Man of Ashes (1986) User Reviews

*CONTAINS SPOILERS*

[kamerad · 7/10 · 17 January 2003]

I was first curious to see Tunisian director Nouri "Bouzid's Man of Ashes" after seeing his gorgeous short film "It is Sherherazade They're Killing" from the anthology film "The Gulf War, What Next?" (1991). "Sherherazade" (very subtly) explored the issue of the Arab world's treatment of women in the context of the Gulf War, and "Man of Ashes" is also about sexual politics, but in a very different way. "Man of Ashes" is a critical exploration into the male identity in Arab society. The film exposes many contradictions between how men are expected to behave, and how they actually feel inside.

The film concerns to men in their early twenties, Hachemi and Farfat, who live in the Tunisian city of Sfax. Hachemi, a carpenter is under a lot of stress because he is about to be married to a woman he is not in love with in an arranged marriage. Farfat is the victim of disparaging graffiti ("Farfat is not a man") painted on wall around their neighbourhood. Actually, we soon find out that it is Farfat himself who has painted the graffiti, and that both he and Hachemi were victims of a child molester when they were younger. Adding to their troubles, Hachemi's parents want to invite Ameur, the molester, to the wedding. Ameur is also a carpenter, and in-fact is the one who taught Hachemi everything he knows about carpentry.

From what I've read, "Man of Ashes' is on of the few films to deal with the issue of the Arab male identity in such a straightforward and critical manner. The film has a low-key, character driven structure that helps us as an audience grasp the full gravity of the situation. Were the film to have a faster pace, the seriousness of the subject matter would be trivialized. We come to understand, through the slow pacing, and detailed characterizations, that it is not just the molestation that has made Hachemi and Farfat so emotionally crippled, it is also the society that demands so much of them as men.

At the end, after making love to a woman and proving to himself that he is indeed a real man, Farfat kills Ameur, and then eludes the police by jumping in front of a moving train, which barely misses him, but blocks the path of his pursuers. The last shot of the film is Farfat jumping across the rooftops. This shot is in slow motion, making it appear that he is flying. This ending is one of the few problematic points in the film. Is seems that by showing Farfat jumping freely across the rooftops, the film is suggesting that he is now emotionally free. In other words is the film suggesting that he needed to make love, and the kill in order for him to free himself? Or is the film suggesting that Farfat only feels free, but he has still ultimately conformed to the stereotypes of the macho Arab male?

On the ending, I can't really decide. The tone is happy, but everything we have seen before suggests that the traditional Arab attitudes towards the male identity are flawed. In any case, "Man of Ashes" is an important work for the exploration into a part of Arab society we rarely see.

Perhaps less meaningful for westerners . . . .

[ekeby · 6/10 · 1 February 2009]

Unlike another reviewer here, I was not really disturbed by the human abuse. It was the animal abuse that revolted me. Well, slaughtering a chicken might not be considered abuse, but you get to watch it die under the opening credits. And there's worse further on. Just a heads up, y'all.

The plot was not entirely clear to me. I got the basics, but I didn't understand it as fully as another reviewer here. I think my experience might be more typical for Americans, even those of us with fairly eclectic taste.

And I think that would be partly because of the cultural differences, but also partly because of the way the film has been made. I understood that the main character was frequently thinking back to his childhood, but I found the transitions clumsy, and it was not always easy to immediately distinguish between the past and the present. Perhaps that was the director's point. If so, I found the technique distracted from the narrative.

I've no doubt this film would be far more meaningful for middle-eastern viewers. It was interesting for me, as a westerner, to see Tunisian family life from the inside. As a gay man, I'm always interested in the way men treat each other in other cultures, particularly if they are perceived to be gay. Which is the case here. But I didn't find the film interesting enough to recommend, if--like me--you are working your way through gay cinema. In fact I don't really think this film belongs in that category, though that's where Netflix has got it....

There must be two versions of this

[jaroslaw99 · 3/10 · 22 February 2010]

Shirley Lange wrote that there was explicit sex - I sure didn't see that. I agree with the first reviewer, this does not belong in the "Gay" category since it is not a Gay story at all. It kind of talked about the friendship between Farhat and Hachemi and how they felt they were like brothers. I have no idea what the point of torturing the chicken in the opening credits was for. Frankly, it is hard to follow what is going on at a great number of times and I don't know if this is because the culture is so different from the west or the poor storytelling ability of the filmmaker. Perhaps both. It is, as another said, an interesting glimpse into the sometimes contradictions between how Arab males are supposed to feel and how they actually do. Mostly I gave this a poor rating because I think it was much much too long for what I got out of it. Others may feel differently.

high tension drama from Tunisia

[wdw-3 · 8/10 · 23 April 2002]

I was prepared for a somber, somewhat arty piece. I was afraid it would be over serious and slow. Well, it is very serious. But I was impressed how the dramatic tension stemming from the two main character's inner torture was so high that scenes of conflict tended to almost literally explode off the screen. This is most noticeable in the scene when Hachemi leaves the dinner table in a rage after finding out his parents invited the man who molested him and his friend Farfat to his wedding. Less than a minute after he storms up to his room a real storm wind comes along, knocks things around, breaks glass and whisks away most of the tents and so forth that they had prepared for the wedding. This scene is also notable for the editing. A lot more cuts than I had expected. A shot of the window shattering, kids rushing in doors, birds, etc. The editing does a lot throughout the film to not only create pacing but to also add a certain poetic quality. Another explosive scene is towards the end when Hachemi and Farfat are brought by their friends to a brothel of sorts. The way this scene turns back and forth dramatically is almost dizzying. Overall a very powerful film.

negative w spoilers

[shirleylange · 1/10 · 3 June 2004]

I rented this DVD because I feel somewhat ignorant about life in an Arab country, and I have an open mind...I approached this with a very liberal and educated point of view. HOWEVER, this movie came as UNRATED and I was stunned to find myself watching a pedophile raping a young boy explicitly, and later forcing the same boy to have oral sex. This movie included everything else from murder to suicide at the conclusion of a very long two hours. I do understand that it displayed some real social issues for Arab men and women, but the viewer should have been warned about the content. The art of the presentation was lost, in my opinion. I did not learn anything of any value and I was not entertained - I was horrified and disgusted. I am a professional social worker; I work with abused children from all cultures and this type of film is not to be passed off lightly. If one of my clients had seen this without any warning it would have meant enormous trauma.