Sensationalist Film Exploits Human Rights Issue in Iran

By Elise Auerbach, Iran Specialist for Amnesty International USA

Ordinarily, human rights activists would be pleased when the rare major motion picture shining a light on human rights violations comes along. In fact, aside from documentaries, it is very unusual to see issues that Amnesty International has worked on appear on film. However, sometimes a film can so distort an important human rights issue that it may do more harm than good to the cause.

Sadly, this is the case with the new movie opening this Friday, The Stoning of Soraya M, the purportedly true story of the brutal execution by stoning of an innocent Iranian village woman. For one thing, the film is marked by crude story-telling: the main character, Soraya, is merely a mutely suffering victim while her brutish husband, who falsely accuses her of adultery so that he can marry a teen-aged girl, is a cardboard caricature of evil and malice. More importantly, aside from the numerous inaccuracies and implausibilities, the climax of the film -- a bloody and prolonged stoning scene with villagers mercilessly pelting the victim -- is so sensationalized that the audience response is likely to be disgust and revulsion at Iranians themselves, who are portrayed as primitive and blood-thirsty savages.

The film is presented as an indictment of Iranian society as a whole, and the setting -- a remote rural village of about 25 years ago -- as typical of contemporary Iran. In the film, the victim's aunt (who though she is supposed to be an ignorant village woman, inexplicably speaks excellent English and smokes cigarettes with 1940s femme fatale flourishes) is eager to have the French-Iranian journalist, who stops in the village shortly after the incident, smuggle a tape of her relating the story out of the village. She states that she wants the whole world to know what happened there, presumably so that those on the outside (the west?) can rescue the benighted Iranian people from their barbaric practices.

In fact, Iranians themselves -- and in particular Iranian women's rights activists -- have organized and carried out a vigorous campaign against the practice of stoning and have themselves been actively documenting the practice. Opposition to the practice occurs at the highest level of the Iranian legal system; the Head of the Iranian Judiciary announced a moratorium on stoning back in 2002 and it was reiterated in August 2008. Sadly, at least three people have been executed by stoning since then. Interestingly, all three were men.

By criticizing the film, I am not dismissing the importance of the issue. Amnesty International issued a major report on stoning in January 2008, in which it is described how this form of execution is prescribed for adultery -- although in practice, it is usually adultery in conjunction with some other crime, such as being an accessory to the murder of a husband. Furthermore, stonings are carried out in prison yards by government agents, not by members of the community.

Crucially, we must look at stoning in the overall context of executions in Iran. Stonings represent a tiny fraction of executions in that country. Iran executes more people than any other country in the world except for China. In 2008 it executed at least 346, the overwhelming majority of whom were executed by hanging, sometimes for politically motivated offenses, and often after flawed legal proceedings. But again, Iranians don't need people from outside Iran telling them what is good for them because Iranians themselves have taken the lead in opposing executions in their country. The renowned Iranian human rights activist Emadeddin Baghi was recently awarded the prestigious Martin Ennals award, partially for his anti-death penalty activism.

I would urge those who really want to see important social issues in Iran critically examined to check out some of the great films made in Iran, such as A Time for Drunken Horses which deals with poverty among Iran's Kurdish minority, The Day I Became a Woman and As Simple As That about the frustrations experienced by women in Iran, and Santoori, which deals with drug addiction.

An accurate and thoughtful film about executions in Iran would be welcome, but we will still have to wait, as the Stoning of Soraya M is not it.

Follow Amnesty International on Twitter: www.twitter.com/amnesty

Comments

[Salome Mohyeddin]

This is the most insipid review and article i have read in a long time...look at the language this woman uses to try and pass herself off as some progressive thinker. I have seen this movie and i have seen video of women and men being stoned so Elise Auerbach please stop spreading false information. This movie is a true representation of what happened and is still happening in Iran!

[shahriar]

If Elise really works for AMNESTY, then I guess explains why NOT MUCH has been DONE in 30 years to bring needed attention and change to Iran's greater human rights problems to light.

After 1979, law and justice in Iran regressed drastically into the dark ages. If this movie brings attention to the INHUMANE and BARBARIC treatment of people within a sham legal process (or rather a legal process based on hocus pocus divine crap in some cases)… then GOOD.

I am appalled. For anyone to be executed by stoning or hanging (rather than a simple injection) as does happen today in Iran is simply UNJUST. To discuss this while calling the film "sensational" is downright INSENSTIVE and HEARTLESS to Iran's spectrum of constitutional woes that allow such forms of punishment, as well as other government based brutality.

The only good that has come out of this garbage of an article is that I will make sure to see the movie several times… in the theater… and buy 2 tickets just to further support it.

Elise and Amnesty are proving to be but artisans of shoveling up self serving pseudo-intellectual rhetoric.

Supporting Hollywood funders and filmmakers to show they can achieve what Amnesty International has NOT done—TO SCREAM for AWARENESS and URGE for CHANGE—may be the best use on one's time and money.

[6763]

It seems to me that Amnesty, for lack of a better phrase, is looking for a fight. They are seeing problems with this film where there are none and missing the whole point of it. To bring an issue to people who wouldn't ordinarily get exposed to such an issue or moved by it. I have spent some time at the free Iran protests and Spoken with Iranian Americans about the film and most, in fact almost all are exited about this film.

[6763]

Charles

[6763]

I read both of the reviews regarding this film before I went out to see it. I must say I was greatly disturbed by this review to begin with but I was going to reserve judgment until I saw the film and done some research of my own. Knowing that true to life stonings can last for hours and they do indeed require stones no bigger than a mans palm I feel the sequence was just right and justified. I don't think anyone will refute that. So when Amnesty complained about the sequence being sensationalized I was expecting an over the top tasteless scene reminiscent of gore porn like "Saw" or "Hostile." In fact it was quite the opposite. As for how the stoning was carried out, It happened in a small village in rural Iran in the mid 1980's. No matter what country you are in small villages are always going to be harder to govern an susceptible to mob rule. Yes official stonings are usually carried out as written in this article, however this article does admit that even though he Head of the Iranian Judiciary announced a moratorium on stoning, three stonings have occurred since the moratorium. Couldn't this mean that a mob rule stoning have occured in a small village somewhat isolated from the major governing body?

Amnesty International: My donations will be going elsewhere from here on out. Thank you.

[RoyceWright]

Dear Amnesty,

I'm disappointed by your take on the film. How can you so easily dismiss its brutality when its based on a true story! Have you forgotten that this actually occurred to a real woman. I'm sure the stones Soraya felt were not nearly as fictitious as you make them sound in your dulling down of the events surrounding her brutal murder. I agree with about 5% of what you say, but to condemn the film as a whole is utter foolishness.

[tksmith]

Yes, we outsiders should mind our own business, just as the American South should have been left alone to deal with its "time-honored domestic institutions" 150 years ago, right?

[0charles0]

The comparison of this film to _the_passi­on_of_chri­st_ or _saving_pr­ivate_ryan­_ helps to illustrate the point that this film is sensational and manipulative. It may be very moving and dramatically told, but that does not mean that it contributes to our understanding.

The picture above, from the film, shows soraya as a light complexioned, young woman in a spotless white dress that highlights her shapely, feminine figure, as she is tied by a dark complexioned man dressed in a drab green uniform. The image vividly sets "back" against white, evil against innocence, with no room for the complexities of real people and real life. It leaves me wanting to see more of this actress, but not more of this film.

Given the track record of the u.s. in the middle east, i have the sense that this film does more to push us toward military intervention than to promote a policy soundly supporting human rights.

[Chip Hanlon - Huffpost Blogger]

"I have the sense that this film..." Exactly, you haven't seet it. See it and you'll learn how far off you are. Your conclusion-- the idea that the thing was made by Dick Cheney or something-- is the simplistic one. And I never saw "The Passion," but I didn't realize that a film's being compared to "Saving Private Ryan" was a bad thing. I'm confident most readers of any political stripe would disagree.

Oh, and read this article on Soraya and its lead actress, Shohreh Aghdashloo over at Tina Brown's Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-25/irans-brave-leading-lady/full/

...pretty sure you're going to have a hard time making a neocon out of her if you do... just my guess.

[Witkacy]

>...pretty sure you're going to have a hard time making a neocon out of her if you do... just my guess.

Are you familiar with Mpower Productions, the producers of the film, Chip? The comparison with The Passion of the Christ is only natural, because The Stoning... was produced by the same man who produced The Passion... - and who, if you take a minute to check around (I checked only because I smelled a rat, in the timing and wide distribution of this film), is a burgeoning producer of right-wing­/conservat­ive films, and who has worked with radical fundie Mel Gibson for many years.

[6763]

Keep in mind the filmmakers have two hours of your time to recall a specific incident to hope to bring light to a broad subject. And they have the tools available to them, sound and visuals. The white dress may be nothing more than a tool to highlight the red blood. Her fairer skin probably had nothing to do with her casting. I would imagine the filmmakers would go with the best actress for the job. The film was indeed made by a mostly Iranian cast with an Iranian-American director. The talent pool for such actors may not be as large as you might hope. A photo of the real Soraya exists from when she was just a teenager. She was very light skinned. I really don't think there was any hidden meaning or agenda behind that particular scene.

[Reggie Littlejohn]

I am surprised and disappointed by Ms. Auerbach's review of "The Stoning of Soraya M." This is the most powerful film I've seen since "The Passion of the Christ." The film left me physically shaking for an hour afterward. I disagree with Ms. Auerbach's statement that the film is "an indictment of Iranian society as a whole." Director Cyrus Nowrasteh is an Iranian-born American who grew up speaking Farsi. He has an abiding love and respect for the Iranian people, which comes across in the film. With respect to the Iranian women's rights activists and others who are organizing a campaign to stop the practice of stoning -- they and others will likely welcome the film, as it will only give momentum to their cause.

Bottom line: go see the film, and then decide for yourself.

[Chip Hanlon - Huffpost Blogger]

I find this review stunning, especially since more than 1000 stonings have occurred in Iran since the revolution in 1979 and no organization writes more provocatively on the topic than Amnesty International.

I am absolutely flabbergasted by this review and urge readers to read my own write-up of this film from last week:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-hanlon/emthe-stoning-of-soraya-m_b_215868.html

In that article, I link to Amnesty International's own "Campaign to End Stoning in Iran." Yes, read that line again.

And to think AI could somehow downplay--no, almost justify, really-- the practice of stoning itself by saying it's usually carried out only when adultery is committed in conjuction with some other crime is an abomination.

This reviewer also conveniently neglects to mention that "Soraya" was made by and primarily stars Iranian-born Americans. Rather than viewing it as an indictment of Iranians in general, the film treats all related topics--indeed, Islam itself-- quite delicately given the subject matter and it is clear the fimmakers hope for a better future in which Iranians can enjoy basic human liberties.

I simply cannot believe I'm seeing these words in print, especially as the women of Iran are today literally risking their lives in protest of a nation where there lives are officially worth half that of a man.

Amnesty International should be ashamed if this person is writing this hit-job on its behalf in an official capacity.

[jttalker]

OMG! i thought maybe your reply was over thoe top then i found this http://markets.chron.com/chron?GUID=4323124&Page=MediaViewer&ChannelID=3197
is elise unfamiliar with amnestys own statement here? i doubt shes writing on their behalf as you said