In the film Ararat, Egoyan attempts to use pedagogical methods to tell the story of the Armenian Genocide.
He does this by using the plot mechanism of a film-within-a-film. This sub film, also titled Ararat, is used to give the viewer a “live-action” view of the Armenian Genocide, so that the viewer can experience and learn about the tragedies that occurred within the genocide. I believe that he has failed to achieve the purpose of telling the story of the genocide.
He directed the film in a way that leaves the viewer more confused about the plot of the film, rather than learning much about the genocide. The confusion mainly stems from Egoyan’s frequent use of jumping between the past and the present, and from involving four different storylines in the same film.
At the beginning of the film, we see the studio of the painter Arshile Gorky, and the stages of his painting, A Mother and Child. After the opening, we see the film director Edward Saroyan at the customs gate, being told he cannot bring his pomegranate into the country.
After Saroyan eats a seed from it, the film then immediately jumps to Raffi reading his mother’s book at a party, which also introduces Celia into the film, as it transitions into showing Raffi and Celia’s relationship. The film continues by transitioning into the conflict between the customs officer and his son, who is in a relationship with his partner Ali. The film continues to jump between these respective storylines, along with the events of the Armenian Genocide. As a critical moment in one storyline occurs, the film jumps to another storyline. This would leave the viewer trying to figure out what is going on, and would make him confused and frustrated at trying to figuring out the plot of the film.
I interpret the exchange between the customs officer and his son as a matter of reconciliation and acceptance. At the beginning of the film, we are shown a scene in which the son of the customs officer is sitting down for a meal with his partner (the actor), his son, and the customs officer. The child says a blessing over the food, and only he and his grandfather (the customs officer) say “Amen” afterwards. The child then questions why his father did not say “Amen” after the blessing was finished. The father explains that he said it in his head, and that God can hear all of your thoughts. During this conversation, the grandfather sits silently, as if he does not accept his son’s relationship with the actor.
Towards the end of Raffi’s interrogation, the customs officer realizes that heroin had been smuggled into the country by use of the film canisters. The officer, however, decides to let Raffi go, as he believes that Raffi never intended (or believed he could) to smuggle drugs into the country. This shows that the customs officer has had a change of heart, which is reflected during the closing scene between him and his son, during which he accepts his son’s relationship with the actor.
The theme of reconciliation was shown towards the end of the movie, when the customs officer let Raffi go despite the heroin hidden inside the film canisters, and again when the customs officer came to understand and support his son’s relationship with Ali. However, I do not believe that there was any reconciliation within the historical events of the genocide. Despite numerous eyewitness accounts, and evidence of the Turks committing the genocide against the Armenians, the Turkish government still refutes it to this very day. I believe that Egoyan did fully address the historical context of the Armenian Genocide from both sides. His film explains the tragic events that occurred during the genocide, such as the Turks attempting to breach the Armenian quarter at the battle of Van, and the rather gruesome bridal circle dances, during which the brides were covered in kerosene and set on fire, burning them alive. It is also mentioned that the Turkish government denies the genocide ever occurred. The way in which Egoyan told the story of the genocide had the main intention of raising awareness about this tragic event, and to show evidence of the genocide. The film contained actual camcorder footage of Lake Van, and showed real Armenian churches that were ruined in the genocide.
In his film, Egoyan uses the concepts of memory and remembrance in one of the first scenes in which Rouben explains to Ali about the role Ali’s character will play in Saroyan’s film. He mentions that the entire film is based off of Clarence Ussher’s book, An American Physician in Turkey: A Narrative of Adventures in Peace and War, which is considered to be one of the most detailed eyewitness accounts of the Armenian Genocide. Ali then replies that he has read the book, along with “every available archived material that so much as hints at the region, or these people.”
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
