‘Between Borders’ Reviews: Middling Religious Refugee Drama Tracks the Case of an Armenian Family Searching for Home

by

In the U.S. immigration system when it comes to asylum seekers, it’s often the applicant who must prove they have endured sufficient hardship or face imminent danger in their home country to be allowed to stay. The more harrowing the experiences they’ve survived, the greater their chances of success. However, it can be challenging to accurately measure someone’s suffering or predict potential threats to their safety. These requirements seem designed less for protection and more as a barrier, keeping people from developing countries away.

The play “Between Borders” is a Christian production that centers around a disputed asylum hearing to explore the true story of the Petrosyan family, an ethnic Armenian couple and their two daughters who had always lived in Azerbaijan. Despite historical conflicts between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, particularly concerning Nagorno-Karabakh, for much of the 20th century, Russia served as a buffer. However, when the Soviet Union started to disintegrate, violence broke out, causing over 30,000 deaths and displacing approximately 200,000 Armenians who fled Azerbaijan from 1988 to 1994.

The play “Between Borders” focuses on a contentious asylum hearing as a means of delving into the true tale of the Petrosyan family, an Armenian couple and their two daughters who had always resided in Azerbaijan. Despite ongoing tensions between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, especially about Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia generally kept peace for most of the 20th century. But as the Soviet Union fell apart, violence occurred, leading to over 30,000 deaths and the displacement of around 200,000 Armenians who left Azerbaijan between 1988 and 1994.

Given the relevance of its topic in today’s political landscape, particularly since many Americans are unaware of how their government handles refugees and immigrants, Mark Freiburger’s latest inspirational film, “Between Borders,” tries but fails to make a significant impact. The production design and cinematography are competently done, with the sets and landscapes convincingly portraying Eastern Europe, and the camera work and lighting being conventionally ordinary. However, the script is heavily didactic, turning the Petrosyans’ story into a predictable period drama.

As a cinephile, I’d rephrase it like this:

I, Ivan Petrosyan, a rocket scientist, along with my school principal wife Violetta, had to flee Azerbaijan tragically, following the brutal deaths of our neighbors, who were, just like us, Armenians. Our journey led us to Russia, but we faced constant discrimination from authorities and employers there. It was a church-going community in West Virginia that provided us with a sense of belonging among their local parishioners, who had ties to a church back home. However, the peace within this congregation was often disrupted by the lurking threat of violence outside. In our current situation, counselor Whitlow, played by Elizabeth Mitchell, challenges our newfound faith, our communist past, and our motives for desiring America as our permanent residence.

Choosing to produce the entire movie in English for a broader audience may have increased its reach, but it significantly diminished its artistic value. This is not only due to the incongruity of portraying scenes in Azerbaijan or Russia with characters speaking flawless English, but also because it adds an awkwardness to the performances. Tabish and Sabongui deliver dialogue that is already clichéd in a forced, heavily accented English, which highlights their self-conscious, artificial acting. The child actors, Sofia Pistireanu and Natalia Badea, are equally unnatural in their delivery.

In some courtroom scenes, it’s crucial to clarify certain points due to linguistic factors. For instance, the family, while ethnically Armenian, grew up in Azerbaijan and don’t speak Armenian because they couldn’t find work there. This kind of extensive background information and dialogue that seems forced or inappropriate for the situation can lead to overly explicit and direct speech, like when Ivan argues with a gang or when Judge Michael Paul Chan reads aloud from the Statue of Liberty before making his decision.

The film “Between Borders,” though not particularly artistically impressive, is primarily focused on delivering a message, often associated with religious groups providing aid to potentially convert recipients. The movie, directed by Freiburger, appears less interested in achieving cinematic greatness and instead wraps up the story in an overly sweet manner, shying away from exploring the complex political aspects of the topic more thoroughly.

Will viewers who find the story of Christian refugees appealing in this nation extend the same sympathy towards refugees or immigrants who may not share their faith, lack higher education, or are fleeing situations other than communism? It can sometimes appear that genuine believers are capable of separating their compassion and fail to recognize how their actions contradict their religious teachings. “Between Borders” presents a compelling story about the Petrosyans, but will viewers question themselves or admit why they readily show kindness to the Petrosyans while withholding it from others who deserve the same? It’s not very likely.

On January 26th, “Between Borders” is set for a unique, one-time release, featuring only a handful of cinematic screenings in the subsequent days.

Read More

2025-01-24 10:48