Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
A Tale of Two Filmmakers
Omar Gabriel x Ruchi Mital

RUCHI MITAL: You once said something like art is my only refuge. Has that always been the case for you? Did your journey with the camera start when you were young? How did it come about?
OMAR GABRIEL: I realized at a later stage in my life that art has always been my refuge. I think it’s a cliche to say, art heals me, or art allows me to be myself. I don’t think it’s that. You watched my films, and you got to discover a deeper layer of myself. And this deeper layer was not easily accepted, embraced or celebrated, because it’s vulnerable, because it’s not based on: ‘I have achieved this. I have this amount of money. I am a strong man.’ It doesn’t fit into these standards. It’s more like, I’m feeling all these feelings, and that has been, in the course of my life, not celebrated, especially in the younger years when I didn’t have community or like-minded people holding space for each other. I would say it has been my cathartic tool, my way to be curious, to go outside of myself and into myself, and at the same time, it has been my peaceful way to show my rage and to say, ‘This cannot continue.’ Things need to be addressed properly, with depth, with humanity and with soul. I want to dig, dig, dig deep to a place that I don’t even know what it is. I want to enter something somewhere. It’s always never enough for me. I think it’s a problem for me that it’s always never enough. But at the same time, this is how I feel when I’m on an artistic quest.

RUCHI MITAL: Do you ever have the feeling that you touched it, the thing you were digging for?
OMAR GABRIEL: I think I’ve touched glimpses of it, and the rest is not touched. This is what keeps me digging. I’m afraid this is a big greedy part, or a part of me that’s always a bit unfulfilled. Not like, ‘I’m not satisfied,’ but more like, ‘Wow, we’re so complex and our stories are so multi-layered, so it will never be enough.’ When I finish any piece, I always feel like I missed a lot of things, and maybe it’s not enough, and I need to search more and dig more, but then it resonates with a lot of people, and they find it so deep and profound, and then I’m like, ‘Ah, okay, I asked for more, but maybe it’s already enough.’
RUCHI MITAL: There can be two parts to it’s not enough. One is, it’s not enough for me, the other is feeling a responsibility toward other people, like I’m taking on telling this story. I have a responsibility. Do you feel that? Do you have a responsibility to someone, some community, some country you carry when you’re making work?
OMAR GABRIEL: So much. I think this is why I also feel it’s not enough. Because I ask myself, ‘How can I, in a short film or feature film, tell the story of one person?’ I must understand what they have been through to be able to communicate it, verbalize it or address it properly. I feel this responsibility that they are giving me a door into their life, into their psyche, into their hearts. I feel so responsible, especially when someone knows what it means to open up, when they are vulnerable and want to be want to feel safe, want to feel appreciated, want to feel celebrated. I always want to push more to make them feel they are being represented in a way they feel good about while sharing things they thought might be too shameful or vulnerable. I want them to see that it resonated with a lot of other people, so they become the heroes of their story, and not the other way around. I think this feeling of it’s not enough comes from I want to touch the core of depth, realness, and authenticity, and I don’t have a reference.
RUCHI MITAL: Let’s talk specifically about your series, A Letter to Myself. I think it brings together so many of the things that you were just talking about. And I wonder if you can tell me a little bit about how this series come about, what drove you to do this series, a little bit about how you connected with the people you featured in the series, and the intention behind the approach that you took. It has the feeling of a home movie, and yet there’s also a kind of timeless quality to it. It could be almost any time period since cameras have been invented. It’s very intimate, but it’s also very universal. It’s experimental in that it’s not just a narrative, with a beginning, middle and end. It’s a really rich series you created. If you can, tell me a little bit about how you came to it and what your idea was.
OMAR GABRIEL: It all started after the Beirut blast, when I was very close to death. I was blessed to stay alive and stay in shape and healthy, and I asked myself, ‘What is my responsibility, since I’m here and what can I do without fear?’ I had been inhabited by the fear of expressing something too real and too authentic. I’ve done this in the past, but not to that extent, and I felt like since I have been so close to that, there’s nothing to be afraid of anymore. I wouldn’t say it’s only about queerness; it’s also about acceptance, and it’s about embracing the inner child and addressing something to oneself, and taking the time to reflect about oneself in a world where we’re always doing things for others.
I am writing a letter to myself, taking the time to write words intuitively with all my heart, not to another person, but to myself. It’s meeting the self that sometimes we don’t have the time for or are afraid to meet. I started with the others, and they inspired me to end it with a letter to myself, because I felt like, ‘Those people are so courageous.’ They are strong enough to write letters to themselves and to accept being filmed and to know that these films are going to go viral on Instagram. So why am I still hiding behind my camera? What I wanted to ask others is what I’m searching for in myself. So, this time, I would not hide behind the camera. The turning point was when I realized that what we’re looking for in others is also what we look for in ourselves.

RUCHI MITAL: There’s always this tension in a documentary, this power thing about, I’m looking at you, I’m telling your story. And as much as you are giving someone the opportunity to tell their story, you’re looking at them and making yourself one of the subjects of the series. To me, this seems like a political act, in the framework of Everything is Political. It seems to be related to this thing that happens when you’re a person from a particular community… you’re from Lebanon, you’re a queer person… It’s like you’re now going to speak for this group. If you’re from this country, you can only talk about wars, because that’s what this experience is about, and the multi-layers of complexity somehow are not allowed for. And I don’t know if that’s something you experience, but it feels that in this space of allowing one person to write to themselves and not have to speak to the audience or the world, and putting yourself in it, you’re kind of reclaiming this complexity.
OMAR GABRIEL: I totally agree that it’s a political act to place myself in this. In the beginning, I never thought about it as political. I just felt that intuitively, I felt the need to be in this series. But in terms of hierarchy, somehow it puts us all at the same level, when we are all expressing in the same way. As a filmmaker, I express differently through the camera, through the stories I want to tell, because also others are reflections of me. I don’t choose the people I work with randomly. Maybe it’s an intuitive choice, but deep down, we have things in common, or we have values that are shared in common, or wounds that are shared in common. It’s like a spider’s web; we’re all connected in some way or another.
I have to step back and look at it with consciousness to be able to understand it. We are all part of each other’s stories because we’re all having this human experience, and we go through things that are similar and different, but the things we share are part of this human experience of loss and grief and celebration and identity crisis. I think what is political about it is that we are an inspiration for each other, and by connecting and by opening up and by sharing, we realized that we as human beings have so much in common.
One of the insanely incredible things about this art form is that this specific individual story or life or experience has this power to burst into something universal. One of my favorite parts about making documentaries is the level of surprise you’re always dealing with. You know what it is, and it becomes something else, or it moves in a different direction, and you have to go with it. I think some art forms are inside out, like I have a feeling, or I have an idea, and then I express it. But this one is very much like you’re eating it, and then it’s digested and transformed. I would call it a humbling process. You realize that if you trust life and you trust the people, it can give you a lot more than you know. I would say it removes the control. It removes it’s my idea, it’s my vision.
My short film, Lebanon After the War: Is Healing Possible?, was filmed in the Shatila, Palestinian camps. I was shooting at the same time the genocide was happening and while the war in southern Beirut was going on. I wanted to go to Shatila to see if I could find some joy in this very complex and difficult territory, where Palestinians and other migrants, Syrians and Lebanese were staying. In this intense place, I wanted to search for joy, because the violence is inflicted on us and our bodies and I wanted to understand how it is possible to liberate ourselves while the system is still present and while the oppression is still happening and the war is still ongoing.
I met a dancer named Omar a couple of years ago, and he is from Shatila. I said to him, ‘Let’s do a movie while we try to liberate our bodies.’ And he was like, ‘Yes, great. Where?’ And I said, ‘In Shatila.’ He said, ‘No way. I wouldn’t dare dance in the streets of Shatila.’ I said, ‘I’m with you. Let’s take on this challenge. I don’t think it will be a problem.’ We started to test it out, and then we started celebrating our bodies, and we ended up dancing with this whole community we found in Shatila. I realized that people are here to celebrate joy, to dance, to move, and not to judge, even while they endure political oppression and violence.
As a man from Lebanon dancing with another man in this environment, it wasn’t the most comforting or safe in the beginning. But this was part of the challenge, to feel fear and move with it and see where it took us. Of course, we had some backups for our personal safety, but you can never control everything. We decided to move with fear and see where it guided us. Are you being chased, or is this an expression? And the answer is, it’s both. It really captures both those feelings. It’s all these feelings of wanting to escape what scares you, but also wanting to protect yourself, but also wanting to move to a place where you don’t know where you’re going, you’re just escaping something that has been imposed on you.
Palestinians, Lebanese people, and Syrian people have been living and experiencing for decades violence imposed on us. There’s always something we need to run away from. We need to run away from our home. We need to run away from our belongings, from our family, from our body. We always feel like there’s something that is threatening us. We carry with us all of these traumas.
I don’t have an answer as to how to liberate ourselves from fear, violence, and trauma. It’s still an ongoing journey as a Lebanese person, as a queer person, as a sensitive artist who also feels things in a global way. I don’t only feel my own story, I also connect to the global narrative. I try in my films to explore the possibilities of how we can do that, but I don’t have an answer for it. I just have suggestions, humble, simple, small suggestions.

RUCHI MITAL: Perhaps the most political thing you can do in this kind of work is not to close the loop, not to say the end, not to answer the question, because then the danger is it becomes a one-dimensional image, and that image then can easily be used against you. You did a really good job of showing that resilience has a cost, and that it’s not an end to anything. A new story is always beginning.
OMAR GABRIEL: Resilience is sometimes not a choice, but if you haven’t chosen to take your own life, you resist by default. This is what most of us have been experiencing. As you can see in this film, some resist by partying, some resist by putting on makeup and dressing up, and some resist by grieving in their own room and allowing those feelings to rise. There isn’t one proper way of healing to be able to continue, and we don’t have the formula yet. We don’t always have the space and time and luxury to explore and discover, because the day you start healing, there is another trauma that’s inflicted on you and your body and your nervous system. I started figuring out how to process this.
The Western methods of healing don’t apply to us, which is mostly everything is inside you, and you find it inside you, and you heal it inside.
I’m not only wounded, and I’m not only traumatized because of things that are inside me. There are things that are inside me that are coming from outer sources. So, once they stop, things can maybe start getting better, but as long as they are still there, we are figuring out our own healing. We don’t want to turn it into violence, and we don’t want to become the oppressor; we still want to be kind and loving. This is our own way of figuring it out, and, and it’s complex and it’s hard and it’s sad, but we are still going and finding ways, as long as we still can.
RUCHI MITAL: I think that all your films have a space for sadness, but they don’t stay there. They have a space for rage, but they don’t stay there. Maybe especially for men, but for a lot of us, sadness isn’t really allowed, because on one hand, you should be grateful for what you have, you’re here, you’re doing these things… I think a space for sadness is revolutionary in and of itself.
OMAR GABRIEL: Thinking that way, that if you are grateful, you should not be sad is imposing a binary way of thinking. You can grieve and still feel sad and still feel joy and still want to feel joy and still mourn and be depressed and get anxious. This is why I refuse to stick to one facet of life, or to one facet of our psyche. I want it to be complex because it is complex. You know, grieving is not linear, and it’s not rigid. It includes so many layers. I am curious about how people can still find their life force amidst all of what’s going on. And I think people like us—Arabs, Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrian—should become the reference for how to find a life force and continue. We should have our own healing systems that we teach others, or we should show others how we can continue, because it’s honestly extremely impressive. And even me, as a Lebanese, I’m still impressed, even if I’m not impressed by myself, I’m impressed by a lot of people in Lebanon and Syria and Palestine. When I see Gaza and people are carrying a life force to continue, I’m curious to know how. I want to learn from those people. I want to learn from my community. I want to learn from the human beings around me.
I want people around me, my neighbors, to tell me how they survived civil war and so many wars, and the explosion and their own personal journey. I’m impressed by the people around me. And I think this is why, with my camera, I don’t search far. I don’t want to travel to find this amazing story. All the people around me and around us have amazing stories.

RUCHI MITAL: Are you working on a film right now?
OMAR GABRIEL: I’m finishing my feature film, my personal feature film called Album, which is going to be, hopefully, distributed this year in festivals. It’s about the life of three queer people in Lebanon and their relationships with their mothers, told through archival images that they find in photo albums. It’s a reflection of their childhood but it’s also about questioning the present time and hoping for something in the future.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "A Tale of Two Filmmakers: Omar Gabriel x Ruchi Mital",
"author" : "Omar Gabriel, Ruchi Mital",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/omar-gabriel-ruchi-mital-tale-of-two-filmmakers",
"date" : "2025-06-19 14:26:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/omar-gabriel-1.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Emmy-winning producer Ruchi Mital sits down with award-winning director Omar Gabriel to investigate the inspiration and process of creating great film works.",
"content" : "RUCHI MITAL: You once said something like art is my only refuge. Has that always been the case for you? Did your journey with the camera start when you were young? How did it come about?OMAR GABRIEL: I realized at a later stage in my life that art has always been my refuge. I think it’s a cliche to say, art heals me, or art allows me to be myself. I don’t think it’s that. You watched my films, and you got to discover a deeper layer of myself. And this deeper layer was not easily accepted, embraced or celebrated, because it’s vulnerable, because it’s not based on: ‘I have achieved this. I have this amount of money. I am a strong man.’ It doesn’t fit into these standards. It’s more like, I’m feeling all these feelings, and that has been, in the course of my life, not celebrated, especially in the younger years when I didn’t have community or like-minded people holding space for each other. I would say it has been my cathartic tool, my way to be curious, to go outside of myself and into myself, and at the same time, it has been my peaceful way to show my rage and to say, ‘This cannot continue.’ Things need to be addressed properly, with depth, with humanity and with soul. I want to dig, dig, dig deep to a place that I don’t even know what it is. I want to enter something somewhere. It’s always never enough for me. I think it’s a problem for me that it’s always never enough. But at the same time, this is how I feel when I’m on an artistic quest.RUCHI MITAL: Do you ever have the feeling that you touched it, the thing you were digging for?OMAR GABRIEL: I think I’ve touched glimpses of it, and the rest is not touched. This is what keeps me digging. I’m afraid this is a big greedy part, or a part of me that’s always a bit unfulfilled. Not like, ‘I’m not satisfied,’ but more like, ‘Wow, we’re so complex and our stories are so multi-layered, so it will never be enough.’ When I finish any piece, I always feel like I missed a lot of things, and maybe it’s not enough, and I need to search more and dig more, but then it resonates with a lot of people, and they find it so deep and profound, and then I’m like, ‘Ah, okay, I asked for more, but maybe it’s already enough.’RUCHI MITAL: There can be two parts to it’s not enough. One is, it’s not enough for me, the other is feeling a responsibility toward other people, like I’m taking on telling this story. I have a responsibility. Do you feel that? Do you have a responsibility to someone, some community, some country you carry when you’re making work?OMAR GABRIEL: So much. I think this is why I also feel it’s not enough. Because I ask myself, ‘How can I, in a short film or feature film, tell the story of one person?’ I must understand what they have been through to be able to communicate it, verbalize it or address it properly. I feel this responsibility that they are giving me a door into their life, into their psyche, into their hearts. I feel so responsible, especially when someone knows what it means to open up, when they are vulnerable and want to be want to feel safe, want to feel appreciated, want to feel celebrated. I always want to push more to make them feel they are being represented in a way they feel good about while sharing things they thought might be too shameful or vulnerable. I want them to see that it resonated with a lot of other people, so they become the heroes of their story, and not the other way around. I think this feeling of it’s not enough comes from I want to touch the core of depth, realness, and authenticity, and I don’t have a reference.RUCHI MITAL: Let’s talk specifically about your series, A Letter to Myself. I think it brings together so many of the things that you were just talking about. And I wonder if you can tell me a little bit about how this series come about, what drove you to do this series, a little bit about how you connected with the people you featured in the series, and the intention behind the approach that you took. It has the feeling of a home movie, and yet there’s also a kind of timeless quality to it. It could be almost any time period since cameras have been invented. It’s very intimate, but it’s also very universal. It’s experimental in that it’s not just a narrative, with a beginning, middle and end. It’s a really rich series you created. If you can, tell me a little bit about how you came to it and what your idea was.OMAR GABRIEL: It all started after the Beirut blast, when I was very close to death. I was blessed to stay alive and stay in shape and healthy, and I asked myself, ‘What is my responsibility, since I’m here and what can I do without fear?’ I had been inhabited by the fear of expressing something too real and too authentic. I’ve done this in the past, but not to that extent, and I felt like since I have been so close to that, there’s nothing to be afraid of anymore. I wouldn’t say it’s only about queerness; it’s also about acceptance, and it’s about embracing the inner child and addressing something to oneself, and taking the time to reflect about oneself in a world where we’re always doing things for others.I am writing a letter to myself, taking the time to write words intuitively with all my heart, not to another person, but to myself. It’s meeting the self that sometimes we don’t have the time for or are afraid to meet. I started with the others, and they inspired me to end it with a letter to myself, because I felt like, ‘Those people are so courageous.’ They are strong enough to write letters to themselves and to accept being filmed and to know that these films are going to go viral on Instagram. So why am I still hiding behind my camera? What I wanted to ask others is what I’m searching for in myself. So, this time, I would not hide behind the camera. The turning point was when I realized that what we’re looking for in others is also what we look for in ourselves.RUCHI MITAL: There’s always this tension in a documentary, this power thing about, I’m looking at you, I’m telling your story. And as much as you are giving someone the opportunity to tell their story, you’re looking at them and making yourself one of the subjects of the series. To me, this seems like a political act, in the framework of Everything is Political. It seems to be related to this thing that happens when you’re a person from a particular community… you’re from Lebanon, you’re a queer person… It’s like you’re now going to speak for this group. If you’re from this country, you can only talk about wars, because that’s what this experience is about, and the multi-layers of complexity somehow are not allowed for. And I don’t know if that’s something you experience, but it feels that in this space of allowing one person to write to themselves and not have to speak to the audience or the world, and putting yourself in it, you’re kind of reclaiming this complexity.OMAR GABRIEL: I totally agree that it’s a political act to place myself in this. In the beginning, I never thought about it as political. I just felt that intuitively, I felt the need to be in this series. But in terms of hierarchy, somehow it puts us all at the same level, when we are all expressing in the same way. As a filmmaker, I express differently through the camera, through the stories I want to tell, because also others are reflections of me. I don’t choose the people I work with randomly. Maybe it’s an intuitive choice, but deep down, we have things in common, or we have values that are shared in common, or wounds that are shared in common. It’s like a spider’s web; we’re all connected in some way or another.I have to step back and look at it with consciousness to be able to understand it. We are all part of each other’s stories because we’re all having this human experience, and we go through things that are similar and different, but the things we share are part of this human experience of loss and grief and celebration and identity crisis. I think what is political about it is that we are an inspiration for each other, and by connecting and by opening up and by sharing, we realized that we as human beings have so much in common.One of the insanely incredible things about this art form is that this specific individual story or life or experience has this power to burst into something universal. One of my favorite parts about making documentaries is the level of surprise you’re always dealing with. You know what it is, and it becomes something else, or it moves in a different direction, and you have to go with it. I think some art forms are inside out, like I have a feeling, or I have an idea, and then I express it. But this one is very much like you’re eating it, and then it’s digested and transformed. I would call it a humbling process. You realize that if you trust life and you trust the people, it can give you a lot more than you know. I would say it removes the control. It removes it’s my idea, it’s my vision.My short film, Lebanon After the War: Is Healing Possible?, was filmed in the Shatila, Palestinian camps. I was shooting at the same time the genocide was happening and while the war in southern Beirut was going on. I wanted to go to Shatila to see if I could find some joy in this very complex and difficult territory, where Palestinians and other migrants, Syrians and Lebanese were staying. In this intense place, I wanted to search for joy, because the violence is inflicted on us and our bodies and I wanted to understand how it is possible to liberate ourselves while the system is still present and while the oppression is still happening and the war is still ongoing.I met a dancer named Omar a couple of years ago, and he is from Shatila. I said to him, ‘Let’s do a movie while we try to liberate our bodies.’ And he was like, ‘Yes, great. Where?’ And I said, ‘In Shatila.’ He said, ‘No way. I wouldn’t dare dance in the streets of Shatila.’ I said, ‘I’m with you. Let’s take on this challenge. I don’t think it will be a problem.’ We started to test it out, and then we started celebrating our bodies, and we ended up dancing with this whole community we found in Shatila. I realized that people are here to celebrate joy, to dance, to move, and not to judge, even while they endure political oppression and violence.As a man from Lebanon dancing with another man in this environment, it wasn’t the most comforting or safe in the beginning. But this was part of the challenge, to feel fear and move with it and see where it took us. Of course, we had some backups for our personal safety, but you can never control everything. We decided to move with fear and see where it guided us. Are you being chased, or is this an expression? And the answer is, it’s both. It really captures both those feelings. It’s all these feelings of wanting to escape what scares you, but also wanting to protect yourself, but also wanting to move to a place where you don’t know where you’re going, you’re just escaping something that has been imposed on you. Palestinians, Lebanese people, and Syrian people have been living and experiencing for decades violence imposed on us. There’s always something we need to run away from. We need to run away from our home. We need to run away from our belongings, from our family, from our body. We always feel like there’s something that is threatening us. We carry with us all of these traumas.I don’t have an answer as to how to liberate ourselves from fear, violence, and trauma. It’s still an ongoing journey as a Lebanese person, as a queer person, as a sensitive artist who also feels things in a global way. I don’t only feel my own story, I also connect to the global narrative. I try in my films to explore the possibilities of how we can do that, but I don’t have an answer for it. I just have suggestions, humble, simple, small suggestions.RUCHI MITAL: Perhaps the most political thing you can do in this kind of work is not to close the loop, not to say the end, not to answer the question, because then the danger is it becomes a one-dimensional image, and that image then can easily be used against you. You did a really good job of showing that resilience has a cost, and that it’s not an end to anything. A new story is always beginning.OMAR GABRIEL: Resilience is sometimes not a choice, but if you haven’t chosen to take your own life, you resist by default. This is what most of us have been experiencing. As you can see in this film, some resist by partying, some resist by putting on makeup and dressing up, and some resist by grieving in their own room and allowing those feelings to rise. There isn’t one proper way of healing to be able to continue, and we don’t have the formula yet. We don’t always have the space and time and luxury to explore and discover, because the day you start healing, there is another trauma that’s inflicted on you and your body and your nervous system. I started figuring out how to process this. The Western methods of healing don’t apply to us, which is mostly everything is inside you, and you find it inside you, and you heal it inside.I’m not only wounded, and I’m not only traumatized because of things that are inside me. There are things that are inside me that are coming from outer sources. So, once they stop, things can maybe start getting better, but as long as they are still there, we are figuring out our own healing. We don’t want to turn it into violence, and we don’t want to become the oppressor; we still want to be kind and loving. This is our own way of figuring it out, and, and it’s complex and it’s hard and it’s sad, but we are still going and finding ways, as long as we still can.RUCHI MITAL: I think that all your films have a space for sadness, but they don’t stay there. They have a space for rage, but they don’t stay there. Maybe especially for men, but for a lot of us, sadness isn’t really allowed, because on one hand, you should be grateful for what you have, you’re here, you’re doing these things… I think a space for sadness is revolutionary in and of itself.OMAR GABRIEL: Thinking that way, that if you are grateful, you should not be sad is imposing a binary way of thinking. You can grieve and still feel sad and still feel joy and still want to feel joy and still mourn and be depressed and get anxious. This is why I refuse to stick to one facet of life, or to one facet of our psyche. I want it to be complex because it is complex. You know, grieving is not linear, and it’s not rigid. It includes so many layers. I am curious about how people can still find their life force amidst all of what’s going on. And I think people like us—Arabs, Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrian—should become the reference for how to find a life force and continue. We should have our own healing systems that we teach others, or we should show others how we can continue, because it’s honestly extremely impressive. And even me, as a Lebanese, I’m still impressed, even if I’m not impressed by myself, I’m impressed by a lot of people in Lebanon and Syria and Palestine. When I see Gaza and people are carrying a life force to continue, I’m curious to know how. I want to learn from those people. I want to learn from my community. I want to learn from the human beings around me.I want people around me, my neighbors, to tell me how they survived civil war and so many wars, and the explosion and their own personal journey. I’m impressed by the people around me. And I think this is why, with my camera, I don’t search far. I don’t want to travel to find this amazing story. All the people around me and around us have amazing stories.RUCHI MITAL: Are you working on a film right now?OMAR GABRIEL: I’m finishing my feature film, my personal feature film called Album, which is going to be, hopefully, distributed this year in festivals. It’s about the life of three queer people in Lebanon and their relationships with their mothers, told through archival images that they find in photo albums. It’s a reflection of their childhood but it’s also about questioning the present time and hoping for something in the future."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Narrative Sovereignty in the American Wing of The Met: Don't Miss ENCODED at the MET",
"author" : "",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/narrative-sovereignty-in-the-american-wing-of-the-met",
"date" : "2025-12-22 12:58:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Hidden_Exhibition.jpg",
"excerpt" : "As artists and multicultural activists, we did not come to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s American Wing seeking permission, instead we showed up to the work with intention, responsibility, and a commitment to truth. ENCODED: Change the Story, Change the Future exists because silence is not neutral, presence without agency is insufficient and solidarity across values-based creativity is essential for liberation.",
"content" : "As artists and multicultural activists, we did not come to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s American Wing seeking permission, instead we showed up to the work with intention, responsibility, and a commitment to truth. ENCODED: Change the Story, Change the Future exists because silence is not neutral, presence without agency is insufficient and solidarity across values-based creativity is essential for liberation.The American Wing is often described as a celebration of American art, yet it also functions as a carefully curated archive of colonial mythology and westward expansion propaganda. Its paintings and sculptures rehearse familiar narratives: conquest framed as destiny, extraction framed as progress, whiteness framed as purity, Indigenous absence framed as inevitability. These works are not merely historical artifacts; they are instruments of narrative power. They encode ideas about belonging, legitimacy, and nationhood, ideas that continue to shape cultural consciousness and public policy today. ENCODED intervenes in this institutional space not to negate history, but to complicate it. Using augmented reality, the exhibition overlays Indigenous artistic expression and counter-narratives directly onto famous works in the American Wing, reframing them through Indigenous epistemologies, lived experience, and historical truth. This is not an act of erasure. It is an act of expansion and an overt insistence that American art history is incomplete without Indigenous voice, presence, and critique.At its core, ENCODED is grounded in the principle of narrative sovereignty. Narrative sovereignty asserts that communities most impacted by historical and ongoing harm such as Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant people, Palestinians, Pacific Islanders, Trans folks and the working class all must have the authority to tell their own stories, in their own words, and within the institutions that have historically excluded or misrepresented them. This is not a symbolic gesture. It is a democratic imperative.Democracy depends on access to truth. When museums present a singular, sanitized vision of history, they do not merely reflect power, they reinforce it. The American Wing has long upheld myths of “taming the West” and the so-called exhaustion of empire, narratives that obscure the violence of settler colonialism, normalize Indigenous dispossession and chattel slavery. ENCODED challenges these myths by making visible what has been omitted: resistance, survival, continuity, solidarity and accountability. For me, I also hope this intervention reflects back to museum goers and viewers the perils of authoritarianism, fascism and ongoing colonial projects such as legacy media consolidation, rapid creation of datacenters to produce AI, cutting access to healthcare, education, rights, or the current US regime’s attempt to erase history by any means necessary.The artists participating in ENCODED are not responding nostalgically to the past. They are engaging the present. Their work examines how colonial narratives persist in contemporary systems including environmental destruction justified by extraction, racial hierarchies reinforced through cultural storytelling, and institutions that benefit from the aesthetics of inclusion while resisting structural change. These are not abstract critiques; they are lived realities and for me deep lessons that have been shaped by having formerly worked at a neocolonial conservation nonprofit ran by wealthy cis wyt men and their enablers for nearly five years.Artistic integrity, in this context, cannot be separated from ethical responsibility. For too long, the art world has upheld a false binary between aesthetics and politics, suggesting that rigor diminishes when artists engage power directly. ENCODED rejects this premise. Integrity is not neutrality. Integrity is the willingness to tell the truth, even when it destabilizes comfort or prestige. Walking with integrity can be painful and takes courage.Importantly, ENCODED is not positioned as a protest staged outside the institution, nor as a request for institutional validation. It is an act of presence with agency. The project uses accessible technology to meet audiences where they are, inviting participation rather than reverence. Viewers scan QR codes and encounter layered narratives that ask them to look again, listen differently, and question inherited assumptions. Except for a few organized tours, the experience is self-guided, decentralized, and deliberately democratic. It’s also fun, and it is so special to hear the familiar sounds from the ENCODED pieces ring throughout the galleries signalling that kin is close by.This kinship network and accessibility is central to the work. Cultural literacy should not be gated by academic language, curatorial authority, white exceptionalism or economic privilege. By operating through personal devices, ENCODED rejects the museum’s traditional hierarchy of knowledge and affirms that interpretation is a shared civic space. The exhibition does not dictate conclusions; it creates conditions for reckoning and deep dialogue.Solidarity is another foundational principle of the project. ENCODED brings together Indigenous artists across nations and disciplines, in relationship with Black, Brown, and allied communities who recognize that colonialism is not a single-issue structure. The logics that dispossessed Indigenous peoples are the same logics that underwrote slavery, environmental exploitation, the seizing of Palestine, forced child mining labor of cobalt in Congo and in general global empire. Working in solidarity does not collapse difference; it honors specificity while resisting division and acknowledging historic patterns of systemic oppression.In a cultural landscape shaped by scarcity and competition, ENCODED models an alternative, one rooted in collective presence, shared resources, and mutual accountability. The project refuses the extractive norms of both empire and the contemporary art economy, offering instead a relational approach grounded in care, collaboration, and long-term impact on community.The decision to situate ENCODED within the American Wing was deliberate. Indigenous art has too often been confined to anthropological contexts or framed as premodern, separate from the narrative of American art. ENCODED asserts what has always been true: Indigenous peoples are not peripheral to American history; we are foundational to it. Our stories do not belong on the margins, nor do they belong solely to the past or through a white gaze.Yet presence without counter-narrative risks assimilation. ENCODED insists that visibility must be accompanied by authorship. By intervening directly within the American Wing, the project challenges the authority of colonial framing and invites institutions to reckon with their role in shaping public memory. Our hope is that eventually the Met will see this as an opportunity to engage in discussion and support its presence well into 2026.There is risk in this work. Naming colonial propaganda within revered institutions invites discomfort, defensiveness, and critique. But risk is inseparable from integrity. Artists and cultural workers are accountable not only to institutions and audiences, but to future generations. The question is not whether institutions will change, but whether artists will continue to lead with courage when they do not.ENCODED is an offering and a provocation. It asks what it means to inherit a cultural legacy and whether we are willing to transform it. Empire is not exhausted; it is contested. And art remains one of the most powerful sites of that contestation. When we change the story, we do change the future. Not through erasure, but through expansion. Not through dominance, but through relationship.Ultimately, ENCODED affirms that art is not merely a reflection of society, but a tool for shaping it and that when artists from the margins claim space at the center, together and with integrity, we open pathways toward a more honest, inclusive, and democratic cultural future. Join us.To access ENCODED review the exhibit website for instructions. While at the Met scan the QR code and click through the prompts for the self guided tour.https://www.encodedatthemet.com"
}
,
{
"title" : "The Aesthetics of Atrocity: Lockheed Martin’s Streetwear Pivot",
"author" : "Louis Pisano",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/the-aesthetics-of-atrocity",
"date" : "2025-12-20 10:30:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Lockheed_StreetWar.jpg",
"excerpt" : "On December 12, The Business of Fashion published an article titled “The Unlikely Rise and Uncertain Future of Lockheed Martin Streetwear,” detailing the world’s largest arms manufacturer’s entrance into casual apparel.",
"content" : "On December 12, The Business of Fashion published an article titled “The Unlikely Rise and Uncertain Future of Lockheed Martin Streetwear,” detailing the world’s largest arms manufacturer’s entrance into casual apparel.Through a licensing deal with South Korea’s Doojin Yanghang Corp., Lockheed turns fighter jet graphics, corporate slogans, and its star logo into gorpcore staples. Oversized outerwear, tactical pants, and advanced synthetic fabrics sell out at Seoul pop-ups like the Hyundai department store with young Korean consumers chasing the edgy, functional vibe. Andy Koh, a Seoul-based content creator, tells BoF that while arms manufacturing is, in theory, political, he has never encountered widespread discomfort among Korean consumers. “As long as it looks cool and the product functions as expected,” he says, “they seem okay with it.”This trend aligns with a broader South Korean fashion phenomenon: licensing logos from global non-fashion brands to create popular streetwear lines. Examples include National Geographic puffers, Yale crewnecks, Kodak retro tees, CNN hoodies, Discovery jackets, Jeep outdoor wear, and university apparel from institutions like Harvard and UCLA. These licensed collections, often featuring media, academia, sports leagues, or adventure themes, have become staples on online retailers like Musinsa and in brick-and-mortar stores, propelled by K-pop influence and a tech-savvy youth market that make these odd crossovers multimillion-dollar successes.Lockheed, however, is categorically different. Its core business is not exploration, education, or journalism. It is industrialized death, and its arrival in fashion forces a reckoning with how far commodification can stretch.Having spent years in the military, maybe I’m the wrong person to critique this. Or maybe I’m exactly the right one. I know what weapons are for, how they’re used, and the human cost they carry. Lockheed manufactures F-16 and F-35 fighter jets, Hellfire missiles, and precision-guided systems that human rights organizations have repeatedly linked to civilian casualties across multiple conflicts. In Yemen, U.S.-supplied weapons incorporating Lockheed technology contributed to thousands of civilian deaths since 2015, most notoriously the 2018 airstrike on a school bus in Saada that killed dozens of children. In Gaza, since October 2023, Lockheed-supplied F-35s and munitions have formed the backbone of air operations that Amnesty International and other watchdogs have flagged for potential violations of international humanitarian law, cases now under examination by the International Court of Justice.In 2024, the company reported $71 billion in revenue, almost entirely from military contracts, with more than 1,100 F-35s already delivered worldwide and production lines running hotter than ever. That staggering scale is the reality lurking beneath a logo now casually printed on everyday apparel.So why does the planet’s largest arms manufacturer license its brand to streetwear? The answer seems to be twofold: easy money and sophisticated image laundering. Licensing delivers low-risk royalties from Korea’s reported $35-40 billion apparel market with virtually no operational headache. Lockheed simply collects checks while a third-party manufacturer handles design, production, distribution, and deals with all the mess of retail.The far more ambitious goal, however, is reputational refurbishment. Doojin deliberately markets the line around “future-oriented technical aesthetics” and “aerospace innovation,” leaning on cutting-edge fabrics to conjure high-tech futurism instead of battlefield carnage. By late 2025, as U.S. favorability in South Korea continued to slide amid trade tensions and regional geopolitical shifts, the brand quietly de-emphasized its American roots, according to Lockheed representatives. The strategy clearly tries to sever the logo from political controversy and plant it firmly in youth culture, where aesthetic appeal routinely outmuscles ethical concern.Lockheed has honed this kind of rebranding for decades. Their corporate brochures overflow with talk of “driving innovation” and “advancing scientific discovery,” spotlighting STEM scholarships, veteran hiring initiatives, and rapid-response disaster aid. The clothing itself carries the same sanitized messaging. One prominent slogan reads “Ensuring those we serve always stay ahead of ready”, euphemistic corporate-speak that sounds heroic until you remember that “those we serve” includes forces deploying Hellfire missiles against civilian targets. Other pieces feature F-35 graphics paired with copy declaring the jet “strengthens national security, enhances global partnerships, and powers economic growth”. It’s textbook PR varnish. Instruments designed for lethal efficiency, now rebranded as symbols of progress and prosperity.We’ve also seen this trick before: Fast fashion brands that slap “sustainable” labels on sweatshop products. Tech giants that fund glamorous art installations while they harvest user data. Oil companies that rebrand themselves as forward-thinking “energy” players as the Earth’s climate burns. Lockheed, though, traffics in something uniquely irreversible: export-grade death. By licensing its identity to apparel, multibillion-dollar arms contracts are reduced to mere intellectual property; civilian casualties dissolved into, simply, background static.In other words, vibes overpower victims. And when those vibes are stamped with the logo of the planet’s preeminent death merchant, resistance feels futile.Gorpcore has always drawn from military surplus for its rugged utility: endless cargo pockets, indestructible nylons, tactical silhouettes born in combat and repurposed for city streets. Brands like Arc’teryx, The North Face, and Supreme mine that heritage for authenticity and performance. After World War II, army fatigues became symbols of genuine rebellion, worn by anti-war protesters as an act of defiance against the establishment. Today, the dynamic threatens to invert entirely. The establishment itself, the world’s preeminent arms dealer, now supplies the “authentic” merchandise, turning subversion into subtle endorsement.Streetwear grew out of skate culture, hip-hop, and grassroots rebellion against mainstream norms. Importing the aesthetics of atrocity risks converting that legacy into compliance, rendering militarism the newest version of mainstream cool. For a generation immersed in filtered feeds and rapid trend cycles, Lockheed’s logo can sit comfortably beside NASA patches or National Geographic emblems, conveniently severed from the charred wreckage in Saada or the devastation in Gaza. Research on “ethical fading” demonstrates how strong visual design can mute moral alarms, a phenomenon intensified in Korea’s hyper-trendy ecosystem, where mandatory military service may further desensitize young consumers to defense branding while K-pop’s global engine drives relentless consumption.If the line proves durable, escalation feels inevitable. Palantir, another cornerstone of the defense-tech world, has already gone there, hyping limited merch drops that sell out in hours: $99 athletic shorts stamped “PLTR—TECH,” $119 nylon totes, hoodies emblazoned with CEO Alex Karp’s likeness or slogans about “dominating” threats. What’s to stop Northrop Grumman from launching its own techwear line? Or BAE Systems from dropping high-end collaborations?Lockheed already licenses merchandise worldwide through various agencies; broader international rollouts beyond Korea seem only a matter of time. Backlash is possible, boycotts from ethically minded buyers, perhaps even regulatory scrutiny as anti-militarism sentiment swells. Gorpcore’s longstanding flirtation with military aesthetics could calcify into outright fetish, obliterating whatever daylight remained between practical function and state-sanctioned propaganda.Yet, history suggests that in oversaturated markets, “cool” almost always trumps conscience. Lockheed’s streetwear pivot is a stark illustration of how fashion and culture launder raw power, enabling the machinery of war to conceal itself among hype, hoodies, and sold-out drops."
}
,
{
"title" : "Our Era of Insecurity: How Unaffordability and Uncertainty Became Our Monoculture",
"author" : "Alissa Quart",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/our-era-of-insecurity",
"date" : "2025-12-16 11:56:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Unaffordability.jpg",
"excerpt" : "In 2025, I’ve interviewed a number of people who saw themselves as living in “survival mode.” At first, their professions might surprise you. They are government contractors, public broadcasters, and tech workers, formerly safe professions. And some of their jobs disappeared this year due to DOGE “efficiency” cuts, the dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AI acceleration. They are among the millions now living through an experience that I call terra infirma, a new level of economic and social uncertainty.",
"content" : "In 2025, I’ve interviewed a number of people who saw themselves as living in “survival mode.” At first, their professions might surprise you. They are government contractors, public broadcasters, and tech workers, formerly safe professions. And some of their jobs disappeared this year due to DOGE “efficiency” cuts, the dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and AI acceleration. They are among the millions now living through an experience that I call terra infirma, a new level of economic and social uncertainty.It’s the mood that encapsulates so much of Trump 2.0. A November 2025 Pew study found that almost half of U.S. adults are uncertain about having enough retirement income. When it comes to health insurance, they may be waiting for their ACA health subsidies to sunset or for their partner’s premiums to skyrocket. Addressing unaffordability and uncertainty is even the newest theme song in politics, most recently in the Maine campaign of gubernatorial candidate, oyster farmer and military veteran Graham Platner.Seventy years ago, the critic Raymond Williams used the term “structure of feeling” to describe a collective emotion that is tied to a time and place, as well as social and economic conditions. Today, our “structure of feeling” is uncertainty. You could even take it further, and call “precarity” the last monoculture as it’s a condition shared by so many Americans. As Astra Taylor, author of The Age of Insecurity: Coming Together as Things Fall Apart, says, insecurity is a “defining feature of our time.”As far as mass moods go, “insecurity” is certainly a disconcerting one. The economist Pranab Bardhan writes in A World of Insecurity, that “insecurity, more than inequality, agitates people.” What makes 2025 different from other years, however, is the degree to which we all experienced this precarity. The usual uncertainty level has been turned up from a whine to a 135-decibel air raid scream.What’s happened? Tariffs have raised our costs. Medicaid will be scaled back over the next decade by a trillion dollars. Meanwhile, dozens of Venezuelan fishermen have been exploded by our armed forces. And while two-thirds of Americans are already living with economic insecurity, their feelings about it don’t necessarily involve the discrepancy between their lot and those of the very rich. As Steven Semler, the co-founder of Security Policy Reform Institute (SPRI), explains it to me, these Americans have a mindset that “is more fearful of poverty than aspirations of being a millionaire.”The people of terra infirma do describe such fears. In the words of one, they’ve experienced a “mental health decline and a loss of purpose” and in another, “a serious financial pinch”, because they are their family’s main breadwinner. Uncertainty is the common refrain of the growing number of laid-off software workers, according to Human-Centered Design scholar Samuel So. In addition to feeling destabilized about their professional security for the first time, software workers have experienced disillusionment and alienation from the technology industry’s “military and police partnerships.” Jobs themselves are part of this insecurity, with never-ending hiring processes, the race of automation, and ghost jobs, the twisted contemporary version of the perished Russian serfs of Nikolai Gogol’s Dead Souls, except now professional opportunities are offered that don’t actually exist. People are also nervous about their future, because insecurity is a temporal emotion, as much about the future as the present. Many of us wonder how our security will further erode, as our health plan premiums soar, or as our subways catch on fire, or as ICE comes to our cities. This causes not only stress in the moment, but discomfort about what lies ahead.Of course, it’s not just Trump 2.0 alone that has caused this. The forces behind Trump’s win in 2024—and the anger at the traditional Democratic party—have something to do with this disposition, as well. In the weeks leading up to Trump’s election, people surveyed by the Federal Reserve Board ranked one of their top concerns as pricing and their top concern as inflation. Disparate phenomena—AI slop, job cuts, relentless and confusing cutbacks in crucial academic research—are entwined. It’s as if they were all figures in a paranoiac Thomas Pynchon novel. In a “world of insecurity,” as economist Bardhan writes, instabilities interlink. In other words, what I think of as “informational insecurity”—bots, false ads, fake news—often joins up with economic instability.These different instances of confusion and instability blend into a gnarly color wheel of distress. Economic distress, sure—that is also accentuated by societal, cultural, environmental, and physical examples of insecurity we see all around us, every day.How do we pick apart these knotted-together insecurities? For starters, we can embrace candidates who address economic uncertainty head-on, including New York’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, Seattle’s new mayor, Katie Wilson, and Virginia’s governor-elect Abigail Spanberger. These politicians, as Nicholas Jacobs has written of Maine candidate Platner, are “speaking to grievances that are real, measurable, and decades in the making.”Another line of defense is being brave and grasping for community in any way we can. I think of the ordinary people blowing whistles near Chicago to alert their neighbors when ICE showed up in their suburban towns: they were accidental upstanders, refusing to be part of manufactured uncertainty and instability.One traditional definition of security is “freedom from fear.” And while we are unlikely to experience that freedom from fear as long as the populist American Right continues its goosestep, it’s also important to remember that uncertainty, like any “structure of feeling,” is an unfinished emotion.Yes, insecurity shapes us now. But we, as a collective, are so much more than it. Because even if we are living in a time of such negative uncertainty, it won’t necessarily stay that way. We can still redefine ourselves and, most importantly, recognize we are not alone."
}
]
}