UK Jewish Film Festival 2014 - 3 film reviews originally written for Jewish Renaissance Magazine

http://www.ukjewishfilmfestival.org.uk/

Bethlehem,  Israel 2013, Film written by Yuval Adler and Ali Waked, directed by Yuval Adler, 8* out of 10 

Set during the Second Intifada, Yuval Adler’s Bethlehem, co-written with Israeli- Arab journalist Ali Waked, centres on the relationship between Sanfur (Shadi Ma’ari), a Palestinian youth, and Razi (Tzachi Halevy), an Israeli secret service agent who recruited Sanfur as an informant at the age of 15. However, Sanfur’s brother is a prominent member of the armed group the Al Aqsa brigade, and he organises a suicide attack in Jerusalem, making him a target for the Israelis. The ensuing divided loyalties and contradictory motivations on all sides, test beyond breaking point the complicated relationship between Razi and Sanfur.

No one emerges with much credit from the reality of intelligence work, or the dealings by both Israelis and Palestinians with corrupt officials of the Palestinian Authority. The relationship between Razi and Sanfur may be ambiguous, but the motives for the use of Sanfur by the Israelis are completely unambiguous: he is a replaceable pawn in the dirty war between militant Palestinian organisations and the Israeli army. But Sanfur’s brother and father do not treat him much better than Razi and his bosses. Ultimately he is the tragic anti-hero of Bethlehem, finally left vulnerable and helpless. Only the leader of the local Al Aqsa cell, the ruthless, charismatic Badawi (in a great performance by Hitham Omari) emerges with the credit of not playing a double game.

Bethlehem shows a side of the Israeli- Palestine conflict that both sides would rather forget, and the impact on those who fight the dirty war on behalf of the politicians, ideologues and civilians. It is a hard-hitting, well-acted, feel-bad movie par excellence. 

Agi Erdos & Alex Radzyner

The Internet's Own Boy, USA 2014, Documentary written and directed by Brian Knappenberger, 8* out of 10

This film tells the story of internet wunderkind Aaron Swartz, who, in a life tragically cut short by suicide at the age of 26, managed to significantly contribute to the important RSS-standard on the internet, help the internet start-up Reddit to great success and mastermind a successful campaign to prevent a bad law (the so-called SOPA, which would have given undue power to copyright holders) being passed by the US Congress.

Relying on family videos, archive material and interviews with people personally and professionally close to Aaron, Knappenberger, who also wrote the script, makes a convincing case for the hypothesis that Swartz’ suicide was caused by the disproportionate zeal with which the law enforcement agencies hounded him.

Like his great idol Tim Berners Lee, Swartz was not driven by wanting to make money (although he briefly was a millionaire at the age of 18), but by a vision of what good the internet could do for social justice and human progress.

If only he had not been badly let down by his country’s institutions. If only he had been supported more vigorously by the leading lights of the internet community; or been able o share his anxiety about the threat of a long jail sentence with family and friends. There are many if onlys.

The film tackles a subject full of technical and legal complications with great clarity, raising important philosophical, social and psychological questions in an engaging style. It is a compelling story that speaks to our intellect and our heart.

Shadow in Baghdad, Israel 2013, Documentary written and directed by Duki and Galia Dror, 7.5* out of 10 (but don't miss it)

By the rivers of Zion, there we sat and wept when we remembered Baghdad... 

Linda Abdul Aziz Menuhin is a journalist in Israel who misses the Baghdad of her youth, from which she fled, in 1971, aged 21. Mohammed is a journalist in Iraq who misses the same Baghdad – but born in 1972, he only knows about it from listening to tales of the city as a young boy on his grandmother’s knee.

Shortly after she fled from Iraq, Linda’s father, a prominent member of the Jewish community, was abducted by Saddam’s Ba’ath Party. Linda is desperate to know what happened to him. As she cannot visit Iraq and Mohammed cannot visit Israel, the two bridge the distance in geography and age when they collaborate on a story via the internet. 

The story is about Baghdad’s Jews, who disappeared from Iraq after living side by side with other communities for over 2000 years. Shadow in Baghdad is handicapped because the key interactions between Linda and Mohammed happen via the internet, which are difficult to portray visually. A further barrier is the need to pixellate Mohammed’s face: communicating with an Israeli or showing interest in Iraq’s former Jewish community could put Mohammed and his family in mortal danger.

But any technical shortcomings are made up for by the quality of the story the film tells. In just over an hour Shadow in Baghdad manages to touch on a number of deeply moving themes, such as the relationship between a father and daughter, and between sisters. The developing relationship between Linda and Mohammed is also compelling: despite initial mutual suspicion, the two protagonists, who have never met, gradually learn to respect and trust one another. 

When the film ends we are left wanting to know more about their lives – and about the Jewish community before and after it had to leave its home between the Tigris and Euphrates.

Despatches from the Kabul Café, Book by Heidi Kingstone, Advance Editions (2014), 8* out of 10

With her empathy for the position of women in Afghanistan, a healthy dose of irony for expats living the (good?) life in Afghanistan and an eye for beauty and fashion in the most unlikely places, Ms Kingstone's very readable vignettes are a thoroughly worthwhile addition to the plethora of writing sparked by the West’s intervention in Afghanistan.

When western democracies go to war in far away places in the 21st century, public opinion demands that they win hearts and minds. Moreover, they must  set-up institutions for democracy to take root after the killing of enemies and the collateral damage to friends and undecided or innocent bystanders is done.

So besides the military and their private sector entourage - security firms, contractors of all kinds - western governments will want to make sure that they bring with them a whole group of idealistic civilians. They do this by generously funding so-called non-governmental organisations, which can recruit the right kind of individuals for various projects and organise their stay in their war-torn destination.

In “Dispatches from the Kabul Café” one of these, journalist and foreign correspondent Heidi Kingstone, provides a collection of vignettes in which she turns a critical yet sympathetic eye on the people who have come to make Afghanistan and the world a better place, of which Ms. Kingstone herself was one. The period to which most of her stories and their cast of characters refer is 2007/2008 when Ms Kingstone was based in Kabul was one more hopeful (for some) than the present. But, with the benefit of hindsight, she includes events that happened after her departure. 

Ms Kingstone’s book is readable, ironic and sometimes sardonic without becoming downright cynical, and occasionally moving. The lives of people who seek adventure, career advancement, romance or (just) the opportunity to do good are often veteran NGOers moving from one of the world’s crises to another: Iraq, Darfur, East Timor, Afghanistan…. 

Next to a belief in meaningful work, there is a risk premium that not only heightens income but also adrenaline, testosterone and oxytocin. So amorous adventures, lust and sometimes even love can thrive among the expats ducking Taliban-rockets and attempting to avoid Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). But if the reader were tempted to give up Tinder and look for romance in the Afghan expat community rather the author has a warning in the form of a Local saying: The odds are good but the goods are odd; and so Ms. Kingstone finds herself holding a machine gun on a Nevada shooting range. 

Ms Kingstone is at her best when her stories are about the women in the Kabul, either  among the expat NGOers or  among the Afghan women they meet outside their work. Her eye for beauty and fashion in the most unlikely places and the gentle irony in her writing make there despatches not only readable but a worthwhile addition to the plethora of writing sparked by the West’s latest intervention in Afghanistan.

http://www.heidikingstone.com/books/dispatches-from-the-kabul-cafe/

Heidi Kingstone

Deux Jours Une Nuit (Two Days One Night), Film written and directed by Jean Pierre and Luc Dardenne, starring Marion Cotillard, 10* out of 10

Filmed in a realistic documentary style, Deux Jours Une Nuit (Two Days One Night) is social drama at its best. The Dardennes' excellent screenplay shows the impact of a difficult moral dilemma on relationships at work, within the family and among friends. Marion Cotillard’s performance is brilliant.

In many a fairy-tale the hero has to accomplish a seemingly impossible task to win a cherished prize. In the process he learns about his own strength and weaknesses and finds out, who his true friends are.

At first sight the Dardenne-brothers’ latest film Two Days One Night is about as close to being a fairy tale as the fictional Captain Picard’s Starship Enterprise is from planet earth; but on closer inspection…

Sandra (Marion Cotillard), just recovered from a bout of depression, is ready to return to her workplace at SunWal a small enterprise producing solar panels in Wallonia, the economically declining French-speaking part of Belgium. SunWal’s owner/manager has decided that in order to survive in an extremely competitive market, he has to cut costs to improve productivity.  This being Europe, the boss believes in co-determination: workers on his shop floor will get some say in in this; he will determine the what it is they can decide on.  The question on which lets them organise a vote, is whether to let Sandra go and everyone else keep their annual bonus (of EUR 1000) or to keep Sandra on and everyone give up their annual bonus.  After a first vote that results in a clear majority for letting Sandra go turns out to have been irregularly influenced by the foreman, the boss agrees that the vote should be retaken. Although she still suffering from the after effects of her depression, Sandra, encouraged by her friends and urged on by her husband (Fabrizio Rongione), has the weekend to campaign on her own behalf before the vote will be retaken.  She is reluctant to do this, but knows that without her salary her young family will be in dire straits. As she canvases her 16 colleagues asking for each one’s support the social drama of the aftermath of the financial crisis in Europe and the dramatic side effects of globalization on people’s lives is brought down to a human and personal level that is genuinely moving.

Filmed in a realistic documentary style, Two Days One Night is social drama at its best. The Dardennes' excellent screenplay shows the impact of a difficult moral dilemma on relationships at work, within the family and among friends. The suspense as to the outcome contrasting with the understated style of direction and acting serves to amplify the strong emotional impact on the audience.  While maintaining their social realism throughout, the Dardenne-brothers manage to leave the audience with some optimism about the strength of the human spirit. Amid an excellent ensemble cast, Marion Cotillard shines with a brilliant performance as the struggling Sandra having to stand up for herself while fighting for her job, her family and her sanity. Highly recommended.

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2737050/

Lucy, Film written and directed by Luc Besson starring Scarlett Johansson, 6* out of 10

After a promising start Luc Besson’s Lucy, becomes an aimless and perhaps largely unintended parody of life, the universe and everything. Nevertheless, visual effects and Scarlett Johansson’s screen-presence make it very watchable.

Lucy, a street-smart young woman is being tricked by her new Scandinavian boyfriend to help him with the handover of a locked attache-case with unknown content at a 5* star hotel in Taipei. This and what follows in the next 30 minutes of this film could have been a promising and visually captivating start to an action classic.

Thereafter, while the action film part moves on, its main protagonist is under the influence of an accidentally absorbed overdose of a wonder drug that makes more and more of her brain capacity available to her - at a price. Lucy reverts physically to adapt to life in a state of nature as defined by the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes: “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Mentally she reaches incredible heights of academic performance while emotionally turning into a parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger's classic "Terminator" without the cute Austrian accent and the muscled man-boobs.

Meanwhile, the film script loses itself in pseudo-scientific eccentricities and pseudo-philosophical speculations intended to give meaning to the impressive visual effects and Lucy’s 24-hour Odyssey. 

Nevertheless, what makes this movie still fun and quite watchable is Johansson’s screen presence and the visual effects linking the development of her character's brainpower to a short history of the world from Big Bang to our dissolution into disembodied ubiquity by means of a mobile phone and a USB-stick.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2872732/

Hotel, Play written by Polly Stenham directed by Maria Aberg, National Theatre London, 9* out of 10

Writing, direction, acting and set are all of a high standard, melding into a surprisingly thrilling and action packed visit to the theatre.

Father (Robert), mother (Vivienne) together with teenage son (Ralph) and daughter (Frankie) arrive in their luxury garden-house cabin for a spontaneous family holiday in a Kenyan coastal resort. Vivienne (played by Hermione Gulliford) just had to resign as a Minister in the British Cabinet because husband Robert (Tom Beard) was caught by the notorious British scandal-press inappropriately flirting with a younger woman over the internet. Will they manage to work out their marital crisis in their holiday paradise? Meanwhile, Ralph (Tom Rhys-Harris) and Frankie (Shannon Tarbet) have to deal with a secret of their own. And then waiting for them, is Nala (Susan Wokoma) the resort’s chambermaid delivering the beautiful swan-shaped towel arrangement. Does she have designs on the buff teenager for whom she has just turned up the bed?

Polly Stenham delivers a one-act explosive action thriller. Excellent acting performances by a talented cast and the versatile set by Naomi Dawson make this play reach near action movie quality. The set is all the more remarkable as the play uses the temporary theatre structure that looks like a wooden version of Battersea Power Station. There’s violence, there’s blood; so this is certainly not a play for the very young or the faint hearted. Some of the political storyline will make those who do not religiously follow the Guardian’s political line on foreign policy wince.  But that is a small price to pay for the unexpected and ingeniously creative twists and turns brilliantly brought to stage by Maria Aberg’s dynamic direction. 

Writing, direction, acting and set are all of a high standard, melding into a surprisingly thrilling and action packed visit to the theatre.

http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/hotel

Economist Thomas Piketty speaking about his best-selling book “Capital in the 21st Century” at the London School of Economics, 8* out of 10

The French "rock-star economist" Thomas Piketty has been called the "new Karl Marx" by The Economist Newspaper. The Guardian newspaper called his lecture at the London School of Economics, the "hottest Economics ticket in town". Piketty's emphasis on wealth distribution has made him the target of many free-market capitalist commentators and newspapers. But I wonder what Margaret Thatcher would have made of his ideas on strengthening the middle class through the redistribution of wealth.

The French economics professor Thomas Piketty is on a worldwide lecture tour to promote his surprise best selling book (696 pages, no less) “Capital in the 21^st Century”.

What is the book about? The Economist magazine summarises it in 4 paragraphs thus:

IT IS the economics book taking the world by storm. "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", written by the French economist Thomas Piketty, was published in French last year and in English in March of this year. The English version quickly became an unlikely bestseller, and it has prompted a broad and energetic debate on the book’s subject: the outlook for global inequality. Some reckon it heralds or may itself cause a pronounced shift in the focus of economic policy, toward distributional questions. This newspaper has hailed Mr Piketty as "the modern Marx" (Karl, that is). But what’s it all about?

"Capital" is built on more than a decade of research by Mr Piketty and a handful of other economists, detailing historical changes in the concentration of income and wealth. This pile of data allows Mr Piketty to sketch out the evolution of inequality since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In the 18th and 19th centuries western European society was highly unequal. Private wealth dwarfed national income and was concentrated in the hands of the rich families who sat atop a relatively rigid class structure. This system persisted even as industrialisation slowly contributed to rising wages for workers. Only the chaos of the first and second world wars and the Depression disrupted this pattern. High taxes, inflation, bankruptcies, and the growth of sprawling welfare states caused wealth to shrink dramatically, and ushered in a period in which both income and wealth were distributed in relatively egalitarian fashion. But the shocks of the early 20th century have faded and wealth is now reasserting itself. On many measures, Mr Piketty reckons, the importance of wealth in modern economies is approaching levels last seen before the first world war.

From this history, Mr Piketty derives a grand theory of capital and inequality. As a general rule wealth grows faster than economic output, he explains, a concept he captures in the expression r > g (where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate). Other things being equal, faster economic growth will diminish the importance of wealth in a society, whereas slower growth will increase it (and demographic change that slows global growth will make capital more dominant). But there are no natural forces pushing against the steady concentration of wealth. Only a burst of rapid growth (from technological progress or rising population) or government intervention can be counted on to keep economies from returning to the “patrimonial capitalism” that worried Karl Marx. Mr Piketty closes the book by recommending that governments step in now, by adopting a global tax on wealth, to prevent soaring inequality contributing to economic or political instability down the road.

The book has unsurprisingly attracted plenty of criticism. Some wonder whether Mr Piketty is right to think the future will look like the past. Theory argues that it should become ever harder to earn a good return on wealth the more there is of it. And today’s super-rich mostly come by their wealth through work, rather than via inheritance. Others argue that Mr Piketty’s policy recommendations are more ideologically than economically driven and could do more harm than good. But many of the sceptics nonetheless have kind words for the book’s contributions, in terms of data and analysis. Whether or not Mr Piketty succeeds in changing policy, he will have influenced the way thousands of readers and plenty of economists think about these issues.”

Piketty has stirred controversy with the last part of his book in which he suggests a tax being imposed on net-wealth.  This and the word “Capital” in he title of his book, has stirred those who believe in non-interventionist doctrine of capitalism, to accuse him of all sorts of things: being a Marxist (which he is not), presenting false data (he is ready to debate and show that he has not), beating his ex-girlfriend the current French culture minister well known for her stormy love affairs (which he denies) and finally committing the ultimate crime in the eyes of Anglo-Saxon defenders of capitalism red in tooth and claw, that of being French (which he is).

Piketty is very presentable and speaks excellent English with a heavy French accent.  He explains his findings in a very clear presentation with low-tech slides, which is accessible to normal mortals not familiar with the intricacies of Economics.  From time to time he loosens things up with self-deprecating and witty remarks about himself, his subject and his opponents’ thinking.

He is ready to robustly defend the research he and his numerous collaborators produced about the development of income and wealth since the industrial revolution. At the same time, he is intensely relaxed about people who draw entirely different conclusions about the need for policy changes than he does. In his view, such differences of view are par for the course for social science research. Moreover, he says, that while social sciences can be very useful in explaining the past, the future remains unpredictable so that his or anybody else’s hunch about how things might develop are speculation and may be proved entirely wrong by unexpected events and developments. 

Piketty believes in Western style democracy and a capitalism moderated by some state intervention to prevent or correct developments that may constitute a danger for both.  Based on his findings he believes that capitalism, as we know it, tends to greater concentration of wealth at the top. If this development is allowed to continue unchecked, it risks undermining the existence of a middle class on which democracy, freedom and successful economic development under the capitalist system depend. He explains that it is with that reasoning that he makes the policy recommendations based on his findings.

I have read a few chapters of his book, looked at a number of newspaper articles on it, and have now seen the “rock-star economist” perform at the lectern in what the Guardian newspaper described as “the hottest economics ticket in town”. My conclusion is that Piketty has done something very useful in being one of the first to do empirical research on the development of wealth and income since the industrial revolution in a large number of countries. Rather than just theorising about wealth, researchers and policy-makers now have a lot of data to draw on. Piketty is a creative researcher, also very good at presenting and explaining his data in plain English. The heavy French accent is not there when you read the book and does not detract from his presentation when he speaks. Thomas Piketty has his views on politics, but contrary to famous Nobel prize winning economists like Milton Friedman or Paul Krugman he is no ideologue or polemicist, keen on being a major influencer of political decisions, but primarily a researcher. He is happy to share his political views and make policy recommendations; but they are not where his main interests lie.

Finally, I cannot help but wonder what Margaret Thatcher would have made of Piketty’s research and ideas.  After all, her most revolutionary policy was to turn thousands of council house tenants into home owners, probably the most significant transfer of “capital” from the state to low-income, low-wealth households, giving them a unique opportunity to own and build some capital of their own and join the ranks of the middle-class.  Could it be that Margaret Thatcher was an instinctive progressive fighter for boosting the ranks of the “capital-owning” middle class, an idea very dear to Thomas Piketty’s heart?

http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=2514

Wolf Hall/Bring Up the Bodies, Plays by Mike Poulton, Royal Shakespeare Company, Aldwych Theatre, London, 9* out of 10

In adapting Hilary Mantel’s Booker Prize winning novels into two plays for the stage Mike Poulton has done very well. Although the adaptation is not, and probably cannot be, as good as the original, Poulton and the RSC have produced a gripping and excellent piece of theatre.

The Court of Henry VIII in 1527.  Thomas Cromwell, a blacksmith’s son, and assistant to Cardinal Thomas Wolsey is on his way to becoming the “eminence grise” behind the throne of Henry VIII. Mentored by Cardinal Wolsey, Cromwell, like many others at court, falls under Henry’s charismatic spell and becomes his trusted advisor and manager of the most delicate and dangerous projects, when execution (in all senses of the word) requires the whole range of skills from subtle diplomacy to ruthless brutality. While staying loyal to the king at all times Cromwell manages to settle some of his own scores and get some of his personal pet-projects completed, wherever the opportunity for additional collateral benefits presents itself.

Hilary Mantel has brilliantly told the story of the rise and fall of Anne Boleyn seen from deep within Thomas Cromwell’s mind in her two Booker Prize winning novels Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies.

The supreme irony of Henry VIII desperate and - for some of his entourage - deadly desire for a worthy heir, is that he did not recognise that Anne Boleyn, whose demise he willed because of it, had already produced one:  Anne and Henry’s daughter Elizabeth would become one of England’s greatest monarchs.

In adapting Mantel’s novels into two plays for the stage Mike Poulton has done very well. Although the adaptation is not, and probably cannot be, as good as the original books, it is a gripping and excellent piece of theatre.

Director Jeremy Herrin ensures that the action moves along on a minimalist set dominated by a huge and hugely symbolic cross: England’s cross of St George and the cross of the catholic church get into a crucial conflict, out of which the Church of England arises as an initially unintended consequence. The focus of the plays is on the on-goings at court around the skilful, charismatic, dynamic and manipulative King Henry VIII (Nathaniel Parker) and the extraordinary women and men that surround him: Queen Catherine (Lucy Briers), Anne Boleyn (Lydia Leonard), the Boleyns, Cardinal Wolsey  (Paul Jesson), Thomas Cromwell (Ben Miles) and a number of minor though by no means insignificant characters. Some are more aware of the constant danger the King’s U-turns mean to their lives than others; but even they cannot resist the temptation to keep dancing while the music is playing. They are hoping that it won’t be them who will soon encounter one of the King’s axeman or torturers when the music stops, for having aroused his displeasure by being in the way of his plans.

The musical score by Stephen Warbeck, particularly for festive occasions at court, sounds more like Klezmer than Green Sleeves, but not unpleasantly so. The acting performances are excellent, with Ben Miles a strong Thomas Cromwell. Bring Up the Bodies, the story of Ann Boleyn’s demise, is darker and more gripping than Wolf Hall.  For all those who love history and the theatre the RSC has produced accessible high quality entertainment. 

http://www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/wolf-hall/