Miral

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.

.

Political films based on actual events are usually angry sentiments and have a strong point to make. This biographical drama is no different. Based on Rula Jebreal's novel, the emotionally charged production gives us an insight on the political unrest and instability happening on the other side of the world. Regard it educational if you will, this Julian Schnabel directed film will leave you wondering what it takes to live a life surrounded by the horrors of war.

The film chronicles Hind Husseini's effort to build an orphanage in Jerusalem after the 1948 Arab Israeli War. This began with her crossing paths with 55 orphaned children while on her way to work one day. She took them home and before she knew it, she had almost 2000 orphans under her care. The Dar Al-Tifel Institute was born, and thousands of orphaned children came under Husseini's care. Some 30 years later, Miral, a motherless child was sent to the orphanage by her father. Upon turning 17, she is sent to a refugee camp where she experiences the tension between Israel and Palestine, and the possible destructions it can bring to her own life.

Director Schnabel is known for his award winning works The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) and Before Night Falls (2000), and it comes as no surprise that the New York born filmmaker's latest project deals with such politically charged themes, despite the foreign lands the story takes place in. Through gritty cinematography (read: shaky camera work) and choppy editing (read: abrupt cuts and transitions), Schnabel shows us a world which we have only read about but never had the chance to experience. Sure, there may be no beautifully decorated sets with perfectly synchronized action sequences, but this is the slices of reality which the locals have to live with day after day.

It is also clear that the film presents a Palestinian perspective of things, and may appear one sided to viewers who are expecting this to be objective. Do note, however, that this is based on a memoir by Jebreal, and it is only natural that the war is seen through her eyes.

Amidst the violence and assaults, there is tenderness and compassion in the 112 minute film as Schnabel tells a story of remarkably strong women surviving in times of turmoil. Their intertwined tales may be unevenly told, but you'd feel a sense of passion and zeal as they go through life fighting for their beliefs and causes.

Playing the central character Husseini is Hiam Abbass (The Visitor, Munich), a Palestinian actress who injects the much needed fervour into her character. Frieda Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire) plays the titular character, and viewers get to see how a girl who is initially brought up safely inside the orphanage's walls gradually grows into a young woman who is awakened by the reality around her and has to fight for her convictions. Appearing in supporting roles are familiar faces like Willem Dafoe (Daybreakers) and Vanessa Redgrave (Letters to Juliet) in the first few minutes of the film.

The film ends without any closure or resolution, which reflects the harsh realities happening on the other side of the planet we live in. And that, in our opinion, is the best way to leave us reflecting on the unnecessary pain and tragedies brought about by war.

• www.moviexclusive.com

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.

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.

Run, don't walk, to see this movie. If you miss it while it is in the theaters, put it in your Netflix queue. My wife and I see a lot of movies, independent and mainstream and this is one of the best.

Yesterday we saw a mainstream movie, Hanna, which was a major disappointment, except for the excellent acting of Saoirse Ronan. I gave it a 5 because the story was so terrible and I didn't have any emotional involvement concerning what happened to Hanna.

We generally don't go to two movies, two days in a row, but I was so disappointed in Hanna and have been interested in possibly seeing Miral since I heard Rula Jebreal on NPR's Tell Me More. She wrote the novel and the screenplay the movie was based on. I was surprised that she received such a chilly reception on the show, so I remembered to check out the movie online.

On METACRITIC, which contains reviews by major critics, there were 17 reviews; 3 positive, 12 mixed and 2 negative. Overall it was given a 45 out of 100 which means generally mixed reviews and near the low end of that scale. Keep in mind that Hanna got a 64 which means generally favorable reviews. I read a number of the critic's reviews of Miral as I often do before seeing a movie

I also read all of the six reviews available at that time on IMDb. There were only five usable as one was written by a person who, in my opinion, had an agenda and, based on his review, had not seen the movie.

Having consulted METACRITIC and IMDb, I was convinced that my wife and I might like this movie, but would probably not rate it above a 6 or 7 out of ten after we saw it. I always keep in mind that there are movies with overwhelming favorable reviews that I have hated, including The Diving Bell and The Butterfly which had the same director, Julian Schnabel, as this movie. Lost in Translation is also in that category.

My wife and I came to this movie without prejudice for one side or the other. We were just looking for a well made movie that would entertain us. We were so pleasantly surprised. The acting was excellent, the story involving, and we were quite tense in the last third of the movie. Unlike Hanna, we really cared what happen to Miral.

I agree with Spencergo, this movie should be seen by a wider audience, but I know it won't. The reason that this review is so important to me is most people will skip this movie because of the mixed reviews, and they shouldn't. Unfortunately, many independent films, like Rabbit Hole last year, get missed. I sincerely hope you give this movie a try if you can find it at your local independent theater.