The Infidel (2010)

Wow! Such a good movie.

hyped garbage

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

"Attitudes must change before behaviour? Research points toward the opposite. Behaviour changes first, because of new laws or other interventions; individuals then modify their ideas to fit their new acts." - Thomas Pettigrew Directed by Josh Appignanesi, "The Infidel" stars British-Iranian stand-up comic Omid Djalili as a man who was raised in a Muslim household but undergoes an identity crisis following the realisation that he was once adopted and is actually Jewish. Aiming to reconcile East/West, Islamic/Judaeo-Christian tensions, it's one of those "let's all get along", "we are all the same", "we are all equal" comedies, but is mostly useless, as it ignores the systemic, structural and class based causes of hate, intolerance and racism (Djalili's stand-up comedy likewise mostly reinforces rather than challenges racial stereotypes). Look at history, and it's clear that it is largely wealth polarisation which leads to social breakdown, hate-mongering and the rise of authoritarian governments, which are either promoted by the ruling class to contain civil unrest amongst the least wealthy or promoted by the least wealthy to oppose the muscle of the privileged (often foreign countries or interests). The kind of racism we see directed toward Jews, Arabs and Persians has less to do with religion and customs, than land, money and capitalism. Meanwhile, in the West, racism is wholly institutionalised, and takes on a more benign image, in the form of ceaseless uncontested wars, austerity measures, and the scapegoating of the unemployed, immigrants, impoverished etc. Here code words, euphemisms and innuendo are used to veil the racist message, but the aim is always the same: the diversion of blame and anger - anger about bad housing, no housing, war, boring work, no work, bad wages, pensions, conditions, job insecurity, no future, and so on - toward the Other, be he at home or abroad. Instead of attacking the real causes of these (and other) problems, people are encouraged to direct their anger against people who face similar problems.But the most important factor in reinvigorating a whole new round of global racism is the resurgence of a certain brand of Reagan-Bush conservatism (or neoliberalism), whose hallmark was the reinstatement of laissez-faire economic policies and rhetoric. A "free market", economic "experts" argued, necessarily produced inequality; but by allowing unhindered market forces to select the economically fittest and to weed out the unfit, the economy would become healthy again. The wealth of those who survived and prospered in the harsh new climate would ultimately benefit the less fortunate, through a "trickle-down" effect which was supposed to create millions of new high-paying jobs. All this would be accomplished by deregulating business, reducing taxes on the wealthy, and dismantling or drastically cutting back federal programmes designed to promote social equality, fairness, and compassion. In actuality, of course, the opposite happened, with wealth flooding upwards, the middle class being destroyed, the creation of low-paying, dead-end jobs, global debt exponentially increasing, money exponentially losing its value, and markets needing to be constantly expanded, often via wars, such that a continual influx of people might be sucked into the base of the system to support it. What you now have is a Global Ponzi scheme, which must spread and spread and absorb more and more people to stay afloat. Meanwhile, the ruling class sees unprecedented gains in wealth.Though forecast centuries ago, isolated from the margins of capitalism, your typical Westerner couldn't see this coming. He believed himself to be a mighty free agent, whose wealth was the product of his labour, his actions, rather than a case of infinite regression – as profits always outpace pay - where there is always someone below you labouring harder for less, and harder for less, to support you. The system doesn't "naturally" cause upward mobility, it simply favours those who entered first, and broadens its base so more and more are sucked in at the lower levels. Beyond this, the Reaganite doctrine of inequality gave the official seal of approval to ideas of racial superiority that right-wing extremists had used for years to rationalise the exploitation of minorities. If the economic gap between whites and non-whites was growing, if most non-whites live below the poverty line - well, that just proved that there was a racial component in the Social-Darwinian selection process, showing that minorities "deserved" their poverty and lower social status because they were "less fit." The winners on the income scale are given a reason for self-satisfaction. Their gains are due to personal merit, the application of high intelligence, and the smiles of fortune. Those on the loosing side are guilty of sloth, self-indulgence, and whining. Perhaps they have bad culture, or bad genes. The logical corollary of this is that whites who are "less fit" also deserve their poverty. In truth, both the wealthy and the poor have little free agency when it comes to their position.But of course much of the racism directed toward (and experienced within) the Middle East today stems from raw Western Power. It's a feedback loop, the West sanctioning, blockading, terrorising, bombing, covertly assassinating and manipulating the "East" - a kind of full spectrum racism - in order to retain its own privilege and social advantage, which of course leads to blow-back from the East, a violent reaction that is often sought as it justifies the West's own further violence. Racism is more than an ideology, a belief system or a negative attitude towards others arising out of prejudice. If that alone were the case, then racism would be "reduced to something which takes place inside human heads", and the implicit presupposition here is that a change of attitude which will put an end to racial oppression can be brought about by dialogue, by an ethical appeal for a change of mentality. But such an understanding ignores the real factor behind racism (as well as sexism): Power (ie the capacity to act). 4/10 - Has nothing to do with anything. Worth one viewing.

I watched this on BBC I player last evening (Jan 2012) as it had been shown on the BBC. Enjoyed it immensely, although some of the lesser characters seemed to be quite stereotypical. The let down for me was the very limited exploration of the Jewish community and how they would accept (or otherwise) a person with this background. That said a polished performance from Matt Lucas. Omid Djaili gives real credence to the main character and is very believable, very much the real star of the Movie. David Badiel (Author) has done a great job on the script and makes the dialogue more than believable. I recommend this as viewing for all despite some of the flowery language (very much in context) I would suggest some of the Dialogue (racist) is occasionally used for dramatic/comedy effect rather than as necessary to the plot, although it is never over the top, and would be hard pressed to be taken as seriously offensive by anyone except the most extreme.Enjoyable and thought provoking worth the watch.

When I saw the trailers of The Infidel, I thought that it was going to be a crude comedy which wanted to exploit the controversy of the Jewish-Muslim conflict in order to attract attention. However, I decided to watch it because of the various positive reviews I read on the Internet, and I am glad I did it, because even though The Infidel has an undoubtedly tabloid aspect, it also is a brilliant comedy with a very funny screenplay, interesting characters and a valid message which might not be shared by everyone, but which at least offers a conciliatory point of view about the previously mentioned conflict.To start with, I liked the agility and consistence of the humor, as well as the surprising variety of topics exploited by the screenplay in order to generate laughs. There are obviously many references to the dispute between Israel and Palestine, to the Islamic extremists and their "jihad" (whose slogans of racial extermination sound very different when they are said by a 4-year-old girl) and of course, all the imaginable clichés about the Jewish culture ("they have a big nose and they like the money"). But there is also place for hilarious mentions of Seinfeld, the Protocols of Zion, Osama Bin Laden and Fiddler on the Roof.I suppose that some people would feel offended by the sense of humor from The Infidel. Even if they are orthodox Jews who do not approve of the burning of yarmulkes with a funny intention, or Muslims who feel themselves unfairly portrayed as violent and intolerant extremists, I know that there will be undoubtedly someone who disapproves of the film's methods, as good as its intentions are. I think that The Infidel features positive and negative aspects from both religions on equal measure...and it's up to every spectator how he/she will take that. And besides, I also think that it is difficult to take the religious insults or comments about racial purity seriously when they come from the mouth of such likable and expressive actors. Omid Djalil is perfect as the overwhelmed Mahmud. Richard Schiff brings an equally excellent and funny performance as a Jewish North American taxi driver. And Archie Panjabi also brings a very good work as the main character's wife.I have to point out the fact that I enjoyed The Infidel very much without having deep knowledge about the cultures and religions it represents; so, I think it is more appropriate to consider it as an great comedy which offers an interesting moral, and not as a revisionist History lesson nor as a manipulative religious pamphlet.

I felt disappointment at the end. But not because there is anything wrong with it. Just that I really want something to hit the nail on the head with Israel/Palestine/Antisemitism/Islamophobia and get rid of this huge problem. Though why would one expect a comedy to do such a thing? The reason I am so desperate to see an end to these conflicts is because they are so difficult to resolve. And because, in my opinion, they are the biggest stimulus for all the terror nonsense going on these days. Why young men get their legs and more blown off every day, people get bombed and shot, air strikes destroy ambulances, loads of people go around being racist, security checks take forever and Western nations end up torturing people thus ruining their credibility when trying advocate human rights. What a mess!This topic is under publicised considering how important it is. Too little is said. And when I see/hear people discussing it I too often see/hear people rigidly stuck to a position from which no meaningful compromise of opinion can be reached without heat, anger, shouting, conflation of issues etc.The film does address the issue and I think boldly. Inevitably some people will find this offensive to both Muslim and Jewish people. I am neither (though I know plenty of both). But I like the fact that it has characters coming out with all the racist BS that gets said - and makes it sound ridiculous like it is. And there are 'good' and 'bad' characters from both sides.The thing about the racist 'BS' mentioned above is that a lot of the criticism that falls on entire religions/races is appropriate when aimed at individuals belonging to those groups. It's the blanket generalisations that are wrong and annoy me. I felt that it helped to demonstrate that it's individual idiots, not idiotic peoples, that give huge numbers of people a tarnished reputation in the eyes of those unwilling to think too hard about all of this. And I am happy this film has done that.I suspect I might review how highly I think of this film at a later date. Did it seem less funny than it could have because of the subject? Or was I willing it to seem funny because I was happy with what it was trying to do? I know I will laugh upon remembering some scenes and ideas. It should be watched.