|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Amos Gitai’s latest film, Why War, shown recently at the Haifa International Film Festival and now playing in theaters across Israel, is a strikingly contemporary exploration of an age-old question.
By drawing from a famous exchange of letters between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud in the early 1930s, Gitai attempts to tackle the moral and philosophical underpinnings of war. The title itself poses an eternally relevant query, particularly in today’s world of geopolitical tensions.
However, while Gitai’s intentions are clear, his execution in Why War is bound to evoke mixed reactions. The film uses the exchange of letters, in which Freud and Einstein debate the roots of war and human violence, as a central narrative device.
But rather than preserving the gravitas of the original correspondence, Gitai’s film leans into avant-garde techniques that may leave some viewers perplexed.
The film opens with a daring aesthetic, quickly immersing viewers into an abstract, stylized interpretation of the letters. The dialogue between the two intellectual giants is punctuated by overly theatrical flourishes that detract from the original clarity and power of their ideas.
While this approach may resonate with admirers of avant-garde cinema, it risks alienating those who approach the material expecting a more direct and contemplative discussion.
A particular point of contention among critics has been the language in which the film is presented. Why War is in French, despite the fact that the original letters were written in German.
Gitai, who has worked with French actors extensively in the past, is no stranger to the French language in his filmmaking.
However, this linguistic choice feels jarring to those familiar with the original correspondence, especially considering the precision of Freud and Einstein’s ideas in their native tongue.
The French dialogue often veers into aphorisms and sweeping statements that could be seen as a diversion from the straightforwardness of the original English translation.
The issue is not one of translation per se, but rather how the nuances of the debate become clouded by a theatrical adaptation that prioritizes style over substance.
What may be intended as a contemplative and intellectual exchange comes off, at times, as a series of grand gestures that risk trivializing the profound nature of the original discussion.
The philosophical depth of the Einstein-Freud correspondence, which touches on the inevitability of war and the nature of human aggression, is at times lost in the haze of exaggerated cinematic techniques.
Gitai’s avant-garde tendencies are not new, and his previous works have similarly raised questions about the relevance of traditional filmmaking in modern times.
Still, with Why War, the director seems to embrace the notion that everything changes except the avant-garde. Yet, it is this very style that may leave some viewers questioning whether the message is being overshadowed by the medium.
Despite these criticisms, Why War is undeniably thought-provoking, and Gitai’s dedication to exploring the eternal question of human conflict cannot be ignored.
Whether one appreciates the film’s artistic choices or not, Why War serves as a bold commentary on the timelessness of its central theme and the relevance of examining war through the lens of the past.