MovieChat Forums > Ha-Buah (2007) Discussion > the ending (spoilers)

the ending (spoilers)

posted 17 years ago by wilcabral
77 replies | jump to latest

I can understand why Ashraf would offer to be a suicide bomber -- I mean, at that point he saw no perspectives for him, his family didn't accept him as a gay man, and he couldn't pretend to be a Jew forever; besides, he was really hurt by what happened to his sister. What I don't quite understand is why he headed to the café where he used to work? Did he expect to find Noam there? Did he plan to die together with his lover? Or maybe, he had no intention to explode at all and was looking for someone to help him? The fact that he stayed in the middle of an empty street suggests he didn't want to kill a lot of people. But did he want to kill Noam? What do you guys think?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] danielmartin-3 17 years ago

tomtrueman

You're a blessing,man! It's very good to have you around these messages!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] yomj 17 years ago

very well said tom. ashraf showed some serious self-conflict in his facial expressions and dialogue. i think the ending was so beautiful and even looked past the whole gay issue, more of like a "i wish this would end". i wish more movies would be so explicit and symbolic, then i could stop hunting for indies while avoiding the redundant mainstreams.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wilcabral 17 years ago

It was such a beautiful and well-thought answer, Tom. Thanks a lot!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Idealuk 17 years ago

Tom, I hate myself for leaving this film unwatched on my USB's desktop for as long as I did (just over two days). I love it. I cannot agree with you more. From the time that the Bent theme was introduced, I increasingly feared that this film was about martyrdom, and, even though I was correct, I do not think that the film's conclusion could have been more beautiful. Cinematically, it was incredibly reminiscent of Jeux d'enfants' ending, which I hold in high regard, and, as a reluctant American, I found this entire film to be a small, yet needed, breath of fresh air for views on the realities of the current Middle East.

Me:
http://idealuk.livejournal.com

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Juano2003 17 years ago

I saw the movie tonight and really enjoyed it, but like others, I was confused by the rationale behind the ending, specifically Ashraf's decision to become the suicide bomber. Then I read tomtrueman's ideas about it which ring very true, so thanks for that. I know that my wish for it to have ended some other way (he flees to Europe with Noam or they find some way to live happily ever after) wouldn't have rung as true.

However there is one aspect of your explanation that doesn't sit well with me. When you mention how suicide bombers believe they'll be welcomed into heaven and whatnot, I've read that too. But would Ashraf believe that simply because he's Palestinian? At no other point in the film does he seem to be fanatical or even particularly religious. But regardless, your well written thoughts do help me to be more at ease with the ending to a terrific film. I agree, I hope more people get the chance to see it.

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

And if you understand that suicide bombers believe they will go directly to paradise, then it's clear that Ashraf preferred to die with the man he loved, taking him to paradise WITH him, rather than be forced by his family to live a lie, or try to keep them apart.

There is an obvious flaw in your logic. If Ashraf is radical enough to believe that being a mass murderer (suicide bomber) will get him a free ticket into heaven, then he'd also have to believe that there is no place in heaven for Noam, a Jew. And seeing as how Noam never showed anything remotely like depression or a desire to die, it seems to me that Noam was approaching Ashraf to stop him from doing something stupid -- not to join him in death. Ashraf's act isn't a beautiful act, but an act of betrayal. And totally out of character.

Despite your logical and well written defense of the film's ending, I think it is totally contradictory to the way Ashraf had been presented throughout the rest of the film. There is no indication that he is greatly devoted to his religion, let alone a fanatic. His relationship with his family is not that well defined, but it is made clear that he has no great animosity against the Jewish community. And rather than having no other options, the death of his sister actually would make it easier for him to break away from his family, since she seems to be the stongest link to his past. And his affair with Noam represent his hope for a better future. If Noam had died, that might have made Ashraf suicidal.

While it is obvious that the film is building to a tragic end, the death of his sister and the aftermath comes off as contrived and heavyhanded. It ruined an otherwise intelligent film.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

Whether Ashraf is a "murderer" or a "mass murderer" is splitting hairs. Whether he thought he could kill fewer people than Jihad is inconsequential. Killing fewer people is not saving the lives of those who you don't kill. He strapped a bomb to his body and walked down the street of a busy city with the intent to kill someone, any one. Coming to his senses and not killing anyone would be a heroic act. Informing on his brother-in-law would be an act of courage. Not getting Noam involved in the entire mess would have been an act of love.

No matter what Ashraf's supposed religious beliefs might be, nothing in the film suggests that Ashraf had the inclination or even the will to commit such a crime. If he had avenged his sister in a fit of rage toward the men who shot her, that would be a different thing. If he had killed Jihad to prevent any further killing, that would have been within his character. But his actions were meant to be a cold-blooded, pre-meditate act of violence against total strangers. And even if his religious beliefs had him convinced that such violence was a legitimate act, that doesn't make his actions any less evil.

Likewise, apparently Ashraf wasn't looking for Noam and apparently came across him by accident. Therefore, his killing was either a spur-of-the-moment impulse or a slip-of-the-thumb accident. But either way, it was a murder-suicide, and not one committed by mutual consent. There is no way I'll accept that Noam approached Ashraf with any sincere expectation that they would both die in the street. More likely, he thought Ashraf was incapable of such insanity and approached him gently and calmly, in the hope he could disarm him or persuade him. That would be within Noam's character.

I think you are trying to rationalize and romantize the violent behavior to create a beautiful ending out an ugly and pointless one. The more I think about this movie as a whole and the ending in particular, the more I intensely dislike it, because it is both dramatically and politically dishonest.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] danielmartin-3 17 years ago

I was watching the movie again yesterday and decided to watch the scene Noam sees Ashraf walk past the restaurant with more attention.

IMHO Ashraf stumbled up to the restaurant the same way one drives to places one had not intended to go to but ends up going anyway out of habit or for some motive that defies rational explanation.

Although he was intent on detonating the bomb, he still looked for some sort of comfort, the sort one finds when one goes to places one was happy in. And as a suicidal bomber, he had to choose a busy part of town in which to detonate the bomb and the restaurant happened to be in such a neighbourhood.

I'm not sure, however, he expected Noam to be there.

Also, I tend to believe Noam approached him calmly, even though he had seen the detonator, for two possible reasons:

- he did not want to scare Ahsraf - he believed he could dissuade Ashraf
- he did not want to draw the bystanders' attention to Ashraf - I imagine the kind of pandemonium he would have created if he had shouted to Ashraf.

And they kissed.

Whether Noam was kissing Ashraf because he wanted to demonstrate his love to the object of his affection or because he was partaking in Ashraf's plans is not clear to me. I think Fuchs was right in leaving the interpretation of the kiss up to the audience.

But the question remains...What would have motivated Ashraf to become a suicidal bomber?

Even though some social scientists point to the fact that religion in the Arab world, just like Communism in third-world countries, has taken on the function of providing the impoverished and hopeless young with a "way out of " oppression, poverty etc etc, I find it difficult to see Ashraf as some bellicose religious extremist who would believe martyrdom would help put an end to social problems or grant him a place in heaven.

Rather, I see him as an individual who just like anyone of us has a limited repertoire of reactions. Unlike the woman he was being blackmailed into marrying, Ashraf had not been in contact with - words fail me here - "broader" ideas. I believe he lived in a world of few choices and a lot of resentment into which an occasional pop-star might intrude and offer a homosexual teenager something to fantasise about.

Ashraf was offered very little hope, or choice for that matter, but he was subject to plenty of religious and social controls on both sides of the check-points. Actually, what great expectations can a young Palestinian have nowadays? His repertoire of ways of venting his frustrations, of finding solutions to his existential problems, of finding a way out was even more limited.

So, just like any of us, he resorted to his schemata.

[–] milliedil 17 years ago

Foreshadowing: after they first make love, Noam describes the experience as "explosive." Initially, Ashraf does not understand it. Noam explains that it's a compliment, something "cool." At the climax, the segment is lighted in a way to suggest both the literal and metaphorical explosiveness that consumes the lovers.

The excerpt from BENT is especially interesting if one knows the entire play (which cannot be included in the film, for obvious reasons). Still, it would be worthwhile to seek out. In addition to the recurring reference to rubbing one's finger across the eyebrow to secretly signal "I love you," there are several other points relevant to the subject at hand. In BENT, suicide is explained as an act of absolute defiance against the Nazis because it is, on its face, an exercise of free will. When someone commits suicide, all of the prisoners in his cell block are subsequently punished in order to induce guilt in those who might consider that route and, thus, prevent the act from recurring. Also, the play talks about prisoners who are called "Muslims," a term used to describe those who have given up all hope and wander aimlessly, as if in a zombie state, merely waiting to die or be killed by their oppressors. This is the state in which we see Ashraf at the end. Although he does detonate the bomb, his decision to turn away and attempt to limit the damage is not insignificant. Those who see it as an absolute, unmitigated and unforgivable act of evil/murder will not otherwise be persuaded, and that sort of dogmatic response is one reason why these issues must be discussed in the first place.

If you cannot see a production or read the original script of BENT, I recommend renting the film that starred a then-little-known Clive Owen and Lothaire Bluteau. It isn't entirely successful, but I think it makes its points well and is valuable as an adjunct to THE BUBBLE, and the relationship between those two protagonists is a useful reference point about what still goes on today.

"Thank you, thank you--you're most kind. In fact you're every kind."

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

Hope you had a nice trip! Welcome back.

You're still seeing the movie through your filter of "We're right and they're wrong" -- when the movie (for a refreshing change) tried to show how BOTH sides feel....

It is a question of "right and wrong" -- not "We're right and they're wrong!" I don't recall taking the Israeli side in the conflict though the film certainly does. The Israeli characters are clearly shown to be peace-loving and accepting and it is Ashraf who is presented to be a good person, but still willing to murder. The message seems to be that the Palestinians may appear to be willing to be friends, but deep down are homicidal. That is the stereotype the film ultimately embraces. And Rana wasn't "senselessly murdered," she was accidently shot by soldiers pursuing the terrorists (including her husband) who set off a bomb. Her death was tragic and senseless, but hardly the same as being randomly selected for execution. (And her death rings false. When the soldiers come racing up the street, firing their guns, she just stands there in the open. Anyone raised in that atmosphere would have known to take cover. The staging of her death seemed phoney and contrived.)

Wrong, and wrong. His intent was to kill HIMSELF as a heroic act -- something which those "heroes" who just fly over and drop bombs on somebody and then fly away seem to overlook. People are constantly branding them as "cowardly", but how many other people are so willing to die for their cause? And what makes you think he wasn't looking for Noam? Did you think he just stumbled up to the restaurant from force of habit?

Sorry, but I see nothing heroic about the random slaughter of innocent people, even if the perpetrator dies in the process. If someone strapped on a bomb and killed himself along side Hitler, that would be another matter. But suicide bombers want to just spread destruction and suffering. And it is not courageous. To stand up to an enemy who is clearly a threat to your safety is bravery. To walk up and instantaneously kill a total stranger, giving them no opportunity to defend themselves, is indeed a cowardly act -- by dying, he cowardly avoids facing the consequences of his actions. To murder a loved one is insane.

Apparently you are completely missing the symbolic gesture ...

The murder of Matthew Shepard was a "symbolic gesture." So was the killing of JFK. And the fall of the World Trade Center. All acts of terrorism are "symbolic gestures;" they accomplish nothing except announcing how much hate the perpetrators have in there hearts.

And if it was a symbolic gesture, that makes it worse because it is a meaningless act of political theater. Since Ashraf apparently didn't make his purpose known, the act will be seen -- not as you think, as a two lovers making a statement -- but as a vindictive Palestinian homosexual murdering his Israeli lover out of misplaced rage concerning his sister's death. Do you think that Noam's roommates will see his death as a romantic gesture? Or will they feel betrayed by Ashraf? Instead of inspiring unity, the killings could more easily be read as further prove of why Israelis shouldn't associate with Palestinians at all. Plus, it would confirm the homophobic notion that gays are unstable and mentally ill.

And even if we assume that Ashraf was acting nobly by only wanting to kill himself and Noam, the act itself is still dangerously selfish and irresponsible. He sets off a bomb in the middle of a city. Even if he stands in the middle of the street, flying debris could kill others, heart attacks could be caused and a gas tank on a nearby car could be ignited, killing dozens. There is nothing noble or romanitc in the Ashraf's actions.

... of two lovers, one from each side of the conflict, choosing to die together, in the hopes that others might learn something. Ashraf came looking for him, and Noam went out to be with him, knowing what it meant. ...

Again, you are assuming that Noam was a willing participant in his own destruction. There is nothing to support this, in the way Noam is presented, Yes, they go to see the play BENT, which apparently deals with lovers committing suicide, but drawing a parallel between the Palestinian situation and the Nazi occupation is a stretch. And I don't think the filmmakers do a credible job of justifying the parallel. You say "It was not just another random bombing on the news," but only if you read the situation that way. Most people would see it as just another whack-job, nutcase terrorist who bungled his one attempt to commit mass murder.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

Welcome back. Pardon the delay in my response.

Your first paragraph there sounds exactly like the justifications given by people I kept meeting in Israel, who kept citing this or that incident that showed "you couldn't trust any of them". Like the way you say Rana wasn't senselessly murdered, she was "accidentally shot".

First, I'm not saying they "couldn't trust any of them," I'm saying that is the message I got from the film. Second, I'm not defending the soldiers who shot Rana. But I am saying the entire sequence was poorly staged. She had ample time to at least try to reach cover, but apparently she did not. Living in an occupied area, I don't believe she would think it was safe to just stand in the open. She would have been far more wary of danger than people in Tel Aviv going to the store or visiting a nightclub. But, if you are going to be sympathetic to the terrorists, then you have to be equally sympathetic to the soldiers. They are in hostile territory, defending what they feel is their rights and their country. The soldier likely did not get up in the morning thinking "Today I will get to kill someone." You can't be so sure of that in Ashraf's case.

Personally, I am sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and believe that Israel has done a very poor job in handling the situation. That said, it doesn't mean that I am sympathetic to the terrorists' actions, which have only made bad matters worse.

if you listen to what Noam is saying in the voice-over at the end, it's clear that he had accepted death with the man he loved, rather than going on living in a world that thought they should hate each other. He felt the same despair that his mother felt, when her attempts to reconcile the enemies had failed.

If Noam was "accepting" of dying with Ashraf, then that would make him an accomplice to attempted murder. Their deaths (if an act of mutual suicide) was not a private act. It was committed in the middle of a street in a highly populated area of the city. Other people were hurt. Others could have died. It was an act of reckless violence. I cannot give Ashraf the benefit of the doubt that he was commiting a noble act. But I can give Noam the benefit of the doubt that he was not so thoughtless, reckless and cruel. The voiceover may have shown that he "accepted" death, but then what choice did he have? His true love had just murdered him. To forgive a loved one's stupidity is not the same as approving of it.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

Don't be so sure about that. Killing people is what soldiers are trained to DO.

And it is also what suicide bombers and other terrorists are trained to do.

Let's not forget what started it. He was clearly devoted to her, and would have been devastated, even to the point of acting rashly as a result. That's completely understandable, even though it's not the choice most of us would have made.

If Ashraf was justified in killing because some one killed his sister, than the soldiers were justified in killing her because someone else set off the bomb that killed their countrymen and whoever set off that bomb was justified because blah blah blah and so on and so forth .... The next logical step would be for Lulu to strap on a gun to hunt down Rana's husband!

If you wish to argue that Ashraf was out of his mind with grief that is a logical argument -- but it is not what I saw. And, if A kills B then I can see the logic of C killing A, but not in killing D, E, F, G and so forth. The act of bravery would be to call for a stop to ALL the violence, which, up until the end, is what the movie was all about.

You sound like you blame Rana for not running for cover.

No, I only blame the director for poorly staging that scene.

You're forgetting that Ashraf deliberately turned around and walked out into a deserted part of the street. He was trying to minimize the damage. You can bet that if he had let Jihad do it, Jihad would have headed into a big crowd in an enclosed area, in order to do the most damage he could do. Ashraf did not.

And would the 9/11 terrorists be heroes if they had minimized the damage by only taking down one of the two towers? Again, murdering fewer people doesn't make him heroic.

Yes, other people were hurt. Obviously Ashraf was not an "experienced suicide bomber", so he had no idea how powerful the bomb he carried would be -- but he did his best to avoid hurting other people.

No, his "best to avoid hurting other people" would have been to have never strapped on the bomb at all. And if he had no idea how powerful the bomb was, then it could be argued he went to the center of the street in the hope of destroying the buildings on both sides and killing even more people. Whatever the case, he knew the potential for destruction and, great or small, he is accountable for the damage his actions cause. And let's face it, Ashraf was an "experience suicide bomber" because no one ever gets to do it more than once.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

If you believe that violence is senseless, this movie sure confirmed it.

TomTrueman -

I appreciate what you have been saying and I'm glad you found something beautiful in the movie. I too liked the movie, up until the end. The act at the end did not -- in my opinion -- confirm the message of the rest of the film, but betrayed it. The hope, love and brotherhood displayed in the rest of the film dies with the violence of Ashraf's actions. That violence was indeed senseless, every bit as senseless as the violence that plagues the area. I don't see how anything could possibly have been accomplished by such a "symbolic gesture" other than to add two more scores to the body count. Even if Noam and Ashraf thought in their last living moments that they were accomplishing something, they were deluding themselves. Who will find hope and inspiration in their charred and lifeless bodies? Noam's roommates? Ashraf's family? To live and fight for justice, or even to flee and find happiness elsewhere would be heroic acts. To surrender to dispair and hatred and violence is not heroic.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] danielmartin-3 17 years ago

It was indeed a tragic ending. But given the context and the background of the conflict, to criticize it for ending the way it did is like saying that the outcome of Brokeback Mountain was all Ennis and Jack's own fault, because they could have simply moved to San Francisco and their problems would have all been over.

My parents, sisters and I moved to Brazil 22 years ago leaving beautiful England behind. We came to a country that was in the middle of what was dubbed at the time "an economic miracle".

Well, it's been 22 years now, the miracle proved to be unfounded after all and Brazilian society is in the middle of its deepest and most serious political and ethical crises. There is an "undeclared" civil war here. And the toll is high. More people die in Rio in one day than in the war in Iraq during the same period of time.

Hopelessness, poverty, lack of opportunities, segregation, exclusion...We have them all here. And they rob people of their lives and alter people's values and morals.

A few years ago, shanty-town dwellers were given a chance of moving to recently built housing projects. The second day they were there, they tore the bathrooms down, sold toilette seats, sinks etc to buy food.

We think we understand the needy, the oppressed, the segregated. But most of the time we don't have the faintest idea of what their belief system is.

People when pushed to the limit - whatever that limit may be - might not behave "as expected". They might resort to "senseless" violence. That they might kill those they love. They might go against our humanistic way of looking at life. That they might not always take the high road or behave admirably. They might shoot first and ask later. They might blow themselves up, and in the process kill innocent people. And they might do all this for reasons we might not even begin to comprehend.

When faced with something different we tend to pass judgement even before we understand what's happening. That, IMHO, is really sad.

Ashraf, wrong? Right? A villain? A hero? His acts, senseless? Brave? Cowardly? I'd have to spend a long time in Palestine before I dared call him/them anything.

Just my proverbial two cents...

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

t was indeed a tragic ending. But given the context and the background of the conflict, to criticize it for ending the way it did is like saying that the outcome of Brokeback Mountain was all Ennis and Jack's own fault, because they could have simply moved to San Francisco and their problems would have all been over.

Hi,

Sorry it's been a while, but I've been terribly business accomplishing absolutely nothing of any importance. It's amazing how time consuming being unproductive can be.

Anyway, if BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN ended with Jack blowing Ennis' brains out and then turning the gun on himself, I'm pretty sure I would not have placed it on my personal top ten list.

I have no problem with unhappy endings, if the story justifies it. I don't think THE BUBBLE does. Whatever point the filmmakers wanted to make by killing off Ashraf and Noam is negated by making Ashraf a murderer. He becomes not a victim of the situation, but part of the problem. I won't accept that he was compelled to do it. He was only compelled to do by a badly written script. The symbolism of the tragic ending is rendered meaningless because it is a self-inflicted unhappy ending that trashes the message of peace and hope that the rest of the story promotes.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

how many of those heroic guys who fly over and drop bombs on someone before flying safely away are as willing to die for their cause? THEY are the real murderers,

Irrelevant to the conversation! Hitler killed more people than Charles Manson, so Charlie really isn't all that guilty? Ashraf's actions should be judged on their own terms, not dismissed by dishonest comparisions. He only killed Noam and Noam wanted to die, so its all peachy-keen and wonderful. Sorry, even IF Noam was suicidal, Ashraf still set off a bomb in the middle of a crowded city. It was luck that more people didn't die, not his noble hope of making a "symbolic" statement. He died a murderer. Period!

And you think he was only compelled to do it by a "badly written script"? Do you think he should have stepped aside and let Jihad do it, killing as many people as possible? Do you think he could have persuaded Jihad NOT to avenge the senseless murder of his unarmed wife? What do you think are the chances of that happening?

We didn't see him even trying. That would have been heroic: facing a killer, not doing his dirty work for him. (Which is what I think Noam was trying to do at the end, not commit suicide. Now, that's heroric.)

No, he felt he had no choice -- and this way, he could make a statement by giving his life and the life of the man in loved (and no one ELSE, you notice), in a desperate attempt to make people understand how senseless it all is. Not the choice I might have made, but I could understand why he felt he had to.

Hitler felt he had no choice. He felt compelled to make a statement. Sorry, the motivation is irrelevant if the action is wrong. Will Noam's family and friends all be relieved to know that his death was worth it because of Ashraf's "symbolic gesture?" Don't think so.

I see that sort of bias all the time, though -- unarmed Rana is murdered without provocation, and it's "oops" -- but when there is retaliation for it, suddenly that's "terrorism". How one-sided! No wonder things get worse and worse.

You seemed to have no problem with your "bias" in defending the senseless, ultimately pointless act of revenge. You seem to think that Ashraf is a victim and therefore can't do any wrong.

... the message of peace and hope ... will NEVER be possible as long as innocent people are killed and there are endless cycles of retaliation with an ever-widening swath of carnage.

Of which Ashraf is now an irreversible part. His actions are a perpetuation of the problem. No one should accept his action as a symbol of hope and peace.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

By labelling Ashraf as a "murderer" you're refusing to recognize or acknowledge why he did what he did. He wasn't just a "murderer". He gave his life.

murderer: noun - a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being). WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

What part of this doesn't describe Ashraf? You can apologize, rationalize, excuse, defend, emphasize, sympathize, analyse, romanticize and even applaud his actions, but it doesn't change the fact that he strapped a bomb to his body, went to a place where he knew people would be, a place where he had found love and acceptance, all with the intent of taking innocent life. The fact that the one he did kill happened to be a man who loved him, doesn't negate the inhumanity of his actions.

And you have this strange blind spot when it comes to Rana's murder.

Again ... Rana did not deserve to die. But, the character deserved more than being a lame plot contrivance. For the director to kill her off so he can have an excuse for another character to commit murder is to totally trivialize her. And let's face, she serves no other purpose in the story.

... sidestepping the fact that he had carefully moved AWAY from buildings into a deserted part of the street, BECAUSE he wanted to minimize the damage from his act. It was NOT "luck" that more people didn't die -- it was because of his actions...

Yawn! I'm sorry for being rude, but I am so tired of hearing this. A bomb going off on a city street can have untold number of repercussions. His walking six feet in a different direction hardly constitutes an act of heroism. If he wanted to "minimize the damage" he would have not strapped on the bomb in the first place -- or he would have killed Jihad. Ironically, he saved Jihad's life, probably allowing him to kill others later. Ashraf accomplished nothing.

You need to try to understand why suicide bombers feel they have no choice but to do what they do. Have you no empathy or insight into the desperation they must feel?

The film takes nearly two hours to show us that he does have a choice. He reaches out to others who are different and finds love, acceptance and hope. He blows that to bits at the end. My turn: Have you no empathy or insight into the desperation, the pain, the loss and the fear that suicide bombers inflict on others? Terroists may live in desperation, they may think they are noble and brave; but that does not, can not and should not ever justify their multipling that pain in the name of hate.

I'm sorry you had to spoil the movie for yourself by being so intolerant and judgemental.

I make no apologies for being "intolerant and judgemental" about mindless, senseless and pointless violence. And with all due respect, I'm just amazed that you can be so tolerant and non-judgemental in your defense of it.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

That's why they are called SUICIDE bombers.

No, that's why they are called suicide BOMBERS. They don't make themselves into human weapons because they want to die, but because that is an effective means of getting close enough to others to kill them. They are willing to die in order to fully express their hatred.

In a sense, Noam killed himself too,... He didn't shout and wave his arms and yell "Don't do it!" He tenderly embraced him, and they were just about to kiss as it went off.

So, Noam was just standing there, saw Ashraf and thought to himself "Oh, there is the man I love, but, oh, he's got a bomb. Well, if he's going to kill himself, I guess I better join him. Boy, how romantic!" Or did Noam think, "Oh my god, Ashraf is going to do something insane. But maybe I can talk him out of it. Just be calm and talk him down!" I vote for the latter, because if Noam willingly and knowingly let Ashraf set off that bomb, then he is just as guilty. And, sorry, that goes against everything else the movie showed us.

...but Rana's senseless murder was the kind of regular occurrence that fuels the conflict, making it worse every day.

As common, random and senseless as Ashraf's murder of Noam?

As I keep trying to explain (apparently unsuccessfully),...

And as I keep trying to explain (apparently unsuccessfully), I don't mind tragic endings, I don't mind that the film might end with the death of one or both of the lead characters, I wouldn't even mind if Ashraf and Noam did die as an act of mutual suicide --- IF it made sense within the context of the story. Based on the rest of the film, I do not believe that Ashraf would become a suicide bomber, I do not believe that he would murder Noam and I do not believe that Noam would either commit suicide or even want Ashraf to kill himself for any reason. The ending turns an otherwise well made and believeable drama into shallow propaganda -- which, whether it means to or not, is anti-Palestinian and anti-gay. Tragedy has to earn the right to win our tears. THE BUBBLE doesn't even get my respect.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

You have no idea how YOU would react if senseless violence and MURDER struck so close to home. People are capable of performing any kind of "irrational" act while they are still in shock immediately after such a horrible event.

I'm 99 percent sure I wouldn't become a suicide bomber under any circumstances and 99.999999999999 percent sure I would't react to the death of one loved one by senselessly murdering another.

(He was especially distraught because he had just come out to Rana, and she hadn't yet had time to adjust to the news and learn to love him again in spite of her dismay.) Ashraf was walking like a zombie, obviously still in shock, and not thinking clearly.

Now you want it both ways. How can it be a symbolic act of great beauty if it is was committed when he wasn't thinking clearly? If you want to argue the insanity defense, then you may have a case. But then you can't also argue that it was also designed to be a romantic act and a political statement.

Apparently you think Jihad could have been talked out of going, some other way. Good luck on that one.

We will never know! Ashraf didn't try. Instead he did the act himself -- thus setting it up for Jihad to do his little one-man show later. Ashraf's actions did not prevent greater violence, it guaranteed more. Indeed, Ashraf's failure to kill enough people to satisfy Jihad's bloodlust might even inspire Jihad to an even greater degree of violence. And if he finds out that Ashraf targeted his homosexual lover, Jihad might also target gays for his vengence.

You just don't get it -- and all my attempts to explain it to you don't seem to be helping you to understand it. You're determined not to see why it had to turn out the way it did, which is why it was such a powerful tragedy.

You just don't get it -- and all my attempts to explain it to you don't seem to be helping you to understand that murder isn't romantic. That violence only begets more violence. That Ashraf's acts were not only pointless and reckless but probably a preamble to even greater violence.

At the film festivals, the director and his husband were both being criticized by people who had similar intolerant and judgemental attitudes. "We are right and they are wrong! End of story!" People like that are part of the problem.

One: It's not a question of I'm right and you're wrong, but that this is my opinion and I don't agree with yours.

Two: People at the film festivals agree with me and not with you? So I'm not alone in my views! Oh, but "people like that" are part of the problem. What problem? Their (our) inability to applaud terrorists? Personally, I find it heartening when people are willing to speak out against propaganda they find offensive.

Three: Again with the "intolerant and judgemental" stuff. But aren't you being intolerant and judgemental. Yes the Palestinians have been unfairly treated -- but the Israelis have fought against oppression and, indeed, extermination by the Muslim worlds for decades and even centuries. Why aren't you sympathetic to their history of oppression? Why do you romanticize the Palestinian violence and condemn the Israelis? Neither side is without blame. Neither side is entirely right or wrong. And BOTH sides are wrong in their use of violence. When the Israelis kill Rana, you are outraged; but when Ashraf kills Noam you bend over backwards to romanticize it as a something beautiful?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majikstl 17 years ago

Well, wait, excuse me ... there, I'm on my soapbox now. That's better. Anyway, I don't think the film delivers a "message of tolerance for terrorists," I thought that is what you were doing. Up until the end, I thought the film did do a nice job of giving a balanced picture of life in the region. That's why I didn't like the ending, because it fell back on the terrorist stereotype.

Anyway, let me step down from my soapbox ... whoops, OUCH!. I think I twisted my ankle. I'll survive. Well, I've enjoyed our conversation. It is just a pity the Israelis and the Palestinians can't discuss matters in such a civilized fashion.

I'm sure our paths will cross again.

Best wishes.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leftbanker 16 years ago

Hi tom - Due primarily to your enthusiastic preview, I got the dvd of The Bubble as soon as it was released in the US, and I have already watched it thrice, plus multiple replays of scenes that pleased or puzzled me. And I've been working through the imdb discussions about the film and learning much from them, particularly your dialoge with Majikstl. Once I get my thoughts sorted out, I may address some other issues, but I wanted to comment now on one matter that you keep coming back to, Rana's death -

She's standing there talking to her neighbour, as her new husband takes their purchases inside, when suddenly a jeep drives up and a guy jumps out and shoots her in the back. How is that merely "an accident"? Did he mistakenly think his gun was pointing at a terrorist? Did his gun just go off accidentally? Maybe she didn't run for cover because she never imagined that someone would just jump out and shoot her unprovoked, as she stood there unarmed. Of course, she was an Arab, and to him, that probably meant she was probably up to no good, and would eventually "deserve it"....

The soldier did not "mistakenly think his gun was pointed at a terrorist," nor did it "go off accidentally." His gun WAS pointed at a terrorist. If you re-run the sequence and watch carefully, you will see that two masked,Palestinian gunmen (possibly the same two who had embraced Jihad at the wedding and reported that they had successfully delivered the first bomber to Tel Aviv) run through the square and past Rana, with the Israeli jeep in hot pursuit. Having come to an open area with the fleeing gunmen in sight, the Israelis careen to a stop and jump out shouting for the gunmen to stop before one of them fires at the masked gunmen. It is probable that the Israeli was focused entirely on the fleeing Palestinian and that Rana's presence did not even register with him. The other soldier sees the danger, shouts 'Hold your fire,' and pushes the gun to the side.

Whatever one thinks of the larger conflict or of Isreali actions in the Palestinian territories, the fact that this was clearly a hot pursuit situation puts a different light on Rana's death (than your insistence that it was "murder," either intentional or with utter indifference). Her death was terribly regrettable, and it was tragic (even more so because of its consequences), but it was in itself an accident. And it was also an inevitable consequence of attitudes and actions on both sides of the conflict.

I say all this in the painful awareness that with a slight shift in context I'm sounding like Rummy or one of his pet generals (Stuff happens. War isn't pretty. We regret any incident of collateral damage).

[Disclaimer - I have been reading the imdb comments starting with the earliest and am only about halfway through. So this matter might have been disposed of months ago. I need to address certain specific issues as they come to my attention or I'm sure I'll forget them.]

"Nothing personal. Your name just happened to come up."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sam_i_am-1 16 years ago

I've read all five pages of this thread, and I must say I still didn't enjoy the ending. I understand what's been explained about Ashraf having no choice, and how he moved away from the cafe and how Noam came out in a resigned fashion, but that isn't the way I saw it.

It's very important, I think, to point out that Rana's death was an accident, and it's surprising that tomtrueman missed that. She wasn't just suddenly gunned down by crazed soldiers. They were shooting at escaping enemies. I also think what majikstl was saying about the fact that she lives with this kind of danger every day would make her take cover makes perfect sense. And no, I don't mean to place the blame for her death at her feet. Yes, I can see that she was still floating on clouds of joy after her wedding night, but if you live in an area where this kind of violence breaks out frequently and two armed men in a jeep are chasing two masked men who run right past you, it does make sense that you would move out of the way. So yes, I think this scene was a little bit unbelievable.

Also, tomtrueman makes mention several times that Rana didn't have time to adjust her feelings to her brother's "news" that he's gay and in love with an Israeli. Since Ashraf says a couple of times in the film that he could be killed for being the way he is if they found out, he knows he was taking a huge chance opening up to his sister with this news. When she rejects him flat out, what evidence is there that she will "adjust her feelings" later on? She, along with her new husband, want Ahsraf to bury his identity and marry a woman instead.

What's even harder for me to understand is how Ashraf can so easily turn to the thought of becoming a suicide bomber to avenge the death of his sister who has rejected him for who he really is - and then travel to the exact location to kill innocent people who loved him for who he really is. Since we were given no evidence in the film to support the idea that Ashraf would believe his martyrdom would send him to Paradise, I find it even more difficult to believe that he would imagine he's taking his lover to Paradise with him. Like majikstl, I also think Noam is coming out to try and stop Ashraf, to talk to him, not to resign himself to death. And although tomtrueman has pointed to the voiceover at the end as evidence of Noam's intentions, I don't think we can take any comfort from a voiceover that takes place after the character has died. How is he able to tell us his thoughts if he's dead?

I did think the film took great pains to show what life is like in Tel Aviv, and I found it interesting for that. I had no idea American music was so popular there, for example (and did Britney Spears actually cover Bobby Brown's My Prerogative? Gee, you learn something new every day!), but to change the tone of the film so abruptly at the end, without showing the transition in Ashraf (yes, I see that his acts were from desperation, but I didn't sense his desperation), well, I didn't follow it. It made me angry, not sad. I was angry at the filmmakers for the way they wrapped up this story.

Somewhere in a previous post, someone said there isn't another way out. That Ashraf couldn't live in Noam's world and Noam couldn't live in Ashraf's, but there is a third option - a new world they could share together. Jihad's cousin had mentioned going to London. Why couldn't these two men see that as an option for themselves?

Ah well, not to burst anyone's bubble, but just wanted to add my opinion to this interesting discussion. I found The Bubble to be a well-intentioned, but flawed film.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leftbanker 16 years ago

Wow. I just re-read this entire thread and it confirms my sense of the value of imdb. Get away from the trolls and droolers, and there are symposia that shed real light. My thanks to all the posters, including those who only left one comment, but especially to tom and maj (and now sam). I want to pitch in. I know I'll forget half the points I wanted to make and will make the rest somewhat incoherently, but, standing on the shoulders of those giants, here I go.

I have a slightly different take on this - although each of you has touched on parts of it on occasion. First, I think the filmmakers (a term I use to mean the writer/director/producer) intended more to ask questions than provide answers. All assumptions are open to question. Are Noam and Lulu (and the rave kids and the whole Sheinkin Street crowd) really, consciously into "peace and love," or are they just naive and self-indulgent? And what about Yali - is he cynical and prescient or just petty because of his crush on Noam and jealousy of Ashraf. And Ashraf - does he really think he can live in two worlds when he has to hide his real self in in each of them?

Is the ending disturbing, maddening and irrational? Maybe that is life as some people experience it. Do we, the audience, really think that in the middle of hell love is going to conquer all? Romeo and Juliet are going to live happily ever after?

So how do I explain the inexplicable? I can't, but I do think there are a couple of elements to Ashraf's reaction that have not been much explored on this thread. I was struck by the interplay in the film of politics, gender, sexuality and power. Think of the portrayals of the alpha-male characters (the officer at the checkpoint, Lulu's guy Sharon (Sharon's voice!), Jihad) and contrast them with the others - Noam, Yali, Shaul, Chiki. From the opening incident at the checkpoint, the whole film is a massive game of dominance and submission. There's Golan, the self-proclaimed top who turns out to be the ultimate "biter." Think of Shaul cooking breakfast for Lulu in his apron after acing out Sharon. Noam rolling over for Ashraf their first time in bed; how much later was it that Ashraf returned the favor? "We don't have to." "I want to." And what a remarkable scene that was, even before the explicit part!

Out of love and foolish hope, Ashraf tries to become Shimi. But it doesn't work. All the casual talk he hears in Israel reminds him of his subhuman status. And every time he passes through a checkpoint he is utterly degraded. In the final checkpoint scene (right after the rave and his hot night with Noam) when he tries to explain to the Israeli soldiers that the other Palestinians were guests coming to his sister's wedding, he is identifying with the Israelis - only to be brusquely reminded that he's dirt like the rest of the Palestinians. But in Nablus, he's humiliated because he's queer. He is uncomfortable with the men, and even his beloved sister can't dance with him.

Then there's the thing about parents and children. Why does Noam identify with his mother and Ashraf with his father? When he tells the story of the house his father tried to build, Ashraf is living his father's humiliation, which represents the humiliation (and, one could say, emasculation) of all the Palestinian men. Later, at the wake for Rana, he tries twice to comfort his father. He walks across the square and kneels beside him and offers him water and food, but the shattered father barely acknowledges him. Then Jihad steps up to offer vengeance, and the father rises and embaces him.

I want to think that Ashraf could not be a suicide bomber. But I have come to believe that, in shock from his sister's death and beaten down by a lifetime of humiliation, he made a decision to lash out, to avenge his sister and his father, to somehow establish his masculinity, and to escape his unbearable circumstances in the only way he could conceive. I think he intended to kill Israelis and himself, and that in his semi-conscious state (as another poster mentioned), he gravitated - was drawn without really understanding why - to the place he knew best.

The bomb is armed, if he releases his grip, it detonates. The ringing phone startles him; the sight of Noam jolts him to a realization of what he's doing. This is Noam, the guy who has loved and fully accepted him. He's taken aback. Confused, he steps back. Noam is right here. Do something. What? How? And the same thing for Noam. He hears the phone ring. Ashraf? What's going on? Why? Stop him. Embrace him. Too late.

No happily ever after in a land far away. Not even a last brief touch. No seventy muscle men. No paradise where they can just love each other. No answers, just very difficult questions.

As much as I loved the film and hated the ending, I think any other conclusion would have been false.

"Nothing personal. Your name just happened to come up."

[–] sam_i_am-1 16 years ago

Oh my gosh, great insights! I didn't consider all the alpha-males and the contrasted views of those with the more prominent feminine side. You're absolutely right about that. And the observation you make of Shaul cooking breakfast in the apron - nice catch! The bit about Ashraf and Noam switching positions didn't hit me as deeply, though. I guess I'm used to more versatile men, so I don't tend to think of merely "top" or "bottom." :)

After reading your post, I definitely can see the film the way you saw it, it makes perfect sense to me. Especially the part about Ashraf trying to curry his father's favor, to gain his respect, to get his love. So yes, I can see how that would cause some strong feelings and a deep desire to avenge his sister's death - to feel he belonged, maybe.

My problem comes because of the world I see around me and the way I grew up. If my sister rejected me for being who I am (and indeed, one of them did), I find I won't have as strong a bond with her. So I projected that onto Ashraf, but apparently, his culture, his upbringing, leaves him with a different feeling. I didn't completely understand the culture. The dancing before the wedding, for example, all the men and women had been separated. Was it okay for Ashraf to visit where the women were and to dance with his sister? Or was that seen as a feminine thing to do by the other women? I didn't know, but I did note that there were no other men there.

However, although I can understand (and to some extent, agree with) your assessment for how Ashraf becomes desparate and takes up the cause, I don't really see a sensible reason for his wandering back into the area of the city with which he's most familiar. Someone pointed out earlier that he wouldn't have been able to cross the checkpoint with the bomb strapped to him, so he must have met up with someone else to get the material. This would have given him plenty of time to think through his actions, and frankly, I think he might have changed his mind. But if he truly was forced into this and had no further choice, as has been intimated earlier in this thread, I still don't think he would have gone to an area where his friends (and possibly his lover) were. They were open, honest and loving with him, why should he wish them ill?

This may just be a case of my not being able to comprehend the rationale used in that part of the world, but if so, I believe the filmmakers should have worked harder to clarify it for an outsider like me. Or perhaps their film was meant to be enjoyed by a smaller audience?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sam_i_am-1 16 years ago

Thanks, Tom, for the explanation about men and women dancing together. I see now that it was alright for Ashraf to dance with his sister because she knew him well, but it wouldn't be alright for other men to dance with her. I didn't know about this, culturally.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Database_Man 15 years ago

Tomtrueman, you said: "I STRONGLY disgree with those who thought he betrayed the people who befriended him". - That's exactly what he did!

He brother-in-law Jihad dispatched a suicode bomber to Israel, putting everybody around him at risk. Two Hamas men ran away from two Israeli soldjers, without any attempt to protect a wife of their leader, or to delay them, so she could run away. Ashraf saw that the bullet that hit his sister went astray, and though the Israelis could be accused in negligence, so too the two Hamas man and Jihad himself.

Ashraf had a way out without resorting to murder: he could marry Jihad sister and move to London, as she suggested. That was not what he dreamt or liked, but he would not have to kill innocent people deliberately.

[–] alanptaylor-1 16 years ago

I was thinking along similar lines. I think Ashraf got to the point where he saw no hope and did the one thing he had left to try to redeem himself in some way. I think he wandered back to the cafe without consciously going there. Then, when he saw Noam through the window, he thought "There's the man I love; I can't cause his death" and moved, not TOWARD the center of the street so as to minimize casualties, but AWAY from his lover to save him. Then Noam surprised him and they died together. Noam's voiceover at the end may have been more about "Well, now I'm dead, so I hope someone at least will learn from that" and less about "My lover and I chose to leave together the world in which we couldn't be together."

Let me say here that I saw the film for the first time last night; this is my interpretation based on my recollection of the film and what I felt while watching it.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviegoingcat 16 years ago

Very good points. This film belongs to another time..the gay pair has to die. No relatively happy endings please. I do not think anyone in the film ever mentioned the possibility that some, even many, suicide bombers have been pushed into the act (using drugs and more) because they had broken some Islamic 'rule'. There are also cases where individuals seem surely to have courted death by the IDF to avoid death by honor killing. In reality Ashraf would have had to be forced into becoming a suicide bomber. He wouldn't have volunteered. And he would have gotten rid of the bomb before he got into Tel Aviv if possible.

And frankly I don't think he would have gone to the wedding either.

I wonder how many suicide bombers died and killed because they were gay.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviegoingcat 16 years ago

More than a few cases indicate that the suicide bombers were blackmailed into volunteering. You sound dangerously indoctrinated ..or naive to a fault.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] moviegoingcat 16 years ago

I see. It's sometimes hard to tell what is intended.

[–] FlyboyLA 16 years ago

As a new poster to this movie's thread, I must say there is alot of passion and emotion from all you fans. I think that's what is so great about this film. It causes us to discuss what happened whether we believe it should've happened or not. I completely agree with alanptaylor-1's post. From the moment I saw the final scenes, I believe that Ashraf did intend on killing as many people as possible, but, turned away from the restaurant when he saw Noam. He was humiliated at the restaurant when he worked there as "Shimi" and probably felt that would be the best place to act on his revenge.

I, however, thought that a stronger ending would have been if somehow Noam was called back to duty and was working at the same checkpoint again and that Ashraf planned on taking out his revenge for his Sister's death there. It was the soldiers that killed his Sister and the last place where he was disgraced by the Israelis. The outcome I had imagined would still be the same but I think would've made more sense.

I also thought that perhaps after his discussion with Samira, Ashraf would've convinced Noam to go to London where they wouldn't have to live such a difficult life. I guess I'm a sucker for happy endings, but, their passion, love, and understanding for each other deserved to show the world how these two men from completely hostile territories could find love with one another. Anyway, keep up the discussion. I think it's great.

[–] backwards_pi 16 years ago

Ashraf chose to become a suicide bomber for that very reason: suicide. He wasn't homicidal, but he saw an opportunity to leave his life where he was caught between two worlds: One that he was from but could never accept him as a gay man, and one where he was accepted by a minority but could never stay.

Also the explosion is a metaphor for Noam and Ashraf's love for eachother and how it consumed them. Earlier in the movie Noam refers to the sex as "explosive," forshadowing the end.

[–] blue-lagoon 15 years ago

Did Noam choose to die with Ashraf or was he just trying to stop Ashraf? That seems to be the real question.

The voice-over at the end makes it pretty clear.
"Hubi, my love...Let's fly away...."
"Maybe beyond the smoke and the fighting,there's a better place. Maybe there really is a paradise where we can just love each other."
"....Maybe people will see how beautiful we look, and understand how stupid these wars are."

Noam wanted to be with Ashraf even if it was in paradise! Also, he felt maybe their dying together would prove the strength of love and futility of violence. Just look at the two bodies lying together amidst the chaos and you get the picture!

I was going to give this movie a miss but fortunately I read about the significance of the ending. Thanks tomtrueman!
So much to see, so little time!

[–] electrolito 15 years ago

At he very beggingin I didn't really get the movies ending, I was kind of dissapointed by it... I found it really sad.
I'm not north-american, palestinian or european, I'm venezuelan, I do get a western vision I think but not a vision from the "melting pot".
I didn't want to judged Ashraf by taking the decision of been a suicide bomber, I could some how understand him... by the fact that his family been really traditional palestinians and all his personal history and experience with the israeli ocupation...
But after I read TOMTRUEMAN post about the end I got to know another perspective and I know think that the end is really beautiful in some way, really dramatic, but is a nice sad ending.
TOMTRUEMAN thank you for sharing your opinion with us.
And ti be honest, I found the film by chance... I was in my old university where you can find many interesting film (YES I'M GUILTY I BOUGH AN ILEGAL COPY FROM IT), I saw it among other gay topic movies and it caught my atenttion. Is a shame that is so hard to see in a real cinema such kind of films...

[–] brucehassan 15 years ago

I had not seen this film until it was shown on Australian TV (SBS) last night. I haven't stopped thinking about it since, especially the ending, and enjoyed the long discussion here that I found this morning.
My initial reaction to the ending was anger - it seemed stereotypical in two ways: gay love story ends in suicide and death (so Victorian), and the Palestinian had to be wearing a bomb (so 2000s). Some of the discussion here has given some other insights, but like some others I thought there were other options, especially London. When Ashraf is talking to Samira and she suggests going to London, I thought that seemed the obvious answer - she clearly didn't want to remain there, and a marriage of convenience then a move to London, with Noam joining them there, provides plenty of opportunities to explore the struggles of cross-cultural relationships and maintaining identities in exile, with plenty of scope for tragic ending, perhaps mutual suicide. Perhaps Ashraf's upbringing has been too restricted, too unsophisticated to grasp what I thought were clear hints from Samira of such a possibility (maybe that is part of the tragic nature of the story). Presumably Samira didn't know about Noam (unless Jihad told her, perhaps he wanted to get rid of her as well for some unknown reason?, she certainly didn't seem very happy at the wedding), but I'm sure she sensed Ashraf was 'different' (and so, in some way, was she) and she was offering him a way out but he was unable to see?
I picked up the early reference to explosive sex as a possible intimation of the ending, and I have to read or see Bent (now that I know its an actual script - I thought the theatre scene had been invented for this film) to understand a little more of the suicide-as-resistance argument, but I remain uneasy that Ashraf, after no prior indications that he would do such a thing, suddenly, almost on the spur of the moment, becomes the suicide bomber - and apparently easily overcomes Jihad's determination to play this role (having just lost his new wife, and with his role in Hamas, his grief is likely to be at least as consuming as Ashraf's, if not his loss of face as a Hamas leader whose new wife could be so casually slain within his own domain) and then easily passes through the checkpoints with his bomb jacket when the film has shown on several occasions how demeaning and invasive that process is, leaves me uneasy. I understand he is upset at Rana's rejection of his sexuality, and then devastated when she is shot and dies in his arms but nothing in the film had lead me to think him capable of almost immediately becoming a fully-fledged suicide bomber. It is almost as if its just some innate thing a Palestinian/Arab/one of them would do? Perhaps I just really like Ashraf's character, and so find it difficult to accept that he would take this course of action, especially without warning?

[–] canmark 15 years ago

I just saw The Bubble quite recently and to me the ending tied in with the Romeo & Juliet tragic romance.

Noam and Ashraf were from warring factions, just as Romeo and Juliet were from feuding families. Ashraf is being pressured to marry Jihad's sister, just as Juliet was being pressured to marry Paris. Ashraf's dear sister is killed by Noam's people (ie. Israelis), just as Romeo's best friend Mercutio is killed by Juliet's relations. Ashraf has the fiery Jihad seeking revenge; Juliet has the fiery Tybalt seeking revenge.

I think Ashraf felt despair. The open love that he could share with Noam in Tel Aviv seemed impossible where he lived with his family, yet leaving the family seemed like a betrayal. As Juliet and Romeo killed themselves out of love for the other, I see Ashraf killing himself out of love for Noam... out of a love that he could never have. For him, the "suicide" part of "suicide bomber" was important. He moved away from the cafe because he didn't want to kill anybody; he wanted to die himself. He did the "I love you" gesture as a farewell to Noam. But did he know that Noam would follow him out into the street? And that they would die tragically together like Romeo & Juliet?

And so, while it may not be 100% logical that Ashraf would do what he did, the ending had to be more symbolic and tragic, a denuciation of the unending violence and retribution, with the voiceover at the end calling for peace. This is the result of hatred: death of love.

[–] Emptylord 14 years ago

I hated the ending. Every time I watch it, it leaves me so confused.

But I think the Romeo and Juliet ending is probably the most accurate, even if completely unfitting.

One thing you're forgetting though - we never saw Noam call Ashraf back after the first bomb. It's quite possible that Ashraf thought he died, and when he saw Noam... well, you know what happened. But I don't think it was made clear enough that was the motive if that's what the motive was...

I think Noam was fully aware he would die if he joined Ashraf. And it wasn't calm, it was slow motion - his strides were long and almost urgent. But I'm not sure I believe Noam would kill himself or, at least, allow himself to die.

The kiss at the end didn't look mutual though, Ashraf seemed to be doing all the leaning and Noam didn't seem to be reacting at all.

I don't know, the film was amazing but I can't fathom the ending.

[–] WarpedRecord 15 years ago

You da man, tomtrueman! I'm familiar with the "logic" of suicide bombers, but do you think this applied to Ashraf also? As a gay man, he seemed to be more of an independent thinker. Would he believe virgin males awaited him in heaven? My take on his suicide was it was more an act of desperation in a world without hope, not a means to a better end. But I appreciate any insight you can provide.

[–] vatechjedi 13 years ago

I just watched this - streamed it on netflix - for the first time tonight.

I enjoyed reading through the discussion and the posts that weren't deleted...

Here is my two cents....

After watching the film I could see how Ashraf could turn to what he did. Maybe it was a little rushed and hard for others to see how Ashraf could turn to being a suicide bomber... but there was some foreshadowing with the term for making love as "explosion" and then you had the recurring sense in the film at how Ashraf seemed to never be "himself". Even when staying with noam... noams friends thought something wasn't right. He wasn't a jew. He was in the closet. He was hiding his true self from everyone.. his family his friends... and he couldn't cope with it. His sister didn't have the reaction he wanted her to have and when she died his own father rejected him at his side. So he got out of the world by taking the easy way and doing the wrong thing as sad as that was. And as sad as that was... it happens. Suicide happens.

I saw Ashraf as going back to comfort... the place in tel aviv that he knew before doing the final act. It looked like he had picked out the cafe, but was surprised to see Noam inside so he turned away and Noam running out to him was a total accident. They never intended to die together.

Just how I saw it.

What a good discussion on this thread. I appreciate it over the trolling in most other forums.

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

Very perceptive analysis, Vatechjedi! And yes, it's nice to visit one of the few boards that seems (mostly) troll-resistant.

[–] vatechjedi 13 years ago

Thanks.

Another thing I noticed, as others pointed out... was how Ashraf twice (once at the end, and once when he left tel aviv after being "found out" watching Noam through the store window) touched his eyebrows saying "I love you" to Noam.

The eyebrow thing is from Bent... but I don't know why they didn't mention that or show that in the film before hand while at the play (or maybe they did and I missed it!). It would have made sense then to the majority of people watching this film who have not seen or heard of Bent.

Ashraf was constantly expressing his disregard for the israeli (at least israeli soliders) throughout the film. At checkpoints, even after his night with Noam on the roof they woke up in the morning and almost started arguing about politics. So it's not hard (for me) to link that and all his frustrations with himself, his family who wouldn't accept him and his loving sister who rejected him when he told her, where he comes from, and the fact that he can't be himself anywhere in either israel or palestine where he's hiding being gay. All that was a lot to handle, which he couldn't.

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

Excellent observations again. It's been a few years since I saw this film, but I think Ashraf saw himself as doomed with all the baggage that comes with being gay in the Middle East. I must admit I missed the eyebrow gesture in this film. I saw this before "Bent," but I know exactly the gesture you're talking about it. I just don't remember it in this film.

Looks like a lot of the threads in this post have been deleted, for whatever reasons. It seem like the discussion was a lot more coherent when I last posted here. Anyway, sorry for my lack of specifics. I loved this film, but it's been awhile since I've seen it and don't remember a lot of the specifics.

[–] ysusan 16 years ago

There are several points in your email which show how uninformed you are about Israel in general. Not all Israelis have "just arrived" from NewYork or Chicago. There has always been an indigenous Jewish population in Palestine who have lived there since biblical times. The majority of Israelis are descended from Jews who were expelled from Arab countries in the 1940s and 1950s after Israel was re-established as a nation. The Israelis demolish the homes of people who are suspected of being terrorists. Instead of lining them up and shooting them which is what would be done in any muslim country, the Israeli government demolishes their houses as punishment.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kris_AB 15 years ago

Braver than killing one's self would be choosing to continue to live, no matter how hard your situation, and either seeking help (if available) or continually trying out or at least trying to come up with solutions to your problems. If you kill yourself, your voice is silenced and you can no longer contribute to shaping the world the way you believe it should be. Taking the life of another...nothing is more important than our lives, our well-being. It's all we truly own. No one has the right to take the life of another (except in cases of self-defense, like someone invading your home--and I mean real self-defense, not pre-emptively invading another country because you claim they're definitely going to attack your own). There is nothing courageous about suicide bombers or any kind of war action, really. It's a last-act, desperate event that should have been avoided in the first place.

I see you mentioned the "old book of fairy tales" (ie, The Bible or pretty much any religious text) and at least on that point we agree very much. So, with that in mind, if death is the end of the line (or probably the end, if you prefer to take a more just-in-case, open-minded agnostic sort of view--and hey I do too, depending on the day of the week), then killing yourself and ending your one shot at existing and enjoying all of what life has to offer is the worst thing you can do to yourself. Escaping to London would've been the best option for the two lead characters, though I didn't expect that to happen and am fine with that not being explored (although I also didn't expect both to die--maybe one, but not both. I think the presence of Bent in this movie--the Clive Owen film adaptation wrecked me when I saw it a decade ago--tricked me into feeling that the main dudes in this one wouldn't meet a similar fate).

Not getting into Israel vs Palestine debates, I know there've been atrocities committed on both sides, I'm not as thoroughly educated on the subject to offer a complete and confident opinion, and it's hard to get a handle on it anyway since the deep-rooted prejudices among those who continue to choose to hate and make war (both on the soil there and abroad) and ping-pong the revenge ball back and forth seemingly forever are near-impossible to reason with. As with evangelical Christians in North America (hey, give Canada some of that bashing too, those of you on the IMDB who love to bash the USA, 'cause us Canadians have hyper-conservative Christians up here too), it looks like it's just a matter of letting them gradually die off to be replaced with open-minded younger folks (though I want to acknowledge the many current seniors, baby boomers, and Generation X-ers who are open-minded).

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] canmark 15 years ago

I just saw The Bubble recently, and to me the tragic love story clearly was inspired by Romeo & Juliet. Ashraf and Noam come from warring factions; Romeo and Juliet came from feuding families. Ashraf loses someone close to him (his sister); Romeo loses Mercutio (his best friend). Juliet's angry cousin Tybalt is out for revenge; Ashraf's sister's fiance Jihad is out for revenge. Jihad is trying to force Ashraf into marrying his own sister; Juliet's parents were trying to force her to marry Paris. Both stories end tragically, with both lovers dying and with a plea for peace.

I think it was despair that led Asraf becoming the suicide bomber. He moves away from the cafe so that the bomb would not inflict much damage, because he doesn't really want to kill people. Seeing Noam, he does the "I love you" gesture from Bent. It's not clear to me whether he anticipated that Noam would approach him and be killed in the explosion. Regardless, their love was killed by hate.