MovieChat Forums > Safar-e Ghandehar (2002) Discussion > Compelling subject - Rotten film making...

Compelling subject - Rotten film making.


I'm sorry, but this movie is highly overrated by the critics who's names/quotes appear on the cover of this film.

The movie is simply poorly made, technically speaking and you have to be blind to not see it. There are so many glaringly obvious-to-the-average-viewer poor edits, subtitle bloopers, and senselessly repeated pieces of exposition, that you'd have to be lying to yourself to say that this movie is well done.

I'd like to say that this movie at least has heart, the story does, but the film maker must not have cared that much about the project, or their reputation, to allow such glaring problems slide.

reply

Thank you. I just finished it. While the plot and storyline need not have been "linear" as some have termed it, the screenplay and blocking was really sub par. The actors problems also had less to do with their acting prowess and much to do with the driectors need to direct within blokced shots. The actors appeared confused half the time about pauses and which way to look.

reply

If you realized the conditions under which this film was made, hopefully you would be less harsh.

reply

what did you think?
it's not a bog hollywoodproduction and some parts where even shot illegally in the afghan desert!

reply

Was it also edited illegally in the Afghan desert?

reply

Ha ha, that's funny.

I agree: this picture was a stinker. Here are three defenses I've seen on this thread of the film:
1) Although it's not well made, its subject matter is important enough to make it worth seeing.
2) The actors are non-professional, adding authenticity though perhaps taking away from quality.
3) Complaints about the film's quality reflect a lack of understanding of its nontraditional structure, especially the lack of any conclusion.

Here's why these defenses are wrong:
1) It is indeed an important subject, but that is no excuse for a poor film. If anything, it demands even higher quality, since such an important topic shouldn't turn into such a clunker of a film.
2) Non-professional and good don't have to be mutually exclusive. See "Killer of Sheep," with many non-professional and child actors, who add tremendous authenticity to the picture and give great performances.
3) Films don't need unambiguous conclusions to be good; see "L'Avventura." But you also can't defend a lousy ending by saying that it's a metaphor for the inconclusive plight of the nation. It's just a weak ending.

reply

Ha ha, that's funny.

I agree: this picture was a stinker. Here are three defenses I've seen on this thread of the film:
1) Although it's not well made, its subject matter is important enough to make it worth seeing.
2) The actors are non-professional, adding authenticity though perhaps taking away from quality.
3) Complaints about the film's quality reflect a lack of understanding of its nontraditional structure, especially the lack of any conclusion.

Here's why these defenses are wrong:
1) It is indeed an important subject, but that is no excuse for a poor film. If anything, it demands even higher quality, since such an important topic shouldn't turn into such a clunker of a film.
2) Non-professional and good don't have to be mutually exclusive. See "Killer of Sheep," with many non-professional and child actors, who add tremendous authenticity to the picture and give great performances.
3) Films don't need unambiguous conclusions to be good; see "L'Avventura." But you also can't defend a lousy ending by saying that it's a metaphor for the inconclusive plight of the nation. It's just a weak ending.


I think you are exaggerating.

1 yes this is a valid point, it's worth seeing, but the point is it's not really that bad. It's not like the kind of movies you see in the imdb worst top 100, that are so so insanely bad that you wonder who made such a piece of junk.

2 non professional actors doing a very good job is the exception to the rule. Killer of Sheep - i have not seen but we are talking the exceptions here! I mean if this wasn't the case there would be more non-professional actors in films than there currently are! I mean seriously do you think the film-maker was blessed with thousands of highly skilled actors to choose from. Furthermore was the acting really that bad. The only scene that really struck out in my mind was when the guys with knives were stealing the van etc now that guy with the knife was disgraceful, he half looked like he was laughing, half like he didn't care what he was doing, but as a whole i think you're simply too critical.

reply

I haven't seen it yet but to be honest that's what I was afraid of. pity though, the title was very inspiring.

historically speaking, in these times, a movie from Iran, a movie from those that are considered "the bad extremists" couldn't not have become very popular just for that.

the worst part is when it gets applauded just for that.

still have to watch it though, so I don't wanna say anything.

reply

I am fine with pretty much everything. But I don't get the ending!

reply

I agree that the editing was off. There is a scene towards the end where Hayat removes his burqa, revealing that it is he and not a woman. Makhmalbaf cuts to a reaction of the doctor where he watches, (beat), then laughs at Hayat's reveal. It is clearly just an ill-paced edit.

I also had some slight problems with the voiceover.

Otherwise, I found the film to be quite good. Didn't have any problem with the blocking or acting (especially because these are largely non-actors). I enjoyed the structure of jumping ahead and projecting/anticipating Nafas' arrival at the various locations even before she does - that clearly took advantage of the medium. I think it was one of the weaker Makhmalbaf's, but considering that I love much of his work, it was still impressive.

reply

I cannot comment too much about the intricacies of the edits but would just say that I am at a loss as to the high regard some established critics hold this film in. The Radio Times gives it 5 out of 5 and it is listed in 1001 movies you must see before you die by Steven Schneider. The acting is desperately flawed and there is something awry about the whole plot. It is meant to be building towards Nafas being reunited with her sister but the finale is so abrupt I think the comment of another poster that they run out of funding seems logical. I personally only give this film 5 out of 10.

reply

It is meant to be building towards Nafas being reunited with her sister but the finale is so abrupt I think the comment of another poster that they run out of funding seems logical.


It is indeed rather abrupt, but I think it was a correct ending in that any sort of happy ending would have been inappropriate and 'hollywoody' and a tragic ending likewise. The unresolved ending reflects the unresolved nature of the problems in Afghanistan.

This film is very unlike the usual film industry fodder that we are use to, but it has compensating advantages. That the actors are not professionals actually adds to this and gives it a sense of immediacy and authenticity that a more professional film would have lacked.

This is a very worthwhile film in my opinion, however when assessing it you have the problem that it does not fit into the usual frame of reference and that seems to be some people problem with it.

reply

The unresolved ending reflects the unresolved nature of the problems in Afghanistan.

That's very deep. If this was the intention of the director it is worthy of a little more credit but somehow I doubt this.

reply

[deleted]

I have to admit pretty much the last thing I was concerned with was how slick the editing was. I'm not sure it ever intended to be a showcase of directorial prowess. Perhaps I'm making excuses for the film, but a movie highlighting the imperfections of humanity doesn't really call for a finely polished product.

reply

[deleted]