Jamais sans ma fille

I can't understand why this movie was called racist! It happened and there is a prevalent problem with some child custody cases involving parents from different countries. I did read Betty Mahmoody's sequel book entitled "For the Love of a Child" . It basically deals with the aftermath of her escape from Iran with Mahtoob, but she also writes about other cases where children from such marriages (one parent from a foreign country) who use the international system to hold their children hostage against the other parent. I recommend this book more than "Not Without My Daughter" It shows the nightmare of losing your child to international courts in nasty child custody battles. I had no idea it was such heartache.

The story of Betty Mahmoody is a truly frightening one. The book she wrote and this movie based on it are controversial (many see it as little more than a racist slam against Iranian culture) but to me this movie came across as both believable and balanced. There's no doubt that life in Iran isn't presented as paradise, but the story really isn't about life in Iran; it's about one woman's experience of being forced to remain in Iran against her will after she and her daughter accompany her Iranian born doctor husband back to his homeland to visit his family, and about her subsequent efforts to escape Iran with her daughter. It also does a great job of depicting the almost complete lack of rights and freedoms women possess in Iran - having a status as little more than property to their husbands, and subject to their complete control.

Sally Field was excellent in the role of Betty and Alfred Molina was also disturbingly believable as "Moody" - her husband. As the story opens, the family are living a comfortable life in Michigan and Moody is a completely Americanized doctor working in a local hospital - a loving husband and father. Against her better judgement, Betty agrees to visit his family in Iran - a family more radically Islamic than Moody who from the moment they arrive begin to pressure him to stay and adopt their ways. Molina did a good job of showing the gradual changes in Moody's character and as he becomes more and more abusive and controlling toward Betty. Field superbly portrays Betty's growing desperation and her feelings of helplessness (and hopelessness) as every opportunity for her to escape with her daughter seems to close. Finally, with the help of some sympathetic Iranians, Betty and daughter Mahtoub make a mad escape attempt toward Turkey.

Whether all aspects of Iranian life and culture are accurately portrayed here seems somewhat beside the point to me. This isn't, after all, a documentary about life in Iran. This is Betty's own story as she experienced it and remembered it - and it's a story that makes the viewer ache for her as she tries to figure out a way to escape this nightmare she's caught up in. I found her story completely believable and brilliantly portrayed.

While I was re-watching bits of this movie a few weeks ago, I read the user comments here at IMDb and was very disturbed. Since it is still bothering me, I decided to write my own comments on the movie and on what has been said here.

First, the movie. It is about an international custody battle. That is a very real problem in this day and age. When couples from different countries break up they often each want the children to live with them and grow up in the country (and culture) in which they were raised. Each naturally thinks the way he or she was raised is better for their children.

This movie is Betty Mahmoody's story. And the culture clash is between the United States and Iran. It takes place in 1984. The Ayatollah Khomeini was still very much the leader Iran and the Iran-Iraq war had been going on for 4 years and would continue for another 4. Iran was quite isolated from much of the world at that time.

And 'Moody' Mahmoody, an Iranian-born doctor practicing in the U.S., brings his American wife, Betty, and their daughter, Mahtob, to Iran for a visit. When they arrive, Moody is dismayed at the changes in Iran, especially the breakdown of the education system and the resulting shortage of doctors. Then he becomes an ultra, ultra fundamentalist Muslim – so reactionary he makes suicide bombers look moderate. He demands that Betty dress and behave how he thinks a good Muslim wife should and wants their daughter to be raised to do the same. He becomes physically abusive to Betty. If she wants to return to America, it is fine with him, but Mahtob will remain with him in Iran. So Betty plans a dangerous escape for herself and her daughter.

Does the movie work? Somewhat. 'Women in peril' movies are always a guilty pleasure and Sally Field is a good actress. The biggest problem is with Moody's character. Alfred Molina is a wonderful actor, but it's hard to do much with a character that undergoes such a radical change in his basic character in a matter of weeks. I kept expecting to learn that he had once been diagnosed as psychotic or schizophrenic.

Is the movie unfair to the Iranian people? Again, somewhat. Virtually all the characters in the movie except Betty and Mahtob are Iranian. Some are good. Some are bad. But you can't have a 'woman in peril' with no peril. And that is provided by Moody and his family. But the people who help Betty escape are also Iranian. What unfairness there is lies not in maligning the Iranian people (it doesn't do that) but in implying (and sometimes saying explicitly) that the Iranian culture is inferior just because it is not westernized. As a free American woman I would not want to live in any fundamentalist society, regardless of which religion was in control. But post-revolution Iran is no more representative of thousands of years of Persian culture than Italy under Mussolini was representative of a land that produced the Roman Empire and Michelangelo.

Is the movie unfair to Moody? No, because this is BETTY's story. Talk to anyone in a bitter custody battle and they'll tell you all about why their ex is evil. And they wouldn't be lying. They are giving you their point of view. That doesn't mean Moody doesn't have a different point of view which is equally true and equally untrue (and which, I gather from the comments, was explored in another movie.) But 'Not Without My Daughter' doesn't pretend to be a sociological examination into the two sides of a dispute. Let me repeat for the third time, this is BETTY's story.

That brings me to why some of the comments disturb me so much. I would fully understand if some viewers thought the movie was silly or inaccurate or biased. But several writers have used their reviews as an excuse to joyfully bash the United States. My favorite was 'Who died and made Americans god to do movies about other countries??' That writer is from Sweden but doesn't seem to have a problem with Jan Troell making 'The New Land' (Nybyggarna) about America. And, were we to listen to her, we wouldn't have 'An American in Paris' or 'The Killing Fields' or 'Out of Africa' or 'Amadeus' (all of which are much better films than 'Not Without My Daughter.') But in the United States we have freedom of speech. That means that movie producers are free to make any movie to which they think they can sell tickets. And, as a member of the viewing public, when I disagree with what they are saying I have a very simple remedy. I don't buy a ticket.

I saw this movie quite some time ago and enjoyed it. It did not leave me with a negative image of Iranians, Islam or Persia at all. I saw it as a simple story of mother trying to do what was best for her daughter. Not wanting ones daughter to be a second class citizen in my own opinion does not warrant the hostility I have seen portrayed in the previous comments. Sally Fields performance was certainly good. The movie told the story from the wifes/mothers point of view. I found that the movie showed just cause why the husband would become disenchanted with the USA. I can completely understand why he would like to return to his home. After all there is no place like home. My sympathy however with the husband left me when I saw the deception he displayed keeping his American family in Iran. This movie, though flawed was well worth viewing.

This movie may not win in terms of geographical accuracy or cinematography. However, the woman depicted in the movie is based on the real Betty and she is the writer of the screenplay.

I know many things about many different countries, which seems to be odd for an American. I have read many books about Islam, and ultimately I think that it is most often a religion associated with violence, especially against women. I understand that there are many modern, peaceful people who practice Islam, and I am of the opinion that they have adapted an ancient, oppressive creed to their modern progressive values in order to reclaim it for peace.

To anyone who thinks the husband is irrational, or unrealistic, understand that this movie is based on ACTUAL events, not fiction. I know as a woman, that there is no way I could ever safely travel through Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and many other places regardless of it being 2010. I feel it is sick and sad that these women are covered because the men in those places have not learned to control themselves.

I interact with many international students within my TESL program, and the only people who prefer to not speak with me or acknowledge my statements in a classroom have been Muslim men.

Culture is one thing, and trying to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a dutch parliament member originally from Somalia, for making a film about exactly which parts of the Qur'an oppress women is another. Sadly, Islamic extremists did manage to kill her director, Theo Van Gogh, while he was bicycling in Amsterdam (not an Islamic country). I am proud of France for standing up for equality and banning womens' head scarfs in Governmental buildings because they represent the inequality of men and women which goes against their republic.

I just wish I could convince my public college to stop building prayer rooms and foot washing facilities for Muslim students using student fees. No religion should be getting state money for any educational facilities, and yet in Minnesota there is a charter school next to a mosque that is suing the state for not handing over funds because they violate state law regarding religion in schools (google Muslim school in MN gets state funding). They, of course, are not the only religion trying to get into schools. Many Christians would like to see their religion in schools again as well.

I have been following stories of Islamic oppression of women for many years with my mother. While I understand that there are MANY, NON-VIOLENT, MODERN Muslim people, there are still many cases of abuse against women and children by Islamic men across the world. There have also been many cases of Islamic extremists destroying artistic works, literatures, and other cultural artifacts that are not of their culture. This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, as it was for death metal groups to burn down 13th century Christian churches in Sweden, (google Swedish church fire). These types of art and structures hold value to ALL MANKIND not just the people that made them. This is human history being destroyed!

I myself am of the opinion that MOST major organized religions oppress women, especially Catholicism, Lutheranism and various sects of Christianity in America. Buddhism didn't allow women to practice for a long time. I do believe that Islam may be the most oppressive religion to women overall.

In light of more recent works like Persepolis, this movie is not unrealistic, despite being tacky and poorly filmed. In Persepolis, the parents are very liberal and modern. The writer of those graphic novels lives in France despite having very liberal parents, and that says everything.