HBO's 'For Neda' compassionate, but avoids some harsh realities

We have to at least give HBO some credit for covering a story that desperately needs to be told. Here is the story that the new documentary presents us: One year ago, the airwaves were abuzz with by-the-minute updates concerning the mounting political unrest in the Islamic “Republic” of Iran, then the arena in which hundreds of thousands of protesters had taken to the streets of Tehran and other major cities across the country. Having been made infamous in the West for its vertically-challenged anti-Semitic political leader President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s constant verbal barrage against Israel and her allies (in other words, America alone), Iran and her governing body of dictatorial Sharia has long stood against the forces of democracy, and routinely gives the cold shoulder to international non-governmental organizations seeking redress for the state’s countless human rights violations.

All this considered, the Western world in general reacted with bewilderment at the sight of hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens standing up in protest, not against Israel, America, or other democracies, but against the regime of Ayatollah Khameini (the true, unelected ruler of Iran). At the source of this explosion of discontent was the blatantly rigged reelection of Ahmadinejad, in spite of the majority of support having been shown for presidential candidate and ex-Prime Minister Mousavi, whose supporters became outraged when the government announced Ahmadinejad’s reelection before the ballots had even been counted.

As the government became increasingly intolerant of the protests, military police were dispatched to quell the resistance, using deadly force if necessary. As the chaos spread, one of the victims, 27-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan was shot, bleeding to death on the street as her friends tried in vain to save her. Caught on camera, her death became a rallying point for the anti-Khameini movement, her story finally becoming so central to the resistance that the government initiated a wave of propaganda accusing her of being a CIA operative, an actress, and countless other allegations which have fallen flat except among the most fervent of Khameini-supporters. Her family was prohibited from mourning, and the government saw to it that they would be unable to bury her according to their religious tradition. Soon her face became a symbol of what many saw as a coming revolution- and still do, as the documentary’s conclusion makes clear.

The filmmakers devote considerable time to fleshing out Neda as an individual, an ordinary young woman, rather than as the symbol she has become for the so-called Green Movement for democratic Iranians. Her family is interviewed extensively, and each of her family members is granted time in turn to reflect upon their lost daughter and sister. What emerges is the image of a free-thinking, assertive young lady whose conscience led her to the rejection, not only of the corruption in the government, but in her educators' views of almighty God. Having possessed a deep faith in the divine, she had at first taken interest in courses covering Islamic religious law at her university, but quickly dropped out of the program. Some interviewees remember her explaining that the God she had come to know was "compassionate" and "merciful", not wrathful and prone to fits of rage against humanity like she was being taught in class. The film devotes precious little time to the examination of Neda’s personal religious identity, and viewers are left wondering from what source her convictions originated. From there, a portrait is painted of a girl who loved to dance, to be with her family, to speak her mind, and dreamed of travelling the world.

As the film concludes, the experts gathered by the filmmakers make final remarks about what they see as the coming revolution in Iran. As one woman asserts, “It’s over. It will take time but it’s over.” … Ok. In other words, she has no idea what is going to happen. Her statement alone is demonstrative of the odd naiveté on display from the “experts” in general, who all seem to come to the unlikely conclusion that the negative attention generated by Neda’s murder in the world media will somehow lead to the gradual demise of the Islamic “Republic.” Painful as it is to admit, the would-be revolutionaries of last summer’s protests are now deep in hiding, fearful of the latest brutal crackdown on political dissention (read about it here: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/inside-iran-underground-opposition-year-deadly-protest/story?id=10953946).

Furthermore, knowing full well the political slant HBO has given their films in the past, it would not be much of a stretch to suppose that this gushing optimism over the prospects for democratic victory in Iran is nothing but an attempt to distract viewers from a fact that, one year ago, was painfully obvious: When the military police were unleashed on the protesters, the United States government under President Obama did nothing. Sure, you might argue, he made a political statement- when pressured. But a general statement of dissatisfaction from Barack Obama’s mouth means nothing to the Iranian leaders who know full well that his is not an ideology that would permit action that would actually threaten them, leaving them free to oppress their people at their leisure. True, a clear plan of action at the time was nonexistent. But it is nonetheless true that someone in the West- land of democracies, birthplace of liberty- ought to have taken a stand.

But more painful, and even more obvious in hindsight, is that our president probably WOULD have been pressured into taking a stand- until the death of Michael Jackson. As a pro-democracy movement was beaten back by a dictatorial regime in a manner reflective of the repression in Eastern Europe decades ago, America was too busy mourning a dead pop star to care. Had HBO seen fit to observe these obvious facts, ‘For Neda’ would have had firmer ground to stand on.

Neda's story and those like it will remain of the utmost importance to free men and women everywhere. Hers was not an unusual fate in the eyes of history, but the norm. Tyranny thrives today as in ages past, and as has been the case for millennia, those who yearn for liberty face an uphill battle.

Appeal to Heaven.

Red Dawn in Red China

Besides the reelection of Ronald Reagan, 1984 goes down in history as the year that saw the release of the first ever PG-13 movie, the cult classic ‘Red Dawn’. Via Wikipedia, nineties-born folks like myself can read how, upon its release, the film was considered the most violent to date, and has since been recognized by columnists at National Review for its depictions of American youths courageously resisting a communist invasion. Despite what sounds like a heavy plot, many would argue that the film’s greatest appeal- or most evident weakness, depending on your perspective- is its blatantly cheesy portrayal of such a potentially dark adventure.

The advent of WWIII!? Russians and their Central American allies breaching the American borders to wreak havoc in an unsuspecting American town!? Teenagers forced to abandon their childhood bliss of football games and lovers’ lanes in favor of organizing an insurgency in defense of their liberty!? Sounds like a recipe for a depressing thriller a la Hart’s War if considered soberly. But in a time when the fears of Soviet aggression were all too real in the Cold War-stricken America outside the theater, perhaps the filmmakers felt obliged to provide moviegoers with a dose of much-needed escapism.

While we can never know what impact the movie could have had as a potential gritty, action drama, the choice to take a lighter tone would seem to have paid off in the long run, as the gods of Hollywood have chosen to smile upon a remake by long-time stunt coordinator and directorial newbie Dan Bradley. Due for release on November 24, the new film will focus not on the old Cold War plotline, but on a military-economic assault coordinated by a coalition of Chinese and Russian forces. One has to wonder how such a script could survive the vitriolic anti-Americanism of modern Hollywood. Interestingly enough, the first sharp criticism seems to be emanating from Red China herself.

Chinese state-run newspapers are reportedly complaining of the suspicion that such a film would cast on the so-called “People’s Republic”. The perception is that the American citizenry is prone to paranoia in regards to the Chinese agenda, and that ‘Red Dawn’ will aggravate those feelings. This is the second time in recent memory that China’s reaction to an American film has received attention in the press, the other being Roland Emmerich’s ‘2012,’ in which Chinese troops are portrayed as protagonists, if only briefly.

As it has grown into an ever-more influential presence on the world stage, the Chinese state has seen a proportional rise in political sensitivity in regards to the country’s portrayal in media around the world, of which ‘Red Dawn’ is only the most recent example. The Chinese oligarchy has, of course, become accustomed over the last several decades to stamping out political dissidents among their own citizenry however small the offense, so it does not exactly come as a surprise that they would seek to shame the “insensitive” American agitators for their “reckless” depiction of Chinese movie villains. But if the Chinese want to avoid American paranoia, pointing fingers at the free media is the last thing they should do.

Americans have grown accustomed to anti-American rhetoric not only from abroad, but from our citizens, our elected officials, our president’s czars, and, to the disappointment of many a voter, from the Commander-In-Chief himself. Conservative Americans have gotten used to fighting critics not by attempting to shut them down, but by forming logical counter-arguments and peaceful, if heated, discussions. We should not expect such an inherently democratic logic to spring forth from the mind of a Chinese communist just because they wish to claim the mantle of modernity.

If China really wants to quell our anxiety in regards to their agenda on the world stage, that very arena will afford them an opportunity in the coming week as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pays them a diplomatic visit to discuss the threat of UN sanctions. As reported at Breitbart.com (read the article here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91bd23e2c5fc004cdd77440e9dc6ec94.7f1&show_article=1) , China’s status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council gives it the power to veto resolutions against the Islamic “Republic”.

Such a decision by the Chinese state would do more to damage relations between our two nations than a hundred Red Dawns.