The Narrative Ararat - Essay Example

Comparison of the Narrative Ararat and Documentary AGHET Films play major roles in our current society. The rise of the film industry’s popularity demands attention from the world. Ignoring films is unlikely, especially because of the various topics that they address. For a long time, films have taken the role of both educating and informing the society on certain important issues. The film industry, being on the front line in providing the world with important information has been proactive in this role. As such, filming addresses various social evils and social wrongs. Although they rarely take part in solving these problems, they provide an avenue of addressing these problems. Many films, targeting the social arena focus on issues such as drug abuse, crime, prostitution, child abuse among others. Further, they suggest solutions to these issues. Other films shed light on the certain important issues among us. While some are investigative, others base their ideas on research. Such are the kinds of films that either seeks to unearth certain phenomena affecting our current society. In various instances, we disregard film directors whenever they come up with a science fiction movie, creatively directed and produced to entertain us. Few are the times when we however disregard films when they address reality. This remains the biggest role played by the two films discussed in this essay, the narrative Ararat and AGHET Documentary. Based on the same idea, these two films mainly address the same topic, which is the Armenian Genocide. Approaches used by these films’ directors form the only difference in the films. While the Ararat is an acted narrative, the AGHET is a documentary of various accounts of witnesses during the genocide. They thus boost the human rights campaign, just as other films focusing on the social issues have done. Commonly referred to as the Armenian genocide, actions by Ottoman’s government of systematically exterminating a majority of the Armenian subjects from their historic homeland in the current State of Turkey define the genocide. The genocide took place in two phases. One of them was the mass murder of all bodied men in the region, as well as subjection to forced hard labour. The second phase was the deportation of women, children and the elderly where they were marched to the Syrian Desert, leading to numerous deaths. This was an inhumane way of dealing with these subjects. What was so important, leave along the political power and supremacy to warrant such actions to the people? For a long time, power hungry individuals have sacrificed innocent citizens for their individual selfish gains. Since the time of evolution, as revealed by Darwin, people and animals have had to override on others for success. This however did not warrant the Germans to treat people with the heightened levels of cruelty portrayed by the films during the genocide. Nothing justifies the actions of Ottoman Turk and his administrators to the Armenians during the genocide that claimed at least one and half people. Observers and experts describe the Armenian genocide as the first ever genocide to occur in the modern world. Owing to the organised manner in which the Ottoman’s administrators conducted the massacre to eliminate the Armenians, this is one of the most studied cases in the world so far from the holocaust. This forms the main reason why the filming of the events took place, 96 years later after their happening. They are still very significant to the world until this day. The effects of the genocide felt among the Armenians 98 years later after it took place shows the depth of the matter. The genocide started on the 24th April 1915 when Ottoman’s army arrested at least 250 Armenians and took them away from their homes. This day, commonly referred to as the Red Sunday was the night, which the interior minister Mehmed Talaat ordered the army to arrest and move to two holdings in Ankara, all notable Armenian leaders. However, the Tehcir War of 29th May 1915 led to the deportation of these leaders. In his own accord, Talaat pointed out that the Armenian communities for a long time tried to gain administrative autonomy from Ottoman’s leadership. Even before he could make good his claims in 1914, Ottoman authorities started a propaganda targeting the present Armenians living in the empire that they were a threat to its security. For days, these soldiers marched the Armenians over long distances. The Armenians went without food or water for a long time as they travelled to a desert in Syria. There was no specific age of the captives as children and the soldiers rounded old people. The soldiers subjected these people to torture and sexual abuse. Rape was one of the most common forms of sexual abuse to take place during the massacre. Although the genocide was long coming, there were no efforts extended towards stopping it from happening. Different events that took place between 1908 and 1914 set the grounds for the genocide. The Young Turk revolution of 1908, the Adana massacre of 1909 and the Balkan wars acted as catalysts for the genocide. When it eventually broke up in 1914, the massacre took different forms. There was mass burning of people, with witnesses confirming that approximately 5000 people perished in one event. The soldiers drowned children by loading them to boats and tossing them overboard in the sea. In addition to these, there was the wide use of poison and drug overdose on the victims. The most common gases and drugs used included morphine, toxic gas and typhoid inoculation. However, pictures of death as people marched to the Syrian Desert characterized the whole genocide. Finally, there were close to 25 extermination camps all over Turkey, which forms the modern Iraqi as well as the Syrian borders. The two films focus on human rights issue from various fronts. While Ararat is a narrative form of a film, the AGHET is a documentary of the true picture of the genocide. During genocide, many things took place. From the displacement and death of people to the loss property, people faced numerous problems. These issues relate to the problem of humanity. As portrayed by these two films, there was the absence of respect for humanity, while at the same time there is excessive use of force. In whichever way we look at the problem, people directly affected by the genocide went through heightened levels of suffering. Mostly, this originated from the death of their loved ones as well as the loss of property. These were traumatizing episodes, especially as people watched the capture of their loved ones. Soldiers then escorted them to trains that shipped them away to an unknown destination. Such images haunt a person, disturb their conscience and to the extreme, can cause insanity. The trauma of the genocide survivors is yet another way in which these films portray the theme of humanity. Although these were few cases highlighted in the AGHET, it was hard for them to live with the memory. The images, as witness agree, were horrible and depressing. This forms the third way in which the films portray the lack of humanity during the genocide. Ararat addresses the true and the rarely discussed holocaust that happened between 1915 and1917, where over one and half million Armenians died in the hands of Ottoman’s Empire administrators. The mass slaughter of Armenians by Germans was due to their overwhelming confidence that Germany could get away with the Jewish killings. Ararat is a province in Armenia, while the film’s focus is how the genocide changed the lives of the people after it took place. Despite having taken place in 1917, effects of the genocide affect people even today. How comfortable are we watching this film? Would we have done anything then that could have stopped the genocide? In our understanding of pain, we know what it is like to have haunting memories. Some people cannot live through the trauma of an accident. A large number of us merely survive through the death of a loved one. Yet, in this film, some people for the last close to a century have lived with the reality of the death of their loved ones. Some watched their deaths, and others were there as they died. They even knew what would kill them, hunger, starvation and desperation. Yet, due to the power of the German army, they could do nothing to save them. Regardless of the pain painted by the pain, one is compelled to take part in the entire films as a way of paying tribute to the diseased. It is true that the genocide took place years ago. Further, it is true that nothing happened to the perpetrators of the inhumane act. They just walked free, and even took leadership of our noble countries, freely flying in and out of our land. Yet, we did nothing to them then. The films is characterised by desperation and hopelessness. Nothing sounds as humiliating as the kind of things revealed in this film. Particularly the fact that most of the people became homeless, others had to move from their original homes while others lost their property. The genocide affected the social scene more adversely than it did on the economic scene. For instance, many people became orphans, others, after losing their spouses became single parents, while others became handicapped. Capturing of the people happened in a barbaric way. There was no sense of humanity, sympathy or mercy. No single soldier showed compassion. Torching homes, shooting those who offered resistance and raping women were part of the evils perpetrated by the soldiers. This was beyond any form of cruelty. Scars infringed on the people then, whether physical or psychological, still haunt the victims even today. AGHET documentary portrays the psychological trauma that people faced during the genocide. This is a documentary on the Armenian genocide by the Young Turk government of Ottoman Empire. It shows the effects of the genocide on the people, specifically focusing on the victims and survivors of the genocide. This documentary forms the most comprehensively covered film on the genocide. There is extensive research on the topic of research on the issue. The main idea of the film revolves around eyewitnesses of the Genocide, giving the audience a true picture of how the genocide took place. If an audience was to consider Ararat as a sad story, then AGHET is horrifying. This documentary is a true account of people who took part, witnessed or were involved in the Armenian Genocide. There is no better way of describing something than people with the best knowledge on the issue. Thus, there was no better way of understanding the events prior, during and post the genocide than people present during the happening of the genocide. Some of the accounts left me wondering, “How do they live with that?” Then I realize the victims, for a long time spent time with the psychiatrists and counsellors to get on track again. Nonetheless, not all of them have a sound mind, or so I supposed. There is no way a person could witness so many deaths and still have a sound mind, never. Despite this though, they give us a true reflection of the Genocide. Perfectly recounting on how the events took place, right on their eyes, I could tell that they were hurting even as they gave their accounts. Regardless of the struggle they had to go through in their narrations, it was for a good course. Many people believe that the genocide was unreal. They do not see the logics. Others believe that the actual events took place, with an inflated number of victims. Different theories exist about the genocide. However, these true accounts of confessed witnesses and victims reveal the seriousness of the matter. The Jews did not deserve such a treatment. Nonetheless, they suffered top death out of desperation. The Nazi subjected the people to congested conditions that had no oxygen. As they starved to death, they also lacked oxygen. Although the Nazis shot most of the captured people, these accounts reveal that a huge number of Jews died in the gas chambers. Torture was part of the people’s lives, like was hopelessness. Amid these acts by the Nazis, the world watched. It formed the news headlines in most countries, yet they did nothing to save the situation. Germany by then was a superpower and a state with a strong and well-organized army. Because of the strong army and a number of pacts with different nations such as the Hungary, there was no way any nation could solely intervene. This made Nazi leaders such as Hitler even bolder, to a point of conducting genocide as the world watched in shock. The aggression, with which the country had conducted itself with, especially under the leadership of Ottoman, was amazing. How different are things now? Since nobody did anything then to stop the genocide, would the set structures stop a mass murder of people in the current world? This is unlikely. Despite the fact that stringent measures are in place to avoid such incidences, the painful reality is that the system is rather too complicated for any situation that require a swift action. Even if humanitarian organizations such as the United Nations were to express concerns and show signs of intervention, their action would be unlikely. One of the main reasons for this in eventuality is bureaucracy of the system. Perhaps the sanity of humanity could do. However, nobody in times of heated emotions thinks in a humane way. To demonstrate the inability of the world in stopping or solving issues of this nature, Rwanda is a good example. However, Rwanda is not alone. Recent incidences where people have perished include the Libyan crisis and then the Egypt murders. The latter two are not genocides. Although the number of people who died does not qualify for genocide, and regardless of the less weight we attribute to any situation, mass murder of people took place. Thus, we need more than just the information on the films to decide on the future interventions when such incidences happen. Read More