Art is dangerous. It's power, it's a way for people to communicate their passion and ideas to other people in a way that escapes most conventional means of containment.
Arn's story just proves that no matter how hard anyone tries, you can't suppress art. You can't suppress the self-expression of the individual.
The film was about survival, but it was also about what you do after you survive. Most war stories like this seem to deal with what the person goes through and how they get out of whatever hell they were placed in. Arn's story was different. It was about what you should do once you survive. In a way, it negates the idea of "survivor's guilt," because Arn chose to help other people, to protect and encourage art to flourish in Cambodia. Almost his entire family was killed because they were seen as a threat to the Khymer Rouge's ideals. Arn encouraging traditional art is a way of keeping their legacy alive.
I like your comment concerning how art can be dangerous. The entire reason why Arn's journey towards restoring music in Cambodia is because art became a threat that needed to be annihilated in order for the regime to accomplish its cataclysmic ends.
ReplyDeleteIf art wasn't so important, why was destroying it such a necessity?