The best thing that can be said about "ABC Africa" is that its making is a victory for digital format of shooting films.When a film maker of Abbas Kiarostami's stature decides to shoot a documentary film on Africa using his tiny digital video camera in some way this gesture gives credibility to the belief that digital video is going to be adopted by many more leading filmmakers in the years to come. Kiarostami has been able to shoot some of the most incredible shots including one that was filmed in darkness. As far as this film is concerned the best lesson that can be learned is that of hope,joy and happiness. Who in this world can remain unaffected when he/she is having a glimpse of impoverished African children who are full of joy and radiance on their faces despite finding themselves encircled in a world of misery.There is also an element of sadness as according to the visuals shot by Kiarostami,Uganda like other African countries has lot of greenery, nature and natural resources.But as the large part of the entire African continent is ruled by military leaders and dictators,it is hard to even assume that common people can find some relief from hunger,famine,wars and tragedies.Kiarostami has filmed ABC Africa in a cinema vérité manner. This is the reason why the entire film appears as non partial.Lastly it must be stated that despite being harsh in tone,this film offers substantial amount of optimism in the form of adoption of an orphaned baby girl.The best thing to watch in this film : A song called Sanga Lo, Sanga Lo which appears too often.
12 Reviews
Kiarostami Goes Digital
billybobroberts10 May 2001
Just saw this at the Doubletake Documentary Film Festival, where it world premiered as part of a tribute to Kiarostami's works. The film is a self-described "notebook" done on handheld DV, which was originally intended only as a rough record of his UN-sponsored trip to AIDS-ridden Uganda. Upon viewing the footage, Kiarostami decided it could stand on its own. I agree. Although it only gives a partial glimpse into the Ugandan people and their methods of dealing with the current crisis, limiting itself to a scene set in a UWESO-run hospital, it is a stark and yet poetic evocation of the spirit of place. You get the feeling that you are wandering through the same streets and towns, an advantage of the new digital technology and its impact on the viewer.
This film will be featured at Cannes 2001 and will eventually - one hopes - make its way to a no doubt limited release in this country. If you get the chance, by all means check this one out.
This film will be featured at Cannes 2001 and will eventually - one hopes - make its way to a no doubt limited release in this country. If you get the chance, by all means check this one out.
A tourist in Uganda
LeRoyMarko4 March 2006
The director's aim is honest. But the movie fails to deliver on a few fronts. It stays too much on the surface, even though there is some very emotional scenes. Through all the adversity, there's also a sense that life is worth living. Filmed with a hand-held camera. Some images could have been filmed by a tourist. In fact, one could argue that Kiarostami's view of Africa is only seen through the eye of a tourist and that the film only promotes voyeurism. But still, the documentary makes us reflect on the huge problems facing Uganda, but also all of Africa today.
Seen at home, in Toronto, on February 5th, 2005.
72/100 (**)
Seen at home, in Toronto, on February 5th, 2005.
72/100 (**)
a blueprint for documentary making
mike-34065 March 2008
This is a documentary shot at the request of a group of Ugandan women to publicise their mission to educate the AIDS and war orphans that would otherwise become a lost generation. The crew went to Uganda to shoot pilot footage using the smallest JVC mini-dv cameras intending to return with film cameras later, but the footage they took and the film that emerged from it is so unique that they felt the moment could never be recaptured. All Kiarostami's usual concerns with film form are put to the service of an enquiry into the relationship between film maker and subject without ducking uncomfortable questions about power and meeting of cultures. Released the same year as Black Hawk Down this film not only shows a side of Africa completely erased by Hollywood, it is a blueprint for a completely new approach to documentary. The comment that the best thing about the film is the format massively misses the importance and uniqueness of this film.
Opportunistic doc on orphans and AIDS in Uganda
rasecz30 September 2007
Kiarostami is invited by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) to see the work of Uganda Women's Effort to Save Orphans (UWESO). Carrying a couple of camcorders, the director sets to document what he sees. The film material covers the period from April 2000 to March 2001.
The ravages of civil war, AIDS and also malaria have resulted in a plenitude of orphans in Uganda. It is for them that UWESO exists.
Kiarostami makes at least one extended visit to Masaka, the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic in Uganda. This is the kind of place where electricity is cut out at midnight. One of the longest take in the film is shot in a pitch black night after the lights go out.
Efforts to control the spread of AIDS is hampered by religion. Use of condoms is discouraged by the religious. Virginity is advocated as the correct alternative. Fat chance. Not surprisingly, 15 to 45 years men die from AIDS. The result is that towns are devoid of adult males.
Kiarostami never misses an opportunity to film kids. It is an old interest of his. Moreover UWESO is there for them.
Kiarostami meets an Austrian couple, a doctor and a teacher, who adopt a little girl. Elsewhere a little boy catches Kiarostami's attention. The camera approaches and zooms in. This little boy has eerily brilliant sky blue eyes.
The ravages of civil war, AIDS and also malaria have resulted in a plenitude of orphans in Uganda. It is for them that UWESO exists.
Kiarostami makes at least one extended visit to Masaka, the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic in Uganda. This is the kind of place where electricity is cut out at midnight. One of the longest take in the film is shot in a pitch black night after the lights go out.
Efforts to control the spread of AIDS is hampered by religion. Use of condoms is discouraged by the religious. Virginity is advocated as the correct alternative. Fat chance. Not surprisingly, 15 to 45 years men die from AIDS. The result is that towns are devoid of adult males.
Kiarostami never misses an opportunity to film kids. It is an old interest of his. Moreover UWESO is there for them.
Kiarostami meets an Austrian couple, a doctor and a teacher, who adopt a little girl. Elsewhere a little boy catches Kiarostami's attention. The camera approaches and zooms in. This little boy has eerily brilliant sky blue eyes.
A Wanderer's Tour de Force
bojleng_utomo2 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
With all those (accidentally) minimized gadgets and plans, this movie is quite unusual. It is also not a very common practice (albeit not very unusual) that the director seems really willing to refrain himself from speaking through his movie. He wants the movie speaks for itself. And here, it does.
Nevertheless, its not that easy to grasp what this movie is really trying to say.
Let's try to take a good look at one piece of the puzzle.
The adopting parents bring the little girl to a traditional market (that's what the story goes) so that she will not be removed from her root. Then we see the market.
Now that is Beautiful (capitalization intended). This invaluable (local) 'collective awareness' about one's own identity is one too many times proved to be some 'intangible' (that is, somehow out of reach) idea to its own stakeholders (the very people who need it most). And here we see a couple (some outsiders) who care.
But hey, where is the little girl? We see the market alright, but not the girl. Yes, we see her in the protective comfort (and luxury, if we consider the environment) of a starred hotel's restaurant (?), in the car, or even on aeroplane. But not in that so called market they're talking about.
This 'eyebrow-raising beauty' is, in a way, somewhat loosening the movie's grip on truthfulness--assuming that it does really matter here (please, I'm NOT implying that anybody is being cheaty, I'm only saying what this fragment MIGHT look like--presented this way). We see that somewhere--sometimes, the movie relies too much on hearsay or telltale. So, even if the motifs might be remarkable, the execution (that is, the filming) is ARGUABLY not.
Interestingly, this could come from the fact that Kiarostami doesn't want to film a made-up thing (not even for the movie's own good). He wants to be sincere, and he's sticking to it. As we know, he's not really directing anything here (if at all, although we can see and assume that he did ask questions sometimes). He's more like snapshotting. He's not wandering around telling people what to do and then shoot'em (while they're still carrying out what he ask them to). No, he just shoot'em. He goes somewhere and shoot what he encounters--people or not (well, mostly people, mind you).
Look again. Kiarostami shot the couple mentioning about the market, then he went to the aforementioned(?) market and shot--in his own time frame. KEYPOINT: he didn't ask the couple to reenact the situation, for that would've taint the truthfulness of this movie (see the paradox?).
So that's the language of the camera here. It just shoots people, not performers. It avoids setups, everything is real-time (act or say).
And it wants to stay that way, no matter what. Even if it could (or would) cost the movie's own integrity (like the 'eyebrow-raising beauty' mentioned above).
And if that is really the case, then this 'odd couple of honesty' (the story of the adopting parents on one scene and the market without the girl on another--where both parts are so consistent with but not supportive to each other up to the degree that the outcome seems lack of integrity) is, indeed, intriguing.
But then again, what is this part of the movie really trying to say here?--Pity? Sympathy? Help sure is handy? (Again, no offense intended, please) Yes, there are other (good) shots as well (you bet) like, a little girl's struggling for life while a (way bigger) boy make fun of her (with his friends cheering thinking they're having a good time), or that daring 'shooting the darkness' (this time we can take it literary).
Still, where (or what) do all these tours de force take (or bring) us? How do all those pieces fit in the big picture? Come to think of it, what is the big picture, anyway? War? AIDS? Uganda? Africa? How a mismanaged (or lack of) national policy keep wreaking havoc upon its own people? Parentless children's life? The struggle of some people to help their youths? Life is good? Everybody should glimpse some hope of a better tomorrow? (Everybody? Who? People who see this movie from a safe distance and do not have THAT problem?) Chance is, there is none. Chance is, the director hasn't made up his mind yet (on what he was about going to say). He MIGHT even haven't had a pretty good idea what the big picture really is, yet (maybe that's why the title). He's just snapshotting--collecting pieces (and they don't have to fit all together to a single idea because it just so happens that he hasn't sorted them out yet).
So if the whole idea of ABC is collecting some information for the UN, then the latter seems (at the very least) having a fair trade. Or if it's supposed to make some pretentiously-shallow-CGI-addict Hollywood movie makers blush, this flick might just do the kick. But if ABC is supposed to be a wake-up call to the Ugandans (or most Africans) that they really need to help THEMSELVES because nothing else really counts (not in the long run anyway), then this movie doesn't look very promising.
With ABC, many (more) people will respect the directing snapshooter and put him on their mandatory list. But not as many will--quite understandably, give the movie similar credit.
Nevertheless, its not that easy to grasp what this movie is really trying to say.
Let's try to take a good look at one piece of the puzzle.
The adopting parents bring the little girl to a traditional market (that's what the story goes) so that she will not be removed from her root. Then we see the market.
Now that is Beautiful (capitalization intended). This invaluable (local) 'collective awareness' about one's own identity is one too many times proved to be some 'intangible' (that is, somehow out of reach) idea to its own stakeholders (the very people who need it most). And here we see a couple (some outsiders) who care.
But hey, where is the little girl? We see the market alright, but not the girl. Yes, we see her in the protective comfort (and luxury, if we consider the environment) of a starred hotel's restaurant (?), in the car, or even on aeroplane. But not in that so called market they're talking about.
This 'eyebrow-raising beauty' is, in a way, somewhat loosening the movie's grip on truthfulness--assuming that it does really matter here (please, I'm NOT implying that anybody is being cheaty, I'm only saying what this fragment MIGHT look like--presented this way). We see that somewhere--sometimes, the movie relies too much on hearsay or telltale. So, even if the motifs might be remarkable, the execution (that is, the filming) is ARGUABLY not.
Interestingly, this could come from the fact that Kiarostami doesn't want to film a made-up thing (not even for the movie's own good). He wants to be sincere, and he's sticking to it. As we know, he's not really directing anything here (if at all, although we can see and assume that he did ask questions sometimes). He's more like snapshotting. He's not wandering around telling people what to do and then shoot'em (while they're still carrying out what he ask them to). No, he just shoot'em. He goes somewhere and shoot what he encounters--people or not (well, mostly people, mind you).
Look again. Kiarostami shot the couple mentioning about the market, then he went to the aforementioned(?) market and shot--in his own time frame. KEYPOINT: he didn't ask the couple to reenact the situation, for that would've taint the truthfulness of this movie (see the paradox?).
So that's the language of the camera here. It just shoots people, not performers. It avoids setups, everything is real-time (act or say).
And it wants to stay that way, no matter what. Even if it could (or would) cost the movie's own integrity (like the 'eyebrow-raising beauty' mentioned above).
And if that is really the case, then this 'odd couple of honesty' (the story of the adopting parents on one scene and the market without the girl on another--where both parts are so consistent with but not supportive to each other up to the degree that the outcome seems lack of integrity) is, indeed, intriguing.
But then again, what is this part of the movie really trying to say here?--Pity? Sympathy? Help sure is handy? (Again, no offense intended, please) Yes, there are other (good) shots as well (you bet) like, a little girl's struggling for life while a (way bigger) boy make fun of her (with his friends cheering thinking they're having a good time), or that daring 'shooting the darkness' (this time we can take it literary).
Still, where (or what) do all these tours de force take (or bring) us? How do all those pieces fit in the big picture? Come to think of it, what is the big picture, anyway? War? AIDS? Uganda? Africa? How a mismanaged (or lack of) national policy keep wreaking havoc upon its own people? Parentless children's life? The struggle of some people to help their youths? Life is good? Everybody should glimpse some hope of a better tomorrow? (Everybody? Who? People who see this movie from a safe distance and do not have THAT problem?) Chance is, there is none. Chance is, the director hasn't made up his mind yet (on what he was about going to say). He MIGHT even haven't had a pretty good idea what the big picture really is, yet (maybe that's why the title). He's just snapshotting--collecting pieces (and they don't have to fit all together to a single idea because it just so happens that he hasn't sorted them out yet).
So if the whole idea of ABC is collecting some information for the UN, then the latter seems (at the very least) having a fair trade. Or if it's supposed to make some pretentiously-shallow-CGI-addict Hollywood movie makers blush, this flick might just do the kick. But if ABC is supposed to be a wake-up call to the Ugandans (or most Africans) that they really need to help THEMSELVES because nothing else really counts (not in the long run anyway), then this movie doesn't look very promising.
With ABC, many (more) people will respect the directing snapshooter and put him on their mandatory list. But not as many will--quite understandably, give the movie similar credit.
A personal and poetic film
howard.schumann8 May 2006
Asked by the UN International Fund for Economic Development (IFAD) to make a film documenting the plight of millions of Ugandan orphans ravaged by the recent civil war and the scourge of AIDS, Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami responded with something much more, a personal and poetic film that allows us to see the people, the land, and the culture of Uganda without relentless images of despair. The documentary, ABC Africa, captures a kaleidoscope of faces of children and adults that display an enthusiasm for life that belies the grim statistics. The children of Kampala may be without parents but they are still children, ready to burst into wondrous song or dance, or simply mug for the camera when given the opportunity.
ABC Africa illuminates the work of the Uganda Women's Effort to Save orphans (UWESCO), an organization of women willing to adopt these children even though they may have many other mouths to feed. There is no voice-over narration in the film, only interviews with Ugandan relief workers who describe the extent of the problems they face. In trademark Kiarostami fashion, as a car drives through the streets of Kampala and the countryside, the digital hand-held camera records the passing scene, revealing both the beauty and the ugliness of Ugandan life. In one extraordinary sequence, we share the grief as the camera pans into a hospital for children dying of AIDS and follows a dead child being wrapped in a blanket and put into a makeshift cardboard box, then wheeled away on a bicycle to an unknown burial ground.
Equally memorable is a five-minute segment shot in total darkness inside a hotel where the power has failed due to regular midnight power cuts. All we hear is the conversation of two men in Farsi as they struggle to find their hotel room, a hint of the fear that Ugandans face each night and a metaphor for the darkness in which millions of Africans live. The film also shows the well-meaning but questionable efforts of a young Austrian family to adopt an orphaned girl found on the streets and bring her to Austria. Though some might have wanted ABC Africa to address the social, economic, and political causes that have left 1.6 million children without parents, Kiarostami's camera is simply present to each given moment and the result is a revelation.
ABC Africa illuminates the work of the Uganda Women's Effort to Save orphans (UWESCO), an organization of women willing to adopt these children even though they may have many other mouths to feed. There is no voice-over narration in the film, only interviews with Ugandan relief workers who describe the extent of the problems they face. In trademark Kiarostami fashion, as a car drives through the streets of Kampala and the countryside, the digital hand-held camera records the passing scene, revealing both the beauty and the ugliness of Ugandan life. In one extraordinary sequence, we share the grief as the camera pans into a hospital for children dying of AIDS and follows a dead child being wrapped in a blanket and put into a makeshift cardboard box, then wheeled away on a bicycle to an unknown burial ground.
Equally memorable is a five-minute segment shot in total darkness inside a hotel where the power has failed due to regular midnight power cuts. All we hear is the conversation of two men in Farsi as they struggle to find their hotel room, a hint of the fear that Ugandans face each night and a metaphor for the darkness in which millions of Africans live. The film also shows the well-meaning but questionable efforts of a young Austrian family to adopt an orphaned girl found on the streets and bring her to Austria. Though some might have wanted ABC Africa to address the social, economic, and political causes that have left 1.6 million children without parents, Kiarostami's camera is simply present to each given moment and the result is a revelation.
Throwing Away All Cinematic Restrictions
p_radulescu30 March 2010
I read the reviews to this movie: some of them reproach to Kiarostami that he missed to depict the real situation, that his view was superficial. I think these reviews missed actually the point. Kiarostami has never pretended to explain the universe he was filming. He gave only, in all honesty, a strict account on what he witnessed, nothing more. It's his truth, nothing but his truth, anything more would be hypocrisy.
It is the style from all his movies: letting each new situation encountered to develop on its own. There is something new here, truly revolutionary: using the tiny video camera gives total freedom to anything, spontaneity becomes fully unrestricted. Spontaneity and interactivity: the kids are playing with the camera, inventing games and dances, like all kids from any place on Earth.
And so ABC Africa marks one of the most important moments in the history of cinematography: the hand-held video camera throws away any conventions and liberates personages and places from the tyranny of the scenario, and ultimately from the tyranny of the director.
It is the style from all his movies: letting each new situation encountered to develop on its own. There is something new here, truly revolutionary: using the tiny video camera gives total freedom to anything, spontaneity becomes fully unrestricted. Spontaneity and interactivity: the kids are playing with the camera, inventing games and dances, like all kids from any place on Earth.
And so ABC Africa marks one of the most important moments in the history of cinematography: the hand-held video camera throws away any conventions and liberates personages and places from the tyranny of the scenario, and ultimately from the tyranny of the director.
Quite powerful view of AIDS in Africa
zetes14 March 2003
Heartbreaking and beautiful documentary from Abbas Kiarostami, who once again proves that he's one of the best working directors. It's an account of AIDS-stricken Uganda and the group of women who are helping out by taking care of the over 1.5 million orphans. The documentary, shot on two digital, handheld cameras, shifts between a fact-finding mission and a more sublime bit of semi-ethnographic documentation. Kids love the camera, and they swarm around Kiarostami and his other camera operator, Seyfolah Samadian. They dance and sing and jump in front of the camera. The two men have an excellent eye for images, and they catch many that are powerful and beautiful. The music is always beautiful. As much as I loved this film, I had to groan at its final moments, which prove that Kiarostami is as much a manipulator as any of the directors who regularly get criticized for that.
Objectifying Poverty
lowolf3 February 2002
Moving awkardly and intrusively through Ugandan villages, in a stated attempt to document the work of an Aids orphanage and the crisis of Aids in Uganda, Kiarostami offers us contrived glimpses of a so called "reality." He fails to tell any particular story of poverty, Aids, NGOs, or orphaned children. Instead, he indulges in voyeurism and paternalism, revealing the great distance between the struggles and daily realities of Ugandan villages and the touristic comforts of Western filmmakers staying at the Kampala hotel.
Originally intended as scoping work for a subsequent project, ABC Africa might have been a more in-depth and thought-provokig piece of work had he used this footage as preliminary work. It can not stand on its own as a piece of in-depth documentation as it does nothing more than provide images intended to shock Western audiences about poverty in Africa. Long, unedited shots of kids playing in front of the camera show the intrusion of Western filmmakers. Rushing to capture "good footage" of a young boy pushing a girl child carrying heavy wood or of the orphanage staff preparing the body of a child who recently died compromises the integrity of his work and reveals the cursory nature of the footage and of his experience in Uganda.
While a certain spirit of village life in Africa is conveyed, it's authenticity is sacrificed by Kiarostami's inability to engage his "actors" as individuals with stories to share. Despite his articulated goal to provide images for people to construct their own meaning and build personal "movies" in their mind, Kirostami's casual style objectifies the experiences that he tries to depict authentically.
Originally intended as scoping work for a subsequent project, ABC Africa might have been a more in-depth and thought-provokig piece of work had he used this footage as preliminary work. It can not stand on its own as a piece of in-depth documentation as it does nothing more than provide images intended to shock Western audiences about poverty in Africa. Long, unedited shots of kids playing in front of the camera show the intrusion of Western filmmakers. Rushing to capture "good footage" of a young boy pushing a girl child carrying heavy wood or of the orphanage staff preparing the body of a child who recently died compromises the integrity of his work and reveals the cursory nature of the footage and of his experience in Uganda.
While a certain spirit of village life in Africa is conveyed, it's authenticity is sacrificed by Kiarostami's inability to engage his "actors" as individuals with stories to share. Despite his articulated goal to provide images for people to construct their own meaning and build personal "movies" in their mind, Kirostami's casual style objectifies the experiences that he tries to depict authentically.
Under The Clouds
jcappy9 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
ABC Africa, which is simply Kiarostami's response to a plea for exposure and "international attention" by a Uganda's women organization to the plight of 2 million AIDS (and war) orphans, may be viewed as a reflective journal piece, a painterly poem, and a political support project all in one.
Certainly, Kiarostami's approach is low-key, and understandably limited by an outsider's perspective. He must apprise all through a sensitivity to cultural differences--and privileges. So his work relies on an egalitarianism in the sense that it flows out of a plurality of centers that Kiarostami and his cameras gravitate to. Thus, detachment is minimized both by the use of hand-held digital and still cameras, and by the participation of all--crew and "cast"--in the goings on of film. And the integration of sound, song, dance, color, and voice, are made convincingly real. This is an intuitive, and congenial documentation, but never gives any indication of being a puff piece. If Kiarostami doesn't delve too deeply into the more disturbing side of the realty he depicts, it may well be that he's acknowledging his guest status--and perhaps, understandably, his lack of knowledge.
In any case, the results are impressive--lyrical, screen-filled images insist on the beauty and reality of the unseen. Kiarostami is the poet-painter who fills his surfaces with both filmic and still portraits of orphans, women and taxi drivers. Heads, faces, clapping hands, and skin are joined to movement, gestures, and intonations which constitute an open social world--one in which Kiarostami himself joins by gesture, and voice as he bobs his camera in the midst of the long, colorful boys-chant scene. Almost everyone gets to have fun with his cameras and some resistant ones quickly break into bold smiles. But the lyricism is tempered by the AIDS center scenes, and by an invariably non-romanticized approach which never spares us the dire physical and social contexts of these phoenix-like women and children.
Yes, Kiarostami does make a political statement in "ABC Africa"--he simply makes visible the lives of the Ugandan orphans and the courageous, hard-working women who have committed to saving their lives. "Imagine that grandmother living with 35 kids..." "half of their life in the dark" (no electricity) says one of the crew in the black out scene. "Humans can adapt to anything..." another says, and what is more human than the human-ness of these people, is the film's point. A 10 year commitment to each child's independence and empowerment--clothing, educating, providing safety for, feeding, economizing, is a collective endeavor worth shouting from the rooftops.
But Kiarostami makes a number of subtle points as regards the cultural/political blocks this army of volunteers must counter in order to survive. A means Abstincenc, B means Be faithful and C means Condom with "C" being a last resort only. The Pope's image is evident all around and US aid is behind him-- a poster of Bob Marley can hardly compete with that. Then there is the government which is a part of the process and names a lot of the rules by which the work proceeds and is financed. On the countering side you have a strong woman's world view--the few men who appear blend in with the women and children-- which is like the African sun referred to by the crew in the black-out scene.
"ABC Africa's" truly remarkable ending has cumulus clouds transforming into the full faces of the dead and the living down below the clouds. As the adopted Ugandan girl is flown to her new home in Austria, some kind of visibility and solidarity has been achieved for those on and under the dispossessed terrain below.
Certainly, Kiarostami's approach is low-key, and understandably limited by an outsider's perspective. He must apprise all through a sensitivity to cultural differences--and privileges. So his work relies on an egalitarianism in the sense that it flows out of a plurality of centers that Kiarostami and his cameras gravitate to. Thus, detachment is minimized both by the use of hand-held digital and still cameras, and by the participation of all--crew and "cast"--in the goings on of film. And the integration of sound, song, dance, color, and voice, are made convincingly real. This is an intuitive, and congenial documentation, but never gives any indication of being a puff piece. If Kiarostami doesn't delve too deeply into the more disturbing side of the realty he depicts, it may well be that he's acknowledging his guest status--and perhaps, understandably, his lack of knowledge.
In any case, the results are impressive--lyrical, screen-filled images insist on the beauty and reality of the unseen. Kiarostami is the poet-painter who fills his surfaces with both filmic and still portraits of orphans, women and taxi drivers. Heads, faces, clapping hands, and skin are joined to movement, gestures, and intonations which constitute an open social world--one in which Kiarostami himself joins by gesture, and voice as he bobs his camera in the midst of the long, colorful boys-chant scene. Almost everyone gets to have fun with his cameras and some resistant ones quickly break into bold smiles. But the lyricism is tempered by the AIDS center scenes, and by an invariably non-romanticized approach which never spares us the dire physical and social contexts of these phoenix-like women and children.
Yes, Kiarostami does make a political statement in "ABC Africa"--he simply makes visible the lives of the Ugandan orphans and the courageous, hard-working women who have committed to saving their lives. "Imagine that grandmother living with 35 kids..." "half of their life in the dark" (no electricity) says one of the crew in the black out scene. "Humans can adapt to anything..." another says, and what is more human than the human-ness of these people, is the film's point. A 10 year commitment to each child's independence and empowerment--clothing, educating, providing safety for, feeding, economizing, is a collective endeavor worth shouting from the rooftops.
But Kiarostami makes a number of subtle points as regards the cultural/political blocks this army of volunteers must counter in order to survive. A means Abstincenc, B means Be faithful and C means Condom with "C" being a last resort only. The Pope's image is evident all around and US aid is behind him-- a poster of Bob Marley can hardly compete with that. Then there is the government which is a part of the process and names a lot of the rules by which the work proceeds and is financed. On the countering side you have a strong woman's world view--the few men who appear blend in with the women and children-- which is like the African sun referred to by the crew in the black-out scene.
"ABC Africa's" truly remarkable ending has cumulus clouds transforming into the full faces of the dead and the living down below the clouds. As the adopted Ugandan girl is flown to her new home in Austria, some kind of visibility and solidarity has been achieved for those on and under the dispossessed terrain below.
Reactions to a trip to African -- AIDS and more
jmcarlss10 August 2006
This movie has very good goals and intentions, but isn't edited enough to get the full point. I found myself getting lost in the singing, and children dancing in front of the camera, and often forgetting what the point was. A good half of the film was just that.. children reacting to the presence of a video camera and having non African men around. Also, there was just too much footage of children's faces. We seem often too fascinated by poor little African's faces and forget the real surrounding issues. Other than that, the film had some good points and good scenes. Beautiful footage of the countryside, although also too much.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
