![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.196.209.241
Finally watched this film that was hyped so much after 9/11. For those who do not know, the film is based upon a true story, and the lead actress actually was the subject of the real story. Nelofer Pazira is an Afghan woman whose family fled Afghanistan shortly after the Soviet Union withdrew, when it appeared that the Taliban was to take over the country.Her father, who was a physician and was tortured by the Soviets because he refused to become a communist, took his family ten days through the dessert into Iran, from where they left for Canada. While in Canada, Ms. Pazira maintained contact with a friend. One day, she received a letter from her friend that her friend declared she was going to commit suicide in three days because she could not stand to live under Taliba rule any more.
Ms. Pazira, who is a journalist, decides to go back to Kandahar to prevent her friend's suicide. She flies back to Iran, where she plans to cross the border into Afghanistan. This is where the film begins.
She carries a tape recorder with her to record her travels. The film plays like a documentary, which, as I learn from the special features, she intended to film. When she first began her journey, she contacted an Iranian film director to film her journey. He apparently passed, but then two years later, remembered her story, and decided to make a movie of her travels.
The film captures her journey. From hiring guides, one a small child, one the husband of four wives, visiting an American born man who wears a fake beard, and acts as a doctor, and pretending to be part of a wedding congregation, we see her difficulties crossing the dessert of Afghanistan. In the film, she is captured by Taliban. In real life, she met people fleeing from Kandahar, who told her that the city was much too dangerous for her to return to, so she ended her journey.
I would rate the film as three of fours stars. I think the film did a pretty good job of showing some of the perils of living in Afghanistan, particularly the numerous people who have had limbs blown off by mines. There are no special effects. These are real people. The film also shows the lack of food, and the lack of quality drinking water, which causes rampant sickness. I think it also did a good job of showing that there are not very many people that can be trusted. They are always looking around the corner, and are so consumed with survival, that they will steal, and even murder.
This film probably deserves a comparison with Osama, a film made in post-Taliban Afghanistan, about pre-Taliban Afghanistan. I think Osama shows more of the day to day problems of living with the Taliban, particularly for women, whereas Kandahar shows more of the effects of the Taliban regime. I think that Osama is probably the better film.
Follow Ups:
HiI loved Kandahar. I found it very eerie and claustrophobically cloying (which is what I assumed the film maker intended). Notice how you never actually saw the Taliban, just the effects of their presence. The use of repetition (the nagging kid, the legless patients begging for limbs, etc) was a metaphor for life under the Taliban (I assume).
Stylistically it represents the complete antithesis of the Hollywood movie. No SPFX, no cliches, etc. It didn't ever need to show "Arnie-style" violence to prove a point. If Hollywood had made this movie it would have relied on Spielberg-esque levels of ultra-gore to prove its point. No doubt Bruce Willis would have made an appearance as the perenial avenger of all that is righteous. Kandahar is an extremely violent movie, yet never shows actual images of violence - it's violence is in the form of what *could* happen and what has happened to others who've crossed the Taliban.
I also loved the parachuted legs - a truly original image.
I think this is one of the most original movies ever made. I think the problem is that people view it through the prism of having been exposed to so many formula-driven Hollywood movies. It's a bit like Westerners having constantly been exposes to the blues musical scale, who then find other scales weird.
I think the purpose of the film was to educate Westerners as to the effects of the not only the Taliban, but, somewhat more vaguely, the effects of the Soviet occupation. It was not designed to make gobs of money. When money enters the equation, then they must include those things for which teenage boys expect to see: naked women, violence, and language. I picked this one up from our local library. That it was not available in the local video stores is a shame.
![]()
...that most viewers are a little put off by the existential, subjective POV and pacing. They want more action, without noticing that quite a lot is going on. They want 3 acts and a resolution in the end.You are right on, in Kandahar, subtext is everything and the ending is open-ended. OTOH, neither Hollywood nor Spielberg would ever make this movie anyway...which is why I was so happy it WAS produced.
BTW, you didn't really mean "cloying" (not a compliment) did you? Perhaps just "clausterphobic" or "smothering"? As a woman, you can imagine how uncomfortable seeing women smothered in bourkas made me feel. It is a very effective literally and metaphorically for the Taliban's repression.
![]()
Yes, I forgot to add that the ending was magnificent. Those shots from behind the feet of the Taliban (the only time you see the Taliban in the whole movie), and the view from behind the veil looking into the setting sun just outside the city of Kandahar made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Like you said, it's the complete opposite of what an ending is supposed to be, yet it still made sense.By "cloying" I didn't mean a criticism. I meant claustrophobic, boxed in, a sense of helplessness and a loss of control. All intentional, and what makes the movie so great.
I just had a thought that the movie reminded me of the surrealist/existentialist Persian novel "The Blind Owl" by Sedagh Hedayat (an unknown masterpiece IMHO) in that it has an opium dream, hallucinatory quality about it (not that I know what an opium dream is like!).
I think most people viewed the movie as a "right on" tirade against the dreaded Taliban (if the movie had been made at any other time it probably would have been ignored). They don't appreciate the existentialist nature of the movie. Pity. I'm glad you "got it".
...more open-ended than Osama by necessity, which I think is one of its strengths. It is personal and specific, and contrasts the protagonist's western sensibilities clashing with necessity rather to good effect.Kandahar also contains one of the most visually striking scenes I'd seen in a while - the artificial legs parachuting down amongst thethrough the blue blue sky to the amputees waiting below.
Osama is well worth a look too. I saw both in theaters when they came out.
![]()
"Kandahar also contains one of the most visually striking scenes I'd seen in a while - the artificial legs parachuting down amongst thethrough the blue blue sky to the amputees waiting below."That certainly is a striking scene. Particularly when those without limbs are seen running, with and without crutches, for the falling artificial legs.
"took his family ten days through the dessert "
One day of travel through the desert sucks. Ten days sucks 10x as much. Ten days traveling with your WHOLE FAMILY is unimaginable. Now imagine ten days with your family traveling through *Afganistan* which, even putting aside the desert, was a really nasty place to be at that time.I suggest picking up a national geographic now and then, maybe some BBC news.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
![]()
CBC is pretty good too. For non-pictures, New Yorker is also informative.
![]()
Well, it is always easier to do from the comfort of your comfy couch. The journey is made all the more difficult when you consider that there are mines everywhere, warlords who will kill you without a thought, and thieves rampant.The subject informs us that someone dies in Afghanistan every five minutes from war, landmines, and starvation. I suspect that ten days in the desert, when there is precious little food to take for the journey, and little clean water to take, is a significant ordeal. That IS big pudding. But then again, everyone can hit a 90 m.p.h. fast ball - from their couch.
![]()
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: