When author Immanuel Mifsud was last in Luxembourg he attended a Q&A session. Someone in the crowd began her question to the author with the phrase “I’ve never read any of your books but…”, I cringed and switched off after that. I had resolved not to talk about the “Dear Dom” movie until I got to actually see it – which I hopefully will this April if it’s still running after the 4th. This post is not about the movie itself but about reactions to the movie and was prompted by Yana Mintoff Bland’s comments to the Times.
In a nation that is defined with reference to “the other” where narratives are painted in dual tones and where national holidays are as divisive as ever it is hard to keep to the objective plot. The issue here is whether Pierre Ellul’s Dear Dom commits any injustice towards Dom Mintoff – the politician. By examining that issue you are also perforce obliged to tread the dangerous ground of puncturing “the Mintoff myth” – or the mythology that centres around the greater image of the man who can boast among his nicknames “Salvatur ta’ Malta” (Saviour of a nation).
From what I could gather from the blurbs and promos, Ellul’s work is a sort of letter addressed to the ageing leader that ends up becoming a carousel run through his political career. But what is Yana Mintoff Bland complaining about? Dom’s daughter is now a candidate for the Labour party in one of the districts where her dad’s myth continues to shine (notwithstanding the “traditur!” interlude). The heading of the Times article (Yana Mintoff: Family speaking to lawyers on Dear Dom film) leads one to presume that Mintoff’s family is preparing to sue Pierre Ellul (or Falkun) – at least most people do not “speak to lawyers” just for kicks.
I see two problems here. First of all Mintoff Bland’s grievances are with the bias that is apparently evident throughout the film. Mintoff Bland however seems to emphasise the character depiction of Mintoff as in his power-driven motivation as well as the idea that he is vengeful and angry. Interestingly there are very few allegations on the part of Mintoff Bland that are based on what would be a misrepresentation of facts. While she may not like the way Mintoff’s character and motivation is portrayed she has little to say about whatever facts are pictured in the movie. Whether a documentary’s judgement on somebody’s character could be subject to a challenge in the court of law is highly dubious.
There is another issue that is glaringly contradictory. On the one hand Mintoff Bland would argue that Mintoff Snr never got a chance to reply to Pierre Ellul’s letters and more importantly that he would have done so. On the other hand Mintoff Bland seems to be prepared to take legal action in the name of her father. Which would not make much sense unless her father was incapable of doing so himself.
These two issues lead me to conclude that the only reason Mintoff Bland is kicking up a fuss is to attract media attention and to appear the paladin defender of the myth that has been built around her father.
When I think back to the bio-flicks I have seen from “The Iron Lady” through “Invictus“, “Malcolm X” and “the King’s Speech” I realise that behind every politician there is a human with human traits. This humanity is defined through interaction with others and the producer of a bio-flick will inevitably set his or her angle or agenda or theme throughout the documentary. It is not to be judged as good or bad but rather with a measure that bears in mind that history and the documentation thereof is rarely, if ever objective.
You can read twenty books about the life of Fidel Castro and you are guaranteed to get twenty different versions. It’s not because it’s Castro. It could be Lenin, Kennedy, Mao, Jesus (hell, there’s not one official biography of J-dude but four – Matthew’s, Mark’s, Luke’s and John’s) or Gandhi. Paul Ellul’s movie should be taken for what it is – a perspective on the life and works of one of Malta’s noisiest politicians from the twentieth century.
Like Castro before him, Mintoff’s hard-headed reply could probably be implied without even watching the film…
“La historia me absolverà” … then again, maybe it won’t.
