MovieChat Forums > Timbuktu (2014) Discussion > Made me mad for simplifying and exploiti...

Made me mad for simplifying and exploiting the subject.


Tonight I saw "Timbuktu", I was ready to leave the theater five minutes after the movie began.
Why, you might wonder?
Because the fact that this subject is already being used and presented as a fiction material while it is still happening, is like if they were making a fiction film about Auschwitz in 1941.
Maybe in a few years it will be appropriate to tell the authentic stories, when hopefully it will be over. But now, when this piece of SH#t sharia regime is still out there, a real bloody documentaries should be made and they should scream the name of those who suffer and get butchered.
We do not need to feel for fictional characters and forget about it in 10 minutes because whatever if we want it or not, there will be time for that.
I left the movie angry and wondered what Abderrahmane Sissako, tried to say beside "Give me prizes". Why everything is simplified? why we don't see the real results of this hideous radical craziness? What about the mass killing and the drug trafficking and the raping and the forced converting to islam? What about the names of the organizations? Why to show such a cliche image of Kidane family when the true story (based on a real character) is much less pastoral? and why Abdelkerim is so humanized while he is in fact a very frightening person? It feels like a PG 13 version of reality and not a true portrait that presents the complexity of the contradictions in this area, and the contradictions of their culture with theirs? Because eventually, we look at things in western eyes and we cannot see everything as it really is.

reply

The US made movies of WW2 Vietnam and middle east while wars still on. Anyway, didn't the French kick the jihadists out of Mali?

reply

The only film that comes to mind when I think about it is The great dictator but even then it is an anti war movie that didn't try a reality as Spielberg did in Schindler's list or Polanski did in the pianist. (And for the final speech in the B.D Chaplin got heavily criticized at the time).
Regarding the middle-east, the first movies started to come out 3-4 years after the beginning of the war and then there was sort of silence for a while. Giving the fact that this is an ongoing war that lasts for the moment 14 years, it makes sense that after a decade there will ate stories to be told like in Vietnam. The first movies that started to discuss about it were from the late 60's. While filmmakers used the wwII and the Korean war as background to deliver their messages.

What I tried to say that movies should be done, but at least show the hard core reality and sugarcoat it for American or European eyes. Nothing is not as simple as it seems and not only this this shaite is still going on, it spreads in central Africa.
Show me a Michael Moore documentary showing a girl that was forced to convert to Islam and villagers with out hands and legs and mass graves and the truth about the drug trafficking and the phenomena of young Europeans enlisting to Isis and what the world actually do against all that.

reply

Is this film hitting home for some particular reason? You don't make dramatic movies that are all shock and horror. This particular movie moved along in a great dramatic arc. The jihadists were not in [central, at least] Mali for all that long a time and I doubt they had the ability to perform an instantaneous Khmer Rouge make-over of the society, especially when the population shared many of their same beliefs though not to such an extreme. But we plainly see how their control over the community deepened and I think you would agree that by the time we get to the buried-up-to-the-neck stoning sequence we are in religious totalitarian territory.

reply

Did it hit home for particular reason?

I can appreciate the filmmaking of this film and I find it very strong as a narrative film. But this is my problem. It is just a film that was "inspired by" and by doing so the director/writer had to simplified many things and ignore some others.
You don't need to see the bloodshed to get the message. Seeing the results and hearing a first hand testimony will be stronger and more effective. An interview with a Jihadist will be even more.

As I said, too early to romanticisation of this issue, because as a narrative movie it will serve a subject for conversation for a short while and then after our conscious will be fed up we will move on to the next subject. It turns the reality into a fiction while it is still happening.

I suggest you to try to read this article. It is in french but it is quite readable with google-translate or similar translator.
It goes more into details and portray the complexity of the situation in Timbuktu.

http://blogs.rue89.nouvelobs.com/rues-dafriques/2014/12/22/le-probleme-avec-timbuktu-le-film-dabderrahmane-sissako-233966

reply

"Show me a Michael Moore documentary showing a girl that was forced to convert to Islam and villagers with out hands and legs and mass graves and the truth about the drug trafficking and the phenomena of young Europeans enlisting to Isis and what the world actually do against all that."

You do realise that this is a movie about MALI not ISIS, right? Mali where people are already Muslims? Why would you want to see forced conversions of a population that is already muslim? Seems the problem is that you're looking for a movie that is about a completely different topic - international jihadism - rather than one about the Malian civil war. Therefore your comments are pretty irrelevant.

reply

He wants a movie where the truth of islam is told. It is not only isis that commits such horrendous crimes against people who are and are not muslim. The main factor is that they are muslim and the world should see the truth of how their women live and how they are treated and how those who are not muslim are treated. Not just what isis is doing.

reply

So you want propaganda? There's plenty of that out there. You don't need this film for that.

reply

OP: On the contrary, though documentaries would be welcome, this fictionized story delivers "information" and messages in a compelling way, as well. The movie is not actually that great, but it broaches an important subject and is effective.

reply

I think that as a narrative film it a good film. The story is intense, most of the acting is wonderful, the cinematography does justice to the film. the editing hit the spot etc..
But my anger is not towards the director's craft but the way and the timing he choose to do it.
As a narrative film, it is just a film. You (not you in person of course, you as you the spectator who can be anyone) might go out of the theater a bit angry and a bit sad. You might think to yourself if it still is still happening and what the "world" is doing in order to save these poor people. But when you will step outside the theater and you will see the poster for The avengers 2 or Ted 2 you will be already concentrating about that. 20 minutes later and the universe of the film will be in a galaxy far, far away..
The horrible reality that is being depicted in the film is still happening out there.

Just look at this list -
MOJWA, Ansar Dine, Al-Mourabitoun, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, MNLA, Ansar al-Sharia, Boko Haram and Da‘ish
I ask you to google at least of them and read about their doing and later if you would feel like, write me if you think that the awareness the film is enough to change their doing?


I will speak only for myself when I say that in my personal point of view, despite the beautiful filmmaking, the urge of Abderrahmane Sissako, for doing this film that so call portray what happened there, so close to the crisis, while things are still happening there was driven less than need to change the world but rather to tell his story and gain recognition for that.

reply

>>> Why, you might wonder

What I am wondering is why you went to see the movie to begin with, feeling the way you do. All you had to do was read reviews of the film, to know what the movie was about, and how the filmmakers handled this material.

>>> Because the fact that this subject is already being used and presented as a fiction material while it is still happening


There have been plenty of movies made about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while they were still going on. And there have been movies made about life in Palestine, and the Palestianian/Israeli struggles, and Palestian terrorism, while they are still going on.

>>> I left the movie angry and wondered what Abderrahmane Sissako tried to say beside "Give me prizes".

What he did was show the routine every day cruelty/tyranny the villages lived under, imposed by these extremists, rather then just the sensationalistic stuff we get from the media. What he did was give a glimpse of everyday life these oppressed people suffered under the rule of the extremists. We don't get that from the media.

>>> Why everything is simplified?

It seems that what you wanted was just a simplistic, over-the-top depiction of pure evil,(and evil villains who only have 1-dimension to them) that aligns to the sensationalistic stuff you get from the media. While that kind of stuff does in fact go on, it probably isn't representative of the routine, mundane every day lives people live. The movie attempts to show us that routine, every day existence, and it isn't a pretty picture. Or do you think that this movie somehow depicted a favorable, sympathetic view of the extremists??

That over-the-top evil is going on with these extremists, and there is a definite place for movies depicting such. But there is also a place for this kind of movie, that gives us a glimpse of something we ordinarily don't get to see.

reply

Hey there,

Thank you for your reply, I hope you are following the other messages in this thread because some of the things that you brought up were answered there.

For your question, why I went to see the movie from the first place? I wasn't sure what I am about to watch, I saw the trailer a couple of months ago and I thought that it might be interesting.
As I said before, it is a good film as a film. But not a loyal reflection of reality.

Regarding the plenty movie that were made about other conflicts and wars, I answered as well -
The majority of these films were made after several years. So if you speak about The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it took many years before anybody did a film that looked at the their reality in more questioning eyes. The first films that depicted the WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan-Irak war, Iran, Bosnian War, the Rwandan Genocide etc.. came after a couple of years. No film was made almost in a real time.
In Israel, when someone uses a tragedy to promote themselves by creating a false discussion about the subject, they call it pornography of pain.

About your last remark, I am sorry to say but you really misunderstood me.
I support telling the whole story, but in reality Kidane was part of the Jihadists, Abdelkerim is a bloodlust terrifying murderer and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I am sure that Abderrahmane Sissako tried to be loyal to his story and tried to show the reality, but it is a well-polished reality that was adapted to a western-post-colonial audience.

I suggest you to try to read this article. It is written French, but it is quite readable with google-translate or similar translator.
It goes more into details and portray the complexity of the situation in Timbuktu.

http://blogs.rue89.nouvelobs.com/rues-dafriques/2014/12/22/le-probleme-avec-timbuktu-le-film-dabderrahmane-sissako-233966

I believe that there is a time to tell a story and a time to show the reality. Despite his beautiful filmmaking, Abderrahmane Sissako should have waited or take his camera crew to the real town with military protection and let people talk.

reply

>>> The majority of these films were made after several years.

Well, now I'm confused as to what your issue is. At 1st you seemed to be bothered that this movie was made while events (or like events) are still on-going, but now you seem to imply such movies are ok if the filmmakers wait several years before making such movies (regardless if such events are still going on). As far as this movie is concerned, similar events have going on a good while now, so this filmmaker waited a good while.

As for the Israeli-Palestanian conflict, it's still going on, as is the suffering. And yet quite a few films have tackled this subject over the years.

And there have been quite a few films about the Afghanistan/Iraq wars that came out in "real time".

As for WW2, there were a lot of films that took on the Nazis at the time. One was the "Great Dictator", as you mention. But it wasn't just an anti-war movie. It was very much an anti-Nazi movie, as well. Charlie Chaplin was taking direct aim
at Hitler and the Nazis.

And movies such as "The Mortal storm", and "The Seventh cross" took direct aim at Nazi tyranny.

And movies like "Edge of darkness", and "Joan of Paris" were about the citizenry raising up against Nazi tyranny

Even the Errol Flynn swashbuckler "The Sea Hawk" was an allegorical anti-nazi film.

All those movies came out during WW2, except for "The Mortal storm" which came out right before the war. And these are just the movies off-the-top-of-my-head.

There was no movies detailing all the horrors of the Holacaust at the time, because nobody know the full extent of what was going on. There was rumors and unconfirmed stories, but there was no confirmation of it. That came later with the liberation of the concentration camps, and the end of the war.

I am not familiar with the real life story, and the real life people this movie is based on, so I can't speak on that regard. But I do know that filmmakers/writers always take some creative-licensce, to various degrees, and for various reasons, with their stories, that they are basing on real life stories/people. And filmmakers/writers have always done so. And in doing so, if the filmmakers/writers deliver a powerful, poignant, and beautifully done story (which you have admitted this movie is), then such creative license is fine with me.

>>> or take his camera crew to the real town with military protection and let people talk.

That would have been a documentary. There is room for both documentaries and also fictional stories based on real life events/people.

And there is also room for movies that depict the most over-the-top horrific things that go on, (which again, is the only thing you seem to want)

AND

movies that depict the sad, daily, mundane lives of people living under tyranny.

>>> But it is a well-polished reality that was adapted to a western-post colonial audience

I don't know if that is true, considering that there are plenty of people in the western-post colonial world that, no doubt, would prefer this subject delivered as nothing but a portrayal of over-the-top evil/ruthlessness, carried out by 1-dimensional evil villains.
















reply

Dear kenneglds,

Let me help you not be confused.
In my first post, I compared the making of Timbuktu for making a film about Auschwitz in 1941. Perhaps I did a mistake by not naming a film. So let me rephrase it.

Timbuktu was first screened in 2014 Cannes festival, indicating that the movie was in production during 2013. The story depicts the occupation of Timbuktu by Ansar Dine from March 2012 until "Operation Serval" though never mentioned.
Meaning that the movie was in its early pre-production stage while the "it" was still happening. Now let's go back to my comparison. Since Timbuktu is a movie that pretends to portray a reality, unlike the majority of the films that you mentioned It will be only fair to compare it to a similar film. What about "Schindler's list"? Can you find me a similar movie that was shot in 1941? What about "Hotel Rwanda" that is a very similar film in many aspects that was made 10 years later.

Most of the films that are being made in real time can be divided into three main genres:
1) Propaganda films, like American films during the WWII who were made with Office of War Information who made sure that the message in the films will pro-American/Pro-allies.
2) Veiled criticism films, like M.A.S.H that criticized the fighting in Vietnam while using the Korean War as a background). 3) Fiction, like "The Sea Hawk" for instance.

Films that try to depict a more objective portrait of a given situation will be more accurate after some time has passed. It is exactly as the difference between news reporters and historians. The first try to report the reality and the second to summarize it as objectify as possible.
I know that only for this statement alone, we can have a very long discussion, but let's continue.

As I said in previous posts, Timbuktu is a very good film as an "inspired by" story, but as a film that try to portray a real story of these miserable people he fails. If you bothered to read the link the sent you in my previous answer, you might understand why. (it explains how it fails to present the complexity of the real characters and events).

I wanted to leave the cinema after 5 minutes because I felt that this movie was produced while the blood of the people it portrayed was still fresh and the director already allows himself to take artistic liberty in order to have a better film.
Like I said, I rather that SIssasko would have left the safe shooting set and try to take testimony in order to show it to the world. And yes I know that this documentary, there is no need for the patronizing tone.

As much as it is important to create awareness in such subject, I think that creation either fiction or either narrative too close to the actual event is wrong because it presents the reality as a finished book. People will go out of the theater and will say "oh it is horrible, I hope that something will be done" and that's it. Their conscious is clean it is almost as Liking or Sharing a post on facebook that suppose to help someone somewhere.
But as we learned, only real actions count in such matter. And let me ask you all something. Now that you watched the film and you are "aware" of this reality, what are you going to do? have you donated money to any humanitarian organization? Have you considered to join the peace corps? Have you started any related activity in your community? Have you done anything at all, besides thinking this is horrible and commenting on this post, trying to tell me that what I feel is wrong?

reply

I told you why they wouldn't have made a "Schindler's list" during WW2.

As for me joining the Peace Corps, what do you know about anybody you meet on a message board to think they can so easily upend their lives and join the peace corps, because they saw a movie?? Do you know if I have a wife, children to take care of, or other responsibilities???? And what do you know about what my job is, or my activities are?? You know a lot of sad movies come out, and a lot of stories about sad subjects get written. Do you reorganize your life every time you see a movie or read a story, or see a news item about a sad subject??? As far as the money I may, or may not donate, that is none of your business. As for me starting any related activity in my community, 1st of all, I saw the movie less then a week ago.

Btw , what makes you think people ran to take some kind of great social action for the betterment of the world, after seeing movies like "Schindler's list" or "Hotel Rwanda" long after the fact?? Maybe some did, the vast majority of people no doubt didn't. Hopefully for the majority who didm't, their social consciousness was raised in some ways for the better, which they might use for the better, with their vote, on social/political issues, if nothing else. Or maybe they pass that raised social consciousness onto their children. Or maybe it helped to make them more caring, and aware in general, and that caused them to take action, over time, to make the world a better place, in some small way. And the same can be true of seeing this kind of movie.

And what makes you think I have to see a movie to be stirred into action???? I did have some idea of the "reality" that is going on, prior to seeing this movie. The "reality" that you seem to think I have to see a movie about to be stirred into action. But what the movie did is give me an additional glimpse into things. A glimpse that you admit was powerful, poignant,and beautifully done, but somehow none of that seems to count for anything, according to you.

What really seems to be bother you, is that the filmmaker didn't make the movie you feel he was obligated to make. The filmmaker might not agree with what you think he was obligated to do.

And if you think that the movie was compelling, poignant, and beautifully done, then the movie succeeded, regardless of what you think the movie failed to do. Because if it was compelling and poignant, that means that it sent a message that is compelling and poignant. And if it was beautifully done, then it made an impression. The filmmaker can not force people to take action. All he can do is make a compelling film that was beautifully done, and leave it to the audience to decide if they are going to be stirred into action. And maybe some people will, and some people won't, but the filmmaker has done his job.

>>> And yes, I know this is documentary,there is no need for the patronizing tone.

Apparently there is a need if you think the filmmaker is obligated to make a documentary, and think he has doe something wrong by not doing so.


reply

Sir, I advise you to take a deep breath and relax.

I haven't asked anything about your personal life. I asked a rhetorical question to make a point, if you choose to interpret my it as me blaming or judging you for anything, understand that I didn't.

My criticism towards this film is my personal reaction to the film and this subject.
I choose to write it here, rather than facebook because I thought an interesting discussion might evolve from it. However, It was not my intention to waste my time with having a cyber argument with somebody I do not know and after your last post nor respect. You may or may not agree with me, but as long as I address to you with respect, I would expect to have the same in return.

I have explained myself extendedly several times and I don't feel that I have to explain myself or defend my opinions to you.

Giving the fact that we cannot overcome our disagreement, let's do the simplest thing - let's agree to disagree and leave it like that. fair enough? .

reply

[deleted]

Please stop wasting my time with your comments.

reply

(sigh), whether you choose to "waste your time" is up to you.

But apparently, you just don't like having your views/statements challenged.

reply

[deleted]

Exactly. OP seems to have expected a 10-piece Ken Burns mini-series mixed with some Kony 2012 Youtube euphoria. And, as argued, if movies shouldn't be made contemporaneously with events, then our film archives would be nearly empty.

As someone commented in OP's linked article: "Il me semble que vous demandez vraiment beaucoup à un film, difficile en 1h30 d’évoquer toute la complexité de la situation au Mali."

A great film.

reply

Exactly. Thank you.

reply

I understand where you are coming from. I often have similar feelings about holocaust fiction. But remember this:

During the time of slavery in the United States, there were many manifestos and angry depictions of the horrors but it was a novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin, written by a northern white woman, which had the biggest effect in turning public opinion against slavery.

reply

I totally agree.
I think that you gave an excellent example. In my opinion today's equivalent for "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that will make a difference will be a firsthand images and stories in a documentary.
on the line in order to to film that truth and will bring it to us. Maybe then people with put a real public pressure to act, but till then such films serve our self-conscious. Think about what Al Gore achieved with a power point based documentary in comparison to inspired by stories.

I think that anything can do a difference eventually, but why not presenting the full version of the inconvenient truth as it is being presented in the article I posted rather than this sad simplified image that is being portrayed in the film?

reply

Just to inform that during WW2 and WW1 there were plenty of movies being done. During the war, not several year after.
Most of them actually even before US entered the war because hollywood was being used as propaganda machine to kind of convince americans that entering the war would be a good deal. Many great directors from those times would diverge from their usual genres to make a war movie, like John Ford, Billy Wilder, Fritz Lang, even Orson Welles, etc.

Even recently, Zero Dark Thirty was made while the Osama's hunt was happening. With all the abuses in Iraq and all. Bigelow even had to change the ending part of the movie because during filming there was the news of Osama's murder. While in her original ending the message was going to be that all those abuses in Afeghanistan and Iraq lead to nothing, to no capture of the person that in principle the US government was looking for.

I do understand with the criticism of it maybe being unsensitive to make a movie about some themes and the timing for that. Just making clear that it doesn't make the movie technically bad because of that.
But it's a very subjective matter to decide when it's not unsensitive anymore. When or how we can approach those themes, if ever.
Some people may think that even agreeing that 99% of the people that watches it will forget it in 5 minutes, the 1% that doesn't and the 1% from those 1% that may try to act somehow to help the cause while it's happening or to help the recent victims, it's already a profit from having 0%.

reply

So basically you want a Kony2012 movie rather than one that explores the complexity of the civil war? SMH.

reply

I've actually just joined IMBD to reply to this message. I haven't seen the film yet but I am very much looking forward to it. Film making is about telling stories whether fact, fiction, relevant today, tomorrow or yesterday. To walk out of a film purely because it doesn't address the issues you want it too seems churlish. I have always had a fascination with Timbuktu since reading The sheltering sky and subsequently seeing a programme about the music festival held there. In my ignorance I hadn't realised that the Muslim extremists had reached this far into Central Africa. You don't always need the realism of a war to put your point across. Sometimes the juxtaposition of the horror residing within the beauty of a place or people can jolt the awakening of the ignorant. I am not a film buff or a political animal but I do believe that any representation of a current atrocity can only serve to help it's cause.

reply

My God you do like to rant don't you. Having just seen he movie I have no idea what you are talking about and I get the impression you don't either. If you have nothing to say you should at least say it well. You should go to the Politics board, that's where the lunatic fringe hang out.



reply

You know what, it is your post that is making me angry. Sissako made a movie about the Malian civil war and occupation because NO ONE ELSE was talking about it. How much was this war in the media while it was going on? Nada. How many other works are based on it? None.

You might feel that the movie is simplifying the subject, but I'm pretty sure you're the one missing out on its complexity. Yes complexity. It's a very complex movie with a lot of subtleties that you seem to have completely missed out on.

The violence is there. The threat is there. Just because Sissako chose to show it at a slow pace (he was formed in the USSR after all, they make slow-paced movies) instead of turning the whole thing into a farce of action-movie doesn't mean he's disneyfying it. On the contrary.

Btw, it's 2015. The war is over. Try to keep up will you.

reply