In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 2 6 23 Kibbutz Films in Transition From Morality to Ethics ELDAD KEDE M The question is not: is it true? But: does it work? What new thoughts does it make possible to think? What new emotions does it make possible to feel? What new sensations and perception does it open in the body? Massumi (2003: 10) What does Israeli cinema say about kibbutz life? Does it try to tell the “truth,” reveal untold stories of conflicts, tensions, and violence behind the kibbutz myth, as for example many films from the 1980s do?1 Or does it criticize kibbutz ideology but at the same time also make possible another mode of thinking about it, as do some films from the late 1990s on? What are some of the trends in the representation of kibbutz life on film? Do Israeli films repeat many of the same stories, characters, and social conflicts or do they go beyond them to transform the way we understand the kibbutz idea, past and present? This essay examines the transition from the former group of films to the latter and charts a shift in the treatment of the idea of kibbutz on the screen, a transition from what I would call “morality” to “ethics.” Morality, according to Gilles Deleuze, is a way of judging life, whereas ethics is a way of assessing what we do in terms of existing in the world.2 Morality implies that we judge ourselves and others on the basis of what we are and should be, whereas ethics implies that we do not yet know what we might become. Ethics, as used by Deleuze and his longtime collaborator Félix Guattari, is a term that refers to a different way of thinking about the connections Kibbutz Films in Transition 3 2 7 between social production and conceptual production. The opening citation reflects this ethical mode of thinking, in which spirit I ask: can recent kibbutz films pave the way for new thoughts, new sensations and emotions, regarding cinema as well as concerning the kibbutz? A “Moral” reading of Kibbutz Films, 1980s–2000s From the beginning of the 1980s kibbutz films were strongly influenced by screenwriters’ and directors’ liberal-humanist agenda, evident in films such as Noa at 17 (Noʾa Bat 17, Yeshurun, 1982), Atalia (Tevet, 1984), Stalin’s Disciples (Yaldei Stalin, Levitan, 1987), and Once We Were Dreamers (Hakholmim , Barbash, 1987). The historical backdrop was the reaction to and disillusionment with the 1982 Lebanon War, the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and a profound disappointment with the Labor party and with outdated Zionist values. All of these films return to the distant or recent past to criticize kibbutz society, values, and ideology. The reexamination of the past embodies the filmmakers’ dissatisfaction with the moral decline and nationalistic trends of the times. The symbolic place that the kibbutz had in Zionist history made it an obvious focus for criticizing and deconstructing Zionist ideology. The most dominant theme in these films is the clash between kibbutz values and ideology and the desires and needs of the individual—the oppression of the “other,” as Nurith Gertz argues: “The cinema of the outcast and the alien recurred, then, in national cinema, confronted it, criticized it, and in this way attempted to build a new model out of its doctrines and content.”3 In the kibbutz films mentioned above, ideological collectivism and a totalitarian approach to equality are presented as the cause of the individual’s oppression , especially of those who are different. The uncompromising idealism and group pressure are shown as the cause of destructive personal distress. For example: Noa at 17 is a drama that revisits the early 1950s and the political storms that resulted in a rift in the kibbutz movement.4 Noa is a young girl who along with her friends plans the educational program for their youth group. The group also prepares to join a kibbutz. Noa is aware of the falsity of the political slogans that her friends repeat and searches for a way to express herself in the face of her friends’ conformity. Meanwhile, a distraught uncle arrives from the kibbutz for a visit and draws Noa’s parents into political discussions and to the brink of a family rift. Noa chooses to rebel against her friends from the youth movement, thus losing her boyfriend as well as her best friend, and remains alone, adhering to her own personal beliefs.5 [18.221.146.223...

Share