This Angries Up the Blood!

Why do I continue to read The AV Club?  They reviewed “The Stoning of Soraya M.” today.

Say what you will about The Stoning Of Soraya M.: Here’s a movie that definitely delivers on its title. In fact, the title speaks perfectly to the film’s blunt, ham-handed, morally unambiguous treatment of injustice in the wake of the ’79 Islamic Revolution in Iran. It takes zero political courage to speak out against the obvious barbarism of public stonings or the oppressive patriarchy of sharia law, but the film whips out the megaphone anyway, eager to extrapolate the martyrdom of an innocent woman into a broader condemnation of the Muslim world. As directed by first-timer Cyrus Nowrasteh, who wrote the leaden script with his wife, Betsy Giffen Nowrasteh, The Stoning Of Soraya M. has a neocon’s sense of good and evil, which could politely be called “moral clarity,” but is more accurately described as narrow, tone-deaf, and thoroughly banal.

The Stoning Of Soraya M. crawls forward in excruciating slow motion toward the inevitable day when sinners cast the first, second, third, and fourth (etc.) stone, stacking the deck at every turn along the way. When it finally gets to the stoning, the film recalls The Passion Of The Christ in its near-pornographic fetishism of violence and martyrdom, which may explain Caviezel’s casting.

Here’s the link to the review, if you’d care to comment there.

Oh, yes.  It was rated a D+.

16 comments to This Angries Up the Blood!

  • Kit

    Why do I get the feeling that the reviewer LACKS moral clarity?

  • One commenter there has suggested that the reviewer is using the review to denigrate the courage of the Iranian protestors.

    “It takes zero political courage to speak out against the obvious barbarism of public stonings or the oppressive patriarchy of sharia law…”

    I don’t think that’s what he meant, but it was a nice rhetorical ploy.

  • JimmyC

    It’s interesting that the reviewer complains that the film is “morally unambiguous”. How exactly could you tell this story in a morally ambiguous way?

  • Mostly I read ‘em for their endlessly hillarious episode reviews of the original star trek, and their infrequent “box of paperbacks” feature.

  • JS Lawalin

    Jimmy C – I guess the reviewer wanted some ‘good-guy’ stoners, or at least the victim could have been a neocon or Sarah Palin-type. I wonder how liberals can see with all that gray haze around them constantly.

    The film is “blunt, ham-handed, morally unambiguous”? Well, so was Fahrenheit 9/11. I wonder what the same reviewer thought of that?

    • I was surprised to find that the same reviewer did write a review of “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

      And it’s actually not too bad:

      As much as the jurors at this year’s Cannes Film Festival insisted that the Palme D’Or was awarded to the best film in competition, it was a sign of the times that they chose to honor Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, marking a clear and decisive victory for ideology over aesthetics. A Bush apologia made with the same mixture of speculation and low blows wouldn’t even have warranted an invitation to Cannes, but the jurors can be forgiven for getting caught up in the excitement. A free-ranging dirty bomb of a movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 argues for a regime change, and it forwards whatever half-realized or marginally persuasive arguments it’ll take to get the job done. Sloppy as cinema and dubious as journalism, the film nonetheless seethes with such anger and urgency that it feels like a historic provocation, one that could popularize truths that have been soft-pedaled by an acquiescent media.

      For Bush’s failures in leadership, Moore submits footage of the president on the morning of Sept. 11, placidly reading a book called My Pet Goat to Florida schoolchildren seven minutes after being told that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. It’s a powerful ploy, but it’s also deeply unfair: How could anyone be expected to process the news before witnessing its magnitude? Moore also swings and misses on the Saudi front: Special favors were clearly granted, but the ties binding Bush, his National Guard buddy James Bath, and the bin Laden clan make for a vague case of guilt by association.

      There are other parts of the review where he injects his own political reviews into it, but if I had read this review at the time, it wouldn’t have angried up my blood.

  • Actually, it takes a lot of courage IF you live in Iran. The point on the reviewer is obviously lost.

    • JimmyC

      I’d go a step further, Skip, and say that it takes courage even if you DON’T live in Iran. The Danish guys who wrote the Muhammed cartoons weren’t living in Iran, and neither were Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Theo Van Gogh. But look what happened to them.

  • I’m sure the reviewer saw a whole lot of moral ambiguity in The Matthew Shepherd Story.

    • JohnFN

      Or the relentless anti-corporate, anti-Bush, anti-government, anti-America memes in nearly half of all productions. That’s courage, putting Dick Cheney’s photo in the murderer’s office. Taking on the Religion of Peace and depicting it, not a bit.

      You wonder what these folks would do in the face of Sharia themselves.

  • jacob

    I thought you might be interested in learning about OUR Jewish traditions which embrace the real Christ. We are the Frankist Association of America. One of our members has a new book out:

    http://www.amazon.com/Real-Messiah-Throne-Origins-Christianity/dp/1906787123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245892844&sr=8-1

    These are our teachings passed on through generations. If you can’t afford the book you can see the website of one of our teachers – http://www.stephanhuller.blogspot.com.

    Shalom

    Beth El Jacob Frank

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>