Independent film is very popular in the modern cinema, which is an important part of modern art. Georgian film directors also try not to lag behind this trend and create extravagant works one after another. An example of this is Giga Liklikadze's film, "Pig" (2019), which caused a great response. The majority of viewers evaluated it negatively, however, there were film critics who saw something unidentified and profound in it, thus considering the film the beginning of a new direction.
This film is about three young people (Bachana, Ramo and Makho). Bachana, who was discharged from military service, is going back home. On his way, the bus breaks down. While he is waiting for it to be repaired, he wanders aimlessly and finds himself in Ramo and Makho's yard. They kidnap him on absurd charges and demand 300 GEL as a ransom, although Bachana's family can only "pay" with a pig in return. Observing the development of the plot would be interesting since the film is based on a true story, if not for many factors that deprived the film of its meaning.
A film director creates a work for society to think about or get some message across. A film often has a social, political or cultural context and, thus, becomes a form of dialogue with society. It is also a means of self-expression, which gives freedom. Expressing one's own directorial vision is good and correct, although everything has its own rules and norms. It should be well-perceived where the line between freedom and self-expression is drawn. When you create something, you also take responsibility for what you have created. The director must remember that art is not just entertainment, it is much more than the expression of individual feelings. The author is obliged to awaken and change society for the better because he is not only a creator but also a member of society who is responsible for his audience.
The idea is to describe poverty and human relationships but all this dies at the very beginning because the creators do not try to fully present any topic. Everything is primitive.
The idea is to describe poverty and human relationships but all this dies at the very beginning because the creators do not try to fully present any topic. Everything is primitive.
The film is, to put it mildly, outrageous not only because of the events taking place on the screen, but also because of the realization that someone had the desire to shoot this story in this way. When the boundaries of cinema expand and criteria are broken, the question arises - has film become a factor in the degradation of society? After all, cinema is not created only for aesthetic pleasure, but should help a person in high moral, mental and spiritual development, should serve to ennoble and contribute to the formation of a better society, because only in this way can we save what is human in us. And what happens in "Pig?" It shows aggression, nihilism and absurdity, which can negatively affect the moral value of a person. It is completely devoid of complex and profound content, which leads to the impoverishment of the audience's thinking. As Ingmar Bergman said, “Cinema penetrates the mind slowly, but strongly.” Therefore, shooting every provocative shot is very dangerous, especially when the public has so little choice in modern Georgian films. Provocation is done to attract attention, not to convey a deep thought.
Our world is not ideal and the people living in it are not angels either. Each of us has our own dark side and fantasies, which sometimes cross the line of cruelty and depravity, but it is worth bringing these dark things out into the open. “Pig” allows the viewer to think not about the problems of modern Georgia, but about the difficult times of Georgian cinema.
It is interesting, could the author not have said what he wanted to say without so much profanity? Couldn’t his idea have reached the viewer more correctly? What was the need to convey this with such intensity, it ruined everything. It is difficult to imagine that so many negative qualities can be concentrated in one person at the same time, and if such are still found in the minority, they should not be shown to the public, but buried as deeply as possible so that no one can understand their existence.
If this film was created to correct such people, it is unlikely that this will yield positive results. On the contrary, it is an impetus and encouragement for them to continue living the same way, because they will not be able to grasp the deep meaning, and for those who are far from such a lifestyle, this is an uninteresting, meaningless and devoid of content film.
Is this the level to which the intellect of Georgia has fallen? The number of dirty words that are heard here is disturbing. Especially when the film is shown at international screenings, what should they think about Georgia? This is such a common problem that it has become a source of motivation for directors to work on this topic. We should not forget that we are the image of our own country, and what we convey to others will be the image we create of the nation. Of course, we should address existing problems, but in a way that is both talented and beautiful, so that it is thought-provoking and There must be a desire to correct. Desire alone is not enough to make a film.
As for the topic of poverty, “Pig” is less suitable for this. It points more to immorality, greed, and spiritual darkness. The main characters are lazy. Two young people decide to earn easy money for an absurd reason. Did poverty lead them to this point? Not at all, but the darkness in their souls made them like this. They could have worked, engaged in interesting work, but they chose to be lazy. An uncropped yard, a dusty house, rooms turned into pantries - this is the fault of laziness, not poverty. You don’t need money to do these household chores.
Focusing on details is important, especially in the modern technological era, where society easily detects even the slightest mistake and does not forgive you. Therefore, directors must have deep knowledge of the subject they are going to film, so that the work does not come out superficial and the author's self-confidence is visible. When the creative team is not well-informed about the subject, this is definitely reflected in the film.
The conversation about the narrow and primitive world of three people takes place within the walls of one house, and its monotony is, to some extent, tiring. The shots taken in a natural and unprocessed environment are done to enhance the atmosphere, but all in vain because this still failed to bring the necessary emotion. There is no plot, the whole film is a bunch of profanity. The actors are good, because they honestly performed what they were assigned. Thanks to the cinematographer (Shalva Sokurashvili), the visual side is interesting. There are shots that are shot at a fairly high level. It is true that the film has some pluses but all of them are a drop in the ocean in relation to the content of the film.
When a film is devoid of valuable content and serves only the demands of the market, a critical approach to cinema is necessary so that the viewer knows what to watch and why.
Teona Vekua
