This week, the artistic committee of the Yehoshua Rabinowitz Foundation is scheduled to state which film it believes the foundation should support in the archival project "Past Present." This project has stirred up a storm, at the center of which is director Eyal Sivan. The story begins with a tender published a few months ago by the New Israeli Foundation for Cinema and TV, the Jerusalem Cinematheque and cable Channel 8, asking artists to submit proposals for documentaries based on archival materials. Nine proposals reached the second stage, and both the Cinematheque and Channel 8 representatives, and later a committee headed by Nachman Ingber, chose "Jaffa," to be directed by Sivan and produced by Arik Bernstein and Osnat Trabelsi.
However, in recent days a campaign has been waging against Eyal Sivan in the media and on the Web. His opponents state that the director depicts himself as "anti-Israeli" and "anti-Zionist" and is undeserving of state support. At the forefront of this campaign was director Yitzhak Rubin, who wrote an article for Maariv titled "I am a Liar," declaring his "unqualified support for the Zionist idea."
These voices are dangerous, and not because there are no reasons to attack Sivan's film — Haaretz was the first to publish an article (that I wrote) against Sivan's biased editing in "The Specialist." These voices are dangerous because they attack ad hominem: they are not against "Jaffa," but against the filmmaker. No one has seen the film, which Sivan has yet to make. Nevertheless, they have come out against him.
Sivan has a swollen ego, and his films suffer from an excess of documentary manipulation; in the worst case they contain elements of unreliability, and in better cases they are frighteningly unidirectional. This was evident in "The Specialist" and "Route 181." But Sivan, who also directed "Izkor: Slaves of Memory," makes unsettling films that address material no one else dares touch. This is why he is one of the most important documentary filmmakers in Israel — precisely because he has an agenda, which he declares openly, and does not lie like Rubin when referring to himself.
Above all, the personal objection to Sivan symbolizes the decline in freedom of expression and the ability of those across the political spectrum to present their positions. The idea behind "Jaffa" is fascinating: at its base is a historical examination of the definitive Israeli symbol, the orange, an agricultural venture established by the British in the 1930s that eventually became an economic failure yet was supported by the State of Israel because it represented the Zionist idea.
What is certain is that Sivan's attackers are again doing what they excel at: just as with "Jenin Jenin," this time too the detractors are creating interest. Now the foundation officials will no longer be able to evaluate the film on its artistic merits alone. If they support it because they do not want to appear to have given in to right-wing voices, this will not be the proper reason. And if they do not support it out of opposition to the opinions of its director, this will be a real reason to worry.
Source : Goel Pinto — Haaretz, 06.08.2007