With a few caveats "Miral" is a rather good movie. It shows things from the Palestinian perspective and does leave out an important point or two ... but again in general it's pretty good cinematic experience.
The development of a young lady named Miral is the main subject here. The film is based on an autobiographical novel by Rula Jebreal. Miral is Palestinian and she attends a school that some might consider a privileged place for a Palestinian. She is very lucky to get the type of education offered at the school. The school is a boarding school and is also an orphanage. It is run by a wonderful lady.
The author, Rula Jebreal, is a journalist. She attended university in Italy and was a journalist there for over decade. After that she worked for a Cairo TV station.
There is quite a bit of "setup" in the film before the main character Miral appears. You just have to wade through it because it's quite necessary to build the foundation before this particular house can be built.
Even though there are multiple issues of importance to women raised by the film I suspect that creative men will be interested in most all of the film. I'm a guy and I liked it.
The main issue in the film is how Miral's attitude towards and approach to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle will develop. It's a complex subject and the film likewise is complex. Overall the film acquits itself quite well is this area.
OK. Let's get to the controversial stuff. The movie portrays the situation from the Palestinian perspective. Once or twice it leaves out an important point and that omission gives an "advantage" of the Palestinian side of the "argument." However in another case it really should provide a tiny bit more historical info to make the portrayal of the circumstances surrounding the founding of the school/orphanage more credible. Let's tackle that bit first.
The school/orphanage is founded because a wonderful lady finds a group of orphans in the street who say their parents were all killed without reason. The scene just didn't seem believable to me ... until I looked up the Deir Yassin massacre. It really happened and those kids are (part of) the subject matter of this film. Again, it was called the Deir Yassin massacre. Look that one up (try haaretz.com). The film should have mentioned that incident by name in a later scene for increased credibility.
OK. Now the flip side of the coin. The school/orphanage grows greatly because of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that started the day after Israel declared its independence and sovereignty. Nowhere is it mentioned in the film that in that war the Arab nations were the first to move across national boundaries ("they started it"). More balance is needed on this point.
Another point omitted in the film occurs in an important scene where the Israeli army is tearing down a Palestinian house. I could be wrong about this, but they typically do this when someone has committed a really bad terrorist act. That persons house (or their parents house) is then destroyed. When the house is torn down in the movie no context/reason is given whatsoever. For a film that is trying to balance things this a noticeable omission.
One high circulation newspaper said that the film was a "slanderous and shameful piece of propaganda." That's just totally wrong. To me it is sensitive and complex. Another newspaper review said the movie had a "disdain for details." On the contrary, it gets the details right with the caveats noted above. The Guardian said "Freida Pinto looks uneasy and miscast as Miral herself." Ms. Pinto's acting is quite good. The only problem there is that her skin tone is a 1/2 shade to dark. I REALLY doubt that most folks with white skin will notice that "problem." The Village Voice said it was "at-odds-with-itself" and was a "partisan work." The only sense that the film is "at-odds-with-itself" is that the title character's response to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle changes over time. The work is told from the Palestinian point of view ... that makes it partisan? Give me a break! What crap! On the other hand the use of plaintive violin music is a bit overdone in the film.
Let's get real here. It distinctly appears that the reason that people might typically review this film poorly is that they don't like that a story is being told from the Palestinian point of view.
I understand that this is an incredibly tough problem, but to quote Rodney King "Can't we all get along?" Unfortunately the situation seems quite insoluble.
The development of a young lady named Miral is the main subject here. The film is based on an autobiographical novel by Rula Jebreal. Miral is Palestinian and she attends a school that some might consider a privileged place for a Palestinian. She is very lucky to get the type of education offered at the school. The school is a boarding school and is also an orphanage. It is run by a wonderful lady.
The author, Rula Jebreal, is a journalist. She attended university in Italy and was a journalist there for over decade. After that she worked for a Cairo TV station.
There is quite a bit of "setup" in the film before the main character Miral appears. You just have to wade through it because it's quite necessary to build the foundation before this particular house can be built.
Even though there are multiple issues of importance to women raised by the film I suspect that creative men will be interested in most all of the film. I'm a guy and I liked it.
The main issue in the film is how Miral's attitude towards and approach to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle will develop. It's a complex subject and the film likewise is complex. Overall the film acquits itself quite well is this area.
OK. Let's get to the controversial stuff. The movie portrays the situation from the Palestinian perspective. Once or twice it leaves out an important point and that omission gives an "advantage" of the Palestinian side of the "argument." However in another case it really should provide a tiny bit more historical info to make the portrayal of the circumstances surrounding the founding of the school/orphanage more credible. Let's tackle that bit first.
The school/orphanage is founded because a wonderful lady finds a group of orphans in the street who say their parents were all killed without reason. The scene just didn't seem believable to me ... until I looked up the Deir Yassin massacre. It really happened and those kids are (part of) the subject matter of this film. Again, it was called the Deir Yassin massacre. Look that one up (try haaretz.com). The film should have mentioned that incident by name in a later scene for increased credibility.
OK. Now the flip side of the coin. The school/orphanage grows greatly because of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War that started the day after Israel declared its independence and sovereignty. Nowhere is it mentioned in the film that in that war the Arab nations were the first to move across national boundaries ("they started it"). More balance is needed on this point.
Another point omitted in the film occurs in an important scene where the Israeli army is tearing down a Palestinian house. I could be wrong about this, but they typically do this when someone has committed a really bad terrorist act. That persons house (or their parents house) is then destroyed. When the house is torn down in the movie no context/reason is given whatsoever. For a film that is trying to balance things this a noticeable omission.
One high circulation newspaper said that the film was a "slanderous and shameful piece of propaganda." That's just totally wrong. To me it is sensitive and complex. Another newspaper review said the movie had a "disdain for details." On the contrary, it gets the details right with the caveats noted above. The Guardian said "Freida Pinto looks uneasy and miscast as Miral herself." Ms. Pinto's acting is quite good. The only problem there is that her skin tone is a 1/2 shade to dark. I REALLY doubt that most folks with white skin will notice that "problem." The Village Voice said it was "at-odds-with-itself" and was a "partisan work." The only sense that the film is "at-odds-with-itself" is that the title character's response to the Israeli/Palestinian struggle changes over time. The work is told from the Palestinian point of view ... that makes it partisan? Give me a break! What crap! On the other hand the use of plaintive violin music is a bit overdone in the film.
Let's get real here. It distinctly appears that the reason that people might typically review this film poorly is that they don't like that a story is being told from the Palestinian point of view.
I understand that this is an incredibly tough problem, but to quote Rodney King "Can't we all get along?" Unfortunately the situation seems quite insoluble.