June 26, 2009, - 12:01 pm

Weekend Box Office: Powerful “Stoning of Soraya M.”, Annoying Cougar Flick “Cheri”

By Debbie Schlussel
You’ve already read my review of “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” a/k/a “Transformers 2″ (in which Israel is erased off the map). I did not see “My Sister’s Keeper,” though if I do, I’ll post the review later over the weekend. Here’s what I did see:
* “The Stoning of Soraya M.“: This movie is not only powerful, it’s important. It is extremely moving, too.
Cyrus Nowrasteh, the secular Muslim behind “The Path to 9/11″ ABC miniseries, made this film of the true story of an Iranian woman who is stoned to death, after her rich husband and the town’s Islamic cleric trump up fake adultery charges against her. All of this is done because Soraya’s husband wants to divorce her (without paying her any support money or alimony), so he can marry a young girl with whom he’s been apparently having an affair.

soraya.jpgcheri.jpg
This movie is just the way I like it. It pulls no punches. It’s very clear about the role Islam plays in brutality and fabricated “justice.” And it spares us none of the up-close graphic violence and blood of an Islamic stoning, which goes on in countries all over the world today . . . Islamic countries. (It’s violence and blood that is necessary to see, but not for the faint of heart and definitely NOT for kids.)
Shohreh Agdashloo–best known for playing the wife in a Turkish Muslim terrorist couple on the show “24″–is the star of this vehicle. She plays Soraya’s courageous aunt, who talks to a reporter (Jim Caviezel) and gets the story out. Caviezel’s reporter is a French Iranian whose car breaks down, and he is stranded in the small town until it is fixed. He tape records Agdashloo’s retelling of what happened just the day before.
The stoning incident also shows how wantonly life is taken away under sharia (Islamic law) and how cavalierly the killing–the murder–is treated. After Soraya has her show trial (which she wasn’t allowed nor was she allowed to testify), Soraya’s stoning happens with a fervor. The townfolk celebrate it and laugh before, during, and after. During the stoning, a clown troop–complete with Iranian clown midget–come to entertain the town kids. When they learn there’s a stoning going on, they eagerly entertain. That night, the whole town engages in feast and drink in celebration.
Very sickening, and, sadly, extremely true. If you love freedom as I do and despise jihad, this movie is a must see. I absolutely loved it. And it has no qualms about exposing Islam for what it is–a violent cult.
One other thing: Some western greeniac idiots who support the faux-democratic uprising in Iran are trying to use this movie as a vehicle for their unworthy cause. They are fools if they think that the Muslim green activists on the streets of Iran are any less for these Islamic stonings of women than Ahmadinejad and his supporters are. Mousavi supported there-establishment of Islamic rule and, thus, the stonings in 1979, and he supports it now. Wake the heck up.
FOUR REAGANS
reagancowboy.jpgreagancowboy.jpgreagancowboy.jpgreagancowboy.jpg
* “Cheri“: This is the “cougar” vehicle that’s been much discussed in showbiz media outlets. It features Michelle Pfeiffer as a wealthy, aging prostitute in 1920s France, who falls in love with a much younger boy, “Cheri” (British actor, Rupert Friend), and lives with him from his late teens through his mid-20s.
I don’t much care for movies in which women try to act like men (in pining for younger lovers), and the “men” are so gay-looking and effeminate that it simply isn’t believable. Rupert Friend looks so much like a girl it’s off-putting. A scene in which he dons a pearl necklace made me wanna hurl.
But this movie isn’t for me or most of this site’s audience. It’s for middle-aged and post-middle-aged women who like to look at nice clothes (the costumes were incredible), nice scenery, and beautiful flowers.
For the rest of us, it’s an annoying chick flick. As chick flicks go, it could have been far worse. But it’s mostly skipworthy. I mean, after all, it’s about the lives of prostitutes and one who becomes heartbroken. So what? Who cares? Not me.
The one good thing about the movie: it shows that a life of prostitution may bring a ton of easy money, but it also brings a more heavy truckload of tragedy and heartbreak.
HALF A MARX
halfkarlmarx.jpg

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




20 Responses

Debbie -
This is OT and please delete it if you prefer, but I read this over at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3354149.ece
via legalinsurrection and I’d like to hear your opinion of this stupidity.
Jewish School Held “Racist” For Preferring Jews
A court in Great Britain has found that a religious Jewish school engaged in racial discrimination by applying the traditional definition of who is a Jew as part of its admissions policy.
Traditionally, whether one is Jewish is determined by maternal lineage. If one’s mother is Jewish, one is Jewish. When the mother is a convert to Judaism, Orthodox Jews consider the child Jewish only if the conversion was in accordance with Orthodox conversion practices. Among non-Orthodox Jews, at least in the United States, the test is completely muddled, and among progressive Reform congregations, the standards for conversion are quite lenient.

kaporet on June 26, 2009 at 1:57 pm

I’m definitely making a trip to see Stoning! I really want to see this on the big screen. I saw Osama on DVD, and that would have been mega powerful in the theater.
[C: THIS WAS EVEN BETTER THAN "OSAMA," BUT IN THE SAME VEIN. DS]

cirrus1701 on June 26, 2009 at 2:07 pm

“….the publication of ChÈri (1920). ChÈri tells a story of the end of a six-year affair between an aging retired courtesan, LÈa, and a pampered young man, ChÈri. Turning stereotypes upside-down, it is ChÈri who wears silk pajamas and LÈa’s pearls, and who is the object of gaze.”
by Colette
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette

ploome on June 26, 2009 at 2:16 pm

by the way, Colette wrote Gigi

ploome on June 26, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Debbie,
Thank you for the review of The Stoning of Soraya M. I have heard about the movie on talk radio, but I wondered if it was true to life or the usual whitewash of muslim culture. I trust your opinion and Iíll see the movie.

Rocky on June 26, 2009 at 3:23 pm

[This is OT and please delete it if you prefer, but I read this over at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3354149.ece
via legalinsurrection and I'd like to hear your opinion of this stupidity.Posted by kaporet]
Stupidity seems to be more and more subjective these days. Did you actually read the story? The girl is practicing Judaism, the father is Jewish and the mother works at the school and converted to Judaism. The only reason the girl wasn’t allowed in was because of the opinion of the Chief Rabbi that she’s not really Jewish. That’s what’s pretty stupid and according to a commentator, the reason for the refusal was because the woman converted to an out-of-the-main stream form of Judaism.

Norman Blitzer on June 26, 2009 at 3:23 pm

According to Professor Aslan, there is no thing as Sharia law, it’s all a figment of our imagination.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-tapson/2009/06/26/daily-beast-contributor-aslan-no-such-thing-sharia-law

adagioforstrings on June 26, 2009 at 5:01 pm

This is with regards to your Transformers review:
“And yes, it’s filled with hot women, like Megan Fox”
This is something with modern Hollywood that REALLY annoys me. It takes women that are not particularly attractive – and in many cases look like teenage girls or younger – and markets them as attractive. Megan Fox is another from a long line that began with, I think, Kate Moss, who was the most famous to be used in a notorious ad campaign that forced the company behind it to assert that all the “models” were over 18 because they looked far younger. And Britney Spears and the rest of the products of the “I look – and act – like I am 12 years old” Disney assembly line (whose latest product is Miley Cyrus I guess) just kicked it into high gear.
Megan Fox is just another in a long line of Hollywood starlets that no emotionally mature male above 17 should have any interest in, and her telling anyone and everyone who will listen a million times that she is bisexual (another thing that piques the interests of emotionally stunted males, an emotional stunting that Hollywood fully supports and contributes to, never mind that it has been statistically proven to increase the number of rapes and sexual assaults of underage girls, but hey when that happens more business for Planned Parenthood right?) has been her primary device for extending her 15 minutes of fame. (Fox News is your trusted source for information on the female that Megan is fantasizing about this week. They report, you decide.)
I give you a pass on the “Megan Fox hot female” thing, because you are not a male, but I wish others would talk more about this disgusting trend of making females who look and act like teens (and on Disney preteens!) into sex symbols. I remember the action movie heroines of the 80s i.e. Kathleen Turner and Sharon Stone, then I see all the fuss over Megan Fox, Jessica Alba or whoever and I wonder if we are raising a nation of boys and men who have no idea of how a woman is supposed to act – let alone look like – and would run away yelling and screaming if they ever encountered one.
And the same goes for the “leading men” in Hollywood. They haven’t been allowed to be, well, MEN in quite a long time. If a 25 year old Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston, or John Wayne were in Hollywood right now, they’d have no idea what to do with him or no interest in trying. Even the comedy actors of years past like Dick Van Dyke, Bill Cosby or Jerry Lewis would be able to rip apart the “action heroes” of today. One of the reasons why I could never get into those “Bourne Identity” movies was because the notion of Matt Damon’s besting so much as an inner city schoolgirl in a fist fight – let alone trained government agents – requires an even larger suspension of disbelief than talking transforming robots.

healtheland on June 26, 2009 at 9:49 pm

“A scene in which he dons a pearl necklace made me wanna hurl.” Debbie, are you kidding me? The whole symbolism is beyond the pale. Did he have a skirt on at the same time on his knees? I think the feminist/Hollywood have gone beyond hating men to now humiliating men. And these quasi-men like it?! Which is even more distorted!!

californiascreaming on June 27, 2009 at 12:23 am

I came across this review of Stoning in one of our local papers:
http://nwi.com/articles/2009/06/27/entertainment/theatre/doc809999a8ed0c3209862575e00054b2a9.txt
“Best” quote of the review–”The way in which this film dissects the complex cultural issues surrounding Islamic culture seems to come across as being heavily right-wing motivated because of its emphasis on dramatization and disturbingly graphic violence.”
This individual is a student at one of our local colleges. All I could do was shake my head.

cirrus1701 on June 27, 2009 at 7:29 am

[NB:That's what's pretty stupid and according to a commentator, the reason for the refusal was because the woman converted to an out-of-the-main stream form of Judaism.]
All religions have rules. If you don’t like them that is your choice. However don’t go make up your own rules (which is what people in the “out-of-the-main stream form of Judaism” did) and expect others to accept them.
As for the movie itself, last week on Hew Hewitt’s radio show they had a guest who was involved with the making of the movie (may have been the producer, I forgot). Someone called in and said the difference between Christianity and Islam was that Christianity needed to be reformed because those involved in abuses like the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were not acting like Christ while those who performed this stoning were acting exactly like Mohammed.
The guest made some comment that this was debatable since no where in the Koran does it mention that Mohammed was involved in stoning. He went on to say that there were Hadiths that mentioned stoning but those are not always reliable.
Either way, the worst of the Islamist countries today do accept stoning and other atrocities like FGM and honor killings. The problem is that we have already seen some of this in the West, including the US.

i_am_me on June 28, 2009 at 9:02 am

Well, Atlas Shrugs has taken a page out of CJ’s book and banned me for supporting the truth as you have expressed it hear. The misguided people there are busy supporting the very Islamists that they roundly condemn.

Facts of Life on June 28, 2009 at 11:39 am

Norman Blitzer said,
“Stupidity seems to be more and more subjective these days. Did you actually read the story? The girl is practicing Judaism, the father is Jewish and the mother works at the school and converted to Judaism. The only reason the girl wasn’t allowed in was because of the opinion of the Chief Rabbi that she’s not really Jewish. That’s what’s pretty stupid and according to a commentator, the reason for the refusal was because the woman converted to an out-of-the-main stream form of Judaism.”
He is guilty of both bias and also of ignorance. He would never make a statement like this if something like this were done by a Muslim school.
Secondly, Orthodox Jewish law holds that the Jewishness of a child depends on the mother being Jewish. If she underwent a conversion that was faulty, she is not Jewish and hence her child is also not Jewish. The Orthodox have the same right as any other groups to establish the standards for what constitutes a valid conversion. It is outright arrogance and ignorance to assume that they have to accept any other different group’s opinion about this. This is like saying that the Catholics must accept a Protestant approach or that Shiite must accept a Sunni opinion.
Norman’s statement is intolerant of views that don’t agree with his own warped approach.

Facts of Life on June 28, 2009 at 11:46 am

[Facts of Life:Well, Atlas Shrugs has taken a page out of CJ's book and banned me for supporting the truth as you have expressed it hear. The misguided people there are busy supporting the very Islamists that they roundly condemn.]
This is ironic, since Pamela herself was banned by CJ. What did you that got you banned?
As for your response to NB, I agree totally. In fact, mine is the post right before yours.

i_am_me on June 28, 2009 at 2:51 pm

i_am_me,
I suggested that she should be careful about supporting the rioters since Moussavi is as bad as Ahmadinejad. I also said that there was no evidence at all that they wanted to oust the Mullahs.
She does it in a sneaky way. Every post that you go to is closed for comments but when you check back you see that other people’s posts are accepted.
It’s too bad that she lets her wishful thinking emotions carry her away to support people who are probably her enemies.

Facts of Life on June 28, 2009 at 8:24 pm

To the first comment. The Rabbi’s don’t care who the childs father is. It is sad and really harms the Jewish people. It isn’t biblical. Rabbi’s have been feminist for G-d knows how long except of course when it comes to their own profession. It should matter who BOTH PARENTS are. It is as bad as Islam where they only care WHO THE FATHER IS.

adam6275 on June 28, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Well Debbie. While I find this very wrong and evil isn’t stoning to death from the Jewish Bible. Islam didn’t make this up themselves. IN America men could be falsely accused of anything although they aren’t stoned to death their life is ruined for all intensive purposes. So I guess Islam is a little worse.

adam6275 on June 28, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Well Debbie, after reading your blog on this movie, The Stoning of Soraya M., I made a point to go see it. WOW…it is one of those movies that really tears your heart out.
Sad to admit, it seemed interesting in a sick voyeuristic type of way, till I watched the actual movie. I just wanted to cry and not to face what I was watching.
I highly doubt this film will get a lot of notoriety/critical acclaim, but maybe, its limited release will have the effect it did with Gran Torino–to make it more popular in an expanded release. It NEEDS to be seen–people need to understand what is the sick, sick mentality of fundamentalist islam.

BB on June 28, 2009 at 10:50 pm

Adam6275 said,
“The Rabbi’s don’t care who the childs father is. It is sad and really harms the Jewish people. It isn’t biblical. Rabbi’s have been feminist for G-d knows how long except of course when it comes to their own profession. It should matter who BOTH PARENTS are. It is as bad as Islam where they only care WHO THE FATHER IS.”
The Orthodox Jews follow the Oral and written law of the Bible which they believe to be the direct command of G-d. They don’t make public relations calculations to fit the generation to modify their laws to suit the current fad.
The bible and the Oral law are clear that a child’s status as a Jew depends on the mother.
The claim that Rabbi’s have been feminist is clearly false to anyone who has studied their works. They are very solicitous of women’s feelings and stature but they don’t support feminist supremacy.
Judiasm is not a make it up as you go along religion.

Facts of Life on June 29, 2009 at 9:13 am

@cirrus1701
It’s not just brainwashed college students who try to excuse Muslim-supporting stoning of women. Some critics from the mainstream media are also jumping on the Muslim apologist bandwagon. Check out Christian Toto’s commentary, “Liberal critics stone ëSorayaí”
http://whatwouldtotowatch.com/2009/06/26/liberal-critics-stone-soraya/#more-3084
The irony is that liberal critics keep defending a religion, Islam, that opposes everything in their agenda: feminism, free speech, atheism, homosexual “marriage,” alcohol, porn, etc.
Sadly, these liberals won’t appreciate this until they are personally affected by the evil of sharia law.

Fred2 on June 29, 2009 at 10:36 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field