Pitched in Parts: Our Review of ‘What We Left Unfinished’

Pitched in Parts: Our Review of ‘What We Left Unfinished’

A critic called What We Left Unfinished a movie of special interest. That’s a fair assessment. But a wider set of viewers can learn a lot from a documentary about late 20th century Afghan film. It walks similar ground that another Afghan film documentary, The Forbidden Reel, covers, but Mariam Ghani’s film’s choice to mostly use footage from unfinished Afghan films place us within the context and the emotions of the revolutions and invasions that the country endured and that these films memorialized.

The film also features interviews like the one with director and Afghan Film president Latif Ahmadi. These interviews contextualize the aforementioned revolutions and conquests. As a refresher, Afghanistan became a democracy in 1973. Then it became subject to a Soviet invasion in 1979, and the rest is the rest. Ahmadi explains the methods of making films under Soviet rule. Afghan film, then, seems like a fledgling industry even during the late 1970s. Their methods are just as exciting as Western B-films of the time.

It’s surprising that communist regimes fostered such gonzo filmmaking methods. But there’s a mournful tone here that directors like Ahmadi never reached the levels of the likes of Coppola. Or at least his country’s version of it. This website’s publisher pitched this film to the editor as a documentary about Afghan genre films, particularly action ones. And this is an interesting lens to view these unfinished films. Clips showing those films’ scenes, especially the fight scenes, reveal something lurid. And that quality is always surprising in watching film from past generations regardless of their origin.

So despite the film’s said aura, the viewers can have fun in watching these action films. These filmmakers, through interviews, show hints of the little fun that they had despite of working under certain regimes. This reveals something new about the limits of authoritarian societies which aren’t as strict as its portrayals in Western media. Ahmadi discusses how some regimes can’t be strict because strictness can compel its citizens to leave their countries of origin. And this makes some sense.

These clips often accompany the interviews, there’s no way of getting around that conventional documentary method of storytelling. But it at least, and again, contextualizes the regime changes. One government makes way, mostly by force, with a stricter one. A collapse in 1989 lead to a civil war. This eventually leads to Afghan actors and filmmakers hiding either inside or outside the country. This exodus is as sad as the one that might be happening right now. The Taliban recently regained control of the country. Despite showing a moderate face after its defeat in 2001, they return with mighty vengeance. The executed those who collaborated with the West, making artists feel the same danger. There’s hope that the industry reemerges despite its fits and starts. But endurance comes often with the pain that comes with a country losing its freedom again.

  • Release Date: 8/6/2021
This post was written by
While Paolo Kagaoan is not taking long walks in shrubbed areas, he occasionally watches movies and write about them. His credentials are as follows: he has a double major in English and Art History. This means that, for example, he will gush at the art direction in the Amityville house and will want to live there, which is a terrible idea because that house has ghosts. Follow him @paolokagaoan on Instagram but not while you're working.
Comments are closed.
(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-61364310-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');