The movie Arranged, produced in 2007 and directed by Diane Crespo, is a story of two young women who lead traditional religious lives in modern day America. Rochel, an Orthodox Jew, and Nasira, a Muslim, have chosen lifestyles that many Western people deem as simple and even backwards. Yet the movie does a great job of shedding light on the complications that these two women face regarding their “simplistic” lifestyles and redeeming their legitimacy. Despite the differences between Rochel and Nasira, they develop a strong friendship and find vast similarities between their faiths and their families. Rochel and Nasira are both teachers in an ethnically diverse elementary school in Brooklyn. They begin talking to each other after a student points out their different religious backgrounds, and the two teachers work together to show their students how such differences should not interfere with building friendships. They continue to spend time with each other as they realize that they share similar experiences being devoutly religious in America. Both women also happen to be going through the process of finding a husband for an arranged marriage, something which they feel is a personal choice that they have made and that mainstream society unfairly looks down upon. By the end of the film, they both meet men whom they seem to connect with and contently settle down into marriage and motherhood. One of the supporting characters is the female principal of the school where Rochel and Nasira work, and she is used to portray the white American views that find such religious lifestyles to be suffocating and demeaning. In one scene the principal talks to the two women in her office about their lack of freedom, even exclaiming “there WAS a women’s movement!” to imply that they are hurting themselves by living as they do. While harshly stereotypical, the scene acts as a setup for a later one when Rochel yells at the principal to defend the choice that she has made and that she claims everyone in the Jewish community has the ability to make. While some viewers may think that the principal’s character is too cliché, she allows the director to get the point across. It is refreshing to see a movie that pushes for dialogue about the politics surrounding religion in America without trying to be too politically correct. Moreover, the views expressed overtly by the principal are what many people think but never voice out of fear for sounding disrespectful or ignorant. Another stereotype presented is of the American girl, which was slightly exaggerated. When Rochel is having doubts about her search for a husband, she visits her cousin, a young woman who had renounced her Jewish faith. Her cousin takes Rochel to a party so that she can see if she prefers the typical American life—one of parties and microwave relationships. Rochel’s discomfort is obvious and she quickly decides that such a lifestyle is undesirable for her and does not embody her idea of personal freedom. Unfortunately this part of the movie makes it appear as though people like Rochel have a choice between two “extremes” in life, which many viewers may be turned off by and see as unrealistic. However, it is a movie, and movies are for entertainment. The middle ground—where many people in the United States probably see themselves living—tends not to be very entertaining. To tone down the idea of Rochel (who the movie places substantially more focus on) being too much of a radical in practice and thought, she is shown facing conflicts that any American woman can relate to. In one shot, Rochel’s mother does not let Rochel eat cake for dessert because she believes Rochel needs to be more careful of her weight. It is not unusual for women to harass other women in this way in all kinds of Western social circles, and the conflict in this scene bridges religious divisions to connect all Western women. While one may debate the shortcomings of this movie when it comes to finding a balance between religiosity and adhering to Western social norms, its basic point is conveyed clearly. With warmth and humor, Rochel and Nasira are portrayed as two American women just trying to lead their chosen lifestyles. While their challenges may be different from what many women in this country face, they should not be considered illegitimate just because they result from traditional values. These conflicts and triumphs are completely pertinent to real life and real Americans, and hopefully this movie will continue to open up sociological and political dialogue.
Arranged was an incredibly well done film. The director did an excellent job of portraying the two religious communities, orthodox Jewish and Muslim, and the ways in which they might interact in New York. Although I myself am not religious to the extent that the characters Rachel and Nasirah are, I felt that I could connect with them. I understand the pull they felt from their parents to get married in the traditional fashion and assimilate into their community. But I also understand the need to fit in at work, and outside of their sheltered communities. This struggle with identity is not unique to religious communities but it is very well portrayed in Arranged. The main conflict in this film is the struggle for identity between traditional and modern. Rachel is having a very hard time finding a husband through the traditional route. All the men that the “yenta” brings her are awkward and completely unsuitable. Rachel says that she is not willing to settle for a man that she does not feel any kind of connection to while her mother thinks that settling would be much better than ending up alone. (Plus it is selfish to deny her younger sister the opportunity to start dating, since she can’t start until Rachel is married.) But Rachel does not have much better luck attempting to meet people in a more modern fashion. She goes to a party with her cousin Leah who is no longer religious. This party looks like a typical house party with alcohol and loud rap music. One boy introduces himself to Rachel, and although he is very polite, she can’t seem to connect to him in this setting. She feels awkward and out of place. She is dressed very conservatively, in long sleeves and a long skirt, and she won’t shake hands with the boy she meets let alone dance with him. Rachel sums up this inner struggle well when she finally stands up to the school principle and asks her, “Who are you to judge whether our system of dating is better than getting drunk and sleeping around?” Rachel settles this inner search for identity by cheating the system. She manages to find a husband using the traditional system, but with a little undercover help from Nasirah who tips off the yenta to a potential match for Rachel. In general, Nasirah seems much more confident and comfortable with her identity than Rachel. She wears the hijab by choice. Nasirah trusts in the traditional matchmaking system to find her a suitable husband. She says, “Our parents got married this way, and it worked for them. They’re happy. It will work for us too.” Also, Nasirah has some sass to her. She has no problem being sarcastic with the school principle who questions their traditional way of life. Finally, Nasirah never allows anyone to pronounce her name incorrectly. She knows who she is, and she wants everyone else to call her by her name. Rachel is not so self confident. She allows her special needs student to call her Miss Rachel instead of pronouncing it “Ru-chle,” the way she pronounces it. Also, when she goes to the party with her cousin Leah, at first she introduces herself as “Ru-chle.” But when the boy asks her to repeat her name she says Rachel. She is vacillating. She’s not as sure of herself as Nasirah is. Rachel is still in the process of deciding which identity she wants to assume and to which community she wants to belong. I loved the way this film depicted Rachel and Nasirah’s families. I have orthodox Jewish cousins and they function in a very similar way to Rachel’s family. I can very easily imagine my aunt using her husband’s high blood pressure to guilt her daughter into doing something for her. Rachel’s younger siblings are also sticking their noses where they don’t belong in the same way that my cousins do. Nasirah’s family is also portrayed realistically. Nasirah’s interaction with her brother is very similar to countless conversations I’ve tried to have with my brother; he gives her one word answers and doesn’t want to help her in her matchmaking quest. I feel that I can connect with the characters even if I am not religious. I was also interested in the way each girl’s family treated her friend. When Rachel brought Nasirah to her house, Rachel’s mother asked her to leave and refused to let her in the house without her father’s permission. Rachel was furious with her mother and embarrassed to have to treat her friend that way. When Rachel visited Nasirah’s house, there was some visible tension with Nasirah’s father, but he treated her politely. She was welcomed into their house and offered tea. These interactions clearly show the generation gap between the daughters and their parents. While the girls have no problem being friends with each other, but their parents are a bit uneasy (more so in Rachel’s case than Nasirah’s). I really enjoyed watching this movie and I would highly recommend it to anyone, religious or not, who is still searching for their own identity.
“Arranged” was a very interesting movie. The movie centers on the friendship between an Orthodox Jewish woman and a Muslim woman who meet as first-year teachers at a public school in Brooklyn. The film did a great job of showing the similarities between Orthodox Judaism and Islam. The film also did a great job of showing the different views these women had on arranged marriage.
The two women meet at the elementary school they teach in Brooklyn. Rachel, the Orthodox Jewish woman, was the teacher of a special needs child. Nasira, the Muslim woman, was the teacher of a regular which the Rachel’s special needs child was in. It was interesting how they first became acquainted by the children believing the two could not work together because Rachel was Jewish and Nasira was Muslim. They were able to work together and became good friends. Their parents started looking for their husbands. Rachel did not want to get married. She rejected man after man her mother and grandmother got for her. The woman who arranged the meets said Rachel was running out of prospects. Rachel did not want to get married; however, she did not want to leave the community. Nasira also did not like the choices her father made at the beginning. Then he brought home an educated, US born, man and the two had a connection. Rachel and Nasira had two different perspectives on arranged marriage. Rachel did not truly believe in it and Nasira thought it was fine. Nasira believed it was a tradition that had to live on. Rachel finally sees a potential husband when Nasira goes to Brooklyn College to give a textbook to her brother. Nasira’s brother was studying with an Orthodox Jewish man who Rachel felt attracted to at first sight. The only problem was he was not one of the people on her list to meet. With Nasira’s help, he became one of them. Eventually they both get married and the movie ends showing the two of them sitting in a park hold their babies
What was very interesting about the film were the reactions of the families when they met a person of the other religion. When Rachel took Nasira to her home, her mother became kind of hysterical and asked Rachel if she got approval from her father for Nasira to be over. Her mother could not stand to see Muslim woman in her house. Nasira was forced to leave. Also, when Rachel and Nasira were in the park with their siblings, Rachel’s siblings could not grip with the fact Nasira and her niece and nephew were Muslim. They felt very uncomfortable. Nasira’s family was a little more open to Rachel. Nasira’s mother was fine with Rachel over. Nasira’s brother was a little uncomfortable around Rachel, but he did not say anything. What I got from this movie was the Orthodox Jews are very exclusionary.
I found out this film was loosely based on the experiences of Yuta Silverman, an Orthodox Jewish woman from Borough Park, Brooklyn. She had no film experience and was searching for a production company to produce her film. She eventually got Cicala Filmworks to produce the film. She got Stefan C. Schaefer to write the script, who was reluctant at first.
I did not know arranged marriage was practiced heavily in the Orthodox Jewish community. Being from Brooklyn and seeing the Orthodox Jews, I did notice many of the mothers were quite young and the fathers were some what older. Driving by or walking through the Orthodox neighbors always amazes me. The community is able to keep their traditions in the ever-modernizing New York City. It is impressive they are able to keep up their traditions. After seeing this movie, I now have a better understanding of Orthodox Jewish community.
The identity crisis is a universal struggle. The question of a person’s place in the world, and how religion relates to identity crosses the boundaries of countries, continents and especially faiths. It is an individual choice and conflict to determine what role religion will play in a life. For some, faith envelopes all aspects of life, while for others, it would never cross their minds. The film Arranged follows the story of two young women and their relationship with their respective faiths. Both are of marrying age and therefore are participating in the traditions of their religions to find husbands, and each has a different reaction to these actions. However, despite their internal struggle, each woman comes to peace with their faith.
The two main characters in the film meet because they are fellow teachers in a New York City public school. Rochel Meshenberg is an Orthodox Jew while Nasira Khaldi is a Muslim. Despite that stereotypes tell us that these women should be in opposition, they share many experiences and values that create a strong bond and relationship. They work with their students to show them how external factors do not matter in a friendship, only the quality of one’s character.
Both women face great tension in the work place. Because they are very involved with their own world and culture, they did not fit in well with the other teachers. Also, because Rochel and Nasira are “different” they were even criticized for their way of life. The disparagement was not overt by most of their coworkers. They were not invited to certain activities by the other teachers and had awkward moments when they had little in common with the other women despite having a great deal in common with each other.
The greatest struggle came from Rochel and Nasira’s interaction with Principle Jacoby. This character considered herself a modern woman who supported other ways of life. However, she was far from accepting and understanding of the choices of a Muslim or Orthodox Jew. Jacoby could not comprehend why anyone would want to live in a way that was different from her and went to far as to demean these other women. She was proud to be an American, and therefore a member of a free society. She felt that the main characters religions were stripping them of their freedom and forcing them to live a trapped life. Little did she know that these women chose their path and despite an internal struggle, continued to practice their respective faiths.
A large portion of the film focused on the topic of arranged marriages. Both women, in their own way, were participating in the tradition of finding a husband through the help of their family. Both women’s parent’s met this way and have lived happy and fulfilling lives with a loving and devoted spouse. They are determined and eager for their daughters to have the same wonderful experience as they did.
Rochel is participating in the practice of shidduch. She, along with her mother and grandmother, meet with a shadchan (matchmaker) to inquire about the potential matches. Rochel has a great deal of conflict with the process. Despite meeting several eligible and approved bachelors, she does not find anyone who she deems worthy of being her husband. She even considers for a moment converting from her faith and seeks guidance from a cousin who did just that. Rochel experiences the “modern world” for a night and realizes she is more comfortable with her upbringing and not willing to denounce it yet. With some intervening from her friend Nasira, She finally finds a the perfect man. They settle down and live happily ever after.
Nasira, although conflicted about the process, has an easier time with the arranged marriage process than her friend. Nasira’s father, Abdul-Halim Khaldi, introduces his daughter with several eligible and approved men. The dating process is very similar to Rochel’s experience. An interview-type dinner is conducted where both families meet and converse. Nasira does not like the first few men and therefore confronts her father about what she would like in a prospective husband. Soon, she is introduced to the man she will marry. The connection is immediate and she lives happily ever after as well.
Throughout the film Arranged, Rochel Meshenberg and Nasira Khaldi partake in an internal struggle in which they have to determine the role their faith will play in their lives. Will they allow the traditions of arranged marriage determine the man they will spend their rest of their life with? Will they wear the traditional garb their religions request despite the opposition they will face in public? Both women face these questions and more. They end up being firm in their convictions and faithful to their religions. They individually choose their paths and are happy with their lives and choices.
Religious fanaticism comes in many forms and dates back thousands of years. It crosses all religions and regions. The conflict in Khartoum is simply one example of this grander problem. The film is a Hollywood adaptation of true events. Because the film is a struggle between the “evil” Islamic people and the “angelic” west, it prays upon the fears and stereotypes of the audience.
The battle of Kartoum takes place in 1883 in Sudan’s capital city. It is between the army of the Mahdi and the English who have colonized the area. The Mahdi has declared war on the English for an intriguing reason. He lures the occupying troops into the desert and proceeds to kill them in a surprise attack. The reason for this is that the Mahdi believes he has had a vision from the Prophet Mohammad. He believes he is the expected one of Mohammad and plans to take Khartoum by force, killing those Egyptians and Sudanese that oppose him and do not accept him as their leader. The Mhadi thnks of himself as a Muslim. However, by dictating such events, he contradicts the peaceful beliefs of his religion.
As a result to the massacred troops, the British Prime Minister sends General Charles Gordon to the city of Khartoum to oversee the evacuation of the remaining troops and civilians. General Gordon is the Mahdi’s antithesis. Gordon is a bible loving and booze drinking military man. Upon arrival to the city Gordon receives a Hero’s welcome. As a popular figure, he brings hope to the residents that there will be a peaceful solution to their predicament. However, General Gordon and his subordinate Colonel Stewart are unable to negotiate a settlement with the Mahdi. He is sticking with his conviction that he is the expected one, chosen to be the leader of Khartoum and exile the non-believers.
Both opposing leaders are very patriotic and loyal to their own people. Gordon and the Mahdi believe they are doing what is right and that it is the other one who is in the wrong. Both figures take great risks to further their cause and also have many people willing to follow them no matter the cost. Also, they both are willing to do what ever it takes to destroy the opposition. They are willing to die as long as the other one is not far behind. Despite their ideological differences, they are similar characters.
The escalating situation in Khartoum is reported to officials in Brittan. General Gordon is ordered to return to his home nation, however his heart lives for Sudan. Therefore, he ignores the command and remains with his people to make a last ditch effort to defeat the Mahdi.
When the final battle finally arrives, General Gordon’s army is completely outnumbered. His faithful soldiers are easily trounced by the massive Arab onslaught. During the conflict Gordon is killed had his head placed on a spear and presented to the Mahdi who absolutely outraged. He did not give the orders for this to happen and does not approve. He is upset because the two men have an understanding. While they fundamentally disagree with each other, they understand the trials and tribulations of being in a position of leadership in that time and in that place.
The film Khartoum and the real battle it portrays should teach humanity a lesson. It shows the harmful effects of religious fundamentalism and what happens when people do not take the time to understand and accept other people and cultures. Great men died in the battle that could have been avoided if those involved practiced tolerance.
The film Arranged, about two young women of differing religions in the process of arranged marriage, was interesting especially to me as an outsider to this tradition. The story follows Rochel Meshenberg and Nasira Khaldi, both teachers at a public school in Brooklyn who strike up a friendship based partly on their similar situations. In general, the term “arranged marriage” seems to cover a broad scale of marriages, of which those portrayed in the film seem to be on the lenient end. This leads me to a comparison of “arranged” vs. “love” marriages. Arranged marriages do seem to have their advantages, but on the other hand the party scene does portray Rochel as extremely sheltered. The film touched on many controversial subjects on top of and interwoven with the main theme of arranged marriage as well. The friendship between Rochel (a Jew) and Nasira (a Muslim) causes debate in the school as well as within their families, and the clash between secularism and orthodoxy is illustrated throughout the film. Having never known, or been aware of knowing, anyone who has had an arranged marriage I don’t have much of a reference point to compare and contrast it with the type of marriage I am accustomed to. After viewing this film it seems to me that there should be a new term coined for the type of marriage that Rochel and Nasira end up having. Although there certainly is an ‘arranged’ element to them, they both seem to have quite a bit of choice in the matter. They have both met their husbands and chosen him over others; they both even seem to have fallen in love with the men. So in many ways their marriages are very like love marriages. On the other hand there are certainly differences as well. Evidence shows that more love marriages fail than do arranged marriages, so what is it about arranged marriages that makes them last? Here are a few reasons I have theorized in my reflection on the subject. Perhaps the stricter setting of an arranged marriage makes the couple more aware of the seriousness of their engagement. Divorce is not seen as so much of an option as those in a love marriage see it. They don’t have anything much better to look for after divorce; a new spouse may be arranged for them, but then they are likely to end up in a similar situation as the one they are in. For women this decision would be especially difficult since there seems to be a much smaller window of “marriageable age” for them as well. Maybe couples in an arranged marriage have a much more reasonable expectations of their partner. People who choose their own spouse may be more likely to expect them to be “perfect for him/her” and therefore be overly disappointed by any of the others’ flaws. Also within those who search for partners on their own is this notion of “the one”; that there is only one person out there who completes you and will make you happy. I am not sure if this theory also pervades the world of arranged marriages, but it does seem to set an extremely high bar that could easily cause problems. A couple who find themselves having difficulties may assume they made a mistake and that their real “one” is still out their looking for them and therefore they almost have an obligation to leave their current spouse to find him/her. These are all just theories of mine and I am sure that there are different reasons for each different couple, so the question still stands. I think the most likely answer lies in the structure of ones upbringing. The strict family setting in which both Nasira and Rochel were brought up is so far removed from the mainstream that joining it in any way seems to scare them more than anything their families could force upon them. A good example of this in the film is Rochel venture out to a party with her cousin who has left the orthodox world behind. Rochel is obviously uncomfortable from the beginning, and things go quickly downhill from there when a male partygoer tries to make conversation. Rochel has obviously never been any situation that even compares to this rather mild display because she ends up freaking out and leaving the party without her cousin to find her own way home, which, in my opinion, is way more dangerous than staying at the party ever would have been. My surprise at Rochel’s reaction just goes to show how different my experiences have been from someone in her position. Rochel finds a kindred spirit in Nasira though, who has had a similar experience, despite their different religions. And In the classroom, the kids question whether they hate each other since they have heard that the Muslims want to get rid of Jews. At home the women also face trepidation. When Rochel invites Nasira to her home to work on a school project, her mother gets very upset. She worries about what the neighbors will say about her daughter having a Muslim friend and even if it might affect her prospects for getting a husband. So even while they might be adhering to some traditions that others might look on as outdated in having arranged marriages the two women are still able to break down some of the stereotypes that surround them. Despite this the principal at the school, a secular Jew, is saddened to see these two bright and attractive women dressing so conservatively and subjecting themselves to what she views as an outmoded and repressive patriarchal system. Throughout the film she bombards the women with her opinions until it finally comes to a head and Rochel heatedly defends her culture. I thought this juxtaposition could have been portrayed better. First of all, those who disagree with arranged marriage are not all obnoxious and rude, and some even have some valid arguments. Also, the argument that eventually takes place, between Rochel and the Principal, is weak on both sides. Rochel insisting that she does have a choice over and over is not as convincing as a more thorough defense could have been. Overall I enjoyed the film. It gave me a window into a world I don’t normally encounter, and definitely made me think. There were some things that surprised me and a few things that disappointed me but I am glad to have had the opportunity to experience it.
My first reaction is that this movie certainly fills a niche. Studying the effects of globalization feels bit abstract and nebulous until you see a movie like this. My pre-college years in a typical Philadelphia suburb have been similar to my years here in Newark, DE. I’ve never known a truly Orthodox family of any religion, so several parts of the movie surprised me. What I liked most was that it, through the voices of the seemingly ignorant, asked questions I’ve wondered and never heard answers to. I found Rochel’s case to be much more interesting. First off, I never knew that Rochel or Nasira would have choices in their marriages. I expected “Arranged” to be about the miserable lives these two teachers had to come to terms with because of the rigidness of the systems in which they were raised. The dating system was intriguing, and was based on ads similar to what we saw in class, where tradition, family, job, and sometimes looks are important. Her first hopeless dates started to foment doubts about arranged marriage, so she naturally wanted to experience what her seemingly oppressive system was prohibiting. Her escape from the traditional to the modern by visiting her cousin and then attending the party was equally as disappointing. Her unfamiliarity with the setting, people, and customs took her way out of her comfort zone, likely reaffirming her confidence in the Jewish dating system. What is most interesting, considering that the main theme is one’s individual reconciliation of tradition and modernity, is that Rochel’s husband was found by a fusion of the two extremes. Although she discovered Gideon on her own in a university setting, Nasira’s witty acquisition of his basic information allowed him to go through the established dating system. Nasira’s case was less interesting. Although she also struggled to find an ideal husband, her dedication to tradition was unshakeable, and even disheartening. Although my perspective is probably limited, I consider her optimism in finding a husband through the traditional means to be naïve. This tension between cultural assimilation and maintaining ones identity is what makes this movie more than just entertainment; it’s thought-provoking. I would say it’s commonly known that arranged marriages have a greater longevity than typical “Western”-style marriages. So while I may be calling her childish for having faith in what seems like an oppressive system, not only does she have some say in the matter, but her marriage is more likely to last, statistically speaking, than mine will. While this may be due to pressures from the community to endure, it’s these very pressures which keep these minorities from dying out. Without them, and without arranged marriages, it’s hard to imagine how much cultural diversity there would be. It’s this cultural diversity which defines America; therefore, these arranged marriages aren’t un-American at all. The various voices of the public community, despite their hyperbole, brought several latent questions to the surface. Is it actually easy for Muslims and Jews to get along in light of international and historical conflict? As the one student asks, Can they really be friends when Jews and Muslims are killing each other abroad? Or is Nasira’s wearing of the hijab really imposed on her by her strict, Quran-thumping father? These are similar to questions many people have when they encounter people they’ve never met before. As Nasira said, wearing the hijab is an expression of faith and not mandatory (in an interview for our project I recently learned that hijab means conservative and isn’t necessarily a headscarf - so even though I consider myself culturally educated, tolerant, and aware I realize I still have a lot to learn). So, while we can dismiss some of the principal’s comments as ignorant, we have to be humble and realize there are many things which we should seek to understand before being judgmental. I’ve never heard the name Rochel, either. Some of the principal’s encouragements, like that the women should go shopping and have a drink, however, are beyond excuse and are flat-out insensitive. These are the kinds of moments that make me feel ashamed of being part of mainstream America. The religious, however, aren’t without their prejudices. Rochel’s parents’ discomfort wasn’t just that a Muslima was in their house, but that the neighbor’s would see her. It’s at times like these where you want to know, why exactly shouldn’t she be seen in a conservative Jewish neighborhood? Is the community so xenophobic or are the parents using the community as a scapegoat for personal insecurities? We don’t know, but neither alternative is satisfying. The most encouraging part of the movie is the level of cooperation between Rochel and Nasira. Of course the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn’t preclude their friendship. It doesn’t stop Rochel from visting Nasira’s house, going out in public to the park, and exchanging customs (e.g. hand-decorating) and getting Gideon’s information. Their friendship, as I see it, is neither in spite of their religion, nor because of their religion. Religion is secondary to mutual respect, civility, and kindness. So, in a country marked by increased religiosity as a defense against growing secularism and modernism, religion doesn’t have to define who can and cannot be friends. The movie reveals that marriage, like all major events, are universal in nature. “Arranged” successfully highlights different religious traditions while showing their commonalities. We can, paradoxically, show how alike we are by showing how different we seem, which breaks down barriers and showcases our treasured multiculturalism.
In part, this is the story of the demise of a fraud. According to many Muslims, both Shia and Sunni, the Mahdi is a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad who will throw off the reigns of oppression, eliminate justice, and usher in an era of peace during a reign of seven to nineteen years. British meddling in Egypt planted the seed for the Mahdi’s claims to legitimacy. British involvement in Egypt, Turkish expansion into Sudan, and the putting down of the Arab-dominated slave trade threatened the Sudanese who saw the encroaching forces as heretical. The Mahdi believed he had a message from Allah to lead his people and prepare for the second coming of Jesus. Although this claim wasn’t approved by the Egyptians who tried to have him arrested, the Mahdi was able to propagate his message enough to inspire and uprising. The Turks were the original targets of the Mahdi, who were defeated in the first battle of Khartoum. Although Gordon was sent to retreat the remaining Egyptian troops, when his evacuation route was threatened, he waged offensive and defense battles to allow civilians to flee. Eventually, Khartoum was raided and Gordon was slain by the Mahdists. There are several interrelated topics which I think make this movie relevant despite the setting of the 1880s. The first is imperialism. Surely the British were the greatest empire for many years, and their motives could be questioned. Was their suppression of the slave trade a moral decision or cool realpolitik? Were they being liberators or were they thwarting the economic power of Al-Zubayr? In light of years of backing oppression on the continent (Rhodes), former imperial powers have difficulty proving their good intentions. The popularity of the Mahdi represents the many liberation movements that sought to overthrow imperialism. Many of these movements are characterized by national or ethnic identity, but the Mahdi posed a uniquely religious challenge to Turkish and British intrusion. Upon claiming to be the Mahdi, he issued a fatwa declaring the Turks infidels who should be slain. He also swore to spread Islam and to defeat the “fat, rich, and corrupt” until all recognize him as the successor prophet to Muhammad. This is an unfortunate consequence of imperialism that is just as unjustifiable as the ethnic violence that followed European evacuation of Rwanda. The West thus bore some responsibility for fomenting such fervor in the Sudan, so was it responsible for them to protect others from the Mahdi’s counter-expansion? It’s debatable, but it’s similar to the War on Terror, in which religious language is used to justify atrocities as reprisals against American involvement in the Middle East. Just as local leaders who accepted British protection from extremism were targeted by the Mahdi, so to are Western governments who support American allies in the Middle East. Whether or not the West is ultimately culpable is another discussion, but parallels to today are worth analyzing. The failure of the Mahdi to establish worldwide peace and the failure of Jesus’ second coming shows that he was truly a fraud. For this, I can’t help but give belated support to the British efforts to put down religious imperialism, whose stated goal was universal acceptance of Islam and the Mahdi’s legitimacy. Humanitarian intervention is another dimension of this movie. If the Mahdi was an obvious fraud, then it seems that the West had an obligation to put down what it already knew (or just learned) was wrong – forcible dominance over another people without their consent. It would have been easy for the Mahdi to garner support for his cause in religious terms, as well as geopolitical ones. He could have easily portrayed British involvement as neo-imperialism, as realism disguised in humanitarian language. Similar tactics have been used in Sudan today, whether Omar Al-Bashir has said that any attempts to end the genocide would be construed as Western imperialism. Overall, this film was surprisingly relevant. In a way, it resembles the struggle we have today, where Islam is being abused and its tenets are being massaged (after the Mahdi established rule, he decreed that the shahada also needed to include a belief in him as well as Allah for one to be a true Muslim. He also replaced the hajj with jihad and had books on old, outdated theology burned.). It shows that the world is not at war with Islam or Muslims, but with those who pervert it and use it for their own causes.
The movie Khartoum represents a unique perspective on the meaning of ‘holy war’ during the 19th century and the cultural differences alike. From the belly dancing and dress to the passion in their fight, Khartoum is a good interpretation of what conflicts of this nature were like, compared to today’s conflicts. An Egyptian army commanded by British officers is suddenly attacked and eventually destroyed in the Sudan in the late 1800’s. This forced the British government into complete disarray. Like many Western (European) imperial powers who have had presence elsewhere, the British did not want to fully commit themselves into an all out war in the region, however they made a promise to protect the Egyptians in the Sudan. Instead of planning an all out war, they consulted in the main man himself, General “Chinese” Gordon. General Gordon was the hero of the Egyptian people in Sudan because he ended the slave trade and also showed a deep respect for the region and people alike and embraced their culture fully. Moreover, the British government confided in Gordon to evacuate the people out of Khartoum because of his apparent expertise and cultural knowledge. Eventually, General Gordon agrees but under the condition that he protect the city as well, because he loves Khartoum. He devoted himself to protecting the people of Khartoum from the threats of the Muslim Army under Mohammed Ahmed el Mahdi, “the Expected One.” Mahdi is a violent religious murderer who massacred any woman, child, or man who did not believe in Islam. With General Gordon strongly aligned with his Christian views and lifestyle, he faces a real threat against the Mahdi. He too, prays everyday and aligns himself very strictly with his religion. When General Gordon arrives in Khartoum, he is welcomed with abundant cheers, hugs, and music. He refers to Khartoum as his home, so it is clear without explanation that he is the best candidate to lead the Sudanese people to safety and security. Although at times, Gordon’s faith is contested with conflicting views amongst his comrades, he remains true to his peaceful mission of protecting the people of Sudan. After doing a little outside research, I find it interesting that the only part of the movie that was not historical fact, was Gordon’s physical traveling to visit the Mahdi. In real life, they did not meet in person, only over letters. So, it makes me wonder how differently history would have turned out with this particular war, had Mahdi and Gordon personally met face to face. Moreover, I enjoyed this movie intensely because it emulates very closely how relations are to this day between the East and the West. Although I, personally am very open to many views and religions, I can’t help but feel like people like Mahdi are the reason there are terrorist organizations killing in the name of ‘Islam.’ The Mahdi who insists he is the chosen won, was an illegitimate leader wrongly representing Islam. He embraces those who worship with him and any other who doesn’t follow; need be killed. General Gordon tried passionately to create a common ground and mutual peace with the Mahdi, however the Mahdi because of religion and Mohammed’s interpretation of “Mahdi” itself quickly shut down his efforts. He claims prophet Mohammed “has commanded to me to make holy war …until everyone recognizes Islam…. and that all of Islam know who he is.” He threatens to kill every single person who opposes him, in the name of Islam. The Mahdi claims to have personal meetings with prophet Mohammed. Herein lie the problems that still persist today: the difference between people who read the religions texts of Islam literally versus those who read it figuratively. It is organizations like al-Qaeda that are the present day Mahdi’s from this movie. When this movie was made, relations with the Middle East were not as dominant in foreign policy as they are today, so that’s why I think this movie is a phenomenal depiction of present day radical Islamism and religious holy war and how difficult it is to deal with people who possess this irrational thought.
In the movie Arranged by Diane Crespo, we are brought into the lives of an American Muslim and Jew teacher duo and experience their interaction. Rachel, an orthodox jew, and Nasira, a Muslim, are both teachers in a public school in New York. The movie gives the viewer a personal touch and view into the 2 characters chosen lifestyles and how they deal with growing challenges of following their religious beliefs while excelling in their profession. Although both follow different religious lifestyles, the film demonstrates that there is parity between the two lifestyles and the challenges they face. The first “lesson” that we see in the movie is Rachel and Nasira teaching their students about how to accept and cooperate with everyone regardless of ethnic or cultural differences. This theme of acceptance and cooperation is a main idea that continues to present itself. The two characters are both going thru a similar process throughout the film of being young adults who are being pressured by their families to marry. The two main characters become more involved in each others lives by visiting each ones respective homes. Throughout their interactions, both Rachel and Nasira’s families do not support the friendship and try to hide their displeasures with their daughters and the friendship from local neighbors. In the end of the movie we see both characters have married happily and appear to show that their friendship is strong in that they are raising their children up together. One big theme that keeps on coming up is how the main characters (specifically Rachel) is the interaction between her religious world and the one that surrounds her every day. Her job at the school as a teacher she is constantly being pestered by the woman who is the principal to shed her religious beliefs and try to assimilate to a more modern lifestyle. There were many times where the principal would push Rachel into a state of uneasiness when she would try to get her to dress in a more provocative manner. Only when Rachel had been pushed enough did we see a retaliation reaction by Rachel that she supported her life choice and that she did not want to be told that she lived a backwards lifestyle anymore. There is also another instance when Rachel meets with her cousin who renounced her strict religious guidelines and was shunned by her own family for a life of more lax ideals. Although Rachel goes out with her cousin, she still is not comfortable with the more relaxed lifestyles of the people she meets who freely drink alcohol and also are able to touch the opposite sex. This interaction of a modern lifestyle is only something that strengthened Rachel’s religiosity and her position that she is happy with her lifestyle choices. This movie was successful in explaining its position that there can be a positive lifestyle attained by anyone who wishes to follow a more religious lifestyle in this more modern era. The identity crisis of those who decide to practice more devout forms of religion is becoming more of an issue in today’s society because they are seeing a decline in general acceptance by those around them. It is great to know that the 2 characters who decide to follow their religious beliefs are able to continue doing so in a happy way, but it appears to me that the American society is not capable of being accepting of everyone who decides to make these life choices because of both ignorance and the inability to understand why people follow religion the way they do.
In the movie Kartoum, one gets to see the makings of one of the more historical religious battles in the history of modern civilization. It brought the conflict of the Islamic world and the western societies into the modern era with imperial Britain and the remnants of the Moorish empires. Although, as pointed out by other reviews so far, the Islamic fighters are portrayed as being evil against the more angelic west, the movie still did a good job of blurring the different roles of the two by establishing that both groups were equally capable of being bad or good. It all really depended on which side of the position you took. The main separator of the groups though, was stereotypical traits of the Muslim community that incite fear that do not really portray them in a fair balanced way. Although there is this bias, the story is still portrayed as quite an epic struggle between two ideological leaders. The film’s portrayal of the Mahdi brings a large misconception about the Muslim faith and its belief system. For one, it shows him saying that he received a direct message from the Prophet Mohammad to take the Sudanese capital by force. This for one is impossible because to receive a message from the prophet after his death does not seem to be a normal thing to happen. Additionally, the Caliph is supposed to be the one who decides how the faith is to be interpreted and led. So it puts into contradiction the idea that the Caliph is the only one who can rule the faith. The other inconsistency in the movie is that the Mahdi’s use of force to take out any dissent or opposition is against the ideals of non-violence against non-believers who pose no true threat to the religion of Islam. Granted, there is a permissible violence if there is a threat to a Muslim who wishes to practice his faith, but because of the original misconception of the Mahdi, his reasoning for hi actions can only be called erroneous. The British response to the massacre that took place during the assault was to send one of its leading generals to ensure a safe evacuation of civilians and troops who were under threat by the Mahdi’s goal of overtaking Khartoum. The movie shows that even during the negotiations between the general and the Mahdi, there is unwillingness on both sides to make any concessions. One side is dealing with the position of an empires that is at that time in a general mode of conquering the entire world (Britain) and an ideologue of a man who for some reason thinks that e is a true Muslim in a jihad of sorts against all who go against his outlandish aspirations of ruling Khartoum. And so because of these two strong positions, we have quite an epic fight that will take place in which many will die because of their belief and devotion to their cause. When the battle actually takes place, the British are completely overrun and defeated. But where the movie does show the humility by the Mahdi is when the general’s head is brought before him, decapitated off the body and presented on a spear. Mahdi is outraged at this development because he had never ordered his men to do such a thing. Does the film put the Muslim side in the wrong for what happened? No, not really, because what it did show was that both leaders, although prolific still were not capable of leading their men to win the battle in a respectable way. The British lost and were completely overtake because of the general’s inability to follow orders by the military leaders at home and the army under the Mahdi used the misinterpretation of this message that the prophet apparently gave their leader as good reason to commit atrocities in the name of Islam. Could we suggest that this film has relevance to the current situation of the interaction between the global Muslim community and the western world? Probably. But the similarities are somewhat more subtle in this type of conflict. One more prominent example could be the fighting of Palestinians and Israelis over land in the Gaza Strip. Both are using their religions as a catalyst for their argument against the other that they are not the true society that should live in that area. But we also have the entrance of a more modern and western approach by the Israelis to use more sophisticated weaponry and modern diplomatic pressure by other countries to ensure that they are on top of the fighting at the end of the day. Also we have the struggle of the growing Islamic faith moving into more western societies and having to deal with injustices that unfairly target Muslims in their day-to-day life styles that abide by the rules of Islam. The issue there is that the western world, although is comprised of a mixture of many societies is against cultures who degrade it and use its ideologies as basis for violence against its people or defy the ruling governments laws. Such as what happens in France against open displays of religious symbols or the post 9/11 society in America where all Muslims are put under a microscope of vigilance. This type of modern struggle seems to be generated not from a general discontent for the Muslim community as a whole, but instead the actions of a minority who act poorly in the “name” of Islam.
"Arranged" creatively tells the story of two friends, a Muslim, Nasira, and a Jew, Rachel, who are facing the same thing - the pressure of an arranged marriage from their parents. Not only are they in the same situation, but they become friends because they are both teachers an a New York City public school. Together, they counter religious stereotypes and experience the way their religions affect every aspect of their lives.
At school, the kids have heard rumors that Jews and Muslims hate each other and want to "kill each other". They don't understand that the two of them can be friends because of their religious differences. I thought that the way they combated the stereotypes and taught the children an important message was a powerful symbol of how we can overcome religious stereotypes in society. Who we want to associate ourselves with comes down to individual choice. The character of the principal was a reminder of the ignorance that most of society has toward people who devoutly practice their religions. She tells the girls not to waste too much time on the exercise with the kids, and to focus on academics. She also claims that she doesn’t understand how these two girls can be so religious or why- she doesn’t want them to be so “serious” and “conservative,” and believes they need to move into the 21st century. She is a representation of the stereotypes that people have toward women who dress conservatively and wear the hijab, of people who are critical toward religion but do not actively try to dispel the stereotypes that they have. I liked that the movie illustrated the similarities between the girls and showed that when it comes down to it, we are all people who are experiencing the same things in life. Even though they have different beliefs and different religions, many things about them are the same. The way the dress, the way they do not drink alcohol (among other things), and their family lives, are all reminders of the fact that we are usually more similar than we are different as people. They are accepting of each other and form a true friendship, which is inspiring. One thing that bothered me, however, was the extreme pressure that Rachel especially felt from her parents. Even though both were happily married in the end and found their perfect matches through arrangement, the way they were pushing her to settle was not fair. I feel that she was a very strong character, and would be an example for most orthodox girls to follow, because I don’t think that many would necessarily have the courage to stand up to their parents the way that she did. Overall, I felt that the movie was very positive and sent a good message about tolerance, friendship, and being accepting of everyone, regardless of religion or race.
“Arranged” is a compelling film about the friendship of Rochel, an Orthodox Jewish woman, and Nasira a Muslim woman. Created in 2007, the film captures a very original story based on actual events. The two main characters seem to come from completely different worlds, but through their working circumstances they find they have a lot in common and develop a strong bond.
Rochel comes from an Orthodox Jewish family living in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn New York. Her family’s main focus is finding her a suitable spouse to marry and start a family with. Through her mother and aunt’s efforts with a match-maker, Rochel goes on a series of casual dates with potential husbands. The candidates are hardly suitable for Rochel and she ultimately begins to reject the system of match-making and marriages influenced by her family.
Nasira is a first generation American citizen from a Muslim family also living in Brooklyn. Although faith plays a major part in Nasira’s faith, she is a very open minded and well educated woman who holds her own values on the same level as her Islamic faith’s values. While she wears hijab, and respects her parents wishes to have an arranged marriage, Nasira shows a certain independence in the way she carries herself.
The film illustrates the two women’s differences and similarities very successfully. Ultimately the two find their common ground when rejecting other’s judgments and staying true to their own identities. For example in the beginning of the film the two women are at a diversity seminar for the public school they work in. The principal is going around the circle of teachers asking each person for insightful information about themselves in order to get to know them better. While other people in the group identify themselves by unimportant experiences they have had, Nasira description of herself includes her faith. She is proud of what she believes and strong to stand by it when it is in question. The principal has several interactions with the two women, where she passes judgment on their lifestyles. One particular situation involves the principal encouraging the two women to go out and buy new main stream clothes, and to break away from their conservative religion. The principal justifies herself by saying she is speaking from a feminist point of view because of her experiences with the women’s movement. However, the principals judgments are not justified, and come from a place of ignorance. Ultimately the somewhat shocking approach the principal takes towards Rochel and Nasira, draws the two women together and they strike a bond.
While Rochel and Nasira practice different religions, they both have loving and involved families, who have the same goals for their daughters. Yet, they have different levels of tolerance for the other. When Nasira goes to Rochel’s house to prepare for a lesson, Rochel’s mother becomes hysterical and asks Rochel to have Nasira leave. Rochel’s younger siblings also show and ignorance and intolerance for Nasira because of her Muslim background. At first I thought this ignorance was due to generational outlooks, but ultimately I found it to be an exclusivity from the Jewish community. When Rochel meets Nasira’s family they are welcoming mostly welcoming of her, and willing to see her point of view.
Ultimately I liked the film a lot. I was happy to see that it had less of a geo-political message, and more of a human message. The movie shows two different worlds co-existing in a city, and throughout the movie Rochel and Nasira’s friendship makes more and more sense. This could be a story involving any two cultures and it could still be successful. The message is one of personal identity, and personal choice. Highlighted in the unity circle exercise that Nasira and Rochel perfom in their classroom, personal choice drives the message of the film home. Although we come from different places with different conflicts, we are all human, and we choose to be tolerant of each other based on the character of a person rather than their background and culture. This film has many lessons to teach its viewers, and I would recommend to anyone.
Arranged is a movie that examines the lives and friendship of two orthodox women as the cope with the pressure imposed by their families to get married to men chosen for them. Rochel is the oldest daughter from an orthodox Jewish family who has just started working as a fourth grade special-needs teacher in New York. She is twenty-two and is being pressured by her family to marry various men chosen for her by her mother and aunt. Nasira is a Muslim-American who has started teaching at the same school and is also having men forced upon her by her father. At first, the women seem to not have anything in common with neither their colleagues nor each other. The sit by themselves at lunch as their secular co-workers talk about drinking and are visibly uncomfortable when another teacher reveals aspects of her personal life not appropriate for any work environment. The ignorant and insensitive principal does not make Rochel and Nasira’s situation any better with her unintentionally pejorative remarks. However, despite some gross exaggerations with regard to the secular community’s ignorance of orthodox religion and reinforcement of stereotypes, the movie addresses the relation between Jews and Muslims and the issue of arranged marriage, a topic that is rarely discussed, if ever, in a positive light. Rochel’s family is a reinforcement of the stereotypical Orthodox Jewish family: her mother and father wear traditional clothes and her brother wears a yarmulke at all times. They live it what seems to be a strictly Orthodox Jewish neighborhood and the only visitors are family or the mother’s occasional Jewish friend. When Nasira comes to visit, the mother becomes so concerned about the neighbors seeing her daughter associating with a Muslim woman and that it will “hurt Rochel’s prospects” that Nasira has to leave. We never see or hear about Rochel’s friends, her entire life seems to be her religion. Nasira’s family is a little more accepting of her new Jewish friend, but they also reinforce the Arab-Muslim stereotypes that are so common is the United States. Nasira’s father and mother dress like traditional Syrians and the house is decorated in a traditional Middle-Eastern fashion. Nasira’s father was also an Islamic scholar in Syria but now he owns a gas station. The family also lives in a Muslim neighborhood where all the women wear Islamic dress Neither family seems to not associate with many people from different religions because when Rochel and Nasira encounter each other in the park, Rochel’s brother asks if Nasira and her nephew are Jewish and is perplexed when he is told they are not The women have to suggest that the two children play together because interacting with someone outside their own religion seems foreign to them. From almost the beginning of the movie we can see that neither Rochel nor Nasira is elated by the prospect of their parents selecting a husband for them. Both women seem to have more passion for their careers than for the men their parents attempt to set them up with. Nasira’s first prospect is a man 20 years her senior from Syria. He is a friend of her father’s and visits the family one night in hopes of being the one chosen for Nasira. He eats like a pig, chewing with his mouth open, is overweight and balding, things that a 22-year-old obviously doesn’t want in a husband. She expresses these concerns to her parents and her father tells her that she must get past the physical and look at the long term benefits. When it comes to choosing a husband, her father seems to have more authority. Rochel doesn’t seem to have much more luck than her friend. He first two prospects are extreme: one is painfully shy, to the point where he can’t connect with other people and the other is too pushy, loud and intrusive. Even though Rochel keeps rejecting every man picked for her, her mother and aunt keep pushing, until she is no longer interested in finding a husband and is on the verge of abandoning the entire thing. The ignorant principal doesn’t facilitate Rochel and Nasira’s person problems with her offensive comments. On one of their first meetings, the principal is getting to know the new teachers and asks Nasira if her father forces her to wear Islam dress. At the same meeting, the principal also makes a big deal of pronouncing Rochel’s name properly and almost singles her out. It should also be noted that the principal is a secular woman. Like many of the secular characters or those who appear to not have any religious affiliation, she is a negative stereotype. She makes other remarks like “Why do you dress like that? There was a women’s movement you know”, to Rochel regarding her modest attire and “I thought your religions didn’t allow you to enjoy life”. Another woman, the mother of Rochel’s student, drops her son off wearing a rather revealing halter top. There are more negative portrayals of those with no strong ties to religion at the party that Rochel’s cousin Leah takes her to in order to show her another life. Leah is like the family escapee and has rejected Orthodox Judaism for a pair of short shorts and house parties. Rochel attends the party but can’t seem to connect with anyone. When the camera pans around the room, we can see people drinking, dancing and participating in other sorts of “inappropriate” behavior. This movie makes the real world look so dangerous, rude and scary that it’s no wonder the women want to remain orthodox. In the end, the women do end up marrying men chosen for them, however they do have some say in their own destinies. Nasira’s father listens to her concerns about marrying an older man and selects a younger, more handsome man for her to meet. Of course, it’s love at first sight for both people and Nasira wants to marry him after a few weeks of emailing back and forth. Rochel also finds love with some intervention from Nasira who delivers some information on an Orthodox Jewish man to her match-maker and this woman presents it to Rochel. Finally, both women end up happily married to Mr. Right all while still maintaining their friendship. At first, I thought that the movie would be more about the women making their own choices when it came to choosing husbands. However, the family still intervened a lot when it came to the selection process and that was a little disappointing. The blatant stereotypes became frustrating after a while because there wasn’t a character to balance them out. The friendship that developed between these two women from different religions that have been at odds with each other is the best part of the movie. I feel as though their friendship clears up some of the misconceptions people might have about Muslim-Jewish relations and shows that Rochel and Nasira have more in common than even they thought.
The idea of marriage can be a quite terrifying experience for many. The idea of an arranged marriage can be even shocking yet isolating at the same time. In the movie Arranged, nineteen-year-old film director Diane Crespo explores this maturing jump in the lives of young women from many ethnic backgrounds. While she explores this centuries-old practice, she identifies the practice, but through a new, and unusual set of lens. Crespo explores the idea of arranged marriages by comparing the practices of two different religions. We learn of the stories of Roshol Meshenberg, an Orthodox Jew, and Nasira Khaldi, a Muslim, who meet each other during an orientation program for new public school teachers. As their relationship begins to mature, we see a budding similarity between both of their fears towards their marriages. In both of their families, it is tradition for the father and mother to initiate the process for their daughter to get married with a member within their society. While both Roshol and Nasira hesitate to go along with their generational tradition, they are brought to an interesting crossroad. Both are hesitant of the practice of having their parents and family select their partner, they are still looking for their traditional place in their family, neighborhood, and society. While Roshol and Nasira go through the practice of an arranged marriage, I was shocked at the similarities between the practices of the two religions. In many regions of the world, especially in Israel and the Near East, Judaism and Islam typically collide rather than connect. Everyday, we see pictures of Israeli soldiers under guard as Muslim citizens of Palestine move through the region. This conflict is what is traditionally thought, but I would have never through of finding a similarity among an age-old traditional practice. For both of these women, they are subjected to a relative similar introduction and courting practice, which enables them to not only see similarities between their stories, but also to find a common ground above the smoke of their presupposed religious tension. While this film goes a long way identifying the commonality among Judaism and Islam, the film also identifies much of the ignorance and stereotypes that surround both of the religions and their societies. The ignorance is shown through Ms. Jacoby, the principal of Rochol and Nasira’s school. In one instance, she makes comments toward Rochol’s dress in school, and offers her money to buy some new, exciting clothes. Rochol was brought up in a society structure that values the modesty of dress. While the principal may have said that in “good faith,” it shows the extreme insensitivity and ignorance towards “different” societies that surround the American society. Overall, I though this was an excellent film. Although it had a slow start, I thought that the film did a wonderful job bridging the gap between Islam and Judaism. I would definitely recommend this film to be shown in future classes.
In the history of modern motion pictures, Hollywood is known to examine and identify many of the social norms that society exudes. Khartoum is no different. Khartoum is based off of a famous English battle along the Nile River in the Sudan. In this battle, British forces were annihilated by the native Muslim forces, led by Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad. While the film shows this classic battle, it also shows to debunk many of the disbeliefs that people hold about Islam and its people. Khartoum was filmed in 1966 by Directors Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon who eloquently described the events that led up to the Battle of Khartoum in 1885. In the early 1880s, local Islamic tribes began to rebel against the Egyptian occupation of the modern day Sudan. Following a slaughtering of troops in 1883, General Charles Gordon, who is played by Charlton Heston, is dispatched from London to Khartoum to put an end to the local rebellion, and restore British control. Upon arriving in Khartoum, he begins to fortify the city against the local troops, who are led by the fearsome Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad. As the city is fortified, civilians are evacuated, and tensions begin to flare, the Mahdi attack the city, and Khartoum falls. While I was entertained by this film, I was also surprised to see many of the misconceptions found in the movie. In my opinion, the biggest one was the depiction of Islam, especially through its personification through Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad. Ahmad, played by the famous English actor Lawrence Olivier, is depicted as a brown-faced religious fanatic who believes himself as the “expected one of Muhammad.” Based on the perception of the film, I saw Islam be portrayed not only as a religion of war-loving desert tribesmen, but a religion home to fanatical leaders who misconstrue their religion for personal gains. In the film, the Mahdi attributes the success of his military campaign to a vision he had from Mohammad. The theatrical depiction of these visions casts the Mahdi, and his Muslim followers, as crazed followers of a religious madman. References to religious fanaticism and Lawrence Olivier in theatrical “brown face,” this movie dropped the ball in depicting the Battle of Khartoum without the interwoven threads of religious discrimination. Overall, I thought Khartoum was the best movie that we viewed this year in class, and I would highly recommend it to anyone. Besides the exaggerated religious fundamentalism, I enjoyed learning about the clash of Islam and Christianity on the banks of the Nile in the end of the 19th Century. While the story is based on a battle that happened over a century ago, I saw many flashes to the modern-day relations between Islam and the Western world. Even today, many members of the Western world see Islam as a religion fueled by extremist fundamentals that preach a message of hate and destruction. While there are obviously different messages from today’s world and the world of Khartoum, the misinterpretation of Islam serves as a further step back from a more diverse and understanding society.
“Arranged” is a very well done film that is based around the friendship between Rochel, an Orthodox Jewish woman, and Nasira, a Muslim woman. Both women are first year teachers at a public school in Brooklyn, and have many things in common. Loosely based on the Executive Producer, Yuta Silverman’ own experiences befriending a fellow teacher who was a Pakistani Muslim woman, “Arranged” is very realistic and although everyone watching cannot know what it is like to be these two women, through watching the film the audience feels a part of their lives. Rochel and Nasira are both going through arranged marriages and must deal with their families’ insistence on finding their mate. Nasira is much more at ease with the process, while Rochel resists the process. However, throughout the course of their friendship Nasira and Rochel become closer bonding over the experience they are both going through. Eventually they find love matches, go to each other’s weddings, have children, and become lifelong friends. “Arranged” does an excellent job of showing the prejudices each woman faces, as they both outwardly appear to be religious. The Americans in the film are seen as loud, more promiscuous, and into alcohol as a way to contrast the traditional values of Rochel and Nasira. In particular, the school’s principal is portrayed as an ignorant idiot who gives the teachers money to “get new clothes, have a drink, and enjoy themselves”. Many people are uneducated and treat orthodox women as being not modern and repressed, which the principal is an example of. Personally, I was not aware that matchmaking was still going on in the Orthodox Jewish community, but I was not surprised by it. I was shocked though that the mother of Rochel reacted so badly to Rochel bringing Nasira over to her house. The fact that Rochel’s marriage prospects could be hurt by having her Muslim friend over shows how there is still a long way to come in the older generations. However, the tagline of “Arranged” is friendship has no religion which I believe is shown. Overall, “Arranged” does a good job of showing the similarities between Orthodox Jewish and Muslim women. In terms of values, Rochel and Nasira are very similar and relate to each other in more ways than with the other teachers at their school. The significance of “Arranged” is one of tolerance, and while the woman struggle with the difficult parts of their faiths, their love and commitment to their religions is evident.
Arranged is a heartwarming story of two young women trying to find their identity in a modern world that doesn’t always embrace the conservative ways of their traditional religions. Rochel Meshenburg is an orthodox Jewish girl living in Brooklyn. She is about to begin the traditional process of finding a husband through use of a matchmaker, or “shadchan” – a process her family refers to as “one of the most exciting times of her life.” Rochel is a special education teacher at the local school in a classroom where the teacher, Nasira Khaldi, is Muslim. One day Nasira and Rochel are both called into the Principal’s office. Their secular principal, Mrs. Jacoby, tells them that despite the fact they are two of her smartest teachers, the conservative ways of their religions are holding them back, and they are oppressed. “There was a women’s movement, you know.” She says pointedly. Both Nasira and Rochel look at one another, shocked by Principal Jacoby’s ignorance. The more time they spend with one another, the more Nasira and Rochel realize that they have a lot in common, for Nasira is also going through the process of an arranged marriage. After a particularly unfavorable suitor Rochel starts to have doubts about the effectiveness of the system. When Rochel expresses this frustration to Nasira, Nasira tries to reflect her own confidence in the system onto Rochel. She says, “God will find a way. We both still believe that, right?” This was an interesting thing to say because it clearly shows that both women still believe in God and His omnipotence, despite having two very different religions. Rochel’s failures in finding a man cause her to start to lose faith in the traditional ways of her religion. Rochel chooses to visit Leah, her midriff baring cousin who has stopped practicing the religion in the orthodox fashion. Leah takes Rochel along to a party where there is alcohol, loud music, and lots of people mingling. Rochel looks very out of place in her long sleeved shirt and conservative denim skirt down to her ankles. One boy approaches Rochel and she runs away, very obviously feeling overwhelmed. As Rochel seeks to find a place where she feels comfortable, she realizes that the type of lifestyle Leah lives is certainly not for her. She returns home, yet is still at a loss, wondering when she will find her own way. Meanwhile, Nasira’s father has found her a good match, and Nasira wants to help her friend find the same happiness. Nasira visits the shadchan and supplies her with the name of a boy that Rochel previously displayed an interest in, Gideon. The meeting is arranged, and from there it’s all history. Rochel marries Gideon, and the movie cuts to Nasira and Rochel sitting in the park, both with baby boys. This last scene further defines the similarities between Rochel and Nasira; two women from two very different religions who have somehow formed a strong and lasting friendship. The subject of this movie is an extremely pertinent topic, because we are in a time when traditional religion and the secular world of the 21st century are considered to be in direct contradiction of one another. Rochel and Nasira show us that this doesn’t have to be hard at all, and that they can remain true to their family and beliefs while still embracing their own ideas and identities. In fact, they proved that they could be confident women who were not oppressed by their conservative clothes and head scarves as the principal assumed they would be. Despite not being very religious myself, I felt I could understand both of these women and their conflicts. The movie did a good job of making the characters very easy to relate to, and I didn’t feel like the religious customs and concepts in the movie made the movie at all foreign or difficult to understand. I think that Nasira was an important foil to help develop Rochel’s character. From the beginning Nasira is confident and collected and Rochel is awkward and unsure. Rochel learns from her friend and eventually begins to trust her own instincts and gain hope for the future.
Arranged marriages are not uncommon in many orthodox religions. Usually the match is selected by the parents, a match maker, or a priest or religious leader. This movie, written and co-produced by Stephan Schaefer and co-produced by Diana Crespo, addresses this situation by showing two women embarking on this part in their lives in a Brooklyn neighborhood. The two women are both elementary school teachers in a public school. One, Rochel, is an Orthodox Jew and one is a Pakistan Muslim, Nasira.
At first, the women’s co-workers and students think these women are not friends. One of the students in Nasira’s class says that they aren’t friends because Muslims hate Jews. Nasira and Rochel dismiss this claim and decided to teach the students a way to accept everyone. They ask the students to think of one word that describes them and they all form a unity circle in class. They then review everyone’s words and as a unit they choose who they want to be in their circle of friends. It helps to teach the children not to be ignorant to other people’s cultures and this theme is prevalent throughout the rest of the movie. The main premise of Arranged is for people to understand another person’s culture and religion and accept them as similar even in their differences.
The two women eventually become close after they realize their many similarities. They both are fairly new at the elementary school. They both come from more conservative faiths. They both are somewhat different than the other teachers at the school, which is shown in the opening scene when the teachers do their own unity circle exercise. They are both also starting with the process of an arranged marriage with their families.
Rochel, the Orthodox Jew, works with her mother, grandmother, and matchmaker to find the right partner for her. She goes through many different men, who don’t really fit the perfect life partner for her. Eventually she becomes tired of the nagging by her mother, grandmother, and matchmaker and decides that she no longer wants to date. She is frustrated with not finding the right man and is not willing to settle. She confides in Nasira about her problems with the arranged marriage process and Nasira tells her to trust her intuition.
Nasira’s father is also working to find a perfect partner for her. He brings over one man, who is not Nasira’s type at all. Nasira expresses her dislike of the man to her mother. Her father then talks to her about how all he wants for her is a good family and a loving home. He then says that he will not pressure her. Eventually, her father introduces her to a handsome, successful, loving man that gives her a spark.
I found it interesting how the writers had the Muslim father be more attuned to and trusting of his daughter’s marital wishes than the Orthodox Jewish women were to Rochel’s views. Rochel’s advisors say that she is too self-absorbed. The mother even slaps her hand away when she goes for dessert at dinner stating that she has to put her best foot forward if she wants to get married. They don’t seem to be really putting Rochel’s thoughts into the marriage choices. They also mention how it is hurting Rochel’s sister’s chances by having an older sister still dating. They even take her to some kind of voodoo marriage woman who puts a red string around her arm to help her find love. I found this view to be extremely inconsiderate, overbearing and backward of Rochel’s advisors, but it might just be my view on dating. They want her to trust them because they say that the people who know you the best will find you the best partner for a lifetime.
Both women eventually find happiness with their arranged marriages. Nasira marries the man her father found and Rochel marries a friend of Nasira’s brother, who was only noticed by Rochel’s matchmaker because of some investigative work by Nasira.
The film Arranged revolves around the lives of two young women living in New York. Both are single and come from traditional families. The two meet while working as teachers in a public school. While the two women have similar experiences, what sets them apart from each other is their religion. One woman, Rochel, is an orthodox Jew. The other, Nasira, is a Muslim. The film focuses on their lives while their family’s try to use traditional means to find husbands for them, trying to set up arranged marriages for them.
This film deals with a number of issues that both orthodox Jews and Muslims have in common. One issue is the family structure. Both girls still live with their parents and seem to be trying to hold onto traditional family values. Another issue is the issue of marriage. While mainstream society does not practice arranged marriages, these two women go through this process. During the process they work through the frustrations of going through it in the modern world.
There is also the issue of religion and free choice for both of them. Both women experience push back from numerous individuals for their religious choices like going through the arranged marriage practice or wearing the hijab. In one instance in particular, the principal of the school tells them that they do not have to go through with the arranged marriage process and that they should liberate themselves as women. This illustrates the struggle that many religious people have. Many see them as being oppressed by their religion. However they are not being oppressed because it is their choice to live this way. In a sense, it is liberating for them because they were able to make the choice.
Finally, the film grapples with Jewish and Muslim relations in the US. While at the school, children ask if the two women hate each other because of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In another instance the Jewish mother is upset with her daughter for bringing a Muslim to the home, telling her that her marriage prospects would be “diminished.” I think the film really illustrates well how despite this conflict and suspicion between the two communities, friendships can emerge and there can be mutual cooperation and understanding.
I think that Arranged is a wonderful movie that tells a great story. The movie illustrates very well how two religious communities can find many similarities in a world that focuses on their differences. The movie also highlights the challenges of the modern world on those who try to hold true to tradition. Overall, Arranged paints a great picture of the dynamic nature of religion and culture in America.
The Film, Arranged, is a movie about self-identity, cultural pressures and overcoming social stigmas. The two main characters, Rochel and Nasira, meet through their teaching posts at a public school. Faced with difficult and curious questions posed by the students, as well as scrutiny and judgment from faculty peers, Rochel and Nasira are forced to face their cultural differences and work together in order to send a clear message of goodwill towards one another. Subsequently, a friendship is born, one which will see them through some of their toughest days: the rituals of arranged marriages.
Rochel, a devout Orthodox Jew struggles with her disappointing marriage prospects and her desire not to disappoint her parents. Her family, concerned with pressures from within the Jewish community, puts great pressure on Rochel to "not be picky," but Rochel is discontent to "Settle." At one point in the film, she leaves home to stay with her cousin, who had broke free from the modest lifestyle found in Orthodox Judaism. Rochel attends a modern day American party with her cousin. The party was a life-defining moment for the young protagonist. Seeing the debauchery of the liberal lifestyle reaffirms her self-identity as an Orthodox Jew and the morals and composure she cultivated through her upbringing.
Nasira, the Muslim protagonist, never seems to question her Muslim and conservative lifestyle. From the start she seems much more comfortable in her own skin, her dress and her religious identity than Rachel. Her family is determined to find the perfect husband for her, focusing on Nasira's happiness rather than pressures from within the Muslim community. In the end, her father is able to bring home an idyllic suitor for Nasira. I believe this story line will have a great impact on viewers, who might have preconceived notions and objections to arranged marriages in the Islamic faith. Often such marriages are stigmatized with ideas of dowery, social hierarchy, and women's subservience and inability to object to the decisions of their parents. The story of Nasira shows a beautiful family, parents who truly know their daughter an truly have her best interests at heart. They have raised their daughter to be strong, proud and intelligent and they actively seek to find a husband who is her equal.
The two story lines of these protagonists intertwine as the cultivate a friendship based on their common experiences, which prove foreign to the American culture in which they live. These are two strong, educated women who defy the stereotypes often associated with women of their religion. Furthermore, their unusual friendship also transcends the common stereotypes found in the world, which pits Muslims and Jews against one another. I believe that their location within America helps both Nasira and Rochel to disassociate one another from politics across the ocean. Not every person chooses to live life based on political convictions, but rather at an individual level based on tangible shared experiences with people within your proximity.
This was a beautifully scripted movie that defies traditional social rigidities. In a way, these two conservative women are more modern than their westernized counterparts because they have learned to transition against cultural boundaries and are uninhibited by social norms.
From the opening cut shots during the credits, to the closing scene of the two teachers on the bench with their baby carriages, "Arranged" was a touching and near-true-to-life depiction of a modern day American experience.
The scene of Rochel's family at dinner initially introduced the prejudices and ignorant attitudes that many characters throughout the film held. Rochel's father asking of Rochel's students "they're not all black are they?" shows the level of ignorance present in their household.
The way in which the filmmaker sequenced the scenes, Rochel's first meeting with her special-needs student, Eddie, and her first meeting with her first suitor are oddly contrasted. She is nervous for both of them, and the meeting with her student turns out much more positively. She accepts his way of meeting her, asking to touch her face to be able to picture her face, as a new and different way of perceiving the world. This is not the case with her awkward first match, who was highly praised to her by the matchmaker.
The principal is the archetypical representation of sheer ignorance and obtuseness. Her bluntness with both Rochel and Nasira is shocking when she tells them "You are successful participants in the modern world, except for this religious thing." She means this to say that the practice of their religions is holding them back. Holding them back from what? The way they choose to live does not bring harm to any other persons. Compare Rochel and Nasira to the other teachers in the school who are probably deemed "normal" and "fully successful participants in the modern world" by the principal. Are they contributing more to the "modern world" by enjoying going to nude beaches in Europe or obsessing about the engagement ring their boyfriend may have bought them? Not necessarily. Nasira and Rochel are taking advantage of American society and the benefits of the women's movement the principal speaks of having gone through. They do this in a way that is albeit different from the majority or women their age, but they have a right to modest dress and composure and the convictions of their religious practices and beliefs.
Nasira has a sense of humour that is clearly aware of her own situation, such as when her nephew and Rochel's younger brother are playing with the kite in the park and she quips, "someone should be shooting a commercial for world peace." She realizes that she does not have to be an official crusader for lofty goals such as world peace to make a difference in her community just by living her life as she does.
Both women struggle with their gender roles and identities with their religious communities, their workplace their families and themselves. Arranged marriages worked for their parents, but that was a different generation. Nasira's parents were not living in this country, and that could make the difference alone.
Rochel's cousin Leah left the community to live her life how she'd like to, and she serves as an example of how some individuals deal with their religious communities. The party scene in which Rochel's is very uncomfortable, puts her into an extreme circumstance where she doesn't know how to react. Rochel relating to and getting excited about Nasira's story about her suitor Jameel's arm brushing up against her was essentially the polar opposite of the party scene. This is one of many moments that displays the mutal understanding and emotional support that Rochel and Nasira share.
This movie poses a number of questions about what these particular women, and others like them in the United States expect of themselves, and what others inside and outside of their communities expect of them. How does Nasira's father want her to act as a Muslim woman in an American society? How does the matchmaker picture Rochel's marriage process? Other people (their parents, bosses, siblings, community members) determine some of their lifestyles, but they themselves exert autonomy over their actions throughout the film as well.
From beginning to end, Khartoum is a movie of extremes and extreme inaccuracies. The opening scene of an army marching through the desert with men and horses falling all over from thirst and exhaustion depicts the setting from the get-go as a land of harsh desperation.The white men lead the African Muslims, perhaps their slaves, into battle.The army led by the British lost, virtually every last man of 10,000 men was slaughtered, which did not uphold England's honor.
The leader of the Sudanese Muslims makes a rousing speech, appealing to Muhammad and Allah. The narrow-minded 1960's portrayal of Muslims in epitomized here. The Sudanese uprise, Egypt was dealing with it, but they actually could not. The British Prime Minister and other 'old boy' leaders decide to singularly send General Gordon, a national hero, to Khartoum. If he fails he alone will be blamed for it, not the whole of the British empire. Colonel Stewart is sent to assist Gordon, who becomes the Governor-General of Sudan, a typical colonial act on the part of the British.
Zobeir, a former influential slave-trader, was going to help but he was bitter about Gordon executing his son in his campaign against the slave trade. The men travel by boat to a city surrounded on land by uprisers. Gordon is welcomed extremely warmly. There is a full-fledged parade in his honor. Confetti is thrown all over him and children placed in his arms. The portrayal of the people is weak, with the over ecstatic greeting of their British savior. The conversation about Jesus between Gordon and Kalil again underscores the white, Christian attitude the film exudes. Gordon nearly prosyltizes the man!
In his undying love and compassion for the Sudan, Gordon refuses to leave the country to the "sickness and misery" in which he found it. This theme continues throughout the film with Stewart eventually proclaiming, "if Khartoum is allowed to die then Gordon will die along with it." Gordon even goes against the direct orders of the Prime Minister of England by remaining in the Sudan to continue the work he is so willingly and adamantly fighting. Again towards the latter end of the movie there is a celebration in the streets for the British saviors, this time the troops that have been sent in. The humorous scene that follows where the British troops are trying to get on the camels is hard to tell if it is intentionally trying to make the use of camels or the British troops themselves absolutely ridiculous.
Gordon is portrayed throughout as the hero of the good, simple, honest Sudanese people. Essentially, the movie focuses on the idealistic central character of the Gordon forced to deal with the incapacitating dirty-work of the British government. In achieving this purpose, the film blantantly side-steps and misrepresents historical information and role of Muslims in the build-up of events.
In America, the subject of arranged marriages is often fraught with stereotypes: many Americans regard arranged marriages as symbols of the patriarchal religious structure that forces unwilling young brides into marriages fraught with discontent, and, for all we know, abuse. With the film Arranged, directors Diane Crespo and Stefan Schaefer present a touching story that defies those common misconceptions. The movie gently introduces us to the nuances of choice and duty that permeate the lives of two young women—one Orthodox Jewish and the other Muslim—living in conservative families in Brooklyn. Although they come from extremely different religious cultures, the parallel struggles they face and the peaceful outcomes they eventually accept show the audience an often-untold aspect of life as an American religious minority.
Zoe Lister Jones portrays Rochel Meshenberg, a young Orthodox Jewish teacher whose subdued manner effectively conveys her sense of confusion and resistance to her family’s efforts to find her a suitable husband. Freshly graduated from college and working as an aide in an elementary school, Rochel is unwittingly brewing a crisis for her conservative family: if she ages any further without settling down with a nice Jewish boy, her mother laments, she will ruin not only her own “prospects” but her entire family’s status within the tight-knit Orthodox community. Faithful to God and to her family, Rochel accepts the traditional matchmaking practice as something that is “much safer in the bigger picture”—however, her mother’s patience grows thin as Rochel feels no instant connection with any of her suitors. It’s hard to blame her, though, as we grimace through the comical stream of unappealing suitors that her matchmaker presents to her.
Her co-worker, Nasira Khaldi, is a young Muslim woman whose father came from Syria. The two women grow a close bond as Nasira’s observant family, like Rochel’s, searches for a husband for her. A good-natured teacher, Nasira is much less resistant to the process than her Jewish friend. She seems to trust her family’s judgment, and they respect her wishes. After sifting through a few unattractive older family friends, Nasira’s family finally finds a young, successful, kind man with whom she develops an instant attraction. Although unsupervised contact between the two is forbidden before marriage, the families privately understand that e-mail correspondence will develop the relationship between them. Through Nasira, the filmmakers show what audiences unfamiliar with marriage arrangement have ever seen: an example of a successfully arranged marriage.
Through Nasira and Rochel, we also observe many of the challenges of living religiously in a secular world. Because their religious identities are so visually identifiable, the friendship that blossoms between them is received with incredulity by many of the people who surround them. The children in the women’s classroom speak the most frankly about the friendship between them (after all, kids in films are great for speaking without tact): “Jimmy was saying that you and Miss Rachel can’t be friends because you’re from different religions. Like you hate each other or something.” Jimmy’s attitude reveals the childishness of many of the stereotypes held by the greater public. Even Rochel’s family agrees with the student to some extent: her mother tells her that associating with Nasira, an outsider to the community and a Muslim no less, could “hurt her prospects”. Perhaps the one who sees the friendship most clearly is Eddie, Rochel’s blind student who clearly sees farther than many of the adults who surround him. The rapport he strikes with Rochel breaks the barrier of discomfort that still exists between Rochel and Principal Jacoby, a mature adult woman. (continued in the next post)
In making Arranged, the filmmakers effectively show how modern young professionals try to balance their religions with living in the world around them. The balancing act proves especially difficult for Rochel, who, under pressure from her family, questions leaving the community at one point. However, the filmmakers also wanted to show how world around Brooklyn’s Jewish and Muslim communities can place just as much pressure on these women. Perhaps the most direct way to do this was to introduce a character who apparently speaks for the largely ignorant masses: the women’s boss, Principal Jacoby. An aging baby-boomer, the principal believes she is helping her two employees by encouraging them to strip away their identification what she sees as backward religious cultures (“There was a women’s movement, I went through it!”). Principal Jacoby represents many Americans who just “miss the point” of the entire film: Rochel and Nasira and the women like them have the choice, and make the choice, to live as they do. Her offensive frankness toward the two young women is a recurring source of humor not only for the audience but also for the main characters, who deflect her rudeness first with offense and then with laughter.
As much as Arranged aims to dislodge our preconceived notions about conservative Jewish and Muslim women, the film in general leans toward a heavy-handed approach to theme advancement by attaching stereotypical characteristics to the rather flat characters that surround Rochel and Nasira and influence their lives. The non-observant Jews in particular—represented by Rochel’s partying cousin and the inconsiderate Principal Jacoby—leave the audience with few impressions of human beings who are both kind and secular. However, we find it very easy to sympathize with Rochel and Nasira as they live their individual lives, strengthened by the bond that has grown between them.
Arranged takes us on an amusing trip into the world of traditional,old-country arranged marriages as they are currently practiced in Orthodox and Muslim families in Brooklyn. Although humor is often the delivery technique of the underlying issues, the trials and tribulations of the two Protagonists, Rochel (orthodox Jew) and Nashira(faithful Muslim)are presented with great insight and sensitivity.
These two dedicated school teachers of different faiths, live lives very different than most people they interact with at work. Modest attire and behavior, for example, generates questions from students, mockery from their principal, and appeals to get 'hip' from a liberated female cousin of Rochel.
Both are under pressure from parents to get married. The film addresses the religious and cultural traditions of orthodox Jews and faithful Muslims, and even some of the ignorance and stereotypes that they have for each other...parents react negatively to their respective daughters having a co-worker/friend visit each other at home.
Although each family 'arranges' suitor visits differently, Rochel and Nashira interject very similar happiness concerns into the process...juggling respect for family and religion with sincere desires to have significant input into the planning of their married and adult lives.
Initially, Rochel struggles more as she deals with pushy, hard-driving 'Yentas' who approach marriage almost like Human Resources interviewers searching through resumes for a 'good hire'.
Rochel and Nashira engage in penetrating conversations about trusting parents vs choosing one's own instincts. The film gives play to mothers, fathers and oblique players...each adding empathy, or tradition, or insistence or patience. The movie very successfully illuminates how similar we all are, in spite of apparent superficial differences.
As we have read, seen and heard throughout the semester, Christianity, Islam and Judaism share a majority of their religious foundations. 'Arranged' reminded me that culture and tradition can push us away from each other, when in fact, commonality of faith, when recognized, can bring us back together.
Rochel and Nashira were friends, co-workers and maturing young women dealing with their upcoming lives as wives and mothers. Covered heads and long dresses never covered up their genuine respect and affection for each other. They had de-coded what it takes to be fulfilled, happy women in Orthodox Jewish and Muslim communities while functioning successfully in the bigger world of secularized Brooklyn. They were smiling in a park at movie's end, with babies in tow. I was smiling too for 'Arranged' had successfully captured religious, cultural, family, and personal values and placed them as complimentary endeavors in Rochel's and Nishira's lives.
If only male military,political and spiritual leaders could learn to juggle the challenges of life so peacefully and respectfully.
Arranged was a great film. I would really have enjoyed this film even if I were to have watched it outside of class. Arranged is a story about Rochel and Nasira. These two women are teachers at a school in New York City. Rochel is a devout Jew and Nasira is a devout Muslim. Their boss, a loud-mouth Christian cannot understand the two of them and often makes insulting comments. The girls have a nearly instant friendship but they soon realize that more people than just their boss do not understand them. Rochel and Nasira decide to meet at Rochel's house one day to discuss class and Rochel's mother was almost mortified to see a Muslim in her house. Rochel was very embarassed but Nasira understood and quickly left. They decide to go to Nasira's house next. Her parents seemed a bit surprised as well but were much more understanding. Rochel and Nasira's parents are both extremely devout to their religion and see arranged marriages as the only way to find a husband for their daughters. The movie became a bit comical while the two women met various men. Each women went through various duds but they eventually find men that they seem to fall in love with. The film ends with Rochel and Nasira taling in a park with their babies, eluding to a "happily ever after" ending. The movie was a great way to portray arranged marriages. Many people do not believe that arranged marriages still exist or that they work. This movie shows that arranged marriages are still very real and that in fact, they can work out. Overall I would give this movie an A. It got the point across in a way that made you want to keep watching. I really enjoyed it.
In a modern society, many people find comfort in their traditions but are also somewhat alienated by it and tempted by new and different experiences. “Arranged” tells this story of two young elementary school teachers, Rochel who is Jewish, and Nasira who is Muslim, who overcome prejudice and adversity to find happiness in “Arranged” marriages. Rochel adheres to Orthodox Judaism. The older women in her life cover their heads in veil, and she dresses very conservatively. While in school, she speaks meekly. Attempting to adhere to her traditional values, she is trying to find a husband through a matchmaker named Miriam; however, her initial dates are less than successful. As more and more prospects are turned down, her mother and the matchmaker become increasingly concerned for her chances. The tension comes to a head when Rochel’s mother attempts to put pressure on her by claiming the father’s health is suffering for her pickiness. Rochel leaves and spends some time with her older cousin who opted for a more modern lifestyle – something not received well by her family. From there, she is taken to a party where she is confronted by drugs, sex, and alcohol, which she is unaccustomed to being around. A young man named Matt Cohen approaches her and tries to make her feel welcome and included. He gets her a drink and asks her to dance, but Rochel panics and flees the party. While on the subway, she consoles herself by reading from a holy book. Her family takes her to a woman who will “help answer her prayers” through traditional ritals. Later, while working with Nasira in the library, they find Nasira’s brother Ahmed studying with an Orthodox Jewish man named Giddeon. Rochel is smitten, but is unable to approach him as she must work through Miriam to find any prospects. Nasira, eager to help her beleaguered friend, poses as a student in a journalism class to collect Giddeon’s information, which she later gives to Miriam while in disguise. Miriam organizes a date for Giddeon and Rochel, and while on the date Rochel realizes that Nasira was behind setting them up but keeps it to herself. Rochel is one of the more interesting and deep characters in “Arranged”. It is clear that she does not totally embrace the culture that she grew up with, emphasized with her flight from home and the doubts she expresses about the process of matchmaking. Through Nasira’s encouragement, she sticks with it, and it is truly only after Nasira intervenes with Miriam that Rochel finds happiness. When she discovers Nasira’s meddling, she also accepts it. If Rochel truly desired to find a husband through Miriam, she would have exposed the truth behind their meeting. Since she did not, she cared more about the individual – the man that she had a crush on – instead of the process through which her parents found each other. Nasira embraces her cultural traditions far more than Rochel does. It is clear that Nasira is not under nearly as much pressure. While Rochel’s parents declare her waiting for Mr. Right “not an option”, Nasira’s father, though a little annoyed, does not place pressure on her to choose quickly. Late for one of her dates, something that was surely reprimandable, she was forgiven and indeed, ended up marrying Jamil. While Rochel embraced marrying a man that she found herself, allowing Nasira to force the necessary procedure, Nasira was more than content marrying a man that her father picked out. Indeed, throughout the movie, Rochel was unsure of finding happiness in this way but Nasira offered words of encouragement, pointing to the success of their parents in finding happiness through this manner. (Part 1/2)
Part 2/2 The principal of the school also proved to be an interesting character. Declaring herself a modern woman, she appears to be driven, self-fashioned, and supposedly open-minded. Her idea of accepting other cultures and ways of life, however, is ridiculing the choices made by Nasira and Rochel. She is constantly encouraging them to have fun through partying, despite their religious convictions, even going so far as to give them money from her pocket to buy a new wardrobe and drink. The principal seems to think that they have been forced into an “Arranged” marriage through some sort of patriarchal oppression, and this comes to a head in the hallway when Rochel shouts that she chose this way of life. Though many people hold the view that “Arranged” marriages don’t belong in today’s society, the principal is an obnoxious and ignorant characterization. One can question the extent to which Rochel truly chooses to find a husband through Miriam. Considering the childhood indoctrination she received at a young age, combined with the dire consequence of being cut off from the family members she loves, she may be choosing this lifestyle under duress. Judging from her willingness to let Nasira circumvent the process, it seems likely that she would not want an “Arranged” marriage if family pressures didn’t exist. Indeed, family pressure and communal pressure seems to govern much of her life. When her mother returns to the house and finds Nasira there, she essentially kicks Nasira out, worried what the neighbors might think. Rochel relents and escorts her friend out. A similar pressure is exerted on Nasira at her home, but she does not cave to her brother’s prejudice. While I found “Arranged” to be an entertaining view into the home-life of religiously conservative young women, I think that it falls far short of making its desired point. The gross mischaracterization of the anti-arranged marriage argument, characterized in the principal, sets up a straw-man argument that the movie proceeds to ridicule and easily destroy. Meanwhile, the parallel story of Nasira and Rochel has even more interesting implications. We are shown that both of them are happily married with children at the end, but also arrive there through different means. Nasira lived in an arguably more relaxed setting than Rochel did, able to resist familial pressures when Rochel visited, and experiencing little pressure in comparison when holding out for a good match. “Arranged” paints a very amiable picture of arranged marriage within Islam. The counterpart in the story, arranged marriage in Judaism, is depicted through Rochel’s long, drawn out, tense, and unfruitful search. The discussions Rochel has with her mother focus almost exclusively on her inability to choose a husband, saying that Rochel is not considering the big picture by not settling for one of the obviously undesirable matches. Rather than let the institution of arranged marriages fail, “Arranged” sets up the Deus Ex Machina of Nasira. When Rochel finds a cute guy on her own, Nasira does the legwork for God and sets them up through Miriam. If it had not been for this last minute skirting of “the rules,” Rochel may have abandoned her traditionalism rather than face the prospect of spending her life as an old maid. Fortunately, Rochel had the religious flexibility to accept this desirable outcome and pretend as though she is another success story for arranged marriages. From here, it seems that “Arranged” jumped to the conclusion that arranged marriages are an acceptable cultural norm and that they should be more accepted in the mainstream. Rather, if Giddeon or Rochel’s family knew how they were arranged, Rochel would find herself divorced and disowned – something that “Arranged” alludes to but never tackles. If “Arranged” had confronted these issues appropriately, it would have made for a much more compelling case for arranged marriages than it currently does.
Khartoum was a fascinating movie made even more fascinating by the period in which it was made. The first thing that struck me as odd was the choice made to cast the leading Sudanese roles as white men in black face paint. As I was to learn, Khartoum is a movie that does not waste time dividing the good, the bad, and the helpless and certainly does not toy with political correctness. The movie opens with a massive army of 100,000 men commanded by a british officer William Hicks – hired by the Egyptian government. Hicks followed the Mahdi and his army on and on through the desert, maintaining British discipline by beating back the dehydrated men from water. Finally, when the army could go no more and Hicks could only see desert for miles, he turned his army around. As he did, the Mahdi sprung his trap and Hicks was ambushed, his army destroyed, and the Mahdi captured more guns including heavy artillery. The huge crusader army led by Guy de Lusignon on July 4th, 1187 experienced such an ambush at the Battle of Hattin where they were crushed by Salah al-Din and his forces. Salah al-Din went on to capture Jerusalem. The Mahdi began to make his way to capture Khartoum. Back in Britain, some high-ranking government officials, including the Prime Minister, deliberate what to do about the troubling situation in the Sudan. Doing nothing does not appear to be an option, as they have a moral obligation to Egypt to maintain stability and a vested interest in the Suez Canal. Their answer comes in the form of a man: Gordon! Send Gordon, they say! Gordon, of course, being the loose cannon British officer who ended slavery in the Sudan some years prior and has been a pain in the royal neck ever since. Not wanting to spend money and wishing to get rid of Gordon, they plot to set him up for failure by requiring him to raise his own army. When asked why Gordon will go back to Khartoum especially when it is such an obvious ploy to get rid of him, Gordon responds, “I have my own reasons.” This is especially intriguing considering he plans to install a former slave trader who hates him into power in Khartoum after he leaves. Upon his arrival in Khartoum, there is a huge welcome waiting for him. Crowds come out to see him and everyone is shouting that Gordon is back! Almost condescendingly, Gordon walks through the streets of this town with a paternal attitude to these people, picking up children and waving to the crowds. Of course, he is modeled as an English gentleman that only desires peace and love. He struggles with his religion, wrestling with deep thoughts of faith. He is depicted as pious and freethinking. In contrast, this seems to place him as an enlightened, Western individual amongst ignorant, backwards Muslims worshipping their “Lord Mohammad”, as though he was the Muslim equivalent to the “Lord Jesus Christ” who Christians believe was a literal God, part of the triune sent to Earth. In contrast, the Mahdi is bloodthirsty and irreverent, abusing his position of power and really only desiring to kill Egyptians. Meanwhile, back home, the British people have become enamored with Gordon and his noble quest to save the people of Khartoum from the violent tyranny of the Mahdi. While preparing the defenses of Khartoum, Gordon even condescends to the local military. Talking as one would to a child, Gordon explains the ditch and gun plans to a local commander, playfully telling the officer “off you go!” when he was finished talking with him. Whilst the nobility of Khartoum panics and wants to flee, Gordon once again comes out on top by being the fearless commander. (part 1/2)
(Part 2/2) This movie truly centers on the British, rather than the people of Khartoum in the midst of this tragedy. The main tension of the movie is the British struggling with what they see as their moral obligations to less fortunate people. The entire conflict, and the British intervention, is viewed as their duty to stop them from killing each other, as a parent would break up quarrelling children. The secondary conflict is the substory of Gordon’s personal life. Gordon soliloquizing about his internal religious strife constantly punctuates the film. In contrast with the undoubting, fraudulent, and power hungry Mahdi, Gordon appears the ideal of the modern thinking man. Gordon’s relationship with the people of Khartoum is also offensive. The man ended slavery in the region and supposedly kicked out the slave traders, such as the one he wanted to install as ruler. This casts the people of Khartoum as childish and incapable, constantly requiring Western and more frequently, British help to bring them into the new age. I found Khartoum to be an offensive film, full of bias, racism, and ignorance – a tale of a British Officer and a Gentleman sent to save a city of incapable natives from an army of bloodthirsty savages. If I were Egyptian, Sudanese, or Muslim, I would be far more offended at the way such people were portrayed.
SYNOPSIS: "Arranged" centers on the arranged marriages of Rochel Meshenberg, an Orthodox Jewish woman, and Nasira Khaldi, a Muslim woman, their experiences, and the friendship that blooms as a result. These two meet as first-year teachers at an ethnically diverse public school in Brooklyn, New York. Defying stereotypes and outward pressures from each of their families, their respective communities, and their workplace, they embark on a loving, supportive friendship that lasts them a lifetime.
ONLY IN AMERICA? The setting of a piece is always important because it influences the way that the plot unfolds. The degree of friendship that Nasira and Rochel experience is due to the fact that it blossomed in a society such as America’s. Both Nasir and Rochel, due to their religious and traditional upbringing, were brought up as minorities in American society. The fact that the setting of the movie is America is integral to the success of their friendship. If it were to take place in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Israel, their friendship would immediately be a question solely of Jewish versus Muslim and wrapped up in politics. That is not to say that their friendship was not surprising to those around them. Rochel’s family was uncomfortable with the friendship. Furthermore, the children at the school where Rochel and Nasira taught, not old enough to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict but old enough to repeat and be affected by viewpoints of those around them, asked the two women how they could be friends, and, furthermore, why they weren’t trying to kill one another at that moment. However, through explaining to the children that each and every one of us has the ability to choose our own friends based on their qualities and character and regardless of other’s opinions, Nasira and Rochel start to become friends. Since neither is in the mainstream society, they can both bond over their feelings over their common place in society – being “the other” – and focus on counting their similarities instead of counting their differences.
SECULAR v. TRADITIONAL/RELIGIOUS The role of secular v. traditional/religious plays a large role throughout the movie. Nearly every character can be put on one of the sides, with maybe the exception of Rochel’s cousin, who has lived in and understands both of the camps, and she supports whichever decision Rochel chooses. The headmaster most definitely can be put in the secular category. She expresses her (unquestionably rude at times) secular views even from the beginning with her remarks about Nasira’s headdress. The headmaster comments on most of the things that the two girls do, including the way that they dress, their participation in their parents’ marriage arrangements, Rochel’s decision to partake in traditional Jewish “witchcraft,” and their willingness to pursue traditional female roles. She reminds them that this is the twenty-first century, and she hates to see them get married off because she will lose two of her best teachers. On the other side of the argument are Rochel’s mother and aunt, who adamantly insist on using the intermediary in order to find a suitable suitor for Rochel and push her to follow tradition. This results in Rochel’s internal struggle, which exemplifies the real struggle of the movie: a secular life versus a traditional/religious life. She tries to experiment, to dabble in the tempting secular world that her cousin has since fallen in love with, but she immediately comes to find the outside world much too intimidating and foreign to her seemingly sheltered upbringing. However, Nasira is much more comfortable in her own skin and seems to embrace the process, reassuring Rochel by saying that “it worked for our parents, and they’re happy. It will work for us.”
PERSONAL THOUGHTS: All in all, I really liked the movie. I recommended it to all of my friends immediately after having seen it. Like most of Americans, I am unfamiliar with the process of arranged marriage. What was great to see is that both girls had a somewhat of a choice in whom they married; that it, at least it wasn’t arranged at birth. And even though my secular, western side was rooting for Rochel and Nasira to defy the traditional female roles required after marriage and childbirth, it was good to see that they were at least happy with their lives and that they had each other as life-long friends. Admittedly, it was definitely hard to shake that little voice in the back of my western, secular head that whispered, “they don’t know what they’re missin’….”
I thought Arranged, written and directed by Stefan C. Schaefer with co-director Diane Crespo was an interesting portrayal of the younger, Americanized generation of the ultra-orthodox that held some enlightening themes. Arranged documents the budding friendship of two young women in their twenties, one Muslim, and one Jewish, that meet while teaching at a school in Brooklyn, New York. I think Schaefer does a good job depicting orthodox life in Brooklyn. Both girls hold their religious identity close to their heart, and in doing so, realize how much in common they both have and are able to join together to ward off the ignorance and intolerance that surrounds them.
The plot of the movie centers on the two young girls, Rochel and Nasira, as they are both looking to get married. In orthodox culture, both Muslim and Jewish, it is tradition to have an arranged marriage. The similarities are striking, but there are also some differences as to how the marriage is arranged. As in Muslim tradition, Nasira’s is father in charge of finding a man for her. She is not allowed to go and see any man on her own; she is only allowed to choose from the men her father brought home for a dinner with the whole family. In contrast, in orthodox Jewish tradition, a matchmaker is sought for the arrangement of marriages. The matchmaker sets Rochel up with different boys from the community who are looking for wives. Because of the similarity of their situation, which is surely an awkward time to go through without a friend to vent to, the girls bond over their journey of finding the perfect man for a happy marriage.
Even though this movie is not about straight out anti-Semitism or Islamiphobia, both are main themes. The first character to point out for her ignorance of anything she doesn’t understand in general is the principal of the school where Rochel and Nasira work. She is neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Muslim; she just seemed to be against religious traditions that weren’t her own. Throughout the whole movie, she is nothing but offensive to both girls. At one point, she told them to “come into the twenty-first century” and tried to give them money for new clothes- as if the only reason Rochel and Nasira wore modest clothing was because they couldn’t afford anything else. She tells them to relax, and “have a drink,” completely uncaring of Nasira’s abstinence from alcohol because of her religion. She does not even pretend to want to try and understand why Nasira and Rochel act and dress as they do. Each time the girls try to explain some aspect of their religion to her she dismisses it with something even more offensive.
I think the principal represents an unfortunately high number of Americans today. Instead of trying to understand people’s choice of religion, as Nasira and Rochel do when they discover that the long-term conflict between Muslims and Jews is a farce and can be overcome by learning about the “other”, most people rather just remain ignorant. It is a sad fact that depresses me daily, but most Americans would rather just conclude that all Muslims are terrorists and all orthodox Jews are stuck in the days of the Bible. Until people like the principal in this movie reform their ignorant views of people and religion, conflict, anti-Semitism, and Islamiphobia will always remain.
Other examples of refusing to understand the “other” religion are Rochel and Nasira’s parents. Their reaction to the girls’ friendship shows the difference between the younger and older generations of Muslims and Jews in America. When Nasira comes to Rochel’s house, her mother is beyond rude, saying that Rochel better ask Nasira to leave before her father gets home. When Rochel goes to Nasira’s house, there is also a sense of uneasiness about the visit. It is a shame that this is the case. It is common for their parent’s generation to not have much contact with people not of their own religion. In the case of Rochel’s family, they have always lived in a secluded community of Orthodox Jews. The area where she lives in the movie is probably in or around the Crown Heights area of Brooklyn, which is composed of a few blocks of only very religious Jewish families. They all go to the same schools, synagogues, and eat at the kosher restaurants in the area. The ultra-orthodox Jews in a community such as this do not interact with other people, never mind Muslim families. It is more likely than not that a family such as Rochel’s has never actually met a Muslim person in real life, and therefore all they would know about Muslims is what they hear- that all Muslims hate Jews. This unfortunately explains Rochel’s mother’s uneasiness at having a Muslims girl in her home. The same would probably be true of a family such as Nasira’s, who are probably first- generation Americans. If they immigrated to America from a Muslim country, they have never known what it is like to be around people of other religions. This would especially apply to Jews, whom they would surely hold their grievances against when they have always been sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians in Israel.
I think that the story of Nasira and Rochel’s friendship is a very important one to remember and take to heart. As I have noticed while studying both Jewish and Islamic cultures is that like Nasira and Rochel discover the two religions have many traditions and cultural aspects that are similar. Instead of fighting between the two groups, there should be more of an understanding of where the other is coming from especially in their religious beliefs. In preserving their modesty, finding their husbands, and in dealing with the ignorance and preconceived notions of their parents and boss, Nasira and Rochel find a bond in their struggle to keep their religious identities strong in a place as secular as New York City. Viewers of this movie could learn from their friendship and know that there is hope for understanding and companionship between Muslims and Jews. Peace between the Muslims and the Jews world wide will most likely begin their bearings in America, where the melting pot of cultures forces interaction. Someday, like Nasira and Rochel, future generations will realize the mistakes of their elders and hopefully institute change, bringing about the peace that has taken too long to arrive.
Khartoum, directed by Bssil Dearden and Eliot Elisofonand written by Robert Ardrey follows the story of English General Charles George Gordon. Gordon, a devout Christian, is appointed military governor of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan by Prime Minister Gladstone. Ordered to evacuate Egyptians from the Sudan, General Gordon stays on to protect the people of Khartoum, who are under threat of being conquered by a Muslim army. His Christian faith and military command are challenged by Mohammed Ahmed el Mahdi, "the Expected One," the head of the Muslim forces.
Throughout the film Muslims are demonized and illustrated as murderous and brutish. Watching this film I almost felt some parralels to the Roman Empires depiction of "barbarians". This idea was exemplified in the last scene in the film, where the Muslim army proudly presents the head of Gordon on top of a pike. Throughout history only the most brutish and usually uncivilized have utlized the imagery of heads on a pike (such as any old Indiana Jones film).
There were also many similarities between Gordon and Mahdi. Mahdi was illustrated as a harsh leader ruled by his religious passion versus rationality. Much can be the same for Gordon. Gordon constantly prayed while he initiated marshall law within Khartoum. More specifically when Gordon ordered the death a man who stole and sold the towns food supply. Also, much as many people believed Mahdi to be magical, many people believe Gordon to be the same. His popularity within Khartoum was immense and Gordon was seen as a man who could do no wrong. This was illustrated as Mahdis armies stormed Gordons base. The Muslim army stood around Gordon in a circle waiting for something to happen, when finally a spear was thrusted into Gordons chest, proving he is merely human.
As I reflect on Khartoum, a sweeping desert epic in the vein of Lawrence of Arabia, I must continually remind myself that the film itself comes from a very different period than I know: the 1960s. A depiction of Britain’s response to the late-1800s Mahdi rebellion in Egypt-occupied Sudan, the film appeals to me less as a vehicle for entertainment and more as a stylized time capsule containing many of the popular stereotypes that existed in American popular culture before I was born. As such, Khartoum is, at its core, a very “Sixties” film. Most of the ingredients are there: a slightly distorted historical narrative, a wealth of offensive stereotypes, brownface, and Charlton Heston.
Somehow, the film plows over many of the historical and religious origins of the mahdiyyah revolt that occurred in Sudan in 1881 while including every other inane historical detail or dramatic fabrication that might have occurred on the British side of the conflict. The Mahdiyyah uprising was very much an expression of Sudanese disapproval of the oppressive presence of Egyptian troops in the Sudan. Strategically financed by Britain, Egyptian officers frequently imposed high taxes on their Sudanese subjects. Muhammad Ahmad, a Sudanese scholar of the Qur’an, took local anger toward the Egyptians and channeled it into a movement of revolt combined with Islamic revival. The idea of a “Mahdi” derives from a popular variant of Shi’a Islam that is sometimes called “Twelver” Shi’ism. According to this doctrine, the twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, disappeared in the year 874 but did not die. Believers expect the twelfth Imam, currently hidden by God, to return to the earth and to fill it with justice sometime before the Day of Judgment. In 1881, Muhammad Ahmad declaration that he was the Mahdi, or Expected One, grew him a religious following based on purification of Islam and asceticism to counter what they perceived as the corrupted Islam of Egypt. His defeat of General Charles “Chinese” Gordon’s army resonated throughout the Muslim world as an example of a local Islamic rebellion successfully ousting imperialist occupiers.
However, Hollywood clearly sees the violence differently. In the film, the conflict is depicted through the tortured eyes of the British General Gordon, the heroic and unselfish would-be savior of Khartoum. Perhaps the military ‘maverick’ of his own time, he has devoted his life to protecting the Sudanese people, who greet him with flower petals, fanfare, and a young child to carry around as he assures them that he will do all that he can to protect them in the face of the nefarious Mahdi. General Gordon is a valiant Christian soldier and a Christ figure all rolled into one, sacrificing himself for Sudan in a final symbolic gesture that defies all subtlety. Sir Laurence Olivier seems to relish playing the sinister and bloodthirsty Mahdi to counter Heston’s tragic hero Gordon. While the Mahdi and his Muslim cohorts are depicted as savage killers who are more than eager to slaughter 35,000 innocent lives in Khartoum, orientalist romantic Gordon is determined to save their lives even as the British army offensive crumbles around him.
Although the content of the plot can be quite compelling at some points, the subtext of the film’s narrative provides the modern audience with much insight into the cultural and religious stereotypes that prevailed when the film was made. The perceived simplicity of Khartoum’s local Muslim population is perhaps best expressed through the character Khalil, Gordon’s dark-skinned sidekick. For instance, in one scene, Khalil muses about how he does not understand Jesus Christ, to the apparent pity and amusement of the 1966 audience. Not only do the filmmakers expose their partiality for racial stereotypes here, they also reveal their lack of awareness of about Islam as a religion. The other Muslims in the film receive worse treatment, as they are portrayed as murderous masses of religious fanatics blindly following the Mahdi’s orders.
Despite its overcomplicated plot, overdramatic acting, and many oversimplified characters, Khartoum still present some engaging moments, and indeed, I found myself staying the ten minutes after class ended to see how it ended. However, the entertainment value of Khartoum extends far beyond the plot; some of the stereotypes of Muslims it portrays are simply laughable.
Arranged is a movie about breaking stereotypes and bringing different religions together. Ok so it has prestigious critic reviews and maybe it was because of the subject matter, but lets be real the film itself is predictable, you said review right? This is a predictable hallmark, lifetime-made-for-TV movie at its best. If I were in a film class, I would think it is a cheesy film with clear predictability. These ladies are idealistic and the film, I mean its not real life a film of such cheesy and predictability is almost not enough to endure it. However, it got laughs and moments of whoa stereotypes and perhaps even broke some stereotypes to the American soul that maybe saw it because there was nothing else on, I mean if sports were not on TV.
There are two teachers, Rochel and Nasira one Jewish and one Muslim. They are living very traditional lives and are being set up by there parents to find love or a husband at least you know someone your compatible with. Isn’t that important I mean doesn’t love just come secondary? I mean, he has to be a good provider; a suitable match ya know and the parents have to accept him. Does he have a good background? Is he from a good family? Will he make a good family man and provider? After all the parents, want the best for their young ladies.
So scenario Muslim young woman, Jewish young woman meet and become friends and oh look at all the misconceptions that take place once this strange union takes place. Even the students ask, ‘Don’t the Muslims hate the Jews?’ They broke the mold with this friendship. Its as if to say to the viewer ‘see we don’t hate each other we see each other for who the other is, tolerant and caring as human beings ought to be seen and viewed. How naïve we are if the world was as rosy as these two. But what an overly sweet friendship that occurs and the Jewish mother is shocked at what the neighbors might think that the Muslim girl came by the house. Who are these people and what is the big deal?
Oh and after failed set up after failed stereo typical typecast setup to make the men look appalling boring neurotic and undoubtedly moronic was so over the top which I guess is the point and it just so happens that the women meet there perfect matches by films end. How rosy it is to see the new mothers a year later with their children in tow. Happily, ever after, the boss was a hoot suggesting the Muslim woman dress modern and to take off the Hijab while the orthodox Jew dress more revealing. The orthodox Jewish teacher did try to experience the life of a non-orthodox Jew and went to a party where there was drinking and mingling between the sexes hosted by her cousin. This was a true moment in the film where her vulnerability and her absolute commitment to God and her tradition, shown through making her transparent. This was not her environment she tried it just to see as she was confused and felt shaken in her Orthodox religion as this was the truest moment of the film to be, in a peaceful way with a clean life to know that corruption exists and she want to be far from this corruption.
Now let me speak less cynically and say this, to cross barriers in the cultural and religious divide is a poignant reminder of how many can be close without the stereotypes that go along with it. I mean why is it even a movie when, I myself have friends of many different cultures and religious backgrounds, I mean why is the Jewish mother worried about what the neighbors will think? Oh, but I am not Muslim nor am I Jewish so then I must not understand what there plight is? I mean there was the Holocaust, oh and then the Israeli-Palestinian thing. Ok but this is America one big melting pot, isn’t the notion to get along with your neighbor. Aren’t we supposed to have our white picket fences and freshly cut green grass and wave hi to our next-door neighbors? If it were that simple.
I think, in part the movie had some exaggerations to say the least but a point was made, this point was not for me a Gentile in the realm of religion but this point was directed at the audience in which the roles were the stars. Hmm, is it really true that they don’t get along? But we are doctors, lawyers, teachers, social workers. Ah yes, we do get along it’s the fundamentalists extremists pious ones that mess it up for the rest of us.
Arranged is a movie about the tension between tradition and modernity arising when a Jewish woman and a Muslim woman begin the customary process of finding a husband. The movie is definitely a chick flick, but it does hold a highlight a few important points.
The most important point centers on the friendship between the conservative Muslim and the orthodox Jew. Despite the difference in religion, the girls have more in common than they have different. For instance both women feel out of place when the other teachers discuss their more “liberal” lifestyles, including drinking, partying, and dating. In addition, the friends both encounter some few less than stellar prospects on their quests to finding the right guy. These similarities forge a lasting friendship for both women as they begin their families.
Another theme of the movie is highlighted as both women face the pressures from being between tradition and modernity. Raqala especially defends her religion and traditions against the school principal, while herself questioning the necessity of these very traditions in front of her family and community. While definitely a chick flick, Arranged puts across some important themes regarding the complexities of living between modernity in tradition.
Arranged is a character-driven independent film which aims to promote religious diversity and tolerance by focusing on the growing friendship between two devout young women who practice religions that appear diametrically opposed. Set in Brooklyn, the protagonists are Rochel, an Orthodox Jew, and Nasira, a conservative Syrian-American Muslim. The two meet in a Brooklyn public school where both are new teachers beginning their first year, and slowly discover that they have many things in common as they both struggle to cope with the stress and pressure of their respective families’ marrying them off. In Orthodox Judaism, women are expected to marry while they are young and find suitable husbands with the help of a local matchmaker, who provides names and information on potential Jewish men in the area. In more conservative Islam, women are also expected to marry while they are young, but potential men are presented by the father.
This movie presents common stereotypes about Islam and Orthodox Judaism, sometimes via the outspoken principal of the school who consistently makes ignorant and insensitive comments like, “There was a women’s movement, you know.” Her character epitomizes the misconceptions many Americans have about Islam and Orthodox Judaism. Arranged beautifully shows the similarities between the two religions and demonstrates to viewers how modern young women who practice these religions can do so within the Western and secular context. The film took an interesting and comical turn when Nasira and Rochel both refused to marry the men that were presented to them. It was refreshing to see this movie depict devout women who do have a say in choosing their husband, challenging the stereotype that all orthodox Jewish and Muslim women are oppressed and must marry whomever their families choose.
Although predictable, this charming movie is entertaining as it takes viewers into a world not well-understood. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this movie was written and directed by a man, Stefan Schaefer, because he did a wonderful job in portraying the lives of two strong modern and conservative women living in a western and secular city and capturing the emotional rollercoaster that Nasira and Rochel face daily as they struggle to reconcile their religious and secular values. The actresses who played Rochel and Nasira did an excellent job conveying the emotions of their characters, like whenever they subtly diverted their eyes in awkward situations. Overall, Arranged is an excellent independent film that I highly recommend to everyone.
The movie does a great job of entertaining, most importantly emphasizing the complications that two women face regarding their certain lifestyles and also their inner struggles to claim an identity in this ever so corrupt world. Please take in mind, I have been reading some of the posts, and honestly this movie was not for the realists. The main conflict in this film is the struggle for identity between traditional and today’s misconception of dating. The thing is in religion you do not have dating. You have marriage only, there is no in between. Rochel says that “she is not willing to settle for a man that she does not feel any kind of connection with”. Honestly, does anyone want to settle with a man who they have connection with. It never works that way.
Today people want to be happy but if you ask your grandmother what was important she would tell you “it is if the man was able to take care of her womanhood and provide for my future children” It is not that relationships have changed. It is women. To look at this movie and think that it is about arranged marriages is a silly, silly, silly, and silly. It is more about women empowerment, being able to choose. The movie shouldn’t have been titled arranged, but rather INCLINED! Rochel’s mother thinks that settling would be much better than ending up alone, and do you blame her. Any woman should feel this way. Honestly most women to day have to settle. The thing with men is that there is a catch.
The problem with many peoples perception is that everyone is blaming the traditional way of doing it, like placing blame on the mother, when truly it is the men who have no idea how to act around women. The interest of traditional men is to please their family by getting married. It is the next step and in many peoples worldview this is the case. The movie is evidently about Rochel coming face to face with life decisions. One thing that I do agree with the movie and is very realistic. As I was watching I noticed a woman, a woman who works, a woman who is independent from her family, but for her not to realize the world is quite different from religious tradition is completely naive. She is pushed to an edge when she finally stands up to the school principle and exclaims, “Who are you to judge whether our system of dating is better than getting drunk and sleeping around?”
Once again, this movie made me feel quite noxious. Rochel is once again acting childish, believing that the constant mockery of the school principle was aimed at her religious belief, but also Rochel acts in ignorance. To honestly believe that sleeping around is what women do to date; it is traditional people who feel this way. It is quite evident in the real world that when you speak to anyone in this manner you will get a similar response. She does manage to find a husband using the traditional system. Nasirah trusts in the traditional matchmaking system as well. She says, “Our parents got married this way, and it worked for them. They’re happy. It will work for us too.”, another misconception with marriages. When she said this I almost cringed with disgust. It is like saying my grandfather was married for sixty years, so that means I will never have a divorce. It is absurd to think this way.
While the shortcomings of this movie are noticeable especially when it comes to finding a balance between truthiness and false misconceptions its basic point is conveyed clearly. Rochel and Nasira are two American women just trying to live their lifestyles. While, challenges portrayed in this movie may be different from what many women in this country face, they should not be considered different just because they come to a conclusion based on traditional values. It just brings the question what is modern and what is traditional. These conflicts are completely pertinent to real life and real Americans, but fall short on how the outcome is realized. It is far too predictable and sappy for someone like myself to enjoy this movie.
Arranged revolved around two school teachers from Brooklyn that come from highly religious families. Though one family is Jewish and the other is Muslim they both have one thing in common….both families intend on arranging marriages for their daughters. The movie explores the different avenues of relationships in regards of marriage that many women within the United States come across. The idea of arranged marriage is frowned upon within the United States. The director of arranged however does an excellent job on reasoning on why families tend to approach marriage through the arranged processs.
The movie begins with the two main characters. First a Syrian born Muslim named Nasira. Nasira’s family intends on marrying her off to a man who has Syrian roots and who comes from a good family. Her mother and father arrange the meetings between Nasira and her potential connubials.
The other character is Rochel who comes from an Orthodox Jewish family. Her search for a life partner is much more complex and political then Nasira’s. Rochel search for a husband involves the arrangement of dating sessions through a Yentelike matchmaker and her mother.
As the film progresses Nasira and Rochel experience indirect bigotry from their Boss who is completely oblivious to their faith. In one instance their boss told Nasira and Rochel that they were in America and that its okay for them to be premicious and to head out to clubs and “party.” Their boss’s understanding was that women of religious faith were not modern, this conflicting mindset was contradicted by the fact Nasira and Rochel both were modern considering they attended college and now were teaching in a public elementary school. The movie had many situations were these characters underwent various types of scrutiny due to stereotypes and that is what the director does an amazing job on.
In the end of the movie both Rochel and Nasira come to a realization that their traditional arranged marriages were best suited for them and their families after experimenting with modern American culture. It seems the director did a phenomenal job at comparing and contrasting the main differences between Nasira’s Muslim family and Rochel’s Jewish families.
Personally I felt the movie was phenomenal and I would recommend the film to people who may feel insecure about potentially getting an arranged marriage.
The movie “Arranged” is about the two women from completely different backgrounds both who are experiencing similar situations in life and who find comfort and reassurance in their friendship. One of the women, Rochel, is an orthodox Jew who has to deal with pressure of her family to quickly find another orthodox Jewish man and get married in order to follow the traditional Jewish way of life. Similarly, Nasira, a Muslim from Syria, also has family who would like for her to find a suitable Muslim man to marry in the near future. This movie portrays how empathy and friendship is grown between two people who have relatively little knowledge and understanding of the other’s culture and values, yet learn that they in fact they have much in common with each other and use that a foundation for a long-lasting and successful friendship.
Initially, Nasira and Rochel meet each other while working at an elementary school as temporary teachers where they realize that neither one of them fit in with the other workers there and are viewed as socially backwards by the other teachers, in particular, by the principal of the school. In fact, on several instances the principal attempts to persuade both Rochel and Nasira, in her opinion, to behave more contemporarily, and feels that they are forced to dress that way by their respective families. In the movie, the principal represents the group of people who believe that everyone thinks alike and who are incapable of understanding other cultures and view these people as pitiable and uninformed creatures. However, the attitude principal is one of the factors that bring Nasira and Rochel together as they laugh over her behavior towards the both of them and how people would even think like that.
Another reason for the camaraderie that develops between Nasira and Rochel is due to similar pressures that both face from their family to get married and have children before they become “old maidens.” Rochel has a harder time coping with the influence of her family, especially with her mother, in trying to find a suitable husband especially since all of the Jewish men that are introduced to her are not at all attractive or interesting to her in any way and she is not able to picture a life with any of them. This baffles her mother and grandmother, who feel that all these men are amazing future husbands for Rochel and that Rochel is being extremely difficult and will never get married with this type of attitude. In fact, Rochel feels pressured so much that she runs away for a short while and sees her outcast cousin who broke from her family’s norm and decided that she wants to live her life on her on terms. Spending time with her wild cousin, Rochel determines that this type of lifestyle is not appropriate for her and she returns home and seeks to find a husband.
(continued) Meanwhile, Nasira was being introduced to numerous Muslim men and found one that she found could be her potential husband. Her family was a lot more supportive than Rochel’s family and she dealt with the pressures of finding a husband much better than Rochel did. Eventually, Nasira assisted Rochel in meeting her future husband when she noticed that Rochel was attracted to a Jewish boy that studied with her brother by obtaining his background information and coyly presenting that information to Rochel’s family. This strategy allowed Rochel’s family to believe that they were introducing this Jewish guy to Rochel in a traditional manner and not that Rochel was going out and actively seeking a husband.
Nasira and Rochel’s friendship however was not understood by Rochel’s parents who were not receptive to Nasira particularly because of her background and religion. This was illustrated when Rochel’s mom told Rochel to tell Nasira to leave when her father was coming home afraid of what he would say. No matter what hurdles were faced by Nasira and Rochel for their friendship with each other, they both realized that spending time with each other allowed them to release some of their stress they felt. This movie is a perfect example of how two people from different environments can relate to on another and it illustrates that no matter what culture people are from or what religion they practice, people still have the same problems from everyday life and a little understanding and compassion towards another with a different background than yours can lead to great and mutually beneficial friendship.
The majority of films a student watches for a college class are dry and not very interesting, Arranged, presented a nice break from that trend. The film focuses on the idea of arranged marriage in both the Islamic and Jewish faiths in today’s twenty-first century society. What separates this film from other films a student watches for class is that this film gets across a point of view while remaining interesting, which is no easy task. This is due to the story lines revolving around Nasira Khaldi, an Orthodox Muslim and Rochel Meshenberg, an Orthodox Jew and how they handle the pressures to conform to the religious obligations. Nasira is a middle-school teacher who also happens to be Muslim, and is going through the process of finding a husband with her family’s assistance. The trials and tribulations that Nasira go through as she tries to find an appropriate husband for her future were quite trying and at times funny. In Nasira’s case her mother appeared supportive of her and wanted to make sure that Nasira is happy. Nasira’s father on the other hand seemed to be the parent who wanted the arranged marriage. This is the opposite from what Rochel experienced. For Rochel, who is the Nasira’s teaching assistant, her mother and grandmother were really pushing the idea of the arranged marriage, and were really concerned about how the rest of the Jewish community looked at their family. Rochel’s father on the other hand, appeared to kind of bend to the will of what Rochel’s mother wanted. Rochel’s mother and grandmother seemed to want Rochel to be happy however they felt that she was not being open minded in the pursuit for a husband. Nasira’s pursuit of a husband came to a good end by the luck of faith. One of the prospects which her father saw fit for her worked out perfectly as her and the man felt the connection. For Rochel, she owes it all to Nasira, as Nasira got involved in the process and gave Rochel’s “shadchen” the information on a prospect which was originally not included in the search but was one that Rochel had felt a connection to. This is quite ironic because there is an instance where Rochel’s mother for all intents and purposes kicked Nasira out of the house strictly because she was concerned about what the neighbors would think of having a Muslim in the house. What made this movie so good compared to other movies we normally watch for class is that this movie seemed real and plausible. The situations which it showcased seemed about as real-life as you can probably get for a feature film. The ending to me was also very symbolic, the fact that these two young adults were able to look beyond the “traditional” differences of religion that have separated their ancestors for so long and build a friendship, and the fact that their children were playing together is telling. The saying that the future lies in the children is a hundred percent accurate and is the secret to being able to make a difference.
Arranged is an independent comedy-drama film that examines arranged marriages through two religious individuals, Rochel, an Orthodox Jew and Nasira, a Conservative Muslim, and ultimately shows the viewer that we all have much more in common than originally thought. In this film, Rochel and Nasira are both new teachers in an incredibly diverse New York City school system who originally face challenges balancing their religious beliefs with modernity. While both Rochel and Nasira fit in perfectly within their respective religious communities, they are without doubt the social outcasts of the teaching community at their middle school. Despite their fundamental religious differences, they are essentially treated the same by the staff of the school—as outsiders. In one scene, the principle of the school unintentionally makes religiously insensitive remarks about Nasira’s hijab that represents many Americans’ views regarding how they treat persons whose religious practices make them stand out. However, this treatment as an outsider ultimately brings Rochel and Nasira closer together. They are the only two teachers who can accurately understand each other’s situations in the school and they eventually discover that they have more in common than originally thought—they are both going through arranged marriages. The film next shows just how each woman is expected to handle arranged marriages within their respective religions. In the Orthodox Jewish religion, a woman must go through marriage through a matchmaker found in the Jewish community whereas within the Islamic religion, a woman’s marriage is arranged through their parents. Although both religions have their difference, the two women find common grounds in the pressures they are facing from their parents, their respective religious communities, and also modern American society. The film ends predictably with both women finding happiness through their traditional religious methods of arranged marriages. They experiment with more Americanized models of dating but in the end realize that with their upbringing and culture, arranged marriages simply work the best for them. Overall, I thought this movie, while it does promote religious cooperation and unity through our similarities, does not show enough of the negative aspects of arranged marriages.
Upon finishing Basil Dearden’s 1966 Khartoum, I could only help thinking that somewhere Edward Said is spinning in his grave. The acclaimed twentieth century author of Orientalism brought the ideas of Western perception of the East into the academic conversation. Western media and arts have long displayed the East, especially Middle Eastern cultures, as being the antithesis to their own. Contrasts of the gentleman to the barbarian, Christian to the Muslim, and ultimately good to evil are abound within Khartoum. From the characters, set designs, musical arrangements, etc., Khartoum is orientalist to the core. With the main characters Major Gordon and the Mahdi Mohammed Ahmed we find a plot driven on contrasts. Gordon is erratic and eccentric while the Mahdi is calculated and traditional. The Mahdi is dressed in pure white to the contrast of the darkened “black-face” worn by English actor Laurence Olivier, whereas Gordon is always dressed in regal red with bright gold trim. When the Mahdi speaks he talks about glory for himself and God, but when Gordon speaks he talks about protecting the “innocent people.” Perhaps what I saw as particularly orientalist were some scenes that are so dramatically over the top in order to show the “heroism” of Major Gordon. In the scene where he returns to Khartoum for the first time, we see throngs of dark villagers applauding the arrival of the lone white man on a white steamer. Then as Gordon proceeds through the village he stops to pick up the orphaned villager girl, as if this was a political rally and he had to show he was not afraid to interact with the people. Maybe I am ignoring the truth behind the events of this film, but it just came off as too gimmicky and full of innuendo. Besides the scenes that are over the top, however, there is the inaccuracy of the actual events. In the film, Gordon is intercepted by some of the Mahdi’s soldiers while trying to scrounge up food for the blockaded Khartoum. He then leads his small force of men to fight off the Mahdi’s cavalry, winning the fight only when Col. J.D. Stewart arrives with aid. In real life, however, Gordon small contingent of men was unable to fight the enemies off and many of Gordon’s men actually defected to the Mahdi’s force. Also, the final scene in the battle of Khartoum where Gordon is killed on the stairs is a complete fabrication. All historians concur that they do not know how or when Gordon was killed because anyone that could have told us was slaughtered in the siege. This movie’s final scene was pulled from an orientalist painting done after his death. By the end of the movie I fully expected Gordon to have done something to save the city, but I was wrong. For a movie that glorifies a military leader, he took on a mission that had little to no chance of success, was unable to even make any arrangement to save the citizens of the city (ala Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven), and instead is massacred along with every man, woman, and child in Khartoum. I simply do not know what this film was trying to glorify. Was it his stalwart military skills that saved the city? No, that wasn’t it. Or maybe it was the fact that a white man did not have a problem living with the Africans of Khartoum? Perhaps that was it.
Like Little Mosque on the Prairie, there is a lot going on here. This movie is very funny in its assessment of Jews and Muslims coming of again America. There is also the conflict within the family. Growing up and attempting to find a husband. Trying to find happiness while also pleasing your family. The two girls must confront the conflict between their traditions and beliefs and the liberal nature of the school. They must also deal with their friendship. Neither of their families is interested in seeing their daughter hang out with a Muslim/Jew, and yet a Conservative Muslim and an Orthodox Jew form a friendship. The whole time this "American Tale" is being told, the root of the movie "arranged marriage" remains in some sort of satirical sense right there in the open. The two can teach in that setting, form friendships outside of their community, even go to a party, but the arranged marriage is still there. Despite leaving the home and going to college, Rochel and Nasira are faced with scrutiny in how they dress, in their names, and how they interact withouts.
I often hear people criticize this movie on the grounds that it glorifies arranged marriage, or says its "ok." However, the message is much deeper than that. The message is about the conflict modern society has with traditional religious practices and how all of this can be balanced out for two educated young women.
Arranged, a story of two young women one of the Jewish and Islamic faiths, which are both teaching at the same New York City public school. Nisra the Muslim woman is charge of the class and Rachel the Jewish woman helps out in the class with a young boy who has a learning disability.
Within the classroom the two women explain the differences and similarities between their two religions. They help the class by using a learning exercise which uses a circle, each student writes down something about themselves, then the rest of the class decides whether or not they want them to be a part of their circle, this helps the students to understand that while they may have differences that doesn’t mean that can’t be in the same circle and all get along with each other as individuals.
Besides the classroom they each have their issues, outside of the classroom both families are trying to “arrange” marriages for their daughters. Both women are having trouble in their own worlds finding men within their particular religions.
The film shows that both women while practicing separate religions which may on an international scale have issues with one another, as individuals they are going through the same things and have the same feelings of respect and friendship toward each other.
Film Review: Khartoum I thought this film one of the many that continues to propagate Orientalistic attitudes. The premise is one that has been used many times in art, film and literature: the white man is the savior for the helpless and incompetent natives. In particular, Charlton Heston’s character, the intelligent, suave, experienced sage who finesses his way through a political morass, set against a brutish militaristic and simple ethnic antagonist. The film is chock-full of one-dimensional characters, all who are local ethnicities. Not one white role lacked character development. This dichotomy is proof of the racism of the time in history and of the time of the film was made. The ignorant savage again fights against the sophisticated white man. This was such a racially sensitive film. There are many elements that communicate the romanticism of the East, the definable trait of Orientalism. To begin, the recycled images often seen elsewhere appear in the film. Camels, vast unknowable desert landscapes, the pyramids, fezes, Bedouin-style desert camps, bellydancer (who gave the worst performance I’ve ever seen), veiled beauties, ad naseum The film has political implications as well. Of course, the nature and extent of colonialism is portrayed. European encroachers, the English in this case, descend upon other nations and assume political authority. Colonial attitudes are expounded upon in one scene with English politicians discussing the situation between the Sudan and Egypt. “Why can’t Egypt protect itself?” was met with the telling and brief reply, “She’s not up to it.” In the film, much like in history, the European colonizers imposed what they considered a moral responsibility over other nations. Additionally the film testifies to the intricacies of foreign involvement, and the complications that often befall them. That is, states often say they are reluctant to engage in foreign matters, yet they tend to become involved nonetheless, often by subversive means. Rather than addressing the Sudanese concern directly by sending down English troops, Gordon is sent down incognito to manipulate the situation. Such a tactic is widely used in international politics today. On a personal level, I thought this film was a joke. I could hardly tolerate the blatant racism and ethnocentricity rampant throughout it. Everything about the film seemed abstracted and romanticized and I can’t help but wonder if producers wanted to duplicate Heston’s “Ten Commandments” cash cow. Moreover, the mispronunciation of the Arabic in the film was grating. I must say that I found it amusing when Heston’s character remarked, “I must inform you Khalil, as delicately as possible, that I am not Jesus Christ.” Such understatement. I would sum up the film with a quote from the beginning: “Vanity mixed up with vision.” It was Heston magnetism combined with an overbearing Orientalist point of view.
Arranged In the film “Arranged”, Rochel is an Orthodox Jew and Nasira is a Syrian-American Muslim. They are starting out as 4th grade teachers working in an elementary school. The students and teacher s expect them not to get along from the start because of the tension that exists between the two religions. They do however find common ground and are brought together by the equally confused ideas about prejudice vocalized by their boss and principal of the school, their relatives, and their fourth-grade students, the two confide about their respective marriage prospects. I like the overall message this film gives, Rochel putting it in her words in the film that she wants to find marriage on her own terms, even if it is still arranged. Emphasizing that they do have a choice regardless of the religious institutions or what other people perceive. I also like the example Nasira told Rochel when Rochel started doubting if they were meeting people the right way. Nasira said that it worked for their parents too. We do look to our parents as models of future aspects of our life. Love and marriage most certainly being one of them. The parents of both these ladies do seem to support and stay by each other in their stances and action, something that a solid marriage should include. Maybe this is a film that is sought to just entertain but I would have liked to see Nasira have more of a struggle regarding the plans on arranged marriage. Everything seemed to work out more easily with her and conveniently too. I would have liked to see what happens after they both found their respective others (other than the products in the baby carriage at the end of the scene.) What happens after they are “arranged”? Even if it is another story in itself I still would have liked to have seen how or if they changed. If there was any other struggles that pertained to the marriage after it was arranged. -Michelle Rana
The movie Arranged was a very peculiar story that pertains to modern day challenges amongst members of every religion. Two inner city school teachers learn the values and meaning of friendship, regardless of religions orientation. The beginning of the movie showed how the families of each girl are very different. Rochel, from an Orthodox Jewish upbringing, and Nasira from a Syrian-American Muslim upbringing have had very different yet similar experiences. For Nasira, as a woman, she has had to deal with the stereotypes of wearing a hijab. Rochel, for dressing so modest all the time. Rochel's family was very taken aback and displeased at Nasira's presence in their home when Rochel brought her home to hang out. Muslims and Jews for a long time have not seen eye to eye, so in the American setting; that dispersion between to two still exists, regardless of the multi-cultural setting in American life. Moreover, Nasira's challenges were quite minute compared to the real challenges Muslim women face. Her arranged marriage mission came very easy to her. If she didn't like the guy, her mother and father went onward to find her another candidate. There was no real challenge for Nasira in terms of her parents arranging her with a husband. Rochel and Nasira both looked up to their parents and sought to emulate their processes of finding a mate. As a child, you often think what your parents did is what you should do, however as time changes, this proves ineffective. Moreover, I thought this movie did a wonderful job at emulating the challenges Muslim and Jewish Americans face, however it was very mainstream. They tried to take a deep issue and make it emotionally effect its viewers but for me, as a non-Muslim/Jew; I wasn't very emotionally hit by this movie. I thought they could have made it a little less hollywood and a little more realistic. Nonetheless, I think it's a good movie to show non-believers of those faiths, and the different aspects of their everyday lives.
Laura Schmidt
ReplyDeleteFilm Review for Arranged
The movie Arranged, produced in 2007 and directed by Diane Crespo, is a story of two young women who lead traditional religious lives in modern day America. Rochel, an Orthodox Jew, and Nasira, a Muslim, have chosen lifestyles that many Western people deem as simple and even backwards. Yet the movie does a great job of shedding light on the complications that these two women face regarding their “simplistic” lifestyles and redeeming their legitimacy. Despite the differences between Rochel and Nasira, they develop a strong friendship and find vast similarities between their faiths and their families.
Rochel and Nasira are both teachers in an ethnically diverse elementary school in Brooklyn. They begin talking to each other after a student points out their different religious backgrounds, and the two teachers work together to show their students how such differences should not interfere with building friendships. They continue to spend time with each other as they realize that they share similar experiences being devoutly religious in America. Both women also happen to be going through the process of finding a husband for an arranged marriage, something which they feel is a personal choice that they have made and that mainstream society unfairly looks down upon. By the end of the film, they both meet men whom they seem to connect with and contently settle down into marriage and motherhood.
One of the supporting characters is the female principal of the school where Rochel and Nasira work, and she is used to portray the white American views that find such religious lifestyles to be suffocating and demeaning. In one scene the principal talks to the two women in her office about their lack of freedom, even exclaiming “there WAS a women’s movement!” to imply that they are hurting themselves by living as they do. While harshly stereotypical, the scene acts as a setup for a later one when Rochel yells at the principal to defend the choice that she has made and that she claims everyone in the Jewish community has the ability to make. While some viewers may think that the principal’s character is too cliché, she allows the director to get the point across. It is refreshing to see a movie that pushes for dialogue about the politics surrounding religion in America without trying to be too politically correct. Moreover, the views expressed overtly by the principal are what many people think but never voice out of fear for sounding disrespectful or ignorant.
Another stereotype presented is of the American girl, which was slightly exaggerated. When Rochel is having doubts about her search for a husband, she visits her cousin, a young woman who had renounced her Jewish faith. Her cousin takes Rochel to a party so that she can see if she prefers the typical American life—one of parties and microwave relationships. Rochel’s discomfort is obvious and she quickly decides that such a lifestyle is undesirable for her and does not embody her idea of personal freedom. Unfortunately this part of the movie makes it appear as though people like Rochel have a choice between two “extremes” in life, which many viewers may be turned off by and see as unrealistic.
However, it is a movie, and movies are for entertainment. The middle ground—where many people in the United States probably see themselves living—tends not to be very entertaining. To tone down the idea of Rochel (who the movie places substantially more focus on) being too much of a radical in practice and thought, she is shown facing conflicts that any American woman can relate to. In one shot, Rochel’s mother does not let Rochel eat cake for dessert because she believes Rochel needs to be more careful of her weight. It is not unusual for women to harass other women in this way in all kinds of Western social circles, and the conflict in this scene bridges religious divisions to connect all Western women.
While one may debate the shortcomings of this movie when it comes to finding a balance between religiosity and adhering to Western social norms, its basic point is conveyed clearly. With warmth and humor, Rochel and Nasira are portrayed as two American women just trying to lead their chosen lifestyles. While their challenges may be different from what many women in this country face, they should not be considered illegitimate just because they result from traditional values. These conflicts and triumphs are completely pertinent to real life and real Americans, and hopefully this movie will continue to open up sociological and political dialogue.
Arranged was an incredibly well done film. The director did an excellent job of portraying the two religious communities, orthodox Jewish and Muslim, and the ways in which they might interact in New York. Although I myself am not religious to the extent that the characters Rachel and Nasirah are, I felt that I could connect with them. I understand the pull they felt from their parents to get married in the traditional fashion and assimilate into their community. But I also understand the need to fit in at work, and outside of their sheltered communities. This struggle with identity is not unique to religious communities but it is very well portrayed in Arranged.
ReplyDeleteThe main conflict in this film is the struggle for identity between traditional and modern. Rachel is having a very hard time finding a husband through the traditional route. All the men that the “yenta” brings her are awkward and completely unsuitable. Rachel says that she is not willing to settle for a man that she does not feel any kind of connection to while her mother thinks that settling would be much better than ending up alone. (Plus it is selfish to deny her younger sister the opportunity to start dating, since she can’t start until Rachel is married.) But Rachel does not have much better luck attempting to meet people in a more modern fashion. She goes to a party with her cousin Leah who is no longer religious. This party looks like a typical house party with alcohol and loud rap music. One boy introduces himself to Rachel, and although he is very polite, she can’t seem to connect to him in this setting. She feels awkward and out of place. She is dressed very conservatively, in long sleeves and a long skirt, and she won’t shake hands with the boy she meets let alone dance with him. Rachel sums up this inner struggle well when she finally stands up to the school principle and asks her, “Who are you to judge whether our system of dating is better than getting drunk and sleeping around?” Rachel settles this inner search for identity by cheating the system. She manages to find a husband using the traditional system, but with a little undercover help from Nasirah who tips off the yenta to a potential match for Rachel.
In general, Nasirah seems much more confident and comfortable with her identity than Rachel. She wears the hijab by choice. Nasirah trusts in the traditional matchmaking system to find her a suitable husband. She says, “Our parents got married this way, and it worked for them. They’re happy. It will work for us too.” Also, Nasirah has some sass to her. She has no problem being sarcastic with the school principle who questions their traditional way of life. Finally, Nasirah never allows anyone to pronounce her name incorrectly. She knows who she is, and she wants everyone else to call her by her name. Rachel is not so self confident. She allows her special needs student to call her Miss Rachel instead of pronouncing it “Ru-chle,” the way she pronounces it. Also, when she goes to the party with her cousin Leah, at first she introduces herself as “Ru-chle.” But when the boy asks her to repeat her name she says Rachel. She is vacillating. She’s not as sure of herself as Nasirah is. Rachel is still in the process of deciding which identity she wants to assume and to which community she wants to belong.
I loved the way this film depicted Rachel and Nasirah’s families. I have orthodox Jewish cousins and they function in a very similar way to Rachel’s family. I can very easily imagine my aunt using her husband’s high blood pressure to guilt her daughter into doing something for her. Rachel’s younger siblings are also sticking their noses where they don’t belong in the same way that my cousins do. Nasirah’s family is also portrayed realistically. Nasirah’s interaction with her brother is very similar to countless conversations I’ve tried to have with my brother; he gives her one word answers and doesn’t want to help her in her matchmaking quest. I feel that I can connect with the characters even if I am not religious.
I was also interested in the way each girl’s family treated her friend. When Rachel brought Nasirah to her house, Rachel’s mother asked her to leave and refused to let her in the house without her father’s permission. Rachel was furious with her mother and embarrassed to have to treat her friend that way. When Rachel visited Nasirah’s house, there was some visible tension with Nasirah’s father, but he treated her politely. She was welcomed into their house and offered tea. These interactions clearly show the generation gap between the daughters and their parents. While the girls have no problem being friends with each other, but their parents are a bit uneasy (more so in Rachel’s case than Nasirah’s).
I really enjoyed watching this movie and I would highly recommend it to anyone, religious or not, who is still searching for their own identity.
“Arranged” was a very interesting movie. The movie centers on the friendship between an Orthodox Jewish woman and a Muslim woman who meet as first-year teachers at a public school in Brooklyn. The film did a great job of showing the similarities between Orthodox Judaism and Islam. The film also did a great job of showing the different views these women had on arranged marriage.
ReplyDeleteThe two women meet at the elementary school they teach in Brooklyn. Rachel, the Orthodox Jewish woman, was the teacher of a special needs child. Nasira, the Muslim woman, was the teacher of a regular which the Rachel’s special needs child was in. It was interesting how they first became acquainted by the children believing the two could not work together because Rachel was Jewish and Nasira was Muslim. They were able to work together and became good friends. Their parents started looking for their husbands. Rachel did not want to get married. She rejected man after man her mother and grandmother got for her. The woman who arranged the meets said Rachel was running out of prospects. Rachel did not want to get married; however, she did not want to leave the community. Nasira also did not like the choices her father made at the beginning. Then he brought home an educated, US born, man and the two had a connection. Rachel and Nasira had two different perspectives on arranged marriage. Rachel did not truly believe in it and Nasira thought it was fine. Nasira believed it was a tradition that had to live on. Rachel finally sees a potential husband when Nasira goes to Brooklyn College to give a textbook to her brother. Nasira’s brother was studying with an Orthodox Jewish man who Rachel felt attracted to at first sight. The only problem was he was not one of the people on her list to meet. With Nasira’s help, he became one of them. Eventually they both get married and the movie ends showing the two of them sitting in a park hold their babies
What was very interesting about the film were the reactions of the families when they met a person of the other religion. When Rachel took Nasira to her home, her mother became kind of hysterical and asked Rachel if she got approval from her father for Nasira to be over. Her mother could not stand to see Muslim woman in her house. Nasira was forced to leave. Also, when Rachel and Nasira were in the park with their siblings, Rachel’s siblings could not grip with the fact Nasira and her niece and nephew were Muslim. They felt very uncomfortable. Nasira’s family was a little more open to Rachel. Nasira’s mother was fine with Rachel over. Nasira’s brother was a little uncomfortable around Rachel, but he did not say anything. What I got from this movie was the Orthodox Jews are very exclusionary.
I found out this film was loosely based on the experiences of Yuta Silverman, an Orthodox Jewish woman from Borough Park, Brooklyn. She had no film experience and was searching for a production company to produce her film. She eventually got Cicala Filmworks to produce the film. She got Stefan C. Schaefer to write the script, who was reluctant at first.
I did not know arranged marriage was practiced heavily in the Orthodox Jewish community. Being from Brooklyn and seeing the Orthodox Jews, I did notice many of the mothers were quite young and the fathers were some what older. Driving by or walking through the Orthodox neighbors always amazes me. The community is able to keep their traditions in the ever-modernizing New York City. It is impressive they are able to keep up their traditions. After seeing this movie, I now have a better understanding of Orthodox Jewish community.
The identity crisis is a universal struggle. The question of a person’s place in the world, and how religion relates to identity crosses the boundaries of countries, continents and especially faiths. It is an individual choice and conflict to determine what role religion will play in a life. For some, faith envelopes all aspects of life, while for others, it would never cross their minds. The film Arranged follows the story of two young women and their relationship with their respective faiths. Both are of marrying age and therefore are participating in the traditions of their religions to find husbands, and each has a different reaction to these actions. However, despite their internal struggle, each woman comes to peace with their faith.
ReplyDeleteThe two main characters in the film meet because they are fellow teachers in a New York City public school. Rochel Meshenberg is an Orthodox Jew while Nasira Khaldi is a Muslim. Despite that stereotypes tell us that these women should be in opposition, they share many experiences and values that create a strong bond and relationship. They work with their students to show them how external factors do not matter in a friendship, only the quality of one’s character.
Both women face great tension in the work place. Because they are very involved with their own world and culture, they did not fit in well with the other teachers. Also, because Rochel and Nasira are “different” they were even criticized for their way of life. The disparagement was not overt by most of their coworkers. They were not invited to certain activities by the other teachers and had awkward moments when they had little in common with the other women despite having a great deal in common with each other.
The greatest struggle came from Rochel and Nasira’s interaction with Principle Jacoby. This character considered herself a modern woman who supported other ways of life. However, she was far from accepting and understanding of the choices of a Muslim or Orthodox Jew. Jacoby could not comprehend why anyone would want to live in a way that was different from her and went to far as to demean these other women. She was proud to be an American, and therefore a member of a free society. She felt that the main characters religions were stripping them of their freedom and forcing them to live a trapped life. Little did she know that these women chose their path and despite an internal struggle, continued to practice their respective faiths.
A large portion of the film focused on the topic of arranged marriages. Both women, in their own way, were participating in the tradition of finding a husband through the help of their family. Both women’s parent’s met this way and have lived happy and fulfilling lives with a loving and devoted spouse. They are determined and eager for their daughters to have the same wonderful experience as they did.
Rochel is participating in the practice of shidduch. She, along with her mother and grandmother, meet with a shadchan (matchmaker) to inquire about the potential matches. Rochel has a great deal of conflict with the process. Despite meeting several eligible and approved bachelors, she does not find anyone who she deems worthy of being her husband. She even considers for a moment converting from her faith and seeks guidance from a cousin who did just that. Rochel experiences the “modern world” for a night and realizes she is more comfortable with her upbringing and not willing to denounce it yet. With some intervening from her friend Nasira, She finally finds a the perfect man. They settle down and live happily ever after.
Nasira, although conflicted about the process, has an easier time with the arranged marriage process than her friend. Nasira’s father, Abdul-Halim Khaldi, introduces his daughter with several eligible and approved men. The dating process is very similar to Rochel’s experience. An interview-type dinner is conducted where both families meet and converse. Nasira does not like the first few men and therefore confronts her father about what she would like in a prospective husband. Soon, she is introduced to the man she will marry. The connection is immediate and she lives happily ever after as well.
Throughout the film Arranged, Rochel Meshenberg and Nasira Khaldi partake in an internal struggle in which they have to determine the role their faith will play in their lives. Will they allow the traditions of arranged marriage determine the man they will spend their rest of their life with? Will they wear the traditional garb their religions request despite the opposition they will face in public? Both women face these questions and more. They end up being firm in their convictions and faithful to their religions. They individually choose their paths and are happy with their lives and choices.
Religious fanaticism comes in many forms and dates back thousands of years. It crosses all religions and regions. The conflict in Khartoum is simply one example of this grander problem. The film is a Hollywood adaptation of true events. Because the film is a struggle between the “evil” Islamic people and the “angelic” west, it prays upon the fears and stereotypes of the audience.
ReplyDeleteThe battle of Kartoum takes place in 1883 in Sudan’s capital city. It is between the army of the Mahdi and the English who have colonized the area. The Mahdi has declared war on the English for an intriguing reason. He lures the occupying troops into the desert and proceeds to kill them in a surprise attack. The reason for this is that the Mahdi believes he has had a vision from the Prophet Mohammad. He believes he is the expected one of Mohammad and plans to take Khartoum by force, killing those Egyptians and Sudanese that oppose him and do not accept him as their leader. The Mhadi thnks of himself as a Muslim. However, by dictating such events, he contradicts the peaceful beliefs of his religion.
As a result to the massacred troops, the British Prime Minister sends General Charles Gordon to the city of Khartoum to oversee the evacuation of the remaining troops and civilians. General Gordon is the Mahdi’s antithesis. Gordon is a bible loving and booze drinking military man. Upon arrival to the city Gordon receives a Hero’s welcome. As a popular figure, he brings hope to the residents that there will be a peaceful solution to their predicament. However, General Gordon and his subordinate Colonel Stewart are unable to negotiate a settlement with the Mahdi. He is sticking with his conviction that he is the expected one, chosen to be the leader of Khartoum and exile the non-believers.
Both opposing leaders are very patriotic and loyal to their own people. Gordon and the Mahdi believe they are doing what is right and that it is the other one who is in the wrong. Both figures take great risks to further their cause and also have many people willing to follow them no matter the cost. Also, they both are willing to do what ever it takes to destroy the opposition. They are willing to die as long as the other one is not far behind. Despite their ideological differences, they are similar characters.
The escalating situation in Khartoum is reported to officials in Brittan. General Gordon is ordered to return to his home nation, however his heart lives for Sudan. Therefore, he ignores the command and remains with his people to make a last ditch effort to defeat the Mahdi.
When the final battle finally arrives, General Gordon’s army is completely outnumbered. His faithful soldiers are easily trounced by the massive Arab onslaught. During the conflict Gordon is killed had his head placed on a spear and presented to the Mahdi who absolutely outraged. He did not give the orders for this to happen and does not approve. He is upset because the two men have an understanding. While they fundamentally disagree with each other, they understand the trials and tribulations of being in a position of leadership in that time and in that place.
The film Khartoum and the real battle it portrays should teach humanity a lesson. It shows the harmful effects of religious fundamentalism and what happens when people do not take the time to understand and accept other people and cultures. Great men died in the battle that could have been avoided if those involved practiced tolerance.
Arranged: Film Review
ReplyDeleteJessica Theopold
The film Arranged, about two young women of differing religions in the process of arranged marriage, was interesting especially to me as an outsider to this tradition. The story follows Rochel Meshenberg and Nasira Khaldi, both teachers at a public school in Brooklyn who strike up a friendship based partly on their similar situations. In general, the term “arranged marriage” seems to cover a broad scale of marriages, of which those portrayed in the film seem to be on the lenient end. This leads me to a comparison of “arranged” vs. “love” marriages. Arranged marriages do seem to have their advantages, but on the other hand the party scene does portray Rochel as extremely sheltered. The film touched on many controversial subjects on top of and interwoven with the main theme of arranged marriage as well. The friendship between Rochel (a Jew) and Nasira (a Muslim) causes debate in the school as well as within their families, and the clash between secularism and orthodoxy is illustrated throughout the film.
Having never known, or been aware of knowing, anyone who has had an arranged marriage I don’t have much of a reference point to compare and contrast it with the type of marriage I am accustomed to. After viewing this film it seems to me that there should be a new term coined for the type of marriage that Rochel and Nasira end up having. Although there certainly is an ‘arranged’ element to them, they both seem to have quite a bit of choice in the matter. They have both met their husbands and chosen him over others; they both even seem to have fallen in love with the men. So in many ways their marriages are very like love marriages.
On the other hand there are certainly differences as well. Evidence shows that more love marriages fail than do arranged marriages, so what is it about arranged marriages that makes them last? Here are a few reasons I have theorized in my reflection on the subject. Perhaps the stricter setting of an arranged marriage makes the couple more aware of the seriousness of their engagement. Divorce is not seen as so much of an option as those in a love marriage see it. They don’t have anything much better to look for after divorce; a new spouse may be arranged for them, but then they are likely to end up in a similar situation as the one they are in. For women this decision would be especially difficult since there seems to be a much smaller window of “marriageable age” for them as well. Maybe couples in an arranged marriage have a much more reasonable expectations of their partner. People who choose their own spouse may be more likely to expect them to be “perfect for him/her” and therefore be overly disappointed by any of the others’ flaws. Also within those who search for partners on their own is this notion of “the one”; that there is only one person out there who completes you and will make you happy. I am not sure if this theory also pervades the world of arranged marriages, but it does seem to set an extremely high bar that could easily cause problems. A couple who find themselves having difficulties may assume they made a mistake and that their real “one” is still out their looking for them and therefore they almost have an obligation to leave their current spouse to find him/her. These are all just theories of mine and I am sure that there are different reasons for each different couple, so the question still stands. I think the most likely answer lies in the structure of ones upbringing. The strict family setting in which both Nasira and Rochel were brought up is so far removed from the mainstream that joining it in any way seems to scare them more than anything their families could force upon them.
A good example of this in the film is Rochel venture out to a party with her cousin who has left the orthodox world behind. Rochel is obviously uncomfortable from the beginning, and things go quickly downhill from there when a male partygoer tries to make conversation. Rochel has obviously never been any situation that even compares to this rather mild display because she ends up freaking out and leaving the party without her cousin to find her own way home, which, in my opinion, is way more dangerous than staying at the party ever would have been. My surprise at Rochel’s reaction just goes to show how different my experiences have been from someone in her position.
Rochel finds a kindred spirit in Nasira though, who has had a similar experience, despite their different religions. And In the classroom, the kids question whether they hate each other since they have heard that the Muslims want to get rid of Jews. At home the women also face trepidation. When Rochel invites Nasira to her home to work on a school project, her mother gets very upset. She worries about what the neighbors will say about her daughter having a Muslim friend and even if it might affect her prospects for getting a husband. So even while they might be adhering to some traditions that others might look on as outdated in having arranged marriages the two women are still able to break down some of the stereotypes that surround them.
Despite this the principal at the school, a secular Jew, is saddened to see these two bright and attractive women dressing so conservatively and subjecting themselves to what she views as an outmoded and repressive patriarchal system. Throughout the film she bombards the women with her opinions until it finally comes to a head and Rochel heatedly defends her culture. I thought this juxtaposition could have been portrayed better. First of all, those who disagree with arranged marriage are not all obnoxious and rude, and some even have some valid arguments. Also, the argument that eventually takes place, between Rochel and the Principal, is weak on both sides. Rochel insisting that she does have a choice over and over is not as convincing as a more thorough defense could have been.
Overall I enjoyed the film. It gave me a window into a world I don’t normally encounter, and definitely made me think. There were some things that surprised me and a few things that disappointed me but I am glad to have had the opportunity to experience it.
My first reaction is that this movie certainly fills a niche. Studying the effects of globalization feels bit abstract and nebulous until you see a movie like this. My pre-college years in a typical Philadelphia suburb have been similar to my years here in Newark, DE. I’ve never known a truly Orthodox family of any religion, so several parts of the movie surprised me. What I liked most was that it, through the voices of the seemingly ignorant, asked questions I’ve wondered and never heard answers to.
ReplyDeleteI found Rochel’s case to be much more interesting. First off, I never knew that Rochel or Nasira would have choices in their marriages. I expected “Arranged” to be about the miserable lives these two teachers had to come to terms with because of the rigidness of the systems in which they were raised. The dating system was intriguing, and was based on ads similar to what we saw in class, where tradition, family, job, and sometimes looks are important. Her first hopeless dates started to foment doubts about arranged marriage, so she naturally wanted to experience what her seemingly oppressive system was prohibiting.
Her escape from the traditional to the modern by visiting her cousin and then attending the party was equally as disappointing. Her unfamiliarity with the setting, people, and customs took her way out of her comfort zone, likely reaffirming her confidence in the Jewish dating system. What is most interesting, considering that the main theme is one’s individual reconciliation of tradition and modernity, is that Rochel’s husband was found by a fusion of the two extremes. Although she discovered Gideon on her own in a university setting, Nasira’s witty acquisition of his basic information allowed him to go through the established dating system.
Nasira’s case was less interesting. Although she also struggled to find an ideal husband, her dedication to tradition was unshakeable, and even disheartening. Although my perspective is probably limited, I consider her optimism in finding a husband through the traditional means to be naïve. This tension between cultural assimilation and maintaining ones identity is what makes this movie more than just entertainment; it’s thought-provoking. I would say it’s commonly known that arranged marriages have a greater longevity than typical “Western”-style marriages. So while I may be calling her childish for having faith in what seems like an oppressive system, not only does she have some say in the matter, but her marriage is more likely to last, statistically speaking, than mine will. While this may be due to pressures from the community to endure, it’s these very pressures which keep these minorities from dying out. Without them, and without arranged marriages, it’s hard to imagine how much cultural diversity there would be. It’s this cultural diversity which defines America; therefore, these arranged marriages aren’t un-American at all.
The various voices of the public community, despite their hyperbole, brought several latent questions to the surface. Is it actually easy for Muslims and Jews to get along in light of international and historical conflict? As the one student asks, Can they really be friends when Jews and Muslims are killing each other abroad? Or is Nasira’s wearing of the hijab really imposed on her by her strict, Quran-thumping father? These are similar to questions many people have when they encounter people they’ve never met before. As Nasira said, wearing the hijab is an expression of faith and not mandatory (in an interview for our project I recently learned that hijab means conservative and isn’t necessarily a headscarf - so even though I consider myself culturally educated, tolerant, and aware I realize I still have a lot to learn). So, while we can dismiss some of the principal’s comments as ignorant, we have to be humble and realize there are many things which we should seek to understand before being judgmental. I’ve never heard the name Rochel, either. Some of the principal’s encouragements, like that the women should go shopping and have a drink, however, are beyond excuse and are flat-out insensitive. These are the kinds of moments that make me feel ashamed of being part of mainstream America.
The religious, however, aren’t without their prejudices. Rochel’s parents’ discomfort wasn’t just that a Muslima was in their house, but that the neighbor’s would see her. It’s at times like these where you want to know, why exactly shouldn’t she be seen in a conservative Jewish neighborhood? Is the community so xenophobic or are the parents using the community as a scapegoat for personal insecurities? We don’t know, but neither alternative is satisfying.
The most encouraging part of the movie is the level of cooperation between Rochel and Nasira. Of course the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn’t preclude their friendship. It doesn’t stop Rochel from visting Nasira’s house, going out in public to the park, and exchanging customs (e.g. hand-decorating) and getting Gideon’s information. Their friendship, as I see it, is neither in spite of their religion, nor because of their religion. Religion is secondary to mutual respect, civility, and kindness. So, in a country marked by increased religiosity as a defense against growing secularism and modernism, religion doesn’t have to define who can and cannot be friends. The movie reveals that marriage, like all major events, are universal in nature. “Arranged” successfully highlights different religious traditions while showing their commonalities. We can, paradoxically, show how alike we are by showing how different we seem, which breaks down barriers and showcases our treasured multiculturalism.
Khartoum, reviewed by Andrew Gripp
ReplyDeleteIn part, this is the story of the demise of a fraud. According to many Muslims, both Shia and Sunni, the Mahdi is a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad who will throw off the reigns of oppression, eliminate justice, and usher in an era of peace during a reign of seven to nineteen years.
British meddling in Egypt planted the seed for the Mahdi’s claims to legitimacy. British involvement in Egypt, Turkish expansion into Sudan, and the putting down of the Arab-dominated slave trade threatened the Sudanese who saw the encroaching forces as heretical. The Mahdi believed he had a message from Allah to lead his people and prepare for the second coming of Jesus. Although this claim wasn’t approved by the Egyptians who tried to have him arrested, the Mahdi was able to propagate his message enough to inspire and uprising.
The Turks were the original targets of the Mahdi, who were defeated in the first battle of Khartoum. Although Gordon was sent to retreat the remaining Egyptian troops, when his evacuation route was threatened, he waged offensive and defense battles to allow civilians to flee. Eventually, Khartoum was raided and Gordon was slain by the Mahdists.
There are several interrelated topics which I think make this movie relevant despite the setting of the 1880s. The first is imperialism. Surely the British were the greatest empire for many years, and their motives could be questioned. Was their suppression of the slave trade a moral decision or cool realpolitik? Were they being liberators or were they thwarting the economic power of Al-Zubayr? In light of years of backing oppression on the continent (Rhodes), former imperial powers have difficulty proving their good intentions.
The popularity of the Mahdi represents the many liberation movements that sought to overthrow imperialism. Many of these movements are characterized by national or ethnic identity, but the Mahdi posed a uniquely religious challenge to Turkish and British intrusion. Upon claiming to be the Mahdi, he issued a fatwa declaring the Turks infidels who should be slain. He also swore to spread Islam and to defeat the “fat, rich, and corrupt” until all recognize him as the successor prophet to Muhammad. This is an unfortunate consequence of imperialism that is just as unjustifiable as the ethnic violence that followed European evacuation of Rwanda.
The West thus bore some responsibility for fomenting such fervor in the Sudan, so was it responsible for them to protect others from the Mahdi’s counter-expansion? It’s debatable, but it’s similar to the War on Terror, in which religious language is used to justify atrocities as reprisals against American involvement in the Middle East. Just as local leaders who accepted British protection from extremism were targeted by the Mahdi, so to are Western governments who support American allies in the Middle East. Whether or not the West is ultimately culpable is another discussion, but parallels to today are worth analyzing.
The failure of the Mahdi to establish worldwide peace and the failure of Jesus’ second coming shows that he was truly a fraud. For this, I can’t help but give belated support to the British efforts to put down religious imperialism, whose stated goal was universal acceptance of Islam and the Mahdi’s legitimacy.
Humanitarian intervention is another dimension of this movie. If the Mahdi was an obvious fraud, then it seems that the West had an obligation to put down what it already knew (or just learned) was wrong – forcible dominance over another people without their consent. It would have been easy for the Mahdi to garner support for his cause in religious terms, as well as geopolitical ones. He could have easily portrayed British involvement as neo-imperialism, as realism disguised in humanitarian language. Similar tactics have been used in Sudan today, whether Omar Al-Bashir has said that any attempts to end the genocide would be construed as Western imperialism.
Overall, this film was surprisingly relevant. In a way, it resembles the struggle we have today, where Islam is being abused and its tenets are being massaged (after the Mahdi established rule, he decreed that the shahada also needed to include a belief in him as well as Allah for one to be a true Muslim. He also replaced the hajj with jihad and had books on old, outdated theology burned.). It shows that the world is not at war with Islam or Muslims, but with those who pervert it and use it for their own causes.
Film Review for KHARTOUM :
ReplyDeleteThe movie Khartoum represents a unique perspective on the meaning of ‘holy war’ during the 19th century and the cultural differences alike. From the belly dancing and dress to the passion in their fight, Khartoum is a good interpretation of what conflicts of this nature were like, compared to today’s conflicts.
An Egyptian army commanded by British officers is suddenly attacked and eventually destroyed in the Sudan in the late 1800’s. This forced the British government into complete disarray. Like many Western (European) imperial powers who have had presence elsewhere, the British did not want to fully commit themselves into an all out war in the region, however they made a promise to protect the Egyptians in the Sudan. Instead of planning an all out war, they consulted in the main man himself, General “Chinese” Gordon. General Gordon was the hero of the Egyptian people in Sudan because he ended the slave trade and also showed a deep respect for the region and people alike and embraced their culture fully. Moreover, the British government confided in Gordon to evacuate the people out of Khartoum because of his apparent expertise and cultural knowledge.
Eventually, General Gordon agrees but under the condition that he protect the city as well, because he loves Khartoum. He devoted himself to protecting the people of Khartoum from the threats of the Muslim Army under Mohammed Ahmed el Mahdi, “the Expected One.” Mahdi is a violent religious murderer who massacred any woman, child, or man who did not believe in Islam. With General Gordon strongly aligned with his Christian views and lifestyle, he faces a real threat against the Mahdi. He too, prays everyday and aligns himself very strictly with his religion.
When General Gordon arrives in Khartoum, he is welcomed with abundant cheers, hugs, and music. He refers to Khartoum as his home, so it is clear without explanation that he is the best candidate to lead the Sudanese people to safety and security. Although at times, Gordon’s faith is contested with conflicting views amongst his comrades, he remains true to his peaceful mission of protecting the people of Sudan.
After doing a little outside research, I find it interesting that the only part of the movie that was not historical fact, was Gordon’s physical traveling to visit the Mahdi. In real life, they did not meet in person, only over letters. So, it makes me wonder how differently history would have turned out with this particular war, had Mahdi and Gordon personally met face to face.
Moreover, I enjoyed this movie intensely because it emulates very closely how relations are to this day between the East and the West. Although I, personally am very open to many views and religions, I can’t help but feel like people like Mahdi are the reason there are terrorist organizations killing in the name of ‘Islam.’ The Mahdi who insists he is the chosen won, was an illegitimate leader wrongly representing Islam. He embraces those who worship with him and any other who doesn’t follow; need be killed. General Gordon tried passionately to create a common ground and mutual peace with the Mahdi, however the Mahdi because of religion and Mohammed’s interpretation of “Mahdi” itself quickly shut down his efforts. He claims prophet Mohammed “has commanded to me to make holy war …until everyone recognizes Islam…. and that all of Islam know who he is.” He threatens to kill every single person who opposes him, in the name of Islam. The Mahdi claims to have personal meetings with prophet Mohammed.
Herein lie the problems that still persist today: the difference between people who read the religions texts of Islam literally versus those who read it figuratively. It is organizations like al-Qaeda that are the present day Mahdi’s from this movie. When this movie was made, relations with the Middle East were not as dominant in foreign policy as they are today, so that’s why I think this movie is a phenomenal depiction of present day radical Islamism and religious holy war and how difficult it is to deal with people who possess this irrational thought.
In the movie Arranged by Diane Crespo, we are brought into the lives of an American Muslim and Jew teacher duo and experience their interaction. Rachel, an orthodox jew, and Nasira, a Muslim, are both teachers in a public school in New York. The movie gives the viewer a personal touch and view into the 2 characters chosen lifestyles and how they deal with growing challenges of following their religious beliefs while excelling in their profession. Although both follow different religious lifestyles, the film demonstrates that there is parity between the two lifestyles and the challenges they face.
ReplyDeleteThe first “lesson” that we see in the movie is Rachel and Nasira teaching their students about how to accept and cooperate with everyone regardless of ethnic or cultural differences. This theme of acceptance and cooperation is a main idea that continues to present itself. The two characters are both going thru a similar process throughout the film of being young adults who are being pressured by their families to marry. The two main characters become more involved in each others lives by visiting each ones respective homes. Throughout their interactions, both Rachel and Nasira’s families do not support the friendship and try to hide their displeasures with their daughters and the friendship from local neighbors. In the end of the movie we see both characters have married happily and appear to show that their friendship is strong in that they are raising their children up together.
One big theme that keeps on coming up is how the main characters (specifically Rachel) is the interaction between her religious world and the one that surrounds her every day. Her job at the school as a teacher she is constantly being pestered by the woman who is the principal to shed her religious beliefs and try to assimilate to a more modern lifestyle. There were many times where the principal would push Rachel into a state of uneasiness when she would try to get her to dress in a more provocative manner. Only when Rachel had been pushed enough did we see a retaliation reaction by Rachel that she supported her life choice and that she did not want to be told that she lived a backwards lifestyle anymore. There is also another instance when Rachel meets with her cousin who renounced her strict religious guidelines and was shunned by her own family for a life of more lax ideals. Although Rachel goes out with her cousin, she still is not comfortable with the more relaxed lifestyles of the people she meets who freely drink alcohol and also are able to touch the opposite sex. This interaction of a modern lifestyle is only something that strengthened Rachel’s religiosity and her position that she is happy with her lifestyle choices.
This movie was successful in explaining its position that there can be a positive lifestyle attained by anyone who wishes to follow a more religious lifestyle in this more modern era. The identity crisis of those who decide to practice more devout forms of religion is becoming more of an issue in today’s society because they are seeing a decline in general acceptance by those around them. It is great to know that the 2 characters who decide to follow their religious beliefs are able to continue doing so in a happy way, but it appears to me that the American society is not capable of being accepting of everyone who decides to make these life choices because of both ignorance and the inability to understand why people follow religion the way they do.
In the movie Kartoum, one gets to see the makings of one of the more historical religious battles in the history of modern civilization. It brought the conflict of the Islamic world and the western societies into the modern era with imperial Britain and the remnants of the Moorish empires. Although, as pointed out by other reviews so far, the Islamic fighters are portrayed as being evil against the more angelic west, the movie still did a good job of blurring the different roles of the two by establishing that both groups were equally capable of being bad or good. It all really depended on which side of the position you took. The main separator of the groups though, was stereotypical traits of the Muslim community that incite fear that do not really portray them in a fair balanced way. Although there is this bias, the story is still portrayed as quite an epic struggle between two ideological leaders.
ReplyDeleteThe film’s portrayal of the Mahdi brings a large misconception about the Muslim faith and its belief system. For one, it shows him saying that he received a direct message from the Prophet Mohammad to take the Sudanese capital by force. This for one is impossible because to receive a message from the prophet after his death does not seem to be a normal thing to happen. Additionally, the Caliph is supposed to be the one who decides how the faith is to be interpreted and led. So it puts into contradiction the idea that the Caliph is the only one who can rule the faith. The other inconsistency in the movie is that the Mahdi’s use of force to take out any dissent or opposition is against the ideals of non-violence against non-believers who pose no true threat to the religion of Islam. Granted, there is a permissible violence if there is a threat to a Muslim who wishes to practice his faith, but because of the original misconception of the Mahdi, his reasoning for hi actions can only be called erroneous.
The British response to the massacre that took place during the assault was to send one of its leading generals to ensure a safe evacuation of civilians and troops who were under threat by the Mahdi’s goal of overtaking Khartoum. The movie shows that even during the negotiations between the general and the Mahdi, there is unwillingness on both sides to make any concessions. One side is dealing with the position of an empires that is at that time in a general mode of conquering the entire world (Britain) and an ideologue of a man who for some reason thinks that e is a true Muslim in a jihad of sorts against all who go against his outlandish aspirations of ruling Khartoum. And so because of these two strong positions, we have quite an epic fight that will take place in which many will die because of their belief and devotion to their cause.
When the battle actually takes place, the British are completely overrun and defeated. But where the movie does show the humility by the Mahdi is when the general’s head is brought before him, decapitated off the body and presented on a spear. Mahdi is outraged at this development because he had never ordered his men to do such a thing. Does the film put the Muslim side in the wrong for what happened? No, not really, because what it did show was that both leaders, although prolific still were not capable of leading their men to win the battle in a respectable way. The British lost and were completely overtake because of the general’s inability to follow orders by the military leaders at home and the army under the Mahdi used the misinterpretation of this message that the prophet apparently gave their leader as good reason to commit atrocities in the name of Islam.
Could we suggest that this film has relevance to the current situation of the interaction between the global Muslim community and the western world? Probably. But the similarities are somewhat more subtle in this type of conflict. One more prominent example could be the fighting of Palestinians and Israelis over land in the Gaza Strip. Both are using their religions as a catalyst for their argument against the other that they are not the true society that should live in that area. But we also have the entrance of a more modern and western approach by the Israelis to use more sophisticated weaponry and modern diplomatic pressure by other countries to ensure that they are on top of the fighting at the end of the day. Also we have the struggle of the growing Islamic faith moving into more western societies and having to deal with injustices that unfairly target Muslims in their day-to-day life styles that abide by the rules of Islam. The issue there is that the western world, although is comprised of a mixture of many societies is against cultures who degrade it and use its ideologies as basis for violence against its people or defy the ruling governments laws. Such as what happens in France against open displays of religious symbols or the post 9/11 society in America where all Muslims are put under a microscope of vigilance. This type of modern struggle seems to be generated not from a general discontent for the Muslim community as a whole, but instead the actions of a minority who act poorly in the “name” of Islam.
"Arranged" creatively tells the story of two friends, a Muslim, Nasira, and a Jew, Rachel, who are facing the same thing - the pressure of an arranged marriage from their parents. Not only are they in the same situation, but they become friends because they are both teachers an a New York City public school. Together, they counter religious stereotypes and experience the way their religions affect every aspect of their lives.
ReplyDeleteAt school, the kids have heard rumors that Jews and Muslims hate each other and want to "kill each other". They don't understand that the two of them can be friends because of their religious differences. I thought that the way they combated the stereotypes and taught the children an important message was a powerful symbol of how we can overcome religious stereotypes in society. Who we want to associate ourselves with comes down to individual choice.
The character of the principal was a reminder of the ignorance that most of society has toward people who devoutly practice their religions. She tells the girls not to waste too much time on the exercise with the kids, and to focus on academics. She also claims that she doesn’t understand how these two girls can be so religious or why- she doesn’t want them to be so “serious” and “conservative,” and believes they need to move into the 21st century. She is a representation of the stereotypes that people have toward women who dress conservatively and wear the hijab, of people who are critical toward religion but do not actively try to dispel the stereotypes that they have.
I liked that the movie illustrated the similarities between the girls and showed that when it comes down to it, we are all people who are experiencing the same things in life. Even though they have different beliefs and different religions, many things about them are the same. The way the dress, the way they do not drink alcohol (among other things), and their family lives, are all reminders of the fact that we are usually more similar than we are different as people. They are accepting of each other and form a true friendship, which is inspiring.
One thing that bothered me, however, was the extreme pressure that Rachel especially felt from her parents. Even though both were happily married in the end and found their perfect matches through arrangement, the way they were pushing her to settle was not fair. I feel that she was a very strong character, and would be an example for most orthodox girls to follow, because I don’t think that many would necessarily have the courage to stand up to their parents the way that she did.
Overall, I felt that the movie was very positive and sent a good message about tolerance, friendship, and being accepting of everyone, regardless of religion or race.
“Arranged” is a compelling film about the friendship of Rochel, an Orthodox Jewish woman, and Nasira a Muslim woman. Created in 2007, the film captures a very original story based on actual events. The two main characters seem to come from completely different worlds, but through their working circumstances they find they have a lot in common and develop a strong bond.
ReplyDeleteRochel comes from an Orthodox Jewish family living in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn New York. Her family’s main focus is finding her a suitable spouse to marry and start a family with. Through her mother and aunt’s efforts with a match-maker, Rochel goes on a series of casual dates with potential husbands. The candidates are hardly suitable for Rochel and she ultimately begins to reject the system of match-making and marriages influenced by her family.
Nasira is a first generation American citizen from a Muslim family also living in Brooklyn. Although faith plays a major part in Nasira’s faith, she is a very open minded and well educated woman who holds her own values on the same level as her Islamic faith’s values. While she wears hijab, and respects her parents wishes to have an arranged marriage, Nasira shows a certain independence in the way she carries herself.
The film illustrates the two women’s differences and similarities very successfully. Ultimately the two find their common ground when rejecting other’s judgments and staying true to their own identities. For example in the beginning of the film the two women are at a diversity seminar for the public school they work in. The principal is going around the circle of teachers asking each person for insightful information about themselves in order to get to know them better. While other people in the group identify themselves by unimportant experiences they have had, Nasira description of herself includes her faith. She is proud of what she believes and strong to stand by it when it is in question. The principal has several interactions with the two women, where she passes judgment on their lifestyles. One particular situation involves the principal encouraging the two women to go out and buy new main stream clothes, and to break away from their conservative religion. The principal justifies herself by saying she is speaking from a feminist point of view because of her experiences with the women’s movement. However, the principals judgments are not justified, and come from a place of ignorance. Ultimately the somewhat shocking approach the principal takes towards Rochel and Nasira, draws the two women together and they strike a bond.
While Rochel and Nasira practice different religions, they both have loving and involved families, who have the same goals for their daughters. Yet, they have different levels of tolerance for the other. When Nasira goes to Rochel’s house to prepare for a lesson, Rochel’s mother becomes hysterical and asks Rochel to have Nasira leave. Rochel’s younger siblings also show and ignorance and intolerance for Nasira because of her Muslim background. At first I thought this ignorance was due to generational outlooks, but ultimately I found it to be an exclusivity from the Jewish community. When Rochel meets Nasira’s family they are welcoming mostly welcoming of her, and willing to see her point of view.
Ultimately I liked the film a lot. I was happy to see that it had less of a geo-political message, and more of a human message. The movie shows two different worlds co-existing in a city, and throughout the movie Rochel and Nasira’s friendship makes more and more sense. This could be a story involving any two cultures and it could still be successful. The message is one of personal identity, and personal choice. Highlighted in the unity circle exercise that Nasira and Rochel perfom in their classroom, personal choice drives the message of the film home. Although we come from different places with different conflicts, we are all human, and we choose to be tolerant of each other based on the character of a person rather than their background and culture. This film has many lessons to teach its viewers, and I would recommend to anyone.
Film Review for Arranged
ReplyDeleteArranged is a movie that examines the lives and friendship of two orthodox women as the cope with the pressure imposed by their families to get married to men chosen for them. Rochel is the oldest daughter from an orthodox Jewish family who has just started working as a fourth grade special-needs teacher in New York. She is twenty-two and is being pressured by her family to marry various men chosen for her by her mother and aunt. Nasira is a Muslim-American who has started teaching at the same school and is also having men forced upon her by her father. At first, the women seem to not have anything in common with neither their colleagues nor each other. The sit by themselves at lunch as their secular co-workers talk about drinking and are visibly uncomfortable when another teacher reveals aspects of her personal life not appropriate for any work environment. The ignorant and insensitive principal does not make Rochel and Nasira’s situation any better with her unintentionally pejorative remarks. However, despite some gross exaggerations with regard to the secular community’s ignorance of orthodox religion and reinforcement of stereotypes, the movie addresses the relation between Jews and Muslims and the issue of arranged marriage, a topic that is rarely discussed, if ever, in a positive light.
Rochel’s family is a reinforcement of the stereotypical Orthodox Jewish family: her mother and father wear traditional clothes and her brother wears a yarmulke at all times. They live it what seems to be a strictly Orthodox Jewish neighborhood and the only visitors are family or the mother’s occasional Jewish friend. When Nasira comes to visit, the mother becomes so concerned about the neighbors seeing her daughter associating with a Muslim woman and that it will “hurt Rochel’s prospects” that Nasira has to leave. We never see or hear about Rochel’s friends, her entire life seems to be her religion. Nasira’s family is a little more accepting of her new Jewish friend, but they also reinforce the Arab-Muslim stereotypes that are so common is the United States. Nasira’s father and mother dress like traditional Syrians and the house is decorated in a traditional Middle-Eastern fashion. Nasira’s father was also an Islamic scholar in Syria but now he owns a gas station. The family also lives in a Muslim neighborhood where all the women wear Islamic dress Neither family seems to not associate with many people from different religions because when Rochel and Nasira encounter each other in the park, Rochel’s brother asks if Nasira and her nephew are Jewish and is perplexed when he is told they are not The women have to suggest that the two children play together because interacting with someone outside their own religion seems foreign to them.
From almost the beginning of the movie we can see that neither Rochel nor Nasira is elated by the prospect of their parents selecting a husband for them. Both women seem to have more passion for their careers than for the men their parents attempt to set them up with. Nasira’s first prospect is a man 20 years her senior from Syria. He is a friend of her father’s and visits the family one night in hopes of being the one chosen for Nasira. He eats like a pig, chewing with his mouth open, is overweight and balding, things that a 22-year-old obviously doesn’t want in a husband. She expresses these concerns to her parents and her father tells her that she must get past the physical and look at the long term benefits. When it comes to choosing a husband, her father seems to have more authority. Rochel doesn’t seem to have much more luck than her friend. He first two prospects are extreme: one is painfully shy, to the point where he can’t connect with other people and the other is too pushy, loud and intrusive. Even though Rochel keeps rejecting every man picked for her, her mother and aunt keep pushing, until she is no longer interested in finding a husband and is on the verge of abandoning the entire thing.
The ignorant principal doesn’t facilitate Rochel and Nasira’s person problems with her offensive comments. On one of their first meetings, the principal is getting to know the new teachers and asks Nasira if her father forces her to wear Islam dress. At the same meeting, the principal also makes a big deal of pronouncing Rochel’s name properly and almost singles her out. It should also be noted that the principal is a secular woman. Like many of the secular characters or those who appear to not have any religious affiliation, she is a negative stereotype. She makes other remarks like “Why do you dress like that? There was a women’s movement you know”, to Rochel regarding her modest attire and “I thought your religions didn’t allow you to enjoy life”. Another woman, the mother of Rochel’s student, drops her son off wearing a rather revealing halter top. There are more negative portrayals of those with no strong ties to religion at the party that Rochel’s cousin Leah takes her to in order to show her another life. Leah is like the family escapee and has rejected Orthodox Judaism for a pair of short shorts and house parties. Rochel attends the party but can’t seem to connect with anyone. When the camera pans around the room, we can see people drinking, dancing and participating in other sorts of “inappropriate” behavior. This movie makes the real world look so dangerous, rude and scary that it’s no wonder the women want to remain orthodox.
In the end, the women do end up marrying men chosen for them, however they do have some say in their own destinies. Nasira’s father listens to her concerns about marrying an older man and selects a younger, more handsome man for her to meet. Of course, it’s love at first sight for both people and Nasira wants to marry him after a few weeks of emailing back and forth. Rochel also finds love with some intervention from Nasira who delivers some information on an Orthodox Jewish man to her match-maker and this woman presents it to Rochel. Finally, both women end up happily married to Mr. Right all while still maintaining their friendship.
At first, I thought that the movie would be more about the women making their own choices when it came to choosing husbands. However, the family still intervened a lot when it came to the selection process and that was a little disappointing. The blatant stereotypes became frustrating after a while because there wasn’t a character to balance them out. The friendship that developed between these two women from different religions that have been at odds with each other is the best part of the movie. I feel as though their friendship clears up some of the misconceptions people might have about Muslim-Jewish relations and shows that Rochel and Nasira have more in common than even they thought.
Arranged-
ReplyDeleteThe idea of marriage can be a quite terrifying experience for many. The idea of an arranged marriage can be even shocking yet isolating at the same time. In the movie Arranged, nineteen-year-old film director Diane Crespo explores this maturing jump in the lives of young women from many ethnic backgrounds. While she explores this centuries-old practice, she identifies the practice, but through a new, and unusual set of lens.
Crespo explores the idea of arranged marriages by comparing the practices of two different religions. We learn of the stories of Roshol Meshenberg, an Orthodox Jew, and Nasira Khaldi, a Muslim, who meet each other during an orientation program for new public school teachers. As their relationship begins to mature, we see a budding similarity between both of their fears towards their marriages. In both of their families, it is tradition for the father and mother to initiate the process for their daughter to get married with a member within their society. While both Roshol and Nasira hesitate to go along with their generational tradition, they are brought to an interesting crossroad. Both are hesitant of the practice of having their parents and family select their partner, they are still looking for their traditional place in their family, neighborhood, and society.
While Roshol and Nasira go through the practice of an arranged marriage, I was shocked at the similarities between the practices of the two religions. In many regions of the world, especially in Israel and the Near East, Judaism and Islam typically collide rather than connect. Everyday, we see pictures of Israeli soldiers under guard as Muslim citizens of Palestine move through the region. This conflict is what is traditionally thought, but I would have never through of finding a similarity among an age-old traditional practice. For both of these women, they are subjected to a relative similar introduction and courting practice, which enables them to not only see similarities between their stories, but also to find a common ground above the smoke of their presupposed religious tension.
While this film goes a long way identifying the commonality among Judaism and Islam, the film also identifies much of the ignorance and stereotypes that surround both of the religions and their societies. The ignorance is shown through Ms. Jacoby, the principal of Rochol and Nasira’s school. In one instance, she makes comments toward Rochol’s dress in school, and offers her money to buy some new, exciting clothes. Rochol was brought up in a society structure that values the modesty of dress. While the principal may have said that in “good faith,” it shows the extreme insensitivity and ignorance towards “different” societies that surround the American society.
Overall, I though this was an excellent film. Although it had a slow start, I thought that the film did a wonderful job bridging the gap between Islam and Judaism. I would definitely recommend this film to be shown in future classes.
Khartoum
ReplyDeleteIn the history of modern motion pictures, Hollywood is known to examine and identify many of the social norms that society exudes. Khartoum is no different. Khartoum is based off of a famous English battle along the Nile River in the Sudan. In this battle, British forces were annihilated by the native Muslim forces, led by Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad. While the film shows this classic battle, it also shows to debunk many of the disbeliefs that people hold about Islam and its people.
Khartoum was filmed in 1966 by Directors Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon who eloquently described the events that led up to the Battle of Khartoum in 1885. In the early 1880s, local Islamic tribes began to rebel against the Egyptian occupation of the modern day Sudan. Following a slaughtering of troops in 1883, General Charles Gordon, who is played by Charlton Heston, is dispatched from London to Khartoum to put an end to the local rebellion, and restore British control. Upon arriving in Khartoum, he begins to fortify the city against the local troops, who are led by the fearsome Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad. As the city is fortified, civilians are evacuated, and tensions begin to flare, the Mahdi attack the city, and Khartoum falls.
While I was entertained by this film, I was also surprised to see many of the misconceptions found in the movie. In my opinion, the biggest one was the depiction of Islam, especially through its personification through Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad. Ahmad, played by the famous English actor Lawrence Olivier, is depicted as a brown-faced religious fanatic who believes himself as the “expected one of Muhammad.” Based on the perception of the film, I saw Islam be portrayed not only as a religion of war-loving desert tribesmen, but a religion home to fanatical leaders who misconstrue their religion for personal gains. In the film, the Mahdi attributes the success of his military campaign to a vision he had from Mohammad. The theatrical depiction of these visions casts the Mahdi, and his Muslim followers, as crazed followers of a religious madman. References to religious fanaticism and Lawrence Olivier in theatrical “brown face,” this movie dropped the ball in depicting the Battle of Khartoum without the interwoven threads of religious discrimination.
Overall, I thought Khartoum was the best movie that we viewed this year in class, and I would highly recommend it to anyone. Besides the exaggerated religious fundamentalism, I enjoyed learning about the clash of Islam and Christianity on the banks of the Nile in the end of the 19th Century. While the story is based on a battle that happened over a century ago, I saw many flashes to the modern-day relations between Islam and the Western world. Even today, many members of the Western world see Islam as a religion fueled by extremist fundamentals that preach a message of hate and destruction. While there are obviously different messages from today’s world and the world of Khartoum, the misinterpretation of Islam serves as a further step back from a more diverse and understanding society.
Leanne McCarthy
ReplyDeleteArranged Review
“Arranged” is a very well done film that is based around the friendship between Rochel, an Orthodox Jewish woman, and Nasira, a Muslim woman. Both women are first year teachers at a public school in Brooklyn, and have many things in common. Loosely based on the Executive Producer, Yuta Silverman’ own experiences befriending a fellow teacher who was a Pakistani Muslim woman, “Arranged” is very realistic and although everyone watching cannot know what it is like to be these two women, through watching the film the audience feels a part of their lives.
Rochel and Nasira are both going through arranged marriages and must deal with their families’ insistence on finding their mate. Nasira is much more at ease with the process, while Rochel resists the process. However, throughout the course of their friendship Nasira and Rochel become closer bonding over the experience they are both going through. Eventually they find love matches, go to each other’s weddings, have children, and become lifelong friends.
“Arranged” does an excellent job of showing the prejudices each woman faces, as they both outwardly appear to be religious. The Americans in the film are seen as loud, more promiscuous, and into alcohol as a way to contrast the traditional values of Rochel and Nasira. In particular, the school’s principal is portrayed as an ignorant idiot who gives the teachers money to “get new clothes, have a drink, and enjoy themselves”. Many people are uneducated and treat orthodox women as being not modern and repressed, which the principal is an example of.
Personally, I was not aware that matchmaking was still going on in the Orthodox Jewish community, but I was not surprised by it. I was shocked though that the mother of Rochel reacted so badly to Rochel bringing Nasira over to her house. The fact that Rochel’s marriage prospects could be hurt by having her Muslim friend over shows how there is still a long way to come in the older generations. However, the tagline of “Arranged” is friendship has no religion which I believe is shown.
Overall, “Arranged” does a good job of showing the similarities between Orthodox Jewish and Muslim women. In terms of values, Rochel and Nasira are very similar and relate to each other in more ways than with the other teachers at their school. The significance of “Arranged” is one of tolerance, and while the woman struggle with the difficult parts of their faiths, their love and commitment to their religions is evident.
Arranged is a heartwarming story of two young women trying to find their identity in a modern world that doesn’t always embrace the conservative ways of their traditional religions. Rochel Meshenburg is an orthodox Jewish girl living in Brooklyn. She is about to begin the traditional process of finding a husband through use of a matchmaker, or “shadchan” – a process her family refers to as “one of the most exciting times of her life.” Rochel is a special education teacher at the local school in a classroom where the teacher, Nasira Khaldi, is Muslim.
ReplyDeleteOne day Nasira and Rochel are both called into the Principal’s office. Their secular principal, Mrs. Jacoby, tells them that despite the fact they are two of her smartest teachers, the conservative ways of their religions are holding them back, and they are oppressed. “There was a women’s movement, you know.” She says pointedly. Both Nasira and Rochel look at one another, shocked by Principal Jacoby’s ignorance. The more time they spend with one another, the more Nasira and Rochel realize that they have a lot in common, for Nasira is also going through the process of an arranged marriage. After a particularly unfavorable suitor Rochel starts to have doubts about the effectiveness of the system. When Rochel expresses this frustration to Nasira, Nasira tries to reflect her own confidence in the system onto Rochel. She says, “God will find a way. We both still believe that, right?” This was an interesting thing to say because it clearly shows that both women still believe in God and His omnipotence, despite having two very different religions.
Rochel’s failures in finding a man cause her to start to lose faith in the traditional ways of her religion. Rochel chooses to visit Leah, her midriff baring cousin who has stopped practicing the religion in the orthodox fashion. Leah takes Rochel along to a party where there is alcohol, loud music, and lots of people mingling. Rochel looks very out of place in her long sleeved shirt and conservative denim skirt down to her ankles. One boy approaches Rochel and she runs away, very obviously feeling overwhelmed. As Rochel seeks to find a place where she feels comfortable, she realizes that the type of lifestyle Leah lives is certainly not for her. She returns home, yet is still at a loss, wondering when she will find her own way. Meanwhile, Nasira’s father has found her a good match, and Nasira wants to help her friend find the same happiness. Nasira visits the shadchan and supplies her with the name of a boy that Rochel previously displayed an interest in, Gideon. The meeting is arranged, and from there it’s all history. Rochel marries Gideon, and the movie cuts to Nasira and Rochel sitting in the park, both with baby boys. This last scene further defines the similarities between Rochel and Nasira; two women from two very different religions who have somehow formed a strong and lasting friendship.
The subject of this movie is an extremely pertinent topic, because we are in a time when traditional religion and the secular world of the 21st century are considered to be in direct contradiction of one another. Rochel and Nasira show us that this doesn’t have to be hard at all, and that they can remain true to their family and beliefs while still embracing their own ideas and identities. In fact, they proved that they could be confident women who were not oppressed by their conservative clothes and head scarves as the principal assumed they would be.
Despite not being very religious myself, I felt I could understand both of these women and their conflicts. The movie did a good job of making the characters very easy to relate to, and I didn’t feel like the religious customs and concepts in the movie made the movie at all foreign or difficult to understand. I think that Nasira was an important foil to help develop Rochel’s character. From the beginning Nasira is confident and collected and Rochel is awkward and unsure. Rochel learns from her friend and eventually begins to trust her own instincts and gain hope for the future.
Film Review: Arranged Elizabeth Zwaan
ReplyDeleteArranged marriages are not uncommon in many orthodox religions. Usually the match is selected by the parents, a match maker, or a priest or religious leader. This movie, written and co-produced by Stephan Schaefer and co-produced by Diana Crespo, addresses this situation by showing two women embarking on this part in their lives in a Brooklyn neighborhood. The two women are both elementary school teachers in a public school. One, Rochel, is an Orthodox Jew and one is a Pakistan Muslim, Nasira.
At first, the women’s co-workers and students think these women are not friends. One of the students in Nasira’s class says that they aren’t friends because Muslims hate Jews. Nasira and Rochel dismiss this claim and decided to teach the students a way to accept everyone. They ask the students to think of one word that describes them and they all form a unity circle in class. They then review everyone’s words and as a unit they choose who they want to be in their circle of friends. It helps to teach the children not to be ignorant to other people’s cultures and this theme is prevalent throughout the rest of the movie. The main premise of Arranged is for people to understand another person’s culture and religion and accept them as similar even in their differences.
The two women eventually become close after they realize their many similarities. They both are fairly new at the elementary school. They both come from more conservative faiths. They both are somewhat different than the other teachers at the school, which is shown in the opening scene when the teachers do their own unity circle exercise. They are both also starting with the process of an arranged marriage with their families.
Rochel, the Orthodox Jew, works with her mother, grandmother, and matchmaker to find the right partner for her. She goes through many different men, who don’t really fit the perfect life partner for her. Eventually she becomes tired of the nagging by her mother, grandmother, and matchmaker and decides that she no longer wants to date. She is frustrated with not finding the right man and is not willing to settle. She confides in Nasira about her problems with the arranged marriage process and Nasira tells her to trust her intuition.
Nasira’s father is also working to find a perfect partner for her. He brings over one man, who is not Nasira’s type at all. Nasira expresses her dislike of the man to her mother. Her father then talks to her about how all he wants for her is a good family and a loving home. He then says that he will not pressure her. Eventually, her father introduces her to a handsome, successful, loving man that gives her a spark.
I found it interesting how the writers had the Muslim father be more attuned to and trusting of his daughter’s marital wishes than the Orthodox Jewish women were to Rochel’s views. Rochel’s advisors say that she is too self-absorbed. The mother even slaps her hand away when she goes for dessert at dinner stating that she has to put her best foot forward if she wants to get married. They don’t seem to be really putting Rochel’s thoughts into the marriage choices. They also mention how it is hurting Rochel’s sister’s chances by having an older sister still dating. They even take her to some kind of voodoo marriage woman who puts a red string around her arm to help her find love. I found this view to be extremely inconsiderate, overbearing and backward of Rochel’s advisors, but it might just be my view on dating. They want her to trust them because they say that the people who know you the best will find you the best partner for a lifetime.
Both women eventually find happiness with their arranged marriages. Nasira marries the man her father found and Rochel marries a friend of Nasira’s brother, who was only noticed by Rochel’s matchmaker because of some investigative work by Nasira.
Ted Prettyman
ReplyDeleteArranged film review
The film Arranged revolves around the lives of two young women living in New York. Both are single and come from traditional families. The two meet while working as teachers in a public school. While the two women have similar experiences, what sets them apart from each other is their religion. One woman, Rochel, is an orthodox Jew. The other, Nasira, is a Muslim. The film focuses on their lives while their family’s try to use traditional means to find husbands for them, trying to set up arranged marriages for them.
This film deals with a number of issues that both orthodox Jews and Muslims have in common. One issue is the family structure. Both girls still live with their parents and seem to be trying to hold onto traditional family values. Another issue is the issue of marriage. While mainstream society does not practice arranged marriages, these two women go through this process. During the process they work through the frustrations of going through it in the modern world.
There is also the issue of religion and free choice for both of them. Both women experience push back from numerous individuals for their religious choices like going through the arranged marriage practice or wearing the hijab. In one instance in particular, the principal of the school tells them that they do not have to go through with the arranged marriage process and that they should liberate themselves as women. This illustrates the struggle that many religious people have. Many see them as being oppressed by their religion. However they are not being oppressed because it is their choice to live this way. In a sense, it is liberating for them because they were able to make the choice.
Finally, the film grapples with Jewish and Muslim relations in the US. While at the school, children ask if the two women hate each other because of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In another instance the Jewish mother is upset with her daughter for bringing a Muslim to the home, telling her that her marriage prospects would be “diminished.” I think the film really illustrates well how despite this conflict and suspicion between the two communities, friendships can emerge and there can be mutual cooperation and understanding.
I think that Arranged is a wonderful movie that tells a great story. The movie illustrates very well how two religious communities can find many similarities in a world that focuses on their differences. The movie also highlights the challenges of the modern world on those who try to hold true to tradition. Overall, Arranged paints a great picture of the dynamic nature of religion and culture in America.
Film Review -- Arranged
ReplyDeleteThe Film, Arranged, is a movie about self-identity, cultural pressures and overcoming social stigmas. The two main characters, Rochel and Nasira, meet through their teaching posts at a public school. Faced with difficult and curious questions posed by the students, as well as scrutiny and judgment from faculty peers, Rochel and Nasira are forced to face their cultural differences and work together in order to send a clear message of goodwill towards one another. Subsequently, a friendship is born, one which will see them through some of their toughest days: the rituals of arranged marriages.
Rochel, a devout Orthodox Jew struggles with her disappointing marriage prospects and her desire not to disappoint her parents. Her family, concerned with pressures from within the Jewish community, puts great pressure on Rochel to "not be picky," but Rochel is discontent to "Settle." At one point in the film, she leaves home to stay with her cousin, who had broke free from the modest lifestyle found in Orthodox Judaism. Rochel attends a modern day American party with her cousin. The party was a life-defining moment for the young protagonist. Seeing the debauchery of the liberal lifestyle reaffirms her self-identity as an Orthodox Jew and the morals and composure she cultivated through her upbringing.
Nasira, the Muslim protagonist, never seems to question her Muslim and conservative lifestyle. From the start she seems much more comfortable in her own skin, her dress and her religious identity than Rachel. Her family is determined to find the perfect husband for her, focusing on Nasira's happiness rather than pressures from within the Muslim community. In the end, her father is able to bring home an idyllic suitor for Nasira. I believe this story line will have a great impact on viewers, who might have preconceived notions and objections to arranged marriages in the Islamic faith. Often such marriages are stigmatized with ideas of dowery, social hierarchy, and women's subservience and inability to object to the decisions of their parents. The story of Nasira shows a beautiful family, parents who truly know their daughter an truly have her best interests at heart. They have raised their daughter to be strong, proud and intelligent and they actively seek to find a husband who is her equal.
The two story lines of these protagonists intertwine as the cultivate a friendship based on their common experiences, which prove foreign to the American culture in which they live. These are two strong, educated women who defy the stereotypes often associated with women of their religion. Furthermore, their unusual friendship also transcends the common stereotypes found in the world, which pits Muslims and Jews against one another. I believe that their location within America helps both Nasira and Rochel to disassociate one another from politics across the ocean. Not every person chooses to live life based on political convictions, but rather at an individual level based on tangible shared experiences with people within your proximity.
This was a beautifully scripted movie that defies traditional social rigidities. In a way, these two conservative women are more modern than their westernized counterparts because they have learned to transition against cultural boundaries and are uninhibited by social norms.
Arranged Movie Review
ReplyDeleteFrom the opening cut shots during the credits, to the closing scene of the two teachers on the bench with their baby carriages, "Arranged" was a touching and near-true-to-life depiction of a modern day American experience.
The scene of Rochel's family at dinner initially introduced the prejudices and ignorant attitudes that many characters throughout the film held. Rochel's father asking of Rochel's students "they're not all black are they?" shows the level of ignorance present in their household.
The way in which the filmmaker sequenced the scenes, Rochel's first meeting with her special-needs student, Eddie, and her first meeting with her first suitor are oddly contrasted. She is nervous for both of them, and the meeting with her student turns out much more positively. She accepts his way of meeting her, asking to touch her face to be able to picture her face, as a new and different way of perceiving the world. This is not the case with her awkward first match, who was highly praised to her by the matchmaker.
The principal is the archetypical representation of sheer ignorance and obtuseness. Her bluntness with both Rochel and Nasira is shocking when she tells them "You are successful participants in the modern world, except for this religious thing." She means this to say that the practice of their religions is holding them back. Holding them back from what? The way they choose to live does not bring harm to any other persons. Compare Rochel and Nasira to the other teachers in the school who are probably deemed "normal" and "fully successful participants in the modern world" by the principal. Are they contributing more to the "modern world" by enjoying going to nude beaches in Europe or obsessing about the engagement ring their boyfriend may have bought them? Not necessarily. Nasira and Rochel are taking advantage of American society and the benefits of the women's movement the principal speaks of having gone through. They do this in a way that is albeit different from the majority or women their age, but they have a right to modest dress and composure and the convictions of their religious practices and beliefs.
Nasira has a sense of humour that is clearly aware of her own situation, such as when her nephew and Rochel's younger brother are playing with the kite in the park and she quips, "someone should be shooting a commercial for world peace." She realizes that she does not have to be an official crusader for lofty goals such as world peace to make a difference in her community just by living her life as she does.
Both women struggle with their gender roles and identities with their religious communities, their workplace their families and themselves. Arranged marriages worked for their parents, but that was a different generation. Nasira's parents were not living in this country, and that could make the difference alone.
Rochel's cousin Leah left the community to live her life how she'd like to, and she serves as an example of how some individuals deal with their religious communities. The party scene in which Rochel's is very uncomfortable, puts her into an extreme circumstance where she doesn't know how to react. Rochel relating to and getting excited about Nasira's story about her suitor Jameel's arm brushing up against her was essentially the polar opposite of the party scene. This is one of many moments that displays the mutal understanding and emotional support that Rochel and Nasira share.
This movie poses a number of questions about what these particular women, and others like them in the United States expect of themselves, and what others inside and outside of their communities expect of them. How does Nasira's father want her to act as a Muslim woman in an American society? How does the matchmaker picture Rochel's marriage process? Other people (their parents, bosses, siblings, community members) determine some of their lifestyles, but they themselves exert autonomy over their actions throughout the film as well.
Khartoum Movie Review
ReplyDeleteFrom beginning to end, Khartoum is a movie of extremes and extreme inaccuracies. The opening scene of an army marching through the desert with men and horses falling all over from thirst and exhaustion depicts the setting from the get-go as a land of harsh desperation.The white men lead the African Muslims, perhaps their slaves, into battle.The army led by the British lost, virtually every last man of 10,000 men was slaughtered, which did not uphold England's honor.
The leader of the Sudanese Muslims makes a rousing speech, appealing to Muhammad and Allah. The narrow-minded 1960's portrayal of Muslims in epitomized here. The Sudanese uprise, Egypt was dealing with it, but they actually could not. The British Prime Minister and other 'old boy' leaders decide to singularly send General Gordon, a national hero, to Khartoum. If he fails he alone will be blamed for it, not the whole of the British empire. Colonel Stewart is sent to assist Gordon, who becomes the Governor-General of Sudan, a typical colonial act on the part of the British.
Zobeir, a former influential slave-trader, was going to help but he was bitter about Gordon executing his son in his campaign against the slave trade. The men travel by boat to a city surrounded on land by uprisers. Gordon is welcomed extremely warmly. There is a full-fledged parade in his honor. Confetti is thrown all over him and children placed in his arms. The portrayal of the people is weak, with the over ecstatic greeting of their British savior. The conversation about Jesus between Gordon and Kalil again underscores the white, Christian attitude the film exudes. Gordon nearly prosyltizes the man!
In his undying love and compassion for the Sudan, Gordon refuses to leave the country to the "sickness and misery" in which he found it. This theme continues throughout the film with Stewart eventually proclaiming, "if Khartoum is allowed to die then Gordon will die along with it." Gordon even goes against the direct orders of the Prime Minister of England by remaining in the Sudan to continue the work he is so willingly and adamantly fighting. Again towards the latter end of the movie there is a celebration in the streets for the British saviors, this time the troops that have been sent in. The humorous scene that follows where the British troops are trying to get on the camels is hard to tell if it is intentionally trying to make the use of camels or the British troops themselves absolutely ridiculous.
Gordon is portrayed throughout as the hero of the good, simple, honest Sudanese people. Essentially, the movie focuses on the idealistic central character of the Gordon forced to deal with the incapacitating dirty-work of the British government. In achieving this purpose, the film blantantly side-steps and misrepresents historical information and role of Muslims in the build-up of events.
-Bilqis Rock
Film review - Arranged
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Davis
In America, the subject of arranged marriages is often fraught with stereotypes: many Americans regard arranged marriages as symbols of the patriarchal religious structure that forces unwilling young brides into marriages fraught with discontent, and, for all we know, abuse. With the film Arranged, directors Diane Crespo and Stefan Schaefer present a touching story that defies those common misconceptions. The movie gently introduces us to the nuances of choice and duty that permeate the lives of two young women—one Orthodox Jewish and the other Muslim—living in conservative families in Brooklyn. Although they come from extremely different religious cultures, the parallel struggles they face and the peaceful outcomes they eventually accept show the audience an often-untold aspect of life as an American religious minority.
Zoe Lister Jones portrays Rochel Meshenberg, a young Orthodox Jewish teacher whose subdued manner effectively conveys her sense of confusion and resistance to her family’s efforts to find her a suitable husband. Freshly graduated from college and working as an aide in an elementary school, Rochel is unwittingly brewing a crisis for her conservative family: if she ages any further without settling down with a nice Jewish boy, her mother laments, she will ruin not only her own “prospects” but her entire family’s status within the tight-knit Orthodox community. Faithful to God and to her family, Rochel accepts the traditional matchmaking practice as something that is “much safer in the bigger picture”—however, her mother’s patience grows thin as Rochel feels no instant connection with any of her suitors. It’s hard to blame her, though, as we grimace through the comical stream of unappealing suitors that her matchmaker presents to her.
Her co-worker, Nasira Khaldi, is a young Muslim woman whose father came from Syria. The two women grow a close bond as Nasira’s observant family, like Rochel’s, searches for a husband for her. A good-natured teacher, Nasira is much less resistant to the process than her Jewish friend. She seems to trust her family’s judgment, and they respect her wishes. After sifting through a few unattractive older family friends, Nasira’s family finally finds a young, successful, kind man with whom she develops an instant attraction. Although unsupervised contact between the two is forbidden before marriage, the families privately understand that e-mail correspondence will develop the relationship between them. Through Nasira, the filmmakers show what audiences unfamiliar with marriage arrangement have ever seen: an example of a successfully arranged marriage.
Through Nasira and Rochel, we also observe many of the challenges of living religiously in a secular world. Because their religious identities are so visually identifiable, the friendship that blossoms between them is received with incredulity by many of the people who surround them. The children in the women’s classroom speak the most frankly about the friendship between them (after all, kids in films are great for speaking without tact): “Jimmy was saying that you and Miss Rachel can’t be friends because you’re from different religions. Like you hate each other or something.” Jimmy’s attitude reveals the childishness of many of the stereotypes held by the greater public. Even Rochel’s family agrees with the student to some extent: her mother tells her that associating with Nasira, an outsider to the community and a Muslim no less, could “hurt her prospects”. Perhaps the one who sees the friendship most clearly is Eddie, Rochel’s blind student who clearly sees farther than many of the adults who surround him. The rapport he strikes with Rochel breaks the barrier of discomfort that still exists between Rochel and Principal Jacoby, a mature adult woman.
(continued in the next post)
(continued - review of Arranged, Elizabeth Davis)
ReplyDeleteIn making Arranged, the filmmakers effectively show how modern young professionals try to balance their religions with living in the world around them. The balancing act proves especially difficult for Rochel, who, under pressure from her family, questions leaving the community at one point. However, the filmmakers also wanted to show how world around Brooklyn’s Jewish and Muslim communities can place just as much pressure on these women. Perhaps the most direct way to do this was to introduce a character who apparently speaks for the largely ignorant masses: the women’s boss, Principal Jacoby. An aging baby-boomer, the principal believes she is helping her two employees by encouraging them to strip away their identification what she sees as backward religious cultures (“There was a women’s movement, I went through it!”). Principal Jacoby represents many Americans who just “miss the point” of the entire film: Rochel and Nasira and the women like them have the choice, and make the choice, to live as they do. Her offensive frankness toward the two young women is a recurring source of humor not only for the audience but also for the main characters, who deflect her rudeness first with offense and then with laughter.
As much as Arranged aims to dislodge our preconceived notions about conservative Jewish and Muslim women, the film in general leans toward a heavy-handed approach to theme advancement by attaching stereotypical characteristics to the rather flat characters that surround Rochel and Nasira and influence their lives. The non-observant Jews in particular—represented by Rochel’s partying cousin and the inconsiderate Principal Jacoby—leave the audience with few impressions of human beings who are both kind and secular. However, we find it very easy to sympathize with Rochel and Nasira as they live their individual lives, strengthened by the bond that has grown between them.
Arranged takes us on an amusing trip into the world of traditional,old-country arranged marriages as they are currently practiced in Orthodox and Muslim families in Brooklyn. Although humor is often the delivery technique of the underlying issues, the trials and tribulations of the two Protagonists, Rochel (orthodox Jew) and Nashira(faithful Muslim)are presented with great insight and sensitivity.
ReplyDeleteThese two dedicated school teachers of different faiths, live lives very different than most people they interact with at work.
Modest attire and behavior, for example, generates questions from students, mockery from their principal, and appeals to get 'hip' from a liberated female cousin of Rochel.
Both are under pressure from parents to get married. The film addresses the religious and cultural traditions of orthodox Jews and faithful Muslims, and even some of the ignorance and stereotypes that they have for each other...parents react negatively to their respective daughters having a co-worker/friend visit each other at home.
Although each family 'arranges' suitor visits differently, Rochel and Nashira interject very similar happiness concerns into the process...juggling respect for family and religion with sincere desires to have significant input into the planning of their married and adult lives.
Initially, Rochel struggles more as she deals with pushy, hard-driving 'Yentas' who approach marriage almost like Human Resources interviewers searching through resumes for a 'good hire'.
Rochel and Nashira engage in penetrating conversations about trusting parents vs choosing one's own instincts. The film gives play to mothers, fathers and oblique players...each adding empathy, or tradition, or insistence or patience. The movie very successfully illuminates how similar we all are, in spite of apparent superficial differences.
As we have read, seen and heard throughout the semester, Christianity, Islam and Judaism share a majority of their religious foundations. 'Arranged' reminded me that culture and tradition can push us away from each other, when in fact, commonality of faith, when recognized, can bring us back together.
Rochel and Nashira were friends, co-workers and maturing young women dealing with their upcoming lives as wives and mothers. Covered heads and long dresses never covered up their genuine respect and affection for each other.
They had de-coded what it takes to be fulfilled, happy women in Orthodox Jewish and Muslim communities while functioning successfully in the bigger world of secularized Brooklyn. They were smiling in a park at movie's end, with babies in tow. I was smiling too for 'Arranged' had successfully captured religious, cultural, family, and personal values and placed them as complimentary endeavors in Rochel's and Nishira's lives.
If only male military,political and spiritual leaders could learn to juggle the challenges of life so peacefully and respectfully.
Arranged was a great film. I would really have enjoyed this film even if I were to have watched it outside of class. Arranged is a story about Rochel and Nasira. These two women are teachers at a school in New York City. Rochel is a devout Jew and Nasira is a devout Muslim. Their boss, a loud-mouth Christian cannot understand the two of them and often makes insulting comments. The girls have a nearly instant friendship but they soon realize that more people than just their boss do not understand them.
ReplyDeleteRochel and Nasira decide to meet at Rochel's house one day to discuss class and Rochel's mother was almost mortified to see a Muslim in her house. Rochel was very embarassed but Nasira understood and quickly left. They decide to go to Nasira's house next. Her parents seemed a bit surprised as well but were much more understanding.
Rochel and Nasira's parents are both extremely devout to their religion and see arranged marriages as the only way to find a husband for their daughters. The movie became a bit comical while the two women met various men. Each women went through various duds but they eventually find men that they seem to fall in love with.
The film ends with Rochel and Nasira taling in a park with their babies, eluding to a "happily ever after" ending. The movie was a great way to portray arranged marriages. Many people do not believe that arranged marriages still exist or that they work. This movie shows that arranged marriages are still very real and that in fact, they can work out.
Overall I would give this movie an A. It got the point across in a way that made you want to keep watching. I really enjoyed it.
In a modern society, many people find comfort in their traditions but are also somewhat alienated by it and tempted by new and different experiences. “Arranged” tells this story of two young elementary school teachers, Rochel who is Jewish, and Nasira who is Muslim, who overcome prejudice and adversity to find happiness in “Arranged” marriages.
ReplyDeleteRochel adheres to Orthodox Judaism. The older women in her life cover their heads in veil, and she dresses very conservatively. While in school, she speaks meekly. Attempting to adhere to her traditional values, she is trying to find a husband through a matchmaker named Miriam; however, her initial dates are less than successful. As more and more prospects are turned down, her mother and the matchmaker become increasingly concerned for her chances. The tension comes to a head when Rochel’s mother attempts to put pressure on her by claiming the father’s health is suffering for her pickiness. Rochel leaves and spends some time with her older cousin who opted for a more modern lifestyle – something not received well by her family. From there, she is taken to a party where she is confronted by drugs, sex, and alcohol, which she is unaccustomed to being around. A young man named Matt Cohen approaches her and tries to make her feel welcome and included. He gets her a drink and asks her to dance, but Rochel panics and flees the party. While on the subway, she consoles herself by reading from a holy book. Her family takes her to a woman who will “help answer her prayers” through traditional ritals. Later, while working with Nasira in the library, they find Nasira’s brother Ahmed studying with an Orthodox Jewish man named Giddeon. Rochel is smitten, but is unable to approach him as she must work through Miriam to find any prospects. Nasira, eager to help her beleaguered friend, poses as a student in a journalism class to collect Giddeon’s information, which she later gives to Miriam while in disguise. Miriam organizes a date for Giddeon and Rochel, and while on the date Rochel realizes that Nasira was behind setting them up but keeps it to herself.
Rochel is one of the more interesting and deep characters in “Arranged”. It is clear that she does not totally embrace the culture that she grew up with, emphasized with her flight from home and the doubts she expresses about the process of matchmaking. Through Nasira’s encouragement, she sticks with it, and it is truly only after Nasira intervenes with Miriam that Rochel finds happiness. When she discovers Nasira’s meddling, she also accepts it. If Rochel truly desired to find a husband through Miriam, she would have exposed the truth behind their meeting. Since she did not, she cared more about the individual – the man that she had a crush on – instead of the process through which her parents found each other.
Nasira embraces her cultural traditions far more than Rochel does. It is clear that Nasira is not under nearly as much pressure. While Rochel’s parents declare her waiting for Mr. Right “not an option”, Nasira’s father, though a little annoyed, does not place pressure on her to choose quickly. Late for one of her dates, something that was surely reprimandable, she was forgiven and indeed, ended up marrying Jamil. While Rochel embraced marrying a man that she found herself, allowing Nasira to force the necessary procedure, Nasira was more than content marrying a man that her father picked out. Indeed, throughout the movie, Rochel was unsure of finding happiness in this way but Nasira offered words of encouragement, pointing to the success of their parents in finding happiness through this manner. (Part 1/2)
Part 2/2
ReplyDeleteThe principal of the school also proved to be an interesting character. Declaring herself a modern woman, she appears to be driven, self-fashioned, and supposedly open-minded. Her idea of accepting other cultures and ways of life, however, is ridiculing the choices made by Nasira and Rochel. She is constantly encouraging them to have fun through partying, despite their religious convictions, even going so far as to give them money from her pocket to buy a new wardrobe and drink. The principal seems to think that they have been forced into an “Arranged” marriage through some sort of patriarchal oppression, and this comes to a head in the hallway when Rochel shouts that she chose this way of life. Though many people hold the view that “Arranged” marriages don’t belong in today’s society, the principal is an obnoxious and ignorant characterization. One can question the extent to which Rochel truly chooses to find a husband through Miriam. Considering the childhood indoctrination she received at a young age, combined with the dire consequence of being cut off from the family members she loves, she may be choosing this lifestyle under duress. Judging from her willingness to let Nasira circumvent the process, it seems likely that she would not want an “Arranged” marriage if family pressures didn’t exist. Indeed, family pressure and communal pressure seems to govern much of her life. When her mother returns to the house and finds Nasira there, she essentially kicks Nasira out, worried what the neighbors might think. Rochel relents and escorts her friend out. A similar pressure is exerted on Nasira at her home, but she does not cave to her brother’s prejudice.
While I found “Arranged” to be an entertaining view into the home-life of religiously conservative young women, I think that it falls far short of making its desired point. The gross mischaracterization of the anti-arranged marriage argument, characterized in the principal, sets up a straw-man argument that the movie proceeds to ridicule and easily destroy. Meanwhile, the parallel story of Nasira and Rochel has even more interesting implications. We are shown that both of them are happily married with children at the end, but also arrive there through different means. Nasira lived in an arguably more relaxed setting than Rochel did, able to resist familial pressures when Rochel visited, and experiencing little pressure in comparison when holding out for a good match. “Arranged” paints a very amiable picture of arranged marriage within Islam. The counterpart in the story, arranged marriage in Judaism, is depicted through Rochel’s long, drawn out, tense, and unfruitful search. The discussions Rochel has with her mother focus almost exclusively on her inability to choose a husband, saying that Rochel is not considering the big picture by not settling for one of the obviously undesirable matches. Rather than let the institution of arranged marriages fail, “Arranged” sets up the Deus Ex Machina of Nasira. When Rochel finds a cute guy on her own, Nasira does the legwork for God and sets them up through Miriam. If it had not been for this last minute skirting of “the rules,” Rochel may have abandoned her traditionalism rather than face the prospect of spending her life as an old maid. Fortunately, Rochel had the religious flexibility to accept this desirable outcome and pretend as though she is another success story for arranged marriages. From here, it seems that “Arranged” jumped to the conclusion that arranged marriages are an acceptable cultural norm and that they should be more accepted in the mainstream. Rather, if Giddeon or Rochel’s family knew how they were arranged, Rochel would find herself divorced and disowned – something that “Arranged” alludes to but never tackles. If “Arranged” had confronted these issues appropriately, it would have made for a much more compelling case for arranged marriages than it currently does.
Khartoum was a fascinating movie made even more fascinating by the period in which it was made. The first thing that struck me as odd was the choice made to cast the leading Sudanese roles as white men in black face paint. As I was to learn, Khartoum is a movie that does not waste time dividing the good, the bad, and the helpless and certainly does not toy with political correctness.
ReplyDeleteThe movie opens with a massive army of 100,000 men commanded by a british officer William Hicks – hired by the Egyptian government. Hicks followed the Mahdi and his army on and on through the desert, maintaining British discipline by beating back the dehydrated men from water. Finally, when the army could go no more and Hicks could only see desert for miles, he turned his army around. As he did, the Mahdi sprung his trap and Hicks was ambushed, his army destroyed, and the Mahdi captured more guns including heavy artillery. The huge crusader army led by Guy de Lusignon on July 4th, 1187 experienced such an ambush at the Battle of Hattin where they were crushed by Salah al-Din and his forces. Salah al-Din went on to capture Jerusalem. The Mahdi began to make his way to capture Khartoum.
Back in Britain, some high-ranking government officials, including the Prime Minister, deliberate what to do about the troubling situation in the Sudan. Doing nothing does not appear to be an option, as they have a moral obligation to Egypt to maintain stability and a vested interest in the Suez Canal. Their answer comes in the form of a man: Gordon! Send Gordon, they say! Gordon, of course, being the loose cannon British officer who ended slavery in the Sudan some years prior and has been a pain in the royal neck ever since. Not wanting to spend money and wishing to get rid of Gordon, they plot to set him up for failure by requiring him to raise his own army. When asked why Gordon will go back to Khartoum especially when it is such an obvious ploy to get rid of him, Gordon responds, “I have my own reasons.” This is especially intriguing considering he plans to install a former slave trader who hates him into power in Khartoum after he leaves.
Upon his arrival in Khartoum, there is a huge welcome waiting for him. Crowds come out to see him and everyone is shouting that Gordon is back! Almost condescendingly, Gordon walks through the streets of this town with a paternal attitude to these people, picking up children and waving to the crowds. Of course, he is modeled as an English gentleman that only desires peace and love. He struggles with his religion, wrestling with deep thoughts of faith. He is depicted as pious and freethinking. In contrast, this seems to place him as an enlightened, Western individual amongst ignorant, backwards Muslims worshipping their “Lord Mohammad”, as though he was the Muslim equivalent to the “Lord Jesus Christ” who Christians believe was a literal God, part of the triune sent to Earth. In contrast, the Mahdi is bloodthirsty and irreverent, abusing his position of power and really only desiring to kill Egyptians. Meanwhile, back home, the British people have become enamored with Gordon and his noble quest to save the people of Khartoum from the violent tyranny of the Mahdi. While preparing the defenses of Khartoum, Gordon even condescends to the local military. Talking as one would to a child, Gordon explains the ditch and gun plans to a local commander, playfully telling the officer “off you go!” when he was finished talking with him. Whilst the nobility of Khartoum panics and wants to flee, Gordon once again comes out on top by being the fearless commander. (part 1/2)
(Part 2/2)
ReplyDeleteThis movie truly centers on the British, rather than the people of Khartoum in the midst of this tragedy. The main tension of the movie is the British struggling with what they see as their moral obligations to less fortunate people. The entire conflict, and the British intervention, is viewed as their duty to stop them from killing each other, as a parent would break up quarrelling children. The secondary conflict is the substory of Gordon’s personal life. Gordon soliloquizing about his internal religious strife constantly punctuates the film. In contrast with the undoubting, fraudulent, and power hungry Mahdi, Gordon appears the ideal of the modern thinking man. Gordon’s relationship with the people of Khartoum is also offensive. The man ended slavery in the region and supposedly kicked out the slave traders, such as the one he wanted to install as ruler. This casts the people of Khartoum as childish and incapable, constantly requiring Western and more frequently, British help to bring them into the new age. I found Khartoum to be an offensive film, full of bias, racism, and ignorance – a tale of a British Officer and a Gentleman sent to save a city of incapable natives from an army of bloodthirsty savages. If I were Egyptian, Sudanese, or Muslim, I would be far more offended at the way such people were portrayed.
SYNOPSIS:
ReplyDelete"Arranged" centers on the arranged marriages of Rochel Meshenberg, an Orthodox Jewish woman, and Nasira Khaldi, a Muslim woman, their experiences, and the friendship that blooms as a result. These two meet as first-year teachers at an ethnically diverse public school in Brooklyn, New York. Defying stereotypes and outward pressures from each of their families, their respective communities, and their workplace, they embark on a loving, supportive friendship that lasts them a lifetime.
ONLY IN AMERICA?
The setting of a piece is always important because it influences the way that the plot unfolds. The degree of friendship that Nasira and Rochel experience is due to the fact that it blossomed in a society such as America’s. Both Nasir and Rochel, due to their religious and traditional upbringing, were brought up as minorities in American society. The fact that the setting of the movie is America is integral to the success of their friendship. If it were to take place in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Israel, their friendship would immediately be a question solely of Jewish versus Muslim and wrapped up in politics. That is not to say that their friendship was not surprising to those around them. Rochel’s family was uncomfortable with the friendship. Furthermore, the children at the school where Rochel and Nasira taught, not old enough to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict but old enough to repeat and be affected by viewpoints of those around them, asked the two women how they could be friends, and, furthermore, why they weren’t trying to kill one another at that moment. However, through explaining to the children that each and every one of us has the ability to choose our own friends based on their qualities and character and regardless of other’s opinions, Nasira and Rochel start to become friends. Since neither is in the mainstream society, they can both bond over their feelings over their common place in society – being “the other” – and focus on counting their similarities instead of counting their differences.
SECULAR v. TRADITIONAL/RELIGIOUS
The role of secular v. traditional/religious plays a large role throughout the movie. Nearly every character can be put on one of the sides, with maybe the exception of Rochel’s cousin, who has lived in and understands both of the camps, and she supports whichever decision Rochel chooses. The headmaster most definitely can be put in the secular category. She expresses her (unquestionably rude at times) secular views even from the beginning with her remarks about Nasira’s headdress. The headmaster comments on most of the things that the two girls do, including the way that they dress, their participation in their parents’ marriage arrangements, Rochel’s decision to partake in traditional Jewish “witchcraft,” and their willingness to pursue traditional female roles. She reminds them that this is the twenty-first century, and she hates to see them get married off because she will lose two of her best teachers. On the other side of the argument are Rochel’s mother and aunt, who adamantly insist on using the intermediary in order to find a suitable suitor for Rochel and push her to follow tradition. This results in Rochel’s internal struggle, which exemplifies the real struggle of the movie: a secular life versus a traditional/religious life. She tries to experiment, to dabble in the tempting secular world that her cousin has since fallen in love with, but she immediately comes to find the outside world much too intimidating and foreign to her seemingly sheltered upbringing. However, Nasira is much more comfortable in her own skin and seems to embrace the process, reassuring Rochel by saying that “it worked for our parents, and they’re happy. It will work for us.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePERSONAL THOUGHTS:
ReplyDeleteAll in all, I really liked the movie. I recommended it to all of my friends immediately after having seen it. Like most of Americans, I am unfamiliar with the process of arranged marriage. What was great to see is that both girls had a somewhat of a choice in whom they married; that it, at least it wasn’t arranged at birth. And even though my secular, western side was rooting for Rochel and Nasira to defy the traditional female roles required after marriage and childbirth, it was good to see that they were at least happy with their lives and that they had each other as life-long friends. Admittedly, it was definitely hard to shake that little voice in the back of my western, secular head that whispered, “they don’t know what they’re missin’….”
Movie Review: Arranged
ReplyDeleteSara Rosenbaum (Part 1/2)
I thought Arranged, written and directed by Stefan C. Schaefer with co-director Diane Crespo was an interesting portrayal of the younger, Americanized generation of the ultra-orthodox that held some enlightening themes. Arranged documents the budding friendship of two young women in their twenties, one Muslim, and one Jewish, that meet while teaching at a school in Brooklyn, New York. I think Schaefer does a good job depicting orthodox life in Brooklyn. Both girls hold their religious identity close to their heart, and in doing so, realize how much in common they both have and are able to join together to ward off the ignorance and intolerance that surrounds them.
The plot of the movie centers on the two young girls, Rochel and Nasira, as they are both looking to get married. In orthodox culture, both Muslim and Jewish, it is tradition to have an arranged marriage. The similarities are striking, but there are also some differences as to how the marriage is arranged. As in Muslim tradition, Nasira’s is father in charge of finding a man for her. She is not allowed to go and see any man on her own; she is only allowed to choose from the men her father brought home for a dinner with the whole family. In contrast, in orthodox Jewish tradition, a matchmaker is sought for the arrangement of marriages. The matchmaker sets Rochel up with different boys from the community who are looking for wives. Because of the similarity of their situation, which is surely an awkward time to go through without a friend to vent to, the girls bond over their journey of finding the perfect man for a happy marriage.
Even though this movie is not about straight out anti-Semitism or Islamiphobia, both are main themes. The first character to point out for her ignorance of anything she doesn’t understand in general is the principal of the school where Rochel and Nasira work. She is neither anti-Jewish nor anti-Muslim; she just seemed to be against religious traditions that weren’t her own. Throughout the whole movie, she is nothing but offensive to both girls. At one point, she told them to “come into the twenty-first century” and tried to give them money for new clothes- as if the only reason Rochel and Nasira wore modest clothing was because they couldn’t afford anything else. She tells them to relax, and “have a drink,” completely uncaring of Nasira’s abstinence from alcohol because of her religion. She does not even pretend to want to try and understand why Nasira and Rochel act and dress as they do. Each time the girls try to explain some aspect of their religion to her she dismisses it with something even more offensive.
I think the principal represents an unfortunately high number of Americans today. Instead of trying to understand people’s choice of religion, as Nasira and Rochel do when they discover that the long-term conflict between Muslims and Jews is a farce and can be overcome by learning about the “other”, most people rather just remain ignorant. It is a sad fact that depresses me daily, but most Americans would rather just conclude that all Muslims are terrorists and all orthodox Jews are stuck in the days of the Bible. Until people like the principal in this movie reform their ignorant views of people and religion, conflict, anti-Semitism, and Islamiphobia will always remain.
Arranged
ReplyDeleteSara Rosenbaum (Part 2/2)
Other examples of refusing to understand the “other” religion are Rochel and Nasira’s parents. Their reaction to the girls’ friendship shows the difference between the younger and older generations of Muslims and Jews in America. When Nasira comes to Rochel’s house, her mother is beyond rude, saying that Rochel better ask Nasira to leave before her father gets home. When Rochel goes to Nasira’s house, there is also a sense of uneasiness about the visit. It is a shame that this is the case. It is common for their parent’s generation to not have much contact with people not of their own religion. In the case of Rochel’s family, they have always lived in a secluded community of Orthodox Jews. The area where she lives in the movie is probably in or around the Crown Heights area of Brooklyn, which is composed of a few blocks of only very religious Jewish families. They all go to the same schools, synagogues, and eat at the kosher restaurants in the area. The ultra-orthodox Jews in a community such as this do not interact with other people, never mind Muslim families. It is more likely than not that a family such as Rochel’s has never actually met a Muslim person in real life, and therefore all they would know about Muslims is what they hear- that all Muslims hate Jews. This unfortunately explains Rochel’s mother’s uneasiness at having a Muslims girl in her home. The same would probably be true of a family such as Nasira’s, who are probably first- generation Americans. If they immigrated to America from a Muslim country, they have never known what it is like to be around people of other religions. This would especially apply to Jews, whom they would surely hold their grievances against when they have always been sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians in Israel.
I think that the story of Nasira and Rochel’s friendship is a very important one to remember and take to heart. As I have noticed while studying both Jewish and Islamic cultures is that like Nasira and Rochel discover the two religions have many traditions and cultural aspects that are similar. Instead of fighting between the two groups, there should be more of an understanding of where the other is coming from especially in their religious beliefs. In preserving their modesty, finding their husbands, and in dealing with the ignorance and preconceived notions of their parents and boss, Nasira and Rochel find a bond in their struggle to keep their religious identities strong in a place as secular as New York City. Viewers of this movie could learn from their friendship and know that there is hope for understanding and companionship between Muslims and Jews. Peace between the Muslims and the Jews world wide will most likely begin their bearings in America, where the melting pot of cultures forces interaction. Someday, like Nasira and Rochel, future generations will realize the mistakes of their elders and hopefully institute change, bringing about the peace that has taken too long to arrive.
Khartoum, directed by Bssil Dearden and Eliot Elisofonand written by Robert Ardrey follows the story of English General Charles George Gordon. Gordon, a devout Christian, is appointed military governor of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan by Prime Minister Gladstone. Ordered to evacuate Egyptians from the Sudan, General Gordon stays on to protect the people of Khartoum, who are under threat of being conquered by a Muslim army. His Christian faith and military command are challenged by Mohammed Ahmed el Mahdi, "the Expected One," the head of the Muslim forces.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film Muslims are demonized and illustrated as murderous and brutish. Watching this film I almost felt some parralels to the Roman Empires depiction of "barbarians". This idea was exemplified in the last scene in the film, where the Muslim army proudly presents the head of Gordon on top of a pike. Throughout history only the most brutish and usually uncivilized have utlized the imagery of heads on a pike (such as any old Indiana Jones film).
There were also many similarities between Gordon and Mahdi. Mahdi was illustrated as a harsh leader ruled by his religious passion versus rationality. Much can be the same for Gordon. Gordon constantly prayed while he initiated marshall law within Khartoum. More specifically when Gordon ordered the death a man who stole and sold the towns food supply. Also, much as many people believed Mahdi to be magical, many people believe Gordon to be the same. His popularity within Khartoum was immense and Gordon was seen as a man who could do no wrong. This was illustrated as Mahdis armies stormed Gordons base. The Muslim army stood around Gordon in a circle waiting for something to happen, when finally a spear was thrusted into Gordons chest, proving he is merely human.
Elizabeth Davis
ReplyDeleteKhartoum - review (1 of 2)
As I reflect on Khartoum, a sweeping desert epic in the vein of Lawrence of Arabia, I must continually remind myself that the film itself comes from a very different period than I know: the 1960s. A depiction of Britain’s response to the late-1800s Mahdi rebellion in Egypt-occupied Sudan, the film appeals to me less as a vehicle for entertainment and more as a stylized time capsule containing many of the popular stereotypes that existed in American popular culture before I was born. As such, Khartoum is, at its core, a very “Sixties” film. Most of the ingredients are there: a slightly distorted historical narrative, a wealth of offensive stereotypes, brownface, and Charlton Heston.
Somehow, the film plows over many of the historical and religious origins of the mahdiyyah revolt that occurred in Sudan in 1881 while including every other inane historical detail or dramatic fabrication that might have occurred on the British side of the conflict. The Mahdiyyah uprising was very much an expression of Sudanese disapproval of the oppressive presence of Egyptian troops in the Sudan. Strategically financed by Britain, Egyptian officers frequently imposed high taxes on their Sudanese subjects. Muhammad Ahmad, a Sudanese scholar of the Qur’an, took local anger toward the Egyptians and channeled it into a movement of revolt combined with Islamic revival. The idea of a “Mahdi” derives from a popular variant of Shi’a Islam that is sometimes called “Twelver” Shi’ism. According to this doctrine, the twelfth Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, disappeared in the year 874 but did not die. Believers expect the twelfth Imam, currently hidden by God, to return to the earth and to fill it with justice sometime before the Day of Judgment. In 1881, Muhammad Ahmad declaration that he was the Mahdi, or Expected One, grew him a religious following based on purification of Islam and asceticism to counter what they perceived as the corrupted Islam of Egypt. His defeat of General Charles “Chinese” Gordon’s army resonated throughout the Muslim world as an example of a local Islamic rebellion successfully ousting imperialist occupiers.
However, Hollywood clearly sees the violence differently. In the film, the conflict is depicted through the tortured eyes of the British General Gordon, the heroic and unselfish would-be savior of Khartoum. Perhaps the military ‘maverick’ of his own time, he has devoted his life to protecting the Sudanese people, who greet him with flower petals, fanfare, and a young child to carry around as he assures them that he will do all that he can to protect them in the face of the nefarious Mahdi. General Gordon is a valiant Christian soldier and a Christ figure all rolled into one, sacrificing himself for Sudan in a final symbolic gesture that defies all subtlety. Sir Laurence Olivier seems to relish playing the sinister and bloodthirsty Mahdi to counter Heston’s tragic hero Gordon. While the Mahdi and his Muslim cohorts are depicted as savage killers who are more than eager to slaughter 35,000 innocent lives in Khartoum, orientalist romantic Gordon is determined to save their lives even as the British army offensive crumbles around him.
Elizabeth Davis
ReplyDeleteKhartoum - review (2 of 2)
Although the content of the plot can be quite compelling at some points, the subtext of the film’s narrative provides the modern audience with much insight into the cultural and religious stereotypes that prevailed when the film was made. The perceived simplicity of Khartoum’s local Muslim population is perhaps best expressed through the character Khalil, Gordon’s dark-skinned sidekick. For instance, in one scene, Khalil muses about how he does not understand Jesus Christ, to the apparent pity and amusement of the 1966 audience. Not only do the filmmakers expose their partiality for racial stereotypes here, they also reveal their lack of awareness of about Islam as a religion. The other Muslims in the film receive worse treatment, as they are portrayed as murderous masses of religious fanatics blindly following the Mahdi’s orders.
Despite its overcomplicated plot, overdramatic acting, and many oversimplified characters, Khartoum still present some engaging moments, and indeed, I found myself staying the ten minutes after class ended to see how it ended. However, the entertainment value of Khartoum extends far beyond the plot; some of the stereotypes of Muslims it portrays are simply laughable.
Arranged is a movie about breaking stereotypes and bringing different religions together. Ok so it has prestigious critic reviews and maybe it was because of the subject matter, but lets be real the film itself is predictable, you said review right? This is a predictable hallmark, lifetime-made-for-TV movie at its best. If I were in a film class, I would think it is a cheesy film with clear predictability. These ladies are idealistic and the film, I mean its not real life a film of such cheesy and predictability is almost not enough to endure it. However, it got laughs and moments of whoa stereotypes and perhaps even broke some stereotypes to the American soul that maybe saw it because there was nothing else on, I mean if sports were not on TV.
ReplyDeleteThere are two teachers, Rochel and Nasira one Jewish and one Muslim. They are living very traditional lives and are being set up by there parents to find love or a husband at least you know someone your compatible with. Isn’t that important I mean doesn’t love just come secondary? I mean, he has to be a good provider; a suitable match ya know and the parents have to accept him. Does he have a good background? Is he from a good family? Will he make a good family man and provider? After all the parents, want the best for their young ladies.
So scenario Muslim young woman, Jewish young woman meet and become friends and oh look at all the misconceptions that take place once this strange union takes place. Even the students ask, ‘Don’t the Muslims hate the Jews?’ They broke the mold with this friendship. Its as if to say to the viewer ‘see we don’t hate each other we see each other for who the other is, tolerant and caring as human beings ought to be seen and viewed. How naïve we are if the world was as rosy as these two. But what an overly sweet friendship that occurs and the Jewish mother is shocked at what the neighbors might think that the Muslim girl came by the house. Who are these people and what is the big deal?
Part II.
ReplyDeleteOh and after failed set up after failed stereo typical typecast setup to make the men look appalling boring neurotic and undoubtedly moronic was so over the top which I guess is the point and it just so happens that the women meet there perfect matches by films end. How rosy it is to see the new mothers a year later with their children in tow. Happily, ever after, the boss was a hoot suggesting the Muslim woman dress modern and to take off the Hijab while the orthodox Jew dress more revealing. The orthodox Jewish teacher did try to experience the life of a non-orthodox Jew and went to a party where there was drinking and mingling between the sexes hosted by her cousin. This was a true moment in the film where her vulnerability and her absolute commitment to God and her tradition, shown through making her transparent. This was not her environment she tried it just to see as she was confused and felt shaken in her Orthodox religion as this was the truest moment of the film to be, in a peaceful way with a clean life to know that corruption exists and she want to be far from this corruption.
Now let me speak less cynically and say this, to cross barriers in the cultural and religious divide is a poignant reminder of how many can be close without the stereotypes that go along with it. I mean why is it even a movie when, I myself have friends of many different cultures and religious backgrounds, I mean why is the Jewish mother worried about what the neighbors will think? Oh, but I am not Muslim nor am I Jewish so then I must not understand what there plight is? I mean there was the Holocaust, oh and then the Israeli-Palestinian thing. Ok but this is America one big melting pot, isn’t the notion to get along with your neighbor. Aren’t we supposed to have our white picket fences and freshly cut green grass and wave hi to our next-door neighbors? If it were that simple.
I think, in part the movie had some exaggerations to say the least but a point was made, this point was not for me a Gentile in the realm of religion but this point was directed at the audience in which the roles were the stars. Hmm, is it really true that they don’t get along? But we are doctors, lawyers, teachers, social workers. Ah yes, we do get along it’s the fundamentalists extremists pious ones that mess it up for the rest of us.
Arranged is a movie about the tension between tradition and modernity arising when a Jewish woman and a Muslim woman begin the customary process of finding a husband. The movie is definitely a chick flick, but it does hold a highlight a few important points.
ReplyDeleteThe most important point centers on the friendship between the conservative Muslim and the orthodox Jew. Despite the difference in religion, the girls have more in common than they have different. For instance both women feel out of place when the other teachers discuss their more “liberal” lifestyles, including drinking, partying, and dating. In addition, the friends both encounter some few less than stellar prospects on their quests to finding the right guy. These similarities forge a lasting friendship for both women as they begin their families.
Another theme of the movie is highlighted as both women face the pressures from being between tradition and modernity. Raqala especially defends her religion and traditions against the school principal, while herself questioning the necessity of these very traditions in front of her family and community. While definitely a chick flick, Arranged puts across some important themes regarding the complexities of living between modernity in tradition.
Part 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteArranged is a character-driven independent film which aims to promote religious diversity and tolerance by focusing on the growing friendship between two devout young women who practice religions that appear diametrically opposed. Set in Brooklyn, the protagonists are Rochel, an Orthodox Jew, and Nasira, a conservative Syrian-American Muslim. The two meet in a Brooklyn public school where both are new teachers beginning their first year, and slowly discover that they have many things in common as they both struggle to cope with the stress and pressure of their respective families’ marrying them off. In Orthodox Judaism, women are expected to marry while they are young and find suitable husbands with the help of a local matchmaker, who provides names and information on potential Jewish men in the area. In more conservative Islam, women are also expected to marry while they are young, but potential men are presented by the father.
This movie presents common stereotypes about Islam and Orthodox Judaism, sometimes via the outspoken principal of the school who consistently makes ignorant and insensitive comments like, “There was a women’s movement, you know.” Her character epitomizes the misconceptions many Americans have about Islam and Orthodox Judaism. Arranged beautifully shows the similarities between the two religions and demonstrates to viewers how modern young women who practice these religions can do so within the Western and secular context. The film took an interesting and comical turn when Nasira and Rochel both refused to marry the men that were presented to them. It was refreshing to see this movie depict devout women who do have a say in choosing their husband, challenging the stereotype that all orthodox Jewish and Muslim women are oppressed and must marry whomever their families choose.
Part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteAlthough predictable, this charming movie is entertaining as it takes viewers into a world not well-understood. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that this movie was written and directed by a man, Stefan Schaefer, because he did a wonderful job in portraying the lives of two strong modern and conservative women living in a western and secular city and capturing the emotional rollercoaster that Nasira and Rochel face daily as they struggle to reconcile their religious and secular values. The actresses who played Rochel and Nasira did an excellent job conveying the emotions of their characters, like whenever they subtly diverted their eyes in awkward situations. Overall, Arranged is an excellent independent film that I highly recommend to everyone.
The movie does a great job of entertaining, most importantly emphasizing the complications that two women face regarding their certain lifestyles and also their inner struggles to claim an identity in this ever so corrupt world. Please take in mind, I have been reading some of the posts, and honestly this movie was not for the realists. The main conflict in this film is the struggle for identity between traditional and today’s misconception of dating. The thing is in religion you do not have dating. You have marriage only, there is no in between. Rochel says that “she is not willing to settle for a man that she does not feel any kind of connection with”. Honestly, does anyone want to settle with a man who they have connection with. It never works that way.
ReplyDeleteToday people want to be happy but if you ask your grandmother what was important she would tell you “it is if the man was able to take care of her womanhood and provide for my future children” It is not that relationships have changed. It is women. To look at this movie and think that it is about arranged marriages is a silly, silly, silly, and silly. It is more about women empowerment, being able to choose. The movie shouldn’t have been titled arranged, but rather INCLINED! Rochel’s mother thinks that settling would be much better than ending up alone, and do you blame her. Any woman should feel this way. Honestly most women to day have to settle. The thing with men is that there is a catch.
The problem with many peoples perception is that everyone is blaming the traditional way of doing it, like placing blame on the mother, when truly it is the men who have no idea how to act around women. The interest of traditional men is to please their family by getting married. It is the next step and in many peoples worldview this is the case.
The movie is evidently about Rochel coming face to face with life decisions. One thing that I do agree with the movie and is very realistic. As I was watching I noticed a woman, a woman who works, a woman who is independent from her family, but for her not to realize the world is quite different from religious tradition is completely naive. She is pushed to an edge when she finally stands up to the school principle and exclaims, “Who are you to judge whether our system of dating is better than getting drunk and sleeping around?”
Once again, this movie made me feel quite noxious. Rochel is once again acting childish, believing that the constant mockery of the school principle was aimed at her religious belief, but also Rochel acts in ignorance. To honestly believe that sleeping around is what women do to date; it is traditional people who feel this way. It is quite evident in the real world that when you speak to anyone in this manner you will get a similar response.
She does manage to find a husband using the traditional system. Nasirah trusts in the traditional matchmaking system as well. She says, “Our parents got married this way, and it worked for them. They’re happy. It will work for us too.”, another misconception with marriages. When she said this I almost cringed with disgust. It is like saying my grandfather was married for sixty years, so that means I will never have a divorce. It is absurd to think this way.
While the shortcomings of this movie are noticeable especially when it comes to finding a balance between truthiness and false misconceptions its basic point is conveyed clearly. Rochel and Nasira are two American women just trying to live their lifestyles. While, challenges portrayed in this movie may be different from what many women in this country face, they should not be considered different just because they come to a conclusion based on traditional values. It just brings the question what is modern and what is traditional. These conflicts are completely pertinent to real life and real Americans, but fall short on how the outcome is realized. It is far too predictable and sappy for someone like myself to enjoy this movie.
Arranged revolved around two school teachers from Brooklyn that come from highly religious families. Though one family is Jewish and the other is Muslim they both have one thing in common….both families intend on arranging marriages for their daughters. The movie explores the different avenues of relationships in regards of marriage that many women within the United States come across. The idea of arranged marriage is frowned upon within the United States. The director of arranged however does an excellent job on reasoning on why families tend to approach marriage through the arranged processs.
ReplyDeleteThe movie begins with the two main characters. First a Syrian born Muslim named Nasira. Nasira’s family intends on marrying her off to a man who has Syrian roots and who comes from a good family. Her mother and father arrange the meetings between Nasira and her potential connubials.
The other character is Rochel who comes from an Orthodox Jewish family. Her search for a life partner is much more complex and political then Nasira’s. Rochel search for a husband involves the arrangement of dating sessions through a Yentelike matchmaker and her mother.
As the film progresses Nasira and Rochel experience indirect bigotry from their Boss who is completely oblivious to their faith. In one instance their boss told Nasira and Rochel that they were in America and that its okay for them to be premicious and to head out to clubs and “party.” Their boss’s understanding was that women of religious faith were not modern, this conflicting mindset was contradicted by the fact Nasira and Rochel both were modern considering they attended college and now were teaching in a public elementary school. The movie had many situations were these characters underwent various types of scrutiny due to stereotypes and that is what the director does an amazing job on.
In the end of the movie both Rochel and Nasira come to a realization that their traditional arranged marriages were best suited for them and their families after experimenting with modern American culture. It seems the director did a phenomenal job at comparing and contrasting the main differences between Nasira’s Muslim family and Rochel’s Jewish families.
Personally I felt the movie was phenomenal and I would recommend the film to people who may feel insecure about potentially getting an arranged marriage.
The movie “Arranged” is about the two women from completely different backgrounds both who are experiencing similar situations in life and who find comfort and reassurance in their friendship. One of the women, Rochel, is an orthodox Jew who has to deal with pressure of her family to quickly find another orthodox Jewish man and get married in order to follow the traditional Jewish way of life. Similarly, Nasira, a Muslim from Syria, also has family who would like for her to find a suitable Muslim man to marry in the near future. This movie portrays how empathy and friendship is grown between two people who have relatively little knowledge and understanding of the other’s culture and values, yet learn that they in fact they have much in common with each other and use that a foundation for a long-lasting and successful friendship.
ReplyDeleteInitially, Nasira and Rochel meet each other while working at an elementary school as temporary teachers where they realize that neither one of them fit in with the other workers there and are viewed as socially backwards by the other teachers, in particular, by the principal of the school. In fact, on several instances the principal attempts to persuade both Rochel and Nasira, in her opinion, to behave more contemporarily, and feels that they are forced to dress that way by their respective families. In the movie, the principal represents the group of people who believe that everyone thinks alike and who are incapable of understanding other cultures and view these people as pitiable and uninformed creatures. However, the attitude principal is one of the factors that bring Nasira and Rochel together as they laugh over her behavior towards the both of them and how people would even think like that.
Another reason for the camaraderie that develops between Nasira and Rochel is due to similar pressures that both face from their family to get married and have children before they become “old maidens.” Rochel has a harder time coping with the influence of her family, especially with her mother, in trying to find a suitable husband especially since all of the Jewish men that are introduced to her are not at all attractive or interesting to her in any way and she is not able to picture a life with any of them. This baffles her mother and grandmother, who feel that all these men are amazing future husbands for Rochel and that Rochel is being extremely difficult and will never get married with this type of attitude. In fact, Rochel feels pressured so much that she runs away for a short while and sees her outcast cousin who broke from her family’s norm and decided that she wants to live her life on her on terms. Spending time with her wild cousin, Rochel determines that this type of lifestyle is not appropriate for her and she returns home and seeks to find a husband.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, Nasira was being introduced to numerous Muslim men and found one that she found could be her potential husband. Her family was a lot more supportive than Rochel’s family and she dealt with the pressures of finding a husband much better than Rochel did. Eventually, Nasira assisted Rochel in meeting her future husband when she noticed that Rochel was attracted to a Jewish boy that studied with her brother by obtaining his background information and coyly presenting that information to Rochel’s family. This strategy allowed Rochel’s family to believe that they were introducing this Jewish guy to Rochel in a traditional manner and not that Rochel was going out and actively seeking a husband.
Nasira and Rochel’s friendship however was not understood by Rochel’s parents who were not receptive to Nasira particularly because of her background and religion. This was illustrated when Rochel’s mom told Rochel to tell Nasira to leave when her father was coming home afraid of what he would say. No matter what hurdles were faced by Nasira and Rochel for their friendship with each other, they both realized that spending time with each other allowed them to release some of their stress they felt. This movie is a perfect example of how two people from different environments can relate to on another and it illustrates that no matter what culture people are from or what religion they practice, people still have the same problems from everyday life and a little understanding and compassion towards another with a different background than yours can lead to great and mutually beneficial friendship.
D/T Gears
ReplyDeleteArranged Film Review
The majority of films a student watches for a college class are dry and not very interesting, Arranged, presented a nice break from that trend. The film focuses on the idea of arranged marriage in both the Islamic and Jewish faiths in today’s twenty-first century society. What separates this film from other films a student watches for class is that this film gets across a point of view while remaining interesting, which is no easy task. This is due to the story lines revolving around Nasira Khaldi, an Orthodox Muslim and Rochel Meshenberg, an Orthodox Jew and how they handle the pressures to conform to the religious obligations.
Nasira is a middle-school teacher who also happens to be Muslim, and is going through the process of finding a husband with her family’s assistance. The trials and tribulations that Nasira go through as she tries to find an appropriate husband for her future were quite trying and at times funny. In Nasira’s case her mother appeared supportive of her and wanted to make sure that Nasira is happy. Nasira’s father on the other hand seemed to be the parent who wanted the arranged marriage. This is the opposite from what Rochel experienced.
For Rochel, who is the Nasira’s teaching assistant, her mother and grandmother were really pushing the idea of the arranged marriage, and were really concerned about how the rest of the Jewish community looked at their family. Rochel’s father on the other hand, appeared to kind of bend to the will of what Rochel’s mother wanted. Rochel’s mother and grandmother seemed to want Rochel to be happy however they felt that she was not being open minded in the pursuit for a husband.
Nasira’s pursuit of a husband came to a good end by the luck of faith. One of the prospects which her father saw fit for her worked out perfectly as her and the man felt the connection. For Rochel, she owes it all to Nasira, as Nasira got involved in the process and gave Rochel’s “shadchen” the information on a prospect which was originally not included in the search but was one that Rochel had felt a connection to. This is quite ironic because there is an instance where Rochel’s mother for all intents and purposes kicked Nasira out of the house strictly because she was concerned about what the neighbors would think of having a Muslim in the house.
What made this movie so good compared to other movies we normally watch for class is that this movie seemed real and plausible. The situations which it showcased seemed about as real-life as you can probably get for a feature film. The ending to me was also very symbolic, the fact that these two young adults were able to look beyond the “traditional” differences of religion that have separated their ancestors for so long and build a friendship, and the fact that their children were playing together is telling. The saying that the future lies in the children is a hundred percent accurate and is the secret to being able to make a difference.
Arranged is an independent comedy-drama film that examines arranged marriages through two religious individuals, Rochel, an Orthodox Jew and Nasira, a Conservative Muslim, and ultimately shows the viewer that we all have much more in common than originally thought. In this film, Rochel and Nasira are both new teachers in an incredibly diverse New York City school system who originally face challenges balancing their religious beliefs with modernity. While both Rochel and Nasira fit in perfectly within their respective religious communities, they are without doubt the social outcasts of the teaching community at their middle school. Despite their fundamental religious differences, they are essentially treated the same by the staff of the school—as outsiders. In one scene, the principle of the school unintentionally makes religiously insensitive remarks about Nasira’s hijab that represents many Americans’ views regarding how they treat persons whose religious practices make them stand out.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this treatment as an outsider ultimately brings Rochel and Nasira closer together. They are the only two teachers who can accurately understand each other’s situations in the school and they eventually discover that they have more in common than originally thought—they are both going through arranged marriages. The film next shows just how each woman is expected to handle arranged marriages within their respective religions. In the Orthodox Jewish religion, a woman must go through marriage through a matchmaker found in the Jewish community whereas within the Islamic religion, a woman’s marriage is arranged through their parents. Although both religions have their difference, the two women find common grounds in the pressures they are facing from their parents, their respective religious communities, and also modern American society.
The film ends predictably with both women finding happiness through their traditional religious methods of arranged marriages. They experiment with more Americanized models of dating but in the end realize that with their upbringing and culture, arranged marriages simply work the best for them. Overall, I thought this movie, while it does promote religious cooperation and unity through our similarities, does not show enough of the negative aspects of arranged marriages.
Khartoum Review Jacob Owens
ReplyDeleteUpon finishing Basil Dearden’s 1966 Khartoum, I could only help thinking that somewhere Edward Said is spinning in his grave. The acclaimed twentieth century author of Orientalism brought the ideas of Western perception of the East into the academic conversation. Western media and arts have long displayed the East, especially Middle Eastern cultures, as being the antithesis to their own. Contrasts of the gentleman to the barbarian, Christian to the Muslim, and ultimately good to evil are abound within Khartoum. From the characters, set designs, musical arrangements, etc., Khartoum is orientalist to the core.
With the main characters Major Gordon and the Mahdi Mohammed Ahmed we find a plot driven on contrasts. Gordon is erratic and eccentric while the Mahdi is calculated and traditional. The Mahdi is dressed in pure white to the contrast of the darkened “black-face” worn by English actor Laurence Olivier, whereas Gordon is always dressed in regal red with bright gold trim. When the Mahdi speaks he talks about glory for himself and God, but when Gordon speaks he talks about protecting the “innocent people.”
Perhaps what I saw as particularly orientalist were some scenes that are so dramatically over the top in order to show the “heroism” of Major Gordon. In the scene where he returns to Khartoum for the first time, we see throngs of dark villagers applauding the arrival of the lone white man on a white steamer. Then as Gordon proceeds through the village he stops to pick up the orphaned villager girl, as if this was a political rally and he had to show he was not afraid to interact with the people. Maybe I am ignoring the truth behind the events of this film, but it just came off as too gimmicky and full of innuendo.
Besides the scenes that are over the top, however, there is the inaccuracy of the actual events. In the film, Gordon is intercepted by some of the Mahdi’s soldiers while trying to scrounge up food for the blockaded Khartoum. He then leads his small force of men to fight off the Mahdi’s cavalry, winning the fight only when Col. J.D. Stewart arrives with aid. In real life, however, Gordon small contingent of men was unable to fight the enemies off and many of Gordon’s men actually defected to the Mahdi’s force. Also, the final scene in the battle of Khartoum where Gordon is killed on the stairs is a complete fabrication. All historians concur that they do not know how or when Gordon was killed because anyone that could have told us was slaughtered in the siege. This movie’s final scene was pulled from an orientalist painting done after his death.
By the end of the movie I fully expected Gordon to have done something to save the city, but I was wrong. For a movie that glorifies a military leader, he took on a mission that had little to no chance of success, was unable to even make any arrangement to save the citizens of the city (ala Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven), and instead is massacred along with every man, woman, and child in Khartoum. I simply do not know what this film was trying to glorify. Was it his stalwart military skills that saved the city? No, that wasn’t it. Or maybe it was the fact that a white man did not have a problem living with the Africans of Khartoum? Perhaps that was it.
Like Little Mosque on the Prairie, there is a lot going on here. This movie is very funny in its assessment of Jews and Muslims coming of again America. There is also the conflict within the family. Growing up and attempting to find a husband. Trying to find happiness while also pleasing your family. The two girls must confront the conflict between their traditions and beliefs and the liberal nature of the school. They must also deal with their friendship. Neither of their families is interested in seeing their daughter hang out with a Muslim/Jew, and yet a Conservative Muslim and an Orthodox Jew form a friendship. The whole time this "American Tale" is being told, the root of the movie "arranged marriage" remains in some sort of satirical sense right there in the open. The two can teach in that setting, form friendships outside of their community, even go to a party, but the arranged marriage is still there. Despite leaving the home and going to college, Rochel and Nasira are faced with scrutiny in how they dress, in their names, and how they interact withouts.
ReplyDeleteI often hear people criticize this movie on the grounds that it glorifies arranged marriage, or says its "ok." However, the message is much deeper than that. The message is about the conflict modern society has with traditional religious practices and how all of this can be balanced out for two educated young women.
Arranged, a story of two young women one of the Jewish and Islamic faiths, which are both teaching at the same New York City public school.
ReplyDeleteNisra the Muslim woman is charge of the class and Rachel the Jewish woman helps out in the class with a young boy who has a learning disability.
Within the classroom the two women explain the differences and similarities between their two religions. They help the class by using a learning exercise which uses a circle, each student writes down something about themselves, then the rest of the class decides whether or not they want them to be a part of their circle, this helps the students to understand that while they may have differences that doesn’t mean that can’t be in the same circle and all get along with each other as individuals.
Besides the classroom they each have their issues, outside of the classroom both families are trying to “arrange” marriages for their daughters. Both women are having trouble in their own worlds finding men within their particular religions.
The film shows that both women while practicing separate religions which may on an international scale have issues with one another, as individuals they are going through the same things and have the same feelings of respect and friendship toward each other.
Film Review: Khartoum
ReplyDeleteI thought this film one of the many that continues to propagate Orientalistic attitudes. The premise is one that has been used many times in art, film and literature: the white man is the savior for the helpless and incompetent natives. In particular, Charlton Heston’s character, the intelligent, suave, experienced sage who finesses his way through a political morass, set against a brutish militaristic and simple ethnic antagonist. The film is chock-full of one-dimensional characters, all who are local ethnicities. Not one white role lacked character development. This dichotomy is proof of the racism of the time in history and of the time of the film was made. The ignorant savage again fights against the sophisticated white man. This was such a racially sensitive film.
There are many elements that communicate the romanticism of the East, the definable trait of Orientalism. To begin, the recycled images often seen elsewhere appear in the film. Camels, vast unknowable desert landscapes, the pyramids, fezes, Bedouin-style desert camps, bellydancer (who gave the worst performance I’ve ever seen), veiled beauties, ad naseum
The film has political implications as well. Of course, the nature and extent of colonialism is portrayed. European encroachers, the English in this case, descend upon other nations and assume political authority. Colonial attitudes are expounded upon in one scene with English politicians discussing the situation between the Sudan and Egypt. “Why can’t Egypt protect itself?” was met with the telling and brief reply, “She’s not up to it.” In the film, much like in history, the European colonizers imposed what they considered a moral responsibility over other nations. Additionally the film testifies to the intricacies of foreign involvement, and the complications that often befall them. That is, states often say they are reluctant to engage in foreign matters, yet they tend to become involved nonetheless, often by subversive means. Rather than addressing the Sudanese concern directly by sending down English troops, Gordon is sent down incognito to manipulate the situation. Such a tactic is widely used in international politics today.
On a personal level, I thought this film was a joke. I could hardly tolerate the blatant racism and ethnocentricity rampant throughout it. Everything about the film seemed abstracted and romanticized and I can’t help but wonder if producers wanted to duplicate Heston’s “Ten Commandments” cash cow. Moreover, the mispronunciation of the Arabic in the film was grating. I must say that I found it amusing when Heston’s character remarked, “I must inform you Khalil, as delicately as possible, that I am not Jesus Christ.” Such understatement.
I would sum up the film with a quote from the beginning: “Vanity mixed up with vision.” It was Heston magnetism combined with an overbearing Orientalist point of view.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArranged
ReplyDeleteIn the film “Arranged”, Rochel is an Orthodox Jew and Nasira is a Syrian-American Muslim. They are starting out as 4th grade teachers working in an elementary school. The students and teacher s expect them not to get along from the start because of the tension that exists between the two religions. They do however find common ground and are brought together by the equally confused ideas about prejudice vocalized by their boss and principal of the school, their relatives, and their fourth-grade students, the two confide about their respective marriage prospects.
I like the overall message this film gives, Rochel putting it in her words in the film that she wants to find marriage on her own terms, even if it is still arranged. Emphasizing that they do have a choice regardless of the religious institutions or what other people perceive. I also like the example Nasira told Rochel when Rochel started doubting if they were meeting people the right way. Nasira said that it worked for their parents too. We do look to our parents as models of future aspects of our life. Love and marriage most certainly being one of them. The parents of both these ladies do seem to support and stay by each other in their stances and action, something that a solid marriage should include.
Maybe this is a film that is sought to just entertain but I would have liked to see Nasira have more of a struggle regarding the plans on arranged marriage. Everything seemed to work out more easily with her and conveniently too. I would have liked to see what happens after they both found their respective others (other than the products in the baby carriage at the end of the scene.) What happens after they are “arranged”? Even if it is another story in itself I still would have liked to have seen how or if they changed. If there was any other struggles that pertained to the marriage after it was arranged.
-Michelle Rana
Arranged:
ReplyDeleteThe movie Arranged was a very peculiar story that pertains to modern day challenges amongst members of every religion. Two inner city school teachers learn the values and meaning of friendship, regardless of religions orientation. The beginning of the movie showed how the families of each girl are very different. Rochel, from an Orthodox Jewish upbringing, and Nasira from a Syrian-American Muslim upbringing have had very different yet similar experiences. For Nasira, as a woman, she has had to deal with the stereotypes of wearing a hijab. Rochel, for dressing so modest all the time. Rochel's family was very taken aback and displeased at Nasira's presence in their home when Rochel brought her home to hang out. Muslims and Jews for a long time have not seen eye to eye, so in the American setting; that dispersion between to two still exists, regardless of the multi-cultural setting in American life.
Moreover, Nasira's challenges were quite minute compared to the real challenges Muslim women face. Her arranged marriage mission came very easy to her. If she didn't like the guy, her mother and father went onward to find her another candidate. There was no real challenge for Nasira in terms of her parents arranging her with a husband.
Rochel and Nasira both looked up to their parents and sought to emulate their processes of finding a mate. As a child, you often think what your parents did is what you should do, however as time changes, this proves ineffective.
Moreover, I thought this movie did a wonderful job at emulating the challenges Muslim and Jewish Americans face, however it was very mainstream. They tried to take a deep issue and make it emotionally effect its viewers but for me, as a non-Muslim/Jew; I wasn't very emotionally hit by this movie. I thought they could have made it a little less hollywood and a little more realistic. Nonetheless, I think it's a good movie to show non-believers of those faiths, and the different aspects of their everyday lives.