This movie has been criticised for hurting the pride of the Palestinians and for falling short when approaching such an intimate and difficult topic such as the smuggling of sperm from jails and artificial inseminations. The controversy that it created led to a campaign against the movie and to many people rating it very low on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. I think the scoring is undeserved and that it may contribute to hurting the Palestinian cause.
This movie succeeds in portraying the oppression the freedom fighters experience in Israeli jails. For many who know little about Palestine, this is a very informative movie and could have been useful for advocating purposes so I do not think that boycotting it was the most rational choice. The boycott action may contribute to portray the Palestinian audience as censoring artistic voices.
The movie has also been criticised for matters of representation, given that the director is Egyptian and many actors in the movie Jordanian. However the producer Hany Abu-Assad is Palestinian and the actor Ali Suliman is, so it would be false to say that this movie lacks a Palestinian "stamp of approval".
The actors' performances are good and the characters are easy to empathise with.
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
The father who is in jail accepts the tragedy of the situation and tries to make the best out of it, the mother is ready to sacrifice herself for Amira, who in turn is fighting with her inner self in order to find a way out of this trap. Interestingly, there is no villain. The movie manages to make us empathise even with the Israeli who is the cause of all this trouble.
Some stylistic choices were particularly good: the scene in which the father and the mother are having their last conversation and the sound is cut down was a particularly successful one.
Of course there are weaknesses in the screenplay: first and foremost, what is the motive of the Israeli guard? His act was immoral, but only at the end he realises how much harm he has caused. This could be seen as a metaphor for the situation of many Israeli today. Maybe they are not supportive of how their government treats the Palestinians, but they are responsible, because small actions such as voting for Netanyahu and Bennett led to tragic consequences for the Palestinian.
The ending is kind of a mess: Amira realises she does not want to revenge against this family father, but when she wants to go back she realises that the Israeli soldiers have cut her way out. She is trapped by her fate and the Israeli soldier seem eager to eliminate her. The Palestinians turn her into another martyr. The cycle of oppression is maintained. This could represent how the Palestinian cause is impossible to win.
Portraying the Palestinians as concerned with matters of DNA and vendetta, when the Palestinian cause is not about blood right, but the right to the land, seems also unfair.
One could say that the movie is not political enough, as it reflects with philosophical matters like identity and fatherhood. It also casts a doubt in what Palestinians perceive as a point of pride, as a symbol of a small victory over the Israeli occupation and apartheid.
This movie succeeds in portraying the oppression the freedom fighters experience in Israeli jails. For many who know little about Palestine, this is a very informative movie and could have been useful for advocating purposes so I do not think that boycotting it was the most rational choice. The boycott action may contribute to portray the Palestinian audience as censoring artistic voices.
The movie has also been criticised for matters of representation, given that the director is Egyptian and many actors in the movie Jordanian. However the producer Hany Abu-Assad is Palestinian and the actor Ali Suliman is, so it would be false to say that this movie lacks a Palestinian "stamp of approval".
The actors' performances are good and the characters are easy to empathise with.
*SPOILERS AHEAD*
The father who is in jail accepts the tragedy of the situation and tries to make the best out of it, the mother is ready to sacrifice herself for Amira, who in turn is fighting with her inner self in order to find a way out of this trap. Interestingly, there is no villain. The movie manages to make us empathise even with the Israeli who is the cause of all this trouble.
Some stylistic choices were particularly good: the scene in which the father and the mother are having their last conversation and the sound is cut down was a particularly successful one.
Of course there are weaknesses in the screenplay: first and foremost, what is the motive of the Israeli guard? His act was immoral, but only at the end he realises how much harm he has caused. This could be seen as a metaphor for the situation of many Israeli today. Maybe they are not supportive of how their government treats the Palestinians, but they are responsible, because small actions such as voting for Netanyahu and Bennett led to tragic consequences for the Palestinian.
The ending is kind of a mess: Amira realises she does not want to revenge against this family father, but when she wants to go back she realises that the Israeli soldiers have cut her way out. She is trapped by her fate and the Israeli soldier seem eager to eliminate her. The Palestinians turn her into another martyr. The cycle of oppression is maintained. This could represent how the Palestinian cause is impossible to win.
Portraying the Palestinians as concerned with matters of DNA and vendetta, when the Palestinian cause is not about blood right, but the right to the land, seems also unfair.
One could say that the movie is not political enough, as it reflects with philosophical matters like identity and fatherhood. It also casts a doubt in what Palestinians perceive as a point of pride, as a symbol of a small victory over the Israeli occupation and apartheid.