Hamdan Ballal and Rachel Szor, two of the four directors behind the Oscar-winning documentary "No Other Land," have returned with "Naza," a film that deepens their investigation into Israeli military occupation and violence. Where their previous work examined the West Bank through the lens of individual Palestinian families facing displacement, "Naza" pivots to Gaza and presents what the filmmakers characterize as a more direct account of what they describe as genocidal policy.
The new documentary arrives in a vastly different political climate than "No Other Land," which won the Berlinale Documentary Prize and the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature earlier this year. That film's awards season run sparked considerable backlash, though the controversy centered less on the work's content or artistic merit and more on its political perspective and the filmmakers' activism. Industry observers and critics noted that strong documentary work addressing Israeli occupation had existed for decades. "No Other Land" was not unique in its subject matter, but its timing proved combustible: it won just four months after the October 7 attacks and the subsequent Gaza war began.
"Naza" represents a more explicitly confrontational approach. The film appears to function as both continuation and escalation of the directors' documentary practice. Rather than the intimate, character-driven narrative that defined "No Other Land," this work moves toward a more expansive exposé format. The title itself signals this shift. Where the previous film grounded viewers in specific Palestinian stories and communities, "Naza" addresses systematic violence on a broader scale.
The documentary arrives as Gaza remains the center of international humanitarian concerns. The scale of destruction and civilian casualties has prompted intensified scrutiny from human rights organizations, journalists, and filmmakers. "Naza" enters this discourse with what appears to be archival material, direct testimony, and investigative documentation that the filmmakers position as evidence of patterns they describe using the language of international law.
The reception of "No Other Land" demonstrated both the appetite for unfiltered Palestinian perspectives in documentary cinema and the resistance such work generates in certain quarters. The film faced calls for its disqualification from major festivals and awards bodies. That controversy, which seemed to many observers to overshadow discussion of the film's actual content and construction, may well shape the conversation around "Naza." Institutions and critics will face renewed questions about platforming work with explicit political positions on ongoing conflicts.
What distinguishes Ballal and Szor's approach from much previous documentary work on this subject involves their willingness to employ direct language. Rather than the more neutral documentary tone that characterized earlier films on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, these filmmakers use terms like "genocide" and "genocidal policy" without qualification. This lexical choice reflects broader shifts in how international observers, legal scholars, and activists now discuss Gaza, following assessments from human rights organizations and statements from legal experts.
"Naza" enters distribution at a moment when documentary filmmaking remains a primary vehicle for Palestinian narrative and witness. The film's arrival suggests that Ballal and Szor have no intention of moderating their approach or stepping back from direct engagement with these subjects, regardless of the institutional friction their previous work generated.