Four (Dead) Lions

As I am still working on my tendency to give an affirmative answer every time I'd rather give a negative one, especially when it comes to seemingly unimportant issues, I agreed to go to a screening of big in the U.S. at the moment We are Four Lions (2010). I found myself in a crowded down-town Parisian cinema on a Saturday afternoon, where people apparently choose the film not by the auteur's name, not even by talents' name --cause I really doubt if they've ever heard of Chris Morris and his fellows, except if they were BBC aficionados --but from it's alluring poster and the fun-factor it radiated.

Needless to say, I am usually not buying any of these, but I had to please my GentlemanX2 company, so, there I am, falling asleep in the opening credits, but instantly catching up on the hilarious (not), better dumb storyline: a smart guy, no, a smart (?) Islamic guy residing in Britain wants to teach capitalistic society a lesson by blowing them up, well, some of them. For that reason he gathers friends with similar beliefs or just easily convinced people around him and throws himself on the mission. I do not mind spoilers (and if you do, discontinue reading on the spot), so I can say it plainly: they all go very far, meaning they actually succeed in becoming kind of martyrs --even if some potential producers at an early stage would rather see them fail-- so, yes, they actually blow themselves up in the end by mistake, the very moment when they started doubting about it all. Except for one who is deliberately choosing to fly high above; their leader, who, if I got it right, he decided to leave with a smile on his face, rather as an homage to his companions, than as a result of his previous beliefs.

Co-writer and director Chris Morris softly describes in a Time Out interview the shit the wanna-be terrorist group enters into as ‘a sad, fucked-up cul-de-sac of rubbish’ and claims that one can joke about everything, even terrorism and bomb attacks.

Personally, I do find the whole thing far-fetched and wouldn't regard the subject matter as the right one to make a parody out of it. Half of the audience in my presence just didn't know how to react, had no clue on what to do with the film; tried to be up for the black humour and utter cynicism, but in the same time their inner political correctness did not allow them to. My laughs every once in a while did not make my shock lighter, when I saw the morons blowing themselves up -- I guess I have to stop feeling guilty for not being able to/not trying to protect idiots from their own stupidity. And mind me, I do find hardcore religious beliefs such as jihad relatively idiotic, but who am I to judge other people's beliefs in the first place.

The screwball part of the film was fun, most of the dialogue and acting was also good, but, then, why did I feel so agitated in the end, wondering how the film could find official distribution? I guess I found joking with human life a sacrilege or something, apparently, it's my soft spot. For the record, everyone who wants to be regarded as cool writes only the best: the film ends up in many top 10 lists for the soon-to-expire year 2010, it was deemed Best Original Screenplay from The(yet obscure) San Diego Critics Association, was nominated in BIFA's, even Sundance, and I reckon there's more to come.

Yes, I get the innovation behind this cheeky farce, of course I do, but call me old-fashioned, I'm still not convinced: this is not a comme-il-faut filml; at least, it is a thought-provoking one. And, I do have great respect for the director, who is sensitive enough to understand and not underestimate people's (and my) sensitivities; I am closing with his quote: " You're always, in comedy, going to be going somewhere near somebody's sensitivities, and that -- as anybody knows -- is part of the fun as well."

My name is Rachel Corrie: Katharine Viner's Interview

-->Many people may give their lives everyday for freedom and other values, but nobody gets to know it. In this case, Rachel's youth, and the fact that she was American made her offer of her life more prominent than others’?
K.V: I’ m not sure that so many people give their lives everyday for freedom! Rachel’s story is well known because she was American, yes, but also because she was a great writer, and also because it is rare for an activist to be killed protesting against occupation anywhere. That said, it should not detract from the huge numbers of oppressed people killed every day – at the contrary, Rachel’s death and her writing made people more aware of them.
-->How easy did you find editing 184 pages of Corrie’s journals and making up a play? What was the most important to include in the play?
K.V: It was very difficult as the material was so strong and we had many debates. I wanted to make sure we kept two aspects: first, Rachel’s journey as a political woman; and second, the window onto life under occupation that she provided.
-->To what extend did Alan Rickman was involved with your work? Did you both had a say on the scenes, Corrie’s character, the material to be left out etc?
K.V : We worked as collaborates. We discussed everything about the edit.
-->What is the uppermost reason the play is written? To let people know of the event? To make the investigation on her death more quick and thorough?
K.V : It was written to allow Rachel Corrie to tell her story after her death.
-->Which part do you personally take on the accident? Did the bulldozer see Corrie and did everything on purpose, or it was an accident indeed?
K.V: Very many international eyewitness reports say the bulldozer driver could see Rachel in her florescent vest. The driver claimed that he did not. This seems to me unlikely.
-->What part does the play take, though? Could it be blamed for being partial and in favor of a certain point of view?
K.V : The play is in favor of Rachel’s point of view, and Rachel was against the occupation of Palestinian land and the suffering it caused. But so what? Who said that art should be impartial?
-->“A martyr to the Palestinians; for Israelis at best naive, interfering in a situation she didn't understand. And to some Americans she was a traitor”. Do you share the point of view of the Palestinians? Do we get to see the complexity of the situation seeing this play, after all? Doesn’t it give us a more of a manichaeistic view of the world?
K.V : The play does not claim to tell the history of the Middle East from 1948 to the present day. It is Rachel’s words, nothing more or less.
-->You went for a documentaristic piece of theatre. Why did you stay away for fiction on the whole?
K.V : Rachel lived and died, she was real, of course we could not turn her into “fiction”!
-->How did you find the Greek staging? Does it have any similarities with the English one? Do you easily give permission for it to be staged in other countries?
K.V : We are delighted that so many countries asked to stage My name is Rachel Corrie and the Greek production is wonderful. I found it more emotional and inventive than the English staging.
-->Do you think the way the actress that plays Corrie looks is important for the integrity of the play?
K.V : No, but Despina, like Megan, looked younger and brighter before she went to Gaza than after, which I think makes sense.
-->Are you satisfied with the outcome of getting involved with a political play? Would you do it again? Do you believe it’s about time for theatre to overcome Chekhov, Strindberg and the like and focus on real problems of today, letting aside anxieties and fears of an indifferent bourgeoisie?
K.V : Political theatre is thriving in the U.K, usually using a documentary/ verbatim format, and it seems to me a very exciting, satisfying and effective format.
-->What does political theatre has to give to its audience? How useful it is in our days? Does this exact play have the impact you expected?
K.V : I hope the play does have an impact: to show that there are some young people who, in Rachel’s words, define themselves in other ways than what they chose to buy at the mall’ – and many of these progressive young people are Americans; and to remind people of the horrors of occupation. Rachel’s mum, Cindy, said that before Rachel went to Gaza, “Palestinians were invisible to me” Rachel changed that for her mother and perhaps can do so for others too.

---

Η ελληνική εκδοχή του θεατρικού έργου που η Katharine Viner επιμελήθηκε μαζί με τον Alan Rickman, επιλέγοντας αποσπάσματα από ημερολόγια και άλλα γραπτά της Rachel Corrie, ανεβαίνει από την ομάδα Σπασμένη Καρέκλα στο Θέατρο Φούρνος, με τον τίτλο Το Όνομά μου είναι Rachel Corrie. Φωτο: η πρωταγωνίστρια Δέσποινα Σαραφίδου και η Katharine Viner με την διευθύντρια του θεάτρου Ντοντό Σαντοριναίου.