Friday, June 06, 2014

Film critics don't see the funny side

A clip from Sallah Shabati, the most successful Israeli film ever 

 Israeli film critics can be sanctimonious and snobby.  Yair Raveh (reviewing two new 'Mizrahi' films for Fathom) thinks - with good reason - that the critics are out of step with the rest of the film-going public. But not all films featuring Sephardim/Mizrahim  illustrate a debate, a chasm or the 'plight' of immigrants from Arab countries in Israel and their 'shabby' treatment by the Israeli establishment. The films are popular because the immigrant characters are figures of fun. Quit being so sanctimonious, Yair: Sephardi/Mizrahi audiences are laughing at themselves. My comments in italics:

To outside observers who learn about Israel by reading the international press, Israel’s society often seems to be torn apart by conflicts – political, national, financial and religious. Stories abound of the rifts between left and right, rich and poor, Jews and Arabs, Orthodox and secular. But, whisper it quietly, those who live in Israel or read the alternative press know of a larger chasm: Israel is ethnically torn between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

You exaggerate, Yair! There is no chasm. Ethnic boundaries are melting away: a fair proportion of Israelis are hybrids and in another generation or so the boundaries will disappear altogether.

The Ashkenazim are the Jews who emigrated to Palestine from Europe, the Sephardim from Arab or North African countries.

(And what about the Mizrahim?- ed )

Although immigration from Arab countries was continuous from the late 19th century, the largest waves of immigration by far between 1881 and 1949 were from European countries. These Eastern-European Jews founded the state of Israel: indeed during the first 20 years of Israel’s existence, cabinet meetings were held mostly in Yiddish. Then, in the 1950s and 1960s, a huge wave of Jewish immigration from Iraq, Morocco and Yemen changed the face of Israeli society. Both were traumatised, each finding it near-impossible to build bridges to the other’s mentality.

Israeli film-makers have always dealt with this ethnic conflict. Ephraim Kishon, Israel’s greatest satirist, directed Sallah exactly 50 years ago, in 1964: a comedy that pits a Sephardic newcomer against the members of the Kibbutz, all of them European, who try to shake his ‘barbaric’ ways and turn him into a ‘modern Israeli’. This was Israel’s first Oscar nominee; it won the Golden Globe, it made Chaim Topol, who played the titular role of Sallah, into an international star, and it still holds the record for being the most successful Israeli film ever (with 1.3 million admissions at a time when the Israeli population was no more than 2 million). Audiences admired the film and returned to see it again and again, but the critics despised it, and called it vulgar and racist. Sallah cemented the way the East-West culture clash would be dealt with in Israeli cinema for several decades: popular comedies of manners, all admired by the crowds, all loathed by critics.

Hard cheese to the critics

And so it continued: every time a film portrayed the hardships of the North African immigrants, the public wanted to see it, while the critics warned of stereotypical images. Slowly, though, it became clear that whenever a film critic (usually an elderly Ashkenazi male) screamed ‘racism!’ he was really hiding his own racism. From Sallah to Avi Nesher’s Turn Left at the End of the World 40 years later, the maladjustment of the Moroccan Jew drew huge crowds while the intellectual elite frowned.

Yes, those films were directed by European directors. So, now, 50 years after Sallah, as more and more stories about the hardships of immigration are being made by the sons and daughters of those immigrants, has the critical reception changed? No, they are still not embraced by the critics.

Today, thanks to the internet, the debate about Israel’s ethnic divide is louder than ever. On Israel’s version of Big Brother heated arguments are expressed about the inherent prejudices upon which the State of Israel was founded. The resentment has been leveraged into a political stance: that the State of Israel discriminates against anyone who is Arab, whether Jew or Muslim. The hit TV drama Empire Zaguri is also stirring things up: the mainstream critics frown on its use of ethnic stereotypes to represent a conservative Moroccan family; their accents and traditional rituals still seem out-of-place to critics searching for a modern and European society, while other commentators – younger, mostly Sephardic – applaud the courage of the series in presenting a traditional family in all its colours, from the elders who still cling to the language and rituals of yesteryear, to the youngsters who feel repulsed by the backwardness of their parents, but are simultaneously drawn to it. Though it is enhanced for comedic effect, Empire Zaguri is actually an authentic representation of the series creator’s own family and childhood.

And now, two new Israeli films portray the plight of Moroccan and Iraqi immigrants, as told by their offspring, moving the debate to the movies.
Orange People, written and directed by Hanna Azoulay-Hasfari, is one of the more exciting and mesmerising films produced in Israel this year, despite its minuscule budget. It begins in a Moroccan village in the 1950s and ends in the present-day outskirts of Tel Aviv, where one elderly woman tries to preserve the family’s ancient gift of telling the future, foreseeing it in a narcoleptic dream. Her daughters and granddaughter – who all have orange skin due to the secret ingredient the mother adds to her couscous – try to forge their independent ways as women in a male society and as Sephardim in a society where traditional rituals are regarded as backward. Astonishingly shot by Assaf Sudri (who was also the cinematographer on Fill the Void) this is a ravishing and sensual tale of ethnic and gender emancipation. Depressingly, upon its release, quite as though absolutely nothing had changed, Azoulay-Hasfari read the first reviews of her film in the mainstream media and discovered that she had made a ‘vulgar’ film and that her characters were ‘slutty’ because they embraced the traditions of their mothers.

Come off it, Yair. Ethnic and gender emancipation? Don't you think the film is rather an entertaining satire on Sephardi superstition?

Orange People
Orange People

The Dove Flyer (or Farewell Baghdad, as it will be called internationally) is an old fashioned movie directed with earnest and straightforward intention by veteran filmmaker Nissim Dayan, who returns to our screens after a 30-year hiatus. Proving once and for all that Israeli audiences thirst for stories about the nation’s past that were previously hushed up, The Dove Flyer is the first box office hit in Israel in 2014. Mr Dayan adapted Eli Amir’s bestselling novel about the conflict in Iraq in 1951 between the ‘modern’ Zionists who collaborated with the newly-founded State of Israel in the airlift of all 130,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel, and the traditional Jews who preferred to remain in their homeland, where a Jewish community had thrived in exile for 2000 years, where the Babylonian Talmud was composed, and where Babel, later Iraq, was the biggest centre of Jewish life.

 Yair, you have misunderstood the film. It is not about the 'conflict' between  modern Zionists and 'traditional Jews who preferred to remain in their homeland'. In the end, Abu Edouard the Dove flyer, who epitomises the latter, is forced by antisemitism to leave, along with the Communists and Zionists. The film is about how Arab antisemitism presented the Jews of Iraq with impossible choices.  

It’s a handsome, though thin melodrama, but as a graduate of the Israeli education system, and as an Israeli born of Eastern-European roots, I can see its power: here is a history lesson no one had ever taught me. And for over 100,000 ticket buyers, The Dove Flyer isn’t just a history lesson; it’s an overdue declaration of independence.

Poppycock. If there is one thing lacking in this film - an action movie - it is history. 

Read article in full

The Dove Flyer may be screened in Iraq 


Eliyahu m'Tsiyon said...

I don't know where Raveh learned history. His review is very sloppy on several historical facts. He says that the State of Israel was created by Ashkenazim, whereas about 1/4 of the Jewish population in the country was Sefardi/Mizrahi before the War of Independence. They too fought in the underground movements, in the Palmahh, and the Israeli army. Ben Gurion appointed David Shaltiel as commander in Jerusalem and Ezra Yakhin and Geula Cohen were prominent in the LEHI [Stern Group].

Then Raveh claims that early cabinet meetings were held in Yiddish. Does he have any documentation for this? On the other hand, it might well be that cabinet members sometimes told jokes in Yiddish but they were committed to promoting Hebrew as the sole national language for Jews. Bekhor Shitreet was a member of the first cabinet as was another person who was Sefardi or Mizrahi. Yits'haq Navon, later president of Israel, was a close associate of Ben Gurion. It cannot be ruled out that either Shitreet or Navon or both knew Yiddish. I know a Yemenite lady who grew up in Israel before the state. And she speaks Yiddish well. So non-Ashkenazim too knew Yiddish. Nevertheless, the claim about Yiddish as THE language spoken at cabinet meetings seems very dubious to me and I would like documentation.

Anonymous said...

Why worry abo about such insignificant things. We now have a new issue with the fat French ex prsident of the extreem right:I won't say his name to make him better known!

Anonymous said...

It's funny that this review is picked apart because it's clear the reviewer shares the views of the blogger, making the blogger seem extremely petty.