Sean McAllister's humanistic portrait of Samir Peter shows how this concert pianist turned hotel performer lives in a country that's been a hard place to be for thirty-five years and that's only getting worse by the day. The thing that really makes the film, is that Samir is not particularly interested in political rhetoric, he just wants to keep his friends and family happy and safe. Which is not to say the film is devoid of political opinions, it's just not the focus. This film should be seen, not only because it's funny and educational and engrossing- but also because it documents a very interesting guy living in a time when just the making of this film with a western journalist could get Samir, his family and Sean kidnapped or killed. It's quite a privilege to have seen this great film.
4 Reviews
Stunning portrait of life during wartime
JohnSeal13 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I can't address the quality, or lack thereof, of Samir Peter's piano playing in this gut-wrenching BBC documentary. What can't be denied (unless your head is buried deep in the sand, or is ensconced firmly within a bodily orifice) is that America has made life measurably worse for Christians in Iraq like the Peter family, who used to be protected by the secular Baathist state but now find themselves between the rock of Muslim fundamentalism and the hard place of the trigger-happy Yankee occupation. Director/narrator Sean McAllister tries to reassure his subject that all will be well, that things will get better, but Samir instinctively knows the opposite to be true. Multiply the horrors of the invasion several million times over, and you may begin to appreciate the disastrous effects of the war--which, of course, have worsened considerably since this film was made. As for Samir and his family--if, indeed, they're still alive--one can only imagine the horrors they have lived through in the last two years.
Remarkable Testament
Enrique-Sanchez-562 September 2007
I was thrust into this gem while I surfed the cable this Sunday morning. What kept me there was not an abiding interest in Iraqi affairs. It was merely my humanity. Not something another reviewer had any gumption about. Any attempt to review this as some treatise on politics fails at its first attempt.
We are brought into the life of a man who has welcomed an invitation to be depicted to Western cameras under increasing risk for his life and the lives of those around him not including Sean who interviews him over the course of almost a year.
The painting we see is not a pretty nor a safe one. The scenes we see are tense and real in a gritty sense.
The talent or perhaps lack of talent of this man are not the question here. That other reviewer forgets that Liberace was not a classical musician, Liberace was a showman, a lounge act that grew out of proportion to his real musical talent. But this musician demonstrated more seeds of a talent than Liberace ever did. His sounds were not always studio quality...but who cares. And I really don't see why the other reviewer had such an obsession with it in the first place. He must really believe movie titles or something.
The film was about humanity from the center of topical politics. And there lies the excellence of this film. And that is where we go and why we are entranced beyond the trappings of a hotel besieged by what seemed to be mostly American soldiers.
And this is why I recommend this. It is a testament to reality - with all of its flaws and contradictions.
Recommended without reservations.
We are brought into the life of a man who has welcomed an invitation to be depicted to Western cameras under increasing risk for his life and the lives of those around him not including Sean who interviews him over the course of almost a year.
The painting we see is not a pretty nor a safe one. The scenes we see are tense and real in a gritty sense.
The talent or perhaps lack of talent of this man are not the question here. That other reviewer forgets that Liberace was not a classical musician, Liberace was a showman, a lounge act that grew out of proportion to his real musical talent. But this musician demonstrated more seeds of a talent than Liberace ever did. His sounds were not always studio quality...but who cares. And I really don't see why the other reviewer had such an obsession with it in the first place. He must really believe movie titles or something.
The film was about humanity from the center of topical politics. And there lies the excellence of this film. And that is where we go and why we are entranced beyond the trappings of a hotel besieged by what seemed to be mostly American soldiers.
And this is why I recommend this. It is a testament to reality - with all of its flaws and contradictions.
Recommended without reservations.
Bait and switch, BBC style
LCShackley4 March 2007
This film was billed as a documentary about "Iraq's most famous concert pianist" and his tough life in the aftermath of Saddam's downfall. Being a musician, I watched it, assuming it might be a Middle-Eastern version of THE PIANIST, but it's far from it.
Outside of an early mention that Samir made "$10,000 per month" playing the piano, there is no evidence or discussion of his earlier career, or for that matter, that he's much of a pianist at all. Anything we hear him playing is mediocre at best; probably the most interesting item is a weird Iraqi boogie-woogie that pops in a couple of times. The closed captioning mentions "classical music playing" a couple of times, but it's nothing but doodling. Samir's original compositions are lukewarm if not boring. He has a big house, however, so we assume he must have made a decent living. (There's even a big musical gaffe in the editing. About 10 minutes in, Samir is shown playing the piano but the image is reversed. What appears to be his left hand is playing all the high notes, while the right hand is playing the bass.)
So why did the director choose this subject matter? First, Samir was easy to get to, since he worked in the hotel where the director/producer was holed out along with most of the other Western journalists. Second, Samir was a Christian Iraqi, which meant that the director didn't have to deal with the whole "Muslim thing." I think Sean (the director) would have been content with just about ANY non-Muslim Iraqi who could speak English and lived in his hotel. The "fallen musician" angle barely figures into the narrative at all.
Oh, but there has to be another ingredient for the subject to be suitable for the BBC (Bush-Bashing Club). Yes, there has to be plenty of anti-Americanism, and we get it in spades thanks to Samir's relatives. (He himself is looking forward to moving to America, and criticizes his pro-Saddam daughter, but the overall tone as can be expected from the BBC is: "America BAD." One daughter even tries to dissuade him from moving to California, saying that "he will hate it.") Sean of course asks lots of leading questions to milk the anti-Bush sentiment as much as possible.
Samir is a sad figure, to be sure, but not in the least heroic. That's because the director hasn't really shown us where Samir has fallen FROM; just that his life is bad under American occupation. Why didn't Sean take time to find and present more information about Samir's early life? Probably because it would have taken some effort. This wasn't really a film about a musician; it was a long diatribe about how America has ruined Iraq.
There were some touching moments in the picture. But one of the saddest things about the film comes out clearly near the end. Sean and his invasive camera have put Samir and his entire family at risk. Perhaps Samir was too polite to tell Sean to get lost, but it seems very evident that he would prefer to be left alone for his own safety. Yet Sean continues, hoping I'm sure to get some more footage to fan the anti-American flames at the Beeb.
NOTE REGARDING OTHER REVIEWS: Other reviewers have taken issue with my point of view, because I question the very basis of the film, and point out that its true reason for existing is to criticize American war policy. They seem content to ignore the shallow background on the main character, and don't seem to care that the opportunistic filmmaker is putting this man at risk just to get his anti-war film in the can. If feelings rather than facts make a documentary a success, then we need to redefine what a documentary is.
Outside of an early mention that Samir made "$10,000 per month" playing the piano, there is no evidence or discussion of his earlier career, or for that matter, that he's much of a pianist at all. Anything we hear him playing is mediocre at best; probably the most interesting item is a weird Iraqi boogie-woogie that pops in a couple of times. The closed captioning mentions "classical music playing" a couple of times, but it's nothing but doodling. Samir's original compositions are lukewarm if not boring. He has a big house, however, so we assume he must have made a decent living. (There's even a big musical gaffe in the editing. About 10 minutes in, Samir is shown playing the piano but the image is reversed. What appears to be his left hand is playing all the high notes, while the right hand is playing the bass.)
So why did the director choose this subject matter? First, Samir was easy to get to, since he worked in the hotel where the director/producer was holed out along with most of the other Western journalists. Second, Samir was a Christian Iraqi, which meant that the director didn't have to deal with the whole "Muslim thing." I think Sean (the director) would have been content with just about ANY non-Muslim Iraqi who could speak English and lived in his hotel. The "fallen musician" angle barely figures into the narrative at all.
Oh, but there has to be another ingredient for the subject to be suitable for the BBC (Bush-Bashing Club). Yes, there has to be plenty of anti-Americanism, and we get it in spades thanks to Samir's relatives. (He himself is looking forward to moving to America, and criticizes his pro-Saddam daughter, but the overall tone as can be expected from the BBC is: "America BAD." One daughter even tries to dissuade him from moving to California, saying that "he will hate it.") Sean of course asks lots of leading questions to milk the anti-Bush sentiment as much as possible.
Samir is a sad figure, to be sure, but not in the least heroic. That's because the director hasn't really shown us where Samir has fallen FROM; just that his life is bad under American occupation. Why didn't Sean take time to find and present more information about Samir's early life? Probably because it would have taken some effort. This wasn't really a film about a musician; it was a long diatribe about how America has ruined Iraq.
There were some touching moments in the picture. But one of the saddest things about the film comes out clearly near the end. Sean and his invasive camera have put Samir and his entire family at risk. Perhaps Samir was too polite to tell Sean to get lost, but it seems very evident that he would prefer to be left alone for his own safety. Yet Sean continues, hoping I'm sure to get some more footage to fan the anti-American flames at the Beeb.
NOTE REGARDING OTHER REVIEWS: Other reviewers have taken issue with my point of view, because I question the very basis of the film, and point out that its true reason for existing is to criticize American war policy. They seem content to ignore the shallow background on the main character, and don't seem to care that the opportunistic filmmaker is putting this man at risk just to get his anti-war film in the can. If feelings rather than facts make a documentary a success, then we need to redefine what a documentary is.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
