I found it interesting that Borhėne mentioned that he would go on Facebook (social media) and make a fuse to find/save Farah, but it was through the mother's pursuit, and bribing the law and her past connections that ultimately set Farah free.

How did you feel about that?

On the topic of a female character, I noticed the film had more male characters instead of females (even though the females had the lead parts). I was especially confused when Farah's mother entered the bar full of men and they were strongly eyeing her, and was as if it's a place where she or women doesn't belong.

How did you feel about that scene (the mom entering the bar looking for Farah post-police capture), and what where your impressions of females in the film?

I felt the film tackled a lot of themes from energy of the youth vs adults, family, music and society ect. But, I agree that the main theme is probably the issue of surveillance and freedom. I defiantly agree and also symbolically saw Farah as the country and did see the police as disruptors of freedom. We see this particularly during and after the scene where Farah is brutally interrogated and silenced by the two officers (probably the saddest scene I saw in this class.) When that happened I felt Farah's freedom (her smile, inner-light, innocence, loud voice, her love for singing) has been taken from her--as we see her corrupted having become depressed and quiet towards the end of the film.

Another film with non professional actors (I didn't even realize). I'm seeing this trend a lot in ME cinemas that the actors are actually the locals who are part of that life--this really gives a real feel of society and the environment.

I found it very delightful that the band had a mixure of rock, along with a traditional Tunisian style coming from an electric oud. I feel this made Farah's band and their songs very present to Tunisian culture, with its unique style. I had no association that the band were trying to emulate a similar feel to popular Western music like how many other Middle-Eastern rock bands try to do.

When Farah sang her songs I knew something was very off with society. Even before she sang the controversial "rap" song that landed her in trouble, the main song about closing your eyes and seeing a girl is what gave my this sense of uneasiness Tunisians have in their society--while the song being quite catchy.

During the song after Farah talks about opening her eyes, she "see those deprived, of work, of food and of life outside their neighborhood": alluding to the poverty and lacking ability to change one's current statues.

After she would sing, "I see those retreating to exile, Crossing the ocean's immensity on a pilgrimage to death. With the country's troubles people lose their minds, looking for new troubles different from those they know.": This immediately reminded me of the Northern African nations such as Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, and how many people would immigrate to Europe, to places like Spain and France, to escape their country's problems. When Farah speaks "death" I think of the illegal gangs who would dangerously smuggle people over the oceans.

When they get to the new lands Farah describes leaving their old problems to see knew ones, and this reminded me of the Father from West Beirut and realizing that if he leaves his problems in Lebanon and moves to France, he and his family will be ridiculed and treated poorly as a immigrant--thus "Looking for new troubles different from those they know."

Did you also get the same sense when listening to Farah sing? What did you think of the songs?

To be honest, before watching As I Open My Eyes, I thought Tunisia was going to be a country with very little tolerance to anything against the norms of islamic traditions (a bit like KSA but more lenient) due to Tunisia's population being at least 96% Muslims. But, after I watched the film, I could see that Islam is very open and moderate.

The social culture in youth is very similar to Lebanon and Egypt. Farah's family dynamic were a little old fashioned and conservative (especially her mother and her worries about where her daughter is, her safety and statues in the eyes of others("my daughter will study medicine".)) But never did I tie anything to religion.

Did you initially think religion would play a part? What were your preconceived expectations of Tunisian culture and society before watching the film and starting the readings?

I think it was the best possible title--especially to Farah's reflection of seeing clearly the world around her, in contrast to her song "as i close my eyes".

How violent was Egypt's revolution and the depiction of violence in Clash, compared to Libya and Syria's uprising? Also, how do these uprising compare to revolutions happened in the west throughout history?

Having two journalist filming shows how using social media help gather people. This is why some governments may ban social media platforms such as Facebook. If social media platforms are banned, would you think gathering for uprising in our modern world would be as efficient? How else would people get the word out?

Mohamed Diab gave Clash a lot of uncomfortable pressure in the van and is very claustrophobic using many dutch angles while there was violence going on outside. Furthermore, the internal conflicts within people(especially with family and strangers in trapped truck) made the film very disturbing and uncomfortable to watch.

I was amazed how protesters ended up fighting against themselves because in the heated of the moment voices become silenced.

In Clash, people in the van became more individualized and affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood became burred, however the crowds did and could not see this(they label immediately). Did you feel this way?

This use of Social Media in political revolution gathering reminds me of Erducan's FaceTime to gather people, when their was a military coupe in Istanbul against him in 2016. Social media has become a huge part of gathering the masses for important events such as revolutions.

I agree with this symbolic meaning. Also I feel that in many cultures especially in the Middle East, food brings people together. We also see this throughout the film, as the family always eat together at the table, even when they bicker and argue.

With a new restaurant, it symbolizes an invitation for people to come together and celebrate their intermix union.

This is a way for Zohara's children to honor her by upholding and clinging to their Moroccan roots, traditions and identity--while in an age of modernity.

I didn't get why they wanted to plant fruits in the graves????Is it connected with the carrots during the establishing shot at the start of the film. Why?

I think in any given place, the minority of a early generations who have two or more countries attached to them would have a dilemma of identity (do I belong to my parent's/ancestors country, or the place I have been raised.) I think the film shows the newest generation, Zohar as something totally foreign/exotic/an outsider and weird to both her parents and her school peers. I feel Zohar is on edge of two identities and is struggling to find an equilibrium of acceptance.

I found it fascinating and believed that the old man was really trying to commit suicide but never believed he can light a fire. But what struck me was how E.S.'s father causally dropped his cigaret near the gasoline and then stoped the neighbor (while remaining calm and expressionless). It shows me how people's moral are close to empty and seemed to strike existential thoughts while dreaming of the past free of oppression.

E.S.'s father is show to causally face death and danger other times in the film without showing any fear (such as the truck scene or the willingly accepting death by counting down to ten with refusing to ever give the guns to the army).

I did see this film as a historical film that used a lot of the elements of a historical epic just without the standard narrative you'd see in a epic. However, the scene with the children watching the epic history film felt like Suleiman was more showing the commentary of the religious mentality in Israel (the comment the teacher said when the film's characters started kissing) . It may also maybe hints a mocking to the epic film genera, but I don't think his film's focus was to be a mock epic.

Suleiman said in an interview that regardless of ones social situation, people can find ways to be humorous. An in certain situations when there is despair or oppression, people tend to use black-humor or irony (or both). He gave an example of people sent to a Gheto, and how they would use humor and romanticize their time with a mixture of poetry and comedy to extends time and seem to give themselves better moments.

What do you think of Suleiman's use of black-comedy and do you think it does in terms of time for the oppressed?

I feel the youth such as the scene with the party while ignoring the military curfew, the young man speaking on the phone while not caring that a tank is aiming at him and the comedy in general, is a way showing the youth neglecting the occupation and enjoying and celebrating the moment.

However do you think theres something else that the film is celebrating in the youth?

I noticed Suleiman had used a lot of elements that broke the norms and rules of continuous editing, like jump shots, breaking the 180 degree axis and making his scenes claustrophobic. The style gave me a sense similar to the French New Wave style and also ascetics of a Wes Anderson film. How did you feel about the director's film approach?

His film defiantly lacks the same structure of the classic continuity editing found in film making and it is why his film stands out. While unconventional to other historical films like the film that has been shown to the children in school, I do regard it as an epic.

How did you feel with that one non animation scene with relations to the the film's overall animation?

I agree that while grim, we don not fully comprehend the devastation of suffering on the civilians, because in the two musicals, we see the killing from the perspective of the attacker and not the victims.

Also, as stated in one of the musical's "you feel safe in a tank"and we can't possibly feel the trauma that has been caused to the civilians as we experience the soldiers in their tanks. We can only see hints of it such as the tank being an out-of-place object running over cars and cracks buildings. Moreover, the soldier that are in the comforted safety of a tank cannot feel the destruction and this is shown when they watch from inside the tank's small window and how being inside a tank mutes the destruction that is going on outside.

Question - I hear this in the news quite often when there's war-trauma happening in the middle east, and it is shown in the film but while it gets me sympathetic, I get a little confused by it:

When the women are crying, they would say in Arabic "wen al Arab?"/"where are the Arabs?". Should the other Arab nations be of aid and/or what does this imply in your opinion?

This scene is probably the most emotional, of the whole story. The director's choice to change the film's formate into real from animation for this one specific short scene is very effective, because it showed the extent of the social trauma that the war had on people in real life. Also ending with this makes us reassess the extent of the tragedy of war in the film that was all shown in animation.

That usually tends to be the case when a country invade another. The invaders' country is not in any threat and we see this in many wars such as the Vietnam War. Can you think of a modern war (after the 20th century) excluding WWI or WWII that the invading country's territory had a huge threat?

I agree, and I feel that the film's choice to be both animated and a real-life documentary shows the social trauma in war that I have not seen before. There are many war films like Saving Private Rayan, the Pianist, the Hurt Locker ect. But Waltz with Bashire is an innovating way depicting the social trauma that I feel worked. What did you think of the film's aesthetics of being animated and documenting the soldier's experiences?

A little fun fact of that I never realized until I watched this film: I love Ras Al 3abid (super popular Lebanese chocolate). As a child visiting Lebanon, I along with everyone I knew would casually ask for Ras Al 3abid(without knowing the context behind the word). However, when watching May offer one to Omar in film, I noticed that on the english subtitle, the chocolate translates to "Negros'-head". I looked into it and the official chocolate brand is Tarboosh. However, people always did and still use the offensive term "Ras al 3abid", which makes me wonder of how much other offenses that are out there.

What were your questions with the official "protection" system. I am very confused with were was the official Lebanese army?

I did indeed feel that the war was at many times shifting away from being the main focus of the film(never completely though). I never forgotten that there was a war going on during Taric's story. However, many times it was just in the back of my mind and with the war as background noise when there was social Lebanese comedy scenes or when Taric and his friends were having fun.

Did you feel the same way that unlike other war films like any stereotypical war film, West Beirut showed another side of living in war and that it was a film where war was not constantly on the forefront of your mind?

I know this is for Battlefields, but if it was for West Beirut, I can understand this statement but ultimately would disagree. Even though society can be pretty harsh like based on what was shown in West Beirut, with the mad neighbor entering Taric's home and hitting him or how the driver shouting at Taric and threatening to assault a teenaged boy, I still see nothing more harsher than war.

When you watched West Beirut, did you find society to be harsher than the war?

(Note. the gangmenbers "protecting the neighborhoods" were part of the war)

My mum was raised in Beirut during the whole period of the war. I asked her about it and she told me that as a child she was aware the political climate. But, because she was living in it for so long, she along with many people learned to cope and make good of a bad situation. EG. She told me that many times she and her middle-school peers would pray for gun fires so that they'd miss school.

I strongly agree with this statement. Films like West Beirut brings out the essence the being Lebanese. (that would be tricky to show in other mediums)

Like the old man in the film mentioned: one must remain obedient and remain to adhere to traditions.

While films coming from the West were a tool that could hinder traditions.

So casting method actors, without them needing to train their mindset.

I can see this statement being borderline true in not only Kiarostami's film, but also in the majority of films. Sure in many films children can be evaders of politics. However, in many political centered films, such as The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas(2008), the usage of their children as protagonists can end-up fueling the political tension in a story tenfold. I feel this because, any consequence or harm caused by politics towards the innocent youth is allot louder than towards adults—because we are able to symphysis with children allot easier. Especially if the children are acting out as evaders and minding their own business from to what is politically going on.

However, even with political focused films such as The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, children do act out as evaders, as we are shown the protagonist to be play games and wrapped around his own bubble/fantasy, avoiding the war/"real world"—that ends up softening the politics.

I'm very confused by this. From my understanding of the text, films that take you "hostage" are films that you need to pay attention or you would be punished by missing a major action in the film, and would also miss-understanding what would be going on at a future point.

Ahmadpoor took his friend's note book by accident and must return it, or else his friend will face the sever consequences. Based on what the old man said, I feared the kids would get physically harmed, therefore as a viewer I defiantly felt taken "hostage". I need to find out what is going to happen next. Sure, not to the degree of a thriller, but still I felt I couldn't just "take a nap" because I might miss a major action.

What's your thought? and did you feel the film took you "hostage"?

To be honest, other than the admirable motive of Ahmadpoor, the beginning and especially the ending of the film, and some shocking dialogue (like the old man talking about obedience in children and society), I found the rest of the film quite hard to be engaging, and I felt rather distant to it at times. Did you feel the same way?

Before reading the chapter: The film definitely runs us through the social and cultural landscape of the Iranian rural area (of the era the film was made). However, is there something else that makes this a political film? or made you think differently?

I don't full understand why Hanuma toyed with Qinawi? Was it because she is being played out as a type of femme fatale?

Q: I agree that it is a blend of neo-realistic and a melodrama...Would you label Bab Al-hadid as something else as well?

Q: Do you think that a city's famed tradition, or the modernized infrastructure, or a mix of both, should be regarded as the "real" city? Who do you think should decide this?