Armenian cinema boasts a rich and complex history, its films spanning themes of historical trauma, cultural identity, and enduring human spirit.

However, while often grappling with the nation’s turbulent past, Armenian filmmakers have also pushed the boundaries of storytelling, their works leaving enduring marks on both national and international cinematic landscapes.

These five films—from a variety of eras—offer a glimpse into the diverse and powerful storytelling that defines Armenian cinema. They tackle historical events, societal upheavals, and deeply personal journeys, all while reflecting the distinct spirit of Armenian culture. Their influence has extended far beyond Armenia, leaving a mark on the global landscape of cinema and inspiring filmmakers and audiences worldwide.

The Color of Pomegranates (1969; Directed by Sergei Parajanov)

An avant-garde masterpiece, The Color of Pomegranates is less a narrative film and more a tapestry of evocative imagery. Director Sergei Parajanov paints a poetic portrait of the Armenian poet Sayat-Nova, focusing less on dialogue and more on tableaux, symbolic gestures, and breathtaking visual compositions. The film’s unique style creates a sense of dreamlike wonder, while elements of Armenian folklore, religious iconography, and vibrant colours form a uniquely expressive cinematic language. Its defiance of traditional filmmaking norms established Parajanov as a cinematic visionary, and The Color of Pomegranates continues to spark awe and analysis in cinema enthusiasts worldwide.

Namus (1925; Directed by Hamo Beknazaryan)

Often considered the founding pillar of Armenian cinema, Namus (Honour) examines a clash between ancient tradition and emerging modernity. Set in a rural Armenian village, the film unfolds a tragic tale of love and betrayal. Seyran and Susan are in love, but Susan has been promised to another man, setting in motion themes of societal expectations, honour, and the devastating impact of outdated customs. Beknazaryan directs with a raw and powerful style, utilising stark landscapes and expressive performances to underscore the emotional turmoil at the heart of the story. Namus became a landmark of early Soviet cinema, remaining a potent exploration of the conflicts faced by Armenian society during a time of social upheaval.

Ararat (2002; Directed by Atom Egoyan)

This Canadian-Armenian historical drama, directed by Atom Egoyan, brings the Armenian Genocide to the forefront through a multifaceted and deeply personal exploration. Ararat intertwines a contemporary story—the filming of a movie about the genocide—with historical reenactments and a family’s struggle with inherited trauma. The film tackles the challenge of representing history and the haunting question of how to carry the burden of a nation’s pain. Egoyan’s intricate, non-linear narrative style reflects the complexities of intergenerational trauma and the struggle for historical recognition. Ararat sparked important conversations about the genocide and its ongoing legacy, solidifying its importance within both Armenian and international film landscapes.

Life Triumphs/Nahapet (1977; Directed by Henrik Malyan)

Another film set against the backdrop of the Armenian Genocide, Life Triumphs is a deeply moving exploration of loss, resilience, and the enduring spirit of a people. Nahapet, a skilled craftsman, witnesses the brutal murder of his wife and child during the horrific events of 1915. Robbed of his family, Nahapet’s life descends into grief and isolation. Yet, amidst the ashes of his former existence, a spark of hope ignites. He finds purpose in rebuilding his village, providing refuge for other survivors, and even finding a new love. With its powerful themes and poignant storytelling, the film is a testament to the enduring power of life, even in the face of unimaginable suffering.

Vodka Lemon (2003; Directed by Hiner Saleem)

This poignant Kurdish-Armenian co-production offers a glimpse into life in a remote, snowbound Armenian village in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. An elderly widower named Hamo finds companionship with Nina, a stranded Russian woman. Despite their differences, they establish a tender bond. Saleem infuses this simple story with warmth, humour, and gentle observations about the shared human need for connection, even amid isolation. Vodka Lemon paints a captivating portrait of resilience and underscores the unique cultural mosaic found within Armenia.

https://emerging-europe.com/after-hours/five-landmark-moments-in-armenian-cinematic-history/

 

• BY Nikola Mikovic

Azerbaijan and Armenia – two neighboring South Caucasus nations that have fought two major wars over the past 35 years – seem to be on the brink of another large-scale conflict that threatens to destabilize the strategically important region. Yerevan fears that Baku may soon attempt to achieve its ambitious geopolitical goals by invading Armenian southern province of Syunik, and creating a land link with its Nakhchivan exclave, as well as with Turkey.

Quite aware that Armenia cannot count on Russia’s help, and that the European Union is unlikely to get involved if border clashes between the two countries escalate, Azerbaijan undoubtedly has capacity to capture significant parts of the landlocked nation of around 2,8 million people. However, it remains unclear if Iran, Yerevan’s alleged strategic partner, would intervene and prevent Azerbaijan and its ally Turkey from semi-encircling the Islamic Republic?

For both, Yerevan and Baku, as well as for Tehran, Armenia’s Syunik province has a strategic importance. It is the only Armenian region with a land border with Iran. At the same time, it separates mainland Azerbaijan and its exclave of Nakhchivan. As such, it remains extremely vulnerable to a potential Azerbaijani attack, especially given Armenia’s weak position in the global arena, and the fact that it recently lost the Second Karabakh War.

In 2020, the two nations fought the war over Nagorno-Karabakh – a mountainous region, internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, although it has been under Armenian control for around three decades. As a result of the conflict, the energy-rich South Caucasus country managed to restore its sovereignty over significant parts of Karabakh. In September 2023, following low-scale clashes between local Armenian forces and Azerbaijani military, Baku recaptured the remaining portions of the region.

Now that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue has been resolved in Azerbaijan’s favor, Baku seeks to achieve another strategic goal. Ever since the two sides signed a ceasefire agreement in Moscow in November 2020, Azerbaijan has been pressuring Armenia to build its section of the Nakhchivan corridor (also known as the Zangezur corridor) that should pass through Syunik. Baku, as the clear war winner, insists that the route should have no customs or border control, which means that Armenia would effectively lose not only its sovereignty in the area, but also the access to the border with Iran.

Indeed, this tiny piece of land represents a critical hot spot. According to reports, on February 12, Armenian forces attacked Azerbaijani positions on the border between the two countries. The Ministry of Defense of Armenia has promptly initiated an investigation into reported ceasefire, pointing out that “if this fact is confirmed, those responsible for violating the border will be held accountable”. Azerbaijan, for its part, did not wait for any Armenian investigation, but immediately responded. As a result, four Armenian soldiers were killed and one injured in clashes with Azerbaijani troops near the border village of Nerkin Hand in the southern Syunik region.

Three days later, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan accused Azerbaijan of planning a “full-scale war” against his country. Baku, on the other hand, denies that it has any territorial claims to Armenia, although in January 2023 – four months after Azerbaijan successfully restored its sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh – the Caspian nation’s President Ilham Aliyev said that Yerevan is “an ancient Azeri city”.

Such rhetoric, however, does not necessarily mean that Baku plans to capture the Armenian capital, or to fight another war against its archenemy. The fact that, on February 19, Pashinyan and Aliyev agreed to resume normalization talks after months of delays, indicates that Azerbaijan will seek to achieve its geopolitical goals peacefully.

Yerevan will, therefore, be under pressure to build its section of the Zangezur corridor, and allow Baku to have full control over the road. Given that Russia has a history of ignoring Armenia’s calls for help, and that the West does not seem particularly interested in protecting the landlocked country’s territorial integrity, Pashinyan will likely attempt to find a relatively painless way to de facto capitulate to Azerbaijan.

The only country that seems to genuinely care about Armenia’s sovereignty (not because of Armenia itself, but because of its own geopolitical interests) over the Syunik province is Iran. The authorities in Tehran have repeatedly stated that the creation of a land corridor through Armenia to Nakhchivan is the Islamic Republic’s “red line”. Still, given Iran’s rather limited and calculated actions in the international arena, it remains highly uncertain if it will be ready to fight a war against Turkey-backed Azerbaijan in order to protect Armenia.

Moreover, Pashinyan aims to develop close ties with the European Union and the United States, while Brussels and Washington are unlikely to want to see a strong Iranian influence in Armenia. As a result, Yerevan’s position remains very difficult, and Pashinyan likely seeks to fulfil Azerbaijani demands in such a way that would allow him to save face and preserve his post.

Thus, Azerbaijan is in a win-win situation in the region. If Yerevan agrees to allow Baku to have a corridor to Nakhchivan and Turkey, the two nations may continue normalizing relations. Under Azerbaijani terms, though. If Armenia, however, keeps obstructing the realization of the Zangezur corridor, Azerbaijan may eventually use the force, aiming to achieve its geostrategic goals in the South Caucasus.

The ball is in Yerevan’s court, and it has two options that seem to be equally bad – a de facto capitulation, or another war that Armenia will almost certainly lose.

By Michael Rubin

Middle East Forum Observer

February 12, 2024

As whispers turn into conversations, the potential visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Armenia is stirring both curiosity and expectation among international observers. Amidst a landscape of shifting alliances and evolving geopolitical dynamics, such a visit could mark a significant pivot not just for Armenia and Ukraine, but for the broader region's security calculus. With official confirmation still pending, the anticipation underscores the intricate dance of diplomacy in our contemporary world.

In recent times, the relationship between Armenia and Ukraine has undergone a subtle yet unmistakable transformation. With Armenia expressing a desire to diversify its security relationships beyond its traditional ally, Russia, and Ukraine showing readiness to support Armenia in stabilizing the region, the stage seems set for a new chapter in bilateral relations. This potential visit, hinted at by Ukraine's charge d'affaires in Armenia and underscored by media reports, could symbolize a concrete step towards realizing these aspirations.

The backdrop to this evolving friendship is a shared understanding of the complexities inherent in navigating a world where security concerns are paramount. Armenia's outreach to other global players like the U.S., France, and India, alongside Ukraine, signals a nuanced strategy to enhance its geopolitical stance. Meanwhile, Ukraine, under President Zelensky's leadership, has been proactive in seeking partnerships that bolster its position amidst ongoing regional tensions.

At the heart of Zelensky's anticipated visit is the potential for deepened security cooperation between Armenia and Ukraine. Their previous meetings, notably between Zelensky and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in October 2023, laid the groundwork for discussions on security and bilateral cooperation. This upcoming visit could further these discussions, translating diplomatic goodwill into tangible agreements that could alter the security landscape of the region.

Furthermore, this visit comes at a time when both nations are reevaluating their positions within global and regional networks. For Armenia, diversifying its security portfolio is a step towards greater autonomy and resilience. For Ukraine, bolstering ties with Armenia is part of a broader strategy to strengthen its international alliances, thereby enhancing its strategic depth.

https://bnnbreaking.com/politics/anticipation-grows-for-president-zelenskys-potential-landmark-visit-to-armenia