The Toronto International Film Festival rolled up its red carpets for another year last week, leaving behind some great memories and some bad feelings.[rssbreak]
I’m referring to the controversy over the Toronto Declaration: No Celebration Of Occupation, the open letter protesting TIFF’s choice of Tel Aviv as the City To City spotlight.
I was one of the drafters of the statement – and this was not an easy decision. I have known Cameron Bailey, TIFF co-director and programmer of City To City, for almost 20 years. He is an inspired programmer and writer, and as a critic he championed my videos in the pages of NOW.
The festival has also presented two of my works in the past, and I hope someday to show there again. So why would I risk friendship, career and censure by drafting the Declaration? Why did 1,500 filmmakers, artists and intellectuals then sign it, including over 60 Israelis and 8,000 supporters of Jewish Voice for Peace, after only two days online? And, the burning question: why single out Israel, why single out TIFF?
Well, let’s start with the fact that works at TIFF are usually grouped by form, not content. With the exception of the Canadian sections, there is no spotlight on national cinemas. This way the films stand on their own and are spared the burden of representing anything other than themselves.
The kind of controversy that has surrounded City To City would also envelop a celebration of Burmese, Chinese or Iranian cinema. Rightly so, because the films would then no longer be seen just as films, but as representing their country.
By programming 10 Israeli films under the celebratory spotlight of City To City, TIFF politicized their reception. The festival insists that the choice of Tel Aviv was made to spark debate, so why do I describe the program as a celebration? Just as it lacks national spotlights, TIFF has no opportunities for open discussion other than the Q&As following screenings. City To City had no public forum, no panels with filmmakers, critics or urban historians, nothing beyond the usual.
No one would certainly get the broader context from the programmer’s notes on Tel Aviv, which describe a “diverse” city with “commerce, beaches, cafés and cultural ferment” – the stuff of travel brochures.
Tel Aviv in many ways embodies these things I’ve been there. But I also travelled through the ghastly checkpoints to Israel’s other reality. Occupation and the separation wall are not mentioned once in City To City materials, never mind the fact that Tel Aviv was built on seven destroyed Palestinian villages or that it’s home to a military base crucial during the Gaza assault – which, incidentally, was proceeding as City To City was being programmed. The only genuine debate at City To City happened because of our Declaration.
I felt the need to speak out as a media artist because cinema is being used in this instance to whitewash domination. I choose this blunt word because “conflict” is misleading when one side is occupying and actively colonizing the land of the other. Israelis and Palestinians have both suffered historical trauma. As a pacifist, I abhor violence done to either, but this is not an even fight, morally or militarily.
The drafters and signatories of the Declaration have been called anti-Semites, censors and, most recently, blacklisters in a recent ad. But our letter includes the following: “We do not protest the individual Israeli filmmakers included in City To City, nor do we in any way suggest that Israeli films should be unwelcome at TIFF.”
Yet our statement is cynically misrepresented as a call for a boycott and, yes, as a campaign for the extinction of Israel and Jews. The hyperbole and distortion are wearing thin.
news@nowtoronto.com
Richard Fung is a Toronto-based video artist
CAMERON BAILEY SPEAKS
“We could have chosen Paris or a city that was less controversial for the City To City Spotlight. We didn’t choose Tel Aviv for the controversy. I looked around and saw the debate had become polarized, and people didn’t have enough access to material about that part of the world.
Maybe because I’m less interested in nation states and more in cities, I was interested in bringing some of the culture of Tel Aviv to Toronto and using that to spark conversations. This debate can get very heated, and very passionate. It was important that we paid attention to the filmmakers coming out of Tel Aviv. It’s a very good time for cinema there new work is happening that wouldn’t have had as much exposure here.
In the [open letter], there is an accusation of complicity with the Israeli propaganda machine. There have been rumours about this, and it’s important to note that our program was entirely independently conceived and curated. Entirely. If this had been a package brought to us by the Israeli government, I could see [the problem]. There was no outside influence.”
From an interview on Aug. 28. For official reply, see here.
