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?