‘Once Upon a Time in Gaza’ Review: An Altruistic but Scattered Palestinian Crime Farce

by

Under the guidance of filmmaking twosome Tarzan and Arab Nasser, “Once Upon a Time in Gaza” presents an unusual partnership: a petty drug scheme devised by shy university student Yahya (Nader Abd Alhay) and robust restaurant owner Osama (Majd Eid). Despite being set in 2007, this good-natured, witty drama has a knack for tying its narrative to the current political climate, which it expresses boldly and explicitly. However, its self-aware, dual narrative – exploring the use of cinematic imagery to spark a revolution – paradoxically becomes limp in its execution.

In the deliberately crafted opening act, the movie portrays Osama, the mastermind behind their scheme, sending Yahya to buy painkillers using fake prescriptions. Their intention is to secretly stash these pills in pita sandwiches from Osama’s small falafel shop. As this story progresses, it’s propelled by the amusing and tense disagreements between the duo, which the Nassers let escalate comically, and the relentless pursuit of a corrupt police officer named Abou Sami (Ramzi Maqdisi). Throughout this narrative, news headlines and TV broadcasts report increasing tension in the region as Israel labels Gaza as hostile territory and proposes to physically isolate them with a wall.

The constant influence of political turmoil in Gaza is rarely directly connected to the main narrative, except in a few specific cases like Yahya being stopped by Israeli authorities from visiting the West Bank to see his mother. While it’s hard to tell a contemporary story about Gaza without its ever-changing circumstances entering the plot, these events typically don’t significantly affect the overall progression of the movie. The ethical dilemma that Osama encounters when Abou Sami proposes freeing him in exchange for a favor feels disjointed each time external events are introduced, rather than seamlessly integrated into the story.

The film has a touch of satire that provides some humor, but also serves as a safety valve. This is evident in the opening scenes, which feature snippets from U.S. President Donald Trump talking about transforming Gaza into a luxury coastal resort, alongside images of buildings in Gaza being destroyed. By doing this, the movie’s seemingly unrelated and non-political events are presented as being influenced by this potentially threatening future supported by Western powers. However, the news items don’t feel like prophecies due to their brief and detached presentation, giving off an almost ironic tone.

Additionally, there’s a larger jest unfolding, though it becomes more apparent later on. The film initiates with scenes reminiscent of a modest production filmed within the setting itself, titled “The Rebel,” marketed as the inaugural action movie produced in Gaza. Initially, it seems like a jest, but its relevance resurfaces in the latter half of the movie, which predominantly focuses on the behind-the-scenes creation of this film – about heroic armed resistance – where Yahya unintentionally becomes an integral part through sheer happenstance.

The events unfolding in the movie appear to be orchestrated by fate, which brings the title and visual aesthetic reminiscent of Hollywood back into focus. Prior to this, several scenes exhibit influences from prominent Hollywood works such as the witty dialogue akin to “Pulp Fiction”, music resembling Nino Rota’s score for “The Godfather”, and a dreamlike close-up that mirrors the opening scene of “Apocalypse Now”. These aren’t mere homages, but rather an apparent effort to grapple with the complex interplay between American culture and politics. On one hand, American culture provides the foundation for Gaza’s filmmakers to construct their images and identities; on the other, American politics finances the weapons used to undermine them.

The film appears to explore the concept of revolutionaries in cinema, but then it abruptly abandons these complex themes for a climax heavily centered on fate, which unfortunately doesn’t go as planned. Relying on coincidence to drive the plot may be acceptable, but using it to conclude the story can leave audiences feeling unsatisfied, unless the intention is to portray nihilism, like in the Coen Brothers’ “A Serious Man.” However, this film fails to delve deeply into its characters’ thirst for revenge during violent scenes, and instead of offering a thought-provoking reflection on life under occupation, it seems more like an imitation than a genuine exploration or introspection. In other words, it feels more like an observation from a distance rather than a thorough, tongue-in-cheek analysis.

Read More

2025-05-24 03:22