Miral

I was amazed at how non-political this movie was. There was a great deal of controversy around it, so I was expecting a polemic. It was nothing of the kind. It portrays the childhood and adolescence of a Palestinian girl, along with stories of her mother and her school headmistress. These stories illustrate, to some degree, the Palestinian history from 1947 to 1993. But the focus is on the women's stories. I think this is a movie that will be appreciated far more by women than by men. It is poignant and respectful. Most women will find something with which to identify in this film. The cinematography is beautiful and the lead actors are compelling in their roles. The movie has been criticized as disjointed, but that's because real life does not have a formulaic dramatic arc. And sadly, there is no "conclusion" to the movie because the conflict is ongoing.

Director Julian Schnabel tackles yet another biographical tale after his Diving Bell and the Butterfly, with a focus shifted to the Middle East conflict, but unlike the typical Hollywood production ranging from all out action like The Kingdom to heavier dramatic fare like Syriana, this film, an Indian-Italian-French-Israeli co-production stops short at passing judgement, opting to tread the middle ground in portraying as objective a viewpoint as possible, and does so through the eyes of the titular character Miral (Freida Pinto) being caught up in the scheme of her environment.

Curiously, this film is based on the novel by Rula Jebreal, a Palestinian journalist, whose book is an almost biographical account of her growing up and formative years, where she got brought up in an orphanage in Jerusalem established by Hind Husseini (Hiam Abbass), whose notable exploits after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War include rescuing orphaned survivors from the Deir Yassin massacre and turning her home into an orphanage. So in essence we get to observe the story of two women caught up in extraordinary circumstances spanning a vast timeline right up to the establishment of the state of Israel and right through to various peace accords that are still trying to bear fruit, and one

The narrative is split into two halves, with the first centered on the tale of Hind Husseini, her sacrifice and achieving of her objective, before having the narrative shift toward that of Miral, clearly the poster girl since Freida Pinto's shot to fame in Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire might mean a lot more people giving this film a chance. Brought to Husseini's orphanage to be raised, we see the teenager getting awakened to the state of affairs of the land claimed by opposing sides, and getting caught between a rock and a hard place, where Husseini's counsel gets weighed against that of the brush of romance with the militant Hani (Omar Metwally), but of course don't come to expect flitting romantic scenes as the more powerful and thought provoking ones far outweigh affairs of the heart.

While the film offered two stories of two independently strong women, somehow it is the lack of a primary central figure that did it in, where it's most unfortunate to have the story quite scattered in its ambitious timeline in trying to condense an extremely complex political situation, no doubt adopting a micro view through the two different perspectives and principles in its leading characters. It sought to contrast viewpoints of those who deem education is the key out of their current plight, against those who wish to stand up and be counted, violence notwithstanding as a means to achieve an end.

Perhaps I was anticipating more, but with an ending quite abrupt, it leaves more questions than those answered and addressed, and perhaps so because it's still an open environment with no clear solutions in sight. Like how the characters have seen milestones set in their lifetime, I wonder if we in ours can eventually see something significantly charted out. The end title was a chilling reminder that it will take quite a while.

It is a true story:based on journalist's Rula Jebreal's autobiographic novel;Rula depicts her childhood and her adolescence in Jerusalem East as Miral ,an imam and a manic-depressive mother's daughter.Miral was brought up by Hind Al Hussein ,a Palestinian woman who took in a group of children victims of an Israeli attack and who founded a boarding-school for Palestinian children.

Miral turns seventeen: she is torn between her people's cause , its defense (do they have to resort to force?)and Hind's ideas :the only way is education ,understanding.These red flowers along the roads epitomize blood which has flowed.When there are too many deaths and too many wars,they do not heed to them anymore ,they do not pay attention more than they do to those "Mirals"

"Miral" reopens the debate,a pacifist one about a conflict which has received too much media exposure:none of the two people has any future if he denies his neighbor's well-being and dignity ;if this movie gets a message across ,it's this one .This epic takes place between the birth of the state of Israel (1948) and the Oslo agreement (1994).

With three exceptions (Vanessa Redgrave ,who was famous for her pro-Palestinian stand , Willem Dafoeand to a lesser degree Freida Pinto )the actors are unknown to the European audience.

A drama centered on an orphaned Palestinian girl (Freida Pinto) growing up in the wake of Arab-Israeli war who finds herself drawn into the conflict.

You might wonder: Freida Pinto is Indian, so why was she cast as Palestinian? -- Some critics took exception to this, or the idea that she is too beautiful to play an ordinary girl. Are ordinary girls not allowed to be beautiful? And while her Indian heritage may seem out of place, I think this should be overlooked in light of the fact she is a tremendous actress and sold the character well.

What is so great about this film is that the politics are not the issue. The life of a young girl is. This is a film that shows the humanity of the Palestinians -- the DVD cover asks if Miral has the "face of a terrorist". After seeing the film, you have to say no. While the story covers a wide swath of history, from 1947 to the 1993 Oslo agreement, the politics are not the problem.

Schnabel tells me many of the critics were negative, and I do see some complaints that the editing was choppy, or the bizarre remark that Schnabel does not know how to direct women. Presumably many critics took exception to the positive portrayal of the Palestinians and the negative portrayal of the Israelis.

In fact, though, this is how one might view the film if looking for a certain angle. The Israelis are presented negatively, yes, but not inaccurately. But the Palestinians are not really presented positively -- just as human beings. There is still a father telling her daughter not to get mixed up with the PLO, and one scene has a stepfather raping his wife's daughter. That can hardly be seen as being positive (though the real point here is that people should be judged as individuals, not as members of a group).

The cast is all excellent, with plenty of Arab flavor. We have Willem Dafoe (a native of my city, Appleton) and Vanessa Redgrave for the "white" aspect. And then Alexander Siddig, probably best known as Bashir from "Star Trek", somewhere in-between (Siddig was born in Sudan, but was educated in London).

The film is PG-13, making it less raw but more accessible to audiences. This may have toned down the realism a bit, but it in no way compromised the emotional outreach that was a steady undercurrent.

Geoffrey Macnab calls the film "courageous and groundbreaking", while Mike Goodridge calls it "sincere and thought-provoking". Both are correct. The more unusual comment comes from Claudia Puig, who says, "Schnabel puts his unmistakable dreamlike stamp on the film." Now, Schnabel is first and foremost a painter, so his goal is art. But to call this film "dreamlike" just seems off. This struck me as pure realism all the way. But who am I to judge?

Anyway, great film, and one that will be sure to spark discussion regardless of which side (if any) you stand on in the ongoing Middle East debate.

First I must say that before seeing this film I had not read the book it was based on so I have to assume that the film follows the book. As the writer of the book also participated in the scripting of the film, one would think that this film is a collaboration between the author of the book and the director Julian Schnabel. This being said, I have tried to review this film without prejudice.

When the film ended my first thoughts were that this film would cause a stir as it is directed by a Jew and yet the subject matter of the film shows the Jewish State of Israel in a negative light. My concerns were not as much for the film itself, as it is a well made film, but for the attitude that the Jewish population would have towards the film. In my own experience, as someone who has been directly involved with distribution of film, whenever there is a group that has a negative response the distribution can go one of two ways; the first being limited distribution as some will not support showing the film in their theaters, and the second being a tremendous response to good cinema where theaters will take the risk and book the film at a national level. "Miral" a film that should have widespread distribution, because of what the Jewish population will do in response to the anti Israel theme, this film will be reduced to Art House distribution.

"Miral" deals with a Palestinian community in turmoil due to change. That change was the effect that the new Statehood of Israel caused. As with any new regimes change is mandatory and an often misunderstood process and the story of "Miral" reflects that process.

The film boasts a well woven story, competent acting, and a visceral message. This is a relevant film and well worth seeing. It is multiple-layered and a multiple-leveled film. It would be a shame if the Jewish Community misreads the intention of the film. Films like this do not come around often and avoiding it out of ignorance would be a mistake.

.