Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

HottWwjdIam There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

pointyfilippa The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

robert-temple-1 This amazing Israeli documentary is certainly unique in world cinema history. A group of spy chiefs have come together to complain about their own politicians and express their concerns about the future of the Middle East. All six surviving former heads of Israel's Shin Bet internal security agency (not to be confused with Mossad, the foreign intelligence agency which is not discussed) have clearly made an agreement amongst themselves to put their case to the world public and call attention to the very real dangers of the present situation, which they believe can only get worse. They complain about the spinelessness and lack of leadership of Israeli politicians. (They politely omit to mention the present ones, attacking only the retired or dead ones.) However, all of them strongly supported and admired Prime Minister Rabin, saying that his assassination by a fanatical orthodox Jew destroyed the chance for peace between Israel and Palestine. They all clearly hate and despise the ultra-orthodox Jews whom they call 'the settler movement' and complain that their own politicians have refused to restrain the excesses of those Jewish fanatics. They say that the ultra-orthodox Jews want to bring on Armageddon because they have a mystical conviction that then the Messiah will come. It is obvious that they believe that the ultra-orthodox Jews are totally insane. The Shin Bet aborted a very advanced plot by the ultra-orthodox Jewish fanatics to blow up the mosque on top of the ruins of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem. But when the leaders of the plot went to prison they were released very quickly and the politicians were afraid to offend them. The former Shin Bet leaders are all very gloomy and believe that there is now no hope for peace. This film seems to be their last and most desperate attempt to change the situation by going public with their worries. They speak very frankly about the security situation and give many specific examples of operations, with a lot of revealing film footage. An enormous number of secrets are revealed in great detail. The film was directed by the Israeli director and cinematographer Dror Moreh and was nominated for an Oscar. Never has such a film been made before, and I wonder if any will ever be made again. Everyone interested in world affairs should watch it. It also offers enlightenment as to how despairing the heads of security agencies, who view themselves as 100% professionals, are about the politicians to whom they are required to answer, and whom they mostly regard as idiots or fools. When Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, an early CIA whistle-blower, published his controversial book THE SECRET TEAM in 1974, revealing that the American intelligence agencies routinely gave false briefings to American presidents, feeding them with misinformation and manipulating their decisions, we had an early taste of American spy chiefs' contempt for their own politicians. Here we see no less than six successive security chiefs speaking in unison in the same manner. But whereas the American examples tended to be aimed at prolonging wars (such as in Vietnam), the Israeli spy chiefs on the other hand seemed to be more interested in ending wars and making peace. They say many flattering things about the ordinary Palestinian people and apparently believe that the Hamas terrorists are harming the Palestinians more than the Israelis. The film presents a picture of Israeli spy chiefs which is just about as far from what one would have expected as can possibly be imagined. All of these men clearly regard themselves as liberals. If you want to be surprised, try watching this.

chuck-526 It's very interesting to hear a portrayal of trends and events in the Israeli territories over the past almost-half century from intelligence professionals (individuals who don't stand for election and are typically somewhat wary of professional politicians). None of these six surviving former heads of Shin Bet during that period has ever participated in extensive filmed interviews before. (They are just now beginning to take on a higher political profile though, and are likely searching out good platforms. So perhaps this film isn't quite as miraculous as it's usually portrayed.) There is no "voice of God" voice-over narration. And on screen texts (more in the form of subtitles than intertitles) are very brief and sparse. What we get is the interviews themselves; the director's voice is circumscribed to the editing.The interviews of course focus on notable successes, major failures and scandals, and significant shifts in tradecraft. What must have been extensive raw footage from multiple interviews has of course been highly edited, so we see the more tightly organized result. What we see is organized thematically, even to the point of parts of different interviews that comment on the same theme being presented together. The filmmaker has been scrupulous about accurately presenting what the interviewees actually said. They all showed up for the opening of the film, which suggests they didn't feel "tricked". At the same time, it's clear the filmmaker made it very easy for them to say unexpected and controversial (maybe even "peacenik") things.Less than half the screen time is talking heads. Often the interview audio continues over photos and videos of the events from various perspectives. Particularly the group shots and the snaps of famous individuals look like someone spent lots of effort researching in newspaper and TVnews photo and video morgues. There are also lots of what appear to be surveillance videos, banks of computer monitors, and groups of microfiche readers displaying intriguing content. Soon enough the viewer realizes these are all mockups created by special effects wizardry. While some "documentary" films make a point of showing only the reality in front of their camera, and others have told their story partly with a few short snippets of effects (usually animations, often animations of maps), I'm not aware of any other documentary that uses special effects anywhere near this extensively. The length of the credits list too makes it clear this is an atypical documentary.Reading between the lines, the principal criticism of the various Israeli governments these former Shin Bet heads make is that electoral considerations have frequently prevented governments from taking an action that might have resolved an issue. I noticed two other rather startling analyses in the film: One was that while most Israeli governments have made negative statements about Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, no Israeli government of any stripe has ever taken any significant action to stop a settlement. The other is that in terms of what they actually did or didn't do (not just what they said) to the Palestinians, Menachem Begin and Golda Mier were pretty much the same.Their evaluation of their actions is almost entirely in terms of "what worked" (in the short term), and is often notably different from the common wisdom. The film overall hews very closely to this view too; it doesn't try at all to draw any sort of "bigger picture". My own view (hardly related to the film at all:-), is this "professional tunnel vision" --trying so hard to do a good job of whatever's at hand one is oblivious to any "big picture"-- is yet another example of a serious common problem in today's world. From the film, the lack of any "big picture" strategy as the Israelis have dealt with the Palestinians over the years is pretty obvious.

amit agarwal The Gatekeepers is an Oscar nominated and much awarded documentary that brings together six former heads of Shin Bet, Ami Ayalon, Avraham Shalom, Yaakov Peri, Carmi Gillon,Avi Dichter and Yuval Diskin for a free ranging discussion. Shin Bet, better known as Shabak, is responsible for internal security of Israel and its head is one of the top decision makers in the government on security matters.Only he is known to the public by name and the rest of its members are nameless faceless men and women.This documentary is inspired by Fog of War featuring Robert MacNamara, talking about his insights as US Secretary of Defense.I never thought that I would be captivated by six Israelis talking in Hebrew for 2 hours but all these six men talk with a candidness that is startling and completely engrossing.They sat at the decision making tables to which few journalists have access and knew how a continuous chain of Prime Ministers made the most difficult of decisions.They come across as hardened men whose sometimes brutal jobs gave them insights into the Palestinian problem that few have.For a layperson this documentary is an invaluable tool to gain an insight into the geopolitics of the Middle East and furthermore as a prism to look at the larger interconnected global picture.In one remarkable segment Amy Ayalon recounts how the psychology of suicide bombers was laid bare to him in a meeting with a Palestinian delegation in Paris.He was told the Palestinians were finally winning when in fact the Israelis were completely crushing them.He was told the more we suffer the more you will loose.It is a philosophy that makes the looser the winner by placing the burden of the losers suffering on the conscience of the winner. Suicide bombings of the 9/11 type only push bigger powers into a corner by making them react in a disproportionate manner, ultimately causing grief to themselves as we have seen in the aftermath of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.This documentary is a very apt companion piece to Zero Dark Thirty which was a remarkable film with documentary elements and this one is a documentary with dramatic elements, the most striking being its editing to string out a story for the layperson from free flowing discussion with security agency bosses.In its own way this documentary also examines the role of bureaucrats and technocrats in the shaping of world events a case in point being the Radcliffe line which divides India and Pakistan. It was drawn by a bureaucrat with little local knowledge and announced after 15th August,1947 to avoid a carnage, which happened anyway.This is also a commentary on democracy in an obtuse way, the varied actions of the different democratically elected Prime Ministers from Golda Meir to Netanyahu, all represent the will of the people only to an extent.The current government led by Netanyahu has been elected not on a Palestine denominated plank but an economic one. It also introduces us to the men who are the Jewish counterparts of Islamic fundamentalists, they too have long beards and wear skull caps under which hang coiffured religio-chic locks of hair.Now does the US immigration folks separate them for random checks?Probably not.Dror Moreh, the director. Another interesting thing is that while all of them had differing notions about their job while they were at it they seem to have converged onto the same point of view, namely the perusal of the two state solution combined with never ending dialogue and cessation of the settlement building activity that seems to have permanently deadlocked the peace process.In a way The Gatekeepers also makes one think about the Kashmir problem which has nuclear powers on both sides yet are as unequal in their overall power as Israel and Palestine.Perhaps India's politicians are as much to blame as the Israelis for refusing to turn the consensus solution into reality, namely turning the LOC into the international boundary.The current generation of young Indians are completely unaware of the historical context of that problem and the legitimate concerns of the actual people involved. That one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, is something lost on most Indians, who only see Pakistan through the lens of propaganda.The important question in this film is not the elusive political solution but the motivations behind the decision of these six men to face the camera.That Amy Ayalon became a minister in the government and a prominent left wing politician and persuaded the others to participate, must have played a role. So the whole film acquires a political taint, in the process becoming a voice of the Israeli left wing.This is a compromise I can live with.As Obamas makes his maiden visit to Israel ( last time he skipped Israel while on his "apology tour"of the middle east) he has said, quite diplomatically, that he is more interested in listening to the parties than offering a solution. Perhaps as his inflight entertainment on Air Force One he could have benefited from watching The Gatekeepers.This film is not just for people who are stakeholders in the Middle East conflict, but an invaluable resource for everybody.But come to think of it we are all stakeholders in that centuries old conflict.Published on my blog mostlycinema.com

Howard Schumann You would normally bet that the chances of six former directors of the Israel Internal Security Service known as Shabak or, in English, Shin Bet becoming left-leaning proponents of a peaceful solution with the Palestinians would be about as likely as Dick Cheney becoming a political consultant for MSNBC. Yet, as depicted in Dror Moreh's powerful and disturbing documentary The Gatekeepers, this is exactly what happened. The film, one of five Oscar-nominated films for Best Documentary, consists of interviews by the director with Shin Bet spokesmen: Avraham Shalom, Yaakov Peri, Carmi Gillon, Ami Ayalon, Avi Dichter, and Yuval Diskin, interspersed with newsreel footage and CGI graphical recreation of the seemingly endless conflict since 1967.Moreh asks tough questions and does not let his subjects off the hook, but there is no need to. The men are forthcoming in their candid assessment of the role they played in the Shin Bet operations which included the recruitment and use of informers, the targeting and drone attacks on suspected terrorists (sound familiar?), use of brutal torture techniques, and controlling the threat of Jewish extremists, a threat that became reality when a right-wing opponent of the Oslo peace agreements shot and killed the architect of those agreements, Nobel Peace prize winner Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin.Two horrific events are dramatized: the assassination of Palestinian terrorist Yahya Ayyash by planting an explosive device in his cell phone, and the skull bashing of two Palestinian terrorists involved in a bus hijacking after they had been subdued and captured, an action that led to the resignations by the Prime Minister and the then head of the Shin Bet. To their credit, however, the security agency called off dropping a bomb on a house filled with Hamas leaders because of the possibility of widespread collateral damage. The men were hardliners to begin with, but each, who has had to deal with the problem first-hand, has come to see the futility of an occupation that seems to lead only to an endless cycle of brutality on both sides.They insist that continuing to talk with the Palestinians is the only option left and that anything else is a dead end street. Though they favor a two-state solution, they recognize that the opposition to dismantling the settlements might cause a civil war. If you are wondering how the six could have reached the same conclusions, Ami Ayalon tells us that "The six of us reached our opinions from different personal backgrounds and different political outlooks, but we've all reached the same conclusion. Many Israelis and American Jews want to deny it, but this is our professional opinion. We're at the edge of an abyss, and if Israeli-Palestinian peace doesn't progress, it's the end of Zionism." Though these men are patriots who believed they were doing the right thing for their country and still believe that a great number of Jewish lives were saved by their actions, they also acknowledge their struggle with the moral dimensions of the job, the thin line between taking a life and saving a life. Shalom's comments are telling, "We have become cruel to ourselves but mainly to the occupation," he says. "We paid a horrible price for our military successes. We are isolated completely from our neighbors, we cannot go anywhere. We are a thorn in the side of the region." According to Ayalon, "The tragedy of Israel's public security debate is that we don't realize that we face a frustrating situation, in which "we win every battle, but we lose the war." The Gatekeepers shows a side of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that we have not seen before and, considering the ultra-secret nature of the counter-terrorist organization, it is remarkable that Moreh was even able to conduct the interviews. Yet the impact of the film has yet to make much of a difference. In his speech prepared for delivery at the Oscars in event the film won the award for Best Documentary, Moreh said, "We pray that it (the film) will echo in the corridors of power in Washington, Berlin, Paris, London, and especially in Jerusalem and Ramallah." To this date, the only echo heard is the sound of doors being closed.