I always thought he was innocent, until he admitted to giving the info & being offered the £40,000.
But then he was released by the american guy & went home.
If he didnt do it, why were the phonecalls made in the fist place? If he was guilty, why was that the end of the film?
[deleted]
He was innocent.
He admitted everything and gave names and told them the money offer because he wanted to end the whole thing.
He told them what they wanted to hear. Names, fake story. The names where his childhood friends, the whole things was made up. The goodguy even stated: why would that rich scientist want to make a dangerous deal for only 40k bucks?
The whole point was that he cannot prove he's innocent, so he'll never be free again, unless he lies about his guilt.
He was innocent.Exactly.
He admitted everything and gave names and told them the money offer because he wanted to end the whole thing.
He told them what they wanted to hear. Names, fake story. The names where his childhood friends, the whole things was made up. The goodguy even stated: why would that rich scientist want to make a dangerous deal for only 40k bucks?
I agree - he was almost certainly innocent.
But therein lies a criticism of the movie (which user 'intelearts' nailed in the user review 'Not complex enough to justify the theme' on 22 January 2008). This movie could have been so much more, but it went for a facile political point instead, and are a result was so much less than it could have been.
When Anwar finally 'confesses', I had a number of complex reactions. I'd just been thinking 'why is Abasi Fawal torturing this guy for no reason' after Freeman had concluded Anwar didn't know anything (which was my conclusion too), and then boom! So then my reaction was 'wow, Fawal really did know his job, he knew Anwar was holding something back; and Freeman was just being weak, and I also don't know squat about how much people can really take'. I was also thinking 'wow, Anwar must have been really dedicated to Rashid, to hold out that long, protecting him'.
And they could have done interesting things with that twist: e.g. take the simple model in most people's minds, and bend it back on them - as I started to, above, before I realized the film hadn't gone for the subtle twist, but rather the cheap, easy, obvious one. There are all sorts of interesting things they could have done with that - e.g. examined in some depth if it's ever right to inflict pain in a war, against people who don't play by any rules, etc.
Instead we get: so when you torture innocent people who know nothing, they lie to make the pain stop. Gee, I never thought of that.
And we see the pain of Anwar and his wife - which is fine, but if you gave Anwar and his wife the choice of being Anwar and his wife, or a husband who died in 9/11 in the towers and his wife, which do you think they'd pick? There are worse things that what happened to Anwar and his family - and in war, bad things happen to lots of people who don't deserve it - ask Bosnian Muslims who suffered horribly in the Yugoslav civil war about that.
An OK movie, but it could have been so much better (like 'The Kingdom', which despite several faults with still slightly better than this).
Sorry, but why should someone compare Anwars and his wifes life with those of the victims of 9/11? That's big BS!
Anwar - being a innocent citizen - should be compared to any other innocent citizen and therefore should get the same treatment of the government everybody else gets!
Just doing those stupid comparisons leads to belittlement of the crime this movie shows. A crime that has been practiced by the governments of many of our governments. Therefore: Please stop it!
And even if he had been guilty: There is just no way to torture someone! And letting somebody else do the job doesn't make it better!
He was guilty- the point was that its not worth proving it if it means lowering ourselves to such despicable tactics, it makes us as bad as whatever we accuse him of, guilty or not.
shareUh, perhaps the point was that torture doesn't work, because innocent people will confess to anything if tortured long enough.
Ya think?
Well, obviously torture doesn’t work on innocent people. Either they maintain their innocence or they offer up a false confession to stop the pain.
It does not follow, though, that torture is ineffective on the guilty. In the movie, the CIA had what they believed was evidence of guilt, so the purpose was to break the suspect and get him to provide intel that might stop further terrorist attacks. Had he been guilty, the torture might well have worked, and lives may have been saved. The question is whether a moral society should ever use such methods.
He wasn't guilty, what film did you watch?
shareif you gave Anwar and his wife the choice of being Anwar and his wife, or a husband who died in 9/11 in the towers and his wife, which do you think they'd pick?Seriously? You don't find anything seriously *beep* up with that kind of ultimatum?
that and it's a *beep* comparison.
In real life do you think there's a charismatic leading man with a rock solid conscience willing to sacrifice his job/family's-financial-welfare for each victim out there?
there are fates worse than death so I think if he had been in there for years, with no sign that he was ever going to be released, yeah he would have preferred to just die instantly during 9/11.
"And they could have done interesting things with that twist:"
And that would have been what? To show that the evil foreigner was guilty after all. I'm glad that they kept him innocent.
While I'm not totally opposed torture, when there is an imminent threat and solid evidence and a judge preciding over things, the way it was done in that movie was totally reprehensible and wrong. They had nothing on him and to just whisk him away in secret, preferably never to be heard from again, treating his family with total disrespect and arrogance... is really beyond words.
It was clear from the very beginning that he was innocent: he missed that crucial phone call from the "out of area" number, and he assumed that it was his wife calling him. Heck, it is a rare day when I dont' get a call from telemarketers of just a "wrong number".
shareWe also constantly get wrong numbers and calls from blocked numbers that don't leave a message.
Anwar obviously had no real information to give them, so he made something up. They had told him his phone had been getting calls from the terrorist phone for a year, so that's exactly what he told them. When they asked how much he was paid, there's a slight pause while he picks a number that will sound convincing, not too much money for terrorists to come up with, but not too little to take seriously as a bribe.
They already thought he had given the terrorists information on how to improve their bomb making technology, so that's what he told them. They didn't bother asking exactly what he had told the terrorists, which would have showed that he had no idea what technology they were using.
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
The man was completely innocent. The names that he gave to the torturers were those of the Egyptian national soccer team. The guys was having electric shocks applied to his nuts. He would have told them whatever they wanted to hear to put a stop to the pain. Christ are you people that utterly clueless? Watch the GD film again and this time pay attention.
shareI have always thought that an interesting way to go is to keep the viewer guessing about whether Anwar was innocent or guilty.
On one hand, you sympathise with him, and believe he is innocent, then he gives up information, so you think he is guilty. But instead of having Jake Gyllenhall's character expose that the confession was a lie, the confession should have hung in the air, like a question mark.
Even the scene, where he comes back to his family, and holds his newborn child, the viewer should have still not known if he was an innocent, back with his family, or a man who ultimately got away with the perfect crime.
Even in the end, there should have been no obvious suggestion of guilt or innocence, leaving the viewer to decide. The film, I felt, wasn't strong enough to do this.
I have found that films that raise more questions than it answers are often the most thoroughly thought-provoking films.
To me the film was not about Anwar's innocent or guilt at all. I don't think there was any question about his innocence, we saw absolutely nothing which could point to him being a terrorist - just the very small bit of information about the telephone call, which the senator explained meant absolutely nothing but was enough to hold him in post 9/11 US.
When he gave the names and said he had provided information about the bombs he did so after telling Douglas' character 'just tell me what I need to say' - I would say it was pretty clear he was just trying to get them to stop. If he didn't talk they would have tortured him until he died, just like they did with Kahlid's brother.
The lute is the coolest of all medieval stringed instruments.
this is comming late for those who asked the question. just happened on this board after seeing the film again on tv last nite and still reeling...THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE FILM is that he was INNOCENT...torture illicits what the torturer wants it to...he gave the "interrogator" names to stop the torture..the next scene shows jake teling the guy in egypt that the names were from his college soccer team yrs ago...and also why would someone making 200,000 risk everything for 40,000...and then still again he received a fax that said the phone and the call were never made..it was all a big mistake!!! sorry but how could all these people see one of the best movies of the year and have no idea what it was about and why it was made... it is disturbing to me because the reason the movie was made was not to entertain in a traditional sense (well it was a very suspensful,extremly well excecuted film of the highest level so, entertaining in that it was so good) but to show how horrific and absolutley dispicable,criminal and worthless torture is and how hypocritical we are in that we say we don't do it, tongue in cheek because we pay others to while we watch...the worst behavior i can think of..we lose everything this country stands for when we disregard the very things we hold dear because we were "fired on" and lost people...if we were invaded what would we do...regress to the middle-ages...it is very disheartening that this goes on and apparently often under bush also the picture states that we know torture usually gives bad intell..people are confused scared beyond words,know they will eventually be killed no matter what etc abd will say anything to get the horror to stop...that is why jake had to get him out..even thou we knew he was innocent he was going to be "disappeared"///they told jake if he did this"you know what will happen"..he risked his job,jail...we just had a cia person go to jail because he admitted to waterboarding...apparently his contract with the cia forbids him to say we torture......so sorry for the rant but that is why we always knew he was innocent...kind of like saying was the wizard of oz a dream or what? anyhow at least you asked...hope this was helpful...you were not the only person who was confused,that's why i was so miffed...admittedly the fax was hard to see...i stopped the dvr and it was just a few words...
shareA complex issue dumbed down and simplified for movie going audiences everywhere. I believe he was innocent and the value of information obtained by force is questionable, but that is just scratching the surface.
There are really bad people out there and claiming violence in one form (torture) is reprehensible while killing people who are surely terrorists is okay is naive to the point of idiotic. The issue is not the violence the issue is the degree of certainty involved. Or should we stand idly by while people willing to kill children literally get away with murder?
Comparing this to the middle ages is a pretty poor analogy because unlike the middle ages with religious inquisitions and witch hunts terrorists actually do exist and, as evidenced almost weekly, are willing to kill to make their points. This is not some fictitious enemy or one being persecuted without evidence.
So Libtards in Hollywood decide to make a movie where everyone would come away saying "torture is awful." Congrats, they made a movie where the "villain" was very sympathetic, clearly innocent, and the evidence against him was as flimsy as a hummingbird's wings (which are actually quite sturdy, but you get the point).