ARARAT

Atom Egoyan’s Ararat is a film more interested in historians than in history; the process of history – and its relationship to those who study it in the present – are at the heart of the story rather than the events of the Armenian genocide. The film-within-a-film (Edward Sorayan’s Ararat) takes the opposite approach and tells a strictly historical narrative of the events in question. By approaching the Armenian genocide in this way, Egoyan manages to start a debate and involve himself in it at the same time. The film is a search for “the truth,” but it understands that in history there is no such absolute.

If Egoyan had made Edward Sorayan’s Ararat as a feature film the result would have been, like Braveheart (1995) or Pearl Harbor (2001), a linear historical narrative. This would have had wider box-office potential, but it would also have lead to a public conversation where the Armenian genocide, and not Egoyan’s film, would be debated. To step away from the usual historical narrative and involve his film in the lives of the historians, Egoyan includes the genocide debate within his film. Questions of historical authenticity are addressed by characters that have the same concerns, and any question of the truth of the genocide claims are also debated in the film. This leaves the post-film debate to be about the merits of the film instead of about the merits of the history, which is why it is a successful historical film.

The focus put on the historians studying the Armenian genocide reflects the film’s theme of absolute truth, and how impossible it is to achieve. The historians, filmmakers, and other fictional characters created by Egoyan are all interested in “the truth.” The filmmakers treat it as if it were a commodity, something that could be purchased for the right price, when they hire Ani to be a historical consultant. David, the customs official, treats the truth as inevitable; he talks with Raffi, listens to his story, and waits for holes to appear and lies to be revealed. Martin, the lead actor, prepares for the role of Clarence Ussher by reading every scrap of evidence available. He appears fully confident in his mastery of “the truth,” and then puts on his costume and false moustache to play the role. Martin is emblematic of the amateur-historian who believes that the truth is accessible if enough information is gathered. Egoyan’s ensemble point of view of history makes it clear that “the truth” is never found because it is not a tangible object to be uncovered.

Egoyan’s film ends with the modest claim that the historical events presented have been substantiated. This post-script is inconclusive in terms of “the truth,” making it very appropriate for the film. Ararat presents both history and the historians who write it, and approaches the absolute truth of the Armenian genocide fully self-aware of how impossible a goal that is.