Tag: cinema politica

For the last 44 years, Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Arab East Jerusalem have lived under severe Israeli military control and occupation. According to the UN, there are over 500 Israeli-controlled checkpoints in the West Bank alone. Israel has built settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, all of which, according to international law, are illegal. It is estimated by the UN that there are more than half a million Israelis living on occupied land. Next week, Cinema Politica’s special double-feature takes a look at what life in occupied territories is like with Israel vs Israel and This Palestinian Life.

Israel vs Israel

“[Occupation is] really emotional for me, it’s really frustrating, and it really pisses me off,” said Israel vs Israel director Terje Carlsson. He has lived and worked in Jerusalem as a freelance journalist and filmmaker for the past eight years. “Israel vs. Israel is a way for me to try and somehow make a positive film about a very sad and frustrating situation.”

The film follows four progressive Israeli activists – an ex-Israeli soldier, a rabbi, a concerned mother and an anarchist – who are fighting for an end to over 40 years of Israeli occupation and illegal settlement in the Palestinian Territories.

“Today we work to expose the reality of occupation back home,” explained ex-Israeli soldier Yehuda Shaul in the film. Shaul is one of the leaders of Breaking the Silence, a group that secretly receives testimonies and accounts of abuses and excessive use of force against the Palestinians from soldiers. “We call it Breaking the Silence because, you have to understand, what’s going on in occupied territories is one of the biggest taboos in Israel,” said Shaul.

Israel vs. Israel uses intense, visceral and constantly shocking footage to show how complicated and strange this conflict really is, from the frantic checkpoint of Qalandia to the strange and violent streets of Hebron, where even the children beat Palestinians walking the streets.

Though Carlsson admits that he is no activist, he said his motives behind making the film were to inform a wider audience, and spark interest in an issue that is not just going to go away. He implores us to “get informed, don’t stay fucking ignorant about what’s going on in the Middle East; you can have whatever approach you have, just don’t stay ignorant.”

This Palestinian Life

This Palestinian Life is a short independent documentary film by Egyptian/German freelance journalist Philip Rizk that tells the stories of the everyday lives of Palestinians living in a place called “Area C” in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian Territories. Rizk moved to Palestine in 2005 to work as a volunteer in the West Bank, then spent two years working with NGOs in Gaza.

“The conflict is large and complex,” explains Rizk in the film. “I found that because violence makes the news, the everyday stories of real people barely reach the outside world.”

The conflict is complex indeed; Gaza is  sort of a “no man’s land,” without any internationally recognized governing body and stuck under harsh Israeli control policies.

In Susya, south of Hebron in the West Bank, it is illegal for the people to dig wells for water or tend their fields. In Gaza, a family is in ruins after Israeli forces bulldozed their entire property. In the Jordan Valley, families are not permitted to even repair their homes when they begin to deteriorate. This Palestinian Life creates an interesting and intimate portrayal of the plight of the Palestinian villagers living in these areas.

Israel vs Israel and This Palestinian Life will play at Cinema Politica on March 14. For more information, check out cinemapolitica.org.

British filmmaker Peter Watkins was preparing to leave the United States in 1970, after spending months writing a documentary about the civil war he knew would never be filmed, when four students at Kent State University were killed by police open firing on a Vietnam war demonstration. The shooting was a turning point in the making of his most controversial film, Punishment Park.

The pseudo-documentary takes place in 1970, 20 years after the Internal Security Act has been put in place. The law allows the government to immediately apprehend anyone they consider to be a threat to national security. Those targeted include draft dodgers, artists and political agitators. Instead of a trial by jury, the accused are put before a tribunal, which already sees them as guilty. The accused are then given a choice: serve a long prison sentence or spend three days in Punishment Park.

Watkins follows two groups, one on trial and one already serving time in Punishment Park. Once in the park, participants must reach an American flag 53 miles into the desert within three days while evading the authorities to win their freedom. The dissidents fracture into three groups; the militants, semi-militants and pacifists. The film charts their progress, and shows even peace-loving people will resort to violence if placed in a life-or-death situation.

Watkins has stopped giving interviews about his films. In an email to the Concordian, he wrote this was “basically due to the obvious lack of interest within my profession to challenge the media crisis, or to discuss this essential aspect of my work.” For decades, Watkins has been speaking out against what he calls the Monoform, an established narrative and format that TV and cinema uses to communicate their message.

Punishment Park is terrifying because it’s so convincing – if you weren’t told it was a pseudo-documentary, you would think it was real. Watkins’ use of non-professional actors really pays off. No one sounds like they’re reading lines; every single dialogue is immediate and urgent. At the tribunal, accused and accusers shout at each other in a tense political frenzy. In fact, according Watkins’ 2005 self-interview, most of the dialogue was improvised.

“In the film you have two categories of ‘performance’: those who were expressing their own opinions, and those who opposed their own personal convictions – who were role playing, if you like,” he explained.

In one of the most effective scenes of Punishment Park, a young guardsman opens fire on the dissidents in the park after they throw rocks at the police in desperation, killing two of them. “Take pictures of this, they’re going to kill us,” shouts one of participants, before the shooting begins. Afterwards, the stammering 18-year-old guardsman tries to explain himself: “The gun went off, it was an accident, I didn’t want to kill anyone.”

Watkins’ film remains little-known, seldom screened and almost undistributed. Its original run in New York City was only four days long. “The Hollywood studios refused to distribute the film, for fear – as they frankly told us – of retribution from the federal authorities,” he said.

Whether you like it or not, Punishment Park is sure to get a reaction, which is exactly what Watkins wanted. “Punishment Park takes place tomorrow, yesterday or five years from now,” he wrote in a 1972 open letter to the press.

In his self-interview, Watkins stated, “What remains most important about Punishment Park, in my own opinion, is that the film allows young people the possibility to express themselves, freely and with force, within the framework of an important social metaphor.” Even 40 years after its release, Punishment Park remains shocking and frightening.

Punishment Park will be screened at Cinema Politica on Feb. 21. For more information, check out cinemapolitica.org.