Avenge but one of my two eyes

Title: Avenge but one of my two eyes
Director: Avi Mograbi
Cast: Shredi Jabarin, Avi Mograbi, The people of Palestine, The army of the state of Israel, and a few tour-guides.
Released: 2005

What I couldn't quite get out of my head when the closing credits finally appeared, was how important this film was, and how many people needed to see it. This review could, quite frankly, end right there, with the simple recommendation to 'see it'. That won't suffice sadly, because too many people, like me the moment my teacher told me this was a film relating to the situation in the middle-east, have lost interest in this topic, or at the very least, struggle to find any serious steps forward with the situation, or any fresh debate. Debate lies at the heart of this film though, and whilst some more simple-minded people may see it as 'a point for the Palestinian side', the more intelligent majority (I hope) will see within these hundred minutes, an honest appraisal of a serious, important situation; the conflict that is at the center of so much misunderstanding and anger across this human-filled world.

The film-maker Avi Mograbi, who is a citizen of the state of Israel, has divided this clever documentary into three main sections. The first sees the director (with the camera trained on him) having a phone conversation with a Palestinian friend (whose voice is clearly audible on the other end of the line). His friend talks about the loss of energy of the Palestinians, the loss of will-power even to stay alive. 'Life' he says (I'm paraphrasing) 'is not such a great thing, I don't look forward to waking up'. This Palestinian man, Shredi Jabarin, helps us to see, both with eloquence and emotion, exactly what the Palestinian mindset is like after living for so long under such a harsh occupation. He is honest, and convincing, to the point that the director often finds himself, rightfully, speechless. In a few reviews of this film, some critics have said that seeing the director talking on a phone hardly makes for stimulating viewing. I tell critics that this is a visual decision that the film-maker has decided to make, so live with it, shut up, close your eyes if you must, and actually listen to what is being said- because you're clearly missing the point! Listening to a human being pouring his heart out in this way is so important, and again, part of the process of dialogue which the director is rightfully, and wonderfully focused on as one path toward a better future in the middle-east.

The second section of the film focuses on the lives of the Palestinian people, observed with a handheld camera (held again by the director himself) filmed from both their side, and the Israeli side. When I say 'side' I don't simply mean the ideology of one side and the other, but also, because of all these ridiculous 'security barriers' and 'walls' that the Israeli government has put up everywhere, we are often, quite literally looking at two different sides. We see school-children waiting to go home, stranded at a huge gate, waiting for hours. We see an older woman, sitting in the baking sun, again unable to get past a check-point because non-communicative soldiers (on the other 'side') are not allowing it- for some unknown reason. We look at the old ladys' tired face, and we see tired faces on all kinds of people, most of them young. There's nothing sadder than a tired and defeated young person, and yet you get the feeling that if this pedantic and stressful border crossing, constant security checks and general distrust continues every day (as we see it in this film) then there's little wonder that the frustration of the Palestinian people has boiled over to such a degree. If I had to live this way every day all my life, I would not be me. I would be an animal, a vicious animal. 'Justification' for suicide bombing is not something I am interested in discussing, it is simply wrong, and wrong is wrong in my book. However, (and it's an important 'however') all too often whenever people (amongst whom I count Tony Blair's very intelligent wife) attempt to convey the fact that they do understand, and yes, sympathise with the reasons why the Palestinian people attempt such extreme actions, then they are quickly hushed into silence by those conformists and apologists in government, those who tow the party line. People who make sympathetic statements towards Palestinian suicide bombers are accused of 'condoning terrorism', or perhaps some other unintelligent, politically motivated accusation. Whatever happened to sympathy being something good? In another part of the film we also see one of the most shocking things, a group of Palestinian men (about 15 or 20) who have all been ordered to stand, and remain balanced, on some scattered rocks and boulders on a certain hillside. Israeli army officers with guns are watching them from a distance, and making sure that they remain balanced, like school-children, on these rocks. I'm reminded of Emilio Esteves' character in that wondferul 80's film 'The Breakfast Club' when he recalls how he attacked and bullied another child at his school. Now, with hindsight, he can't believe how cruel he was to that kid,"the fu---ing humiliation that kid must have felt..." he cries. And that's what any normal, sympathetic human being would think when watching fellow human beings being forced to do what they're told by a group of immature soldiers. So these examples mount and mount, and you begin to feel it, the sympathy, the very obvious fact that there is a dynamic here of power and powerlessness, which is often talked about in articles regarding the Palestinians but rarely ever seen in this way. The Israeli army, which has been in the land previously known as Palestine, for just over 60 years, is in full charge of the native Palestinians who reside there. There are those with power, and those without power, or if you want to be generous, with much, much, less power.

Whether this sort of thing happens every day has been questioned by some other critics of this film, who accuse the director Mograbi of focusing on the worst elements of the Israeli army and painting an inaccurate picture. My response to those people (who clearly don't know what documentary film-making is actually about) is this; understand that the director shot this film over a certain, limited time. He hasn't been out there filming forever collecting every single evil thing he possibly could on film, indeed you honestly get the feeling that the observational footage was filmed over a few Summer months, perhaps even less. And the fact that he got this much footage of abusive, rude, and downright childish behaviour from an army, over any period of time, shows that there is something very wrong. Putting that point aside, the bottom line is, you don't have to be a genius to figure out that a lot of this stuff does happen almost every day. Just look at the reactions of the Palestinian people when asked to wait forever to be allowed to move from one place to another, when asking permission to farm their own land, when asking even for the Israeli tank to allow an ambulance through to help a sick woman. Not one of these people acts as if these ridiculous taunts are anything controversial or new. They act as though they've seen it all before, as if it happened only yesterday and will probably happen tomorrow. Anyone who is half-competent at reading human body language can figure this out for themselves. They are a hopeless and defeated people and I've always said that a hopeless and defeated people were the only kind who would ever do something as insane as kill themselves (let alone taking others with them). But we judge from over here in the West don't we? We say 'they're wrong!' We think we know what they have to go through everyday. We don't, and watching this film only gives you a window into it (and even that is so powerful, even after only a hundred minute runtime!)

What makes the film a truly intelligent work of art is that these two segments, Mograbi's conversations with his Palestinian friend, and the observational footage of life under occupation for Palestinians, are laid out against the third and final element of the film. We witness something which happens everyday in the state of Israel; tour-guides giving speeches, teachers teaching, and all of them are discussing two key stories from the Jewish tradition, one of Mount Masada (which I've seen and been up myself, incidentally) and the other of the mighty Samson.

As far as Masada goes, a long time ago, the Romans were coming to town, where the Israelites were, at that time, living. Think of it like in Iraq back in the Spring of 2003, when everyone knew that the Americans were soon coming. So the Israelites got up onto mount Masada, knowing that it would be the final place they could retreat before the advancing Roman army got to them, and killed the men, and did God knows what to the women and children. So the Israelite's did something, so as not to give their occupiers the pleasure of seeing them suffer. They all jumped off the top of the mountain. They all committed suicide.

As for Samson, this is a tale told in the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) who many will be familiar with. After being captured, blinded and subdued by the Philistines, Samson is brought to them, locked in chains. Still held captive, Samson manages to pull down the central pillar which is supporting the building where so many Philistines have gathered (for a religious event). Basically, Samson, like all those on Masada, killed himself, but unlike them, he took a couple of thousand Philistines with him. He asked God for help before he did so.

Masada has passed into folk-lore and is taught to every child in the state of Israel. The same is true of Samson, who is often celebrated as a national folk-hero for his actions.

And the Palestinians, of course, are a bunch of mad violent, religiously fanatic terrorists.

So, who can tell me why this is such an important film?

Y.Misdaq aka Yoshi, 26 October 2006

PS - click here to buy it on amazon, or anywhere should you find it at a better price.