Otkradnati Ochi, which was translated as Çalinti Gözler (Stolen Eyes, I wonder if that is what the Bulgarian name means too? I know ochi is eyes, but the first word?) into Turkish, is partly successful as a drama, and partly successful as a documentary manifesting and criticizing the Zhivkov politics.
Since I know Bulgarian Turks and Bulgarians personally, and some very closely, I also know that the incidents outlined in this flick took place in reality. The depiction could be, however, somewhat biased, because Bulgarian Turks are generally NOT Islam-driven people like the ones on the movie. Being an oppressed minority, they naturally tie to what they know as their own culture, and possibly exaggeratedly so. Yet the Bulgarian point of view, as clearly emphasized by the movie (and by the Bulgarian cinema fan who commented earlier), suggests that those people are perceived as Bulgarian Muslims, and not Turks. That's where the problem starts. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Atheist, they are ethnic Turks. (Plus, the term "Bulgarian Muslims" must include Pomaks as well. Did they not exist in the 80's?) Take the Karaim Turks in Lithuania, are they recognized as a minority of Turkish descent, or just Lithuanian Jews? A Norwegian for example, could be a Muslim, but not a Turk. The Zhivkov rule ignored that fact, just like a typical Bulgarian would, and tried to strip those people of their culture totally, forgetting they could not be stripped of their Turkishness. After all, the communist rule did the faith-stripping to Christians and others as well (which I glorify, since I'm a hardcore Atheist), but it was the nationality that kept nations together. What made Zhivkov think that would not be the case with Turks? What makes the contemporary Bulgarians still think so? Does Ayten really become Ana just because you call her that?
Back to the movie itself, it does well to deliver its message, the acting and plot are also pretty good, except for the majority of the sanitarium scenes which shoot at being somewhere between Bergman and Tarkovsky, and fail at both. The cast is, if anything, annoying. Why cast a Bulgarian woman as a Turk? For the Turkish viewer, that's really disturbing, because her accent claws the ear. Since the movie is an all-things-fair production, and does not consist of a series of pointless attacks against Turks, like the infamous Midnight Express, I'm sure the cast was decided in bona fide. But still, why a Bulgarian for a Turk, why why why...?! It just undermines the realism!
It's a good movie overall, especially if you are interested in the issues of the Balkans. With minor flaws, such as part of the cast and sanitarium scenes, it's a good pastime for anyone from anywhere, and a particularly interesting one for someone from the Balkans, especially from Turkey or Bulgaria. Don't wait until you have nothing better to do, and watch it if you have access to it.
7,5 / 10
Since I know Bulgarian Turks and Bulgarians personally, and some very closely, I also know that the incidents outlined in this flick took place in reality. The depiction could be, however, somewhat biased, because Bulgarian Turks are generally NOT Islam-driven people like the ones on the movie. Being an oppressed minority, they naturally tie to what they know as their own culture, and possibly exaggeratedly so. Yet the Bulgarian point of view, as clearly emphasized by the movie (and by the Bulgarian cinema fan who commented earlier), suggests that those people are perceived as Bulgarian Muslims, and not Turks. That's where the problem starts. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Atheist, they are ethnic Turks. (Plus, the term "Bulgarian Muslims" must include Pomaks as well. Did they not exist in the 80's?) Take the Karaim Turks in Lithuania, are they recognized as a minority of Turkish descent, or just Lithuanian Jews? A Norwegian for example, could be a Muslim, but not a Turk. The Zhivkov rule ignored that fact, just like a typical Bulgarian would, and tried to strip those people of their culture totally, forgetting they could not be stripped of their Turkishness. After all, the communist rule did the faith-stripping to Christians and others as well (which I glorify, since I'm a hardcore Atheist), but it was the nationality that kept nations together. What made Zhivkov think that would not be the case with Turks? What makes the contemporary Bulgarians still think so? Does Ayten really become Ana just because you call her that?
Back to the movie itself, it does well to deliver its message, the acting and plot are also pretty good, except for the majority of the sanitarium scenes which shoot at being somewhere between Bergman and Tarkovsky, and fail at both. The cast is, if anything, annoying. Why cast a Bulgarian woman as a Turk? For the Turkish viewer, that's really disturbing, because her accent claws the ear. Since the movie is an all-things-fair production, and does not consist of a series of pointless attacks against Turks, like the infamous Midnight Express, I'm sure the cast was decided in bona fide. But still, why a Bulgarian for a Turk, why why why...?! It just undermines the realism!
It's a good movie overall, especially if you are interested in the issues of the Balkans. With minor flaws, such as part of the cast and sanitarium scenes, it's a good pastime for anyone from anywhere, and a particularly interesting one for someone from the Balkans, especially from Turkey or Bulgaria. Don't wait until you have nothing better to do, and watch it if you have access to it.
7,5 / 10