CRITIQUE
Disagree (for the most part) with Varzi
Loni: “I disagree with Roxanne Varzi. I think Makhmalbaf does a good job of
showing the despair of the people in Iran [and Afghanistan]. I do agree with
her statement that the film is visually stunning. The imagery is necessary
because it humanizes the people in the film. It lets the viewer know that Iran
[Afghanistan] is not just a hectic place like the images on CNN, for example,
would portray. It is a place where people live their everyday lives…. Varzi
thinks that Makhmalbaf failed to show a film that explained unemployment and
hunger in Iran [Afghanistan]. I think he did a brilliant job. He showed
images that were surprising but not devastating. He also used English, perhaps
so more people can relate to the film. I also disagree with her statement that
these people do not have stories. Nafas explains her need to get to her sister
in detail and shows distress about that several times in the film. Although
Khak does not show his feelings much there is a lot we can infer about him. In
school he was not mentally present. It reminded me of the behavior a child with
ADHD might exhibit here in the states. Several of the legless men expressed their
needs, especially the one who traveled for his wife. There was not a lot of
background done on the characters but we saw their urgent needs. With those
urgent needs we can gauge what their lives were like or at least see what it
was in that moment and establish feelings toward that…. I think Varzi was very
harsh on the film. Yes, Makhmalbaf took advantage of using stunning visuals and
I do not think that is a reason to punish him. I felt like I already knew these
characters because we were thrown into a specific time of there lives. I didn't
feel as though a back story was needed for them. Makhmalbaf does a great job of
including moments and sentences that stand out. For instance, the line about a
person dying every five minutes. That's ridiculous right there! In my opinion
those moments of the film were all that was needed.”
Jamie (even though it seems like Jamie agrees with Varzi, I think
fundamentally Jamie doesn’t agree): “The film Kandahar [takes] concepts the public is widely numb to and…[makes]
the viewers feel something. For example, instead of showing a man stepping
on a mine and blowing to pieces, the film shows injured men chasing after
heavenly legs floating from the sky. This makes you feel something—I felt
pain and sorrow and a need to help the men who were fighting for a leg, as the
rest of the world fights over money and frivolous material things… This film
did a beautiful job at taking the ordinary and making it into something worth
watching…”
Melissa: This film gave me a much better understanding of what it is like to
be an average person in the Afghani culture. Like Roxanne Varzi says numerous
times in her article, my only connection to Afghanistan is the war-torn images
I have seen on news stations or internet sites. Many times those images
contained American soldiers, so it is almost impossible to get a clear
understanding of true Afghanistan from those pictures. That is where I believe
this film succeeded. We were shown women, children, families, schools, homes,
doctors, transportation, injured people missing limbs, along with scenes of
compassion and scenes of violence. This is not what the news shows, so I feel
like my eyes were opened into actually cognitively recognizing that there is
more to Afghanistan than a desert tainted with war. Although there is some
critique about the emotionless countenance of Nafas, she intrigued me. Perhaps
as a westerner, I am used to films in which the characters experience a roller
coaster of emotions, especially women, so her calm, almost robotic manner was
fascinating to me. I am extremely close to my sister so as the time was wasting
away in the film, I found myself growing more and more anxious for Nafas to get
to her on time, but she remained with the same eerie quietness. This allowed me
to make the same connection that Varzi does when she says Nafas is symbolic of
how numb all the people in Afghanistan have become. It makes sense.
Gabby: “While watching I first noticed the monotonous tone of Nafas and wondered,
why is someone so distraught over the possible and impending suicide of her
sister, so...emotionless? Varzi’s article however, sheds some light onto why
Makhmalbaf’s actors are so talentless (for lack of a better word). The numbness
that is portrayed of not only Nafas but also the other characters in the film
is almost a direct reflection of the true people of Afghanistan who are ‘numb
and immobilized by the trauma of war.’ Perhaps this film would have been easier
to connect with had these characters been easier to sympathize with; yet, as
Americans, how could we possibly sympathize with them? Personally, I find that
this might be difficult for many, because I have a home, I do not have to fear
walking out of my home, wonder when I will eat next or mistake hunger for a
disease. In America, most of us to do not see this image of the world. Varzi
opens her article in saying that Afghanistan is a country without an image, and
yet I feel that this film shows many images of this devastated part of the world.
While these are not the images that we, in the US, are used to seeing - images
of war and death - they give us as viewers an eye into the real Afghanistan. A
world where children are taught to avoid the landmines so that they make keep
their limbs, where you are photographed even though your face may be covered,
where children go to school to learn about weaponry to receive food and are
expelled if they cannot learn, where jewelry is taken from a skeleton to be
sold for profit and food, where those who have fallen victims to a lost limb
are running towards prosthetics that are just out of reach - this is the
Afghanistan that the film shows us. As the article points out, the recorder
that Nafas speaks into barely gives her, or any other Afghan, a voice. Afghanistan
is not a country without image; it is a country without a voice. Unlike what
Varzi says in the end, I do not believe that this film will be forgotten by
those who view it. Makhmalbaf wanted to visually show the injustice of a world
and the suffering faced by the Afghan people. As the article points out,
statistics nor photographs will accurately portray the true tragedies faced by
these people every day. They are numb to the world in our American eyes and
yet, they know nothing different. What I take from this film is that
Afghanistan does not have a voice, but the US does not truly have eyes and
Makhmalbaf has worked to give each exactly what it needs.”
Steffie: “Varzi criticizes Makhmalbaf for failing to make Kandahar a film to induce empathy
and a call to action against the terrors of warfare, but praises it for being a
film with beautiful pictures and a thought-provoking alternative vision of a place
we know little about. Isn’t this a contradiction? In showing us something ‘thought-provoking’
and ‘beautiful’ we automatically get in touch with our morality. Beauty is
something we want to protect and the thoughts provoked are those of the
contrast to the injustices that we know. Something Varzi does not say much
about is the attention paid to the image of women. She says to be a woman is a
fate worse than death, and that they are destined to be faceless and
unidentifiable. I don’t see the burqas as a curse that women must accept, but
rather an embracing of culture and tradition.”
Agree (for the most part) with Varzi
Ally Headings: “I was confused
throughout the majority of the film, and the way it ended just made me ask more
questions. Varzi writes a perfect description of my thoughts on page 933, ‘He
is not after stories, but scenes….’ I love human interaction, I love hearing
feelings of people or a group of people... I wish the filmmaker had showed more
character development. Varzi’s critique of this film is almost parallel with
mine. I found what Varzi said about surrealism very interesting. She begs the
question, ‘Is reality more intense when it is surrealized?’ In this film, maybe
it is. She speaks of the part when the one-legged men are running to retrieve
plastic legs falling from the sky. I’m pretty sure that would never happen, but
it made me feel desperation for the men, which was the only emotional response
I had to the film.”
Chris: [Varzi says that] the actors did a poor job of portraying their
characters. Looking back on the film [Varzi is]… right, Nafas was very dry and
never really showed emotion.
Keleigh: “After reading the piece written by Roxanne Varzi, I would agree with
her assessment that the English language was used to appeal to ‘foreign audiences,
especially Americans’ (Varzi, 932)…. In part, I agree with Varzi in her
writing. Although the film was interesting, I felt as though I were watching a
documentary, not a movie… Since the majority of the film is centered on Nafas’
journey, her lack of emotion played a big role in the film…”
Kelsey: “I do however have some problems with the
film just as the critic did in the ‘Picturing Change’ article. I agree with him
[her] when he [she] states that they are terrible actors… Nafas sounded
staged and like she was reading from a prompter rather than really feeling the
emotions of what was happening. The doctors from the Red Cross were terrible at
discussing Nafas’s situation. They kept saying the same things over and over
and asking the same questions. Nafas kept asking if they had someone to help
her and they just kept saying no. Both Nafas and the doctors made the
discussion seem awkward and stiff. It felt like they had a language barrier
keeping them from communicating. The critic also stated that the characters
were underdeveloped and did not have enough of a back story. I do agree with
that claim in the sense that I wanted to know more and be able to connect with
the characters. However, I can see that the filmmaker kept it somewhat
mysterious in that aspect because the culture itself is so closed up and
restrictive. The women do not openly discuss their lives and the men stay
secretive in order to not risk confrontation. It is better to share as little
personal information as you can so that others do not use it against you. The
filmmaker portrays some of the characters as trustworthy while others have
sketchiness about them. I think that it why their lives were so concealed.”
Maggie: “…the people of this society work and seem healthy. In the article,
it discusses how the woman who visited the doctor thought she had cholera, when
in fact she was just famished. That detail was hard to pick up on. Our minds
are so sheltered to what we see on television that we are unaware of cultures
like this, one of the reasons being this nation does not allow broadcasts. I
personally could never imagine living in a world where I wasn’t allowed to show
my face, just because I am a woman…. Although Varzi’s article criticizes the
way the actors portrayed their characters and the society, the images are still
a culture-shock for me… Yes, I agree with Varzi that the main character could
have been more enthusiastic. She is, after all, trying to save her sister, so
one would think she would be more passionate about getting to Kandahar. What
frustrates me the most about the film is that we never find out if Nafas
reached her sister in time. Is she continuing her journey to her? Did her
sister actually kill herself? Does her documented expedition ever get
published? After the film ended I felt more confused…”
Jessica: “… once I
read Varsi, I realized that it wasn’t just me being an American film watcher,
but it was also because the film was sort of confusing. As an empathetic
person, I found myself wanting to cry at certain points because of the struggle
(like when the robbers took the family’s belongings and when the children were
told no more school because Afghanistan sucks and no one in the world will love
you or care), but I just never found a personal connection enough to shed a
tear. I didn’t know for sure what Makhmalbaf’s point was with this fictional
(not documentary) film. After reading Varsi, I felt I understood more than I realized.
While I enjoyed watching the film because it was so different from any American
film I’ve seen, I agree with Varsi that it lacked character development.
Personally, I always love films that are intensely dramatic, psychological and
have characters who are flawed, not just good vs. evil. Therefore, watching Kandahar I felt like something was
missing: developed characters. I think it is harsh of Varsi to say everyone
will just forget Makhmalbaf’s film like the Salgado’s starving children pictures,
but then, Makhmalbaf doesn’t really explain further, leaving Varsi and myself
to further question his motives and purposes for this film. The ending of the
film seemed especially confusing to me. Did Nafas ever reach her sister? Is she
stuck in Afghanistan forever? If she is stuck, how will that affect her as a
women’s issues journalist? These are all question that if they were answered
may have given me more clarity…”
CONTENT
Women’s Rights
Melissa: “I would
like to question the perspective that an actual Afghani woman has. There was a
large number of women in the film, yet the only woman we actually got to know
was Nafas, and she was separated from the other women since she lives in
Canada. I wonder what a conversation between Nafas and a woman who removed her
burqa would have been like. I think it would have been powerful to see an
interaction, woman to woman, about the struggles that Nafas was facing to
travel to her sister in a very male-dominated country. Do the women there even
have opinions? Or is it conditioned out of them in their upbringing. I can’t
imagine what it would be like to have no identity to anyone else except to your
husband. If Makhmalbaf was able to even just touch on this subject, the film would
have been complete for me.”
Chris: “Women’s
rights were heavily touched on, but in a subtle manner. We were able to see in
the film how being a woman can be a curse, but also a blessing. Woman were
shown to be in a burqa and shielded from the world, but underneath all of it they
were still putting on makeup, which made me wonder, why? No one can see you
underneath it, why spend that time covering yourself in makeup. It [can be]… a
blessing because you are usually protected, however your freedoms only come
from you father or husband, which is very screwed up in my opinion.”
Nicole: “I thought
it was scary to think of the little boy learning all about weapons like
automatic guns and shot guns and pistols. It was a scary thought knowing all
these young boys needed to learn this and if they did not know it they were
expelled from school and the girls did not go to school at all.”
Steffie: “These
people live in a world of death, disease and hunger. Life is the most precious
commodity and in order to make the most of life these women take some pride in
their appearance. They are shown painting their nails, adorning themselves with
bracelets, and even putting on makeup under their burqas of beautiful colours.
We see that these items are the women’s most precious possessions when bandits
come steal their bundles and they fight and scream to keep them, risking their
lives. Some may take offense to a woman’s only role being her beauty, but
beauty is something that needs to be protected, especially when everything that
surrounds them is ugly and terrifying. And these women can take pride in their
role as the guardians of the beautiful.”
Dangerous Environment
Nicole: “[The film
showed] the girls the land mines by using dolls and telling them that they’re
dangerous and to stay away. I also liked how they showed the girls and how they
were preparing them to go back into Afghanistan [from Iran]….”
Kelsey: “I could
feel and understand the danger …[the characters] were all in when passing
through cities, towns, or across borders.”
Persistence
Keleigh: “Something
else that I noticed was that many of the people in the film were persistent in
what they wanted. For instance, Nafas wants to get to Kandahar and she doesn’t
care who takes her there, so long as she arrives. Khak’s mother is persistent
in talking to Mullah because she doesn’t believe her son should be expelled
from school. Khak keeps trying to sell Nafas the ring he found although she
repetitively tells him that she does not want it. The man who has two good legs
keeps asking the women at the Red Cross for legs for himself, then his friend,
then his mother. I think this persistence shows that even though these people
are surrounded by poverty and war, they will still fight for what they need in
order to survive, perhaps something they’ve learned from the war.”
FORM
Close-ups
Loni: “Makhmalbaf also
uses great imagery. The corpse and legs attached to the parachute are some. He
also takes advantage of close-ups... It allows us to get close to the
characters, understand the emotions they are conveying and feel empathy for
them.”
No comments:
Post a Comment