Traitor (2008)

Directed by: Jeffrey Nachmanoff | 114 minutes | drama, thriller, crime | Actors: Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Saïd Taghmaoui, Neal McDonough, Alyy Khan, Archie Panjabi, Raad Rawi, Hassam Ghancy, Mozhan Marnò, Adeel Akhtar, Jeff Daniels, Lorena Gale, Scali Delpeyrat, Mehdi Ortelsberg, Aizoun Abdelkader Farid Regragui, Habib Hamdane, Youness Sardi, Joseph Beddelem, Alaa Moumouzoune, Tom Barnett, Simon Reynolds, Matt Gordon, Patrick Rodney Barnes, Shahla Kareen

In the current social climate in which political parties are increasingly forced to make firm and oversimplified statements about “certain population groups” – i.e. Muslims and/or Moroccans – a balanced portrayal in films of complicated issues such as (Islamic) fundamentalism very welcome. Things that appear clear and black and white are rarely the case. ‘Traitor’ is a psychological thriller that takes a mature and intelligent approach to the current terrorism problem and also complies with the laws of the Hollywood action film. Although the combination of these elements causes a slight dilution of both aspects, protagonist Don Cheadle keeps the viewer glued to the screen with his great introspective portrayal of Samir Horn – one of his best roles ever – and gives his character the weight that it deserves.

The first half of Traitor, when Horn’s allegiances are slowly shifting towards the Islamic fundamentalists in the film, is especially strong. Because the viewer identifies with Horn, portrayed by Cheadle as human and intelligent, he is also forced to think actively and seriously about the viewpoint of the fundamentalists. No, it’s not justifiable that suicide bombers kill innocents by their actions, but isn’t it also true that many innocent Muslims have been killed for decades by American, or Western, actions, as a character in the film states? And weren’t the Americans once terrorists for the British too? And when it turns out that the American government is also willing to deliberately kill innocent victims for the “higher” goal, the film rightly asks the question which side can actually claim moral superiority.

Samir’s apparent attraction to the terrorists’ “case” forces the viewer to think about these kinds of arguments. Even when the point of view changes to that of FBI agent Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce), the terrorists are looked at in a balanced way. Very good in itself, but sometimes it feels a bit too balanced or politically correct. The film has many remarks that put things into perspective, not all of which seem to be equally to the point. For example, when Islam is condemned, Clayton argues that every religion has its excesses. In itself a good point, but to cite the Ku Klux Klan as an argument now seems to be somewhat short-sighted. It’s also a shame that the sharp edge in terms of Samir’s alliances and loyalties is not as strong as it could have been and the ending of the film is a bit too safe and “Hollywood”.

Yet it is nice to see that it is possible that the great (moral) hero of an American film is a devoted Muslim. Horn shows that the major problem of terrorism does not lie in the Quran, but in its incorrect interpretation and hijacking by the people who want evil. The question is raised in the film whether the terrorists who fight in the name of the Koran or Islam are really as religious as they make out. Typical is the scene in which Samir has a meeting on a terrace with a few important links in a terrorist cell, and is surprised when it turns out that they are just drinking champagne (and admit to eating pork too). They do this under the guise of “haqqiya”, a rule that states that a Muslim may pose as the enemy to deceive him, but this is just an excuse, as the “enemy” is nowhere to be seen on the terrace. Samir says he believes in Allah and the Qur’an, and gets the response that believing is beautiful, but that he must know how to follow orders. Samir tries to get some (potential) terrorists he comes into contact with to think very carefully about the true Islam and the true belief in it and what it should consist of. Is this consistent with the way the terrorists use it? It is difficult to bring about an intellectual change in this, but it is on the basis of dialogue and insights that this will have to happen. After all, violence only leads to more violence, as Spielberg’s ‘Munich’ showed earlier. It is with this aspect, call it the re-evaluation of, or the open view towards Islam and the Koran, with which the film scores points and offers an intelligent counterbalance to Wilders and his followers, who feed fear with polarizing, one-sided expressions and destroy an entire population and threaten to stigmatize religions. And Don Cheadle is the perfect actor to give shape to the by no means infallible, but nevertheless intelligent and honest character who stimulates this open view.