Early reactions to new film, 'O Jerusalem'

By Michele Alperin

What everyone might agree on about the new movie "O Jerusalem" is that it has an agenda.

But how 300 adult viewers at the prerelease screening on Oct. 15 understood this agenda to be varied widely based on their existing relationships with Israel and their knowledge of its history

When Samuel Goldwyn Films offered the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism's Pacific Southwest region an opportunity to preview the film in seven selected markets around the country, Richard Fishbane, a Jewish Center member, arranged screenings in United Artists at MarketFair and in Penn Valley, Pa.

This special screening served as the kickoff for the Jewish Center's Israel at 60 Celebration, whose theme is "From Freedom to Independence." The viewing included a special post-film discussion led by the Jewish Center's Rabbi Adam Feldman.

"O Jerusalem," by Elie Chouraqui, depicts Israel's struggle for independence as based on the 1972 historic tomb of the same name by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. The film, however, for plot purposes, takes liberal poetic license with history and fiction, possibly mangling both in the process.

The main plot line is about a friendship between a 20-something American Zionist and a Jerusalem-born Arab who meet in post-World War II New York City in 1946. A subplot revolves around a romantic relationship between the American Zionist and his Holocaust survivor girlfriend.

In the main plot, the two friends make their way to Israel following the war, but become estranged after the Zionist joins the Haganah independence movement and the Arab's brother is killed during the group's bombing of the Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem.

The film is flawed in many ways, especially artistically. The story feels stereotyped, the characters' motivations are unclear and the acting is poor. Further, the plot is superimposed upon historical events in order to develop the film's overall utopian theme -- that love will win out and peace will come - intermingling history and fiction to the detriment of both.

Beyond fictionalizing the past, another big concern voiced by several attendees is the film's to failure to place past events within their historical context. For those unfamiliar with Israel's history, it might be difficult to understand the big picture - what role the English played, how the Irgun and the Haganah differed, what enabled the Jews to win and how relationships between the Jews and Arabs developed as Jews immigrated from Europe in several ways of aliyah.

Certain events are taken so out of context they seem almost farcical. For example, after the fighting in 1948 was halted with a ceasefire, Arabs and Jews are shown hugging each other as if they were opposing teams of 10-year-olds shaking hands with one another after a Little League game.

"It's such an important story and such a cheap production," an audience member observed. "It insulted me the trite way it was portrayed."

The filmmakers, who apparently were unfamiliar with this material and failed to do proper research, also include a number of embarrassing anachronisms. After independence is declared, for example, the celebrants dance in the streets to an as not-yet-composed Shlomo Carlebach melody and waving as not-yet-designed Israeli flags. Even using the term "Palestinian" for the Arabs who lived in Israel during this period is in itself a fallacy.

"No self-respecting Arab at that time would have been called a Palestinian; the Jews were called the Palestinians," one viewer said adding bitterly, "Here they [Jews] were given an identity in just the same way that Arafat gave them [Arabs] an identity - it was bogus!"

"What's most disturbing is this is how people learn their history," said another audience member after the film adding, "Having lived through these events, the film is a romantic, Hollywood version. It should be looked at with a pound of salt, not just a grain."

Several attendees expressed concern that the film equated the perspectives of Arabs and Jews, giving them equal weight.

"The attempt at moral equivalency was deplorable," said one person. "It does damage to people who will perceive the two sides as the same."

Some audience members, however, were happy the movie did not take a strong stance in support of one side or the other.

"In this emotionally charged situation," one person observed, "no one could make a movie about this that was any more balanced and fair."

In contrast to the film's weaknesses in the eyes of many adult attendees who lived through the creation of Israel's independence, younger viewers in separate viewing, and perhaps lacking historic context, were reported to be overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic about it. This, in turn, led many adults to worry about what these students were taking home from the film. Rabbi Feldman voiced the need to better educate students about the events surrounding Israel's independence, only using the film as part of a larger discussion.

The continuing reality of Israel and its relationship with those now termed Palestinians, as well as with other Arab countries, was of deep concern to many in the audience. Some expressed disappointment that the harsh realities of the Middle East have not since changed.

"The film shows how intractable the situation is," said one viewer while another commented, "I wish there had been more hope."

Yet, despite its weaknesses, the film challenges its viewers to consider that the struggle in Israel does have two different sides, two different faces -- and that a Jewish viewer may come to one conclusion, while a Palestinian another. The horror of war is that, in the end, people are forced to choose a side and play out the bloody struggle. Winners and losers alike suffer.

The audience can only hope that the future will be different in the subplot of the American Zionist character's relationship with his Holocaust survivor girlfriend; that though it may take a long time, day does indeed follow night.