Three Armenian Films

Paul Chaderjian

March 5, 2003

Mamoulian's Love Me Tonight

"Love Me Tonight," the 1929 motion picture musical, was a groundbreaking

template of contemporary sound design in motion pictures. Today, it stands as testament of when and how the art of using sound in narrative motion pictures, music videos, concert films and television was created.

In addition to its historic creation of sound design, "Love Me Tonight" was also the vehicle with which filmmaker Rouben Mamoulian changed the relationship between filmmaking cameras and the subjects they photographed.

Through the use of ambient sounds, musical beats, orchestrated melodies, machine-gun-like dialogue and the pace created by the motion of the actors and the rhythm of the editing, "Love Me Tonight" set the standard for filmmakers and producers who would continue to marry audio to film or television media products. This ability to capture and sustain a pace, a tempo within a then-developing art form is both groundbreaking and itself a lesson for future filmmakers.

Rouben Mamoulian's trend-setting techniques may be best exemplified in the sequence of scenes in which cast members sing "Isn't It Romantic." The pace, the rhythm, the motion that is created during the first shots of this sequence are carried to the end of the sequence using a number of devices, including lyrics, dialogue, choreography and the motion of actors through space and time.

The second significant innovation illustrated in "Love Me Tonight" is the motion of the camera in relation to the actors in the scene. Previous to this film, actors were boxed on a set, much like the theatre, and the motion picture camera filmed them from one stationary position. With "Love Me Tonight," Mamoulian experimented with a moving camera, filming actors from various perspectives to the right and to the left of center stage.

The movement and newly gained freedom of a cinematographer married with the innovative sound designs make Mamoulian's "Love Me Tonight" one of the most progressive productions in the 1920s.

Andranik

The narrative motion picture "Andranik" is an amateurish attempt at telling a story that is important to Armenian history. Its inability to use the art of motion and failed attempt at narrative cinema belittles the real story and significance of a real life general and hero.

Perhaps one of the most essential errors in "Andranik" is the lack of potent technique at conveying the inner conflicts of the characters and their relationships. The audience sees a young Armenian studying the mythical and historic heroes of his people. His passion for the lessons he learns in grade school are not demonstrated, and his love for his people is not defined.

As the story continues, we see Andranik's father being harassed by Amdo, who then goes on to terrorize Andranik's village. However, we do not see in the actors' faces and do not read in the text between images how Andranik's father's harassment and the terror cast upon his village affected the soon-to-be-hero.

As the story unfolds, there is another plot line in which Andranik's love is kidnapped and never seen again. Again, there is indifference on the actor's face and the audience does not feel any empathy for the character. With the lack of emotional connection between viewer and the film, it is hard for the narrative film to convey the story of the hero clearly and with potency.

The film continues its mere 'showing' of the story unfolding. After the war, Andranik is seen in his later days sitting and pondering. What is he pondering? What did he sacrifice for his people? What did he feel about his lost homeland and his lost love?

Without dialogue and proper text explaining these inner dynamics, "Andranik" the film fails to show the real story of an Armenian hero. It merely offers the viewers scenes of action following by additional scenes with no externalization of internal human dynamics.

Peleshyan

What is the meaning of art when the artist and his or her audience do not share a common lexicon with which to interpret and understand the work created and the worked perceived? This is the question that comes to mind when one watched Peleshyan's experimental films called "We" and "Seasons."

Peleshyan's films contain images that are representational when they are observed individually. However, when an image is edited in a sequence with a second image that does not necessarily relate to the first, the viewer is left wondering the meaning of the sequence and hence the film.

In "We," produced in 1969, the viewer sees images of a crowd moving backward and forward. This image of the masses is then married to images of earth being moved, gravel being dug up and large wheels of a rail car moving forward. The idea that can be interpreted from this film is that the nature of man is to be in constant motion, working, moving, yet staying in one place.

"Seasons" is a bit more difficult to interpret, because it captures a number of scenes including shepherds herding sheep through a rushing white water river. There are also images of shepherds carrying the sheep across a river by hand and sliding with them down a mountain. There are also images of hay being dragged downhill and bread and cheese being produced. These images capture the work and the effort that goes into being alive.

As the seasons change, there is a rainstorm and a car is stuck in the mud. The film coyly asks, "Do you think it's better somewhere else?" Later the film perhaps answers the question by showing the small joys in life. The images of work and labor are followed by scenes of a bride being dressed, villagers donning pretty clothing and headgear in preparation for a wedding or a celebration.

The sequences in both "Seasons" and "We" may be interpreted in a number of ways, and each interpretation will be the correct one for the individual viewer. Since Peleshyan does not use formally accepted narrative techniques or storytelling, his art is open to individual interpretation. Peleshyan thus challenges the viewer to bring his or her own feeling and history while viewing the film, making the film viewing experience a very individual and unique experience.