A Nameless Band [Bulgaria 1982]

Оркестър без име
Director: L. Kirkov
Cinematographers: V. Chichov, G. Trenev

A film with a strong moral message about the importance of friendship, loyalty, principled action and the rejection of corruption, told through the story of a group of young aspiring pop musicians. The film is loaded with cultural subtext about an apparent inferiority complex with respect to other countries, corruption of ideals in life in general, and like some other films from this period, a kind of malaise in young people. The message of the film is therefore ambiguous.

A main theme of the movie seems to be the now archetypal generational conflict associated with pop music and rock and roll. But rather than this taking the route it takes in the stereotype, i.e. a lack of understanding between generations because of a change in lifestyle and way of thinking, here young people's music represents purity in a sea of corrupted ideals. In other words, rather than representing something against the ideals of the older generation, music seems to symbolise the very ideals held by that generation but corrupted by them. The young protagonists cling to music as a way of escaping this cynical world--one of them says that only in music do connections not matter, that in music all people are equal.

But music too becomes corrupted, because of the inevitably scarce resources of instruments, places to play, and recommendations. Each of these becomes a way for someone to abuse their position for entirely cynical reasons--usually to sleazily chase after a younger woman. At each step along the way, the band is forced to compromise their principles, their friendships, and their ideals, until eventually they seem to realise that rather than getting what they want by making a temporary compromise, their compromises themselves have turned against them so that they are being exploited by corruption, rather than the other way around.

This is one side of the message of this film, perhaps the most strongly intended side: Do not give in to corruption, maintain your ideals, because you will only them poison them by making compromises. In the face of the stagnation and cynicism setting in during these years, this message was vitally necessary for socialism. But it is certainly not the only message in this film.

The countervailing message is more difficult to discern; but it arises mainly from the setting of the film. The band travels from their home in the countryside to resorts on the Black Sea coast, which they refer to as 'Europe', apparently because it is full of foreigners from Eastern and Western Europe, a cosmopolitan place. This setting provides ample opportunity for comparison with other countries: the GDR is where economic opportunity lies for the band; Czechs are represented as being rich and having better things than others; Hungarians as also having higher status; and outside of the CMEA Italians are rich, stylish, etc.; French are cultured; and the most often recurring music in the movie is Beatles music played by the band. A parallel is repeatedly drawn between Bulgarians and peasants, simpletons, etc. Granted this parallel is drawn most often by the characters we are meant to look down on; but we are not entirely meant to look down on them--the girl who seeks economic opportunity in Italy, for example, is portrayed as treacherous but understandable. In other words, what appears to be played out here is a huge inferiority complex associated with a feeling that Bulgaria represents cultural and economic backwardness and a lack of opportunity--at least for the younger generation.

The combination of this with the sense of pervasive corruption and cynicism makes for a feeling that young people can be forgiven for doing whatever they can to try to stay afloat. The message of the film then seems to be simply that in doing so, it is vital to maintain one's principles. Rather than a film like the Cuban 'Waiting List', the message of which is to respond to corruption of ideals by banding together to refound the common social and socialist project on a popular basis, this film can therefore be easily read as an individualist message to simply not respond by compromising, without any real positive suggestion. There is therefore an ambiguity here: is this film intended to be a lesson about socialism, or just about individual integrity? And would Bulgarian young people at the time have read it as a message to disengage even further from society rather than to confront the problems of the day?

We can also ask whether this ambiguity was simply a necessity for Kirkov to be able to speak to young people. In other words, perhaps it was an ambiguity extant in the young generation itself, and Kirkov could not do better without appearing to preach to them.

In terms of style, the film has a snappy, pop character with some decent bits of cinematography. It is mainly framed at a distance from the characters, creating an effect of composition of multiple characters rather than identification with any single one. This also contributes to the pop feel of the film. Certainly the style can be read as contributing to the attempt to reach young people.

This film is probably more interesting than it at first seems, primarily for social rather than artistic reasons. Because of its placement on the cusp of the era of cynicism, at the beginning of the era of crisis, and because of the way in which it attempts to reach young people in an ambiguous situation with a thoroughly ambiguous message, it deserves to be studied as part of the process of change of expectations on the part of the young. Its light humour masks a serious social commentary that is ultimately inconclusive and filled with anxiety.