reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Reiher) (06/07/90)
TIME OF VIOLENCE
A film review by Peter Reiher
Copyright 1990 Peter Reiher
[This is another review from the rapidly receding AFI Los Angeles
International Film Festival. The film in question is probably not
playing at your local theaters, nor is it likely to any time soon.]
Most Americans are extremely parochial in their film viewing
habits. British films are unusual to them, French films exotic, and
Japanese films the furthest they might stretch, if that far. A whole
world of cinema exists outside the attention of American viewers, a
world filled with worthwhile, and often brilliant, films. When the
films in question require tremendous stretching of the viewers'
expectations of what a film is, a certain laziness is understandable.
Lots of people go to movies strictly for low-thought entertainment, and
they should not be expected to endure LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD or the
latest enigma from Godard. But there is still a body of fine,
entertaining film hidden away only because of language and cultural
barriers. Americans will not read subtitles, for the most part, and
don't care to learn about any other nation's history or culture. They
barely care about their own nation's, as the relative failure of GLORY
demonstrated.
This parochialism is particularly evident when one sees a film like
TIME OF VIOLENCE. A Bulgarian film, TIME OF VIOLENCE uses precisely the
same stylistic conventions as American films, the same form of
storytelling, the same approach to character, the same values as to what
makes a good story, and, moreover, it satisfies American criteria for
being a "good movie." There is a basic story, with well-attached
subplots, lots of action, villains and heros (with a bit more
complexity, perhaps, than most American films), and a logical
resolution. The production values are high, the performances excellent,
the direction skillful. The film has done very well in many countries,
including some as foreign to Bulgarian culture as Japan. So why can't
the filmmakers get *any* distribution deal in the U.S.?
TIME OF VIOLENCE suffers only from its language and its setting.
Few Americans know much about the Balkans during the 17th Century. But
it was one of those proverbial "interesting" times during which it was a
curse to live. Most of the Balkans were under the thumb of the Ottoman
empire. Islamic empires have more of a reputation for tolerance than
most, but the Ottoman empire was showing its ugliest face during this
period in Bulgaria. Bulgaria was a strategically important area
inhabited by unreliable Christian subjects. The sultan decided that
they must all convert to Islam, or die.
TIME OF VIOLENCE focuses on the fate of one valley during this
crisis. The son of the miller was taken off by the Turks years ago,
while still a boy, to become a janissary. Janissaries were special
troops used by the Ottomans. Recruited (involuntarily) from Christian
boys, they were separated from their families at an early age,
indoctrinated in Islam, and turned into fiercely reliable troops with no
allegiance to anyone but the sultan. The miller's son is now a highly
trusted janissary, with the task of converting his entire home valley to
Islam. But the people there take their religion very seriously, and
will not submit. The janissary becomes more and more brutal in his
attempts to convert the valley, for he must slaughter them all if they
don't take the turban.
The film is painted on a large, sweeping canvas, with many
characters and subplots, all cleverly woven into a single story. (This
accomplishment is even more remarkable when you consider that the
original Bulgarian version was nearly two hours longer, yet there is no
sign at all that anything has been cut.) And, surprisingly, this isn't
a "vile Turk" story. Director Ludmil Staikov has much more ambitious
goals, including an examination of the power of religion and of the
destructiveness of violence and fanaticism. Not all of the Christians
are good, nor all of the Muslims bad. The Turkish governor of the
valley is not loved by his subjects, yet does all he can to avert their
doom. He is given a beautiful, tender moment as he leaves the valley
forever, in disgrace. Crossing a bridge that leads out of his valley,
he notices a stone that has worked out of place. He gets down from his
horse, carefully puts the stone back into its place, and then proceeds
on to his exile. Even the janissary has his complexities, as he truly
wants to spare his people from unnecessary pain, despite having
completely transferred his loyalties to the sultan. The screenplay, by
Staikov, Georgi Danailov, Mihail Kirkov, and Radoslav Spassov, provides
complex shadings of characters and motivations.
TIME OF VIOLENCE is a professionally made film, beautifully
photographed, well edited, and with scrupulous care in costuming and set
design. The period atmosphere feels perfectly authentic, at least to
someone with only passing familiarity with the time and place. The
technical aspects of the film are well up to the standard of moderate
budget Hollywood movies.
There are some unpleasant moments of torture and brutality in TIME
OF VIOLENCE, but they do not exist to excite or titillate. Rather, they
are necessary to demonstrate the full scope of the tragedy. Still, some
viewers may find themselves looking away during certain scenes. But,
otherwise, TIME OF VIOLENCE is a film without flaws. There are no
particularly weak points in the film, and many great virtues.
The problem with TIME OF VIOLENCE is really just that most
Americans will never get the chance to see it, and, even if they had the
chance, most Americans wouldn't take it. Dubbing the film might give it
a slightly wider audience, but even then it would be unlikely to draw
too many people. If MOUNTAINS OF THE MOON, a pretty good
English-language African adventure film, can't bring in the audiences,
how can a film about a small country's historical woes? At any rate, if
you do get a chance to see it, I recommend TIME OF VIOLENCE highly.
Peter Reiher
reiher@onyx.jpl.nasa.gov
. . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher