In the days of pre-Oscar hysteria, the news about the devastating fact that, due to rigid American legal obstacles, Motaz Malhis, the performer of the main and truly impressive male role in the extremely poignant Tunisian-Palestinian docudrama film, went almost completely unnoticed. Voice of Hind Razab author Kauter ben Hani, could not set foot in the USA on the occasion of the award ceremony.
That film also won a nomination for this year's Oscar (of course, in the category of best international film), and in mid-March it became part of the regular repertoire of cinemas in Serbia. On that occasion, this short interview for "Vreme" took place.
Bearing in mind the extensive and successful festival life of this film, which aspect of it stood out to you personally as the most important, closest, most interesting?
What left the strongest impression on me was not only the recognition and acknowledgment of the quality of that film of ours, but the moments of silence after the screenings, the feeling that something fragile had reached people across languages and geography. Festivals can sometimes turn films into objects, but what was important here was connection, when viewers recognized themselves in something very specific and distant. Well, that, for me, is a real success.
If we keep in mind what happened at this winter's Berlin Film Festival and the polemics caused by Wim Wenders' statement, what would be the most desirable relationship between politics and politics and film as a largely narrative medium?
I don't think that film can ever be or stay out of politics, because every picture already carries a certain point of view. What matters is whether the film is aware of this or hides behind the idea of neutrality, which often only reinforces existing power structures. At the same time, I am wary of reducing the film to slogans. Film is one of the few spaces that can contain contradiction and ambiguity. For me, the most honest approach is when the political dimension is inseparable from the life experience of the characters, when it is not imposed, not denied, but simply exists, shaping everything.
In the specific case of this film of yours, is it even possible to separate what makes up the essence of film storytelling and what can reasonably be considered political and/or activist?
In this case, I don't think separation is possible. The story itself is shaped by conditions that are inherently political. But that does not reduce it to activism, it still concerns individuals, contradictions, emotions. The danger is when we flatten characters into symbols. For me, storytelling is like a vehicle, and politics is the context that gives it weight.
In your opinion, is there a possibility today to create a socially relevant film, without it being completely devoid of political, ideological, as well as the influence of reality and everyday life?
I would say no, not in any meaningful sense. Even the decision to avoid politics is, in itself, a kind of political stance. Reality inevitably seeps into everything, into language, into silence, into what we choose to show or leave out. A film that claims to stand outside of ideology often just agrees with the dominant ideology without questioning it. And personally, I am much more interested in what is happening here, among us, on this planet. Film, for me, is a form of confronting our realities, not an escape from them. I would rather deal with the complexities of my own lives than speculate about distant worlds, because those are the stories that shape us and carry a much more immediate urgency.
Real journalism costs money, and we will not be bought by tycoons and corporations. Support us with a one-time or monthly donation. The time for it is now!
