Having just completed the film, “Waltz of Bashir” today in class, I noticed that Ari France used a certain element of the film often, and that was Children. The most obvious example of this was, in fact, the role of children in the Massacre shown in detail towards the end of the film. In this case, innocent children were the victims, being slaughtered in large numbers, along with other civilians that posed no threat other than that of their Palestinian nationality. This, of course was just a disgraceful cover-up statement that would eventually prove to be the mission of genocide. In this case, how did Ari France want the audience to react? It goes without saying, that viewers would be undoubtedly appalled, outraged, and just plain, disturbed.
However, has everyone forgotten about the scene in the forest? (Using the interesting selection of classical music in this scene to denote a quiet, almost eerily peaceful setting) The scene begins with the soldiers patrolling the forest. A mere child appears holding an RPG and attacks the group. The child is then shot to death, without hesitation by the soldiers. Now, how did Ari France expect the audience to react in THIS case? Using the unexpected element of a child soldier completely throws the audience into an ambivalence of emotions, and maybe even confusion. Especially when considering the scene that was mentioned before, is Ari France implying that children are not all benevolent in this story, like we had thought they were? Perhaps children can be just as malicious as the soldiers. What I believe is one of the most significant details about this scene, was that the child was not wearing a soldier’s uniform. The child had appeared in a mere t-shirt, shorts, and sneakers, which portrays the image of an everyday child on the street. This detail is possibly implying that the child was not forced to fight nor attack the soldiers, but that he may have done so on his own free will. How could the child have gotten his hands on such a weapon? Possibly during war, obtaining weapons become far easier than usual, therefore a child possessing a weapon, is not at all unusual.
Also, just as soldiers are the fighters, perhaps this scene implies that children have just as much potential to become the fighters as well, especially those who have grown up during war-time and experienced death among their loved ones. Children can grow up to be spiteful with a thirst for revenge; doesn’t this ultimately make the perfect soldier? A motive to fight? This can be viewed as a serious threat to those in power.
Finally, the last–yet very subtle–example of how Art France makes use of children in this movie, is that of the scenes in which it is the present and the main character is talking to his friends, primarily the psychologist. When visiting the psychologist’s apartment, the psychologist’s children can be seen in the background, playing, walking around, and even napping in a hammock. These scenes have a sense of serene and innocuousness, and the children seem almost untouchable. It is hard to juxtapose these children with the others in the film. Especially, when Carmi is describing his son, who loves to play with a toy gun. Even with a playful approach to fighting, the boy is still so distantly detached from the Palestinian children. I believe this is something Ari France wanted us to think about.