Ararat meant to be Egoyan's Schindler's List
The National Post (Canada) - May 22 2002

Yesterday, the Post reported the scenes that followed the premiere of Atom Egoyan's new movie, Ararat, when reporters from around the world bombarded the Canadian director with questions about his politics.
Here, Barrett Hooper shifts attention to the film itself.

- - -

Ararat is one of those controversial films that is often judged -- praised or condemned -- before it is even seen. It has the feel, at least, of being an important film. And to the degree that it is concerned with a horrific moment in our not-so-distant past that isn't found in most history books -- the Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks in the years between 1915 and 1923 -- it is important.

But this is also where the controversy starts. Despite mountains of evidence, the Turkish government refuses to acknowledge the genocide. Instead, it offers up the story that the deaths were a) far fewer than the1.5 million people like Egoyan would have us believe and b) that they were an unavoidable effect of the First World War. (Thousands of Turks died, too, say the genocide deniers, some of whom are calling for a boycott of Walt Disney, the parent company of Miramax, which is distributing Ararat in the United States.)

That's also pretty much where the controversy ends. Or at least where it should end. Because while the film is fairly one-sided about the nature of the events (there is one half-Turkish character who is briefly allowed to present some of the genocide deniers' arguments), and it does portray the Turks as sadistic killers, it does so in such an over-the-top way that it defeats its own purpose.

This is just a symptom, however, of the film's essential flaw. Egoyan, who is of Armenian decent, has wanted to make this film since he was 18 years old. It is his Schindler's List. But Ararat is not Schindler's List, as its emotional impact is diluted by a complex structure that skips us to the past, the present and a few months into the future in an attempt to provide a multi-generational perspective on the event.

The main story is set in present-day Toronto, where a movie about the genocide, also called Ararat, is being directed by Armenian Edward Saroyan (Charles Aznavour).

It's through this film within the film that Egoyan weaves his way to the past, often depicting some long-ago moment, like the torture of a child, before pulling the camera back and revealing Saroyan and his camera crew.

While the intent may have been to confront the malleability of history, how facts can be shifted and changed to suit anyone's needs, it has the undesired effect of pulling us away from those characters and out of what might have been a powerful moment.

It is this need of Egoyan's to use the genocide as the context for a more sweeping exploration of the nature of truth -- the search for identity, the depths of moral responsibility and the debate over art versus commerce versus history -- that ultimately weakens the narrative. Egoyan has too many pots on the stove. The thoughts and feelings of each character are presented baldly, and often too forcefully, as though to hit the audience over the head.

You can see Egoyan stretching to convey the pain and suffering the genocide has caused, but he ultimately comes up short.

Barrett Hooper
The National Post (Canada)