web analytics
September 22, 2014 / 27 Elul, 5774
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

‘Miral’: When Good Publicity Trumps Bad Reviews


“Miral” is a film that has garnered an inordinate amount of media attention. In interviews, the director, Julian Schnabel, defends his right to tell the Palestinian “narrative” for what he claims is the first time. He seems not to know that many others before him have specialized in this particular line of work.

Based on the lives of four Palestinian women, “Miral” begins with the period just before Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948 and ends just before the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993.

The first woman is Miral’s mother, Nadia, who was battered and raped either by her uncle, husband, or boyfriend and then jailed by the Israelis for hitting an Israeli woman. Thereafter, Nadia commits suicide by walking into the sea. Miral’s father or stepfather puts her in an orphanage. (These facts are purposely vague, and therefore, presumably unimportant, certainly far less important in terms of trauma than the “Israeli occupation” or the all-powerful misery at the checkpoints.)

The second woman is Hind al-Husseini, (whose story is presented first), the founder of the Dar Al-Tifel home for Palestinian orphans; the third woman is Miral, raised in the orphanage and coming of age during the first Palestinian Intifada (1987-1993); the fourth woman, Fatima, is a female Palestinian terrorist who is serving three life sentences. Fatima blew up a movie theater somewhere in Israel but is presented as a sympathetic figure who worked as a nurse in a hospital for Arab soldiers injured in the 1967 Six-Day War.

The stories of the four women are only loosely and awkwardly connected; the film is not really “about” anything other than the evil and inhumanity of the “Israeli military occupation” which each of the women has faced. Fatima says: “The occupation is a monster which eats your soul.”

To recap: Miral’s mother Nadia is an alcoholic and the victim of sexual violence; she commits suicide by drowning herself in the Mediterranean. Miral’s adoptive father then dumps Miral in an orphanage. But none of this is called on to explain Miral’s pain and anger. Instead, the film depicts the evil Israeli occupation as the cause of all of Miral’s suffering.

Actually, the film doesn’t show Miral suffering very much at all (until she gets involved with terrorism, at which point she is savagely beaten in an Israeli detention center). She has a doting father, a romantic and sexy boyfriend, a nurturing educational environment, and the freedom to roam the beautiful Palestinian countryside.

Miral’s hatred of Israelis and Jews seems totally contrived.

Scenes that depict Israeli life (e.g., classic footage from Israel’s declaration of independence and the celebrations that followed, etc.) are in black and white. All the scenes depicting Palestinian life of any era are presented in lush and living color. Israelis – soldiers and civilians alike – are depicted as despicable, including an Israeli buffoon who drunkenly accosts Miral’s mother in a bar and an Israeli woman who calls her an “Arab whore.” All of the Palestinian characters are warm and physically beautiful.

At the end of the film Miral asks: Why can’t Israel/Palestine be like New York City? And this is the point. The main characters are not Arab Palestinians. They are brown people who think and talk like Americans and are masquerading as Palestinians. It is impossible to learn anything about Palestinian culture by watching “Miral” because the film’s entire point is to make viewers think Palestinians are “just like us.” Only the Israelis are different.

Reviews of “Miral” have been almost uniformly negative. Expecting that bad reviews might dog the film’s progress, and given the film’s enormous potential as propaganda both in the West and in the Islamic world, Schnabel’s publicists worked overtime, at least in the New York City area.

Thus, on March 23, two days before the film opened, an interview with the director; his girlfriend-author, Rula Jebreal; and the film’s leading lady, Freida Pinto, of Slumdog Millionaire fame, appeared on the front page of The New York Times Arts section. The nearly 2,000-word piece was illustrated with three photos.

On March 24 Schnabel was again interviewed by the Times, this time on the front page of the paper’s Style section. The 1,296-word piece displayed three (different) photos – including one of the director standing with Vanessa Redgrave, the great actress and notorious pro-Palestinian activist, who had a cameo appearance in the film.

On March 25, Schnabel and/or director John Kilik or distributor Harvey Weinstein paid for a full-page New York Times ad for the film and for a full-page reprint of the only positive review of the film I have been able to find (at least so far).

The review was written by Danielle Berrin for the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal and comes to 1,024 words. Berrin perhaps tries to drum up sales by suggesting the film has already earned the “ire” and “condemnation” of the organized Jewish community, which will only impede or delay the “peace process” or, in more hopeful Hollywood terms, lead to controversy, publicity, and ticket sales.

Also on March 25, the Times reviewed the film. A.O. Scott did not much like it, but took more than 900 words to say so. And yes, yet another photo accompanied the review.

Thus, in three days this film and its director received more than 5,000 well-placed words and eight photos in The New York Times. And in roughly the same time period, (mainly negative) reviews and (mainly positive) interviews with the director appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Jewish Week, the New York Post and the Forward.

Despite strong objections from the Israeli deputy ambassador, the film was formally screened on March 14 at the United Nations. (A showing of the film and post-viewing conversation with Schnabel set for the 92nd Street Y on March 31 was canceled due, according to the Y, to a “scheduling conflict.”)

In sum, this is a film that, though far from an artistic masterpiece and filled with lie after lie, may – given its Manhattan-style publicity and politically correct views – enjoy a long and profitable life on campuses, at interfaith, international, and civil rights conferences and at film festivals.

“Miral” may live on to poison the minds of yet another unsuspecting generation.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who would like to acknowledge the contribution to this essay of her assistant Nathan Bloom, is co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology and the National Women’s Health Network as well as the author of many works including “Women and Madness” (1972) and “The New Anti-Semitism” (2003). She can be contacted through her website, www.phyllis-chesler.com.

About the Author: Dr. Phyllis Chesler is a professor emerita of psychology, a Middle East Forum fellow, and the author of fifteen books including “Women and Madness” (1972), “The New Anti-Semitism” (2003), and her latest, “An American Bride in Kabul” (2013). Her articles are archived at www.phyllis-chesler.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “‘Miral’: When Good Publicity Trumps Bad Reviews”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
ISIS Released Map
The Ally No One Wants In War Against ISIS: The Jews
Latest Indepth Stories
ISIS Released Map

Israel would love to be in the coalition,but it’s never going to happen, because, in the end, most of America’s allies would walk away if Israel were on board officially.

IDF lone soldier and  David Menachem Gordon (z"l).

Why has his death been treated by some as an invitation for an emotional “autopsy”?

Starck-091914

SWOT analysis: Assessing resources, internal Strengths&Weaknesses; external Opportunities&Threats.

Kohn-091914

Strategy? For the longest time Obama couldn’t be bothered to have one against a sworn enemy.

Seventeen visual skills are needed for success in school, sports, and everyday life.

We started The Jewish Press. Arnie was an integral part of the paper.

Fear alone is substantial; without fusing it to beauty, fear doesn’t reach its highest potential.

Fortunate are we to have Rosh Hashanah for repentance, a shofar to awaken heavenly mercy.

Arab leaders who want the US to stop Islamic State are afraid of being dubbed traitors and US agents

National Lawyers Guild:Sworn enemy of Israel & the legal arm of Palestinian terrorism since the ’70s

A little less than 10 percent of eligible Democratic voters came out on primary day, which translates into Mr. Cuomo having received the support of 6.2 percent of registered Democrats.

The reality, though, is that the Israeli “war crimes” scenario will likely be played out among highly partisan UN agencies, NGOs, and perhaps even the International Criminal Court.

Peace or the lack of it between Israel and the Palestinians matters not one whit when it comes to the long-term agenda of ISIS and other Islamists, nor does it affect any of the long-running inter-Arab conflicts and wars.

Rather than serving as a deterrent against terrorist attacks, Israel’s military strength and capabilities are instead looked at as an unfair advantage in the asymmetrical war in which it finds itself.

More Articles from Dr. Phyllis Chesler
Murray Greenfield

Few of the volunteers were experienced sailors, (Greenfield had been in the Merchant Marine). Few were Zionists.

Dr. David Gutmann

Hundreds of boats tried to run the British blockade on the dangerous, open seas.

My good colleague Kay is wrong about the early demise of conspiracy theories and blood libels against the Jews.

“I am surprised those Zionists are not outside protesting,” says one woman.

“Miral” is a film that has garnered an inordinate amount of media attention. In interviews, the director, Julian Schnabel, defends his right to tell the Palestinian “narrative” for what he claims is the first time. He seems not to know that many others before him have specialized in this particular line of work.

Our beloved, miraculous Jewish state is under siege.

It was assumed that the ceaseless persecution of the Jews in exile would cease once we again had our own sovereign homeland, our own army, navy, and air force.

In 1947-1948 I lived in Boro Park where, against parental and rabbinic advice, I joined a Zionist group. By 1950 I was packing machine-gun parts for Israel in a home not far from the Young Israel. But what I did as a child does not compare to what my friend and colleague David Gutmann did for love of Zion at that very time on the dangerous open seas.

Reality has become somewhat Scandinavian. It grows dark early and it is bitterly cold here in New York City and over a good portion of our fair land. Our Prince of Peace (The Norwegian Nobel, not the noble variety) is not yet asking whether “to be or not to be.” Perhaps he is not entirely convinced that “that is the question.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/miral-when-good-publicity-trumps-bad-reviews/2011/04/06/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: