Ken Loach speaks at the Durham Miners’ Gala, UK, on 8 July.
View more sharing
options
Shares
1,461
Peter Beaumont in Jerusalem and Hannah Ellis-Petersen
Friday 14 July 2017 18.11 BST Last modified on Friday
14 July 2017 22.00 BST
Ken Loach has been accused of seeing himself as exempt from
the cultural boycott of Israel that he promotes, after claims that he allowed
his films to be distributed in the country without objection.
Loach has vocally condemned artists who perform in Israel as
supporting an “apartheid regime” and his long-standing producer insisted it was
down to a “mistake” that the Palme d’Or winning I, Daniel Blake is currently
showing in Israeli cinemas.
The contentious issue of Loach’s films being screened in
Israel emerged after the director’s searing condemnation of Radiohead’s
decision to play a concert in Tel Aviv later this month. Loach accused the band
of ignoring Palestinian communities and supporting a system of apartheid by
refusing to commit to the cultural boycott of Israel.
Rebecca O’Brien, Loach’s producer, said the distribution
company Wild Bunch, had done the deal “accidentally” and without the knowledge
of Loach or his production company Sixteen Films.
“We have asked Wild Bunch before not to sell to Israel,”
O’Brien said. “But what happened this time – and what has happened before – is
that during Cannes, things happen very fast and a junior member of the company
went and sold it to Israel in the heat of the moment, forgetting we had asked
for it not to be sold there.”
Claims that the distribution rights for Israel were sold
“accidentally” were however dismissed as “absurd” by Loach’s long-term Israeli
distributor Guy Shani, the head of Shani Films and also the owner of Israel’s
Lev cinema chain.
Shani told the Guardian he had known Loach and his producer
for years, paying them money “every year”, and had never heard any objections.
Advertisement
“Since 1993, when we bought Raining Stones, we bought every
film apart from two. We never faced any trouble buying and the audience at the
Lev cinemas is very open-minded and believes in free speech. So he is he’s
punishing the wrong people or trying to.
“I can’t tell you how absurd this is. We’ve been showing his
movies for years. I have been paying him money every year. His latest film I,
Daniel Blake has been really successful in Israel. So successful that we had
some private events with Israeli government institutions where they booked the
film to show to employees because of interest in the subject.”
He added: “It is a conundrum that has puzzled me too. It
seems that Ken Loach feels himself exempt from the cultural boycott.”
Shani also dismissed the notion that he would distribute a
film in Israel over the director and producer’s objections.
“You have to understand how this works in the film business.
You don’t sell a film to someone a director doesn’t want a film sold to. It is
a serious business. You have a list of regions and they approve country by
country and then you need to get approval by producer and director.
“And if you have a relationship, a sales agent with a
director who is really important to you, of course you don’t sell against their
wishes.”
Loach has previously refused to have a film shown at the
Edinburgh film festival because another film sponsored by the Israeli embassy
was on the programme, and tried to withdraw from the Sydney film festival for
similar reasons.
O’Brien conceded that this was not the first time that
Loach’s films had been sold to Israeli film distributors by Wild Bunch, and
that similar issues had arisen over Jimmy’s Hall and The Angels’ Share. She
said Loach’s company had “no influence” over where the film went and while
“mistakes had been made” the responsibility lay with Wild Bunch.
Advertisement
“It’s the second or third time it’s happened, which is most
unfortunate,” she said. “But it’s because in the heat of the moment you’re not
concentrating who you’re selling to: they just want to sell it to as many
places as possible, as fast as possible and mistakes are made.
“We have no influence over it at the time – we just say: ‘Do
your job, sell the film,’ and then in retrospect we realised: ‘Oh God, the film
has been sold to Israel, that’s really bad.’ We’re pissed off with them but
once you’ve sold it you can’t backtrack.”
Vincent Maraval, head of Wild Bunch, also jumped to Loach’s
defence. “We are the international sales agent of Daniel Blake and Ken asked us
not to sell the film to Israel. We did it against his will,” he tweeted on
Friday.
O’Brien agreed that, after the incidents with previous films
and Loach’s firm stance on the issue of the cultural boycott, it would have
“absolutely” made sense to have a specific clause in their contract with Wild
Bunch specifying that I, Daniel Blake would not end up in Israeli cinemas.
“The thing is that our relationship with Wild Bunch is very
ad hoc. But absolutely that should be done. That’s my job, not Ken’s job, to
see that it didn’t happen again.
“Ken is seen to be the sinner in all of this but it’s me
that put Ken in this difficult position by being sloppy.”
Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment,
Sanctions movement for Palestinian rights, said it did not expect artists who
heed their cultural boycott to “do anything beyond their control to isolate
Israel’s regime of occupation and apartheid”.
He added: “Inspired by the cultural boycott of apartheid
South Africa, BDS expects and appeals to conscientious artists to refrain from
performing in Israel or participating in events that are sponsored by Israel or
by entities that are complicit in Israel’s egregious human rights violations
until it meets its obligations under international law.”
Since you’re here …
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the
Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast.
And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to
keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to ask for
your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of
time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our
perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
I appreciate there not being a paywall: it is more
democratic for the media to be available for all and not a commodity to be
purchased by a few. I’m happy to make a contribution so others with less means
still have access to information.
Thomasine F-R.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to
support it, our future would be much more secure.
This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.