纪录片自媒体解说素材-新闻动态参考-“ Jihad Rehab”董事介绍了有争议的关塔那摩被拘留者纪录片的批评者/‘Jihad Rehab’ Director Addresses Critics of Controversial Guantanamo Detainees Documentary
https://cdn.6867.top:6867/A1A/hddoc/news/2022/07/0502/3508fi20uj2gjrl.jpeg“ Jihad Rehab”董事介绍了有争议的关塔那摩被拘留者纪录片的批评者
‘Jihad Rehab’ Director Addresses Critics of Controversial Guantanamo Detainees Documentary
今年圣丹斯电影节最有争议的电影之一是一部名为“圣战康复”的纪录片，跟随一群前关塔那摩湾被拘留者。 - 这部电影跟随几名也门男人在美国运营的拘留营中被非法拘留了15年，然后被搬迁到沙特阿拉伯的穆罕默德·本·纳耶夫（Mohammed bin nayef）咨询和护理中心，这是一个所谓的极端分子的“康复中心”该节目在被允许重新加入社会之前。这部电影轨道轨道上了阿里（Ali），纳迪尔（Nadir）和穆罕默德（Mohammed）在三年内动荡不安的旅程，因为他们试图抓住自己的创伤，并在沙特阿拉伯度过了不安的未来，这对他们来说是违法的，因为他们是非法的也门，离开。 （沙特领导的海湾国家联盟在2015年渗透了也门的内战，进行了破坏国家的空袭。）Hile“ Jihad Rehab”不是关塔那摩怪异轨道上的第一部电影，它的圣丹斯首映式受到了人权倡导者和其他纪录片的批评，其中许多来自阿拉伯人或穆斯林背景，他们担心该医生的主题是被框架为罪犯（尽管在美国或沙特从未站立过审判）；电影上映后，这些人可能处于危险之中；关于穆斯林的有害陈规定型观念正在延续。听到中心并获得安全的访问吗？Smaker：是在2007年。我正在[也门]训练消防学员，我听到了关于在沙特阿拉伯的恐怖袭击的谈话。一半的男人是也门，一半是沙特，根据我的听觉，他们派了也门我认为有些人被处决，他们将沙特人送往他们所谓的“圣战康复”。我花了一年多的时间才能进入。沙特政府从不告诉你“不”，他们只是在跨栏后扔障碍，然后最终您放弃了。一年后，他们终于授予我对中心的物理访问。当[男人]听到我说话[也门方言的阿拉伯语]时，他们的头突然出现。一句话遍布整个康复中心，所有这些门都打开了。我结束了大约150至200个人的交谈，然后在接下来的几年中跟进了一小部分四人。您为什么认为这些人同意参加这部电影？ （最终，拍摄的一半确实退出了电影。）Smaker：好吧，我不想为他们说话，但我有一个主意。我认为，与阿里一起，他在他的兄弟声誉的阴影下（也门是基地组织的领导人），他想讲述自己的故事。和[穆罕默德]定义关于美国，关塔那摩的话，他想说的话，这是他真正想提出的信息。我认为他们都有自己的个人原因。Smaker：是的。绝对地。我的意思是，我怎么可能？一开始，我对中心非常持怀疑态度，并意识到所有政府都想制作自己的积极形象。很好的是，当我最初去那里时，兴趣是中心。但是，当我真正遇到了电影的主题时，我的好奇心和我的兴趣就对中心的兴趣不大，对这些家伙及其故事的更多。纪录片的一些批评者说，即使他们不是恐怖分子，他们都将主题构成了。被控任何犯罪，没有参加审判。您如何看待讨论？Smaker：T他第一次看到它们时，我们一枪就列出了美国政府指责他们的内容。但是在接下来的90分钟内，我们让他们告诉他们的一面。Aabas：我现在真正关注的一部分是梅格打开灯光以展示发生了什么事，现在谈话不是关于这些人的，或者发生了什么事与也门被拘留者；这是关于术语或访问权限的人。我们忘记了这里有一个社区通常是 - 原谅我的语言 - 我们的海湾邻居会说。我知道很多这些人确实有很好的意图，但我希望重点是也门社区。所有这些都是为了争议术语或制作这部电影而不是真实的故事而被抛在一边。也门社区。我很好奇，如果您对人们可能会如何消失有任何想法承认他们处境的特殊性是也门，而是作为恐怖分子？艾巴斯：我只想指出，我们邀请[电影的批评家]放映电影。我飞往洛杉矶加入梅格，并提出在圣丹斯之前与他们进行讨论。他们拒绝与我们见面或放映电影，他们只想与圣丹斯打交道。这种使我想知道他们的动机是什么。这不一定与电影的主题有关。您认为这可能是因为他们觉得这部电影已经完成了，几乎没有什么可以改变的？除了一个人引起人们的轰动，并且一直非常恐惧，并加强了刻板印象 - 它们主要由白人导演完成。因此，当他们在圣丹斯（Sundance）的阵容上看到最初的阻塞时，我理解了最初的推回，他们说：“哦，不是另一个。”所以我不是恩格里。我当时想，“是的，我完全理解他们为什么可能会这样。”这就是我们邀请他们来与我交谈和穆罕默德（Mohammed）的原因之一，然后看电影说：“如果我们缺少某些东西，请告诉我们，因为我们仍在编辑。”电影如果是该地区被访问的地区制片人？Aabas：这不是关于梅格为什么或如何获得访问权，而是感谢她这样做的。我不得不问很多那些电影制片人：他们尝试过吗？他们真的尝试过吗？如果他们中的任何一个能够证明他们去了沙特阿拉伯，并试图获得访问权，那么我的帽子就脱颖而出。但是她实际上做了这项工作。如果您以前收到了一些电影制片人的反馈，您会改变什么？Smaker：对我来说很难，因为我不知道反馈是什么。我听说他们不喜欢这部电影，但我不知道，因为再次，我们无法与他们见面。拥有蜜蜂的人之一n在电影上的帮助是宗教领袖。不到一周前，他与这个小组接触，就像“嘿，让我们谈谈”，他们甚至拒绝与他见面。因此，如果没有人能够告诉我什么是什么，我就无法真正解决批评。总而言之，有人认为这部电影试图“人性化”主题，同时仍在质疑他们是否是罪犯，并且这部电影也使有害有害有害。刻板印象。有些人还对白人导演的目光与该地区的某人不同。递送真正了解当地政治的人以及在沙特阿拉伯的工作方式。我的联合制片人和法律顾问比任何人都了解的是对电影中投入和不投入的方式。我认为看电影很容易，说他们应该做到这一点，而另一个但是，除非您实际上知道当地的工作在地面上，否则我设法将其延迟到那些可以为电影做出决定的人。释放后，当他因失业而苦苦挣扎时。如果他还在沙特人？史密斯（Smaker），那可能会危及他：那场景的编辑方式使它有些模棱两可。当我看到电影的第一个剪辑时，我认为那是有问题的。我告诉[我的沙特联合制片人标记]任何可能会让这些家伙陷入困境或使他们不安全的场景，她没有标记那个场景。她说，在电影中，唯一需要关注的是他们是否对政府说了什么不好。我们在沙特阿拉伯有一位律师，一直向我们提供建议和咨询我们应该在电影中应该和不应该确保这些家伙安全的事情。当电影出版时发生，并可能影响这些男人？您是否考虑过这种情况？Smaker：是的。我们已经在这里和沙特阿拉伯与安全专家进行了咨询，并为此制定了一项行动计划。我不能太多，但是当您制作纪录片时，不仅仅是讲故事。这是要考虑人们的安全，并采取一切步骤来减轻这种风险，到目前为止，沙特当局需要对您使用的录像进行任何认可？Smaker：不，什么都没有。您如何资助这部电影？ ：我们将所有收到的东西刮在一起，例如这里的2,000美元或5,000美元。这不是由任何分销商资助的。我们没有巨大的赠款。这只是一群真正热衷于主题的人，要求朋友和家人提供帮助。在过去的五年中，大多数从事这部电影的人都没有得到报酬。每个人都真正相信该项目，并相信这些男人故事的重要性。对我来说，很多人（来自）在也门生活了这么长时间，看到我自己的乡村地毯炸弹炸弹，并在关塔那摩派来的也门。如果我不能召集自己的政府做这种废话……艾巴斯（Aabas）：这是抱怨的纪录片制片人没有意识到：有既得利益。梅格在那里度过了近五年。也门不是迪拜。我们是一个从许多不同的战线中挣扎和面对危机的国家。您看到有关电影的一些评论是什么样的？Smaker：当我拍电影时，我知道这将是有争议的。我希望回避来自ALT正确的说：“您正在给这些人发出声音。您并不考虑恐怖主义的受害者。”我们没有人期待[这个]。感觉不好，但与此同时，他住在也门之后长时间看到了关于这个地方的图像，我在主流媒体上看到的一切都与我在乡下所经历的经历直接冲突。我全心全意地同意，那里的大多数图像都非常有害。因此，即使看到它很痛苦，我也知道，成为一个长期以来一直以伤害和耸人听闻的方式代表的社区的一部分……我理解，因为那些社区中存在的创伤是如此龙很难，因为对我来说，我知道很多人将这些人视为怪物和精神病患者，就像他们一文不值，而这是我想挑战的人 - 他们对这些人的刻板印象，以及他们是谁。这是背后的意图：您有这些人的这些刻板印象，您认为您认识他们，但您不知道。他们在这里讲自己的故事。
One of the most controversial movies to emerge from this year’s Sundance Film Festival is a documentary called “Jihad Rehab,” which follows a group of former Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Directed by American filmmaker Megan Smaker — a former California firefighter who spent five years in Yemen — the film follows several Yemeni men who were unlawfully detained for 15 years in the U.S.-run detention camp, before being relocated to Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed Bin Nayef Centre for Counselling and Care — a so-called “rehabilitation center” for extremists who must graduate the program before they’re allowed to rejoin society.
The film tracks Ali, Nadir and Mohammed’s turbulent journey over three years as they try to come to grips with their trauma and navigate an uneasy future in Saudi Arabia, where it’s illegal for them, as Yemenis, to leave. (A Saudi-led coalition of Gulf states infiltrated Yemen’s civil war in 2015, carrying out air raids that have devastated the nation.)
While “Jihad Rehab” isn’t the first film in the grisly orbit of Guantanamo, its Sundance premiere has received heavy criticism from human rights advocates and other documentarians, many of them from Arab or Muslim backgrounds, who are concerned that the doc’s subjects are being framed as criminals (despite never standing trial in the U.S. or Saudi); that the men could be in danger following the film’s release; and that harmful stereotypes about Muslims are being perpetuated.
In an interview with Variety, Smaker and executive producer Mohamed Aabas — a Yemeni criminal justice reform advocate who joined the project in 2020 — discuss their filmmaking journey and address the doc’s critics.
How did you first hear about the center and secure access?
Smaker: It was in 2007. I was training cadets in firefighting and I overheard a conversation about a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. Half the men were Yemeni and half were Saudi, and according to what I overheard, they sent the Yemenis to prison where I think some were executed, and they sent the Saudis to what they referred to as “jihad rehab.”
It took me over a year to get access. The Saudi government never tell you “no,” they just throw hurdle after hurdle at you, and then eventually you give up. After a year, they finally granted me physical access to the center. When heard me speaking their heads popped up. Word spread throughout the rehab center, and all these doors opened. I wound up talking to about 150 to 200 of these guys, and then followed up with a small group of four over the next few years.
Why do you think these men agreed to participate in the film? (One does eventually exit the film halfway through filming.)
Smaker: Well, I don't want to speak for them, but I have an idea. I think that with Ali, he had been cast under the shadow of his brother's reputation , and he wanted to tell his own story as an individual. And definitely had things he wanted to say about America, about Guantanamo, and this is the message that he really wanted to bring up. I think they all had their own individual reasons for participating.
Have they seen the film?
Smaker: No, they haven’t.
Did you ever have reservations about the center and their motivations for letting a filmmaker come in and meet with the participants?
Smaker: Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, how could I not? At the beginning, I was very skeptical of the center, and aware that all governments want to craft a positive image of themselves. What was nice is when I originally went there, the interest was the center. But when I actually met the subjects of the film, my curiosity and my interest was much less about the center and more about these guys and their stories.
Some critics of the documentary say it frames the subjects as terrorists, even though they weren't charged with any crimes and didn’t sit trial. What do you make of that discussion?
Smaker: The first time you see them, we give of what the U.S. government has accused them of, in one shot. But for the next 90 minutes, we let them tell their side.
Aabas: Part of my real concern right now is that Meg turned on the light to show what was going on, and now the talk is not about these men, or what's happening with the Yemeni detainees; it's about the terminology or who got access. We're forgetting that there's a community here that has generally been — excuse my language — shit on by our Gulf neighbors. I know a lot of these people have really good intentions, but I wish the focus would be on the Yemeni community. All of that is being brushed aside for controversy on terminology, or on who made this film, rather than the actual story.
I can completely understand where you're coming from, and I can see how that would be problematic for you as a member of the Yemeni community. I'm just curious if you have any thoughts on how people might have come away without necessarily acknowledging the specificity of their situation as Yemeni, but rather as terrorists?
Aabas: I just want to point out that we invited to a screening of the movie. I flew down to Los Angeles to join Meg and offered to sit and have a discussion with them, before Sundance. They refused to meet with us or screen the movie, and they wanted to deal with Sundance only. That kind of makes me wonder what their motives are. It's not necessarily about the film’s subject matter.
Do you think that could be because they felt the film had already been done and there was little that could be changed?
Smaker: All the other documentaries that have been done on with the exception of one have sensationalized it, and have been very fear-mongering and have reinforced stereotypes — and they have mostly been done by white directors. So I understood the initial pushback when they saw it on the lineup at Sundance, and they said, “Oh, not another one of these.” And so I wasn't angry. I was like, “Yeah, I completely understand why they're probably feeling this way.” And that's one of the reasons we invited them to come talk to me and Mohammed, and see the film and say, “If we are missing something, let us know, because we're still editing.”
Would it have been a slightly different film if it had been a filmmaker from the region who'd been given access?
Aabas: It is not about why or how Meg got access, but being thankful that she did. And I have to ask a lot of those filmmakers: Have they tried? Have they truly tried? If any of them are able to show that they travelled to Saudi Arabia, and tried to gain access, my hat's off to them. But she actually did the work.
If you had received some of these filmmakers’ feedback before, what would you have changed?
Smaker: It's hard for me because I don't know what the feedback is. I've heard that they don't like the film, but I don't know because, again, we haven't been able to meet with them. One of the people who has been helping on the film is a religious leader. And he reached out to this group just less than a week ago to be like, “Hey, let's talk,” and they refused to even meet with him. So I can't really address the criticisms if no one's able to tell me what those are.
To summarize, some argue that the film tries to “humanize” the subjects while still questioning whether they are criminals, and also that the film perpetuates harmful stereotypes. Some also take issue with a white director tackling this subject matter with a different gaze than someone from the region.
Smaker: When it comes to what should and shouldn’t go in the film, and in terms of keeping our subjects safe, I always defer to people who actually know the local politics and the ways that things work in Saudi Arabia. My co-producer and legal counsel over there know way better than anyone Stateside about what to put and not put in the film. I think it's easy to look at a film and say they should have done this, that and the other, but unless you actually know the local workings on the ground, I've managed to defer to the people who do and can make those decisions for the film.
One of the subjects is shown going to see someone identified as a drug dealer during a period when he’s struggling with unemployment after release. Could that endanger him if he’s still in Saudi?
Smaker: That scene was edited in a way that makes it a bit ambiguous. When I saw the first cut of the film, I thought that would be problematic. I told any scene that could get the guys in trouble or make them unsafe, and she didn't flag that scene. She said that, in the film, the only thing need to be concerned about is if they say anything bad about the government.
Did you get further legal counsel on that as well?
Smaker: Yeah. We have a lawyer in Saudi Arabia that has been advising and counselling us in terms of what things should and shouldn't be in the film to keep these guys safe.
What's going to happen when the film comes out, and potentially affects these men? Have you thought about that scenario?
Smaker: Yeah. We have consulted with security experts here and in Saudi Arabia, and we have an action plan laid out for that on a plethora of levels. I can't go too much into that, but when you're making a documentary film, it's not just about telling the story. It's about considering people's safety and taking every step you can to mitigate that risk, which we have thus far.
Did Saudi authorities need to have any approval of the footage you used?
Smaker: No, nothing.
How did you fund the film?
Smaker: We scraped together anything we got, like $2,000 here or $5,000 here. This wasn't funded by any kind of distributor. We didn't have a huge grant. This was all just a bunch of people who are really passionate about the subject matter scrambling together, asking friends and family to help out. Most of the people who worked on this film for the last half decade aren't getting paid. Everyone really believed in the project and believed in the importance of these men’s stories. A lot of it for me lived in Yemen for so long, and seeing my own country carpet-bombing the country and throwing Yemenis in Guantanamo en masse. If I can't call out my own government for doing that kind of bullshit…
Aabas: This is something the documentary filmmakers who are complaining are not realizing: that there's a vested interest. Meg spent almost five years there. Yemen is not Dubai. We are a country that's struggling and facing crises from so many different fronts.
What has it been like for you to see some of the comments being made about the film?
Smaker: When I made the movie, I knew it was going to be controversial. I expected the pushback to be from the Alt Right saying, “You're giving these men a voice. You're not considering the victims of terrorism.” None of us were expecting . It doesn't feel good, but at the same time, having lived in Yemen for so long and seeing the images portrayed about the place, everything I saw on mainstream media directly conflicted with the experiences that I was having in country.
I wholeheartedly agree that the majority of images that are out there are very damaging. So even though it hurts to see it, I also understand that being a part of a community that has been for so long represented in a way that was hurtful and sensationalist…I understood because of the trauma that has been present in those communities for so long.
It's hard because for me I know so many people who look at these men as monsters and psychopaths, like they’re worthless, and it’s those people I'm trying to challenge — their stereotypes about these men, and about who they are. That was the intention behind this: You have these stereotypes of these men and you think you know them, but you do not. Here they are telling their own story.
本文资料/文案来自网络，如有侵权，请联系我们删除。
感谢分享啊。谢谢版主更新资源。 太好了，终于找到宝藏论坛了！ 非常不错，感谢楼主整理。。 感谢分享啊。谢谢版主更新资源。 非常不错，感谢楼主整理。。 感谢分享，下载收藏了。最喜欢高清纪录片了。
页:
[1]