Yesterday I read the page about the Glasgow Film Festival 2010 in our university’s newspaper brig. Some different films were summarised and criticised, e.g. Capitalism: A Love Story by Michael Moore, who we all know already through its movie Fahrenheit 9/11.
But one other movie was also presented namely “Ajami".
It depicts the brutal life of drugs, violence and poverty in a mixed, Jewish-Arab neighbourhood in the Mediterranean city of Jaffa. The drama was directed by Scandar Copti, an Israeli-Arab Christian, and Yaron Shani, an Israeli Jew. Referring to brig the movie seems to be the response to the American movie “City of God”.
While reading this article I thought about that this could be a good step for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by means of Public Diplomacy. PD is building relationships to foreign publics, which means that the target group is the society of the foreign country. It is aimed to convince other publics of the own views and values and becomes more and more a mean of building relationships between different nations. But the difference to classic diplomacy is that the communication does not take place on a political or governmental rank only but involves also citizens and individuals.
In my opinion this way of building relationships can be much more successful, as messages reach those who are actually confronted with this problematic field. To change their point of view it may be necessary to demonstrate just the daily life “on the other side” so that it can be seen that the problems may be quite the same. Perhaps Ajami can be a chance for people to understand what a Palestinian living in Israel is. The medium of cinema is able to reach a wide range of different groups and is an informal way to present different views and values. Those are likely to be adapted as they don´t seem to be imposed by a government or a politician in which each individual has no trust.
So it could be very interesting to watch Ajami under this point of view but also because it has been included on the final list of the Oscar Nominations 2010 for an award in the category of the best foreign-language film.
But one other movie was also presented namely “Ajami".
It depicts the brutal life of drugs, violence and poverty in a mixed, Jewish-Arab neighbourhood in the Mediterranean city of Jaffa. The drama was directed by Scandar Copti, an Israeli-Arab Christian, and Yaron Shani, an Israeli Jew. Referring to brig the movie seems to be the response to the American movie “City of God”.
While reading this article I thought about that this could be a good step for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by means of Public Diplomacy. PD is building relationships to foreign publics, which means that the target group is the society of the foreign country. It is aimed to convince other publics of the own views and values and becomes more and more a mean of building relationships between different nations. But the difference to classic diplomacy is that the communication does not take place on a political or governmental rank only but involves also citizens and individuals.
In my opinion this way of building relationships can be much more successful, as messages reach those who are actually confronted with this problematic field. To change their point of view it may be necessary to demonstrate just the daily life “on the other side” so that it can be seen that the problems may be quite the same. Perhaps Ajami can be a chance for people to understand what a Palestinian living in Israel is. The medium of cinema is able to reach a wide range of different groups and is an informal way to present different views and values. Those are likely to be adapted as they don´t seem to be imposed by a government or a politician in which each individual has no trust.
So it could be very interesting to watch Ajami under this point of view but also because it has been included on the final list of the Oscar Nominations 2010 for an award in the category of the best foreign-language film.
I really enjoyed this blog.
ReplyDeleteFor some reason I always seem to ignore public relations practice in politics and governments.
I think the release of the film should be able to highlight how similar each side actually is and how both struggle to survive in conflict.
What I think the director has realised is that we no longer have to rely on government and army soldiers to resolve a conflict. It is the public who are at war and they must see each side of the argument. By putting it into a film I think is a great and innovative idea to help reduce the conflict.
The old tactics have not worked for years so it's about time a new tactic was created.
I agree with both of you about that maybe we need to create new tactics to resolve some kind of problems in the different societies: drugs, violence, etc., but I think that neither the cinema nor other million new tools could never resolve religious problems, though I agree that goverments neither, and the best solution I think that it would be change the education.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, like I said before, for other kinds of problems, cimena could be very important, because the people who look the film are in the room because they want, it is not compulsary; they are relaxed; they only look to the screen and they do not think that anyone is trying to influence them like for example the speech of a politician.
I think that the cinema could be one of the most important tools in public diplomacy in this way.