JvH48
Joined Oct 2010
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings577
JvH48's rating
Reviews550
JvH48's rating
Saw this at IFFR 2025, the International Film Festival Rotterdam. This movie can easily be considered an indictment against the sort of slavery we (you and I, the warehouse customers) bring about to obtain the stuff we want delivered on our doorstep. It is not slavery in the literal sense, since they get minimum wage and are not mistreated in any way, but it is a daunting sight anyway to see how their daily grind works.
And alas, their life outside the warehouse is not much better. Compact housing, and nothing much to do outside work hours. Making friends beyond the obligatory Hello and Where Are You From in passing, is virtually impossible, neither at work nor at "home".
All the people we meet on screen are passersby, and we don't know much about them. Even Aurora, the center of the story, is a black box for us, and remains that until the finale. No opportunity for us to invest in the characters, if only to feel along with their work circumstances, and neither are we involved in their life at home or their leisure activities or even their reasons for being there.
All in all, we are flies on the wall, at work as well as at home. We should feel guilty because of causing all this "slavery", but we don't. We could pity their way of living, but we don't. We should want to know how these people arrived there and what (other) plans they have with their lives, but the movie doesn't tell us anything. A missed opportunity, or done on purpose??
And alas, their life outside the warehouse is not much better. Compact housing, and nothing much to do outside work hours. Making friends beyond the obligatory Hello and Where Are You From in passing, is virtually impossible, neither at work nor at "home".
All the people we meet on screen are passersby, and we don't know much about them. Even Aurora, the center of the story, is a black box for us, and remains that until the finale. No opportunity for us to invest in the characters, if only to feel along with their work circumstances, and neither are we involved in their life at home or their leisure activities or even their reasons for being there.
All in all, we are flies on the wall, at work as well as at home. We should feel guilty because of causing all this "slavery", but we don't. We could pity their way of living, but we don't. We should want to know how these people arrived there and what (other) plans they have with their lives, but the movie doesn't tell us anything. A missed opportunity, or done on purpose??
Saw this at IFFR 2025, the yearly film festival in Rotterdam. Indeed, as the IFFR website wrote: "Filmmaker Scandar Copti examines the tangled web of deceit that arises from the intersection of state institutions, societal pressures and cultural conventions." This movie is part family drama and part social commentary, two complex topics given the political situation within Israel and its different religious under currents.
On the other hand, an over-bearing mother figure who is prominently present from the start, refusing to economize on her daughter's wedding and defying the financial difficulties of her husband, is not limited to Israel and is seen world-wide. Similarly, she blocks selling the house, though inevitable due to business problems of her husband. It is "keeping up appearances" all along, for example the fuss she makes when her credit card is declined. I'm still wondering whether she got the loan she asked for in one bank, as we saw her later entering another bank; the loan was intended to defuse the struggle around the costs of the wedding.
Regrettably, the story telling is foggy. What exactly the issue is with Fifi's medical records, going at every length to prevent getting it in the hands of her parents, remains unclear too long. We can outguess that it involves her sex life (and failed pregnancy) in the past and particularly having had an intimate relationship with an Arab. It gives rise to many actions from the mother to covertly obtain the medical records via a known insider. Conversely, we see an even so failed attempt by Fifi to alter it, and other evasive actions to keep the truth for her parents. Her mother is so overly assertive, wanting everything done her way, preferably first thing today or at least tomorrow, and won't hear anything else. It leads me to conclude that the real drama is actually about the mother's behavior, and that Fifi is a mere bystander.
On a positive note, the actions of the nearly engaged couple when it eventually becomes clear that marriage is not on the horizon, are remarkable and very well thought out by the filmmakers. He is very adamant about breaking the relationship because of her previous sex life, but she approaches him nevertheless with an attempt to rekindle, which he flatly denies (even disgusted to think about it). The next day, after a night's sleep, the tables are turned when he approaches her, which she flatly refused on her turn. It might have been difficult for them both to defy their respective parents, but the situation does not arise, at least not in this movie. A pity, as this could have been a better plot than what we had now. It would have yielded a totally different story, more interesting even, built on the same building blocks already present.
Nothing wrong with casting/acting, but the generous running time and the shortcomings in the storytelling lead to a score 3/5 for the audience award. Maybe the plot is a bit too complicated to follow what is happening at prima vista, resulting in interactions inside and between the respective families confusing me several times. Finally, the obvious fact that this movie is programmed in a time of shifting opinions around Israel and their foreign policies, does nothing to add to its value (for me, that is), though I assume that many will disagree.
On the other hand, an over-bearing mother figure who is prominently present from the start, refusing to economize on her daughter's wedding and defying the financial difficulties of her husband, is not limited to Israel and is seen world-wide. Similarly, she blocks selling the house, though inevitable due to business problems of her husband. It is "keeping up appearances" all along, for example the fuss she makes when her credit card is declined. I'm still wondering whether she got the loan she asked for in one bank, as we saw her later entering another bank; the loan was intended to defuse the struggle around the costs of the wedding.
Regrettably, the story telling is foggy. What exactly the issue is with Fifi's medical records, going at every length to prevent getting it in the hands of her parents, remains unclear too long. We can outguess that it involves her sex life (and failed pregnancy) in the past and particularly having had an intimate relationship with an Arab. It gives rise to many actions from the mother to covertly obtain the medical records via a known insider. Conversely, we see an even so failed attempt by Fifi to alter it, and other evasive actions to keep the truth for her parents. Her mother is so overly assertive, wanting everything done her way, preferably first thing today or at least tomorrow, and won't hear anything else. It leads me to conclude that the real drama is actually about the mother's behavior, and that Fifi is a mere bystander.
On a positive note, the actions of the nearly engaged couple when it eventually becomes clear that marriage is not on the horizon, are remarkable and very well thought out by the filmmakers. He is very adamant about breaking the relationship because of her previous sex life, but she approaches him nevertheless with an attempt to rekindle, which he flatly denies (even disgusted to think about it). The next day, after a night's sleep, the tables are turned when he approaches her, which she flatly refused on her turn. It might have been difficult for them both to defy their respective parents, but the situation does not arise, at least not in this movie. A pity, as this could have been a better plot than what we had now. It would have yielded a totally different story, more interesting even, built on the same building blocks already present.
Nothing wrong with casting/acting, but the generous running time and the shortcomings in the storytelling lead to a score 3/5 for the audience award. Maybe the plot is a bit too complicated to follow what is happening at prima vista, resulting in interactions inside and between the respective families confusing me several times. Finally, the obvious fact that this movie is programmed in a time of shifting opinions around Israel and their foreign policies, does nothing to add to its value (for me, that is), though I assume that many will disagree.
Saw this at IDFA 2024, the documentary film festival in Amsterdam. It reminded me of a recent visit to Rosenburg Castle in Copenhagen, where lots of ornaments and furniture was displayed, samples out of the collection of former Danish kings. As a not-so-frequent visitor of museums, this was my first confrontation with looted art. (I knew the term in a WW II context, but that is a totally different issue.) And it was by far not my last confrontation, as Denmark was no exception.
I am now perfectly aware that more countries acted similarly in their colonies. In hindsight I should have known better: names like Ivory Coast and Gold Coast are given for a reason to some parts of Africa. Since then, it stayed on my radar, knowing that the inhabitants at the time were not properly paid for those locally made handicraft, nor for mining materials coming out of their soil. Since then, I see contemporary movements to return those artifacts to the original countries, things I was less aware of before.
(Along the same line are parallel movements to offer excuses for past misdeeds around grabbing men and women from African countries, shipping them under harsh circumstances over the ocean, and letting them work under even so harsh conditions without proper pay. It seems a different matter, but it comes forth from a similar abuse of power over former colonies, accompanied by a condescending attitude against other races, and supported by the church, e.g. Pope Nicolaas V writing Dum Diversas in1452.)
It is easy to blindly applaud the return journey of 26 artefacts, going back from Paris to Benin (as the country is called nowadays). This is what we witness in the first half of the documentary. Rather than applauding France's generosity to facilitate this return journey, the 2nd half of this movie shows that it is by far not the last word. Firstly, there is the fact that merely 26 artefacts are just a small fraction of the thousands taken away in past centuries.
Secondly, there is much more to it, like their native languages and cultures that were "stolen" in the past, by actively suppressing all dialects and forcing everyone to speak French, the language of the ruling colonial country France. The current generation in Benin demonstrates this in open discussions on the matters at hand.
All in all, this movie is a welcome contribution to our social perception, at least to mine. It worked for me as an eye opener, broadening the scope of how we utilized our colonies, not only by taking away their natural riches but also by suppressing their local culture.
I am now perfectly aware that more countries acted similarly in their colonies. In hindsight I should have known better: names like Ivory Coast and Gold Coast are given for a reason to some parts of Africa. Since then, it stayed on my radar, knowing that the inhabitants at the time were not properly paid for those locally made handicraft, nor for mining materials coming out of their soil. Since then, I see contemporary movements to return those artifacts to the original countries, things I was less aware of before.
(Along the same line are parallel movements to offer excuses for past misdeeds around grabbing men and women from African countries, shipping them under harsh circumstances over the ocean, and letting them work under even so harsh conditions without proper pay. It seems a different matter, but it comes forth from a similar abuse of power over former colonies, accompanied by a condescending attitude against other races, and supported by the church, e.g. Pope Nicolaas V writing Dum Diversas in1452.)
It is easy to blindly applaud the return journey of 26 artefacts, going back from Paris to Benin (as the country is called nowadays). This is what we witness in the first half of the documentary. Rather than applauding France's generosity to facilitate this return journey, the 2nd half of this movie shows that it is by far not the last word. Firstly, there is the fact that merely 26 artefacts are just a small fraction of the thousands taken away in past centuries.
Secondly, there is much more to it, like their native languages and cultures that were "stolen" in the past, by actively suppressing all dialects and forcing everyone to speak French, the language of the ruling colonial country France. The current generation in Benin demonstrates this in open discussions on the matters at hand.
All in all, this movie is a welcome contribution to our social perception, at least to mine. It worked for me as an eye opener, broadening the scope of how we utilized our colonies, not only by taking away their natural riches but also by suppressing their local culture.