Adapted by:
John Tones
WriterI've been writing about culture for twenty-something years and, at Xataka, I cover everything related to movies, video games, TV shows, comics, and pop culture.
Karen Alfaro
WriterCommunications professional with a decade of experience as a copywriter, proofreader, and editor. As a travel and science journalist, I've collaborated with several print and digital outlets around the world. I'm passionate about culture, music, food, history, and innovative technologies.
It’s clear to everyone that the Oscars aren’t just a recognition of some of the year’s most outstanding films but also a commercial maneuver that gives a box-office boost to films of all kinds. But what happens when a film hasn’t found a distributor? That’s the case with No Other Land, which won the Oscar for Best Documentary.
A film about Palestine. Directed by four Palestinian activists—Basel Adra, Hamdan Ballal, Yuval Abraham, and Rachel Szo, two of them Israeli—in co-production with Norway, the documentary premiered at the Berlin Film Festival. It follows the life of a young Palestinian activist from Masafer Yatta, a region in the West Bank. The film depicts the gradual destruction of his home as Israeli soldiers demolish houses and expel their inhabitants. He befriends an Israeli Jewish journalist, highlighting the contrast between their lives.
No U.S. distribution. What makes No Other Land unique is its lack of U.S. distribution, largely due to its controversial subject matter. Other countries have released it in theaters and added it to the Filmin streaming catalog. That limited its reach in the U.S.—but more than that, it sparked a debate about the power of commercial censorship, which can be more potent than overt political censorship. No Other Land underscores the irony of an Oscar-winning film reaching only a handful of Americans, mainly academics who saw it as voting members.
An anomaly. In an interview with Variety before the nominations, the creators called the film’s distribution status “something completely political.” They said, “We’re obviously talking about the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank, and it’s very ugly. The film is very, very critical of Israeli policies.”
They added: “Part of the reason why we made the film is to reach people who might not be as supportive of what we are doing, the ones who could be challenged by the film. But if you have a really big distributor then, of course, you get to people from varying political opinions and with varying degrees of knowledge about Israel and Palestine. And these are exactly the people to whom we want to show the film because that’s how we can prompt change.”
Not the only one. Other documentaries have faced similar challenges. The Last Republican, for example, profiles Adam Kinzinger, a former Republican congressman and vocal critic of President Donald Trump. Josh Braun, one of the directors of the company that distributed the film, told The New York Times: “With the election turning out the way it did, I think there was a question mark with some political films.”
An unusually apolitical Oscars. This debate comes in the wake of an unusually apolitical Oscars ceremony. The event often features comments from presenters and guests about national issues, but this year, overt references to Trump were largely avoided. Guests did, however, touch on topics such as diversity, immigration, and conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine.
Jimmy Kimmel, who hosted the 2017 ceremony during Trump’s first year in office, filled his monologue with references to the president. By contrast, Conan O’Brien, this year’s host, has a less political style. Those references were largely absent, as were pointed remarks in most of the night’s speeches.
Image | No Other Land
Related | The Brutalist Was the Top Contender to Sweep This Year’s Oscars—Until Someone Cried ‘AI’
Log in to leave a comment