The Oscars - validating war crimes?

[eumelia]

With the Academy Awards just around the corner - tomorrow, in fact - the Interwebs and media that I read are a-buzz with Waltz with Bashir, which I wrote about a few times.

I've mainly been reading analysis' of the film and something that I keep jumping from these reviews is the fact that Ari Folman silenced the Palestinians voices in regards to the massacre of Sabra and Shatila.
That he did a disservice by not talking about or telling a bit of the victims' story.

This is a valid complaint, as Ari Folman really doesn't give a voice to anyone other than the soldiers and journalists that were in Lebanon and Beirut at the time.
Another thing that I keep reading about is how Folman is replicating the myth of The Good Soldier, that Israeli soldiers even when they do bad things are fundamentally good and moral.
And of course, the lack of political context, the invasion of Lebanon and Israel complicities in the massacre, green lighting it and assisting the Phalanges by lighting their way (well, Jews always said they were Light unto the nations). Why was it happening? Who gave the order? Why did the soldiers obey? etc. etc. etc.

All these are valid complaints and questions.
I don't think though, that they have anything to do with the movie.

Ha'aretz jounalist Gideon Levy, well known for his weekend column "The Twiligh Zone in which he writes about the every day atrocities of the Occupation, wrote an op-ed about Waltz with Bashir titled Medal of Dishonour.
In it he wrote:

[...]The images coming out of Gaza that day looked remarkably like those in Folman's film. But he was silent. So before we sing Folman's praises, which will of course be praise for us all, we would do well to remember that this is not an antiwar film, nor even a critical work about Israel as militarist and occupier. It is an act of fraud and deceit, intended to allow us to pat ourselves on the back, to tell us and the world how lovely we are.
[...]
Why do we need propagandists, officers, commentators and spokespersons who will convey "information"? We have this waltz.
The waltz rests on two ideological foundations. One is the "we shot and we cried" syndrome: Oh, how we wept, yet our hands did not spill this blood. Add to this a pinch of Holocaust memories, without which there is no proper Israeli self-preoccupation. And a dash of victimization - another absolutely essential ingredient in public discourse here - and voila! You have the deceptive portrait of Israel 2008, in words and pictures.
[...]
It is very convenient to make a film about the first, and now remote, Lebanon war: We already sent one of those, "Beaufort," to the Oscar competition. And it's even more convenient to focus specifically on Sabra and Chatila, the Beirut refugee camps[...]

I'll stop quoting here, as I don't want to talk about the entirety of Levy's article, but mainly about Levy's shallow reading of the movie.

It's easy to say "Folam silenced Arab voices".
Well, he silenced Women's voices as well - the only time we see women in the movie is when they are either victims of war or sexually objectified for the soldier's benefit and comfort.
Maybe after the Oscar's I'll rent or download the film and write a feminist and queer review of it - breaking apart Israeli masculinity that is on the verge of destruction there in any case.

But I digress.

Levy writes that this is a "deceptive portrait of Israel 2008, in words and pictures".
On the contrary I say.
This is exactly, exactly the way Israel sees itself and Folman shows it, yes, in a beautiful artistic way.
Israel is enamoured with it's self-righteousness.
Israel cannot distance itself from the Holocaust, it is our greatest disaster and everything we (as citizens) and as soldiers is coloured by the fantasy of persecution, ashes and death.
Ari Folman shows this, by using his therapist friend who lovingly tells him, it is not the camps "over there", but that camps "back then".
Ari Folam in the film isn't convinced that this is so and continued exploring his memories.
Continues to challenge the silence surrounding what happened "over there".
And yes it is specifically Israel's own silence about what happened - the massacre is not taught in History classes, it is not spoken about when discussing atrocities of war, or of anything.

To call the film convenient is very shallow.
Ari Folman managed to bring back into the forefront of people's minds the massacre in which we were complicit - yes, he didn't write or include the political context or give place for the victims story... but as an Israeli film maker, Ari Folam has no right to tell the Palestinians story in this movie. As for political context, I think Folman managed to show us that things in Israel remain the same in every decade.

Yes, during the Golden Globes Israel shot Gaza to smithereens.
And Ari Folman made no statement other than "My movie will always be relevant".
Should he have made a stronger statement against the operation in Gaza?
Maybe.
Or maybe one should watch the movie and see the video images that bring home that this is not a fun, artistic, quasi-psychological film.
This movie brought Sabra and Shatila back into the forefront of people's minds, not to mention that an entire generation that knew little or even nothing about Lebanon now knows that Israel was complicit in the death of hundreds (even thousands) of innocent people.

I know, what about Gaza? Where were the 400,000 people marching in against this operation. Why did we vote for a Right Wing government?

Because Israel is as portrayed in the film.
Self-righteous.
Paranoid.
And disconnected from the principles of cause, effect and dialectics.

And Ari Folman's portrayal of that dissonance was brilliant.

Below I've linked other critical reviews with which I agree with more or less. I didn't feel the need to go into as with Levy's somewhat acidic critique of a film that managed to portray the cruelty of Israel in it's final shot better than he has with a weekly column.

Film Review: "Waltz with Bashir" by Naira Antoun.
Waltzing alone by Liel Leibovitz.
When Israel accepts the war waltz and when it doesn't by Tania Tabar, which I wrote about here.

Comments

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

An Israel with you in it gives me hope, eumelia. Thank you for that?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Thank you.
I appreciate the sentiment :)

[esizzle.livejournal.com]

u know that saying... "the story is told by the winner"? so i hope the palestinians will be allows to return to their homes one day and the irsaelis can film them all they want. till then i stand by the idea of a cultural boycott of israel.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I also hope the Palestinians attain the right of return.

I live the Israeli culture, so... *shrug* I dunno what to tell you.
I mean, if a cultural and academic boycott actually gains momentum I'd probably be one of the people hurt by it 'casue I'd want to stay in academia and the people who are the most active against the Occupation are academics... so, again, I dunno what to tell you.
But I think financial and political boycotts and divestment are the way to go. It's what worked in South Africa.

[esizzle.livejournal.com]

actually a successful boycott would help the israelis who r speaking against the occupation to make their point. so if ur worried that they won't be able to do their work as well, i'm saying they'd be able to do it even better. but if it's the international applause and credit they'll miss.. well.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Oh of course, I just hope enough Israelis manage to join the boycott and aren't shut up within the institutions and by governmental powers, seeing as higher education is still partially public.

[esizzle.livejournal.com]

ya, like Ilan Pape for example.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Exactly who I was thinking about!

[constintina.livejournal.com]

This is really good to read...I saw the film about a week ago and had not yet read almost anything critical of it (beyond people saying the switch to live documentary footage at the end was a mistake, I completely disagree), and my own reaction was complicated. I was really bothered both by the lack of Palestinian voices and the portrayal of women, but still liked and admired the film. I really appreciate you take on things and the links you've provided, which I'm excited to look at.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

The people saying that the switch to the live footage was a mistake have no idea what the switch means - really or metaphorically.

I'm glad you like my film reviews and critiques :)

As I said, after the Oscars I may write a feminist and/or queer reading of the film. There's so much material for that kind of analysis!

[constintina.livejournal.com]

I hope you do, I would love to read it!

[corvus.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's just the white male in me, but I really wasn't bothered by the lack of women or Palestinian voices in the movie, if just because that's not what the film was about. While he could have interviewed the wife/mother/girlfriend/daughter/etc. of a soldier and he could have spoken to a survivor of the massacre, it just wouldn't have fit in to what I felt was the idea of the movie, which is a soldier dealing with his role in a war by talking with those he served with. That being said, I do think the filmmaker is shirking his responsibility by not speaking out about the recent devastation in Gaza. I really don't see the movie as particularly apologist, though I understand why it could be interpreted as such. If you went in thinking it was going to be about the massacre and the Israeli role in it and how horrible the whole thing was - and only that - you'll be let down.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

If you went in thinking it was going to be about the massacre and the Israeli role in it and how horrible the whole thing was - and only that - you'll be let down.

I think that's exactly what Gideon Levy thought he's see. The film is far more complicated than that.

[constintina.livejournal.com]

I really wasn't bothered by the lack of women or Palestinian voices in the movie, if just because that's not what the film was about. While he could have interviewed the wife/mother/girlfriend/daughter/etc. of a soldier and he could have spoken to a survivor of the massacre, it just wouldn't have fit in to what I felt was the idea of the movie, which is a soldier dealing with his role in a war by talking with those he served with.

Yes, and I still think it's an impressive, moving, etc film, but I can't help but bristle a bit when a film maker chooses to take this kind of path, when they could have conceived the movie in a way that didn't reinforce the hegemonic prioritizing of voices. I can imagine a structure that would have held and allowed him to do what he did, but just expanded what he did, at least so far as the question of Palestinian interviewees goes.

The gender question I see a bit different, its less that I think he should have interviewed women as I was skeeved out by the way women were portrayed when they did appear--always as a mother or whore or combination of the two, at least until we get to the screaming Palestinian women in the documentary footage. I understand these portrayals come straight from the interviews, but seeing that with no analysis of same within the film rubs me the wrong way on a visceral level.

I didn't go in expecting to see a film that reflects my politics, feminist or anti-occupation or otherwise, so I'm not really disappointed, and it may well be that the film maker has no interest in expanding his vision to include any of this, which doesn't necc detract from what is great about the film, but is still important to note and discuss, at least for those of us who are interested in said issues.

I think responding to comments on this thread may have been way too ambitious pre-coffee.

[hassibah.livejournal.com]

hi i hope you don't mind my bad netiquette commenting here so late, i just read this:

"This is exactly, exactly the way Israel sees itself and Folman shows it, yes, in a beautiful artistic way.
Israel is enamoured with it's self-righteousness."

Which I agree is pretty accurate, or at least has always been consistent with my impression from talking to israelis(I've never been there myself.) Israelis seem, for the most part, more oblivious than anything. The absence of Palestinian voices in that context totally makes sense to me.

but
An awareness of that didn't really come across in the movie for me, and I think it could have without changing this.

Overwhelmingly anyways, the most common criticism I read of the film was that it implies that they didn't know what was happening at S&S and were absolving Israel of responsibility, and otherwise you see very little bloodshed-like the thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians that were killed outside of S&S for instance. Honestly though I wasn't disappointed to see it lose the oscar, the timing alone would make me a little nauseous to see all the self-congratulations going on.

Anyways I liked this quote from the EI review:
When Folman first talks to him about his flashbacks, his friend -- speaking in the voice of therapist, priest and philosopher -- offers reassuring reflections on memory: "We don't go to places we don't want to," he says. "Memory takes us where we want to go." To read against the grain of the film's tropes of memory, remembering and moral reckoning, is to recognize this comment as an apt description of the entire film -- the remembering that the film undertakes does not take Israelis to places where they really would not want to go.