Jeremy Hardy vs. the Israeli Army (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Eye-Opening
Krustallos12 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In which urbane alternative comedian Jeremy Hardy joins an International Solidarity Movement contingent in the West Bank and finds the reality of 'facts on the ground' clarifies his thinking on the Middle East issue no end.

Some criticisms of the film here are off the mark. Film is a visual medium. What counts is what we see. Hardy's narration is very understated, very self-deprecating, very English. We don't need him to express outrage at the Israeli army firing live rounds towards unarmed, peaceful demonstrators. We see it and can judge for ourselves. This works infinitely better than the sort of tendentious emoting which marred "One Day in September" or arguably Michael Moore's work.

While the film does not pretend to make a detailed examination of the conflict, there are nods towards the complexity of the situation; there is reference to suicide bombers and the Palestinian youths' "own version of the struggle" (although the latter is not spelled out). The ISM volunteers are told that reconciliation is the ultimate goal and they should not say anything to the Israeli soldiers which would make that harder to achieve. Although Hardy appears to start from a position of some scepticism regarding the international volunteers, events change this to admiration and wholehearted support.

While clearly taking sides, the film is unsensational, nuanced and yet as gripping as most thrillers. Throughly recommended.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Feels like Beeb Spirit
Matt_In_The_Hat30 August 2004
First an apology; I gave the film a six by accident. It should have been a seven. But then how much can you tell of a film from a mark out of ten?

Despite his prominence in the film and the documentary being about his experiences I felt that this was Leila Sansour's film. That it was her life but she couldn't tell it to us, she had to show a westerner's reactions to it. Hardy brings a middle class England perspective to the entire conflict. He has liberal attitudes and a healthy political knowledge and so seemed to fit in well with the non-confrontational spirit of the protests, but this seems to have carried through to his convictions. It sounds ludicrous but he doesn't seem enthused about what he is doing and about the problems of the situation. This could be down to his just-got-up voice and a sarcastic wit that at other times, in other programs can come close to petulance. When the protesters become more involve and sneak into Palestinian settlements Hardy seems to be going through it with a non-challenge that might leave you thinking he were sitting next to you on the sofa, commenting on something distant.

To be fair to the man he didn't go looking for this. As is shown, about a week after he was approached he was in Israel and being trained on non-confrontational protests so you understand that he could be 'shell-shocked by it all but still you seem to expect more. You want the man to get angry, you want him to cry and you want him to rage at the injustice of the army firing on peaceful, truly and utterly peaceful, protesters. But he doesn't. He doesn't even get angry when he comes home and has to deal with the 'authority' here. He makes it part of his stand-up act. The man is a comedian so it's not unexpected but he's also your guide on a story that needs telling and when he returns home and talks of it being such an adventure, one he may or may not repeat, you are left feeling that the problem is richly deserving of a documentary, but not too much of your time.

I'm afraid that I'm being too hard on the film because I don't think it dealt with the gravity of the problem. We saw a middle-class man being shepherded around a troubled area and being safely removed when things got tough. But all that said he did his job. He did not try and convince us what to think because it is not his place and any arguments he made would be hollow and almost spoon-fed to him. What he did, and what Leila Sansour did brilliantly through him, was to be objective from a given viewpoint. Not to trivialise the problem with inaccurate facts, twisted logic and cheap stunts. Not to give us what the politicians want on the people's behalf or what the headline grabbing extremists want but to give the people in the area a medium to tell us their thoughts, their opinions and what they think of things. It reminds of the BBC, back when they had frequent, high-quality reporting.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed