Kedma (2002) User Reviews

interesting subject, original treatment, poor cinematography

[dromasca · 5/10 · 1 October 2005]

Amos Gitai is one of the best known Israeli directors, quite successful in the circuit of the international cinema festivals. What a pity that his daring and fresh approach to the key moments of the Israeli history is not doubled, unfortunately, at least in this film, by appropriate cinema means.

The historical setting of 'Kedma' is the moment of the beginning of the state of Israel when immigrants from Europe, survivors of the Holocaust arrive in Israel aboard the illegal immigration boats, just to finds on the promised shore a new land of conflict. 'Kedma' is the name of an immigrants boat, as 'Exodus' was, and it deals with the same period as in Leon Uris's book and film 'Exodus', Certainly this important moment in history deserves a better treatment than the Hollywood one. It's a setting well entrenched in the collective memory of any Israeli and Palestinian. Gitai however is more interested in decomposing the historical myth rather than building or describing it.

There are a few good moments in this film. Gitai likes long shots, and the first scene of the film is a beautiful rendition of the immigrants boat, with a nice passing from private to very public life. Another set of scenes represent the communication, or rather the lack of communication between the groups in the new country - immigrants from Europe still in shock after the horrors of the Holocaust, local Jews, prototypes of the 'new Israelis' full of confidence but lacking the understanding of the problems of other groups, displaced Arabs, mis-guided by their leaders and terrorized by the show of force of the Jews starting the long march that will become some day the Palestinian refugees problem, opera-style British troops, all these groups of humans get together in well filmed scenes, but do not really communicate. This is one of the problems that lay at the origin of the Israeli-Arab conflict seems the author to say.

Despite some memorable scenes, the film does not come together as a consistent piece of cinema. Characters get lost, show up and die too fast, they are more an idea of what they could be than real screen characters. The problem is not the lack of message, but the means - the author focuses in two monologues (by the displaced Arab, and by the Polish Jew immigrant) that say a lot about the continuity of conflict and about heroism being no more than a form of despair in front of the vicissitudes of history, but these are theatrical or literary monologues, without a connection with the film environment where they are placed. 'Kedma' is memorable by its setting and message, but not a good film to remember.

Raises more questions than it answers.

[luckystrike6 · 6/10 · 22 December 2004]

I'm not sure I got what I was supposed to get out of this film. As a piece of cinema it was an interesting way to shoot a low budget movie. With long, almost entirely wide-angle shots that hardly move at all, (except for a magnificent opening sequence and some hand-held work later on) it's staged and paced like a series of short plays. Some of the settings are just too simplistic; visually there isn't a lot going on besides the stories of the people coming in and out of the frame. There's no main protagonist in the film; numerous characters come and go, unresolved, sharing nearly equal screen time, but never quite enough of it to make any one of them more than a two-dimensional expression of a social theme. This dispassionate attitude gives "Kedma" a very documentary feel for the first two acts. It is the third act which is confusing, and even as a Jew with family in Israel, I feel severely underqualified to interpret Amos Gitai's true intentions with it. Watched with one set of eyes, it could be called a relatively simplistic portrayal of the birth of a nation, which throws its hands up to a certain extent and spreads the blame for the current situation around widely enough to defuse the certain blowback this film was to receive from the Orthodox community. On the other hand, in blaming Christianity, the Talmud and the Messianic tradition for enforcing the diaspora mentality over the past 2000 years, it stops right on the doorstep of declaring the modern State of Israel a product of the Jews' inheritance of the Nazi mentality which drove them there in the first place. Now: This isn't what I'm saying, but it might well be what the film is saying. At the very least it states boldly that the heroic Sabra stance is nothing more than the bitter side of the slave mentality, an ongoing form of self- flagellation. Only, the movie doesn't give you any inkling that this is where it's taking you as it leads you on in documentary form; and the result is definitely shocking. This is not a movie which apologizes for any outburst of emotion; nor does it pay much homage to the myth of the historical Maccabee. In short, it is about the weak preying on the weaker. Whether or not its stance is correct or covers the entire picture, again, I'm not qualified to say. There are certainly several other sides to the conversation than the one this film snakes its way into advancing. It's not a coincidence, either, that "Kedma" is the name of the refugee ship the Jewish characters arrive on; this movie, if nothing else, is the anti-"Exodus." None of the above, by the way, makes this film particularly enjoyable to watch. But if you like watching painful and well-crafted work that makes you think, well...it's still not that enjoyable to watch, but at moments it's completely riveting.

Amos Gitai's latest controversial interrogation of his nation's history.

[mleach · 5/10 · 19 November 2002]

Opening with a virtuoso and near-wordless sequence, set in May 1948, in which surviving European Jews arrive by boat in Palestine, eight days before the creation of the state of Israel, the provocative and often controversial Gitaï's latest interrogation of his nation's history and challenging contemporary reality focuses on one of its key originating moments. As the passengers look to disembark, they are shot upon by British troops intent on stopping them, and caught up in the retaliatory fire of the Jewish secret army, seeking to aid their arrival. Proceeding to follow the immigrants on their first steps in the 'promised land', Gitaï casts a considered but unflinching eye over the founding conceits of his country. Putting the issue of territory centre-screen, and given undoubted extra resonance by the current situation in the Middle East, it's also telling about British imperial responsibility in the region. However, at its heart is a personal and communal story, of displacement, anticipation, endurance and comradeship, wide in its appeal and generous, while demanding of all sides, in its understanding.

I Expected Much More of This Quite Disappointing Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 31 October 2004]

A group of Jewish immigrants arrive in Palestine, after a travel in the vessel Kedma, to live in a kibbutz. While resting on the beach after the disembarking, British troops shoot them, and some of them escape with the support of a Jewish platoon. Sooner they are ambushed by Arabian resistance, who are trying to protect their lands against the Jewish invasion. Yesterday I saw 'Kedma' on DVD and I confess that I was completely disappointed with this low-budget and personal movie. The back cover of the DVD and the Plot Outline of IMDb provide important information about the 'when' the story takes place, which I have not seen in the movie. The story happens in May 1948, shortly before the creation of the State of Israel. There is also a boring speech of one of the survivors about the fate of the Jewish people. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): 'Kedma'

This Movie Could Put An Insomniac To Sleep

[dino514 · 1/10 · 16 August 2006]

This movie is perhaps the slowest and most boring film I have ever seen. It is a pretentious attempt by Amos Gitai to remake Israel's national birth myth in his slow and artistic style. However, this time he fails miserably. From the opening scene that takes 10 minutes before anyone even opens their mouth the the closing speeches that are so melodramatic that they don't at all fit in with the otherwise painfully realistic piece, the movie is a disaster all the way through. In addition to its plodding style and one dimensional characters the movie is rife with factual errors. It mention fictional ghetto revolt, depicts the British army as a weak and unmotivated school marching band that speaks in American accents and seems to condense an entire year of war and struggle into one day. This movie is both a horrible depiction of Israeli history and a disastrous piece of entertainment and I would only recommend it to those who are in desperate need for a long sleep. Please do not see this embarrassment of a movie unless forced to by a man with a large gun.

Shows the tragedy both Israelis and Palestinians face

[das417 · 6/10 · 10 December 2004]

I like this movie in many ways, mainly because it's honest portrayal of the creation of modern day Israel, and what happened so that nation could be born. Kedma is a powerful story of triumph in terms of surviving the Holocaust, and the story of another tragedy of those who had to endure war and more loss.

The Palestinian situation is also well shown in an unbiased way. I was glad that their side of the story was shown; though by saying this I am not trying to be political. I am saying that in a war like this, both sides need to be heard to understand the tragedy of what was going on.

Is this a great movie? Yes and no. The story simply dragged in too many points, spending too much time describing characters and situations. I am sure this was the director's intent and it does serve the story somewhat. I knew this wasn't going to be an action movie, however I was expecting a bit more then brief rare lines and over dramatic philosophizing. Most of the movie just seemed to empty.

This would be a good movie for a class studying Israel. I would recommend it to anyone who has studied the history of the Jews and Israel.

One of the Worst Movies in History

[ynhockey · 1/10 · 14 August 2008]

The story of the founding of the State of Israel is one of war, suffering, refugees, political intrigues, miracles and whatnot. Taking any of the above attributes and making a movie that focuses on it cannot leave you with a bad movie. Even a completely talentless director could make an entertaining film out of the Israeli independence story. But somehow Amos Gitai managed to make even this important and exciting episode of modern history into an amateurish and boring series of scenes, which is hard to actually call a film.

The movie can be summed up fairly simply: Have you read Antigone, or another similar ancient Greek tragedy? Well, imagine an ancient Greek performance of Antigone filmed with a $200 camera, without any cinematographic additions. The scenes are not linked in almost any way, the dialog seems uninspired, as if read from a piece of paper, and the 'message' of the film is told by a raving side character.

The acting is terrible, the choice of cast mediocre at best, and while the film makes use of several languages, even someone who understands them will have trouble watching the movie without subtitles, because most of the actors themselves don't pronounce anything correctly.

In short, a horrible movie from a horrible director. Not recommended to anyone.

a very hearth moving movie

[riio · 10/10 · 19 November 2011]

i must say that i am surprised. i didn't want to see that movie because i assumed that if it was created by Amos gitai i shouldn't expect to enjoy it.i saw kipur before and free zone and i didn't like it. but i must be honest that i actually cried in the movie because it is so sad and its very close to the story of my family. all of my family are Holocaust survivors.my grandmother and her husband and two children came to Israel on a ship.her husband was sent immediately to fight in the front in order to help the besieged Jerusalem and she never heard from him ever since.we finally found his grave 10 years after she past away.so i definitely sympathized with menachem and his girl. that was the realty for many Holocaust survivors that came to Israel and i think that this is what yanosh the main charged is lamenting when he says;*we have no history,the non-Jews did our history for us,not we,we would have never made it the way it was,we couldn't do anything to stop them*.

the battle scenes in the movie are very realistic and exciting though very tragic .the common fighting of both man and women in the battle field is also very impressing. the way of fighting described in the movie is very typical for the war of independence and the fact that the camera is always on the attacking side and doesn't give a full picture of the battle zone or the view from the enemy angel and actually showing the viewer how a battle go in realty from the fighter point of view meaning allot of noise,yelling and screaming,explosions,confusion. this is very different from traditional war movies that show in different shots one side action and the other side reaction like a soldier is shooting and then in the next picture you see an enemy soldier is getting hit on the other side and the noise and screaming is usual buffered.

the surprising point of the movie is that the one of the main characters of the movie was in real life an Arab-Jew that was known for its anti-Israeli opinions but in the movie he play a brave Jewish fighter.on top of that the same fighter is talking to Arabs that flee the country and while doing so he repeat the Israeli opinion on the war that say that the Arabs that fled the country escaped it as oppose to the Arab view that claim that they were all physically depopulated by the Jews. gitai is also touching one the war myths about the 35 soldiers that were sent to transport food and medicine to Jerusalem and found and old arab man on the way and spare his life after a long moral argument among them self but after they realist him he called all the Arab villagers and they all came and killed the soldiers and mutiled their bodies.

i recommend every one to see the movie,though i don't think that movie is better then *exodus*with Paul Newman and *giant shed* with kirk Douglas when it come to describe the war of independence.

Interesting historically - a controversial but not good film

[aligant03 · 4/10 · 28 June 2004]

I watched this movie on TV because of the interesting subject - the founding of Israel in 1948 or rather the immigration and war that preceded it. The film shows a group of survivors landing ashore in Palestine and their first steps in the new country. They bring all their bad history with them but are supposed to fight for their new country at once. The director raises the controversial issues of Jewish "ethnic cleansing" against the Arab population and Jewish feelings/deeds of revenge after surviving the holocaust. Unfortunately the effort is wasted on a very theatrical, sometimes dull film which was obviously made on a low budget. Also way too intellectual in my eyes, too.

New refugees to Israel fight the British governors and displaced Arabs.

[maurice_yacowar · 9/10 · 10 February 2013]

Kedma is not really about 1948. It uses that setting to dramatize the irresolvable conflict in Israel that if anything has increased today. It's a retrospective prophecy, explaining what's going on there now by purporting to reveal its roots.

The opening scene suggests that Israel allows no personal retreat from the community's situation. An ostensibly personal moment turns out to be most public. The first shot is a woman's back as she prepares to drop her cotton slip and join her lover Yanush (Andrei Kashkar) in bed. When he shortly leaves her we see this intimacy has occurred not in private but in a crowded below-deck on the refugee ship. In the camera's slow track through the surprising crowd the personal story dissolves into the national.

The film shifts from the romantic promise of that first shot into the absurdities and shock of war. The refugees -- hungry, tired, all their possessions in a bag or suitcase -- disembark into a shooting match between a hapless British military unit determined to keep Jewish refugees out of their mandate and a small, armed unit of Israelis trying to help them in.

In a very reticent film, two passionate speeches carry the core: a victimized Arab's and a disillusioned Polish Jew's. Gitai gives equal consideration to the Jewish refugees and to the Arabs they displaced. For more see yacowar.blogspot.com.

How many ways can you say Boring? Kedma is one.

[paquiwon · 1/10 · 16 October 2006]

This movie is terrible. This movie attempts to show the frustration of one Holocaust survivor having to fight again for his existence and homeland. Despite what could have been a good story line, this movie was neither a good story, nor was it a war story. First, Kedma has minimal dialog throughout the movie, and the dialog it does have it really pointless. Second, it has no action. Even the battle scene in the movie was boring. Amos Giati looks like he was just trying to stretch out the movie to make it a full-length feature rather than a short story. Third, the whole message of the movie seemed to be about the main character, Yanush's disillusionment with the Promised Land and God's promise of Messiah. He claims in the movie that the Jewish people have no history. If you read the Old Testament or Torah, the Jews have probably the longest and best-documented histories of any people. As for Messiah's coming, 2 Peter 3:9 says, "The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." If there was one scene to be salvaged from this movie, it was the Arab man, Yussuf Abu-Warda, showing his defiance of the Jews for taking his home. It is too bad there was not more to the movie than that one scene.

I understand that this got intended as a response to "Exodus"

[lee_eisenberg · 5/10 · 18 November 2022]

First of all, I've never read Leon Uris's "Exodus" or seen Otto Preminger's movie adaptation. I understand that it's drawn controversy for simply romanticizing Israel's founding without looking at the expulsion of the people there. As journalist Norman Solomon described it, the movie depicted Arabs as bloodthirsty killers, while depicting the people moving to Israel as heroes no matter what they did.

So here we have Amos Gitai's "Kedma". This one also depicts events leading up to Israel's establishment as a country. While it takes a grittier approach and even addresses the eviction of the Palestinians, it falls a little flat. It's not a terrible movie by any measure, but it has stretches where little happens. True, movies don't have to have nonstop action, but they should have more than this one has.

Basically, it's an OK movie. One that I recommend is Julian Schnabel's "Miral", based on Palestinian author Rula Jebreal's works.

Haunting if Amateur Filmwise

[samkan · 8/10 · 28 December 2013]

If our megaplexes would play nothing but slice of history works like KEDMA we would all be more sympathetic and compassionate. This film depicts a small slice of an historic migration that, truthfully, requires a bit of acquired knowledge by it's viewers. That said, it's almost done in realtime (which some may find boring or exhausting) and the character dialog can get a bit preachy at times. But excellent effect. Deserves reverence if only for its passion and determination. The soliloquy at the end is a bit much and mars the otherwise muted and ambiguous nature of the story of the creation of Israel. But the overall effect is quite profound. Fervor and desire by the filmmakers herein overcomes lack of technical expertise.