Ararat

[bix171]

Writer-director Atom Egoyan’s complicated, heavily-plotted melodrama about the making of a film illuminating the Armenian Holocaust of 1915-18 at the hands of the Turks dares you, with its important yet obscure topic, not to admire it. But it’s a mixed bag. Egoyan is a victim of his own ambitions: so many stories tackle so many entwined conflicts—historical, familial, cultural—with such a broad swirl that it frequently drowns the viewer in overkill. Egoyan messes with your head by pulling all sorts of theatrical manipulations, with heavy cross-cutting between various plots and revealing motivations piecemeal; but he primarily operates by extruding a feeling of helpless horror from you—the atrocities committed by the Turks include the torture of children, rape and the act of being set on fire. Yet he lets you off the hook by allowing you to distance yourself from the horrors: they’re depicted as graphic scenes from the film, not actual events. The effect, while powerful when you’re watching it, is something of a cheat: you walk away devastated but a little angry at being controlled. Egoyan invests a lot of personal emotion in his film yet it’s frequently obscured by fragmented storytelling; and his outrage at the end that Turkey has never apologized for its atrocities has the feel of a non-negotiable demand that he insists the viewer share simply by having viewed his film. It’s tastefully made, with impressive set design by Kathleen Climie and solid performances by the prodigious cast (including Elias Koteas, Arsinee Khanjian, Christopher Plummer and Charles Aznavour), but it’s talky without seeming conclusive (except in its political stance) and overly reliant on Mychael Danna’s intrusive score.

[oscar jubis]

I couldn't possibly dislike and disagree more with your review. "Drowns the viewer in overkill" (?!?)..."theatrical manipulations" and the "c" word (uh, complicated!).

For an alternative view:
www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=611

[bix171]

Sorry you disagree. I felt it was overly melodramatic and extremely pedantic. Egoyan's technique of joining multiple stories has always struck me as labored (I felt the same way about "Exotica") and while I can handle complication, when a film seems to me to be complicated for the sake of being complicatated, I feel frustrated.

I liken "Ararat" to a wine-and-cheese fundraiser for a political cause. This one is aimed squarely at art-house aficionados who want to pat themselves on the back for getting something difficult. You can go home feeling superior to the rank-and-file who can't handle complexity and you don't have to pull out your checkbook at the end.

I read your comments provided by the link and am surprised that you make no mention of Egoyan's approach to displaying the atrocities shown oscreen. Some might consider that brilliant technique; I call it cheating and precisely the center of what is wrong about this film.

[oscar jubis]

ARARAT is one of the most intelligent and important films of the new millenium because it manages to ellucidate a variety of pertinent issues, heretofore ignored.

Director Atom Egoyan is not interested solely in making us aware of the 1915 genocide of Armenians by Ottoman Turks. He does that and so much more. Egoyan presents three different ways in which that information could be disseminated. 1) A director played by Charles Aznavour is directing scenes for a period epic. Initially, we witness several events as one would in reality, thus feeling their visceral impact. Soon we realize we are watching a production with obvious commercial expectations. 2)An art critic, Ani, played by Arsinee Khanjian is hired to incorporate Armenian master painter Arshile Gorky into Aznavour's movie. Ani chooses to connect Gorky to the 1915 genocide and to his struggle in 1935 to make art out of genocide and family tragedy. 3) Ani's son Raffi, a crew member returning from Armenia, disseminates Armenian history verbally (with the aid of documentary footage) to an immigration officer. Each situation illustrates ethical issues regarding representational art and the dissemination of history.

A major issue Ararat brings to the surface is the very timely one of the public's indifference to genocide. To put it in simple terms, Ararat ponders how is it that tragedy and genocide come to be denied and suppressed. Perhaps more importantly, what happens as a consequence of denial and indifference. Hitler, for instance, is credited with this remark while planning the Holocaust: "Who remembers the extermination of the Armenians?" I can picture our own dictator muttering to himself: "Who remembers or cares about the innocent Panamanians daddy killed to put General Noriega in a Miami jail?

[Johann]

After that post oscar, I understand Ararat completely now.

And a standing O is in order for your Panama comments.

[oscar jubis]

Thanks J. Sit back down y'all or better...check if your rental shop has a copy of the Oscar Winner doc The Panama Deception.