उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Almost everybody talks about the film's beauty and the difficulty of its understanding. It's true. But the difficulty is not from the director's pretension or other shortcomings.

When this film was first released in Soviet Union, it was shown in third-rated theaters and with limited number of prints. It was not an original version of Sergo Parajanov, because it was re-edited by another director(director's version is said to have been lost for ever, after frequent showing in professionals' circle).

The film's title was also changed--"The Color of Pomegranates" was the title which the administrators of USSR's cinema policy selected to deny "biographical" character of the film. In fact, we can see at the very first title that says "This film is not a biographical film about Sayat Nova...". In short, they didn't admit such an extraordinary approach in making a film about historical important persons.

Parajanov's artistic intention apparently went too far, ahead of his time. He wanted to identify the classic poet with himself through the magical play of cinematography, multi-layered mirror-like structure made of image and sound. "Sayat Nova"--it's me", wrote the director in his screenplay by his own hand.

Soviet censorship may have cut some shots or shortened some episodes, to make meanings and intention,which originally were clear,remain ambiguous. For example, Sayat Nova's anxiety for his Christian homeland threatened by Islamic enemies(this theme is clearly developed in the film's scenario recently published in Russian).Parajanv, an artist indifferent to politic issues, didn't think that religious theme, as well as aesthetic "anomaly", might be very dangerous for Soviet directors after the end of "time of thaw". Thus the film could'n be a full realization of authors's original scenario.

Nevertheless,the difficult situation didn't distort the film's concept and vision as a whole. "Sayat Nova" is still brilliant art of work,and, as many masterpieces of Cinema, will overcome Time by its beauty.

The Color of Pomegranates (made in 1968, and also released under the name Sayat Nova) is not really a conventional movie. It is more like a series of tableaux "inspired" by 18th century Armenian poet Nova. It is nonetheless fascinating, and should be required viewing for anybody interested not only in Armenian culture but in cinema in general (or, if you wish, the visual arts). This movie has inspired many artists, including some music videos (admittedly not among the arts' highest form), including REM's "Losing my Religion" and Deep Forest's "Sweet Lullaby. There is a heavy homo erotic subtext to many of the tableaux, and as a matter of fact, Paradjanov would later spent several years in jail in the Soviet Union accused, among other things, of homosexuality. Though released under international pressure, it would take him another 16 years to make another movie, shortly before his untimely death in 1990.

The absolute 'must see'...no movie will ever look the same after seeing this one. This is the alphabet of understanding the art of motion pictures. Before I saw this movie, I thought that movies can be fun, sad, yearning or heart-warming, that they are entertainment for heart, mind or fantasy, that they can have some message, teach you something, that they can improve your morals, that they can hit great technical achievement, but I never realized that movies belong to the family of real arts and that they can hit into deepest,the most pure, the least understanding parts of human soul. Pictures that are changing, moving, pulsating, travel in its own rhythm with its very own sounds and music- that is the art of motion pictures, that is the art of what we call "The Movies". And what is more natural and more appealing to human kind then sense of movement, breathing, living? I can only thank to Sergei Parajanov for helping me to understand this, for opening my "third eye" for movies.

For those who need an American equivalent to compare to, it is similar to the work of Brakhage or Anger, the American experimental filmmakers.

It is not Hollywood in that the movie does not rely on a plot, although there is a semblance of one present in this particular movie. The life and poetry of Sayat Nova, the great Medieval Armenian Troubadour, albeit abstractly, is the basis for all the images presented. It is also not Hollywood in that there is no dialog. The interest rests in the unforgettable and arresting images, lovingly created and edited together in the manner of Eisenstein. So in this regard it has more in common with silent film.

Yes, this is an abstract film. Yes, it is pretentious. But what is wrong with that? Prtensious is, after all, what most call something that they have a hard time understanding. Make no mistake, this is an art film to the extreme. A film whose primary concern is not to entertain, but rather to express Parajanov's personal view of Sayat Nova,and more importantly, to preserve to film the medieval Armenian culture which was almost completely eradicated in the Armenian Massacre of 1915 at the hands of the Turkish Empire. This film is historically important for this reason alone. The fact that Parajanov was imprisoned by the Russian Government for not conforming to the strict Social Realist code of film underscores this point. This film was a slap in the face to Communist Russia which wanted to erase the old traditions.

There is nothing much you have to get to enjoy this film, except to marvel at images inspired by an ancient little known culture. There is a lot of beauty in these images which probably seem so foreign and alien to Westerners. That is the point. That is the effect that I believe Parajanov is after. Those that don't get it either lack patience and subtlety, or are under the mistaken assumption that good films must follow the American Hollywood script model. The latter would be making the same mistake as the Russians who put Parajanov in the Gulag. No one who as seen even a bit of this film, could deny that it is unforgettable. And that is what to me makes a good film.

Unlike most modern films, Color of Pomegranates does not abandon the subtle, pensive quality of silent film; it is actually a stunning evolution of silent film.

Here Parajanov documents an almost mythical culture lost long ago to history. I believe it is ancient Armenia. It is methodically presented as a slow series of visual artifacts. Each artifact is a complete scene composed foremost of an authentic visual setting, to which is added the hypnotic effect of some simple motion and ambient sounds, the source of which are often not even in view. Together these hypnotic scenes slowly mesmerize and transport the viewer to the mood and feel of a lost culture.

Besides scenes of ordinary ancient existence, which are amazing enough to see, compelling rituals are presented and left as purely mysterious, earthy, and spiritual, which the viewer can only struggle to explain.

The film is also a treasure of authentic clothing and costumes you may otherwise never see.

Color of Pomegranates serves as a surprising unspoken testament to this lost, ancient culture.

I rented this as a movie on DVD, which thankfully seems easy to find in the USA. I highly recommend the DVD, as it also offered a commented version by Parajanov himself, and an incredible interview with Parajanov, before he sadly passed away, in which he describes some of his amazing, tragic life and his epic struggles to create and release his work, most of which, including Color of Pomegranates, was banned or censored in the former Soviet Union. His years WASTED in damn Soviet prison are a true black mark on humanity, and one can only wonder what other fantastic work he might have created had he been free. His own story appears to be worthy of one of his many great films, as it is biblically tragic yet unquestioningly triumphant.

One of the great films in all cinema, virtually incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with Armenian or Georgian history and culture. Whatever the dubious politics in enjoying a subversive political work as an aesthetic spectacle, there is much to astonish. The nominal story concerns an 18th century Armenian poet/national hero/martyr, but Paradjanov rejects biographical narrative in favour of a montage stream of religious, political, cultural, sexual imagery, composition and allegory unparalelled in the history of the medium, although fans of Von Sternberg will not be bemused.

THE COLOR OF POMEGRANATES (Armenian, Նռան գույնը) -- AKA "Sayat Nova", Viewed at 2014 Yerevan Golden Apricot IFF Director, Sergei Parajanov, 1968. RT 79 minutes. Languages of the poetry: Armenian, Geogian and Azeri Turkish 32E0CC90-FBBD-4A04-9EF6-1C87A431AD42

Generally regarded as one of the greatest masterpieces of the 20th century, the "Color of the Pomegranates" is a dazzling pictographic biography of the famous 18th century Armenian troubadour Sayat Nova (King of Song) revealing the poet's life more through the visualization of his poetry than a conventional narration of the events of his life. Or, one might even say that Parajanov simply used the poetry of Sayat as a launching pad to trip out on his own kind of unique cinematic poetry. However you look at it the result is a memorable film experience.

The eleventh annual installment of the Yerevan International Film Festival opened last night with a grandiose red carpet invitational gala at the Yerevan opera house and the screening of a digitally restored print of this magnificent but all too rarely seen film, a one of a kinder that resists classification. The Color of Pomegranates is in structure a metaphoric biography of the many sided prolific Armenian poet, musician, courtier, and eventually monk, Ashug Sayat-Nova, (King of Song) revealing the stages of his fantastic life visually and poetically rather than literally. The film is presented as a virtually silent movie with active tableaux depicting Sayat's life in eight chapters: Childhood, Youth, The Court of the prince, The Monastery, The Dream, Old Age, The Angel of Death and Death. There are sounds and music and occasional singing but almost no dialogue. Each chapter is indicated by a title card and framed through both the director's imagination and Sayat Nova's poems. Georgian actress Sofiko Chiaureli plays six roles in the film, both male and female.

Among other things this film celebrates the survival of Armenian culture in the face of oppression and persecution. Sayat was executed and beheaded when he refused to renounce his Armenian Christianity before conquering Persian invaders. Visually luscious with many images that are highly charged such as blood-red juice spilling from a cut pomegranate onto a cloth and forming a stain in the shape of the boundaries of the Ancient kingdom of Armenia -- dyers lifting planks of wool out of vats in the colors of the national flag, and so forth ... This film is on many critical lists of the greatest films of all time. A dazzling festival opener. Parajanov, who was a maverick Soviet film director working often in the Ukraine and Georgia was constantly hounded by the Soviet establishment, but he is a national hero here in Armenia with a museum devoted entirely to him alone. His abstract non- linear films were regarded as provocations by the Soviet censors who couldn't even understand them but assumed that they must be subversive because Parajanov himself absolutely refused to toe the party line in his private or artistic life. As a result he had to spent much time in Soviet jails which limited his total output, but all of his films are regarded as landmarks of one kind or another and will all be shown here, an unusual opportunity to catch up with the rarely seen works of a little known cinema master.

Sergei Paradjanov's The Color of Pomegranates has to be One of the most oddest films I have ever seen. I felt confused after watching this film, although this must be a typical response to most viewers who watch films that do not have a standard linear plot. The Color of Pomegranates originally interested me after I saw it listed in Time Out's list of the 100 most significant films of the century. The viewer who may be interested in this film may want to do some background first on the 16th century Armenian poet and troubador Sayat Nova who is depicted in this film. The movie is not necessarily a biography of his life but a look into his own personal world. Viewing this film will prove to be quite a challenge for the average film fanatic. Trying to understand the meaning behind each symbol proved easier for me after I researched his background. If you don't like movies that make you think this film is probably not for you.

sayat nova (colour of pomegranates)is i believe one of the supreme masterpieces of cinema.from the opening title the music (armenian blues)? the beautiful images,the study of the life & death of the poet, is unforgettable,it does not matter if one knows no little about the subject of medieval armenian poetry.those ravishing scenes of beautiful people gliding across the screen are so moving & that music!for a film to be a masterpiece it is not necessary to understand it just fall under the spell of a film like no other ,paradjanov was a genius.

I found this film visually interesting, would have perhaps been more interested in the subject matter if I had been familiar with the life and work of the poet. My viewing companions found the film boring, for although there is motion there in not much ACTION, (not to mention plot,) and the acting stylised such that the actors' affects are uniformly flat, as if they were portraying painted ikons rather than living beings.

A beautiful, moving, lyrical movie. This allegorical tale is visually stunning and at times terrifying. Each scene is like a painting and the colors and costumes alone are worth the viewing. The movie may be abstract but the payoff for anyone with a decent attention span is wonderful. The soundtrack is equally gorgeous, and the movie is utterly captivating.

This is a Soviet arthouse film from writer-director Sergei Parajanov. Ostensibly about the life of medieval Armenian poet and troubadour Sayat Nova (which was the film's original title), this is instead a series of tableaux meant to visualize the "mood and feeling" behind the artist's work, as well as the Armenian people and their cultural heritage. It's a series of brief, carefully framed shots, with some movement within the shot but none by the camera, that look like paintings come to vibrantly-colored life. There is no narrative at all, and nothing in the way of a traditional biopic. It's unusual, a continuation of the style Parajanov demonstrated with his earlier Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (1964). If you know what you're in store for, then this can be enjoyed as an artistic experience, but anyone put off by non-traditional filmmaking will have very little tolerance for this. Its rather brief 79-minute runtime helps soften the experience, as well.

This film also features several sheep getting butchered, and a half dozen or so chickens beheaded and their flailing bodies cast upon the floor around the main character.

This film may be genius, it may be the best thing ever to be put to screen but I hang my head in shame and tell you. I don't get it. I was left utterly perplexed by this from start to finish and doubt I will ever fully understand what it was going for. I will give it credit for it's beautiful cinematography but in terms of acting and story I couldn't really give any meaningful analysis. I won't say anything more in fear of embarrassing myself but as I have no idea what I was watching I have decided to go down the middle and give this a 5/10, it deserves that at least for how good it looked. If you understand what even one scene here is supposed to represent then you're a cleverer person than me.

How do you go from rich cinematic intuition to stifled ceremonial posing? I don't get it. Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors is one of the most enthralling films I have seen, it's just an endlessly spinning dance between the camera and a mystical world of song and suffering, spun and diffused into air. It rested on a profound realization that life is both real and has the mechanism of dreams.

It was a multifaceted world of many allusions but all of it was deftly integrated into the experience, you didn't need separate keys. This on the other hand is a notoriously difficult work, for a simple reason; you need a bunch of keys, and most of those are outside the film (it suffered at the hands of Soviet censors, no doubt, my guess however is that Parajanov's authorial version would operate on the same principles).

It is everything that grates at me as outmoded and needless obfuscation in cinematic narrative. Allegory. Symbolism (the nagging notion that the pomegranates ought to 'stand for something'). Cryptic dealings.

Instead of opening up our gaze to a world, it reduces to a set of paintings, supposedly that you have to decode. It is very much a presentation of cultural history, but at the expense of all the distinctly cinematic advantages of the medium.

This mode survives in a way in Peter Greenaway. But Greenaway works from Hamlet as his main reference, so all you need to know about the play is usually inside the play-within. This has no framework. It isn't the stuff that life is made from - it's only the stuff that art is.

"Sayat Nova" (also called "The Color of Pomegranates") is probably the best example of a movie that is not for people with short attention spans. You see, there is almost no dialogue in it; the movie is mostly about imagery. You will most likely get completely befuddled if you do not know the subject matter (it's about Armenian poet Sayat Nova). As for me, I found Sergey Paradjanov's use of poetic imagery quite fascinating. And just as an extra thing: that woman playing with the lace was actually kind of hot the way that Natalie Wood was. But my point is that "Sayat Nova" will not appeal to people who sit around watching movies directed by Michael Bay or produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

I did not know the story of the poet, when I watched this film. I read it later and discovered that I had guessed it right. So, for all the people saying that this film has no storyline--it is there. It is not conventional though. I'd recommend it for people who love film and art, especially abstract art. It is visually stunning, hypnotizing, with series of shots that can be compared to paintings. The play on rituals, costumes,history, is amazing. All of those are director's interpretations of the everyday objects, clothing, sounds... It can be weary if a viewer does not like experimental, abstract art and is looking for an obvious storyline. Also, knowing some facts about the poet Sayat Nova would take the guessing part away (like, oh, I guess this part means that he went to the monastery) and will help the viewer focus on the film more. However, as I said, I watched with no prior research and still loved it.

Time has not been kind to this film. Not yet 40 years old but the stock is worn down and the colours faded, with the reds and the blacks standing out. Which lends the images -symbolic, poignant and full of atmosphere- an extra dimension, since it renders the idea of films of the beginning of cinema. As a kind of bridge towards the era of this "hallucinatory epic account of the life of 18th century Armenian national poet Sayat Nova". It remains a powerful and very beautiful film, not like any other. Time has been good to this film... "I don't want to found any school", Paradjanov said. Nevertheless he has set fantastic examples.

Sergei Parajanov's film is, according to the IMDb, a surrealistic biography of Sayat Nova.

A little research on the Internet tells me that Sayat Nova was an 18th century Armenian poet, monk, and troubador who played the ashugh, a long-necked lute. With that in mind, I approached this movie with the intention to discover the images of his life, with a particular thought to looking for purple-red images and pomegranates.

There are plenty of those in what is a long series of brief quotations from his poetry and tableaux vivantes. I came quickly to realize that what I was looking at was a movie in the antique illustrated text style, images drawn from contemporary artwork and surviving architecture of the era; much of it was shot in monasteries and towns in Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. They seemed to me exotic and frequently beautiful, but I soon began to question what I was seeing. Was there much of a pattern to this, or was I suffering from apophenia, the tendency to see patterns when none exists? Worse, was I trying to see apophenic patterns imposed by Parajanov which I lacked the context to see?

Ultimately I concluded, like many before me, that this was an experimental work. Such works, at length, are exhausting. They may point the way towards technique for following workers to use in their movies, but which I find unsatisfying in pure form, like drinking 180% alcohol. If your intention is to get drunk quickly, it works just fine, but it draws the moisture from your mouth and gullet. I can and do admire the dedication of Parajanov and his co-creators, but it's exhausting and leaves me utterly confused about the work in its entirety, despite the beauty of many of the images.

Hauntingly beautiful, and not just visually. Fantastically evocative music. Don't bother with comments from the USA on this page, in fact can you all please stick to reviewing the second rate 'movies' you understand and stop cluttering up these pages. Thanks! Basically, a stream of gorgeous artefacts, clothes, scenes, and people, accompanied by poetry.

A super-stylized, surreal biography of Armenian troubadour Sayat Nova, whose life is depicted through non-narrative amalgamations of poetic images.

Five minutes were cut (mainly due to religious censorship) for release in the Soviet Union beyond Armenia. It was refused a license for export outside of the Soviet Union and was withdrawn after a two months circulation in the Soviet Union. Allegedly those five minutes remain lost in a vault somewhere, unfortunately, and the current DVD releases are good but not great in terms of picture quality.

At first I thought for sure Alejandro Jodorowsky was influenced by this film. In many respects they seem similar. But because of the way the timeline works out, now I wonder if it was even possible for him to have seen it... could their exploration of religious symbolism be coincidental?

It's remarkable to me that anything the least bit different from its antecedents in cinema's long history is deemed a "masterpiece" - often with little regard to the work's actual merits. I think it says a lot that whatever new "paradigm" Sergei Parajanov created with The Color of Pomegranates was essentially followed by no one (save maybe the cinematic-sedative known as Bela Tarr).

The final result of Parajanov's artistic labors makes Tarkovsky look like a run-and-gun popcorn flick - it's a series of fixed-camera tableaux that dare the viewer not to stab out their eyes with a pair of yarn needles. Ultimately, this sort of thing is fodder for the "get it" crowd - the sort of people who will promptly type hosannas to its dubious merits for the expressed purpose of lording their "intellectual prowess" in the face of the plebs.

Enjoy, kids. I'm gonna watch Under Siege again...

This movie is rather difficult to understand unless you know some background. Those people who don't want to think while watching a movie should not watch this. Some say that there is no plot but if you read about the movie background you will see a plot. My advice is to read about it before watching the movie. Although this film has almost no action, it is very beautiful with many references towards cultural traditions and rituals. It's probably not the movie to watch on a sleepover with your friends, but I recommend watching it when you have time to sit and think. The beginning, I must admit, was rather confusing and therefore boring, but if I had read some background previously, I would have found it more comprehensive. Otherwise, the filming is absolutely fascinating and very beautiful - it's less of a movie than a set of paintings.