When Hanna K. came out in 1983, it was virtually banned in the United States. Why? It portrayed Palestinians as human beings. Indeed it was the first film to do so in the West. It’s impossible to rent or buy a copy of this film on DVD anywhere, but luckily, it can be watched for free on YouTube here (the link is to the first of 12 parts,) at least until someone forces the person to take it down.

Americans don’t realize that in Israel there has always been a good deal of public criticism of their government’s actions toward the Palestinian people, including in the mainstream press. It’s only here, in America, that there’s 100% solidarity with the Israeli government, and 0% sympathy or empathy for the Palestinian people. That should make us think as Americans: why are we so extreme on this issue if even the Israelis themselves are not?

Hanna K. is about a young Palestinian guy who as a child was forced off his family’s land by the Israeli government (deported with his family to refuge camps in the West Bank and Lebanon,) who then bulldozed his town to replace it with a brand new Israeli settlement. But his house survived as a building of historic importance, so he keeps returning to Israel with proof of ownership documentation, in an attempt to return to his land. The Israeli authorities are not happy about this, and keep deporting him, until his final attempt pushes them over the edge. Hanna K. is his defense attorney.

When you watch this film now, it seems quaint, and a little dated. It’s really beautifully shot, like all Costa-Gavras films, and he weaves social and environmental detail into scenes in his usual magic way that is felt but hardly noticed. In the script, Costa-Gavras takes a decidedly human approach to the political issues, and he dances around them artistically and somewhat obliquely where we might imagine modern filmmakers taking a much more direct (and violent) approach. But Costa-Gavras’ reserve brings to the film a certain quiet weightiness, even timelessness; despite its problems, it remains to this day a clear and dignified artistic statement on the issues at hand.

The problem with this film is Jill Clayburgh. Her performance is absolutely horrible. Some might charitably say it’s “scattered,” but really it’s just plain atrocious. It is not clear to me just how much damage she single-handedly inflicted on this film, but I get the impression that with even a decent, average performance in this role, Hanna K. would have been a completely different movie. Now that I think of it, Gabriel Byrne was pretty God awful too. It’s the lead performances that wreck this film – maybe Costas-Gavras got a little lazy after the jaw-dropping brilliance of Jack Lemon, Sissy Spacek, and John Shea in Missing.

Costa-Gavras had a unique way with political films, one that has never been duplicated or bettered, in my opinion. Hanna K. is not one of his best works. It mainly interesting now from a historic perspective – Hanna K. is really a very mild political statement, guilty only of human honesty, and it’s interesting to ponder why at the time the American people could not be allowed to see it under any circumstances. It’s also incredible to watch this film and realize that nothing about the issues portrayed has changed in the last 30 years; it’s only gotten worse.

Hanna K. is perhaps best for die-hard Costa-Gavras fans, and people exceptionally interested in the artistic history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But for those people, it is worth seeing.