Atom Egoyan

[Azat]

Verginne this is about Atom Egoyan and not Jews. you want to talk about Jews go open some other topic.

 

Mods please remove all the stuff about Jews and Turks from here

[Pantalaimon]

La Vita è bella is the best movie about the Holocaust, none come close to it, but again, it's not Hollywood.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I disagree. There are a number of holocaust films that surpass it on many levels.

[Armat]

People who did not like the film have that right and it does not mean anything personal against Atom.

There were plenty of Armenians who saw the film and Atom did get our market share however I find very few, handful Armenians who buy Armenian books, paintings, sculpture, collect Art etc.Why not. As a culture we are still have the consciousness of rug merchant.

[mamigon]

That is a very interesting definition of bigot you have there. Criticizing the movie is precisely what you fail to do. Spouting filth is not the same as criticism. Any idiot can do that, as you ably demonstrated. There is plenty about the movie to criticize, but it requires the ability to think. It certainly doesn't minimize the Genocide; it just is not a film "about the Genocide," it is a film about the denial of Genocide and other forms of denial, and how it warps people, both the deniers and the denied.

 

I have criticized publicly and privately, in print and in speech, Jews who deny or minimize the Genocide. I will continue to do so. It is loathsome. I am not going to call them "all kinds of idiotic names" because I understand the ugly politics behind Israel's support of Turkey, as just as I understand Armenia's alliance with Iran, which is not exactly a regime I care for either. Every Jew I know is vocally pro-Armenian and embarassed that Israel takes the stand it does.

 

I'm certainly not going to debate the Holocaust with you because you are obviously one of those Armenians so blinded by rage at the denial of our genocide that you need to deny others'. That's sad, and a losing strategy, to boot. My friends' families who got sent to the concentration camps are as much of a hoax as my grandmother who survived the genocide. It's an absurd discussion, like arguing about the sun coming up. Try to return to reality, if only for a visit.

 

You are being an absurd and intolerant bigot by suggesting that we have to like this guy's movie and nobody better DARE to criticize.  Pffffffffffttttttttt.  Get off on these scenes...don't make me laugh.  You know perfectly well what I am saying and by ALL Hollywood standards this film fell exceedingly short to show the true picture of what happened during the AG.  It would be better had he never made a film on the subject rather than downplay and minimize the AG.

There is nothing neo-nazi white supremacist about refusing to be sucked in by lies.  Let's see you call jews all kinds of idiotic names for denying the AG.  I dare you...I double triple dog dare you to criticize the jews for denying the AG

 

Let us see you call them neo-turk jewish supremacists.  For starters...

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Arvestaked]

If Egoyan wanted to use the AG to sell his form of art, we have every right to criticize him.  His "story within a story" would have gotten him nowhere on its own.  I don't appreciate the AG being severely minimized by his artsy fartsy film.

 

People were expecting something better.  Probably most members of the community could have created a better movie on the AG.  Speaking of propaganda films, I bet you cried waves of bitter tears during Schindler's List, The Diary of Ann Frank and all those other sobfests.  But that's not propaganda now is it?

 

I see his next movie got him a triple X rating.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

You're not very bright. I understand.

 

Sell his form of art? He made no money off of that movie. And he knew he would make no money. He made that movie because he was passionate about it. That's why people create art. The AG wasn't minimized and nobody in "the community" can even compare to him. I don't like propaganda films. I hated Schindler's Queef, I hated The Queef of Ann Frank and I hated The Penist. And I don't want us making crap like that.

 

Triple X??? Where the hell do you get this stuff!? It's an NC-17. Big difference. NC-17 like Henry and June or The Dreamers or Bad Education or The Last Tango in Paris.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Arvestaked

[mamigon]

Don't know if this is what you have in mind, but this is from the Ararat press notes.

 

ATOM EGOYAN ON THE INECEPTION OF ARARAT

 

At the press conference for “The Sweet Hereafter” at Cannes in 1997, a journalist asked me if the film couldn’t be seen as a metaphor for the Armenian Genocide. It was one of the few times in my life when I found myself quite speechless. The journalist went on to suggest that many of my films had dealt with themes of denial and its consequences, and was interested as to why I hadn’t dealt with the subject more directly.

 

It was a good question.

 

Another good question came from my six-year-old son. A few years ago, I was speaking to him and explaining what happened during the Armenian genocide. The question he asked at the end is, so did the Turks say they were sorry? I found that was a really difficult question to answer, because I realized the moment I said they didn't, that would provoke a whole series of other questions that I had to deal with. I felt really sad about that, and realized that something had to be done to try and break this cycle of denial.

 

In terms of the Armenian genocide, the facts are absolutely irrefutable. This film isn't trying to add anything to these facts, but rather is trying to use them to tell a story about denial. About how something which is so evident and which so many people understand to be true can be denied, and how that affects the psychology of the present day.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

“As a Canadian-Armenian filmmaker,” says Atom Egoyan, “ I had always contemplated a film about the unique history of the Armenian people. While it was tempting to consider an adaptation of one of several books, I realized it was crucial for me to root the film in the present day. In this way, I could trace the effects of this historic event on the present generation. My goal was to make a film that would allow the viewer to experience the reality of horror in a spiritual sense, and not just present the obvious results of material and physical loss.”

 

“Ararat is a meditation on the spiritual role of art in the process of struggling for meaning and redemption in the aftermath of genocide,” he continues. “It is a deeply personal piece of work. While there are certain motifs that I have explored in my other films, this is the first time I have directly addressed the notion of historical consciousness on such a scale. What is destroyed in genocide are not only human lives, but the very imprint of humanity in us. The challenge was to harness the epic consequences of genocide with the intimate moments shared by contemporary characters. If history is in the telling, then life is in the making.”

 

“The film-within-the-film revisits the historic events in an attempt to recreate the past,” he explains, “ while the contemporary story and its present day characters reconstruct their own histories, according to their own needs, memories and imaginations. As the historical epic recreates a conventional history out of the ruins of memory and the anecdotes and accounts of the survivors (in particular, Clarence Ussher’s AN AMERICAN PHYSICIAN IN TURKEY, published in 1917), it provides an environment for all of my characters to come together, desperate to find the truth and hopeful of making sense of their lives through an understanding of the story the film tells.”

 

This is a sentiment that resonates strongly with producer Robert Lantos. “The 20th century harbours many untold stories,” says Lantos. “Among them are tragic events that affected millions of people and shaped the world we live in today. As filmmakers, we use our art form to tell these stories. Making a movie demands tremendous energy, commitment and risk. This is only worthwhile if the effort is on behalf of a film that has universal appeal and tells a story that must be told. While each film I produce does not have to be about an unresolved chapter in history, in the case of Ararat, however, this is very much the case.”

 

A couple of months ago I was looking through the several websites dealing with the Armenian Genocide. In one of them I came across the brilliantly written essay about the film "Ararat" by Atom Egoyan detailing his reasons for making the movie the way he did. Unfortunately I've completely forgotten which website it was and I still can't find it after a thorough search. Has anyone read the essay or knows about AG websites that publish articles about AG written by influential people?

 

The essay is an excellent source for understanding "Ararat" (obviously). Egoyan wrote that this film could not possibly have been one of those traditional films that depict history in a fictionalized manner, like most Holocaust movies. After watching Holocaust movies we get some sense of the events that took place. He writes that "Ararat" could not yet have been such a film because our history is unresolved. Not only did such horror, like the genocide, happen in our history, and not only do we have to live with such awful truth, but our past is still not resolved, and every single one of our fellow Armenians has to deal with it his entire life. (I wish I could bettter clarify what he wrote, but I'm unable to do so. It would be best for everyone who's concerned about this film to read his essay. I'll continue to search for the essay whenever possible.)

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Pantalaimon]

You're not very bright. I understand.

 

Sell his form of art? He made no money off of that movie. And he knew he would make no money. He made that movie because he was passionate about it. That's why people create art. The AG wasn't minimized and nobody in "the community" can even compare to him. I don't like propaganda films. I hated Schindler's Queef, I hated The Queef of Ann Frank and I hated The Penist. And I don't want us making crap like that.

 

Triple X??? Where the hell do you get this stuff!? It's an NC-17. Big difference. NC-17 like Henry and June or The Dreamers or Bad Education or The Last Tango in Paris.

style_images/master/snapback.png

And The Lover. The adaption of Lolita with Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain wasn't even allowed in theaters.

[Anoushik]

Don't know if this is what you have in mind, but this is from the Ararat press notes.

style_images/master/snapback.png

No, I'm afraid it's not. The essay is much, much longer and starts (if I remember correctly) with comments about the director of Titanic accepting the Oscar, and during his speech asking the audience to hold a moment of silence for all the victims who died in the real Titanic. Egoyan writes about how during Academy Awards every participant is told over and over again to keep his/her speech short, yet this director exercised his power over a whole audience, plus the organizers and sponsors of the show during a live telecast, by forcing everyone to wait. It's an intriguing read. I'll continue to search for it.

[Anoushik]

YESS!! Found it! Not in the same website (never found the website) but thank goodness for Advanced Search

 

http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=p...733/egoyan.html

 

I'm not quite sure if I'm allowed to directly link this from the Journals Division of the University of Toronto Press. But then again, why not

[Arvestaked]

Thanks for that. It was great. I wish, though, that it didn't have to be written. I have never heard of a director having to do that for a film. However, now that it has been written, I'd say anyone who is prepared to criticize the film should read this first in its entirety. Edited September 14, 2005 by Arvestaked

[mamigon]

That is a very interesting essay. It was always clear to me that no film Egoyan made would please much of the Armenian community. He does not make straightforward films. I can understand people's need to have a straightforward movie about the Genocide made, to feel validated, free from Egoyan's intellectualising about production of meaning and the inherent shortcomings of any artistic representation. Ideally, his film would have been part of continuum of films on the Genocide, a kind of critique of them -- unfortunately, it is a critique of films that don't even exist, except as represented by the Ararat film within the film. I'm not sure Egoyan even knows how he feels about that film. He seems to regard this film as kitschy and overwrought. "We know all the clichés about evil Turks, the scenes of torture, and the stories of what happened on the death marches. While it's important to show this material - and my film does - it is also important to address the limitations of such traditional representation." Of course, the problem is that the vast majority of the world does not know these "cliches," if that is what they are. And if they are just cliches, why does he think it is "important to show this material"? I suspect most Armenians who disliked or were disappointed in the film -- and in my experience that is the majority -- just are not ready for the Genocide to be deconstructed, no matter how skillfully or compassionately. I am sympathetic to this, but I still think it is an important film.

 

YESS!! Found it! Not in the same website (never found the website) but thank goodness for Advanced Search

 

http://www.utpjournals.com/jour.ihtml?lp=p...733/egoyan.html

 

I'm not quite sure if I'm allowed to directly link this from the Journals Division of the University of Toronto Press. But then again, why not

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Arvestaked]

I can understand people's need to have a straightforward movie about the Genocide made, to feel validated, free from Egoyan's intellectualising about production of meaning and the inherent shortcomings of any artistic representation.

 

 

As I have said many a time, I don't feel we have the luxury of making a straightforward movie about it. Making it would be counter productive. Most of the critics in the community think that if it is made it will automatically get the same response that Jewish Holocaust films have and they're dead wrong. And I believe there is plenty in this film to make people feel validated. They're just not open to it because they were too busy creating Egoyan's film for him.

 

 

Ideally, his film would have been part of continuum of films on the Genocide, a kind of critique of them -- unfortunately, it is a critique of films that don't even exist, except as represented by the Ararat film within the film.

 

 

They do exist. They are just not on the topic of the AG.

 

 

I'm not sure Egoyan even knows how he feels about that film.  He seems to regard this film as kitschy and overwrought. "We know all the clichés about evil Turks, the scenes of torture, and the stories of what happened on the death marches. While it's important to show this material - and my film does - it is also important to address the limitations of such traditional representation."  Of course, the problem is that the vast majority of the world does not know these "cliches," if that is what they are.

 

 

Sure they do. Again that type of film exists. It just doesn't have to do with the AG. People have seen that type of film many times over where there is an expectation by the film-makers that showing the violence is enough to make people understand. And his point is that it is not so. Either the audience goes in understanding and the film reaffirms what the audience has already brought with them to the film or, alternatively, they take the violence as entertainment and forget it the next day.

 

 

And if they are just cliches, why does he think it is "important to show this material"?

 

First, showing such material to a degree creates a point of reference. Secondly, showing it does not necessarily make it the center of attention.

 

I suspect most Armenians who disliked or were disappointed in the film -- and in my experience that is the majority -- just are not ready for the Genocide to be deconstructed, no matter how skillfully or compassionately.  I am sympathetic to this, but I still think it is an important film.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I don't think it is a deconstruction. He mentions the book written about the massacres of certain Indians and the dilema the author faced about the fiction and the fact. He explained that he did this to show that focusing on an aspect of a topic that has never been center stage is an affective way to get a point across without compromising either the history or the fiction. Atom Egoyan took that and applied it for his own dilema. How can you make a movie about a historical event for an audience that has not come to terms with that event and create the opportunity for them to be moved? By showing the effects of the event and not the event itself.

[Arvestaked]

Release Dates for Where the Truth Lies

 

Canada 7 October 2005

Los Angeles 14 October 2005

New York 14 October 2005

USA 21 October 2005 (limited)

France 30 November 2005

Edited September 14, 2005 by Arvestaked

[mamigon]

I think we agree, really. My point is that there was no way Egoyan's film was going to satisfy the community -- that is not a criticism of the film, merely a statement of how I see things. I think the community as a whole wants something they are not going to get -- a mainstream, widely-viewed, historically accurate film on the AG. Of course we do not need such a film to validate our experience. Such a film is a pipe dream, anyway.

 

As I have said many a time, I don't feel we have the luxury of making a straightforward movie about it. Making it would be counter productive. Most of the critics in the community think that if it is made it will automatically get the same response that Jewish Holocaust films have and they're dead wrong. And I believe there is plenty in this film to make people feel validated. They're just not open to it because they were too busy creating Egoyan's film for him.

They do exist. They are just not on the topic of the AG.

Sure they do. Again that type of film exists. It just doesn't have to do with the AG. People have seen that type of film many times over where there is an expectation by the film-makers that showing the violence is enough to make people understand. And his point is that it is not so. Either the audience goes in understanding and the film reaffirms what the audience has already brought with them to the film or, alternatively, they take the violence as entertainment and forget it the next day.

First, showing such material to a degree creates a point of reference. Secondly, showing it does not necessarily make it the center of attention.

I don't think it is a deconstruction. He mentions the book written about the massacres of certain Indians and the dilema the author faced about the fiction and the fact. He explained that he did this to show that focusing on an aspect of a topic that has never been center stage is an affective way to get a point across without compromising either the history or the fiction.  Atom Egoyan took that and applied it for his own dilema. How can you make a movie about a historical event for an audience that has not come to terms with that event and create the opportunity for them to be moved? By showing the effects of the event and not the event itself.

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Killuminati]

lol i didn't know its gonna be this big argument

 

I really gonna see it to understand what is really going on

 

By the way yesterday i saw Arahet

 

http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=12...=0entry154283