MovieChat Forums > Walk on Water (2005) Discussion > American critics got it wrong.

American critics got it wrong.


I am slightly confused about the critical response to this film. Most critics seem to object that the film is too slight, that it doesn't explore fully the issues it raises and that its resolution is too simplistic (amounting to a "why can't we all just live together"). So, according to them, it fails as a 'political' film and as a drama. Then, for interests sake, I decided to check out the reviews for "Flags of Our Fathers" (an American political/drama film), and found that they're overwhelmingly positive.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, "Walk on Water" is far more complex (on both levels, and on many other levels) than Clint Eastwoods ra-ra, shallow and jingoistic film, which more or less amounts to being a dramatic re-creation of the facts with a massive budget (often the easy way out in American cinema).

Although "Walk on Water" is (obviously!) less polished and slick, I think it is more important in terms of its (admitedly heavy-handed) message than is Eastwood's more-or-less universally venerated film, It settles for the kind of lame patriotism that, while more serious in intent, is not far removed from Michael Bay's version of patriotism. Imagine what a patriotic Zionist film would look like, and then compare that to "Walk on Water's" simple but profound message. It might be called cheesy, but wouldn't it be nice? Why can't we all just get along? Beyond the endless and futile dabate about whose fault it is, who did what first and mutually opposed justifications (arguments which are always, eventually, circular), wouldn't it be nice just to get along?

While the film doesn't quite broach the issue of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, by the very gesture of reconciliation which evolves in the central relationship, the possibility is held out for reconciliation on the other front. Hatred and hostility is tempered with love. Impossible? Cheesy? Perhaps, but what other option is there?

As is the case so damn often, American critics [who work for the corporate conglomerates that MAKE aggressive American blockbusters in the first place, no doubt] got it wrong...

Anyone agree?

reply

[deleted]

******spoilers*****

I just saw this movie for the first time today and admittedly I will need to see it again to process everything. However, my first thought was - I wonder if it is really like that in the real world. That today's Germans living in Berlin are all ashamed about the sins committed by their parents and grandparents. I would like to think that that guilt could be a reminder so that it could never happen again, either from Germany or from some other country.

Nevertheless, I was blown away seeing a Jewish Director using Christ's famous Walk on the Water scene from the Bible to show that such is attainable to those who purify (cleanse) oneself from all hatred and malice toward one another. Cool irony! The transformation that Ayel was put through was all that was needed. The message from this movie didn't need to be any more complicated or political than that. Leave the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to another movie. After all, I do not believe many of us have even graduated from that "simple" lesson - the lesson to love your fellow neighbor. Agree?

On a side note, I also saw Flags recently, and I also got a lot out of that movie that unfortunately was disturbing for me to contemplate, especially being an American. I really don't see the connection (yet) between the two movies that you alluded to, but I'm sure it's probably because I'm not seeing this at a level you are seeing it.

I was somewhat disturbed in the ending involving Axel killing grandpa. I can see how that fits, but I'm not sure it was necessary. That now puts Axel on the same level as Ayel WAS before his transformation.

Anyhow, I enjoyed reading your comments. When I watch the movie again, I'll revisit this. I'm sure I did not respond to your question as you were hoping for. Cheers.



- The Truth is Out There, and I found it in Christ!

reply

[deleted]

Agreed. The epilogue simply doesn't fit with what we've seen in the rest of the film. The film could probably have ended at the previous scene. The ending does tie in with the film's theme of forgiveness and reconciliation, so in that sense it is justified, but perhaps it could have been developed on the level of plausibility in terms of relationships instead of merely being tacked on to provide a (forced) happy ending/ resolution. Still, that is the only thing I found wrong with the film.

"Watching, you can't help but feel the issues, the serious as well as the fun ones, are ill-served by the perfunctory examinations offered by the filmmaker."

This, to a greater or lesser extent, seems to be the common critical response to this film (and apparently the performances are rather unengaging, too). I wonder: were these people watching the same film I was? What did they expect? A definitive guide to gay male-straight male relationships? Solutions the the Israel-Palestine situation in motion picture form? How would a film provide a "substantial" answer to that problem? I imagine that it is best that the film does not settle on big ideas (there is enough of that around) but rather tells a marginal, intimate story without providing ANSWERS.

reply

[deleted]

A fable, hey??? Enlightened times, hey??? I don't think so. But the good news is we won't always be in the dark about these matters - we'll all find out who is right the moment after we breathe our last breath here on Earth.

"The beginning of wisdom is the FEAR (awe, reverence) of God."

I respect your right to your opinion, but of course, I totally disagree with most everything you said.

You also seem to think this whole movie was about a man finding his gayness. Maybe it was, but if that was the intention, what a terrible waste to limit this movie to merely this.





- The Truth is Out There, and I found it in Christ!

reply

I don't know how you got any of that from what I wrote.

reply

[deleted]