Really puts a human face into the so called “economic migrants” we hear so much about. If this can’t shift policy, nothing can.

There are critics that call this emotionally manipulative and unrealistic. I believe this is a misunderstanding of the courtroom scenes. They are a framing device for the story, and to allow monologues from the characters directly towards the audience. I’m a fan of brutal nihilism as much as anyone, but this is a film with a message.

Other critics argue this is a pro-abortion tirade, which is completely laughable. The mother directly says she would commit any crimes for her children, and his father is equally devastated for the outcome of the forced marriage. It takes the framing device literally, which I don’t think the film is arguing for. It would amount to eugenics, that viewpoint.

You can accuse the director of vanity for casting herself as the lawyer representing Zaen, but that doesn’t detract from the rest.


This is my place for ramblings about sequences of images that exploit the human visual limitation know as persistence of vision.

Ephemera of Vision