I love documentaries. I love them because they show a face of truth that we too often don't see.
Or do they?
Recently I saw a documentary film I loved. I loved it so much I applauded at the end. I loved the film and I loved the subjects of the film.
A few days later I read that one of the film's subjects was suing the filmmaker for giving a false idea about him in her film. The article described some scenes that had made the subject angry, and explained how they gave a wrong impression, which was why the subject was suing. Having just seen the film, I had to agree; it had given me a wrong impression.
I tell this because 5 Broken Cameras, while it is a heart-breaking and harrowing look at the oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli army, left me with questions about it's veracity as a documentary. One question, for example, is where did the last three cameras come from? We are never told. Another is, when and how did the filmmaker stop being a farmer, as he tells us he is at the beginning, and start being a reporter, as he identifies himself to the Israeli soldiers? Reporters are people who get paid to cover stories. Is he or is he not a reporter? If he is, who does he work for?
Another problem I had with this movie was the discrepancy between being told that the Bil'in demonstrators are nonviolent and later seeing them throw rocks at an Israeli army truck. Granted, the truck was extremely armored and the throwing of rocks was as David throwing rocks at Goliath. I have no argument with the extreme imbalance of power between the two sides. But, having grown up with the voice of Martin Luther King enjoining American demonstrators to behave peacefully regardless of the behavior of their oppressors, I cannot agree that the demonstrators shown were behaving non-violently.
Am I biased? I hope not. I did not go to this film in order to object to it. On the contrary, I went to be informed by it. As I said earlier, I love documentaries. I love them because they show a face of truth that we too often don't see.
Or do they?
Or do they?
Recently I saw a documentary film I loved. I loved it so much I applauded at the end. I loved the film and I loved the subjects of the film.
A few days later I read that one of the film's subjects was suing the filmmaker for giving a false idea about him in her film. The article described some scenes that had made the subject angry, and explained how they gave a wrong impression, which was why the subject was suing. Having just seen the film, I had to agree; it had given me a wrong impression.
I tell this because 5 Broken Cameras, while it is a heart-breaking and harrowing look at the oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli army, left me with questions about it's veracity as a documentary. One question, for example, is where did the last three cameras come from? We are never told. Another is, when and how did the filmmaker stop being a farmer, as he tells us he is at the beginning, and start being a reporter, as he identifies himself to the Israeli soldiers? Reporters are people who get paid to cover stories. Is he or is he not a reporter? If he is, who does he work for?
Another problem I had with this movie was the discrepancy between being told that the Bil'in demonstrators are nonviolent and later seeing them throw rocks at an Israeli army truck. Granted, the truck was extremely armored and the throwing of rocks was as David throwing rocks at Goliath. I have no argument with the extreme imbalance of power between the two sides. But, having grown up with the voice of Martin Luther King enjoining American demonstrators to behave peacefully regardless of the behavior of their oppressors, I cannot agree that the demonstrators shown were behaving non-violently.
Am I biased? I hope not. I did not go to this film in order to object to it. On the contrary, I went to be informed by it. As I said earlier, I love documentaries. I love them because they show a face of truth that we too often don't see.
Or do they?