Film Notes

Shoshana review – a quiet love story entangled in deadly Middle East politics

Michael Winterbottom’s drama centres on the romance between a British police officer and a socialist Zionist writer but puts history-telling over emotion.

Working with co-writers Laurence Coriat and Paul Viragh, Michael Winterbottom hits a clear, confident stride with a robustly well made, if emotionally flavourless historical drama set during the British mandate in what was then Palestine. It is a film that speaks in a complex way to the current Gaza debate, contending that Zionism has anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism in its 20th-century manifestation: a rage against the British masters. But the implication is that it learned habits of ruthlessness from these very people.

The film is based on the true story of Shoshana Borochov, a socialist Zionist writer who came with her Ukrainian family to Tel Aviv as a child in the 1920s and grew up to have a long-term romantic relationship with a British police officer called Thomas Wilkin, who was assassinated by the militant group Lehi, otherwise known as the Stern Gang, in 1944. Douglas Booth plays Wilkin, and Shoshana is played by the very stylish Russian actor Irina Starshenbaum (known for Kirill Serebrennikov’s 1980s-set rock romance Leto).

In classic Hollywood style Winterbottom distinguishes between the “good Brit” – the thoughtful, good-natured Wilkin, who wants to engage with the non-violent strand of Zionism – and the “bad Brit”, the dead-eyed colonial police officer who simply believes in violence, torture and suppression. This latter is Geoffrey Morton, played by Harry Melling, who gained a footnote in history after being accused of shooting Avraham Stern in unclear circumstances. The difference between them is important, although in real life, working closely together as they were, Wilkin and Morton might not have been quite as different as all that.

The movie is costumed, staged and acted with intelligence and care although, after a while, whenever you see a street scene in wide shot, quiet for a few seconds, you tense for the inevitable bomb-blast. The central Romeo-and-Juliet love story is oddly subdued and opaque, with some unrelaxed line-readings, and so the political irony and even tragedy of their relationship is submerged also. I can imagine David Lean giving Thomas and Shoshana’s love affair 10 times more throttle, although Winterbottom’s concern is for clarity and context, not emotional fireworks.

Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian, 21st Feb 2024.

‘Shoshana’ Review: Michael Winterbottom Rejects Extremism in His Anti-Colonial Political Thriller

TIFF: This sprawling take on the British occupation of Palestine during WWII examines how extremism can erode the best parts of us.

Scripted films about political revolutions often have the luxury of marinating in esoteric debates about philosophies and forms of government that are completely detached from reality. If a filmmaker’s mission is to advance one ideology over another, it’s easy to abandon real-world nuance and cast their preferred parties as underdogs in a Hollywood-style good vs. evil saga. Michael Winterbottom’s “Shoshana” takes a different approach, immediately demonstrating its understanding that even the most intellectually committed activists have to consider dubious alliances to avoid total annihilation.

The British director’s new political thriller is set in Tel Aviv in the 1930s, during Britain’s occupation of Palestine that saw the military try to find a peaceful compromise between Palestinian natives and Zionists trying to establish Israel on their faith’s holiest grounds. Locals are forced to choose between supporting an unwanted occupation from an imperialist nation or violent nationalist rebels who support Israeli independence despite their regressive views and penchant for bombings.

The murky landscape forms the backdrop for a romance between Thomas Wilkin (Douglas Booth), a British officer whose years of living in Palestine have afforded him a more nuanced understanding of local politics than his jingoistic contemporaries; and Shoshana Borochov (Irina Starshenbaum), a feminist whose father spent his life fighting to build Israel into a modern nation. Both are educated, reasonable people who seek a compromise that brings Israel into the 20th century without genocide.

Their moderate views are unpopular, to say the least. Shoshana’s opposition to Britain’s ongoing presence in Palestine forces her to form an uneasy detente with Avraham Stern (Aury Alby), a charismatic poet and revolutionary leader who loves to throw bombs (of both the literary and explosive varieties) in his quest to eradicate Israel’s opponents through violence. Stern’s outspoken views and reckless disdain for caution make him the target of increased scrutiny from British intelligence.

The nation’s obsession with bringing Stern down causes Thomas’ superiors to question his relationship with Shoshana. Despite making every effort to see each other as three-dimensional people and build a relationship that ignores their minor differences, the two humanists are forced to consider the possibility that their connection isn’t strong enough to resist the forces of war. Love might be the thing that makes everyday life tolerable, but history only remembers winners and losers.

The painful lesson that both the British occupying forces and the Zionist revolutionaries are destined to learn is that cynicism is unsustainable. Any reasonably intelligent person can formulate an academic argument for why it’s acceptable to briefly suspend one’s morals and use violent tactics for a good cause. Police can claim that law and order is a sufficient societal good to justify the violation of a few individuals’ rights, while revolutionaries can spout platitudes about violence being the only voice of the unheard in a broken system. But while both takes might be correct in a narrow context that omits inconvenient information, they miss the fact that our sense of self is ultimately shaped by our actions. The process of committing acts of violence, even strategic ones, ultimately turns us into violent people. Winterbottom takes every opportunity to show us how making exceptions to our principles in extreme circumstances eventually gives way to the abandonment of those principles.

“Shoshana” begins as a sprawling tableau of Britain’s occupation of Palestine, introducing us to an array of soldiers, rebels, poets, bombers, policemen, moguls, and political figures. For the first hour or so, it seems like a confusing choice to name the film after a single character. But Winterbottom gradually narrows his focus to the relationship between Tom and Shoshana before eventually shining the sole spotlight on his eponymous tragic heroine. Shoshana never feels the lust for blood that animates so many of her contemporaries, but she’s still forced to watch the ensuing violence from a front row seat until she becomes a shell of her former self. The utter dereliction of her soul that Winterbottom forces us to watch for two hours is the most convincing evidence for his film’s defining idea: the nationalistic and idealogical disputes that make us hate each other come at a price that nobody can afford.

 Christian Zilko, IndieWire, September 8th 2023.

What you thought about Shoshana

Film Responses

Collated Response Comments

118 members and guests attended this screening. 66 of you gave us a response which makes a 56% response rate and delivered a score of 4.39. Thanks so much.

All of your comments are collected below.

“A difficult and tense watch, knowing how much more suffering lies ahead with no end in sight. Grim”.

“While this film visits very important and relevant themes of the rights of competing populations inhabiting the same space and the morality of how best to keep the peace is such circumstances, my heart rather sinks at the subject matter in the light of how catastrophic the current situation is in the area. Winterbottom has set out to portray elements of a true story and keep it as simple as possible, I assume, in order not to confuse. Unfortunately, possibly as part of that process, the drama has become very flat, the acting appears rather stiff, the shooting stagy and obvious, the dialogue moving the plot along but without much personal conviction from the characters who remain two dimensional, with the exception of Shoshana herself in a warm, nuanced performance from Starshenbaum. Perhaps a longer TV series, allowing a little more character development and detail might have been a better approach. Inevitably you can't tell the whole story in two hours (Wilkin and Shoshana were married for ten years, Stern, astonishingly, tried to do a deal with the Nazis) but the conclusion that, in such circumstances the middle ground will be lost and opposing sides become polarised and extremist (see also; anywhere from Ancient Rome through the French Revolution and on) is as clear as it is deeply depressing”.

“I found this to be a really absorbing and moving film. The acting was convincing and the plot was pacy and full of tension. It made me want to go off and learn more about that moment in history. I am sure I will watch it again”.

“A great choice of film and many thanks to the projectionist for persevering to get the download for us. Interesting to get more background history on the complex issue that is so relevant today and seems just as far from ever finding a solution. Excellent performance from "Shoshana" but I wasn't so sure about the casting of Tom. Think my heart rate is still recovering from the explosions! Another two-hour film that seemed to race by with absorbing personal as well as historical storylines. Thanks”.

“A film that showed the complexities and conflicts of the situation that sadly still exists today. Very well acted and the tension was maintained throughout”.

“Told story beautifully though acting a bit stilted. When will it EVER be resolved... more than 3000 years of painful history?”

“Didn't know what to make of Shoshana but credit Winterbottom for taking on this vexed subject, as someone is bound to be put out. So, using a romance between Shoshana and Wilkins gives a way into some history of the time and place. Good to see an explanation of how Zionism took on degrees of extremism within mid-20th century with obvious echoes for now. Why, though, were Palestinian Arabs barely referenced? Only shown as victims or terrorists in Israel's creation. Thought that Starshenbaum was absorbing as Shoshana, not taken in by British stuffy (sometimes violent) colonialism or extreme Zionism. But it's hard to sympathise with any of the characters; a bit galling really. So, waterboarding was used in 1930s, a British thing at that? Yet there's merit in effective cinematography, the clever use of archival newsreel with film characters included and a good score. The good cop/bad cop binary opposition is schematic. So, Wilkins is decent and dashing set against Morton, ruthless and contemptuous of Jews and Arab alike. But it's a compelling part, as that of Stern. Wasn't sure why the film portrays itself as sexy and stylish? The Romeo and Juliet thread shows the humanity of the lovers but equally doomed”.

“I feel that it confirms the determination and resolve of the conflicting sides in Israel today. Nobody wins”.

“I am not sure if all the different elements of this long film came together well enough to make one good film! If it was simply to tell a 'Romeo & Juliet' doomed love story I suppose it succeeded & certainly Irina Starshenbaum was excellent. The horrors and dangers of terrorism and extremist politics were shocking but well-illustrated as were the moral failures of the colonial British. Appreciating that the key characters were a Russian Jew & an English Christian, it was still odd that the Arab Palestinians did not get a human angle in the film at all. Perhaps Winterbottom's was reflecting that neither the British or Zionists believed the indigenous population to be as human as they were?”

“A very hard watch but powerful and still relevant to today's situation”.

“Hard hitting and a difficult watch. A film that I won’t forget for a long time”.

“Sad but true. Well portrayed and sadly still going on today”.

“Well, well, well. That explains a lot”.

“Compelling. Not something to make you proud to be British”.

“Very graphic. Disturbing. Still going on”.

“A sad story but illuminating. Easy to see why the madness continues”.

“Excellent film and still the violence goes on”.

“A very difficult watch”. “Very topical”.

“An extremely riveting film – making the nuances of the situation very clear – in terms of human suffering and reality of everyday life in Palestine at the time”.

“An amazing film”.    “Superb”.   “Amazing film. Beautifully directed”.

“Visually powerful, convincingly acted – and sadly, extremely relevant”.

“Difficult watch, but brilliantly portrayed and directed. Truth hurts”.

“Explained the situation pre 1948 really well”.

“Challenging watch. Very well filmed and acted. Tension with little light relief”.

“Quite an eye opener”.     “Very interesting”.

“Deeply felt; complex in its history and disturbing in its personal depth of feeling”.

“Gripping. Well shot. But oh, the large subtitles describing sound!! So off putting. Totally distracting. Spoilt film for me”.

“Similar to other TV productions in recent years”.

“Well done to show it”.

“An interesting story. Background to present times as sadly the violence continues”.

“Interesting film”.

“The most moving thing is to still see such similarities in the same part of the world today. I think the ending portrayed and highlighted the a major issue in all this bloodshed. The fact that someone who may have a balanced view can be radicalised when facing the loss of a loved one. Brutal but honest”.

“Interesting given current conflicts”.

“Great story but wooden performances”.

“Horrific, horrendous”.

“Historically interesting but wooden directing”.

“Hated it”.