I rarely review films on IMDb, but I decided to make an exception for this since no one before me has reviewed this film. This film was recently added to MUBI and it is the reason I know of this film's existence. I liked this film! I didn't understand all of it, maybe should give it a second watch. The film was slow and relaxing, consisting of a lot of conversations (many of these conversations being about fables) and wide silent shots. The film is in black and white, but it's not completely monochrome. You can see dark, desaturated green in the leaves and the grass for example. The film also depicts the patriarchal society without hitting you over the head with it. It's a good movie and I'd recommend you watch it on MUBI if you can (MUBI offers a 7-day free trial, if yuo don't want to subscribe to another streaming service).
2 Reviews
Americanization/Europization of Indian poverty and desperation
PimpinAinttEasy2 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
