Internal Tensions and Israeli Oppression in “Divine Intervention”

Although Elia Suleiman’s film Divine Intervention (2002) lacks physical words, a series of vignettes portray the absurd, comical, and tragic events of the West Bank, conjuring Palestine’s traumatized identity in its structure (Ball, 2). The film’s entire plot, like its individual episodes, revolves around a common theme, which imparts a more coherent structure (Gertz & Khleifi 187). The individual stories of a variety of citizens that shows the severity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and just how the conflict affects the citizens of Palestine. The daily actions and routines of the Palestinians reflect just how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict creates an seemingly unbreakable barrier for the Palestinians, as well as show their sheer boredom and internal conflict among the Palestinians.

Released in 2002, Divine Intervention falls under the time frame of the second intifada. If the film is historically accurate to what was going on, then the whole movie would be an allusion to the second intifada. The second intifada was a time of high tension between the Palestinians and the Arabs. Divine Intervention uses the repetitive, seemingly useless actions, that appear as if they come from sheer boredom, to emphasize the point that the Palestinians feel as if their lives are boring and meaningless. The tensions between the Palestinians themselves is shown during the scene where the man is driving down the street, appearing pleasant, but mumbling profanities to himself. This scene in particular shows the underlying hostility throughout the Palestinian population, while maintaining a façade for how the people truly feel. The high-tensions are relatively prevalent throughout the movie, as seen in the scene where the grenade is thrown at the tanks, and the confrontation of the two neighbors where one of them continually throws trash on their front lawn. The Palestinian-Palestinian tensions are mirrored through Palestinian-Israeli tension and are shown in the scene where the Israeli and Palestinian drivers lock eyes. The high-strung conflict is consistently portrayed throughout the film, but those are just a few examples of how it is shown in Divine Intervention.

The arbitrary storyline in Divine Intervention could classify the movie as abstract; one where the metaphors and meanings behind the actions speaks louder than the storyline itself. Suleiman uses repetitive actions on a daily basis to emphasize the fact that the Israeli oppression has pretty much immobilized the Palestinian population to a point where the actions become meaningless. One example in particular that is very powerful is where E.S. sits at the checkpoint for hours on end. Suleiman chose to use this scene in particular as much as he did to represent the border as a barrier blocking the Palestinians from freedom. The amount of time that E.S. spends there shows his serious desire for the freedom that seems unattainable. At the same time, the presence of the checkpoint is resisted through a highly controlled film image, where the love story between E.S. and his West Bank girlfriend takes precedence over the inhumanity and cruelty of the checkpoint (Abu-Remaileh 13). The romance of two people is placed center-stage in the plot, while the political reality of the Oslo Accords are cast as a mere ruse to distract the occupying Israeli state and allow the lovers to consummate their love (Salti 47).

Suleiman does an excellent job of representing the barrier the Israelis established and the tension between the Palestinians themselves. Regardless of the serious conflict that the movie touches upon, Suleiman succeeds in portraying the Palestinian lifestyle in a comical manner, making watching the movie as a whole more enjoyable than it already is.

Works Cited

Abu-Remaileh, Refqa. Palestinian Anti-narratives in the Films of Elia Suleiman

(2008): n. pag. Arab Media & Society. May 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2017.

Ball, Anna. “Between a Postcolonial Nation and Fantasies of the Feminine: The

Contested Visions of Palestinian Cinema.” Duke University Press. N.p., 01 Jan.

1970. Web. 24 Feb. 2017.

Divine Intervention. Dir. Elia Suleiman. Perf. Elia Suleiman and Manal Khader.

Seville Pictures, 2002. DVD.

Gertz, Nurith, and Khleifi, George. “A Chronicle of Palestinian Cinema.” Film in

the Middle East and North Africa: Creative Dissidence (2011): 187-197.

Salti, Rasha. “From Resistance and Bearing Witness to the Power of the

Fantastical: Icons and Symbols in Palestinian Poetry and Cinema.” Third Text.

N.p., 29 Jan. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2017.

Imagination and Oppression

In the film Divine Intervention (2002) the power of imagination is tied to the oppression of the Palestinian people in an incredibly powerful way. Abdel-Malek says that it “is not a film with a clear and cohesive narrative line, rather it is disjointed, if not at times incoherent” (134). There are multiple scenes throughout the film where the fantasies of the main character E.S. are played out with a surrealist effect. While these surrealist scenes may be hard to understand at first pass, once they are broken down it is easy to see how the artistic choices can also hold heavy meaning.

The first introduction that the audience gets to the main character, E.S, is when he is driving and munching on an apricot. He tosses the pit out the window and it causes a tank to explode. The motion of tossing the pit is so casual , but it is interwoven with this dramatic explosion that is not just E.S.’s dreams but also a dream of the Palestinian people to be rid of the military occupation. He has been criticized for this kind of imagery, but Suleiman defends it saying “I don’t think there’s anything particularly violent in exploding tanks. But I don’t think that tanks should exist to begin with” (Erikson). He, and many other Palestinian filmmakers in the last 10 years have been making films that are extremely political in nature. In fact according to Sabah Haider’s article “They are cinematic constructs of resistance specific to the post-2000 period” (“Palestine already exists”). This expression of the main character’s imagination is also a representation of the constant frustration that the Palestinian’s feel.

Another example of this kind of surreal representation of the resistance to the occupation is a rather pivotal one, the scene at the shooting range where the Woman returns as an insanely powerful ninja. She takes on five Israeli soldiers during their shooting practice and demonstrates almost magical skills in the process. There are a few key moments in that scene that can be broken down for what they mean. The scarf that she is wearing is known as a kufiya and is “the symbol of the Palestinian liberation struggle and soon turned into a means to convey the Palestinian message to the world: their wish and thirst for freedom” (Kufiya.org). In the midst of this battle she uses two items that have serious significance as well. The darts that she throws at the them have the moon and star symbol of Islam and her shield she uses to deflect bullets as well as destroy the chopper is the shape of Israel and Palestinian territories. It gives out a strong statement with all of these images combined of resistance and also a pride in their nation no matter how fragmented it has become.

These two scenes as well as many of the others in the film are meant to portray the discontent of the Palestinian people. They are not done in a traditional sense though, as they are played out in a fantasy-like way. These moments of fantastical violence against the people who are occupying the Palestinian territory are reminiscent of surrealist film, but once they are broken down it is clear that this is a statement of resistance to the occupation.

Works Cited

 Abdel-Malek, Kamal. “Reel Encounters: Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews in

Film.” The rhetoric of violence: Arab-Jewish encounters in contemporary

Palestinian literature and film. 134. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Print.

Divine Intervention. Dir. Elia Suleiman. Perf. Elia Suleiman and Manal Khader.

Seville Pictures, 2002. DVD.

Erickson, Steve. “A Breakdown of Communication: Elia Suleiman Talks About

‘Divine Intervention.'” IndieWire. N.p., 15 Jan. 2003. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

“Palestine already exists on film.” Le Monde diplomatique. N.p., 01 Mar. 2010.

Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

“The Project.” The Project – Kufiya.org | Original Made in Palestine. N.p., n.d.

Web. 26 Feb. 2017.

The Impact of Repetition in “Divine Intervention”

Repetition in Divine Intervention (2002) is how Elia Suleiman creates emphasis without the use of dialogue. He specifically uses repetition to stress the idea of hopelessness and oppression. This concept of stagnation is a common theme among many Arabic films since many countries in the region experience this same feeling of belonging to a besieged country. The director’s feelings of being cemented in a culture with highly limited expressional possibilities are conveyed in a very clear manor.

Oppression is displayed in every aspect of this movie through the use of repetition. The conflict between the neighbors represents the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The men are neighbors in the same way that Palestine and Israel are neighbors and both accuse each other of being the problem. The repetition of throwing trash into each other’s yards shows the hopelessness that the countries experience on a micro level. Arab Media and Society comments that “Suleiman’s hallmarks are non-linear episodic narratives that rely less on plot and characterization and more on the combination of film structure, editing and soundtrack to create meaning” (Arab Media & Society). The article gives a similar opinion on how Suleiman focuses more on the scenes of repetition and display than the dialogue which is different from most other directors. It displays how this conflict infiltrates the communities as well. The wife is shown finding trash and burning it in her display of repetitive and senseless tasks also to represent the same idea of oppression.

E.S.’s father was showed countless times sitting in his kitchen reading the newspaper or drinking coffee in this practice of monotonous tasks that seem irrelevant at first. The Shafik book identifies this symbolism by saying “[Divine Intervention] repeats almost identical images of elderly men sitting around and women engaged in senseless activities” (Shafik 18). As the film progresses viewers realize how symbolic these practices are to the real conflict in the movie. His repetition shows his boredom and lack of freedom without explicitly depicting the nationwide conflict.

Another example of reiteration, as shown in the film, is identified by the book Filming the Modern Middle East: “In Divine Intervention a man waits at a bus stop although he knows no bus will appear” (Khatib 126). This is one of the best examples of the desperation of the people affected by this conflict. It goes along with the idea of the citizens waiting for a solution to the conflict and knowing that there will be no resolution without change.

The scene of E.S. and the woman is recognized on many platforms as a key part of Suleiman’s repetition in the film. One article identified the scene as “… the uneasy shot repetition of the filmmaker and his fantasy girl sitting in a car together at the Jerusalem border, no words exchanged, their hands desperately interlocked” (Kipp 1). As they meet over and over again the relationship develops and E.S. writes a note to her that says “I am crazy because I love you” which sticks to readers as a repetitive message but also as one that represents Palestinians and their love for their homeland. Their forbidden relationship represents the struggle of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Critical academic articles can identify this work of cinema as a piece containing a significant amount of repetition to convey themes of the real Palestinian-Israeli conflict within works of fiction. The presentation of repetition and how it supports oppression and hopelessness is well defined and supported in this movie. Repetition helps convey much more than viewers realize at first, but a deeper analysis proves the intent of the symbolism.

Works Cited

Divine Intervention. Dir. Elia Suleiman. Perf. Elia Suleiman and Manal Khader,

Seville Pictures, 2002. DVD.

Khatib, Lina. Filming the modern Middle East: politics in the cinemas of

Hollywood and the Arab world. London: Tauris, 2006. Print.

Kipp, Jeremiah. Divine.pdf. Buffalo,NY: Buffalo Film Seminars, 16 Jan. 2003. Pdf.

“Palestinian anti-narratives in the films of Elia Suleiman.” Arab Media &

Society. N.p., 10 May 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2017.

Shafik, Viola. Arab cinema: history and cultural identity. London: I.B. Tauris,

2016. Print.

Cinematic Expression of Palestinian Resistance Through the Film “Rana’s Wedding”

By Eva Johnson, Evian Medina, and Kiel Peterson

Throughout the film Rana’s Wedding (2002), the oppression of Palestinians through Israeli forces is observed indirectly through civilian response to military action. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not the focal point of the film, however the plot of the film is heavily influenced by the conflict. In Rana’s Wedding, Palestinian resistance is used against the systematic oppression and inhumanity of Israelis to prove that the Palestinians will not give up the conflict to brute force.

The oppression of the Palestinians is shown by the hovering of the Israeli soldiers throughout Jerusalem in the movie. Their consistent presence is oppressive. In one scene in particular, Rana is frustrated about her boyfriend Kahlil not answering her phone. Out of sheer frustration, Rana nearly smashes her phone on the ground. When she does so, a group of Israeli soldiers point their guns at Rana, thinking that her phone was a weapon. This scene in particular demonstrates that the expression of emotion is limited by the fear of persecution. Instead of portraying the soldiers with motivations and reasons for defending the claim to the land, they are presented as static oppressive figures (Mock 1251, Khatib, 127 ). Rana’s fear is one that can then be expressed across the country as individual Palestinians experience the whole of the Israeli occupants. The movie was produced in 2002, which is during the time of the second intifada, which was known as a very tense time between the Israelis and the Palestinians (Gertz and Nurith, 40). As the story of the movie falls within the time frame of the second intifada, the historical allusion of the intifada would be beneficial in further illustrating the severity of the oppression, thus opening a window of cinematic expression of the intifada itself. While the military presence in the city represents oppressive force, the later scenes demonstrate a ferocious need to fight.

The indomitable spirit of the Palestinian resistance is carried on later in the film through an indirect response to a pointed action. In this scene, Rana looks out the window of a friend’s home to a bulldozer guarded by Israeli soldiers. There is no interaction between herself and the soldiers. She says “They’re demolishing a house on the day I want to build one,” to which her friend responds, “Don’t worry. We’ll rebuild it tomorrow” (Rana’s Wedding). There is importance in her confidence. By prefacing the statement with “don’t worry,” she suggests that there is a precedent for this action. This is supported by an article in the Middle East Research and Information Project published in 1976. The article states that resistance is strong enough in Palestine to force the Israeli government to turn to military force for enforcement (“Palestinian”). This fact, combined with the support of the movie scene, suggests a strong remaining population that is both ready to fight and motivated to continue. Between Rana and her friend, this statement presented like a vow is a powerful example of the “hope and resilience” present in Palestinian cinema as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Khatib 126). Even in the face of a literal destruction of the homeland, the characters promise to resist.

Rana’s Wedding uses resistance to fight and denounce military oppression, brute force and as a torch to symbolize that Palestinians will not give up. The film sheds a light on the atrocities committed by Israeli soldiers and delivers an inspirational messages to the Palestinian people that the resistance will never end. The movie encourages the Palestinian people to fight oppression in any way possible like throwing rocks, expressing their thoughts, emotions and most importantly by never losing sight of their goal. As long as there is hope, the cause will not be lost.

Works Cited

Gertz, Nurith, and George Khleifi. Palestinian cinema: landscape, trauma and

memory. Bloomington: Indiana U Press, 2008.

Khatib, Lina. Filming the Modern Middle East: Politics in the Cinemas of

Hollywood and the Arab World. London, US: I.B.Tauris, 2006. ProQuest ebrary.

Web. 18 February 2017.

Mock, S., Obeidi, A., & Zeleznikow, J. (2014). A brief outline of the Israel-

Palestinian conflict. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(6), 1245-1262.

“Palestinian Resistance Threatens Israeli Occupation.” MERIP Reports, no. 46,

1976, pp. 18–19.

Rana’s Wedding. Dir. Hany Abu-Assad. Perf. Clara Khoury and Khalifa Natour. Bero

Beyer, 2003. DVD.

 

Tale of Three Jewels: Symbolism of Birds

By Laila Kunaish, Hudson Ocariz, Adrianne Milea, and Taylor Beason

From the film Tale of Three Jewels. Entrapped doves portrayed above.

The Palestinian film the Tale of Three Jewels (1995) contains a lot of symbolism of oppression and struggle. Like many other films set in Palestine, symbolism is used to show how Palestinians are non-compliant with the oppression they endure (Khatib, 126). One of the most distinct and prevalent examples of this is the use of birds throughout the film. The birds, especially the doves, represent the Palestinian people, their desire for freedom, and how they are continuously pulled back into oppression.

The first instance of this symbolism is the opening scene; a well-lit, surreal dream sequence where a dove flies out of a shawl that Yusef’s mother and sister are embroidering. The bird flies free, and though Yusef tries to catch it, it gets away. This is one of only two instances in the film where a bird is seen flying free, which leads the viewer to understand that freedom is a thing of dreams. The dove flies out of reach despite the forces trying to oppress it, which in the case of the dream sequence is Yusef. The Palestinian people wish to fly out of the reach of oppression, like this dove, but can only do so in their dreams. Interestingly, doves are also a universal symbol of peace, so the dream sequence could also be interpreted as peace flying out of reach of the people. The film does attempt to show the oppression “through the eyes of the victim” (Khouri), so by following Yusef’s experience as an innocent child with an obsession with birds

Further representations always show the birds in cages. The birds do not experience freedom which is symbolic of the constant oppression that the Palestinians are enduring. Much like the birds, the Palestinian people want to be free but cannot achieve it. Ironically, Yusef and his family are the oppressors to the birds while they themselves are being oppressed by Israeli armed forces. Yusef later tries to sell the birds and he is told “if they live, I will pay. If they die, God will compensate you.” This is representative about how the birds do not have much value to Yusef or to others, and may be similar to how the Palestinians feel as an oppressed group.

Image from Tale of Three Jewels. Robin being released pictured above.

Yusef and his friends liked to hunt birds throughout the film. They would throw nets over the birds to catch them and lock them up in cages for safe keeping. The hunting is symbolic of the violence taken against the Palestinian people. Multiple scenes of the Israeli armed forces attacking the Palestinian people are portrayed. Similarly to how the birds are caught, the Israeli armed forces use violence to subdue and subsequently oppress the Palestinians.

One of the final scenes of the film shows a robin being set free and flying away. Though this imagery is not as strong as the imagery of the dream sequence since doves as an animal carry so much symbolism in our lives, it is similar to the dream sequence in that the bird is flying free. Freedom is not a given for the people living in the Gaza Strip so the symbolism of the bird being set free should not be overlooked. This bird is being set free right after the viewer shows that Yusef finds freedom by finding the three jewels that he sought. The finding of his freedom is done in a very “mystical” way with a lot of symbols expressing the oppression that sit in contrast to the horrible events taking place in Gaza (Abdel-Malek, 117-118). As Yusef climbs out of the crate of oranges he intended to use to escape, he looks up to see his robin chirping, symbolizing that he has finally found the freedom that he sought. Although it was not a physical freedom, he was able to free his mind.

It is important to remember that film and cinema is often used as a political tool, thus Palestinian films will be used as a political tool to share the struggles of oppression with the world and “advance their cause” (Gertz and Khleifi, 22). These struggles are made clear in Tale of Three Jewels more through symbolism than other aspects of the film. The symbolism of the birds is clearly very prevalent in multiple parts of the film. The caged birds created an added tension because of the subconscious association the viewer could make with the entrapment of the birds and the oppression of the Palestinian people. The symbolism of the dove is the most powerful of all of the imagery involving birds because of the automatic associations made between doves and peace. The usage of the bird imagery deepens the meaning of the film and leaves a more resounding effect in the viewer as they walk away from the film.

Works Cited

Abdel-Malek, Kamal. “Reel Encounters: Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews in

Film.” The Rhetoric of Violence: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Contemporary

Palestinian Literature and Film. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 115-41.

Print.

Gertz, Nurith, and George Khleifi. “A Chronicle of Palestinian Cinema.”

Palestinian Cinema: Landscape, Trauma and Memory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2008.

11-53. Print.

Khatib, Lina. Filming the modern Middle East: politics in the cinemas of

Hollywood and the Arab world. London: Tauris, 2006. Print.

Khouri, Malek. “Arab Cinema.” Film Reference. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Tale of Three Jewels. Dir. Michel Khleifi. Perf. Mohammed Nahnal and Hana’

Nc’mch. 1995. DVD.

Cultural Change Among Generations

Michele Khleifi’s Wedding in Galilee (1987) unveils the longstanding tradition of a Palestinian wedding although under Israeli control. Not only does the movie reveal the difficulties between Palestine and Israel, but it also displays the increasing detachment of tradition along multiple generations. The negative linear relationship between the strength in belief of tradition and generation can be seen through the taunting old man, Muhktar, and the groom.

Throughout the wedding, the discontent of many individuals with the Israelis can be seen but the older generation can be seen taunting the Israeli soldiers directly. Before the wedding took place, a group of men huddled in a room and discussed their discontent with Muhktar’s decision to allow such guests. One old man can be seen telling a young boy how they used to fight the opponent and not invite them into their homes. Unfortunately for them, they must obey Muhktar’s decision due to the way of the tradition but this does not stop them from showing displeasure publicly with the soldiers. During the dinner, an old man can be seen disrespecting the Israeli soldiers by regularly making sly remarks directly toward them. Khleifi employs the old man in this film to show the strong dissatisfaction amongst the older crowd with the unwelcomed Israeli guests and contrast the personality of the older crowd with the younger crowd. The older members of the village have no issue showing their disgust while the younger members are more willing to put on a performance for the soldiers as well as for the wedding.

Muhktar can be seen as the middle generation between the older men and his son, the groom. By being an age that is directly between the old men and his son, he can be seen as having ideas that support the tradition of the wedding while going against it as well as displaying a personality that seems to be weaker as the generations go on. This is evident by the fact that Muhktar allows the Israeli soldiers to attend the wedding. He believes in the tradition of the wedding so he must have it, but he is not strong willed enough like the older men to bar the Israelis from the wedding and potentially throw an underground ceremony. The viewers are led to believe that this had been the case years ago, the decision of not allowing the soldiers to attend the wedding would have been given without hesitation. Muhktar is a hint of an increasing discontent with the strict rules that the tradition imposes on the Palestinian people (Cultural Evolution).

Finally, the groom can be seen showing his displeasure with the ceremony throughout the wedding. While he follows the tradition of being showered by his friends and family, his face quickly changes from being happy to discontent as he realizes this may not be what he wants. When it comes time for the groom to take the virginity from his wife, he refuses and goes on a tirade on how he hates his father for making him do this. Khleifi uses the groom to show how the discontent with tradition grows as the world becomes more modern. In contrast with the older men, they would have no problem with the ceremony and taking their wife’s virginity while the current groom struggles. The groom hates his father so much for putting him through this that he debated on ending the father’s life. These thoughts and actions would never have been seen in the older generation’s ceremonies.

Khleifi produced the movie Wedding in Galilee to show the audience a subtle conflict experienced by Palestinians with Israelis, while expressing how modern change brings cultural change (Gertz and Khelifi 9; Gertz 22). It is possible that political change as well as industrialization have a significant impact on the views of tradition by each and every generation (Inglehart and Baker 3). Khleifi shows that at the very least, political change has a significant impact on culture and the views of future generations.

Works Cited

“Cultural Evolution.” Religion in Science Fiction : The Evolution of an Idea and

the Extinction of a Genre (n.d.): n. pag. Web.

Gertz, Nurith, and George Khleifi. “A Chronicle of Palestinian Cinema.” Film in

the Middle East and North Africa: Creative Dissidence (2011): 187-197.

Gertz, Nurith. Palestinian Cinema: Landscape, Trauma and Memory: Landscape,

Trauma and Memory. Edinburgh University Press, 2008.

Inglehart, Ronald, and Wayne E. Baker. Modernization, Cultural Change, and the

Persistence of Traditional Values (2000): n. pag. Web.

Wedding in Galilee. Dir. Michel Khleifi, 1987. DVD.

The Female Perception in Palestine

Throughout history Patriarchy has always been a part of the culture in Palestine resulting in the oppression of women and a fixed view of how they are perceived in society. In the film Wedding in Galilee (1987) the director, Michel Khleifi, displays how the Palestinian society perceives women through various symbols and characters. In most of Khleifi’s films Palestinian women represent both tradition and the struggle for national preservation; they embody hope for liberation while also obeying the rules of the patriarchal society they live in (Shohat). The female characters in the film continuously challenge their traditional gender roles to a greater extent as a form of rebellion against the patriarchal culture.

One character who goes against the traditional female role throughout the film is Samia who is the bride in the wedding. Samia plays a key role in defying the tradition aspects of a Palestinian woman. After her wedding ceremony with the groom, ‘Adil, they must carry out the culture’s tradition through consummation. Her husband’s failure to complete this tradition due to the anger he has towards his father leads to Samia taking matters into her own hands. She not only stops the groom from committing violent acts towards his father, but she takes her own virginity. This scene represents how Palestinian females are capable of showing their inner strength by not letting tradition or the masculine order control their bodies and their lives (Gertz 9). Samia defeats conflict through resolution and goes against tradition by embracing her strength and control.

Another extremely important role in Wedding in Galilee is that of the Muktar’s daughter Sumayya. Sumayya is a young woman who portrays qualities that represent everything Palestinian women are deprived of including provocative behavior, rebellious attitude, and a desire to explore her sexuality. She also represents the need for modification and liberation for females in her society. Sumayya dresses in a more Western manner than the other women in the film who are dressed in a more modest and traditional way. This represents her dreams of modifying her role in society as well as her rebellious behavior towards the traditional patriarchy. One scene where Sumayya truly defies the traditional female role is when she attempts to stop her love interest, Ziad, from attacking the Israeli soldiers. When he refuses to listen to her opinion she proceeds to tell him that he is making a mistake and that he would be nothing without her. This scene sends a strong message to the viewers by showing how a young female character refuses to listen to an opinion of a man while radiating confidence and certainty. Sumayya is a symbol of prosperity in the nation of Palestine and the need for feminism in the patriarchal culture.  

Both of these roles play a very significant part in creating the idea that Palestinian women must be liberated, and how their role in society must be modified. Khleifi listens to the oppressed women in his society in order to show how his nation is struggling (Gertz 15). A professor of Third World Politics and Women’s Studies,  Dr. Talhami, once said  “It’s really about a conflict between women and their oppressive conditions” (Saifollahi 67), while discussing the topic of feminism in Palestine. In other words, Palestinian females face the conflict of oppression everyday which results in a fixed perception of them and their stereotype. This film sheds a light on how these women face the challenge of being inferior to their society because of the lack of modernism and liberation in their nation.    

 Works Cited

Gertz, Nurith, and George Khleifi. “A Chronicle of Palestinian Cinema.” Film in

the Middle East and North Africa: Creative Dissidence (2011): 187-197.

Gertz, Nurith. Palestinian Cinema: Landscape, Trauma and Memory: Landscape,

Trauma and Memory. Edinburgh University Press, 2008.

Saifollahi, Banafsheh. “Palestinian Feminism Movement.” The Washington Report on

Middle East Affairs 25.4 (2006): 67.

Shohat, Ella. “Wedding in Galilee.” Middle East Report No.154 (1988): 44-46.

Web.24 Sep.2014.

Wedding in Galilee. Dir. Michel Khleifi, 1987. DVD.