I would like to start from the fact that it is one of the rare examples from my experience, when the film version of the book was perceived inseparably from the original, not as an individual work, but as a continuation of the book. It could be either because of the respectful approach of the director Victor Ginzburg towards Pelevin's masterpiece, or because of the comprehensive nature of the book. The fact is that it is nearly impossible to review this movie without considering the original book, that is why this film review will include some observations from the novel as well.
I watched this film after reading the novel and there was no conflict of expectations and reality, to my astonishment. The only thing in the movie that did not match the picture, which came to my mind when I read the novel, is the appearance of the main character (I imagined him as Konstantin Khabensky). In other respects, this film perfectly represented my perception of the novel's events. In accordance with various interviews with the director Victor Ginzburg, this movie was shot independently from big film companies over several years and the financing of the movie was
found by the director himself. It was released in 2011, starring some of the big names of Russian film industry, and received mixed reviews from critics. Despite my perception of the novel and film, the plot of the movie has some major differences from the novel in terms of the plot and the message. However my review will be focused on the subject of the altered state of consciousness of the main character and how it affects his and the audience perception of reality. In my opinion, the director and, especially, the director of cinematography and editor did the great job
in delivering this atmosphere of the novel to the screen.
It can be assumed that the perspective of Vavilen Tatarsky, the main character of the film played by Vladimir Epifantsev, plays a huge role in this movie. What I mean by his "his perspective" is the situations and events of the book and described moments in Russia's history in "his eyes", how Vavilen sees and perceives it. It affects the mood, plot development and subject matter of the film. For example, the audience can view the beginning of the 1990s as
something interesting and curious, despite some hardships (audience and readers can feel it from the way he describes the market, where he worked as a cashier, where the whole difference of people occurs). Readers/audience's perspective is affected by Vavilen's state of mind, and Vavilen's mind, in its turn, is affected, first of all, by historical events of 1990s' Russia, and,
secondly, the type of drugs Vavilen takes throughout the movie. It also could be paraphrased, that Vavilen's perception of the historical reality of 1990s Russia is affected by his active drug use. For the first example, the audience can see that the majority of the film/book Vavilen actively uses cocaine, which stimulates the brain, mental effects of which may include an "intense feeling of happiness, loss of contact with reality, or agitation". It can be assumed that his glamorous perception
of the advertising business and his "flashy", sometimes controversial advertisement lines can be influenced by his constant cocaine usage. The editing of the movie from the beginning to the middle of the movie can be described as fast, the scenes replace each other and the years of Vavilen's life and Russia's history are delivered in the matter of minutes of the film. However, some scenes, which take longer than usual, deliver just couple of days of Vavilen's, and in those scenes Vavilen either sober, or taking psychedelic drugs, such as LSD or mushrooms, which are given to him by the weird characters such as his old classmate, played by Shnurov or some stranger in the bar. By its nature, psychedelics do not cause happiness, but allow us to view
things from different points of view and see hallucinations. All the "weirdest" scenes, where he sees Babel or interacts with Che Guevara, are the ones where Vavilen takes psychedelics.
Director perfectly delivers this atmosphere with the help of special computer effects. However, in my opinion, it is not drugs that cause these scenes, but Pelevin's mind, and the reason why he added all these drugs may be to make these crazy things be justified by the audience like me and perceive his thoughts as normal.
It can be concluded that here perspective does matter to view the character and his
personality, but it does not affect the message of the book.
Reviews
2 Reviews
Wadjda
(2012)
Wadjda
30 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The 21st century has already seen the rise of critically acclaimed auteur cinema, which is made in Islamic countries. Iran is often considered as the leader of this "wave", with such talented directors as Jafar Panahi, Abbas Kiarostami and Asghar Farhadi, whose 2011 film "A Separation" received an Oscar for the best foreign film. The directors from Turkey and Mauritania are also critically acclaimed. The movies of these authors touch on subjects of relationships between religion, government and society. They are often criticized in their homelands for unconservative, liberal views on religion's influence on everyday lives of people, and important issues which occur. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia was left on the "outskirts" of that wave. For a while, Saudi Arabia barely had a film industry, producing only a couple of movies and documentaries per year. One of the possible reasons for that is the strict laws of Saudi government about cinema theatres and allowed subjects for the films. The situation is still pretty unfortunate. However, the internationally acclaimed 2012 film "Wadjda" by Haifaa al-Mansour helped to improve the situation and made brave statements about touchy subjects of religion and freedom in Saudi Arabia.
This film got a positive critique and was premiered in several Western film festivals. This is the first Saudi film, which was selected for Oscar and the first major film in the country, which was directed by a woman. Moreover, this is the first movie of this country, which touched on such a sensitive for the Islamic world themes and resonated on that level. The movie tells the story of a 10 years old girl named Wadjda, who lives in the suburbs of the country's capital city. She is a brave, active, rebel girl, always wearing a pair of Converse shoes. Her behaviour is considered as contradictory to the norms of Islamic virtue of a woman. Along with the story of a girl, we can see her family's issue. Her father, who is almost always not at home, considers to have a second wife, as Wadjda's mother fails to have a son for him. The fourth surah of Qur'an, An-Nisa, allows men to have more than one wife: "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice." (Ayah 3). Also, both Islam laws and society of Saudi Arabia expect women to behave in certain way: not to show her body to other men, walk in the streets only with husband, avoid interaction and eye contact with other men, wear a hijab. These rules go against the freedom-loving nature of Wadjda, whose behaviour is judged by surroundings. Her desire is to buy a new green bicycle. She participates in the Qur'an recitation competition in order to get money for the first place. She wins, but riding a bike is considered as impossible for the girl. Her money is shared to the charity without her permission. Following that, she discovers that her father married for the second time. However, her mother, who cut her hair short, buys her new green bike.
We can see that this film reflects the changes in Saudi society. In the year of this movie premier, women were allowed to be appointed to the Shura, governmental assembly. Few years after that, women were finally allowed to drive a car. The subject of women ruling the vehicle, which symbolizes having certain control and freedom to move, is also very important in this movie. Despite some huge changes, the society's attitude towards women's place and the impact of the religion are still extremely significant, and this movie perfectly captures this conflict.
However, I would like to mention that al-Mansour's attitude about women's place and religion is compromising and optimistic. She doesn not contradict these two concepts. The important aspect is that Wadjda gained her symbol of freedom with the help of knowing the Qur'an by heart. She could make money in other ways, but this aspect of true religion was important for the author. And finally, the color of the bike is the same as Saudi Arabia's flag, which also could be viewed as the symbol of optimism about Saudi future and freedom.
Tell Your Friends