.

 

Reviews - English

Nor Gyank / Los Angeles
The Japan Times
The Boston Globe
The Philadelphia Festival 
of World Cinema
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Time out
Torronto Film Festival
Variety
Welcomat
Whatís on in London
Armenian genocide of 1915 examined in pair of films at MFA, Boston
IFF Rotterdam - Musicians
Film West
Asbarez
The Film Society of Lincoln Center New York
The Harvard Film Archive
The Boston Phoenix
Hayastani Hanrapetutiun
Mirror-Spectator On-Line
Dagens Nyheter
Berkeley Art Museum/Pacific Film Archive
On Screen
Home

© by author or publisher

If the © holders want us not to publish the text please contact me and we will delete it.
Webmaster e-mail

 
 
SEE Magazine: Issue #472: December 12, 2002

A different dynamic is shaping up in representations of the Armenian Genocide. Until Ararat, the only sustained cinematic engagement with this moment that I knew of were Don Askarianís films. Askarian, working in Berlin Ė he was exiled in the í70s, after spending time in jail in Soviet Armenia Ė has made films where the Genocide was always vaguely present. But while his films canít get away from the events, they canít quite evoke them either. The most haunting moment in Komitas (1988) comes when we see an image of a mysterious figure wandering the countryside with a flame-thrower; you know whatís going on, even if you never really see it. His 1992 film Avetik is filled with images of an exiled filmmaker sitting in his Berlin apartment, projecting film onto his face, looking haunted.

Thereís a similar tension at work in Ararat, which seldom visualises the Genocide that is ostensibly its topic; he only places moments of violence in scenes from the epic film-within-the-film. This need to shield yourself from the horror and from the fear of blaspheming the horror with meta-cinematic flourishes, is something Egoyan shares with Askarian. While the former is much more narrative and the latter much more avant garde, they both need to represent, to visualise, at the same time that they need to back away.

Their films are conflicted, but I donít get the sense that the conflict short-circuits attempts at interpretation in the same way as in Hitler: A Film from Germany or Schindlerís List. When I consider the formal strategies of Syberberg and Spielberg, I mostly sense frustration; when I consider the strategies of Egoyan and Askarian, I sense cautious hope.

Jerry White is Assistant Professor of Film Studies at the University of Alberta

See the full version at http://www.seemagazine.com/Issues/2002/1212/screen6.htm