The Encounter Point Movie - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned November Encounter Point- A Movie1. Truly speaking the film does not approach the conflict in terms of numbers or relative strategic superiority or inferiority. The main focus of the film is the suffering and bereavement of the families on both the sides of the conflict, which is equally intense, deep, shaking, disturbing and painful, irrespective of which side tends to be superior in terms of numbers, tactical advantage or moral integrity. The message that the film brings to the fore is that war brings pain and suffering to all. The point that the film tends to make is that in a war nobody wins. The media may declare one side to be a winning side or the governments and historians may come to the conclusion that their side is winning, still the fact that winning or losing makes no contribution towards the effort required to alleviate the pain of those families who lost the loved ones, to the helplessness of the individual who got maimed and mutilated, to the frustration of those who well understand that war only leads to violence and bloodshed and still cannot do much to change the course of things. The film is imbued with a peculiar irony. Though the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis is a war between two unequal sides if one considers military strength, economic wherewithal and the international support and assistance, still the two sides which fail to reconcile in their conflicts, strangely end up reconciling and identifying with each other in their loss. It takes the death of the young and the innocent for them to understand that a Palestinian mother grieves as much at the death of her son as the sense of loss that an Israeli mother has to face when she losses her son to violence, that a Palestinian man feels as helpless and frustrated at losing a limb as an Israeli settler’s agony on being maimed and mutilated. In the scope of suffering, the film does present the conflict as between two equal or symmetrical sides. The overall mood of the movie is that of hopelessness, despondency and fatalism, yet, surprisingly, out of these setbacks evolves a scope and the possibility for reconciliation. 2. The audience who consider the film to be unbalanced or tending to favor either the Palestinian or the Israeli side have simply missed the crux of this movie. The overall intention of the movie is not to bring out the tactical, moral or political validity or superiority of one side or the other. The film intends to focus on the bereaved families who have lost the loved ones to this long going war. The primary intention of the film is to bring out the suffering, pain and a deep sense of loss that these families have to go through on a daily basis. It works on the very process of loss and bereavement. Fathers, mothers, siblings, cousins, uncles and aunts from both side gather to talk about those that died in the war, what their very life and existence meant to them, how terrible and difficult it is for them to bear with this loss and their deep felt intentions and wishes that no one else may have to face the sorrow that they tend to face on a daily basis. The hallmark of the film is its focus on the very process of working through grief and the immense ability of the human heart to feel and sense the loss and grief of even one’s enemies. The support groups shown in the film comprise of families and friends from all sides, holding their hands together, listening to their memories of loss, thinking about the loss of innocent lives on both sides of the conflict in the long and agonizing war. In that context it is very rare that one comes across a film depicting the conflict between Israel and Palestine which could be considered to be hopeful or positive. In that context this film tends to differ immensely from other films delving on the same topic. It shows the Palestinians and the Israelis in a unique situation, sharing each other’s grief and working towards a possibility of barriers. The whole theme of the film is about the falling of false barriers, about the commonality of human emotions and the resultant possibility for peace and grace. Truly speaking, in that sense, this film depicts this conflict in an all together different perspective and scenario. The film is really balanced and fair in the sense that it brings out the grief of the families and individuals on both side of the conflict. It also brings to fore the fact that their exist well intentioned people on both side of the wall who not only understand the futility and senselessness of the war but are rather taking positive steps to work for a true meeting of the hearts. There is no specific part of the film that could be discernibly deemed to be pro Israeli or pro Palestinian. In fact the film tends to be so intense in its portrayal of grief and loss that one simply fails to register as to whether the person or family grieving on the screen is Palestinian or Israeli. The film is indeed a must see for all the well intentioned people around the world who believe in the futility of far and the possibility of peace and reconciliation. This film brings out the oft neglected yet the central aspect of all wars, which is that the wars kill. A bullet does not recognize whether the person coming in the line of charge is a Palestinian or an Israeli. In fact it is only the ability of the human heart to discern between life and death. 3. It is very difficult to say as to which character in the film happens to be most impressive or pleasing. A single thread runs through the variegated personalities of all the characters shown in the film, and that is a discernable chord of the human suffering and loss and the human ability to empathize and understand. Still, it is the character of Shlomo Zagman that I personally tend to identify with. The character of Shlomo Zagman brings out the essential goodness and badness, violence and love, despair and hope inherent in the human personality. This character brings to the forefront the human capacity to change and alter once perceptions. Being brought and raised in the Israeli settlements, Shlomo like his neighbors believes that all the Palestinians ought to be deported to foreign lands and the Palestinians have no right over the land they claim to be just fully theirs. Yet, the very same character, at a later stage evinces not only a capacity to understand the perspective of one’s adversaries, but rather undergoes a 360 degree change of mind. Not only that but Shlomo also depicts a willingness and the capacity to face the resistance and opposition of his family and community to stand for the cause which he believes to be just and fair. While doing so Shlomo brings out the conflicting emotions, ideas and sincerities existing in the personality of all human beings and the human ability and willingness to get over this conflict to face the truth. In that sense the character of Shlomo is very real and convincing. It shows both the sides of the conflict in one single profile that are love and hate. 4. If I consider the relevance of non-violence in the context of resolving conflicts, it brings to my mind an old saying that “if you are not a part of the solution than you are certainly a part of the problem”. If war is not a solution to the problem, it certainly is a part of the problem. In fact war is a big problem in itself. The surrounding geopolitical realities are proving the inefficacy of war in resolving conflicts. Even after losing so many soldiers in Iraq, the scope for peace nowhere seems to be in sight. The same stands to be somewhat true of Afghanistan. Actually the situation is so hopeless and the people are so dejected with war that the US is planning to recall its soldiers from Afghanistan in the next few years. If countries like the United States of America, with all its technical superiority, military wherewithal, economic affluence failed to resolve some of the most pressing global problems with war, what could one expect from third world or developing countries? In contrast there exist examples in the human history where a non-violent approach towards issues and a passive resistance backed by moral conviction worked wonders. Gandhi was able to wrest independence for a country like India with its teeming masses, poverty and hunger, just with the dint of non-violence. I think the need of the hour is to look for alternate models of conflict resolution and non-violence certainly sounds to be one viable and positive model. Read More