Simone Bitton etches a haunting portrait of one of the most profound geographical markers of our time: the wall of separation constructed by Israel that shields it from adjacent, conflicted Palestinian territories. With masterful restraint, Bitton both abstracts her subject and extracts its key contradiction as a strangulating protector of life.Traversing various regions, Bitton interviews Palestinian and Jewish subjects (many off camera) regarding the wall's significance. These, along with an Israeli Defense official interviewed in his office, alternately decry Palestinian terrorism and alleged crimes, or term the construction of the wall a disguised Israeli landgrab. Many question the wall's efficacy and its long-range benefits, bemoaning their separation from neighbors and friends.Bitton, herself an Arab and a Jew, presents the barrier in stark visual schemes that emphasize its stultifying surface and scarring of idyllic landscapes where, previously, "sides" might not have been so distinct. This exquisite visual aridity, an austere editorial pace, and magnificently layered ambient sound create an atmosphere of stagnation and futile clamor, fairly compelling the wall to speak its own irony. It is through such sparing means that Bitton most strikingly confronts her implacable subject, its dialogue of silence implicitly debating all the things that silence signifies and conceals.— Shannon Kelley

In my opinion, a good documentary - especially one dealing with controversial political issues - should be informative and as unbiased as possible. The point should be revealing the truth. This means, in particular, having among the interviewees experts on the subject and representatives of all sides. This film is a failure in this regard. Most of the interviews included in this film consist of "men off the street" expounding on the question of peace in the Holy Land. The wall itself, the supposed subject of the film, is given no serious treatment at all. For most of the interviews, the interviewer simply waits to be approached and asks general questions such as "what do you think of the wall?" - she does not approach random people near the wall and ask them how they have been directly affected by it. Outside of one interviewee, the Israeli general in charge of the wall's construction, we have no "experts" on the subject to provide us with the wall's context (e.g. how and when the project began, whether it has been successful, which groups are for and which against the project, etc.)Outside of the interviews, a very large portion of the film consists of extended shots of uneventful scenes, such as head-on shots of the wall, construction of the wall, and people getting off a bus. These shots take up far too much time, in my opinion. It's nice to see what the wall looks like, but the 20-30 minutes of head-on filming of the wall (and only the wall) are excessive. Clearly, these shots (accompanied by Arabic music that conveys a sense of mourning) are included for the sole purpose of arousing in viewers feelings of loathing for the wall.

The film-makers went well out of their way to find ONLY the following demographics: Palestinians that have the appearance of peace-loving, solution-seeking good will, Palestinians (particularly older women and families with children) who are especially inconvenienced by the security fence, and Israelis that don't believe in the security fence, sympathize heavily with its alleged effect on Palestinians, and consider it unnecessarily divisive and/or a waste of money. Oh yes, they do put in one member of the Israeli government that does support the fence, but they do what they can to portray him as inhumane and uncaring, and ask him very leading questions that are really statements (e.g. "The wall is bad for the environment...it is destroying everything").I have no problem with any (well, most) of this being presented in the movie. However much I may disagree with the people they interview, their opinions are valid enough for a documentary. HOWEVER: there are at least two sides to the issue of Israel's security fence, and despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Israelis (and many others) support the construction of the fence and believe it is having an overall positive influence, this "documentary" does not present the opinion of even ONE such person. They even go so far as to interview an Israeli Jew who claims that "all Israelis support the fence" and are thus insane, and then stubbornly refuse to interview even one such "crazy" Israeli. Oh, and to top all this off, they set the tone for the film by interviewing a couple of young Israeli children (truly exceptions to the rule -- I've been there) that are laughing at/about their Arab neighbors from across the fence.A "documentary" is a film that explores an issue and presents a full array of facts, opinions, and perspectives. Unfortunately, this is not a documentary. This is an unabashed PROPAGANDA FILM that very clearly, very pointedly offers a battery of support for only one side of a heavily disputed, emotionally and politically charged issue. It is no more of a documentary than, say, Fahrenheit 9/11.

This documentary provides an even handed examination of the long Wall that the Israelis are building in Palestine. It allows the people living there to speak for themselves. While the situation is bad for the Palestinians, it is equally appalling for Israelis on the front line. The documentary doesn't attempt to explore solutions.It examines the personal and cultural costs of severing the Israelis from the Palestinians. Often, the long term social consequences are at odds with the short term political aims. Can the Israelis regain their sanity? Can the Palestinians find compromise? This is one of the defining struggles of the 20th Century.Postscript November 2005: It is unfortunately that some people don't understand the film's POV. The film-maker chose to focus on the presence of the wall (being built) and its human consequences. This documentary is not about the Arab-Israeli conflict (which stretches back to the British Mandate and earlier); nor about who is right or wrong. That is why it is entitled "The Wall", and not "The Intifada".Why has she chosen to ignore the roots of the conflict? One obvious reason is that any discussion of politics leads to polarization, which obscures the reality of human suffering.The Internet is such a powerful enabler. It's a pity that it cannot bestow instant wisdom on IMDb commentators.Postscript May 2006: What is a documentary? One definition is "A film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event". Therefore, a documentary has to be non-fictional. Does a documentary have to be analytical? Would a long look at the Wall serve us better than a recital of the antagonists' cases?In the western tradition, there is a clear sense of right and wrong. We attain enlightenment through a careful analysis of the facts. The truth allows us to judge a case and declare for one claimant over another. This judgmental approach works when there is a clear difference between right and wrong. For example, the Nazis had to be opposed because they turned German nationalism (rational) into the pathology of ultra-nationalism (irrational). In retrospect, the Nazis are roundly condemned for the consequences of their pathology, though there is blame enough for those who did not oppose the rise of ultra-nationalism.Western rationality fails in the case of a tragedy, where right opposes right. That is, the right of the Israeli State to exist against the right of displaced Palestinians to return home. No analytical documentary can help us here. No legalist judgement can deliver a 'fair' verdict.What is the intention of the film-maker? The Wall itself is the symbol of the pathology that has sprung up in the Palestinian-Zionist conflict. Perhaps, empathy will transcend judgement, race, ideology and hatred. Is that focused enough?