Hmmm... I don't know what to think.
The film, called Belarusian Waltz, is shown on the independent documentary show P.O.V. Its about a Belarusian artist named Alexander (Sasha) Pushkin. He's considered a dissident in Belarus.
The tone of the film is a little bemused. But, at what? I can't tell if I should believe what Pushkin is saying about Belarus and be bemused at the other Belarusians, or is this film trying to show the life of a slightly off-kilter fella. Its similar to Cinemania or other films of that nature that show the life of an eccentric person. On the other hand, sometimes eccentrics are the first to stand up for what's right.
Pushkin lives in a town called Bobr. He says he's persecuted, but he has a house and he has money to paint and he has a wife and daughter. It looks like everyone in the town is poor. I don't really get it.
Belarus was occupied by the Germans during WWII. Pushkin's father was forced to join the German police. When Bobr was liberated by the Soviet Union, Pushkin's father was sent to prison. When Stalin died he was freed. Pushkin feels his father did what he could or had to do to help Belarus, but was called a traitor afterwards. I think.
Pushkin himself says Belarus is nothing more than a Russian colony right now. They have the last dictator in Europe. The people keep voting for him because they get their pensions and stay drunk on Vodka. Pushkin feels thats how the government controls the people - with Vodka.
There's a scene with the mother of his 13 year old daughter in which she's describing her relationship with Pushkin. He had betrayed her and saw other women when she was pregnant, though they weren't married. When he finally did marry someone else, he had come to her to ask for her blessing. She was offended because she'd expected he should ask for her forgiveness before he asked for her blessing. He thinks this is not appropriate because she's a Russian woman in Belarus trying to rule Belarusians. If she had been a Belarus woman he would have asked for her forgiveness, but since she's an occupier in his lands, she doesn't have any right to expect him to want her forgiveness. She says, good - you got your wish, you ruined a Russian woman. You ruined her for love.
She's lived in Belarus for 27 years.
It turns out Belarus has been occupied for 280 years - the first 200 by Russians and the next 80 by Soviets. For Pushkin, they finally got their independence but it means nothing because they're just a Russian colony still.
There was a scene about him showing paintings of the resistance movement in Belarus (during WWII I think) at the Minsk museum. But he only showed them on the steps of the museum. the police came by and talked with him for awhile. But, eventually took the paintings down and took him to jail. He was let go fairly quickly. He thinks its because he's lucky. He doesn't exactly understand why they let him go, except maybe its because it looks like the country is a democracy.
The last part of the film is about some kind of Kupula Night celebration. As far as I can tell, young girls swim naked in the pond, and old men watch them. It was kinda creepy.
So, at the end of the movie, the filmmaker says he wanted to show (Americans?) that there's a little country called Belarus that inexplicably has stayed communist.
I didn't get that at all. I thought it was an interesting look at a small (itsy bitsy) part of Belarus, and one eccentric and egocentric artist and his obsession (hobby?) of promoting Belarusian nationality. It seemed to me, though, the most of the people accept that by now they're Russian. Maybe not, but it didn't come through in the movie. I thought Belarus had an abundance of old people based on this film.
There were also lots of shots of cats and dogs. I was afraid one of them would get hurt or killed so I turned away.
Here are some real reviews of the film (how come everyone else gets this stuff and writes about it so well?):
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/review/61998/pov-belarusian-waltz/
The last sentence of this review is "It’s hard to tell, however, whether he’s representative or anomalous—and that makes the film extremely clever or annoying as well, depending on your tolerance for ambiguity. " I think I have a low tolerance for ambiguity.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080815.DOCPICK15/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Television/
One sentence in this blurb about the film is "None of Pushkin's neighbours in the village of Bobr want to be caught on film for fear of repercussions from dictator Alexander Lukashenko." That part is odd too, because I didn't see any repercussions to the one person who does dissent. So, where's the proof there would be repercussions? I don't disbelieve, I just don't get it.
http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/tv/story/639232.html
No comments:
Post a Comment