniable is that there has been a concerted effort to rubbish the film and suppress it. Just before the film was released worldwide on Netflix, hundreds of spam accounts left negative reviews on IMDb in what the Middle East Eye described as an “organized campaign.” Furthermore, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s minister of finance, described Netflix’s decision to platform it as “crazy.”

So why has this film created so much controversy? Not to repeat McKernan’s mistake, I advise the reader to watch the film before reading any further. I will be analyzing the film in some detail in what follows so as to work out why it has unnerved so many and in order to tackle some of the criticism that has been leveled against it. I first watched Farha on the opening night of the 2022 Safar Film Festival in London, knowing nothing about it beforehand—I believe is the ideal way to experience this film.

The film is set in Palestine in 1948. Fourteen-year-old Farha (Karam Taher) wants her father (Ashraf Barhoum), the mayor of their small village, to allow her to continue her education in the city. Her uncle (Ali Suliman) argues in favor of Farha being educated rather than married off and the father eventually agrees. Just as Farha is on the cusp of achieving her dream, her village is attacked by Zionists. It’s a testimony to the filmmaking that you could be fooled into thinking you have seen extensive battle scenes when much of the war is implied through sound rather than image. Farha’s father locks her in a pantry for her own safety and seals the door. He promises to return at a later time.

We begin to feel Farha’s increasing claustrophobia. Everything is a challenge: from finding a light source to collecting rainwater through a hole in the wall and solving the problem of how to go to the toilet in such a confined space. All this happens almost silently or with very effective use of sound. It is pure cinema that allows us to get close to Farha as we experience the visceral intensity of being confined with her. We long for her to find a way to break the door.

Then, through a gap in the door, Farha witnesses the arrival of a family. A woman gives birth. Farha calls out for the father of the family. Just as we think he is going to rescue her, Zionist soldiers arrive. The film goes from second gear into fifth. Every passing second the tension mounts. The danger the soldiers represent is palpable. At one point, a female soldier reaches inside the garment of the Palestinian woman who gave birth and extracts the large, heavy metallic key to her house tied around her neck. The soldier teases her by telling her she can keep it as a souvenir, implying she will never see her home again.

The family is eventually lined up and shot. We don’t see the moment of their execution, only the reaction on Farha’s face as she witnesses the horror. Then comes the crucial part, the part McKernan ruined for the Guardian readers: the newborn baby is left behind. A young Jewish soldier is ordered to kill him without wasting a bullet. He contemplates stomping on the baby, but in the end leaves a handkerchief over him and joins his departing unit. Finally, when Farha finds a hidden gun and blows open the door, she discovers flies feasting on the dead baby’s corpse.

With such a powerful, unflinching story, the Israeli reaction to Farha is perhaps not surprising. The irony is that much of Sallam’s secondary research on the events of 1948, which the Palestinians refer to as “Al-Nakba” (The Catastrophe), came from the work of Israeli historians such as Ilan Pappé. The violent expulsion of some 750,000 plus Palestinians from their villages which led to the creation of Israel is hardly a secret. The Israeli denial is a testimony to the power of the film.

What is surprising are some of the negative reviews the film has received in the Arab press. Some have critiqued the film for pandering to Western orientalism by having a young girl longing to be educated and being denied that right by her Arab community—but those critics misread the early scenes. The film shows Farha’s struggle but also her triumph. She persuades her father to let her be educated and you feel that he is secretly proud of her “stubbornness.”

The film is very clear about the fact that her education wasn’t so much interrupted by her community but by the attack on her village by the occupying forces. The uncle who helped persuade her father to allow her to be educated turns out in the end to be an informant for the Zionist soldiers. This irked some critics who perhaps would have preferred for all Palestinians in the film to be depicted as heroes rather than as complex characters. The uncle, realizing that the Zionist soldiers lied to him about their intention, breaks down at one point. He reminds us that no one thought the destruction of Palestine was going to be so remorseless and complete.

The Dissident is not just a documentary of interest to those who follow Middle East or global politics, but to anyone who wonders how far politicians could go violent – violating all known moral and human values – to hold on to power.

The documentary proceeds under three main themes: the political struggle between the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who ordered the murder of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi; details of the murder plan; and the love story between Khashoggi and Hatice Cengiz, his fiancée, that was the main reason why Khashoggi went to the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul – but never made it out.

The life of Jamal Khashoggi is not discussed much in the documentary. Khashoggi had been working for the Saudi regime for about thirty years and is described as the “black box” of the regime. The first confrontation between Khashoggi and the Saudi regime occurred with the Arab Spring in 2011. Therefore, it has to be underlined that Khashoggi’s opposition to the Saudi regime did not start with the policies of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), but much earlier. Unfortunately, the documentary does not sufficiently reveal the details of his earlier opposition.

According to Ayman Nour, Khashoggi’s friend and Egyptian politician who ran against Hosni Mubarak in the 2005 presidential election, the January 25 revolution in Egypt was a turning point in Khashoggi’s life. Khashoggi thought that the voice of the Arab public had been heard and nobody could turn a deaf ear to it anymore.

The documentary highlights 2017 as a milestone, when, King Salman made his son Mohammed the crown prince contrary to conventions.

However, the existing political regimes were not happy with this awakening. The voices and democratic demands of peoples were threatening to their hitherto unquestioned authority. Saudi Arabia, which steered the Arab world with its economic wealth, stood out as the political and economic supporter of all counterrevolutionary movements. Khashoggi, who knew Saudi Arabia very well, did not remain silent in the face of this situation “The Arab Spring is a real phenomenon. There are elections everywhere, in Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. We got the votes of the people. So how can Saudi Arabia continue to have a proper Middle East policy that will bring peace to the Middle East without recognizing and respecting that part of the people in the Middle East?”

The documentary highlights 2017 as a milestone, when, contrary to conventions, the son of the founder of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia King Salman, who became the seventh king of the Saudi kingdom in 2015, made his son Mohammed the crown prince. MBS initiated unprecedented reform movements in Saudi history. According to the documentary, Khashoggi was initially in favor of the reforms that enhanced human rights while he criticized the suppression of all other voices. Khashoggi sharpened his criticism, however, when MBS started to undertake revolutionary institutional changes in Saudi Arabia. After he was declared the crown prince, MBS gradually seized almost all the important institutions in the kingdom and filling them with his own people.

Last, the heartbreaking story of Khashoggi and his fiancée Hatice Cengiz, the most dramatic parts of the documentary, is presented to the audience. The story is truly a sad and touching one. The fact that Cengiz, with whom Khashoggi came to the Consulate General of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul before his death, was waiting outside the consulate during and after the murder, the anxiety she experienced, and the trauma she was suffered after the murder make this section even more dramatic. These parts of the documentary are highly effective.

Khashoggi was a strong defender of the idea that Saudi Arabia should adopt a political stance similar to Turkey.

No work can cover an entire life story and thus unavoidable selectivity leaves some parts of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi’s life out of the documentary. He was a harsh opponent of the assertive foreign policies of the current Saudi government, which was not mentioned enough in the documentary. He was a political figure who had been involved in journalism since the mid-1980s and was very close to the Saudi administration and even Saudi intelligence. Khashoggi, who realized he could no longer criticize the Saudi regime in his own country in 2017, left his country, settled in the United States, and started to write for the Washington Post.

Khashoggi was a strong defender of the idea that Saudi Arabia should adopt a political stance similar to Turkey, and he was also politically close to regional rivals of Saudi Arabia such as Turkey and Qatar. He strongly supported the Arab Spring and he was influential in the Muslim world during the Arab Spring protests – otherwise, he would not have been killed. Khashoggi also criticized the current Saudi administration on many sensitive political issues, such as the blockade of Qatar, the occupation of Yemen, the political discussions with Lebanon, and the financial support for Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who remained in power with the support of the Saudi regime.

The U.S. intelligence agency’s Khashoggi report was prepared in 2019, but it was not disclosed by the Trump administration. At the beginning of 2021, after it was made public, the Biden administration sanctioned 76 Saudis involved in the murder. However, the crown prince was excluded from the list, which disappointed those who thought he would be reined in by the Biden administration.

Of course, the United States is not the only country that has relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is not the only follower of Khashoggi’s murder. The European Union and Turkey closely follow the policies of Mohammed bin Salman. As the documentary’s mysterious character, the Saudi dissident Omar Abd al-Aziz who lives in Canada, says, we will see if Khashoggi’s death will change anything for the Saudis and whether Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will the next king of the Saudi Kingdom or not.

The Protagonist- ‘We live in a twilight world…’

Neil- ‘…no friends at dusk.’

Clandestine Russian influence in global affairs, arms dealing and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, private getaways for the super-rich, pan-national intelligence communities, private armies, free-ports (and lockdown) and the ‘science’ of using masks- these are news cycles from the past year and some of the themes both explicit and implicit that are handled in Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster film Tenet (2020). The biggest film release of last year is in many ways a mirror to the times we live in.

Nolan’s latest film develops many of his trademark styles from previous films. The ‘Protagonist’ (who has no other name and is played by American actor John David Washington) is a CIA agent who early on begins to work for the larger intelligence-type organisation Tenet which ‘transcends’ the other agency (in the words of his superior) and is trying to prevent World War III.

This lone character bears some resemblance to the theme of anonymity from Nolan’s early film Following (1998) while the structure of Tenet weaves the viewer in and out of time and often the same scene is played more than once from differing perspectives, movements and ‘temporal’ places- something first seen in his film Memento (2000) where the story unfolds backwards with the character of Leonard having amnesia and not remembering meeting the same people multiple times (although the audience is given this information); this is taken a step further in Tenet with relationships between characters (such as the Protagonist and Neil) mysterious to both themselves and the audience.

Misplaced identity is explored in Tenet in ways that hark back to The Prestige (2006) and the action sequences are fast, furious and comparable with the Batman/Dark Knight trilogy that Nolan made from 2005-2012. The dreamy theme(s) of moving back and forth through temporal space was most notably explored in Inception (2010) and Interstellar (2014) in varying ways while the attention to scientific details (including nuances of quantum physics) is again given to us but this time at even greater breakneck speed.

Tenet is a film which plays at action, science fiction and thriller while demanding rigorous work from its audience to keep up with the fast-moving and detailed parcels of information that are thrown our way; it is also a film with several political storylines that go into greater detail than the murky shadows of Gotham City, the international espionage in Inception or the near-future climate apocalypse of Interstellar. Nolan’s previous film Dunkirk (2017) addresses specific historical-political events with an accurate and dramatic flair and proves to be a bridge to Tenet’s more contemporary socio-political zeitgeist.

Temporal Cold War

Many of the nagging residuals from the cold war (1950’s-1980’s) such as the Chernobyl disaster or the rise of the super Russian Oligarch businessman are at the forefront of the film. The villain is called Andrei Sator (played by Northern Irish actor Kenneth Branagh) and is referred to by his last name which has historical connections as an ancient palindrome with magical and temporal associations; this word puzzle also includes the word Opera (which is the setting for the opening of the film), Arepo (an unseen character who is a master forger/painter of Goyas) Rotas (the name of the security firm that is central to the plot) and of course Tenet (a belief in something as well as the name of the secret organization).

The fictional ‘secret’ Soviet city of Stalsk-12 in Northern Siberia proves a perfect setting to explore the (real) repercussions of nuclear waste as well as a final battle scene. The private army reflects the increasing use of specialized forces (as well as drones) without national allegiance to cross borders/territories for their mission- in this case the highly traditional-looking armies use a ‘temporal’ pincer move and run repeated and monotonous attacks through time and space.

Science Class

Wheeler to the Protagonist ‘You are inverted- the world is not.’

Nolan has long used (real) cutting edge scientific advisors to give an authenticity to his outlandish plot narratives (most prominently in Inception and Interstellar); this continues in Tenet but takes on a level of detailed information that is less meant to be understood and used more as a presentation to make something plausible. This fits into the current political narrative which uses science less as an area that ‘builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe’ but something that convinces the general public about the benefits and plausibility of what is happening.

At a time when the general public is constantly hearing about ‘the science’ of the pandemic from experts (who have unwittingly become part of the political narrative) Tenet offers a masterclass in suspending disbelief through a mix of stunning action, superb practical effects and seamless visual effects while characters give a running commentary and tutorial on how the ‘temporal’ things are actually working.

This begins in an early scene where the scientist Barbara (played by French actress Clémence Poésy) gives a quick class in how bullets and other objects can be inverted and move backwards through time. Fellow Tenet member and companion Neil (played by English actor Robert Pattinson) fills in the knowledge gaps throughout the film as the Protagonist (and audience) try to understand the (non) narrative; by the time of the final scene at Stalsk-12 in Northern Siberia the viewer has become accustomed to the multiple and continuous inversions that feel less like ‘time travel’ and more like a scientific experiment that we don’t quite understand but know can and is happening (similar to most of the scientific laws of the world to non-scientific minds).

Incidents like wearing masks to breath your own air and protect oneself (and avoid the air of another moment in time) seem like obvious things while narrative clues like the pendent on Neil’s backpack (which was earlier glimpsed in the opera scene) are given focused audio-visual prominence to piece the story together.

International Elite

A major theme running through Tenet is how and why a small group of international jet- setters can use the globe for their own purposes. The viewer is constantly bombarded with images of the super-wealthy and the trappings of this life but finds virtually no pleasure from it at all. Scenes of extreme racing yachts to start the morning (with a near death), elite restaurants (with a brutal kitchen fight), expensive clothes (which are used by the Protagonist to look like he is part of a different ‘class’) and priceless paintings stored in warehouses (where no one can see them) abound; the tone of these moments is always fraught with anxiety and suggests more a critique of the pointless pursuit of pleasure than a celebration of it.

Free Ports also figure prominently as tax-free points across the globe that can be used to hide wealth and offer a network of entry areas for the temporal war that is taking place. Most tellingly Sator is ready to destroy the entire world (and possibly its own past?) when he (plans to) ceremoniously takes his own life in what represents the ultimate act of narcissism and which has no higher purpose (sacrifice) nor any lower purpose (conquer other nations) but simply exists out of a mix of extreme vanity and a kind of boredom experienced by those that can and do have everything material that is on offer. He describes his position to Kat as a kind of ‘…god of sorts…’

Big-Budget Experimental

Tenet is a film that asks a lot from its audiences while also belonging to a tradition of science-fiction films from Hollywood such as Terminator (1984 J. Cameron) which grapple with the narrative logistics and action of going back in time and Art Cinema such as La Jetee (1962 C. Marker) which offer a philosophical puzzle of the morals of the future helping its own past.

Some scenes such as the ones half-way through the film where Sator both shoots his wife Kat (played by Australian actress Elizabeth Debicki) and demands to know the location of the ‘plutonium 241’ (which is the final piece of the algorithm and the films’ ‘McGuffin’) are presented more like an experimental video art installation with multiple red-stained images and deliberately distorted sound to be absorbed by the viewer rather than viewed as a traditional narrative.

Classic masterpieces such as Double Indemnity (1944 B. Wilder) and Vertigo (1958 A. Hitchcock) are notorious examples of films which have been written about and canonized with confusing narratives that are still debated; Tenet may join this exclusive club as a film that offers tantalizing ruminations on the socio-political world we live in overtop a science-fiction thriller. As military commander Ives states to the Protagonist ‘stop thinking in linear terms…’

Tenet was released on DVD, Blu-Ray and Ultra HD 4K as well as VOD in December 2020

Death to 2020, which is described as a “mockumentary,” is a critical interpretation of the most important political and social events of 2020 from the perspective of the show’s producers. It is a show, because although the events taking place in it are real events that we all experienced in 2020, the interpretation of these events is fictionalized in a way to make the whole thing a satirical and funny TV show.

In a nutshell, Death to 2020 is a cleverly written, well-executed, and well-produced TV show that reminds us of old-school satirical TV shows that mocked their own times

The plot of the show is as follows: the main political and social events of 2020 are chronologically retold and summarized for the audience while the fictional characters of the show, who are kind of “confused” in their own ways, start commenting on the events as if they were part of an absurd reality show.

The mockumentary takes the U.S. presidential election of 2020 as the most salient event in the regular schedule of a globalized world. The U.S. election is the most commented event in the show along with the outbreak of the COVID19 pandemic. According to the show – and it is hard to disagree – the election was between two candidates who were too old and unqualified to be the president of the world’s last declining hegemon, and created an impossible dilemma for the voters.

The campaign process of the U.S. elections shows two different Americas according to the show. However, polarization and increasing anger between the two sides are not something unique to American society. The whole world is being divided into factions and polarized, while ordinary people are becoming increasingly radicalized. This polarization is exacerbated by social media companies, which sell their users’ private information for a profit. It is, in fact, hard to disagree with these arguments.

Covid-19, which was a shock to everyone in 2020, is dealt with in depth in Death to 2020. In general, the Western world and particularly two leaders – Donald Trump in the U.S. and Boris Johnson in the U.K. – are criticized in the mockumentary. It is true that the timing of the pandemic could not have been worse: both national countries and international institutions were going through a process of dramatic change.

Technology is speeding up everything, polarization and xenophobia have hit a peak, economic recession and trade wars threaten regular people all around the globe, authoritarian tendencies are on the rise even in democratic states, climate change has become ever more serious, and many more problems of the so-called modern age have come together – all this, when the virus hit the world.

As a result, the timing and the scale of the pandemic gained great popularity in conspiracy circles. Although, this is mocked in the show, when one wonders about the origin of the virus and conspiracy theories around it, it is not that surprising that there are suspicions about its origins and timing.

Other issues are mentioned as well such as the massive Beirut port explosion, the Harvey Weinstein legal case which sparked the #MeToo movement, Brexit, Megxit (the break of Prince Harry and his American wife Meghan Markle from the British royal family), the growing popularity of social media and particularly YouTube and Netflix, and the role of WhatsApp groups and other social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok in spreading false information, creating paranoia, and consolidating the age of the post-truth.

When one looks at all these headlines and many other shocking events around the world that are not featured in the show, it is not hard to see what a crazy and perplexing environment we live in. The only conclusion one can reach is that we are all stuck in a powerful whirlpool that resembles a black hole.

Loaded with gallows humor, Death to 2020 is an appropriate retrospective of the year. Reality has become so surreal and absurd that there is nothing left but to mock it all. In the end, Death to 2020 is worth watching in order to come face to face with our new reality.

The Italian director Gianfranco Rosi’s film Notturno (2020) is a compelling meditation on life in and around the borders of Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. The film offers a critique of foreign, colonial and extremist meddling within the region in terms of constructed borders and disaffected citizenry while presenting a visual style that consists of slow-moving landscape and a story-telling approach that leans on oblique characters that display withdrawn emotion. At times the film seems to be a deliberate anachronism to the images of conflict from the region that viewers have become accustomed to.

Observational Documentary

Notturno is an interesting work both because of its subject matter and its formal approach. It partially presents itself in the tradition of Poetic Documentaries such as G. Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi (1982) which both translates as ‘Life out of Balance’ and evokes both the beauty and absurdity of humans and the planet.

The difference with Rosi’s film is that he introduces and follows a number of subjects or characters and touches upon harsher and even brutal elements of life in the region of Iraq and Syria while consistently maintaining a kind of distance.

Rosi spent three years living in the border areas of Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and there is an obvious ‘verite’ feeling to some of the scenes- he reportedly accumulated 90 hours of footage which both lends a veracity to the project while also making the complete edit feel too long at times and lacking a clear structure.

Some of the most disturbing scenes in the film are also the ones that fit the least in terms of the formal structure and tone; a series of interviews between therapists and children who recount the horrors of life in Syria or under Daesh. The children recount graphic accounts of beheadings and depict ISIS (Daesh) leader Al-Baghdadi alongside his followers in drawings with particular emphasis given to Yazidi victims.

The film opens with a series of marching soldiers passing under a majestic sky and this theme of unobtrusively allowing events to unfold comprises much of Notturno; we see everything from a drum beater of Ramadan wandering the streets to wake people from their slumber and rise for the pre-dawn meal to the sounds of gunfire to a boy cleaning his gun on guard duty to wider imagery of an American convoy of jeeps and SUV tanks and a refugee camp.

In almost all of these cases throughout the film the director gives little clue as to where this is taking place and has deliberately re-blurred borders and asked the audience to either hypothesize on location or get swept up in the idea of a conflict so complex and multi-faceted that it becomes meaningless to know where exactly on the map you are.

Oblique dramatics include a series of audio messages with a distraught mother whose daughter is being held ransom by ISIS which eventually dwindle to nothing but remembrances of the missing young woman as well as the absurd sight of a single car ferry transporting its load near a destroyed bombed-out bridge.

One sequence that does give more clues involves a group of women YPG militants holding guns and later retreating to their barracks, taking off their shoes. They cook and watch training videos on a tablet with the red, white and green flag visible on their soldiers. This and the American flag are the only ones noticeable over the course of the film.

Another episode early in the film includes a wailing mother who revisits the eerily empty prison (which is in Erbil, Iraq) where the son died- the scene proves both distant and uncomfortable to the viewer.

A later scene offers a birds-eye view of another prison yard (again the location is unclear) where orange-clad male prisoners have their limited exercise walk; little to no context is given and this scene proves disturbing because it plays out in real time and later cuts to close-up shots of them with hands cuffed behind their backs.

There is both a banality and silence to the scene as the viewer tries to reconcile media representations and earlier references in the film (ISIS/Daesh) with the state-sponsored retribution that is unfolding.

Theatre of the Absurd

This most compelling part of Notturno is the casting, direction and performance of a play on the history of Iraq called ‘Homeland’ that takes place in a psychiatric ward; the viewer is first greeted by images of wailing patients and then witness the director (a doctor) choose six patients to act in his play.

A video montage is projected in the background that provides glimpse of archival context that has been missing throughout the film- Assad, Saddam, burning oil fields, American invasion… from Monarchy to Republic to Daesh. The doctor-director gives the patient-actors scripts to memorize and the viewer witnesses both this strange approach to rehabilitation and a fiercely dedicated troupe of misfit performers express their collective outrage at the loss of their country.

One of the actors shouts ‘no to America… no to Iran’ as another video montage throws a blitz of imagery that reveals colonial roots to Iraqi civil war alongside a ‘Palestine is Lost’ mantra; Notturno seems about to end with an Arabic song of lament and the close-up of the actors but instead the film turns back to imagery of the everyday (one of the earlier characters, Ali and his silent work assisting bird hunters).