Free Zone

Motion Pictures are not one, but many genres. There are films poised solely to entertain, others to politicize, and yet others are art.

FREE ZONE is art in a film format. Just as most art, it relies more on senses, feelings, aesthetics, and perceptions. Unfortunately, for the unimaginative and unengaged, it can sometimes be unintelligible.

The film begins with a very long close-up shot of a beautiful young woman (Natalie Portman) copiously crying in the back seat of a car, to the Jewish children's rhyme "Had Gadia". The powerful arrangement in crescendos adds pathos to the girl's exteriorization of heart-felt anguish, and the seamlessly-never-ending stories of increasing consequences and characters (sung in Hebrew but appropriately subtitled) add confusion and exasperation. The sense of utter discomfiture is only compounded by the audience's utmost ignorance of the character, her surroundings, and her motivations. Her despair is our despair, but we, much as she also seems, are lost.

Slowly we learn she is parked by the Kotel, or Wailing Wall, in Jerusalem. We also learn she has just fought with her would-be mother-in-law and broken off her engagement to her Spanish-Israeli fiancé. Thus her personal loss becomes the middle-eastern mourning, and her very personal suffering symbolizes the tears and hopelessness of whole peoples and an entire land.

Immediately one is faced with a choice. To watch the rest of the movie as a narrative, or to perceive the allegory it propounds. To choose the first is to misunderstand it entirely, and miss on the powerful images and senses.

Rebecca (Natalie Portman) is an American who struggles aimlessly through life without a clear sense of identity. Her father is Jewish, but she carries little or no pride in her heritage, ignorant even of her status as a Jew (or not). She feels uneasy in her American home, and in a search for an identity that suits her, she acquires (and loses) a fiancé and a home in Israel. How she reacts to the landscape (so extensively shot, in exquisite details) and to the people (diverse, albeit through quick and superficial contacts) symbolizes the author's perception of the American (as in people or nation) own sense of identity and appreciation of the Middle East.

She joins Hannah (Hanna Laslo), a Russian-Israeli middle-aged woman whose life stories unfold piecemeal as a symbolical-historical window on the Israeli nation, on a trip to the Jordanian free trade zone on a mission for personal and familial financial salvation. Her determination and her biases (often even callousness) are obviously shaped by her pressing needs and her clear life trajectory, as evidenced by the unusually thorough (as opposed to the other characters) exposition of her past. Her reactions to her American travel mate, the obstacles in her quest, and the eventual Palestinian they meet clearly embody the Israeli national persona, dreams, fears, and strengths.

The Palestinian our heroes meet is Leila (Hiam Abbass), whose family present as Hannah's possible salvation (as in the money her husband owes her) or damnation (as in the fall-out from the misguided actions of her rebellious and contentious son). Torn between her loyalties to her own family and her duties toward this Jewish woman, she joins the other women in their quest for redemption.

The women allegorize their respective nations. And yet, their struggles are very personal and transcend national identities and interests. The combination of the three, and how they interact amongst themselves to work out their individual travails, masterfully conveys the powerful emotions in the confluence of tribes, nations, countries, and religions in this most convoluted region. The attention to the national frontiers (what role they play in segregating these peoples) juxtaposed to the more promiscuous exchange amongst the actual peoples (their representational counterparts in the characters) is quite fascinating.

The narrative is non linear, relying mostly on feelings and emotions. The filmography is untraditional (a lot of hand-held camera movements, as if the audience is privy to the story, watching a family road trip video) and experimental (long and confusing, yet dramatic, layering of images and back-plots, creating familiarity with back stories, yet maintaining distance thru the lack of clear focus or images). The plot is mostly allegorical, therefore characters are not really introduced and developed as they are thrust upon the audience (with the implication that one already knows them, or who they represent), played out in short pericopes and less of an overarching story.

The film is beautiful and insightful. If you prefer mass produced Hollywoodean one-size-fit-all entertainment, this is not the movie for you.

My 7 vote was for the filming, direction, and plot. For the informative value of the film, I would give it a 9. It was a bravely balanced portrayal and helped personalize my understanding of the how the structure of the conflict militates against the urge to empathize when face-to-face. It is heartrending watching antipathy being replaced with empathy and mutual assistance even while the regional conflicts continually compel opposing sides toward distrust and attack. Seeing the way the many groups are living in constant fear of lethal attacks has become the norm is heartbreaking. Each side continuing to live with a hollow hope for resolution and peace is awesome and somewhat offsets the massive human tragedy. While typical of human social psychology, it is still sad to see that even clashes within affiliates can lead to incendiary outbursts. The final scene is a terrific metaphor for the complex, dire configuration of the plight of the individual people, the American, Israeli, Palestinian, and all others in the region. Portman is to be commended for her taking the role of Rebecca in a movie that was sure to receive little acclaim.

This is more of a response to the latest post by "Mrnaturalsez". I guess we are expected to take your word on a movie instead of the Cannes Film Festival and the Toronto Film Festival, which incidentally gave this move high praise. The film was an interesting, raw look at Jerusalem and Jordan as one would see it as a traveller. Plot has nothing to do with appreciating this movie, so I think you missed the mark. The story was used as a reason to explore the middle eastern culture. It was also interesting seeing Natalie Portman speak in her native Hebrew language. The film drew upon Portman's real life, as she was born in Isreal and had a Jewish father and American mother. Some films are watched for action, others for art, but I guess one will believe what one wants. There's my 2 cents.

The current situation in the Gaza Strip makes a movie like Amos Gitai's "Free Zone" all the more important. The movie depicts a US tourist (Natalie Portman) accompanying an Israeli woman (Hanna Laszlo) to Jordan to collect a sum of money. Complications arise.

The movie apparently received negative reviews. I suspect that was because of the long, slow scenes. I will admit that these got tiresome at times. Even so, this is probably one of the few instances that we'll get to see a portrayal of a meeting between a Yank, an Israeli, and a Palestinian. Portman's character serves as the window into the conflict. Think of her as a camera, showing us all but processing nothing; she even admits that she doesn't feel like she belongs anywhere.

I understand that this was the second entry in a trilogy that Gitai made. I'll have to see the first and third entries. Anyway, it's not a masterpiece - it does tend to drag - but the ongoing situation in Gaza makes it all the more relevant.

Also starring is Hiam Abbass, who more recently played Marcia on "Succession".

This is one of those really bad films. Actually there isn't too much to say. Boring script, shallow stereotypical characters and long unending scenes. "ART FILM" at its worst. Some of the camera shots were nicely made though, I have to agree. And Channa Laszlo does a good work as leading actress.

OK, now let's forget about that. Another boring film from Gitai. Nothing new. What interests me as a film-goer from Israel is the question: How come Gitai is the most successful Israeli film maker in international audiences.

There are other much more talented Israeli directors such as Avi Nesher, Dover Koshashvili, Gil Dar or Keren Yadaaia. So why Gitai? Well it is a known fact that the French and European audiences love him because of his left wing ideas. He flatters the European views on Israel and he sells himself in Europe as an Israeli dissident and exile unacknowledged or even censored by Israeli establishment for his so called radical views.

As an Israeli left winger, let me tell you. Nobody cares enough about Gitai to even bother to censor him. The truth of the matter is that if you know the Israeli reality only a bit, it becomes immediately apparent how phony and untruthful his films are. His view of Israel, the way you see it in "Free Zone" is like that of the tourist he is, coming to Israel from Paris to make a new film and watching the whole of Israeli reality condescendingly from his know-all glasses.

This is the reason why all his films fail in Israel both critically as well as in the box office. Not because of his "radical" political views. Israeli audiences can cope with criticism, but not with Gitai's packs of cliché's. It is a shame audiences in the world who don't know the situation in Israel well enough, get their impression from such phony works.

4/10