37 Uses for a Dead Sheep, 2006. Ben Hopkins.

37 Uses for a Dead Sheep

Dir. Ben Hopkins, English/Turkish, 2006, 84mins, some subtitles Cast: Sereban Aslan, Suleyman Atanisev, Ismail Atilgan Review by Sion Thomas Markham 37 Uses for a Dead Sheep tells an endearing story centred around the Pamir Kirghiz people, a forced nomadic tribe driven out of their homeland of Ulupamir and chased across the Middle-East and Asia, due to the persecution of the communist in Soviet Russia and later Maoist China. They found sanctuary in the mountains of Afghanistan only to fall foul once again to the Soviet when they invaded the northern part of the country. They eventually found peace in a remote part of Turkey- but only after a strange run in with the "Men in Black", who offered to helicopter them into Alaska. Instead they chose Turkey, where they have the modern comforts of concrete housing - a far cry from the shacks of yesteryear. But now, as the tribe move into the 21st century, they face a new ideological enemy, an enemy which they cannot physically figh t- globalization. The tribe elders tell their story with character and heart, and of their desire to return to Ulupamir. Unfortunately, their youth do not feel the same kindership with Ulupamir and have a desire to flee else where - Istanbul. Ben Hopkins's approach to his subject is completely subtle and quite sweet. He uses both interview technique and reconstructive methods to bring to life the story/struggle of the Pamir people. Ultimately, he allows the tribe to tell their own story, thus Hopkins and his English/Turkish crew are merely a window, a medium for the tribe to convey to the world that they are still here! This work is not sensationalised nor played out with an undertone of wit. These methods normally pander to the audiences cravings to be entertained and thus talked down to, as a opposed to being educated and informed objectively - note Michael Moore's 2004 Fahrenheit 911 for example. On the contrary, Hopkins' documentary filmmaking is an objective and mature piece. It serves as both serious anthropogical study of a dying tribe and a secondary historical document told through primary sources. Hopkins takes us right into the heart of Pamir culture. For example, why yogurt is an integral part of their lifestyle which ultimately, I feel, is part of the underlining thread of the Pamir story. The yogurt, with other references in the context of the narrative, shows an underlining irony of the Pamir people, the fact that Soviet persecution has shaped and carved out the Pamir culture to a degree. I find this aspect, which has been explored within the film text, very interesting. There are traces of this ironic storytelling throughout and one of Hopkins' reconstructions of the tribes' people fighting of the Soviets has an air of Soviet Montage cinema. What I particularly thought made this documentary an accomplished piece is the profound sense of co-operation Hopkins receives from the Pamir tribe. One gets a sense that the tribe places absolute trust in Hopkins and his ability to tell objective truth as a filmmaker, even to the point where Hopkins is allowed to use the tribes' people in the reconstructions. This goes as far as the tribe's leader interacting with the filmmaking process as he too dresses up in fake moustache and period costume for a re-enactment. However, I did at times think the reconstructions were questionable as it fictionalises the story of the Pamir people. Through different methods of fiction filmmaking (soviet montage) it takes away the severity of the Pamir plight because he is telling these events not through the words of an elder in interview but through the memories and accounts and thus building his own fictional representation of past events. And as these reconstructions are told with good humour it again dilutes the truth. Also, there is no real attempt to explain why the Pamir people were persecuted under the Soviets, which is an extremely important part of their story. Instead, you get snap-shots into Pamir past-times, (dead goat polo springs to mind). At times, one might feel the story telling is too casual and lacklustre, but this is only a reflection of the elders attitude towards life as they reach their twilight years. However, other than these slight mumblings you can't really fault Hopkins's work. Where I think Hopkins really succeeds is in his conclusion which moved and slightly saddened me. The narrative thus far has taken us over mountains and deserts, but now we move into the 21st century and Hopkins takes us into the city of Istanbul. And it is in the city where the future lies for the Pamir tribe, and with the youth of the tribe. Objectively, Hopkins shows us two possible fates. The first - a young male who works in a leather sweat-shop, alienated from the tribe, humanity and thus a part of the global machine; and the second a young female who grew up in the mountains away from education but who now has a promising career in medicine. But untimely you cannot help but feel that both these examples show the death of a proud tribe. When the elders pass on will the name Pamir Kirghiz pass with them as their youth pass into global individualism? Hopkins offers us a charismatic tale. If you are looking for an alternative to your cinema adventures I would recommend 37 Uses for Dead Sheep. But please don't be disappointed if at the end you still don't know what to do with the rotting sheep carcass in the linen cupboard!