Original title: Povodyr
Director: Oles Sanin
Year: 2014
In early 1930's ten-year-old American boy, Peter Shamrock, moves to the Soviet Union with his father, an engineer wholeheartedly believing in the superiority of communism and wishing to devote his work to the good of the people. They plan to settle there for good, but soon naïve and idealistic American gets caught between political schemes and selfish abuse of power and Peter is left on his own in an unknown and not so friendly country. He survives with a help of a blind minstrel with whom he sets on a journey through hell on Earth – Ukraine hit by the Great Hunger and Stalinist repressions.
I find it very difficult to decide how I really feel about this movie. It touches many important issues and I appreciate it for that. But somehow it failed to have a proper impact on me. Something about it is too bland and too off-colour and I'm not sure what it is. It's really hard to explain why this well-made film with an interesting and important story feels so average and dull. But I'll try.
First possible reason is the fact that I was simply expecting something else. Knowing what Ukrainian Holodomor was and how painfully realistic Eastern European cinema can be, I prepared myself for an emotionally devastating film. Actually I was hesitant whether to see it or not, not sure if I can deal with it. However, to my surprise, The Guide wasn't even partly as heavy as I anticipated it to be. Great Hunger isn't the centre of the story, only a distant background. In fact, people who don't know about it themselves may not realise what's going on in that background and how significant it is. Instead, the film focuses on the blind minstrels, who are pictured as not only the keepers but also (and most importantly) incarnation of Ukrainian folklore, culture and national identity.
For some reasons, it wasn't a bad decision. I'm sure it was easier to weave a proper story around a minstrel, who is a quite strong and interesting character than it would have been if the makers decided to picture some starving common folk. Also, it's a fact that Stalin and his government put a lot of conscious effort into destroying ethnic identity and cultural heritage of all peoples they had any power over and it's certainly a story worth telling. But the way it was done in The Guide somehow feels wrong. I'm a person who's ready to put destroying someone's identity and physically killing somebody in one category. I'm a person who given the choice between saving human life and saving a piece of art or a historical document probably wouldn't be able to decide without hesitation. But I cannot easily accept a film that makes a fuss over a relatively small bunch of blind singers when the entire nation is literally starving to death. Some estimate that close to ten million people died in one year and cannibalism was commonplace. In a famine that was man-made, not a natural disaster. I felt those people and events deserved some more attention.
In other words, The Guide's makers' choice what to highlight and what to just sketch wasn't the best. It feels improper from a moral standpoint but more importantly it hinders watching experience as well. The film is set in a time and place where one of the most gruesome events in recent history was taking place and yet it feels like an average drama - it keeps You in a serious mood but fails to actually touch You or make You care.
Second possible reason I didn't like this film that much is because it too consciously wants to make a certain point and promote a certain case. I strongly suspect that The Guide was made primarily to promote Ukraine in the world and show how much it suffered from Russia. Sure, it's nothing bad for a film to have a clear message and filmmakers are free to share whatever ideas and thoughts are on their minds but I prefer it less obvious and more subtle. I find it annoying when a message is shouted loudly at me, even the one I wholeheartedly agree with. I find it even more annoying when I can see too clearly through filmmaker's strategy and I can't help thinking that placing young American boy at the centre of the story was nothing but a coldly calculated move meant to emotionally engage target audience.
But of course, The Guide has several good points as well. Since it's made for an international audience, it's easy to watch. It's not that different from average Hollywood drama, at least compared to average European film. It doesn't bother me either way because I'm used to many cinematic styles, but I know there are people who have problems watching foreign movies which differ too much from what they are used too. Action flows quite smoothly and it can be really engaging. I certainly wasn't bored when I was watching the movie (I just had mixed feelings afterwards). It is good technically and visually. There is one scene with a bit awkward special effects but other than that The Guide looks really well. Outdoors in particular are pretty stunning.
Overall it's a decent film. It's worth giving it a try, but I can't really say I recommend it.
First possible reason is the fact that I was simply expecting something else. Knowing what Ukrainian Holodomor was and how painfully realistic Eastern European cinema can be, I prepared myself for an emotionally devastating film. Actually I was hesitant whether to see it or not, not sure if I can deal with it. However, to my surprise, The Guide wasn't even partly as heavy as I anticipated it to be. Great Hunger isn't the centre of the story, only a distant background. In fact, people who don't know about it themselves may not realise what's going on in that background and how significant it is. Instead, the film focuses on the blind minstrels, who are pictured as not only the keepers but also (and most importantly) incarnation of Ukrainian folklore, culture and national identity.
For some reasons, it wasn't a bad decision. I'm sure it was easier to weave a proper story around a minstrel, who is a quite strong and interesting character than it would have been if the makers decided to picture some starving common folk. Also, it's a fact that Stalin and his government put a lot of conscious effort into destroying ethnic identity and cultural heritage of all peoples they had any power over and it's certainly a story worth telling. But the way it was done in The Guide somehow feels wrong. I'm a person who's ready to put destroying someone's identity and physically killing somebody in one category. I'm a person who given the choice between saving human life and saving a piece of art or a historical document probably wouldn't be able to decide without hesitation. But I cannot easily accept a film that makes a fuss over a relatively small bunch of blind singers when the entire nation is literally starving to death. Some estimate that close to ten million people died in one year and cannibalism was commonplace. In a famine that was man-made, not a natural disaster. I felt those people and events deserved some more attention.
In other words, The Guide's makers' choice what to highlight and what to just sketch wasn't the best. It feels improper from a moral standpoint but more importantly it hinders watching experience as well. The film is set in a time and place where one of the most gruesome events in recent history was taking place and yet it feels like an average drama - it keeps You in a serious mood but fails to actually touch You or make You care.
Second possible reason I didn't like this film that much is because it too consciously wants to make a certain point and promote a certain case. I strongly suspect that The Guide was made primarily to promote Ukraine in the world and show how much it suffered from Russia. Sure, it's nothing bad for a film to have a clear message and filmmakers are free to share whatever ideas and thoughts are on their minds but I prefer it less obvious and more subtle. I find it annoying when a message is shouted loudly at me, even the one I wholeheartedly agree with. I find it even more annoying when I can see too clearly through filmmaker's strategy and I can't help thinking that placing young American boy at the centre of the story was nothing but a coldly calculated move meant to emotionally engage target audience.
But of course, The Guide has several good points as well. Since it's made for an international audience, it's easy to watch. It's not that different from average Hollywood drama, at least compared to average European film. It doesn't bother me either way because I'm used to many cinematic styles, but I know there are people who have problems watching foreign movies which differ too much from what they are used too. Action flows quite smoothly and it can be really engaging. I certainly wasn't bored when I was watching the movie (I just had mixed feelings afterwards). It is good technically and visually. There is one scene with a bit awkward special effects but other than that The Guide looks really well. Outdoors in particular are pretty stunning.
Overall it's a decent film. It's worth giving it a try, but I can't really say I recommend it.
No comments:
Post a Comment