First of all the film Captain Abu Raed is unexceptional. I am also one of those people who have to take into consideration the director behind the film. I am disappointed with Amin Matalqa's reply to a comment by Elia.
Mr. Matalqa claims his film is Jordanian because it's 100% Jordanian funded. Does that mean other Jordanian films who were denied funding by local Jordanian sources because they don't have Mr. Matalqa's connections that those films are not Jordanian films? Famous Jordanian director Mahmoud Massad, maker of the award-wining documentary Recycle (winner of Sundance World Cinematography Award) did not receive a penny of support in Jordan. So he won a few funding competitions at the Berlinale World Cinema Fund and San Sebastian. Mr. Matalqa wants to tell us that Mr. Mahmoud Massad's film is not Jordanian. That's fantastic. So all a third world regime has to do is to make laws forbidding funding for filmmakers they don't like and that makes these black-listed films foreign films? I am glad film festivals do not go by Mr. Matalqa's definition of a national film.
Then Mr. Matalqa attacks Najdat Anzour's film Oriental Tale (1991) accusing it of not being a Jordanian film because Mr. Anzour is not Jordanian. But the actors and the script and the shooting location are Jordanians. And by the way, Najdat Anzour has the Jordanian passport. That makes him Jordanian as well as Syrian.
But even if the film follows the nationality of the filmmaker, does that mean all of Roman Polanski's films are French or Polish? There are other Hollywood filmmakers who are not American. Yet there films classify as Americans. Mr. Matalqa wants to change all of that just for his film's sake and to exclude other Jordanian films and filmmakers from the spot light. Too drastic.
Mr. Matalqa claims that because a film is French funded, that it's not Jordanian. That means 90% of films made in the third world are French or German or Italian films? What about countries that can't afford to fund films. What about repressive regimes who ban funding for filmmakers critical of the status quo? It would be a great day for repression if Mr. Matalqa gets his way with his new funding criteria and national identity.
As for the Jordanian feature film the Mission (2007), again Mr. Matalqa insults the filmmakers by making fantastic statements as to why his film is still number one. He says "The Mission was filmed in July 2007, one month after Captain Abu Raed" So? it was screened before Captain Abu Raed in Jordan. This must be a new role where the film's year of production is decided by the day the camera starts rolling for the first time.
"and was never released in cinemas nor festivals." Another bizarre rule Mr. Matalqa invented. Many films screen in art houses and cultural centers and not paid commercial theaters. They still count as films. They still exist. The Mission is a film that was made and screened in Jordan in more than one cultural center under the patronage of royalty. It's a real film.
"I also understand it was shot with TV video cameras" Again, Mr. Matalqa denigrates the film because of the limited means of the filmmaker. We know of films that had won international acclaim that shot with a simple video camera. That's the whole idea behind Dogme 95 and other film-making schools. Even Oliver Stone used a TV video camera to make some of his great films.
Mr. Matalqa is so eager to monopolize the spotlight that he is willing to hurt so many other filmmakers and to change the whole international system by which films are classified and judged. Wouldn't be much easier to make a good film and leave us to decide? I hope Mr. Matalqa changes his stance instead of digging deeper and deeper and offending more and more people.
It's all about the quality of the film. So give it a rest Mr. Matalqa.
Mr. Matalqa claims his film is Jordanian because it's 100% Jordanian funded. Does that mean other Jordanian films who were denied funding by local Jordanian sources because they don't have Mr. Matalqa's connections that those films are not Jordanian films? Famous Jordanian director Mahmoud Massad, maker of the award-wining documentary Recycle (winner of Sundance World Cinematography Award) did not receive a penny of support in Jordan. So he won a few funding competitions at the Berlinale World Cinema Fund and San Sebastian. Mr. Matalqa wants to tell us that Mr. Mahmoud Massad's film is not Jordanian. That's fantastic. So all a third world regime has to do is to make laws forbidding funding for filmmakers they don't like and that makes these black-listed films foreign films? I am glad film festivals do not go by Mr. Matalqa's definition of a national film.
Then Mr. Matalqa attacks Najdat Anzour's film Oriental Tale (1991) accusing it of not being a Jordanian film because Mr. Anzour is not Jordanian. But the actors and the script and the shooting location are Jordanians. And by the way, Najdat Anzour has the Jordanian passport. That makes him Jordanian as well as Syrian.
But even if the film follows the nationality of the filmmaker, does that mean all of Roman Polanski's films are French or Polish? There are other Hollywood filmmakers who are not American. Yet there films classify as Americans. Mr. Matalqa wants to change all of that just for his film's sake and to exclude other Jordanian films and filmmakers from the spot light. Too drastic.
Mr. Matalqa claims that because a film is French funded, that it's not Jordanian. That means 90% of films made in the third world are French or German or Italian films? What about countries that can't afford to fund films. What about repressive regimes who ban funding for filmmakers critical of the status quo? It would be a great day for repression if Mr. Matalqa gets his way with his new funding criteria and national identity.
As for the Jordanian feature film the Mission (2007), again Mr. Matalqa insults the filmmakers by making fantastic statements as to why his film is still number one. He says "The Mission was filmed in July 2007, one month after Captain Abu Raed" So? it was screened before Captain Abu Raed in Jordan. This must be a new role where the film's year of production is decided by the day the camera starts rolling for the first time.
"and was never released in cinemas nor festivals." Another bizarre rule Mr. Matalqa invented. Many films screen in art houses and cultural centers and not paid commercial theaters. They still count as films. They still exist. The Mission is a film that was made and screened in Jordan in more than one cultural center under the patronage of royalty. It's a real film.
"I also understand it was shot with TV video cameras" Again, Mr. Matalqa denigrates the film because of the limited means of the filmmaker. We know of films that had won international acclaim that shot with a simple video camera. That's the whole idea behind Dogme 95 and other film-making schools. Even Oliver Stone used a TV video camera to make some of his great films.
Mr. Matalqa is so eager to monopolize the spotlight that he is willing to hurt so many other filmmakers and to change the whole international system by which films are classified and judged. Wouldn't be much easier to make a good film and leave us to decide? I hope Mr. Matalqa changes his stance instead of digging deeper and deeper and offending more and more people.
It's all about the quality of the film. So give it a rest Mr. Matalqa.