One of the Various Problems of Bol: A Dangerous Lack of Moral Ambiguity

One of the Various Problems of Bol: A Dangerous Lack of Moral Ambiguity

As a work of art, which I presuppose that every film aspires to be (or should aspire to be), what I find most troubling about Bol is its lack of complexity in the depiction of characters and its general lack of moral ambiguity. Italo Calvino, the novelist writes in his essay “The Art of the Novel”: “good literature does not attempt to prove who is right or wrong, instead, it gives each person the right to be understood.” It is this “right to be understood” that I find a fundamental feature of the great works of literature I have read and any great films I have seen. The genius of the novel Anna Karenina for example, lies primarily in the confusion and troubling anxiety it raises in the reader about who to blame; whether Anna is really just an unfaithful wife and whether her husband is really an absolute victim, for instance. The genius of the novel lies in the difficulty we are faced with even today in answering such questions; the quality of a work of art is evaluated not in terms of the simplicity of solutions and categories it provides us (as Bol does by making Humaima Malick the absolute heroine and her father for example, an absolute and unredeemable villain) but instead in terms of the “difficulty” it creates in drawing such these stereotypical categories. Bol seems to evoke a different sort of reaction; it confirms all our fears, uncomfortable dreads and established stereotypes about the problems in our society and about who they are perpetrated by; the “malignant cruel father”, the “victimised, innocent women who are either his daughters or wives” are all stereotypes we are too familiar with. Rather than disturbing and making the reader anxious with a confusion and restlessness created out of glimpsing the utter complexity of of human behaviour, it reassures us about what we already know; there are several social evils in a largely illiterate and to add to that, dangerously conservative society which are indeed troubling and cause tragic circumstances for many people. The film effectively dramatizes, exaggerates and emphasizes these evils just as it effectively highlights the victimized daughters’ agony and suppresses in its depiction, the humanity of the ‘villainous’ father.

 I want to argue that this is the easy thing to do; on the other hand, those filmmakers really create something of artistic value who try the difficult thing. The Iranian film of 2011, A Separation comes to mind. One of the most troubling and compelling things about the effect that film has on the viewer is how baffled we are after watching it. It is so difficult to place any one character in it as an absolutely good, bad, blame worthy or blame free character. Instead the viewer grapples with varying emotions throughout as he watches the film; he is in turn indignant at and later sympathetic with the main character. The viewer hates, loves, is reduced to tears, blames and alternates feels for individual characters through the course of the story. The film, consequently, is an emotional journey not only for its characters but for the viewer as well. Its greatness lies in that it gives to each of its characters the right to be understood as humans. It is this right which Bol consistently avoids endowing upon its characters. A Separation is a film worthy of being watched various times and will endure through time because of its lack of absolute characters and its revelation of the moral ambiguity and painful complexity of human action. A film on the other hand that attempts to create ‘absolute’ characters in specified roles which are consistently maintained is not only uninteresting to watch but also seriously undermines the film’s value as a work of art.