The woman leading the characters, a doctor from Quebec, Canada, is a sensitive, life- loving person, who has no prejudice, and develops friends on both sides of the Israeli- Palestinian border. The brutality of everyday life in this war zone, thus weighs heavily upon her psyche. She sees the people on both sides of the border, as valuable human beings, whereas most of those around her are tragically, held by fear and hatred towards the other side. This gives a fairly good view of the tense situation, that exists in this area and the life of little hope that exists, particularly in the "conquered" Arab region. It's a valuable look behind the superficiality of the media, towards this troubled land, through the eyes of someone with investment in both sides. This is cinema for grown-ups, where the "bang-bang" has real human consequences.
18 Reviews
Very good movie
adam-tongu28 September 2012
I watched it this evening in Montreal. The story describes how a Canadian humanitarian doctor tries to reconcile her life in both sides of the border between Israel and Palestine. The scenario is very good. Events occur smoothly in a straight forward way. The performance of Evelyne Brochu (the humanitarian doctor in the movie) is perfect. She was able to transmit the emotions experienced by the character in a powerful way. I liked the non judging aspect of the movie. On can see both sides as victims in certain way. My overall experience was very good. Both the actress "Evelyne Brochu" and the director "Anaïs Barbeau-Lavalette" gonna be in my watch list from now on.
Well acted and shot, but lacking a narrative. It leaves the mere impression of a guided tour through Israeli border areas and refugee camps
JvH483 March 2013
I saw this film at the Berlinale 2013 film festival, where is was part of the Panorama section. My overall impression when leaving the theater was that it had the effect on me as if it was a guided tour through the refugee camps and Israeli border areas. We knew in the abstract sense about checkpoints in between to let people travel from one side to the other, the soldiers who are assigned to guard those border posts, people wanting to pass being humiliated, assaults in public places by for instance suicide bombers, and the existence of refugee camps. For many years this is and remains newspaper and TV material.
We observe a world that is very different from our quiet and reasonably safe lives. We implicitly see and understand the aftermath of assaults, inevitably leading to posting guards and ID checks in public places, augmented with random house searches. What most impressed me were armed people all around carrying large machine guns, also in the role of an average bus passenger wanting to get from A to B, and that no one seems to find those arms in public places disconcerting.
It was a good idea to make the woman doctor (Chloe) into a single reference point to provide for some skeleton story line, otherwise this film would be no more than loose fragments (like holiday photo's) of how people live there. There was no real narrative that I could recognize as such, which made me wonder in the beginning what it was all about. We see an Israeli woman (Ava) hating her job guarding one of the checkpoints. We see a women (Rand) sifting through the rubbish dump, but does not want a bed lying there because "settlers have (bleep) F**ked in it". We see Chloe arranging a day pass that allows a family to visit their former house, now only visible as a ruin. And so on. Chloe is the one linking these persons together, hence my idea that a guided tour was the prime purpose of this film.
Of course, for Chloe as a white doctor and without roots on either side, it is relatively easy to travel around. And as a doctor, she helps people by definition with their problems. But do not think that people are thankful for her efforts. She remains an outsider in spite of her doing good things on both sides. In the end, for example, after having failed to rescue a newborn baby (not her fault), the mother blames her for being too late and thus causing the death of her child. The mother also became abusive and called her all sorts of nasty names, like whore, all of which was very undeserved given the circumstances.
All in all, this movie was not as involving for me as could have been. Maybe I expected too much, being prejudiced by the fact that it received 3rd prize for the Berlinale Panorama audience award. It apparently was able to arouse the interest of a significant number of viewers. However, I was not that much impressed, in spite of the superb acting performances and revealing close-by shots of the local settings. I also think that the film presupposed too much background information from the audience, about the long standing issues around Israeli, Palestinians, settlers and refugee camps. Plus that I have had problems for many many years to take a stand in this controversy. But I obviously am an exception and alone in this.
We observe a world that is very different from our quiet and reasonably safe lives. We implicitly see and understand the aftermath of assaults, inevitably leading to posting guards and ID checks in public places, augmented with random house searches. What most impressed me were armed people all around carrying large machine guns, also in the role of an average bus passenger wanting to get from A to B, and that no one seems to find those arms in public places disconcerting.
It was a good idea to make the woman doctor (Chloe) into a single reference point to provide for some skeleton story line, otherwise this film would be no more than loose fragments (like holiday photo's) of how people live there. There was no real narrative that I could recognize as such, which made me wonder in the beginning what it was all about. We see an Israeli woman (Ava) hating her job guarding one of the checkpoints. We see a women (Rand) sifting through the rubbish dump, but does not want a bed lying there because "settlers have (bleep) F**ked in it". We see Chloe arranging a day pass that allows a family to visit their former house, now only visible as a ruin. And so on. Chloe is the one linking these persons together, hence my idea that a guided tour was the prime purpose of this film.
Of course, for Chloe as a white doctor and without roots on either side, it is relatively easy to travel around. And as a doctor, she helps people by definition with their problems. But do not think that people are thankful for her efforts. She remains an outsider in spite of her doing good things on both sides. In the end, for example, after having failed to rescue a newborn baby (not her fault), the mother blames her for being too late and thus causing the death of her child. The mother also became abusive and called her all sorts of nasty names, like whore, all of which was very undeserved given the circumstances.
All in all, this movie was not as involving for me as could have been. Maybe I expected too much, being prejudiced by the fact that it received 3rd prize for the Berlinale Panorama audience award. It apparently was able to arouse the interest of a significant number of viewers. However, I was not that much impressed, in spite of the superb acting performances and revealing close-by shots of the local settings. I also think that the film presupposed too much background information from the audience, about the long standing issues around Israeli, Palestinians, settlers and refugee camps. Plus that I have had problems for many many years to take a stand in this controversy. But I obviously am an exception and alone in this.
Powerful locations
SnoopyStyle21 September 2013
Chloé (Evelyne Brochu) is a Quebecois doctor working to serve the Palestinian people. She travels in and out of the territories. She makes friends with Rand (Sabrina Ouazani) a pregnant Palestinian girl, and Ava (Sivan Levy) an Israeli soldier.
She tries to be a detached worker at first. As her relationships grow deeper, the suffering in the territories start to cause her emotional pain. Pain that she keeps under control until one incident at a checkpoint. They filmed this right on some of the real locations. That made this instantly compelling. The everyday existence do slow the movie down. However it does slowly change Chloé's viewpoint. The ending is a little too abrupt. Her final change over need more than one cause. Maybe there could be more about her life at home before coming over.
She tries to be a detached worker at first. As her relationships grow deeper, the suffering in the territories start to cause her emotional pain. Pain that she keeps under control until one incident at a checkpoint. They filmed this right on some of the real locations. That made this instantly compelling. The everyday existence do slow the movie down. However it does slowly change Chloé's viewpoint. The ending is a little too abrupt. Her final change over need more than one cause. Maybe there could be more about her life at home before coming over.
Difficult to watch
philjeudy18 June 2020
I've been traveling enough in Israel to be aware of the situation of Palestinian people. "We are in war", says the Israeli soldier. Which war? Hard to watch sometimes but every face of the world must be shown. I don't know what else to say.
An incredible emotional journey that everyone should experience.
sjcoe314 April 2013
This was an amazing film!! it actually didn't seem that i was watching a film, but that i was eavesdropping on a woman's life with her friends and her experiences working in Gaza but living in Israel. The normality of taking a bus and clubbing in juxtaposition to the reality in Gaza is breathtaking. How fast the family in Gaza disintegrated through the deaths of loved ones was heartbreaking. The loss of the doctor's innocence and how her world will change forever. One of the other reviewers has clearly not lost a child, a woman who does will say anything through her pain. The film was emotionally draining because it had it all. i give it a 9, and in my books few movies deserve that!
it's a good movie
mmnm-664-88413619 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
inchallah or In other words, insha Allah is Arabic phrase means god willing.so many people said that the film has no partiality to any side, but the Arabic pray phrase on the name of film say some thing else. and you complete the pray by any idea that might resolve or recovery this disaster. actually it's a tragedy and no one can propose a real way to out of it peacefully even in the story. i don't know why this subject became so important to make a movie about in this level, but the film in my opinion is just fit the fact.suffering is became normal in that area and no one wanna hear about it.let's just hope that this issue must be considered.i really enjoyed the film.
A topical dramatic film that fails to deliver
nekoudacreative8 September 2013
Topical films are supposed to be important because they speak to compelling questions of the day like the struggle for justice for Palestinian people. This film however doesn't do the topic justice because up until two thirds (at least) of the way into it there is no real dramatic conflict: no tension, no story and a whole bunch of relationships that add up to absolutely nothing. Only when the lead character, a Quebecoise doctor working in the Territories has to save a dying Palestinian baby at one of the notorious Israeli border crossings does the film finally take off. Up until that point the lead actress plays one note and is so wooden in her performance that I actually found myself counting the moles on her neck to keep myself engaged.
The film tries to tackle the moral question as to whether terrorist acts are justifiable by Palestinians living under brutal oppression. It doesn't take much of a clear stand until the final moments of the film but (without spoiling the ending) it seems to imply that terrorist acts against Israelis are justified. There is a thin line here between what the character finds justifiable and the point the filmmaker is trying to make. Nonetheless, in the end the filmmaker seems to justify the murder of non-combatants which I think reflects both a deadly oversimplified understanding of the politics of the region and is morally indefensible.
Ironically the director is crippled by the same "white man among the savages" colonialist perspective as her protagonist. (Which is why these films generally get funding even when the purport to come out on the side of the colonized as in Dances with Wolves, Un Dimanche à Kigali, etc.). That said, the Palestinian cast is excellent, the cinematography, art direction and location shooting are production accomplishments. Unfortunately the promise of being able to learn meaningfully about an important current political and social topic were not delivered on. Even as some viewers may feel morally cleansed having gone through the experience of watching this film, in the end they will most likely not have learned much about it's context nor become sufficiently motivated to act or question the complicity of themselves or their own governments in various forms of national or racial oppression.
The film tries to tackle the moral question as to whether terrorist acts are justifiable by Palestinians living under brutal oppression. It doesn't take much of a clear stand until the final moments of the film but (without spoiling the ending) it seems to imply that terrorist acts against Israelis are justified. There is a thin line here between what the character finds justifiable and the point the filmmaker is trying to make. Nonetheless, in the end the filmmaker seems to justify the murder of non-combatants which I think reflects both a deadly oversimplified understanding of the politics of the region and is morally indefensible.
Ironically the director is crippled by the same "white man among the savages" colonialist perspective as her protagonist. (Which is why these films generally get funding even when the purport to come out on the side of the colonized as in Dances with Wolves, Un Dimanche à Kigali, etc.). That said, the Palestinian cast is excellent, the cinematography, art direction and location shooting are production accomplishments. Unfortunately the promise of being able to learn meaningfully about an important current political and social topic were not delivered on. Even as some viewers may feel morally cleansed having gone through the experience of watching this film, in the end they will most likely not have learned much about it's context nor become sufficiently motivated to act or question the complicity of themselves or their own governments in various forms of national or racial oppression.
Best film I have seen this year!
mike-497616 April 2014
I can't believe some of the negative comments about this film. If ever you want to get some enlightenment about what it is like to live in or near the occupied territories then you must see this film. It is a really powerful film that has a subtle,realistic and non-judgmental narrative. The film does not try to justify terrorism attacks (as another reviewer suggested) but rather gives an insight into how normal nice everyday people can -because of a combination and build up of horrendous circumstance - feel such hatred towards "the other side". And when it seems like there is no future for themselves they are driven to commit acts of atrocity. The film doesn't try to say this is OK - it simply provides an insight - that is both brutal and poignant - into how and why these horrible events can unfold.
I thought the acting was brilliant. I felt a connection with all the lead characters. The actress playing the doctor was in most scenes and she did an amazing job and was very believable. The scene stealer was the young Arab boy who was a charmer and formed an odd bond with the Doctor.
It is a film I can't stop thinking about and in my mind that makes it a very special movie.
I thought the acting was brilliant. I felt a connection with all the lead characters. The actress playing the doctor was in most scenes and she did an amazing job and was very believable. The scene stealer was the young Arab boy who was a charmer and formed an odd bond with the Doctor.
It is a film I can't stop thinking about and in my mind that makes it a very special movie.
A white coat alone does not a doctor make!
robkillian1 June 2013
This powerful film is good, haunting, disturbing. But the Chloe character is fake, in- authentic and sad. Putting a white coat on a character does not make them a physician. Chloe as played is weak. There comes with education and experience in medicine an authority that is entirely lacking in this Chloe. This woman does not convey comfort with the bodies of the women she serves? Nor does she talk to them as if she has their best interests at heart. She repeatedly shuffles them in and out of clinics as if they are cattle, not humans.
A physician in her place would be a passionate advocate for all life; she would be a feminist. She would fight for life. But in the scenes wherein a child and baby die in her presence there is no attempt to save a life. She even states "I have blood on my shoes". Not: " I have blood on my hands". She lets a baby die without any attempt to breathe life into it.
Bizarre especially given the choice she makes by the end to truly have blood on her hands.
I went to the movie to see the choice a physician has made in extreme circumstances, but was met with a character that in no way understood or lived as a physician. Such a sad failure for a movie that could shock if written and acted as the story demanded
A physician in her place would be a passionate advocate for all life; she would be a feminist. She would fight for life. But in the scenes wherein a child and baby die in her presence there is no attempt to save a life. She even states "I have blood on my shoes". Not: " I have blood on my hands". She lets a baby die without any attempt to breathe life into it.
Bizarre especially given the choice she makes by the end to truly have blood on her hands.
I went to the movie to see the choice a physician has made in extreme circumstances, but was met with a character that in no way understood or lived as a physician. Such a sad failure for a movie that could shock if written and acted as the story demanded
Confusing ending
maggies-111-17436519 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I stuck with this movie, even though I found Chloe's indecision and helplessness annoying at times -- I guess she was supposed to symbolize the idea that both sides in the conflict are equally deserving of our compassion and understanding, and I don't feel this way at all. The Palestinians have been an occupied, oppressed people for generations, and Israel is ethnically cleansing them in an attempt to take over all of historic Palestine...The main reason I'm writing this review, however, is confusion about the ending (here comes the spoiler...): the film makes it look as though Chloe has smuggled something in a black bag (like a bomb) into Israel. It looked like she left it on the bus, and I started waiting for an explosion. Then it turns out that Rand's the suicide bomber, apparently having masqueraded as an Israeli, even down to wearing the same navy blue nail polish as Ava. It must be easier than I thought to get through the checkpoints...And why make it look like Chloe's got a bomb? Are we supposed to believe that she was tempted to commit a violent act to show solidarity with Rand's family? Probably not, as the cute little Jewish boy who clearly was killed by Rand's bomb is a happy, healthy stand-in for Rand's pathetically sweet son Safi. Thus, all violence is equally horrific and wrong -- again equating the two sides, which is wrong -- they're totally disproportionate, with the bulk of the suffering on the Palestinian side. Two final questions: what kind of an Arabic name is "Rand," and was Chloe supposed to be having a sexual relationship with Rand (and Ava)? Watch Evelyn Brochu in "Orphan Black" (Canadian TV series) -- I like her as an actress. Am just criticizing the writing of this movie.
An eye rolling film
bostonclover18 August 2018
Movie is slow and boring and about as deep as a street puddle. It hits on all the standard progressive points
-Jooz bad, muslim terrorists good.
-White people bad, brown people good.
-Straight white males bad, White feminist lesbians good.
The only solid point it did hit on (albeit unintentionally and somewhat ironically) was how both the lead character and the producer are clueless, naive and privileged westerns sticking their noses where it doesn't belong and in turn get innocent people killed.
Good movie
zulfanahya2 August 2018
Disgusting
aushak28 December 2015
Justifies & glorifies killers. Sponsored by Canadian government - amazing. Looks more like propaganda movies shot by Nazis. How is it possible to produce such films in Canada? It looks like producers are ready to blow up couple coffee shops in Israel themselves. I could not believe that such movie can be produced in my country. Plot is very feeble, but hatred is real and disturbing. Doctor ends up assisting suicide bombers to kill people, how more dramatic can they get? Take a gun and go shot people in banquet hall? Some idiots already do this after watching propaganda like this. Good acting and good camera work. Gebels would approve.
I can't sympathize with anyone in it just wrong
medinamarisleidy18 September 2023
I mean this is a good file nice actors lots of good elements to make it great instead they make a villain out of the main character, how in earth will you promote violence In q place already full of it , that's not how a doctor should act at all ,
Let alone q Canadian , why do they always try to portray us like stupids that's can just be manipulated by emotions or other peoples anger .. bad sh*** happen all over the world yea so humans are mostly incline to violent behaviour sure but there's a line that should never be cross , regardless of religion borders even what we have experienced in our own skin the more hurt you're the more you should heal others is as simple as that , this film promote violence even justify it ,,, such a beautiful name for such a terrible movie I don't agree with the previous reviews....
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
