Why is the film named “Letter from Palestine?”
I assume your description of the film as “animated” is anerror. This is a very conventional documentary in the sense that it consists of live-action scenes. The title of the film was actually somewhat controversial at the time. I did not have a title in mind at the time I made the film. It was only when I was nearly finished that I had to choose a title. But from the start I was encouraged by the executive producer, David Fanning, to try an experiment. Instead of the usual documentary, in which the film maker stands to the side of the action and observes it, Fanning encouraged me to “get inside” the action, to be part of the story, and to think of the narrative in the first person, as a story that is happening to me, that I am talking about in my own voice. From that perspective, the idea that making the film was like writing a letter, was quite natural. The idea that I was writing from a place called Palestine was obvious – that’s where I was. But most American audiences at that time (1988), were not accustomed to thinking of a country or a place called Palestine, and that’s the source of the controversy.
What are the techniques and special technologies that you used in this film?
In some ways, this project was a struggle. I had to break the rules I had learned over nearly 20 years of documentary film-making, which demand that the film maker maintain a distance from the subject. For this project, I wanted to be “inside” the story, as I mentioned above. So the camera had to be positioned in the middle ot what was happening, as much as possible. That was difficult, because I didn’t want to interfere or obstruct the work of the medical teams, and it was against the instincts I had developed in all my prior work. In fact, I didn’t succeed completely, but I tried. There was one other special technique, which was the use of a very small, very light weight, hand-held camera. High-quality small cameras have now become very common, but in 1988, they were just being introduced. It was a SuperVHS camera, not even digital, and ver primitive by today’s standards. But it was a tiny camera compared to what I had previously used, and that allowed me to work in a very different way. I think the small camera also is less threatening to the people being photographed, and the result is more natural.
How did come up with the main idea of the film?
This was the simplest part of the project. Just after the start of the first Intifada, the physician who was director of the Palestinian Medical Relief Committees was visiting the United States, and I was introduced to him. He described his work in the West Bank, and I knew immediately that this work could be the subject for an interesting film. I had no story in mind, just the idea that if I was allowed to bring a camera and accompany the medical relief teams as they did their work, something interesting would happen and I would film it. I spent almost two weeks, traveling with the medical teams, seeing what they saw, getting as close to their work as possible. Altogether, I came home with 25 hours of video, most of it very good, and it was relatively easy to make a simple story out of it.
What is the message you would like deliver from this film?
Please remember that I assumed the film would be seen by an audience of ordinary Americans. At that time, and to some degree even today, Americans almost never see ordinary Palestinians or their land, or what their lives are like. What is it like to live under military occupation? I wanted to give Americans a fair picture of Palestinians as people, to let hear their voices, and their feelings be heard. Perhaps that sounds too simple, but if you consider that Palestinians had almost never been seen and had a chance to speak in this way, it seemed a worthwhile effort.
Is this the first time you participate in this festival?
At least one, or perhaps two of my other films was shown in your festival, in the last two years. I think they were “Bringing Down A Dictator” about the nonviolent defeat of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, and “Confronting the Truth” which is a documentary about the work of truth commissions in South Africa, Peru, East Timor, and Morocco.
Did the film participate in other international festivals?
It’s quite an old film now, and I don’t remember what other festivals have shown it. Not very many.
What are the awards the the film has won?
I don’t remember
Why did participated in Cairo Human Rights Film festival? and specially why Egypt?
My connection with the Cairo Human Rights Festival began when I met Dalia Ziada three years ago. I think Dalia was director of the festival at that time. She saw some of my films in the U.S. and proposed to show them at your festival. I am very pleased to have the films shown in Egypt, and I’m especially happy that your festival is continuing year after year, despite the initial difficulties you experienced.
What is the human rights' cause that the film present?
Human rights are a universal issue which knows no boundaries, which applies to every culture, every country, to all people everywhere. While I have never set out to make a film about human rights, the subjects of many of my films are closely related to human rights issues: oppressed minorities, people struggling against authoritarian rule or to achieve political rights, labor rights, and similar stories. In Letter From Palestine, the context is a struggle against occupation that denies the right of self-determination, the full range of political and economic rights, detention without charge or trial. Americans and people around the world are more conscious of aware of the Palestinian struggle today than in 1988, but there’s much work still to be done. I hope your festival will show a recently released film, “Budrus” which tells the story of how the people in a West Bank village used nonviolent strategies to prevent the construction of the “separation wall” through their land. It’s a great example of how nonviolent methods can succeed, and are even preferable. And it shows how women can play a very important role in this kind of struggle.
How did you present it or express that idea?
My approach to presentation is very simple: simply show the people as they are. No manipulation or persuasion or lecturing is required. Any fair-minded person who sees the difficult lives of the Palestinians in this film will immediately be sympathetic.
What are the obstacles that you faced while making this film?
This was not the first time I have worked in the occupied territories, so I knew what to expect and how to prepare. Working alone, without a crew, and with very little equipment, I was not conspicuous. But I think the key to any documentary project is to become acquainted with the people, to develop a feeling of trust. If the medical teams had not trusted me, it would have been impossible. But once I achieved that trust, they were able to help me in hundreds of ways, pointing out potential risks, keeping me safe, warning me when I should hide the camera, telling me when it was safe. One of the problems faced by every journalist or filmmaker in this region is how to safely transport the recorded tapes at the end of the filming. There’s always a risk that video tapes will be confiscated by Israeli security officials, especially at the Lod airport. In this case, I gave the tapes to a friend who was traveling overland to Amman, and this friend then sent the tapes to me by air courier from Jordan. At that time, carrying tapes across the Allenby bridge was considered less risky.
How do you see violations of the rights of the Palestinians by the Israeli occupation?
Over the last twenty years, I’ve learned a lot about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and I’ve developed many friends both in the Palestinian national movement, and in the Israeli peace movement, including organizations that are active on human rights issues. I’ve seen with my own eyes that the occupation represents a constant and pervasive violation of Palestinian rights. Obviously, human rights abuses are widespread. But I think the fundamental problem is the absence of Palestinian political rights. Many organizations are doing admirable work to defend human rights – which is another way of saying they are working for “a more humane occupation,” which I think is unrealistic. Any occupation is inherently undesirable. While the occupation still exists, of course. Israel should be required to adhere to international human rights standards, but the larger, much more important goal should be to eliminate the occupation, not to make it more humane. There is no such thing as a benign occupation. An end to the occupation, which implies the establishment of a Palestinian state, is obviously in the Palestinians’ interests, but it’s also in Israel’s best interests, in the long term.
You have worked in this movie yourself how you could do the job alone, without the assistance of one is a difficult task?
Working alone, I was performing the functions of cameraman, director, sound recordist, and producer. I had prior experience in each of these roles, but never all of them simultaneously. It was exhausting, and it occupied my mind at least 18 hours a day. Even when I wasn’t filming, I was planning, preparing, talking to people about the coming days, thinking about how I would approach the next day. And every night, I viewed at least part of the video which I had shot that day, especially because I was unfamiliar with this camera, its potential and limitations. The real problem of working alone is that you are unable to concentrate exclusively on any single task – such as making the best possible images, in the case of operating a camera. You don’t have that luxury – you have to also be thinking about the sound quality, which would normally be the sound man’s job; and about the dialog, and looking out for safety, which is difficult when you have your eye up to the camera viewfinder. You don’t know what’s going on around you, and that can be dangerous.
