'The Patience Stone' a study in suffering
By Barbara Vandenburgh
Published: Thursday, Oct. 3, 2013, 6:45 p.m.
Actress Golshifteh Farahani's character in “The Patience Stone” never gets a name; she's listed in the credits as simply “the woman.” She tends to her older husband's comatose body in their ravaged home in Afghanistan, keeping him alive in spite of the bullet wound in his neck.
She feeds him sugar water through a tube. She cleans him, dipping a rag into a bowl, its surface rattled by nearby bomb blasts. She takes care of her daughters. She reads from the Quran. She cries and prays.
But mostly, she talks. “The Patience Stone” largely functions as a one-woman play, with Farahani's character soliloquizing over her husband's body. The one-sided dialogue begins tentatively. “You're the one wounded,” she tells him, “and I'm the one suffering.”
Eventually, she takes advantage of her war-hero-husband's unresponsive state to spill her heart, a therapeutic act. She's not the soldier, but she's also lived her life, in a way, staring down the barrel of a gun. She was married young to the celebrated soldier — married, rather, in a grotesque bit of symbolism, to his dagger in the soldier's absence — and ever since has been balanced on that knife's edge to keep from falling out of her husband's favor and society's.
Ultimately, it's Farahani's striking and assured performance that stops the film just shy of being overbearingly allegorical, rooting the film instead in the flesh and blood of a real woman's spiritual and sexual awakening.
Barbara VanDenburgh writes for the Arizona Republic.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Mr. Peabody & Sherman’ teach lessons old as time
- ‘300’ sequel prettier, less thrilling
- ‘Elaine Stritch’ still seeks to grab the spotlight
- DVD reviews: ‘12 Years a Slave;’ ‘Hunger Games: Catching Fire’ and 'Oldboy'
- Fiennes a force in ‘Invisible Woman’
- ‘In Bloom’ takes look at war without and within teen lives
- ‘Gravity’ wins 7 Oscars, but ‘Slave’ is best picture
- Could Disney’s Oscar-winning ‘Frozen’ play bigger role in theme parks?
- ‘Fathers and Daughters’ casts three actresses