Second to last...November 23rd

Richard Porton, “Notes from the Palestinian Diaspora”

1. Based upon the interview as a whole, summarize Suleiman’s perspective on nationalism, both in terms of Palestinian identity and the concept of Zionism.
He is indifferent to nationalism, merely wanting the violence to stop so that both Palestinian and Israelis have a place to call home. Even though he currently calls himself Palestinian, he says he would have no problem identifying himself as Israeli if a unified state were to be established. He is part of the diaspora and does not care about labels, just wants a home for him and others like him, he is a binationalist of sorts.

2. Also summarize Suleiman’s perspective on storytelling and film style. Which filmmakers does he tend to identify with, and why? Which filmmakers does he not identify with (including other Palestinian filmmakers) and why?
He tries to set himself apart from what he considers traditional filmmaking. In his filmmaking and his writing, he tries to set himself apart from mainstream or common. They characterize other Palestinian films like Ticket to Jerusalem and Rana's Wedding as traditional, and Suleiman says he tries to differentiate from this mainstream kind of cinema and identify with other self-reflexive auteurs like Hou, Ozu and Bresson.

Gertz and Khleifi, “Between Exile and Homeland”

3. What are some of the essential differences between Sulieman’s two feature films, Chronicle of a Disappearance and Divine Intervention, and what had changed in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict between the release of the two films?
Between the two films, the Oslo Accords and the Second Intifada took place, which gave Israel the power to set up checkpoints and curfews to keep the Palestinians "in line." Divine Intervention demonstrates this occupation with more constricted, tight settings than in Chronicle of a Disappearance. This claustrophobic nature of the film helps aesthetically reflect the Israeli's breathing down the Palestinian's necks.

4. What is Suleiman’s position on showing violence (or the aftermath of violence) in the cinema? How does his position relate to our discussion of the end of Waltz with Bashir?

He is against violence and showing truly graphic violence, but he does enjoy using elaborate silly scenes (pit blowing up tank, palestinian ninja) to illuminate the absurdity of violence all together. I do not think he would approve of the end of Waltz with Bashir, it is a bit "too real" for his taste.

5. How does Suleiman use images and symbols common to Palestinian culture and Palestinian cinema in unique ways in Divine Intervention?

Once again, Suleiman uses common symbols but in an abstract, different manner either as a way to parody them, showing how silly they really are, and how abusrd people can be in their treatment of their symbols.

6. Compare and contrast Suleiman’s comments on the “ninja” sequence from the interview above with the responses of Arab critics mentioned on p. 181 of this chapter.

Essentially, there are some who support the metaphor as Palestine valiantly revolting against the evil Israelis, and then there are those who resist it, saying that he is treating the conflict as a joke. Suleiman was not trying to make a grandiose political statement, it is just an entertaining sequence laced with some obvious political commentary, how one chooses to interpret it is up to them.

Due Nov. 16th

1. State the Haaretz argument against the politics of the film in your own words. How does Gideon Levy support his argument with details from the film? What else does he use to support his argument, outside of the film?
He essentially says that the amazing animation and artistry of the film acts as a veil in order to disguise, or tone down Israel's part in the massacre. He criticizes the filmmaker for his means, a drink, a shrink and marijuana, of rationalizing what happened, for the victims who are truly traumatized do not get these things to help them move on. He uses scenes within the film to talk about how the animation dulls out the action, so that it does not feel real or visceral, it numbs the viewer so that they can show terrible images, but with great artistry. He says that the end, when stock footage is used for the first time through the film, that this is the only moment of truth and pain throughout the entire movie, which I disagree with, I feel that the entire movie is disturbingly beautiful, and that the footage at the end just unnerves the viewer even more, when the veil is withdrawn and what was disturbingly beautiful is now just disturbing. I have never heard such silence in a movie theater until that ending sequence.

2. State the Commentary argument against the politics of the film in your own words. How does Hillel Halkin support his argument with details from the film? What else does he use to support his argument, outside of the film?
The general commentary against the political aspects of the movies is that it was a tunnel-vision representation of the war rather than a wide representation of it. Halkin was nowhere near as pessimistic as Levy on his view of the movie, but he believed that the film failed in explaining the background and reasons for the war in the first place. He uses examples from within the film, or rather what he wished the characters had talked about, as well as his own war experience to emphasize this point and prove that Israel had every right to be there, which he believes is something this film lacks. From an outsider's standpoint I enjoyed the movies blend of personal experience as a way to illuminate the war. It is true that everything is not explained, and some extracurricular research is needed to understand everything, but I enjoyed the telling of a broad story through small stories.

3. Respond to Levy's or Hillel's critique of the politics of the film. Support your argument with details from the film, as well as with details as you understand them about the conflict and the region.

As I stated above, I agree and disagree with the two's opinions of the movie. I do believe the animation evokes a numbness within the viewer, injecting a sense of beauty within a scene of terror will inevitably take out much of the terror. However, it is difficult to remain numb once the comfort of the animation is jarringly removed, and the reality of it all just washes over you. No matter if this is construed as Israeli propaganda or an inaccurate representation of the war and why it happened, it is still a powerful movie that gives you insight into the Middle-East while being a feast for the eyes and ears.

Noviembre the 9th

Ilan Avisar, "The National and the Popular in Israeli Cinema"

1. How and why has the concept of nationalism changed since the end of the Cold War? Why does Avisar emphasize the notion of an “imagined community” when discussing nationalism? What are the negative and positive connotations of nationalism?
After the Cold War, the re-awakened national aspirations of many induced new national sentiments, which countered the negative assessments of previous thoughts of nationalism and casued it to re-emerge. He uses Anderson's concept of imagined communties to define nationalism as such, as a, as Anderson sees it, quest for people to gain their independence and as a source of identity defined by the national culture. The negatives of Nationalism are a lack of appreciation (or even recognition) of other cultures and nations, whereas the positives are a strong sense of national identity and pride in your country.

2. What are the three principal historical forces guiding the movement of Zionism as it emerged in the 19th century? How do these three forces correspond to Benedict Anderson’s definition of the nation?
The continuous consciousness of living in Exile and the everlasting quest to return to Zion, the need to escape antisemitism, and the ideological model of modern nationalism as developed in nineteenth-century Europe. These three forces correspond to the elements of Anderson's definition of a nation, they are all reasons the Jews use to demonstrate the need to create a unified homeland.

3. If there was no “indigenous Jewish national culture” because there was no Jewish state, how was Jewish identity and culture defined and expressed before the establishment of Israel?
Essentailly, Jewish identity was defined through diaspora experiences and religious practices. "Men of Letters" were the ones who actually defined and enunciated the Jewish national identity by expressing desires for a homeland, reviving the Hebrew language, and constructing symbolic texts of national culture.

4. What other ideologies of Jewish existence competed with Zionism in the 19th and 20th centuries? What characterized Zionism in contrast to these competing ideologies (what ideals were the “backbone” of Zionism)?
There were the assimilationists who waited in passive expectation of the Messiah and believed in European emancipation, the Bundists, who thought that a Marxist revolution was the solution for the Jews and there were those who believed that America was the promise land. Zionism became very popular after the holocaust, the rise of collectivism, and the rise of the "new Jewish identity"

5. What irony does Avisar observe about the rise of overtly critical political films in the 1980s? How have these critical political films affected the relationship between the Israeli cinema and its own local audience? What replaced this cycle of critical political films in the 1990s and 2000s?
The irony is that they were government funded, but contained content that criticized government affairs, especially the war with Lebanon. During this political phase, Israeli filmmakers lost their local audience but gained worldwide recognition. More personal projects replaced the politcal ones, mainly due to a disconnect with the local audience and the broad trend of the people feeling more comfortable with criticizing the Israeli government/society.

6. How does Avisar describe the split between high culture (artists, academics, cultural elite) and low (popular) culture in Israel in regards to nationalism and Zionism?
Essentially the low culture is associated with Zionism and nationalism whereas the high culture is associated with extreme opposition to Jewish nationalism.

November 2 Response

Fred Camper, “In Chaos, Truth: Kippur”

3. Why has the opening scene (and matching closing scene) divided critics in their response to it?
The scenes, which depicts the main character Weinraub making love to his girlfriend has been said to be nothing but then a way of showing the carefree wild life he lived before the rest of the narrative (war) took place. However, Camper argues that the blending of colors within the sex scene makes an "implied argument for peace," because it blends together the Israeli colors and the Arab national colors.

Nitzan Ben-Shaul, “Israeli Persecution Films”

4. What significant socio-economic changes took place in Israel immediately after the War of Independence, and what were the consequences of the “statist policy” adopted by the Mapai party (in terms of national politics and foreign relations)? Since the word “hegemony” is used a few times in the article, briefly define it in this answer as well.

After the war, Israel's population increased tremendously and once the war was won, the previously hegemonic (dominating, leading) party, the Mapai party, created the statist policy, where the country has central control over socio-economic affairs. Politically, the policy resulted in Israel aligning with the "western bloc"of states" and gave the Mapai party dominance over a unified statist educational system and unified statist army.

5. Define the terms “Zionism” and “Sabra.” In what ways does the Sabra woman in Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer “metonymically represent the future of the state”?

Zionism is a movement for the protection and development of a Jewish nation in Israel, and a Sabra is a native-born Israeli. The woman represents the future of the state because of her neutrality, she falls in love with a foreigner while still protecting and being proud of her people and homeland, showing that Israel can be at peace with people from anywhere.

6. What is the significance of having both nativist (Sabra) and diasporic (non-native born) characters in the group defending Hill 24?

Because at said above, it displays a sense of neutrality among everyone, how they are not aligning because of their hatred for others or religious beliefs, but because they feel that it is morally right to defend this hill.

7. Why was the period following the Six-Day War (1967) significantly different than the period following the War of Independence?
After the Six-Day War, there was no real sense of stability like there was after the War of Independence, because it led to an immediate war with Egypt. This lead to continued fighting and no real peace for Israel or its neighbors until the next war in 1973.

8. Ben-Shaul suggests that Israeli ideology shifted “to an individualistic social paradigm as a better social coping mechanism than the collectivist one.” How did this shift manifest itself in films of the period (1967-1977) and particularly in the film Siege?
The shift is manifested in the narrative structure of the films in this time period, this structure contains two circles, an outer one that is essentially Israel at war, and an inner circle which shows the individual against society.