‘Arafat’

Atom Egoyan’s latest film, “Ararat,” tries to develop ties between families and to show the historical implications of the Armenian Genocide as it applies to Armenians today. He does not succeed.

Raffi is a 20-year-old Armenian who is dating his stepsister, Celia. Celia blames Raffi’s mother, an art history professor named Ani, for her father’s suicide (again, for reasons that Egoyan fails to make clear), and there follows an unconvincing battle of will between Raffi and his mother.

Ani is hired to serve as an historical consultant to a director who is filming a movie about the siege of Van (an ethnic Armenian city) by Turkish forces in 1915. The director explicitly states his intentions in filming this movie, and they are suspiciously similar to Egoyan’s. One of the actors cast by this director is the gay partner of the son of a United States Customs officer, whom Raffi meets upon his return to the United States after visiting Armenia and Turkey. As it turns out, Raffi unknowingly smuggles a large quantity of heroin into the U.S., but he is not arrested by the customs official who is instead intrigued by Raffi’s quest for the truth.

Drug smuggling, homosexuality, suicide — what topic doesn’t Egoyan explore in “Ararat”?

Egoyan could have done without the drugs and the homosexuality. They are not pertinent to the film, and they detract from the greater story of the genocide and its effects on present-day Armenians. The suicide of Celia’s father is extremely relevant, but its poor description fails to capture the intensity of such an immense historical burden as the genocide, and again, the audience is left wondering what all the fuss is about.

A la “Magnolia” and “13 Conversations about One Thing,” “Ararat” attempts to tie together several different stories to create as a message a synthesis of each of its parts. While the audience is able to draw from each story specific ideas that contribute to the overall message of the film, at the same time, it finds itself preoccupied with having to make these inferences based on weak character development and a poor explanation of just how the stories coincide with one another.

The audience also finds itself burdened with the task of having to place each scene in chronological order. Nearly every scene is presented without any indication as to its time, the only exception being those scenes involving Arshille Gorky (an Armenian painter who was present at the siege of Van). These scenes were also the most moving, because the audience is able to witness directly the effects of the genocide. Despite the fact that there exists a clear connection between Gorky’s story and the story of Raffi, Egoyan fails to demonstrate this in the film, mostly due to his poor characterization of Raffi.

When he decided to produce “Ararat,” Egoyan wished to “make a film that would allow the viewer to experience the reality of horror in a spiritual sense.” Egoyan falls far short of this epic goal, and the film does not evoke from the audience a true sense of horror as did, perhaps, Steven Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List.” In terms of the new exposure that will be given to the Armenian Genocide, the film is a great success — never before has a film been produced that brings to light the genocide. In terms of brilliant filmmaking, however, “Ararat” lacks the artistic elements that are necessary to create a truly memorable film.