Page Content Menu

• Synopsis
• Screening Schedule
• About The Film
• Audience Reaction

Exploring the nuances and contradictions of marriage, this film focuses on Wiza, an Egyptian woman, who works as a house cleaner and lives in al-Hussein, Cairo. She was abandoned by her husband, who now lives with his other wife, as Wiza settles in a one-room house with her daughter and sons. Wiza talks about the problems of her own marriage while at the same time trying to find suitable partners for her son and daughter.

2 May 2010: 14:00-16:00
AUC New Campus, Core Academic Center C205

Marriage Egyptian Style is a vital contribution to the discussion about the representation of Middle Eastern women, and in particular, women from low-income communities.  Wiza presents a case that does not conform to the “the oppressed Muslim woman” stereotype.  Likewise, her agency cannot easily equate with resistance to male domination, as defined by some secular liberal feminist (Mahmood 2004).  Instead Wiza has her own opinions about marriage and family which she expresses freely and confidently.  She seeks “an obedient wife” for her son.  Meanwhile, she advises all woman to “sleep with one eye open as men can never be trusted”.

When the film was first broadcast in Britain in August 1991, it was received with great disdain by some members of the international  Egyptian community.  Dr. Reem Saad, who worked as the anthropologist of this film, reports in her article, “Shame, Reputation and Egypt’s Lovers: A Controversy over the Nation’s Image” (1998), that many of the attackers felt that this film portrayed an Egyptian character in ways that harmed Egypt’s reputation.  A significant part of the attacks were centered on Wiza, the subject of the film.  For example, the editor-in-chief of al-Kawakeb weekly described Wiza as an “impertinent woman  [who] does not cease to throw insults and express opinions which cannot possibly be expressed by an Egyptian mother, whatever her social or cultural level.  For the Egyptian mother is by nature compassionate and would give up her life for her children, whereas [Wiza] starts her dialogue in the first scene of the film with a shocking sentence: my children are my enemies” (Saad 1998: 404).

Reception of the film as being defamatory for Egypt’s reputation raises important questions about what is considered to be an ideal image of a Nation and its moral qualities of marriage and family relations.  Who gets to represent the real-life of “authentic Egyptian women” (ibid: 407)?  What visual references are employed?

Some of these issues are addressed below in an interview with Dr. Reem Saad.  Dr. Saad begins by explaining a bit about the project’s background.  She explains that she worked as an anthropologist on this BBC production in collaboration with the British producer Joanna Head.  An abridged transcript follows each video.

Dr. REEM SAAD: The film was part of an anthropological film series of the BBC called Under The Sun.  Each one of the documentaries in this series was based on a collaboration between a producer and an anthropologist.  So, really, the film part of it is the producer [Joanna Head], and the anthropologist does the research and the anthropological perspective on the production.  So I was the anthropologist and Jo was the filmmaker.

I asked Dr. Saad why the film was titled Marriage Egyptian Style.  The title of the film has often been paralleled with the film Divorce Iranian Style (1998).  Here, Dr. Saad explains that it was actually a reference to an older comedy film, Divorce Italian Style (1961).  The title also cites the main focus of the film, which is marriage, but marriage understood through the life of this particular woman.

Dr. REEM SAAD: It was mainly about women through the life of this particular woman, but with an emphasis on marriage.  Marriage in the life of this woman.  So marriage is central to the film.  And “Marriage Egyptian Style” was sort of a film about marriage and Egypt and that, but it was sort of a play on the title “Divorce Italian Style”.

As mentioned above, this film ignited a strong nationalistic response by what Dr. Saad likes to call “the society of Egypt’s lovers”: those people who seek to protect “Egypt’s image” (Saad 1998: 402).  Such discourse involves a contest over who is to represent the nation.  Here I ask Dr. Saad:  If Marriage Egyptian Style was broadcast today, would it receive the same strong reaction as it did in 1991?  Her response was “no”.

Dr. REEM SAAD: I do not think, I hope not, that it would have the same reaction as it did many years ago.  Almost 20 years ago now.  And this is mainly because of huge developments, both on the art scene in general, and on the discourse on nationalism.  Developments in the art scene and the film scene have been huge.  Actually, I would even say there is progress.  There is great progress and filmmakers and artists have really gained a lot of territory, in terms of right of expression.  So there were fights and battles and other things like that.  And also by just sheer variety and numbers it’s a growing force that is gaining ground everyday.  So this is one side.  On the other hand, the idea of the “Egypt’s Lovers”, as I call them, have in fact now become a subject of irony by a considerable force in the society.  On the political scene it’s now a joke, this “Egypt’s Lovers”, and Egypt’s reputation.  It has become accepted now that the idea of Egypt’s reputation is used to disguise other interests and, in fact, is used by the official “voice”, either the government, or by the more conservative voices, to conceal problems, to divert attention from problems.  So there have been different terrains in which this idea has been discussed really critically.    And now, when you say Egypt’s reputation, it will very often evoke sarcasm,  and a very wide sort of complicity about what this means, or about what this slogan hides or disguises.  For these two reasons, I think that the film today if broadcast would probably get different reception.  It would still get similar kinds of reactions from certain quarters, but these reactions would have a lot more different voices to answer.

A central point of the IGWS Arab Women Doc Film Series was to address representations of women that are not commonly seen in the mainstream; this includes representations that contradict certain terms associated with “femininity”, “motherhood”, or what it means to be married.  One may argue that documentary film plays a crucial role in creating social change for gender justice.  I asked Dr. Saad if she consider Marriage Egyptian Style to be a part of a greater genre of film activism?  She responds by making a differentiation between giving justice to women’s representations, and gender justice as a political project.

Dr. REEM SAAD: At least in terms of its reception and the discussions it generated in Egypt, it equally raised questions about class, not just gender.  And the fact that when these two issues were combined, then the reaction was very strong.  So it was class and gender.  Because the woman was not just a woman, but also a working-class woman from the more popular part of the city.  The bit that I’m unsure about is the bit on gender justice: “Is this about gender justice?”  Maybe there is more that has to do with women’s voice, maybe, rather than justice.  Giving justice to women’s representation.  But not gender justice as such.

LARA: Right.  So more of taking on a woman’s standpoint within a particular context that, perhaps, women are underrepresented?

Dr. REEM SAAD: Yes.  Poor women are underrepresented, or are underrepresented as main subjects.  They can be well represented in terms of quantity or frequency of representation, but not in the forefront.  They would take secondary influence.  So in that sense it [the film] was to remedy an absence of the poor woman’s voice who is speaking for herself.

Presented below are a few audience reactions to Marriage Egyptian Style. The videos are arranged according to some main themes that came up during the Q&A period.

Discussion themes tended to focus on:

1) The gap between the ideals of family life and its daily realities, particularly the departure of ideals up held by religious institutions and human rights discourse.

2) Reactions today versus reaction of the past:  What was it about about the representation of Wiza that ignited such negative reactions in 1991?  How are reactions today different and similar to the nationalistic discourse of “Egypt’s Lovers?”

Read below the excerpt of Dr. Saad’s article, “Shame, Reputation and Egypt’s Lovers: A Controversy over the Nation’s Image.” Visual Anthropology. 10, 1998: 401-412.

A final reason for the uneasiness many people felt towards Wiza is that she did not conform to the stereotype of the poor held by the urban middle class.  Peasants and the urban poor can be tolerated only if patronized or romanticized.  Wiza’s world is sometimes viewed romantically as the “soul of Egypt”, or melodramatically as the site of constant misery that can only be alleviated by the efforts of charitable philanthropists.  Wiza’s  “problem” was that she simply does not look miserable.  Worse still, she looks as if she is can actually enjoy herself.  It is true that she works very hard to make ends meat, but her life is more than just a grim struggle for survival…Her concerns in life include love, the marriage of her children, friendship, leisure- things which do not have a place in either the romanticized or the melodramatized stereotype of the poor.  Her concerns were substantially the same as those of her would-be “betters”, and this contradicted a sense of social distinction essential to middle-class identity (409).

Jeannette Rizk grew up in Egypt and attended the German School in Cairo.  Afterward she obtained a B.A. in anthropology from a small liberal arts college in Chicago.  Post-college, Jeannette worked in refugee resettlement for a year before returning to Cairo to attend AUC. There she produced her first documentary, ‘Conversations in Cairo’, for her M.A. thesis in anthropology in 2006. She went on to work in the social development and film industry for two years, and thereafter spent another two years working for an EU ecotourism project based in St. Catherine.  She is now back in Cairo working for the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and still enjoys making films when she has the opportunity.

Paulina Tervo is a producer, director and writer with many years of experience working in film, television and online. Paulina has an academic background in both documentary film-making and international development and likes to explore social and anthropological themes in her films. She is especially interested in feminist ideology, and different cultural and religious belief systems. She is passionate about telling extraordinary stories with visual flair and creativity. In addition to filmmaking, she also teaches film and runs participatory film workshops with marginalised groups.

Learn more about Thorns and Silk
Check out Tervo’s most recent film Arwa Amba.
Click here to learn more about Tervo and her production company, Write This Down Productions.

Page Content Menu

• Synopsis
• Screening Schedule
• About The Film

Synopsis

Um Hani and her daughters, three women of a poor, Christian family, share about the daily realities of life in Cairo. They allow a glimpse into what it means to struggle, love and survive hardship in a world where they are disadvantaged because of their gender and social class.

Screening Schedule

11 April 2010: 18:00-20:00
AUC New Campus, Core Academic Center, C205

About the film

What do women have to say that is so important?  This was a common street reaction that Jeannette Rizk and her film crew received as they filmed a women-only workshop in a low-income community in Cairo.  Documenting the workshop for her MA thesis, Jeannette Rizk was interested in uncovering women’s perspectives and generating insight about a certain family’s experience of themselves in their worlds.  Discussing issues of motherhood, marriage, love and domestic abuse (to name a few topics) Conversations In Cairo (2006) is a unique exploration and valorization of words often ignored.  Through a sequence of group discussions and individual interviews, the film delivers stories of these women from within their own terms.

In a Skype interview with Rizk we discussed why she chose to focus on women and what she hoped to accomplish with her project.  Addressing some ethical dilemmas in her research, Rizk’s project raises important questions about the extent (and possible limits) to which film can create positive social change.  Furthermore, it reminds us to be critical of what interests are involved when defining the terms and purpose of “women’s empowerment”.

Unfortunately, due to technical problems (i.e., crappy Skype connections!) parts of the interview with Rizk are not audible or visual.  Thus some sections are presented only as text, while others are audio-only.  An abridged transcript follows each section.  No audience reactions are available due to technical failures at the film screening.

To begin, Rizk explains why her project was woman-centered:

JEANNETTE RIZK: Let me give a bit of background about why I chose the film to be women-only.  The film started with me doing a workshop called Arab Women Speak Out, which is a self- empowerment training that John Hopkins created for women. It uses film as one of the mediums to create change. So participants  would watch a short film of another woman in very similar circumstances such as themselves who has made positive changes in her life.  So say, it’s about children’s education and the importance of education and how to make sure children stay in school.  They would show a woman who has successfully done that, and then they discuss the film afterwards.
So for my thesis I decided to do such a workshop with women and decided to record all of the sessions. It was created for women, so that automatically excludes the men in the family. And I made a conscious decision to make it a women-only setting by having only women in my film crew, which was difficult to find in Cairo. It took quite a long time.  I wanted to create an environment of exchange between the multinational film-crew and the Egyptian women.  We spent quite a lot of time together, so it was important that they were comfortable with each other.  So, I think it was the workshop that made it be women-only.  And then, I found that that created a much more relaxed feeling then if men had been involved, such as being part of the film crew.  And actually, the women of the house, they kept the men downstairs. The men wouldn’t come in because it was said that we were discussing ’sensitive topics’.  They (the women) said we were talking about women and children issues.

I asked Rizk if she felt her film was part of, or may be placed within a contemporary “women’s movement”.  She explained that the film subjects did not want their voices to be heard, nor did they feel that being heard would change anything meaningful for them.   On the other hand, Rizk found that it was important to represent their stories.  She felt their stories would help create dialogue and understanding between different communities in Egypt.

JEANNETTE RIZK: It’s an interesting question, because the women made the film with me in a way to humour me, or to help me with my research.  But, to this day they have not seen this movie and they do not want to see it.  Actually, we had an incident where someone asked me to show the film on Egypt TV Channel One.  Now I had the feeling that no one really watches Channel One.  I mean, they show documentary films regularly…And it turned out that quite a few people had actually seen the film and commented to the women about it. The women were horrified.  They were really upset.  So I had to call the TV company and ask them to take it off the air.  For them it was something private.  They do not want to have their voices heard.  Whereas…I think it is important to explain to the outside world…I find it important that even among Egyptians, they would see how these women think…There is very little representation of their community, as women from a very low social class, from a very poor community, and also because they come from a protestant Christian family, which is a minority even within the Christian community in Egypt.  They live a very lonely life in many ways, because they don’t feel understood…So while they were comfortable … to have their stories being told to me, they did not want them to be heard outside.  They did not see the importance of it, nor how that would change anything for them.  But when I’ve shown this movie in settings like to other students, for example, I just had a very interesting showing with a group of foreign and Egyptian students and had a very nice discussion afterwards about the importance of these women’s lives being told and how it can create understanding.  Even among Muslims about what the problems are for Christians, and how similar we are in the end.  That the difference is made to seem much bigger and it seems we have nothing we can relate with each other.  So, it may seem really simple what I wanted to accomplish with this film: to show that in the end, we all struggle, that we all want meaningful relationships with our families, as well as with marriages and with children.  And that just daily realities that they dealt with as being a poor family are things that other people can relate to, Egyptian or even as foreigners.

Film is a male-dominated industry.  Therefore, I asked Rizk if she, as a woman filmmaker, has experienced any obstacles in making film because she is a woman.  Her response was “no.”  On the contrary, Rizk found that being a woman filmmaker has advantages.

JEANNETTE RIZK: My work and experience is in development and film, and I can’t really say that I’ve had more obstacles as opposed to if I were a man.  I rather feel that in my field it is an advantage to be a woman because it’s much easier for me to gain access to places.  I also had very personal interactions with people, often going to their homes…Like when I produced part of a series on HIV/AIDS in the Middle East.  We’d go visit families where someone was infected and [we] spend time with them talking.  It’s a very painful subject, and also very sensitive.  I feel that, as a woman, you get more access to other women in the Middle East. Once we went to an NGO that worked with sex workers.  They really opened up, I think very differently than if it had been an all male film crew.  So, yeah, I would say that I never felt it was more difficult working as a woman.

Page Content Menu

• Synopsis
• Screening Schedule
• About The Film
• Film Screening Q&A
• Audience Reactions

Synopsis

A cab driver, police officer, mechanic and filmmaker, this film tells four unusual stories from Palestine featuring women who work in jobs that are conventionally associated with men. All four women have the courage to break customary rules, but not without challenges.

Screening Schedule

11 April 2010: 18:00-20:00
AUC New Campus, Core Academic Center, C205

About the film

It is often argued that “women’s work” remains to be viewed as less-valuable and less-productive in comparison to work typically allocated to men.  For example, in her classic essay, “Violence Against Women and the Ongoing Primitive Accumulation of Capital” (1999), Maria Mies suggests that capitalist concepts of “economy” exclude definitions of housework and childrearing from the category of “productive labour”, and thus reduces women to units of economic liability (159).  She argues that if we eliminate the separation between “productive” and “non-productive” work, we will see that, “in fact, more men depend on women’s work than do women on a male “breadwinner” (160).

To expand this discussion, what happens when women do take on male-dominated occupations?  How is their productivity valued then?  Are economic relations so pervasively gendered to the extent that we can only understand these workers as “masculine” women?  Or may gender binaries erupt, opening up new possibilities for women to be valued not in comparison to men, but in terms of their own significance?  In her short documentary film, Thorns and Silk (2009), Paulina Tervo confronts challenges women face working in  “masculine” jobs with a new and positive light.  Their stories are told in an optimistic way that plays off of conventionally masculine/feminine terms.  For example, we see images of the female police officer marching in unison with her comrades then juxtaposed by her mirror reflection carefully applying lipstick and mascara.  Or the independent wedding filmmaker, who states that it’s in her “nature to choose the difficult path.”  If you asked her “to choose between thorns or silk, [she'd] choose thorns”.  Such representations of these women as powerful women not only offers an alternative to the typical image of Palestinian women as oppressed; they also defy sexist arguments that females are some how “naturally” inferior to males, hence reduced to non-productive entities.

In an interview with Tervo, we discussed why it is important to represent these womens’ stories in documentary film, and discussed the role that film can play to create positive social change.  An abridged transcript follows each audio file.

To begin, Tervo answers why she feels it is important to show women working in jobs typically allocated to men.  She states that representing women in traditionally male roles is a powerful method to achieve equality between men and women.

PAULINA TERVO: I think it’s important to show women in male dominated jobs because they are often underrepresented in these areas.  Also, in these jobs women can be ostracised and I think certain roles carry some stigma.  For example, women who work in the police, I’ve noticed that you become one of the lads, like one of the guys.  So your femininity disappears because you are working in the police…So basically, I think it is important to change this image in order not to keep women categorised in certain roles, or certain models.  And I think the only way to achieve equality and to reduce sexism is to show women working in roles that are traditionally male.  I think that these women in my film are actually great role models to other women who might be feeling like, “Oh, but I can’t go into that profession because I am a woman.” I think that they are role models, and it’s important to show role models, also, to younger women who might be considering new types of careers.  Because times are changing.  And I even think in the Middle East women are changing.  And societies are changing and becoming more equal. Through film, you can do this by showing positive images of empowered women.

LARA: I felt that was why you chose to show her putting on her make-up…the police woman in particular.  Because it is a very male, [an] incredibly “masculine” position that she’s put in.  And she has to, sort of, prove her strength.  And it seems like you nicely balanced that with her doing other very traditionally “feminine” things.

PAULINA TERVO: Yeah.  And the fact that she can still be feminine.  And she is very feminine, actually, even though she works in this very male world where she has to be equal with her male partners.  So it doesn’t mean that she is less of a woman because she has that job.

I asked Tervo if she feels that her film is part of a women’s movement.  She agreed that it is, but that this was not her intention in making the film.

LARA: Would you consider this film a part of a women’s movement?

PAULINA TERVO: I guess I would.  But when I started making this it never occurred to me, because I’m not an activist myself.  I’m a filmmaker interested in people’s stories.  I didn’t think that, “I’m going to make a film for women’s movement”.  But, I think since I made the film, and what’s happened after the film, of where it’s gone, it’s shown, actually, to me that it is part of a larger movement.  And I’ve realised more and more that film is a really powerful tool to use for activism, and for telling stories, and for changing media images.  That’s, I think, what’s really been a great thing for me to realise as a filmmaker: that I can be a filmmaker and an activist at the same time.

Accompanying Thorns and Silk, Tervo recently made an “Extras” component which shows the film characters’ reactions to Thorns and Silk and how they felt about the way they were represented.  I asked Tervo why she decided to make this “Extra” film.  She responded by stating that she wanted to make visible the authoritative, transparent voice of objectivity often allocated to documentary film.  Indeed, the cinematic narrative is not value-neutral, but always told from the point-of-view of the filmmaker.

PAULINA TERVO:Actually, that came about after my trip to the West Bank last year when I went there initially to organise out-reach screenings, to get audience reactions to it [Thorns and Silk].  And this was done again with support from IDS.  So, when I was there for two weeks I gathered lots of opinions. I even showed the film to the [film] characters then and interviewed them.  So it only came about afterwards when I started thinking that maybe the best thing to do with all this footage that I had is to make a second film and pull apart this idea that film is always about one person’s point of view. Especially documentaries are supposed to be so objective.  They are supposed to be representing reality.  So, I wanted to challenge this notion and highlight that it’s actually a subjective view.  It’s always the filmmaker’s view about somebody else’s life.  And I think that by actually making this film and giving the character in the film the opportunity to reflect upon how they were represented, kind of just turns the whole idea around about subjectivity and objectivity in film.  Also, I think that the extra film made it more of a rounded view about each woman.  In Thorns and Silk you see a little snippet from their lives.  But in the other film [the Extras] you actually find out a lot more about their background and their context.  So, I wanted to give that more rounded view.

The film industry is male-dominated.  Therefore, I asked Tervo to explain what challenges or advantages she may have faced as a woman filmmaker.

PAULINA TERVO: A few years ago, when I started in the industry, I worked with some production companies.   And I often found that all the female staff were basically employed in production roles rather than creative roles. It was always the men who were in the creative roles.  And I found that slightly sexist, actually.  It wasn’t just one place.  It happened in many places.  So, I think women are really under-represented in the film and TV industry even here in the UK.  However, it has also had its advantages to being a young woman making films.  Because often people don’t think that you are a filmmaker or a director.  So you can get away with a bit more.  You know, you can easily smuggle in cameras to countries that don’t like films being made there because you look so innocent.  And also there are some funding and festivals available only for women nowadays.  So I think it’s a positive thing as well that there are more film initiatives coming out.  I think I found my niche.  And I think it’s just more of an advantage at the moment for me being a woman making films about women’s empowerment.  So, it has worked to my favour.

LARA: That’s interesting.  It’s like taking the sexism, or assumptions of women, and turning it on its head to your own advantage, in a way.

PAULINA TERVO: Yes, in a way, I guess.  I mean, I didn’t go the usual route in the industry by working my way up in production companies, because I realised quickly that, in order to do something creative, you really had to push very hard.  And, you know, those roles were so male-dominated.  So I decided to try different ways of doing what I wanted to do, which were maybe somewhat more unconventional.  I think it’s about finding your niche and concentrating on that, whether you are a man or a woman.  But, like I said, going to Palestine as a female filmmaker was much easier than I thought.

Film Screening Q&A

At the film screening, the audience talked with Tervo via Skype.  Much of the discussion focused on the ways in which the Palestinian-Israeli conflict influenced the making of the film and how it framed audiences’ receptions.  For example, Tervo explains that some of the strongest reactions against the film came from her screening event in Palestine, where many people felt that the film should have represented the conflict more.  Meanwhile, some people at this film screening expressed that they liked that the conflict was not the main focus, but rather, that its politics were secondary to the recognition of these empowered women within extraordinary circumstances.  An abridged transcript follows the audio file of the Q&A.

PAULINA TERVO: …So I’ve had a really good response from really diverse audiences.  It’s been shown in Taiwan.  It’s been shown in the US and in Canada, quite widely, and obviously in Europe.  It’s been an ambition.  But people have said to me that they don’t often see such stories coming out of Palestine and that they’ve been very pleasantly surprised of these types of films, and that there should perhaps be more films just looking at people’s lives, really.

LARA: Yeah, absolutely.  I’m sure in any country you could make this film on non-conventional jobs for women and they’d all be very different.  But there is something very special about the Palestinian context that makes this film very special I think.

EMMA: How did the conflict influence this project?  Did you have any problems?  Like at check points…

PAULINA TERVO: Yeah, of course it affects the making of it.  The Israelis don’t really like it when you bring cameras into their country, and, you know, we got stopped in various places and questioned at the airport.  Sometimes it was difficult at checkpoint, definitely.  Of course, because of the checkpoints and the restrictions there it’s very difficult to travel.  You get held up a lot, or there are road blocks sometimes that you are not expecting.  So, these are things that impact.  But it makes you realise that people are just living like that everyday.  It’s their everyday life.  And it’s just horrible.  And you’re just there for two weeks-three weeks and it’s already frustrating in that period of time.  So, it’s a small representation of what people actually go through there, with of course everything else.

So what were the reactions on your end?  I’d be really interested to hear.

IAN: I really enjoyed the film.  I thought it was interesting to see this group of women, like exactly as it was intended, you don’t normally get a chance to see in this context.  Especially from a normal, everyday point of view, and not necessarily politically motivated or anything like that.  It’s  just people trying to live their lives.   And it’s always important to see this amongst anything else that is going on.

KRISTINA: I think it’s interesting the way that the politics come through, even in just whatever any of these women are doing.  You know, like when the cab driver said, “I feel as strong as this wall.” [Westbank Wall].  It’s just so interesting that it [Palestinian-Israeli politics] comes through even if that is not necessarily what you are focusing on.  You were focusing on women and their occupation.

LARA: Right.  Or how the police officer said she couldn’t perhaps take on Israelis as her customers [if she  was a cab driver].

KRISTINA: Yeah, I think the interviews definitely add a lot to the film, just because…it’s really interesting to hear people reflecting on the way they are being perceived and represented, and adding to that.  It just brings a whole dialogue that you don’t normally get with film, because it’s presented, then you see it, you share your opinions about it, or talk to the filmmaker, but not actually hear necessarily people within the film and their responses.  So I thought it was a really nice addition.

IAN: I thought the extras were really good as well.  I’d seen the film already.  Seeing the extras today added a really good dimension to it.  Especially with the military lady [police officer], who was kind of upset with the fact that her personality didn’t come through so much…

LARA: Oh right.  With the make-up…

IAN: Yeah.  I thought that was very interesting.  But still, as Emma and I were discussing earlier, how in such a short segment for each lady it was able to purvey so much…it packed a lot of information into a very quick, short time, and it didn’t allow you to get too bored with long, drawn-out scenes…I think it’s a bit kinda ’sound-bite-ish’ to deliver information like that sometimes.  But in this case it worked perfectly.

KRISTINA: I’m just wondering if you’ve had any really strong reactions, like Hannan’s, to the Westbank Map, and it being labelled Westbank instead of Palestine, if you got reactions like that at the screenings, or…?

PAULINA TERVO: She [Hannan] was actually the only person who mentioned that.  Actually, no.  There was one other girl who mentioned that in all of the screenings.  But nobody else, sort of, said anything.  That was something I really wasn’t anticipating.  It was very interesting, actually, to go through that process for myself as well.  To try to understand deeper what the conflict really means.  And I felt quite bad after I’d shown Hannan and she started crying.   And I just felt like … I’d been disrespectful…I just couldn’t anticipate this at all.  But it’s interesting, because I asked other people, other Palestinians about it, and they said that they don’t mind ["Westbank" labeled on the map instead of "Palestine"] and they wouldn’t see it as a problem.  So I guess it depends on how you’ve experienced your life within the conflict.  So, that really only came from her.  But I decided to make a point with the extras by changing the name on the map.

And the other thing I wanted to mention was a lot of people, especially strong women, said to me that I should have represented the conflict in the film.  Especially with the taxi driver, they felt that I did touch upon the situation that is going on in Jerusalim.  I didn’t explain it.  And they didn’t like the film because of that.  And they also felt that the taxi driver was too friendly with the Israeli customers.  They felt it was a poor representation of the Palestinians.  That was the film [screening event] with the strongest reactions, in Palestine.  These comments came from the ministry of culture, came from women activist, and people like that.  So, it was actually a difficult time for me to get the feedback.  Interesting, but also quite difficult.

Audience Reactions

Presented below are a few audience reactions to Thorns and Silk.

Some people felt the film offered an alternative to typical representation of women in the Middle East.  It not only presented these women as powerful, but also offered a variety of differences across and between women.  Emma is a graduate student of the Cynthia Nelson Institute for Gender and Women’s Studies at AUC.  Along with her academic work Emma manages her political blog, focusing on feminism, religion and international relations.

Others, such as Kristina and Ian, commented on the usefulness of the Extras.  Both felt that reflections upon the representations of the characters themselves created a unique dialogue between the subjects, the filmmaker and audience that is not normally made available in film.  Kristina Hallez is a communications officer at Social Research Center at AUC, and works on many projects for the Middle Eastern Hub of Pathways of Women’s Empowerment.

Others commented on the some of the creative visual techniques used.