Review: MIFF reviews: Winter Vacation, Tears of Gaza, Zebraman 2


Winter Vacation — dir. Li Hongqi

At the end of Li Hongqi’s absurdist comedy, Winter Vacation, the father of one of the young protagonists launches a scathing tirade against the arrogance of humankind and their stubborn perpetuation of the myth of attainable knowledge. The father, his son explains to a friend, has gone off his medication.

It’s a moment that evokes Michel Foucault’s History of Madness (AKA Madness and Civilisation) and its argument that “modern man no longer communicates with the madman”; instead the dialogue of madness has become “a monologue of reason about madness,” reinforcing our confidence in a rational, enlightened society that is wilfully misunderstood by the insane.

The monologue of reason can be heard throughout this film, as the teenagers, adults and elderly of an urbanised rural Chinese neighbourhood observe the banal rituals of society in a resigned stupor.  It’s only the belligerent children and mad father that demonstrate any form of desire to go beyond their mechanised daily routines. When the nephew of one of the teenagers is asked what he wants to be when he grows up, he responds: “an orphan.”

The teenagers have already been indoctrinated, desiring only to procreate or to “contribute to the struggle to build socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Hongqi has denied this is a ‘political’ film, saying in an interview with Cinema Scope that “politics isn’t this world’s fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is humanity. And humans are the ones who brought politics into the world. But politics not only fails to resolve any problems on this earth, but is also itself a problem because humans place their hopes in politics,” – a statement that many may hear as the ramblings of a madman. — Kim Jirik


Tears of Gaza — dir. Vibeke Løkkeberg

A gripping documentation of the catastrophic impact of war, Vibeke Lokkeberg’s Tears of Gaza weaves through the lives of three Palestinian children affected by the Gaza bombings that took place between December 2008 and January 2009. Accompanied by Lisa Gerrard and Marcello De Francisci’s mournful score, the children’s stories are abruptly uprooted by footage of the bombings. This documentary is not easy to watch. The harrowing footage of civilians being pulled from building rubble is confronting, to say the least. At one point in the documentary we witness a group of men sorting through the debris as flocks of civilians watch in horror. The footage of the bodies recovered is startling. Young children no more the three to four years of age are carried from the building with broken bones and severe burns caused by phosphate.

The content of this documentary is brutal and tears are sure to flow from the eyes of many audience members. A similar experience happened during the 2009 Melbourne Underground Film Festival which screened Cry Freetown, a documentary about Sierra Leone directed by the journalist Sorious Samura. It contained graphic footage of the civil war raging in Sierra Leone in January 1999. Applying guerrilla tactics, Samura risked his life filming the atrocious carnage that took place on the streets of Sierra Leone. Similar to Cry Freetown, Tears of Gaza is clearly meant to shock audience members out of a state of complacency. Towards the close of the documentary we meet a middle-aged man who recounts his personal experience of the bombings. Losing his wife and children after a missile dropped on his house, the man shows us the scars on the body of his only remaining daughter. For him now, the only major concern left is her happiness.

Perhaps one of the major problems with this documentary is that it only shows us one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taking sides seems to be one of the major problems rooted in the Gaza conflict. It is difficult not to come out of the screening feeling outrage towards Israel for the military attacks launched in Gaza. These kinds of tactics are illegal and cannot be accepted. Exposed in this documentary are the bodies of three children, shot down by Israeli soldiers. A man standing by the bodies lifts up the sweaters on the children to reveal gunshot wounds in the chest. It was not an accident, he maintains, but murder.

Murder is a word continually thrown around in this documentary, and fairly so. Standing on a beach, lamenting his father’s death, a young boy says, “When my father was murdered, I felt like I lost the whole world.” After losing his father in the conflict, the young boy proclaims that he would like to become a doctor to heal the wounded. A young girl, losing her family in the bombings maintains that she will study hard to become a lawyer so that she can take the Israeli government to court and bring justice for her family and homeland. However painful this documentary may be to watch, one would hope that such a display of violence inflicted on, and amongst innocent children and women could provoke both sides to come to some diplomatic agreement. — Fiona Shewan


Zebraman 2: Attack on Zebra City — dir. Takashi Miike

For those seeking some fresh disturbance from Takashi Miike, Zebraman 2 may quietly disappoint. A comic-book style action film with a typically saturated aesthetic, its narrative is concerned with the archetypal theme of good vs. evil (read: black and white stripes of the Zebra). This is all set in the apocalyptic future where police brutality is sanctioned by an authoritarian government and its policy of “Zebra Time,” allowing for the total suspension of law for five minutes twice a day. When the hero, Zebraman, is attacked and shot by police during Zebra Time, the standard narrative quest to overpower the evil rulers is set in motion. The film does not diverge from the standard on-screen decadence or narrative mission for social revolution that marks this genre; yet crucially it lacks the unsettling unconscious that might have distinguished it as a Miike film, rather than another installation in the Power Rangers series.

Like any good film of its genre, Zebraman 2 is visually spectacular and appropriately aggressive, with characters that possess the right dose of charged eroticism to seduce the eye. But then I found myself looking upon Zebraman and the Zebra Queen as I had gazed upon Kimberley, Tommy and Rita as a nine-year-old, and I felt struck by the puerile sensibility of the film. I come to Miike to feel disturbed, horrified, nauseated, to have ipecac syrup forced down my throat. Instead I left feeling as though I had been injected with a heavy-dose of generic opium. Zebraman 2 was not the cinematic drug I was looking for. – Lauren Bliss

Screen Machine Staff
Email the Screen Machine Staff at screenmachinetv@gmail.com.

→ more articles by Screen Machine Staff

3 Comments


  • David Macilwain
    01/08/11 - 11:15 PM

    With all respect Fiona – the fact that Tears of Gaza only shows one side of the ‘conflict’ is not a problem – it is an answer – to the coverage that we in the west were allowed to see when Israel performed its operation to reduce Gaza to rubble – no media were allowed into the ‘military zone’, so that Israel could use all those illegal weapons and murder women and children with ‘callous disregard’ as Justice Goldstone put it. The problem with the screening at the festival was that Lisa Gerard tried to put it into the mind of audience members that this was ‘not a political film’ and about ’stopping the hate’.
    It is impossible to believe that Vibeke Lokkeberg doesn’t now feel the utmost contempt for the behaviour of Israeli forces, even if she began without that idea. For someone already familiar with the war crime that was Operation Cast Lead, and the complicity of our own governments in allowing Israel to do its dirty work against the legitimate owners of the land they occupy, watching this footage was cathartic – a combination of tears and intense anger, both at Israel for being so barbaric, and at our media for being so pathetic in believing Israel’s lies.
    At this point I am seeking to contact Vibeke Lokkeberg to tell her how I believe Gerard has completely misrepresented her film. A film which to me is no ‘anti-war’ film, but an attempt to belatedly wake the world up to Israel’s ongoing atrocities against innocent Palestinians.
    And if you doubt it, how many Israelis died in this ‘WAR”? – civilians? in Sderot? Three. How many Israelis are now walking round with missing legs or arms, or buried flechettes, or phosphorus burns that never heal, or severe traumatic stress like that suffered by Ramia?


  • Brad Nguyen
    02/08/11 - 10:57 AM

    Some fair points David — I was at a different screening to you so I didn’t have to hear Gerard say any nonsense about this being a non-political film. And I’m glad I didn’t have to.

    However, the film is still problematic. The idea that this one film could be an answer to Israel’s vast propaganda machinery is, I think, naive. Which is why I think that the film needed to be more formally radical; abandon all these conventional manipulations; abandon that hysterical “will somebody please think of the innocent children” strategy. Because Israel can also do this, and with more resources. The problem is not that this film’s sympathies are lopsided; it’s the way the film plays into the ideology of sympathy as such that is the problem.


  • Anthony Franz
    23/08/11 - 2:21 AM

    I don’t give a flip about which country is right. War is mass murder and both countries’ military are murderers. Do not deny it. To Hell with anyone who thinks that nationalism comes before the lives of innocent children. So if the film sides with a nation, that makes it alright? Fuck nationalism. Fuck Mahmoud Abbas and fuck Benjamin Netanyahu. I don’t give a damn, both sides should STOP. I don’t want to hear whatever reason Netanyahu or Abbas have pulled from their asses, that does not give them the right to terrorize and MURDER the civilians of the opposing country. War is hell I do not give a damn if you are pro or anti Israel. This nationalism is the reason for the Gaza war.

    People who put patriotism over human welfare are sick in the head. So is this the new activism? Against war if Israel attacks, but not when Palestinians retaliate? I do not care which side started it, both are condoning mass murder. That is all there is to it.

    I side with the people of Israel and Palestine, not their governments or militaries. War is war, murder is murder, injustice is injustice.

    And you completely miss Lisa Gerrard’s point (spell her name right). You side with a country against another country, which is what caused the war in the first place. So you do not care if Israeli innocents are killed in the Palestinian retaliation but you cry blood when Palestinian innocents are murdered? Pick a side, war or peace. Pick a side, hate or compassion. WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE?

    “For the plague-stricken their peace of mind is more important than a human life.” — Albert Camus

    This plague is war, support for war, military worship. And the human lives are the innocents maimed all for the mad delusions of Netanyahu and Abbas.

    Lisa Gerrard is right. Hatred is the cause of this bloody conflict. Religion and nationalism divide these two peoples who might otherwise have coexisted in peace were it not for their respective governments feeding them “Us vs Them” bullshit through propaganda and media, as Lisa Gerrard put it.

    So what Gerrard says is nonsense, is it? Is the idea of peace nonsense? Is compassion nonsense? I am neither pro Israel or pro Palestine, in the nationalistic sense. I am for the innocent people of both. Why do people put nations above people? To divide and rule them, that is why. Propaganda and media.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

Leave a Reply