Movie Takes
The Stoning of Soraya M.
Is it art — or propaganda?
As I gave my ticket to the young woman at the entrance to the cinema showing the beautifully but also sickeningly photographed Stoning of Soraya M., she said to me with an official cheerfulness: “Enjoy the film!” Even if she had not seen the film herself, she could hardly have failed to notice that it was named for an atrocity, or to have heard that the audience was required to watch that atrocity in all its ghastly and bloody detail. Yet without quite realizing it, I think, she had put her finger on the problem with the movie. Structurally, that is, movies are entertainment. They are meant to be enjoyed, however disturbing their subject matter. There’s no shame in that. The same is true of all art. A week or two before this, I had been to see King Lear at the Shakespeare Theatre in Washington and, though I didn’t much enjoy it, I never would have thought it an impertinence on the producers’ part to try to make me enjoy it. That’s the point of going to the theatre, as it is the movies.
King Lear, for those whose memories of their Shakespeare are hazy, includes several murders, the hanging, off-stage, of a young woman, and scenes on stage in which one elderly man is driven mad while another’s eyes are gouged out. It would perhaps be too much to say that these are enjoyable moments, but they are part of an experience that very often is enjoyable because it allows us to observe human evil or folly from enough of a distance that our reaction to it is one of contemplation and reflection rather than fear and disgust — or at least the sort of fear and disgust we would expect to feel in the presence of the real thing, rather than a simulacrum. This performance of Lear, however, tried to close that gap by stressing the horror of the civil war that, to Shakespeare, was only a part — and that not a major part — of what the play was about. People in contemporary camouflage gear were shown tossing shrouded corpses into a mass grave for a quarter of an hour. It seems that people get killed in wars. Who knew?
This trick of using vivid visual representations of blood and death is one that contemporary theatrical directors have learned from the movies. At least since Bonnie and Clyde (1967), people have come to expect to be entertained by “daring” attempts to eliminate that distance between reality and representation. We want our movies to “look real.” And because of the hyper-realism of cinematic images, the movies are much better at looking real than any other art. As a result, the culture as a whole seems to have accepted the dubious premise that the more graphic its imagery of physical horror the more authentic a movie is. Being true to death is now more highly valued than being true to life, and it can become a fatal temptation to a movie-maker to try to make our flesh creep by making us look at that which no normal person would ever wish to see.
This is what I think has happened to director Cyrus Nowrasteh and the other film-makers involved with The Stoning of Soraya M. I also think I can anticipate what they would say to those who object to having their noses rubbed in the sickening event described in the title of this film. He would tell them that it is good for them to see it. In order to be properly outraged by the deeds which are performed under the aegis of the wicked fanatics who have ruled Iran for the last 30 years, we have to see those deeds in all their horror. It’s sort of like having to see a movie before you criticize it, I guess. That I feel the force of that convention is the main reason why I, at least, went to see The Stoning of Soraya M., though I very much wanted not to go. But I couldn’t help thinking that it is rather an insult to the audience’s imagination to say that it has got to see an actual stoning before it can properly abominate the act of stoning someone. I don’t know if I would go so far as to describe the result as “torture-porn,” as the New York Times did, but the movie’s unnecessarily graphic imagery does lend some color to the reviewer’s otherwise ridiculous charge that the evil husband (Navid Negahban) is too evil and resembles an anti-Semitic caricature under the Nazis.
In other words, it’s hard not to see the film as propaganda rather than art. It’s a pity because what there is of artistry apart from the central episode is very promising. Mozhan Marn as Soraya turns in a fantastic performance, as does the rest of the cast, and the look of the dusty, isolated Iranian mountain village, Kupayeh, where the real-life event on which the film is based took place is, to my eye anyway, utterly convincing. That religion is only the pretext for much more discreditable motives in bringing about the stoning also rings true to me. I especially liked the bit at the end where the narrator, Zahra (Shohreh Aghdashloo), who is the brave aunt of the victim, points out to the appalled mullah (Ali Pourtash), furious with her for causing Soraya’s story to be transmitted to the outside world, that if he really believed in the religion he professed and its law that he claimed to uphold he would be glad for the world to know about what had been done in Kupayeh, rather than ashamed. Without the actual stoning, The Stoning of Soraya M. would be a movie well worth seeing.
About the Author
James Bowman, our movie and culture critic, is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of Honor: A History and Media Madness: The Corruption of Our Political Culture, both published by Encounter Books.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by James Bowman
More Articles From Movie Takes
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/20/the-stoning-of-soroya-m
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.09 @ 6:52AM
What makes Mr. Bowman believe that art and propaganda are mutually exclusive categories? And maybe it is quite a good thing that stoning is depicted in all its grisly horror, because too many people in the West simply have no idea what it entails. Perhaps if more people saw precisely how the "Religion of Peace" enforces its medieval dictats upon the population--whether stoning innocent women, or amputating the limbs of theives, or removing the external genitalia from pubescent girls--we might stop wallowing in our swamp of self-condemnation and stand up for the universal truths and virtues of our own culture and civilization.
Janice Formichella | 7.20.09 @ 9:50AM
Mr. Bowman says "I couldn't help thinking that it is rather an insult to the audience's imagination to say that it has got to see an actual stoning before it can properly abominate the act of stoning someone." However, as be points out, this was a film, it was not in fact an actual stoning at all. Had Mr. Bowman done a bit of reading online about stoning he would have found many videos of actual stonings and would have been relieved to know that Nowrasteh down-played the violence to make it suitable for film goers. An actual stoning is much more horrific, yet many people such as Bowman cannot even allow themselves to accept this.
It is important to point out to Bowman that this story is based entirely on a true story, one that I have read. The depiction of the actual stoning in the book was so horrific and hard to read that I went to see The Stoning of Soraya M. nervously. I was surprised to see how much violence had been taken out of the film. I was also surprised to see the male characters given bits of humanity. These men, including Ali, who Bowman describes as being portrayed "too evil" in the film, are men who conspired to have an innocent woman put to death to make room for Ali to take a 14-year-old bride. Yet Bowman complains that Ali is a caricature. I wonder if the reality of this horror is really what is so hard for Bowman to accept.
Stuart Koehl| 7.20.09 @ 10:55AM
It was pointed out, over on the National Review Online, that the law in Iran prohibits the execution of a woman if she is a virgin. Therefore, prison authorities have appointed one of the inmates to be the designated husband, who is legally married to the condemned woman, deflowers her (often assisted by a large dose of sedatives), and then hands her off to the executioners. Though the inmate was honored by his selection, even he is disturbed by the practice, noting that his "brides" are often more distraught by their wedding nights than by their impending deaths--and that by the morning, most of them go out to execution quite willingly.
I found this absolutely appalling, which probably disqualifies me from serving in the State Department. I knew there was a reason I failed the oral exam.
Ted Thomas| 7.20.09 @ 11:16AM
I have been watching the reviews of this movie, and been dreading the possibility that it would be shown locally. This is because I have never seen a stoning, and never wish to see one, yet know that THE TRUTH about the culture of radical Islam must be known and understood by American voters. Many of them are still wrapped up in the pop icon's death-- they have little stomach for the realities of nuclear Islam. Someone must face the truth.
Surely, wicked men in America are quite capable of doing what this film depicts, and worse. That's why it must be watched & mulled over-- only the grace of God prevents us from approving and supporting the same kind of egotistical, hypocritical butchery.
Anneke9| 7.20.09 @ 12:12PM
I saw the movie in Berkeley last week. While the stoning IS violent, it is something that American audiences need to see. Most of my acquaintances will chose not to see it, just like they chose not to watch beheading videos on the Internet. It contradicts their their modern, progressive, idealized world view. God forbid anything should disturb the their happy, well-ordered fantasy world wherein all cultures are to be equally revered and evil does not exist in human hearts. They refuse to believe that some cultures still practice violence (stonings, beheadings, beatings, disfigurations) as a means of social control. They try to shrug off these occurances as "aberrations" carried out by "criminals." They don't want ot hear that it is not one or two individuals involved in these despicable actions, but groups and sometimes whole towns and religious sects. Someone, or something, needs to wake them up; America cannot just close it's collective eyes and wish away the violence of humankind.
Seek| 7.20.09 @ 4:00PM
"Without the actual stoning, 'The Stoning of Soraya M.' would be a movie well worth seeing."
So writes James Bowman, The American Spectator's excuse for a film critic. That's kind of on par with stating, "Without the actual war, 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'The Thin Red Line' would be World War II movies well worth seeing." Hey, clown, violence is real and audiences don't want sugar-coating. It is to the credit, not the debit, of contemporary filmmakers that they depict violence as real. If there's anything audiences don't need, it's a return to a Hays Code-enforced self-censorship masquerading as "civility."
Matthew A. Sawtell| 7.20.09 @ 5:23PM
While the question of "reality in the movies" is a thing for debate - the sorry history of the U.S. isolating itself from the world news with fantasy and games is all to evident. If a movie comes around and shakes the American people from the fantasy, maybe it is for the best.
Pingback| 7.20.09 @ 5:44PM
VIDEO: Miami to Protest Against Taxes & Gov. Spending – 7/21/2009 (Miami Protesta Con links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Keith Winterkorn| 7.20.09 @ 6:46PM
Sometime ago if was popular, especially among the British, to assess individuals and cultures on the axis of savagery and civilization. Sadly, in this current world in which all cultures and peoples are equal, we are no longer allowed in polite circles to draw such distincitions.
It was Nietszche, I think, that with such clear eyes looked upon the 'festivals of cruelty' common to all primitive cultures. Public tortures of all kind, along with human sacrifice (usually with gruesome technique), were typical of ancient rites and celebrations of religion. The impulse to cruelty, as a kind of joyful recreation, was common to all of our ancestors. These days we have refined our cruelty to a little slapstick humor and cutting repartee, but are sickened by full-on frontal cruelty. Much the same, we can enjoy a good steak, even tartar, but cannot not countenance viewing the slaughterhouse.
Yet just beneath civilization's "thin veneer" our cruelty remains----it is not truly bred out of our species. And in much of the world, the payment to society for ones crimes is still made in the coin of cruelty---public suffering at the hands of the aggrieved. That much of what we used to call the third world, meaning lesser civilizations, still enjoys public cruelty should not surprise us. But what should sadden us, is how we have lost pride in the magnificence of our Western Civilization, which only a few centuries ago practiced all sorts of public horrors on the religious, political, or criminal offender of the common orthodoxy. Our advance was bought with the blood of many, the suffering of many, and the determination of many to make this a better world to live in. And now in the stupidity of relativism, so many are willing to cede it all away.
KW
SEagan| 7.20.09 @ 10:02PM
im a young half iranian women.... i saw the movie...i think men have become more like women .... the stoning was the best part because it shows the true character of those sick iranian men! God help the iranian women!
Francis| 7.28.09 @ 1:33PM
Can you read your own words sir? You recommend we take the "Stoning" from "The Stoning of Soraya M." Have you forgotten that this was a true occurrence? This woman lost her life to the cruel act of stoning and you suggest we brush it under the rug and leave it to the "imagination". This approach is utter foolishness. It's parallel to the news in which we get brief snippets or written accounts of what's happening overseas. We then package it away within our own realities and forget it ever existed. Having seen this film, I can account for the fact that it takes you there to the town where those people lived and gets you involved in a way you cannot imagine. This involvement demands a response. You cannot simply brush it off and go out for a bit to eat afterward. This is not your standard fare friends, it's a truly unique film meant for both activist and film-lover alike to inspire the proper emotion and empathy toward a real human being who lost her life to one of mankind's most cruelest forms of execution.
Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 11:00AM
March 09 2010 « Oh For Crying Out Loud… links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Arezoo| 3.13.10 @ 7:28AM
Hi.I want to talk about Iran.I am an Iranian girl. I am 17.We do not have any stoning in Iran but in our country girls are ignored. for example in entrance exam for university they choose 70% of their students from boys and only 30% of them will be girl.If i start to talk about women problems in Iran its a long story.I go to NODET high school in Iran and we study hard and we have hard lessons but in entrance exam martyrs families have especial quota. in Iran every thing turns to religious and your talent will be ignored.i agree that Iranians are kind but we have stupid religious rules against women and its cause of our cruel government.but Iranian people are cultured and kind.I red the comments. The person who introduced her self as an Iranian woman is a liar because even her name is not Iranain and we do not have any stoning in Iran. This film is only a sham American publicity against Iran.
Anony| 1.14.11 @ 4:27PM
Arezoo is an idiot. You do realize that SEagan's mother could be the one who is Iranian right? Hence the non-Muslim name. No stonings in Iran? Wow. It's ok, you're only 17. Go do your homework.