Lebanon is a different country in the Middle East, and it is on such soil that such a seemingly absurd but also realistic work will be born.
In the Arab world, Lebanon is the only country composed of two major religions, Islam and Christianity. The two major religious divisions divided Lebanon. The eastern region is controlled by Christian forces, and the main religion in the western region is Islam. The details of these religions, such as Sunni Lebanon, Shia, Greek Catholicism, Armenian Catholicism aside, we can think that the right to speak of Christianity is in the hands of Catholic Maronites. Originally, more than half of the people in Lebanon believed in Christianity, but then the situation gradually changed. Wanting to carry out reforms to control the state power, since then, Islam and Christianity have started a long struggle from high-level countries leading the military to low-level residents.
Who is Behir Gemayel? Behir Gemayel was born into a Christian Maronite family. His core idea is to "restore Lebanon's sovereignty over its own territory and restore its full state power", requiring all foreign troops, including Israeli troops, to withdraw from Lebanon, and then Behir Gemayel was assassinated, Israel invaded Lebanon and opened fire on Palestinian refugee camps, which was called the "Beirut Massacre", and all this was directed by the then Israeli Defense Minister Sharon, later Israel President.
With the escalation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the beginning of the chaotic war in the Middle East, a large number of Palestinian Jewish refugees still poured into Lebanon, which brought a lot of contradictions and produced a nationalist trend of thought. The dramatic conflict of this film is produced against such a simplified and yet extremely complex background.
The opening credits are about an election, and a guy is giving a political speech, and Tony is Behir Gemayel (of course, the guy in the title is called akim? (I suspect it's Armin Gemayel) Le) is a loyal fan of Beshear Gemayel's successor), and at the same time, the opening scene of a couple moving house and a scene of repairing a car neatly explains Tony's political, religious concepts and character. In short One is a stubborn donkey and a long-pregnant wife.
Yasir, the second male protagonist of the film, also appeared. Yasir is a Palestinian refugee, an engineer, and a stubborn donkey. This also reflects his work efficiency and professionalism from the side when his boss talks. , At this time, the two male protagonists had their first contact. Tony illegally built a water pipe and sprinkled water on Yasser. The contradiction appeared, Yasser found Tony, and his tone was blunt. Here is the first "humiliation" (if the tone of humiliation is a bit heavy, it is regarded as a forced off topic) Tony's behavior is a kind of humiliation for Yasser's professionalism, and Yasser's blunt tone, The bossy attitude made Tony feel humiliated.
At the beginning of the second contact, the boss conducted mediation, and the two sides were ready to reconcile. At this time, the boss wanted to make multiple efforts to open a breakthrough from Tony's wife. Here, "male power" or "paternal power" appeared for the first time. Tony thinks that Yaxi Er was reluctant to apologize in person, and started from the women's side, which had an impact on his male dominance and humiliated Tony's patriarchal dignity. "I bought this house and I took care of it." Yasser's attitude made the contradiction Upgrading again, Tony in the garage watched Behir Gemayel's speech, which also represented the nationalist mentality of most of the Lebanese nationals.
And Yasser's boss compromised for the reconstruction of the "Palestine refugee camp" and hoped that Yasser would apologize. Here, Yasir's identity was mentioned again, and Yasir received humiliation, "We are equivalent to the Arab black The words "ghost" also express the national mentality of Palestine refugees. The second contact was through the "operation" of Yasir's boss, which intensified the conflict. Both sides imposed a humiliation at the same time. At the same time, there was another class-based humiliation hidden in it, that is, the middle class represented by the boss was very interested in the lower class working for him. The "proletarian" lobbying for granted produces humiliating behavior.
Then the two sides prepared to reconcile. Tony humiliated Yasser in every possible way, and mentioned the incident of Sharon's order to massacre the refugee camp. This sentence angered Yasser, and the conflict intensified, resulting in a quarrel. Yasser said that the male protagonist was injured, which was extremely high. The narrative efficiency of the story, 17 minutes to build a complete story antecedents, national mentality, class contradictions.
Next, he was preparing to go to court. Tony had contact with the police. The nationalist mentality was obvious. The argument in the taxi showed that this was the general attitude of the local Lebanese to Palestinian foreigners. In the Palestinian refugee camp, there was also a Palestinian workers union. A small group structure of which Yasir was also the leader of the group and laid the groundwork for the events that followed.
After about 20 minutes of foreshadowing, the two sides collided in the court for the first time, and the non-cooperation of the two sides "humiliated" the prestige of the court. At the same time, the contradiction in the film intensified again, and the problem here is that Yasir's silence is not enough. Sufficiently, there is too little foreshadowing to promote the dramatic conflict. At this time, the judge's behavior is also full of controversy, and it is not convincing to produce the next change. Tony took out the legal provisions to educate the judge and made the judge feel "humiliated". After all, the judge is "" The person who owns the "law" was educated by a "bottom" at this time. Although it was superficial, it was easy to use, and the contradiction escalated again. There was also a conflict between Tony and the court, and what he said when he was dragged out of the court was once again. The contradiction rises to the level of social contradiction, and the foreshadowing is laid. The judge's rough judgment method invalidates the credibility of the law, and the law itself is humiliated by the enforcers. And in a very sensitive period, the disconnect between the upper class and the lower class made the whole society unstable. The tense atmosphere of the whole film makes the story full of tension and can make people forget some small flaws (after all, some people will definitely say that it's weird in TC. Strange things like that, it's a matter of opinion).
Then there is a transitional segment, which is rather blunt and flashes back to Tony's past as if it doesn't make sense, and doesn't know why he faints and then leads to Tony's wife's premature baby dying. The first paragraph seems too abrupt, and the motives of the characters are actually various, but it is not well connected with the later looking for a lawyer team to fight a lawsuit. If it is just for the sake of fighting, adding such a premature part in the middle will disrupt the narrative. At first glance at the lawyer team A feeling is that the narrative is once again returning to the "organization" instead of "complicating actions" and "development", but in fact it should be after the fainting event for a while. The follow-up plot is that the lawyers plan to use Tony's fainting In order to seek greater interests, the film is somewhat ambiguous in the construction of the time and space of the story, and the appearance of the role of the lawyers is a bit abrupt. Moreover, the behavior of the lawyers group runs counter to Tony's purpose. The nationalist trend of thought conflicts with "interests". There is a higher level of dramatic tension. The bottom-level nationalist ideology and populist ideology are only seeking to maximize their own interests. One way (what the upper-level interests are is also a suspense point), the hidden point is also worth pondering.
Then I thought that the female lawyer had found Garcia. Again, the two sides were in step. The lawyer's appeal was not the same as Garcia's goal, and a foreshadowing was laid at this time.
After an ordinary court debate, there was a small climax. The female lawyer was the daughter of the leader of the lawyer group. At this time, the main narrative turned to patriarchal power. The father wanted to "control" his daughter and follow the path he planned, while the daughter Disagree, become the defendant's defense and likely lose, and the interesting thing is that fathers and daughters are no different, they both end up in the "lawyer" position and are only loyal to their philosophy of wanting to "win". The daughter wants to beat the father, and the father also wants to win (also a suspense point: why would a barrister take such a small case), both sides ignore the principal's opinion, the core of the whole narrative has been subtly shifted, irony The point is that the debate between the two who just wanted to argue has unknowingly turned to an uncontrollable conflict between another family, two religious forces, natives and refugees. Instead, the two "aphasia" in the latter part of the film. . The private space of the two is also humiliated. This is the coercion of the individual by the wave of public opinion at the public level, and it is also a kind of humiliation.
Next, the foreshadowing that was laid in the early stage was that Garcia’s men came to the door of the court to make trouble, and they were recorded, and the incident was completely enlarged to the whole society. It is very interesting that the “media” also joined the war, and the words of the father’s lawyer were taken out of context. Zoom in, and in the next link, the father's lawyer's motives are unraveled, and another event is introduced: Garcia's dark past, and trying to prove that refugees from Palestine are full of original sin. The father's lawyer is trying to achieve political demands, and at this moment once again the Jordanian army's dark history of Palestinian refugees has been stated by the daughter's lawyer. The film has gone a bit off track so far, because this topic is too big, and it involves the Jordanian army. The humiliation of Palestine refugees has risen to the level of national and political humiliation, and the speed of advancement and rise in this case is too fast, which has nothing to do with the case. The "humiliation" relationship was debated in court at the same time, but what the father's lawyer said was a bit too utilitarian, conflicting in order to increase the dramatic conflict, as if it was expected that things would not develop and it would no longer be controllable, becoming a conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians. Confrontation, and at this time Tony, the lawyers, and their opponents became blurred, rising too quickly to the point where the Palestinians' struggle with Zionism (Israel) is actually at the core of the father's lawyer's remarks? It is also regrettable that the motive of the whole incident in the later period was not grounded.
In the later period, the buttons of Tony's shadow were unbuttoned. Key words such as 1976, Damour area, etc., indicate that Tony's shadow originated from the Lebanese civil war that started in 1976. An interesting point appeared. People in Lebanon were also displaced and became refugees from other countries. And there is also the shadow of the Palestinian army in this war. After that, Lebanon, under the leadership of Israel, attacked the fleeing Palestinian refugees. So far, the history of the chaos in the Middle East is a brief explanation. It can also be seen that What a huge amount of information is needed to tell such a story well, and the film itself can only be briefly mentioned, which may be well understood by people in the Middle East, but the amount of additional information required for people like us is too much. Huge, the film itself did not explain clearly, perhaps this is also the regrettable part of this film.
Once again, in the courtroom, Tony's childhood shadow was made public, his scars were torn open, and it was a humiliation for him by a variety of people in a public trial. Perhaps this is the last time the film mentions "humiliation".
After a private meeting between Garcia and Tony, the root of the "anger" was revealed, stemming from jealousy, yearning for peace, and at the same time reaching a reconciliation between father and daughter in the last scene (and the father-daughter line has disappeared for a long time, only Can hastily ending) and the conflict between Palestine refugees and native Lebanese residents, it seems that it can only be ended hastily, and in the final implementation, the conflict between the daughter and the father seems to be eliminated by default, only through a large chicken soup style summary lines The biggest central idea of the film is expressed by the foreign affairs. It's really a pity.
It’s a pity that the film involves too much history, religion, and politics. It’s a pity that the war in the Middle East seems to be for a “dignity”: the battle of Jerusalem, the battle of religion, who is the best in these wars is the winner? Maybe it's the country that the father's lawyer mentioned in the end, "you have to apologize for scolding a bitch". When the country's dignity is gone, it lacks the dignity of wanting to fight for "little luck"? Perhaps this is also a mockery of the mentality of people in the Middle East.
View more about The Insult reviews
