I have tried my best with Malayali art films. I watched a few films made by Adoor who praised Don Palathara recently. I cannot stand the films of veteran mentor Adoor or prodigy Palathara. I believe most of these Malayali art films get a sympathy vote by bores. Even the great entertaining Elia Kazan dabbled in the cinema verite style with The Visitors (1972).
I did not even understand or for that matter agree with some of the aesthetic choices. Why weren't the hunters faces shown clearly? Who was who? What purpose was served by making the faces of these characters indecipherable or anonymous? Palathara manages to exoticize Indian poverty and desperation with some pretty frames.
The dialogs were mostly tall tales told by the hunters and patriarchs. The film was slow as hell once the hunt began. It fell apart completely once the hunt began. There were many pretty frames. But it was all so dull. I guess it is dumb to expect a conventional narrative and aesthetics in an art film like this. Anyway, the lives and attitudes of Mallu Christians who occupied the high ranges of Kerala is one of the films themes. What did the final frame with the gun stuck between the rocks really mean? It was almost as if the director did not care about the audience or something. What was his purpose? His pomposity was not justified in the end. I mean, everything about the hunt was so flimsy. I felt like the writer/director knew nothing about the milieu and he concocted a bunch of tall tales. Inserted some unbelievably pretty frames. What was he trying to say? He had nothing to say except be a pompous ass.
I did not even understand or for that matter agree with some of the aesthetic choices. Why weren't the hunters faces shown clearly? Who was who? What purpose was served by making the faces of these characters indecipherable or anonymous? Palathara manages to exoticize Indian poverty and desperation with some pretty frames.
The dialogs were mostly tall tales told by the hunters and patriarchs. The film was slow as hell once the hunt began. It fell apart completely once the hunt began. There were many pretty frames. But it was all so dull. I guess it is dumb to expect a conventional narrative and aesthetics in an art film like this. Anyway, the lives and attitudes of Mallu Christians who occupied the high ranges of Kerala is one of the films themes. What did the final frame with the gun stuck between the rocks really mean? It was almost as if the director did not care about the audience or something. What was his purpose? His pomposity was not justified in the end. I mean, everything about the hunt was so flimsy. I felt like the writer/director knew nothing about the milieu and he concocted a bunch of tall tales. Inserted some unbelievably pretty frames. What was he trying to say? He had nothing to say except be a pompous ass.