Genre: Comedy, Drama
Director: Sergey Dvortsevoy
Starring: Tulepbergen Baisakalov, Ondasyn Besikbasov, Samal Yeslyamova, Ashkat Kuchinchirekov
Running Time: 100 minutes (plus trailers)
Tulpan, Kazakhstan’s nomination for Best Foreign Film at this years Academy Awards, follows a young man named Asa who lives with his sister’s family on their small sheep farm (insert tasteless reference to Borat here.) Asa needs to marry before he can receive his own flock, and so he attempts to win the affection of Tulpan, the daughter of a neighbouring family. Unfortunately the two of them are never allowed to meet, and even more unfortunately for Asa, her brief glimpse of him from behind a curtain causes Tulpan to reject him. Meanwhile, Asa incompetence in the sheep grazing profession also puts him at odds with his brother-in-law, who is struggling to keep his families flock alive.
As the lights dimmed and the threadbare opening credits began to roll (full of names I had no chance of being able to pronounce), I thought about all the critical praise that Tulpan had received. The advertising material proudly stated that it was “the most awarded international film of the year”. Alissa Simon of Variety Magazine said that it “offers fascinating ethnographic detail, gentle humour and spectacular cinematography”. And Margaret Pomeranz of Australia’s own At The Movies said that Tulpan “is a mesmerising cinema experience”. After watching the movie for myself, I have to say Margaret that while I have a lot of respect for you (god knows you’re a better critic than I am), I’m afraid I’m going to have to call bullshit on that one.
First off, I would like to state that I have nothing against foreign films. Obviously I don’t get to see as many foreign films as I do American ones, but as a rule I go into every movie willing to give it a fair chance. What I do hate is pretentiousness. Nothing irritates me more. Now I’m not saying that Tulpan is pretentious – far from it. I think it is an honest attempt to depict the hardships of life in rural Kazakhstan, and I think it’s successful in that regard. But that doesn’t make it interesting, and it certainly doesn’t make it worthy of praise. The pretentiousness comes for the critics who declare this film a masterpiece of simplicity and honesty. Bullshit. It’s boring. I’m sure that a few critics legitimately enjoyed the film, but most of them? I sense some posturing going on. It’s foreign, it’s heartfelt and it features characters struggling to make ends meet, so of course they give it a positive review lest they be flayed by their equally pretentious cinematic peers.
So what makes it boring? Long, monotonous takes in which nothing happens. Plain, tedious dialogue. A script that has fifteen minutes of content that is then stretched out into a feature film. Slow panning shot after slow panning shot of the barren plains of Kazakhstan while a little girl sings shrilly in a language we don’t understand. That painful shaky-cam docu-drama style of cinematography that pervades indie and foreign films, so that rather than feeling like a legitimate motion picture, it just feels like some dude is following these people around with a camera. Sure it’s realistic, but if it’s not interesting, who cares? Getting an up-close-and-personal look at these people is fascinating, but only for about fifteen minutes. And giving us a ten minute lamb birthing scene doesn’t help us understand the daily struggle of these poor folk; it’s just fucking gross.
I didn’t actually hate this film completely; there are a few moments that are touchingly funny and there are also some really impressive shots (when the camera stops wobbling around). But like I said, for the most part it’s just boring. I think aspects of it would have made an excellent short film, but that’s all. I should admit that I heard from two people of similar age and cinematic tastes to me that this movie sucked, but I ignored them. I fell victim to that same pretentious sense of superiority that Ms Pomeranz did; I thought that maybe this film would help me understand the “human condition”, that maybe my friends just weren’t “cultured” enough. But the truth is, they just had enough common sense to admit that despite it being foreign, this movie isn’t any good.
I want to conclude by saying that Margaret, I love your show and I think you’re a fantastic critic. But let’s face it: you’re also old. And as such your show panders to a certain demographic that is inclined to say they like this kind of film, thus alleviating the guilt the feel about stealing oil and other natural resources from third world countries like Kazakhstan. The critical reaction to this movie is typical of westerners heaping praise on a film that helps us “identify” with poor foreigners (sorry, I don’t mean to get political.) Maybe you did like it Margaret, but maybe, just maybe, you just knew you had to say you did. Because: mesmerising? I don’t buy it.
Director: Sergey Dvortsevoy
Starring: Tulepbergen Baisakalov, Ondasyn Besikbasov, Samal Yeslyamova, Ashkat Kuchinchirekov
Running Time: 100 minutes (plus trailers)
Tulpan, Kazakhstan’s nomination for Best Foreign Film at this years Academy Awards, follows a young man named Asa who lives with his sister’s family on their small sheep farm (insert tasteless reference to Borat here.) Asa needs to marry before he can receive his own flock, and so he attempts to win the affection of Tulpan, the daughter of a neighbouring family. Unfortunately the two of them are never allowed to meet, and even more unfortunately for Asa, her brief glimpse of him from behind a curtain causes Tulpan to reject him. Meanwhile, Asa incompetence in the sheep grazing profession also puts him at odds with his brother-in-law, who is struggling to keep his families flock alive.As the lights dimmed and the threadbare opening credits began to roll (full of names I had no chance of being able to pronounce), I thought about all the critical praise that Tulpan had received. The advertising material proudly stated that it was “the most awarded international film of the year”. Alissa Simon of Variety Magazine said that it “offers fascinating ethnographic detail, gentle humour and spectacular cinematography”. And Margaret Pomeranz of Australia’s own At The Movies said that Tulpan “is a mesmerising cinema experience”. After watching the movie for myself, I have to say Margaret that while I have a lot of respect for you (god knows you’re a better critic than I am), I’m afraid I’m going to have to call bullshit on that one.
First off, I would like to state that I have nothing against foreign films. Obviously I don’t get to see as many foreign films as I do American ones, but as a rule I go into every movie willing to give it a fair chance. What I do hate is pretentiousness. Nothing irritates me more. Now I’m not saying that Tulpan is pretentious – far from it. I think it is an honest attempt to depict the hardships of life in rural Kazakhstan, and I think it’s successful in that regard. But that doesn’t make it interesting, and it certainly doesn’t make it worthy of praise. The pretentiousness comes for the critics who declare this film a masterpiece of simplicity and honesty. Bullshit. It’s boring. I’m sure that a few critics legitimately enjoyed the film, but most of them? I sense some posturing going on. It’s foreign, it’s heartfelt and it features characters struggling to make ends meet, so of course they give it a positive review lest they be flayed by their equally pretentious cinematic peers.So what makes it boring? Long, monotonous takes in which nothing happens. Plain, tedious dialogue. A script that has fifteen minutes of content that is then stretched out into a feature film. Slow panning shot after slow panning shot of the barren plains of Kazakhstan while a little girl sings shrilly in a language we don’t understand. That painful shaky-cam docu-drama style of cinematography that pervades indie and foreign films, so that rather than feeling like a legitimate motion picture, it just feels like some dude is following these people around with a camera. Sure it’s realistic, but if it’s not interesting, who cares? Getting an up-close-and-personal look at these people is fascinating, but only for about fifteen minutes. And giving us a ten minute lamb birthing scene doesn’t help us understand the daily struggle of these poor folk; it’s just fucking gross.
I didn’t actually hate this film completely; there are a few moments that are touchingly funny and there are also some really impressive shots (when the camera stops wobbling around). But like I said, for the most part it’s just boring. I think aspects of it would have made an excellent short film, but that’s all. I should admit that I heard from two people of similar age and cinematic tastes to me that this movie sucked, but I ignored them. I fell victim to that same pretentious sense of superiority that Ms Pomeranz did; I thought that maybe this film would help me understand the “human condition”, that maybe my friends just weren’t “cultured” enough. But the truth is, they just had enough common sense to admit that despite it being foreign, this movie isn’t any good.I want to conclude by saying that Margaret, I love your show and I think you’re a fantastic critic. But let’s face it: you’re also old. And as such your show panders to a certain demographic that is inclined to say they like this kind of film, thus alleviating the guilt the feel about stealing oil and other natural resources from third world countries like Kazakhstan. The critical reaction to this movie is typical of westerners heaping praise on a film that helps us “identify” with poor foreigners (sorry, I don’t mean to get political.) Maybe you did like it Margaret, but maybe, just maybe, you just knew you had to say you did. Because: mesmerising? I don’t buy it.
Tulpan is currently playing in Australia in limited release (y'know, at your local artsy cinema where they serve wine at the candy bar)
At The Movies airs Wednesday nights at 10:00pm on the ABC. Despite what I've said, it's usually a very good program.
