Movie offerings are not that rosy

BAILA LAZARUS AND CYNTHIA RAMSAY SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN

The 23rd Vancouver International Film Festival, which runs Sept. 23 to Oct. 8, will offer more than 500 screenings of 370 films from more than 50 countries. Among them are several films that may be of interest to the Jewish community.

Pushing the boundaries

With a name like Checkpoint, and being described as a film that "chronicles the humiliation and repression suffered by Palestinians," one would logically assume a grossly biased view that portrays Palestinians only as innocents being held at the mercy of mean, pushy, impatient Israeli soldiers. Perhaps because of this expectation, Checkpoint actually comes across as a fair documentary.

Leaving interviews and commentary entirely out of the movie, Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir sets his camera up at checkpoints around Israel and lets the action tell the story.

Sometimes the movie gets quite boring, as lone stragglers pass uneventfully through areas with very little traffic. We watch quiet conversations between border guards and Palestinians that sound no different than those you might hear at the Canada-U.S. border: "Let me see your papers. Where do you live? Where are you going? How long are you staying? OK, you can go." In these fragments, we get to see the tedium of the daily checkpoint grind.

Other times, we are witness to the softer side of the conflict, as soldiers and Palestinians embark on a friendly snowball fight near Ramallah.

"It's clear you have experience in an intifada," says one soldier, laughing, as he gets hit with a Palestinian's snowball.

"I'll intifada you!" is the retort.

Ultimately, the dirty side of the checkpoints comes to light and neither side comes out unscathed. One Israeli soldier stares right into the camera saying, "We are humans, they are animals." Another soldier, near Nablus, purposely makes a Palestinian wait, shivering, in pouring rain, even though he has aleady received permission by phone to let the man pass through.

At the same time, some Palestinians are portrayed as unco-operative and belligerent, purposely defying, provoking and lying to guards to the point where you almost want them to be denied access. No doubt many viewers will feel they wouldn't even have the patience some of the border guards have in dealing with the more difficult situations.

Aggravating the frustration is confusion as to when checkpoints are open or not and the changes in personnel as the soldiers switch shifts. But, for the most part, Israeli soldiers apologize for having to keep people waiting, agree with the Palestinians that the situation stinks and ultimately admit, "I am just a soldier at a roadblock."

A slave of his biases

In Slaves of the Sword, filmmaker Paul Jenkins makes it very clear which side he is on in the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and past altercations between Israel and its neighboring Arab states. Within the first seconds of the three "biographies" that comprise the series – on Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon – Jenkins portrays Dayan as war-crazed, Rabin as utilitarian and Sharon as dishonorable. The series' narration cements the notion that Israel is a land-hungry aggressor and oppressor in Jenkins' view.

You know you're in for an anti-Israel movie when the quote chosen to start a Moshe Dayan biography is, "There's nothing more exciting than war." And things get worse from there.

In a tone reminiscent of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous's Robin Leach, the (unnamed) British moderator chronicles the rise of Dayan through the armed forces to become one of Israel's most revered commanders of all time. Yet throughout the movie, filmmaker Jenkins has chosen not to include a single complimentary comment about Dayan.

In discussing the situation in the territories, Gen. (Ret.) Shlomo Gazit, a former head of military intelligence, compares Dayan to a Bedouin who kidnaps and rapes a woman of a rival family, then suggests that both families raise the child that resulted from the assault.

Writer and activist Uri Avneri is particularly scornful of Dayan, saying he didn't understand the Arab national character.

These disparaging remarks are included even though Dayan made it a point to learn Arabic and was clearly respected in the Arabic community; even though Dayan insisted that Arabs be allowed into Israel with no border checkpoints and no supervision; and even though he only agreed to be former prime minister Menachem Begin's minister of foreign affairs if Begin promised not to annex the territories and if Begin allowed Dayan to make peace with Egypt.

The irony is, of all the spokespersons in the movie, the one who paints Dayan with the most evenhanded brush is Haider Abd al Shafi, a senior Palestinian leader.

Thankfully, despite Jenkins one-sided look, Dayan ends up coming across as a fallible, but well-intended military man and politician, trying to deal with one of the most complex and protracted conflicts in the worlds.

Of the three generals, Rabin gets off the easiest in Jenkins' Slaves of the Sword, probably because Rabin was a "soldier of peace" by the end of his life, which was cut short by an Israeli settler who assassinated him at a peace rally in 1995. That being said, Rabin's motives for wanting an Israeli-Palestinian agreement are depicted as pragmatic rather than benevolent. In the episode's opening segment, Eitan Haber, head of Israel's Prime Minister's Office, tells the story of how Rabin wanted the now-famous "soldier of peace" sentence removed from his July 26, 1994, address to the U.S. Congress, but was convinced not to do so, as the speech had already been distributed to the media and members of Congress – its omission would be noticed. Rabin acquiesced, and the line got him a standing ovation.

Though Rabin made history with his peace efforts, he was a military man. His mother, Rosa, had been a central figure in the Jewish underground and Rabin moved naturally into politics and the Palmah (the forerunner to the Israel Defence Forces). With the nickname "The Analytical Brain," Rabin was recognized for his ability to analyze military movements and prepare for several potential outcomes of an attack. He was also able to look beyond the battlefield and, for example, push for a strong alliance between Israel and the United States. Ultimately, he recognized the need to deal with the Palestine Liberation Organization and try to negotiate peace – as opposed to his comments, as Minister of Defence during the first intifada, in 1987, that Israel must "stop the violent demonstrations with force and beatings."

Slaves of the Sword does a satisfactory job of giving an overview of Rabin's political and military careers, using interviews with family members, peers, activists, journalists and others. These aspects alone are relatively balanced and fair, but the narration tilts the scales. A few examples suffice: When Israel launched a preemptory attack on Egypt June 5, 1967, Slaves describes it as an air strike launched "in the name of prevention," implying otherwise. When Israel triumphed in that war and "tripled in size" land-wise, "The occupation began."

A clip from a 1974 satirical TV show has a magician speaking with a parrot in a cage, asking questions about who the parrot would least like to see in various military and government positions. The answer from the bird to each query is "Arik!" This is how the third part of Slaves of the Sword starts.

The first interview is with writer and political activist Itzhak Laor, who helpfully defines "Sharonism." According to Laor, "Sharonism is a sort of nonstop aggression." This theme, if you will, is carried through the film, as Sharon's rise to power is characterized as a bit of a mystery, given that he wasn't well-liked in the army – he was even prevented from becoming chief of staff – and that he was associated with the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, as well as some other morally questionable incidents.

As with Rabin in the second instalment of the series, Sharon's radical transformation in his life is examined. Sharon apparently goes from being a man undaunted by having to kill people, especially Arabs (according to some of the interviews), to becoming a grandfatherly prime minister interested in peace. The authenticity of the change is doubted in Sharon's case, whereas Rabin's evolution seemed to gain filmmaker Jenkins' respect. While Jenkins gives lip service to Sharon's peace efforts, in the next breath the narrator talks about the wall "avowedly" being built to stop terror attacks.

The film ends with a strange analogy by former U.S. secretary of state Martin Indyk of Sharon and a cow or bull being led to slaughter, followed by a shot of Sharon in a field, driving away in a tractor. Not sure what to make of that.

For the International Film Festival schedule, times and prices, visit www.viff.org.

^TOP