Le voyage au Kâfiristân

I thought this film was terrific given the information the writers, directors, and actors had to work with. After seeing the film and feeling disappointed in its lack of content, I had to research Annemarie Schwarzenbach. There isn't much first-hand biographical information. Most of what Annemarie Schwarzenbach wrote about her life in her journals was destroyed by her mother for its "vulgar" content. One can only infer what happened on that trip between these women. The movie, once I found this information, is like reading a broken journal. Pieces are obviously missing. Scenes cut just before something important may happen. Long parts of the trip are edited. I think because of this, Journey to Kafiristan is one of my top five favorite movies of all time.

We went to the movie with a group because the play we were going to was cancelled. It is without doubt one of the worst movies ever. It is not that i don't like cult-movies I do. But nothing happens in the film. One does not feel any connection with the characters whatsoever. endless times without dialog. And the car. How do thay carry a huge tent and beds chairs and clothing for every day in that car? It is a two seater! I have to say however the scenery is beautiful, but not in a movie, the director should have made a photoshoot of the movie, so that we could skip about 80 minutes of useless time in with nothing happens anyway.

I would not recommend it, as it is a waste of your time

This film is probably not to everyone's taste. Yes, it is slow, yes, the plot is paper thin, but ... it is a film to day-dream about, it transports the willing viewer to far-away lands on a wonderful journey made by two women on the eve of WWII. The exteriors provide a nice backdrop to the inevitable journeys of self-discovery of the two protagonists. The fact that the tension between tends to stay below the surface is never fully expressed only adds rather than distracts from the interest. In fact, I would say the subtle way in which possible storylines are suggested rather than made explicit only enhances the movie, and this is reinforced by its lack of closure. Strongly recommended.

Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.

Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic.

I quite liked this movie. From what I read before seeing it, I expected more beautiful scenery. But the Dubinis clearly wanted to show us a psychological journey more than a physical one, so the camera glides over the most picture-perfect hills, ruins etc, only to swiftly return to our actresses. And this, I think, is good: The film could have become a National Geographic style documentary and that would have left the interesting topic of what moves these two very different characters, who are doing something much out of the ordinary in the 1940s.

Rather then spell things out for you, the directors choose to hint at feelings, to leave dialogs uncompleted and to move on at the point where you would expect a conclusion to be reached. There are pros and cons to that: There is no preferred interpretation and the actresses can use expressions and body language to suggest much more than could have been put into words (and Jeanette Hain is very good at that). But the film seems to move slowly because nothing unexpected can happen this way and in the end, it all was a bit *too* subtle for me.

This said, there are plenty of very moving scenes. Especially the flirtatious side of Annemarie gets well depicted (the dance at the ambassador's house) and at the same time it stays constrained and half-hidden, as you would expect for a woman in that period of time.

The real dramatic moment of the film comes near the end, when the women have to part their ways. Even then, things are very quiet and stilted. Is this a flaw of the Dubinis' film or did they want to show an era in which you didn't discuss your most intimate feelings with others?

I really do not know the answer, I think the film could have improved from a little more ``say what you mean and say it mean''. But it still ranks as a good 8 on my scale.