I was very much looking forward to Ararat. In the last few years I read a lot about the genocide of 1915, and was interested in seeing how this tremendous story would be portrayed in a film, specially told from the perspective of a director of Armenian heritage, like Egoyan. I always believed this was a very important part of history that needed to be told.
Unfortunately I was very disappointed. I expected so much more, and despite a few scenes that lived up to the somber topic, the movie as a whole is weak and chaotic. The following is a list of some of the things that I didn't like:
In general, I thought it was an interesting effort, but the story could have been much more compelling if told in a more straightforward manner, without the distracting sub-plots, the inert secondary characters, and specially without the unnecessarily "preachy" parts. As others have mentioned in this board, it would have been a much compelling movie if it stuck exclusively to the story of the genocide of 1915, instead to jumping back and forth in time to have characters explaining to us the historical importance of the events that are being narrated.
Unfortunately I was very disappointed. I expected so much more, and despite a few scenes that lived up to the somber topic, the movie as a whole is weak and chaotic. The following is a list of some of the things that I didn't like:
- Too many subplots. The movie has way too many contemporary sub-characters living their own sub-plots, intertwined with the historical characters of 1915, and Gorky in 1934. It's very distracting, and many of these sub-plots add nothing to the story. The only contemporary characters we get to identify with are Raffi (David Alpay) and David (Christopher Plummer).
- Some of the acting was beyond sub-par. The performances of Arsinée Khanjian, Marie-Josée Croze, and specially Charles Aznavour are painful to watch at times. They barely show any emotions, one way or another, and make it very difficult for the viewer to identify with their own struggles.
- The movie gets too preachy at times. I believe the Armenian genocide of 1915 is a story horrible enough, that it doesn't require any additional emphasis or ideological bent to be told. Unfortunately we have the character of Ani (Arsinée Khanjian) constantly referring to the struggle of the Armenian people in very nationalistic terms, to the point of becoming preachy. The same can be said for some of the more energetic moments of Raffi, but it makes sense within the plot as he struggles to understand the motives that led his father to his tragic end.
In general, I thought it was an interesting effort, but the story could have been much more compelling if told in a more straightforward manner, without the distracting sub-plots, the inert secondary characters, and specially without the unnecessarily "preachy" parts. As others have mentioned in this board, it would have been a much compelling movie if it stuck exclusively to the story of the genocide of 1915, instead to jumping back and forth in time to have characters explaining to us the historical importance of the events that are being narrated.