O Jerusalem

I first saw the trailer for this film some five or six years ago and then never heard of it again, which was a shame because I was really looking forward to seeing it on a big screen, shame then that it all but vanished and hasn't to the best of my knowledge ever had a proper release on UK shores. (I imported the DVD)

Though as quoted by others, this is based on the book of the same name, it only draws on the factual detail and uses the more human stories for its focus which for a drama dealing with an issue as complex and as controversial as the formation of the state of Israel is essential. Set against the backdrop of the events of 1946 in Palestine and the violence that followed, two friends who meet in America, one Arab and one Jewish find themselves on opposing sides of a conflict that is beyond their own making. Both of them realising that violence is not the solution do their best to stay out of it, but ultimately find this unavoidable.

The film focuses on their attempts to understand and deal with the historical events that they face, of which they little control over but have no choice but to get involved in.

The film has its strong points. The historical attention to period detail is very well done, the budget for this production is NOT low, as another reviewer has stated (factually inaccurate) nor does it look so. The blend of actual news footage from the time slips seamlessly with the way the film has been shot and invokes a feeling of genuine history. Points of history are sign posted with titles and everything is told neatly in chronological order.

Where the film is weaker however is the script. The friendship of the two friends feels rushed and unlikely, the acting is variable, some scenes are handled well while others feel the need to rush straight into melodrama without any real emotional investment to get there. On that level it feels more like a drama documentary where a mini-series would probably have served it better. Our main characters seem to just flow along with the story as the historical events unfold, rather than really being fully involved in them, maybe that's the point, but the strength of their emotional journey gets lost. The death of several supporting characters never seems to have the impact that it should and its hard to pin down the exact reason for this, but the scene at the end falls especially flat when it should have had me in tears.

Those criticisms aside this doesn't mean the film makes for uninteresting viewing. I have no personal affiliation to any side of this conflict, and the film seemed initially to strive to give both sides an equal voice, (Possibly Israel gets more screen time but their own atrocities in the conflict are not overlooked) certainly at first I didn't feel a bias one way or another, but after the first half it felt the Jewish characters became more and more noble where as the Arabs became more and more one dimensional but this just makes me want to do my own research on the subject, but does it make for a good movie?

The high production values, good acting despite struggling with a fairly orderly historical script, attention to detail and nice photography all make the film well above average. Nice turns from supporting cast such as Tom Conti, the under rated Rene Zagger and the ever strong Ian Holm give the leading cast great back up and Saïd Taghmaoui is always very watchable but their talents do make some of the weaker players stand out a little.

A film on this topic is going to stir emotions on anyone who might have an affiliation with one side or another, so maybe its more important what those who have little understanding of the origins of this seemingly never ending conflict gain some understanding of how it started and as a starting point for that education, you can certainly do far far worse than this. As a well made historical epic its not a bad film at all.

Unfortunately where the film is less convincing is in the conflict between the friendship of the two leads, I found it unrealistic and somewhat unbelievable and didn't quite create the dichotomy I had hoped for but simply watching the events of history unfold still made for captivating viewing.

This is a conflict I would love to see finally resolved in my life time for the sake of the generations that will follow in the footsteps of their relatives who were involved in these events. Dismissing the film so easily is simply not a tenable opinion.

There aren't enough films on this subject to make this one irrelevant and the simple truth is that no film on this topic will ever be completely successful, just as the search for an answer to finally allow all those involved to live side by side in harmony will go on for some time yet. If you have even the vaguest interest in the subject and can watch it from a neutral stand point, I would recommend it.

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...

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."

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.

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.