 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
144.138.154.68
In Reply to: Kandahar posted by jamesgarvin on April 2, 2005 at 14:13:40:
HiI loved Kandahar. I found it very eerie and claustrophobically cloying (which is what I assumed the film maker intended). Notice how you never actually saw the Taliban, just the effects of their presence. The use of repetition (the nagging kid, the legless patients begging for limbs, etc) was a metaphor for life under the Taliban (I assume).
Stylistically it represents the complete antithesis of the Hollywood movie. No SPFX, no cliches, etc. It didn't ever need to show "Arnie-style" violence to prove a point. If Hollywood had made this movie it would have relied on Spielberg-esque levels of ultra-gore to prove its point. No doubt Bruce Willis would have made an appearance as the perenial avenger of all that is righteous. Kandahar is an extremely violent movie, yet never shows actual images of violence - it's violence is in the form of what *could* happen and what has happened to others who've crossed the Taliban.
I also loved the parachuted legs - a truly original image.
I think this is one of the most original movies ever made. I think the problem is that people view it through the prism of having been exposed to so many formula-driven Hollywood movies. It's a bit like Westerners having constantly been exposes to the blues musical scale, who then find other scales weird.
Doug
Follow Ups:
I think the purpose of the film was to educate Westerners as to the effects of the not only the Taliban, but, somewhat more vaguely, the effects of the Soviet occupation. It was not designed to make gobs of money. When money enters the equation, then they must include those things for which teenage boys expect to see: naked women, violence, and language. I picked this one up from our local library. That it was not available in the local video stores is a shame.
...that most viewers are a little put off by the existential, subjective POV and pacing. They want more action, without noticing that quite a lot is going on. They want 3 acts and a resolution in the end.You are right on, in Kandahar, subtext is everything and the ending is open-ended. OTOH, neither Hollywood nor Spielberg would ever make this movie anyway...which is why I was so happy it WAS produced.
BTW, you didn't really mean "cloying" (not a compliment) did you? Perhaps just "clausterphobic" or "smothering"? As a woman, you can imagine how uncomfortable seeing women smothered in bourkas made me feel. It is a very effective literally and metaphorically for the Taliban's repression.
Yes, I forgot to add that the ending was magnificent. Those shots from behind the feet of the Taliban (the only time you see the Taliban in the whole movie), and the view from behind the veil looking into the setting sun just outside the city of Kandahar made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Like you said, it's the complete opposite of what an ending is supposed to be, yet it still made sense.By "cloying" I didn't mean a criticism. I meant claustrophobic, boxed in, a sense of helplessness and a loss of control. All intentional, and what makes the movie so great.
I just had a thought that the movie reminded me of the surrealist/existentialist Persian novel "The Blind Owl" by Sedagh Hedayat (an unknown masterpiece IMHO) in that it has an opium dream, hallucinatory quality about it (not that I know what an opium dream is like!).
I think most people viewed the movie as a "right on" tirade against the dreaded Taliban (if the movie had been made at any other time it probably would have been ignored). They don't appreciate the existentialist nature of the movie. Pity. I'm glad you "got it".
Cheers. Doug
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
