It took me a week to realize what the makers of the newest historical film Voevoda had to offer me - what was the idea of ​​director Zornitsa Sofia ("Mila from Mars", "Forecast"), how and whether I moved in that era of oppression and cruelty, what emotion aroused in me the first Bulgarian premiere of the year.

Every work of art must lead to catharsis - to unleash emotions from which, in the end, the viewer to be free, to purify, to purify his soul, his consciousness. Catharsis has been a must-have for dramatic art since Aristotle's time (excuse me for the note). Such should be the "effect" of art in general - to shake the soul, to play on the "thin strings" of emotions, to provoke thoughts beyond being. For me, a movie, a theater production, or a book deserves its existence if for days on end I cannot shake off the messages, suggestions or interpretation of the director and the actors ...

Yes, and Voevoda was able to shake my emotional stability ... and how!

I love Bulgarian cinema! I love him with his peaks and his weaknesses! I love it because we have talented creators, we have 'touched' actors! They deserve to be developed, they deserve to work, they deserve to be part of the "happenings" of our nation's culture! But the movie "Voevode" seemed like a badly made joke!

The main role of the "Voevoda" Rumen is Zornitsa Sofia, who was uncertain in her role and did not leave such impressions in me, which Haitov describes about Rumen - as a "mountain queen" with an incredibly powerful voice, with fiery black eyes under closed eyebrows. the dreaded hair-raising robe that freezes the bones of the rapists?… Unfortunately, I saw nothing but angry eyes and tight lips. If I had not read from Haitov about Rumen Voivode, I would definitely need the sentences that interrupted the action in order for us, the viewers, to read the characteristics of the heroine. For this reason I could not understand the "will and power of the Bulgarian woman", forced to abandon her child and "catch the forest" in order to "let the Turks understand"? The other cast members in this movie also left their best shape in the shape bin. They did not approach historical events at all and showed mediocre work rather than historical atmosphere.

To support its secondary performance, Zornitsa Sofia has surrounded itself with performers trying to speak in… what… some dialect - Rhodope? Well, I neither heard nor understood. Because, apart from the weak game, characteristic of “our young actor” is the lack of clear diction and the inability to articulate. Isn't this at the heart of teaching at NATFA? When the beginnings of acting talent appear, the naked viewer can see the indistinguishability of the play in front of a camera from the play on the stage. I see a young actor in the role of a priest (forgive the carelessness that I exhibit in the name of the actor), who was clearly understood by his speech, but his eyes were so wide-eyed that he was wondering - was "Icarus" the role to strive for it or for the awards of the Bulgarian Film Academy.

As an average viewer, I expected a clear distinction between good (haidut) and evil (Turkish wrists). Neither of them "thumped their breasts" with pride, did not moisten the corners of my eyes treacherously, nor did the other provoke anger and rage against the slave. Equally uncharacteristic, both teams were aimlessly running around the screen. Not a full-blooded, developmental character. And without the characters, there is no emotion, no movie.

Let me not put a common denominator on everyone who participated in the movie Voevoda. If I had the opportunity, I would ask Valery Yordanov, Valentin Tanev and Dimitar Selensky what made them play in Voevoda. Unfortunately, there are Bulgarian actors who can afford to choose their roles. Despite the bright involvement of the above, nothing can save the unjustified existence of native box office cinema.

About the technical part? I'm not a specialist, I don't understand the camerawork, but they say that Krum Rodriguez is one of the best operators in our latitudes. I don't know what the ever-rocking camera needs to inspire me, but I definitely needed to turn my head or close my eyes, worrying that it was making me sick. The swinging camera technique is appropriate for the mystery, for the thriller, but not for the historical movie that the Voevode claims to be. I was also impressed that the film was assembled into separate clips, "stitched" with those sentences I mentioned above.

Look, there are no two opinions on music! Cayenne Elephants are cosmic! They draw from authentic Rhodope folklore, and their name is a quote from a Rhodope song and means "like a clear sun." Their music was one of the reasons why I expected the Voevoda with excitement and impatience. But "one bird does not make spring" and this magical ethno-formation failed to save the whole film of Zornitsa Sofia and company.

They have tried their best, there is no dispute! A lavish premiere featuring authentic costumes, a Chiprovtsi rug and bagpipes - impressive advertising for this "product". Another proof that the job you are reading is not very readable, especially when you define your work as a grand contribution to Bulgarian culture.

And finally - a question torments my soul. Why is the title spelled "Voevoda" and not "Voyvoda" as is the correct form of the word… at least according to the official spelling dictionary? Was there any semantic load that I did not find or did not understand? I am far from thinking that there is not at least one literate person on the team.

Now you can call me a "heater" who does not value people's work and allows himself to express his personal, critical opinion. Go back to your memories and say with a hand to your heart: Do you really allow yourself to compare "Voevoda" with "Time Separate" (1988) by director Lyudmil Staykov and "Goat Horn" (1972) by director Methods Andonov?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This