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movie is disturbingly beautiful, and that the footage at the end just unnerves the viewer even more, when the veil is withdrawn and what was disturbingly beautiful is now just disturbing.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.