
Time and again, violence breeds violence but only more so in the cultures residing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now even Syria and the surrounding nations and territories which coincide with much of the Muslim world. One such example is showcased best by a character in the film, Salma Hayek Pinault who stars as Nina, and that continues with other nations and civilizations, let us call it the epic center for cultural exchange, or, shall we say, a black hole of ideology and beliefs. If we’re to describe it leaving the arguments behind, all of these nations are haters and kill people for the most insignificant reasons only. Countries with high consumption of strong liquor and strong belief among its leaders bear all the responsibility for violence it is these barbaric acts in pursuit of hidden agendas that have led to even more displacement of millions of people, as many as 35 million worldwide. Makes complete sense, don’t you think? Well, apparently it’s all because of something called hypocrisy.
The premiere’s red carpet was all about the legacy of Angelina Jolie simply put, the film focuses on one of the greatest modern conflicts and stands alone against an even greater one that lasted for millennia of religion. Angelina needs no introduction: the actress and humanitarian made headlines standing against child exploitation. Further detail shedding light on yet another chaotic era, the dark days of the Taliban, and chaos brings forth a revolution but this time forward. The overwhelming nature of the film and its contents produced a gripping sensation, and moving forward nothing overwhelms us more than those holding tightly onto vengeful motives pushing throughout history in favor of territorial expansion. If the viewer has made it this far, their opinions and pictures of the Middle East are about to change forever.
Cinema is yet another way to bring forth strong emotions and stir oneself in regards to where one focuses their energy. For many the landscape of modern doomsday scenarios focusing on the ISIS regime leads immediately to Syria, eventually moving inward to where we finally have a clearer picture of our world’s complexities thanks to film. Simultaneously, the clips embedded in To Kill and Kill depict the real clashes but without bias for tabloids we view the past through people’s figurative symbols. If exactly such opposing scenes where mankind stands against itself united into one shed light on such invisible societal contrasts, we, the people, have no idea who we truly are.
In contrast to these other films that rooted themselves in such real conflicts like the Bosnian War or the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, Without Blood claims no particular land or era. If this were the work of a more daring filmmaker, such a lack of detail would be acceptable, but as it turns out, Jolie’s way of directing is rather strict, similar to how a woman first behaves when she approaches the kiosk seller. Without Blood shows more flashes of brilliance however these relate to the aspect of complex trauma narratives more than the overall storyline of the film.
A sense of discomfort fills the room as the male and female’s gaze seems to be focused on a nearby eatery. She is the one to start her narration which is a portion that the director illustrates quite early on during the film in a brilliantly composed episode. Her name is Nina and as a child, three men invaded her and her family and killed her dad (Alfredo Herrera) and brother (Alessandro D’Antuono). Over her father’s screams that forced their way into the rest of the bungalow and her brother’s blood that quickly soaked her ankle, Nina curled herself into a bow and crouched beneath a wooden panel on the floor.
That place would eventually also determine her destiny and it was a country that had never won its independence and was caught up in a civil war battle between two sides for what seemed like a never-ending battle.
The nature of this conflict, whether political or localized, is never articulated and, according to Jolie, is not important. Without Blood is less preoccupied with the challenges of such war’s most innocent and oldest of predators. Most of the cafe scenes involve Nina and the man later identified as Tito, with the man narrating different versions of the woman’s life. In Nina’s mind, a pharmacist provides for her, only to sell her to a certain count for gambling purposes. She gets married at fourteen and has three children with a rich baron. From Tito’s perspective, however, Nina’s marriage was a mistake: it was intended to be a form of assassination, but Nina’s husband fell in love instead of successfully carrying it out. Truth is probably somewhere between Nina’s trauma and Tito’s lack of focus. Constantly in these situations, the two offer comfort to each other about war’s potential threats but avoid discussing any specifics about them.
It is a jarred, dense, and at times attention-holding conversation between Nina and Tito embellished by Hayek Pinault and Bichir’s slow-burning repartee. It seems that they have the same nightmare, and they have never forgotten what they have experienced.
Hayek Pinault however, uses small gestures that speak volumes, such as the welling of tears, fingers tightening on her spoon, or lips pursed, to illustrate the weight of her character. Bichir gets the little nuances right too that is expected of his character, whose simplicity in perception starts to erode across the 90 minutes of this fast-paced feature.
Still, the drama is affected by Jolie’s excessively cautious approach to Colombo’s visual language. The past of the two lovers is also interesting to watch as it allows viewers to see different angles of Titos’s perspective as if he had been watching Nina for years and now points the two at their destinies. There’s beauty here, also, because Jolie portrays the picturesque ochre terrain with a lot of detail. However, the majority of the time, she does, as most of the footage still shifts close into the heads of the two diners, in uncomplicated transitions, which cuts in between Xavier Box and Joel Cox’s cinematic transitions of the faces.
That innocent people suffer from conflict is no controversial viewpoint to take. But when it can’t concentrate more interestingly to see how trauma settles in the pliographic and mental aspects of the figure, it is the only point that Without Blood appears to be able to make. It’s just that in the end there are too many great themes for a story that doesn’t always end up being so powerful.
For More Movies Like – Without Blood – visit on 123Movies