I'd like to share my positive impressions from this movie. I've just seen it on Sofia Film Festival and I find it truly amazing. It deals with some topics about life and humanity in totalitarian Soviet-dominated societies - in a way that is both just and powerful. Being a Bulgarian that have witnessed totalitarian rule's disregard for the human individual - I find this movie a powerful reminder of how vital yet fragile our relations to nature and traditions are. Acting is brilliant - especially the lead character. There is a well done balance of landscape, color and contrast that make this movie visually outstanding. What did put me off a bit - and made me reduce my vote to a 8/10 mark - were a couple of scenes at the end of the movie that, though meaningful and powerful, do brake the overall balanced and well-programmed dynamics of the whole movie - and i think that if they were cut out - it would only have improved and boosted this movie's basic messages to the viewer... I find this line in the synopsis "animals fall victim to a plague which threatens to eradicate nomadism" irrelevant, misleading and diminishing authors' main ideas... Overall - a great movie...
14 Reviews
Striking film
artzau17 May 2008
The reviewer of this film from Holland provides an excellent perspective of this film as an experiment in art. As an anthropologist familiar with Mongolian nomadic culture and the historical background of the horrible collectivizing results of the Maoist government of the PRC on the population of inner Mongolia where thousands died due to the heavy handed and incompetent Maoist policies, I can certainly relate to the subtext of the story of Khadak. As a film, the organization of the storyline leaves much to be desired and does have an amateurish feel to it. However, the portrait of the Mongol people in this film against the bleak background of the steppes where they've lived for centuries and the shoddy, bleak living complex and mining facility to where they've been relocated, is quite striking. The faces of the actors in long and short still shots adds to this effect. Personally, I find the Mongols to be a strikingly beautiful people with a unique history ranging from great conquest to severe abuse under both Chinese and Soviet hegemony. In this context, I find this little film to be quite good in spite of its shortcomings.
Striking piece of art and a rewarding experience
Goranaaa20 October 2009
This film is not meant for the audience that seeks light entertainment and action. It's a film of extreme visual beauty. Its aesthetics sometimes resemble one of Angelopoulos, with its long shots of great complexity. For those unfamiliar with the culture of Mongolia, this can be a great and refreshing experience. Main actors, who had no professional experience before this film, are so natural in their roles. Movies are about making people think and not lecturing them. This one is all about that: making you think. About the past, tradition, change of generations and what future is yet to bring. I highly recommend this film. It's a striking piece of art and a rewarding experience.
A stunningly beautiful film
amberapple-16 February 2008
I saw a screener DVD of this, but would love to see it on the big screen. A heartbreaking story of the nomadic peoples of Mongolia being forced to abandon their homes due to a "plague" outbreak among animals. Despite their own herds being healthy, the family who is the focus of the beginning of the film are forcibly moved to a mining town, where their son Bagi, who has visions of his ancestors is forced to work for a pittance. Other nomads have been detained for offenses like playing music publicly. The only food available seems to be potatoes, but there appears to be meat available on the black market, and this feeds speculation that the clearances were not motivated by animal sickness after all. Bagi is arrested and while in the detention center meets a group of young activists who want to rebel against their unlawful imprisonment, and to free the animals they know are still alive. The song they perform is a high point of the film, and adds to an already excellent score and soundtrack.
This story does not have an entirely happy ending, but there is some measure of hope and redemption here. The film's strength lies in its very simple visuals and minimal dialogue, which powerfully portray a way of life that is dying out due to government interference.
This story does not have an entirely happy ending, but there is some measure of hope and redemption here. The film's strength lies in its very simple visuals and minimal dialogue, which powerfully portray a way of life that is dying out due to government interference.
interesting, beautiful images, yet unconvincing
ruisendewind3 July 2007
I saw the film only yesterday, yet my impression at the end of it has not changed. It is certainly a film containing beautiful images of snow covered plains and wastelands in Mongolia. And in the beginning there is some promise of yet another quiet, elegiac tale of wide plains, nomads and their wisdom. But this quietist expectation soon is shattered, and the viewer, together with the film's protagonists, is thrown out of this sub-zero garden of Eden. What follows still remains beautiful and striking in its imagery, but annoyed me more and more because of the loosening up of the structure and ever more unexpected twists and turns, until, really, I reached the point where it got very hard to be bothered at all. Though I am not against experiments and boldness, this attempt at a poetic film of a conflict between tradition and modernity was lost on me, mainly because its makers apparently could not decide between impressionist documentary, expressionist story-telling and a superficial interest for the folklore of the supernatural.
Nature vs. Industry
gentendo12 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Khadak is a deeply personal, esoteric story that not everyone will immediately understand. It demands much contemplation from the viewer, as most of what is seen falls between both dreams and reality. From what I gathered, the filmmakers were exploring a specific cultural attitude towards how both nature and industry are viewed by Mongolians. There is a strict dichotomy between the two. Nature is upheld as virtuous, where industry is left to vice. For the most part, the people have a deep inner-connectedness with naturemeaning, the land and animals. Where the land represents the spirit of the dead and living, the industrial world represents its negation. In one way, the land represents their ancestral heritage; it is their means of interconnecting with their kindred dead.
A witchdoctor-type shamaness is impressionistically used in the story to help the people restore balance between themselves, the land and their ancestors. She is the healer and interpreter of both their dreams and realitiesthose who have lived and are still living. It's as if her character is also a metaphor for the oneness of life and nature. As revealed in a conversation between Bagi and his grandfather, the shamaness must be relied upon in order to live; that is the "harsh law of the universe." The sense of her representing vitality is depicted when she enters one of Bagi's epileptic dreams and helps him recover. This abstract scene, amongst others, draws a fine line between both fiction and fact, between knowing what is dream and what is reality. The purpose, I think, is to portray the idea of onenessthat everything is interconnected. It is the shamaness, then, who helps show this interconnection that the people have with their surroundings. We only become aware of how deep this interconnection is when Bagi's nomadic family is shown being forced to leave their home due to a supposed animal plague. However, they do not leave without a struggle. As government officials call for evacuation, the family resists: "We're not leaving the land. Our animals are fine," says the grandfather. After raiding all of the family's possessions, the officials literally have to carry the stubborn old man away in a chair in order to divorce him from his once humble abode. The family thus loses their connection with nature and enters the industrial world; a commentary that seemed to suggest how materialism pollutes spirituality.
There is a lot of symbolic imagery used throughout the film; one particular symbol being the khadak, or blue scarf. As mentioned by Woodworth, it is a symbol of the sky. It also has other meanings. Whenever it is present on screen, it is usually attached to the lonesome and surreal-looking tree that stands amidst the desert. Again, the concept of interconnectedness with nature seems to be what the khadak and tree together portray. There is a beautiful moment when the camera rotates the position of the tree from earth to heaven (the tree being upside down). I found this shot particularly fascinating because the tree branches stretching out from the sky were like giant hands; hands that resonated the feeling of ancestors trying to call upon Bagi and his family to become one with nature again. Perhaps that is what the shamaness meant when telling Bagi that his ancestors are calling upon him. Since ancestors and nature seem to be synonymous, the calling from the ancestors is a calling to return to nature; a divorce from the material world and a return to oneness of nature. When the khadak later rains from the sky during the release of the animals, it seemed to represent hope; hope that reassured Bagi and his band of rebel friends that the industrial world was indeed being overcome. The rebels, after all, joined together by code names in order to revolt against the powers of industry and return to their natural environment. All of their names, or words spoken during the counting sequences were names of places in nature, like "River" and "Sky." Another meaning for the khadak, then, is that all of their names together were symbolic for what the khadak stood forplaces in nature.
A witchdoctor-type shamaness is impressionistically used in the story to help the people restore balance between themselves, the land and their ancestors. She is the healer and interpreter of both their dreams and realitiesthose who have lived and are still living. It's as if her character is also a metaphor for the oneness of life and nature. As revealed in a conversation between Bagi and his grandfather, the shamaness must be relied upon in order to live; that is the "harsh law of the universe." The sense of her representing vitality is depicted when she enters one of Bagi's epileptic dreams and helps him recover. This abstract scene, amongst others, draws a fine line between both fiction and fact, between knowing what is dream and what is reality. The purpose, I think, is to portray the idea of onenessthat everything is interconnected. It is the shamaness, then, who helps show this interconnection that the people have with their surroundings. We only become aware of how deep this interconnection is when Bagi's nomadic family is shown being forced to leave their home due to a supposed animal plague. However, they do not leave without a struggle. As government officials call for evacuation, the family resists: "We're not leaving the land. Our animals are fine," says the grandfather. After raiding all of the family's possessions, the officials literally have to carry the stubborn old man away in a chair in order to divorce him from his once humble abode. The family thus loses their connection with nature and enters the industrial world; a commentary that seemed to suggest how materialism pollutes spirituality.
There is a lot of symbolic imagery used throughout the film; one particular symbol being the khadak, or blue scarf. As mentioned by Woodworth, it is a symbol of the sky. It also has other meanings. Whenever it is present on screen, it is usually attached to the lonesome and surreal-looking tree that stands amidst the desert. Again, the concept of interconnectedness with nature seems to be what the khadak and tree together portray. There is a beautiful moment when the camera rotates the position of the tree from earth to heaven (the tree being upside down). I found this shot particularly fascinating because the tree branches stretching out from the sky were like giant hands; hands that resonated the feeling of ancestors trying to call upon Bagi and his family to become one with nature again. Perhaps that is what the shamaness meant when telling Bagi that his ancestors are calling upon him. Since ancestors and nature seem to be synonymous, the calling from the ancestors is a calling to return to nature; a divorce from the material world and a return to oneness of nature. When the khadak later rains from the sky during the release of the animals, it seemed to represent hope; hope that reassured Bagi and his band of rebel friends that the industrial world was indeed being overcome. The rebels, after all, joined together by code names in order to revolt against the powers of industry and return to their natural environment. All of their names, or words spoken during the counting sequences were names of places in nature, like "River" and "Sky." Another meaning for the khadak, then, is that all of their names together were symbolic for what the khadak stood forplaces in nature.
Gorgeous visuals and intricate sound tell a current yet timeless story
chuck-5267 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is an excellent movie, well worth experiencing. Don't be fooled by its obscurity. This is not a low-budget nor protest flick. It has very high production values and is worthy of the best auteurs. It's just that its distribution didn't connect with the American marketing machine.
The first time I saw it, I was bowled over by the gorgeous visuals, but couldn't follow the narrative, especially in the last half. I got the feeling this was normal, that there wasn't really any narrative except in the magico-realistic sense, that the movie was meant to be viewed impressionistic-ally. Then I absorbed just a bit about the history of Mongolia and Mongolian shamanism at home, and saw it again. The second time the narrative was clear throughout. The gorgeous visuals were still there, but now they weren't the only thing.
One key was understanding that shamanism was heavily discouraged when Mongolia was a Soviet satellite for decades. Another was understanding just a bit about shamanism itself: that the giant blue sky is almost a personality; that poles and clefts and even trees can be entrances to the world below; that shamans are called by their first trance experience, which often manifests as an illness, and trained by the previous generation's shaman; that shamanistic trances and epileptic fits are similar; and most importantly that the highest calling of a shaman is to "restore balance" with nature for an entire people.
More imagery made sense with the understanding that going under water meant death from this world (and perhaps birth into the world of nature). The parallel between a woman traumatized by the relocation to modernity and a peeled potato going under water in a basin became clear.
I never entirely figured out the symbolism of the apples. Maybe they signify Soviet times, or maybe danger, or maybe a turn away from shamanism, or maybe materialism. And are potatoes distorted apples? I never entirely integrated the Christian symbolism. There are clear references to at least Christ, the last supper, the twelve disciples, and the cross. And I never entirely figured out the significance of counting. Although counting works as an adjunct of other symbolism, I suspect it has a meaning of its own.
There are no love scenes in the Western sense (after all, it's far too cold to take off one's clothes). We get only one tentative kiss, a couple ghost embraces, a tiny bit of touching, and a few lines of dialog. Yet the effect is sensuous in the extreme. This is way more with way less. The feelings are intense, yet without skirting an NC-17 or R rating (the movie is actually unrated; it could be PG ...but probably won't appeal to 13 year olds).
Yet all of this is secondary. What really stood out the second time was the importance of hyper-hearing ...abetted by the sound track. Suddenly the scene of the fishes under the ice made sense, as did hearing approaching trucks before they even appeared on the horizon. Ears are touched throughout, and some epileptic fits begin with auditory hallucinations. At one point a medical person comments the protagonist "listens very well". The motions of finding a person buried somewhere in a railroad car full of coal makes sense.
The sound track is very complex. Often rather than just matching the current scene, it contains the first subtle segue to the next. At one point the sounds of water in pipes goes on for so long it can get tuned out. But the sound subtly changes ever so slowly; toward the end one can dimly pick out mixed into all the water sounds another sound, that of sheep bleating.
The sound track is the key to and high point of this movie. It holds the story together. And it's excellent artistry. Yet the first time I completely missed it. Listen and you'll be richly rewarded.
The first time I saw it, I was bowled over by the gorgeous visuals, but couldn't follow the narrative, especially in the last half. I got the feeling this was normal, that there wasn't really any narrative except in the magico-realistic sense, that the movie was meant to be viewed impressionistic-ally. Then I absorbed just a bit about the history of Mongolia and Mongolian shamanism at home, and saw it again. The second time the narrative was clear throughout. The gorgeous visuals were still there, but now they weren't the only thing.
One key was understanding that shamanism was heavily discouraged when Mongolia was a Soviet satellite for decades. Another was understanding just a bit about shamanism itself: that the giant blue sky is almost a personality; that poles and clefts and even trees can be entrances to the world below; that shamans are called by their first trance experience, which often manifests as an illness, and trained by the previous generation's shaman; that shamanistic trances and epileptic fits are similar; and most importantly that the highest calling of a shaman is to "restore balance" with nature for an entire people.
More imagery made sense with the understanding that going under water meant death from this world (and perhaps birth into the world of nature). The parallel between a woman traumatized by the relocation to modernity and a peeled potato going under water in a basin became clear.
I never entirely figured out the symbolism of the apples. Maybe they signify Soviet times, or maybe danger, or maybe a turn away from shamanism, or maybe materialism. And are potatoes distorted apples? I never entirely integrated the Christian symbolism. There are clear references to at least Christ, the last supper, the twelve disciples, and the cross. And I never entirely figured out the significance of counting. Although counting works as an adjunct of other symbolism, I suspect it has a meaning of its own.
There are no love scenes in the Western sense (after all, it's far too cold to take off one's clothes). We get only one tentative kiss, a couple ghost embraces, a tiny bit of touching, and a few lines of dialog. Yet the effect is sensuous in the extreme. This is way more with way less. The feelings are intense, yet without skirting an NC-17 or R rating (the movie is actually unrated; it could be PG ...but probably won't appeal to 13 year olds).
Yet all of this is secondary. What really stood out the second time was the importance of hyper-hearing ...abetted by the sound track. Suddenly the scene of the fishes under the ice made sense, as did hearing approaching trucks before they even appeared on the horizon. Ears are touched throughout, and some epileptic fits begin with auditory hallucinations. At one point a medical person comments the protagonist "listens very well". The motions of finding a person buried somewhere in a railroad car full of coal makes sense.
The sound track is very complex. Often rather than just matching the current scene, it contains the first subtle segue to the next. At one point the sounds of water in pipes goes on for so long it can get tuned out. But the sound subtly changes ever so slowly; toward the end one can dimly pick out mixed into all the water sounds another sound, that of sheep bleating.
The sound track is the key to and high point of this movie. It holds the story together. And it's excellent artistry. Yet the first time I completely missed it. Listen and you'll be richly rewarded.
Khadak : Belgian duo Jessica Woodworth and Peter Brossens present an authentic portrayal of nomadic life in Mongolia.
FilmCriticLalitRao14 July 2013
One of world cinema's biggest virtues is that it allows us to have a personal vision of distant places where it would be difficult for us to travel due to various reasons. Mongolia is one such remote area which has caught the attention of various film directors as many films have been set in this vast central Asian nation ever since it was popularized in 1989 by renowned German director Ms. Ulrike Ottinger through her film "Johanna D'Arc of Mongolia". Mongolia is honestly represented by ethnographic filmmakers Peter Brosens and Jessica Woodworth. Khadak is not a documentary film but it has made good use of a lot of documentary cinema's conventions to get closer to reality. Although the main story moves slowly, there are plenty of minor stories to keep in check the viewers' attention. These stories are an excellent initiation into the lives of people in Mongolia as each story represents an event related to the lives of the protagonists. One needs to watch this film if one's knowledge of ethnographic films is restricted uniquely to films made by Jean Rouch.
An emotional journey that captures the soul of Mongolian culture and tradition
mikellj25 January 2007
A true work of art. An emotional journey that captures the soul of Mongolian culture and tradition while posing important questions on the dilemma facing traditional Mongolian values by the destruction of Mongolians most precious treasure, their land, by international mining operations.
Beautifully crafted scene's and soul shaking audio design tell much of the story that has been left unverbalized. The directors have done an amazing job of researching Mongolian culture, society, social changes, etc. and show a true appreciation for Mongolia's heritage.
The directors use of a generally unexperienced cast, with the exception of a few of Mongolia's best, had astounding results. The actors who played the main characters Bagi and Zolzaya were flawless, especially considering they have never acted before.
Reading the synopsis and interviews with the directors afterwards may help some not familiar with Mongolia to better understand some of the deeper meaning and symbolism embedded in this film.
10 out of 10!
Beautifully crafted scene's and soul shaking audio design tell much of the story that has been left unverbalized. The directors have done an amazing job of researching Mongolian culture, society, social changes, etc. and show a true appreciation for Mongolia's heritage.
The directors use of a generally unexperienced cast, with the exception of a few of Mongolia's best, had astounding results. The actors who played the main characters Bagi and Zolzaya were flawless, especially considering they have never acted before.
Reading the synopsis and interviews with the directors afterwards may help some not familiar with Mongolia to better understand some of the deeper meaning and symbolism embedded in this film.
10 out of 10!
Disturbing, but overly slow and cryptic
nosiesnetnieuws17 August 2007
I have just seen this film, and my opinion of it is mixed.
On the one hand, the film gives a detailed and intimate view of Mongolian life, especially in the first part; moreover, there is a strong political message behind it, which leads to some disturbing and powerful images (nothing too shocking).
On the other hand, everything is filmed in such a tediously slow manner that it becomes either mesmerizing or simply boring. Unfortunately, in my case, the whole audience including myself were not mesmerized. Moreover, toward the ending, the film becomes more and more surreal, which for me personally did not lead to a satisfied feeling at the actual end.
All in all, if you enjoy watching empty lands and silent people for a long time, you may be able to enjoy the positive aspects of this film. If, like me, you like films with at least the outline of a well-defined story and the feeling that you somehow understood what you just saw, this might not be the film for you.
On the one hand, the film gives a detailed and intimate view of Mongolian life, especially in the first part; moreover, there is a strong political message behind it, which leads to some disturbing and powerful images (nothing too shocking).
On the other hand, everything is filmed in such a tediously slow manner that it becomes either mesmerizing or simply boring. Unfortunately, in my case, the whole audience including myself were not mesmerized. Moreover, toward the ending, the film becomes more and more surreal, which for me personally did not lead to a satisfied feeling at the actual end.
All in all, if you enjoy watching empty lands and silent people for a long time, you may be able to enjoy the positive aspects of this film. If, like me, you like films with at least the outline of a well-defined story and the feeling that you somehow understood what you just saw, this might not be the film for you.
Epic Mongol movie
mybrat-9507515 June 2020
Introducing a young Tsetsegee Byamba wth great acting ability.
Magical realism, epilepsy, and the steppes of Mongolia.
A pilot dies. His son Bagi, who, like his father, has epilepsy, grows up on the steppes, herding sheep, subject to fits. A plague among the animals forces the family off their land to a city where Bagi gets a mining job.
His seizures become more frequent and bring visions in this wasteland of strip mining, factories, and rubble. He falls in with a troupe of student performers after saving the life of one of their number.
As the crisis of his people deepens - herders without flocks - Bagi uses the visions to seek direction. Can he save his people, and can he find love?
Magical realism, epilepsy, and the steppes of Mongolia.
A pilot dies. His son Bagi, who, like his father, has epilepsy, grows up on the steppes, herding sheep, subject to fits. A plague among the animals forces the family off their land to a city where Bagi gets a mining job.
His seizures become more frequent and bring visions in this wasteland of strip mining, factories, and rubble. He falls in with a troupe of student performers after saving the life of one of their number.
As the crisis of his people deepens - herders without flocks - Bagi uses the visions to seek direction. Can he save his people, and can he find love?
movie without a story
robgemen-15 October 2007
This movie lacks about everything what a movie needs for being a movie. First of all, it tells no story. It is an endless array of non-coherent scenes where every scenes lasts for at least 20 seconds. There is very little sound in the movie. People do not talk, there's no background music and there is hardly any sound from the backgrounds. Most scenes are staring people to 'god knows what' or very empty sceneries. It bores you to death.
If should want to compare it with more 'down to earth' objects, then: It's like eating soup without ingredient. It's like Music without rhythms or melody. It's like a bicycle without a frame. It's like a novella without characters. It's like food without taste. It's like a car without an engine or wheels. It's like a holiday in which you have to work for 17 hours a day. It's like sailing without a boat. More of all: It's like a movie without a story.
If should want to compare it with more 'down to earth' objects, then: It's like eating soup without ingredient. It's like Music without rhythms or melody. It's like a bicycle without a frame. It's like a novella without characters. It's like food without taste. It's like a car without an engine or wheels. It's like a holiday in which you have to work for 17 hours a day. It's like sailing without a boat. More of all: It's like a movie without a story.
Smoke and Ashes
spoilsbury_toast_girl6 July 2009
Excellent film. It's visually sublime, very spiritual and incredibly stirring. Admittedly, the long, quiet shots resemble Jia's cinema, Byambasuren's semi-documentaries and even Tarkovsky, but it doesn't curtail the power of the images one bit. Those are shots of a faraway, hence fascinating world (Inner Mongolia) where the people have a way rougher ride than us Central Europeans - we who are living in a "well organized" society. I don't mean those who still live under same conditions as their ancestors thousands of years ago. They seem to be perfectly happy, much more than us. I mean those people who are forced to adjust to a system they don't know and where they either stand or fall. Most of them fall once they are robbed of their lives with all that's left is emptiness and boredom. The film is about the loss of the spiritual soul, about cutting off roots and about ruining ancient cultures. There is just one little objection: Maybe it would have been more effective if a local had made the film instead of Europeans, because this way it remains to be a view from the outside.
Absolutely pointless
emailkristina5 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I was very excited about watching a Mongolian movie for the first time, and this turned out to be a complete disaster. There is literally no story. The movie starts with a nomadic family having to move to the city because their animals die. In the city part of the movie, things start getting more and more weird. The two teenage characters run around constantly, the camera turns upside down, a female voice slowly counts to 10...... if you don't get it, you're supposed to feel stupid and guilty for failing to appreciate the deepness of the hipster directors, I guess. Just like in Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes". Don't waste your time on this.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
