MovieChat Forums > The Syrian Bride (2004) Discussion > Did she or didn't she??? (possible spoil...

Did she or didn't she??? (possible spoiler)


I'm one of those who enjoyed the movie tremendously. I did however understand the ending in a different light than one of my friends. I believe we never know for certain Mona (the bride) ever crossed the border at the end. I think she is left in limbo as a symbol to the Israeli-Arab relations which are going nowhere. My friend believes she just walked across. Do you have an opinion???

reply


I think once she crossed the border, the syrians accepted her in cause she is Syrian. and probably her fiancé payed the customs guys good money.

reply

you never see her going through, only walking in that direction. i just wonder...

reply


The fact that we see the sister of the bride all sad and walking away is a good indication, that the syrian custom guys accepted her in.

reply

I was also in doubt because it wasn't evident you know if she reached the opposite side or not... I mean why did they face all the problems instead of just going? :)
Anyway I've just watched the film and it says in the very end:
"Once you cross the boarder there is no way back".

reply

my point is if it was as simple as walking across, why go through all the hassle with both bureaucrats on both sides and just walk across???

reply

The guys at the Syrian border were beaurocrats, but apparently because this time there were no papers, she could get through.

reply

The way I saw it...
Whatever happens to the bride is irrelevent.
The film ends with her sister walking away, free from her husband, from her own border.

The film was never about the bride... All that time it was about her sister crossing her own borders.

Francois

reply

I really agree. it was all about the sister, but it was very much about the Israeli-Arab endless conflict. As an Israeli, the movie left me very sad. we may never see the end of it.

reply

I'd say she was arrested by the syrian border police and then taken to be interrogated for some time before her husband talks to some important people in the country and the issue gets some national awareness. The Syrian government would then decide to give her the Syrian nationality and she marries her husband and lives a happy life.

I just dont understand why the Israeli border police decided to use a new stamp to create all that problems? Was that something they meant to do in order to create problems?
Also I dont understand why the Israeli Police chief agrees to the sister's request that her father attends the wedding at the border, and then backs up and shows up trying to spoil it. Its totally uncalled for and I think that is what provokes the arabs in general against Israelis.

reply

Oh, right, it's all the Israeli's fault.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, it is because it is not Arab-ISrael conflict, it is Israel using its military might to occupy other's land. Israel was created and sustained on the policies of occupation and oppression. What right does Israel have to be in Golan Heights or all of palestine? People are generally not friendly towards someone who comes into their "homes" and takes over and tells them what to do and as in the case with palestinians murders, tortures and committs genocide against a whole group of people.

reply

I thought that possibly the change in procedure had something to do with the change in the Syrian government - some Israeli response to that change. Since the change seemed to be a significant thing happening on the day of the wedding, with all those demonstrations.

reply

I agree that the main character is Amal. A good deal of the trouble in the film is caused by the stubbornness of men (males). In the end, Mona just takes matters into her own hands (or feet) and slips through while the men are quarreling or being stubborn--just as Amal is getting the courage to take her life in her own hands.

reply

Wonderful perspective of this beatiful film.I watched the DVD with a touching and insightful Enlish-language commentary track which made the whole viewing experience an in-depth understanding of the film's message.

reply

Ahh I'm envious. The copy I have has the commentary only in Hebrew, and I only have about 50 words of Hebrew!!

reply

Yes, in a sense it was about her assertion of her own freedom, but if you looked closely at the long final close-up of Amal as she walks away, you see a kaleidoscope of emotions cross her face, from sadness, to defiance, to anger, and finally to hope in the belief that her sister bride will find a better life for herself on the other side.

Laurie

reply

[deleted]

Just saw this Movie, and as I see it, she was determined to cross. When she stopped to look back at her Sister, I think that was when she would have started going back(if she was going to at all) and as she kept walking, it was obvious she wasn't going to look back again, and she wouldn't just stay in the middle.(imo) Also, when it shows her Sister walking the other way away from the rest of the family, I think the look on her face shows that she has seen what Mona is doing, and now she must show that same determination, and move forward. (i.e. go to University and not let her Husband control her) I'll say it again though: Correction Fluid!!!???(lol)

Cheers!

"5 out of 4 people have trouble with fractions" www.firstweekendclub.ca(canadian films)




reply

I wonder what the UN guard in the middle had to say about all this, doesn't anyone care about his feelings?

reply

Good grief, how did you watch this film?

It was not about the conflict between men and women, although that was there. It was not about the Arab Israeli conflict, although that was there and yes you had reason to be sad. (That directed at the person from Israel).

It was not about how brutish men are, although that was there.

It was not about a woman freeing herself from a loveless marriage although that was there.

It was not about a bride who could not join her husband, although that was really the central part of the plot.

It was about how simple things get all twisted up by circumstances we have no control over. The lawyer son could not make his father love or even respect him, but he brought his wife and son home anyway.

It was about a woman who wanted to marry, but in order to do so, she had to renounce one set of relations for another. The breaking away from a loveless marriage was a secondary and I might say a western problem. It was serious, but not nearly as serious as Mona's problem. Mona had to give up an entire family that she knew and loved, never to return and see them again any other way but by shouting across a no man's land. Never to hold her mother, or her brothers or her father. I would say that was a very serious problem indeed or I don't know anything at all about Islamic family life.

It was also about the insane regulations that exist between countries that are not particularly friendly. One wonders if buraucracies have to be that nuts. (I know THAT is a very western view).

I think both sides are shown with great care. It is a wonderful movie that does much to dispel the rock throwing views that we get on CNN.

The theme is sort of we work it out, maybe not the best way, but we'll work it out. Moderates are wonderful people.

And yes, she walks to the other side. But it's not trivial.

reply

jeromec-2,

I agree with much of what you say, yet I would only add the word historical to your, "It was about how simple things get all twisted up by circumstances we have no control over." You know ..... - those things we have no control over because they have the authority of history behind them.

I especially want to compliment you on your observation, "It is a wonderful movie that does much to dispel the rock throwing views that we get on CNN."

Even though some of the viewing audience may not know the historical background of nations or family relations in the Middle East, it is pretty hard to miss the relevance of love at work in the face of adversity in this beautiful and thought provoking film.

novabird

reply

Thank you very much. I wonder who's reading this thread. The people on it seem to be inordinaqtely polite. And we all seem to really like this film for many different reasons. This is one of my favorite threads. I wonder where everyone comes from. I'm from Canada, so I may have no idea what's really involved, but it was made in Palestine. They exported it. There must be people there who want this to be true.

reply

It's more about the Israeli/Syria conflict actually - the Golan heights were part of Syria, and some of the people who live there now under the control of the Israelis still consider themselves as Syrian/loyal to Syria. The Israelis (if I remember my history right - if anyone is able to fill in gaps in my knowledge please do!) first annexed the Golan heights (effectively, military occupation) and now consider them part of Israel, BUT the Syrians still consider them as part of Syria which is occupied by the Israelis: hence as far as the Israeli side is concerned she is leaving Israel, but as far as the Syrian side is concerned she is just exiting from an occupied territory, which is why they are unhappy that the Isralis have put an Israeli exit visa on her laisser passe.

reply

Your facts are quite correct, but it is the light hand in handling these grim and dreadful circumstances that is so remarkable.

reply

For me that was one of the beautiful/compelling things about the movie. It takes huge international issues and plays it out in a very gentle way as to how those issues affect one family on one important day.

reply

I enjoyed this movie very much, except for the ambiguity of the ending. The funny thing was that i knew it would end that way. Movies that win a lot of awards tend to have endings like that. They seem to think it's pretty artsy, but i think it's a big pain in the butt.

Overall, though, i enjoyed the movie. There were several different plotlines going with all the different family members, and i think i enjoyed that the most.

On the DVD, there is an interview with the actor who played Amal, and she talks about the relations between Arabs and Israelis in Israel.

The rest you guys have already said!

reply

Did anyone else catch the UN car that drove up? I thought that they intervened and that's how she got accross. Anyone else see that?

reply

For me, the ending keeps in line with the mood the film conveyed: uncertainty, containment, helplessness.

Had we seen the bride successfully make it across the border and so have the movie end on a Spielbergian sentimental high, it would have been too much of a feel good ending for me.

As to whether or not she was allowed to cross, my guess is that she was granted entry. She had already gotten past the Israeli guard, so I don't see how the Syrians would refuse a woman they see as their own. Of course, it's all speculation.

reply

I have the Israeli version of the movie, all the extras I have looked at so far are in Hebrew! Maybe one day I'll be able to understand 'em...

reply

jeromec's answer is the best and most comprehensive. I do think that the UN car (which passed through earlier in the film) is how she got through, either by the border guards turning the other way when she walked through the open gate or by UN intervention (doubtful). And to the person wailing about Israeli occupation, the reason that Israel annexed the Golan Heights was because Syria used them as a launching pad for war against Israel in 1967, and again, in 1974 (though Israel wiped them out before they could do anything but bring up all their hardware that time). In '67, however, they massed a large artillery force on the Heights and used it as a strategic point of attack. Israel got sick and tired of being attacked by Syria and Egypt so they stuck a cork in the bottle by taking the Heights away from Syria. Now they are loathe to give them up because they know Syria will just do it again (the Syrians get all their military hardware from Iran who get it from the Russians). It's too bad that the ordinary folks get screwed in the end but it's always that way, and I think this film is a bit about that as well.

reply

yes she did decide to leave and cross it, but since she did, she lost her identity and has none anymore. This means she wil have to acclaim a new identity becuase she was sick of all the conflict.

reply

i liked the ending , it leaves it up to the viewer to think of either way.
I think the uncertainty was more obvious when the relatives were also wondering and looking at what's gonna happen.
In the last scene she hasen't even reached the second post which might have been for the Syrian border , so when the sister sees here going through the second post then she walks back!!!

reply

I totally agree with Thespy's interpretation.

There's no exit, and at some point she cant stay and she cant cross either.
This is a clear allegory on the conflict depicted

reply