free counter with statistics Kite Runner | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

ahmad_khan_mahmoodzada7.jpg

Kindness Is Gone from the Land

The Kite Runner / Ranylt Richildis

Film Reviews | January 1, 2008 | Comments (18)


Our own Daniel Carlson recently posted an eloquent reminder about the perils of judging a movie by the book it’s based on, and the importance of respecting film adaptations as media separate from literature. Dan’s argument can’t be stressed enough, and it’s one of my hobby-horses, so I’ll take the opportunity to ride it a little while I have the floor: to justify or discredit a film based on how faithful it is to its source is to judge it unfairly. I’m a literature scholar before anything, but as Dan suggests, as long as a film reproduces the spirit of a novel in its quest to transform narrative from page to screen, and as long as the movie succeeds on its own terms — even if that means cutting out characters or events in the process — I’m satisfied. Film has a different agenda, after all, and different priorities. It gets to play with unique toys like visuals and actors, and in fact must give these elements primacy because of the impact of their presence. Moreover, what frequently distresses a viewer about a particular adaptation is the way the director’s personal imagining of the tale is the one that gets to gel into a tangible sight, and not our own (in my mind, for instance, Carey Elwes never was and never will be the real Wesley). We somehow feel robbed when this happens. It’s human, but it pays to detach, difficult as that sometimes is.

I had nothing to detach from, in this case, because I haven’t read the bestseller by Khaled Hosseini which The Kite Runner is based on. This is a review which has no choice but to judge its subject purely as a piece of cinema, so readers looking for an in-the-know comparison between book and film won’t find it here (I suspect The Kite Runner is one of those movies where the majority of viewers it attracts will be those who’ve read and loved the book, and its reception will no doubt center on book-to-film commentary). The individual baggage I brought into The Kite Runner was a whole other animal: the political context of Afghan history and current events (or at least what I know of it courtesy of CBC and various patchwork readings).

The story’s focus is Amir, the son of a well-to-do Pashtun man who had an important job and a lovely house in Kabul before the Soviet invasion in 1979. Amir’s best friend is the son of a household servant; the Pashtun community is ethnically dominant but, like his father, Amir rejects pressure to socialize only with his own kind. He quietly feeds off Hassan’s friendship and seems blind to the other’s lower economic status, which is attached in large part to Hassan’s Hazara identity — and if this seems like an oversimplified rendering of the pre-1979 ethnic/tribal situation in Afghanistan, that’s because the film itself presents it in quick, reductive bytes in order to proceed with the story. Hassan’s fealty to Amir is intense and lifelong, but Amir rejects this fealty one day and uses his friend’s ethnicity against him when Hassan is assaulted by three older boys after a kite-flying contest. The story follows Amir’s escape from the Soviet invasion, his new life in California, his return to Taliban-occupied Afghanistan as an adult, and the amends he eventually makes to Hassan for once attaching honor to the body rather than to the character.

The Kite Runner was directed by Marc Forster, and the styles he pinned onto previous films like Monster’s Ball and Stranger Than Fiction are largely absent here. Forster’s greatest strength is his chameleon ability to shift gears and set a visual tone that suits his script. I never would have imagined that the same eye and mind had directed each of these very different films. The Kite Runner, a Dreamworks production, looks and feels more like an Asian import — never a bad thing, in my opinion, and an especially good thing here, considering its source. The sky is wide open in most exterior shots, the cinematography precise and spare, the production design authentic-feeling, and the acting naturalistic and understated. It’s a movie that tries to respect the gentler pace of developing-world filmmaking — the kind that tells a story in muted tones and with very little show. Forster almost “Westernizes” The Kite Runner with a handful of flat-footed, studio elements — the uncomfortably Orientalist opening titles, the CGI’d to hell and back kite-flying contests, and the Hallmark Greeting Card plot turns that fetch up awkwardly towards the film’s end (and which I suppose were born in the novel) — but the film’s hybridity isn’t inappropriate, considering the hybrid nature of the immigrant experience, felt by both Amir and his creator.

The Dreamworks belts and pulleys never completely disappear from the product, though, and make The Kite Runner a film that defies a pat verdict. It hopscotches between a strong, fascinating beauty designed to engage American viewers with its alien face, and mealy movie-of-the-week contrivances. Sentiment ultimately drowns out a superior sort of affect which, by and large, sustains itself up until the final half hour of the film; we swim in an almost nameless emotion born of grief over what’s been lost (personally, culturally, geographically), and share in the characters’ hard-nosed resolution to soldier on. This resolution is seen in Hassan, in Amir’s father, in a family friend who could never bring himself to leave his country, and eventually in Amir himself who, while never sloughing off his Afghan heritage in California, always seems a little nervous about embracing his father’s ecstatic nationalism.

Amir’s portrayal is no question the key, not only to the story but to the quality of the film. What ultimately transcends The Kite Runner’s saccharine wake is the caliber of Khalid Abdalla’s acting (and of every other performance, come to that). As the adult Amir, Abdalla has a riveting presence which communicates all the tension of the pent-up outsider anxious about doing the right thing for more than one person, or for more than one community,even as he tends to choose to do what most suits himself. It’s an incredibly quiet performance, rounding out a character who, despite all of the violence and upheaval he’s seen, chooses to live in a quiet world of his own structuring, until he returns to Afghanistan and participates in ideological fisticuffs. Even the brutality of Hassan’s rape, seen through the younger Amir’s eyes, manifests as a surprisingly sedate event. As a boy, Amir overheard his father criticize him for being too passive, for not standing for anything and therefore failing to plug into his own masculinity and upholding family and tribal duty; it isn’t until he’s a husband and a successful author, and until his own father is in the ground, that Amir mans up to his patriarchal summons while — paradoxically — challenging the acute authoritarianism of Taliban law simply with his presence.

As strong as the acting is in The Kite Runner, it’s the portrayal of Afghanistan that lingers. The film’s importance doesn’t lie in its trite reconciliation tale or its heavy-handed kite = freedom conceit, but in the way it transmits the agony of a country’s loss to viewers from other regions. The exterior shots were filmed in China and help to recreate an Afghanistan that doesn’t physically exist anymore. No amount of over-symbolic pomegranate juice or rape metaphors have anywhere near the same effect as seeing visual reminders of what three invasions and countless tribal wars have done to a region. The film’s best moments are when the plot recedes and the characters of Amir, his father, and Kabul then and now are allowed to fill the frame for a time. These alone were enough to generate emotion and create a hypnotic film. Everything else seems like window-dressing that obscures the view of what’s really worth communicating.

Ranylt Richildis lives in Ottawa, Canada. She can usually be found sneezing in college libraries or dropping chalk in lecture halls, but she’s somehow managed to squeeze in a film or two a day for the last decade.


Pajiba Love 12/31/07 | Ode to the Sandy Vagina



Comments

I agree with the assertion that adaptations should capture the spirit, not a carbon-copy of the novel. Some of my favorite adaptations have gone leaps and bounds away from the original novels (Cuaron with Children of Men, HP3:POA; Kubrick with The Shining, A Clockwork Orange).

Also, I read the Kite Runner a few years back and frankly wasn't impressed. Maybe it was all the hype it was getting at the time, but it seemed only...adequate. The previews didn't give me much to hope for either, because as you said, it looked at times like a Movie-of-the-Week.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at December 31, 2007 2:20 PM

I am also one who did not read the book. But the movie was 'aight. Sometimes I think the whole "child-abuse" thing is almost as much of a cop-out as "sad puppies."

What I mean to say is,I cried a whole bunch and am ashamed.

Posted by: Gudrun at December 31, 2007 2:50 PM

I loved the novel. I think I will also love the movie. I cannot wait to see it!!!

Posted by: LadyJane at December 31, 2007 3:15 PM

I read the book just prior to spending a year in Kabul recently. While I did find it at times a bit saccarine, I felt that it succeeded as a book in that I felt as if I were reading a autobiography, not a novel.

The book, and I presume the movie, short shrifts the complexity of the ethnic situation in Afghanistan. We only read of Hazaras and Pashtuns, but there are dozens of ethnic groups.

According to one man I spoke to (an Uzbecki), much younger than Amir would be, racial tensions were almost unheard of until the rise of the Taliban.

All in all, however, I found it a facinating insight into a world, and a history, not my own. What better reason to read a book or see a movie than that?

Posted by: Spike at December 31, 2007 4:03 PM

"The film's best moments are when the plot recedes and the characters of Amir, his father, and Kabul then and now are allowed to fill the frame for a time..."

sounds like the film is better than the book. I read it a couple years ago, and found it to be incredibly manipulative and sub-par. Sure, it's moving and eloquent, but it also felt forced and unnecessarily over-dramatic. Like Hosseini was thinking to himself, "I wonder what I can do to make my audience cry." A better writer would have been able to convey the same amount of emotion with more subtle plot devices.

I hear his newest book follows the same "Woe is me, cry with me." vein too. Typical.

Good review. I guess your final sentence, "Everything else seems like window-dressing that obscures the view of what's really worth communicating," really translates to the book as well.

Posted by: dene at December 31, 2007 4:41 PM

I know it wasn't your intention, but that Princess Bride comment really caught my attention. There's a movie that did not, in my opinion, fully capture the spirit of the book... yet somehow, I enjoy it just as much. (This could be because I've watched it regularly since birth...)

Anyways, all of a sudden I agree that Carey Elwes wasn't Wesley as imagined by William Goldman, but his Wesley will always have my heart just as much as the written Wesley. Robin Wright wasn't right, nor was Chris Sarandon, but they (especially the latter) were perfect in the film.

Out of pure curiosity, who would you have play Wesley?

If only I'd read the book after seeing the movie, but I'm, um, quite a bit older and slept with it under my pillow all through the 1980s--isn't that always the problem? As for a Wesley substitute, I guess I'd always pictured some long and lean unknown...total subjective BS. --RR

Posted by: Ling at December 31, 2007 4:58 PM

I wish I had emotions of steel to see this movie, but considering what the book did to me I would probably be crying through the whole thing. I also found the book a little emotionally manipulative, but considering the state of Afghanistan for the last 30 years maybe the author was simply telling it like it is. It's very easy for Americans, including myself, to turn a blind eye to other humans living such horrendous existences. I opened myself up to this world with the book but don't feel any need to do the same with the movie.

Posted by: katy at December 31, 2007 5:35 PM

I hated the book, despite my verging on obsessive interest in Afghanistan. A literary Crash. Don't think I'll be seeing this. Excellent review though.

Posted by: whenindoubt at December 31, 2007 6:48 PM

Extreme and vicious bias as a Canadian-born-Afghan, warning you now. I've watched almost every western production that has anything to do with Afghanistan because I almost enjoy the feeling when it ends and I can pat myself on the back for knowing beforehand that it would be a radically inaccurate illustration of Afghan culture/accents/etc/etc/etc. I pretty much watch so I can get irritated that every Afghan in the film is played by an Indian or Arab. Then I want to throw things when the plot inevitably skims over every positive or longstanding element of Afghan culture to focus on the Taliban's cruelty for shock value. I always feel misrepresented and I feed off the frustration; I'm sick, I know.

I just figure that introduction to my opinion might give some sort of significance to the following statement: Most accurate portrayal of Afghan ex-pat life I have ever seen. When I watched that movie I saw the Kabul my parents described to me before I was born. It made me homesick for somewhere that has never been my home. I saw it a week ago and my eyes are still poofy and red. Love it.

Posted by: BasicFoods at December 31, 2007 11:23 PM

As regards to the hype the book got a few years ago, I always wondered about the timing. I watched library patron after library patron request the book. We even named it to our one book program (a program that in theory encourages the entire city, state, other defined region, to read one book but in practice is only observed by a handful of librarians and book clubs). And I read it. It was good, a bit pat after I found some deeper reading on the Afghanistan culture and history. And of course it was emotionally manipulative (but really what isn't?). However, it also felt like after-the-fact political correctness. As in: here is this country that we invaded, that we declared war on, and we as a people know NOTHING about them. At least most (many) people knew that Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq. But most people knew nothing about Afghan before 9/11 and the ensuing chaos. And conveniently as our troops were settling in, we have this overly sentimental, and fairly western friendly book about the culture! Instant best seller! We can all read it, discuss it, and feel less guilty about invading a country that we knew naught of.

Posted by: libraryliz at December 31, 2007 11:50 PM

Not having read the book and being relatively ignorant as to the culture of Afghanistan, I didn't even try to watch this movie as being an insight into it, but I felt it did a good job. Not one of the best of the year, but certainly a competent movie.

Posted by: Brooke at January 1, 2008 8:05 AM

Hmmmm....I liked the book. I've got a bit of trouble applying the term "emotionally manipulative" to shit that actually occurs and is just horrendous, regardless of how it's rendered. Maybe we cry when reading/viewing this stuff because we should?

Posted by: Samantha T at January 1, 2008 8:23 AM

I tried but I could not remain in this movie. The book itself was difficult to get through but I could put it down, re-ground myself, and pick it up again. I agree that the book was overtly emotionally manipulative but the story was compelling and compellingly told. Perhaps I take friendship way too seriously and have lost too many friends in tragic circumstances. Add child abuse into the scenario and I just could not sit through the movie.

Posted by: rudy at January 1, 2008 1:04 PM

I don't think I'd call either the book or movie overtly emotionally manipulative. Yea, there were a lot of emotions, but would you be stoic if all that had happened to you or your country? I did like the movie better than the book, though, just for the visual impact of seeing the change of the country and the characters.

And I'd like to add that the child actors did a wonderful job.

Posted by: nutmeag at January 2, 2008 3:45 PM

On what grounds do those of you who believe this book was overtly emotional feel that way?

As an Afghan very much aware of my country's history and present conditions, the intensity of tragedy and heartbreak in this book is a reality over there. We have it really good in America, and need to quit looking at the world through rose-colored glasses.

Posted by: mariam at January 2, 2008 6:07 PM

I hated this book. I didn't read all of this movie review, but enough to assume the movie's not exactly the same as the book, which, IMO, means it has a chance of not sucking. That being said, I liked the book until the ending, which I thought was melodramatic and ridiculous, and the book itself could've cut 80-100 pages without losing any of the story. So it could've been a good book if the writer hadn't taken the easy way out and used a silly and over-the-top event to bring the book to a close. Which was too bad, because what could've been at least OK, turned out to be totally lame. Of course, that's just my opinion. I know plenty of people who really liked the book.

Posted by: Cady at January 2, 2008 6:08 PM

I have a problem - perhaps too strong of a word - for films that deal with intense, scarring, political and personal issues and mix these events with what feel like overly sentimental, family-fare stylings. For sure, at least this movie separated them neatly, turning from serious to not-so-serious to really-serious to not-serious-at-all (really, that last kite scene was over the top. I couldn't stand those fucking kites by the end, and I love San Francisco).

I never read The Kite Runner and didn't know much about it going into this film. Afterwards, I thought that the book must be better. I imagined a novel that blended these disparate emotions into one smoother whole, although after reading the above comments I may have changed my mind.

I think this is a good movie, make no mistake about it, but something felt off. I thought maybe they were trying to combine four different films into one, or the quiet, repressed stoicism of the child actors was just a little too quiet and repressed, coming off more like poor acting than authentic depictions of children living in pre-invasion Afghanistan. I hardly felt anything for any of the characters except a deep disgust in Amir for what he did to Hassan, which lingered throughout the movie and never let me fully embrace his character. And, come on, who pulls off socking a Taliban official's eye out and then just moseying off in the runaway jeep? I never thought I'd advocate a car chase in a bid for increased authenticity.

Seriously, I can find so many things wrong with this film that all would be solved by making the main character remotely likeable, or identifiable. It is clear to me that child-Amir felt very conflicted and put upon by his guilt, but if he'd bother to show that instead of acting like a dumb little punk instead (or even both - as I suppose was intended) I could maybe get into what his fancy-pants adult persona did after graduating from community college. Excuse me for my heated tone. I'm just surprised that a film with such richness left me so meh. I never thought I would see a film with child rape, eyeball shooting, marriage, death, and beard patrols and not shed a single tear.

Posted by: Lyra at January 6, 2008 6:25 AM

If this is how y'all feel about The Kite Runner, being overly saccharine and all, I can't WAIT to see what kind of hatchet job you'll do on The Time Traveler's Wife. Hell, I think the latter deserves it, too.

Posted by: Elspeth at March 29, 2008 4:43 PM