sneersnipe film review

At the time of writing a few months ago, the Rotterdam International Film Festival 2005 held its regular film parliament on 30 January 2005. Tumultuous events had preceded the festival creating an almost uniquely Dutch dilemma with far reaching and disturbing consequences for the rest of the world. One morning in November 2004 a provocative Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, was slaughtered in the street as a direct consequence to a film he had directed. The short film in question, Submission, had been made with the Dutch-Somalian politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Four tales of domestic violence were told and at one point texts from the Koran were projected on a semi-naked, veiled, female body. The outrage was strong even among moderate Muslims. In the post Pim Fortuyn Netherlands the spirit of gedogen, that famous Dutch tolerance, was put to the test once more in the public eye. Van Gogh became one casualty in the battle between freedom of expression and freedom not to be discriminated against. The post September 11th culture of fear had finally arrived in the Netherlands.

The 2005 Film Parliament was asking the right questions but lacked the ability to answer them properly. At the heart of the debate, was the challenge the liberal artistic tradition faces, in the guise of individuals or groups prepared to defend their opposition to such expression violently. In the organisers defence our governments can’t crack this one either, choosing to invade and intimidate minor dictatorships as opposed to tackling the social causes of what actually creates those twenty first century bogeymen, terrorists. In a twisted parallel to the crackdown on civil liberties over the last few years, the parliament was also the first of its kind at Rotterdam not to conclude with a vote.

From the onset this was a conference expecting trouble. Yet from the metal detectors and hefty security at the door of the conference venue, clear signs of the prevalent anxieties conspicuous to even me after my first few days in Rotterdam, to the half empty auditorium something was sadly lacking. A visionary debate was occurring with timely relevance to the Netherlands, and to film-makers and watchers at large, but the depth of discussion was unable to equal the wide selection of films being shown at the festival. Sad and repugnant as Van Gogh’s demise was, the Netherlands was the best place where this kind of debate could occur challenging the world famous Dutch freedom of expression versus the different set of values extremists adhere to. A few months later in England a play in Birmingham was cancelled due to Sikh protest, then followed a screening of Jerry Springer the Musical on the BBC to considerable Christian outcry. All around artistic expression was being curtailed and Rotterdam was asking the pertinent question at the right time but no one was listening.

Unfortunately the participants of the Parliament lent towards models of state repression not that by individuals or minority groups. Moving swiftly past the two introductory panel members, of the six panel members two had been subject to Eastern bloc style artistic censorship. They were IIya Krzhyanovsky and Goran Paskaljevic. They also dominated much of the running time. The Russian director IIya Krzhyanovsky who’s film 4 was in competition had run foul of the contemporary Russian censors whilst the Belgrade born Goran Paskaljevic had encountered numerous challenges from the communists starting with his early work made in the Prague Spring right through to running his films past the chief Yugoslav censor, Marshall Tito himself! This left Garin Nugroho and self-confessed enfant terrible Peter Sellers who spoke more generally about artistic freedom. Garin Nugroho an Indonesian director whose film Of Love and Eggs was at the festival encapsulated the debate. A Muslim film-maker, he was the sole member of the panel who related examples of working in fear of retaliation by extremist minority groups. Yet even he, as he pointed out, had links to the old style Soviet clampdowns – his name was a derivation of the Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, a somewhat dangerous declaration of his parent’s political allegiances at the time of his birth. Three filmmakers spoke about their experiences and the oppositions they had faced but of these only one, Garin Nugroho, connected with the core theme of the debate and the tragic death of Theo van Gogh.

Throughout this slow amble around the burning issues, the depleted audience slowly snuck off in ones and twos in realisation that a magnificent chance had been lost. The poorly attended parliament had succumbed to its own heightened state of anxiety and then proceeded to talk in the main about yesterday rather than today. Incriminatingly few decided to turn up, choosing to taste the wide variety of expression the Rotterdam Film Festival champions rather than taking a moment to ensure that such diversity continues.