Very interesting film about the tensions in Macedonia between Orthodox and Muslims. Structured in three parts, the second, which takes place in London, is necessary to give the conflict a more globalized scope, and contrast thematically and visually with the first and third, which take place in the rural world of Macedonia, but it is also the least achieved: it does not have a very close relationship with the rest, it establishes a sentimental plot of very minor interest, and it makes the main character a very topical one, easily extravagant and certainly unpleasant (the way of breaking up with the London girl is not very subtle, proposing her to come to live with him to his hometown, especially considering that there he is still in love with an Albanian woman). Still it has interesting scenes.
The first and third parts arte the important ones and have a certain symmetry: in this fight between two peoples, both parts culminate with a protagonist who dies at the hands of his own people.
The film shows the tensions that can lead a society to a civil war and how they are a vicious circle of reproaches, crimes and revenge, but at the same time advance in an escalation of violence that seems unstoppable. It is difficult to elucidate what came first and what came after, cause and consequence, who threw the first stone.
The structure is simpler than it seems, apparently a structure is proposed that could be linear or circular, but this is obviously not the case, and it is based on a certain trick that is not (and doesn't try) justified at the narrative level. For the structure to be linear and circular at the same time, we would have to ignore many details: those that make us read it as linear do not agree with those that make us read it as circular. No reading is fully valid from the narrative point of view.
As linear, Kiril in the first part says that he is going to see his photographer uncle in London ( but his uncle is already dead), the same uncle who stars in the second and third parts. In the second part, Anne observes some photographs of Zamira's corpse. This would take us to the linear chronology in which the first part is before the second and this second is before the third. But we realize that this cannot be so: we have seen the photographer's burial in the first part. And this forces us to read the second and third as flashbacks. And so it seems when we see that the events link with the prehistory of the first part... But that is impossible because in the second part Anne has seen the photos of Zamira's corpse.
It is impossible to determine which part comes before which. But this has been achieved in a very simple way: it would be enough to remove the detail of the photographs and Kiril's mention of going to see his photographer uncle and we would have a traditional film with a flashback that links to the beginning of the film. Obviously the filmmaker wants the viewer to see it in this second way and at the same time realise that something doesn't match and start thinking.
The photograph is very warm and saturated with color in its Macedonian part and cold and bluish in its London part. The film also gives us beautiful images of the landscapes, churches and villages of Macedonia.
The first and third parts arte the important ones and have a certain symmetry: in this fight between two peoples, both parts culminate with a protagonist who dies at the hands of his own people.
The film shows the tensions that can lead a society to a civil war and how they are a vicious circle of reproaches, crimes and revenge, but at the same time advance in an escalation of violence that seems unstoppable. It is difficult to elucidate what came first and what came after, cause and consequence, who threw the first stone.
The structure is simpler than it seems, apparently a structure is proposed that could be linear or circular, but this is obviously not the case, and it is based on a certain trick that is not (and doesn't try) justified at the narrative level. For the structure to be linear and circular at the same time, we would have to ignore many details: those that make us read it as linear do not agree with those that make us read it as circular. No reading is fully valid from the narrative point of view.
As linear, Kiril in the first part says that he is going to see his photographer uncle in London ( but his uncle is already dead), the same uncle who stars in the second and third parts. In the second part, Anne observes some photographs of Zamira's corpse. This would take us to the linear chronology in which the first part is before the second and this second is before the third. But we realize that this cannot be so: we have seen the photographer's burial in the first part. And this forces us to read the second and third as flashbacks. And so it seems when we see that the events link with the prehistory of the first part... But that is impossible because in the second part Anne has seen the photos of Zamira's corpse.
It is impossible to determine which part comes before which. But this has been achieved in a very simple way: it would be enough to remove the detail of the photographs and Kiril's mention of going to see his photographer uncle and we would have a traditional film with a flashback that links to the beginning of the film. Obviously the filmmaker wants the viewer to see it in this second way and at the same time realise that something doesn't match and start thinking.
The photograph is very warm and saturated with color in its Macedonian part and cold and bluish in its London part. The film also gives us beautiful images of the landscapes, churches and villages of Macedonia.