This movie portrays a moment in1986 in an area of the world able to uphold the social graces of the Old Testament era. It is here that women can be bartered into marriage by their parents at the age of 13. They can be accused of adultery and be burdened with proving their innocence rather than burdening the accuser with proof of guilt. Lastly, women convicted of adultery can be stoned to death by their village and adulterous pedophile husbands in the name of righteousness. The film doesn't do any more than furiously outline this infuriating story. There is no attempt to understand the deep-seated cultural influences that prevent these values from evolving. A 2010 Pew research poll of Arab nations found that 84% of Egyptians favored the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam, 82% believed adulterers should be stoned to death, and 77% favored cutting off the hands of robbers. Where is the movie that at least attempts to explore why?

The Stoning of Soraya M. tells the story of a woman whose husband conspires to convict her of adultery. The isolated village strictly follows traditional Islamic law, and as a result of her husband's conspiracy, Soraya is brutally stoned. The performances by Jim Caviezel, Shohreh Aghdashloo, and Mozhan Marno are all quite strong, and it has been a long time since I've seen anything as blood-curdlingly sick as the stoning sequence. It is appropriately hard to watch. Despite how well-made the film may be, it never rises to anything more than a harsh polemic. Even a first-year journalism student would realize that the story, as it is presented in the film, is based only on one biased source, and she wasn't present at many of the most damning conversations. I haven't read the book, so I'm not in a position to truly doubt this story's veracity, but it was incumbent upon the director to present the story more credibly. Additionally, this event allegedly occurred in 1986; the book was published in 1990; why is it that the film doesn't come out until 2008? Gramsci might say that cultural artifacts "spontaneously" appear as a result of the then-contemporary political climate. He doesn't suggest that there's any type of conspiracy, but it does strike me as odd that this film finds a receptive audience during a time when U.S. foreign policy was rattling its saber at Iran and vice versa. Overall, this is a well-made film, but it's polemic as hell. You may find yourself agreeing with its political message, and to the degree that I whole-heartedly support women's rights, so do I, but Western audiences should be careful not to conflate what occurred in a remote village in Iran during the '80s with Islam or all of present-day Iran.