The Other Son (2012)

So much average

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

For some reason, European films only use subtitles when the characters are not speaking in English. As the actors usually have strong accents they are unintelligible when they do use English. I also had a feeling that even when the actors were speaking in Arabic, French or Hebrew we were not always getting subtitles. Captioning was greatly missed.The other big problem was the miscasting. Jules Sutrik does not look Palestinian, being too light skinned, and did not look at all like his biological brother Bilal. Likewise, Mehdi Dehbi was just a little too dark and more strongly resembled Bilal than either of his Jewish 'parents'. The film would have worked much better if the actors had alternated the roles, as it was I found the miscasting distracting to the point of being unbelievable, rather like a vanity piece where an actor shows off by playing against type or sex. The switched at birth plot is as old as Methuselah and a favorite of Shakespeare, Gilbert and Sullivan and many others. Although it was interesting, the storyline became very corny at times with the families coming together just a little too quickly.

This is a very interesting film that raises many questions about identity in general, not just in the context in Israel. What makes us who we are, our blood or our upbringing? And what happens if we're adopted, is there something, anything inherent in our being that makes us who we are despite the people around us? Purely as a piece of cinematography, it's a good film and well acted. As a social comment, or as a piece of art that raises relevant questions about human social identity, it's a lot more. And what happens in a situation where babies are mixed up, and raised outside the social context of their birth parents? How should both families proceed once they find out about the mix-up? Essentially, a mistake can brings people together. The outstanding problem, remains the society the families live in.

This is about the journey of of two young men from a unfortunate beginning to a life to cherish. It is not a film about two families, in the end it is about the whole world, about the human kind in totality. The story is set in the perspective of Israel-Palestine conflict. The two young men are forced into a state of severe identity crisis. They question their existence in society. But ultimately they find the answer. If they are living each-others' lives, then they should do that for the best. That is the affirmation of human capability for good. The conflict between nations is a manipulated enmity, there is no rivalry among common men. This is the inner social message conveyed.

A hospital mix up results in an Israeli army colonel and his wife raising a Palestinian baby as their son, while a Palestinian family raise the Israeli baby as their son. The film deals with the discovery of the administrative error, while raising the obvious question - why apartheid is alive and well in Israel.OK. Let's deal with the "elephant in the room" criticism of the happy (or at least positive), Hollywood ending out the outset. David Stratton (ABC TV Australian 20/4/13) summed it up..."The resolution Levy proposes isn't  entirely satisfactory however and there is a nagging feeling that this scenario is a little bit too schematic"Remember, it was the Sabras who finally imposed their reluctance to obey orders and break the bones of rock throwing Interfada demonstrators that changed the way these matters were policed. Why could it not be the same Sabras who take on their elders over the way the country is governed?There is a great quote in a 1998 back packers tourist guide that makes this idea plausible"Israel adores its children they are indulged, undisciplined, ill mannered and forgiven by everyone.Even dare to mention that they might be a nuisance and eyebrows will be raised. Somehow their exuberance and enthusiasm, their noisy boisterousness, their robust tanned health and energy all seem to symbolize the state itself. Israel too is young and new and vulnerable. But above all the children of today are alive. Even now when Israelis look at the children they are reminded of a dark past and an uncertain futureSurely no film has captured so dramatically the police state mentality that pervades Israeli culture, and not just at the border crossings. Who says the next generation can't be involved in knocking down (both figuratively and literally) the walls so evocatively depicted in this film. It is the mothers who have garnered the most notice for the quality of their acting. Both Emmanuelle Devos (all grown up since I last saw her in "Read My Lips") and Areen Omari depict a near erotic delight in stroking their estranged sons faces as they are re-united over the course of the film. It is quietly powerful stuff in what is essentially a comedy of manners. The other cast members deliver too. And the cinematography brings the viewer right into the localesI found myself caring less and less about the criticism of the unlikely resolution as I thought about the film more and more. Like that other outsider's film (Spielberg's "Munich") this film may well change attitudes in Israel, this time for the better. A satisfying and quietly enjoyable film about hope