as I see it (Ar'ara't)

[Guest Fadi]

I'll take a thread to myself and write about Ararat, and what interpretation I have of the film, I'll be writting about it here, and copy past other critics I made, until I watch it other times, and do a compleat critics of it.

 

[ November 27, 2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

General overview # 1

 

--------------------------------------

 

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, because 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 27, 2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Clarification about Gorky refusing to come to term with his past, and the symbolism behind erasing and not completing his painting. #2

 

-----------------------------

 

My interpretation of Gorky putting paints in his hand and the hand of the painting of his mother symbolism I brought was the one that was the one that many ignored, I posted a critic that many have probably not seen or interpreted that way, of course the fact that the painting was unfinished, the central point of that was that Gorky refused to come in term with his past, and refused to finish a painting that took him so long and long, the only painting they were showing him painting, like if he took an eternity to finish it, and did not finish it on purposes, he finished the hands, then refused to complete it because he could not come to term with his past. I have not pointed this up, because it was one of the only elements that some critics really understood, and that I decided rather to say what was behind this refusal, the fact that he touched his mothers hand, with the same substance and immortalized that moment, where past and present became one, because of his refusal to accept and come to term.

 

I posted this answer, because I realized that I should maybe explain what was behind the fact that he wanted to take his mothers hand, and not having decided to erase another part, like a child in the first days of his school, not wanting to let his mothers hands.

 

It is understandable, that this is Egoyans interpretation of the unfinished painting, because the only thing we know of is that the hands are unfinished, and that this has maybe to do with the fact that Gorky decided to not finish this painting because finishing it meant for him coming in term with his past, he could just not do that, Egoyan was the one adding this thing, where Gorky with his hands full of painting decide to take his mothers hand, and explain in a way, why Gorky has rather decided to erase her hands and not another part, for example her face.

 

[ November 27, 2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

The need to put a "gay" and an “incest” in the story. #3

 

-----------------------------

 

Egoyans style is to link every characters of the movie with each others... he decided that Ali's boyfriend father should have a conflict with his son(in order to be able to compare his son whit Raffi), he has chosen a son. Why ? Because if he were to chose a women it will be easier to digest for fragile hearth, and Egoyan likes to chock. If he were to use a women, that is a daughter, he could not link Raffi with him entirely, because it would not be a son he will have but a daughter, and comparing his daughter with Raffi would not be as possible, the comparison would be better if it would have been a man. Now how to link this man with the movie ? By linking it with another character, and even more a character of the movie in the movie, because Raffi's subject is about this. There is one women in the movie, that play one of central role, the other women’s are secondary and waiting the movie in the movie, and the only left Cilia is in incest 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 incest. So we end up from one part having a history of incest and from the other part a story of homosexuality.

 

Everything is linked with each other, that’s Egoyans style, incest story and homosexuality, are still not entirely accepted in our society, and are things we face in our present societry. He has chosen those elements from other movies of his, and found them worthy of being included in this movie.

 

[ November 27, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Sex and violence to be a box-office #4

 

------------------------

 

It is said that more sex and more violence you include in a film, and more it become a box office. Its like Egoyan was trying to show what kind of "tasteful" 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 scene 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, the tragedy aspect would still lead. Box-Office products don’t like losers, and even the film “Schindler list” was not a “loser” film, since the main character was able to save Jews from extermination, while a direct film about the Holocaust would be about “loser” and would be difficult to digest and watch.

 

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 27, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Ani and Raffi finding in part what they were researching. #5

 

------------------------------------

 

Ani and the group going for the premiere of the movie, and when Ani hallucinated Gorky there waiting the presentation of the movie, that looked at Ani and walked away ? Again its a question of memoir, Ani finally achieved with the film that they produced what Gorky achieved with his paintings, paintings that were a modification of reality(Gorky was as well a surrealist and expressionist painter) without modifying the central point.

 

Raffi, him felt the presence of his father. Ani found Gorky in her the same way Raffi found his father in him. And both only for a moment, one when the light was closed and his faith was put on trial and Ani when she was at the premiere.

 

For Raffi it was a question of Faith that was a feeling, and not something you can see, for Ani, it was rather a visual representation of reality, this could explain why Raffi felt his father, while Ani saw Gorky.

 

I think I am going too far, you are wondering now on what I am.

 

[ November 27, 2002, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Ali's(Turkish caracter in Ararat) Tunnel, and the Turkish denial. #6

 

----------------------------

 

There is a scene in the Movie, where Raffi and Ali were discussing in the car, and finally Ali left to his apartment, Raffi forgot to give the bottle of champagne, so he entered in Ali's house.

 

For those that have seen the movie, there was something unusual in Ali's house, the entering was long like a tunnel, and Ali's bedroom was on the other side of this "tunnel" This long entering was dark, no light, and the walls were not painted, and destroyed by the time, in many parts it was broken etc... If someone was to think there was no message behind that, this someone will accuse Egoyan to stereotype the Turks, like people that lives in dirty homes. If people remark, the apartments on the other side of the "tunnel" was clean and not like the entering, only the entering was like this, and there was a light opened in that apartment and the door was open, even before Ali left to go and open the light, it was like this.

 

What Egoyan was trying to say ? Well of what subject Raffi and Ali were talking on the outside of the tunnel ? For what reason has Ali left his apartment to go and work ? Sound like this tunnel indicate the past of the Turkish history, that is dark, no light, walls destroyed, and those walls that need reparation, they were ignored, and no light was installed there, while on the his bedroom other then the “tunnel” we see that everything is clean, there was light, coming from a Window and it was maintained, like the meeting room, at the left side. If people remark, when Raffi start his interrogation with Ali, Ali turn his head and place it on that wall, returning in his history, while many times in this interrogation, it was evident that Ali was hasten to leave the "tunnel" and go at his bedroom, while Raffi was making him return, at the end he tell to forget the past and go at the direction of his bedroom and he make a sign to Raffi, of if he want to follow him… would mean if Raffi want to ignore and forget the past, like Ali has asked him.

 

[ November 27, 2002, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Customs officer, what was his role. #7

 

---------------------------

 

The customs officer had a purpose in the film, like every other character. His role was to filter. At the beginning of the film, Saroyan(played by Aznavour) the producer was stopped by the customs officer for trying to enter pomegranate in the country. This pomegranate was a part of Saroyans history, because it was linked to his mother a genocide survivor that had only pomegranate to eat to survive the genocide. The customs officer was acting as a barrier restricting Saroyan to bring a part of his past, his heritage. What Saroyan did ? He refused to leave a part of his history and ate the pomegranate and said that like this he will enter the pomegranate in(the country), in his stomach. This same customs officer stopped Raffi to enter in the country ? For what ? For the films, Raffi trip in his ancestral land was to find his origin, what was lost, and when he returned, he was stopped by the customs officer by his turn, for the films, the films that were linked to his own films that were meant to be a record of his own history.

 

[ November 27, 2002, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[15levels]

Domino, thanks a lot for your reviews, I haven't seen the movie yet (I will be in London from 12th to 17th of december and hopefully will see it there, if possible), but now after reading your post I will pay closer attention to the story and the characters. Thanks again.

[Guest Fadi]

Father[land] and Mother[land] #8

 

---------------------------

 

One of the most symbolic element in the film, was the notion of fatherland and motherland vs mother and father.

 

Before writing what I think of, I should point out the difference between the notion of fatherland and motherland.

 

A.Levintov, write about the notion of Motherland:

 

“…attachment to the motherland in many ways stems from the virtue of culture, from the imputation of spiritual postulates and truths rooted in a particular place. A person experiences his own truth only in the motherland, as a rule, having a vague and murky understanding of the borders, size and features of this motherland (parental home, city block or village, city, country). Only upon arrival in another land does he sense its foreignness.”

 

Borders, delimitation etc… are not really what makes the motherland, the motherland has more to do with the origin with culture etc…

 

Now lets see what the same author says about the Fatherland:

 

“Fatherland” represents an interpretation of virtuosity. “Fatherland” presumes responsibility. The borders of the fatherland are more clearly defined – by limits on activity, power, government, influence and understanding.”

 

Fatherland, is more about the borders, the country itself.

 

What was in on walls of the Church of Aghdamar ? The mother and the child. Raffi found what he searched for, his motherland, something that could not be taken away. His fatherland he lost it. His father died, like the fact that Armenians have lost their fatherland, they have lost the borders… if we remark, the angle from which Mont Ararat is seen, is the one that we can see from Armenia, not Turkey, there is a purposes on that, we lost Ararat as the fatherland, we see it from Armenia, that is both the fatherland and the motherland. But on the other side, Ararat as the motherland has stayed, Raffi found what he searched there, but as border, as fatherland, Ararat has been lost, because we can only see it from Armenia.

 

[ November 28, 2002, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Domino ]

[Guest Fadi]

Levon the photographer, the recorder of history.

 

----------------------------

 

I have talked about Levon before, but have not written about what was his purpose in the film. Levon was the photographer(the film in the film). There is a symbolism behind this. The photograph has as task to immortalize a moment, record a part of time, his child was the maintainer of time(the watch he carried with him). It was Levons job to record the event. Gorky(when he was a child, in the film in the film) had a mission to go and deliver a message, with whom ? This mission was given to him and the boy of the photograph. Later both Gorky and the boy were captured, the boy was killed, and Gorky retuned the watch to Levon, after this Levon took his arm, and what he did we could call it suicide. Levon the recorder of history(the photograph) died, his child with his father that were symbolizing the record of time have died, the mission of the child as the keeper of past(the watch) was passed threw the memory of Gorky, he became the recorder of past, not as a photograph, but as a painter ? Painter of what ? Of the picture of him and his mother taken by Levon, the interpretation of Gorky of the record of past that was in that picture. A painting that took him 10 years to finish, a painting that he never finished, I explained before some reasons why it was not completed.

[Guest Fadi]

A clarification about Ali’s house.

 

When I said that only the tunnel was destroyed by time, I forgot to tell that this was the first shot we had when Raffi came to his house, because when Philippe’s(Ali’s boyfriend) father and child were there(Ali’s house) the chamber where they were the walls were also destroyed by time.

[Guest Fadi]

... and a correction, Alis bedroom walls as well are in bad condition, that undo what I said above in one of my critics.

 

BTW: Rouben, I'm glad to help you wait the movie.

[Rubo]

Domino, very intelligent observations specially about motherland and fatherland concepts, truth is I never thought in those terms…very good! I am planning to see the movie again and be open to its nuisances.

There is a scene in the film where Ani ignores the warning of a stage manager and she enters into the set being shot and totally ignoring the film. My take on this.

1. She is carried away by her emotions and not aware what was going on, almost unconscious.

2. Egoyan is trying to show that all the fuss about the genocide is not that important to us anyway, which was MJ massage.

The second scenario is little stanched since Egoyan never publicly raised that issue however he could not say it literally anyway but that scene does resonate some symbolic value to me. What do you think?

[Guest Fadi]

About Ani entering on the scene, yes ! But I think you forgot to mention what happened just after… the character playing Usher, what he did ? They cut the scene, and Usher continued and answered Ani, like if all this was not a film they were turning, but he was actually Usher, the character he was playing in the film(in the film) was not a role anymore for him at that moment. Do you remember at the end, when the film they produced was premiered ? From the three watching it on the stage(Rouben, Saroyan and him) he was the only one expressing his emotions with his hands, he put his hand on his face, and then he is unable to watch it without moving… while Rouben and Saroyan were watching it, without moving at all, without any emissions shown with their body moves other than their faces. If likes the Armenian characters, had those tragedies in them, while the other was evacuating it with his body and hands.

 

Now, about the genocide, I do not agree that Egoyan tried to show the genocide is not important, to the contrary, he has shown that the genocide was not only the extermination of the people, but he tried to go behind that, what we do not pay any attention at, the “losses” of not only the people, but everything, memory, history, fatherland and as well motherland, the general amnesia etc… the film in the film, was only about the genocide, the symbolism behind it, the “film” itself, as well as the way Saroyan was turning the film in the film, was more then what the film in the film meant, was more then just the conception of genocide as a losses of a people. This is why I think a film only about the genocide could not have achieved what this film achieved, a film only on the genocide would not show the repercussions of the genocide after generations, it would be unable to show all what it transcend.

[Guest Fadi]

About Ani, Rouben, never wondered why she was named Ani ? Do you remember Raffi's visit to Ani ?

[Guest Fadi]

The irony is that Egoyans movie created an impression that the Armenian genocide create in reality. What the Armenians ask is to be listened, and what we got as critics for Ararat ? All the message in the movie is to “listen” the message itself. And I can say good job for the critics, for they have not understood the film at all, why ? Because they were not able to do the primary thing, and that is to get the message. Was the message difficult to get ? It was not harder to get it, than what the Armenians in their turn want the world to get as a message. Egoyans movie handled the film in a way that I feel about the “motherland” and the genocide, he was able to approach as an image and wording, even the music was there, “Yeraz” the them of the music has inspired all the other musical composition in the soundtrack… and how this inspiration was felt ? The movie start with Gorky putting his head on a side of the wall, and then as a dream the said “real” movie start.

 

Its not a film that the critics could judge fairly, they can not judge this film like judging other films, there is no real flaws in Egoyans film, all the scenes from the beginning to the end are there because there was a purposes to put them there, every roles, from Levon the photograph(recorder of history) to the custom official. I have seen the movie couple of times now, and tried to grasp what was the problem in the film, once you understand most of the symbolism, you are unable to find any real flaws in the movie.

 

Egoyan is classed one of the best directors in the world, has been already a part of the jury in the festival of Cannes. Never have those critics wondered if the film itself has not the flaws they report, but rather “THEY” I say “THEY” have not watched the movie like they should have been watching it ?

 

As a product, we have now, exactly what we Armenian faces today, we are criticized by many, because of those “outsiders” that do not take the time to understand us, but rather decide to look at us, and deciding about our actions, rather then the why.

 

Do you remember what the custom officer said to Raffi, when he asked why a dog is not used ? The officer, answered that a dog will only bark when it feels the drug, the dog will not try to understand the “why” the dog will not understand the intention, the dog will only bark when it smells something unusual. Ironically, those critics act as the “dog” the custom officer is talking about, no content, they just watch the movie, without trying to understand it, and they judge it by supposing that there is nothing behind this film, they think that this film is of the same kind that they critics regularly, once they have not asked themselves, if it could be that the film itself is not a flaw or a failure, but is as how Egoyan wanted it to be, and that their claim that Egoyan has failed to make us feel what he wanted us to feel, is just an arrogant believe that they have an idea of what Egoyan wanted us to feel, without even going at the second level of things trying to grasp, and exercise their brains… everything in this world is not easy to understand.

 

We only need to be understood, like the movie Ararat.

[Dan]

Comparing incest with homosexuality is just plain wrong.

 

Whether Egoyan did indeed have that intention or not, I don't know. But it's plain wrong. Incest and homosexuality are totally unrelated and cannot be compared with each other. I'm not saying incest is wrong (I have no comments on that), but to compare something with something else, they have to have some common ground. Homosexuality can be compared with heterosexuality, but comparing it with incest?! Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your views, Domino. I am just expressing my views on what I would think if Egoyan did really have the intention to compare incest with homosexuality.

 

Dan

[Nané]

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, because 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.

But do we know for sure that Raffi was not aware of the contents of the cans? This is one of the darkest points of the film and has caused many many arguments. When I watched the movie for a second time I tried to pay more attention to the details of the conversation between Raffi and the customs offical ... and the following events. If you remember, when Raffi goes to see his half-sister (I can't recall her name at this moment) he tells her that he was willing to risk everything to fulfill his mission. This tells me that Raffi knew what he was getting into ... and he went along with it, because (liked you said) he believed in what he was doing (bringing those videotapes to his mother). I don't know ... that's my take on the issue.

[Guest Fadi]

Comparing incest with homosexuality is just plain wrong.

 

Whether Egoyan did indeed have that intention or not, I don't know. But it's plain wrong. Incest and homosexuality are totally unrelated and cannot be compared with each other. I'm not saying incest is wrong (I have no comments on that), but to compare something with something else, they have to have some common ground. Homosexuality can be compared with heterosexuality, but comparing it with incest?! Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your views, Domino. I am just expressing my views on what I would think if Egoyan did really have the intention to compare incest with homosexuality.

 

Dan

Dan, you missed the point. When I brough the comparaison thing, it was about the way Homosexuality is viewed in our society, it is condemned by many, the same way that incest is condemned. I don't see where the problem is.

[Guest Fadi]

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, because 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.

But do we know for sure that Raffi was not aware of the contents of the cans? This is one of the darkest points of the film and has caused many many arguments. When I watched the movie for a second time I tried to pay more attention to the details of the conversation between Raffi and the customs offical ... and the following events. If you remember, when Raffi goes to see his half-sister (I can't recall her name at this moment) he tells her that he was willing to risk everything to fulfill his mission. This tells me that Raffi knew what he was getting into ... and he went along with it, because (liked you said) he believed in what he was doing (bringing those videotapes to his mother). I don't know ... that's my take on the issue.

He though that he knew what was in the canes, he really though they were films... why would he ask to close the lights ? And more, he felt the ghost of his father when the lights were closed, like his father though until the end that what he was doing was right, no matter if in fact it was right, at that moment when the lights were closed Raffis fate was in test, until the end he still believed what he says.

Edited April 27, 2003 by Fadi

[Guest Fadi]

...

[Dan]

Dan, you missed the point. When I brough the comparaison thing, it was about the way Homosexuality is viewed in our society, it is condemned by many, the same way that incest is condemned. I don't see where the problem is.

Domino, you missed the point. When I wrote my reply, it was not about what you said, but about what I thought. Here's what I said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your views, Domino. I am just expressing my views on what I would think if Egoyan did really have the intention to compare incest with homosexuality.

 

I said "intention to compare incest with homosexuality." I didn't say "comparing the society's non-acceptance of incest with its non-acceptance of homosexuality."

 

Besides, incest and homosexuality are totally NON-comparable. It's one thing for someone to like men and have sex with them, it's another thing to be attracted to your brother and have sex with him (and I happen to think that incest is wrong - but that's just me...)

 

At any rate, please, when replying to my posts, disregard the other posts you've replied to, cos each post should be judged and replied to separately. You're bringing in your previous bias about my views and arguing with every single thing I say just cos you happen to disagree with me on politics.

 

Read my previous post again - I was not criticizing you. I was criticizing Egoyan's possible intention.

 

Dan

[Guest Fadi]

Thanks a lot for scraping my tread Dan, if you think that I bring other threads back here, it is your believes, nothing more. Beside that, the comparaison was not about what Homosexuality was vs in comparaison with instest, but rather the comparaison there was to the fact that both are badly viewed in our societies. If you want to search the bug in every sentences and twist them to any interpretations, then I would tell you what Martin told you. Go play with your toys.

[Dan]

I didn't know it was a closed thread??? Hmmmmm...

 

Calm down, will ya? Jeeeeeez. Remember, anger makes you lose, eh. So knock it off and let's stop acting like kids and start having a normal conversation. Agreed?

 

Dan