3 reviews
This is my second comment as "The Rio/SP FilmFest Unofficial critic", or should I say, information provider. Having participated and seen over 200 films at the 2004 and 2005 Rio & S.Paulo(Brazil) FilmFests, I've decided to add a general comment about every film of note with NO IMDb comment, for the benefit of the clueless viewer like myself prior to seeing this film.
Strange that this film, unusual just by its origin - Kyrghistan, has not been commented on. Here in Rio alone, it was shown at four different sessions; and this was by no means its premier. The film is similar to the simple Iranian films often shown in the West; intended for the export audience audience rather than for the home audience, which may not understand why anyone outside (or inside) the country would want to see a film of such common place banality.
The reason for such little enthusiasm by IMDb's comment writers, is probably that we have seen so many of these simple films before. The difficult situations are the same in Iran, in the Former Soviet Union, and other countries, even if not caused by the same rupture. But humankind is pretty similar at the small village level. And the problems faced by small, disenfranchised villages everywhere in "exotic" places are not that exotic.
But there will always be a market, I guess, for these movies. In my head, personally, these "day in the life of a village" movies are beginning to blur. And I HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, AND HAVE TRAVELED WIDELY.
I WENT TO SEE THIS MOVIE, AS I HAD A PASS FOR IT AND IT PRECEDED A FILM I REALLY WANTED TO SEE; I'D GUARANTEE A GOOD SEAT FOR IT BY SITTING THROUGH THIS ONE, and thought maybe there was something special about Kyrghistan. I knew it was a Turkic country like Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan (countries which I had seen similar films from recently), but my only other connection to the place were the Kyrghiz Air Jets I've often seen at Istanbul Airport.
The film didn't give me any new insight on the country. It in fact reminded me a lot about a film from Outer Mongolia recently seen (but without the cold igloo life of this other country). The characters are "cutesy", I guess. So for the film's simplicity, good acting from the town's "simple folks", and the fact that something from such an obscure (for us) country was shown here, I give it an 8. The "naughty" scenes, usually not shown in otherwise-similar Islamic films, made it more watchable than many of the artsy and over-puritanical Iranian films, some foreigners simply rave about. about.
The plot revolves around the general dissatisfaction in a very small Kyrghiz village. Everyone lives by doing whatever they can to get by, and so even the one single policeman has a hard time keeping the peace, though he often has a "hard time" with some of the promiscuous married women of the town when he gets a chance.
The inhabitants of course still live with the hardships caused by "Moscow sending no money anymore," possibly the population's biggest gripe. And, bored with nothing to do and no work, some still argue with fervor about Communist ideology, while others mock it in a few entertaining ways.
But in all, we've seen it before, many times. Not just from this particular village in Central Asia. Maybe that novelty is what led to the film's participation in the "Panorama" Section of the 2005 Berlin Festival, the pedigree which probably landed the film here, and maybe over your way soon.
Strange that this film, unusual just by its origin - Kyrghistan, has not been commented on. Here in Rio alone, it was shown at four different sessions; and this was by no means its premier. The film is similar to the simple Iranian films often shown in the West; intended for the export audience audience rather than for the home audience, which may not understand why anyone outside (or inside) the country would want to see a film of such common place banality.
The reason for such little enthusiasm by IMDb's comment writers, is probably that we have seen so many of these simple films before. The difficult situations are the same in Iran, in the Former Soviet Union, and other countries, even if not caused by the same rupture. But humankind is pretty similar at the small village level. And the problems faced by small, disenfranchised villages everywhere in "exotic" places are not that exotic.
But there will always be a market, I guess, for these movies. In my head, personally, these "day in the life of a village" movies are beginning to blur. And I HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, AND HAVE TRAVELED WIDELY.
I WENT TO SEE THIS MOVIE, AS I HAD A PASS FOR IT AND IT PRECEDED A FILM I REALLY WANTED TO SEE; I'D GUARANTEE A GOOD SEAT FOR IT BY SITTING THROUGH THIS ONE, and thought maybe there was something special about Kyrghistan. I knew it was a Turkic country like Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan (countries which I had seen similar films from recently), but my only other connection to the place were the Kyrghiz Air Jets I've often seen at Istanbul Airport.
The film didn't give me any new insight on the country. It in fact reminded me a lot about a film from Outer Mongolia recently seen (but without the cold igloo life of this other country). The characters are "cutesy", I guess. So for the film's simplicity, good acting from the town's "simple folks", and the fact that something from such an obscure (for us) country was shown here, I give it an 8. The "naughty" scenes, usually not shown in otherwise-similar Islamic films, made it more watchable than many of the artsy and over-puritanical Iranian films, some foreigners simply rave about. about.
The plot revolves around the general dissatisfaction in a very small Kyrghiz village. Everyone lives by doing whatever they can to get by, and so even the one single policeman has a hard time keeping the peace, though he often has a "hard time" with some of the promiscuous married women of the town when he gets a chance.
The inhabitants of course still live with the hardships caused by "Moscow sending no money anymore," possibly the population's biggest gripe. And, bored with nothing to do and no work, some still argue with fervor about Communist ideology, while others mock it in a few entertaining ways.
But in all, we've seen it before, many times. Not just from this particular village in Central Asia. Maybe that novelty is what led to the film's participation in the "Panorama" Section of the 2005 Berlin Festival, the pedigree which probably landed the film here, and maybe over your way soon.
Perhaps it is only because I spent time in Kyrgyzstan as a US Peace Corps volunteer that I loved this film. So - caveat emptor. However, I found much to like in this film, and do not see it simply as Yet Another Film From An 'Obscure' Region, as another reviewer on IMDb.com did. Perhaps this is because I lived in such a village, and had neighbors exactly like the people depicted in the film - they were not cutesy examples of The Other, as the gentleman from Brazil seems to think, writing in another review.
I found that the film was an excellent - and strangely sophisticated, for all the veneer of just simple village folks-ness - example of a work that has one foot in slice of life realism and one foot in more abstracted, symbolic (visual and narrative) film-making. Characters are examples and types, but are human, as well; dialogue is sometimes didactic (if often in caricature) but always has an eye on the camera (the watcher), and an attention to the heart. This is symbolic film-making, but not bleakly so. This is the Soviet pastoral and the Russian tradition of satire holding hands for a bit, if only in realization that they must hold hands to form a common social future.
You need not be a fan of post-Soviet film-making to appreciate this film; it's funny and fascinating as a slice of life. But it is so much more.
I found that the film was an excellent - and strangely sophisticated, for all the veneer of just simple village folks-ness - example of a work that has one foot in slice of life realism and one foot in more abstracted, symbolic (visual and narrative) film-making. Characters are examples and types, but are human, as well; dialogue is sometimes didactic (if often in caricature) but always has an eye on the camera (the watcher), and an attention to the heart. This is symbolic film-making, but not bleakly so. This is the Soviet pastoral and the Russian tradition of satire holding hands for a bit, if only in realization that they must hold hands to form a common social future.
You need not be a fan of post-Soviet film-making to appreciate this film; it's funny and fascinating as a slice of life. But it is so much more.
I saw that film in the Mostra de Valencia festival. I had two passes so I even invited a friend to come and see it. At first we were amused, and unlike most of the audience we even smiled at some incredibly incoherent situations. We both started getting terribly bored after the first half hour: everything was set... so what could happen? Well... nothing ... At least nothing interesting... It took the director more than 100 minutes to prove that everybody is the same everywhere... I'm sorry, but I don't need to go to the cinema for that... I've studied a bit of history and I also watch the news... I know that you can find the same flaws everywhere... At least if the director actually wanted to prove it, it could have been an entertaining lesson, but it wasn't. Probably the most boring lesson ever.
- margeinwales
- Oct 24, 2006
- Permalink