Letters from Baghdad (UK/US/France 2017)

The ‘great and the good’ at the Cairo Conference in 1921. Gertrude Bell is between Winston Churchill and T.E. Lawrence towards the left of the line. Unlike most of the others who are struggling to keep control of their camels, Bell keeps hers perfectly still as an experienced camel-rider. (Photo © Gertrude Bell Archive, Newcastle University)

Letters from Baghdad is a remarkable ‘biodoc’ – enjoyable and informative to watch and important for three reasons. First, it presents the story of Gertrude Lowthian Bell, a British woman born in 1868 who would become a prominent figure in the history of British imperial policy in the Levant, Palestine and Mesopotamia during the final days of the Ottoman Empire and the British mandate in the 1920s. Second, that history reveals several issues that have recurred and remain relevant to the contemporary politics of the region. Third, the formal features of the film are distinctive and make imaginative use of photographs taken by Bell herself, her extensive writings, and hundreds of contemporary film clips sourced from a variety of archives. An extraordinary amount of detail is packed into 95 minutes.

Gertrude Bell was born into a wealthy family in the North East of England. Her grandfather was an ironmaster and Liberal MP and her family home eventually became the manor house of the model village he built in Rounton in the North Riding of Yorkshire. One of the few women studying at Oxford in the late 1880s, she gained a first in history and over the next few years she travelled widely making use of her family’s diplomatic contacts. Her first passion for ‘the Orient’ was kindled in Tehran and soon she could speak Persian as well as French and German. Later she would add Arabic and begin extensive journeys across the wilds of ‘Arabia’, most of which was still under the nominal control of the Ottoman Empire. Her travels were accompanied by archaeology and a serious interest in antiquities. She quickly became a confirmed ‘Arabist’ and an authority on the leading families in the Arab world. Her knowledge and understanding of the region equalled and arguably out distanced that of T.E. Lawrence. She was only marginally held back by her gender. Her eventual importance to the imperial ‘project’, however, did depend to a certain extent on which of men were selected for which posts. She got on very well with some but others detested her. Her major influence came in the second half of the Great War and during the aftermath when the British and French carved up the old Ottoman Empire. She had a role in the creation of Iraq as an identity carved out of the three Turkish provinces of Mesopotamia and also became the founder of the Museum of Iraq. Her most high-profile role was in helping to place the Hashemite King Faisal on the throne of Iraq. Her knowledge of the leading Arab families was crucial.

The complicated story of Gertrude Bell’s work, initially off her own bat and later as a British appointee is told in the film alongside the personal life of a woman who significant relationships with a select group of men, but who never married. The film’s creators led by the two producer-directors Sabine Krayenbühl and Zeva Oelbaum developed an interesting strategy for a biodoc which certainly works in maintaining a narrative flow. They collected some 1,200 archive film clips and several thosand still photographs, many taken by Bell herself. Much of the material came from the Gertrude Bell archive at Newcastle University. They collected together Bell’s letters and diary entries and also the statements made by many of the distinguished figures who knew her. In an interview with Anne-Katrin Titze, Sabine Krayenbühl says that the aim was to imagine that these statements were made for a documentary just two or three years after Bell’s death in 1926. The ‘witnesses’ are played by actors in appropriate period costumes who read out the statements as if they were appearing in a modern-style documentary. This is a technique which is similar to that used by Peter Watkins in a film like Culloden (1964), although in this case the actors appear against a plain studio backdrop instead of on the battlefield. The film material is quite varied with some colour footage as well as what seems to be hand-tinted footage. They also seem to have added sound effects to the footage – and sometimes what seem to be lines of dialogue. The diaries and letters of the adult Gertrude are read (off screen) by Tilda Swinton, who is also an executive producer. The editing by Sabine Krayenbühl is very good and the production’s profile is boosted by an executive producer role for Thelma Schoonmaker. (The film also has a UK co-producer and associate producers in France.) All of this worked for me and they were fortunate that Gertrude Bell had access to good quality photographic equipment and was skilled in using it. It’s also worth pointing out that the nineteenth century had been an important period for both French and British ‘Orientalism’ and ‘Arabism’ and there was a wide interest in filming in Mesopotamia.

Gertrude Bell on an expedition in Duris, Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley at an Arab funerary monument, Qubbat Duris, in June 1900. (Photo © Gertrude Bell Archive, Newcastle University)

What emerges from the film is a woman with considerable achievements who certainly deserves to be more widely known by contemporary audiences. There has also recently been a feature film based on her exploits in Mesopotamia directed by Werner Herzog and starring Nicole Kidman as Gertrude. The Queen of the Desert was shown at the Berlin Film Festival in 2015 but as far as I can see never released in the UK. It opened online in the US in April but seems to have been received very poorly by critics. It’s troubling to think what a mainstream international film might have done with Gertrude Bell’s life. But focusing on her two affairs is understandable and some of the ‘user views’ on the Herzog film inadvertently comment on aspects of this biodoc. Gertrude Bell was not an easy person to get on with and Letters from Baghdad doesn’t avoid this issue. There are revealing comments by the wife of an American missionary(?) who notes that she found favour with Gertrude Bell because she was a middle-class woman with a degree. At other points we learn about Bell’s extravagance in buying the best clothes and shoes available. These aren’t major crimes but the film might have been a little bit more aware of the issues about social class and imperial privilege. Bell was undoubtedly a pioneer for women in terms of her academic success, her archaeology and travel writing and her intelligence reports in wartime. She was also a very privileged member of the British upper class with an imperial arrogance. Gertrude Bell probably thought she was doing the best she could for the people of Iraq but she did draw boundaries which made the artificial state of Iraq more difficult to govern and she did acquiesce in the imperial policies of the Mandate which laid the seeds for the problems of Iraq today.

One of the most surprising facts that comes out of the film is that Bell claimed that the Jewish population of Baghdad was as much as 80,000 in 1920 – a very large proportion of the city’s population. Certainly there were 150,000 in Iraq as a whole. These Arab Jews were not necessarily interested in the Zionism, then becoming active in Mandate Palestine, and Bell herself seems to have been anti-Zionist. I hope I’ve got this right – there were so many statements in the film. I hope I’ve demonstrated that there is much to learn from the film. There are many ironies. The British treated the Iraqis very badly in the 1920s (when the country became a de facto military state run by the RAF with its bombers). The British and the Americans fought over the oil rights which Britain managed to retain by maintaining rights over Mosul. Gertrude Bell fought to build up the collection of antiquities in the Museum of Iraq – some of these were lost when the American invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003 led to looting.

Letters from Baghdad is well worth seeing. I watched it in an almost full Cinema 3 at Edinburgh’s Filmhouse on a Friday afternoon. It has a limited release in a handful of US cinemas this week (see this website for listings) and is online in the UK with a DVD release soon. I’d happily watch the film again to check my understanding of this woman’s extraordinary adventures.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. keith1942

    The film is certainly effective and well made. However, I think there are also serious problems with it.
    The history it presents suffers from omissions and confusions. The film does not address Bell’s opposition to The Balfour Declaration; a key British machination in the region. It seems confused about the changing status of Iraq, which actually became an ‘independent’ kingdom after her death.
    Then there are the archival materials. The written documents and photographs do not come off too badly. However, almost uniformly the film footage is reframed to fit the 1.78:1 ratio; presumably for future television presentation. Given the film opens by stressing its reliance on ‘primary’ sources this is pretty poor treatment. I noted that among the many archives listed are the BFI and the Imperial War Museum: it is a shame they cannot protect their archival material from this type of misuse.
    It is certainly not of the calibre of the films of Peter Watkins. His films offer a reflexive mode; this film presents its treatment rather like the ‘invisible’ hand of mainstream cinema.

    • Roy Stafford

      I think you are being a little unfair, Keith. Clearly the footage has been cropped to fit the 1.78:1 frame. This is preferable, I think, to the squashing of the 1.37:1 image and it seems to have been done very carefully for the most part so that there is a flow into and out of the ‘to camera’ pieces. I can see an argument that the whole film should have been presented in Academy ratio, but for a documentary that might have had had complications re TV sales.

      I specifically made the point about Bell’s opposition to Zionism in Palestine since it was mentioned in the film but, as I suggest, there is so much detail, I’d need to go back to it to be sure. I don’t understand your point about the film’s confusion over the status of Iraq. The perspective of the film re Bell and Iraq is from around 1929 when it was still a mandated territory. It became ‘independent’ in 1932, though still with British military bases and rights of movement for British forces.

      • keith1942

        I am being perfectly fair. The film has an opening title, something like – ‘based on primary sources’. Well most of the film footage should be in 1,33:1 and quite a lot of it had no soundtrack. So it has been reframed, not always cropped by the look of it. And quite an amount is filmed in different places and times from the character/events presented at that point in the film.
        In fact three sequences are presented in a 1.33:1 ratio. Some films still do that. And we actually have contemporary films that work the opposite way, include 1.37:1 framings in widescreen.
        The footage, mainly actualities, documentaries and newsreels, was shot by cameramen who are not credited, at least in this film. But they will have framed the images to take in the point of view. And, amongst other aspects, that point of view represents material interests, as does all the other archive material in the film. I think all this ‘reframing’ shows a lack of respect for the original filmmakers; often by people who like to think of themselves as ‘auteurs’. Moreover, archivists are usually very precious about material being presented properly. But this seems to fly out the window with film.
        I also saw that you mentioned Balfour and Palestine. However, I do not think the film does, or, if so, only in a perfunctory fashion. And you are correct about the dates vis-à-vis Iraq. However, the films seems confused. The commentaries seem to suggest that Gertrude Bell worked for the nominally independent kingdom; which is after her death and, as you point out, the year that the film likes to think of as its ‘present’.
        I notice you term the film a ‘biodoc’. Well documentaries are supposed to address the actual world; I just find this a dubious approach. It is well done and interesting but there are also a lot of problems with the film’s approach.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s