Search LOG IN SUBSCRIBE NOW

Wall of Silence: Why Israeli

Cinema Ignores the
Occupation
Israeli feature filmmakers are rarely exploring the conflict ■
Self-censorship, public indifference and political pressure all
play a role

Save Zen Read

A shot from 'Foxtrot.'

Since 2020, only three
It looked like just another mundane get-together: a few older filmmakers movies classifies as
dealing with the conflict
chatting at a Tel Aviv café. At first glance, there was no way of knowing have received support
from the Israel Film
that behind the smiles hid a gnawing anxiety, two and a half months after Fund. Credit: Giora
Tom Levinson
Israel’s most racist and homophobic government took over late last year. Bejach
Follow
Aug 13, 2023 11:11
am IDT “Inciting against us is the easiest thing,” said one of Israel’s leading
directors. “What they can’t achieve with the judiciary they’ll try to achieve
with media and culture. The masses won’t take to the streets for a few
filmmakers. This might be a lost cause.”

“We’ll have to be careful,” added one participant, a senior figure at a film

foundation. “They’ll just try to take advantage of the situation politically.
We can’t give them the chance.”

A scene from Yariv Horowitz’s 'Rock the Casbah.' Credit: Yoni Hamenachem

One might have thought the filmmakers had reason for optimism. Only a
few days before, the Rabinovich Foundation, Israel’s largest film fund,
announced that the filmmakers’ efforts had convinced it to lift its
 demand that creators receiving its support guarantee that their films
won’t damage Israel’s reputation.

But for the filmmakers at the café, this was a Pyrrhic victory. Culture
Minister Miki Zohar has since tried to rescind support for films he finds
slanderous to Israel. He has tapped right-wingers including screenwriter
Meni Assayag and actor/producer Gil Sassover for the Israel Film Council,
one of whose roles is to submit an annual recommendation on
distributing film budgets. (Amid criticism, Assayag did not accept the
position.)

“One member can’t turn the whole ship around,” one council member
told Haaretz. “But as with the Supreme Court, when you appoint another
and another and another, it creates change.” A person close to Zohar
added that “to the minister, this is only the beginning.”

Like Miri Regev, who was culture minister from 2015 to 2020, Zohar has
designated a sacred cow – the army. As the minister told the Ynet news
website, “That’s the thing that infuriates me the most, that a movie is
made with Israeli funding and tarnishes the army.”

A scene from Eran Kolirin's 2021 film 'Let It Be Morning.' Credit: Shai Goldman / Dori Manor

The film that predicted Israel’s far-right takeover

How Israeli TV channels enabled Ben-Gvir's rise – for ratings

For decades, I defended Israel from claims of apartheid. I no longer
can

In recent years, despite the sharp rise in the number of terror attacks,
Palestinian deaths and settler pogroms, Israeli feature films have hardly
explored the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially the occupation. Since
2020, only three movies classifies as dealing with the conflict have
received support from the Israel Film Fund. Two of them – “The Altman
Method” and “The Future” – have not yet been shown in theaters. The
third, “Let It Be Morning,” was harshly criticized by certain politicians.

The Rabinovich Foundation did not respond to a request for similar data.
Officially, Israeli film foundations deny that extraneous factors affect their
thinking when choosing projects to fund.

“Our choices aren’t based on the content, ideology or politics, but on an

assessment of the film based on artistic criteria, success with the public
or feasibility of production,” says Yoav Abramovich, co-director at the
Rabinovich Foundation.
 No doubt foundations
in Israel hesitate six
times before green-
lighting a script on the
occupation.
Nadav Lapid

Filmmaker Nadav Lapid. Credit: CHRISTOPHE SIMON / AFP

But Haaretz has obtained 18 responses to requests for funding for films
on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past two years – requests that
the foundations rejected. Some of the responses include clear references
to the film’s political tone.

“A shopworn treatment of the situation in Judea and Samaria [the West

Bank] that offers nothing new,” one response said. “A banal and one-
sided viewpoint of a complex issue that has appeared many times before
in Israeli cinema,” another said. “The suffering of the protagonists is
based on a clichéd archetype that’s not necessarily based on reality,” a
third argued.

According to a member of the Israel Film Council, “Everybody is human,

and obviously the political atmosphere seeps through to foundation
directors and the council as well.”

According to film producer Eitan Mansuri, “The foundations draw a lot of

fire, and I think they too prefer not to take explosive issues in the form of
films about the occupation that will only inflame the situation.

Politicians have attacked movies they say delegitimize the army like 'Waltz with Bashir' and 'Foxtrot' (pictured). Credit: Giora Bejach

“Against the backdrop of Israel’s political climate, there’s a kind of culture

war going on, one of whose implications is censorship, especially self-
censorship. Directors, producers, investors and foundation directors say
to themselves, ‘Why do I need this?’ – and prefer to deal with other
topics.”

What separation barrier?

“No doubt foundations in Israel hesitate six times before green-lighting a

script on the subject of the occupation,” says director Nadav Lapid, but
 he finds that the main culprits for the conflict’s disappearance isn’t
politicians or foundation directors but the creators themselves.

“The day they park a tank at the entrance to the film fund or appoint Orit
Strock head of the film council, we’ll be able to talk about real
censorship,” he says, referring to a far-right cabinet member close to the
settler community.

A scene from Nadav Lapid’s “Ahed’s Knee” (2021). Credit: Shai Goldman

“Directors in Iran and in China do prison time for the movies they make,
and here filmmakers are deterred because Miki Zohar said some
nonsense. It makes me sick.”

Lapid, whose films often infuriate the right, says he believes that all
filmmakers are free to explore any topic they please. “You can live in
Israel and make a movie about an ant, the moon, or a boy who loves a
girl, but when you look at the collective of filmmakers and nobody is
interested in the greatest tragedy hovering over us, it’s vile, twisted and a
deep expression of the Israeli disease.”

Lapid, who lives in Paris, says the disinterest in the occupation is typical
not only of the Israeli public but of the rest of the world. “Sadly, the cruel
and evil Israeli policy that strove to make the occupation a fact of life has
infiltrated the global awareness and made it something uninteresting, not
worth dealing with.”

He recalls how in 2020 he was appointed head judge for a prize at the
Venice Film Festival, with 25 young European directors under him.

People have a
tendency to denote
trends, but I don’t think
you can notice a
decline based on a few
years.
Eran Kolirin

Filmmaker Eran Kolirin. Credit: Rafi Delouya

 “A Palestinian film took part in the competition, and I was amazed at the
degree the other directors knew nothing about the conflict. They didn’t
know about the separation barrier, for example, and couldn’t understand
its significance,” he says.

“But more than that, the sense was that it simply doesn’t interest them.
On the other hand, a subject like Black Lives Matter is in their blood,
though, as we all know, every Palestinian fantasizes of having the rights
of Black people in America.”

According to Mansuri, this disinterest erodes budgets from European

countries to Israeli cinema, especially for films about the conflict. “It’s not
just the degree of interest,” says Mansuri, who has produced movies
such as “Foxtrot” and “The Congress.” “The collapse of the distribution
model of art house films around the world and the decision by European
countries to invest more in their local industries rather than foreign
productions have impacted the Israeli industry harder.”

In the Israeli industry, where funding by film foundations may only reach
70 percent of the movie’s budget, filmmakers have to scrounge wherever
they can. Lacking support from abroad, they’ll appeal to the
broadcasters, which haven’t invested much in recent years and are cool
toward controversial topics. Or the filmmakers will knock on the door of
the patron of Israeli cinema, Moshe Edery.

A scene from Yuval Adler’s “Bethlehem” (2013). Credit: Vered Adir

But Edery, whose holdings include distributor United King Films and
theater chain Cinema City, rarely if ever invests in films that have to do
with the conflict. “Freedom of expression is important, but for films
against the state, bring your own money,” Edery, who has close ties with
Regev and Sara and Benjamin Netanyahu, told financial daily Calcalist.

With “Burning Land,” released in 2022, the solution was to raise funds
from an investor linked to right-wing group Im Tirtzu. The movie,
produced without the support of a foundation, sought to present the so-
called hilltop youth at the West Bank outposts in a humane light. The film
received a warm embrace from the right and tepid reviews from critics.
But those wishing to see films castigating Israeli control in the West Bank
are doomed to disappointment. “In recent years you can definitely notice
a decline in the number of movies on the subject,” film researcher
Shmulik Duvdevani says.

But he adds that this perception has struck roots in Israeli society as
politicians have attacked movies they say delegitimize the army
like “Waltz with Bashir” and “Foxtrot.” “Basically, when you examine the
list of films made here, you find that only few dealt with this issue,” he
says.

'Many times, to touch a subject in a deep and complex way, you need some distance to process what
happened,' says screenwriter Avner Bernheimer. Credit: Hadas Parush

The numbers agree. In addition to “Foxtrot,” films dealing directly with the
occupation include Udi Aloni’s “Forgiveness” (2006), Eran Riklis’ “Lemon
Tree” (2008), Yariv Horowitz’s “Rock the Casbah” (2013) Yuval Adler’s
“Bethlehem” (2013) and Nadav Lapid’s “Ahed’s Knee” (2021) – actually a
very poor crop considering the centrality of the conflict.

The checkpoint in the room

Director Eran Kolirin, a key fighter against the loyalty provision at the
Rabinovich Foundation, has delved into the occupation in several films.
He says he’s not sure that Israeli cinema’s treatment of the subject has
declined.

“People have a tendency to denote trends, but I don’t think you can
notice a decline based on a few years,” he says. “I’m old enough to recall
that in the early 2000s after ‘Late Marriage’ and ‘Broken Wings’ came out,
everybody was writing that Israeli cinema had shifted exclusively to the
 personal, and then other films like ‘The Band’s Visit’ and ‘Beaufort’ came
out and shattered those assumptions.”

But like Duvdevani, Kolirin adds: “Of course, radical filmmaking is

marginalized, and it was like that in the past as well. There was never a
time when radical political cinema was mainstream in Israel. In journalism,
too, you may have [Haaretz's] Amira Hass and Gideon Levy, but they’re
just two, and the rest of the treatment of the subject is completely
mainstream – journalism that normalizes the occupation for Israeli
society.”

Kolirin, however, believes that some films address the conflict but aren’t
necessarily tagged as such by critics or the public. “How do you describe
a film that deals with the occupation? Are they only films with
checkpoints against the backdrop of the Samaria hills? Is a movie
like ‘Cinema Sabaya,’ which centers around relationships between Jewish
and Arab women, not indirectly about the occupation?” he asks.

Documentaries such as "Two Kids a Day" and "H2: The Occupation Lab" (pictured) showed uncensored versions of the detention of Palestinian children and teenagers in
the West Bank and the power relations in Hebron under Israeli occupation. Credit: Manal El Jabri

“The fact is, the occupation is part of life here, and it’s present in Israeli
cinema in various forms. Sometimes it will appear in the form of a military
operation in Jenin, and sometimes it will appear through comedy or one
supporting character or another. So maybe there’s no checkpoint in those
films but there’s a metaphorical checkpoint hovering over our existence
like an elephant in the room.”

Some filmmakers say this is a vital subject but they don’t want to touch it
because of the right-wing government or the difficulty in raising funds.
“Many times, to touch a subject in a deep and complex way, you need
some distance to process what happened,” screenwriter Avner
Bernheimer says.

“Otherwise, there’s a danger that the artistic reaction will be superficial

and clichéd, and because the conflict has been going on for decades, it
doesn’t let us distance ourselves and react in a complex way. We didn’t
see works deeply addressing the Vietnam War or World War II until they
ended.”

Bernheimer says viewers too tend to react to these films based on their
political views, regardless of the quality of the work or its emotional
impact.
“It’s usually very dichotomic. Leftists love ‘Our Boys’ and right-wingers
hate it. I’m not sure Israelis today are capable of examining a work
dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict regardless of their political
position,” says Bernheimer, whose work has explored topics from a gay
relationship in the military to the trafficking of women.

'In recent years you can definitely notice a decline in the number of movies on the subject,' film
researcher Shmulik Duvdevani says. Credit: Tomer Applebaum

“Personally, I get deterred from addressing the subject. I know that no

matter what I do, the debate around the work will be superficial. Bibi-ists
will say I’m a traitor, and Haaretz will write that I’m not leftist enough. It
makes discussion of your work shallow, so what’s the point?”

Bernheimer adds that he isn’t thrilled by feature films on the conflict.

“When I turn on the TV I’d rather watch the problems of the Roy family
in ‘Succession’ than the ugly reality of life in Israel reflected every
moment on the newscasts,” he says.

“I can see series like ‘Our Boys’ or ‘East Side,’ appreciate them very
much and think they’re excellent, but do I, after finishing an exhausting
day full of political debates and violence, feel like watching shows that
address our reality? The answer is no.”

Bernheimer says it’s much more effective to write series and movies that
explore the occupation metaphorically as dystopian works so that people
can approach them in an unbiased way.

“Actually, ‘The Walking Dead’ devotes entire seasons to the costs of the
occupation. For good reason, the visual images of ‘The Handmaid’s
Tale’ have become the protest’s symbol of opposition to racism,
chauvinism and the homophobia of Noam and Religious Zionism,” he
says, referring to far-right parties.

“One can convey messages of freedom versus oppression without

getting trapped in the oppressive narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. For me, this is much more effective.”

Unlike TV dramas and feature films, a number of documentaries on the

West Bank have been produced in recent years. Documentaries such
as "Two Kids a Day" and "H2: The Occupation Lab" showed uncensored
versions of the detention of Palestinian children and teenagers in the
West Bank and the power relations in Hebron under Israeli occupation.

“Documentaries, usually working with low budgets and sometimes under

guerrilla conditions, have an easier time dealing with topics that fictional
films shy away from,” Duvdevani says. “Can Israel’s film world produce a
movie on the 1948 Nakba like the documentary ‘Tantura’ did? I’m not so
sure.”

Thus, as in the protests against the Netanyahu government’s effort to

weaken the judiciary, the occupation has been swept aside. “Tantura”
won’t open the Jerusalem or Haifa film festivals and won’t be screened at
major cinemas.

“Ultimately, when future researchers ask what Israeli films dealt with in
those years, the occupation won’t be the main issue,” Lapid says. “While
the tragedy unfolds before our eyes every day with blood flowing in the
streets, filmmakers prefer to remain silent.”

For its part, the Israel Film Fund said: “Israeli movies reflect diverse
processes, trends and views in Israeli society and still address the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, along with other topics. The fund uses a multistage
vetting process to choose the films that receive funding based on their
excellence, quality of production and cinematic vision presented by the
creators.

“The fund does not intervene in the content. Among the projects
supported by the fund are films directly or indirectly dealing with the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in different stages of production.”

The Culture Ministry said: “These are ridiculous claims because the film
council is only an advisory committee that does not make budget
decisions for the various funds. Only the latter determine who receives
funding. Regarding the claim suggesting a denial of funds retroactively,
upon assuming office, Culture Minister Zohar ordered that movies
disparaging Israeli soldiers around the world and harming Israel should be
reviewed, with the possibility of denying funding from state budgets.

“There was absolutely no intention to interfere with the freedom to create,

even if the results were critical. Regarding appointments to the film
council, Zohar asked that more segments of the population find
expression in the council so that more diverse opinions can be heard.”