![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 10th, 2014 12:14 pm
ʿ Eynayim ha-raʿ
It's hard to explain why I enjoyed Eyes Wide Open (עיניים פקוחות) so much more than Free Fall (Freier Fall) when they essentially tell the same story. I think the key is the degree of sympathy I have for the protagonist. In that review, I noted the permissiveness of society as throwing the selfishness of the father's actions into starker relief. Coming out would mean the end of his marriage, but not the lose of parental rights or contact with his family, plus he and his lover would be able to set up housekeeping together with little to no difficulty. The father in Eyes Wide Open, being a Hasidic Jew, has none of those options.
Another factor is the novelty of the milieu. I don't know much about Hasidim and the parallels between them and conservative religious communities I have had some experience with (e.g. ultra-Catholics) are approximate. Still, it's enough for me to understand how he's able to rationalise his (ultimately self-centred) choice as, of all things, an act of mercy, a mitzvah even. The differences, however, are fascinating. It's an austere lifestyle, but there's also a degree of spiritual joy unlike anything I ever say in Catholicism.
It's also better in all the small ways that count: better acting, better direction, better music, better mise-en-scène, etc.--though I still have to wonder why, in this day in age, it apparently isn't possible to film realistic daytime rain. Both movies contain downpour scenes which feature direct sunlight falling in the foreground, and I doubt that was a conscious choice. Also, the one aspect of the Israeli film which felt less-than-lived-in was the conspicuous and often convenient absence of customers at the butcher shop where most of the action takes place (although this could be at least partially attributed to the fact that it was only recently reopened and is only gradually winning a clientele).
It's still a familiar story, of course, but one which I suppose hasn't lost its power to move me and probably won't for as long as I know that there are still no shortage of communities in this world where openly loving people of the same sex means complete ostracism--or worse.
Another factor is the novelty of the milieu. I don't know much about Hasidim and the parallels between them and conservative religious communities I have had some experience with (e.g. ultra-Catholics) are approximate. Still, it's enough for me to understand how he's able to rationalise his (ultimately self-centred) choice as, of all things, an act of mercy, a mitzvah even. The differences, however, are fascinating. It's an austere lifestyle, but there's also a degree of spiritual joy unlike anything I ever say in Catholicism.
It's also better in all the small ways that count: better acting, better direction, better music, better mise-en-scène, etc.--though I still have to wonder why, in this day in age, it apparently isn't possible to film realistic daytime rain. Both movies contain downpour scenes which feature direct sunlight falling in the foreground, and I doubt that was a conscious choice. Also, the one aspect of the Israeli film which felt less-than-lived-in was the conspicuous and often convenient absence of customers at the butcher shop where most of the action takes place (although this could be at least partially attributed to the fact that it was only recently reopened and is only gradually winning a clientele).
It's still a familiar story, of course, but one which I suppose hasn't lost its power to move me and probably won't for as long as I know that there are still no shortage of communities in this world where openly loving people of the same sex means complete ostracism--or worse.