Very best movie i ever watch

Did you people see the same film I saw?

A Masterpiece!

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

"I will do everything in my power to make sure they never get a state. There is place only for one state on the land of Israel. We do not believe in a two-state solution." - Danny Danon (Israeli Minister of Defense) "Flatten all of Gaza! The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki too. There should be no electricity in Gaza, no neighbourhoods, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing. There is no middle path here." - Gilad Sharon "The essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state." - Einstein Based on a semi-autobiographical novel by Rula Jebreal, Julian Schnabel's "Miral" opens at a Christmas Day celebration. It is 1947, and Hind al-Hussein (Hiam Abbas), a member of Palestine's upper class, is mingling with wealthy expatriates within Jerusalem. All seems well in her world, until Israeli forces begin committing massacres, most notably at the village of Deir Yassin. Hind takes the orphans of this massacre into her palatial family estate, which she promptly turns into the orphanage of Dar Al-Tifel. Pretty soon over three quarters of a million Palestinians are being expelled from their villages by the ethnic cleansing which accompanies Israel's declaration of statehood. Hind tries to help, but finds herself overwhelmed.Schnabel's film then delves into the life of Miral (Freida Pinto), a young girl who grows up in Hind's orphanage. Miral becomes interested in politics, radicalised, and begins to protest Israel's various occupations and land thefts. Spurred by injustice, she embraces Palestinian nationalism, but to no avail. The film points to the dead-end of Palestinian nationalism, but can't offer any other solution."Miral" is choppy and rife with clichés, but is brave in adopting a Palestinian point-of-view. Today, our entire cultural milieu marginalises Palestinians or even outright denounces their right to exist. Coupled to this is Israel's insistence that Palestine "recognise Israel". But which Israel does it wish be recognised? Israel never declares its own borders. Should the Palestinians accept the lines proposed by the 1948 UN Partition Plans or the one that extends to the 1949, post-war Armistice Line? Does Israel include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it has occupied in violation of international law for 40 Years? And why should the Palestinians recognise an Israel that refuses to accept international law, submit to UN resolutions or accept Palestinians expelled from their homes in the 1940s? Masking its own anxieties (the UN security council never rubber stamped Israel's own "right to exist"), Israel wants Palestine not only to endorse its existence, but to legitimise the violence directed at the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, Israel continues to scuttle peace talks, fans Hamas-Fatah conflicts and spurs in-fighting within Palestinian camps by supporting, as far back as the 1960s, right-wing Islamic factions. "Miral" denounces violence and urges Palestine to play nice, but Palestine has been doing this for decades. All the while, more land is appropriated by Israel.Julian Schnabel's aesthetic is choppy and frenetic. His film is at its best when playing with the metaphors from Jebreal's novel. Miral, for example, is named after a desert flow, emblematic of a Palestine which wishes to blossom and grow. Israel, of course, views this flower as a weed; a wild plant which must be extinguished.7/10 – Worth one viewing. See Yoav Shamir's "Checkpoint".

Ignore some of the terrible reviews this movie has gotten. Watch it and reach your own conclusions.The "story" presented here presents personal stories of people affected by the creation of Israel in former Palestine, a British colony. This movie is not meant to be history, though facts of history are presented, but based on how the situation has affected people in different parts of society of Palestinians and Israelis.Although the movie is from a Palestinian perspective, I didn't feel that it was anti-Israeli, but did show how the partisan situation has affected many negatively, but mostly the Palestinians.I would urge everyone to see this movie with an eye to what happens with both colonialism and war. That some manage to survive does not mean thousands more didn't suffer greatly.This movie has some flaws, and I'll mention some here so you will not think I could not see them. While much of the cinematography is excellent there are times that I had to turn away because the cinematographer must have used a hand-held camera zoomed in so the picture is blurry. Then he moves the camera from side to side or makes a sweep and it almost gave me motion sickness and distracted from the movie. I have no idea why this was allowed, but if this bothers you, just move on because it doesn't last. Sometimes the story line seems truncated. First Miral's mother is a belly dancer then she is married to a moderate, kind, Muslim leader, not an oppositionist. Did I miss something? I think some of the narrative transitions fell on the cutting room floor.Despite any flaws I really urge you to see the movie. It has very beautiful music, excellent acting and is thought-provoking about the situation with the Palestinians and Israelis. Its partisanship is not strident so you don't feel that it is meant to be any type of manifesto. It does leave us wondering why the Oslo agreements of 1993 were never finally agreed upon, though there are understandable reasons. This question is NOT the point of the movie, however.

Miral: A Film Review for IMDb Miral Shahini was born in 1973, but she credits her education with the existence and presence of Hind Husseini, her mentor and savior, in her life. Hind Husseini opened the school on Christmas Day, 1947, when she opened Dar el Tefl for the world to see; in fact, it had visitors on its very first day. The daughter of a woman who fooled around, literally, at a dance party and gave birth to an illegitimate daughter, or so it seems, born in 1973, like I said, is a Palestinian refugee who travels between the forbidden settlements, so that she can visit her relatives (and go to school). Based on a book by "Rula Jebreal," the film is immensely entertaining, and is about the power and the value of education over the power and value of war (or peace marches, as the case may be, for Mrs. Husseini doesn't like those, either). A French, Italian, Jewish, and Israeli film, the movie is based on a peaceful collaboration between these countries' film-makers, producers, and directors, but it seems to be mostly about the Middle-East (the school is there, and it takes place there). In addition, it is about betrayal, lies, and secrecy, and about how war ruins more lives than does good: take, the scary event where Miral's friend, "Khadib," is shot by Israeli snipers and is killed on the scene. This movie also tells the compelling, and wonderful stories of a certain Fatima, aka, "the good nurse," Hind, of course, and, in the beginning of the film, Nadia, who is forced into near-prostitution as a result of her intolerance of her marriage with a creep who also shows signs of willingness to bed his own daughter. The discretion on the part of the man's wife, who allows this "near-prostitution to go on" is also notable, in the movie.

A drama centered on an orphaned Palestinian girl (Freida Pinto) growing up in the wake of Arab-Israeli war who finds herself drawn into the conflict.You might wonder: Freida Pinto is Indian, so why was she cast as Palestinian? -- Some critics took exception to this, or the idea that she is too beautiful to play an ordinary girl. Are ordinary girls not allowed to be beautiful? And while her Indian heritage may seem out of place, I think this should be overlooked in light of the fact she is a tremendous actress and sold the character well.What is so great about this film is that the politics are not the issue. The life of a young girl is. This is a film that shows the humanity of the Palestinians -- the DVD cover asks if Miral has the "face of a terrorist". After seeing the film, you have to say no. While the story covers a wide swath of history, from 1947 to the 1993 Oslo agreement, the politics are not the problem.Schnabel tells me many of the critics were negative, and I do see some complaints that the editing was choppy, or the bizarre remark that Schnabel does not know how to direct women. Presumably many critics took exception to the positive portrayal of the Palestinians and the negative portrayal of the Israelis.In fact, though, this is how one might view the film if looking for a certain angle. The Israelis are presented negatively, yes, but not inaccurately. But the Palestinians are not really presented positively -- just as human beings. There is still a father telling her daughter not to get mixed up with the PLO, and one scene has a stepfather raping his wife's daughter. That can hardly be seen as being positive (though the real point here is that people should be judged as individuals, not as members of a group).The cast is all excellent, with plenty of Arab flavor. We have Willem Dafoe (a native of my city, Appleton) and Vanessa Redgrave for the "white" aspect. And then Alexander Siddig, probably best known as Bashir from "Star Trek", somewhere in-between (Siddig was born in Sudan, but was educated in London).The film is PG-13, making it less raw but more accessible to audiences. This may have toned down the realism a bit, but it in no way compromised the emotional outreach that was a steady undercurrent.Geoffrey Macnab calls the film "courageous and groundbreaking", while Mike Goodridge calls it "sincere and thought-provoking". Both are correct. The more unusual comment comes from Claudia Puig, who says, "Schnabel puts his unmistakable dreamlike stamp on the film." Now, Schnabel is first and foremost a painter, so his goal is art. But to call this film "dreamlike" just seems off. This struck me as pure realism all the way. But who am I to judge? Anyway, great film, and one that will be sure to spark discussion regardless of which side (if any) you stand on in the ongoing Middle East debate.