Harodim: A masonic term. Harodim, in Hebrew os , is a grammatically compounded word of the plural form, and is composed of the definite article if, HAR the or those, and a participle of the verb rho, radah, to rule over, and means therefore, those who rule over, or overseers.
I ran across an excerpt, '911 Was Regretable but Necessary NWO Logic,' from the Austrian film "Harodim" and then for a rainy day Sunday watched the entire movie. Although there are some 9/11 and lack of Israeli involvement (there was a little hint with a mention of the USS Liberty) points to possibly take issue with, it is incredibly better than any Hollywood flick I have seen in a long time. If you haven't seen "Harodim" I would recommend at least bookmarking it and saving it for a rainy day. "A brave new Disney world" as a line from the film says.
Interview with 9/11 feature film "Harodim" director Paul Finelli
It is a pleasure for us to present this interview with the director and writer of feature film "Harodim", Paul Finelli, who did it! As far as I know Harodim is the first theatrically release of any 9/11 topic thriller worldwide.
(Q, 911-archiv.net): Mr. Finelli, thank you for your willingness for giving the 911-archiv.net an interview. It is a great honor.
(A, Paul Finelli): It would be a pleasure for me to answer whatever questions you might have on the issues surrounding our film.
(Q): Mr. Finelli, how did you come up with the idea of making a film like "Harodim"? What was your intention?
(A): The idea for a feature film aimed at investigating and highlighting some of the most important questions surrounding the events of 9/11 began to germinate for me as interest in the subject did for most of us who found the official explanation for these crucial events in modern world history simply not believable. It began as I watched the coverage of 9/11 that terrible morning in 2001 and grew from there. In short, broken down piece by piece, none of it made sense within the context of any reality we had come to know to that point. All political and national security ramifications aside, science itself is an impossible thing to refute and yet we saw it happen again and again in the official reports coming out of Washington and filtered through a ridiculously compliant mainstream media in the weeks, months and years that followed. My generation had seen something like this happen before during the Kennedy assassination and some of us refused to lay down for it again so easily a second time. As I watched the overwhelming response from millions of people worldwide across the internet questioning the official story, I knew that I was not so far wrong in my assessment of the real issues and motivations behind this world-altering tragedy. My intention for writing the story which became HARODIM stemmed primarily from a sense of anger that the same hidden power structure using the same covert machinations still held such an arrogant disregard and outright contempt for public perception as to so completely subvert the foundations of the empirical truths we all live by.
(Q): How did you manage to win these well-known actors for your film? Where they also convinced of the topic?
(A): Beirut born Michael Desante was the first actor to come aboard after reading the script. I knew Michael's work from such films as The Hurt Locker, respected him greatly and was gratified by the intensity with which he pursued the role of the Terrorist. The Muslim world had been demonized relentlessly in 9/11's aftermath and I knew I needed someone from his world to add the dimensions of truth and passion I was looking for in the part.
Peter Fonda came next. An iconic American actor and perennial counterculture figure, Peter was intrigued by the role of Solomon and saw the part as a challenge - a vehicle to humanize a profoundly different viewpoint illustrating the other side of the issue in which no crime, no lie and no degree of subversion whatever its scale exists without justification inside the corridors of unchecked political and financial power. He turned in a great performance and I am truly grateful for his participation.
Travis Fimmel came to us through my close friend, legendary cinematic acting coach, Ivana Chubbuck, who responded to my eleventh hour desperate plea to find me a young actor who could represent all of us in the kind of American naivete which dies hard in the face of the terrible realities the 9/11 era has thrust upon us. Travis was a joy to work with, always creative, always searching for ways to humanize the difficult issues raised in the film.
(Q): I've noticed when watching that you do present quite a few facts. Have you researched all by yourself? Have you discussed them in forums or saw any arguing there? Because Lazarus Fell do uses a few times explanations of popular objections that the so-called "debunker" do use, too.
(A): New facts are emerging on this subject every day. I wrote the script in 2010 and was as comprehensive as I could be up to that point. I drew from much of the in-depth research conducted by many other investigators during that time, both documentary and literary, and also followed many of the internet forums taking place on the subject and its various offshoots like the War on Terror and the heightened security protocols the events of 9/11 engendered across the world. That being said, there is still a mountain of information out there that I was not able to include due to the time constraints and dramatic considerations inherent to any feature film. Some of it is obviously projection on my part, an attempt to simplify a very complex subject by applying a certain degree of cinematic licence to the story and attempting to put myself into the minds of those who might have the power to construct such a wide-ranging covert operation. But, such that I was able, the facts contained in the film are solid and should be investigated further by any interested viewer. We hope the film will initiate that kind of interest in its audience. Don't believe us. Do your own research. It may change your mind about a few things you have, up until now, accepted as truth.
To be convincing in our arguments, it was necessary to use the same objections for Lazarus that the vast contingent of mainstream debunkers have used in explaining away the many inconsistencies, mathematical improbabilities, absurd coincidences and outright scientific impossibilities present in the official 9/11 narrative.
(Q): What reactions you got so far to "Harodim"? After all, you do not only break conventions with the presented content, but also with the scenery and the shots, with the modern, action-packed thriller movies.
(A): We knew we could never compete with the astronomical budgets of Hollywood productions or even those of other, more mainstream, independent movies due to the highly controversial subject matter we were investigating so we tailored our vision accordingly. We did not pursue a "slick" movie. We relied instead on the power of the information presented and the performances of the actors to convey the requisite emotions necessary to the subject. Some critical objections have centered around the film being "claustrophobic" but this, in a way, was very much an intention of ours. Instead of claustrophobic however, I would call the atmosphere one of uncomfortable intimacy between three characters taking place in a single room while the addition of fast-paced documentary montages and intercut media footage provides a chillingly familiar global scale to the character drama being enacted within the narrative. This is an unconventional film and the viewer should prepare himself for that. There are no shootouts, explosions or car chases. Anyone needing these things to define a "real" movie is in the wrong theater. Instead, we think of it as an action movie for the mind.
The reactions thus far from the viewers I have met and talked with have been positive on every level. The general audience response to the film's first showings has been thoughtful and supportive to a very large degree. Most people get it. The critics, on the other hand, are apparently looking for something else. But this was to be expected. This subject is bound to piss off a lot of people. Especially those in the mainstream press and media whose version of the events portrayed is being directly indicted by the film. My response to these detractors is that this film was made in the best spirit of what independent film is supposed to be about. It causes the viewer to think and question the world around him and to question the definition of that world being offered by a questionably-invested global media machine. All I can say in response is, go see the film for yourself and you decide. You may be surprised at what you discover.
(Q): Why did you put in the Masonic symbolism, I knew a Grand Master of Masons and cherished him as honorable and righteous, highly educated humanist. Have you had other experiences with the Freemasons or do you feel the need for the audience to use a prominent group of conspirators for plastic motives? Neoconservatives a la Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss embossing, grouped together via the "Team B" or the "PNAC", or the "Volcanoes" by Condoleezza Rice, who came to power with Bush, even the Skull & Bones would actually be more plausible, given that there are much better evidence for their existence as a group and their connection to the powerbrokers, wouldn’t they?
(A): The use of masonic symbolism in the film is largely metaphorical and is meant to imply the existence and influence of secret societies on evolving world history. The French Revolution, as is largely agreed upon today, was conceived and incited by various rogue masonic lodges in France and England. The American Revolution involved a preponderance of high degree masons in the persons of its most notable founding fathers, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to name a few. The evidence of their influence is plain to see, from the All-Seeing Eye in the Pyramid as the centerpiece for the Great Seal of the United States, still present on our money, to the obvious masonic influence on much of the architecture in Washington D.C. But your point is well-taken in the sense that masonry at large has always been recognized as a somewhat benign order, albeit a secret one, and many masons have been pillars of enlightenment throughout the ages. Then again, however, there are those other secret societies and their various lodges which use the framework of masonic degree initiation to further aims that are far less public-spirited and far more dangerous in their intentions. Skull and Bones is certainly one of these and, if I could have used their symbol - the skull and crossed bones first used by the Knights Templar in the 12th Century and imported to the United States in the early 19th Century by an outlawed Bavarian lodge who took up residence at Yale University - without confusing people with the now-commonly accepted symbol of the Barbary Coast pirates, I would have. I had hoped most viewers would not read the film's references to masonry to denote secret societies in general too literally but would, instead, see the concept more or less through a historical context. But what can I say? You win some and lose some. I hope I have not alienated too many well-meaning masons actively engaged in The Great Work by my blasphemous irreverence but, somehow, I think they would probably get the point too, on one level or another... or maybe even "on the square". After all, the basis of masonic initiation rests on symbolism and metaphor, right?
(Q): Mr. Finelli, at the first press launch for the film, then under the title, "The Lazarus Protocol", you said that they submitted the script to several fellow Hollywood producers, but no one wanted to do it, although it was praised. Was it fear of the issue or is it the potential financial failure, what deterred your friends?
(A): By now it should be obvious to anyone who bothers to look that this subject is taboo to any mainstream edifice today, Hollywood being one of the biggest and most influential. How many films about this subject have you seen? The question of financial failure never came into it at all. Most of my contacts in Hollywood who read the script thought the idea was eminently producible and extremely powerful. They were terrified of the subject matter however. Not surprising really, if you stop and think about it. Look at some of the flak we've been getting for making a small, independent film. You could times that by a million for any Hollywood production. The people who run major studios and finance films in Hollywood are not the stuff heroes are made of, trust me. In fact, it is considered extremely bad taste to take on any subject that has any real meaning politically or sociologically these days. The 70's in Hollywood are long over.
(Q): Does the mood in Hollywood has changed by now? With "September Morn" the first 9/11 critical Hollywood production was announced lately, only to be dismantled as failure these days, because of fraud and intentional misrepresentations of Sheen and Harrelson attached to the project, which they never were. It seems it was all a scum to collect donations for the living expenses of Mr. Howard Cohen. So it’s still a hard task to get the money for such a project? Have you heard about that project? Is the world now but ready for a 9/11 wake-up?
(A): I heard about the film naturally but I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments. I know for sure Ed Asner was involved so it isn't impossible for me to believe Harrelson and Sheen were at least open to the idea of involvement. Who knows what kind of pressure was brought to bear on these people by their agents and business managers? Don't be too sure you're getting the whole story when you read stuff like this. You must understand how unpopular and dangerous ideas like this are to the establishment at large and to actors and producers working within their system and relying on their money for their careers. Ask yourself who owns the studios and major distributors then draw your own conclusions.
(Q): Via Google News, there are currently 19 results for "Harodim": Besides some Austrian newspapers, who constructed a very far-fetched suspicion of Anti-Semitism, and a few cinema magazines, there is only in the german newspaper “Welt Kompakt” a little reporting about "Harodim". Is this silence symptomatic for films whose content media do not like to report? As further examples, I would mention "Wag The Dog" or "Canadian Bacon" by Michael Moore ... At least these films do reflect on the influence of the media and start to question the construction of reality of the world today.
(A): The charge of Anti-Semitism is indeed ridiculous and, I have to admit, it bothered me. I tried to explain several times that the names Solomon and Jacob were drawn from masonic initiation degrees and had nothing to do with Judaism in the context of this film. Lazarus was a New Testament figure in any event so I guess these reviewers conveniently missed that fact or didn't know enough about the bible to grasp the significance of that.
(Q): The culture of silence is all-pervasive when it comes to these subjects. Wag The Dog remains one of my favorite films and was as successful as it was because it used humor to drive home the point that reality is actually being created by the media, not reported by it. This simple concept may have gone over the heads of many of the people who saw it or, scary thought, they have already accepted it as a fact and are fine with it. These days, neither possibility would surprise me.
(Q): Unfortunately, this non-reporting also affects the audience numbers, when I went to the cinema, there were only 13 viewers. Are you afraid of a financial failure or you are hoping that the film will be an underground hit, maybe covering its expenses by DVD selling?
(A): I always saw our audience over the long run as primarily an internet / VOD audience. It is very difficult for independent films to measure up theatrically against the huge budget spectacles which compete against them for the audience's limited money in today's market. A theatrical release in the independent cinema world of today is largely promotional but there is still a certain amount of prestige attached to it. Economic considerations are very important for the average viewer. Austerity is a word we hear more and more in our modern world and its ramifications are being felt everywhere. As one of the attendees of the film in Hamburg told me, most people these days have very little recreational money to spare. If it's a choice between James Bond and a small independent film like ours, most people will choose Bond. It's a pop-culture decision more than anything. Everyone wants to be part of a shared mass experience. That having been said, I am absolutely confident that many people around the world will find HARODIM eventually, whatever the venue. It is the kind of film that doesn't come along often and most people still have an affinity for supporting the underdog.
(Q): Mr. Finelli, we thank you very much for this interview and wish you continued success with your productions, hopefully more to come.
(A): Thanks and best wishes.