Arts & Culture

Bring on the War Films! Doc Offers Peek at Iraqi Resistance

Some will cry treason, but Meeting Resistance contains the most overwhelming anti-occupation Iraqi viewpoints yet put to film. Next up, war-related flicks from Brian De Palma and Mike Nichols

This article was published in the October 22, 2007, edition of The New York Observer.

The flag of resistance rides high in northern Baghdad.
Molly Bingham
The flag of resistance rides high in northern Baghdad.

MORE At the Movies

Meeting Resistance
Running Time 84 minutes
Written and
Directed by Steve Connors and Molly Bingham

If ever a film carried with it a guarantee that it would incite violent controversy between America’s already warring factions on the war in Iraq, it is Steve Connors and Molly Bingham’s Meeting Resistance. I can already hear the cries of treason from some quarters. Though I cannot say I am at all sympathetic to those quarters, and, in fact, believe along with many people that the invasion of Iraq was ill-advised, and the subsequent occupation was bungled from the start, I am not sure that the Connors-Bingham opus provides any clinching arguments one way or another in terms of the ongoing Great Debate over the Iraq war over here.

For one thing, the film’s inflammatory rhetoric, all on the side of the resistance without any American military and official Iraqi government rebuttals, goes up only to May 2004. Thus, it can be argued by defenders of the war that much has changed since then, presumably for the better, with “the surge” and all that. For another, the faces of the interviewees are almost always concealed for the sake of their safety, so that unless one can understand Arabic, one must keep one’s eyes fastened on the quickly changing English subtitles, there being no English-language narration.

This is not to say that the film is lacking in the most overwhelming and challenging anti-occupation viewpoints thus far recorded to my knowledge in any American popular medium. The testimonies were all taken in the Al Adhamiya district of northern Baghdad, in which Sunnis and Shias commingle and often intermarry. Hence, the alleged sectarian schism that has fueled all the partition scenarios for Iraq is repeatedly discounted by these voices of the resistance.

Since no names are used in the various first-person narratives, generic titles were substituted. The screen identifies the alternating and often repeated voices of the “resistance” as those of The Teacher, The Warrior, The Traveler, The Imam, The Wife, The Syrian, The Fugitive, The Republican Guard, The Lieutenant, and The Professor, a lecturer in political science at Baghdad University, and the only “character” who does not conceal his face or his identity.

And just who are the interviewers and co-directors of Meeting Resistance? The production notes tell us, “Steve Connors was born in Sheffield, England. He began taking photographs while serving as a British soldier in Northern Ireland in the early 1980s. After leaving the military in 1984 he worked for London newspapers and housing charities, but maintained a preference for photographing the quirkiness of British life. … Connors spent fifteen months from November 2001 on in Afghanistan. Starting during the invasion, he went to Iraq, and spent fourteen months there total, working ten months solidly on Meeting Resistance.

Meeting Resistance is Connors’ directorial debut.”

As for his co-director, “Molly Bingham was born in Kentucky and graduated from Harvard College in 1990. She began working as a photojournalist in earnest in 1994, traveling to Rwanda in the wake of the genocide. … In Washington on September 11 Bingham got some of the only close-up pictures of the Pentagon, and followed the story of America’s response to the 9/11 attacks to Afghanistan later in the fall. 2002 found Bingham in the Gaza Strip and Iran before heading to Iraq shortly before the US attack in March 2003. Bingham was detained for eight days by the Iraqi government security services and held in Abu Ghraib prison with four other westerners during the war, and released to Jordan in early April 2003. Bingham’s first major written story–on the Iraqi resistance—was published in Vanity Fair in July 2004.

“Bingham teamed up with Connors in August of 2003 to begin a film about who was behind the emerging post-war violence in Iraq.”

Mr. Connors and Ms. Bingham clearly share an adversarial attitude toward the American occupation of Iraq, as expressed by their surrogate Iraqi speakers, but the filmmakers never express their own opinion directly on the screen. Still, their footage does not seem to single out American troops for opprobrium, except for some of the now overexposed footage of the obscene shenanigans at Abu Ghraib prison, which, of course, provides a propaganda bonanza for the resistance.

By contrast, Brian De Palma’s forthcoming Redacted, from his own screenplay, is reportedly more virulent, in its depiction of an American platoon in Iraq committing atrocities against the civilian population. And this in the midst of the fighting, unlike the classic American anti-Vietnam War movies, which were released long after the cessation of hostilities. Also adding to the impending furor over the politically engaged movies coming out in droves over the next few months, Mike Nichols is steering Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts our way with a seemingly (from the coming attractions) comical account of the American congressman who single-handedly helped guide the Afghan rebels to victory over the Soviet forces that invaded their country to keep a friendly pro-Soviet Afghan government in power. I don’t know if this film, called Charlie Wilson’s War, will explore the irony of the Afghan anti-Soviet rebels morphing into the Taliban terrorists against whom our troops are still at war.

Which only goes to show that in this topsy-turvy world, one is never sure of the unintended consequences of any decisive action supposedly motivated by moral considerations. As for Meeting Resistance, though I have no idea how widespread the sentiments expressed in the film happen to be among the Iraqi population at this precise moment, I found a certain depressing logic in the film as a whole. When a resistance fighter asks his interrogators how Americans would feel if tanks and troops from a conquering foreign country strutted along the streets with their weapons pointed at American mothers, wives and children, I had to stop to think for a moment. Who actually is it that our troops, both low-paid regulars and high-paid mercenaries, are protecting against whom?

This is not to deny that I was as shaken by 9/11 as anyone, but somehow I feel that we have lost our way in the process of seeking revenge. So when I nod my head in agreement with a long-shot Republican libertarian presidential candidate with a name like Ru Paul or something when he says in his half-baked way that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible, then I think it is time for us to take a film like Meeting Resistance very seriously indeed, and to ponder its message very carefully, despite my abiding doubts about its ultimate reliability as a guide to our actions.

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati
  • Facebook
  • Stumble Upon
  • Netvibes
  • Windows Live

Comments
Post a comment

Clazy (not verified) says:

Was this a review? It reads like a blog post.

Frank Truth (not verified) says:

I have a few problems with this entire film.

Think about what Connors and Bingham were doing in the creation of this "documentary"

The main image on the movie's website shows 2 "insurgents" creating and assembling an "IED"...an actual still from the film.

Now think about the backgrounds of the 2 creators of this film. In Molly you have a former staff photographer for Al Gore and someone who just happened to be in the vicinity of the Pentagon on Sept. 11th to snap "clear" pictures.
In Steve you have a former member of the British Military and that is all you need to know.

Okay, so these 2 "film makers" sat their with insurgents and interviewed them as they bluntly told them to their faces that they are out to kill American and British soldiers. They stood close by them and followed them around while they were on the hunt for our service men and women.

So, as they sat there and watched these people make explosives, knowing full well who they were intended for.....they didn't bother to try and stop them or to throw them to the ground or alarm anyone in the military that they have found people who want to kill us?

This does not make sense at all. How can a former member of the British military and a former White House photographer make a film like this, concealing the identities of the people who appear in the film all the while knowing that those people were out to kill their fellow countrymen???????

I think this entire film is fiction and a giant piece of propaganda. I think every "character" in this film was hired. I think they were all given dramatic pieces of script to rehearse and I also believe Bingham being "captured" in Baghdad is about as valid a story as Lynch's, Carroll's and her namesake Mark Bingham's story.

Why did they conceal their identities and use "stage names"?
......and why didn't they feel compelled to smoke those insurgents out of their holes and bring them to justice?

These people KNEW as they were making this movie that the people they were interviewing killed, or wanted to kill OUR MEN AND WOMEN!!!!! Does anyone know if the characters in this film are in custody? Or did Bingham and Connors just give them all a big "THANK YOU" for being in their film as they sent them on their merry way to kill more of us?

The entire film is B.S

John Fill (not verified) says:

"Frank Truth" you obviously feel the need to hide behind a pseudonym even when expressing a myopic, quasi-nationalist sentiment that many of your own countrymen doubtless agree with. There is no risk to your life and/or liberty, or that of those you know and love, yet still you wish to remain anonymous.

Now consider the situation faced by active members of the Iraqi resistance. If their faces and names were shown they would be hunted down and killed, quite possibly along with their friends and families.

The point you seem to have missed is, just as people like you and I would take up arms against the troops of a foreign country that invaded the streets of Washington or London, so in exactly the same way do Iraqi citizens resist the occupation of their country by foreign invaders. THAT IS THE POINT OF THE FILM. It is not designed to "bring these people to justice" - there are THOUSANDS of people in Iraq likewise engaged in armed resistance to foreign occupation - it is designed to make people pay attention to the simple fact that citizens of any country will take up arms to resist invasion and occupation, and that people like yourself are not thinking straight when you instantly dismiss these actions.

Think about what YOU would do if Iraq invaded YOUR country.

Think about what the North Vietnamese did when the USA invaded THEIR country.

Think about what the French Resistance did when Hitler invaded THEIR country (N.b I am NOT comparing Bush to Hitler.)

Think about what General Washington and his men did when the British oppressed THEIR country.

And think BEFORE you write incoherent nonsense like this:

"So, as they sat there and watched these people make explosives, knowing full well who they were intended for.....they didn't bother to try and stop them or to throw them to the ground or alarm anyone in the military that they have found people who want to kill us?"

a) They try and stop them = they get killed.
b) They "throw them to the ground"(!) = they get killed.
c) They alert the military = they get no more sources for their film and quite possibly they get killed by other resistance fighters.

You seem to have no concept of the journalist's mission: to report the TRUTH, not to snitch on either side.

I think perhaps you should take a trip to Iraq and see what's really going on; maybe on the plane you could read a book about history, journalism, or the situation in Iraq? - all subjects which you seem wholly ignorant of.

Good day.

John Fill (not verified) says:

...and one more thing:

"why didn't they feel compelled to smoke those insurgents out of their holes and bring them to justice?"

Perhaps because they felt that "those insurgents" had a right to fight, and if necessary kill, foreign invaders. Perhaps because, having promised their interviewees anonymity, they felt it would be morally wrong to break that promise. Perhaps because they are film-makers, not members of the security services. Perhaps because it is more just for citizens to violently resist the invasion of their country than it is for those engaged in the invasion to arrest such citizens, especially on the basis of interviews given under condition of anonymity.

aarp home owner insurance (not verified) says:
flora hexagons retracing crams feasibility truncates Sally?.
home contents insurance (not verified) says:
wilder jerseys knocker wilt afterthoughts speeds spurning..

Post a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><br> <p> <i> <b> <embed> <img> <blockquote> <span> <strikethrough> <u>
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By checking this box you are giving permission for Observer staff to contact you to obtain contact information and permissions required for publication.