As the curtains draw on this year’s International Documentary Film Festival(IDFA), I reflect on the culmination of a 12-day cinematic paradise for documentary enthusiasts. Across the city, more than 250 thought-provoking films illuminated screens, offering insightful narratives on stories from the past and present. With over a hundred of the submissions being international, it offers diverse perspectives of how we see the world. The festival becomes an immersive and in-depth experience, inviting viewers to gain fresh understanding and witness events in personal, moving, or provoking ways.
The History
Emerging as a small convention on Leidseplein in 1988, IDFA has steadily grown every year into the biggest of its kind in the world. In addition to the screenings, it features engaging debates, workshops, and captivating talks with directors and creators, enriching the cinematic experiences. The festival attracts over 120,000 visitors each year, turning Amsterdam into a film haven with something for everyone. This year’s program features a wide array of topics, with a special focus on social issues connected to the many global conflicts and the climate crisis.
I found myself captivated by all the films I managed to catch but will here highlight two of those that stuck with me and truly captured the effects of documentary storytelling.
Director Mehran Tamadon takes on a unique way of capturing the devastating stories of three former political prisoners put through physical and psychological torture in Iran. These real-life horror stories are shown not through interviews or descriptions, but Tamadon builds a copy of each protagonist’s torture room with them where they illustrate what they had to withstand. This is the first time all three of them revisit these environments and it unleashes painful memories and emotions. I found this film especially moving as it’s hard to immerse yourself fully into the position of torture victims when you read stories like these. But through Where God is Not you are placed right in the middle of the claustrophobic settings, and you learn as you follow their collective journey towards healing. Emotions became especially powerful as the rooms grew to their original shape, the film is a slow burner at the start, and it takes its time showing the entire recreation process and you see the memories slowly return to the survivors over the 112 minutes. The camerawork reminds me of a home-made film with the camera many times shaky and long shots panning between characters without cutting. This creates a raw and real feeling, and it comes across as to not being overly edited which strengthens the feeling of being there with them. The protagonists are Taghi Rahmani, a political activist that spent over six months in solitary confinement, who recreates the minimal cell he was kept in and talks about how he would make time pass and the impact it had on his mental health, Homa Kalhori, a woman kept in Ghezel Hesar prison, first with 25 other women in an eight square metre cell and later inside a coffin for three months as a punishment for refusing to comply with the regime. And Mazyar Ebrahimi, a man falsely accused of being a spy, who in his torture room ties the director to a bed and illustrates his many and long beatings.
A scene that stuck with me, that effectively illustrated how heavy it is for the protagonists to share their stories, was during the process of building the coffin for Kalhori. As the director is cutting through the plywood to create the pieces, Kalhori stands blindfolded to the wall like she did 38 years ago when it happened. The pure sound of cutting into wood takes her back to that moment and she breaks into tears by reliving these memories. But when asked if she wants to leave or take a break she chooses to stay, to truly show everything that she had to experience. Overall, the film is a moving piece that I truly believe holds power to create change, or at least increase awareness. Considering the angle adapted to tell the story, it affects you emotionally much deeper than any readings on it could do and I believe everyone should hear these stories.
Danger Zone
Vita Maria Drygas’ movie allows you to become a travel companion to four “war tourists” travelling to dangerous places in the world. Watching this film, I shaped my own idea of the message intended, and in the talk that followed the screening I found it was completely different from that of the director. Which I think is why it has stuck with me, it led to so much further conversation and thoughts, and I’m surprised how different people can resonate. In my view, and what I took from the film, there’s no defence to travelling to a war zone and calling it tourism. It appeared to me that these individuals attempted to romanticise these conflicts and use it as a way to spice up their normal 9-5 living at home. But only if they can be ensured a flight out of there, an ensuite bedroom, and constant armed security. Which to me is a controversial and unethical behaviour, the people living in the middle of these wars have none of these options and are often living in poverty and constant fear. Going there just to watch and then return home to your comfort, left me as a viewer with a distaste towards them.
The protagonists are Rick, who has his own tour company taking people that can afford it to the front lines of battles, who in the film visits Syria. Andrew and AJ travel to Somalia and Eleonora visits Afghanistan hoping to get a “real, raw and rough” experience that is completely different from what she has at home. There were many moments where we in the audience laughed at the absurdity in the comments. Like when AJ said “I don’t know, maybe it’s a part of their culture” when asked why there were so many killings in these places. Further, it was filled with scenes of the humans within war-torn countries. These portrayals were heart-breaking to see, as it always is when the victims of war get faces, and there’s no way of denying how much support should be sent but isn’t. One particular scene – where they’re walking through a refugee camp in Syria where the people are unsure if they will survive winter as they’re running out of food – is so moving with the cinematography and the shots. But is then instantly interrupted by Rick stating that all these humans, mostly children and mothers, are all guilty until proven innocent in his eyes. And that he is there with the view that everyone has the intention to harm him. Which I think captures just what I base my views on, I cannot form support for their “tourism” when this is how they treat the locals that never asked for them to come in the first place.
But as stated, my view was different from the view of the director. She wanted to tell the story of brave people that witness the unknown. And trying to look through that lens, I can see that the film attempted to capture how lucky you should count yourself if you never had to experience these things first hand. But it doesn’t work all the way through to me since these people don’t. They don’t have to experience this, they choose to, so that message gets lost in the process. I still really enjoyed the film; the camera work is impressive and so is the content. I highly encourage viewing, however mainly to reflect over the ethical concerns it raises on multiple levels. If you’re able to form your own opinion, it has a very strong storyline and well-produced film.
Cover : Clara Anteryd
Edited by Patricia Beschea
