skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Film: Eyes Wide Open
Release date: 20th September 2010
Certificate: 12
Running time: 96 mins
Director: Haim Tabakman
Starring: Zohar Shtrauss, Ran Danker, Tinkerbell, Tzahi Grad, Isaac Sharry
Genre: Drama
Studio: Peccadillo
Format: DVD
Country: Israel/Germany/France
Haim Tabakman’s Eyes Wide Open bravely tackles the issue of homosexuality amongst a community of orthodox Jews in Jerusalem. Here, life is meant to be lived virtuously and simply, so it’s a bold decision from Tabakman to make a film as uncompromising in its views and style as his debut.
Shortly after the death of his father Aaron (Zohar Strauss) takes over the family’s kosher butchers shop.
After taking on a good-looking young assistant, Ezri (Ran Danker) the local community began to gossip and Aaron faces a test to his faith as their relationship blossoms…
The film begins with Aaron re-opening his shop, dispensing with dead meat as the rain cascades down. It’s a quiet, grey opening and sets the tone from the outset as this quiet, static movie rarely changes pace or raises its voice. Into Aaron’s lonely world walks Ezri, a broodingly handsome student who is offered a job and allowed to stay in an empty room at the rear of the shop while he is taught the trade.
Things gradually becomes more tender as both characters realise that their relationship is more than that of teacher and apprentice, a fact complicated by Aaron’s marriage and the all-knowing community of which he is part. The restrained romance between the two characters begins with knowing glances, an occasional lingering look and then a failed kiss – Aaron sees this as a test of his faith and refuses to submit to temptation. It’s a tense scene with Ezri’s determination bordering on aggression – the violence of the attempted kiss is completely at odds with the gentle opening of the film and comes as a shock. Sadly the film fails to follow up on the promise of this set-piece and soon settles back into its sedate pace.
The first real example of physical affection between the two male leads occurs when they strip off to go swimming. Ezri sheds his clothes and his inhibitions quickly, Aaron is far more reserved, steadfastly refusing to look at his younger friend as his clothes drop at his feet. It’s nicely acted and cleverly directed – Aaron’s glance never falls upon Ezri until he is fully naked with his back to the older man. The realisation that he needs to get in the water, too, is written all over Aaron’s face, and his reserve can be seen to dissolve even as he enters the cold water still partially clothed... Eventually the temperature between the characters warms and they fool around, pushing each other under the water and wrestling one another. It’s a rare example of anyone having fun in the film – interestingly the only other scene of male characters losing their sense of sobriety is when a male-only religious study group sing joyously together following a meeting. The film would have benefited from more scenes like this – introspection is a difficult thing to convey on screen and Aaron is chiefly guilty of this. A character of few words, he is often difficult to read, particularly given the nuanced performance from Zohar Strauss.
As Aaron’s reserve slowly melts, so the relationship between himself and Ezri gradually becomes sexual. Beginning with a kiss instigated by Aaron in a walk-in refrigerator, the thawing of their reserve is so hesitant as to be almost unnoticeable until finally they reach this crescendo. The scene comes as a relief – finally the ice has been broken. Taking place in a cold refrigerator, however, it all feels rather clinical. The movement between the two characters is somewhat mechanical – it doesn’t lack passion but is oddly sterile and has little warmth.
Occasional discrete sex scenes hint at passion but are usually witnessed ‘after the event’ and thus give little clue as to how the relationship has developed: it comes as a surprise when Aaron explains to a Rabbi that his relationship with Ezri makes him “feel alive.” There has been little evidence to suggest that his life has altered dramatically up to this point – he still rarely smiles, and although he has taken to occasionally closing the shop to disappear into Ezri’s room with him, it’s still a shock to hear that his life has altered dramatically.
Aaron’s relationship with his wife is muted, with no affection and little dialogue. Almost all their scenes are played out in either the dining room or a joyless bedroom. As their marriage becomes more complicated, it somehow seems closer – it’s clear that there is genuine love between the couple despite the lack of warmth and the fact that she is aware of his homosexual affair. Their final scene together is beautifully played – almost devoid of dialogue, but utterly compelling nonetheless, as she cradles her emotional husband in her arms. It’s a shame that this relationship is not explored more fully as it has real emotional depth.
As Aaron’s home life becomes increasingly oppressed, so his personal and professional life are affected. In his tight knit community there are no secrets. Coded warnings and threatening voices in alleyways – “there is a bad man in our community” – become increasingly common as orthodox Judaism begins to strangle the fledgling romance between the two men, culminating in Aaron being forced to choose between the joyless love of his wife and family or the passionate Evri and the abandoning of god.
The film is delicately handled, yet remarkably restrained. The relationship between the male couple is treated tactfully and perhaps this is the film’s major flaw. It’s possible to be risky without being risqué, yet Eyes Wide Open is handled with too much caution.
Despite the grey, rainy backdrop against which the story is played out it’s hard to see a big enough change in Aaron to believe that very much has changed between the moment Evri enters his life and the film’s denouement – things are just as drab at the end and there is little colour or vibrancy even at the height of their relationship.
The film aims for a very niche audience and sadly there is little here of interest for those who are not interested in the study of Judaism. Despite being subtly acted and sensitively filmed, Eyes Wide Open suffers from the same lack of warmth which we see in Aaron, and will only appeal to those who have something invested in the subject matter. RW
Courtesy Peccadillo Pictures.
Born in 1975, Haim Tabakman studied Cinema and Television at the University of Tel Aviv. His first short film, Free Loaders, was selected in 2003 by the Cannes Film Festival (Cinefondation), as well as by the Karlovi Vary and Montpellier film festivals. In 2004, another of his short films, The Poet’s Home, was amongst the Cinefondation’s film selection at the Cannes Film Festival. Tabakman has also edited several films, including My Father, My Lord by David Volach. Eyes Wide Open, which hits cinemas on 14th May 2010, is his first full-length feature film…
Eyes wide open is your first feature film. What is your background?
I had aspirations of becoming a musician when I was a teenager, but I also wanted to become a veterinarian. Towards 21 to 22 years old, I was at a junction in my life, and I had to decide. When I realised that music wasn’t really my world, I started to think about cinema, which is about storytelling, music, and images… a lot of creative energy. I went to study cinema at Tel Aviv University, and then I had the incredible opportunity of presenting my short films to the Cinefondation in Cannes.
How did you get involved in this project?
The project started with a script that Merav Doster wrote seven years ago. Rafael Katz, the producer, got in touch with Merav. He convinced her to develop the script into a fifty minute drama for TV. Then, he received some financing from the Israel Film Fund. They were looking for a director and Rafael met me, on behalf of someone at the university. So, I got involved in the TV project. I was happy as I had just made two shorts. I immediately saw the script’s potential and I was honoured.
Did you work on the script with Merav for the feature film?
It was very complicated. Merav, Rafael and even David Barrot, the French producer, were involved in the script, and I really only started about a year ago. I wanted to add things that were a little bit different, and we began to rewrite on another level. It was really a group effort to make everything that everyone had written coexist in the script.
Do you know if this story is based on a true story?
I don’t think so. It’s true that it is something that could happen at any time, but it’s not based on a true story. Merav did a great deal of research and I also talked to many people… When you’re locked away with so many boys, as you are in a yeshiva (religious school), these things happen very often. It’s about experimenting or dealing with all kind of questions about sexuality. This is the main tragedy of that kind of life. Religious people do not consider homosexuality a sin; it just does not exist. So how can you deal with it if somewhere it is written that it does not exist? In the Talmud, it is written that the Sons of Israel are not even suspected of doing that. God did not make things that way. If you talk to a religious person now and say: “I’m gay, what can I do?” he will answer: “If you are tempted, you should know your duty in front of God and the community.” To them, it’s just an evil urge. Being gay is like a disease that you can easily get rid of it. It cannot be part of a human being’s essence.
Regarding the movie you say: “closer to the sin, closer to God.” What do you mean?
When you are a religious man, you have two incompatible options: fighting against natural urges, which give value to life, or being authentic (accepting natural urges) and losing your religious points of reference. Living with religious codes gives a direction to life: a frame and a meaning. But just as everyone, a religious man is confronted all the time with sins and, from that, he has to define himself. The closer you are about to commit a sin, the more you are aware of what you are, of the definition of being good or not good. The closer you are to the sin, the more aware you are of your religious essence… Aaron welcomes Ezri into his life, as he wants to feel a religious awakening again. He knows that he is transcending real sexual urges.
Doing a movie about a love story between two religious men is really taking on taboo, isn’t it?
Yes, of course. Some people from the religious world helped us, but no one wanted to be credited or thanked as advisers… There is really strong negative energy associated with this subject. If you want to be part of the orthodox world, there is no way to settle this conflict. If you are inside this world, homosexuality is not accepted. Aaron wants to stay in the religious circle and be authentic. He has to pay the price: losing his religious frame of reference to be himself. Most of the time, religious people do not choose to fight. They live a double life, giving up their authenticity.
The title Eyes Wide Open is a reference to that. I suppose it’s “the eyes” of the community…
It’s “the eyes” of the community, of God, but not only that. For me, it’s more about accepting faith, your own being. I think our heroes are diving into this romance, whereas they know there is no real chance to live it. It’s just like accepting faith. I see Eyes Wide Open as a car rushing towards you, but you keep on walking in the same direction. You do not step to the side of the road. You understand everything but you cannot stop.
Who are these two characters Aaron and Ezri?
They are both very strong. Aaron is a very closed person. In a way, he is almost a fanatic. He accepts the code of the religious world, and as he refuses to live a double life - he has to be very tough. I think it is a very brave decision that he made when he was young, maybe unconsciously to deal with his father, his world…
Ezri is an angry young man, just like James Dean in “Rebel Without A Cause”. Being gay is definitely not a reason to abandon God. Ezri is very clever and religious in most ways. I think he is practically a one-man revolution mechanism. Both are attracted to one another because they are opposites. Like a chemical explosion. Each can ruin the defences of the other. Ezri wants to shake Aaron, to wake him up. Ezri is younger than Aaron but he knows in a way that he is more aware and authentic than Aaron, so he has a lot of influence over him. But he also needs a place for his safety because it is not a safe world; he has no place to go back to. He does not know where to go, but he has guts and he is not afraid of it. In our world, it is the same. The religious world is just a very extreme example of what we all experience.
Do you think Rivka understands what is happening between Aaron and Ezri?
People that live with one another can usually sense everything. She knows and she is part of this story. She knows that her husband does not love her the way he should. She accepts it because this is part of the code. I think she has a very big heart because she is not really angry; she gives him a chance to decide.
And what about the reaction of the community? It is very violent…
The escalation to violence occurs because Aaron does not want to quit. It starts with suspicion. They talk with him, they try to keep him quiet, and they care for him. You are never alone in this society, as people are always interested in your life. They take care of you if you are sick or poor - you are never alone or without food. But on the other hand, they always know what you are doing and they always have an opinion about what you are doing. If you are stubborn and say: “I have to do it my own way,” troubles begin. I think this is what happens in the movie. Aaron, his eyes wide open, decides to go on. Even if the truth is starting to spread, he keeps on doing what he has to do. The film is a little bit loose in this way. It does not tell you everything. You have to think and imagine a lot of things.
Do you think the movie can create a polemic in the religious world and Jewish community?
I hope so. I really want to help break the silence, to break the taboo in ultraorthodox society. The film can be part of the evolution of the orthodox world. The way religious people live now is not the way Jerusalem has always been. It is a reaction to the fear of losing part of their traditions. In the end, we are dealing with human beings, not with sins. There is a way to convince people, through movies, without using force to say: “Look, this exists.” And the first time somebody says: “I know, it exists,” we win! Just to recognise it exists is better than not existing at all.
You’ve chosen great actors, like Ran Danker, who is a very famous actor and singer in Israel, and Zohar Strauss...
Working with both of them was great. Their acceptance of such a risk was more than generous. They broke a religious taboo. They put themselves into the characters. They are part of the power of the film. Zohar is modest and gentle with something dark about him. The camera loves Ran. He has true intuition as an actor. He, like Ezri, is free of inhibitions. PP
