apexa
3Dec11
Oh my god, what a great idea!
'Replicating' the events in Sayat Nova's life & the emotions within/around them via sumptous visuals and sounds, tangles symbolism with Armenian culture; presented perfectly. Most beautiful part: the shot of open books on a rooftop, flapping in the wind, drying in the sun. So much magic to this film, but I don't think I've gotten everything out of it & never felt like it 'clicked' for me.
Having no knowledge of Sayat-Nova and only the scantest knowledge of Armenian culture, I couldn't tell you what the hell The Color of Pomegranates means. But, on the basis of pure visual spectacle, this is in the running for the greatest film of all time.
Loved the film, truly a visual poet at his finest. It was distracting to watch the horrible transfer by Kino and wonder how much more amazing the film would look if Criterion picked it up... It's certainly a film worthy of a good transfer and the Kino transfer is almost offensive to the film itself.
I would rather spend 74 minutes awaiting my death in the cold, alone, locked in the trunk of a serial killer's car.
The Colour of Pomegranites: like dreams and moving paintings. Like Ken Russell's Mahler, it is a biography of emotions and atmospheres and things that cannot be expressed with words and a concrete sequence of events. It is an insider look rather than an ousider, superficial look, and ultimately tells one much more than if the film had been a traditional narrative following the poet's concrete life from the outside.
It's as if a poet of the 1890's got cheap film equipment from the 1960's and made a biographical film about Sayat Nova in the same sense that Tarkovsky made a biographical film about Andrei Rublev. Some very powerful images, but not consistent through out.
The film is succesful in how it attempts to show poetry as film with symbolism influenced by Armenian folklore and Sayat Nova's life. However, one must watch the film twice and know briefly of Nova's experiences before watching it. It is unlikely most will be as 'mesmerised' as some were. I know that I, personally, was not intrigued but simply curious. The best thing about this film is Sofiko Chiaureli.
I had no idea at all what was happening in this film, i do not see how it can be considered a masterpiece. It just seemed to be a series of incredible images with no real meaining behind them. Perhaps after another viewing i could make more sense of it, but i'm not sure it's worth it.
I was riveted, but, dare I say I was more immersed in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors? I think so, but they are both films you want to see more than once, which is as far as I've taken it.
Holy Mountain, Batman! Seriously though... was having Jodorowsky flashbacks the entire time. My understanding of Armenian history is limited to say the least, so if this film requires a certain amount of understanding in that area before viewing, I really failed. The images themselves were well composed and were, personally speaking, emotionally stirring on occasionnn... I'll acknowledge it as an important work...
Truly wonderful, nothing like I was expecting. On every form it made me re-think film . . .
Should one even attempt to understand? Or should we all just clear our mind and let the imagery flow through us?
A one of a kind film, Parajanov made a portrait of a poet's vision by means of a poem itself. There isn't a single pan or tracking shot favoring instead a mesmerizing mise en scene.
I don't think there is a four hour cut, but I did here that there is four hours of additional footage. No music for it though. I wish there was a good dvd version of this film!