Ararat the Blockbuster

[Arpa]

Ararat is a Blockbuster by any account.

It may yet be one of the most thorough depiction of the Armenians saga.

I was pleasantly surprised, specially in view of the lukewarm reviews, be it by professional critics or armchair ones like us. The only unpleasantness was that the theater was virtually empty and perhaps, if there were any non Armenians there they may have missed the points and the symbolisms. I would cue my companion to the subtle insinuations and innuendoes, even if I did not have to, as much as she could understand them I am sure she would have missed some important points.

I found the movie to be a complete lesson of history, politics, art and some other social and doctrinal issues. Atom had practically left no stone unturned. I will try and enumerate them, as much as I can remember (I should have taken pencil and paper along).

I wonder if others so the symbolisms and the messages as I did. I am sure I will miss some important points but we may build them up as we go.

 

1. About religion and faith. Very early, almost as setup for things to come, we see a family (that of the customs inspector) at the dinner table when one of them does not participate in prayers and to the questions of the young boy(grandson) the answer is; "He believes in other gods". Is that Atom's own conviction or is he projecting the average Armenian's attitude?

2. Setting the stage by invoking 5000 years of Armenian history and "Ancestral Lands"

3. The allusion to Ararat not being visible from Van. The message may have been; Ararat is in our hearts even if it may not be in our grasp by international definition and geography.

4. Reference to the massacre of "its own loyal (Ottoman)citizens. It is curious how this same phrase was repeatedly used to demonize the "butcher of Baghdad".

5. Clichés, and more clichés. He artfully has included a half turk playing a role in the movie within the movie. This not only symbolizes the Armenians' willingness for cooperation and reconciliation, yet it also is employed to show the intransigence and manufacture of (historical)lies and clichés. Atom has skillfully depicted the bankruptcy of those lies juxtaposing claims of "war" and "natural calamities" by showing heavily armed gen d'arme firing at helpless women and children. No armed adversary in sight. War?

6. Staging Siamanto's Par@ (Dance), he invokes the the plethora of (impartial) eyewitnesses. Also note that the Narrator is a German lady (collaborators of the Ottomans). He also alludes to the mob's lack of respect to life and decency.

7. A movie within a movie within a movie as he once again skillfully exposes the audience to the creativity of the Armenian through Arshile Gorky, not to mention the music of Komitas, both victims in an even more tragic sense(see below).

I know I am missing some very important other points..

8. Last but not at all least, the allusion to drugs from Turkey. One must remember that before the Us become so enamored with Ankara, s a couple of decades ago, the only time we would hear about Turkey was in reference to illegal drugs cultivation and trade. The US had to donate zillions of dollars to them so as not to grow opium. Have they really stopped? We won't know now that they are our "sweethearts".

 

We constantly hear "catcalls from the audience" so to speak, be it this audience or other; "Why is there no movie made made about the Genocide", I don't what is meant by "movie about the Genocide", if we mean depicting each and every scene (we all know numerous scenes, personal or general), if we were to depict every one of them, if we devote even one second to each of them it will take 1,000,000 seconds (how many hours and days is that?), even then we would have done justice to the cause, besides, who will such a movie? Atom has found the perfect medium, the ideal way to tell the story. He has not missed anything, he has addressed every issue. The perfect way. As to reference to Komitas above, I still maintain that his biography and his trials and tribulations would make an excellent way to portray the Genocide in its completeness, it will not show mans' inhumanity to man, it will also illustrate the cultural and psychological devastation that the Genocide has inflicted. We may also allude to the fact that the damage still lingers when our youth, our potential artists, poets, philosophers, historians and, the general public is still traumatized and paralyzed us. The average Armenian may not be even carry a conversation about the weather yet when Genocide is mentioned the floodgates open. Movies like Ararat may help us better lick our wounds and be whole again.

 

In case one still wonders why Ararat was not even mentioned at the Oscars, here is one of many sites.

http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/02/feb14-...4-02/front4.asp

 

[Dan]

The only unpleasantness was that the theater was virtually empty.

I saw Ararat a week or so after it had started playing here in theatres (Toronto), and it was pretty crowded (mostly Armenians). But I guess it was cos it only played at one place, namely the Cumberland theater... I don't know why, but that was just plain stupid. The movie could've had much more popularity if it had played in other theaters as well. I still don't know whether it was due to pressure by the Turks or what. I'm not sure.

 

I wonder if others so the symbolisms and the messages as I did.

Yes, I did see some very important symbolisms and messages in the movie, not only related to the genocide, but to the Armenian psyche, culture, community, church, love life, homophobia, and many others.

 

1. About religion and faith. Very early, almost as setup for things to come, we see a family (that of the customs inspector) at the dinner table when one of them does not participate in prayers and to the questions of the young boy(grandson) the answer is; "He believes in other gods". Is that Atom's own conviction or is he projecting the average Armenian's attitude?

Yes, I do remember that scene - and I could find two symbolisms in it, although it was confusing (cos the customs inspector was not Armenian, was he?!):

1. "He believes in other gods" meaning that he is not Christian (was he?!), and that since he's a Turk, he is an "infidel"? Maybe? I don't know if I completely misunderstood it.

2. "He believes in other gods" meaning that he is gay and his god is "sex" - many Armenians have this view about gays - that they worship sex or something along those lines. But it's still not clear, cos again, the customs inspector was not Armenian (right?). Hmmmmm... I think Egoyan missed the point there a bit...

 

3. The allusion to Ararat not being visible from Van. The message may have been; Ararat is in our hearts even if it may not be in our grasp by international definition and geography.

Yes, that was a very pretty allusion.

 

4. Reference to the massacre of "its own loyal (Ottoman)citizens. It is curious how this same phrase was repeatedly used to demonize the "butcher of Baghdad".

I think there's some sarcasm in that... I think the word "loyal" is to incite some humor about the Ottoman Empire at the time. Armenians were loyal to the Ottoman empire how? In the sense that they were fulfilling their duties and paying their taxes, right? But what was considered loyal by the Young Turks during that time? 1. All other cultures voluntarily moulded into one culture, the Ottoman culture. 2. Giving up on their own religion (Christianity) and willingly accepting Islam as their religion. 3. Forgetting thousands of years of ancestral heritage and cultural roots and basically becoming Turks.

The Armenians were not loyal to those requirements, and hence the genocide...

 

He artfully has included a half turk playing a  role in the movie within the movie.

Yes, I liked the idea of using a movie within the movie. But I have some doubts about the gay part - the half Turk is gay... Could it also be a depiction of all gays as being criminals or bad people? Hmmmm... Maybe I'm overly paranoid cos I'm gay. Donno...

 

The part with the drugs - it shows how much of a sacrifice Armenians are willing to make to go and just see Ararat - how much we are still connected to our symbol... And how ordinary people (like the customs officer) do feel Armenians' plight (unlike the denial of their own governments - donno if in this case it was the US government that was being criticized, cos I don't remember any allusion to the film being in Toronto)...

 

The most powerful message, however, is at the end of the movie, when Egoyan shows how an Armenian mother (who is pregnant) is being assaulted by a Turkish soldier, and how her daughter is hiding under the wooden thing and holding her mother's hand while her mother is being assaulted. That is just one powerful scene - brought tears to my eyes. I must say that I didn't find the movie all that moving until that last scene (but I loved the scenes with Arshile Gorky and the historical fights against the Turks and the in-movie about the photographer's kid being tortured...). IMO, it wasn't a GREAT movie, but it was beautiful and moving. It could've been better - more history, less talk and modernity. We need a movie like Schindler's List - basically showing the suffering of the Armenians... But movies like Egoyan's Ararat are also essential, to keep us in touch with the reality of the situation as it stands right now.

 

I don't what is meant by "movie about the Genocide", if we mean depicting each and every scene.

I think the Armenian people are calling for a movie like Schindler's List. And I was hoping for a movie like that from Egoyan, honestly. I was disappointed when I first saw Ararat, but then I got to understand Egoyan's main point in wanting to do a movie that was more of a "modern" one. I think he went with the guess that the new generation of Armenians would want something modern, instead of the same repeat of the pictures of massacre. He wanted to do a movie for all ages, to raise awareness for the young generations - to close the gap between the new generation of Armenians (13-18 year olds mainly) and our ancestral roots and history.

 

I applaud Egoyan's efforts, and from what I've read of his comments and interviews, I don't think he had any bad intentions about gays - he seems to be quite open-minded. Perhaps he wanted to show the reality of the Armenian situation with regards to homophobia - made stronger by the genocide (which threatened our survival), and hence we should be faithful to our ancestors' fight by breeding (something homosexuality cannot achieve).

 

And by the way, I am a big fan of Michael Danna, and I bought the Ararat soundtrack. But I think there's too much repetition in the same tunes in different tracks. It could be much much better. Maybe next time? I'm waiting for other such great movies by Egoyan about the Armenian genocide and Armenians' sufferings. Kudos to Egoyan!

 

Dan

Edited April 26, 2003 by Dan

[Guest Fadi]

Arpa, I have few interpretations here about the movie. It is uncompleat, I was supposed to do a finnal review, but will wait to have the DVD.

 

Dan, the soundtrack repetitions are wanted, and don.t forget its a movie music, repetitions are normal. There is two major themes repetition, one of those two is the theme of the music Yeraz, this music is the only one that Egoyans father remember that hos mother song him when he was young(Egoyans granmother was a genocide survivor) Yeraz theme comes and go in many of the musics of the soundtrack on purpouses, like the Dream, the past, etc...

Edited April 27, 2003 by Fadi

[Dan]

Yes, well, true that, about Yeraz and Egoyan's grandmother , but I've heard lots of other movie soundtracks, really good ones like Gladiator and The Thin Red Line, and they don't have as much repetition as Ararat's soundtrack. In fact, I listened to the whole soundtrack a coupla hours ago, and in every track there's the same music - only the under-tones have changed. Not that it's not good music, I think it's pretty cool, but for the CD to get a big market sales, it should not contain a repetition of one song - otherwise everyone can just download that one song off the web instead of paying like 15 bucks for it.

 

Dan

Edited April 27, 2003 by Dan

[Guest Fadi]

Yes, well, true that, about Yeraz and Egoyan's mother, but I've heard lots of other movie soundtracks, really good ones like Gladiator and The Thin Red Line, and they don't have as much repetition as Ararat's soundtrack. In fact, I listened to the whole soundtrack a coupla hours ago, and in every track there's the same music - only the under-tones have changed. Not that it's not good music, I think it's pretty cool, but for the CD to get a big market sales, it should not contain a repetition of one song - otherwise everyone can just download that one song off the web instead of paying like 15 bucks for it.

 

Dan

Egoyans grandmother not mother BTW.

 

As for the repetitions, the music was produced for the film and not to be exploited alone. Yeraz other then the other repetition is the major music in the movie... it was a choice, and I agree with that choice.

[Dan]

Oooops, my bad. Mother?! That doesn't make sense at all. Sorry.

 

Will edit the post and correct it. Thanks.

 

Dan

[THOTH]

Arpa - very nice review of commentary on the movie - I think you hit on some very valid observations. I know when th DVD comes out i will watch it over and over and over. As it was I saw it in the theater twice - the second time I went immediatly from my hopital bed to the theater (no stop home) - not 24 hours after a pretty invasive surgery - I just had to watch it again. I think I was crying from the moment the opening credits started to roll and though a good deal of the movie. Sure - it has its flaws - mostly with pace of delivery and a certain repitition/preachyness - but I agree with you (and Domino) it is a masterpiece and a movie that succeeds on a great many levels - and it tells the "story" of the Genocide as well as can be hoped from a movie (and better then one could ever expect in many aspects). Funny - normally I can get DVDs of movies that are "special" to me well in advance of their release (I've had "the Two Towers" for 2 months already)...but my "connection" actually gets the movies from/through Turkey...LOL...(so I haven't bothered to try...then again you just never know these days...)

[bellthecat]

Ararat is the most obscene movie I have ever seen. Only a cretin or the vilest sort of Armenian rascist could find even the smallest thing of value in it.

 

The abomination that is this film is exceeded only by the abomination of Armenian diaspora society that will accept without objection the cartload lies that this piece of cinematic filth contains.

[Dan]

:eek:

[Azat]

Steve, please give us reasons why you feel like so.

[vava]

Ararat is the most obscene movie I have ever seen. Only a cretin or the vilest sort of Armenian rascist could find even the smallest thing of value in it.

 

The abomination that is this film is exceeded only by the abomination of Armenian diaspora society that will accept without objection the cartload lies that this piece of cinematic filth contains.

Steve, that's a pretty harsh opinion Please enlighten us as to what you found so offensive.

 

Personally I felt the movie was just beatifully filmed. It was art - not just a story. I think (hope) that it will be considered an opening - a sign of things to come... Many more movies integrating and depicted the plight of the Armenians into their themes. I can't see how you view it so negatively.

[Guest Fadi]

Ararat is the most obscene movie I have ever seen. Only a cretin or the vilest sort of Armenian rascist could find even the smallest thing of value in it.

 

The abomination that is this film is exceeded only by the abomination of Armenian diaspora society that will accept without objection the cartload lies that this piece of cinematic filth contains.

Steve, that's a pretty harsh opinion Please enlighten us as to what you found so offensive.

 

Personally I felt the movie was just beatifully filmed. It was art - not just a story. I think (hope) that it will be considered an opening - a sign of things to come... Many more movies integrating and depicted the plight of the Armenians into their themes. I can't see how you view it so negatively.

Not everyone likes a pieces of art. lol

[bellthecat]

Vava - how on earth can you say this film was "Art".

 

There has been universally negative chriticism of Ararat on "artistic" terms. There was nothing "artistic" about the film. The camera work was dull and unimaginative. The script was laboured and contrived. The characters were just shallow caractures. The soundtrack was heavy handed and cliched. The directing was full of rip-offs from earlier and better Egoyan films. The "film within a film" was, in acting terms, worse than the wost TV movie, in cinematic terms a cross between a typical piece of Soviet propaganda blended with a typical American "Rambo" movie.

 

But that is not what I found offensive - it is the actual content I find obscene. Arpa thinks it is a "complete lesson of history, politics, art and some other social and doctrinal issues". In reality, every one of those "lessons" are lies or distortions from truth that are lies in everything but name. For Egoyan to produce his piece of filth at the expense of the Genocide victims is the real obscenity.

 

Steve

 

PS, there were 9 people in the cinema when I saw it for the first time, there were 5 people in the cinema when I saw it for the second time (to check whether it was just as bad as I thought the first time around). It got the audience numbers it deserved.

[Dan]

But that is not what I found offensive - it is the actual content I find obscene.

What is it that you found obscene? Care to enlighten us? I'm just curious to hear your opinion.

And I agree that it could've been MUCH better than it was. I was expecting much much more from Egoyan. I was a bit disappointed, I must admit, when it comes to the artistic interpretation of the movie.

[Guest Fadi]

Vava - how on earth can you say this film was "Art".

 

There has been universally negative chriticism of Ararat on "artistic" terms. There was nothing "artistic" about the film. The camera work was dull and unimaginative. The script was laboured and contrived. The characters were just shallow caractures. The soundtrack was heavy handed and cliched. The directing was full of rip-offs from earlier and better Egoyan films. The "film within a film" was, in acting terms, worse than the wost TV movie, in cinematic terms a cross between a typical piece of Soviet propaganda blended with a typical American "Rambo" movie.

 

But that is not what I found offensive - it is the actual content I find obscene. Arpa thinks it is a "complete lesson of history, politics, art and some other social and doctrinal issues". In reality, every one of those "lessons" are lies or distortions from truth that are lies in everything but name. For Egoyan to produce his piece of filth at the expense of the Genocide victims is the real obscenity.

 

Steve

 

PS, there were 9 people in the cinema when I saw it for the first time, there were 5 people in the cinema when I saw it for the second time (to check whether it was just as bad as I thought the first time around). It got the audience numbers it deserved.

Yes ! I guess we Canadians are just ignorants having made Ararats the film that recieved the most awards, not simply awards, but the Canadian film industries most famous award.

 

The aggressive way you discribe the film, I hope would only be the consequences of the increase of testosterone in Spring time.

[Dan]

Domino,

 

Just being a bit unbiased here (and NOT looking for an argument), so I will ask this:

 

What awards has Ararat received? I'm sorry, but I don't really know. Could you please share that info? Thanks.

 

And ummm, if Ararat got Canadian awards, does it necessarily mean that it's an artistic movie? It might be the best movie in Canada, but not necessarily good. I, for one, am unaware of any Canadian movie that was released lately. But I might be wrong - I'm not a movie fanatic, so I might not be up to date with everything.

[Guest Fadi]

http://armenians.com/forum/index.php?act=S...=ST&f=17&t=4471

 

The fact that it wins the most presdigious Canadian movie award as the best picture says that at the very least some may find it as a good movie, that year the competition was good, there was many good Canadian movies.

 

I do not g-a-s. of what many critics says about the movie, and less what steves says about it. I think the movie was a masterpieces, and like other masterpieces and other work of arts, some will like it and others not.

[Dan]

OK, let's say it's a masterpiece.

 

But say, here in Canada, why didn't it get any major hits? I mean, the movie opened here in Toronto at the Cumberland Theatre ONLY, and after one week, the theatre was empty. Canadian films surely have more popularity than just a week's time, right? And let's put aside the fact that Turks pressurized countries to ban the movie, but they didn't manage to do it here in Canada. So what explains the lack of popularity here in Canada - Egoyan himself being a Canadian. That should increase the number of people seeing the movie in theatres in Canada, especially if the media hype predicted that Ararat would win those awards, don't you think?

 

Let us all be unbiased, just cos we're Armenians doesn't mean we have to brand everything Armenian as good, even if it's not. It wasn't a HORRIBLE movie, but it lacked certain artistic creativity. The cinematography was not all that good, the story-line was confusing and sometimes went in more than 1 direction off the topic of genocide, the acting was good, but it lacked spirits and enthusiasm. The movie did not really leave a big impression on me, even though I'm an Armenian and went into the theatre having a biased view of Egoyan's talent (in a good sense), and was expecting a great movie. It did not leave an impression like Gladiator did, or even a less popular movie like The Thin Red Line did. It lacked an element which would bring tears to people's eyes throughout the entire movie, not just at specific scenes. A movie, especially one on such a serious thing like the genocide, should be able to accomplish that. I agree that saying that it has NO artistic value is a bit too harsh, but it could've been much better. The soundtrack (and I repeat this again, because other soundtracks are not like this), is a repeat of one track over and over again, clichéd, and almost annoying with its repetitions (although the main theme is beautiful).

 

I personally liked the historical parts, when Clarence Ussher sees the suffering of Armenians, etc.

 

The picture was not all that good, the costumes not all that great. I don't know what it is, but the entire movie lacked a certain charisma. I don't know...

 

Just my 2 cents.

Edited May 1, 2003 by Dan

[Guest Fadi]

In art, when the most talented artist pain something unusual, that we find not so good and that we know the artist can do better, there is a dilemma, or it was his worst production, or the impression that have lead us to believe that the art in question was bad is precisaly the impression that the artist wanted us to feel, this second option does not exist when the artist is not known as a talented one.

 

I believe that Ararat force is what lead people to think the film was bad. All those impressions that there is something that is missing, things that appear to be out of subject etc... the complexity etc... I think all those are in purpouses, and that knowing that Egoyan is one of the best director in the world, and all the work on Ararat, those flaws were not flaws in my opinion, but actually are the forces of the movie. I will not be as arrogant as many to claim that one of the best directors was not able to tell what he tried to tell, like many have done. A film like this should be viewed differently then those movies open for the mass. We should tell first that the movie carry a message, the message is not flawed, and what I guet as message from the film, there was a review about the film where it says that the film should not be judged for what it is not, but what it is actually...

[Dan]

Domino,

 

When movies are judged for Oscars & other awards, they are judged on artistic quality and creativity, not for what they manage to say or not. Why would Ararat be an exception when being judged? It should be judged just like the rest of the movies out there - for what they are AND for what they are not.

 

You are wrong about what made Ararat not get the hype it should've got (as you say). Everyone was waiting anxiously for the movie, and they had pretty high expectations of Egoyan. Before the movie was released, all I could hear were good reviews on the movie and good reports on Egoyan's talents - and I went into the movie theatre with those biased views, but came out disappointed. So you're wrong - it's not people's negativity that made the movie non-popular, it's the non-popularity and the absence of charisma from the movie that made people's views so negative.

 

Movies are a way of carrying a message - and when judging a movie, they judge whether the movie did a good job at carrying the message - in what way was the message carried, and was it a good way: artistic, etc.?

That's the bottom line of academy awards. It's not the theme of the movie they judge, but theway it tries to depict the message, and whether it managed to do it in a beautiful, artistic manner. Movies and cinema are art - they're not a simple way of just shooting a few scenes and doing something like a cheap report on CNN or something along those lines. Movies carry artistic beauty and challenge the mind and norms through means of the camera and the pen. Has Egoyan managed to do that? Party yes, partly no. The movie has lots of shortcomings, don't you think? It's not on the same level as Ridley Scott or Terrence Malick movies. It lacks a certain something, and I'm unable to put my finger on it..

[Guest Fadi]

Domino,

 

When movies are judged for Oscars & other awards, they are judged on artistic quality and creativity, not for what they manage to say or not. Why would Ararat be an exception when being judged? It should be judged just like the rest of the movies out there - for what they are AND for what they are not.

 

You are wrong about what made Ararat not get the hype it should've got (as you say). Everyone was waiting anxiously for the movie, and they had pretty high expectations of Egoyan. Before the movie was released, all I could hear were good reviews on the movie and good reports on Egoyan's talents - and I went into the movie theatre with those biased views, but came out disappointed. So you're wrong - it's not people's negativity that made the movie non-popular, it's the non-popularity and the absence of charisma from the movie that made people's views so negative.

 

Movies are a way of carrying a message - and when judging a movie, they judge whether the movie did a good job at carrying the message - in what way was the message carried, and was it a good way: artistic, etc.?

That's the bottom line of academy awards. It's not the theme of the movie they judge, but theway it tries to depict the message, and whether it managed to do it in a beautiful, artistic manner. Movies and cinema are art - they're not a simple way of just shooting a few scenes and doing something like a cheap report on CNN or something along those lines. Movies carry artistic beauty and challenge the mind and norms through means of the camera and the pen. Has Egoyan managed to do that? Party yes, partly no. The movie has lots of shortcomings, don't you think? It's not on the same level as Ridley Scott or Terrence Malick movies. It lacks a certain something, and I'm unable to put my finger on it..

Your answer is behind my post Dan, it has not really to do with what I brough. Ararat was not submited to the Canne competitions because Egoyan knew the movie is one of those movies that you can not compare with others... Ararat is not the only movie in that matter, I injoy watching Iranian movies, one that come in mind is one where producers were searching people to act, all the movie was produced in the same scene where many people had to wait their turn and do a presentation, the film had a very bad angle filiming, in fact the film could be viewed as a total trash, and I am sure that anyone having a simple camescope could present a better presentation, I injoyed that film very much, because it represented an aspect of reality, a simple scene of life presented for everybody to watch, it was an original production.

 

Ararat is not the kind of movie that you can make compeat with others, because it has just too much to say in a medium that is limited, it is about the representation of reality, a kind of demonstration of the impossibility to represent reality, etc... Ararat is just the kind of film that you go and watch, and or you like it, or you don't.

 

I do not see what is missing in Ararat, because nothing is missing in Ararat, Egoyan decided to make it as it is, and unlike you I adored the movie and like it very much, I even found it too short, and I can assure you that nowhere in the film and during the many times I watched the movie I was bored.

 

You say it was missing sharm, I can return that to you and tell you that one of the sharm of that movie could be what you consider as a missing sharm.

[Dan]

it has just too much to say in a medium that is limited, it is about the representation of reality, a kind of demonstration of the impossibility to represent reality

 

Domino, have you seen Schindler's List? If you haven't, rent it or download it off Kazaa or something, and watch it, and you will see what I mean.

[Guest Fadi]

it has just too much to say in a medium that is limited, it is about the representation of reality, a kind of demonstration of the impossibility to represent reality

 

Domino, have you seen Schindler's List? If you haven't, rent it or download it off Kazaa or something, and watch it, and you will see what I mean.

That movie was boring and there was nothing special in it, the real film on the Holocaust is, "La vita est bella."

 

I never liked Schindler's List?

[Dan]

Yes, Life is Beautiful is indeed a great movie. That brought me to tears. I don't know why I was so tearless with Ararat. I don't know. Maybe it's just me. Hmmmm...

 

Well, I guess you have a point. Donno. But I still think Egoyan could've done better.

 

I think Arsinée acted REALLY well in the movie.