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.