Please watch the SHORT ISRAELI FILM on the following link
https://youtu.be/2s16RWUIWBw
Quite recently, I referred a short video film I liked to a friend. The film was a depiction of mental disorders. My main purpose was to send out to him, how one feels if one has a mental disorder. I was trying to relate the mental congestion, mental pressures, and how that seems to prevent a person in being able to 'relate' with others or even perform his normal duties. It was my intention to make him feel what the film was trying to evoke. He was responded by apprehending the film as a critic - one who analyses whether the film 'worked'.
A critic seems to largely miss out on 'relating'. He probes whether the craft employed is manipulative or sensitive; whether the effort is skillful or ham-handed; whether something 'works' or doesn't. Sometimes a film can be so badly made that it pushes you right away into the judging mode. However if a film is not too crude but one gets busy with analyzing all these aspects, he may become blind to the gestures one is employing in an effort to relate. A person may write a novel trying to explain to another what he feels about himself even as he is caught up in a peculiar situation, but a critic may respond with analysis: why the novel doesn't work, or equally tragically, why it works! 'Tragic' because the author is not really interested in the analysis but is crying out to relate; for his 'meaning' to be understood.
I am beginning to feel that this is what divides Men from Women. Women want you to get their 'meaning', which is - they want you to feel what they feel. That is what they see as 'understanding'! Men however get busy analyzing their 'problem' and dissect and lay bare the various parts of the problem and how they all could be interrelated and handled. They seek solutions. That is what these guys call 'understanding'! The main problem is both sexes have different understandings of the word 'understanding'!
We were also having a discussion on another short film of seven minutes duration that I referred to him called 'Strangers'. This is a film directed by Erez Tadmore and Guy Nattiv, both Israeli film directors. I found the film fascinating. The story is about how a Jew boards a subway in Germany and settles down in a compartment where on the other side of the aisle, by the window, an Arab immigrant is seated reading an Arabic newspaper. The tension of each other's presence is quite competently depicted. At the next subway station, a group of three or four Neo Nazis and skin-heads get in. The air is heavy with suspense as they start provoking the Arab. At this stage the Jew is somewhat unconcerned as he is not being threatened. Soon the Jew's mobile phone starts ringing which is set to the famous Jewish tune 'Havva Nagila'. Then the Arab and the Jew become partners in being persecuted ... and so it goes on. I present below the discussions that I had with my friend :-
Discussions
Friend: I saw the short film. A little too pointed in its Arab-Jewish brotherhood theme - especially for one by an Israeli film-maker?
Me: As I see it, when two disparate individuals are unified by very strong and gravely threatening circumstances that arise suddenly and both recognise that they are equal victims and when they are suddenly spared of all danger, the brotherhood does manifest quite effusively. The fact that it is being made by as Israeli - well, you may see Israel as an aggressor state but the film-maker is an individual and clearly may not represent the values of the state and may even be against it - to me, makes it definitely more meaningful. I see it as a sensitive attempt to recognise their brotherhood.
Friend: Where is the film set. The language of the train announcement will tell you. Germany?
Me: Yes, I believe so. It is set in Germany. So?
Friend: They have to find a national 'public' which is opposed to both Arabs and Jews and then say that the skinheads came from this public. If it is USA, it will be asserting that there is a large enough racist public in the US to endanger Arabs and Jews. The film will be seen as anti-American. An Israeli can hardly afford to seem that. The same problem arises with any European country except Germany. Russia (may qualify) perhaps, but that will become a deliberate political statement. In Germany nationalism/ racism is taboo ever since WWII. One can be jailed for being for one's Fatherland in Germany. You can't even say Schindler's List is a bad movie. It is perfectly safe to identify a racist 'public' in Germany although there are probably fewer racists in Germany than in the US.
Jews were once victims but no longer so - in the West. In fact their state (Israel claims to be the Jewish nation) has victimized the Arabs and has been aided in it by constantly invoking its own victimhood. I think the equation of Arabs and Jews as equal 'victims' in a contemporary setting is politically dubious.
Me: Good analysis. You've made many good points. That's what Reading a film is all about!
A DAY OR TWO LATER:
Me: When I responded to your analysis about the film 'Strangers' the other day, it was the way I immediately apprehended it. Today morning I got a few other ideas about your analysis, the film and other aspects that I now write to you here and am interested in your response.
I feel that when one immediately apprehends the film 'Strangers' one is drawn to how the film portrays the intensely existential situation where an immigrant is confronted with insult and taunt; danger of great physical harm; the panic as an immigrant in an alien country; the need for him to react as an honorable 'Man' and exhibit bravery while at the same time being restrained by prudence and the conflict that ensues within as he contemplates what the hell to do and how the hell to react.
Another person who is from the same country but of a minority community sees the quandary in which the other person (immigrant) is put into, but initially chooses to perhaps ignore it in the knowledge that he is safe. This safety is rudely shattered by a quirk of circumstance when the ringing signal of the mobile is activated. Rudely shattered, because he has set it to his favourite tune 'Havva nagila...' that betrays he is a Jew to the three or four Neo-Nazis who have till now concentrated on the Arab immigrant.
Then the situation is one where the Arab finds company in peril although the companion would have been his sworn enemy in another set of circumstance. Then it is a climax where the two victims move - each to save his own life and skin - and when the anti-climax does happen, the raiders and assaulters who are the Neo Nazis are thwarted in their attempt to inflict harm as the doors of the railway carriage close down upon them.
The Arab and the Jew see themselves as partners in a common traumatic experience and the joy they experience is very apparent.
Now all these are the immediate apprehension to everyone and perhaps you too. And by an immediate apprehension which is primary and by which the heart seems to react, it seems like a very competently made film.
Now coming to the criticism you have made - all the other circumstances - that the film has been made by an Israeli, that in post-war Germany anyone or anything that has to do with anti-semitism is frowned upon; that the film-maker has to 'find a national public that is both against Arabs and Jews; that the skin-heads are from this public; that it cannot be America because it is too powerful a country and can be dangerous; and all other ideas are what are referred to by you is secondary and arises only after analysis. This seems to be more about you than about the film. In fact could 'reading' a film be more about the 'reader' than the film because it seems to be a step or two removed from the immediate apprehension of the film? What the reader puts in his reading may or may not be what actually is. The film-maker may have only been interested in just presenting what I say.
But of course, it can be argued that what I say about the film is 'my reading of the film'. But then, in my defence, what I say about the film is what the director shows, but the other points that you raise is not what the director shows but is gathered subsequently - in credits, political situation of the world, recent history etc. That is why I argue here that 'reading of a film' is a little removed.
But my concern in this reading of yours is, if the message that the film director is attempting to convey - one of need of amity between various peoples and its special requirement in a world that is increasingly being threatened by hatred of various sorts, there could be a danger that the message could be lost in a reading that is not sympathetic and where the reader's proclivities hide the message.
The question is whether any film can be watched in such an ideal manner where only the director's message comes through and not the viewer's apprehension of it. I also know that the answer clearly is a no !!
Friend: Over dinner in a restaurant, if your friend says he will give his life for you and leaves you holding the bill, what is the 'message' you absorb?
Me: His life, or more likely yours, costs what is shown in the bill. But the reply is too cryptic. I don't seem to be able to get what you are driving at.
Me: o.k., I see that the message sounds fake.
Me: But my argument would be - say if my family (country) has been guilty of fakery, I (film-maker) may not be guilty of it. I get a feeling that I am being judged by my family (Israel). In fact I may be doing things in such a genuine way only to distance myself from my family and all other circumstances that people (say critics) use to define me.
Friend : I am pointing to difference between the film's rhetoric and its covert purpose as after interpreting other signs. Frankly, I am not even interested in discussing a film's rhetoric when it is as banal as this one's. The covert purpose is much more useful and leads you to understand things which are underneath. The rhetoric is like the friend's who is prepared to give his life for you.
Me: The film may have much more than just Rhetoric. Rhetoric is just one aspect. You may ignore it if you don't want to discuss it. But there are other situations too - the existential aspect, the dilemmas, the need for justifications of one's actions and several others. The rhetoric can also be pretty useful for people who are so dense that they cannot even understand such banal things. But then, as I've said you may not focus on it. But in trying to find a covert purpose - also a valid aspect of criticism, one may miss out, or rather not highlight many remarkable points that the film makes - like a few of them that I've elaborated and perhaps many more that I've not seen.
The discussions have been suspended here.
POSTSCRIPT
As a sort of postscript I raise the question of this hypothetical situation to examine the validity of the 'Reading' by my friend. Let us suppose that the film 'Strangers' was in fact made by an Englishman who chose to post it in the names of two Israelis and all the credits are concocted. What then would be the basis for the Reading? Would the 'covert purpose' be really identifiable? Or even if every aspect of the credits were just assigned 'Anonymous' ? This would seem to indicate that the criticism of the film is not about the film itself but rather about other aspects that are only incidental.
xxx
