My general reaction to "Ararat" was that it was truly fascinating. The way that the characters interacted with one another called for more insight than the average Hollywood flick. The movie was genius precisely because it was able to wind so many different lives together into one storyline that could be followed. The characters collided with each other in ways that were not at all stereotypical.
I do want to look at one aspect of the film that was not covered in class, but one that relates closely to memory. The storylines and narratives overlap each other throughout the story. When the 20-something boy is speaking with the retiring customs official, we learn that he is telling some if not all of the story. He is the story's narrator. That narration is overlapped in the final scene, when the customs official tells his son the same story. My other English class this semester, English 468, has been spending a lot of time on point of view. Based on the discussions in that class, it seems like the overlap of narrators in this movie creates an unreliable memory. Thus, not only are the events fictionalized within the movie, but the telling of the events might also be fictionalized within the fiction.
Outside of that, the film's presentation of memory with regards to the film being filmed during the movie certainly warrants a closer look. There is one especially noteworthy scene that we discussed in class where the consultant objects to the presence of Mount Ararat's image in the set. This short dialogue is more subtly recreated repeatedly throughout the film. The exaggerated drama mentioned in class last week stands as a strong reminder to viewers of the fictionalization of the memory.
In short, the film "Ararat" was an incredible film that wove both interconnecting plot lines and a menagerie of characters into a fascinating cinematic experience. The use of the presentation of memory, both in the film and in the film's film, helps to create and perhaps answer the questions regarding memory and fiction.
While watching the film Ararat in class, I was a bit confused as to how all of the layers in the story would come together in the end. When the movie ended I realized that I still had many questions regarding several of the characters, and story plots. For instance what did the gay couple have anything to do with the Armenian genocide, and why did the old man working as an airport security officer let Raffi go? After listening to Angela’s thorough presentation on the film, all of these questions seemed to be answered. It became clear that Egoyan was trying to show the audience the multiple layers the film had to encompass in order to show the complexity of the Armenian genocide itself. The reason for putting in the homosexual couple was to show the audience that the man who was playing a Turkish official in Saroyan’s film, was in denial of the genocide ever happening, and what was ironic about this situation was the fact that this man came from a relationship which most people in the world don’t understand; in other words his own way of living is denied by society, just as the Armenian Genocide has been denied by the Turkish government, and other countries such as the United States, and Israel. With that being said I found this film to be very moving. It seems clear that Egoyan was very smart in the way he presented this film to his audiences. Although the underlying topic of the film is the Armenian Genocide, in order to grab different movie goers to become interested in viewing this film Egoyan had to bring a different more relatable element to it, which was done with the character of Raffi. Raffi portrays a young adult, who is more or less confused as to why his father did what he did, and his character represents the Bildungsroman characters that we have come to see in many films and movies. Raffi is able to go on a journey in which he is able to learn about his past while learning about his country’s history, and in doing so is able to touch the life of the old man working as the airport security official. I feel as though the film itself brings up many themes of memory and representation. For one memory is seen through the eyes of the famous artist, Arshille Gorky, and although Saroyan’s film uses Gorky’s life as a backdrop to the film, the main voice of the film is that of the American physician Clarence Usher. One student in class brought up the question as to why Usher was able to take the main stage of the film, instead of an Armenian individual. I believe Egoyan chose to direct his film in this way for many reasons. It seems as though every scene, from the very opening of the title, (with the words Ararat being written in Armenian and then in English) comes together to form one film that shows the complexity of what the Armenian people face on a daily basis. The denial of their genocide infused with the hardships and unanswered questions that the younger generations feel about their own history is what makes this film hit so very close to home.
Natalie, I enjoyed your description of the film, especially about its layers. I had never really thought about the idea that the outside world was a representation of the Armenian Genocide, but I think it certainly holds merit. The director created almost a modern-day Armenian Genocide (without the deaths) in order to show the makeup of the world during the Genocide. It is like you mentioned with the gay actor. He becomes the character he portrays by failing to recognize what happened. On the same token, he is also like the Armenians because his way of life is hated by so many. This duplicity in the characters is what makes the film so complex.
Lauren, I really enjoyed reading your post on this film. I also agree that Egoyan is able to put together different narratives and character plots, which ultimately try and confuse the viewer to the point that the ending could be confusing for some. It seems as though Egoyan wanted his audience to come back to the film more than once, to get a better understanding for the meaning he wanted to portray. Just as the Armenian Genocide, this film is complicated, and cannot be understood by just one viewing. Several analysis's must be done, and only then will the brilliant layers of Egoyan's central theme in the movie start to unfold for the us.
Ararat has been one of the more complex texts that we’ve looked at this semester. As a film, we are given direct images that shape our perception of the subject at hand: genocide denial. As was discussed in Imaginary Witness, the images that were shown had an effect on the way we perceive the Armenian Genocide. Since we haven’t been inundated with images of the Armenian Genocide, like we have for the Holocaust, it’s interesting to see the effects that this film has on its viewers. Many of the issues that have been brought up this semester seem to tie together with Ararat. For example, one of the first topics brought up is whether creating “art” based on historical events is permissible. In the film, this issue was directly addressed with the “film within the film” acting as a reminder that Hollywood (or certain types of media) has an immense impact on the way the public views certain issues. The directors of the film being made in Ararat took creative license to place iconic symbols in different locations, which was explained as being acceptable for the purpose of “revealing” or telling an important story. Another issue we’ve discussed is the way that history is portrayed and if the portrayal actually relays the “truth.” Ararat plays with history— not in the same way Inglorious Basterds— as a means to relay a truth that has not often been told. The way the director does this is through intertwining current, seemingly unrelated issues, with the genocide film being made. In a way, this makes it more accessible to the audience, but also raises the question of whether it is distorting history too much.
I too had an issue understanding Egoyan’s purpose in the way the film was created. After the discussion, I came to see the intelligence and critique that Egoyan was putting forth with many of the elements. For example, the use of the gay couple causes people to recognize the hypocrisy—or simple ignorance—of subjects and situations. I have to credit Egoyan on his methods, but I do, however, question the impact it is meant to have on the audience. Does it purely show the audience the undying hypocrisy of genocide acceptance? Or does it go further to reveal a truth that cannot be told in any other way?
I feel that Ararat's most scathing critique is on the mainstream modes of documenting horrific events. There are at least two film makers in the film: Saroyan and Raffi. Saroyan's film, intended for large audiences is rife with irony and contradiction. Examples range from simple "artistic license" to alter the landscape of the "site of trauma" to casting deniers of the event itself to portray the very "truth" of what occured to the spectacle and glamour of opening night. Moreover, Saroyan's film sensationalizes the event by repeating such brutal imagery. Ultimately, much of the contradictions of the film are not exposed to the public but are knowledge that is exclusive to those who work in the production of the film.
On the other hand, there is Raffi. Raffi goes to Ararat and the site of trauma and documents what remains--the outcomes of the events and their ever present consequences. For Raffi, remembering does not necessitate brutal imagery but introspective and reflective contemplation. Raffi's documentation is closer to "truth" because it is not designed to narrate a story, only to give voice to the consequence of silence and distortion.
Ararat took a very deep emotion into a second generation genocide survior. I beleive that this film managed to make a hybrid film with managing different story lines to enhance the emotions of the characters. An interesting topic running through my head was Ararat itself. Through out the film there is no true depiction of the mountian. Inside my heart I see this as a representation that no matter how we the people of today(whether a child a survior or not) try to represent this horrific event we cannot truely show the reality of it. I believe this pretands to even the Holocaust. It is an interesting notion that brings forth multiple questions. A more heart felt character is the son in the film who is being interrogated. His filming of Ararat is representing the new modern and younger depiction of how to represent a disaster such as the genocide. As a person who loves and admires film I see the issues that comes with trying to manipulate an image of a memory onto screen. As horific as the genocide was we must not forget what happened. As we approach a modern age we have to look a different ways to remember what happened. The art of literature as expanded into paintings, paintings into songs, songs into photographs, and now photographs into film.
I thought this was a great way to bring history from the past and thread it to the present. It was a movie that you do not realize the time that has past because it is so interesting. I never knew that there was a mountain named Ararat. It peaks my interest, so I am looking up the historical content on that as well. I also am not sure what the significance is of the mountain, I do remember that in the movie supposedly you could not see the mountain from where they were. I enjoyed the son who was looking for the truth. I often think how courageous he was to go to Armenia and search for some answers.
I think it is our duty as humans to make this atrocity known to everyone. I did not know a lot about it, barely anything. Only the graves were out on the lawn on campus. Now I know, I actually ask people if they have ever heard of it and then if they haven't I fill them in. I will tell as many people as I can. It's the least I can do.
Watching this film was a bizarre experience. That is not to say that it wasn’t informative, but rather, caught up in its own motives. I feel like this film had a lot to say and a compulsive need to explain itself, which is fine in light of the fact that there are very few if any films made about the Armenian genocide. I found some of the acting to be campy and not at all authentic, I’m now wondering if this is intentional or not? There were a lot of questions left unanswered by this film.
I almost feel like if the purpose of this movie was to portray truth, and often times its construction, it had a hard time pulling away from the character drama and making this point. I do have to say though, there is one part of that movie I will never forget ( mind you this was when I didn’t like his mother very much, she seemed to angry of a character , I now know why…) . The part where she walks through the middle of a scene which portrays the brutal attack of some Turkish soldiers on a family, the doctor describes in details the horrors a young boy had witnessed and before she can further ruin the scence, he looks at her and asks “who the f*** are you?” I thought this was very powerful in terms of perspective. I think what they were trying to say at this point in the film, is often times people get caught up in the history and the denial of this event. That they forget the indelible experience of the individuals who lived through this horrible experience. The search for truth often times comes at the expense of those who experienced it (can anyone say, Shoah??)
Joanne's comment I had problems with how the movie, Ararat, portrayed the memory of the Armenian Genocide. I do recognize the value of such a movie in many levels because of its emphasis on showing the different ways the Armenian genocide can be construed in fictional form compared to the factual. However, I had trouble with the holes in the plot and the overly sentimental and contrived way the movie was telling the story. Yet, this actually brings me to realize, unwittingly at first, one fact I overlook quite often when viewing movies: Movies are often made in a period of time that are more compelling to the viewer when it is made than in the present time we view it. In other words, the movie Ararat, like earlier movies of the Holocaust such as War and Remembrance, seem “prettified” (I quote one of my classmates on this), because we now have more ability for more realistic and authentic portrayals of the events in films. That is probably why I have trouble with movies like Inglorious Basterds. Why portray a movie in such a ridiculous form when we have the ability to show it as something more authentic? I know that Ararat was not filmed too long ago but I still feel that at the time it was viewed, it was able to open up more thought for viewers than it did for me. Maybe by my exposure to so many more forms of portraying such traumatic narratives, I expected more from Ararat and that maybe a problem I have that is not the problem of most viewers. Maybe for them, this movie plants a seed of deeper thought. Yet, with that being said, I do see a need for film makers to continually take on these kinds of subjects in order to give relevance to the audience at the time. Film makers and artists need to continually use their skills to provide their audience at the time with an eye to what would make their audience pay attention to the traumatic event.
Comment to Natalie, I also had a problem with Ararat's confusing story line and the unrelated use of some of the characters and plots. I also had trouble with Raffi's character, although most did not it seems. He was so flat in so many ways. I mean that he showed little real reaction when he was being interrogated in the end. I think the director could have put more emotion and less long periods of silence in those scenes. Of course, maybe the silence was supposed to reflect how the Genocide was handled but I really doubt it. The director put too much on that and it became for me less effective.
I think this is one of those films that needs to be watched either multiple times or in segments with great discussion between each part. I found the film complex to the point where it hindered my comprehension, I wanted to look at each character and their personal storyline as to provide further comprehension. I think that this film makes a great attempt at portraying numerous perspectives of the Armenian Genocide: the historical, historical art, militaristic, regional, and cultural. Additionally there were many roles discussed: the survivor, the savior, the unheard story, and the denier. Some scenes that I thought were the most powerful were the interaction between the director and the main Turkish actor, as well as when the Turkish actor addresses the son of the historian. I thought these scenes are very powerful in portraying the current fight that Armenians face in recognizing genocide. They are either faced with individuals who know nothing about the genocide and want to know more or they are ridiculed as making up the event or exaggerating it to an extreme. I can understand the frustration of the director who simply gives into the Turkish actor’s comments about it not being that extreme of an event, after years of informing and persuading it must become very disheartening to continue an effort. I liked that the film was able to incorporate all of the roles and perspectives into the film as well as how each character is dealing with healing from this wound, and how they choose to represent their memory. Whether it is through art, visiting the sites, or informing a large audience of the events that took place. I think that this film needs to be watched more than once for full appreciation and understanding of the underlying themes woven throughout.
My general reaction to "Ararat" was that it was truly fascinating. The way that the characters interacted with one another called for more insight than the average Hollywood flick. The movie was genius precisely because it was able to wind so many different lives together into one storyline that could be followed. The characters collided with each other in ways that were not at all stereotypical.
ReplyDeleteI do want to look at one aspect of the film that was not covered in class, but one that relates closely to memory. The storylines and narratives overlap each other throughout the story. When the 20-something boy is speaking with the retiring customs official, we learn that he is telling some if not all of the story. He is the story's narrator. That narration is overlapped in the final scene, when the customs official tells his son the same story. My other English class this semester, English 468, has been spending a lot of time on point of view. Based on the discussions in that class, it seems like the overlap of narrators in this movie creates an unreliable memory. Thus, not only are the events fictionalized within the movie, but the telling of the events might also be fictionalized within the fiction.
Outside of that, the film's presentation of memory with regards to the film being filmed during the movie certainly warrants a closer look. There is one especially noteworthy scene that we discussed in class where the consultant objects to the presence of Mount Ararat's image in the set. This short dialogue is more subtly recreated repeatedly throughout the film. The exaggerated drama mentioned in class last week stands as a strong reminder to viewers of the fictionalization of the memory.
In short, the film "Ararat" was an incredible film that wove both interconnecting plot lines and a menagerie of characters into a fascinating cinematic experience. The use of the presentation of memory, both in the film and in the film's film, helps to create and perhaps answer the questions regarding memory and fiction.
While watching the film Ararat in class, I was a bit confused as to how all of the layers in the story would come together in the end. When the movie ended I realized that I still had many questions regarding several of the characters, and story plots. For instance what did the gay couple have anything to do with the Armenian genocide, and why did the old man working as an airport security officer let Raffi go? After listening to Angela’s thorough presentation on the film, all of these questions seemed to be answered. It became clear that Egoyan was trying to show the audience the multiple layers the film had to encompass in order to show the complexity of the Armenian genocide itself. The reason for putting in the homosexual couple was to show the audience that the man who was playing a Turkish official in Saroyan’s film, was in denial of the genocide ever happening, and what was ironic about this situation was the fact that this man came from a relationship which most people in the world don’t understand; in other words his own way of living is denied by society, just as the Armenian Genocide has been denied by the Turkish government, and other countries such as the United States, and Israel. With that being said I found this film to be very moving. It seems clear that Egoyan was very smart in the way he presented this film to his audiences. Although the underlying topic of the film is the Armenian Genocide, in order to grab different movie goers to become interested in viewing this film Egoyan had to bring a different more relatable element to it, which was done with the character of Raffi. Raffi portrays a young adult, who is more or less confused as to why his father did what he did, and his character represents the Bildungsroman characters that we have come to see in many films and movies. Raffi is able to go on a journey in which he is able to learn about his past while learning about his country’s history, and in doing so is able to touch the life of the old man working as the airport security official. I feel as though the film itself brings up many themes of memory and representation. For one memory is seen through the eyes of the famous artist, Arshille Gorky, and although Saroyan’s film uses Gorky’s life as a backdrop to the film, the main voice of the film is that of the American physician Clarence Usher. One student in class brought up the question as to why Usher was able to take the main stage of the film, instead of an Armenian individual. I believe Egoyan chose to direct his film in this way for many reasons. It seems as though every scene, from the very opening of the title, (with the words Ararat being written in Armenian and then in English) comes together to form one film that shows the complexity of what the Armenian people face on a daily basis. The denial of their genocide infused with the hardships and unanswered questions that the younger generations feel about their own history is what makes this film hit so very close to home.
ReplyDeleteNatalie, I enjoyed your description of the film, especially about its layers. I had never really thought about the idea that the outside world was a representation of the Armenian Genocide, but I think it certainly holds merit. The director created almost a modern-day Armenian Genocide (without the deaths) in order to show the makeup of the world during the Genocide. It is like you mentioned with the gay actor. He becomes the character he portrays by failing to recognize what happened. On the same token, he is also like the Armenians because his way of life is hated by so many. This duplicity in the characters is what makes the film so complex.
ReplyDeleteLauren, I really enjoyed reading your post on this film. I also agree that Egoyan is able to put together different narratives and character plots, which ultimately try and confuse the viewer to the point that the ending could be confusing for some. It seems as though Egoyan wanted his audience to come back to the film more than once, to get a better understanding for the meaning he wanted to portray. Just as the Armenian Genocide, this film is complicated, and cannot be understood by just one viewing. Several analysis's must be done, and only then will the brilliant layers of Egoyan's central theme in the movie start to unfold for the us.
ReplyDeleteArarat has been one of the more complex texts that we’ve looked at this semester. As a film, we are given direct images that shape our perception of the subject at hand: genocide denial. As was discussed in Imaginary Witness, the images that were shown had an effect on the way we perceive the Armenian Genocide. Since we haven’t been inundated with images of the Armenian Genocide, like we have for the Holocaust, it’s interesting to see the effects that this film has on its viewers.
ReplyDeleteMany of the issues that have been brought up this semester seem to tie together with Ararat. For example, one of the first topics brought up is whether creating “art” based on historical events is permissible. In the film, this issue was directly addressed with the “film within the film” acting as a reminder that Hollywood (or certain types of media) has an immense impact on the way the public views certain issues. The directors of the film being made in Ararat took creative license to place iconic symbols in different locations, which was explained as being acceptable for the purpose of “revealing” or telling an important story.
Another issue we’ve discussed is the way that history is portrayed and if the portrayal actually relays the “truth.” Ararat plays with history— not in the same way Inglorious Basterds— as a means to relay a truth that has not often been told. The way the director does this is through intertwining current, seemingly unrelated issues, with the genocide film being made. In a way, this makes it more accessible to the audience, but also raises the question of whether it is distorting history too much.
Natalie-
ReplyDeleteI too had an issue understanding Egoyan’s purpose in the way the film was created. After the discussion, I came to see the intelligence and critique that Egoyan was putting forth with many of the elements. For example, the use of the gay couple causes people to recognize the hypocrisy—or simple ignorance—of subjects and situations. I have to credit Egoyan on his methods, but I do, however, question the impact it is meant to have on the audience. Does it purely show the audience the undying hypocrisy of genocide acceptance? Or does it go further to reveal a truth that cannot be told in any other way?
I feel that Ararat's most scathing critique is on the mainstream modes of documenting horrific events. There are at least two film makers in the film: Saroyan and Raffi. Saroyan's film, intended for large audiences is rife with irony and contradiction. Examples range from simple "artistic license" to alter the landscape of the "site of trauma" to casting deniers of the event itself to portray the very "truth" of what occured to the spectacle and glamour of opening night. Moreover, Saroyan's film sensationalizes the event by repeating such brutal imagery. Ultimately, much of the contradictions of the film are not exposed to the public but are knowledge that is exclusive to those who work in the production of the film.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there is Raffi. Raffi goes to Ararat and the site of trauma and documents what remains--the outcomes of the events and their ever present consequences. For Raffi, remembering does not necessitate brutal imagery but introspective and reflective contemplation. Raffi's documentation is closer to "truth" because it is not designed to narrate a story, only to give voice to the consequence of silence and distortion.
Ararat took a very deep emotion into a second generation genocide survior. I beleive that this film managed to make a hybrid film with managing different story lines to enhance the emotions of the characters.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting topic running through my head was Ararat itself. Through out the film there is no true depiction of the mountian. Inside my heart I see this as a representation that no matter how we the people of today(whether a child a survior or not) try to represent this horrific event we cannot truely show the reality of it. I believe this pretands to even the Holocaust. It is an interesting notion that brings forth multiple questions.
A more heart felt character is the son in the film who is being interrogated. His filming of Ararat is representing the new modern and younger depiction of how to represent a disaster such as the genocide. As a person who loves and admires film I see the issues that comes with trying to manipulate an image of a memory onto screen.
As horific as the genocide was we must not forget what happened. As we approach a modern age we have to look a different ways to remember what happened. The art of literature as expanded into paintings, paintings into songs, songs into photographs, and now photographs into film.
I thought this was a great way to bring history from the past and thread it to the present. It was a movie that you do not realize the time that has past because it is so interesting. I never knew that there was a mountain named Ararat. It peaks my interest, so I am looking up the historical content on that as well. I also am not sure what the significance is of the mountain, I do remember that in the movie supposedly you could not see the mountain from where they were.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the son who was looking for the truth. I often think how courageous he was to go to Armenia and search for some answers.
I think it is our duty as humans to make this atrocity known to everyone. I did not know a lot about it, barely anything. Only the graves were out on the lawn on campus. Now I know, I actually ask people if they have ever heard of it and then if they haven't I fill them in. I will tell as many people as I can. It's the least I can do.
Watching this film was a bizarre experience. That is not to say that it wasn’t informative, but rather, caught up in its own motives. I feel like this film had a lot to say and a compulsive need to explain itself, which is fine in light of the fact that there are very few if any films made about the Armenian genocide. I found some of the acting to be campy and not at all authentic, I’m now wondering if this is intentional or not? There were a lot of questions left unanswered by this film.
ReplyDeleteI almost feel like if the purpose of this movie was to portray truth, and often times its construction, it had a hard time pulling away from the character drama and making this point. I do have to say though, there is one part of that movie I will never forget ( mind you this was when I didn’t like his mother very much, she seemed to angry of a character , I now know why…) . The part where she walks through the middle of a scene which portrays the brutal attack of some Turkish soldiers on a family, the doctor describes in details the horrors a young boy had witnessed and before she can further ruin the scence, he looks at her and asks “who the f*** are you?”
I thought this was very powerful in terms of perspective. I think what they were trying to say at this point in the film, is often times people get caught up in the history and the denial of this event. That they forget the indelible experience of the individuals who lived through this horrible experience. The search for truth often times comes at the expense of those who experienced it (can anyone say, Shoah??)
Joanne's comment
ReplyDeleteI had problems with how the movie, Ararat, portrayed the memory of the Armenian Genocide. I do recognize the value of such a movie in many levels because of its emphasis on showing the different ways the Armenian genocide can be construed in fictional form compared to the factual. However, I had trouble with the holes in the plot and the overly sentimental and contrived way the movie was telling the story. Yet, this actually brings me to realize, unwittingly at first, one fact I overlook quite often when viewing movies: Movies are often made in a period of time that are more compelling to the viewer when it is made than in the present time we view it. In other words, the movie Ararat, like earlier movies of the Holocaust such as War and Remembrance, seem “prettified” (I quote one of my classmates on this), because we now have more ability for more realistic and authentic portrayals of the events in films. That is probably why I have trouble with movies like Inglorious Basterds. Why portray a movie in such a ridiculous form when we have the ability to show it as something more authentic? I know that Ararat was not filmed too long ago but I still feel that at the time it was viewed, it was able to open up more thought for viewers than it did for me. Maybe by my exposure to so many more forms of portraying such traumatic narratives, I expected more from Ararat and that maybe a problem I have that is not the problem of most viewers. Maybe for them, this movie plants a seed of deeper thought. Yet, with that being said, I do see a need for film makers to continually take on these kinds of subjects in order to give relevance to the audience at the time. Film makers and artists need to continually use their skills to provide their audience at the time with an eye to what would make their audience pay attention to the traumatic event.
Comment to Natalie,
ReplyDeleteI also had a problem with Ararat's confusing story line and the unrelated use of some of the characters and plots. I also had trouble with Raffi's character, although most did not it seems. He was so flat in so many ways. I mean that he showed little real reaction when he was being interrogated in the end. I think the director could have put more emotion and less long periods of silence in those scenes. Of course, maybe the silence was supposed to reflect how the Genocide was handled but I really doubt it. The director put too much on that and it became for me less effective.
I think this is one of those films that needs to be watched either multiple times or in segments with great discussion between each part. I found the film complex to the point where it hindered my comprehension, I wanted to look at each character and their personal storyline as to provide further comprehension. I think that this film makes a great attempt at portraying numerous perspectives of the Armenian Genocide: the historical, historical art, militaristic, regional, and cultural. Additionally there were many roles discussed: the survivor, the savior, the unheard story, and the denier. Some scenes that I thought were the most powerful were the interaction between the director and the main Turkish actor, as well as when the Turkish actor addresses the son of the historian. I thought these scenes are very powerful in portraying the current fight that Armenians face in recognizing genocide. They are either faced with individuals who know nothing about the genocide and want to know more or they are ridiculed as making up the event or exaggerating it to an extreme. I can understand the frustration of the director who simply gives into the Turkish actor’s comments about it not being that extreme of an event, after years of informing and persuading it must become very disheartening to continue an effort.
ReplyDeleteI liked that the film was able to incorporate all of the roles and perspectives into the film as well as how each character is dealing with healing from this wound, and how they choose to represent their memory. Whether it is through art, visiting the sites, or informing a large audience of the events that took place. I think that this film needs to be watched more than once for full appreciation and understanding of the underlying themes woven throughout.