For what it's worth, this gives you the template. Good stuff by the way. Keep it up...and I'm sure we can find something to plump into the Rediculous Reviews thread

I just read that review and it's great, but I have a question. How is religion treated in the film? I'm just curious because of the monk there in it, but I'm also trying to get it to a few friends who are also intrigued. Is it a big part of the narrative?

While religion is one of the reasons for the hatred between some of the people presented in the film, it's not a big part of the narrative, at least I didn't feel that was the case. The film, as mentioned throughout the supplements, isn't really going for a political or religious statement. It's more an examination on the violence that can stem from differences (like religion or ethnicity) and how ultimately it just escalates and becomes a vicious circle with no real end in sight. Religion is actually played in a very low key way.


Well, I just put up one for Armageddon.

I thought it might play out like that. Thanks because this makes me want to see it even more. I'll pass this along as a recommendation.

Wow, I don't mean to diminish anyone's contribution here in getting this DVD out, but I really didn't like it. The structure is interesting and the performances are, all around, very good. In terms of style, however, it comes off like an art film as directed by Michael Bay. It's all golden hour, color filters, crane shots, constantly moving camera, quick cuts, jarringly loud sound effects, ludicrous slow-mo violence (the cat? come on!), and gratuitous tit shots. I cut it a little slack since it was made in 1994, and everything in 1994 kind of looked like this, but there is a real disconnect here between style and message. I really wanted to like it (I am interested in the events and the region), but I was ultimately disappointed.

It may be all golden hour, but I liked it more than Days of Heaven (although count me among those who just don't "get" Malick...). And it's hardly "all" slo-mo violence or gratuitous tit shots, as those elements are fairly marginal to the overall story.

The golden hour stuff works for me because a) there are some gorgeous shots, and b) Manchevski is making a point about the endlessly cyclical nature of this violence, so it serves his purpose to depict Macedonia in this timeless manner.

I only just finished the movie, so I haven't gone back and watched any of the supplements yet, but I'm a little unclear on the motivations behind the restaurant shootout. Anybody care to comment?

There was nudity and DVDBeaver didn't capture it? Gary's losing his touch.

I do not think we are supposed to know the exact motivation of the incident in the restaurant. IMHO it just shows how we in the West cannot be immune to the violence that rages elsewhere. And to respond to matt 3 posts above, you have listed pretty much the reasons why I admire this film. (Admittedly, I have not seen any Michael Bay...) I do not perceive any disconnect between the style and substance here. Just because a film looks good, it does not mean that it is void of other qualities. Yes, the violence against the cat was ludicrous, but is not all violence?
For me, this DVD is one of the most exciting unexpected releases ever.

The subject of the restaurant scene reminds me of my biggest pet peeve from this movie:Can anyone compare this film with Welcome to Sarajevo? It's been 11 years since I've seen it, but in my memory it compares favorably.

Maybe not all violence, but the violence that results from giving a semi-automatic rifle to the village idiot certainly is ludicrous!!!!

(Or giving the Presidency of the US to the village idiot, but in the interest of keeping the banner ads free of political content, I'll stop there.)

Matt: the film plays so much with time that I took the scene to which you're referring as the character's subjective experience of the event--such events can seem interminable, even when they're really over in seconds. Maybe I'm trying too hard to justify the film because I really liked it, but I think this explanation at least sounds plausible.

Hello. My first post. I registered after watching this film, so dissappointed was I after several months of anticipation and after having recently garnered a passion for the music of this country. Matt said it when he mentioned "a real disconnect here between style and message". I was expecting something both visually and emotionally raw. I also thought the performances were weak, particularly in the part set in London. Incidentially, I'm almost certain that a Londoner would never refer to people from Northern Ireland as being "from Ulster", and the manager of the restaraunt does NOT speak with a Northern Irish accent. Those niggling innacuraacies made it an even more uncomfortable experience.

I'm a long time admirer of this film so I'm certainly biased but I wanted to address a couple of these criticisms anyway.


I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this (well, I know what Matt means). Were you expecting something more like Ken Loach? God knows it's okay if you were--I love Loach. But Manchevski's style is much more embracing of a romantic ethos (Loach attempts to sublimate this out of the belief that it needs to be to be taken seriously, which is incorrect and occasionally self-defeating). That's where Before the Rain derives the heft of its tragedy. I am not put off in the least by the sleekness of his aesthetic. Of course, by nature I veer toward that kind of stuff anyway but in this particular case it's the manner of its employment which paid big dividends. I admire the way in which Manchevski fuses his sensitivity toward personal and political issues with a familiar gloss approach; for me it does not diminish the core contents but rather it elevates the effect of the "gloss"--it provides it with substantive validity in other words.


And you know, though you meant this to be somewhat derisive, there is some very real truth to this. What I mean is that Manchevski's presentational style is out of fashion and has been for awhile. Look at the reception to Dust or the non-reception to Senki (where is it??).

"A real disconnect here between style and message” - I guess all I can say is that it doesn’t FEEL right. My disillusionment with this film is definitely a gut reaction, and for that I offer no apologies. I would find it very difficult to justify this film on the grounds that “Manchevski's style is much more embracing of a romantic ethos”. I understand that the handling of content and context can “elevate the effect of the gloss”, as you say, but for me there was little if any understanding of the personal forces that induce racial and political violence, a complete lack of psychological insight or nuance, which was instead forced through crass dialogue (I was embarrassed when Anne starts to weep when Aleksander tells her he has killed, after which they begin to make love) and devices like the radio report motif in the London chapter (the news item, or rather the characters' apparent lack of empathy towards it, wants to suggest that bombs exploding in London shops was an everyday regularity in London in the 1990’s, to which people had merely tuned out of - not true). I apologise to anyone who admires this film, but it wasn’t for me - I found it obtuse and vulgar. No hard feelings.

I’d like to mention Ian Christie’s essay, in which he remarks that “Irish republican bomb alerts were almost routine in England…..” The said bomb alerts (and occasional attacks) were perpetrated by dissident republican terrorists from Northern Ireland, a country separate from the Republic of Ireland (which presumably many would distinguish when Christie says “Irish republican bomb alerts”), annexed to and part of Britain, and therefore British. Technically, there were no Irish terrorist organizations carrying out explosive attacks on Britain. Being British, Ian Christie should have known and made the distinction, particularly when penning an essay intended generally for an American readership, who might not be fully cognizant of the situation.

No need to apologize for your response to the film, Queiroz. It's certainly a valid and considered one and I deeply appreciate that. I also deeply appreciate that your first posts to the forum have been so considered and substantive. I thank you for that. But, as you say, it may simply be one of those things where we must agree to disagree. For instance I was very surprised by this reaction:


For me this has always been one of the stand out moments (I guess it stood out to you as well for opposite reasons) and one of the most deeply and directly emotionally compelling. I find it to totally offer up the psychological nuance and insight you mentioned is lacking. If I remember the way that scene is shot (and I haven't seen it for awhile now so I could have it wrong) we are looking into the cab from outside at the couple as they share this moment of intimacy and breakdown. The effect of the city's passing reflection on the glass is sustained and obscures our clear vision of them. It's just a moment, too, a crack or fissure in Aleksandr's enforced calm . The smallness of the details--that Manchevski understood to capture this from a further remove and not to be right on top of them in the back seat--have always resonated with me and moved me deeply.

It may be very true that the full range of political reality is not satisfactorily represented in Before the Rain. But really, when is it ever outside of a purely polemical work; and even then you recognize the slant you've been given.

Full PDF of the booklet at Manchevski's site.

Thanks John Cope. We'll agree to disagree.

DVD Times suggests that Manchevski may've Storaro'd/IFC'd the transfer...

The film has this trekking and political veneer that never harmonizes with its story. It makes implicit references to outside actions and unseen consequences for the rest of the world, but it's an isolated narrative. Katrin Cartlidge's character receives a brief introduction that gives only a glimpse into the problems she's facing, then she's gone-- it's not honest, its for scope and romance. The film might have found some cohesiveness if its ambitions were grounded in what it was actually doing. It appears as an epic but the first two chapters are short vignettes. It's in a grey area between microcosm and macrocosm. Despite my criticism I didn't dislike the film. It's appreciable when there's an attempt to engage reality, spur a message that is recognizable, whether it's stilted or not. I would wager that it has resonance with the people in that region.

Just watched this yesterday and I was impressed. However, I got a bit confused. Can someone help me out:


BTW I enjoyed the obvious nods to the Wild Bunch and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Did anyone else notice any other films that were referenced?

I don't know that I can elaborate much more on this, but I can say I could not possibly disagree more with Queiroz on this film: it packs a serious punch and is one of the single most evocative and powerful films on the futility and sheer insanity of inter-ethnic hatred and violence. To see families torn apart, villages divided in two, where neighbors are willing to slit the throats of each other because of some arbitrary notion of difference is such a peculiarly human catastrophe. Of course Aleksandr would search for comfort in the breast of a woman he loved upon confronting the emotions that go with allowing yourself to acknowledge participation in the most horrific acts imaginable. what else is there? what do you expect him to do?

as for oldsheperd's Q: you do have it in the proper order....that took me a bit to figure out, but once I did i realized what was what and the light bulb went on. Rare is the film I want to rewatch immediately upon finishing, and not because I did not understand it, but because I wanted to see it again with a full understanding of the narrative and appreciate the details and thought that went into the composition. Violence of the sort seen in Yugoslavia is so utterly senseless, it almost makes sense to try and muck with convention as much as possible when exploring it via film.

As for the restaurant scene, I don't see any reason to try and read too much into it other than the obvious: the threads of hatred that cut through the village in Macedonia were just as taut and capable of snapping in London or wherever else natives of the region can be found. I personally know a couple of Croats who emigrated because of the war, and the seething hatred that they don't even try to mask when talking about Serbs is truly frightening, and you get the sense they would kill a man right then and there if he revealed himself to be Serbian. Scary scary shit.

oldshepherd:



There were definitely some things I liked about Before the Rain. I didn't mind the aestheticization nearly as much as matt seems to, however cliché some of it might have been. Mostly I just didn't really understand what the film was meant to be about. Was it an apolitical narrative exercise in a highly political setting with film winks and throwaway characters? Was it some larger political point being a little awkwardly executed in a film a little too in love with itself?

I didn't care for the cab scene, or the restaurant scene (or really anything about part 2). The guys with the endless ammo—it was a little unclear whether it was meant to indicate that political violence in war-torn countries can still reach you in the so-called civilized world (in which case why did it seem more an act of random violence than anything political?). Maybe it was just meant to indicate that meaningless violence abounds everywhere and in London it might take the form of a guy freaking out in a restaurant? Or perhaps it was just meant to indicate that eastern Europeans are violent?

Parts 1 and 3 were more interesting, in spite of the fact that none of the characters beyond Aleksandr seemed to have any depth to them (or perhaps because of it?). Each character seemed to be the personification of some single purpose (except the girl that gets killed, whom we never really get to know). You certainly get no sense of how people live under these kind of circumstances. Then again, the film seems to have no interest in exploring that, but what it is trying to explore is totally unclear to me.

That said, the story itself was pretty interesting. I enjoyed the circular structure of the film (it would have been better if it had just happened, without the "the circle is not round" bit sort of pushing the idea through). I could have done without the Shakespeare or the cinematic references.

While the film seems reasonable enough in the collection (especially as a means of diversifying the collection), was I the only one that thought that Annette Innsdorf was flirting with the director on the commentary track, and perhaps had more than a little to do with the selection of the film? Talk about sycophantic.