I found a trailer of the movie in a Bulgarian site and it interested me.I'm aware of this part of the Bulgarian history,naturally it's not something to be proud with. It's a documentary movie,no doubt,although there are several moments,where the subjective thinking of the director slightly appear. My opinion,only,no offense. Keep in mind it's a movie,and like all others,is based on someone's idea to show his view of a person,culture,nation etc. The country of Bulgaria was founded in 681,Christianity became the official religion in 865.The Otoman Turks conquered Bulgaria in 1396.In the next 500 years many Bulgarians were forced to accept Islam or face death.Many nations,one faith was a popular belief in the Otoman Empire.So,naturally after more than 6 centuries there were many Bulgarians who were Muslim.Like in the Rhodopi Mountains,"the Pomaks",that's the name Bulgarians used for other Bulgarians who accepted Islam.There is a movie-"Times of Separation",You can see it there. To sum up,what Zhivkov,the Bulgarian president in communism times,did,was wrong.It was immoral,no man should be deprived from happiness,faith or his/her culture and customs.What some people do not understand and the movie does not show(ask Yourself why),is that there were many Bulgarians with Turkish names who were forced to change them.The Muslim Bulgarians,not Turks.The name and religion does not change the fact that one's grandparents were pure Bulgarians. People were,in fact forced to do what "the strong of the day" wanted them to do.But there is a flip side to that coin.As to every,I suppose.

Otkradnati Ochi, which was translated as Çalinti Gözler (Stolen Eyes, I wonder if that is what the Bulgarian name means too? I know ochi is eyes, but the first word?) into Turkish, is partly successful as a drama, and partly successful as a documentary manifesting and criticizing the Zhivkov politics.Since I know Bulgarian Turks and Bulgarians personally, and some very closely, I also know that the incidents outlined in this flick took place in reality. The depiction could be, however, somewhat biased, because Bulgarian Turks are generally NOT Islam-driven people like the ones on the movie. Being an oppressed minority, they naturally tie to what they know as their own culture, and possibly exaggeratedly so. Yet the Bulgarian point of view, as clearly emphasized by the movie (and by the Bulgarian cinema fan who commented earlier), suggests that those people are perceived as Bulgarian Muslims, and not Turks. That's where the problem starts. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Atheist, they are ethnic Turks. (Plus, the term "Bulgarian Muslims" must include Pomaks as well. Did they not exist in the 80's?) Take the Karaim Turks in Lithuania, are they recognized as a minority of Turkish descent, or just Lithuanian Jews? A Norwegian for example, could be a Muslim, but not a Turk. The Zhivkov rule ignored that fact, just like a typical Bulgarian would, and tried to strip those people of their culture totally, forgetting they could not be stripped of their Turkishness. After all, the communist rule did the faith-stripping to Christians and others as well (which I glorify, since I'm a hardcore Atheist), but it was the nationality that kept nations together. What made Zhivkov think that would not be the case with Turks? What makes the contemporary Bulgarians still think so? Does Ayten really become Ana just because you call her that? Back to the movie itself, it does well to deliver its message, the acting and plot are also pretty good, except for the majority of the sanitarium scenes which shoot at being somewhere between Bergman and Tarkovsky, and fail at both. The cast is, if anything, annoying. Why cast a Bulgarian woman as a Turk? For the Turkish viewer, that's really disturbing, because her accent claws the ear. Since the movie is an all-things-fair production, and does not consist of a series of pointless attacks against Turks, like the infamous Midnight Express, I'm sure the cast was decided in bona fide. But still, why a Bulgarian for a Turk, why why why...?! It just undermines the realism! It's a good movie overall, especially if you are interested in the issues of the Balkans. With minor flaws, such as part of the cast and sanitarium scenes, it's a good pastime for anyone from anywhere, and a particularly interesting one for someone from the Balkans, especially from Turkey or Bulgaria. Don't wait until you have nothing better to do, and watch it if you have access to it.7,5 / 10

It is not true that one shouldn't say it is a Turkish woman and a Bulgarian man even if they both live in Bulgaria. It is nonsense that if you live in Bulgaria than you should not be called Turkish: a large Turkish minority lives in Bulgaria and the problem starts when they are not allowed to call themselves Turks. That is false "pacifism". It ignores the natural cultural background of the ethnic minority and it was/is the problem of both the communist and the post-communist Bulgaria. In this way this film is more than simply a story about a Muslim and a non-Muslim but also about two people from two different ethnic groups. This makes the film even more valuable.

At the Beginning of 1980 the Bulgarian Communist Party begins to rigorously pursue a policy of ethnic cleansing on the Turkish minority. It is the first Bulgarian feature film to deal with this dark chapter in the country's history. The mass expulsion of a minority which took place in a European country in 1989 remains largely unknown up until today. To ensure that this no longer remains the case and that now audiences can look upon history in the face is the merit of Radoslav Spassov, who both convinced and deeply moved me with his this film. Two outstanding lead actors contribute to the success of the film. It received a Special mention from the IFFS (International Federation of Film Societies) jury on the 15th FilmFestival in Cottbus/ Germany – Festival of East European Cinema in November 2005.