I have hesitated to see this film for many reasons, some might be obvious but others might not. I watched it on Starz the other night. I had questioned whether to go ahead and view or instead watch "All or Nothing" by one of the cinema's most intriquing directors, Mike Leigh, on another cable network. But, for better or worse, I am glad I saw this film. For starters, I have always been an admirer of Atom Egoyan. I feel he was snubbed, and should have been a best director Oscar nominee for "The Sweet Hereafter" (1997). I think he is very brave for making this film for surely even within the Armenian community there are many political povs about this issue and about how they should feel about it. I will refrain from getting into the politics of the subject matter of "Ararat" and into my own personal view about this controversy which is very much riddled in red tape for reasons I understand all too painfully well. Sadly, the rest of the world probably never will. Except, I will say, that the problem is two-fold. One, there is the Armenian conflict that Turkey and Turkish people do not accept or have outright distorted their view of history. Second, there is the reality that Turkey and the Turkish culture is very much hated, despised and oppressed in the West for reasons that partially stem from this issue as well as many others. I challenge any of you to go to a Blockbuster, or any other video store and try to find a Turkish film. I am 99 percent you will not find one even though the list of outstanding Turkish film directors is one which includes the likes of Yilmaz Guney, the director of "Baba" (The Father) "Yol" -- who was admittedly censored considerably in Turkey until recently (he died in political exile in France some 20 years ago), Ali Ozgenturk who directed "At---The Horse" and Sinan Cetin who directed the outstanding, internationally praised political comedy "Propaganda." I could also mention Serif Goren, Zeki Okten and so many others. It is a simple truth that while the West criticizes Turkey for various infractions, including its' treatment of ethnic Kurds, yet it continously suppresses the Turkish culture and Turkish people itself.Having grown up in the USa, and being half-American, I can validfy that this is the way it is. It may not be intentional, but all of us know that it some form or fashion 'the n----rs of Europe" tag applied to Turkish-Europeans applies to all of us. Now having said this one might think, I am going to criticize Egoyan for making this film. But, he has every artistic right to make "Ararat" and everyone, including people in Turkey, have a right to view this film and make their own decisions about this film. I do not consider "Ararat" a hate film as some others like "Midnight Express" and arguably "America, America" are. However, I do think the character of Ali, played by Elias Koteas, who was great in "The Thin Red Line" is cookie-cutter stereotype of Turkish-Westerners. He seems like a deliberately crude person who says things like "let's just drop our 'expletive' history" and he seems like a person devoid of any intellectual curiosity. Even though I have nothing against homosexuals, I don't think it was appropriate to make this character homosexual either. By doing so, the character plays into a stereotype that Billy Hayes utilized in his book (perhaps novel would be a more accurate word) "Midnight Express." This is the notion that all Turks are 'secretly gay' and therefore they are 'violent towards women.' My statements may seem outright ridicilous but few of you have probably endured the subliminal hatred that each of us who live in the West know to be a true fact of life. The film in a film scenes of the film actually are not ones which bother me as much. There is clearly a dark history here and it somehow has to be approached diplomatically but until the abuse of the Turkish culture is also approached, I am afraid as it was once said in "Cool Hand Luke." --- we will always have a failure to communicate.
216 Reviews
a giant multi-colored tapestry
stephen-35724 January 2005
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.
Disappointing
kadar6 August 2004
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.
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.
politically charged
zzz0529 July 2004
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.
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.
powerful history and emotionally complex
SnoopyStyle28 November 2015
In 1915, Turkish forces attack Van and its Armenian inhabitants in eastern Turkey. Clarence Ussher is an American missionary doctor who witnesses and later writes about the destruction. Arshile Gorky is an artist who loses his family and escapes to America. Ani (Arsinée Khanjian) is a modern day professor, and an expert on Gorky and his painting of his mother. Edward Saroyan is directing a film about Van and hires Ani intending to incorporate Gorky into the story. Ani is facing trouble at home. Her son Raffi (David Alpay) is rebelling and sleeping with his step-sister Celia (Marie-Josée Croze). Celia blames Ani for the death of her father. Raffi decides to go to Turkey. When he returns, he's stopped at customs by David (Christopher Plummer). David has family problems of his own. In Saroyan's film, half-Muslim Ali (Elias Koteas) plays the cruel governor Jevdet Bey and Martin Harcourt (Bruce Greenwood) plays Ussher.
Tackling the Armenian Genocide is a tricky matter. Director Atom Egoyan does it by entangling with many issues of art, history and truth. It is a very commendable effort diving deeper than a simple reenactment which the character Saroyan does in the movie. I love every scene where these issues are touched on. I do wish Raffi is played by a more compelling actor. I love Croze but her character adds an unnecessary layer. Her character is struggling with her father's suicide. That emotional conflict is too similar to Raffi's father's death from attempting to assassinate the Turkish ambassador. Raffi and Celia could easily be combined into one character. I would actually keep Croze who is the better actor of the two. With such complex emotions, the cast of characters would be better off with some minor trimming. The same goes for David's family. The movie needs a little bit of emotional trimming.
Tackling the Armenian Genocide is a tricky matter. Director Atom Egoyan does it by entangling with many issues of art, history and truth. It is a very commendable effort diving deeper than a simple reenactment which the character Saroyan does in the movie. I love every scene where these issues are touched on. I do wish Raffi is played by a more compelling actor. I love Croze but her character adds an unnecessary layer. Her character is struggling with her father's suicide. That emotional conflict is too similar to Raffi's father's death from attempting to assassinate the Turkish ambassador. Raffi and Celia could easily be combined into one character. I would actually keep Croze who is the better actor of the two. With such complex emotions, the cast of characters would be better off with some minor trimming. The same goes for David's family. The movie needs a little bit of emotional trimming.
A film within a film, IMO, Egoyan's best work.
misha-194728 May 2012
I have seen other film by Atom Egoyan. I respect him as an artist.
This film, Ararat, is lovingly made and very sensitive to a horrid subject. I found the acting very good, especially that by Christopher Plummer and David Alpay. I am shocked to see how limited the release was in the U.S. 6 screens, in the whole country? This film deserves far better treatment.
I am also dismayed by the official IMDb blurb "Interrogated by a customs officer, a young man recounts how his life was changed during the making of a film about the Armenian genocide claims." Very good until the last word, "claims." Political correctness has no such place here. The only country in the world which continues to deny the Armenian Holocaust is Turkey.
This film, Ararat, is lovingly made and very sensitive to a horrid subject. I found the acting very good, especially that by Christopher Plummer and David Alpay. I am shocked to see how limited the release was in the U.S. 6 screens, in the whole country? This film deserves far better treatment.
I am also dismayed by the official IMDb blurb "Interrogated by a customs officer, a young man recounts how his life was changed during the making of a film about the Armenian genocide claims." Very good until the last word, "claims." Political correctness has no such place here. The only country in the world which continues to deny the Armenian Holocaust is Turkey.
Interesting
caspian19787 May 2004
A terrific rough style cast in a story about denial and the truth of living in denial. At first, I thought the movie was about the Armenian Genocide, but its not. It's about a families struggle in the present day world trying to live knowing that the genocide is their past. Many interesting characters are introduced throughout the story. The plot thickens as characters appear in the movie and the movie within the movie. The issue about denial is stronger than the truth. The issue about Turkey is made many times and is the last thing we see at the end of the movie, still, this is not a movie about the Genocide and Turkey's true intentions, its about the aftermath and the denial that becomes the truth.
A hopeless hodgepodge
rlange-320 May 2007
I don't have a dog in the historic fight here, but expected to learn something I didn't know from the film. As a history buff, I had high hopes of insight into the historic context of the time, the actions taken by the two sides, how they viewed the situation, and/or why they did what they did.
Instead, the opportunity was squandered on a long, drawn out, absolutely boring melodrama involving some obscure family conflict, a gratuitous if titillating sex scene, some bizarre injection of homosexuality and atheism creating stress in an aging character with nothing at all to do with the history, and a lot of drippy and pointless personal drama. The only history to be seen consisted of one dimensional Turks and Armenians shooting each other, especially the former shooting and raping civilians of the latter.
The actual historical actors were like cartoon characters. One might, for example, have liked to know that the American doctor was doing in the middle of Turkey. Or why the Turk commander felt he needed to do what he did. Instead, the historic conflict is treated with all the depth of a Road Runner cartoon, while the main focus is on some kid and his girlfriend going through an emotional life crisis. Either, done well, might have been interesting. Both mashed together and done poorly are like a cherry pie with asparagus filling.
Boring, unenlightening, and patched together, it was as if someone had taken some cheap footage of war from a century ago and randomly spliced in parts of various soap operas. What a waste of an opportunity.
This movie just sucked. I don't usually express my opinion that way, but frankly it just sucked. I can understand why either side with a political axe to grind might feel compelled to love or hate the film, but having none I found it almost unwatchably boring.
Instead, the opportunity was squandered on a long, drawn out, absolutely boring melodrama involving some obscure family conflict, a gratuitous if titillating sex scene, some bizarre injection of homosexuality and atheism creating stress in an aging character with nothing at all to do with the history, and a lot of drippy and pointless personal drama. The only history to be seen consisted of one dimensional Turks and Armenians shooting each other, especially the former shooting and raping civilians of the latter.
The actual historical actors were like cartoon characters. One might, for example, have liked to know that the American doctor was doing in the middle of Turkey. Or why the Turk commander felt he needed to do what he did. Instead, the historic conflict is treated with all the depth of a Road Runner cartoon, while the main focus is on some kid and his girlfriend going through an emotional life crisis. Either, done well, might have been interesting. Both mashed together and done poorly are like a cherry pie with asparagus filling.
Boring, unenlightening, and patched together, it was as if someone had taken some cheap footage of war from a century ago and randomly spliced in parts of various soap operas. What a waste of an opportunity.
This movie just sucked. I don't usually express my opinion that way, but frankly it just sucked. I can understand why either side with a political axe to grind might feel compelled to love or hate the film, but having none I found it almost unwatchably boring.
Fantastic - and with more layers than you might imagine.
nkbahar18 November 2002
If you are expecting a historic epic about the Armenian genocide this isn't it.
Instead it is a finely crafted, tightly directed look at the historical events of 1915 and how it has affected those that followed. Focusing on four generations, from an Armenian artist who survived the genocide in Van through to Raffi, a Canadian Armenian in his early twenties (played brilliantly by David Alpay in his professional debut) you need to know nothing about the history to get something from this film about the nature of humanity.
The direction is Egoyan's usual unusual style - juxtaposing images one on top of the other to stunning effect, although his narrative style of jumping from thread to thread (and generation to generation) does take some getting used to.
This film will be controversial because of the subject matter, but it isn't two hours of Turk bashing, despite what some of its more biased detractors would say. It does take several of the oft quoted explanations for the genocide and answer them head on, but there are no easy answers.
If you want a film that will leave you stunned both thematically and stylistically then this really is it. I'm now arranging to see it for a second time!
Instead it is a finely crafted, tightly directed look at the historical events of 1915 and how it has affected those that followed. Focusing on four generations, from an Armenian artist who survived the genocide in Van through to Raffi, a Canadian Armenian in his early twenties (played brilliantly by David Alpay in his professional debut) you need to know nothing about the history to get something from this film about the nature of humanity.
The direction is Egoyan's usual unusual style - juxtaposing images one on top of the other to stunning effect, although his narrative style of jumping from thread to thread (and generation to generation) does take some getting used to.
This film will be controversial because of the subject matter, but it isn't two hours of Turk bashing, despite what some of its more biased detractors would say. It does take several of the oft quoted explanations for the genocide and answer them head on, but there are no easy answers.
If you want a film that will leave you stunned both thematically and stylistically then this really is it. I'm now arranging to see it for a second time!
Interesting and psychologically surreal
Samiam323 November 2009
Although there is probably some room for improvement, Ararat remains a thought provoking and intelligent piece of art filmaking from the bizarre mind of Atom Egoyan. It is regarded as a fairly controversial film, some loved it, some loathed it. Perhaps it was too closely compared to his masterworks Erotica and the Sweet Hereafter. It is a very different movie.
Ararat is Egoyan's strange memorial to the Armenian massacre committed by the Turkish during WWI. Ironically, Egoyan's script features a handful of people attempting to make a feature film about that. Ararat zooms in on an art historian, who has been hired as a historical adviser for the feature. Her son has just returned from the motherland having shot some second unit footage, or so he tells the customs officer when asked what is in the containers he is carrying. Convinced that the boy is smuggling drugs, the officer takes him behind an starts questioning him. What he gets in more than a few answers from this kid. He gets a whole history of a people that to this day Turkey denies have anything to do with.
One thing about Egoyan's movies is that they set challenges for the actors. While Ararat is less dimensional and creative with character development than previous films, the acting is nonetheless impressive.
The narrative is a little messy, but not as the result of bad filmaking. Rather it is the result of a director's choice, trying to put some distance between the viewer and the screen. That may sound odd, Egoyan is an odd director, but one with method in his madness. See Ararat and decide for yourself.
Ararat is Egoyan's strange memorial to the Armenian massacre committed by the Turkish during WWI. Ironically, Egoyan's script features a handful of people attempting to make a feature film about that. Ararat zooms in on an art historian, who has been hired as a historical adviser for the feature. Her son has just returned from the motherland having shot some second unit footage, or so he tells the customs officer when asked what is in the containers he is carrying. Convinced that the boy is smuggling drugs, the officer takes him behind an starts questioning him. What he gets in more than a few answers from this kid. He gets a whole history of a people that to this day Turkey denies have anything to do with.
One thing about Egoyan's movies is that they set challenges for the actors. While Ararat is less dimensional and creative with character development than previous films, the acting is nonetheless impressive.
The narrative is a little messy, but not as the result of bad filmaking. Rather it is the result of a director's choice, trying to put some distance between the viewer and the screen. That may sound odd, Egoyan is an odd director, but one with method in his madness. See Ararat and decide for yourself.
Egoyan's worst.
MiloMindbender4 April 2004
I ran out to see this in the theater since Egoyan was one of my favorite director's (that was until I saw this movie), with The Adjuster & Exotica my favorites. His talent has been on the decline since Exotica, perhaps because he can't make a film without his wife in it (Felicia's Journey being the exception). In this film she is awful, but so are most of the actors. This film was the biggest disappointment in 2002 for me. This is a message film & the message is: Turks committed genocide agaist Armenians & genocide is bad. Otherwise, the film did nothing to impart knowledge of the historical events that are supposed to be the basis for the film. The acting is universally wooden. The storyline was poorly written. A completely lifeless film. I'm surprised by all the 10's it has received. 3/10
A Slight Lecture and Much Praise!
okeepthepeaceo4 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I came across the movie Ararat while doing research for a paper I was writing for school. I watched it hoping that it would give me further insight into the Armenian Genocide. I can honestly say that this movie not only enforced the research I had done, but also led me to new topics I had not yet researched myself. I strongly believe in knowing about the events in a movie before watching it. Otherwise, you can sit through an entire film and not understand the meaning or significance that it holds. For instance, if you watch a film on Gallipolli (a very important battle for the Australians in the First World War) you may not know what it means for the people who were involved (like most people who live outside of Australia). However, if you take time to do a little research before hand you can easily watch a film about it and understand its importance. That said, I believe that this applies to Ararat in the same way. If you don't take the time to research the Armenian Genocide along with other aspects of the film such as the Van Resistance, Arshile Gorky, Clarence Ussher or even Aghtamar Island, you can never fully understand this movie (or any other film about the Armenian Genocide as well). I thought this movie was the perfect mix of storyline and documentation. In my opinion, it presented the facts of the Armenian Genocide accurately and effectively, without turning into a documentary about it. It showed how it still affects the Armenians of today, even though it happened a little bit less than one hundred years ago. How there could still be such denial and hatred between the people who were involved. The fact that we know so much about the holocaust that Adolf Hitler carried out and so little about this Holocaust, that started only 18 years before Hitler came to power, is shocking and deeply upsetting. I recommend this film highly, as not only an important piece on this historical event, but also an excellent film. I must applaud Atom Egoyan for doing this event justice and bringing it to life on the screen.
Ok, ok, we get the message. Jeesh!
=G=25 July 2003
"Ararat" is a messy story about Armenians making a film about Armenians and lecturing about Armenians while showing historical retrospectives about Armenians...etc. This convoluted hodge-podge of dramas has an obvious common denominator. Armenians. Specifically the genocidal killing of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915 during WWI by the Turks. The film fails as a history lesson as we could learn more in 15 minutes of Inet surfing. It fails as a drama because all the characters are overacted, everything is waaaaaay too serious, and the screenplay simply tries to do too much in too little time. For Armenians or those with an interest in Armenians only. (C+)
Egoyan disappoints in Ararat
ontariokurdu24 September 2002
Although it was loudly promoted, I have not seen much positive critique of this film, other than those written by Armenians. When I watched it at the gala opening of TIFF, I wondered how such a dark film was chosen for opening night. There should be some politics involved. Ararat is a chauvinistic story filled with religious symbolism. Evil Turks (Muslim) versus innocent Armenian (Christian). American savior (missionary Dr. Ussher) in troubled lands..Difficult to watch..
Everything seems out of context and hang in the air because a central theme in that time slice of Anatolian history, namely the struggle for more territory between Turks and Armenians is avoided, missed or obscured. As a matter of fact, Ottoman Empire was colapsing and not only Armenians but also Greeks, Slavs and Arabs were trying to get a bigger territory out of it. Anatolian tragedy is still a tragedy even if one of the parties would not be presented as pure innocents. Egoyan had a very powerful story to be told but he missed it badly. He said that he gave voice also the Turks, but there is only one Turk in the movie (Ali) who is depicted as a unrefined, cruel man.
I was expecting better from Egoyan. A twisted story makes a bad film even at the hands of a good artist like Egoyan..
Everything seems out of context and hang in the air because a central theme in that time slice of Anatolian history, namely the struggle for more territory between Turks and Armenians is avoided, missed or obscured. As a matter of fact, Ottoman Empire was colapsing and not only Armenians but also Greeks, Slavs and Arabs were trying to get a bigger territory out of it. Anatolian tragedy is still a tragedy even if one of the parties would not be presented as pure innocents. Egoyan had a very powerful story to be told but he missed it badly. He said that he gave voice also the Turks, but there is only one Turk in the movie (Ali) who is depicted as a unrefined, cruel man.
I was expecting better from Egoyan. A twisted story makes a bad film even at the hands of a good artist like Egoyan..
Egoyan's Holocaust
tieman648 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" – Adolf Hitler
During and after World War 1, the Ottoman Empire deliberately and systematically killed one and a half million Armenians. Though this event is still denied by Turkey, many modern scholars deem the Armenian Holocaust to be one of the first modern genocides, predating the Jewish Holocaust by several decades (the Herero and Namaqua Genocides occurred in 1904, predating the Armenian killings by a decade).
The murders began in early 1915, the Ottoman authorities first targeting Armenian intellectuals and community leaders. The "brains" eradicated, the Ottoman military then began picking off the confused Armenian populace. They were forced out of their homes, deprived of food and water and made to march into the deserts of Syria, where they were either shot or left to die.
Directed by Atom Egoyan, "Ararat" examines man's indifference to these crimes, the problem of artistically representing genocide, the historical ramifications of genocide and the elusive nature of truth. The result is a bizarre film that is less a satisfying piece of drama than an interesting whirlwind of ideas.
All of Egoyan's trademarks are present in "Ararat". Consider the director's earlier films, all of which revolve around some traumatic past event, their large casts gradually piecing together the past until some cohesive "truth" or "revelation" is revealed. These films are comprised of seemingly disconnected sequences and seemingly unrelated characters, vignettes that only begin to gel during some revelatory climax. These films also switch between eras, their narratives jumping from past to present to future, until history is concretized and the traumatic event is resolved in the present. Virtually all of Egoyan's films adopt this narrative structure, which seems to blend a modernist search for truth with a decidedly post-modern admittance that truth requires the careful sorting of both testimonials and subjectivity.
"Ararat" follows this same pattern. We're introduced to an Armenian artist who lived during the Armenian Holocaust. He paints a picture of his mother that, 8 decades later, is used by an art teacher as a gateway into spreading the word of the Armenian genocide.
Finding this artist to be intriguing, a Hollywood director then uses the long dead artist as the central character in a big budget movie about the Armenian Holocaust. The director turns the dour artist into an action hero, romanticising his life and embellishing history. The cast of this film is itself comprised of Turks and Armenians. The Turks naturally play the bad guys and see the whole film as a work of fiction. The Armenians, in contrast, believe the film to be factual, despite the obvious embellishments.
One Turkish actor, an obvious homosexual, has an elderly father who works at an airport security desk. He permits an Armenian boy into Turkey with both bags of cocaine and footage of the genocidal killing fields. The father's acceptance of the lawless Armenian boy mirrors his acceptance of his gay son. The Armenian boy is himself the son of a terrorist who fought against the Turks, whilst the boy's lover is the daughter of a man whom she believes was killed by the boy's father.
Confused? This complex web of characters is really a convoluted web of metaphors. Egoyan's points: Firstly, your parents may be the offspring of either the oppressors or the oppressed, but this does not implicate them in evils nor does it taint their character. Secondly, art is impotent unless it is aligned with a political cause and even then it is often misrepresented, both as a work of art and as a piece of history. Thirdly, to demonize, to deem the enemy animals or homosexuals, is to ignore their voice and their story. Fourthly, Hollywood is incapable of representing any Holocaust, film naturally seductive, romanticising events and turning their characters into heroes or messiahs. Fifthly, history itself is comprised of nothing but embellished stories passed down from generation to generation, each side tweaking the tale to fit their own ideological viewpoints. Sixthly, one can never know the past. It is lost, fragmented, and so forever lacking closure.
What the film fails to do - what all Holocaust films never bother to do - is establish why and how such an event could take place. The Ottoman Empire, which was predominantly Muslim, treated Armenians, who were predominantly Christians, as second class citizens. They were not given equal rights and were subject to strict laws, the breaking of which would lead to fines and executions.
At the same time, the Armenians were steadily amassing wealth and forging successful businesses. Because of economic problems, and their fears that Armenians would support Russia during, before and after World War 1, or even demand autonomy, the Ottoman authorities thus began a propaganda campaign which demonized the Armenians and so "justified" their eventual eradication and expulsion, freeing land for the Muslim majority and the country's wealthy rulers.
But the film doesn't seek to portray these objective truths or examine the global class, religious or political factors which led to the holocaust. Preoccupied with subjectivity, the film never digs towards its issues roots. Ironically, this is its greatest asset.
7.5/10 – Law professor Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" in 1943, has stated that he did so with the fate of the Armenians in mind. The birth of techno-genocide is a serious issue. Egoyan's film, though the director tries hard, doesn't live up to the scope and complexity that such a serious story demands.
During and after World War 1, the Ottoman Empire deliberately and systematically killed one and a half million Armenians. Though this event is still denied by Turkey, many modern scholars deem the Armenian Holocaust to be one of the first modern genocides, predating the Jewish Holocaust by several decades (the Herero and Namaqua Genocides occurred in 1904, predating the Armenian killings by a decade).
The murders began in early 1915, the Ottoman authorities first targeting Armenian intellectuals and community leaders. The "brains" eradicated, the Ottoman military then began picking off the confused Armenian populace. They were forced out of their homes, deprived of food and water and made to march into the deserts of Syria, where they were either shot or left to die.
Directed by Atom Egoyan, "Ararat" examines man's indifference to these crimes, the problem of artistically representing genocide, the historical ramifications of genocide and the elusive nature of truth. The result is a bizarre film that is less a satisfying piece of drama than an interesting whirlwind of ideas.
All of Egoyan's trademarks are present in "Ararat". Consider the director's earlier films, all of which revolve around some traumatic past event, their large casts gradually piecing together the past until some cohesive "truth" or "revelation" is revealed. These films are comprised of seemingly disconnected sequences and seemingly unrelated characters, vignettes that only begin to gel during some revelatory climax. These films also switch between eras, their narratives jumping from past to present to future, until history is concretized and the traumatic event is resolved in the present. Virtually all of Egoyan's films adopt this narrative structure, which seems to blend a modernist search for truth with a decidedly post-modern admittance that truth requires the careful sorting of both testimonials and subjectivity.
"Ararat" follows this same pattern. We're introduced to an Armenian artist who lived during the Armenian Holocaust. He paints a picture of his mother that, 8 decades later, is used by an art teacher as a gateway into spreading the word of the Armenian genocide.
Finding this artist to be intriguing, a Hollywood director then uses the long dead artist as the central character in a big budget movie about the Armenian Holocaust. The director turns the dour artist into an action hero, romanticising his life and embellishing history. The cast of this film is itself comprised of Turks and Armenians. The Turks naturally play the bad guys and see the whole film as a work of fiction. The Armenians, in contrast, believe the film to be factual, despite the obvious embellishments.
One Turkish actor, an obvious homosexual, has an elderly father who works at an airport security desk. He permits an Armenian boy into Turkey with both bags of cocaine and footage of the genocidal killing fields. The father's acceptance of the lawless Armenian boy mirrors his acceptance of his gay son. The Armenian boy is himself the son of a terrorist who fought against the Turks, whilst the boy's lover is the daughter of a man whom she believes was killed by the boy's father.
Confused? This complex web of characters is really a convoluted web of metaphors. Egoyan's points: Firstly, your parents may be the offspring of either the oppressors or the oppressed, but this does not implicate them in evils nor does it taint their character. Secondly, art is impotent unless it is aligned with a political cause and even then it is often misrepresented, both as a work of art and as a piece of history. Thirdly, to demonize, to deem the enemy animals or homosexuals, is to ignore their voice and their story. Fourthly, Hollywood is incapable of representing any Holocaust, film naturally seductive, romanticising events and turning their characters into heroes or messiahs. Fifthly, history itself is comprised of nothing but embellished stories passed down from generation to generation, each side tweaking the tale to fit their own ideological viewpoints. Sixthly, one can never know the past. It is lost, fragmented, and so forever lacking closure.
What the film fails to do - what all Holocaust films never bother to do - is establish why and how such an event could take place. The Ottoman Empire, which was predominantly Muslim, treated Armenians, who were predominantly Christians, as second class citizens. They were not given equal rights and were subject to strict laws, the breaking of which would lead to fines and executions.
At the same time, the Armenians were steadily amassing wealth and forging successful businesses. Because of economic problems, and their fears that Armenians would support Russia during, before and after World War 1, or even demand autonomy, the Ottoman authorities thus began a propaganda campaign which demonized the Armenians and so "justified" their eventual eradication and expulsion, freeing land for the Muslim majority and the country's wealthy rulers.
But the film doesn't seek to portray these objective truths or examine the global class, religious or political factors which led to the holocaust. Preoccupied with subjectivity, the film never digs towards its issues roots. Ironically, this is its greatest asset.
7.5/10 – Law professor Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" in 1943, has stated that he did so with the fate of the Armenians in mind. The birth of techno-genocide is a serious issue. Egoyan's film, though the director tries hard, doesn't live up to the scope and complexity that such a serious story demands.
Interesting story, lacking film-making
Antagonisten13 September 2005
Making a movie about a "forgotten" genocide that happened less than a hundred years ago is an important thing. Therefore i understand completely why the film-makers chose to make this movie.
As a story the tale of the Armenian genocide is of course interesting. Especially since i had not heard anything about it until it was discussed much in the media not long ago. Of course the reason why it was discussed was that Turkey is applying for membership of the European union. And i agree with those that say things like this genocide are best pulled out into the open so that they can be discussed, and if the application to the EU forces Turkey to do so, then it's a good thing.
What i don't understand though was why the film-makers chose this format for the movie. The story here is that this is a film about the making of a film... This movie is about a film-crew making a picture about the Armenian genocide and also about a young man exploring his roots while working on the film. I can't say i liked this approach to the subject. I have seen other comments saying that this was to avoid the propaganda-feeling that historic movies have such a hard time avoiding. Point taken, still i think it would have served this movie better to have shown the genocide first hand (or perhaps through stories in present day) instead of through clips from the movie being made inside this movie. What is a gripping and very touching story feels distant here and not at all as engaging as i think it would have been with a more direct approach.
Ararat feels important because of the story it wishes to tell, also there are good points being brought up by present-day characters in the movie. However while i feel the story is interesting i'm not impressed with the film-making. Another approach would have appealed to me more and perhaps also been able to create a more emotional film. As it is, it's not a bad effort, just not as good as i feel it deserved to be. I rate it 6/10.
As a story the tale of the Armenian genocide is of course interesting. Especially since i had not heard anything about it until it was discussed much in the media not long ago. Of course the reason why it was discussed was that Turkey is applying for membership of the European union. And i agree with those that say things like this genocide are best pulled out into the open so that they can be discussed, and if the application to the EU forces Turkey to do so, then it's a good thing.
What i don't understand though was why the film-makers chose this format for the movie. The story here is that this is a film about the making of a film... This movie is about a film-crew making a picture about the Armenian genocide and also about a young man exploring his roots while working on the film. I can't say i liked this approach to the subject. I have seen other comments saying that this was to avoid the propaganda-feeling that historic movies have such a hard time avoiding. Point taken, still i think it would have served this movie better to have shown the genocide first hand (or perhaps through stories in present day) instead of through clips from the movie being made inside this movie. What is a gripping and very touching story feels distant here and not at all as engaging as i think it would have been with a more direct approach.
Ararat feels important because of the story it wishes to tell, also there are good points being brought up by present-day characters in the movie. However while i feel the story is interesting i'm not impressed with the film-making. Another approach would have appealed to me more and perhaps also been able to create a more emotional film. As it is, it's not a bad effort, just not as good as i feel it deserved to be. I rate it 6/10.
Respect
litap8723 December 2005
Hi everyone. I'm a Lebanese Armenian ,very proud to be one ,and I consider the Armenian Genocide to be one of the most crucial atrocity in the history of humankind. I'm not against Turkish citizens or Turks anywhere in the world because they didn't commit the genocide.Nevertheless I don't respect any person whether he was Armenian or Turkish or American , if he doesn't acknowledge
the Armenian Genocide ,bcz he won't be respecting the memory of 1.500.000.
All we demand is respect . Just respect. And to all of those who say that it was the Armenians who killed the turks , I just want them to read the world history from more credible sources ,as in European sources.
the Armenian Genocide ,bcz he won't be respecting the memory of 1.500.000.
All we demand is respect . Just respect. And to all of those who say that it was the Armenians who killed the turks , I just want them to read the world history from more credible sources ,as in European sources.
An Amenian Tragedy
kenjha6 May 2006
It is amazing that 90 years later, there is still disagreement over the facts of how over a million Armenians were killed. Were they simply casualties of WWI or victims of genocide by the Ottoman Turks? Wherever the truth lies (to paraphrase the title of another Egoyan film), it is sad that this tragedy is largely forgotten by people outside Armenia. This film, told from the Armenian perspective, paints a repellent picture of the killings in the guise of a film that is being made in Canada about the historical event. The script is convoluted but Egoyan displays a masterful control of the material as it swerves from 1915 Turkey to 1930's New York to present day Canada. The acting is uniformly excellent. It is obvious that Egoyan, who is of Armenian descent, is passionate in his beliefs and the resulting film is quite thought-provoking.
disappointed
erencicek14 April 2006
I believe this movie is built on hate, the feeling that made those days like hell. Promoting this feeling and expressing it with more hatred does not help overcoming this negative state of mind. A sensitive story like this could have been told with a more elegant way, by not separating people into groups/races again, as it was maybe the main mistake of that century. Egoyan is free to believe anything he deems right, but this story is far from providing a broad and/or just vision. Pointing the finger to a person, a race or a nation as Egoyan did is may be the easiest way to impress the audience, but not the virtuous one.
stories must get told
lee_eisenberg29 August 2017
The main focus of Atom Egoyan's "Ararat" is the Armenian Genocide. Beyond that it addresses the nature of truth and its representation through art (such as the issue of whether a movie should recreate historical events). The genocide itself is also the subject of the recent movie "The Promise".
We may never know the full extent of what happened in April 1915, or why the genocide faded from memory. What we do know is that suppressing the memory of a tragedy creates the risk that it will get repeated. Indeed, it was only thanks to the reports from some witnesses - among them Clarence Ussher - that the Armenian Genocide came to light.
I recommend the movie, and I hope that in addition to drawing attention to the genocide, it draws attention to how World War I caused much of the bloodshed that has happened since.
We may never know the full extent of what happened in April 1915, or why the genocide faded from memory. What we do know is that suppressing the memory of a tragedy creates the risk that it will get repeated. Indeed, it was only thanks to the reports from some witnesses - among them Clarence Ussher - that the Armenian Genocide came to light.
I recommend the movie, and I hope that in addition to drawing attention to the genocide, it draws attention to how World War I caused much of the bloodshed that has happened since.
When are we going to be friends?
rifvega18 January 2006
I was born and raised in Turkey, went through the whole education system there. I've been in USA for the last 6 years. Anyway growing up there, when I was a kid, there were some kids in the neighborhood and elementary school having different (non Turkish) names, I used to hear that there were Armenians or Jewish or etc. Didn't mean much to me, basically we were friends and thats about it. Isn't that nice that kids don't have prejudice but unfortunately this ends pretty quick, just starting elementary school, we learn all those bad stuff about what Greeks did and how good we are and all that. So as a Turk if you've never seen Greek before, by the time you graduate high school, you have some bad thoughts about them (thats the same for Greeks too). When I was 16 I went to England for a language school where I met some Greek friends. Well the first time we met, conversion quickly turned into historical stuff (strong discussions), which made me realize that we learned stuff differently. So I don't trust or believe Turkish history that's been taught in school or Greek history that's been taught in Greece. They are sided and making the nations hate each other or at least develop prejudice. Interesting thing we don't have much about Armenians in our history books, you call it denial, cover up, I don't know (probably). So any Turkish who doesn't heard this genocide stuff in the news or anywhere else. They will be oblivious but on the other hand Armenia have lots bad stuff about Turks, so most of the Armenians naturally grow up to hate Turkish people. Anyway at this point I don't know the exact truth about what happened, who to believe, who is objective about the truth. But if the movie is correct, war does not justify killing innocent people, kids (it doesn't matter where they are from) and it's a shame of human race. Anyway my question is, if Turkey recognizes this and apologizes, will Armenians still hate us and have prejudice towards us, are we going to get over this past historical issue and be friends ?
Totally Baseless Accusations
efemur217 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a great example of baseless, unbelievable and wrong accusations. Some junkie trying to smuggle HEROIN in Canada and trying to fool the customs officer by telling a weird story of an unreal genocide. The funny part is that Mr. Atom declared that the movie has no political value. This movie was intended only to mislead peoples belief about what REALLY happened at that time. This movie is definitely not objective, it shows only one side of the coin. At the end of the movie the customs officer gets so emotional, even tough he finds the heroin, he lets the junkie go on his way. Now how can you believe a movie like this!
Genocide
jotix10018 April 2005
"Ararat", directed brilliantly by Atom Egoyan, is a film that will resonate with both parties that were involved in that long forgotten page of history that the world never seems to talk about. The sad story of that shameful incident is the basis of Mr. Egoyan's film.
The action takes place in a film that Edward Saroyan is filming about the genocide. At another level we see an Armenian historian, Ani, lecture about what really happened. Ani's son is in love with his step-sister, something that seems repugnant to the mother. Celia, the object of Raffi's love, keeps showing up wherever Ani speaks to shame her.
On another level, we see the how Raffi, having returned from a trip to Turkey is being interviewed by a Customs officer at the airport. We realize Raffi doesn't want to have the sealed film reels examined by the wise inspector. Their conversation go back and forth as one learns the truth.
This multi layered film has the rich texture only a director like Atom Egoyam could give it. He is at his best, as he clearly proves in his direction. Arsinee Khanjian, plays Ani with such fire that she smolders the screen any time one sees her. Ms. Khanjian is one of the best interpreters of her husband's work. Her expressive face shows what clearly is going in her mind at any given moment.
The rest of the cast responds well to the director's guidance. David Alpay, Christopher Plummer, Marie-Josee Croze, Elias Koteas, Eric Bogosian, Charles Aznavour and Bruce Greenwood, a veteran actor of some of Mr. Egoyan's films, do excellent acting in the film.
The only problem for most viewers seem to involve not having any background to the tumultuous time the film depicts, thus making it a bit unapproachable. "Ararat", like "Hotel Rwanda" and films that have captured the human suffering, is a film to treasure.
The action takes place in a film that Edward Saroyan is filming about the genocide. At another level we see an Armenian historian, Ani, lecture about what really happened. Ani's son is in love with his step-sister, something that seems repugnant to the mother. Celia, the object of Raffi's love, keeps showing up wherever Ani speaks to shame her.
On another level, we see the how Raffi, having returned from a trip to Turkey is being interviewed by a Customs officer at the airport. We realize Raffi doesn't want to have the sealed film reels examined by the wise inspector. Their conversation go back and forth as one learns the truth.
This multi layered film has the rich texture only a director like Atom Egoyam could give it. He is at his best, as he clearly proves in his direction. Arsinee Khanjian, plays Ani with such fire that she smolders the screen any time one sees her. Ms. Khanjian is one of the best interpreters of her husband's work. Her expressive face shows what clearly is going in her mind at any given moment.
The rest of the cast responds well to the director's guidance. David Alpay, Christopher Plummer, Marie-Josee Croze, Elias Koteas, Eric Bogosian, Charles Aznavour and Bruce Greenwood, a veteran actor of some of Mr. Egoyan's films, do excellent acting in the film.
The only problem for most viewers seem to involve not having any background to the tumultuous time the film depicts, thus making it a bit unapproachable. "Ararat", like "Hotel Rwanda" and films that have captured the human suffering, is a film to treasure.
Strident
sandyb22 July 2004
There is such a thing as a moral absolute and Egoyan makes it very clear in this film (through his surrogate, the Director, played by Charles Aznavour)that he will not countenance a middle ground for mindless hate. What is a little disappointing, however, is that his film lacks the usual intellectual gold standard we have come to expect -- it's a little too emotional, a little too obvious. It's strident.
There are powerful moments in the film -- a re-enactment of the Armenian genocide for which there is little physical proof, the earnest self-discovery of the main character (played convincingly by David Alpay), the customs agent who wants to unspool a story to see how it ends (Christopher Plummer, who turns in his usual high quality performance), a young woman on the edge (Jean-Marie Croze, in a noteworthy, intense performance), the empathetic saint (played empathetically by Bruce Greenwood), the morally ambiguous actor playing the Evil Turk (Elias Koteas).
But, the movie punches hard and the message is meaningless, despite Egoyan's valid assertions. Hate is bad, but stereotypes are worse. Because the worst thing about a holocaust is not the goons who do the dirty work. It is the society that just lets it happen. This issue is never quite fully explored in the film (as it wasn't in Schindler's List, either). Too bad.
One of these days, a truly great film about the Armenian tragedy will be made. I always thought Egoyan would be the one to do it. Maybe he'll try again. The story should be told. Properly.
There are powerful moments in the film -- a re-enactment of the Armenian genocide for which there is little physical proof, the earnest self-discovery of the main character (played convincingly by David Alpay), the customs agent who wants to unspool a story to see how it ends (Christopher Plummer, who turns in his usual high quality performance), a young woman on the edge (Jean-Marie Croze, in a noteworthy, intense performance), the empathetic saint (played empathetically by Bruce Greenwood), the morally ambiguous actor playing the Evil Turk (Elias Koteas).
But, the movie punches hard and the message is meaningless, despite Egoyan's valid assertions. Hate is bad, but stereotypes are worse. Because the worst thing about a holocaust is not the goons who do the dirty work. It is the society that just lets it happen. This issue is never quite fully explored in the film (as it wasn't in Schindler's List, either). Too bad.
One of these days, a truly great film about the Armenian tragedy will be made. I always thought Egoyan would be the one to do it. Maybe he'll try again. The story should be told. Properly.
Highly Disappointing!
allallo16 February 2004
After all the buzz, I finally saw this movie on Starz... the best I can say is too much negative energy going on in this movie, and it's highly unrealistic...
It seems to me like, all the Turkish characters portrayed in this movie are either sadist,psychopath, or well... overly exaggerated as evil... And all the armenian characters are ... well all good...
The Turkish characters in this movie are so disappointingly ill faced, instead of hating them and feeling pity about the poor armenians I started wondering why this movie started to feel so disappointingly unrealistic -even surreal-... even the lead young character Raffi's father, who happens to be a terrorist killing diplomats, is good... because he has a good 'cause... a terrorist is a terrorist and no good cause can make him/her good in my book, or make me feel bad about terrorists and terror... as a new yorker, I hate terrorism and whoever supports it... did i type hate ? I mean, do not tolerate... guess all the negative energy in this movie is taking me over...
Also in this movie, there's a reference to a supposedly Adolf Hitler statement... "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" The director is willing to gain support of the jews against all "evil" turks, trying to link to the holocaust... and wants us to come to the conclusion that the holocaust is related to the actions of turks against armenians... Hitler was a student of history after all...
I never heard of this before, so I decided to do some research on the net.. and I found this book while searching google for Armenia and Hitler: "ARMENIA--SECRETS OF A "CHRISTIAN" TERRORIST STATE-- by Samuel A. Weems
"Mr. Weems, a US citizen of Scottish descent and a former district attorney (prosecutor) and judge, aims with his new book to draw attention to the fact that Armenia fabricates falsehoods and supports terrorist activity to secure US financial assistance. He believes that the Armenian state is a dictatorship and has established an international network to support Armenian terror. What's more, Weems believes that during World War II many Armenians gave active support to Hitler's forces and fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazis in the Northern Caucasus and the Netherlands. In addition, Weems uncovered evidence in Armenian newspapers proving that Nazi secret agents working in Turkey in 1941-1944 were aided by Armenians."
how about that?
Interesting, and I don't know whether all this's true or not... Maybe it's as true as the history told in this movie... but I must say this... one shouldn't base his/her opinions on so called historical facts shown in a movie... google is our friend, let's do some research and read...
And one more thing, hate does not bring peace and love...
peace :)
Al
It seems to me like, all the Turkish characters portrayed in this movie are either sadist,psychopath, or well... overly exaggerated as evil... And all the armenian characters are ... well all good...
The Turkish characters in this movie are so disappointingly ill faced, instead of hating them and feeling pity about the poor armenians I started wondering why this movie started to feel so disappointingly unrealistic -even surreal-... even the lead young character Raffi's father, who happens to be a terrorist killing diplomats, is good... because he has a good 'cause... a terrorist is a terrorist and no good cause can make him/her good in my book, or make me feel bad about terrorists and terror... as a new yorker, I hate terrorism and whoever supports it... did i type hate ? I mean, do not tolerate... guess all the negative energy in this movie is taking me over...
Also in this movie, there's a reference to a supposedly Adolf Hitler statement... "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" The director is willing to gain support of the jews against all "evil" turks, trying to link to the holocaust... and wants us to come to the conclusion that the holocaust is related to the actions of turks against armenians... Hitler was a student of history after all...
I never heard of this before, so I decided to do some research on the net.. and I found this book while searching google for Armenia and Hitler: "ARMENIA--SECRETS OF A "CHRISTIAN" TERRORIST STATE-- by Samuel A. Weems
"Mr. Weems, a US citizen of Scottish descent and a former district attorney (prosecutor) and judge, aims with his new book to draw attention to the fact that Armenia fabricates falsehoods and supports terrorist activity to secure US financial assistance. He believes that the Armenian state is a dictatorship and has established an international network to support Armenian terror. What's more, Weems believes that during World War II many Armenians gave active support to Hitler's forces and fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Nazis in the Northern Caucasus and the Netherlands. In addition, Weems uncovered evidence in Armenian newspapers proving that Nazi secret agents working in Turkey in 1941-1944 were aided by Armenians."
how about that?
Interesting, and I don't know whether all this's true or not... Maybe it's as true as the history told in this movie... but I must say this... one shouldn't base his/her opinions on so called historical facts shown in a movie... google is our friend, let's do some research and read...
And one more thing, hate does not bring peace and love...
peace :)
Al
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
