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.