Mongol

I picked to see this movie during the SIFF for the sole reason that it is about the Mongols (obviously) and more specifically Temujin (aka Genghis Khan). In fact, it could have been a documentary about the Mongol Empire and I would have been first in line. I have a definite fascination with the Mongol Empire and its rulers. Theirs was a much more interesting and unbelievable empire than Alexander the Great’s (which quickly dissolved after his death). The vast Mongol Empire stretched from the Pacific Coast of East Asia, encompassing all of China, most of Russia, Central Asia, the Mideast, and Eastern Europe. Though their brutality and murderous reputation is well-deserved and documented (see the elimination of the khazerum empire), they were also noted for religious tolerance, multiculturalism (employing their conquered subjects in all levels of government), and general peace throughout the empire.

However, the movie Mongol focuses on the early life of Temujin and how he rose to power. More specifically, it tries to show how he united the clans of the Mongolian steppes and formed a national identity. Though, it is clear from the movie that it makes no allusions that this a historically accurate film. Like Braveheart, Mongol takes a lot of liberties and at times probably makes a lot of things up. Unfortunately, Genghis Khan is heavily revered and admired in many parts of the world. In modern Mongolia, I believe, he is of deific status. Thus, obtaining any real details of his early life is extremely difficult.

If I had to sum up the movie in one word it would be: weird. How is the movie weird? It manages to be extremely entertaining and dull at the same time. The action parts are well-done, but in a way there is no real substance behind them. The movie doesn’t show why Genghis was a master tactician. It employs the kind of strategy that is evident in a movie like Troy where the generals basically say, “Lets just send everyone and hope for the best”. One of the few things that was redeeming of Oliver Stone’s Alexander was the large set piece of Gaugamela. It was historically accurate and let the viewer see that there was some sort of strategy involved.

Also, lacking was any real driving force behind the story. It felt meandering and repetitive, as Genghis gets captured no less then 3 times in the movie. It always felt that there was the plot and movie was just about to pick up, then it would segue into a sequence that would grind the pace and excitement into nothing. Several key moments in the story seem to have been glossed over. For instance, the fabled unification of the Mongols happened completely off screen.

However, this movie was still worth seeing purely based on the cinematography. The Mongolian Steppes look like nothing I’ve ever seen, and they are amazingly beautiful. It is vast, wide, and all encompassing. Add some graceful shots of horses and you have a great setting. The last battle, while lacking in some areas, was expertly filmed and a definite must see. In fact, the very scope of the movie is quite impressive given that it isn't made with Hollywood movie and is independent. A small disappointment for me was that the film ended right when the Mongol tribes were united. I was hoping for more globe-trotting conquering.

Mongol would be below Braveheart and Spartacus in the epic movie category, but it is still better than Troy and eons better than the disapponting Alexander.

Lastly, this was one of three movies that I saw this year where the director was actually present in the audience and answered questions afterwards. Sergei Bodrov was asked mostly about the various difficulties of making a film with such an epic story. He did confirm that the movie was the first in a trilogy, and despite my qualms about certain aspects of the film, I am definitely excited for the next two.

Seattle International Film Festival

The other week was the end of the Seattle International Film Festival, which I have attended every year since 2003. I’ve always been interested in films and I love the chance to see several movies that I otherwise would never have the opportunity to enjoy. It is fun and exciting as I really have no idea what the movie is going to be like, and I rarely look at any trailers.

I do have a couple of rules:

1) Movies are chosen by title, short, synopsis, and/or the thumbnail picture that is on the SIFF website. I do this, because I would rather find a “diamond in the rough” than just go to the popular festival awarded films. However, winning festival awards is not a bad thing in my selection process.

2) I must see a film from a country that I have never seen a film from. I do this for several reasons, but the most important is to be exposed to something that I have never experienced before (a common theme in my film festival experience). I don’t have to tell you that other cultures see the world in radically different ways that your own culture does. It is a pretty fundamental truth. It is wonderful to experience that in a way that only films can. A few years ago, I saw a movie from Iran for the first time, last year it was Denmark, and this year it was Chile.

3) There must be a Seattle or Pacific Northwest film in the selection somewhere for the simple reason that you have to support local artists.

I’ll be doing a review of each of the movies that I have seen (hopefully I’ll finish)…