The Stoning of Soraya M. opens today in theaters. I had the good fortune of catching a preview of the movie back on 5/21. There's decent odds that any church-going network of friends will have the movie title come up in conversation, possibly even that there will be church outings to the theater or a related message from the occasional pulpit.
I didn't leave convinced that the movie really fit the same market as Passion or even Amazing Grace. But it is definitely interesting to see the movie appeal to a far broader range of opinion than either of those. In the case of Stoning, there are political conservatives who view the movie as a means of casting Islam in a negative light; while from the politically liberal end of the spectrum, the movie strikes a chord for those desiring greater emphasis on women's rights. If you chose to do so, you could view this as an all-inclusive appeal. I'll argue here that it's a bit more of a cacophony of appeals.
First things first, however, there were many elements of the movie that I greatly enjoyed. As a geography nut, the scenery was wonderful. And, at times, I think the movie dealt with some of the complexity of attitudes toward Islam and shariah law very well. It's definitely a very well acted and well produced movie. And in an era where the production of "Christian movies" sometimes still relates to secular movies in a way that "Christian music" related to secular music in the '80s, there is a lot to be appreciated by the fact that this film is either at-par or better with anything else on the market. On the whole, I did like a lot about this movie and would probably recommend it with a bit of caution.
The question marks I left with in the preview, however, were as follows:
- Character-wise, it seemed as if Soraya's character was a bit too shoe-horned into a parallel of Jesus. I haven't read the book that movie is based on and it should be emphasized here that this is based on a true story. I'm not sure how stark the relatively sinful husband and somewhat pure Soraya contrast in that version, but it seemed overdone in the film. At times, this took away from the movie's otherwise great production - watch the husband do donuts in his car with prostitutes in a town square that seems made up of a 24-square-foot sound stage and tell me I'm wrong.
- The movie's depiction of Islam. The movie allows a viewer to make a conclusion of Islam and shariah law that don't entirely line up with reality. Wikipedia has a nickel version here on how the law is interpreted in Iran. Given that Christian audiences are a primary target for the movie, this is more than a little grating.
- Mimicking The Passion and Amazing Grace. True to this movie's title, there is a stoning scene. I hardly think this qualifies as a spoiler. If it is a spoiler, then I'm willing to bet you'll thank anyone who spoils it for you. Because the scene has gotten ample press for it's duration and perceived gratuitousness. That lends an obvious nod to The Passion. The fact that the movie is tied with a "call to action" is the homage to Amazing Grace. As one who's seen a number of "Class of Nuke 'em High" sequels, I can attest to the fact that there are worse formulas to abide by. Still, when you've got a good story to tell, a quality cast, good production value, etc ... it seems like a bit of a loss to end up copying another gameplan for marketing the movie.
- About that marketing plan. I've mentioned that the movie is being pitched to church groups. What I haven't mentioned is that you're in store for three moments of coarse language (not talking about a heck or a darn, either). The movie is rated R, primarily for the bloodiness of the final scene. The language is designed to show how the men in the film are viewing Soraya's character as inhuman - in and of itself a vital ingredient, I think. The nuns at the preview stuck around till the end and I'm hardly the biggest prude in the world. But I don't think the language they included was necessary and you should definitely evaluate the sensitivity of the group you're going to the movie with.
- About that call to action. Possibly the most confusing item for me. The film's website does call for online "signatures" to be sent to a variety of obvious organizations, plus a lengthy list of groups combating both the specific practice of stoning, or dealing with human rights in more general ways. I may be getting old and cynical, but an e-petition doesn't strike me as a particularly strong call to action. Then again, Facebook groups don't either. It isn't likely that you'll see an active call to send missionaries to the Middle East. And one more confusing element of the movie is that while such calls to action are aimed at national laws, the particular story of this stoning seems to involve a local instance (which may or may not have a connection to national law). While many nations where stoning takes place, the national governments are generally quick to point out the very low number of instances where the practice of stoning occurs. The real problem, it seems, is that the practice seems to occur more in rural, self-governed areas. While that doesn't absolve the allowability of the law on national books, it does raise a very serious question about what the best way to end the practice really is.
Despite all the positive that the movie has going for it, I'm not sure it really answers that. Reading through several of the interviews with those involved in the movie, however, it seems as if the intent is to suggest that we have that answer within us if we'll only be bold and brave enough to do .... um ... something.
Bottom line result, for my own taste is this: This is a good movie and could very well stand a test of time and look very good in 10-20 years ... well after the marketing of the movie fades away. Catch it on the big screen if you can, though. The scenery is good enough to warrant that. If you're as big a wuss as I am with bloody scenes, stare at the floor for that part.
Reviews & Inteviews: Houston Chronicle, NY Times, LA Times, A/V Club, Huffington Post, Beliefnet, Acton Institute
