This is going to throw fuel on the fire.
As I visit Australia again, to attend this week's opening of the Melbourne International Film Festival, I have been confronted by the outcry over the film Stolen, which will screen at the festival and which represents, in microcosm, the importance of truth in the struggle for justice. The film, which makes claims of widespread slavery in the Western Saharan refugee camps, represents many of the ugly realities of this central dynamic. It is a scenario I know only too well.
I have followed closely the question of Western Sahara for decades. In our years of struggle for independence, strong friendship and solidarity grew between the Timorese and the Saharawis. I have met many Saharawis and visited the Saharawi refugee camps and liberated areas twice. I did not see any form of slavery in those camps. Rather, what I know of the Saharawis is that they are enlightened and committed to their cause of freedom.
The situation of Western Sahara is perhaps not well known to Australians. For East Timorese, there are ties which make a mutual understanding easier to find. Both East Timor and Western Sahara were colonised by Iberian powers - Portugal and Spain, respectively; both have been identified by the United Nations as being ready for decolonisation; both were invaded, post-European withdrawal, by regional powers in 1975; both peoples have been subjected to widespread human rights abuses; and both have been caught up in global political trends not of their making.
Click the link to read the whole thing. It's a pretty weird piece in that he states he hasn't seen slavery, embraces the struggle of the said people of Western Sahara, does NOT give a good rap about the Moroccan ruling power, and closes by saying Australians would do well to make clear distinctions between truth and fiction:
As a friend of the Saharawis, I ask all Australians to take the time to understand the issues surrounding Western Sahara. I implore all to search for the truth with vigilance and commitment, lest lies become manifest and the vested interests of certain powers be allowed free reign in the marketplaces of ideas and power.
The world must support the independence of Western Sahara as a bridge between the Maghreb and the rest of Africa and as an enlightened Muslim nation bringing the Islamic world and the western democracies closer.
The Government and the people of Western Sahara deserve at least that much. As for East Timor, the worldwide support of the people, quite apart from governments and world organisations, has been, and remains significant. Those connections count and the value of ensuring truth and fiction remain separate is vital.
In other words, he just called the film makers claims into serious question. He just called their documentary film, 'Fiction'.
I'm pretty sure this isn't going to sit well with the defenders of the film makers out there who claim the Polisario are manipulating people into covering up the slavery in Western Sahara and needlessly attacking the film makers of 'Stolen'.
While I don't hold Mr.Ramos-Horta to be a greater expert than anybody else - he's only visited the camps twice and who knows what he was shown? - I do think if he says he's not seen the slavery in the camps, then that's another claim you're either going to have to take on board as corroboration. Either that or say he too is being manipulated by the Polisario, which would strain credulity, given his political positioning against them.
69 comments:
Yeah, it is disturbing for one of the film makers' supporters to see Hose Ramos Horta calling into question a film he hasn't seen, on the say-so of the Polisario.
Otherwise I agree with his statement made "as a friend of the Saharawis". I feel that it makes complete sense. I've been attempting to do this myself.
I feel much sympathy and compassion for the Saharawis, their refugee plight and their cause for independence and self determination; also for the additional plight of the oppressed slave class as portrayed in the film, Stolen, by Ayala and Fallshaw.
What concerns me is how the Saharawi cause is being translated into practice by the Polisario. As with earlier socialist movements, true believers and/or those who hold power have shown a tendency to get out of hand.
I recall reading somewhere that the Polisario are Leninist or Stalinist or some such; something to do with the Algerian approach and which could explain what appear to be oppressive tactics on their part.
Over all, the issues in relation to separate although intertwined issues of the film, the Saharawi cause. and the Polisario are highly complex. There are many views, accusations and misinformation being thrown around.
I feel that my own stance and belief, that the film makers are honest and that the film does not deceive about its subject, has been extremely enlightening as to how these issues are being played out in the media and what all this might actually mean about the various players.
And if I can only make myself look just like Brad Pitt, I can sleep with Jennifer Aniston AND Angelina Jolie!
Well at least I've determined that you're a male.
Hose Ramos Horta is wise. I can see why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. What he has said on these issues (misinformation about the film aside) speaks to all perspectives.
I keep thinking of what you said earlier about what knowledge is. I have not satisfied you that my claim to knowledge is justified by evidence I have presented.
I assert yet again that while the film may not be perfect (and what in the real world is?)I am privileged to know that the film makers are honest and have been misrepresented in the media at the behest of the Polisario and others.
I feel enlightened because it has highlighted for me how often this must be so without my having realised it before. I have begun to examine what people say against their alignments and allegiances more closely than I did before.
I can see how people become blinded by their prejudices and by what they perceive as their personal interests. Sometimes they are mistaken.
The Polisario and their supporters were mistaken in taking a stance against the film before they'd even seen it. I read that Dan Fallshaw had said at the time all this happened (when they were detained) that the Polisario had asked them why they wanted bother with the presumably lowly black Saharawis; which says something to me of the Polsiario's perspective on human rights issues.
You know what?
Dan should start a website where he goes public with everything he's got. What's he got to lose?
Right now, most of the information out there about this issue doesn't come from the filmmakers - which happens to be all the stuff you're disputing - except their statements and denials.
That's a problem.
I'd happy to look at what the film makers have got that's concrete and presented to the world.
I'd like to see more than words. I'd like to see the raw footage and documents and audio recordings.
Get it out there and let genuine discussion begin.
Without those things being presented, they're looking every bit as discredited as commentators say they are.
Other than that, I'm going to wait out the NAATI adjudication.
I've passed on that suggestion however right now Dan's probably flat out responding to/defending the film against the multitude of criticisms that have been levelled at it.
artneuro,
Don't worry about JaneAgatha. She is Dan Falshaw's aunty. She's been trying to defend him. She spends an incredbile amount of time on this issue and she can be found everywhere the film is mentioned (New Matilda, Unleashed, Online Opinion...etc sometimes under the names of Erika and Wal!).
NAATI is not going to get involved. The report in SMH was wrong. Check out this article: The ethics of documentary film: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2633252.htm
Hi Kamal
Artneuro knows that I'm Dan's aunt. I already told him. Unlike you, I'm not trying to fool anyone about where I'm coming form
I find it handy to have the email alerts for when messages are posted.
Given that I take exception to the misinformation you are spreading around I do my best to counter it. Hopefully at some point you will give up. I feel that you really ought to be focusing on issues at home; the welfare of your people; selling oil licences etc
By the way, the article on Unleashed that Kamal is referring you to is well, you know... It's written by him...
I don't know what Kamal's comment about NAATI means; perhaps NAATI have decided to ignore Kamal's bogus complaints at last.
From what I've heard they've found no problem with the translation albeit the Hassania interpreter wasn't qualified :-)
Anyway, the film's going ahead because there's no reason for it not to go ahead.
I don't know if it's unhealthy or macabre, but I'm starting to enjoy this...
I just want to touch on a few points that seem to get missed.
Many people are asking '"How could Screen Australia fund this film?"
The sequence of events leads me to think that they sure didn't get the film they thought they were going to get when they agreed to fund it.
So from a "how did this happen?" perspective, Screen Australia is probably the wrong party to pin the blame on. They were good to their word and gave money to the film; the film got made and shown on that money.
It also means they're actually NOT backing the film's claim in its current form. The fact that they funded this documentary cannot be taken as proof that Screen Australia supports the assertions made in the film.
I make this point because this Corcas Organisation thinks it can. This is incorrect.
I've made some calls to people I know, I won't reveal sources, but Screen Australia is going to try and ride out the controversy by washing their hands. You can understand how this would be the case. As an organisation, they're not built to deal with this issue at all.
This brings us back to the problem of independent verification. From what I can gather, Screen Australia are not going to be aggressive about pursuing this angle. Which might explain the comment by 'artrlight' above about no forthcoming NAATI assessment
This means if the film makers want to be exonerated, they need to organise NAATI themselves and sort this stuff out. Without getting NAATI to exonerate them, their name is mud.
They sure won't be getting more funding from Australian funding bodies after this, I've been assured.
That's about the extent to which I can comment on this topic.
OK Art Neuro thanks for giving your tuppence worth.
However I feel you're taking an unduly hard line in the circumstances; and are perhaps unduly suspiscious and paranoid on the basis of the media spectacle.
Having worked with funding bodies I can understand that Screen Australia would distance themselves from any controversy; it's not their role to get involved which is why they fund others to make the films etc.
As to independent verification, from what I've been told NAATI only certifies the translators and interpreters and verifying translations is not and never has been their role; possibly a beat-up by Kamal.
The film has already been subjected to certified translation for the Spanish; not possible for the Hassania. There probably isn't a need to do the translation again. It is their film. Spanish speakers can and already have judged for themselves and not found it wanting.
The film industry bods responsible for various film festivals are satisfied that all is above board despite what the Polisario have said; and the invitations are coming.
So my view remains: It's a compelling and beautiful film made about an interesting and important subject.
The film makers have come up with a creative resolution to the ethical dilemma they faced by putting themselves in the story which is far from a first; albeit it fits with my philosophical approach that it's transparent to tell the viewer your part in the story as with Hunter S. Thomson's gonzo journalism.
I have nothing hanging on whether this movie succeeds or fails and feel I'm in a position to be impartial about the media spectacle (while having an advantage in knowing the claims are trumped up).
Hence I'd advise withholding judgment about whether or not the film makers get funded again; whether or not they build a successful career on this; and whether or not they win an award for this particular gem of a film that was put together under extremely trying circumstances.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they do.
Good news about Screen Australia. It's about time they took a decision on this debacle.
Ramos-Horta on Stolen:
A transcript of what Ramos-Horta's of a speech given in Melbourne on 23 July 2009 where he spoke on the issue of Western Sahara. This is what he said on the slavery allegations in the film “Stolen” :
“I have to confess I have not seen the film but have read about all about it for many months - transcripts and articles. I have to say I was in the camps and I am not naïve - I am always a very curious person. You go to East Timor and you will see me walking into the back alleys of buildings, visiting people while they were cooking in the kitchen and wherever I am I
am always curious about human beings and at the Sahara camp I went visiting people in tents and talked with so many people.
I do not know the number of international NGOs that over the years have operated in the camps – numerous – far more than ever in East Timor. The number of European parliamentarians visiting the camps and internationally, the Red Cross, always had free access to the Saharawi camps. UNHCR – all areas that you can think of, all these years – no one ever heard of it.
Because this is the first time I heard of it in the camps. It is totally an absurdity and made up, I guarantee you.
And if there is one liberation movement that I know.... over the years, many of us like Fretilin in the past, even the ANC, we have been embarrassed by some of things that we did. The Polisario is one of the most genuine liberation movements and very humanitarian. I never heard of brainwashing by the Polisario. You don’t see much propaganda material by the Polisario.
It is not an authoritarian, centrally controlled movement - very liberal, very open. I know from my feelings - I am not stupid, not a genius - but I know when someone is deceiving me. I know how to ask questions and I would never, never turn a blind eye if I knew of any abuses in the Saharawi camps because I would be an accomplice by supporting a movement that I knew was committing these barbarities so it is totally unheard of.
My experience being there – the experience of the UNCR, International Red Cross, numerous NGOs, European parliamentarians, US Congressmen – was that no one was ever told about this.”
Oh yeah. That's old news now.
Most people can read. I suggest they inform themselves of the issues and consider the vested interests that are at play.
Better still, refer to what the Moroccan Ambassador to Australia has said in response to Ramos Horta. Here's and excerpt:
His Excellency seized the opportunity of the screening of the documentary entitled “Stolen” in Melbourne to express his point of view on the dispute over Western Sahara in depth. In common with him, I do believe the film should be viewed beyond the theme it raises, namely slavery. En passant, I should like to stress that slavery is a practice outlawed by the international community, shameful and to be condemned in all its forms. It can by no means be tolerated anywhere nor by anybody, let alone by a liberation movement or separatist movement!
The discovery of the practice of slavery in the camps of the polisario in Tindouf on the Algerian territory was, according to the directors of the film, fortuitous and not initially motivated. When they realized the existence of the phenomenon, they preferred to uncover it to the general public rather than eclipse it. They believe that hiding the truth out of sympathy with a so-called liberation movement would amount to complicity, which they would regret both morally and professionally.
They just followed their conscience; which cost them the grievances of the advocates of the said movement. Fear not! Better be criticized for having chanted a discovered truth by chance in the course of research carried out on the ground, than being trapped into silent complicity our of fear or sympathy.
So who do we believe?
A Nobel Laureate and someone who devoted his life for freedom: Jose Ramos Horta or
The Moroccan regime Ambassador?
Morocco is an absolute monarchy ruled by a king who derives his authority not from the people because his family has been in power since the middle ages. He also calls himself the Commander of the Faithful. No one is allowed to question his authority: See Articles 19 and 20 of the Moroccan Consitituion.
Article 19: The King, "Amir Al-Muminin"(Commander of the Faithful), shall be the Supreme Representative of the Nation and the Symbol of the unity thereof. He shall be the guarantor of the perpetuation and the continuity of the State. As Defender of the Faith, He shall ensure the respect for the Constitution. He shall be the Protector of the rights and liberties of the citizens, social groups and organisations. The King shall be the guarantor of the independence of the Nation and the territorial integrity of the Kingdom within all its rightfull boundaries.
Article 20: The Moroccan Crown and the constitutional rights thereof shall be heriditary and handed down, from father to son, to descendants in direct male line and by order of primogeniture among the offspring of His Majesty King Hassan II, unless the King should, during his lifetime, designate a successor among his sons apart from the eldest one. In case of failing descendants in direct male line, the right of succession to the Throne shall, under the same conditions, be invested in the closest male in the collateral consanguinity.
The choice is up to the readers.
However, it is interesting that the connection between those who defend "Stolen" and Morocco is becoming more and more clearer.
Well you can imply that if you like "artrlight"; however you're mistaken or misled on numerous fronts; and seem to be living in a bizarre world of intrigue which is not the world I live in.
What you quote looks ok to me, especially this:
"As Defender of the Faith, He shall ensure the respect for the Constitution. He shall be the Protector of the rights and liberties of the citizens, social groups and organisations. "
Numerous other democratic countries have hereditary monarchies - UK, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Monaco, Norway Sweden to name a few of them; hence to say that Morocco has a hereditary monarchy is not necessarily damning.
Given the fuss the Polisario and their supporters have been making about the film, Stolen, I've been looking again at what has been said about Morocco. I feel that compared to what the Polisario says the Moroccan Ambassador's response to Ramos Horta is statesmanlike; fair, logical, respectful and well researched; and I agree with what he has said.
I disagree with much of what the Polisario's representative has said; appears incredibly biassed , hostile and nasty rather.
We keep hearing references by the Polisario's supporters to Morocco's brutal occupation of the Western Sahara, however this reference is to events that happened over thirty years ago. The world has changed much since then. Perhaps it's time for the Polisario and their supporters to move forward into a different and happier future.
They may not want to do that because they want to make a claim to the Western Sahara's rich resources; which might be a bit greedy given how few of them there are. I doubt the money would go to the refugees, given how oppressed they seem to be.
More and more it is becoming apparent to me that the Saharawi refugees are being kept in no man's land in the desert at great cost to them for reasons that are not their own.
It's easy to understand why so many of them have sought to escape the camps and return to Morocco to be reunited with their families and find work and education. Compared to life in the camps it doesn't sound half that bad. Morocco is working hard at becoming a democracy. Why can't you respect that?
I don't buy all this bullshit about Morocco being an evil empire any more. After what the Moroccan Ambassador has said. I'm going to show them respect because they deserve a fair go. They are prepared to give the film makers a fair go which is more than I can say of Kamal Fadel.
So... the 31st July has come and gone, and just as artrlight predicted/claimed, there has been no NAATI announcement.
I guess there was no vindication for the film makers after all.
Count me amongst the sceptics.
But as I started off a couple of months ago, I think it's too much to demand ethics from documentary film makers as you would demand from legal practitioners or medical practitioners.
After all, any nong with a camera is a film maker these days.
The problem perhaps is that documentary film makers prosper more for making outrageous claims and being controversial. In that sense, I imagine the film makers have earned themselves quite a cache with the notoriety.
*Somebody* will fund them in the future, just to see what other outrageous *discoveries* they can make.
I was down on Screen Australia when this thing blew up, but I'm less so now. I'm a lot more down on the business of documentary film making as a whole.
Well Art Neuro, I respect your opinion, however my view is that the film makers had no case to answer. They have in fact admitted fault with the particular bit of the Hassania translation that had been questioned; and they have corrected it.
It seems there are fewer and fewer things about the film that anyone can take issue with. They've removed the offending footage by Carlos Gonzalez; and are playing the full approved interview just as the UN lady wanted. Have to go. Catch you later.
They did throw the interpreters under the bus. :)
That's why I'm giving them hell about the translation, remember?
More seriously, I have a question.
Did the film makers get releases from the people in the film?
The current status is that the people claiming they were misrepresented are also claiming that they did not sign releases, and therefore their images should not be allowed to be used in the film.
Now this is a non-political point. The film makers would need to get releases to have these people in their film for legal department reasons, most likely stipulated in their contract with Screen Australia.
Indeed I *can't* imagine a documentary crew not securing such releases from everybody they interview and put on camera.
Yet, there it is as one of the counter-claims.
So, do the film makers have these releases or not?
See excerpt from Screenhub below. It seems that the controversy will be ongoing and that viewers will have to make up their own minds.
I heard that the film received a warm reception from the MIFF audience last night; looks like the Polisario and their supporters have taken the attack on the film to unnecessary extremes and people don't like that.
As to the translator remaining anonymous; the person probably wants to avoid the same kind of unrelenting viscious attacks that have been levelled at the film makers.
Those who like the film and feel that the film makers are honest have been forced to take sides given the polarised stand the film's opponents have taken.
From where I see it, these nasty and unrelenting attacks on the film makers simply reflect negatively on the Polisario and their cause.
From Screenhub 31/7/09
The famous/infamous documentary, 'Stolen', will be shown at the Melbourne International Festival in a new form. It has become a kind of post modern media python, absorbing its own past into itself to create/endure yet more controversy.
Stolen, as shown at the Sydney Film Festival, contained a scene at the end in which Fetim Sellami, the central character, denounces the filmmakers. "They are such liars!" she says.
However, this footage was shot by Carlos Gonzalez, who firmly believes the film is deceitful - the reason why he recorded the scene - and he has denied permission for the scene to remain in the film.
So the film now contains text which describes her withdrawal of consent. According to producer Tom Zubrycki, there is also "an additional scene from the screening at the film festival in Sydney, plus additional material recorded at the camp, plus a couple of relevant testimonials."
The festival scenes show Fetim Sellami at the premiere, where she denounced the film. The liars accusation is still on the record, though other people now say it. All, says Zubrycki, "so the film can supply some balance. It now suggests that the controversy is ongoing, and the making of the actual film is very much part of the subject of the film itself."
Actually, this material takes the involution one stage further. It is now a film about an event, which then contains Polisario's response to the event, then the further deals and escapades of the filmmakers to secure the footage of the event, then the rebuttal of the story of the event by its participants, and then the controversy when they confront the filmmakers, and the festival in which it occurs. All of which is about to be shown at the next festival...
On the question of translations, Zubrycki claims he is vindicated. Another translater, accepted by the Australian National Authority for the Accreditation of Translators and Interpreters, who speaks the local language as a native, has gone through each scene "forensically, and treated each scene in context. The result is similar but more precise and the meaning of each scene is unchanged."
The new translator wishes to remain anonymous.
Tom Zubrycki expects a lively screening tonight.
Well, there you go.
I would prefer the NAATI translator put their name to it. Otherwise it could be any old person with a similar axe to grind, and how do we know it's not?
Tom's claim is actually more than a little misleading. He's saying the interpreter went thought the film and confirmed its meaning.
The problem isn't what the constricted meaning of the film *is*; it's how the meaning got constructed in the first place. So the interpreter should have gone through all the shot footage - Yes, all the rushes - to assess whether this meaning was being massaged into the film or whether really, it is exactly as the claim goes.
Tom might feel vindicated about the nice translation job he got, but it shows he's missed what people are howling about in the first place.
Or he's being very slippery there - but you'd expect exactly that. Why would Tom hire a person to undermine his own credibility by doing the job properly when that person can be shepherded into giving you the answer you want?
I've lost hope this thing is ever going to be properly assessed. After all, who really gives a shit about Truth-Claims any more? Who? In many ways, it's beyond that point - It's just about the spin now.
The Polisario say they're going to contest and confront this film at every turn, at every screening. The film makers won't back down because they've got this anonymous NAATI interpreter rubber-stamping the film.
And really, who benefits and who suffers?
I don't care enough about the Saharawis to join one side or another. I sure as hell don't care about the Polisario or Morroccans or Mauritanians and their slavery problem, and I won't start caring now as a result of this film. No Way. I REFUSE to care.
But I know the film makers got a tonne of publicity out of all this which I guess means they live to fight another day.
Good luck to them. I'm with Screen Australia and I'm washing my hands of this story.
The biggest irony for me is that I never thought I'd end up siding with Screen Australia.
I attended the Melbourne Screening of Stolen Friday night.
The most interesting thing is that Screen Australian has insisted to have a phrase added at the end of the film after its Sydney screening which looks like a disclaimer. It stated that the content of the film does not reflect the views of Screen Australian and the Australian Government.
It seems this is not a standard practice by Screen Australia to include disclaimers in films it finances. But after the Stolen saga they might have to start insisiting on it.
The moderator of the Q&A Andrew Dodd was excellent and he asked hard questions to the filmmakers which they were not able to answer such as how could tapes be buried in the sand in 45 degrees celcius for a number of days and then survive the sand and the heat! They were not able to answer that question.
Andrew said he did not see anything in the film to confince him of the filmmakers claim about being detained. He also questioned their Moroccan connection.
Andrw said that he is not convinced by the film.
Many people asked questions about the method of making the film and the allegations contained but their questions remained unanswered.
Check out this detailed critique of over 40 pages of Stolen:
http://awsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/critique_finalversion1.pdf
Available on www.awsa.org.au
I'm glad the panel in Melbourne were tough. It sure doesn't sound like the Melbourne audience was any more accepting than Sydney.
Just how did they answer things?
I'd like to see a Q&A transcript. It strikes me that the film makers don't understand just what it is the wider public are getting worked up about.
Not surprised there's a Screen Australia disclaimer.
I know that the final film bore no resemblance to the film project that was pitched to them for funding.
This bit though made me laugh:
------------------------------------------------------------
"6.3 Manipulation in the filming process
Fetim’s reunion with her mother was a very special occasion.
The Australian filmmakers who were staying at Fetim’s family house manipulated the occasion
to create tension and drama for filming. The film-makers provided money to buy a camel for the
big occasion and this gave them the ability to control the celebrations surrounding the event.
They told Fetim that she should only invite Saharawis of black colour and that the family of
Deido (her adoptive mother) should not participate in the celebration.
They also used Fetim’s teenage children in a way that upset the family, including offering their
son a playstation if he denounced the Polisario. Baba Hussein, Fetim’s husband wrote to Tom
Zubrycki requesting that the children be left out of the film (Appendix F). Fetim and Baba’s son
was not included, but their daughter Leil is a central character. "
-------------------------------------------------------------
That's actually about the level of ethics I do expect from documentary film makers. That level of low-handedness is par for the course.
It's easily believable that documentary makers manipulate what's going on to create dramas and problems. It's most certainly not unheard of. It's why I think doco makers have ethics the way psychopaths have consciences.
I've actually heard Tom lecture stuff where he was in favor of such methods to get a story on the screen. So no, that's not surprising in the least bit.
The mountain of letters voicing their discontent, their scepticism, their outrage, their disgust is more compelling than anything else.
As I kept writing, ALL these people can't be on the Polisario pay roll.
The easier explanation is that the film makers screwed it up.
Art Neuro
I've had look at the first few pages of the critque and it looks like the same kind of thing the film's opponents have been saying in the media all along; which looks incredibly negatively biassed to me and include some material that look like obvious fabrications. I've been responding to all this already and won't repeat here what I've said here although I may pull something together later.
Given the powerful lobby group that they film makers are up against tthey would have had to have made a perfect film and then some, in order to avoid the sort of criticisms they've copped. They are relative novices and this is their first feature length film. It's not unexpected that they've missed a few full stops, crossed 't's' and other formalities. Also not reprehensible to want to make a film that's full of interest, particularly visual interest which it certainly has.
However so much of what people come to believe on any issue is based on their perceptions. Every perception really gets down to what one believes based on the available information. A key factor influencing negative audience perceptions of Stolan is the misleading press releases from the Polisario and their supporters; which do not convince me at all.
Australians tend to be lazy, complacent and trusting and tend to believe what they see in the newspapers and other media; when someone criticises someone in the media the majority of readers are inclined to accept that as fact without critical reflection, simply because it's in print. I will never do that again after what I've seen going down in the media over this film. It has made me become an 'activist' and I will remain so because I no longer feel safe in Australia from Kamal and people like him. Just because he's fooled some prominent people in AWSA doesn't mean that I'm going to be fooled by him. I see the interests of the Polisario and the independence cause of the Saharawi as entirely separate issues. The human rights cause of the black Saharawi is a different issue again and is what the film touches on.
It's not at all unusual for a funding body to attach a disclaimer to a work they've funded. It covers them off for the fact they've had limited control over the making of the film. However they have not dissociated themselves from the film, despite extremely strong and persistent representations for them to do so, from the Polisario and their supporters.
I think I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating:
Not getting releases signed is actually NOT a missed formality but a cornerstone of their would-be defence.
Even Sascha Baron Cohen gets releases signed when he pranks people with his 'Borat' and 'Bruno' films. It indemnifies the production.
It's the MOST critical production thing a producer needs to make a film with somebody in it - get their release. If you can't get their release, it can't go in the film. That's the universal rule. I know this because I've worked on docos and have done the release-form chasing. It's a pain in the neck when you're on the road with a million things on your plate, but it's necessary.
So it's amateur hour on parade when it turns out that there are no releases signed. Screen Australia says there are no releases. There are provisions in the contract with SA that says the film makers MUST get releases.
But there are no releases.
That is completely reckless and if nothing else about the other claims might be true, the absence of those releases does not paint a good picture of the film makers. If there's ONE aspect in all of this that indicates something about the film makers' character to me, it is the absence of these releases.
As in, "what on Earth were they taking/smoking when they forgot to get their releases?"
Screen Australia putting in their disclaimer would be a result of that absence alone. Conversations I've had with people have indicated that it's a big issue and they're washing their hands. The film makers are on their own on this.
If the people in the film should get the wherewithal to sue the film makers in all territories of the planet, the film makers handed them a big stick by not getting those releases.
In fact if the Polisario are really serious about stopping the film, they should just fund those court cases.
There are no releases from film participants because the Polisario detained the film makers, stopped the filming and, following strong representations on the film makers behalf from the Australian Embassy in Paris, evicted them from the camp.
It appears to me that the subsequent retractions were either forced or solicited by the Polisario; and this is consistent with other reports of how they operate.
The issue that should not be forgotten here is that Australians, fortunately, are not subject to the Polisario. I pity the camp residents.
Re the tapes; they may be protecting someone...
More than ever now they would probably realise the importance of that.
The film makers at first trusted and supported the Polisario as shown in their early media statements.
Since then issues have come to light indicating that the Polisario are corrupt and possibly dangerous; and definitely not to be trusted.
Says them.
But they still went ahead with the film.
That's legally and ethically highly questionable.
janeagatha, I know Dan's your nephew and you love him dearly, but that's just the incontrovertible facts of working in film.
Even allowing for massive interference by the Polisario, they should know well enough that in the normal world where we all have to work and live under the rule of law, it goes: Have your releases, or open yourself to legal cases.
In practical terms, not having the releases means, no film.
The fact that the Polisario confiscated the releases is immaterial to the issue. That's just a variant of the "My dog ate my homework" excuse and it won't wash. It certainly hasn't washed with Screen Australia as they run hurtling away with being associated with the film.
The fact that the film makers proceeded with showing the film strongly suggests they decided to fly in the face of these things and get their sensational claim out, rather than play by the rule book.
That's not just failing to cross some 't's and dot some 'i's. That's like missing a wheel from your car and trying to drive it.
So yes, they are rightly being questioned for their integrity.
And they're open to legal challenges.
If the Polisario knew anything about legalities of films, they won't be bothering with these public challenges at festivals. They'd simply pay the legal costs for Fetima to sue the film makers in the courts of every country the film gets shown, on the grounds that the filmmakers don't have releases and the film is misrepresenting her.
And Fetima would win.
I don't intend to give the Polisario ideas or anything, but they're the facts. I don't know how uncomfortable Dan is this minute, but if I were him, I'd be very uncomfortable about this issue.
Dear Art Neuro, ok that is your opinion and you're welcome to it.
However the facts as far as I am aware is that Screen Australia is right behind the film makers. I'd say on this matter my information source is more reliable than yours. Apparently Kamal instantly latched onto the disclaimer as a further lever to use against them. So far he's tried to use everything he can to discredit them, so this is about all that one could expect of him.
If the Polisario had any legal avenues opened to them, I'm sure that they would already have pursued this course by now. Therefore I'd say with confidence that the Polisario have no legal recourse against the film makers.
Basically, the film makers have broken no laws in this country. As they won't be going back to Tindouf as long as the Polisario hold sway, fortunately they won't ever have to answer to that corrupt and oppressive regime either.
Strange isn't it how the Polisario are kicking up such a fuss and deciding on behalf of the film participants and other camp residents what is in these people's best interests.
It looks more to me like the Polisario feel that they have right to absolute sway over these poor people. That they would like to hold the same sway over the film makers is obvious. That they will fail in their efforts to suppress and discredit this film is also obvious and inevitable.
Well, without those releases, Fetima has legal avenues in NSW and Victoria, as of the 2 screenings.
The film alleges she's a slave. She says it's a slight to her honor and denies she's a slave, and says she's being misrepresented - a representation for which she did not/does not give permission. The film makers cannot produce releases that show she consented to being filmed.
That's a case.
She most likely won't have money to pursue this course, but technically, she does have legal recourse.
Heck, there might even be a lawyer wanting to take it on as pro bono work.
Art Neuro
I don't think you've seen the film. You can't go on the misinformation in Kamal's press releases.
The film makers do not say Fetim is a slave. People in the film do. It does not appear to be contrived; and I feel would have been impossible to contrive.
For Fetim to defend her statement that she is not and never has been a slave she'd have to prove it. Given that the film shows pretty clearly that she was/is Deido's slave I'm sure there'd be proof of that; also much evidence that until very recent years keeping black slaves was the Berber practice.
I feel the need to repeat yet again, that much as you seem to like to find people to knock just for the sport of it, you just can't believe everything you read in the newspapers or see on 7.30 Report.
A lot of misinformation has been published/presented in the media about this film, all from one source: people whose sole purpose is to suppress and discredit the film. So far, despite their best efforts, they have not succeeded; nor do I feel that they will succeed. They won't succeed basically because they're wrong and they're in the wrong and are the ones who are acting unethically.
JaneAgatha,
Your comment about the Australian media is very strange.
You seem to indicate that you have no faith in the Australian media. You claim that the Australian media is against the filmmakers and pro-Polisario!
I don't think this is true. All media coverage was balanced and included interviews with both sides except ScreenHub and a recent Age article and another one in Metro which were one sided and included interviews with the filmmakers only. Tom Zubrycki tried to use his friendships, connections and influence to steer the media in favour of the filmmakers but he failed because there are serious problems with the film. He only succeeded with David Tiley of ScreenHub, Mary-Anne Toy of the Age, and Maryella Hatfield from Metro Magazine. All of them wrote article based on interviews with the filmmakers or with Tom without bothering to contact someone from Polisario or the Saharawis involved in the film. I suspect all of these journalists are either friends of Tom Zubrycki or Julia Overton.
If you have problems with the 7.30 Report you can complain to the ABC.
I've seen the film and no one in the film said that Fetim is a slave. The filmmakers used voice over to say that Fetim's mother was Deido's father slave. They also said that they noticed Fetim doing domestic work for Deido and in one scene claimed that Fetim went looking for her shoes...etc Please read the full critique: www.awsa.org.au
I know you will never be convinced and will never stop defending Dan and his girlfriend Violeta because they are members of your family.
Well, this:
---------------------------------------------------------------
The film makers do not say Fetim is a slave. People in the film do. It does not appear to be contrived; and I feel would have been impossible to contrive.
-----------------------------------------------------------
...is semantics.
*If* they sue, they're not going to sue the film, they're going to sue the film makers for willfully building the incorrect contextualised meaning and disseminating it.
But, the law being the law, there will be a long definitional argument.
I think Fetim's case for not being a slave (or not) would be based on the UN's definitions of slavery. Or even the English Common law definition of slavery dating back to 1807 or whatever. Not the film/film makers' definition.
In any case, she doesn't have the burden of proof. The accused do.
Which is exactly the point of contention - regardless of what you say here or I say here - the point *can* be contested in court only because of those missing releases.
So y'know, as they say "releases, releases, releases! Get them signed and sent to the legal department."
Sucks to be Tom, Dan and Violeta to have the Polisario confiscate the releases.
Maybe the Polisario aren't so ignorant after all.
BTW you've got to be kidding to think I'm responding to each and every one of your posts for sport. I'm not that jaded with life, thank you very much.
Given that the filmmakers visited the refugee camps 3 times (during a period of 8 months) and the problem with the Polisario occured only during the last few days of their third visit I would have expected the filmmakers to have obtained the releases early on during their first visit or the second.
It doesn't make any sense that the Polisario would have taken the releases during the third visit of the filmmakers. Furthermore, it seems the filmmakers stated in the statement they made after they left the refugee camps that Polisario treated them with courtesy:
"At all times the Polisario looked after
us and afforded us every courtesy."
http://www.ww4report.com/node/3786
The filmmakers never mentioned that they had any releases or that the Polisario took them.
So this is just JaneAgatha trying to defend her nephew.
Art Neuro
Thanks for the debate and for taking a hard line. It appears that we will continue to disagree on this one and will need to await further developments now.
As to artrlight's comment; it is personal and nasty and just what I expect from the Polisario. They will not win a legal argument by attacking persons.
I found this on Unleashed. I think the writer was inspired by the filmmakers claim that slavery is in the mind:
Slavery is in the mind, slavery of your behind.
It does not matter if this does not rhyme
I'm only writing it to pass the time.
Did the film makers commit a crime, they're lying and misleading creates suspicion
Were they on a mission?
For the slave it is not submission, coz they were paid a commission.
For the public it is momentary indecision
The truth will reveal itself in time, and reveal itself with great precision.
The disjunction created between arab and black
Is reminiscent of the crack attack
By the evangelical american christian pack
On a mission that is really wacked
Do not attempt to hack and translate
Let the experts do it and you'll be right mate
The film makers do only desecrate
The integrity of film making and then they berate
Their slaves, who they underestimate and bait
And now the film makers create slaves in turn
Slaves of themselves to money and fame, for which they yearn
Something that is both nasty and untrue is not good poetry.
Perhaps it's time to coin a ditty of my own. Stay posted!
JaneAgatha,
We await you ditty. Hopefully it will be free of nastiness and lies.
But I am sure it will be biased towards the filmmakers.
Art Neuro
The fact that the film-makers of Stolen voluntarily left the Saharawi refugee camps a few days earlier than planned has nothing to do with their failure to obtain release documents.
In the case of Fetim, she submitted a letter and a video message saying she did not consent to being in the film, which presumably would over-ride any previous verbal consent (or written one, had it been obtained).
Her husband, Baba Hussein, wrote saying would not allow any of his children to appear in the film. His son does not appear, but his eldest daughter is a central character. The younger daughters are in almost every shot that involves Fetim, but hardly ever speak.
Turning now to other participants - Ursula Aboubacar, Deputy Director of the UNHCR's Middle East and North Africa Bureau, states that the release form they left is still with her, unsigned as they never sent the clip of her interview for approval, therefore she does not authorise the use of her image or words in the film. See further discussion in New Matilda: http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/26/slave-story
This disregard by Ayala and Fallshaw for the conditions set by the people they enlisted into this film is illustrated also in the case of Oumar Sy, the translator asked to certify the subtitles. When they cancelled an appointment 15 minutes before it was due to take place, he asked to be sent the final cut showing they had incorporated his corrections into the subtitles and voice over text. As this never happened he could not certify the translation of Hassaniya in the film.
Consider also the young men who were brought to Mauritania to make statements to camera (later retracted in Carlos Gonzalez's evidence) - there was nothing stopping the film-makers getting release statements signed by them. And, for the matter of that, they could have been asked to bring letters from other main characters from the camps, Deido, her son Ahmed etc.
Really there is no good reason for the lack of release documents, just as there is no reason at all for the claim that it took diplomatic pressure for Violeta and Dan to be allowed to leave the camps. That is pure nonsense, but it is not possible to do a re-enactment without contacting DFAT etc to prove it. There was also no threat of confiscation of their tapes, that is another fiction which created a goodly portion of the story. But it was used to justify Moroccan intervention in return for which they had to go to New York to do press work "for Morocco's political gain". This was described by a film-maker in the MIFF Q&A as "a compromise too far". Fair point.
However the Q&A on 31 July was only 20 mins instead of the promised extended time of 40 mins. Let's put the questions on the blogs and see if any answers are forthcoming.
That last line reads better with "black" before Saharawi.
To extendedqanda:
All of what you say stands to reason.
I was giving as much benefit of the doubt to the film makers for not having releases.
My own experience in this area is that we hit the road with thick folders for releases for talent and locations, and extensive contact documentation. We have the talent and location owners/authorities sign all these things and get them to our legal departments intact.
For the film makers not to have any of this material boggles the mind, and strikes at the heart of the notion of documenting - which one would think is critical in a 'documentary'.
What were they doing out there for all those months?
Why wasn't Tom on their cases to get them signed?
Did they actually go abroad without these release forms? In which case, what was the EP doing earning their money? Or the production manager?
It's just unthinkable in this day and age; and I can't emphasise that enough.
The thing that gets me even more is that the film has screened now, twice, without these releases in place. A TV station would never broadcast a film that didn't have the legal aspects covered.
What are these film festivals thinking? Or is it just the case that they want the bums on seats and the controversy is too good to pass up for business?
All of it is so disturbing to put it mildly. And that's before we get to the issues of translation and interpreting.
The trouble is that much of what "extendedqanda" says is based on hearsay; not established fact. Although clearly extendedqanda believes it.
It was generours of MIFF and the film makers to agree to a Q & A at all, given that the only purpose of this exercise was for the film's opponents to seek to discredit the film publicly via a whole host of biassed and misleading claims.
No resolution was to be expected from this, given how polarised and entrenched in their opposition to the film Polisario and their supporters are.
Rather than questioning the film, it would perhaps have been more fruitful for the Australian supporters of the Polisario to question the veracity of the information that has been passed onto them by Kamal and other Polisario sources.
But no, no, no no, no, janeagatha.
I keep telling you I'm not interested in the Polisario. What I want are flat out answers for simple, non-political questions.
As in:
- Why no releases?
- Why go ahead without releases?
You keep saying that they had the releases but the Polsiario confiscated them (a claim that's being heavily disputed, but I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt). And you say, because the Polisario are so evil and wicked (another claim which is being disputed but I don't buy into that argument, at great lengths I might add) therefore this justifies them going out to the world with this film.
Which, it doesn't.
Not in *my* opinion per se - which is inconsequential anyway; not in the Polisario's opinion for which I don't give 2 hoots; but legal opinion to do with ALL film making, as shared by the film making community.
Right now, I'm not really impressed with Tom and Dan and Violeta's record on the simple, rudimentary question of releases. Really, janeagatha, they're crazy to be out there showing this thing without them.
Artneuro,
You wanted to hear the Q&A session in Melbourne during the MIFF. Please a link to the audio which has been uploaded on Movie Time ABC Radio program.
1- The Q&A was cut from 40 minutes to 20 minutes without justification. Some suggest that the filmmakers requested the session to be cut because they were concerned.
2- Polisario and the Australia Western Sahara Association (AWSA) requested to have one person included from their side in the panel to answer the audience questions but MIFF refused!
ABC Radio:
Q&A is available already on:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/movietime/features/miff/
Stolen: Q&A with filmmakers and critics
Download audio [50:09 - 23.5MB] | Listen Now
'What began as an unassuming documentary has become a cause célèbre.'
The Polisario, Western Sahara’s separatist movement, took exception to this documentary which seemed to expose slavery in the refugee camps they run in south-western Algeria. What started out to record a family reunion in the camps has stirred up a whole lot of trouble.
Recorded: Friday July 31
Read a critique of this film on the website of the Australian Western Sahara Association. Please note: the ABC is not responsible for the content of external websites.
I found that the "download audio" hot word under In Conversation with Nicolas Winding Refn was actually the Q&A from Stolen (and vice versa) on the Movietime Movietalks website given above.
Violeta described in the Q&A feeling scared with 10 to 15 cars surrounding them when they were "arrested". The person who found them at 5pm - which V admitted was indeed the right time, not the night - told me there was one other person with him. I worked with this guy, Brahim Mokhtar, for 8 years, so know him pretty well and I believe what he says. The film-makers were found in the residence of a Cuban medical team, not wandering in the desert as depicted in the film. He also assured me that no Saharawi ever threatened them with confiscating their film. "It is something we could easily have done, said Brahim, but it is not in our traditions to do it." Another figment of their imagination, and essential to the storyline of Stolen.
I just listened to the Q & A. One thing is obvious; the unrelenting Polisario campaign to discredit the film (apparently by one-man) - with the support of many and various members of AWSA and their numerous "reliable" contacts in the Saharawi refugee camps.
As to the consent issue, raised by Artneuro; he may be right however I can't discuss or answer. Contrary to the impression that may have been conveyed here that I'm an expert on these issues - I'm just an interested bystander/not a filmmaker and have no idea what went wrong or how the issue has been handled.
JaneAgatha,
What about your unrelenting campaign to discredit the Polisario and their national cause for freedom and independence?
When you can't find the answer you just say you're an interested bystander! Why don't you ask your nephew Dan about the releases? Did he bury them in the sand? Or they just never existed?
Can you also ask him about the tapes they buried in the sahara in days where the temperature reached 45 degrees celcius! How many days were they left there. From the film it seems they were buried for over a month!
The numbers seem to be weighted heavily in favour of the film's opponents at present; although that should change as the film reaches a wider audience.
I'm waging no campaign against Saharawi independence; although I feel that the Polisario are doing their own cause harm; by losing credibility.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/5289343/diary.thtml
Philippe Mora
Wednesday, 26th August 2009
Philippe Mora opens his diary
I was in Sydney’s Chinatown, enjoying delicious steamed lobster with ginger and attending the recent Film Festival, when I got a dramatic phone call. An old friend and cameraman for three of my films, Carlos Gonzalez, was calling from Los Angeles to say that a West Saharan woman, Fetim, from Tindouf refugee camp in Algeria, was flying in to Sydney to denounce a film portraying her as a slave. Carlos was a friend of Fetim, and he asked me would I meet her at the airport. He said the family was very distressed at the allegations and felt betrayed by the Australian film-makers who had lived with them on the pretext they were making a documentary about a family reunion.
Frankly, after decades of battles I have issue fatigue. But I knew Carlos had impeccable credentials on this issue, known as the Forgotten Conflict. He had risked his life in 2006 to go into occupied Western Sahara to film interviews with indigenous children who had been allegedly tortured by the Moroccan occupiers. (Morocco had invaded in 1975.) He was arrested and interrogated for eight hours on 3 June 2006 by Moroccan police and intelligence officers, including the notorious alleged torturer Mohammed El Hassouni, known as ‘Moustache’. He was then promptly deported and denounced in the Moroccan press, to our great amusement, but not to his, as being a spy for Hugo Chavez and Mossad. Since I knew he was neither but a director of children’s shows for Nickelodeon in Hollywood and a generally standup fellow, I agreed to help his incoming ‘slave’ friends.
Fetim and her husband Baba arrived chainless early in the morning and I greeted them with Kamal Fadel, the Australian representative of the Polisario, the political organisation that had flown them out. Charismatic, smart and open, I immediately liked Kamal and his two guests. Slaves with passports! They headed for friends in Glebe, where all slaves hang out when they’re in Sydney.
Then the whole thing blew up. Fetim’s dramatic denunciation of the film Stolen that night at the festival ended up on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. The ABC’s 7.30 Report went after the flaws in the film. Stolen received a barrage of blistering criticism for mistranslations, re-enactments, lack of releases from leading participants, Mondo Cane-type sensationalism, blurring of facts, maps and history. One of the film-makers’ aunts vigorously defended the film on blogs. Meanwhile I had re-connected with old mate, wit, great writer and political connoisseur, Bob Ellis, and as an unlikely Poirot and Sherlock Holmes duo we made some inquiries. An angry UN interviewee cried foul at the film, as did a key translator. Ellis and I exchanged opinions on the film way too rude, if not obscene, for publication in this august magazine. The Morocco-Polisario conflict underlying the debate was not a left-right debate as the film-maker’s aunt tried to make out. In fact, James Baker, no pinko, had tried to help the Polisario with vigour in the Nineties.
Producer Tom Zubrycki announced people were trying to ‘do a job’ on the film. He backed out of an interview with me. We met tyro filmmakers Dan Fallshaw and Violeta Ayala in a bar and complained the problem was that people were jealous of them, that Ellis had fought with his wife (sic), that slavery is a state of mind, and other irrelevant inanities. Ellis, like a cultural Grim Reaper, said to Fallshaw, who blanched: ‘You are going to jail, son.’
....
Red the full article in the Spectator Magazine.
The above copy and paste of a piece apparently written by Philippe Mora is exceptionally light, to the point of flippancy.
Philippe does not say whether he has seen the film. As with some other prominent critics of Stolen, it would appear that he has not. I say this because Philippe has made not one comment about the film, specifically.
He has however gone to some trouble to establish the credentials of Carlos Gonzalez. Why would he bother, if not to lend credibility to the film's critics?
Philippe also tells us he is a friend of Bob Ellis, another vocal critic of the film.
I have seen the film and am left in no doubt that slavery is an issue in the Western Sahara, on both sides of the Wall of Shame.
The film has also left me in no doubt that Fetim, having been raised by a white woman, feels that it is in her interests to deny that slavery exists there.
No way were the allegations of slavery contrived, as Philippe suggests. The issues are way too complex and too horrifyingly real to have been made up.
As to Philippe's last paragraph above, about his supposed encounter with the film makers in a bar; a probable typo suggests Philippe is the one complaining about the film's critics.
Philippe's potted run down of his conversation with the film makers is about as biassed as one would expect from a friend and associate of Carlos Gonzalez and Bob Ellis.
Having never heard of Philippe Mora and wondering who he was, I checked on Wikipedia and found a disjointed entry written in a similar rambling style to the piece above.
Perhaps small time film maker, Philippe Mora, is also author of the Wikipedia piece about himself. I can't imagine that anyone else would bother making a Wikipedia entry on a film maker who writes as ineffectually about a film as Philippe does about Stolen.
LOL Cripes. We're *all* small time film makers in Australia. Don't you read my blog? :)
So I'm not going to hold *that* against a guy. If he writes his own Wikipedia entries, heck, so what? Most people have to be their own PR agent. Maybe I should create my own entry about me. Sounds like an excellent idea.
Ad homenim attacks aside, I think the suggestion of professional jealousies that are reported here and duplicated by the comment above are pretty lame. It's not the messenger, it's the message that counts first.
If we've learnt anything from the events, it's that Dan and Violeta didn't play by the proper rule book so they got bollocked for it. No big surprises there. Break some rules, expect to get bollocked.
They're not children, they knew what they were doing. This stuff shouldn't come as a surprise to them, seeing that they courted the controversy to sell their film.
I don't have a high opinion of it, but I don't think it's punishable by death or a life sentence or anything. Besides which the controversy has mostly died down. Most people have largely stopped caring about it.
Comment on The Spectator:
Marcia Woodward
August 27th, 2009 4:01pm
I live in the camps part of every year, and know Fetim and the family personally--they are lovely neighbors; their daughter Leil is our English student; I have had tea and dinner in their home. I was dumbstruck at the audacity to make such a fake film! What are they getting out of it, I wonder? And of course, at what cost to the beleaguered Saharawi? Thanks for taking a stand on this, and if you need any further verification, count me in! (I coordinate a team of volunteer English teachers in the 27th of February Camp, and live there part of every year.)
Marcia, other sources show that the Saharawi traditionally kept black slaves and it seems pretty obvious that Fetim and her family have come from this background.
In claiming that all of the references to slavery in the film have been made up you and other supporters of the Polisario cause appear to be denying the obvious.
I'd have thought that you'd be in a good position to understand about slavery in the camps and why it is that the black Saharawi feel uncomfortable talking about it.
Why are you so outraged at the mention of slavery? Why do you act as if slavery has never been an issue in this region? It doesn't make sense. It's as if there's some hidden agenda.
On behalf of the wider public who had no idea about this stuff, I have the following to say.
Most ordinary people are okay with the notion that slavery was a cultural practice in those parts of the world, for a long time. Nor are these ordinary people keen to judge the practice with our contemporary standards because such anachronistic analysis only yields villains to despise.
I've done my research and to my best knowledge, the Polisario is against this practice. Not only is it against this practice, it has concrete laws against it. Clearly it is strongly trying to put this practice to rest, which runs counter to the film's claims.
The UN has gone in and declared that the Polisario for their part have done the right thing.
It is possible that vestiges of the practice remain, but it is not slavery as the UN defines it.
These are incontrovertible *facts*.
Yet, the film makers claim slavery is still practiced fully in secrecy - and the most telling part is when they claim slavery is a state of mind - But it has to be said that declaration is just too relativist to hold any serious meaning. On top of which they are presenting the Polisario as covering up the practice.
It's like claiming the White Australia Policy is still secretly an official policy, based on a conversation with a disaffected person in Australia. Clearly it is not, clearly this would be false claim, even if there are vestiges of racist thinking in Australia.
But that is exactly the kind of pronouncement the film makers are making.
And such pronouncements too is exercising our post-modern cultural standards to judge something that the Polisario is trying to consign to history.
Not to mention the fact that it is incredibly patronising to say, "aha! That's slavery. You're a slave!" when the subject is saying "no, I'm not".
This is why even if one is not a Polisario supporter (which I keep declaring I am not), the lay observer finds the claims of the filmmakers wanting, if not totally outrageous.
And that is the nature of the outrage.
Against which the film makers have not really made a convincing account of their actions or deeds. That's all there is to it.
Dear Artneuro
Your views are contrary to my viewing of the film.
The film/film makers identify no villains to despise as you have implied. Those seeking to identify and incite people to despise villains are the film's opponents and those that they seek to falsely cast as villains are the film makers.
It is pretty well common knowledge that the Polisario are officially against the practice of slavery and that they pay lip service to democratic processes, however I've read various reports of how the camps are run and the Polisario are far from a democratically run organisation.
Day to day affairs yes, the Polisario mostly leave to the unpaid women residents - hence as Meredith Burgmann has said the women have many decision making roles - on relatively minor issues.
However in reality the camps are run like an oppressive police state in which ordinary people are afraid to speak openly, most particularly about the issue of slavery and also about their desire to leave the camps.
The film portrays these issues openly and honestly in the words of camp residents so I suppose it's no surprise that the Polisario and their supporters are opposing the film and not surprising either is the film's participants subsequent retractions which have no doubt come from a very real fear of further reprisals. I'm sure there have been reprisals.
What amazes me is how, knowing how the camps are run as they must do, so many prominent Australians continue to support the Polisario.
janeagatha,
The restriction of movement is a big part of UN's defining slavery.
The UN reports say the people are free to come and go. It's been established through many instances that they're free to come and go. It appears people cross back to Morrocco with no issues whatsoever. Fetim came to Australia to prove she was free to come and go. Jose Ramos-Horta who has been to the camps on multiple occasions assures us they're free to come and go.
If they're free to come and go, they're not 'slaves'.
Whatever problems their society might have, if it's illegal to own slaves, if the people are free to come and go and are free to believe whatever they want, then it's *not* slavery.
The vestigial practices that are being pointed at as examples and then being insisted upon that "slavery is a state of mind" are - to be generous to the film makers - unfortunate cultural artifacts. Most people who are not generous to the film makers would say the "state of mind" comment constitutes "inanities" - as they have.
The Australians who support the Polisario most probably continue to support the Polisario because they think they are the best representatives available for a good cause. This has been established over and over and over again.
If the residents of the camp really think the Polisario are that bad, they should organise a better movement. It's as simple as that.
Artneuro
I have read about the practise of slavery amongst the Berbers in North Africa. The interviews with participants in the film are consistent with this and make it clear that there is no consistent practice that would meet a precise definition. This no doubt is why the UN has kept the definition of slavery broad and hence open to varying interpretation and ongoing controversy.
The key issues appear to be the degree to which the black Saharawi can exercise human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of movement; also the right to own property, to choose who they marry and to raise their own children and not have them taken away at a young age.
The film raises serious questions about whether some black people in the camps from the traditional slave class continue to be denied their human rights with the complicity of the Polisario, who were or are the traditional slave owners and long in the habit of oppressing the black Saharawi.
It makes logical sense that it would be hard for the white Berbers and for their subjects to move beyond the "cultural practice" of slavery in its many and varied manifestations; as acknowledged by the UN.
In the film the interviewees say that they are being denied human rights and it is this which is the controversial issue for the Polisario.
Surely if the Polisario were genuinely committed to eradicating any vestiges of slavery in the camps they would have listened to what these people said and would try to address the issues humanely, rather than seeking to silence the film participants which appears rather to be a denial of freedom of expression.
If black Saharawi residents had freedom of movement, why the need for a major exercise orchestrated by the UN with the assistance of the film makers in order for Fetim's mother to visit her there once for a few short days?
If what you say is true why, if Fetim has freedom of movement, is Fetim not free to visit her family in Morocco when ever she feels like it, given her expressed desire and that of her family as portrayed in the film?
In my view the issues are complex, far from black and white and have a long history. The issues go way beyond answering the question as to whether slavery exists in the camps now or does not.
By posing and than answering this question the films opponents have drawn what is an apparently logical conclusion that if slavery is not practised there now, then the film must be a fraud. This despite the fact that it would be very hard to prove and it seems implausible, given the history, that no black Saharawi would be affected by slavery now.
The film makes no black and white statement or overt claims on the issue of slavery; rather portrays the complexity and the difficult situation in the words of the black Saharawi whose lives have long been affected by the practice.
It does not make logical sense for the film's detractors to base their argument against the film on a denial that slavery (however they choose to define it) exists in the camps.
Despite what has been said against the film here and elsewhere, I remain convinced in particular by the Polisario's response to the film, that black Saharawi in the camps continue to be denied freedom of expression and freedom of movement and probably other human rights as well.
Well I'm glad you're convinced. Dan would be disappointed if you weren't.
I've covered all the problems of Dan and Violeta's position in this thread. You continuously belittle the problems as if they're mere trifles but they're not. Bob Ellis wasn't kidding when he said "you're going to jail, son".
But you know, the world being the world, where injustice and cruelty are rampant and unchecked as you contend, maybe all this will never come back to bite the film makers either. At least that would be fair in a perverse way. They are on their merry way to Toronto, no? So they're getting what they want out of the film. They don't need my blessing.
Artneuro
You say that the film makers are "getting what they want out of the film" as if you would know and as if the whole scenario were contrived entirely for their benefit. This is highly implausible although Kamal Fadel and others have been pedalling this line.
From what I know of the situation, I'd say rather that despite all the flack what the film makers are reaping from their work is far beyond their wildest dreams and their success has little or nothing to do with what their detractors have said about them.
As to Bob Ellis: I was taken aback and puzzled as to what Bob's motivation might be in coming up with such an outlandish statement.
No, I don't know, but my point is that we don't really care any more than they do, because they indicated they sure as hell don't care.
To whit, I got no indication out of the MIFF Q&A that Dan had any sense of why he had outraged people and if he did, he indicated he just didn't give a sh*t and declined to answer.
Which is fine, and it's his prerogative; equally, it's my prerogative to give it the judgment I think it deserves - which is to say, I think he didn't give a good account of himself.
So, to judge from the events that have come to pass, either the film makers are incredibly stupid and obtuse to the nuance of the criticism, or they're incredibly insensitive to having any criticism and don't give a rat's ass.
To quote Dan back at you, "I guess some parts of the world are easy to dig up and other parts are not so easy."
I think it applies beautifully to what they're doing, whatever it is that they think they're doing.
Certainly you're entitled to your opinion and one of the good things about living in Australia is that we have the ability to freely exchange opinions.
The film makers were placed in a difficult position by the Polisario and their supporters who were apparently calling them to respond on the spot to a barrage of harsh criticisms.
Personally I would not have felt up to responding in a situation like this and can understand therefore why Dan declined to engage when being so publicly attacked.
I doubt the Polisario and their supporters wanted an answer anyway. It is pretty obvious from the vendetta they've been waging that their intention has been simply to discredit the film and the film makers by what ever means available to them.
As to how the film makers hid and retrieved their precious footage, it is understandable why they would want to keep mum about that, given how the Polisario have been behaving.
-----
"The film makers were placed in a difficult position by the Polisario and their supporters who were apparently calling them to respond on the spot to a barrage of harsh criticisms."
------
This was their own making and doing:
They made the film. They must have known how it was going to be received. And once it was received in that way, they went to the Q&A and mounted the non-defense they mounted.
And the generally accepted view from those who were there is that they were lucky it didn't go the full 40 minutes. So harsh yes, but it wasn't like it was unforeseeable.
------
"Personally I would not have felt up to responding in a situation like this and can understand therefore why Dan declined to engage when being so publicly attacked."
------
He responded with sarcasm. Which is fine.
But it goes to character and he's getting points deducted for the flippant-ness of that sarcasm.
-----
"I doubt the Polisario and their supporters wanted an answer anyway. It is pretty obvious from the vendetta they’ve been waging that their intention has been simply to discredit the film and the film makers by what ever means available to them."
-----
Be that as it may, the supporters of Polisario are expressing the deep anger that the film makers wronged these people by misrepresenting them - otherwise they wouldn't be mounting a 'vendetta' as you call it.
Seeing the film makers do not wish to retract their film and are sticking to their guns, one can only conclude that they really believe in what they're saying. Which is also fine.
Plenty of public people ride out bad press with an affect of indifference.
But this very persistence still means either the film makers are incredibly stupid and obtuse to the nuance of the criticism, or they’re incredibly insensitive to having any criticism and don’t give a rat’s ass.
If there's one thing that's really stuck out in all this is how the burden of proof has always been on the film makers and they've really not lived up to that challenge.
I'd like to see them front for themselves and put up a damn webpage or blog or something telling us everything from their point of view why the Polisario supporters are wrong. All they seem to offer is obfuscation and denials.
It looks bad.
"I’d like to see them front for themselves and put up a damn webpage or blog or something telling us everything from their point of view why the Polisario supporters are wrong."
They have put up a webpage and blog:
http://www.thetruthaboutstolen.com/
The think the film's website is a reponse to the detailed critique of Stolen:
http://awsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/critique-of-stolen-ii.pdf
The Critique is available on www.awsa.org.au
I am so shocked about JaneAgatha claims.
From what she wrote above it is clear to me that she is ignorant of Western Sahara's past and current history.
JaneAgatha is so confused about the inhabitants of Western Sahara and their ethnicity. Perhaps she is reading some old writings by colonilinialists who used to call Africa "the dark continent" inhabited by "negros".
JaneAgatha is also ignorant about the current situation in Western Sahara. She probably never heard about the Wall or Berm that separates the occupied areas from the liberated areas and the refugee camps. The Wall was built by Morocco in 1980s. There are around 150.000 soldiers manning it with about 4 million landmines, trenches, barbed wire, radars and dogs. This why the Saharawis are separated and can't return to their occupied homeland.
JaneAgatha keeps mentioning Polisario but is ignorant of the fact that all the people who appear in the film are members of the Polisario including Fetim. All the inhabitants of the camps are members of the Polisario.
The Polisario is a political movement. Its aim is to liberate Western Sahara. Its membership is not limited to people of certain colour or creed.
JaneAgatha before you write please do some serious research.
No doubt we will continue to disagree on this.
I read all the FAQs and feel that the film makers have provided full and comprehensive answers to all or most of the main questions that they've been asked by the film's opponents; moreso than various responses to these questions elsewhere.
My impression is that the film makers are inviting others to contribute to the blogs on their website.
So far I've found the debate over the film fascinating and informative on many fronts.
While I can't say your opinion matters to me much personally, I like to hear and consider more than one side of an argument, I like to be intellectually challenged and I enjoy engaging in a debate.
- artrlight, thanks for the links.
I've read that file before and I don't really have a problem with the questions the authors are asking.
I think they're legit questions and the burden of proof rests with the film makers.
I'm not impressed with the website the filmmakers have put up in response. Especially with regards to what they are claiming, what they say the film is claiming and what they cite as public record.
Besides which they haven't really posted anything that proves anything.
Just the example I cited in my previous comment gives you an indication as to how loosely they want to define things in order to sustain their point.
- janeagatha, that's okay, your opinion doesn't mean much to me personally either. I just find your trolling quite amusing.
I see it as an indication that the film makers ARE sweating this stuff. Otherwise, why would you be writing everywhere in defense of them?
I think troll means to circulate or move around. I've not been moving around on the Internet on this issue of late and when I do so it's as an independent person with opinions of my own.
I'm not one of the film makers however I can't see why they would be sweating this stuff. Most of what's been said by the Polisario and their supporters is old news now and I'm sure the film makers feel that they've answered it so no need to sweat.
Artneuro has come up with some different angles to the debate compared to the Polisario whose arguments are repetitive and predictable.
As to what Artlight has said to or about me above, I've looked into the history although I have no first hand knowledge, clearly. This response seems like another Polisario furphy. I know they can't return. I was responding in a whimsical way to Artneuro's statement above: "It appears people cross back to Morrocco with no issues whatsoever." Perhaps Artlight you ought to be chastising Artneuro for being "wrong" given that's how you seem to interpret the issues.
As to Fetim and others being members of the Polisario, I feel that he's pulling my leg. When I say "Polisario" I mean the military organisation backed by Algeria not the camp residents many of whom appear to live in fear of the Polisario.
May history take them where it takes them. They've cast their die, crossed the Rubicon and all that.
Like Dan said, "I guess some places are easy to dig up and others aren't".
I think I'm going to get that translated into latin and make that my new motto.
Frankly, I just don't share in their view or understanding of the world, ...and neither does Jose Ramos-Horta.
It's late I know...
I'm wondering how Jose Ramos-Horta could legitimately have an opinion on the worldview of people who he has not met; as expressed in their film which he has not seen.
It's been a few weeks since the last interaction and I just want to say a couple of things...
I'm basically done with this topic. I've had a long hard think about it, and I feel that the time and energy consumed in analysing the events surrounding the film were very dissatisfying for me.
As convener of this blog, I'm quite disturbed by that, but I know when things are just not that important in the grand scheme of things.
My interest in this topic has waned to the point where I feel I would like to close this thread.
Thank you to everybody who participated in the discussion.
Post a Comment