Change Your Image
adiyaaldebekova
Reviews
Inside Mecca (2003)
the raw and personal behind the Hajj
The National Geographic documentary "Inside Mecca" does a great job of introudcing its viewers to Islam, and to the sacred tradition of the pilgrimage - or the Hajj. The movie is very well structured, as it begins with the very basics - it explains what Hajj is, thus acquainting the viewer with the concept that may have been foreign to them previously. Then, it dives "inside Mecca," and follows three different people who are on their pilgrimage, in order to tell their stories, and help the viewer understand what the Hajj means not only on a social, but also on a personal level.
The Hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam and it is mandatory for anyone who is in the right health to do it. However, what goes beyond this is often left unknown - and for many people outside of Islam, the Hajj is simply this - a pilgrimage. What often goes unnoticed is all of the work and preparation, all of the individual stories and experiences that go into the Hajj journey; and this movie does a great job at portraying the realities of the Hajj, rather than keeping it an abstract idea. Another important aspect of the movie, is that it shows all of the preparations that happen not only on a personal level for each individual pilgrim, but also on the societal level - it shows how people that live in Mecca work as a community to provide for the Hajj.
Furthermore, the movie does a great job of showing the diversity of Muslims, and shows how three completely different people can be connected with one another. How three people from different backgrounds can share something so sacred to them; thus hinting that perhaps, we, as people, are not so different after all.
The movie, however, is not limited to just the Hajj - it also shows how and why the three pilgrims came to Islam; and what the religion means for them. In today's world, we often dismiss religion, and ignore its followers. However, this film does a wonderful job of reminding us how sacred faith can be to a person. It introduces the viewer to the concept of equality, and that in Islam - in front of Allah, everyone is equal, not matter their cultural, racial or economical background.
However, the movie also shows the other side of the coin. It shows all of the difficulties that go into the Hajj. It shows how the pilgrims struggle, and how the journey can be physically exhausting. Furthermore, it sheds light on all of the discrimination that happens on the Hajj; and this shows that even religious people are still people, and not all follow the right moral principles, even on a sacred journey like such. It was heartbreaking to see how something that is supposed to be so holy and so sacred can be so full with hate and discrimination. Fidelma and Khalil were the pilgrims that had to face racial discirmination, and were mistreated simply for the way that they look; even though in faith, everyone is supposed to be equal. The Hajj is supposed to be the journey that unites muslims, because they all gather there for the same reason, for the same end goal - even if each and every single one of their journeys is personal and, therefore, different. But, just like anything in life, it is not perfect, and does put its pilgrims through many (sometimes unnecessary) challenges. The movie does highlight, however, the importance of the pilgrimage, and the effect that it has on everyone who follows through with it. People on the pilgrimage go there with an open heart; they all are at their most vulnerable, and this emotional state unites them all.
Furthermore, the film also introduced us to the practical part of the pilgrimage - the rituals and the procedures that need to be carried out when one enters the holy city. The pilgrims have to be cleansed and have to declare that they are spiritually ready; they have to be dressed modestly and all have similar clothes. All this is done in order to appear equal before God, and even this ritual highlights the theme of equality, that is supposed to be present in Islam.
However, despite being very profound contentually, it is not as advanced technologically. One of the things that have stood out to me was the quality of sound. Whenever there was a soundtrack, it was overpowering and it was very hard to focus on the words of the people in the movie. Furthermore, the quality of the movie is very poor - the lighting and the shots not only do not flatter the people and the settings, but they are also very awkward to the eye and not aesthetically pleasing. Many may argue that small details like such do not matter. However, if a person feels negative emotions towards the technical aspects of the film, they may subconsciously translate this dislike and direct it at the content. Therefore, the technical moment is very important, and I think it struggled in this movie.
Islamic Art: Mirror of the Invisible World (2011)
This film is art itself, that goes far beyond religion.
This film is art itself, and art must be experienced by the viewer, but in the case that you don't have the time or the will to watch the film, let me try to sell it to you, and share the most important aspects of the film.
First of all, the technical part is absolutely marvelous. From the appropriate, melodic background music that is consistent throughout the whole film and works to set the hopeful, inspirational mood; to the aesthetic close-shots and macro-shooting and the natural color correction. The film does a great job at implementing the visual aesthetics and combining it with sound. Furthermore, just like in any great documentary, there is a balanced mixture between interviews, information, real-life shots and recreations. It is always a combination of various mediums that allows for the maximal informative outcome.
However, despite the technical part being absolutely wonderful, it is not the most important part of the film - and this, itself, is one of the most important lessons that one can take away from this film. Art is simply a medium, and what matters is not what we see, but what stands behind what we see - behind every good piece of art, there is a good story; and this is the message that the film conveys to the reader. It does not only to appreciate what we have in front of us, but also see the piece for the work that was put into its creation, the "why" it was formed, and the "how" it was created. It teaches us to always look for the story; and in this particular case - to see the divine in the human.
When talking of the art of the calligraphy, the film emphasizes that in the Islamic tradition, the art of calligraphy reflects the heavenly; and a master's skill is seen in how well he can erase the human from the piece of art, and make it seem as if the letters have appeared on its own, rather than being created by man.
Another important theme that the film touches on, is how art connects us to history. When one is looking at a piece of art, one is actually looking at a piece of history - and at all of the tens, hundreds, thousands years that went into the creation and preservation of that piece. Just like a human is more than the sum of his constituents, art is more than we see on the surface. However, one does not need to be an artist, nor a historian to be able to appreciate art. This is perhaps one of the most important outtakes that one can carry with themselves from the movie.
Furthermore, the film focuses a lot on architecture, and on how art is what allows for religious building likes Mosques to be individual, and yet united. The divine connects all these buildings, and it is art's responsibility to make a building more than just its building blocks. It talks about how details often are more important than the materials. When it comes to Taj Mahal, it is not the marble that allows for the person to experience the heavenly and the earthly, but the details, all of which shine differently, depending on the time of the day and on the light.
Another very important message that one carries away from the film is the contrast between creation and consumption. What one puts into art when creating it is not always what one gets from the art, when looking at it. Just like with religion - Koran is the words of God, but each man, each school of thought interprets these words in a different way. Therefore, the work of an artist is not just to tell a story, it is not just to give something specific to the audience, but give them the land and the space for interpretation. Just like religion is individual, art is also something that varies from person to person - even if each and every single one of them is looking at the same piece of work. However, both religion and art are what is used to unite people and make them feel like a part of the whole; and this must be highlighted - because despite art giving room for interpretation and individuality, art's first role in religion is to unite people, and make them feel like they are a part of something much bigger, than they realize, just like art is something much bigger, than what it is at the surface.
Finally, the message that the film conveys, is that the mastery of art is heavenly and divinely guided; art is more than skill, art is also soul; and in Islam, art is also God. Many even believe that God speaks to them through the art that they create. Therefore, I believe that this film is worth watching, because despite me seeing these messages in the film, someone else may find something different in this film, which is a gem, not only to our eyes, but also to our hearts.
Martin Luther (1953)
Beautiful and educational, but biased
The film is the accurate representation of culture being adapted to the modern audience, and this is why it is a must watch for people of all ages. It provides background and historical insights into one of the most pivoting points in the history of religion. However, instead of being a commentated documentary, it is a biographical film about the life of one of the most influential and controversial figures in the history of Christianity.
It accurately tells the story of Martin Luther - from the big events like the posting of his Ninety-Five Theses, to simple get-togethers with his ex-colleagues from school. It has a very classical, narrow story line without any plot-twists that are so popular in the cinema culture of today. It tells the story as it is, without over-complicating it; and I find this rather nifty, because Martin Luther's philosophy also focuses on the simplicity of religion.
However, in my opinion the largest thing that the film accomplishes is not the historical account of things, but rather the depiction of the atmosphere and the "vibe" of the time period. First of all, it shows the great value that was put on religion during the early sixteenth century. This can accurately demonstrate how people's psyche worked at the time period, and allows for a theoretical explanation of their behaviors. It explains the familial and spiritual values of the common people, but it also explains the serious decisions made by political leaders that were influenced by religion. The film successfully shows how religion used to be at the epicenter of everything, and how everything was filtered through a different prism. If today one's religious views and position only affect that person, and the community that he is part of; before, a different opinion in regards to religion would mean a large conflict, because religion lied at the basis of everything, and when it was challenged - a lot was being put at risk. Furthermore, it depicts the manners of people of the time and helps the viewer have a better understanding of the social structure; which to my surprise was less conservative than I had expected. However, not being a historian, I cannot state whether or not the film does and accurate job of depicting the culture of the time period.
Secondly, the film does a great job of opening up Martin Luther as a character - Instead of being an abstract figure in the heads of people, he becomes a real person who went through law school, a monastic lifestyle and rebellious, religious activism. The viewer is showed how real people can have an impact on the world. However, despite being very inspiring, I was a little bit disappointed in the lack of depth in Martin Luther's character. I had expected to be presented to his "realness," but instead I was introduced to a pretty much perfect human being. When there is an obvious protagonist in the film, a character who is too perfect for the world, the film becomes a little bit boring. In modern day cinema, this phenomenon occurs rarely, because producers have figured out the audience prefers real and relatable to perfect and unreachable. However, this practice did not yet come into action when the film was shot, and so we, as the audience, do not get too much depth to the character. The film, in my opinion, is very biased - it presents Martin Luther as the good guy and the founder of Protestantism, and it presents Protestantism as the dominant religion; This is not necessarily true, because Luther was one of the many activists who had this approach to religion. The film is more theological than analytical and objective; but despite being so one-sided, it actually provides a better insight into the Protestant culture and philosophy.
However, all this aside, the film is done very masterfully. Despite being rather old and black and white, it has amazing cinematics. The scenery is not beautiful and authentic, but it is actually the real-life places in which the events of the film were taking place in. The camera movements are very professional and modern - from the following shot, to close-ups. The non- diegetic and diegetic sounds create a great atmosphere and are of a surprisingly high quality. However, one thing that I did not enjoy was the abundant use of voice-over, as it is a rather cheap trick that often goes against the "show don't tell" policy. The costumes were also fantastic. I personally am not sure whether or not they are historically accurate, but they did create an aesthetic and a very unique atmosphere to the film. I particularly enjoyed the final scene when people came together to sing the hymn - not only did it show us the full grandness of the church and the power that the unity of people with common belief create; but it also shows great diversity. I had chills when I was watching this. It highlights the themes of togetherness and unity; and it brings everyone together.
Finally, I want to say that I really enjoyed the acting in this film. I always noticed how movies that are aimed at portraying a different time period often have trouble with casting, as it is incredibly difficult to play something that you have never experienced for yourself, and make it seem real. Once again I would like to mention that I have no way of knowing whether or not the film is culturally accurate, but it certainly does seem so - from the actors' accents and manner of speech to their gait, everything seemed so organic, that at times I was forgetting that the film was shot in the fifties and not when the events were happening.
Overall, I think the movie is a must watch as it provides a valuable insight into the cultural and historical background, as well as into the theology of Protestantism. However, it must be viewed with caution, as it leaves many things out and is also very biased.
Andrey Rublyov (1966)
A Cinematographic Legend
Andrey Rublev is considered to be the greatest work of Andrey Tarkovsky. Just like with his older films like Ivan's Childhood and the Steamroller, Tarkovsky really managed to demonstrate his expertise in the field of cinematography. However, what was so unique about this film in particular - it touched on a completely different time period and on completely different themes. Because of this, the film had to undergo various "cut-downs" in which many of the scenes that did not fit the societal norms and beliefs of the time period had to be cut out. Fortunately, today we have the full length version of the film and are able to not only appreciate its beauty and its grandiosity as a piece of art, but also its influence as a political and religious work.
Nevertheless, the cinematographics are a very important element of the film and I would like to pay extra attention to them. First of all - the mass action scenes of grand landscapes. Despite the technical possibilities of the time when the film was created, it managed to do a phenomenal job of creating the "epic" that it is meant to be. The object-following camera shots and the depth of focus elements that began to gain popularity only closer to the end of the twentieth century, already were present in Tarkovsky's films. Luckily for us, the film was reconstructed and renovated for the modern audience, and we have a much cleaner quality; but even so - it was tremendous work, and it is impressive for that time period.
Whilst on the topic of aesthetics, it is important to highlight the costumes and the landscapes of the film. All that was not created by technology was created in real life, by people. Every detail of the dresses of the tartars and the monk is astonishing; the landscapes really do reflect the Russia of the 15th century and I, honestly, cannot even imagine how hard it must have been to transform various settings into the appropriate time period.
One thing that I do not necessarily love about the movie, on the other hand, is the casting. Yuriy Nikulin, for example, is a very popular comedy actor of the time period, and many of his "techniques" were transferred into this genre too. It was a little hard seeing him in the new role and not carrying his previous characters with him into this movie. I sincerely believe that the Soviet acting school is one of the best ones to ever exist, but even so - the acting in this film, as I would consider, is mediocre. Perhaps, it is because the movie is considered "epic" many of the emotions are over-exaggerated, but at some points in the film it gets absurd, and it is very hard for this reason to be fully immersed. However, I do not think that this is a severe disadvantage and that it takes away anything from the power of the movie.
Themes wise - the movie works in a great manner. It tells a personal story of an icon-drawer; and it is exactly this individual story that reflects the greater picture of the time. It tells the story of what happened in Russia during the Mongol-Tartar invasion and it shows how they affected religion. It shows how a political instability can shake up not only the national identity of the citizens, but also the religious and the personal. Throughout the whole film, Rublev contemplates his actions and his morals - he tries to find an answer to what is right and wrong for him, and symbolically enough, comes to find the key in his belief. It reflects the radical emphasis on religion of the time period, and it shows how the Orthodox Church was influenced, and at some points even had to co-exist with Paganism. It shows the values of the Christians and their strict approach towards the rules and what is socially accepted. It shows the importance of nature and the importance of spirit. The film does a great job of reflecting the true values of the 15 century Russia.
Symbolism in the movie also plays an important role. From what an untrained eye can see - the fire and the water were the obvious metaphor to the dichotomy of life and death. The suffering animals, especially birds, I believe symbolized the broken wings of Russia and the suffering that the nation was undergoing. Despite being very progressive for its time period, the cinema school still did not adapt the naturalizing of the symbols, and for this reason, whenever the viewer needed to "understand" a symbol - a close-up shot was drawn to the object. Despite seeming a little unprofessional and superficial in today's cinema, I think that this is a great element, because it helps the modern audience understand this hard-to-interpret film a little better.
I will not lie if I say that at moments the film was a little overwhelming. When there were cries, screams and chants, when there was blood and fighting, I had to look away from the screen for a couple of moments or close my eyes. It is very overpowering in terms of senses. However, despite seeming as "a little too much" for some people, I think that it is exactly this which makes the films one of the greatest works of that time. It is definitely a must watch, and perhaps, a must re-watch, because to be honest, I highly doubt that a person can understand even 50% of the film by watching it just once.
Little Buddha (1993)
Beautiful both literally and metaphorically !
Bernardo Bertolucci did an outstanding job combining the more "documentary" elements through telling the story of Prince Siddhartha and the fiction elements through telling the story of a boy Jesse.
First of all, I would like to take a closer look at the cinematographics - the two different narratives were separated in the most harmonic and smooth way. The two plots intertwined and one story was very nicely combined with the other. The director did a beautiful job of reconstructing the setting of the ancient India and it truly did seem magic-like. This was contrasted with the modern life of Seattle, and the golden middle was found closer to the end of the film, when Jesse travelled with his father to Nepal. Not only were the characters and the settings different in the two leading narratives, but also were the color correction and the sounds. The warm colors of ancient India were balanced out by the colder tones of Seattle, and both reached an equilibrium in Nepal.
Secondly, the cast was wonderful. However, one thing that I personally found rather surprising is the fact that all of them conversed in English. Despite them keeping their original, true accents; it was still a little bit awkward how they all chose to speak in English among one another. Furthermore, I am not sure how Keanu Reeves was chosen to be the perfect fit to play Buddha, as I do believe that there must have been other actors more suitable for the role roots-wise. However, he did do a good job portraying Siddhartha.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, I would like to complement the themes and the plot of the film. It did a wonderful job providing a very valuable insight into the Tibetan Buddhism and its values. It accurately tells the story of Siddhartha - starting from him coming into his mother's womb in the form of the white elephant, finishing with him gaining the title of Buddha. But not only was this shown in an accurate, but it was also shown in a very eye-catching manner, so that the viewer receives a "religion lesson" without necessarily knowing it. Furthermore, the film emphasises a very important concept in Buddhism, and that is reincarnation. Especially it focuses on the Tibetan Buddhism, in which it is believed that important figures, such as Dalai Lama, and in this instance - Lama Dorje, are reborn to continue their teachings and they can be identified using specific calculations. Also, it was shown that a person can be reborn far away from home and thus hinting that nationality, as a separation concept, does not exist. Instead, there is religion, that is on the contrary - a uniting concept.
The film also focuses on an important lesson of Buddhism - "do no harm to any living being" - and throughout the film, the viewer is reminded of this concept many times. Not only is this a very respectful message that is included to provide information about Buddhism, but it is also a global peace lesson that should be implemented in everybody's life no matter what they believe in.
And this brings me to my next point - the movie showed the beauty of Buddhism without imposing the religion onto anyone, and the clear example of this would be Jesse's father, who does not believe in reincarnation, but due to the hardships of his best friend going bankrupt and then passing away, he becomes more open to the idea of his son being a reincarnation of a monk. And although he does not come to the religion, religion does give him something that he was in need of - it helped him gain hope and belief for the future, it helped him understand the value of non-material things, and most importantly, it taught him to appreciate his family. Despite being stubborn and closed at the very beginning, Jesse's father becomes a very warm and open character, and this is mainly due to the fact that he allowed himself to learn more about religion. I find this truly beautiful, as it shows the true purpose of religion, which for many people, has been lost and/or misinterpreted. In my opinion, the true meaning of religion is not pain, violence or power, instead, it is a more spiritual approach towards ethics and humanity, both of which are learned by the characters in the film.
Overall the movie does a great job introducing the audience to Buddhism, its values and its origins. It is exactly this insight that provides the movie with a value, because the plot itself is not very full. In my opinion, had there not been the story of Siddhartha, the movie wouldn't have been worth watching, as there would be no real storyline. However, maybe it is exactly this realistic tone and this simplicity that makes the movie very easy to watch, and the information in the movie - easy to process. Had the film been more dramatic or full of action, it might have evoked the unwanted emotions within the audience, thus harming their view of Buddhism as a religion.
The movie definitely fails to satisfy the needs of the modern audience and the thirst for action and drama. However, in my opinion, it is very wholesome and lacks nothing, as it is very thought-evoking and very informative. On top of this, it is beautifully filmed, and I think that every person should watch it at least once; if not for Buddhism, then at least for the aesthetics and for the cast.