Humorous drama is the most novel weapon of the war-torn communities. Instead of in-your-face depiction of sufferings and tragedies which leads to a quick rise-and-fall of emotional reaction (sigh, tsk tsk, and go on as before), humorous drama tackles, tickles, and trigger the thoughts of its audience. "Et maintenant on va où?" by Nadine Labaki was a very very successful one in this sense. Now another female director from another Arabian country raises the bar as high.
Firstly, the invitation delivery is technically a very good idea to take the audience to a tour among the portraits from the Christian Arab population of Palestine. This way, while cutting every scene short and painless enough to keep the viwever attentive, the sense of continuity doesn't get disrupted as if watching a talking-heads documentary.
But what is more important is the content. There are two main characters, the father and the son. We see the father telling lies (doesn't matter white or not) to comfort fellow citizens, or compromising with the occupants etc. On the other hand the son is unbending in his political and even asthetical standards. But, as time passes by, we understand how hard is the father's struggle to unite his "family" (read as his "nation") again back in Palestine. All his flaws are actually developed to achieve this aim. And yes, his son's discourse is flawless, because he enjoys being free from the hardships of the everyday life in Palestine and has no concerns about the reunion of the Palestenians in the fatherland.
So apparently the father represents the practical, real Palestine whereas the son represents the ideal. But the clash of these two is not at all theatrical, nor didactical. The dialogues are so real that in the end the viewer does not feel herself "injected" by the director's ideas, she just starts to rethink about and compare her ideals and practices.
Firstly, the invitation delivery is technically a very good idea to take the audience to a tour among the portraits from the Christian Arab population of Palestine. This way, while cutting every scene short and painless enough to keep the viwever attentive, the sense of continuity doesn't get disrupted as if watching a talking-heads documentary.
But what is more important is the content. There are two main characters, the father and the son. We see the father telling lies (doesn't matter white or not) to comfort fellow citizens, or compromising with the occupants etc. On the other hand the son is unbending in his political and even asthetical standards. But, as time passes by, we understand how hard is the father's struggle to unite his "family" (read as his "nation") again back in Palestine. All his flaws are actually developed to achieve this aim. And yes, his son's discourse is flawless, because he enjoys being free from the hardships of the everyday life in Palestine and has no concerns about the reunion of the Palestenians in the fatherland.
So apparently the father represents the practical, real Palestine whereas the son represents the ideal. But the clash of these two is not at all theatrical, nor didactical. The dialogues are so real that in the end the viewer does not feel herself "injected" by the director's ideas, she just starts to rethink about and compare her ideals and practices.