I enjoyed the film's thoughtfulness. There was a lot of symbolism (a lot) and metaphors used in the film. Egoyan also used wonderful transitions form one scene to the next which made me admire his creativity.
I thought the movie was very fair to Turks. It wasn't a simple history movie, it was about the complex relationships people have with one another and within themselves. There were many occurrences that were told through various eyes, and we saw how the story would manifest depending on who told it. I believe this was the central idea of the film.
The movie has this focus on a woman's hands in a circular manner throughout the film, it begins with a mothers hands and ends with focus on a mother's hands embracing her child.
Reading many reviews here, I notice that the "bad reviews" seem to only critique the historical aspects of the film, and miss these wonderfully meticulous attention given to the artistic aspects of the film.
It really upsets me that reviewers are so shallow in their film watching...sorry. I feel bad for them because they miss all these profound themes that Egoyan conveys: ongoing theme of "parent and child" conflicts, truth as a matter of perception, surviving travesty in one's life, finding meaning in death, vindication, and redemption....this film was sooo throughout....
Most of the negative reviews are based on biases (as are the positive ones by the way) but the few critiques of the film as an art, are spot on. It's not a perfect film, but how can any film as complex as this one be "perfect?"
Don't use science to bash an artistic gem. --- that's mine, but feel free to use it ;)
Although, I believe Egoyan, personally thinks what was done by the Ottoman government to the Armenians in 1915 was Genocide. He showed how the Turkish government as well as modern Turks might believe otherwise, how it would be so hard for modern Turks to believe that their ancestors could do such malice.
It was not just a one sided documentary-type movie. The movie shows the modern views and beliefs of both Turks and Armenians. Egoyan is at his usual best with multipler perspectives and the back and forth timeline in the movie.
The one thing the film was lacking, was some sort of historical background to the Genocide. I believe this is the central reason it was not a huge hit. While the movie is flawless in its acting and direction, it is very esoteric. There should have either been some sort of epilogue or some kind of introduction to the Genocide, because otherwise the film just made it seem like Turks were just raping and murdering, but why? And how? "How could they hate us so much?" This needed to be addressed at the beginning of the film. But nonetheless, Arart is brilliant as far as movie making goes.
In my humble opinion.
I thought the movie was very fair to Turks. It wasn't a simple history movie, it was about the complex relationships people have with one another and within themselves. There were many occurrences that were told through various eyes, and we saw how the story would manifest depending on who told it. I believe this was the central idea of the film.
The movie has this focus on a woman's hands in a circular manner throughout the film, it begins with a mothers hands and ends with focus on a mother's hands embracing her child.
Reading many reviews here, I notice that the "bad reviews" seem to only critique the historical aspects of the film, and miss these wonderfully meticulous attention given to the artistic aspects of the film.
It really upsets me that reviewers are so shallow in their film watching...sorry. I feel bad for them because they miss all these profound themes that Egoyan conveys: ongoing theme of "parent and child" conflicts, truth as a matter of perception, surviving travesty in one's life, finding meaning in death, vindication, and redemption....this film was sooo throughout....
Most of the negative reviews are based on biases (as are the positive ones by the way) but the few critiques of the film as an art, are spot on. It's not a perfect film, but how can any film as complex as this one be "perfect?"
Don't use science to bash an artistic gem. --- that's mine, but feel free to use it ;)
Although, I believe Egoyan, personally thinks what was done by the Ottoman government to the Armenians in 1915 was Genocide. He showed how the Turkish government as well as modern Turks might believe otherwise, how it would be so hard for modern Turks to believe that their ancestors could do such malice.
It was not just a one sided documentary-type movie. The movie shows the modern views and beliefs of both Turks and Armenians. Egoyan is at his usual best with multipler perspectives and the back and forth timeline in the movie.
The one thing the film was lacking, was some sort of historical background to the Genocide. I believe this is the central reason it was not a huge hit. While the movie is flawless in its acting and direction, it is very esoteric. There should have either been some sort of epilogue or some kind of introduction to the Genocide, because otherwise the film just made it seem like Turks were just raping and murdering, but why? And how? "How could they hate us so much?" This needed to be addressed at the beginning of the film. But nonetheless, Arart is brilliant as far as movie making goes.
In my humble opinion.