Hasbara? In MY zombie apocalypse?!

[Scootaloo]

Just a couple days ago, the film adaptation of Max Brooks' World War Z hit theaters. For the unaware, World War Z is an "oral history of the zombie wars, ala Studs Terkel. It's a UN investigator's catalog of stories from the survivors of a global pandemic that caused most of the human population to become the undead, and serve as the basis of the investigator's "official report" (for which he is reprimanded for getting "too involved.&quot

As one might expect from the son of Mel Brooks, WWZ has a streak of sharp humor and satire of the powerful through it; It jabs governments and corporations in the ribs profusely, and doesn't spare the pundits (in one scene, ciphers for Bill Maher and Ann Coulter fuck like rabbits on the floor while zombies smash the gates.) And also as one might expect, the book makes a stopover in Israel as well (Israelis will have to wait for tomorrow to see their own theatrical releases.) Before seeing the film, in fact, I bumped into this article from the Times of Israel.

For a solid 10-minute stretch, “World War Z” is the greatest piece of cinematic propaganda for Israel since Otto Preminger’s “Exodus.” While the rest of the world has fallen to cinders, Israel survives. After Pitt’s plane narrowly escapes doom during a bloody action set piece, he touches down at Atarot Airport. The Israeli flag, shown in glorifying closeup, ripples proudly in a sun-dappled halo.

Naturally, I thought to myself, "Oh boy, here we go..." But I was already set on seeing the film, so I went ahead and did so!

Now, full disclosure? There will be spoilers. More disclosure? I set out absolutely dead certain I was going to hate this movie. My entire reason for going to see it was to find out exactly how much I hated it. World War Z is one of my favorite books, one of those few that I find impossible to set aside, and one of those rarer few that manage to give me frightened little goosebumps through text. It's an excellent book, in my opinion, and all of the vignettes are written in a luridly descriptive cinematic style. An entire franchise of films could be squeezed out of this one book. So when I'd heard a film was in production, I nearly wet myself, and waited with bated breath... And then the trailer came out, and I found out it was a PG-13 Brad Pitt vehicle with CGI "fast zombies." A PG-13 movieabout zombies is hard enough to imagine, but then we have Brad Pitt with nasty hair leaping into helicopters and stuff... well, like I said, I went into this movie expecting to hate it.

Anyway, back to the point brought up by Times of Israel, that of "World War Z" being a stunning propaganda piece for Israel. Let's start with the original material.

In Brooks' novel, Israel does indeed learn of the plague early on, its reams of cyber-security experts picking out threads of a strange cover-up from China, and digging deeper, only to find the rotten (literally) reality of the situation. Israel effectively quarantines itself, shutting down borders and air travel and screening its own population thoroughly. An exception is allowed for Palestinians (in fact the tale of Israel is told through the lens of a Palestinian teenager from the West Bank in the book.) It does not portray the situation as pure Israeli benevolence; Jewish terrorism is running at an all-time high as opponents to the idea of bringing Palestinians in make their position known with rocks, guns, and bombs, and very nearly results in Israel being zombified. It does have a certain "woo, go Israel!" feel to it, but it's not overwhelming and it fits nicely into the book.

In the film... Well... It's more or less as described in the article (save that Israel isn't the last oasis of civilization; the film seems confused as to whether this is the zombie apocalypse or the zombie inconvenience.) There is absolutely none of the nuance Brooks wrote; there is no conflict going on between the people involved. No Palestinian youths arguing that now is the time to strike, no Haredi men opening fire, no angst over the draconian measures that Israel takes to seal itself up and preemptively purge the infected from itself. We do get a loose adaptation of the original tale of how Israel found out, but given the other changes to the source material, it's more or less needless exposition. The flag waving backlit from the sun is there, and it does give enough jingo to choke a crying bald eagle, and I admit it was such an obvious product-placement shot that i laughed.

But I think the Times article misses the real picture of propaganda here. This scene isn't really a pumping for Israel - it's a brick chucked at Palestinians (to-may-to, to-mah-to, I guess, but I do see distinction there.) While in Jerusalem, we have shots of the crowd being processed the wall, and what lay beyond. The crowd is as described in the times article, a mixed bag of refugees fleeing certain death and destruction - a fate worse than death, one might say. And the only thing between them and that doom is the Great Wall of Samaria, beyond which are mindless hordes of subhuman monsters, diseased, cannibalistic abominations who seek only the utter elimination of everything and everyone on the other side of the wall, so desperate to surmount the barrier and destroy those innocent, harmless refugees that they actively crush and destroy each other to do so. Like an inexorable tide they sweep over that wall, take Jerusalem, and necessitate a nuclear strike in the city (for some reason... that doesn't make much sense but neither does the rest of the film.)

It's not terribly subtle. In fact it's rather ham-handed... and the flavor of it is less in tune with AIPAC-style "woo, go Israel!" than with a more Pam Gellar-y "See? See, I told you they were monsters!" kind of message. And since this is the closest thing the film has to a political poke (beyond the usual 'military brass are bastards' angle we see in absolutely every American-made disaster movie) it does stand out. But is it the greatest propaganda piece for Israel since "Exodus"?

Only if your variety of "pro-Israel" is anti-Palestinian. Contrary to the Times article, Israel's military is utterly useless in this scene. I mean perfectly, completely useless. There are like five soldiers trying to herd a crowd of thousands, and when the zombies breach the wall, all the soldiers do is crash helicopters, spray wildly, and get bitten, all while running the fuck away. Jerusalem is lost without a fight, and by implication the whole of Israel goes with it, either through the tide of Cannibal Arabs, or the Samson Option. This is not a victory for Israel. And the film is so clumsy that it can't even be a poignant loss. It becomes just another damn explosion in the movie, and then we move on to the next another damn explosion... Which happens on a jet liner escaping Israel, after a particularly swarthy-looking zombie pops out of the bathroom in coach. Yeah. Subtle, right?

This scene, to me, is simply an American perspective written and directed towards an American consumer. That is, it's not a conscious effort of propaganda (whether pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian) but is simply a reflection and reinforcement of what the average American moviegoer "knows" and expects to see in a scene set in the middle east; hordes of evildoers wanting to swamp the "good guys" who are all dancing and singing kumbuya. It's an example of the native anti-Arabism of American cinema, and the perennial use of Israel as a stand-in for the US (an honorary state, if you will), rather than someone actively and intentionally writing for Israel or against the Palestinians.

But really? This is sort of par for the course with the film... Not just against Palestinians. Early in the film we meet a latino family of some variety. When they don't listen to Brad Pitt, they get eaten. There are only two black characters with speaking roles; Thierry, a friend of Brad Pitt's within the UN, and "WHO doctor," played by Ruth Negga (to be fair, there are three WHO doctors, none of them have credited names.) Both characters are subserviant to whites - Change the clothes and Thierry could be the butler for Brad Pitt and his family, and all the character "WHO Doctor" has is worrying about brad Pitt's safety. When we go to South Korea, we see no South Koreans, unless you count zombies. We dp have two Israeli characters with speaking roles; the virologist Andrew Fassbach... who ends up shooting himself by falling down about ten minutes after we meet him in what may be the most pointless character death of the decade, and Segen, an Israeli soldier (a very white Israeli soldier, portrayed by the lovely Daniella Kertesz) who primarily talks with her gun (and doesn't even have a last name, "Just Segen" she says). If there is a race version of the Bechdel Test, World War Z fails with flying colors. The movie is about a White everyman who loves his White Charismatic Family and runs around seeing brown poeple get eaten before using his White Man Brain to save them all. Uncle Ruckus could have written this script.

But, I'm an American moviegoer; if I couldn't overlook bland racism and mighty whitey tropes, I'd never watch a movie. So I can step over these hurdles and take the film as a whole. As i said, I went in expecting to hate the movie... And yes, I really, really hate this movie. The lazy racism in general and the ugly aspersions against Palestinians in particular is just the rotten little cherry on a big ol' turd sundae. The characters are total ciphers; there's no personality between ANY of them (Save Fassbach, who seems to be trying hard to be every Jeff Goldblum character at once... and dies due to a fucking cargo roller.) The plot is pedestrian and the revelation of the solution comes out of nowhere and makes no real sense. The film looks like it tried to cobble together "2012," "28 Days later," and that exceptionally bad sequel to the American remake of (Rec) where there are zombies on an airplane - and failed on all three. And the only real horror here is that it's a PG-13 zombie movie. That's like making a G-rated Conan movie, it's impossible and should never be attempted. Worst of all, the film only alludes to the book. All that rich material, all the strong stories and interesting characters? Erased, vacant. it was followed out, and in its place we get the awful CGI critters from "I am Legend" chasing Brad Pitt around the world, in the most bloodless, least apocalyptic zombie apocalypse ever. Maybe worse than that, the last three minutes of film show clip scenes of what could have been, grainly, brutal-looking newscam footage of what actually looks like a world war involving the undead. And then we're promised a sequel (which owing to this awful thing's inexplicable success on opening weekend, has been assured by Paramount.)

But is this thing the champion hasbara film of the decade, or even the half-century? Is it the best thing since "Exodus," as Times of Israel writer Jordan Hoffman insists? Good god no. even if it were attempted Israeli propaganda - and I don't think it is - it's ten minutes tacked onto an awful movie... and those ten minutes aren't even useful for the plot (such as it is.) The implication towards Palestinians is gross, but that alone isn't enough to call it a PR coup for Israel, even if you think such negative portrayals are good for Israel. If there was conscious intent to propagandize for Israel in this film, it was wasted effort, as we leave Israel in the movie the same way we left South Korea before it, a so-what-who-cares setting that does nothing except provide an airplane for Brad Pitt to fly around in looking for the plot.

If you're a fan of Roland Emmerich-style diasster movies, World War Z might be a good watch. If you're out for a good undead scare, you don't want this thing. That goes for people who enjoy plot and character, too. If you're looking for a good dose of rooting for Israel, you are super lost; this is not your film.

[azurnoir]

1. well to be entirely honest I have not seen the movie

however nothing you have said here is particularly surprising and for Israel to be given 10 minutes in a movie not about Israel in particular is pretty good propaganda, but here you almost under estimate the depth of this and I disagree the depiction you describe seems pretty conscious IMO

This scene, to me, is simply an American perspective written and directed towards an American consumer. That is, it's not a conscious effort of propaganda (whether pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian) but is simply a reflection and reinforcement of what the average American moviegoer "knows" and expects to see in a scene set in the middle east; hordes of evildoers wanting to swamp the "good guys" who are all dancing and singing kumbuya. It's an example of the native anti-Arabism of American cinema, and the perennial use of Israel as a stand-in for the US (an honorary state, if you will), rather than someone actively and intentionally writing for Israel or against the Palestinians.

now a couple of things this movie has been being hawked via TV adverts for months now, and what I've found is that the more likely the film is to flop or at least disappoint at the box office the earlier the pre-release advertising starts

and it's comparison to the book, few movies stay true to their source Dune would be a stunning example of that-the and the rains came to Arakis and everyone lived happily ever after ending was laughable at best, so it comes down to which ones are bad and which are worse

thanks though as I thought rather than plunk down $10 to see the movie I'll wait for the DVD release

[Scootaloo]

3. I'm trying to stay on the rails, mostly

I could go on for a good long time about that "native anti-Arabism" I mentioned, but I wanted to stick with just the one movie at hand However, I maintain that I don't think someone actually set out with the specific intent to portray things the way they came out in this movie. Rather, it's just a case of a consistent negative portrayal of Arabs - Palestinians, Libyans, and Saudis in particular - by Hollywood. However, I think this ground is pretty well-covered in Jack Shaheen's documentary, "Reel Bad Arabs."

As for the supposition of Israeli propaganda... I wasn't feeling it. Now I'm not saying there wasn't an element of propaganda (that flag... I still snicker) just that it's an extremely lackluster effort, made even more so by its attachment to a very flat and uninteresting movie. I could write better propaganda for Israel for this movie (it'd be as simple as somehow making Israel integral to the plot's climax, instead of just a layover for Brad Pitt). In fact it's so lacking that I'd be willing to just chalk it up to being purely accidental.

And finally...

I had no real expectations that the film would be especially loyal to the book. How could it be, the book isn't a single narrative, it's a collection of disjointed narratives. The only way to pull that off is to make it in pseudo-documentary style, which while it could be interesting, probably wouldn't be interesting enough to win over anyone who wasn't already a fan of the book.

However, it could have been done much better - one of the speakers in the book is an American soldier who fought in the Battle of Yonkers (a catastrophic failure for the "New Military" envisioned by the pentagon in the book) who survives that fight with "Zed," and goes on to be part of the force that slowly retakes the United States from the zombies in a grinding campaign. Were I a screenwriter, that's what I would have snapped up - you could satisfy your "America: FUCK YEAH!" viewers, your disaster movie viewers, your splatterpunk-loving viewers... of course it would have to be rated R...

Instead we got this mush, that ends with... *Sigh* I won't spoil the ending, except to say that Stephen King writes better climaxes than that.

==============

As for Dune... Yeah, I'm with you there. David Lynch? Who puts the guy behind Eraserhead in charge of a film adaptation of probably the most pivotal book in Science Fiction?! It's a visually and aurally stunning movie, and those qualities alone make it worth the watch, but yeah... it's not only a horrid adaptation (wierding modules? Baron Harkonnen as a greasy leper-thing? THE RAIN?!) but it has to cut and stretch so much that, without knowing the book, you'll have no idea what's happening in the movie (and the film tricks Lynch does seem to be love-or-hate as well.)

However, there is a light in the darkness... and from a place you might not suspect!

The Sci-Fi channel created miniseries of Dune, Dune Messiah, and Children of Dune (the latter two are folded together as the Children of Dune miniseries.) And they're actually good. Granted, you can see the strings sometimes, the Sci-Fi channel clearly lacked Lynch's budget... But they're quite faithful adaptations, the plot is easy enough to follow for the uninitiated, the sets and costumes are attractive without being ostentatious, and the acting... is... well, it's not bad acting! Not the best - William Hurt portrays a very convincing pinewood post, and Alec Newman isn't a whole lot better - But with P.H. Moriarty, Ian McNiece, and Susan Sarandon (in Children) it's not a bad cast! If you want to watch Dune on the screen, I recommend picking up these two miniseries

[azurnoir]

6. I've seen the sci-fi channel mini-series

I was hoping they would continue it with God Emperor but that would most likely require a budget they don't have

however I am unfamiliar with both the book wwz and the movie however based on reviews I've read the spectacle of mindless enraged Palestinian zombies coming over the wall like and this is the descriptive I've read an "army of ants", all presumably thirsting for human blood in the case mostly Israeli Jewish with a few Arabs thrown in does convey a message

your reel bad Arabs video is a good one I've seen actually a few years ago -thanks for posting here

and finally a question I've read that Pitt's character was not in the book, but was designed for the movie possibly a condensation of several of the books characters-is that true?

[Mosby]

2. the reviews have been really bad.

So much junk comes out of hollywood these days.

[Scootaloo]

4. They seem pretty consistent, too

"You can't do zombies with a PG-13 rating."

it's disappointing because the source material gives such potential, too.

Oh well, if this is how Hollywood treats my favorite books, then I'm going to hope Bacigalupi's Windup Girl never gets a screenplay approved

[shira]

5. Bummer. I was looking forward to it. n/t

[Scurrilous]

7. Looking forward to not seeing this.

[Scootaloo]

8. It's devastatingly underwhelming.

Especially when you consider how expensive it was - the production itself cost $200 million, and when you figure in all the re-writes, staffing changes, and the rest of the mess involved pre-production, it could balloon as high as $400 million. The projected budget was initially $125 million.

And the product is a film that is objectively worse than "28 Days Later," with its cost of $8 million. (I say objectively, because they're essentially the same goddamned movie.)

Even if you allow for the cost of casting Brad Pitt (Why? WHY?!) that's still a whole fucking lot of money that never shows up in the film. CGI is inexpensive these days, and animating a zombie horde that moves at about 60 MPH is bound to be exceptionally cheap (you don't have to put in detail, just copy/past limbs and lumps, really). Location shots are what, another $1.2 million, if that?

*Inhale* This movie pisses me off, mostly in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with I/P.