Tribeca Review: Shadow of Afghanistan
Filed under: Documentary, Foreign Language, Independent, Tribeca, Theatrical Reviews, Cinematical Indie
Shadow of Afghanistan should be required viewing for all Americans. It should be shown in schools or, better yet, somehow as compulsory television to get the non-students, too. Okay, so mandating programs is not the way we do things in the United States; conservative influence would never allow something so easily deemed anti-war propaganda into most of our school districts. But the documentary, from Oscar-nominated filmmakers Jim Burroughs and Suzanne Bauman, is not merely something to suggest seeing; it is one of those films that mostly benefits those viewers with no interest in it, who would never consider such a suggestion.
An exhaustive look at the last fifty years in Afghan history, the film is vital primarily for its information, which I'm sure could easily be learned in a book about the country. Of course, movies are not only capable of attracting more people to any subject; their visual format often illustrates points more comprehensibly for people as well. A textbook could tell me how Afghanistan was very prosperous in the 1950s and '60s, but I am better able to absorb this concept and its significance by seeing footage of the country during that time, and by hearing stories from individuals affected by its subsequent economic change. The same heightened understanding can be applied to the Soviet invasion, the exile of refugees, the civil war, the rule of the Taliban, and finally the U.S. invasion.
Shadow of Afghanistan is not an entertaining documentary. At times it is too slow, a difficult thing to bear with such an extensive amount of ground covered, and feels as if its length is equal to the time period it examines. It is also very self-aware and self-involved, primarily because it is as much about war-time journalism as it is about a war-torn land. The significance of this element comes through primarily in its discussion of the many filmmakers and reporters, including two involved in this production, who vanished or were killed in the last twenty years.
Its power, though, is in its the educational material, because very few Americans, even those who were against our bombing there and those who actually follow the specifics of current events, have enough knowledge of Afghanistan's misfortunes. The tragedy of the last thirty years is depicted through the meeting of a formerly wealthy woman who now silently seems ashamed by her dirt-poor existence. Throughout the film's production, which began in the '80s and has lasted through more than a dozen different shoots, the documentary also followed the life of Afghan warrior and escort Wakil Akbarzai as he describes the struggle to give service to a country that is continually pulled apart. It is through these and other people that the history of Afghanistan is represented in graphic detail.
To consider Shadow of Afghanistan a requisite, you must also realize the necessity for similar profiles on places like Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia and Sudan, among many others. Really, it would make even more sense for profiles of countries that we haven't yet attacked, as a preventive measure. Because our schools and media don't focus enough on our ignorance of locations we bomb, there is a great likelihood of other nations going the way of Afghanistan in the future. Unfortunately, we can't be bothered with devoting the amount of time necessary for watching enough docs to make us informed about our world. That would take almost as much time as watching a season of American Idol or as going to see all of this summer's blockbuster movies.
Harrison Ford Returning for 'Indiana Jones 5'?
A Trailer for Gyllenhaal and Maguire's 'Brothers'
Ron Weaseley Has Swine Flu
Quick List: Romance for Boys
Christian Bale's Rollercoaster Career
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-18-2006 @ 3:52PM
jcoctentoasten said...
I didn't know we "attacked" Afghanistan or Iraq. I thought we liberated them from the blood thirsty fascists who were in power there - and were in power only because they happened to have the most guns. Or maybe your point is that capitulation is always preferable to fighting back - because that is the reason we and the majority of Afghani's and Iraqi's are at war right now.
Reply
4-18-2006 @ 4:17PM
Christopher Campbell said...
I'm all for the liberating of countries from fascists as long as it doesn't involve attacking the country we're liberating. And since many Americans can't see the difference between the innocent nationals and their horrible leaders, and make statements like "bomb them back to the stone age," I think that understanding this difference is important. What is the point of giving the people freedom if we kill them, or at least destroy their land, before they can be free?
Reply
4-18-2006 @ 5:31PM
jcoctentoasten said...
What do you mean by "attacking a country" and "killing innocents"? I don't think any rational person would seriously claim that the US is intentionally killing innocent people or destroying infrastructure in these countries. And if they are not, then what is your point? If you or anyone has some better way of getting rid of these "regimes" and draining the vast breeding ground anti-western hatred that the Middle East has become (assuming you think that is a worthy goal) then by all means talk about that. Sniping about innocents being killed and countries attacked as if American and it's allies are the very bloodthirsty monsters they are fighting is just weak.
And another point - do you think the liberation of these countries has caused the death of more innocent civilians than Saddam and the Taliban would have if they had been left in power?
Reply
4-18-2006 @ 5:45PM
Christopher Campbell said...
I don't see much differece between intention and disregard in circumstances of war. I understand your point and don't have better solutions -- sometimes running in and assassinating or overthrowing dictators has worked and sometimes it hasn't -- but I still don't think the current model is acceptable.
All that I'm saying is that too many Americans have disinformed ideas of the lands and cultures.
Reply
4-18-2006 @ 7:32PM
jcoctentoasten said...
How can you say the US military has acted in disregard? There is no evidence of this. The US is now, and has a long history of, bending over backwards to avoid civilian casualties - even to the point of endangering the men doing the fighting (ie. the daylight bombing of German military targets in WWII).
I agree that overthrowing a dictator or assasination is a much better solution. The problem is that not only has that been not very effective (see Cuba) and not helpful to the innocent citizens of the country (see lots of Banana republic shenanigans the US has been involved in over the years) but assasination of another country's leader is against the law.
I also agree that Americans need to be more informed about other lands and cultures. But we should not shy away from trying to change it for the better either.
Reply
4-19-2006 @ 10:18AM
Christopher Campbell said...
It isn't that I think the military disregards as much as America in general does. How many people after 9/11 assumed that we were against the entire nation of Afghanistan and not just its leadership? I just think that we need better association with the peoples of the world, in order to not rally against them so easily.
Reply
4-20-2006 @ 3:37PM
Garrie Rouse said...
jcoctentoasten,
Your comments (like the one below) show your bias and true lack of understanding of the situation in the Middle East. I think you would benefit from taking the time to see this movie (as well as a number of others). But, perhaps you would purposefully not want to ... so as not to jepordize your fragile rationalization of our Country's actions abroad. Ignorence is bliss ...
Garrie Rouse
"I didn't know we 'attacked' Afghanistan or Iraq. I thought we liberated them from the blood thirsty fascists who were in power there - and were in power only because they happened to have the most guns."
Reply
5-07-2006 @ 10:55PM
Dude said...
We can't allow blood thirsty fascist dictators to kill their own people. Thats why we do it for them (;
Reply
6-13-2006 @ 7:55PM
letdown said...
It sounds to me as if even five minutes worth of research is not high on the list of priorities for some of the posters above, not least the author. jcoctentoasten is right to point out that we didn't attack the people of Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, one may read an interview with one of the filmmakers (I'd post a link here but I'd like to make you do what little work you were willing to do before posting this) where she makes clear that the film is, if anything, a cautionary tale. Bauman says that her film "shows the Afghans are on our side, but if we repeat Soviet mistakes, they’ll turn on us." And this is precisely the story you will hear from most Afghan Americans, as well as from even some of the most liberal/radical historians.
Afghans are not anti-American by and large, they are frustrated and angry that past promises have not been kept. You say that you imagine that reading a book about Afghanistan might offer similar insights as the film, and that would be true. "Before Taliban" by anthropologist and historian David B. Edwards illustrates the troubled history of modern Afghanistan with more richness than "Shadows." But if film is your preferred means of getting hitorical information, you might also watch the film "Afghan Stories," a film made by Afghan Americans in the midst of the run up to the U.S. liberation. The filmmakers discover in the course of the film that many Afghans and Afghan refugees are even more welcoming of American actions against the Taliban than they are. Indeed Afghans, more than many anti-war voices in cozy America, seem to understand the tactics of the Taliban as well as the costs and difficulties that will be involved in removing them. And still they welcome U.S. forces. What they don't welcome is the fairweather friend mentality of the U.S. that characterized the Soviet War. As an activist on the left, I am disappointed by by my colleagues' willingness to characterize the removal of one of the most illiberal regimes on the planet as a mistake. But there is a debate to be had on the issue, no matter how paltry the arguments in favor of fascism may be. Where there is no debate, and the point at which I become disgusted rather than merely annoyed, is the point at which critics of George W. Bush will willingly act the demogogue on the basis of virtually no research or contact with real Afghans either in the country or here in America. Apparently, suiting one's own political agendas ranks higher than championing a feminist war against brutal religious extremists. At least the Afghans get it right. In fact, I know people who have walked the streets of Kabul and the hills of the Pakhti province who could refute the claims of Chomskyite alarmists any day of the week.
Reply