Yesterday at El Gouna Film Festival (GFF) took place the projection in the first Arab of the Franco-Lebanese film The insult by Zyad Doueiri.
A magnificent film that has left no one indifferent. It is really the least we can say. Until this morning, everyone talked about it again and again.
All agree on one point: cinematographically, this film is really very beautiful. Very well filmed, the sequences are beautiful, the pace is balanced and keeps in suspense. The story is going to crescendo: with a little news item, it will gradually increase until becoming universal. The twists and turns come one after the other and are linked perfectly well. The actors’ game is excellent.
So where is the disagreement?
The subject of the film and its treatment did not please all the presents, some having been even very angry and reacting strongly during the debate which followed the film.
Tony is a simple mechanic who lives with his pregnant wife. One day, by watering the plants on his balcony, he wet Yasser. He works in a company responsible for certain works in the district where Tony lives. He pointed out to him that his usual water pipe is illegal. Tony refused to listen to him. Yasser will therefore have this water pipe repaired. Tony is against this repair and breakage. Yasser the insult.
Simple news item.
Now Tony, a right -wing Christian Lebanese, hates Palestinians and is against their installation in Lebanon. Yasser is precisely Palestinian.
The argument will grow, Tony insults Yasser and Yasser strikes Tony.
This simple ridiculous news item will become a state affair. This small argument is the spark that will light the fire. Hatred appears, politicians get involved, the communities ignite, the fights begin, the insults are burning…. The whole country ignites.
This conflagration shows that hatred calls for hatred, violence generates violence. A trivial gesture or word can almost lead to war.
The insult – the country ignites
And here is Tony and Yasser in court. The Palestinians against the Lebanese on the right. Pro-Palestinians against anti-Palestinians. And two lawyers opposing. Two remarkable lawyers. Extraordinary aftershocks.
And little by little, we learn much more about Tony, on Yasser, on the injuries of each other …
Debate with Zyad Doueiri at the end of the screening of his film insults him
The debate that followed the film was also a little “burning”.
A Palestinian reproached Zyad Doueiri. He accused him of having distorted history and the facts and even left the room.
As for Zyad Doueiri, imperturbable, he said that his film is inspired by a true story. Indeed, a few years ago, he lived in Beirut, when a Palestinian woman, who watered plants on her balcony wet. He got angry and insulted it. His partner then got angry with him and reproached him for these insults towards the Palestinian. So he found himself in the middle of an argument, insults, hurtful words, request for forgiveness … He then had the idea of writing this film, but imagined that instead of arguing, one of the two parties bears this case in court and that the country ignites.
He said his family was on the left and fought alongside the Palestinians. His mother was a great activist. On the other hand, Joëlle his partner, who co -wrote the scenario comes from the opposite camp, that of Béchir Gemayel. He wrote the scenes of the lawyer who defends Tony the Lebanese and she wrote the scenes of the lawyer who defends Yasser the Palestinian.
The dialogue between the two lawyers is also remarkable. He holds the spectator in suspense.
Personally, I do not know the historical details of the Palestinian cause, neither of the Lebanese war, nor of the relations which bind them. I therefore in no case cannot judge the historical veracity of the film. And I admit I think that somewhere, it does not matter and that the film should not be limited to the Palestinian cause.
What is important in my eyes is the general idea of the film, the subjects it deals with, the questions it raises … In fact, even if it starts from a particular case, the film deals with universal subjects and asks questions that concern us all as humans, and certain questions particularly affect us Tunisians.
The film shows how violence generates violence, how an insignificant fact can, when we do not take care, lead to such an outburst that it becomes almost impossible later to contain it. However, it does not lead anywhere.
Then, the film explains that each of our reactions, even those that seem the most absurd, can be explained by our experience. That we must sometimes examine our past to understand our reactions, our hatreds, our refusals …
But what challenged me the most personally is that the film deals with transitional justice and national reconciliation. And this subject is topical in Tunisia.
In a country, after a war or a revolution, should we make a clean sweep of the past and open a new page? On the contrary, should we open the files, understand what happened, judge the culprits and then only open a new page? Can there be national reconciliation without settling of accounts?
This debate is currently open to us. Some say that you have to forget and move forward and others shout “ Manich Msamah ».
In post -war Lebanon, the work of memory was confiscated to the people. We put a lead screed on what happened and we did as if he had not existed.
However in this court, the director will be confronted two camps through two characters who will have to face their past. The memories go up on the surface. Trauma resurfaces. Ranking, so long, will finally be able to be explained. In fact, without any artifice, the director tells us that without real recognition of the pain of each, actor or witness of the war, no reconciliation is possible. The abscess may be punctured and will thus allow possible reconciliation.
In fact, this court will offer an opportunity to finally approach transitional justice, it will at least initiate the debate.
I admit that this aspect of the film shaken me a lot. What about in Tunisia? Should we absolutely talk about the past and not let an abscess create? But how should it be done? How when the process is biased at the base and the body created for this purpose does not fulfill its role? How are we going to move forward?
Hend Sabry to the screening of the film insults
Hend Sabrypresent to this projection, really liked Insult. She said she was completely stirred by this film which dared to break the taboo from the Palestinian cause and which pushes to reflect. One of the replicas of the film says clearly: ” We must not hide all the causes and speak only of the Palestinian cause, we must speak of all ». Hend also said it was very happy that the film was chosen to be screened in Tunisia during the Carthage cinematographic days (JCC)which will allow him to be able to see him again and even better understand it.
According to Zyad Doueiri with whom I had the opportunity to exchange a few words after the screening, the film is first an opportunity to finally speak: for years, everything has been made to try to avoid approaching certain subjects, to silence, which is not normal. Then, the film mainly concerns two personalities who discover themselves. They question themselves, they are looking for each other. Does suffering justify hatred? Does not know the truth helps to forgive?
Since The insult Will be screened in Tunis during the JCC, try to go see him. It’s an excellent film.
I cannot finish this article without citing one of the replicas of the film. During a meeting between the President of the Republic and Tony, the latter will say to the first: ” You do not have all the rights, you are a state employee and I pay my taxes ». I admit I loved this replica. Alas, our rulers very often forget that they are only state employees and that they are supposed to be at the service of citizens.
Go see the film!
Neïla Driss
Read on the same subject:
