|
|
April 11, 2003
Is every documentary propaganda?
A filmmaker can use myriad techniques, including omission of facts,
to support or refute practically anything.
MOREY ALTMAN SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN
Film analysis is a tricky business. As Greg Felton, in a letter
to the editor ("An exercise in propaganda," Bulletin,
March 14), suggests, even a review of a slanted film might itself
be slanted. Such is the case with the provocative British
documentary film Palestine is Still the Issue, Pat Johnson's
problematic review and equally problematic rebuttal by Felton.
That the film Palestine is Still the Issue is propaganda
should come as no surprise to anyone, even Felton. After all, propaganda
is simply the dissemination of a particular view or outlook with
the aim of altering other people's beliefs. A quick review of filmmaker's
John Pilger's 25-year career in journalism provides ample evidence
of his political leanings. His film simply reflects those opinions.
Incidentally, his boss, the chairman of Carlton Television, Michael
Green, has suggested even bigger problems with the film: "We
do present programs that give differing points of view. It [Palestine
is Still the Issue] was factually incorrect, historically incorrect.
Unfortunately, you can't always agree with him [Pilger]." ("Carlton
chairman criticizes its own documentary on Israel," Paul Peachey,
the Independent, Sept. 20, 2002) But it should be noted that
this opinion has been seriously challenged.
But, so what? It's not like this is the first propaganda film ever
made. In fact, it could be argued that every documentary is propaganda
of sorts. There is a certain misconception that a documentary film
is, in fact, a document, with an obligation to be balanced. Although
documentaries are expected to adhere to certain conventions –
real people, real events – this is not always the case. Robert
Flaherty, director of the landmark documentary Nanook of the
North (1922), believed, "Sometimes you have to lie. One
often has to distort a thing to catch its true spirit." ("Robert
Flaherty: Nanook of the North," by Derek Malcolm, the
Guardian, April 13, 2000)
A skilful filmmaker can use myriad techniques, from selective omission
of facts to a careful choice of quotes, to support or refute practically
anything. Simply by diverting our attention towards or away from
a subject, a filmmaker can alter our emotions and impressions. The
camera sees only what it's supposed to see. Or not see.
But there's a big difference between works that are simply unbalanced
as opposed to deliberately dishonest, despite Flaherty's admission.
A good documentary must have a voice; otherwise it's merely a news
story. No one could debate the ferocity of German pride celebrated
in German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will.
Using brilliant camera work, lighting and staging techniques, she
created one of the most powerful political films ever made, but
make no mistake; fine camera work doesn't make Triumph of the
Will any less a propaganda film. In fact, it is what makes the
film even more seductive and appealing.
The same could be said of any of the recent works of Oliver Stone.
In films such as JFK and Nixon, Stone masterfully
manipulates and even recreates actual events to support his particular
visions of these political figures. Was JFK historically
accurate? Of course not. But, it was damned entertaining.
All of these films are visually stunning and, without a doubt, unbalanced.
But are they untruthful? In the case of Triumph of the Will,
Riefenstahl herself has revealed that "the preparations for
the party convention were made in concert with the preparations
for the camera work." In other words, the city of Nuremberg
became a huge set for the film. All of the activities and movements
were staged for the camera. It is this combination of purpose and
technique, and not just the one-sidedness of the film, that makes
it true propaganda, as we know the term.
It is also impossible to analyze propaganda without appreciating
the context in which the film is created and exhibited. Palestine
is Still the Issue was produced by a man with a record of imbalance
(or strong opinion, depending on how you look at it). Since its
original and highly controversial broadcast, the film has only been
exhibited by political organizations whose mission is the distribution
of information supportive of a very specific political belief, that
is, the end of Israeli occupation of the disputed territories. These
are relevant facts in any review. It might be true that the film
is "propaganda" but the imbalance must be proven. This
is especially true with a film that is defamatory and deceptive.
Ultimately, the responsibility is on the journalist to choose words
carefully, and back them up with facts and not just opinion.
Two recent films from Israel illustrate the subtleties that distinguish
between films that are simply unbalanced as opposed to bona fide
propaganda. Purity (Tehora) by Anat Tzuria examines
some of the difficulties Orthodox women face in adhering to the
Jewish purity laws. All of the women featured in the film are real.
The film offers little in the way of rebuttal from religious authorities
or even women who embrace the purity laws with pride. There is no
question that the film is unbalanced, but is it dishonest? Well,
in a sense. The director neglects to mention in the film that she
interviewed more than 100 women who observe tehora until she found
three willing to speak against it. Nor does she mention that she
herself was raised in a secular Jewish home and only follows the
purity laws to please her Orthodox husband. In a world of diverse
opinion, it's possible to find three people to support or refute
almost anything. Watch any episode of the Jerry Springer
show if you don't believe me.
Jenin, Jenin is another matter altogether. The film looks
at recent operations in the town of Jenin by the Israel Defence
Forces and the allegations that a massacre took place there. The
subject of a ban by the Israeli Film Censorship Board, the film
is now being seen outside of Israel at various festivals and special
screenings by pro-Palestinian organizations. The board banned the
movie "because it presents the events in a distorted way under
the guise of a 'documentary.' " In an interview in the Jerusalem
Post, Muhammad Bakri, the director of the controversial film
has said he hopes to "open eyes and minds and make people think
about what's going on." Perhaps, but this hasn't stopped five
reserve soldiers who served in Jenin from filing suit for libel
against Bakri and the two Israeli theatres that screened the film.
There is also some indication that the film has now been highly
self-censored by the director (or distributor) before being released
internationally, possibly to avoid having to defend the more obvious
distortions of truth.
As the director of a Jewish film festival, I can tell you that these
are the sorts of concerns that come up when we select films for
the festival. To minimize bias, every submission is seen by at least
four people. We then compare notes and make decisions based on the
festival's mission and mandate. But even this process creates challenges.
If we screen a film that explores a particular political position,
are we irresponsible if we do not provide a forum for discussion
following the film, or is it preferable to let viewers arrive at
their own conclusions? What about films that are hurtful to only
one segment of the audience? Can a film be useful for some but misleading
for others? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the accuracy of
the information in the films we screen? What role does a film festival
play in the community? To entertain? To educate? To inform?
Although it's impossible to verify every detail of every film we
screen, we do make a concerted effort to "background check"
our films; it's not too difficult to find information on the more
contentious ones. Since exhibitors can be held liable for their
presentations, we don't screen films like Jenin, Jenin or
Palestine is Still the Issue. On the other hand, we have
shown controversial films like How I Learned to Overcome my Fear
and Love Arik Sharon and Time of Favor (Ha-hesder),
a film touchy enough to be dropped from the schedules of a number
of other Jewish film festivals. For the record, we've also rejected
films that are blatantly deceptive in favor of Israel. The goal
is to avoid propaganda for either side and find films whose artistry
and integrity speaks for itself.
But, as I've said, all of this is tricky business. The hope is that
by educating ourselves, and challenging our biases, we can tell
the difference between a documentary with a slant and a film that
needs lies to support its argument, which makes it no documentary
at all.
Morey Altman is director of the Vancouver Jewish Film
Festival.
^TOP
|
|
