The contradiction between the recognition and the difficult acceptance of the documentary of Brandon Kramer – about his elderly wife, Judaism Benin, who deals with the kidnapping of his daughter Layat on October 7 – that determines many political teachers through observation, in an attempt to evoke feelings. Sometimes it has succeeded, although its thorough theme may vary, the number of miles.
“The Berlin Film Festival”, “Holding Liat” is not a strong or strong revelation like the recipient last year (the West Bank Gallery of Land “There is no other land”, which was currently nominated for the Academy Award). However, it is even struggling With his own place as a man of an Israeli hostage – one of the two likes in this year; the other is a message to David. Kramer, compared to a greater awareness of political mechanics in playing, and the place that his movie occupies, by touching how the pain of hostage families can.
Juda gradually faces this reality. He talks about it as much as his political subjects will allow his journey to the United States, where he meets various members of the Senate while trying to spoil the objections against Netanyahu’s bombing campaigns, and to many Palestinians who keep him in captivity by the IDF. He occupies an unstable position, and his other family members notice. The resulting cognitive dissonance has a great aesthetic value, although the amount of moral value that any symptom will be most likely dependent on their political perception. This method of reading the film is inherent in its making: Kramer rarely corresponds to its subjects, and it often seeks to capture a sensitive reality that reveals at this moment with portable intimacy – with an attempt to put the context of this reality, using light and lining a touch. Possible cinematic. The approach of the hands does not come to real conclusions; It is not necessary for a documentary, but “Holding Liat” is the people looking for solutions in the first place. He can only feel that the film misses a kind of focus or statement on the many views it takes.
On the one hand, the teenager’s son, who is still suffering from the shock of October 7, requires blood. On the other hand, Yehuda is trying to walk in a fragile moral line as a political mortgage identified in a larger chess game – the intended result is the war – while trying to preserve. His face is also a particularly powerful fabric for movie drama. It seems that the kidnapping of Layat (alongside her husband) has left the frozen Jews in the recession, unable to find an answer that goes beyond the wide gestures towards “peace” in the summary.
It is a concept mystery, given the broken pain he feels, but even his attempts to persuade American politicians to expand the scope of war efforts that collide with an emotional siege when he comes for the first time face to face with a Palestinian speaker in Washington, DC, they found a common land while speaking in whispers, for fear of listening Yehuda. Acknowledging a familiar loss, and everything that indicates his similarity with those who took his daughter during the maximum flood.
Here, the film begins to convert in exciting ways, as Jews are practically suffering in actual time. This transition from theoretical confrontation to the process is everything that is not delusional, as the sad father reaches the limits of his sympathy. This is the time when Kramer takes the main decision to expand its lenses, it does not take over a broader set of protests against the US government, but there is a larger cross section of opinions and curricula within the Judea family. Among them, his brother Joel, a professor of Middle East history, who has long left Israel, speaks at a conference to support Gaza, where many Jewish and Palestinian Jewish members wear.
Although Joel does not show more than a few scenes, his presence puts a vital framework for “Holding Liat”, by realizing that Kibbutz he lived on (the type that was kidnapped from the Israelis) on stolen land. As a family member and a student in history, Joel remains torn similarly in his emotional obligations, but his differences with Judea on possible solutions practically send the last mobilization. There are only wider wolves that Jews are ready to accept it, and the sympathy only that he wants to show is trying to secure the launch of his daughter.
This emotional stalemate is the key to the general shape that the film takes – partially, because there is not yet so far that Kramer can examine this stalemate without directly affecting the continuous narration. However, the non -hidden nature of the camera becomes vital. The visual approach embodies the loss of the Beinin family to control, the growing uncertainty around them and what they believe in. For example, amazing details to pick up Layat flying in the face of the barbaric tales that were told the topics. At some point, the LIAT background becomes a central historian for a short period, if there is a single character close to realizing how the Holocaust is using to justify more brutal actions.
The mere approval of a greater context-with a history of Palestinian persecution before dating on October 7-is a major social siege “recognizes at least”, regardless of whether it is fully facing it. The difficulty of doing this becomes from within the borders of Israel, through the closing moments of the film, central installations of its emotional influence, although its scrutiny in this personal and political division does not go to a large extent. The movie connects, in some way, with its subject, unable to look beyond the peripheral vision of its characters in order to provide a more dynamic and multi -faceted vision for them and the world they occupy. However, as a work aimed at capturing a thorny perspective, it is a thorny match.