The Insult

Two political Lebanese courtroom dramas in one festival sounds like more than a coincidence.

The Insult opens with a Christian Phalangist Party rally celebrating election victory. Tony Hanna, who owns a car repair garage is a keen party follower. The next day he gets into an altercation with Yasser the Palestinian foreman/engineer doing renovation work on the apartment building, which quickly escalates into Tony smashing a new drain pipe and Yasser calling him a "fucking prick" (or some Arabic equivalent). The situation escalates between the two stubborn and proud men leading to a worse insult ("I wish Ariel Sharon had wiped you all out"), a punch, court cases and a national political drama, with rock throwing and burning tyres.

The court case is a device to provide not only more tension between the two sides but also allows explanation of the past (including Black September and  the Damour massacre). Tony's lawyer, in particular, is an even more ardent supporter of the Maronite Christian cause than Tony is. He resents that Palestinian suffering at the hands of Zionism shelters them from criticism and sees the case as yet another opportunity to undermine their reputation (to what end is unclear as there is no way that Lebanon can ever get rid of Palestinians, since that depends on the Israelis).

The Insult makes the point that what we identify with gives us strength but also makes us a target. Also that emphasising one difference prevents us from seeing what makes us similar in other ways. It does a good job of explaining a small part of Lebanon's history. The personal tension between the two men is very well depicted with Yasser smouldering quietly and stiffly while Tony's agitation is more physical. Similarly the legal dispute is in the long tradition of cinematic courtroom tactics.

As the lawyers wrangle over the case the two men at the centre of it begin to feel left out and try solve their differences outside the courtroom. At about this point there are a couple of scenes that don't fit with the plot and how Yasser and Toni appear to feel at that moment. Both scenes have dramatic appeal and from that point of view I can see why they are in the film, but both feel jarringly out of place at that point. One, involving the President of Lebanon, might have fitted better earlier in the story and the other involving a car that won't start perhaps nearer the end.

Politics in Lebanon is a high tension game. A country which divides its electorates not only geographically but also between 18 religious groups. Where political parties have militias. A country which has had a civil war. On top of that Lebanon has hosted refugee camps for 70 years and where at the moment 1 in 3 people are refugees from conflicts in neighbouring Syria, Israel or Palestine. Neighbouring countries that show no sign of accepting their refugees back. There is no lack of bitterness and no lack of causes to join. Despite that The Insult is a hopeful film. There are an abundance of peace makers among the minor characters: Yasser's boss and his wife, Tony's pregnant and photogenic wife (played by Rita Hayek) and the President of Lebanon.

🎥

Ian's rating 4.5/5 Anne's rating 3.5/5

Capharnaüm

Capharnaüm or Capernaum is a confusing title. Merriam Webster defines capharnaum as a confused jumble or a place marked by a disorderly accumulation of objects. While chaos is an apt description of the situations the title really doesn't do justice to this political film about the effect on children of poverty and poor parenting decisions.

Ostensibly Capharnaüm is a courtroom drama as approximately 12-year-old Zain sues his parents in a Lebanese court. But this is just a framing device for telling the story in an extended flashback. The story of a few weeks of Zain's life and family and by extension the story of the bottom rungs of Lebanese society, especially its children. Zain's parents can't remember what year he was born. He has a lot of siblings and being the eldest still at home he feels responsible for the others, especially his 11-year-old sister Sahar. The family lives in a small, dirty apartment owned by a local shopkeeper who has the hots for Sahar and for whom Zain works for as a delivery boy. Zain's mother runs a small-time drug smuggling operation involving the kids, who also sell juice to commuters at rush hour. Zain's father's occupation is not mentioned.

As bad as the initial situation is it gets worse when Zain runs away from home in anger after an unsuccessful attempt to protect Sahar. Eventually, Zain ends up living on the streets trying to look after a refugee toddler when its mother disappears, presumably arrested.

Much of the cast are not previously professional actors and Zain, in particular, who is in almost every scene pulls off an amazing performance. His character's resourcefulness, cynicism, anger and compassion drive the story. While the subject matter is depressing, this is not really a depressing story. Zain's go-with-your-gut instinct approach to life is too much fun to watch. I can only dream of coping with the bad things in life with the aplomb that he does.

Other reviews are divided into those that say that Capharnaüm is too sentimental and emotionally manipulative and those that say it is unsentimental and gritty (and in defence point out that emotional manipulation is at the core of filmmaking). I wonder if the divide is actually between those that were made uncomfortable and wanted to dis the film and its message versus those who accept the dual attack on parents and the system that leads to poverty and refugees. I presume that director Nadine Labaki (who has a bit part in this film and previously started in 2008's Caramel) made this film for a Lebanese audience, a country with 4 million Lebanese and 2 million refugees (mostly from Syria). We are not used to hearing from Lebanese about refugees, which contrasts with the endless reports crisis caused by 1 million Syrian and African refugees arriving in the EU with its population of 500 million.

Ian's rating 5/5 Anne's rating 4/5

Risk

Risk is a documentary about Julian Assange and Wikileaks. It consists of interviews with Julian Assange and some of his associates plus some fly-on-the-wall footage of Julian and others at work and it is punctuated with bits of history of Wikileaks and voice over of the film maker's views of Julian. 7 years of filming Wikileaks is condensed into 93 minutes. Because the film is covering such a long period of time it doesn't cover any aspect in detail.

The title of the film comes from a conversation where Julian Assange gives his views on the risks various people are prepared to take to try and right wrongs and go up against the powers that be. He declares that he takes a pragmatic view of what risks to take and understands if people are willing to take more risks or fewer risks than he is. The film does a good job of showing his level of paranoia and justifying it.

Hanging over the whole film is the Swedish sexual assault allegations. While there is no detail on what happened in Sweden there are some glimpses into Julian Assange's attitude to the complainants.

While Assange is the main focus of the film Sarah Harrison (who seems to act as his personal assistant) gets almost as much time in front of the camera. The other thing that gets a lot of focus is Julian's hair (which itself is almost a trademark for Wikileaks).

Ian's rating 2.5/5

He Toki Huna: New Zealand in Afghanistan

He Toki Huna: New Zealand in Afghanistan is the longest film title at the film festival and I managed to forget to write a review of it. It is the story of the New Zealand Army in Afghanistan, or rather it is the story about trying to find out about the New Zealand Army in Afghanistan.

New Zealand is proud of it's tradition of sending troops overseas to fight in other peoples' wars. Starting in 1899 when Prime Minister Richard Seddon offered to send mounted riflemen to South Africa to fight Boers (aka Afrikaners), and was eager to get them to South Africa ahead of the Australians. While the New Zealand government of the day didn't have the power to declare war, it was autonomous enough to have its own armed forces and decide on their use. There was also a sense of competition to please London among what were to become the Dominions. The situation was much the same in 1914 when New Zealand invaded German Samoa as part of a pre-WWI agreement with Britain.

More celebrated is New Zealand's contribution to the Anglo-French invasion of the Ottoman Empire at Gallipoli in 1915. New Zealand also contributed to the more successful invasion of the Ottoman Empire in the Palestine Campaign but mostly Kiwis died in World War I trying to repel the German army from France and Belgium. By World War II New Zealand could choose to declare war and again Kiwis mostly fought on the other side of the world, around the Mediterranean, helping Britain with another war. Since then New Zealand moved from helping Britain to helping the US, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the New Zealand public has never been as keen on fighting America's wars as it was at fighting Britain's wars, which is the nub of this documentary.

He Toki Huna: New Zealand in Afghanistan contrasts what the New Zealand government and military tell us about what the NZ Army has been doing in Afghanistan (which is what normally appears in the news here) with what journalists in Afghanistan (most notably Jon Stephenson) have found out by talking to Afghans and NZ soldiers. Generally the official story is that our soldiers are rebuilding Bamyan province, and the SAS are training Afghan special forces. Unfortunately closer investigation shows that aid projects are a minor role of New Zealand's Provincial Reconstruction Team, and the SAS is involved in night raids, with or without Afghan forces. They have killed civilians and transferred prisoners to known torturers. The film makers (and Jon Stephenson) are very careful to never criticise Kiwi soldiers, making a clear distinction between them and the top brass and politicians who decide what they do in Afghanistan.

The documentary not only highlights the difference between reality and government and army spin. It also touches on the smear campaign against Jon Stephenson for pointing out the truth. Just as importantly it asks why New Zealand has troops in Afghanistan more than 10 years after Al-Qaeda had been chased out of Afghanistan. Should New Zealand be so complicit in the scope creep of the America's invasion of Afghanistan? Is it time to re-evaluate New Zealand's love affair with other people's wars? Which, since 1899, have been fought with one eye on pleasing a larger and more powerful country on the other side of the world.

Ian's rating 4/5

5 Broken Cameras

5 Broken Cameras is Emad Burnat's personal account of how his village tries to defend its land between 2005 and 2010. There are two attacks on the land owned by the people of Bil’in. The Israeli army takes a strip of land to build the West Bank barrier (and its associated road) that cuts off villagers off from most of their land. The Jewish settlers from the adjacent settlement of Modi'in Illit, burn and bulldoze olive trees and build more houses and apartments on some of the cut off land.

In 2005 Bil’in petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court (via an Israeli human rights lawyer). On September 4, 2007, the Court ordered the government to change the route of the wall near Bil'in. The next day the same court legalized the parts of Modi'in Illit being built on Bil'in land (more background here).

5 Broken Cameras is not about the court cases taking place across the border but with the situation on the ground. It is about Emad Burnat filming his family trying to farm on the other side of the barrier. It is about the villagers led by two of his friends demonstrating against the barrier in a well known weekly protest. Protesting against settlers putting portable buildings to claim the land and the villagers putting up building of their own in a counter point. Emad also films the soldiers as they come to the village both day and night to arrest men and boys.

The Israeli soldiers don't like being filmed and constantly tell Emad to stop, even when he is in his own house. The settlers are even more outraged at being filmed and far less restrained in their reactions. During the 5 years that Emad films what is going on in and around Bil'in 5 of his cameras are smashed or shot, this coupled with time in jail and time in hospital means that there are gaps in the narrative but that doesn't detract from the impact of the film. The broken cameras punctuate the film and divide it into chapters.

4 years after Bil'in won in the court, the Israeli army started to dismantle the barrier and built a new wall closer to Modi'in Illit and further from Bil'in but still on their land.

5 Broken Cameras is filmed and narrated by Emad Burnat with editing and further direction by Guy Davidi and funding and post production from various other countries.

If you think that the Jewish-Palestinian conflict is too complicated to understand or that the conflict is all about Jews defending themselves from Palestinian aggression then this is a must see film. If you are already aware of the theft of Palestinian land by Israel, then this more personal view of the situation, filmed and narrated by a local villager (rather than an outsider) may appeal to you.

Ian's rating 3.5/5

The Ambassador

If there is a fine line between serious documentary and comedy then Mads Brügger hasn't found it. Rather he weaves back and forth from wry observation and buffoonary to jaw dropping serious documentary revelations. The Ambassador takes investigative journalism to new territory in film making as Mads takes up the post of Liberia's diplomatic representative in the Central African Republic.

The fact that a Dane is representing one African country in an other, fails to raise an eyebrow in Bengui, is not due to extreme politeness in African culture. Rather it is due to the quaint custom of selling diplomatic posts. The access to government officials coupled with the diplomatic protection that an ambassador or consul has, makes a diplomatic post and passport a valuable commodity to an truly entrepreneurial businessman (or woman). This is especially true in countries where government ministers and officials control the access to valuable commodities such as diamonds, or where you might want to carry small items or large amounts of cash through customs without being searched. Small or poor countries can't afford to send diplomats every other country in the world and in some countries government salaries don't completely meet the lifestyle requirements of government officials. In these cases someone turning up at the right place with the correct amount of cash can purchase a diplomatic passport and accreditation from that country to some other country. Assuming these unpaid diplomats can turn this capital outlay and the access opportunities into a successful business deal or two, it is a win-win situation.

So many of these diplomatic posts and passports are available and so many people want them that there are agencies who act as middlemen and deal with the messy details - for a fee. The Ambassador starts with Mads Brügger approaching two such agencies in search of a suitable passport and credentials. The head of the first of these agencies (a paranoid Brit) bans cellphones and cameras from his meeting with Mads, introducing us to the secret camera work and recording that makes up much of this film. Luckily much of this secret footage is remarkably good and adds to the verisimilitude of the film.

Once armed with a diplomatic passport a slightly foppish "Mr Cortzen" turns up in Bengui as the Honorary Consul for Liberia. Where this "Cinderella of diplomacy" makes contacts with the government, fellow diplomats and other local characters. Some of these are happy to advise or assist the new diplomat in the "do"s and "don't"s of operating in the Central African Republic. This brings up the secondary theme of this film. The interference that foreign governments and foreign companies have over third world countries. The Central African Republic imports a lot of low tech goods that could be manufactured locally, people who have tried to set up factories to manufacture such goods for the local market hit a series of obstacles that eventually bankrupt them. The people that Mads talks to claim these problems are due to outside interference by companies who currently make money out of the status quo. On a larger scale France is accused of interfering at a level varying from not passing on information that might protect the country from military invasion to fomenting coups and murdering people who cross them. This is a subject that is big enough to justify its own separate documentary.

Mads attempts at getting involved in the diamond trade cost him a lot of money in "envelopes of happiness" and illustrate the layers upon layers of people involved in this murky industry. He uses performative journalism, in his own words "instead of disguising as a fly on the wall observing neutrally, I dress for my part and interact as an agent provocateur". This technique gets him a lot closer to his subjects and captures them in their natural environment, in way that traditional journalism almost certainly couldn't.

Ian's rating 5/5

An interview with Mads Brügger.

In 1988, under international pressure to legitimize his rule over Chile, Augusto Pinochet held a referendum. Vote "Si" for 8 more years of Pinochet or vote "No" to have a presidential election. Each side would get 15 minutes air time on TV late each night for 27 nights (though all the media was under government control anyway, so the No campaign see it as 15 minutes for them and 23 hours and 45 minutes for the government).

The Chilean film No starts with someone from the No campaign trying to recruit advertising 'creative' René to work on the campaign. But René isn't interested, but reluctantly agrees to give his opinion on the material they have so far. After 15 years of dictatorship, Pinochet built up a lot of resentment in those opposed to him (those who were not among the thousands who were killed). This shows in the TV campaign the anti-Pinochet coalition have prepared. In René's opinion with such boring, factual, backward looking and depressing material the No campaign is guaranteed to loose. Challenged to do better he recycles ideas from a recent soft drink advertising campaign and a logo with a rainbow in it. As René is drawn into the No campaign, his boss is recruited by the other side. As the effectiveness of René's approach becomes apparent to the government, the campaign turns nasty both on screen and off screen.

No is an effective vehicle for portraying both the nastiness of the Pinochet's government and the month leading up to the referendum. It is a referendum which many anti-Pinochet people expect the government to rig and so the ending takes people by surprise.

No was filmed using rebuilt Sony U-matic video cameras to give it an authentic early 1980s feel, this means it doesn't look good on a big cinema screen (and for some reason the Embassy had the curtains adjusted wrong, cutting off the first and last letters of some of the sub-titles). There is almost no time given over to character development so even by the end we hardly know René better than the minor characters.

In the final scene René and his boss are working on another advertising campaign using familiar ideas and I wondered if the message was "political campaigning is just advertising".

Ian's rating 2.5/5, Anne's rating 2/5