Small Ararat spoiler derived from trailer

[wh00t]

Thank you for your review Azat. I have seen few if any reviews from Armenians other than the customary "GREAT MOVIE EVERYONE SEE THIS OSCAR SWEEPER!$#@@!!". Are you thinking about the movie because of haunting images or complex storyline? Also, I'd appeciate if someone could tell me how many minutes, approximately, there are of film-with-the-film footage.

 

Your comments about the cast are surprising, since if there is anything that critics agree about this movie, is its strong acting.. especially Raffi, Christopher Plummer and Bruce Greenwood.

 

Here I am asking questions when the movie has arrived in Montreal. I've probably followed this movie closer than anyone in the forum. Soon enough..

[Guest Fadi]

Azat, I do not agree with you about the film being too complicated, but rather there was too much elements, the central message is understood quite well. There was things that you wonder what the hell they have to do with the film, and the drug idea was exellent, but why having showed that part.

 

And the girl history that don;t end, the piece of puzzle that is not placed, that is unusual in Egoyans movies. But I do believe the film is a masterpieces, there is hidden messages that when you understand, you see that the movie was done by a pro. The reaslitic scenes were very well executed as well.

 

About the lacking of emotions by the casts, I wonder if thats not on purpouses, those people were "lost" afterall.

 

[ November 22, 2002, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Wh00t, about the footages, there is plenty in the film, many may say there was not enought, and that the movie should be based on that, but the movie in its principale was based on Raffis interogation and the movie production, those two parts are the most interestings on my opinion.

[Azat]

Wh00t, I am sorry in my original message I had mentioned that both Christopher Plummer and Bruce Greenwood were excellent. Actually I felt that the gentlemen who played the Turkish lead role in the movie-in-the-movie par was terrific as well. Probably the best.

 

I feel that I keep thinking about the movie not as much for the haunting images but more specifically for the conversations. I feel that this is a movie that one must pay very close attention to the script and I think I did not.

 

But like I said it is really a beautiful movie.

[Azat]

Domino, I agree that there is no question that one will understand the central message in the movie. But like you said there are too many other elements. Things that you and I may understand because we are Armenian, but the average Joe will not.

[Guest Fadi]

Azat, I still am thinking about it, and are finding more and more messages in it.

 

For example the constent fight between the movie and the film in the movie, and the victory of the film waiting the film, with the message about Ushers memory at the end, and the horific scene at the end(massacres) as well the fact that the movie and the movie in the movie finaly became one antity(do you remember the micro on the top of the movie ? It was like if both of the movies were actually the same) Or the reason why Raffi felt the phantom of his father when the light was cut ? There is so much in this movie, so much symbolism, that everytime you rethink about it, you find logical answers.

 

About the Turkish actor, I agree very much with you, but unfortunitally I find that he did not played in the film as much as I would want.

 

[ November 23, 2002, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[vava]

I've convinced many of my friends (otar & hye) to see this film ASAP. (the hyes aren't very difficult to convince - the otars, well, they aren't always into art-house films. I'm going tomorrow afternoon. I will punch my review then.... I can't wait!

 

v

[wh00t]

Perhaps the best ARARAT review thus far:

 

********FUNNIEST MOVIE EVER!!! ********

 

I THINK THIS WAS DEFINITLY THE FUNNIEST MOVIE OF 2002 UMM NO IT WAS THE FUNNYIST MOVIE EVER!IT WAS SO ENTERTAING EASPECIALY THE PART WERE JESUS CAM BACK AND HAD A TEA PARTY WITH THE ARMENIANS THE ACTORS WERE ALSO EXCELLENT CHER WAS A GREAT CHOICE FOR THE LEAD LADY AND JACK KEVORKINAN FOR LED MALE I COULDENT PICK ANY ONE ELSE MYSELF THIS VERY LOW BUGET FILM ALSO HA AOLT OF GREAT VERY WELL ACTED SEX SECNES LIKE WHEN JACK AND JESUS WENT TO THE PLAY BOY MANSION THAT WAS MY FAVORIT BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE FUNNIEST PART OUT OF THE WHOLE MOVIE WASNT EVEN IN THE MOVE ... IT WAS THE THEATERS IFULL OF OLNY 1 RASE THOSE ****IN ARMINIANS AND THATS THE ONLY RACE THAT WILL SEE THIS MOVE THOSE GAY ASS OH THEY KILLED MY FAMILY SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTY SIX YEARS AGO ARMINEINS SO YA VERY FUNNY MOVIE BUT RENT IT ON VHS INSTED (PEOPLE GET MAD WHEN YOU LAGHF IN THE THEATERS BUT I DONT KNOW WHY)

 

how can people see this movie? me and my friends saw it as a joke and simply horable its just........... gay

[khodja]

Wh00t,

 

What kind of esheg post was this?

[Guest Fadi]

wh00t... evident that this review was made by a Turk, none of the scenes he discribes are in the movie.

[wh00t]

Hagarag: Wasn't me wrote this ridiculous piece of racial hatred. Call me evil, but I was a bit amused by the whole thing.

 

Domino: Thanks for the clarification! Here I am thinking the imprisoned Kevorkian had the main role.

[564312]

It’s great that this movie brought some awareness about Armenian genocide but it brought in a way of mediocre, lukewarm and very week. First time after almost 90 years and this is the movie Armenians come up with to show the world? Phleaseee look what movies Jews make.. every single movie about Jewish genocide has been Oscar worthy. Yes I agree it was a joke. Besides Charles Aznavurs performance specially the line about how much turks hate Armenians, few famous lines and the Scenery of Van and Ararat the whole movie was a big SHILA PLAF. You want to make a movie about Arshil Gorky and his suffering make the whole movie about him and genocide. Atom Egoyan he doesn’t even speak Armenian he doesn’t know anything about Armenia, he puts few duduk peaces in the movie and he thinks he has created a masterpiece. He is trying too hard to be like Parajanov.. At least Parajanov had some talent he has none. I wonder why in his every movie he is always inclined to show something homosexual. He always casts his wife in his movies it seems that the movie was made for her in mind or perhaps the movie was his wife’s idea it seems she is more Armenian. The “massacre” scenes were so comical I wondered if Egoyan is making fun of Armenians or if he is trying to hard to suck up to Turks or Americans. It’s a laughing matter and you wonder why Siskel did not review it? In the movie el Turkish, el French, el English, el Armenian languages, el marijuana, el cocaine el homosexualism el I don’t know what and topped off he made Armenians look total hiks by making one of the main characters sleeping with his stepsister, and the sex scene was that meant to attract more sales? Anyways suppose to make us sound more modern and Zargacac we will agree that it was a complicated peace.

[Guest Fadi]

You have not understood the movie at all.

 

Here is my critic from from this thread.

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/messag...geid=1038200267

 

"I'm preparing a big review, after that I see it 2 other times...

 

The idea of cutting those scenes each times it get really emotional had purposes, it was to separate past and present, like memory "flash backs" that one could have. I think what Egoyan did is to show us why there could not be a historical film without re-writing past and make it as a commercial product, that was very genius on the part of Egoyan. The message I got from that movie is that you can not make a commercial big movie concerning tragedies such as this, "a la Hollywood" and in the same time depicting the whole truth and interest the general public.

 

And Egoyan found a very good way of doing such, as a movie in a movie, he tried to show how history could be manipulated in order to be made a product of mass consumption, it was like a satiric product where everything is given some importance’s. For example the Mont Ararat that was not supposed to be seen from Van, to the Defense of Van, the Gorky heroism by taking a ruffle... to Levon machine gun(I wonder if those machine guns existed at that time), what Egoyan tried to show is that there was nothing more then a tragedy to show, and how far you try to transform this tragedy into a commercial product and build something that the general people will like, still all this is a question of a tragedy.

 

Levon taking the machine gun and going after the snipers, and shutting, like "a la Rombo" just does not work, the heroism and the defense of Van, again thousands of soldiers, does not work either. Egoyan criticized the commercial movies trying to depict history, in the same time had a message, something like: "Every modification we may do, every way we may try to twist our history to make the general public consume it and like it, still the only thing we have to present, is only a tragedy." At the end what happened is that reality, and the film became one, if you remember during the film(not the film in the film) there was some times a micro on the top(Arsinee scenes), the reason for that was to show the viewer that the film in the film, and the film itself were both films, reality and what we make of reality are the same thing.

 

The messages in this film are more then any messages that any other films about the genocide that one could bring. This film as well showing how easy history could be manipulated will have the last word every time. For example if a film is produced in Turkey as a counter attack, Egoyans film in a film shows how history is easy to manipulate to follow your expectations. What does this mean ? It means that there could be no possible answer for this film, its not only a film about the genocide that the Turks may counterattack, its a film that has the last word.

 

The symbols in the film the meanings etc... I challenge anyone to find a film that has so much to say, and if one understand half of what Egoyan is trying to say, this one will see the superiority of this film, this film can not be criticized on the same manner as other films, it can just not be.

 

Here, one example among many others. Have you understood why Raffi at the end say to Celia that he felt the phantom of his father when the official has closed the lights ? It is linked to that thing his mother said to him: "Your father died for something he believed in" The same goes of when the official was about to open the canes, and that until the end Raffi was believing that there was films in it and asked to close the lights, and that moment Raffi was at the closest of his father, his little believe that he maintained until the end and defended those boxes, was the same way his father defended the cause and even died for it, the canes were compared to the causes, and what was defended was what was in. Like if Egoyan was trying to do an analogy, by telling that Raffi's father action of trying to kill the Turkish diplomat was based on something he believed in, but what was in the canes ? Drug at the end Raffi's action was wrong, becuase he entered drug in Canada, he did not knew it was drug, until the end he though that what he was doing was right, he though that those canes will advance his causes. The same apply to Raffi's father, that was ready to kill a Turkish diplomat, he believed until the end that what he was doing was right. Was it ?

 

There is many other interpretations of this scene, as well as many others, how could you find such symbolism in any other films, or the fact that Gorky's inspiration was comming from the carving in a church(I think in Aghtamar), of Marie and Jesus, the mother and the child, do you remember what Gorky's mother said to him before he was sent for the mission ? Something like: "You will be the only one that will tell..." That meant alot, Raffi understood that Gorky's inspiration was coming from where they lived, it meant that Gorky was telling the world in his medium what his mother told him to tell, what he was telling originated from his "country" of origine. Another scene when Gorky want to take his mothers hand(in painting) he could not because him being in reality and his mother in painting, there was a kind of barrier that was separating them, and what he did ? He has put his hands on paint, and trying to take his mothers hand, his hands being of the same substance as his mothers hand now(paint), he believed it was the best way to come so close of his mother, and his painting hands remained on his mothers painting, like if he immortalized that moment, where he take his mothers hand, his present and the past(mother) become one, like the film at the end, and the film in the film become one, and that a message about the fact that what was in the movie was based on Ushers diary, like if the movie was about the movie in the movie and not the movie, when the movie was supposed to be the movie, not the movie in the movie, not if, both are the same entity.

 

I could write like this long and long, there is so much to tell, and the movie gave an impression that I never had before on a movie, not because I am Armenian, but because I was able to understand parts of the essence of Egoyans movie, and I understood that the critics against his film were made by people that did not understood the essence of Ararat, and that those weakness that they talk about, have messages and are the force of this movie... the lack of emossions of some of the movie roles, Raffi, sounded to be on purposes, of someone that is "lost" and is unable to express his emotions, like Arsinee role, that sound to be emotionally unstable etc... while those chosen in the movie waiting the movie, were more natural, they sounded more natural, more emotional. I don't know if you remarked this, but the individuals playing non-Armenians, or the individuals playing in the film in the film, were more natural, and more credible of their own roles, in a point that those Armenians in the film, Raffi etc... sometimes were looking so much fakes that it was evident that this "fakeness" was wanted. While the one playing the Turkish actor was very credible in his role and very "natural" Was it because the present Armenians are lost from their origine ? When the Turks are not ? Why the actors and the "naturality" of the actors in the movie waiting the movie were more credible ? Is it because the Armenian soul is lost in reality and present time because of what happened ?

 

So much questions."

 

[ November 25, 2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[nairi]

So was Parajanov.

 

Nice reviews you guys. I'm really enjoying them.

[564312]

Yes Nairi but everyone knew that Parajanov was gay… besides at least there is some substance in some of his movies.

Domino just because I don’t share your view on the movie does not mean I didn’t get the movie. There was nothing to understand KINON SHAT TUYL E! you are trying to make it sound interesting by complicated words one of those modern intellectuals who look at an empty canvas with a red dot in a middle and start analyzing what a masterpiece it is but in reality it’s a scam not an art.

[Azat]

Click here to listen to the KROQ interview about Ararat

[Guest Fadi]

What kind of interview was that ? Was that a joke or what ? A serious complex movie, and the maestro presented on a stupid intertaining program, the kind of stuff that him himself criticise indirectly in his own movie.

 

And believing they can joke on such a movie.

[Guest Fadi]

564312

 

I have not said you did not get the point because you criticised the movie, I have said you did not get the point, because of what you criticised, if you were to critise the movie on its central point, we could then talk of disagreements.

 

Now, lets give an example, the need to put a "gay" in the story. Egoyans style is to link every caracters of the movie with each others... he decided that Ali's boyfriend father should have a conflict with his son, he has chosen a son. Why ? Because if he were to chose a women it will be easier to digest for fragile hearth, because he would not be a gay. But if he were to do that, he could not link Raffi with his son entirly, because his son would be a women, and the comparaison would be better if it would have been a man. Now how to link this man with the movie ? By linking it with another caracter, and even more a caracter of the movie in the movie, because Raffi's subject is about this. There is one women in the movie, that play a central role, the other womens are secondary and waiting the movie in the movie, and Cilia is in insest with Raffi. So Egoyan has chosen to make it a gay, to be able to link it with the Turkish actor... and to equilibrate this, on the Armenian part has put a story of an insest. So we end up from one part having a history of insest and from the other part a story of homosexuality.

 

Egoyan film has content, and your analogy with a dot is not accurate, you should rather compare it in an art work so much technical with so much details, that if you were to take one part of it and zoom it, you'll find new details and significations.

 

Everything is linked with each other, thats Egoyans style, the insest story, homosexuality, it is the taboo that our present time is facing, and Egoyan has put those ellements as a contrast with the past, he has chosen those things from other movies of his, and found them wirthy of being included in this movie.

 

Put in mind my critics, and go watch the movie another time.

 

There is one thing I forgot to tell, is that there was a kind of other messages. It is said that more sex and more violence you put in a film, and more it become a box office. Its like Egoyan was trying to show what kind of "tastfull" film would be produced with those two points.

 

Something like: You want violence ? The only violence we can offer even if we try hard, is the massacres, even if we can present heroic scense of defense, or a man avenging the death of his children, it would lead again to the bases, the tragedy, nothing could cover it. You want sex ? As much sex we can put, the only thing we can offer you, is women naked burning in fire or raped, as much as we try, this would still lead.

 

All the covers, Mont Ararat, all the artifices, the defense, etc... as much as you try, the product that will be presented still will be this tragedy, and that is the only thing that matter, the real content will come to surface, and this even if you use the best artifices. And this is one of the things Egoyan is trying to tell in his movie.

 

[ November 25, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Azat]

wh00t, I am actually interested to hear what you thought of this movie. Did you see it already or not yet?

 

Domino, KROQ is the main reason why SOAD got really popular. They use to play them prior to anyone else. This is an alternative rock station in LA. I hope you were not expecting a world class interview from some DJ. Plus I myself thought it was a good interview for that age group.

[Guest Fadi]

I don't like SAOP(Oups SOAD) Its not my kind of music at all.

 

[ November 27, 2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[wh00t]

Azat, despite my obsession with the movie ever since its conception, I couldn't get myself to see it last weekend due to schoolwork. Yes, as Domino pointed out, it kills me that people (including Armenians) who didn't know the movie was coming out have seen it before me, but I will see it this weekend. Nobody seems to be able to go with me, my Jewish friends have Hannukah and what have you, but I'll see it this weekend even if I go alone Expect a review from me soon

[Guest Fadi]

wh00t, if you see a couple of Haitians on the theatre, I have something to do with that. I was able to force them to come and see the movie, by comparing the Armenian genocide with what the Whites did to the Blacks.

[wh00t]

I must admit that that's pretty impressive.

[Rubo]

I finally watched the “Ararat” movie…I basically read all the previous criticism and praise about this film and I reserved judgment until seeing it myself. After the movie my friends and I were at lose to find praise or positive things to say and overall feeling was that of disappointment. I was specially dismayed by Egoyan’s American style of soup opera additions in the film, which was adding nothing to the main theme. Ararat is like a large jigsaw puzzle and after putting it together it still looks like a distorted image. I have seen all Egoyan’s films and Ararat unfortunately falls short on substance and direction perhaps overly ambitious for its own sake and desperately trying to say too much too trivial to matter in the end. It is a disappointment I feel, AG deserves a second chance by someone who can really pull it off.

MJ self projection about this film that somehow Egoyan was trying to make us understand the futility of our present approach is unfounded. Egoyan himself reiterated many times that his aim was more about denial then our “exhausted approaches”

[Azat]

me too. I guess not much music is my type.

 

I am tooooooooo old.