A documentary that brings up heat and conflicts, Hot House shows us exactly what went on behind those prison gates. Shimon Dotan, showed each individual, regarding their beliefs and story. Whether if it was an eye roll, or disgust, the camera had no limits, and that is what a well made documentary shows. Many innocent and guilty prisoners were interviewed, everything was revealed, from heart full innocent stories, to political media press on the T.V., to interviews with guilty murderers. It's suggested the film is not good, because it gives a ''headache'' First off, if you didn't want to continue watching, don't watch, but don't accuse the film to be causing "headaches". It's not in the directors hands that these unfortunate people are the way they are, the director is only there to tell the story, not hold back. As they say "don't shoot the messenger" you cannot blame the people behind the film, because of the horrible, and terrible immoral acts these terrorists have done. The film is showing ''how they are, and how they think'', so we have some sort of understanding on why they're suicide bombers or why they think it's a way to get their message heard, and the film exists to show us that, and to remind us that there is more terrorism, and plotting everyday! As they say a good film is always controversial. What these few prisoners did with no remorse, are weak people who will get what they deserve in time. It's sad to say their children will grow into terrorism because of their irrational, uneducated, and hopeless acts. I pray for the families who had their losses in the tragedy. But don't turn away from Hot House because of what it shows. They say its hard to watch truth, well I rather know truth, than pretend otherwise.
4 Reviews
A note from the parents of a victim
myrtleduturtle9 July 2007
July 2nd's New York Times carries a review of this film that goes inside Israeli prisons and examines the lives of Palestinian prisoners. We're not recommending the film or the review. But we do want to share our feelings with you about the beaming female face that adorns the article.
The film is produced by HBO. So it's presumably HBO's publicity department that was responsible for creating and distributing a glamor-style photograph of a smiling, contented-looking young woman in her twenties to promote the movie.
That female is our child's murderer. She was sentenced to sixteen life sentences, or 320 years, which she is serving in an Israeli jail. Fifteen people were killed and more than a hundred maimed and injured by the actions of this attractive person and her associates.
Neither the New York Times nor HBO are likely to give even a moment's attention to the victims of the barbarians who destroyed the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem and the lives of so many victims. So we would be grateful if you would pass along this link to some pictures of our daughter whose name was Malki. She was unable to reach her twenties - Hamas saw to that.
Though she was only fifteen years old when her life was stolen from her and from us, we think Malki was a beautiful young woman, living a beautiful life. We ask your help so that other people - far fewer than the number who will see the New York Times, of course - can know about her. Please ask your friends to look at the pictures - some of the very few we have - of our murdered daughter. They are at: http://www.kerenmalki.org/photo.htm
And remind them of what the woman in the Israeli prison - the woman smiling so happily in the New York Times - said last year. "I'm not sorry for what I did. We'll become free from the occupation and then I will be free from prison."
With so many voices demanding that Israel release its terrorist prisoners, small wonder she's smiling.
With greetings from Jerusalem, Frimet and Arnold Roth On behalf of Keren Malki
The film is produced by HBO. So it's presumably HBO's publicity department that was responsible for creating and distributing a glamor-style photograph of a smiling, contented-looking young woman in her twenties to promote the movie.
That female is our child's murderer. She was sentenced to sixteen life sentences, or 320 years, which she is serving in an Israeli jail. Fifteen people were killed and more than a hundred maimed and injured by the actions of this attractive person and her associates.
Neither the New York Times nor HBO are likely to give even a moment's attention to the victims of the barbarians who destroyed the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem and the lives of so many victims. So we would be grateful if you would pass along this link to some pictures of our daughter whose name was Malki. She was unable to reach her twenties - Hamas saw to that.
Though she was only fifteen years old when her life was stolen from her and from us, we think Malki was a beautiful young woman, living a beautiful life. We ask your help so that other people - far fewer than the number who will see the New York Times, of course - can know about her. Please ask your friends to look at the pictures - some of the very few we have - of our murdered daughter. They are at: http://www.kerenmalki.org/photo.htm
And remind them of what the woman in the Israeli prison - the woman smiling so happily in the New York Times - said last year. "I'm not sorry for what I did. We'll become free from the occupation and then I will be free from prison."
With so many voices demanding that Israel release its terrorist prisoners, small wonder she's smiling.
With greetings from Jerusalem, Frimet and Arnold Roth On behalf of Keren Malki
Hot House
secretfragileskies12 April 2010
"Hot House"converges with Edward Said's writing on the construction of identity. The spectator is given an"insider" perspective of the ideology behind the Palestinian conflict which lies in construction of a national identity, disrupting viewer expectations. I believe its intention is to engage the viewer in a dialogue which may lead to reshaping the way the conflict is perceived. Dotan disturbs our deeply embedded "western" perceptions.
I do not suggest that I sympathize with suicide bombing. To me it is an act of tragic desperation which I believe both sides realize it to be. As one prisoner notes, children are killed on both sides. I see the film's intention as showing the conflict up against a wall. As Edward Said notes, the resolution may reside in a new construction. The film brings up critical ideological considerations and offers insight on the parameters of the struggle. The detachment of the failed suicide bombers or planners is seen as part of a battle for statehood rather than a desire to indiscriminately kill others. The spectator also witnesses the impulsive testimonies of younger Palestinians willing to die or as one spoke, to sacrifice his children for the cause. It is viewed by the prisoners as a war where, as in all war, killing is justified. Since the Palestinians are outnumbered by the Israelis and cannot fight a war against Israeli soldiers, the prisoners explain their decision to act against civilians. The unchanging prison environment reflects the static conditions of the occupation and perhaps suggests the length of time the 10,000 imprisoned Palestinians have waited for national liberation.
The camera invades the personal space of the interviewed prisoners and jailers. We are witness to their humanity, the complexities and contradictions of a people, with all of their hope, anger, flaws, and patience. Even with Ahlam Tamimi, the camera exposes the depth of the sorrow she attempts to conceal behind her inflammatory smile. These close-ups are the focus of the film but they are juxtaposed with long shots: when the prisoners are at prayer, when the families visit, or when a group of men are participating in an interview or watching television. These serve to expose the cohesiveness of the prisoners united by family, by religion yet willing to sacrifice everything for statehood. To me, this film in conjunction with reading Orientalism suggests the need to view the struggle in the Middle East as one for social meaning, a reconstruction of identity which has absorbed European and American models (cultural elite, consumerism) and not address the conflict entirely as the "power politics" of an adversarial, "new empire of evil." The repetition and speeding up of the camera in the last testimonials suggest that this situation will continue although faces may change. The prisoners and their Israeli jailers can come to understanding (of course the Israelis still hold power here), but the myths are maintained in service to the patterns of power and dominance outside the walls of the Be'er Sheba Prison.
I do not suggest that I sympathize with suicide bombing. To me it is an act of tragic desperation which I believe both sides realize it to be. As one prisoner notes, children are killed on both sides. I see the film's intention as showing the conflict up against a wall. As Edward Said notes, the resolution may reside in a new construction. The film brings up critical ideological considerations and offers insight on the parameters of the struggle. The detachment of the failed suicide bombers or planners is seen as part of a battle for statehood rather than a desire to indiscriminately kill others. The spectator also witnesses the impulsive testimonies of younger Palestinians willing to die or as one spoke, to sacrifice his children for the cause. It is viewed by the prisoners as a war where, as in all war, killing is justified. Since the Palestinians are outnumbered by the Israelis and cannot fight a war against Israeli soldiers, the prisoners explain their decision to act against civilians. The unchanging prison environment reflects the static conditions of the occupation and perhaps suggests the length of time the 10,000 imprisoned Palestinians have waited for national liberation.
The camera invades the personal space of the interviewed prisoners and jailers. We are witness to their humanity, the complexities and contradictions of a people, with all of their hope, anger, flaws, and patience. Even with Ahlam Tamimi, the camera exposes the depth of the sorrow she attempts to conceal behind her inflammatory smile. These close-ups are the focus of the film but they are juxtaposed with long shots: when the prisoners are at prayer, when the families visit, or when a group of men are participating in an interview or watching television. These serve to expose the cohesiveness of the prisoners united by family, by religion yet willing to sacrifice everything for statehood. To me, this film in conjunction with reading Orientalism suggests the need to view the struggle in the Middle East as one for social meaning, a reconstruction of identity which has absorbed European and American models (cultural elite, consumerism) and not address the conflict entirely as the "power politics" of an adversarial, "new empire of evil." The repetition and speeding up of the camera in the last testimonials suggest that this situation will continue although faces may change. The prisoners and their Israeli jailers can come to understanding (of course the Israelis still hold power here), but the myths are maintained in service to the patterns of power and dominance outside the walls of the Be'er Sheba Prison.
Why did I get a headache watching this film?
flaming-abandon19 February 2010
This film gave me a headache. I assumed that it would be a revealing film. One that revealed some truths about the Palestinian Israeli situation but Hot House presents its small minded truths out of context and is dangerously misleading because of it.
This film is as close to a crime as a documentary film can get.
It dehumanizes the prisoners by exploiting their situation, their anger and their experience without giving more than one 5 second grab in the entire documentary to explain their anger and their experience. - The Occupation. There was no explanation, just the mention of it. This film 'pretends' to be interested in the prisoners and yet does nothing to voice their political views, only their hurt and anger, their weakness and exhaustion.
According to Hot House the prisoners (all of them) did what they did because they 'hate' Jews. No other reason. This was painful because rather innocently I kept waiting for the film to deepen its resolve. It was all so shamelessly misleading.
Instead this film sensationalizes the fact that when in prison, these people organize themselves. The horror of it all. Most of them are jailed for non violent human rights activism, not that Hot House lets you know that, and horror of all horrors when inside they group up politically and also for educational reasons.
Does the director give any breath to the simplicity of their desire for freedom. No he does not. He instead exploits the sexy lady from Jenin who has seen more murder than the writer of the above review, who sadly lost her child. I say this with all sincerity. It is a tragedy and should not happen, but how dare this film ignore what makes these people commit acts of war. How dare this film judge these people as if they are ordinary citizens in a free country when they are murdered under the guise of such words as 'military incursion, terrorist cleansing operations, and the biggest umbrella of all, the quintessential definition of vagueness - Israeli Security reasons.
To see a film like this winning human rights awards. convinces me that the world is spinning in the wrong direction.
Hot House was made to fertilize more racism by telling small truths without revealing the big ones ...Bravo!
This film is as close to a crime as a documentary film can get.
It dehumanizes the prisoners by exploiting their situation, their anger and their experience without giving more than one 5 second grab in the entire documentary to explain their anger and their experience. - The Occupation. There was no explanation, just the mention of it. This film 'pretends' to be interested in the prisoners and yet does nothing to voice their political views, only their hurt and anger, their weakness and exhaustion.
According to Hot House the prisoners (all of them) did what they did because they 'hate' Jews. No other reason. This was painful because rather innocently I kept waiting for the film to deepen its resolve. It was all so shamelessly misleading.
Instead this film sensationalizes the fact that when in prison, these people organize themselves. The horror of it all. Most of them are jailed for non violent human rights activism, not that Hot House lets you know that, and horror of all horrors when inside they group up politically and also for educational reasons.
Does the director give any breath to the simplicity of their desire for freedom. No he does not. He instead exploits the sexy lady from Jenin who has seen more murder than the writer of the above review, who sadly lost her child. I say this with all sincerity. It is a tragedy and should not happen, but how dare this film ignore what makes these people commit acts of war. How dare this film judge these people as if they are ordinary citizens in a free country when they are murdered under the guise of such words as 'military incursion, terrorist cleansing operations, and the biggest umbrella of all, the quintessential definition of vagueness - Israeli Security reasons.
To see a film like this winning human rights awards. convinces me that the world is spinning in the wrong direction.
Hot House was made to fertilize more racism by telling small truths without revealing the big ones ...Bravo!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
