Ararat

Rating:
Summary: The Truth Hurts But It Can Be Beautiful And Full of Awen
Review: I had not wanted to watch Ararat, as I had not liked Egoyan's Calender, however, knowing Aznavour was appearing in the movie,I felt I had to see it. It was brilliant and full of Awen (Celtic word for devine inspiration). My audio play "1921 the Christmas Letter" had just begun airing on radio stations and is about the Armenian Genocide and I only wish I knew where to send it to Egoyan and Aznavour as thank you presents. My family was from Kerope (only 56 known survivors) and my father now 93, escaped from Turkey to Russia, got caught up in the Russian Revolution, and then escaped back into Turkey and then to America, all by the age of ten. I've lived with the Genocide all my life and am tired of people not even knowing what an Armenian is. This movie is about all genocides, and it touched me to the depths of my soul. As a writer I loved the subtlety and the stories within stories, as well as the almost twist of an end. The acting was excellent and not overdone and dramatic to the point of being a mochery. I have recomended this movie to everyone who is sensitive,caring, intelligent and those that need to be enlightened about what the denial of the genocide means to someone like me. I have been angry all my life. I have bled and cried in my despair. I have pleaded with the ancient gods of Urartu for justice. When will there ever be a justice with eyes and a mouth that sees and speaks the truth? Will the Turks ever know the truth, or is Justice as blind as the Turks have been for over a century? Ararat, gave me hope. As a writer, (10 books including "The Armenians of Worcester") I include Armenians in many of my stories and articles. I think the antique world knows what an Armenian is but what about the nurse at the hospital who asked it Armenians came from Pakistan, or the couple in Atlanta, who asked me what tribe of Indians the Urartians were? You think sometimes it is just like banging your head on the wall and then a miracle happens and this miracle is called Ararat. Blessed are they that morn for they shall be comforted...and I was.

Rating:
Summary: Egoyan is a genius
Review: The Armenian genocide constitutes one of the twentieth century's most shameful incidents. Largely forgotten today due to later, better publicized exterminations, the systematic killing of some one million Armenian people by the crumbling Ottoman Empire in 1915 still stirs controversy today. Turkey goes to great lengths to deny such an atrocity ever took place, but Armenian survivors and their descendants know better. The reasons for this event involved Ottoman politics of the time, with the rise of the reformist Young Turk movement within the Ottoman political system and its "promise" about granting autonomy to ethnic and religious minorities. In a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss," the Young Turks soon reneged on their promises and began a series of suppressions. Armenia suffered the most from the Young Turks sudden political reversal. Only with the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I did the genocide end. President Woodrow Wilson redrew the boundaries of Armenia, a process that angered the Turks and directly led to the current revisionism concerning the massacre. Atom Egoyan's film "Ararat" deals directly, and indirectly, with this horrific historical event.

Thanks to an individual who really knows her stuff about film, I decided to pay a visit to Atom Egoyan. "Ararat" was my first choice, and a good one at that even though the film is often confusing--often wonderfully so--in structure. The primary reason for this concerns the numerous storylines weaving their way through the tapestry of the film. We meet, by turns, an Armenian art historian named Ani (played by the gorgeous Arsinee Khanjian), her son Raffi (David Alplay), a customs official named David (Christopher Plummer), two men making a film about the genocide (played by Eric Bogosian and Charles Aznavour), Ani's stepdaughter and David's lover Celia (Marie-Josee Croze) and an up and coming actor in a relationship with David's son named Ali (Elias Koteas). Ani is an art historian working on a project about the famous Armenian painter Arshile Gorky, who was so affected by the loss of his mother in the genocide that he painted a picture of her when he arrived in America. Unable to deal with the memories of the massacre, Gorky ultimately committed suicide. As Ani documents this troubled man's life, she must deal with the highly inappropriate relationship between her son David and her French Canadian stepdaughter Celia. Celia believes Ani drove her father to commit suicide, a claim Ani fervently denies.

Meanwhile, we meet customs official David, an embittered soul set to retire from his job in a matter of days. He is angry that his son left his wife in order to form a relationship with an out of work actor of Turkish descent named Ali. Ali receives a phone call from two filmmakers offering him the role of Jevdet Bey, one of the thugs responsible for the Armenian genocide. At roughly the same time, the two filmmakers, one of whom had intimate knowledge of the massacre, approach Ani about consulting on the film. Raffi soon arrives on the scene to work on the picture, and ultimately ends up taking a trip to the area where the massacre took place. On his return, he finds himself held up at customs by--surprise--David, who believes the young man is probably a heroin smuggler. As the film unfolds, most of what we know about the characters comes through flashbacks in an extended conservation between Raffi and David. Egoyan also employs a "film within a film" technique that adds further doubts about the veracity of unfolding events.

"Ararat" is a brilliant film, even more so after you have seen it and think through some of the issues presented by Egoyan. I agree with the editorial reviews that state the movie deals with memory and how it affects people through time and across space. Celia's hostility towards Ani marks one aspect of how memory often assumes a slippery dimension, but the real kicker supporting this theme occurs during the lengthy conservations between David and Raffi. The whole dialogue is an effort on the part of Raffi to convince David that the Armenian genocide took place. David is a world-weary cynic unwilling to believe in Raffi's story, but he comes around in the end and ultimately accepts it. Or does he? The last scene where David opens a certain item and sees what is in it encapsulates the entire idea of the film. Should we believe in Raffi's story, especially after we see what David finds? Where is the evidence of the massacre? Is it in the ruins Raffi filmed on his trip and then showed to David? How do we really know these ruins represent the genocide? There are accounts left behind by American missionaries and other Europeans who were there when the events unfolded, but should we trust personal recollections? By forcing us to rely on narrative accounts regarding the massacre and not hard evidence, Egoyan shows us how it is possible for the Turks to deny their involvement in the slaughter.

"Ararat" is a challenging film. I don't think this summary resolves any of the movie's numerous issues, but hopefully it will provide the impetus for you to get out and pick up a copy. Even if you have little interest in watching the film for the deeper issues, check it out for the wonderful acting. The scene where Ali challenges Raffi over the reality of the genocide should not be missed by anyone who appreciates powerfully compelling performances. "Ararat" is a brutal film containing recreations of Turkish atrocities, so it is definitely off limits to the kiddies, but it isn't horrific for the sake of sensationalism. This is a film worth watching more than once (and probably necessary to watch more than once in order to understand it).

Rating:
Summary: Passionately Complex
Review: The Armenian genocide deserves its "Sophie's Choice" but "Ararat" isn't that film. Instead Atom Egoyan makes us confront history as imperfect, frustrating and necessary.
As with all Egoyan film, narration is never taken for granted and we follow several interconnected stories including that of a film-maker producing a straightforward film of Armenian genocide, another of a young man who is interrogated by Canadian immigration, a reflection on the life of Amil Gorky, the great Armenian artist as its retold by a historian who in turn is stalked by a step-daughter who holds the historian responsible for her own father's death.

While grief and loss are often on display in Egoyan's film, those feelings are typically mediated by his presentation of powerful ideas and oblique storytelling. In Ararat, the grief and loss aren't as mediated. Egoyan is part Armenian and the story he tells is personal and heartfelt. That feeling comes through on film and yet it doesn't slop over into easy sentiment or self righteousness. This is a film I would show freshman history majors to help them understand that interpretation, ideas and facts must not be allowed to overwhelm the emotional impact world events have individual lives.

Rating:
Summary: Very one-sided and simplistic depiction of history
Review: I wasn't very impressed with this movie, for several reasons: primarily, it is told from one side only--and tries to paint a very skewed picture of history, with the Armenians as completely helpless victims, and the Turks as inhuman and incompetent. As the movie is made for a primarily North American and European audience, it is clear that Egoyan is trying to play on the emotions and to the religious affinities of the majority of his audience (albeit extremely unsophisticatedly) by indicating to the viewer that the Armenians are Christian (read: good, upstanding, civilized) and the Turks are Muslim (read: bad, corrupt, uncivilized). This simplistic theme continues throughout the movie, as the few Turks that are shown at all, are invariable dark, with foreign accents and males that are made to look (and act) like Hitler (the one exception is the gay lover of Christopher Plummer's son, who is half-Turkish), while all the Armenians have perfect North American accents and are people you and I could easily relate to--just the ordinary Joe (except for the fact that his dad had a habit of picking off Turkish diplomats he didn't like). Secondly, the reference to the Holocaust in WWII is extremely flawed. The events of 1915 depicted in Egoyan's movie were the result of intercommuncal war that took place as the Ottoman Empire was crumbling due to the imperialist ambitions of France, England and Russia at the turn of the century and the desire for the Armenians to have their own nation. Russia was eager to have a piece of Ottoman territory too, so it used the Armenians to try to achieve this. So, the Russians (who already had massacred over 5 million Muslims from the Caucasus--largely with Armenian help, I might add) basically got the Armenians to fight their war for them. Between 4000-6000 Armenians went across the border to Russia to train and arm themselves to mount an offensive with Russian uniforms against the Ottoman Army. There are many many more details that, once read, will enlighten the reader greatly and give them a much more balanced perspective of events of that time. None of this, of course is EVER mentioned in the movie. There are no scenes of Armenian bands and guerrilas torching mosques or massacring entire villages in Anatolia. The death toll of innocent and unarmed Muslims--women, children and old people (as a result of Russian and Armenian armed offensives) was at least as great as the number that the Armenians claim--if not greater. None of this is even given a single mention in the film. Thirdly, I wasn't much impressed by either the casting OR the actors.

For those of you who would like a deeper, more balanced and objective understanding of this particular topic, I point you to some authors who are highly acclaimed historians on an international level, all of whose books can be purchased on Amazon:

1) Bernard Lewis
2) Donald Quaatert
3) Stanfor Shaw
4) Justin McCarthy

Rating:
Summary: Remarkable and Multi-dimensional
Review: This film is a work on many levels dealing with various social and political issues. The movie within a movie concept is successfully executed by Egoyan. There are also numerous talented actors in this film such as the main character David Alpay and even popular singer Charles Aznavour.

It seems as though some reviewers who gave this movie a negative review have not actually seen the movie. These are individuals who attempt to sabotage works dealing with the Armenian Genocide. However, a few Turkish scholars have risked their lives and accepted the Genocide and believe it is the first step to accept their history and actions of their ancestors. Also, contrary to what one reviewer wrote, this movie is based on a HISTORICAL ACCOUNT by the American physician Dr. Clarence Ussher who set up a hospital in Van and witnessed the horrors of Genocide.

The bottom line is this movie is very thought provoking as the New York Times reviewer wrote. This is one of those movies where you will find yourself trying to answer questions long after you've seen the film. Thus, one viewing will not suffice.

Rating:
Summary: Valuable Insight on "Knowing the Truth"
Review: Several plotlines unfold in this movie. All are built around the theme of knowing what happened when outside an event. To understand the parallels being drawn when you first watch the film I respectfully suggest focusing on just two of the plotlines. Juxtapose the main plotline, the perspectives that two native Canadians (one of Turkish descent, the other of Armenian descent) bring to the filming in the present day of a movie about the liquidation by Turks of some number of Armenians and what came before it, with the death of a man and how that death is viewed by that man's wife and daughter. The daughter says the man was essentially driven to death by the wife, the wife says the man died by accident. The moment of the death is depicted in a flashback from a third-person perspective. At the crucial moment, however, the camera pans away and back and we don't know why the man is dead, only that he is dead. As a result both wife and daughter have plausible arguments, but we (and they) will never know the "truth". Just as the film within the film is an attempt to tell but one side's "truth", so do both Canadians, ethnic Turk and ethnic Armenian, adopt positions that suit their ancestral identity and take as their starting point the events that suit their argument, but they will never know the "truth". And meantime two people who are both human beings distance themselves from each other because they cannot live with ambiguity about the past (a past they never experienced to boot). And so: Armenians and Turks are dead. Bosnians and Serbs are dead. Jewish Semites and Arab Semites are dead. Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants are dead. Shall we in this "New World" add to those dead or shall we affirm that we are all one race, the human race. That is the question that Egoyan answers in the affirmative and why I enjoyed this brilliant effort that is at least as deserving of acclaim as Rashomon.

Rating:
Summary: ARARAT is a glowing film
Review: ARARAT is one of the more demanding films by the talented Atom Egoyan and at the same time is one of the more satisfying and literate. Many viewers have commmented on how confusing the film is in its narrative technique, but it is this intricate maze effect of telling a story that for me is its most powerful quality. Perhaps having recently read Peter Balakian's THE BURNING TIGRIS added to the experience of the historical aspect of Egoyan's story: the Armenian Genocide by the Turks is profoundly felt by not only Armenians but by all defenders of human rights and at the same time the Turks utterly deny this incident in history. How genteel of Egoyan to put the whole 'debate' into the form of a movie within a movie. He has contemporary characters (Raffi, a young man searching for the truth to his past incredibly well portrayed by David Alpay, Ani his mother is an Art Historian played to perfection by Arsinee Khanjian, Christopher Plummer is a Customs Agent who is dealing with his own demons, Elias Koteas is an actor asked to play the role of a Turk in the film being directed by Charles Aznavour and just happens to be the gay lover of Christopher Plummer's son). Egoyan has Raffi photograph the few remaining shrines that stand for the evidence of the existence of his lost people while his mother continues to teach about the artist Arshille Gorky who escaped the genocide to move to New York and become established as an exemplary painter but was only able to erase the memories of the genocide by his own suicide. Egoyan constantly shifts from the contemporary story to historical re-enactments as they are being shot as scenes for a film. Yes, there are moments of time warp when as a viewer we are never sure just what is real and what is manufactured on film, but isn't that the main problem with the question of the Armenian Genocide? With quiet intensity Egoyan places us in the shoes of history, of memory, of personal demons, of ethnic and national demons and in doing so he opens our eyes more powerfuly than an ordinary documentary ever could.

Not only is the story superb, but the filming and the acting is absolutley first rate. While the overall story is about despair and sadness, there are moments of ecstatic joy that come when you least expect them. Some fragments of the story are resolved, some are left for further introspection. This film is an extraordinary achievement.

Rating:
Summary: What about the Kurds?
Review: Now one think that makes me really think that this movie is propaganda is the fact, that they don't speak about the Kurdish people in south-east Turkey.
How many Turks lived in Van or Ararat at that time? I think not one did. Even today there are no Turks in Van or Ararat.
Of course there were Turkish soldiers, but not that much. So the movie just tries to blame everything on the Turks and hints to the actual "Kurdish-Problem", like the Turks murdered Armenians and now they are murdering Kurdish people... same old story... it's just stupid...

Rating:
Summary: Another brilliant film from the genius Egoyan
Review: Atom Egoyan's films didn't hit the mainstream audience until his last two releases, "Felicia's Journey" and "The Sweet Hereafter." I loved both of those films, but I must be honest and say that I was a little bit worried that Egoyan would start producing big Hollywood hits. I should have had more faith in him. "Ararat" is obviously another film that Egoyan feels deeply about. It's not intended to be a big box office hit, and yet it's one of the best new films I've seen so far this year.

"Ararat" is in many ways, a typical Egoyan film--it's complicated, and yet satisfying. Watching the film resembles working one's way through a mathematical equation, and once again Egoyan shows his obsession with video and camera and uses these devices to move the plot subtly forward.

"Ararat" is the story of Ani--an Art History professor--of Armenian descent (played by Arsinee Khanjian), and her son, Raffi. Ani lectures specifically about the Armenian painter, Gorky, and she is an expert on his work. Ani's relationship with Raffi is complicated by Raffi's relationship with his stepsister, Celia. Celia blames her father's death on Ani. Ani is solicited to help with the background material for a film directed by Edward Saroyan (Charles Azanour). The historical film deals with the Armenian genocide orchestrated by the Turks in 1915. The painter Gorky survived the genocide, and the director wants Ani to authenticate his film.

The film is full of parallels. Raffi and Celia both lost their fathers in somewhat mysterious circumstances. Questions remain about their deaths just as questions remain about the authenticity of the genocide. Questions about the past are never answered to the satisfaction of those who pose the questions--especially if the answer is something no one wants to hear. Ani questions the plot manipulations and liberties taken with the truth about the genocide (the director casts Gorky in a heroic role). An actor cast as the Turkish villain Jevdet Bey (Elias Koteas) defends the Turks off the screen while torturing Armenians on screen. Christopher Plummer plays a tired customs officer who toys with the essence of truth.

I think it was a brilliant move on Egoyan's part to show the genocide only as a film within a film. Some of the scenes were quite violent, and "Ararat" may not be for the very squeamish. The fact that the genocide occurred is a given--the issue is how the survivors deal with it one or two generations later. How distorted are the facts? Is it possible to present the truth? How do we integrate this awful part of history into our lives? These are the questions Egoyan asks, and the result is an intensely moving film. I had a very difficult time getting my hands on a copy of this DVD. I pre-ordered it from a film site several months prior to its release, but finally bought a copy through an Amazon seller. The DVD also includes a scene-by scene commentary from the director--displacedhuman.

Rating:
Summary: demonizing the Turks, again and again
Review: After Midnight Express where Greeks play Turks and can not even speak Turkish properly, this is yet another attempt made by Armenian diaspora in the USA to scream out loud their hatred for Turks, futile exercise in self-pity.

Like in any other hard-core propaganda film, good guys (Armenians or Hay) are shown to be cute, fully justified but the bad guys (Turks) as truly bad, unhumanly evil. Here we see plenty of pure-blood Armenians, slick, speaking any language (Armenian, French or English), educated, artistic, you name it. They are so cool. But the Turkish side is represented by just one person with lines, half-Turk, repulsive, miserable drunk, an actor who plays even more repulsive character.

It's a movie about making a movie which already raises a red flag to me: if you have anything to say, go ahead and say it, don't speak about saying it. Or like Tuco put it in "Good, bad and ugly", if you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.

But the authors just don't have any material to talk about, what they need - they need to curse those bad-bad Turks, paint them in all black and leave it. They show no historical evidence, only refer to a few "eyewitness accounts" written by who knows who and when. By seriuos historical documents, at that time of the WWI, about 600,000 Armenians perished and 2.5 million Turks did too. It was truly bloody time, everyone was scavenging, stealing, killing, raping... Armenians try to push the idea that there was some premeditated plan to exterminate them, they jack up the numbers and distort facts.

But the logic stands against their propaganda. In this very movie we can see brave Armenian "freedom fighters" (I call that bandits) shooting Turks dead one by one. Now tell me looking at this, how the Turks could possibly kill that many Armenians without beling killed? That's right, that's why this movie authors totally leave out the old Ottoman documents that talk about Armenian gangs ("freedom fighters") who used to kill and rape Turkish villages to extinction. Now, what about those "freedom fighters?" After all as a couple characters in this movie clearly state that they all were Turkish citizens under protection of the Turkey, so what kind of freedom these "freedom fighters" were fighting for? Freedom from Turkey? Well, if so how come there was no threat from the Armenian "freedom fighters" for the stability of the state? Also, the Armenian characters in the movie say that there was no war between the Turks and Armenians, how this now fits in the picture?

Another parallel with "Midnight Express" - one of the Armenians goes to Turkey, brings heroin to the US, the US customs catches him and lets him go. How ridiculous is that? And the guy's girlfriend goes to jail for peddling drugs. There's certainly some fascination with drugs in that community who pushes this propaganda.

Another question is, what anyone would need such movie for? For entertainment, there is nothing to entertain you with. One should be paid to make sense out of this plot that jumps back and forth between one movie (about today's days) to another (about 1915 as the Armenian propaganda sees it). Not to forget about holocausts? Oh, don't we have enough materials about this one from the Jews who jacked up their estimates of victim numbers from a few hundred thousands to 8 million and then back to 4 million? We have "Schindler's list", "The life is beautiful", "Pianist", isn't it enough already? The only purpose I see is to re-kindle old hatred and keep it going.

I traveled around the world, spoke both to Turks and Armenians. Turks usually just shrug off the Armenian accusations with a few facts from history and move along. Armenians can spend hours talking their hatred for the Turks. Many Armenians now live in Turkey, there is an Armenian church (Christian of course) in Istanbul surrounded by majestic mosques, there is Russian and Greek Orthodox churches (Christian of course), Turks have no problems with that, neither the Greeks or Russians do.

And that Hitler's quote, it's made up. First it was written on the leaflets of young Armenian activists, in Hayots Lezu (Armenian language) then translated to German and attributed to Hitler. I found 3 different versions of that quote in German which means, it's made up. Search the Net yourself for words "Genozid, Hitler, Armenier, heute" and you'll see it. Maybe you will find more variants. Too bad no search engine supports Armenian, that would be interesting.