A film seeking to create change on a difficult issue should not try to provide a definitive historical overview, nor present an op-ed style argument.
Non-violence is not glamorous, and you don't see the effects right away.
When I was 17, I came to the U.S. to study Middle Eastern history and politics at Columbia University.
History was always the subject that I loved the most, and I felt it gave me the deepest sense of our humanity and who we are and where we're going.
Violence and nonviolence are, after all, two different forms of theater. They both depend and thrive on the response of an audience.
When conflicts end non-violently, it's more likely that the result will be longer-lasting, democratic societies.
At the heart of any successful film is a powerful story. And a story should be just that: a narrative with a beginning, middle, and end, powerful protagonists that audiences can identify with, and a dramatic arc that is able to capture and hold viewers' intellectual and emotional attention.
Violent resistance and nonviolent resistance share one very important thing in common: They are both a form of theater seeking an audience to their cause.
For any filmmaker who has just released a film and who is experiencing some measure of success, the temptation can be great to respond to every screening request that comes in.
For un-subscribe please check the mail footer.