Cool documentary! Unique & funny. It's like a historic doc. gone wild. I don't think I ever seen anything quite like it. It's a must for all film buffs and fans of smart and odd films. Beware: will leave lasting mind boggling impressions. The ex-king's story is in his words a simply "circumstantial" series of unexpected events in the fairytale of life. From king to exile and back to failed prime minister of Bulgaria -this picture is such a royal trip, a unique story told in ingenious way with all kinds of fun narrative moves. People are cheering during some episodes- seriously! Very nice work guys, hope you have a nice run with this flick.
4 Reviews
Disappointing at best
MassDistraction22 September 2011
The Boy Who Was a King presents an immensely interesting subject: a 7-year old Bulgarian Prince who becomes King following the sudden death of his father. The family is exiled during WWII and, 50 years later, the boy king returns to Bulgaria to become Prime Minister in a landslide election.
Sadly, this film doesn't teach the audience much beyond that.
Among its primary flaws, the film has no narrator. King Simeon himself, BBC interviewers, and various other eclectic Bulgarians each tell pieces of a tale that together do little to create a cohesive story.
Paounov certainly has a gift for finding unique and interesting characters who, throughout the film, give their opinions on the king and what he means to them (and what he doesn't). These vignettes on their own would have made for fascinating documentary, as some of these characters are worthy of having their own stories told. However, these tales do nothing to elucidate the film's subject, leaving the viewer confused and frustrated as to their purpose. Most are unnecessarily long and in a few cases, the payoff isn't worth the wait.
In all, we learn nothing of the context in which the king returns to his country, his rise to political power, or his time in office. Wikipedia filled in the many interesting blanks and political and economic context that should have been the foundation for this film.
There are hints of strength - an interesting premise and spectacular archival footage of the boy as prince, king, and in exile. But without a voice, a cohesive story and extraneous material, this documentary fails to deliver on its fundamental mission.
It's a shame to know there is something very special in the story that's not been told.
Sadly, this film doesn't teach the audience much beyond that.
Among its primary flaws, the film has no narrator. King Simeon himself, BBC interviewers, and various other eclectic Bulgarians each tell pieces of a tale that together do little to create a cohesive story.
Paounov certainly has a gift for finding unique and interesting characters who, throughout the film, give their opinions on the king and what he means to them (and what he doesn't). These vignettes on their own would have made for fascinating documentary, as some of these characters are worthy of having their own stories told. However, these tales do nothing to elucidate the film's subject, leaving the viewer confused and frustrated as to their purpose. Most are unnecessarily long and in a few cases, the payoff isn't worth the wait.
In all, we learn nothing of the context in which the king returns to his country, his rise to political power, or his time in office. Wikipedia filled in the many interesting blanks and political and economic context that should have been the foundation for this film.
There are hints of strength - an interesting premise and spectacular archival footage of the boy as prince, king, and in exile. But without a voice, a cohesive story and extraneous material, this documentary fails to deliver on its fundamental mission.
It's a shame to know there is something very special in the story that's not been told.
The great European transformations!
annabjorn-172-5775761 October 2011
The Boy Who Was a King tells the fascinating story of Bulgaria's former monarch, who was exiled by the communists when he was a child, only to make a triumphant return to the country as its prime-minister in the post-communist years. Simeon Saxe-Cobourg-Gotta 's story is truly remarkable and Paunov's film captures its essence, delivering a cinematic tour -de -force that forces us to rethink the limits of the documentary genre.
The Boy Who Was a King has all the ingredients of powerful filmmaking: great characters, captivating storytelling, notable cinematography and outstanding original score. Paunov, however, takes it a step further. By telling the story of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotta, this director also successfully tells the story of the great European transformations that shook the 20th century: the end of the monarchy, the communist takeover, and the painful transition to democracy. Paunov lends a voice to all the other participants in these great experiments. We see Simeon's fans and haters: Japanese settlers in Bulgaria who sing an ode to the king- turned - minister, an unforgettable and touching scene with a woman who made him a suit with 77 pockets to the hilarious but all-so-real meeting of present-day communist party members. The film is masterfully inter-cut with stunning archival footage which takes us from Bulgaria to Egypt, through ancient European castles and dreamy resorts, to the interview chair of Charlie Rose and back on the streets of Bulgaria's capital, where journalists are shouting at Simeon. Through it all, with subtlety and intellectual finesse, Paunov weaves the compelling words of Cobourg-Gotta himself.
The Boy Who Was a King is one of these extraordinary films that leave you pondering a long time after you saw them and what is a true gift is that this director allows the viewers to think for themselves. This, I sincerely appreciate.
The Boy Who Was a King has all the ingredients of powerful filmmaking: great characters, captivating storytelling, notable cinematography and outstanding original score. Paunov, however, takes it a step further. By telling the story of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotta, this director also successfully tells the story of the great European transformations that shook the 20th century: the end of the monarchy, the communist takeover, and the painful transition to democracy. Paunov lends a voice to all the other participants in these great experiments. We see Simeon's fans and haters: Japanese settlers in Bulgaria who sing an ode to the king- turned - minister, an unforgettable and touching scene with a woman who made him a suit with 77 pockets to the hilarious but all-so-real meeting of present-day communist party members. The film is masterfully inter-cut with stunning archival footage which takes us from Bulgaria to Egypt, through ancient European castles and dreamy resorts, to the interview chair of Charlie Rose and back on the streets of Bulgaria's capital, where journalists are shouting at Simeon. Through it all, with subtlety and intellectual finesse, Paunov weaves the compelling words of Cobourg-Gotta himself.
The Boy Who Was a King is one of these extraordinary films that leave you pondering a long time after you saw them and what is a true gift is that this director allows the viewers to think for themselves. This, I sincerely appreciate.
Story of the fifty-year exile and return of the former King of Bulgaria told through quirky characters.
tommymunroe-115 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
My wife and I just saw this at Winston-Salem's River Run Film Festival and I didn't feel it lived up to its potential. My wife on the other hand greatly enjoyed it for what it was. She's an English professor, from Poland, and has an appreciation for the Theater of the Absurd, Surrealism and other related forms of which this documentary somewhat resembled.
My issues had mostly to do with the structure. Instead of using experts or those with some unique perspective to craft the bones of the story, the director, who had a Q&A after-wards, chose to fill the page with eccentric moments from a carnival train of quirky characters. He was evasive in the Q&A as is the story evasive from a point of view. It may be still too recent to give a more factual, a more raw and real account of this period of history: World War II collaboration with Hitler, the Soviet occupation, and recent EU events. The Bulgarian audience, it is presumed, may be too tender still. So instead, we had SNLish moments to laugh at. But they were of people being sincere and not hip to being the brunt of the joke.
I had a hard time laughing at the inanities because the characters were too pitiful. It would have been like laughing at a kid in a wheelchair to me. The characters were presented in one pulse, doing something odd and then were not seen again. Similarly, a character arc was not developed for the King. I didn't feel I got to know who he was and how circumstances influenced and changed him. At best we're given a tangential sense of the King.
On the positive side, in crafting somewhat of a Theater of the Absurd documentary (for lack of an accurate genre descriptor), the sense of the political oppression and the myriad of ways its fallout has manifested itself in the populace is very clear. It scores big on generating a feeling of desperately wanting to believe in something through it's vignettes.
For certain people who want freshness in structure, and have a soft spot for the oddballs, this movie may be an interesting ride. For those who have a hard time laughing at people who've been through generations of oppression, and are hungry to know the king's story, this may not be the format for you.
My issues had mostly to do with the structure. Instead of using experts or those with some unique perspective to craft the bones of the story, the director, who had a Q&A after-wards, chose to fill the page with eccentric moments from a carnival train of quirky characters. He was evasive in the Q&A as is the story evasive from a point of view. It may be still too recent to give a more factual, a more raw and real account of this period of history: World War II collaboration with Hitler, the Soviet occupation, and recent EU events. The Bulgarian audience, it is presumed, may be too tender still. So instead, we had SNLish moments to laugh at. But they were of people being sincere and not hip to being the brunt of the joke.
I had a hard time laughing at the inanities because the characters were too pitiful. It would have been like laughing at a kid in a wheelchair to me. The characters were presented in one pulse, doing something odd and then were not seen again. Similarly, a character arc was not developed for the King. I didn't feel I got to know who he was and how circumstances influenced and changed him. At best we're given a tangential sense of the King.
On the positive side, in crafting somewhat of a Theater of the Absurd documentary (for lack of an accurate genre descriptor), the sense of the political oppression and the myriad of ways its fallout has manifested itself in the populace is very clear. It scores big on generating a feeling of desperately wanting to believe in something through it's vignettes.
For certain people who want freshness in structure, and have a soft spot for the oddballs, this movie may be an interesting ride. For those who have a hard time laughing at people who've been through generations of oppression, and are hungry to know the king's story, this may not be the format for you.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
