The problems with representation in documentaries like Slingshot Hip Hop and Return to Homs is in the inherently limited capacity of a film to portray complex issues in less than two hours. Both films are exceptionally one-sided. With the lack of representation from the opposition, documentarians and their subjects are able to carve opinions about their antagonists for the audience. These sorts of films do not let the audience determine their own opinions about the subject matter.
Slingshot Hip Hop tells audiences that Palestinians are being oppressed by Israelis, that no one in Israel trusts Palestinians, and that the Palestinians are powerless against the Israeli advances into their homesteads. All of this could be true, and much of it clearly is; the documentary offers evidence of the hardships that the Palestinians go through, such as bombed out apartment complexes and people eyeing anyone speaking something other than Hebrew. The purpose of the documentary is to garner support for the Palestinian artists who are using hip-hop and rap to protest their effective imprisonment, and in the greater sense to extend that support to Palestinians in general. However, Slingshot Hip Hop only focuses on members of the Palestinian hip-hop demographic. We never get any input from Israelis on the topic. There is no equal representation. On the one hand, this is problematic in giving the audience all the information that they need to make up their decisions. On the other hand, Palestinians get next to no media exposure. Many people don’t know anything about their situation, maybe having heard the words “Gaza,” and “West Bank,” in the news but having no context to what those places are actually like.
In Return to Homs, the situation is similar. We follow Baset and Ossama, two rebel insurgents fighting against government forces loyal to al-Assad. Similarly to Slingshot Hip Hop, we never once get to hear from the opposing side of the conflict. We’re only allowed to see the rebels fighting, hear about them dying, and see atrocities committed by government forces. Understandably, this is important information for a viewer to have. We’re offered the opportunity to understand the daily life of anti-government forces in Syria and see the tragedies that befall them, something that never reaches mainstream Western news. Return to Homs presents a perspective that is nearly impossible to see without being in a warzone yourself.
The problem with this representation is that we don’t get a chance to fully understand the people that Baset is fighting with. Many of the anti-government forces in Syria are religious extremist groups fighting to establish a caliphate, not to overthrow a corrupt leader and establish a just government. Baset himself never joined any of these jihadist militant groups, but a major part of the conflict in Syria involves those organizations. Without a point of view capable of being critical of the subjects, these sorts of documentaries require viewers to seek out other sources of information to get the full picture.
