Beyond Friendship

source: Beyond Friendship

It is the type of film that everyone is right, and at the same time, no one is right, conflicted ... When it is within the conflict it is difficult to have an impersonal view, so "it is quite possible that many Arabs have found the film pro-Israel, and that many Jews have labeled it pro-Arabs ", but it was a happy attempt to be didactic without being partisan, isonomy as much as possible ... A beautiful film, we were moved several times, what a beautiful and sincere friendship...

Although the film describes historical events in a relatively balanced way, eventually tends to tip the balance on the Israeli side, like most movies that reach the western circuit. I guess that the producers coming from that side or afraid of failing in the US market, highly influenced by the Jewish lobby, is behind that.. Why French actors were involved in this project? At the end a story of friendship in a world in conflict but a more dispassionate and objective look is needed. That a successful best seller was the main source does not ensure that the script will match (this is the case). In light of current events, the somewhat romantic look in other movies (Exodus for example) is given on the emergence of the state of Israel, is at least anomalous. Some of it is on this film.

This is my first crack at critiquing a movie on IMDb. I saw it last night and thought the movie makers did a good job at expressing their point of view, which I also thought was very well worth considering. Someone had posted a very negative review, and then warned to stay away from the movie; the next reviewer replied to that by making a statement about the subjectivity of truth. I wanted to post my agreement to the second reviewer. I think what should be stayed "away" from is suppressing information just because the suppressor does not understand the value of the information. The movie "O Jerusalem" portrays little known facts about some well known characters (David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, King Hussein, etc.), as they might have related to Jewish and Arab fictional characters who lived in America and were friends, during the birth of the nation of Israel. These fictional friends all went to Jerusalem, and were separated through their participation in activities on opposing sides of the conflict. Blood brothers, separated by opposing political views, and eventually finding themselves fighting each other during the American Civil War, comes to mind. What the movie "O Jerusalem" portrays may not have actually happened, but it is easy to see that it could have happened.

That, oh so poignant verse from Psalm 137 altogether sums my impressions of the film. By all means, I am kind with my assessment. This should have been a great film, provided, the Hollywood script writers followed the book's theme. Alas, they did not; what else is new under the sun! Despite its potential, the film did not explore or enunciate enough two of its main themes: the futility of war and more important, man's continued penchant to inflict inhumanity on fellow man. Oh yes, Bobby Golden Boy Goldman, one of the film's major players does indeed state either or both of those strong tenets even boldly. However, he does so en passant. Moreover, his excellent points are nonetheless made moot as the director cuts to the chase and the next bloodied then quickly sanitized atrocious conflict scene time and again. And there were so many of these telegraphed, goofy scenes. So many in fact,that soon I lost count. Not long after, quite frankly I lost any or all lingering interest to stick it out until the curtain fell. Thank God for that tender mercy. This low budget, grade 'B' production could not end soon enough. Before I exit, I must say that the film's depiction of the British protector-ship of the former Palestine was well, pathetic. Yes, we got it; the Thin Red Line had already gone bald and lost all of its former glory by that point. However, to paint them redder, er, yellow and to make them appear more inept even treacherous to the Hebrew cause, is well taking many creative, film making liberties. Sure, the Brits neglected their peace keeping role while there. Even General Barker voiced his 'haaarrumph' stilted opinion and attested to that very fact while protesting to the then backpedaling, fleeing British High Commissioner. Still, he did so in a not so poignant manner nor propitious moment. No matter. The film had already gone so far south that it was difficult for me to discern which way lay O Jerusalem let alone the true path to peace. I believe, the director and producer, though in an odd way tried to make their best case (whatever that was, we will never know). To wit, they could have done better with the film's plot if they had invested more time in exploring that noble road map to peace theme. No doubt, that lofty goal was well within their grasp and cinematic scope. However, all too predictably they instead chose to either neglect it, cut it first pass, or simply cast it aside altogether, just the same. Like the British, Hollywood just could not help themselves nor the script. At every turn the actors fumbled the football, or bungled the entire dialog until finally, together, the flimsy cast and entire film crew botched what should have been an otherwise beautiful, possibly even most edifying film. Forget about it! Sigh...

I first and foremost am a man for peace, no matter on what side you may consider me after this review. For me this is truly a story about love. A love between two friends, a love between and Arab and Jew of course, and yet a brotherly love between two human beings. Aren't we all human beings? Shouldn't we all be destined to love each other. This is also a story of choices. The choice of the Arab main character (Said) either to let his American friend (Bobby) die, or save him. And he made the right choice. The choice of the same Arab to shoot his friend and yet again, he made the right choice. The same goes of course to the American main character. Sadly, others made lesser right choices. I may just be referring to the themes of this movie, but regarding this aspect, and only this side of a truly complex subject, where the line between right and wrong and guilt and innocence is so blurred now hardly anyone can set foot on this subject without being accused of extremism b by side or the other...and the themes are in my opinion well portrayed. Love. Friendship. Bravery against all odds when others are making the wrong choices, taking up guns and fighting a battle they have already lost at the hands of the colonial powers. Because let's face it. This is neither the Arab's nor the Jew's fault. It is the fault of a coward colonial power who only decided to save its own neck and buy unloading itself of the Jewish lobby it has been carrying around for the past decades, and not look back one second to the chaos it has brewed. It has even gone as far as "abstaining" from the vote. Hypocrites. But the movies shows it all. From both sides. Although I am not acquainted with the history, I get the feeling that the story is genuine and true. That this is what really and sadly happened, which brings us to the present day situation where nothing has changed and everything has worsened. The most powerful scene for me is of course the last scene so powerfully played. Bobby knew she was going to die and she knew she was going to die, and so did everyone else around them. Yet, he still decided to marry her. A selfless and truly heroic act. One that would fill the world with wonder if other people had but a trickle of it. This movie can't deserve a score. It does not deserve a score. To give it a score would be to limit to to a few acting criteria, some special effects, or other cinematographic jumbo I can't get my head around. But my review is more about the themes of the movie itself, which was awe-inspiringly portrayed. So give it whatever you want. Personally, I loved it!

My major gripe is not the slant, the film was not a propaganda screed for either side, but it is so inaccurate as to be nearly worthless. First, any one who spent any time in Israel will note immediately that it was not filmed there, the scenes do not remotely resemble the real sites where the events of 1948 took place. Major facts are fumbled--e.g., the Jewish Quarter of the Old City fell long before the first cease-fire (from the movie, it is hard to tell exactly what happened). In another scene, right before the Partition vote travelers are shown on a modern-style glass bus from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem--going over a non-existent river--with Arabs and Jews on the same bus! The acting is TV-grade melodrama and the script is trite. As for the overview-historical content, the movie falls to illuminate the events the lead up to the conflict--and with the single exception of the depiction of Deir Yassin, makes it seem as though the war was fought between a handful of well-meaning nice guys. But the 1948 war was bloody and ugly, with many atrocities committed on both sides, but especially the Arab side that was trying to wipe out the Jewish community of Palestine (later Israel). Finally, as already pointed out, this movie does horrible violence to LaPierre and Collins' fine book, one of the few truly even-handed non-fiction books written about the Arab-Israel conflict (In the trailer, even this was mangled as the book is called a "novel"). If any one wants to see a much better movie covering almost the exact same topic get "Cast a Giant Shadow."

O Jerusalem is a terrible movie. Very bad, stilted acting and a very, very bad script. I had looked forward to watching this movie because I read the book and have emotional views regarding Israel's war of independence (or as the Arabs call it, "The catastrophe"). This movie had virtually no resemblance to that book, which was an excellent portrayal of the siege of Jerusalem and was not otherwise burdened down by a phony relationship between a Palestinian and an American Jewish fighter. The pace of the movie did not allow for any meaningful storyline development. Some of the acting was so bad it was laughable, which is sad, because there is no comedy in this story. The lines written only served to exacerbate the bad acting. The shame of it is that while probably low budget, the movie had suffcient props and scenery to have allowed for a better production. My sad recommendation is to strongly urge you to stay away!

I enjoyed this film and I'm going to review it instead of discussing the pros and cons of Israel/Palestine. I saw it at Cinema Sundays at the Charles, here in Baltimore MD USA. In the interest of full disclosure, I am not Jewish, and I am anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. At Cinema Sundays, the host is Jewish, and this week's discussion leader is also Jewish -- I think I'm safe in saying it's a largely Jewish group which goes to Cinema Sundays and attended this screening. Although a show of hands said that more liked it than disliked it, the host and discussion leader didn't like it at all --- the discussion leader had even skipped the pre-screening the day before -- his reason seemed to boil down to he had better things to do. The discussion was largely (but not all) panning the film. I thought (with one glaring exception, which I won't reveal here) that the movie was balanced, while telling the story primarily from the Jewish side. In the foreground, it concerns an American Jew and an Arab Palestinian who meet in the U.S. and become friends. Each finds himself going to Palestine in 1947, knowing that a conflict is coming, a struggle for control of the land. The story of these two men and their friends and lovers is in the foreground, and in the background is the story of the British leaving Palestine, and the U.N. vote for partition. There's a fair amount of violence, sudden, unexpected violence realistically portrayed. However, there's no enjoyment of the mayhem, and but little glorification of it. I felt well-informed by the movie in terms of its telling of the story of the birth of Israel. I think this is good story-telling -- although, of course, the two main characters keep encountering each other even after they split up - well, duh, it's a movie about these two characters! :o) A little cinematic license. There's a very touching and emotional scene near the end which had me riveted. I think the story is told relatively objectively (which is to say, more objectively than, say, 90% of news coverage here in the USA, which overwhelmingly favors Israel) while holding out hope for reconciliation between Arabs and Jews in Israel/Palestine. And, I have to say, I think that's why so many people at Cinema Sundays disliked the movie, without really being able to articulate why ("I've seen this all before, oversimplified, unlikely...") -- because it was objective and told the Arab side, and portrayed the Palestinians as human beings who suffered in the partition. I give it an 8 because of the one pulled punch, which I thought destroyed the balance of the film. I'll discuss that on the Message Boards, as I don't want to Spoil the movie.

O Jerusalem