DOCUMENTARIES WITH A POINT OF VIEW
Independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup. Today, he muses on the most recent P.O.V. film.
As I watched 9 Star Hotel, I was overcome by this strange feeling of déjà vu. I was captivated by the slice-of-sad-life story about the young Palestinian men who live in a shack and work construction illegally in Israel. The measured, reserved tone of the film impressed me. The high-rise grandeur of the buildings in the backdrop while these guys live in squalor moved me. The dusty, desolation of where they work, the running and hustling of their lives, the sad, intelligent looks in their eyes... And then I remembered: The Bicycle Thief.
Now, I know the subjects are quite different, and some might consider comparing a fictional film to a non-fiction film blasphemous, but I think that 9 Star Hotel director Ido Haar has managed to recreate the feeling, the mood and even the characters of Vittorio De Sica's brilliant neorealist film from 1948. De Sica's movie is a work of fiction, yes, but it did use "real" people for the crowd scenes. The film feels real, as it tells the story of a man whose bicycle is stolen as he is looking for work. He then goes out to search for the bike with his son. Not much of a plot, right? But neither is there much of a storyline in the life of the boys of 9 Star Hotel. But what both films do is depict a time and a place with what feels like seamless authenticity. And I think both films tell the same tale: ordinary men desperately trying to eke out a living. And between the soulful, hungry looks of the young men, the stark settings and the bleak final notes, I just have to see the two films in the same light. And so, maybe I should tweak what I wrote earlier: it is De Sica who who recreated a reality that has changed little in the past sixty years. And it is Haar who has managed to capture it.
9 Star Hotel is the facetious name that Palestinian construction workers give to the pile of rocks that marks their clandestine nightly abode — a group of cardboard enclosures and tin-covered huts hidden in the brush-covered hills above the Israeli town of Modi'in. It is also the name of this week's P.O.V. film about the daily travails of these "illegals" as they hide from police at night so that they can work in Modi'in during the day.
The Palestinian men are neither militants nor activists, but ordinary youths placed by history in extraordinary circumstances who emerge as fully human — flawed and sympathetic. Caught in a strange and dangerous no-man's land between an Israel that must enforce laws to protect its citizens and a Palestinian Authority that can't or won't help them, they must risk capture and live in makeshift shelters simply to survive.
As a film made by an Israeli that takes the point of view of its young Palestinian subjects, 9 Star Hotel holds out a model for understanding, even across significant divides. The vérité-style documentary reminds viewers that behind all the political contention that so often defines regions like the West Bank, there are human stories. The film's subjects face universal struggles to make a living, care for family and prove their manhood. Individual tragedy is counterbalanced by resilience as the young men dream of a brighter future, despite the uncertainties that define their current situation.
Ahmed has no hope of fulfilling his dream of becoming police officer because he can't read and write. How is the experience of the men in the film like or unlike the experiences of day laborers or undocumented workers in other places? How is their situation like or unlike other places where borders divide areas of wealth and poverty?
Reflecting on Israel's treatment of Palestinians, Muhammad says, "If you shut a cat in a room, won't it jump at you?" If you could recommend to the Israeli government one policy change that would improve the lives of the men in the film, what would you recommend and why? Assume that the Palestinian Authority was not constrained politically. Similarly, what one policy change would you recommend to the Palestinian Authority?
Israeli director Ido Haar grew up in a village on the edge of a pine forest halfway between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. When he went home to visit his parents, he often saw men running frantically across the highway. He says "the fear in their eyes haunted me, and I wanted to find out where they were running to and whom they were running from."
In our interview with Haar, he tells us that he went into the forest and started talking with the men.
I discovered that the forest — my own backyard — serves as a hideout for thousands of Palestinians looking for work in Israel. I found a secret camp on the other side of the forest, but didn't find any people. Whenever I came around, they would flee. My persistence made them curious, and eventually they stayed put. Since then, I have been documenting a vibrant community of young men and the impossibly hard and strangely vital lives they live. My camera follows two best friends. Muhammad is the charismatic leader, the one who always has the answers. Ahmad is the sole provider for his mother and seven siblings. I spent nights and days with them, experiencing, as much as an outsider can, a life of fear, uncertainty, madness and grace and trying to understand how they live despite their circumstances, which to me seem unlivable — in the open, in the dark, exploited, away from home and family — indeed, how they simply survive.
In the beginning, when I started trying to shoot the film, there was a lot of suspicion; the workers were sure that I was involved with the Israeli Army or the Israeli police. But after awhile, they understood that I'm interested in their story. Still, it took me months to find the two main characters in the film: Ahmad and Muhammad. There was something in their faces that caught me before I understood their stories. I felt as though the camera chose those two as my characters.
Read more from Haar's interview, find out more about the making of 9 Star Hotel and learn about the challenges and the surprising benefits of filming characters who speak a language you don't understand in Haar's Production Journal.
Do you want to leave a comment for Ido Haar or ask him a question? Enter them here, and he will select a few and answer them the week of July 21, 2008.
Last week, P.O.V. received six nominations in the 29th Annual News and Documentary Emmy® Awards. The nominees were announced by the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS). Michael Apted's 49 Up was nominated for Outstanding Interview; Ralph Arlyck's Following Sean received two nominations, for Best Documentary and for Outstanding Individual Achievement in a Craft: Writing; and three P.O.V. films were nominated for Outstanding Continuing Coverage of a News Story — Long Form: Libby, Montana; Made in L.A.; and Rain in a Dry Land.
PBS led the pack this year with 38 nominations, more than any other broadcast or cable network. The News and Documentary Emmy Awards will be presented on Monday, Sept. 22.
"P.O.V. celebrated its 20th season on PBS last year with a diverse slate of films by established and emerging filmmakers," said Simon Kilmurry, P.O.V.'s Executive Director. "From the struggles of refugees, immigrants and working Americans to stories of personal transformations, the nominated films introduce us to people whose lives, we hope, will enrich our own."
Read more about the nominated films after the jump.
Every Monday, independent journalist Tom Roston checks in and writes about the world of documentaries in his column, Doc Soup.
Last week, there was a big splash in the small pool that is the Internet documentary film community. A new site called Snagfilms was launched by former AOL vice chairman Ted Leonsis, ex-AOL chief Steve Case and venture capitalist Miles Gilburne. Heavy hitters, indeed. The site allows people like you and me to watch docs online, and to use widget technology to link other folks to docs on our myspace pages and the like. And here's the kicker: the docs are free. Snagfilms currently has 250 documentaries on the site (with another 150 soon to be added), including Super Size Me, Dig! and Kicking It, with plans to expand to much, much more.
I spoke with Snagfilms CEO Rick Allen (previously of the National Geographic Society and Discovery Communications), who walked me through the site."What's making this possible are two things: One, a group of investors who care about independent films and in social change, and who are willing to underwrite a big, professional expensive effort," he said. "And, two: Filmmakers who are trying to figure out the best way to use the opportunities to use digital platforms to reach an audience and to monetize their content." (In addition to watching the film online, viewers are given the opportunity to buy the dvd.)
The whole venture might be lost amongst the many recent websites trying to get a foothold in the indie online film world (filmcatcher comes to mind), but these guys went a large step further when they also bought out indiewire.com. "It's like doubling down," Allen says. "At a time when a lot of folks are saying the sky is falling in the film world, some very smart, deep pocketed folks like Ted are saying we believe in this sector."
I couldn't help noting a couple of ironies while talking with Allen. First, I noticed that there was a McDonald's ad on the same page that Supersize Me could be downloaded. And then there's the strange coincidence that Albert Maysles just recently announced the creation of his own theater in Harlem that is totally dedicated to documentaries. Talk about old world and new world ventures. While Maysles' theater seems quaint and admirable, it's clearly in Snagfilms that doc filmmakers could find hope for a better future. I wish them the best. I, for one, plan on watching Kicking It this weekend.
How big can Snagfilms get? I asked Allen for some projections. "You think I'm going to put a target on my chest?" He said, laughing. "I don't know. It's a brave new world. And it's going to take a bunch of money and a whole lot of effort."
The results of our News Hunt for good journalism on the 2008 elections are in! From July 1 - 14, P.O.V. and PBS Engage joined forces with NewsTrust.net, a nonprofit social news site devoted to finding good journalism, to review current news stories about the 2008 elections with a focus on the voting process from the perspective of the American man and woman on the street. Over this two week period, reviewers examined articles on election reform coverage from a wide range of sources, from The New Yorker and The New York Times to The Nation and The Huffington Post. See the top stories and a summary of what reviewers found over on the NewsTrust.net blog.
The News Hunt was one of the special features for the Election Day website, and while it's now closed, the hunt for good journalism never ends. Check out NewsTrust.net for more opportunities to review news stories and to participate in the effort to highlight quality journalism.
Kieran Fitzgerald is the director of The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández. After the film aired on July 8, viewers wrote in with questions for Kieran on the P.O.V. Blog. Read on as he answers questions about the equipment used in making the film, the decision to include President George W. Bush in the story and more.
Robert asks: Hi. What equipment did you use to shoot and edit your documentary?
Kieran Fitzgerald: We used a Canon XL2 for all of the interviews. The recreation still photos were taken from 16mm footage. We edited on Final Cut Pro.
Rob asks: In 1997 Bill Clinton was president. Why did you feel like Bush should play such a prominent role in your show?
Fitzgerald: Until the end of the film, Bush Sr. and Clinton have equal screen time. The narration explains that the Clinton administration increased the military's participation in the 'War on Drugs' and there is a clip of Clinton declaring that he will fight the drug trade more rigorously than Bush. The film is highly critical, I believe, of the way both the Pentagon and the Department of Justice under Clinton handled the Hernández case.
Bush Sr. reappears at the end of the film for two reasons: I felt it was important for people to know about the posse comitatus law that prohibits military from acting as law enforcement on domestic soil (Bush Sr. was in charge of bypassing this law during the Reagan administration); and I wanted to tell the story of the Madrid family's connection with George H.W. and Barbara Bush.
For me, the ending of the film is not an attack on the Bush family at all — it is an anecdote that demonstrates how the top of our government can be closely related to families in the most remote parts of our country. As Enrique Madrid says, it shows 'how small the United States is.' I believe it is important for any president, Republican or Democrat, to remember that border communities are also a part of the greater American community.
Justin asks: Hernández mistook the marines as a dog, the marines mistook Hernández as a combatant drug dealer. BOTH were wrong. Who shot first? Would you have done a 2.5 hr. film on the marine, (his family and any other person you could find) who may have died because of a gun shot inflicted from Hernández? Doubtly.
Fitzgerald: You may be right that had Hernández accidentally shot one of the Marines I wouldn't have made a film about it. Part of what attracted me to this story was its dramatic detail — the way misinformation and poor decisions kept escalating toward the tragic conclusion. I was drawn first to the nature of the story, not to its political implications.
That said, I believe that the political implications had a Marine been shot instead would be no different. In both cases, we do a disservice to our own troops by expecting them to act as law enforcement within the United States after training them to fight wars. Whether a soldier gets shot at, or shoots an innocent American and has to live with the consequences, they are victims of the same misguided policy.
Josiah says: This documentary's fact checking is very questionable... 1970 at Kent State was not the last time the military killed American civilians, 1992 during the L.A. riots three were killed by the Army National Guard, all three were fully justified. It seems like you wanted to make the inference that whenever the military is involved in stateside action, only innocent people are killed. That is absolutely wrong and I hope you and your staff makes the appropriate corrections.
I know about those three because my dad was in the California National Guard (185th Armor) and was one of the first 2,000 Guardsmen sent to the riots. I'm also sure that if some real research is done more examples could be found between 1970 and 1997, most likely fully justified.
I do agree with you that the military should never be involved with non-emergency law enforcement activities. Only in riots or natural disasters were the existing law enforcement is disabled is the only time they should be called in.
Fitzgerald: You are right about the L.A. riots, but I am not aware of any other instances in which [the] National Guard killed American civilians between Kent State and Esequiel's death. As far as the active duty military goes, it's my understanding that the last civilian death, prior to Hernández in 1997, occurred during the 1967 Detroit riots. (We have consulted with a number of academics on this subject).
In neglecting to mention the L.A. riots it was not at all my intention to imply that [the] military are exclusively involved in unjustified killings at home. What I did want to imply, and perhaps I should have been more explicit in this regard, is that Esequiel was the first 'innocent' civilian to be killed by active duty military or National Guard since Kent State — that is, his was the first unjustified killing.
