Every filmmaker tends to be driven by a different motivation for the stories they tell, and even those with the most diverse and versatile careers tend to have specific themes or ideas that flow through their body of work, establishing a very clear understanding of what they represent as artists. In the case of Elia Suleiman, this is slightly more difficult to discern, primarily because he is not a filmmaker that produces work which is easily understood. Having only made four features across his decades-long career, he has proven himself to be one of the more enigmatic contemporary directors, and where each of his films becomes something of an event, especially since they are often celebrated for their forthright originality and actively engaging tone, which is often enough to help ease us into the more unconventional worlds he creates. Arguably, some are most comprehensible than others (although that was likely never the intention), but the one that is most acknowledged as his greatest work is the film that launched his career and proved that he was someone of incredible artistic and socio-cultural integrity. There are many aspects of Divine Intervention (Arabic: يد إلهية) that warrant our admiration, but perhaps more than anything else, it would be the director’s forthright commitment to his craft above everything that makes this film intriguing, which is perhaps the reason it has been heralded as such a masterful examination of culture, as seen through the eyes of someone who experienced a considerable amount of change throughout this own life, which is often reflected in this film, which is as fascinating and compelling as it could possibly be, a very important choice made in the development of this film. Suleiman is a masterful director, and his work reflects a keen attention to detail that is difficult to ignore, and a unique sense of artistic integrity that we don’t often find in contemporary cinema, and which he has somehow managed to underline and being perhaps his most defining trait.

Divine Intervention is the rare instance of a film where the reason many adore it is the same source of confusion amongst those who don’t understand its appeal, and view it as nothing more than an exercise in self-indulgence. It is a film rooted heavily within experimental cinema, but unlike the films we normally see associated with such a term, which usually tend to be viewed as intentionally dark and strange, this film chooses to be far more playful, and in the process seems to lack substance, when in reality there is far more complexity than initially meets the eye. The film takes place over a short but indeterminate amount of time (perhaps nothing longer than a day or two), and follows over a dozen characters, very few of them having names. The events take place between Nazareth and Ramallah, and mostly centre on a couple who commute between the two cities, which is then surrounded by an array of disconnected vignettes that show the daily lives of ordinary people in the region, some of whom go about their ordinary routine that would not be too different from anything we’d see in real life, while others engage in more peculiar behaviour which paints a strange but captivating portrait of the region and its people. Neither an anthology film nor an ensemble film (since these stories are not divided into neat segments, nor do they impact one another), the film is extremely difficult to understand at first, and the fact that Suleiman throws us into this version of the world, one that seems realistic but contains a sense of slightly off-kilter storytelling that can almost be described as a narrative provocation of the uncanny valley, since everything in the film seems realistic with the exception being slightly outrageous in a way that feels deliberate but not necessarily humorous. It’s a film designed to capture our attention from the start, and it ultimately does succeed, since its impenetrable tone and unquestionable complexity add to the overall experience in compelling ways.

It is singularly impossible to define this film – every review or description instead uses what others have compared it to in order to situate it in terms of a specific genre, which seems to be counterintuitive to the director’s intentions (since he clearly holds umbrage with the industry’s preoccupation for classifying films, rather than allowing them to flourish on their own, independent of any constraints that come with following even the most diverse range of genres), but which is necessary to at least understand the approach being taken with this story. It is as close to pure absurdism as we’ve seen shown on screen in many years – in fact, I’d argue that Divine Intervention is the most reliable example of this movement, since unlike those very intentional works in which the concepts of surrealism and absurdism are conflated (and where these terms are often just used as shorthand for being given free rein to present viewers with the most deranged and off-kilter storytelling that is simply weird for the sake of it, this film actually understands what those original absurdists intended to do, which was to challenge conventions, rather than disguise them under a veneer of nonsensical ramblings that could be defended by the flaccid excuse that the audience is not supposed to understand it. This is a film driven by the concept of tedium as a legitimate artistic choice – there are entire stretches in this film where nothing happens, or where certain scenes are repeated, such as the recurring image of the central couple driving between the two cities, or the sight of an old man climbing a ladder to the roof of his dwelling, on which he has assembled hundreds of glass bottles, solely for the reason of throwing them at any individual that dares come too close to his home, which (from what we can see) consists solely of the same glass bottles that are used to defend it. It is an almost Sisyphean film in how its resolutions are all in favour of the impetus itself, and the cyclical nature is very unique, and can be truly enlightening once the viewer acknowledges that this is not a film that is ever going to give us the answers we desperately seek, primarily because we don’t even know the right questions that need to be asked, which is the exact purpose of the entire film, or so it would seem.

Ultimately, Suleiman didn’t intend to make something that made too much sense, and he conveys this not through directly saying so (because absurdism should never directly indicate that it is self-aware – it only works if the audience questions the work, rather than being told that what they are about to see or hear is not supposed to make sense), but rather in how these stories are executed. The film is driven by tone more than anything else – there is a sense of wickedly dark comedy that persists throughout the film, but which is never actually very funny so much as it is deliberately awkward and challenging, which can feel unnecessary on a narrative level, but which is very important to the overall experience. Divine Intervention is a film that only starts making sense when you surrender to the very simple fact that there isn’t a deeper meaning to the film – there are certainly arguments to be made in terms of the film being an allegory for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or at least a depiction of the everyday life of people in two cities that are close together enough to be traversed many times over in a single day, but yet are worlds apart due to socio-political and cultural differences that keep them apart. These do factor in, but the film includes far too many direct references for this actually to be the case (for example, the use of a balloon adorned with Yasar Arafat’s face, or the ground being momentarily changed to reflect the bright and vibrant colours of the Palestinian flag), and it often feels like the director is intentionally using these motifs as red herrings. One may even argue that including these elements was a deliberate choice, since they may not contain any particular meaning on their own, but in the process of trying to decode a message that doesn’t actually exist behind these images, perplexed viewers will unearth insights into the social and political history and current affairs of the region in the subsequent research. This is obviously just a theory, and it is just as likely that the director wanted to just create a strange comedy about everyday life in the land in which he was raised, being as much a love letter to the region and its people as it is a social statement. It is all a matter of individual interpretation, and the director does very well in establishing the fact that this film is not going to be particularly easy to understand, and that viewers should brace themselves for the experience that is to follow.

Divine Intervention is not often discussed when it comes to looking at exceptional works of cinema produced in the Middle East, but it’s firm compassion and incredibly unique artistic vision are enough to consolidate it into a very specific moment in film history. There have been many incredible films produced in and around the region that tackle the social and political issues directly, and often reveal very disturbing but vitally important details that aim to draw attention to the scenario that surrounds this conflict, which has been ongoing longer than many of us have been alive. This film is not one that aims to offer the exact same experience. If anything, the focus is to draw attention away from the gritty, hyper-realistic depiction of these affairs, and instead to offer something that isn’t lighthearted or trivial, nor particularly humorous, but which offers a different perspective, one that isn’t quite as grounded in reality as others. Whereas most satires tend to take aim at entire systems or populations of people, Divine Intervention satirizes an entire state of mind, looking at the existential ennui of ordinary people, and how their everyday routines can be viewed as either tedious or exciting, depending solely on our state of mind. It invites the viewer to be an active participant in the creation of this film, since our interpretation is what shades in this film and makes it so interesting. The most important aspect is that not only does he force us to ask countless questions, but the director refuses to answer any of them, not even giving us the benefit of an explanation behind the many strange aspects that surround this film. It’s bewildering and quite unsettling, but also profoundly beautiful, bitingly funny and one of the only genuine examples of a film that intentionally sets out to confuse the audience, which is an artistic choice that helps us develop and understand this astonishing film.