A few weeks ago I saw a screening of Marco Orsini's documentary Dinner At The No-Go's, in which he and producer Bilal Mekkaoui go to a few different countries and throw dinner parties. Based on the premise that you should never talk politics and religion at dinner, they set out to do just that. Specifically, the pair planned to have these discussions over dinner in several of the countries on the U.S. State Department's "no-go" travel warnings list.
It's an interesting premise, and a well-intentioned project with a lot of potential. But, unfortunately, Orsini has missed the mark. The film's format is on one hand very straightforward and on the other fairly illogical.
Each dinner party is introduced by the host, the menu explained, and all of the guests introduced by captions detailing their names, occupations, and religions. That's where the regularity ends. The film lacks consistency and doesn't make any attempt to explain that lack. There are two dinners and an awkward lunch at a refugee camp in Lebanon, a dinner in Jordan, and one in Israel. Well and good, these are the locations we expected. But they are bookended by the opening dinner in Monaco and a closing one in Georgia. Why? No explanation is offered other than that Orsini is American and lives in Monaco. The topics of conversation are not even similar enough for us to draw our own conclusions.
During the Q&A session that followed the screening, the biggest criticism of Dinner at the No-Go's from the crowd in Woodstock was that all of the dinner guests were wealthy. That was foremost in my mind as I was watching as well (though I wasn't prepared for the hippies' rage against classism). Orsini's response was that media coverage of the Arab world doesn't usually portray the elites and we aren't exposed to people over there that are "more like us" (I paraphrase). Sure, that's a fine response, and true. If that was indeed the purpose of this film though, it should have been made more explicit from the get-go. Instead, we get a whole bunch of rich people and then a few Palestinian refugees.
The inclusion of the refugee camp was random and the portrayal slightly insulting. The crew goes to lunch with a group of Palestinian seniors in one of Lebanon's crowded and poorly- maintained refugee camps. Almost the entire conversation there is between Orsini and a Turkish aide worker, not the refugees. The only thing we hear from them is their ages when they left Palestine. If the film is meant to portray elite classes, why is this lunch included? If the film's intent is rather to offer a more complete picture of Arab popular opinion, why not talk to the actual refugees about their opinions on religion and politics?
To add insult to injury, there was no follow-up dinner in Palestine, and no Palestinians present at the Israeli dinner. The issue was talked about a lot in the film, so it would have been more than prudent of the filmmakers to let the Palestinians themselves weigh in.
Another glaring omission was the Arab citizens of Israel. The Israeli dinner included a few Mizrachim but was mostly Oshkenazi elites. Orsini claimed it was split down the middle but what that split was didn't come across in the conversation they chose to show. One-state, two-state doesn't really cut it anymore; the conversation has moved much farther along. Orsini said that it was difficult to find any Arabs to attend the Israel dinner, and that may have been the case with that particular crowd, but he could have easily looked elsewhere. Being that they make up 20% of Israel's population and are a too-often overlooked minority, they would make a very important addition. Side note: for the next time, I suggest including some of the groups that make up the Coalition Against Racism in Israel. Partner organizations draw from the Arab, Mizrachi, Ethiopian, Russian, and Reform Jewish communities, among others.
Perhaps my criticisms are unfair since I've spent some time living in the Arab world. I admit, almost nothing I heard in the film shocked me in the least. I found the conversations extremely predictable, but someone less familiar with the region might have gotten more out of them. I do think this format has a lot of potential, though, and I agree that the web is the best forum for it. More of these dinners should be hosted around the world and the discussions should be shown in more depth rather than in the short, hyper-edited versions in which they appear in the film.
Dinner at the No-Go's, all in all, was a good start.
It's an interesting premise, and a well-intentioned project with a lot of potential. But, unfortunately, Orsini has missed the mark. The film's format is on one hand very straightforward and on the other fairly illogical.
Each dinner party is introduced by the host, the menu explained, and all of the guests introduced by captions detailing their names, occupations, and religions. That's where the regularity ends. The film lacks consistency and doesn't make any attempt to explain that lack. There are two dinners and an awkward lunch at a refugee camp in Lebanon, a dinner in Jordan, and one in Israel. Well and good, these are the locations we expected. But they are bookended by the opening dinner in Monaco and a closing one in Georgia. Why? No explanation is offered other than that Orsini is American and lives in Monaco. The topics of conversation are not even similar enough for us to draw our own conclusions.
During the Q&A session that followed the screening, the biggest criticism of Dinner at the No-Go's from the crowd in Woodstock was that all of the dinner guests were wealthy. That was foremost in my mind as I was watching as well (though I wasn't prepared for the hippies' rage against classism). Orsini's response was that media coverage of the Arab world doesn't usually portray the elites and we aren't exposed to people over there that are "more like us" (I paraphrase). Sure, that's a fine response, and true. If that was indeed the purpose of this film though, it should have been made more explicit from the get-go. Instead, we get a whole bunch of rich people and then a few Palestinian refugees.
The inclusion of the refugee camp was random and the portrayal slightly insulting. The crew goes to lunch with a group of Palestinian seniors in one of Lebanon's crowded and poorly- maintained refugee camps. Almost the entire conversation there is between Orsini and a Turkish aide worker, not the refugees. The only thing we hear from them is their ages when they left Palestine. If the film is meant to portray elite classes, why is this lunch included? If the film's intent is rather to offer a more complete picture of Arab popular opinion, why not talk to the actual refugees about their opinions on religion and politics?
To add insult to injury, there was no follow-up dinner in Palestine, and no Palestinians present at the Israeli dinner. The issue was talked about a lot in the film, so it would have been more than prudent of the filmmakers to let the Palestinians themselves weigh in.
Another glaring omission was the Arab citizens of Israel. The Israeli dinner included a few Mizrachim but was mostly Oshkenazi elites. Orsini claimed it was split down the middle but what that split was didn't come across in the conversation they chose to show. One-state, two-state doesn't really cut it anymore; the conversation has moved much farther along. Orsini said that it was difficult to find any Arabs to attend the Israel dinner, and that may have been the case with that particular crowd, but he could have easily looked elsewhere. Being that they make up 20% of Israel's population and are a too-often overlooked minority, they would make a very important addition. Side note: for the next time, I suggest including some of the groups that make up the Coalition Against Racism in Israel. Partner organizations draw from the Arab, Mizrachi, Ethiopian, Russian, and Reform Jewish communities, among others.
Perhaps my criticisms are unfair since I've spent some time living in the Arab world. I admit, almost nothing I heard in the film shocked me in the least. I found the conversations extremely predictable, but someone less familiar with the region might have gotten more out of them. I do think this format has a lot of potential, though, and I agree that the web is the best forum for it. More of these dinners should be hosted around the world and the discussions should be shown in more depth rather than in the short, hyper-edited versions in which they appear in the film.
Dinner at the No-Go's, all in all, was a good start.