Kenyan film scene has seen an increasing number of films tackling societal and cultural issues, mostly focusing on the girl child. Last year, we had Makosa Ni Yangu and Nawi, and now we have Sarah, a film centered on Female Genital Cutting (FGC), based on a true story.
After the credits rolled, I sat there, questioning myself. What exactly makes a good movie? Does a film automatically become “good” because it highlights or tackles an important issue? I mean, this movie is based on the experience of a Kenyan woman, so it has to be good, right?
Sarah, with Wanuri Kahuri as executive producer, directed by Nick Reding and produced by Sarah Tenoi, Nick Reding, and Amos Leuka, is a coming-of-age feature film exploring family, tradition, and gender rights in the Maa community.
Inspired by real-life experiences in the Loita Hills, it focuses on evolving conversations around Female Genital Cutting (FGC), early marriage, and girls' rights.
Where to watch it
The movie will premiere on March 6, 2025, at the Prestige Cinema in Nairobi.
What works
One of Sarah’s strongest aspects is how it blurs the line between fiction and reality. While it’s a fictional narrative film, certain choices, like using non-professional actors and having them speak in their native language, give it an almost documentary-like authenticity.
The actors deliver performances that, while not flawless, make some scenes feel immersive in relation to the Maasai culture. I don’t know how they pulled it off, but there are moments where they make you forget that what you are watching was scripted.
The cinematography is grounded, avoiding a flashy, over-the-top style in favour of a naturalistic approach. The locations are beautifully captured but maintain a sense of realism.
Some locations, like the school, are real places. I just had to look it up to confirm whether sets were involved.
There’s a rawness to this film. I mean, you have a “mutina” (a low-maintenance, indeterminate-breed dog commonly raised in rural Kenya), just chilling in the middle of a dusty, recognisable rural shopping area. These small touches elevate the authenticity of the film.
Costume design, if we can even call it that, feels organic.In fact, it’s as if the cast simply showed up in their everyday attire. The Maasai soundscape and music incorporated into the film also add to the immersion, though their function lean more toward reinforcing the message rather than existing solely as an artistic expression.
I also appreciate that the movie doesn’t romanticise the Maasai community. Instead of an overly polished depiction, it presents them as they are, accurately capturing their homes, schools, and daily lives.
The film is short, running just 81 minutes, and does a commendable job of shedding light on the practice of FGC. It offers insight into how deeply ingrained these traditions are, showing how those who uphold them have been conditioned to believe in their necessity.
The story finds an interesting way of incorporating the real person the film is based on, which is a pleasant surprise at the end.
Finally, as a film, it’s put together competently, adopting a structure that is accessible to the masses but with limited fun factor, which now leads me to the things I struggled with in this film.
What didn't work for me.
Exposition. There’s so much exposition. There are at least three moments where the movie pauses to explicitly teach the audience (and a class) about FGC. Film as a craft is broad, and in some scenes, I kept thinking they should have explored other styles of storytelling, like animation for certain moments or approaching the story from a completely different angle.
Like Nawi, this is the kind of film that feels like it's “designed” specifically for festivals and donors, where the theme outweighs entertainment, almost like a glorified art film.
There are tropes and framing decisions that follow a pattern you’d expect from these kinds of movies. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but Sarah follows a formula we’ve seen before in socially conscious films.
By the 30-minute mark, I could already tell where the story was going. Yes, it’s based on a true story, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t have taken a more creative approach in its delivery. The film chooses to play it safe in its structure and story beats. Basically, it’s exactly what you think it’s going to be.
While I appreciated the cinematography’s direction, there were moments I wished the camera had lingered just a little longer on the landscapes.
The film is set in Maasai land, a place of undeniable beauty, yet it doesn’t fully take advantage of that visually. A film like The Battle for Laikipia managed to integrate landscape and pacing in a way that made the setting feel grand and breathtaking. Sarah could have benefited from that.
Final verdict
So, does tackling an important issue automatically make a movie good?
I was impressed with how the film blurs the line between fiction and reality. The performances from the central cast, despite being amateurs, were really good, and the cinematography works in making the movie feel like a documentary.
On the merits of sensitisation, this film works incredibly well. I can see it being screened in rural communities where FGC is still practiced, in schools where young girls are at risk, and in forums where these discussions need to happen. I can also see a lot of people who are deeply invested in these kinds of socially conscious stories having a good time with the film.
But as a film, I thought it leaned too heavily on its theme. Normally, I would say the story, though based on true events, was a low-hanging fruit or, simply put, lazy, but let’s try a bit of political correctness and just say the movie sacrifices creativity and uniqueness for sensitisation.
Whether it’s good or not is subjective. You just need to watch the film and decide for yourself.
