Ararat

The high frequency of attacks on this film as being 'proArmenian propaganda' is a testament to the power of the movie. The historical accuracy or moral culpability of the Turks vs. the Armenians in this conflict is not within my knowledge base to judge absolutely, nor that of most of the posters on IMDB, I suspect, so I will just judge this as a movie.

Egoyan has managed the trick of avoiding a simple tearjerker black hat white hat polemic like Mel Gibson's The Patriot (or Braveheart or Passion of the Christ or We Were Soldiers or Chicken Run or....) or even 'Schindler's List' by the technique of distancing the audience to one remove, by making his film actually about an Armenian-Canadian filmmaker making a film about the Armenian Holocaust. Obviously, 'Ararat' still manages to stir up powerful emotions, but by also examining the responses of the film cast and crew and their loved ones and others with whom they come into contact the film attains a more mature and introspective value.

A film within a film within a film that plays out through a myriad of interconnected stories sewn into a giant multi-colored tapestry. The so called "Armenian holocaust" is the fabric from which director Egoyan spins his narrative, and this event so heavily laden with emotional baggage, becomes almost impossible to approach with intellectual objectivity. The lines between fact and fiction are constantly blurred as in a scene where the protagonist walks onto a movie set about the "holocaust" and one of the characters scolds her, not as an actor, but as a very real character from that time. At times this constant commingling loses focus, but Egoyan's heartfelt attempt to bring back the dead through his art imitating art approach, succeeds surprisingly well. Although the "holocaust" is shown graphically, Egoyan is aware that we connect most deeply with that to which we can all relate, and this is shown right from the start as an artist attempts to transfer his childhood memories of murdered loved ones to a painter's canvas; the details of a mothers dress . . . the skin of a mothers hand . . . her fingers knitting a quilt. The vivid colors and simple reality of that hand are so compelling they can reach out across decades of despair to caress the forehead, reduce fever, and impart a sense of belonging - a reason for being. From this inauspicious beginning, Egoyan is able to arrive at a much greater truth: the inherent need for human beings to believe in something - whether or not that belief is grounded in reality or can be proved scientifically. Finally, ARATAT concludes with a simple truth that is just as powerful: the immeasurable but often neglected joy at being able to look upon our loved ones and to hold them in an embrace of life.

This is a very flawed movie by a well-regarded director.

One major problem is the star-role presence of his ubiquitous (in his films) wife, who can't act well and simply cannot use her voice expressively or effectively. Her monotonic droning, in film after film, is irritating.

Another is that he doesn't have the directorial chops to film in an epic style such as the Armenian battle scenes require.

The lopsided voting pattern here seems to be the result of ethnocentric ballot-box stuffing. All those "10"s could only mean that thousands of Egoyan's compatriots have invaded the board and voted politically rather than esthetically or rationally.

I really liked this movie. I've read review's by Berardinelli, Ebert, NYTimes, and Wash Post, and they are unduly critical, possibly based on the director's capabilities. However, I feel that the characters and the story interweaved masterfully, and that the relationship of Christopher Plummer and his gay son are an interesting parallel with the intolerance of the Turk's (majority Muslim's) and the Armenian's (minority Christian's); Also, the way that Raffi carried his hatred second-hand and that hatred got even more trumped up with the Elias Koteas current-day character was effective in showing how these clashes can sustain over generations upon generations.

Another superb aspect of the film was how the cinematic production within the movie acted as the segway between the current and past events because the actors are also characters in the "main" movie; that's a structural piece of "real" cinematic mastery.

At the first time when I saw `Ararat', I was strongly impressed. To say the truth there were some parts of the film which were ununderstandable for me, after I watched that movie for several times and could understand it at all and create my own viewpoint.The scenario was a real chaos, and the characters were not chosen right. The example of this is Raffi (a puny guy). Finally, I think Egoyan tried to introduce genocide in some way that the audience that knows nothing about armenians and armenian genocide could understand and be sorry for armenians. However, I don't think he really succeeded in this stuff, because Egoyan created this film from the standpoint turks are bad human kind. It's wrong in some points. I agree that at that time of history, there was an awfull religion-fanaticism and turks did awfull things, but their generation is not as responsible for that as we suppose. On the other hand I am sure there was a real genocide and generally all armenians are sure, cause of our ancecstors stories. And I am sure no one could socialise with the people who could do that. However I am not going to create my future on the idea there was an armenian genocide and turks are murders. This is a wrong point of view. Of course, there is a pain and the pain will always be there in the armenian-man's heart, as our mothers were raped, our fathers were killed, our brothers and sisters were procured from our mothers abdomen and killed not even born. But armenians should live by the future, not by the past and so must do turks. Noone is guilty, maybe just some persons who were alive at that period of time but not now.