Watch RBG


RBG is a movie starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Ann Kittner, and Harryette Helsel. The exceptional life and career of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has developed a breathtaking legal legacy while becoming an...

Other Titles
RBG. Jueza icono, La jueza, RBG - Ein Leben für die Gerechtigkeit, A Juíza, RBG 最強の85才, RBG - õigluse esileedi, Nv Da Fa Guan Jin Si Bo Ge, RBG: Hero. Icon. Dissenter., RBG:不恐龍大法官, Alla corte di Ruth - RBG, RBG. Μια Ζωή για τη Δικαιοσύνη, Tiao Ji Fa Guan RBG
Running Time
1 hours 38 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Documentary, Biography
Julie Cohen, Betsy West
Harryette Helsel, Ann Kittner, Nina Totenberg, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

The life, both professional and personal, of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nicknamed "Notorious RBG" by her biographers and followers, is presented. On the professional side, most of the focus on her career is as a lawyer and ultimately in 1993 only the second woman ever appointed as a Justice of the US Supreme Court, a position she still holds today at age eighty-five. Much of that work centers on eliminating gender discrimination - both of females and males - under the law, many policies, especially implemented by privileged white men, inherently discriminating based on what are seen as stereotypical gender roles in society. Although seen as a liberal leaning justice, she is seen even more as a consensus builder among her supreme court colleagues. It is in that role that she has formed an unlikely friendship with conservative leaning justice Antonin Scalia. That role of consensus builder changed when the balance in the court shifted radically to the right, she instead feeling compelled to voice her dissenting view to her colleagues in that continuation of the want for equality for all. Her legal ferocity belies the fact of her diminutive physical stature and generally soft-spoken nature. On the personal side, she was married for over fifty years to fellow lawyer and law school colleague Martin D. Ginsburg until his death in 2010, with he having deferring to her more successful law career despite his own success as a tax lawyer. Their household defied those stereotypical gender roles in certain respects, at a time in society where it would have been considered unique. Her love of opera is also shown, she having appeared in one opera herself in a non-singing role.

Comments about documentary «RBG» (22)

Stephen photo

This documentary is a great way to learn about how the government works. It is entertaining and informative and shows how each program in the government is handled and what they do. It has some great information on the cost of various programs. For example, the Food Stamp program has the lowest cost to spend but the highest benefit to spend. A program to help poor people was the most expensive program in the United States. I highly recommend this documentary.

Jesse Tucker photo
Jesse Tucker

A great film that I don't have a lot of words to say. This film should be nominated for some awards. It is a must watch documentary. Great stories of the great people and their history. A must see documentary.

David photo

What is a documentary, you might ask? Well, a documentary is a self-directed or done on a script, and how does one go about making a documentary? One goes about it by researching about the subject in question, writing a story, filming, editing, and editing some more. While researching, it would be helpful to do some research and find out the different viewpoints of the subject, so the filmmakers don't feel like they're wasting their time on something that isn't worthwhile, or they could take their time and do a better job. All of these factors were in place for the making of this documentary, so if you want to watch it, do so!

Bobby Dixon photo
Bobby Dixon

As I see it, the fault lies with the director of the documentary, David McRaney. The problem is that he is not only failing to present a balanced view of the evidence on the other side, but he is also not presenting the viewer with a realistic account of what actually happened in the first world war. McRaney doesn't bother to show the atrocities of the Germans, the lengths they went to to avoid capture by the British, or the horrific deaths that were caused by their cowardly tactics. He doesn't bother to explain the reasons why the British held back from attacking the German army, why the French and Americans were so reluctant to attack the Germans, or why the British were so reluctant to take over the German air force. The reader is left with the impression that the Allies were only concerned with capturing the German air force and the German army. But there are many other reasons why the Allies could not and would not have occupied the German army. McRaney also fails to explain why the French and Americans were so hesitant to attack Germany. McRaney is wrong when he suggests that the French and Americans wanted to keep the peace between the two nations, rather than try to exploit the opportunity to invade Germany. This is a historical error which is made even more glaring in the documentary when he shows the British Government's hesitation to attack Germany. Even worse is the question of why Britain wanted to occupy Germany in the first place. The film is based on a book by David Lister, a British journalist. Lister states that Britain did not want to invade Germany and was reluctant to attack the German army. But Lister was clearly speaking from a position of ignorance. The fact is that the British Government, as the Allied powers were about to invade Germany, refused to give the German Army up to them, preferring to remain neutral and preserve their own interests. It was not until Germany had surrendered to the Allies that the German army was despatched. The British Government were also reluctant to take control of Germany's economy, which would have meant that the German economy would have been in a much better shape than it was. It was not until the early 1920's that Germany's economy began to recover. The British Government's decision to stay neutral in the Second World War was not because of any regard for German people, or even Germany, but because of the need to ensure that the German economy did not collapse. It was not until the 1920's that Germany began to recover from the war. It was in 1923 that Germany's economy began to recover. Britain could not afford to make any more mistakes than they had already made, and the Germans suffered the consequences. This was the same reason why the Allies did not attack Germany at the end of the war. They would not be in any position to influence Germany's economy. The Germans did not want the Allies to occupy Germany, and they were still going to fight to the bitter end. The question of whether Germany should have surrendered to the Allies is irrelevant. The question is, how much of the people who would have been killed in the German army were German soldiers. In the documentary McRaney seems to say that most of the German soldiers were civilians, but this is not true. Of the approximately 1.2 million soldiers who were killed in the German army, only about 200,000 were German soldiers. Of the 8 million soldiers who were killed, about 100,000 were German soldiers. The reason that the British Army was reluctant to attack Germany was that they were not convinced that it would be an effective way of winning the war. The British were convinced that it would be impossible to achieve a proper military victory against the German army. They also believed that they were in a military disadvantage. Therefore, the British Government believed that the only way that they could win the war was by the direct use of force. They could not tolerate the thought of any serious attempts to use diplomacy or diplomacy to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict, and this caused them to be extremely reluctant to attack Germany. In the documentary McRaney also states that the Allies were only interested in capturing the German army. However, it is important to remember that the Allies had two objectives in the war. One was to prevent the German people from participating in the war, and the other was to prevent Germany from invading other nations. The Allies had the moral responsibility to prevent Germany from being involved in the war. However, as the documentary demonstrates, it was not the German soldiers who were the main focus of the Allies' attention. The main focus of the Allies' attention was the French and Americans. The Germans were only concerned with the safety of their own people. And the Germans were concerned with the safety of their own people. The fact is that the Germans themselves believed that Germany would win the war, because the Germans had to protect

Aaron Edwards photo
Aaron Edwards

As the second movie of the documentary trilogy, "Bowling for Columbine", "American Hero" is a good sequel to the first film and the very first documentary to be made about the Columbine massacre. It takes a slightly different approach, focusing on the boys involved in the incident, instead of the victims. For those who know the story, this is an important part of the film because it gives a different perspective to the media coverage and events of the day. The film is a bit more concise and short, but the main focus of the movie is on the boys involved. Director Ron Fricke takes a fresh approach to the topic and shows the seriousness of the tragedy that unfolded that day in 1999. The movie goes into great detail about the events that unfolded that day, and the attitudes of the adults who witnessed the events. The cast in the movie is excellent, especially Dylan Baker and Chris Klein. The boys were very realistic, and their parents were as well. It is a great movie and a must see.

Peter Ellis photo
Peter Ellis

You may be wondering if all these superb musicians who helped make the film are too old. The answer is, they are! But they still shine, showing off their talent in some truly stunning tunes. In fact, this film is so much better than most documentaries. Why? Well, first off, it's easy to watch. You don't have to pay a lot of attention to get a good look at the musicians. In fact, you don't have to pay a lot of attention to the music. Just sit back and enjoy the fun. Second, it's an entertaining look at an important subject. Third, it's a great opportunity to learn about the music industry, and the musicians involved. If you've ever loved a good pop song, or been in the music business yourself, you'll be amazed at how much this documentary has to offer.

Peter photo

As the subject matter of this film is rather black and white, it was very difficult to keep my interest as I would like to find the truth, and that is exactly what this documentary did. It was fascinating to see the "plot" of how we got to the present day, and how this situation is slowly being "fixed". However, as we do not see a "reality" of the "system", it is hard to take the film as a documentary. It is still very interesting to see what is happening in the world today, and how "official" "system" is made up of people who have been corrupted and taken advantage of by people from the outside world. Also, this documentary was made in Germany, and most of the people in it were not German, so they were clearly not "speaking" German, and therefore the information was not as accurate as I would have liked. It is not the "story" of the people who are involved in the "system", but the "story" of the people who are trying to get the information out. Although the information is quite hard to get, it is still worth watching it.

Brenda Walters photo
Brenda Walters

The film itself is a pretty good documentary about the struggles of many non-white and gay people in the UK. The problem with this film is that it is not enough to focus on one aspect of the gay community in one country. There are other gay or lesbian groups, which are a bit more numerous. In the UK, there are many gay organizations which are still quite small, and there are many more groups that are larger, in some cases with thousands of members. However, the same can be said of the group Gay Pride, which was even more large. I would like to have seen more of the UK gay community in the film. This documentary is more or less a biographical account, but it is a little bit of a spoiler because the film doesn't reveal the reasons for the diversity of the UK gay community. But there is enough information in the film to answer some questions. For example, what is the reason for the hatred of the British people towards homosexuals? In the UK, homosexuals and the LGBT community have been discriminated against and persecuted for many years. It is not easy to find people who support this kind of treatment towards homosexuals. But, this discrimination doesn't go all the way. There are some good and bad reasons for this discrimination. In the film, they talk about the British government's attitude towards homosexuals, and the way they try to fight the discrimination. In general, homosexuality is a taboo in the UK, and homosexuality is treated in a lot of ways. The British government does not want to understand the reasons for homosexuality, and they try to make it seem like it's the most natural thing in the world. This attitude towards homosexuals is another reason that makes the film a bit less interesting. However, the film is also a good demonstration of what the British government has done for the LGBT community in the UK. They are very strict and very close to the church, and they have tried to fight homophobia, a problem that is very difficult to fight against in many places. The film is not a perfect documentary, and some parts of the film are a bit too focused on a few countries and gay organizations, but I still think it is a good documentary.

Joyce photo

I was absolutely shocked to see that there are still so many people in the world that hate both Gary and me. This documentary has been in the works for a long time. I was glad to finally see it come out. I've been an avid fan of Gary's work for over a decade now and I loved his ability to capture the essence of a scene. I think that the movie would have been much better had it not had the main focus on Gary, and in this documentary, he does capture the essence of the scene in a non-over-dramatic way. The movie was definitely an improvement over the documentary though, but there were still many parts that seemed so out of place in the documentary that they made the movie feel even more 'over-dramatic'. To me, the most important thing about this documentary was the way the documentary managed to not only show the culture of the '70s but to also highlight the important issues of the day. Gary didn't just capture a moment, he was able to capture the essence of the scene and bring it to life for us. Gary's work has always been one of a kind, but I was hoping that his movie would have more of a direct focus on him. It seemed to me that the documentary was more focused on the issues that were important in the early 1970s than on Gary, so the movie was more of a tribute to him rather than a tribute to the culture. I do think that this documentary is very underrated. It is not the most important documentary about the music scene of the '70s, but it is a very important documentary that brings together a lot of important elements of the '70s. In conclusion, this is a documentary that is very good, but I think that it could have been a little more direct about Gary's life. However, it is still a very good documentary. It is certainly a good documentary that will hopefully help inspire people to get more involved with the music scene.

Heather photo

I wasn't expecting to be blown away by the documentary, but it was an amazing experience. I have not seen any documentaries about how the Vatican can come up with new legislation, or how they have done it in the past. But the whole process of the process of reform was fascinating. It was a little frustrating, in the beginning, but once the "real" story of the abuses and trials was revealed, I really began to like this documentary. It also had the benefit of being true to the real story. It was always interesting to hear about the people who came up with the new legislation. They were mostly people in the Catholic Church who were part of the reform. They also had the great opportunity to hear from the survivors of the abuse. I also really liked the sense of humor in the documentary. I really enjoyed how the Vatican spokesman took advantage of all the journalists to give his side of the story. I think that was the best part of the documentary. There were also a lot of great quotes that the Vatican spokesman had to say. There were a few times when he said that "the truth never changes." That was one of the most important things in the documentary. He really showed that it really does not. If the truth is not what the Vatican spokesman says, then that is really the truth. There are other interesting things about the documentary, but I won't spoil it for you. I highly recommend this documentary to anyone who wants to learn about how the Catholic Church works. I think it is a really good documentary that everyone should see.

Jason G. photo
Jason G.

Director, Andy Johnson is a master of the documentary format. He has directed five documentaries, including "Super Size Me", "No Excuses", "Shark Tale", "Food Inc." and "Facing the Giants". This one will not be a typical documentary, it is based on the book of the same name by Dr. John Robinson. It is a great one for all baseball fans, and even those that don't know anything about the game. The film is about a very famous American pitcher named Roger Clemens who was facing an investigation for steroid abuse, and had to face up to the media. Dr. John Robinson was an American doctor who had studied under Dr. Lawrence Brooks, the great American pitcher who was a pioneer in the use of steroids, and who was considered a pioneer in medicine and sports medicine. Dr. Robinson and Brooks had some differences about steroids, and the doctors were unable to reconcile. The film does a good job of showing how the two doctors, played by Bill Pullman and John Cusack, differed about their views about steroids, and that Dr. Brooks was the pioneer in the use of steroids. The film shows how the doctors tried to come to terms with the issues between them, but the film goes on to show that the doctors were really facing up to their differences and agreed to disagree. It was a fascinating documentary, and I highly recommend it to baseball fans.

Sarah Guerrero photo
Sarah Guerrero

This is a documentary about David Ayer, who directed the third installment of the "The Expendables" franchise. Ayer is a Hollywood screenwriter. He is known for writing "American Sniper," "Now You See Me," and "The Social Network." When he began working on "The Expendables" franchise, he was called to adapt a novel by Mark Millar. Millar had written a very powerful novel that had helped shape the careers of the current generation of Hollywood filmmakers. In this film, Millar and Ayer reveal how his novel transformed into a film, which then became a franchise. This is an important film to understand because it shows how an old script, in which nothing was known about the characters, became a great film. While watching the film, I was also reminded of the great work done by the talented cast, which included the likes of Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Arnold Vosloo. They gave their all to this film, which made a great film that lasted five years, which made the franchise a huge success. This film is one of the best films I have ever seen. I don't understand how a film like this could have been done so poorly, but I don't care. The film has many wonderful performances and it is a pleasure to see the actors and actresses involved in the film, and I would recommend this film to everyone who enjoys movies about the American military. 7/10

Keith Diaz photo
Keith Diaz

In 1982, in the middle of the seventies, the USA was facing the first serious political crisis. The newly elected Ronald Reagan was an independent who didn't think that he was a conservative, but who was so convinced of his support for the constitution and for civil liberties that he didn't really care about any "other" parties. To the dismay of the establishment, he started to shake up their position. He fired his top aides, went on a massive drug use and alcohol binge, threatened to run as a third party candidate, and to the horror of the establishment, he started to attract a lot of voters who hadn't been really part of the establishment. The image of the Reagan Democrats was often shown in the media as one of the "nasty" party who only wanted to go after the "naughty" party. The real anti-Reagan Democrats had their own policy positions and a lot of good ideas. As a result, a lot of people were really disillusioned with the Democrats. Many who were Republicans became Democrats. One of the most interesting things about the documentary is the different kinds of people who thought they were going to be a part of the anti-Reagan Democratic movement. For example, one woman, Elizabeth Warren, and her team of anti-Reagan Republicans thought they were going to go after Wall Street and the military industrial complex. But, they turned out to be the very people they were supposed to be fighting. One of the most fascinating things about the documentary is the way that the women's movement played a role in the rise of the Reagan Democrats. When the film was first released, it was very controversial. The Democratic Party was not strong in the Midwest. A lot of people were upset about this. And, in fact, many of them became members of the Republican Party. But, it was the women's movement that made them join the Democratic Party. And, it was that women's movement that led the Republicans to see that they could be part of the Republican Party. So, there are a lot of women involved in this documentary. And, as the documentary progresses, we get to see what happened to some of them. One of them, Janice Vranic, was involved in a sexual harassment case at the Senate. She was eventually elected to the Senate in 1982, and she still thinks that the women's movement is very important. Another woman, Gayle Trotter, was a very good senator for Minnesota. She was against the death penalty, which is a very conservative position. But, she eventually became a Republican. One of the women involved in the women's movement, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is also very good at her job. But, she decided to become a Democrat when she ran for Congress. The woman who turned out to be the most interesting is Barbara Jordan, the most outspoken anti-Reagan Democrat. She became very involved in the anti-Reagan movement, which was something that she had been involved in for many years. She became very involved with the Anti-Defamation League, which was the only organization that was able to actually get the Senate to pass a resolution condemning the anti-Reagan Democrats. When the media finally began to understand that the Democrats were the real anti-Reagan Democrats, it was not long before the Republicans became the ones trying to take away the Democrats' legitimacy. And, that's what the Republicans did. But, the women in the documentary were not the ones who were the most important. It was the young people, the women, who were very important in the women's movement. And, they were just as important today, as they were in 1982. That's because the media is not really a very good media. It's very easy to control what people see. In this case, the media was very important in having the anti-Reagan Democrats, and so, it was very important for the media to actually change their minds. And, in the end, it was Barbara Jordan, the most outspoken anti-Reagan Democrat, who made the change. She was the one who changed her party from the Democrats to the Republicans. She changed her party and she changed the minds of the media. That's why the media was so important in changing the minds of the Reagan Democrats. And, she is the one who is the most interesting of all in this documentary. But, it's very interesting that the anti-Reagan Democrats had to have a woman like Barbara Jordan in their side. That was something that the media always wanted to see. But, they never had a woman like that in their side. We can see that Barbara Jordan is the most interesting of all the women. She was the most outspoken. And, in the end, that was something that the media wanted. The one woman that was not interesting is

Jose H. photo
Jose H.

A lot of the commentary on this film I've read is from people who had to give up their jobs because they didn't want to support "the people" with these negative comments. As a "spoiler" I won't go into details of how this movie is deconstructed. I will say that it is not about any political party or ideology. Rather it is about the nature of work. One of the most memorable scenes in the film is the conversation between Ray and the old woman. Ray has told her story, and the old woman gives a thoughtful and nuanced response. Ray says, "I didn't think we were in the same country." "Yes we were. I think I got the impression that you thought I was dead." The woman says, "Yes, I thought I was dead too." A moment of conversation, some words exchanged between men, a smile. And we are left to assume that we have been the same. The movie ends with a discussion of Ray's future and whether or not he should take a position. This is the kind of conversation that happens at the end of every day life, not a movie. There is a lot of strong, powerful, and intelligent commentary on the film and its message. This is not a film for the squeamish or the easily offended. There is some uncomfortable, even uncomfortable looking, but I will be the first to admit that I was glad that I wasn't the only one to have a negative reaction to this movie.

Kyle Silva photo
Kyle Silva

I've never seen a documentary about a famous celebrity's death but I do not think it is anything like as bad as people are saying. It is a good look into a short life of a famous person. There are some very interesting interviews with his children and his manager and other people. The photos are good too. I like it because it shows that the people who know the most about famous people's lives are the ones who are closest to them. It is a pretty good documentary. It's like a better look at "The Sopranos" and not just about one famous person's death.

John Chavez photo
John Chavez

There is a line in the movie that states "The greatest crime of all time was to be born". So much of this film can be applied to the most recent past decade. This time period is defined by the financial crisis of 2008-09 and the rise of Donald Trump. If you are one of the new rich, you have nothing to fear. Your money is safe, your future is secure. There are many financial advisors, as well as many advisors that are trying to bring you the best advice for your retirement plan. The finance world is like the criminal underworld, where everyone is an enemy, and everyone is a target. The story follows three investment advisors in the financial industry: Mike Hearn, founder of Bitcoin Investment Trust (BIT), and Ben Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve Chairman. The financial crisis of 2008-09 is discussed in detail, and shows that it was caused by a set of economic policies. When one of the advisor's describes the causes of the crisis to his clients, they may take his advice and pay off the debts of the crisis. Another advisor, Donald Trump, who has a somewhat controversial financial background, is shown making a comment that sounds more like a rant than a serious question. It was at that point that he became a target of the financial press. If you were one of the original few that paid off the debts of the crisis, you have nothing to fear. But if you did not pay off your debts, you are now a target of the financial press. The story covers the issues of greed, greed, greed, greed. There is the problem of public investment in infrastructure, but the story ends with the hope that the public investment in infrastructure will actually increase the economy and help make the public more secure. In the film, many pundits state that "it's a bubble". Well, if that is the case, how does the economy of the United States compare to that of China, Japan, or India? To my knowledge, no other country has the growth in GDP at such a rapid rate. China is growing at 2% per year, Japan is growing at 1.5% per year, and India is growing at 3.2% per year. The U.S. is growing at 5.4% per year, and we are now over half way through the recession. The story ends with the hope that the recovery will continue, but also that the increase in debt will ultimately lead to the failure of the U.S. economy. Overall, the story was a very entertaining and thought-provoking film. I highly recommend this film.

Carolyn Fuller photo
Carolyn Fuller

I loved watching this movie, and was very pleased with the choice of the subjects that were covered. I found the characters very compelling. Some of the details I had a hard time believing but I am glad that the documentary makers did not try to prove a point. I liked how they did not go into any of the other lives that were touched by this scandal. I appreciated that they didn't give us a bunch of examples. Instead, they just started with the person closest to this scandal. This gives the film a different feel than just seeing a lot of pictures. I really enjoyed that. I found the style of the movie interesting. I didn't like the style at all. It looked very amateurish. I wish they would have chosen a more professional style. I don't think it was the style of the actors that was the problem, but rather the way they spoke. The style of the documentary had me scratching my head. The fact that they were trying to make it sound professional didn't help much. I would have preferred to hear the interviewees speak in a more natural way. Overall, I found this documentary very interesting and very engaging. I would recommend it to anyone.

Henry D. photo
Henry D.

Yes, the movie is about "discovering" the JFK assassination. But it's not really about that, and the characters are not really about that either. The filmmakers go to some lengths to make this movie. It is often very clever and even the opening scene is absolutely beautiful. But it's not really about the JFK assassination, and it's not really about anything else. There are also some shocking scenes and a lot of artistic licence (for example, when Garrow first wakes up from the coma). But at the end of the day, I don't see any reason to watch this movie. It is just a little movie about the JFK assassination and about Garrow and his sister. It is a pity.

Elizabeth photo

Doubtlessly one of the most underrated films of the last decade. I never thought I'd see a movie that so perfectly captures the point of view of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. The filmmakers and actors also went to great lengths to give each prisoner a character arc and let the audience know why they are there. A great film.

Scott photo

One of the most exciting subjects I've heard about, but when I first heard about this I thought I'd be hearing a bunch of complete BS about government spending and things like that, but I was very wrong. This documentary was very interesting and a good summary of the last couple of decades of American foreign policy. If you're interested in the history of the United States, you should definitely see this. I haven't heard so much about the British government and British colonies before, and they did really well on that. They seem to be getting the best out of it and I can't wait to see what's going to happen with their little island nation. I'm looking forward to what happens to their people once they leave. The documentary is definitely not a review of American foreign policy, but it is a very informative look into some of the most important events in American history.

Louis photo

Gandhi, a great man and a great man was a man of the times and the times and an Indian's rights activist and a man that is looked down upon and mistreated by the people. He is one of the greatest men in Indian history, the one that started the first Indian civil rights movement. This documentary explores the life of the man and the struggle he went through to bring the British out of India and to make the country free from oppression. The documentary is divided into three parts. The first part tells the story of how Gandhi became a martyr for the Indian people, the second part shows the life of the Indian people under British rule and the third part tells the story of how the British did to Gandhi and that led to the Indian civil rights movement. It is fascinating to see the life of Gandhi in all his glory and struggles. But at the end of the film, we see how he eventually went against his beliefs and his people's fears and went to the Americans and was in exile for over 20 years. It is a great documentary and is highly recommended.

Julia M. photo
Julia M.

Having just watched this film on television, I had no idea that this film had been made, let alone what it was about. I was taken in by the film's brief but thought provoking narrative, and enjoyed the sense of isolation that surrounded the film's protagonists. The key to the film's power lies in its emphasis on the plight of the hapless Bedouin, with the familiar but often disregarded portrayal of their surroundings and their desperation. This portrayal is at once simple, but always truthful and eye opening. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to see a realistic look at what it is like to live in the desert.