Exodus, the 1960 film based on Leon Uris’ novel, is a dramatic retelling of the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. In his article “Rereading Leon Uris’ ‘Exodus’: a disquieting experience”, Alan Elsner quotes David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel: “As a literary work, [Exodus] isn’t much. But as a piece of propaganda, it’s the greatest thing ever written about Israel.” In order to support this assessment, I will prove that Exodus has negligible rhetorical value and functions better as propaganda for the state of Israel. The use of various rhetorical devices and film tactics determine the rhetorical value of the film. The medium of film provides rhetorical value by making it more accessible to a broader public. This, of
…show more content…
Max Nordau, in his writing “Zionism”, explains that new Jews “work methodically with a view to rendering the Jewish people once more a normal one, which lives on its own soil, and accomplishes all economical, intellectual, moral, and political functions of a civilized nation.” This is a perfect description of Ari, who tirelessly works throughout Exodus to pave the way for the Jewish people to establish themselves in what would become Israel. Ari is the “strong male lead” character trope incarnate, which means that he is all good, all the time. Every protagonist is some variation of this trope, which creates a strong divide between the “good” protagonists and “evil” …show more content…
Exodus is aggressively unambiguous, painting the world in black and white, good and evil. By not allowing any grey area to exist, the film pushes a very propagandist tone. In doing so, the film demonizes the Palestinian inhabitants in what would become the state of Israel. This parallels mainstream, Western Zionism where Ashkenazi Jews either ignored or condemned the Arab population in Palestine. Elie Eliachar, a Sephardic leader in Jerusalem, criticized mainstream Zionism of “the failure to establish, from the start, direct contact with [the local Arab population], mutual interests in education, social work, economic matters, etc., [they] estranged us completely from the Arab community.” Eliachar claims that the Zionists actions ignored warnings from the Sephardic community, who knew the Arabs, and the resulting actions bred fear, which would lead to violence between the two communities. Exodus falsely portrays the resulting violence by framing the film in a way that removes context
Max Nordau, in his writing “Zionism”, explains that new Jews “work methodically with a view to rendering the Jewish people once more a normal one, which lives on its own soil, and accomplishes all economical, intellectual, moral, and political functions of a civilized nation.” This is a perfect description of Ari, who tirelessly works throughout Exodus to pave the way for the Jewish people to establish themselves in what would become Israel. Ari is the “strong male lead” character trope incarnate, which means that he is all good, all the time. Every protagonist is some variation of this trope, which creates a strong divide between the “good” protagonists and “evil” …show more content…
Exodus is aggressively unambiguous, painting the world in black and white, good and evil. By not allowing any grey area to exist, the film pushes a very propagandist tone. In doing so, the film demonizes the Palestinian inhabitants in what would become the state of Israel. This parallels mainstream, Western Zionism where Ashkenazi Jews either ignored or condemned the Arab population in Palestine. Elie Eliachar, a Sephardic leader in Jerusalem, criticized mainstream Zionism of “the failure to establish, from the start, direct contact with [the local Arab population], mutual interests in education, social work, economic matters, etc., [they] estranged us completely from the Arab community.” Eliachar claims that the Zionists actions ignored warnings from the Sephardic community, who knew the Arabs, and the resulting actions bred fear, which would lead to violence between the two communities. Exodus falsely portrays the resulting violence by framing the film in a way that removes context