It was discussed in class after watching the film "Kandahar" that the legitimacy of the film, with its harsh and brutal content of handicapped people in the deserts and under Taliban rule, is potentially undermined due to the high aesthetic appeal of most of its scene, for example, when the Red Cross helicopters drop prosthetic legs down to the people in the desert against a beautiful blue sky. But it seems to me that such an aesthetic approach to it only increases the realism of the movie, unlike a Quentin Tarentino bloodfest. Variety's review states "It is Makhmalbaf’s skill at creating this kind of emotionally charged
metaphoric image that links the film so closely to poetry. Yet here,
metaphor — the burka as a prison, artificial legs as freedom, the
eclipse as intellectual darkness, etc. — takes on much greater
referential and social weight than in his recent films. The language of
images seems to be the only one capable of expressing the surrealistic
terror of the land."
There is a constant dis-figuration and perversity of visuals being played throughout the film, with women so completely veiled that Roger Ebert comments it is like "the burqua [is] amputating [Nafas'] personality", handicapped men and women, and children who are growing more and more familiar with the use of firearms. The camera angles also show a distinct chaos in the scene where the boys are reciting the Quran for example, their heads continuously bowing over it like animals beating their head uselessly against a wall, moreover in a very un-synchronized fashion. Yet, here is a multiplicity of images which also serves to enhance the meaninglessness of certain rote activities like the recitation of the Quran in this scene: Khak, who was not bowing over his Quran repeatedly quickly corrects his mistake, but is unable to replicate the recitation itself, struggling to mimic the sounds but not the words so that it comes across as hollow. This meaninglessness borders on black comedy, as when a family picture is being taken and the female family members are indistinguishable under their burqas, or when they apply makeup through their burqas. And the emphasis on artificial legs is juxtaposed with the constant walking in the desert. Its a veritable trade business now, but for the handicapped people a prosthetic leg means the restoration of not only their mobility but dignity.
There is a constant dis-figuration and perversity of visuals being played throughout the film, with women so completely veiled that Roger Ebert comments it is like "the burqua [is] amputating [Nafas'] personality", handicapped men and women, and children who are growing more and more familiar with the use of firearms. The camera angles also show a distinct chaos in the scene where the boys are reciting the Quran for example, their heads continuously bowing over it like animals beating their head uselessly against a wall, moreover in a very un-synchronized fashion. Yet, here is a multiplicity of images which also serves to enhance the meaninglessness of certain rote activities like the recitation of the Quran in this scene: Khak, who was not bowing over his Quran repeatedly quickly corrects his mistake, but is unable to replicate the recitation itself, struggling to mimic the sounds but not the words so that it comes across as hollow. This meaninglessness borders on black comedy, as when a family picture is being taken and the female family members are indistinguishable under their burqas, or when they apply makeup through their burqas. And the emphasis on artificial legs is juxtaposed with the constant walking in the desert. Its a veritable trade business now, but for the handicapped people a prosthetic leg means the restoration of not only their mobility but dignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment