Ari Folman’s Made in Israel (2001): Traces of Trauma in the Israeli Cinema Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I thank the reviewers for the thoughtful comments.

Are the findings clearly presented? 

My answer- I re-read the text and tried to improve it with minor corrections.  Hope you can feel the difference.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this is a fine article. It would be good to have it carefully copy-edited for a hansful of syntax issues. I am also not certain that the abstract is clear enough in its relationship to the article. I think it requires one or two more sentences near the end to make it clearer. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments

Reviewer 3 Report

The article’s focus on the Yom Kippur war and its Israeli public is important, including the author’s embedding this discussion in the broader context of related Israeli films, scholarship, and political culture. Discussing that difficult war in relation to the Holocaust’s trauma and the unfamiliar landscape of the snow-covered Golan gives this article its special slant. However, I do think a serious revision is needed, beyond some tweaking of a point here or there. As I explain below, the foundational discussion (parts 1-3) needs further refinement and development, the plot summary needs substantial (!!!) condensation, while the analysis and conclusions (parts 4-5) should be reconsidered with an eye to the revised earlier  parts (1-3). details follow:

 

Attention to “trauma” and “landscape” have become axiomatic in Israeli film scholarship—rightly so, except that these concepts have become a cliché that assumes a shared agreement that can dispense with a closer look at the assumptions proposed. Specifically, the claim to suffering and the presence of a “landscape” (including commemorative heritage) can be used to elide the political issues at hand, including in this instance. The word “landscape” is imbued with aesthetic and spiritual meanings that divert us from its political and economic materiality as land—the earth, soil, and territory people need for use and survival. This distinction is embedded in the Hebrew “nof” vs. “adama” and “shetakh”). 

 

Especially given the politically sensitive nature of any work that has to do with Israeli political films, precision is key. It’s important to avoid broad generalities and make sure all references are justified (have a function) within the discussion. This is especially true in the introductory discussion, where you are to usher readers into the argument. Some examples:

*  Why mention the Israeli Black Panthers and Mizrahi soldiers? Use it more fully or drop it.

*  What does “post-national” mean here?

*  Clarify the “ambivalence” you note regarding land and territory: What is ambivalent here, exactly? Is it, as I think, the contradiction between ethics and the territorial wresting of Palestinians lands and homes? Something else?

*  Note that Khirbet Khizeh is not about “making the desert bloom” but about the Nakba. At stake is more than just the local residents’ (i.e. Palestinians’) “feelings.” 

*  Add mention of Joseph Cedar’s “Beaufort” and Samuel Maoz’s “Lebanon” 

*  Clarify statements such as the following: “Israeli cinema's post-national era, a time in which once-sanctified national processes are being demolished and privatized; what remains as markers in the landscape invites the observer to decipher them. And the best form of code-cracking is the most personal, the kind that turns the gaze toward the chronicles of trauma.”

“Despite Israel's small size, the journey is a long one, thereby actualizing the symbolic distance from the hegemonic perception of Nazis ("the Nazi Beast") to the unexpected recognition of his humanity that the characters must traverse to complete their mission.”

*  while I support your closing critique of Ilan Avisar’s position, do note that there are ways your own article steps back from directly acknowledging what is at stake.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the thoughtful comments. Comments that I could address, I have, as seen in green. However, I do not agree with some points for the following reasons. I hope that the reviewer can understand my viewpoint.

1. I don't think that trauma and landscape have become axiomatic in Israeli films. The issue of landscape only began to be researched. I agree that the word "landscape" have become "imbued with aesthetic and spiritual meanings that divert us from its political and economic materiality as land—the earth, soil, and territory people need for use and survival. This distinction is embedded in the Hebrew “nof” vs. “adama” and “shetakh”)." I think that the distinction mentioned by the reviewer is not relevant to the film. No one speaks about "shetakh" and the notion of adama that is crucial to Israeli cinema is hardly related to (may be because it is covered with snow??). Therefore, I do not think there is a reason to mention this semantic distinction.
2. The Mizrahi soldiers in the Yom Kippur war were mentioned as one of the novelties of the series Valley of Tears. It is not the main point of the article but I consider it important to mention it in a footnote.If you think it is irrelevant, I can delete it.
3. The notion of "Post-national' is crucial for the understanding of today's vision of Israeli cinema. It is explained inside the text, after its mention: "In Israeli cinema's post-national era, a time in which once-sanctified national processes are being demolished and privatized;"
4. I know Khirbet Khizeh – the novel and the film- quite well and I know that is not about making the desert bloom – or only indirectly, it is about the violent Israeli occupation of the Arab lands. I mention the Jewish settlers' endeavor to occupy the land, even if the price if not very "human".
5. I can't see why mention the films Lebanon and Beaufort since they don't deal with the land (certainly not the Jewish/Israeli one). If you insist I can add a footnote.
6. Regarding the mention "Clarify statements such as the following: “Israeli cinema's post-national era, a time in which once-sanctified national processes are being demolished and privatized; what remains as markers in the landscape invites the observer to decipher them. And the best form of code-cracking is the most personal, the kind that turns the gaze toward the chronicles of trauma.”- it was clarified with the first mention of post-national Israeli cinema. I think it is quite clear.
7. “Despite Israel's small size, the journey is a long one, thereby actualizing the symbolic distance from the hegemonic perception of Nazis ("the Nazi Beast") to the unexpected recognition of his humanity that the characters must traverse to complete their mission.” I don't know what to clarify in this sentence. The size of Israel is not a secret and the recognition of the Nazi as a human being is the essence of the film's message.