https://deadline.com/2025/08/brad-pitt-joaquin-phoenix-join-gaza-movie-voice-hind-rajab-1236498170/
September 6, 2025.
The Voice of Hind Rajab is a highly problematic film.
To give you some background on where I am positioning this information, I started at Disney and have been working for over two decades in Hollywood. I work as an artistic & animation consultant/director on both animated and blockbuster feature films, advising in a small circle with the directors and executive producers. Check out the IG video essay on Superman.
This film mimics campaigns designed towards upholding imperial soft power structures and Hollywood-washing. Hollywood is trying to co-opt the Pro-Palestine movement (we already know that there is an increase in the propaganda budget for 2025) and there is a massive campaign around coopting and commodifying this. Hollywood is not an isolated actor on the political stage, it is part of an apparatus that cooperates with news media, music, and sports industries, among many other cultural structures. Likewise, directors and actors are not independent contractors, they are employees of agencies that are also corporate organisations.
Some useful points to consider:
This film is promoted by White, neo-liberal, Democrat-supporting, Hollywood heavy-weights, who are only speaking out since Trump was in office (for those following this phenomenon, this is a conversation on its own). They are commodifying Palestinian tragedy and rewriting themselves on the right side of history.
Brad Pitt is also part of/represented by CAA**, a publicly pro-Israeli agency which made a public statement in support of Israel. Those critical of Israel had to resign from the agency. (https://variety.com/2023/film/news/caa-maha-dakhil-resigns-board-israel-social-media-posts-controversy-1235764577/ )
It’s also important to ask why are they all White liberal faces on the promotion of this project and not one Palestinian directing creative? Casting actors does not help, none of the directing, or decision-making roles appear to have a single Palestinian.
Hollywood films (these can also be called First and Second Cinema - for more information look up Third Cinema) are funded by the CIA and Pentagon. Please read the peer reviewed scholarship by Alford & Secker, Lenoir, Der Derian, Stahl, Mirrlees. (American Journal of Economics and Sociology by Matthew Alford and Tom Secker is available here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12180 )
On Hollywood affiliated productions, directors are not the conceptualisers of the films. Directors and writers are hired by someone else to create a predetermined film. They are picked to appeal to targeted audiences (mainly Americans). Understanding this logic we can see how a Tunisian director from a France-based studio that tours Cannes is an ideal candidate to be sought out for this role, mainly because they are not Palestinian. This: 1) Further distances and orientalises Palestinian voices. 2) All Arabs are the same for their purposes and audiences, and someone more “politically palatable” is preferable.
This film contributes to ensuring that the famous events of the G-cide are remembered, shaped and curated in cultural memory that is in the form that Western interests want.
These films pacify resistance by neutralising radical ideas through narrative justifications, commodify it, and shape the story to uphold American value systems like American exceptionalism and hyper individualised hero-stories. These are key narrative structures that the imperial apparatus wants in films; the CIA is content to prioritise this even at the expense of making the government look bad, because the core idealogical messaging that must be put through offers more value laden returns for hegemony (see Alford & Secker).
One last thing, because they did the same thing with the Black Panther franchise (using Oakland) and Andor (referencing the Battle of Algiers). We need to ask why choose Hind's story? Why not another? These references they use are the most accessible. They go to the easiest access that they think will hold the largest audience impact. They also want to co-opt any narratives that might cause people to start asking questions and reshape history by re-situating the context of these narratives in a way that favours the imperial violence that the US upholds. Because Hind was known among White circles due to Hind's Hall at Columbia University, this was the story that created cracks in the colonial mainstream narrative. This is a common strategy historically repeated, and there is a long paper trail of receipts on these tactics as well.
We also need to ask if these people like Brad Pitt and co. are so altruistic, why aren't they speaking out against the G-cide? why aren't they speaking out about how their studios and industry help R&D and propaganda for the US military? Their promotion of this film aligned with the events of the Freedom Flotilla, where even other celebrities were on the ground supporting it. Why aren't they getting on the flotilla or seeing it off? Even better, why aren't they using their own personal yachts, or the yachts of their society friends to join the flotilla? Why aren't they investing in sending aid to Gaza through its borders? For perspective, the funding given to this film will cost more than the millions of dollars in weapons that Canada just sent to Israel. Why aren't they doing something of material significance to people in Gaza with their money? Instead they are investing in an all White promoted production, hiring a Tunisian employee, and profiting off it. Why are these White company-men owned by pro-Israeli agencies being the ones to be the faces of a Palestinian story and not use their voices to uplift any Palestinians to tell their stories? There are Palestinian screen writers, directors, etc. in the US, as well as in Palestine and other countries.
More importantly, and I know I'm being a bit blunt, but as a directing creative on the inside, I have witnessed how effective our work has been on influencing the average person. How visceral and emotional the push back can be from the audiences that we filmmakers — essentially — dupe. When you work at high levels on the inside, it’s very different to what the public thinks it is, and I am constantly astounded at how much people believe in these productions or what we choose to reveal as "behind the scenes". So if there is a knee-jerk response in anyone to be immediately excited about this, or jumps on board to defend or celebrate it without questioning, I think this is what we have to work on unravelling in ourselves and in our socialisation. There is no legitimate logic behind this behaviour when it is interrogated. There is, however, ample documentation in scholarship and journalism that illustrates how, since WW1, and especially WW2, Hollywood is America's greatest soft power asset. What needs to be interrogated is why do we even think figures like these Hollywood celebrities have anything of value to contribute morally or intellectually, and why do we rely on, and promote, their approval. This reflects poorly on us as a whole, the celebrity obsession reflects how easily we are persuaded.
It’s a really depressing testament to how good we are at our jobs that people are so desperate to have their story told by this system that they will promote it.
At ‘best” this film is racist, at worst it is sinister and nefarious.
— Samantha Youssef