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.

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.

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.

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.