Andrew Wright sat down with Hany Abu-Assad (the director of Rana’s Wedding) to talk about his topical new film Paradise Now, about two Palestinian suicide bombers.

How have audiences responded to the film?

You know, it’s funny, but audiences have generally responded to it as a movie, not as a subject. They seem to appreciate that the film allows them to go somewhere that they wouldn’t go in reality, and follows characters that you can’t follow in real life. I think a film, as fiction, makes it easier to understand. It’s been good. I was surprised. (Laughs.)

What were you anticipating? That people would see it more as a message?

I was afraid, at first, that the audiences would have their own prejudgment, and would not allow themselves to judge it as a film. I don’t think movies should have messages; they should raise questions, not tell you to think that or think this. Hopefully my movie is allowing you to have a dialogue with yourself, to make you want to know more, not to answer questions. I will leave messages for the postman.

I was wondering if you could explain the title? Paradise Lost and Apocalypse Now both seem to strongly echo in there.

Well, one example is the idea that by killing yourself in this fashion, you could go immediately to Paradise. But also, paradise could be here, now, which is what one of the characters begins to realize. It’s kind of strange, I guess: Francis Coppola went to paradise in the Philippines to create Apocalypse Now. I went to the West Bank, which is hell, to make Paradise Now.

How did the project get started?

I was busy developing another thriller, and the co-writer wanted to use suicide bombing as an element. But then I thought, you know, fuck the thriller. This man, his life, his last 24 hours are more interesting. So with this idea, we set out researching to make things more realistic.

Did you come under any opposition or scrutiny while developing the film?

Well, during the shooting we came under a lot of troubles from the occupation. We also had some problems with the Palestinian faction, when they found out that we were not telling what they wanted to hear, and they tried to stop us. They kidnapped my location manager, and we went to Yassir Arafat to help return him safely.

How did they want it to be told?

They didn’t like that the main character was having second thoughts, and having discussions about it with his romantic interest. They wanted him to be a superman, really. Which is inhuman, you know? It’s funny that one side wanted a superhero, and the other side wants to see a monster. We tried to show human beings, which neither wanted. (Laughs.)

Speaking of the main character, Said, I thought it was interesting that initially, he seemed less enthusiastic about the mission than his friend, only for the balance to dramatically shift later on. How did you see his character?

Well, at first, we only had one character. During the research, though, we discovered that there isn’t one stereotypical suicide bomber. There are many stories, many visions. So we thought to have this, we have to have two characters, two friends, who come into conflict. When you have two different people under the same circumstances making different decisions, it allows the audience to imagine both viewpoints.

Kais Nashef, who plays Said, gives a remarkable performance, especially for it being his first acting job. How did you find him?

We saw over 250 people, and made screen tests, and the final choice was easy. I chose him because he was close to the character, and could add something important, of value. And, I felt he was a good contrast to the actor playing his friend [Ali Suliman], and that the two could be different enough for the audience to see both sides.

How did the personalities of the actors inform the characters?

Well, they’re spoiled. (Laughs.) They lived far from the area and situations in which we were filming. I physically challenged them to get closer to the characters. They worked in the garage, where we first meet them in the film, for 2 months before we started shooting. They also lived in the refugee camp during that time, to see the threat of the occupation. Kaid told me that before we started, the occupation was just an item in the newspaper or TV for him. But once you live under this situation, you know, you can’t change the channel anymore. You’re stuck.

How did they do at garage work?

Well, the owner wanted them to stay. He didn’t much believe in the movie business. He said, “after you finish shooting this movie, come back, I want you to work.” They were good.

It’s amazing what a simple haircut and shave does to the characters. It dehumanizes them, but it also emphasizes their eyes. It’s quite a shock. How did the actors respond to this?

As you say, when it happens in the film, it is an emotional turning point. I had them grow their hair out for six months before we started shooting. And I think it helped the actors a lot, because they had become so attached to their hair and beards by that time, that losing them made them identify more with the situations of their characters. They didn’t have their armor any more.

I wanted to ask about the use of humor in the film, for example, the way that the recording equipment malfunctions during an important speech. How do you handle humor in a film about such a serious subject?

I think the humor makes everything realistic. In fiction, we dramatize reality. For tragedy, we highlight the drama, and we forget about the other points, which is not realistic. It’s more realistic to show that where there is tragedy, there is also comedy. In Palestine today, there is a lot of humor. From sadness, you laugh, in order to escape the misery. For our film, I think it helped bring the audience along, to make things seem real, like these tragic situations are a daily occurrence.