So it's basically Israeli propaganda covered by "anti-war" film surface
Tania Tabar interviewing Ari Folman:share
Folman has always maintained that his film was not a political one.
In his portrayal of the events of Israel's involvement in the Lebanese civil war, particularly the Sabra and Shatila massacres, the director presents the Israeli soldiers as naive young men who were only participating in a massacre because of the time and the place they happened to be in.
"It is a completely apolitical film. It's a personal film. If it were a political film, we would have dealt with the other sides, meaning that we would have interviewed the Palestinian and Christian sides. And it does not. It's a very personal film," Folman told France 24.
But in being apolitical, Waltz With Bashir also fails to provide context.
The film's narrative begins as Folman, the main character, travels to Europe and around Israel speaking with fellow soldiers who fought in Lebanon. He eventually begins to piece together what happened during his time in Beirut, which he had erased from his memory.
Folman doesn't shy away from presenting war as a worthless enterprise. "The basic message of my film is a cliché. War is silly and worthless. No glamor. Children are being sent by cynical leaders to fight," he said.
Waltz With Bashir does show scenes of Israeli brutality—Israeli tanks trampling cars in the narrow streets of Beirut, a soldier being chased by the 26 dogs he killed in preparation for the bombardment of a Lebanese village, and a random sniper who kills a man on a donkey.
Nevertheless, as he pieces the story together for the audience, Folman fails to provide a complete picture of Israel's role in the Lebanese civil war.
In fact, he makes it seem that the 150 or so Christian Phalangists who killed between 750 and 3,500 Palestinians (depending on the source) in Sabra and Chatila bore the full responsibility for the massacres, and that the Israeli military command, mainly former Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, simply gave the green light for the operation.
"They (the Israeli soldiers) didn't pull the trigger; it was the Christian regime," Folman said. It explains why the Israeli government, which helped fund the film, was eager to promote it. "This is the type of propaganda the Israeli government couldn't buy for money. So they kept sending the movie out," Folman said.
Maybe it was too much to ask Folman to reinterpret the entire historical accounting of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in one film. But if the Israeli public is able to swallow the sensitive nature of Waltz With Bashir it is precisely because it stays away from treating the Israeli state as a long-time political actor in the systematic, ongoing violence in Lebanon.
Thus, there is no overt questioning of why Israel was in Lebanon in the first place. Israeli military actions are validated under the guise of "fighting terrorism," and this is poignant when considering how the current Gaza war will be viewed in hindsight.
Also, Waltz With Bashir fails to present Israeli soldiers as direct participants in the massacres of Sabra and Shatila. Israeli soldiers were only following orders so any responsibility lay solely with the chain of command.
As a result, and perhaps without Folman's intent, individual responsibility is deferred. In a sense, the film then buffers the actions of soldiers in Gaza today.