The Road To Guantanamo [2006]


RRP: £15.99
Our Price: £31.87 (subject to change)

Editorial
Amazon.co.uk Review

After Welcome to Sarajevo and In This World, The Road to Guantánamo is Michael Winterbottom's most important film. Along with United 93, it's one of the most important films released by anyone in 2006. In the docudrama, which was produced for British television, Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross recount the travails of the Tipton Three, a trio of Britons detained for two years at Guantánamo Bay. How did these apolitical Muslims end up as suspected terrorists? The directors attempt to answer that question by inter-cutting interviews and news footage with recreations of their Kafka-esque journey. It starts with a trip to Pakistan for the wedding of Asif (Afran Usman). In short order, he's joined by Ruhel (Farhad Harun), Shafiq (Riz Ahmed), and Monir (Waqar Siddiqui). On a whim, they decide to visit Afghanistan: "One, for experience, and two, to help." It proves to be their undoing. First, they're caught in a bombing raid; then the Northern Alliance rounds them up as members of al-Qaeda. In the mêlée, Monir goes missing. The remaining three are shipped to Cuba, where US officials stop at nothing to coerce confessions. There's a hard-won happy ending, but it isn't easy to watch--Alan Parker's Ollie Stone-penned Midnight Express seems downright lyrical in comparison. Further, the acting is inconsistent and the character development is sketchy. Those flaws aside, The Road to Guantánamo is powerful and provocative stuff. --Kathleen C. Fennessy



THE ROAD TO GUANTANAMO..
Review date: 2008-02-08 Rating: 8 out of 10

A much needed and worthy watch, make no mistake, but try as hard as I could, I really struggled to have even the remotest iota of empathy for any of the 'tipton three '.

They are portrayed as very affable,charming young men, but then the misnomer kicks in...ok, fair enough,they go to Pakistan to celebrate a mate's wedding, but WHY did they go to Afghanistan? Bear in mind, this is late 2001, at the very height of the war on terror in Afghanistan.

Im not saying that the political motives of the Americans in Afghanistan are right or wrong, nor do I pass judgement on validating the need for 'camp x-ray', but I can't help but feel that these 3 men didnt end up in Afghanistan by accident, nor do i buy the nonsense that it was innocent vouyerism that took them there.

As far as I'm concerned, they got what they deserved, probably a lot LESS than they deserved, for it wasn't out of innocence and stupidity that they ended up in Afghanistan, and the real reason for me tehters closer to themsleves being sympathetic to terrorism and anti-western politics than it does to "oh..how did we get here?" nonsense which the left just love to believe.



Similar Products


Reviews


WHY DID THEY GO?
Review date: 2007-11-01 Rating: 6 out of 10

The Road To Guantanamo

The reasons for these intellectually challenged British Muslims leaving England and going directly to a war zone is left remarkably unclear. They wanted to "Help" or see large a Nan bread? That for me is the most important question. Why did they go? I mean it is not what you would call a normal holiday. That crucial question is left unanswered.

Did these boys go to fight and then on seeing the realities of War try and escape?

The resulting experiences these boys were made to suffer are inexcusable in a modern world. Torture is simply not legitimate. Just listening to the interviewees should have been enough for the Americans and British to realise these kids posed little threat to anyone except to themselves.

How stupid they were not to shout to the rafters that they are British subjects. If they had come clean with British Military Intelligence things could have been very different.
I would like to see the evidence of the torture of these kids by the British Military. (Since writing this originally, I have found out the British Military did indeed use torture.)

If they had been given the chance, these boys would most certainly have come home to Britain at their first opportunity and probably never left again. This is an example of simple reality completely destroying indoctrinated and imagined beliefs.

The re-enactments are pretty poor. The objectivity is also very one-sided.


A Film About Guantanamo
Review date: 2007-06-05 Rating: 4 out of 10

The Road to Guantanamo has been produced while Guantanamo Bay and the War on Terror are still a reality. Those with liberal ideals will welcome it as a sound political intervention against neoconservative rhetoric from the United States. It functions well in this respect, up to a point. The bullish nature of the U.S. armed forces (well known by now, to those who needed reminding) is clear. So too are the appalling conditions of transit for those civilians following battles. The main story, of course, involves the conflict British Muslims experienced as innocents incarcerated at Guantanamo. Since this institution is still a mystery, it is unusual to see it depicted on screen.

The film encourages compassion toward those wrongly accused of being Taliban sympathisers, and in that it succeeds. However, one is also left feeling that it was an act of extreme folly to enter and / or remain in a nation (Afghanistan) associated with the strikes against the U.S. on 11th September 2001. If the Britons were simply visitors, they were very misguided in their assumptions; if they were conflict tourists, one can hardly be sympathetic; if they were would-be helpers, lack of aid training ought to have told them that others were better equipped to fulfill this role. The surly, effing and blinding demeanor of the detainees is understandable given their treatment. Or is it? There have been plenty of very famous people incarcerated for long periods of time (think Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, or Aung San Suu Kyi) who manage(d) to survive without taking any every opportunity to curse their oppressors. These boys are not saints, nor do they try to be. Ultimately, they come across as poor, foolish victims of the war whose main contribution in life will be this brief appearance on camera.

Which leaves us with the role of the film rather than its content. What exactly does Michael Winterbottom intend by it? Obviously it is a critique of arbitrary decisions made in wartime, and that can be very refreshing. The U.S. needs to fine tune its rules of engagement, that much is clear. Larger questions about how intelligence-gathering ought to take place in wartime are not asked, much less answered. This is not surprising, however, as the film makes no attempt to be anything other than one-sided (there are no `talking head' testimonials from the U.S. military, for example). As a political tool, then, the film does its job, just. As a tool for education, it is barely passable. Since Guantanamo Bay is still a reality I suspect that better works will be produced in the future after a little time, much study, and more peace.


Disappointing one sided view
Review date: 2006-11-17 Rating: 2 out of 10

I confess I had high hops of this film by Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross. The topic is touchy and flamable and likely to stir upp emotions. That fact that captives are being held in Guantanamo against any legal precedence under extremely questionable conditions is worthy of report. Sadly this film is a very one sided affair, you are left with no explanation as to why the good Englishmen Rasul, Ahmed and Iqbal decide to leave Pakistan where Iqbal is suposed to get married (in what appears to be an arranged marriage (since we are on the topic of human rights)) and go to Taliban Afganistan. Nor is there a satisfactory explanation as to why our good three friends are arrested there with a group of Talibans. We do get some screen time showing that one of the three was very sick and we are led to believe they are very good people, all willing to help their fellow humans but I doubt Michael Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross spent any effort finding out why they were there and took their story for face value. We do however later on receive information that at least two of them where petty criminals with extensive records in the UK and in my experience petty criminals normally don't go far out of their way in helping people in general.

I have no doubt that atrocity's are being committed at Guantanamo but I could not feel sorry for the trio which are portrayed as heros and have a strong suspicion that you are getting convenient half truths at certain parts of the story. This distracts from the point the movie is trying to get across and causes it to lose credibility for me.

I didn't enjoy the movie and regret buying it.


More documentary than docudrama
Review date: 2006-10-11 Rating: 8 out of 10

The film sets out to involve the viewer in the disorientating effect of the events leading up to the capture of the three main protagonists and then their subsequent interrogation at the hands of the Americans.

The three main characters are so vaguely drawn that I could not relate to any of them except in a most shallow manner, so I took a personal perspective on what appears to be a convincing portrayal of the horror, inhumanity and denial of basic human rights and justice that is Guantanamo.

It would be nice to think that this is an account biased against America (for America read George Bush), but it accords with international condemnation and everything one hears in the news, and seeing it enacted is deeply disturbing.

On balance a docudrama that is skewed towards the documentary.

But everyone should watch this and worry about the distorting effects of terrorism on human rights.


Product Details/Specifications


Actor(s):
Asif Iqbal
Shafiq Rasul
Ruhel Ahmed

Creators:
Shafiq Rasul (Primary Contributor)
Ruhel Ahmed (Primary Contributor)

Director(s):

Recording label: Cinema Club
Manufacturer: Cinema Club
EAN: 5014138305178
Binding: DVD
Number of items: 1
Format: PAL,
Release date: 2006-03-27
Audience rating: Suitable for 15 years and over
Region code: 2
Running time: 92 minutes
Theatrical release date: 2006
Language: English (Original Language)

Add to Cart