Enas Muthaffar is a young, ambitious Palestinian filmmaker from Jerusalem. Her family was once forced to leave their home when, in 1948, the first war began. Now it is 2005 and a wall is being built, a 72 mile barrier that will restrict access not only to Jerusalem, but to other cities as well. So the family must evacuate for a second time. They live in Ramallah but work in Jerusalem, that ancient city where their livelihood has inevitably lain. In July, they shall even require passes to return to Ramallah where after twenty-seven years this story unfolds.
Last year, a small group of exploratory Swiss filmmakers initiated a series of writing, editing and filming workshops where Enas and four others – operating amidst the turbulence of an Occupied West Bank - have put together a documentary film called My Home: Swiss Palestinian Film Encounters. Her segment East and West, the last in a series of five, explores the individual tragedies of an occupied people in terms of her immediate family and their reactions to giving up another home, this one twenty-seven years old.
Enas has traveled the world to participate in film festivals and screenings of My Home: Swiss Palestinian Encounters. She recently visited Concordia University in Montreal along with several of her colleagues to promote the cause. We spoke in a quiet, empty auditorium where the screening had been shown to a sparse, largely disinterested student audience. The Q & A session that followed seemed largely off target, focusing more on Palestinian realities than Enas or her film.
An obviously motivated young woman, she did not portray the image of occupied, restricted weakness that is occupation, but rather one of righteous strength. Several times during the interview, when we delved into the more personal effects of the occupation, she became very emotional; her voice dropped to a barely audible level and her eyes seemed to water a little, though it was hard to be sure in the dim light of such a large room.
MAZIN ALMUSHARAF: Hello, Enas. I understand you lived in Egypt for 4 years?
ENAS MUTHAFFAR: Hi. 5 actually
MA: I lived there for 15. How were you received in Egypt, as a Palestinian, I mean did a lot of people care and try to help?
EM: I tried to stay away from politics in Cairo [a moment’s thought] I think I was afraid
MA: Afraid?
EM: Yes. I had National Security agents who took me in more than once and questioned me. But my mother had told me when I left for Egypt, she said: “Where you are going, this is not your home, you don’t have to do anything, just learn well and come back. It is not your country, so do not get into trouble.”
MA: So you didn’t talk any politics in Cairo?
EM: Well of course you talk to your friends. And they understand, after all, they are Egyptians you know, they are Arabs. They have “a martyr in every house” you know, like Abdel Nasser.
MA: How hard was it for you to put this project together and to bring out your message from Palestine, in terms of literal difficulties?
EM: Well it wasn’t a matter of hard. It was a matter of doing the work. It was a pleasure and an opportunity. You see cinema is a way to meet other cultures and to be with other people. It’s really the way to experience dreams and well, it is a lot of work and material to go through. A lot of minds came together to make this project happen across borders. There are the obvious constraints of course.
MA: I was looking at some of the titles of your work. Paradise Now, Can’t be News, they seem more like statements than titles. So, can you tell me who you are speaking to?
EM: Well Paradise Now is not my work, I was an assistant scriptwriter. Can’t Be News, I’m still working on that. It’s been about 3 years now. It’s about a suicide bomber from Jericho. My other work is stuff like AHH YA SITTY [Oh My Grandmother].
MA: Do you prefer working in Arabic or English?
EM: The one you saw today was written in English because the email to my sister that it is about was in English. This is literally the same email I sent, with the photos of the wall and everything. I also had to do an Arabic version for the Arabic Film Festival. Post-production was done in Switzerland. They were very generous with me, letting me do an Arabic and English version. But Oh My Grandmother was in Arabic.
MA: Do you think it makes a difference? I mean to the audience, especially about this issue, because Palestinians are Arabs, right? So did it have different effects?
EM: Not really. Well of course I never had the same audience, you know. But people that saw both, like my parents, said that the English version was better. It felt much stronger. Because the whole film is in Arabic but the voiceover is in English. So in a way, I used both.
MA: It’s a long way from Ramallah to Quebec. Can you compare the audience reactions from place to place? Were you received differently in different places?
EM: [laughs] Well I remember one premiere, this summer in Switzerland. The place was packed, a very lively reception. I think when the public is dealing with a festival, cinema and art it is much easier for films to be accepted as pieces of cinema. This evening cannot compare. It was a big room, a small audience, not so many people. The films are beginning to meet people. The importance is really for the audience to come to the point of speaking about cinema. That is our commitment in the festival, to speak about cinema.
MA: Today most of the questions were about Palestine.
EM: Yes, of course. They are Palestinian films. People expect to see certain images being shot, which is fine by me. I am not really surprised.
MA: Like the checkpoints and the soldiers?
EM: It’s fine. They are used to certain images. As you said, the way from Ramallah to Quebec is very long. So what they see on the news are certain realities that we experience. But we have another life.
MA: What do these images represent to you?
EM: There are certain images from our life that we don’t really communicate with people through the news because they are not considered headlines. But they are really part of who we are. They represent our identity and why it is very hard to live under an occupation. I think people will see more films and they will start getting used to these images. The last images in my film are very political. The first shot with my father and the wall on the foreground, you see exactly why we have to leave. This shot has a political meaning but in a family story, in the suffering of a father. If you only think about the politics of it, it is not really film.
MA: Then what is it?
EM: When people go to the theatre to see a film they want to see something different in terms of a story. Let’s say you have Cinderella, you want to tell that story. You don’t just put clips of her and the clock do you? There are details. Stories come from details. What you see on the mainstream news is not details, it is facts. A story has to be detailed, otherwise it doesn’t really communicate.
MA: So would you say that you are trying to show the political implications of what is happening in a very specific way towards individuals, rather than a whole society?
EM: That’s very important, yes. This is the way it works in news. That’s fine by me because people need to be informed. But as a filmmaker, I am concerned with a certain person, a certain character, living in a certain place. In my case it was Palestine and in my case it was my father and the subject of us having to leave that house. Generally speaking, people leave their houses for many reasons, for hurricanes, no money or whatever. But this is my story.
MA: So you began a film about the wall, and ended up doing it about your family?
EM: When I first started East and West, it was to be an experimental about the wall. I really believed that I had nothing to add of my own. I mean, it is a sad story that we have to leave but I felt that there are much stronger, more terrible stories to tell than mine.
MA: What changed your mind?
EM: Two things. First, Nicholas Vladimov said to me once: “why don’t you do it about your family?” And I said “well I think there are much stronger stories.” But then my father said something to me that really brought it home, he said “You know, I think this is the first time in my life I have had to pack”. So I realized that in 1948, when they had to leave the first time, he did not pack.
MA: He had no time?
ES: No, they were in Jordan before the war broke out. They were at a wedding and they heard the news of what happened and realized that they could never come back. Their house as it existed then did not exist any more. When he said that sentence, this was a sign for me. He never had an opportunity to pack. That’s why when you asked about the political aspect, I said we are forgetting about ourselves. We think that the checkpoint is normal, but when I come here, I realize that it is not fine, the checkpoint is not ok. Then I go back, and I have to cross those checkpoints.
MA: But you have only one shot of the wall, at the end. Is there any particular reason for that? I mean you refer to it a lot but show it only once.
EM: I really hate it. One shot for me at the end was more than enough. It is so ugly. I see it every morning and I thought I am not going to put more than one shot of this ugly thing in my film that I will show my grandchildren. It was not really an artistic choice. It was more of a feeling although it worked out well in the end.
MA: What is your favourite work?
EM: For Archives Only. I really love it in terms of the way that it was produced. I was able to do what I wanted to do, I had space to think.
MA: You had complete freedom?
EM: Yes I had complete freedom. I didn’t really feel the presence of a producer in a bad way. It was a very special piece. We were allowed to think about ourselves, not only as Palestinians, you know? It was also very political because it was discussing the psychological effects of the occupation on children. We had kids who were ten years old or fourteen that had gunshot wounds or were paralyzed because of the occupation. It was terrible seeing it like that.
MA: These are children hurt by the Israeli’s or related violence?
EM: Any related violence. It is all because of the occupation anyway. No matter who is pulling the trigger.
MA: What does the title mean? For Archives Only?
EM: It is my whole perception of the issue. The whole Palestinian issue is kept in the archives isn’t it? Don’t you think so? It’s for certain uses only. Everything is for archive
MA: For certain uses by whom?
EM: A filmmaker perhaps. By someone who will file a case against Israel in the future, or whatever. It’s really an archive. It hasn’t changed anything. If you want to get into political facts; we had Oslo. They can say we had ‘peace’, but look at it now. That proves that nothing has changed.
MA: So you are saying the whole issue is being sidelined?
EM: Totally. I always think about that. We need to revisit this stuff as much as possible. If not, the archives are useless. They are dead.
MA: What do you think attracted people like Jean Perret and Nicholas Vladmiov to the Palestinian issue?
EM: It’s funny you should say that because I asked Jean Perret the same question not too long ago. His answer impressed me. He said “we have to listen to the small voices. We are living in a very individual culture where the mass media is very loud, the mainstream is very strong. We strongly believe that you have to listen to the small voices, the ones that will tell us the details that explain the complexity of life”. Isn’t that amazing?
No comments:
Post a Comment