The Law in These Parts

I will be presenting on this film and can't wait to do so! 


I was incredibly struck by the way in which the director played on the themes of subjectivity and structure (systems of government, in this case Israel). As director Ra'anan Alexandrowicz puts it in the Sundance catalogue “This film is not about the people who broke the law, but about those entrusted with the law.” This is a fascinating take on his work and, I believe, slightly misleading on two points. First, the film was by no means about the lives and struggles of those lawyers, judges, lobbyists and Israeli state officials. It is about the structure of power they facilitate in order to occupy Palestine. The individuals are place holders in the world of international relations (remember that the establishment of the state of Israeli was sanctioned by the Allies in 1946). Second, and I think the film even illustrates this point, is that the law is not "entrusted" in the sense of divine law, but created, forced and established. The law is malleable, intimately tied to human beings and their motives and a construction of social relations.


The film, as I read it, was an essay in five parts that aimed at posing a question, not answering one. That question is simply: "what is the moral foundation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine?" However, that question has a myriad elements, dimension and perspectives that are by no means easily untangled. But I maintain that this is the central question being asked. Not, as the Sundance catalogue frames the question: "Alexandrowicz asks—in both simple and profound terms—can justice truly be served in the occupied territories given the current system of law administered by Israel for Palestinians?"  


The Law in These Parts is not a film arguing for the justice of the system in question, but a film about justice. How is "justice" carried out? What do we- first world Sundancers- call justice? Who has access to justice? What role does violence play in justice? These, again, as I see it, are the questions that the film proposes to ask through the question of foundation. Not trite contemplative questions about the justice served when Palestinians are being forcibly ejected from their homes, as Sundance would have it. The narration of a structure of power, told from within that structure, can not answer questions of its justice in any "objective" fashion. It can only articulate the demands of that systems… what it means by justice. (Remember that the film was financed by the state of Israel and produced by Israeli's). The answers are left to subjects… faithful to an idea. (about this I will undoubtedly have some arguments to make) 


The staggering scope of the film, in my opinion, is that the question of Israel is a question of the first world in general. Israel is a close ally of the United States and as voting citizens we condone their actions through our support- or inactivity- of our government. The film continually plays on this motif of subject/structure in fascinating ways I can't wait to share and explore together!

AWARDS!!!!!

Three of the films we saw this past week got awards at the big awards night at Sundance.  Just thought I’d share it with you people. The entire list of awards can be found at: https://www.sundance.org/press-center/release/2012-sundance-film-festival-awards/

The World Cinema Jury Prize: Documentary was presented by Nick Fraser to:
The Law in These Parts / Israel (Director: Ra'anan Alexandrowicz) — Israel's 43-year military legal system in the Occupied Palestinian Territories unfolds through provocative interviews with the system’s architects and historical footage showing the enactment of these laws upon the Palestinian population.

The Audience Award: U.S. Documentary, Presented by Acura, was presented by Mike Birbiglia to:
The Invisible War / U.S.A. (Director: Kirby Dick) — An investigative and powerfully emotional examination of the epidemic of rape of soldiers within the U.S. military, the institutions that cover up its existence and the profound personal and social consequences that arise from it.

The Excellence in Cinematography Award: U.S. Documentary was presented by Tia Lessin to:
Chasing Ice / U.S.A. (Director: Jeff Orlowski) — Science, spectacle and human passion mix in this stunningly cinematic portrait as National Geographic photographer James Balog captures time-lapse photography of glaciers over several years providing tangible visual evidence of climate change.

Late as always

Struggling with my thoughts has delayed a post to the blog. Chasing Ice was the film that got the most reaction from me as I see it was with others. Reading Tiara’s post thought provoking as it was, I still cannot get behind the film as a whole. I agree that integrating a human aspect to this global dilemma was essential for this film to provoke public awareness. However, the film became the public awareness of James Balog the artist, than the awareness of what he was trying to document. The filmmaker along with James Balog both use technology to their benefit with some amazing results. Balog and his engineering skillz capture the visually unseen narrative of global warming. Filmmaker Jeff Orlowski does an incredible job with sound. The sound we are actually hearing is not the sound being made in those beautiful shots instead he used with other techniques contact microphones. I know it sounds fairly clear what contact microphones are but if not here is Wikipedia’s definition, “A contact microphone, otherwise known as a pickup or a piezo, is a form of microphone designed to sense audio vibrations through solid objects. Unlike normal air microphones, contact mics act as transducers which pick up vibrations and convert them into a voltage which can then be made audible.” So cool… Orlowski picked what sounds he felt best suited each glacier crumbling moment. Back to my issue with the film, with all the amazing technological tools being used we instead get practically an entire film of Balog, his leg, crying family members, and Balog’s own tears. What about global warming? The pretty pictures have so much to say, but too bad for them the artist had more. At one point in the Q&A Balog stated that he was trying to, “reveal the truth through images,” I think he was able to do that, but his ego as an artist became the focus of the film not the actual truth he was risking life and limb for. I am not sure if it was Orlowski’s choice to make Balog’s personal story the primary focus rather than global warming, all I can say is this film was good if you wanted to know about James Balog the artist and his life’s accomplishments.