Painful memories are without borders. A documentary film that touches raw nerves and exposes the lasting emotional pains of conflicts in the South Caucasus.

In March London-based NGO and EPNK member Conciliation Resources brought the film-makers behind Memories Without Borders, a new Armenian-Azerbaijani-Turkish documentary film, to participate at the film's first screenings in Brussels, Paris and London. Part of the ongoing Dialogue Through Film initiative, Memories Without Borders explores how recollections of recent and long-gone troubles transcend the closed borders dividing communities and lives today.

Featuring perspectives from people living in four locations - Istanbul, the contested territory of Nagorny Karabakh, the Azerbaijani capital of Baku and southern Armenia - the film explores different personal experiences of exclusion and discrimination, family silences on heritage, contesting official history and remembering violence. Running through all the stories told in Memories Without Borders are common threads of unresolved violence spanning generations.

The film is the result of a two-year collaboration between a group of Turkish, Armenian and Azerbaijani filmmakers, coordinated by Conciliation Resources and supported by the European Union. The film was made by the Internews Media Support NGO (Yerevan), Internews Azerbaijan Public Association (Baku), the Stepanakert Press Club and CAM Film (Istanbul. It was made without a common language among the production teams, without access to each other's countries and with only two meetings, one at the beginning and one at the post-production phase.

While the four chapters reflect very different moods in societies in Turkey, Nagorny Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia, they all imply, whether explicitly or implicitly, that the quest for the recognition of past wrongs cannot be 'privatised' by national community. It is only when this quest is universal that the past can be dealt with constructively. Memories Without Borders represents an aspiration to a future when Turkish, Armenian and Azerbaijani memories will be more complete, when narratives of victimhood are balanced with acknowledgement that all parties have been perpetrators too, and emblematic events of national suffering are learnt about alongside even-handed treatment of the suffering of others.

Reactions to Memories Without Borders in Brussels, Paris and London among audiences including both local and visiting Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Turks, have been varied. The more negative reactions included perceptions that the film fails to include perspectives from all of the relevant communities, and that it does not offer positive role models especially for Armenian-Azerbaijani co-existence. These reactions say a lot about expectations of a "peacebuilding film". On one level, some viewers expect specific formats and interpretations of the conflict to be replicated in film. For example, if the story of a refugee from one side is told, some viewers felt that a symmetrical story from the other side is required. On another level, there is for some (but by no means all) viewers a desire to see on screen idealised visions of ethnic harmony and cross-conflict relationships. Some viewers found the film insufficiently hopeful.

The film also met with positive reactions. Several viewers commented on the 'kindness' evident in the film. Although traumatic events are remembered and retold, there is a notable absence of recrimination. Others commented on the willingness of the directors and production teams to challenge the stereotypes and clichés in their own societies. For example, one viewer concluded that far from being a film about 'repatriation' or settlement of occupied territories, the second chapter 'Avetis' (filmed in Karabakh) is really about the unexpected directions taken by a boy's rebellion against his father. The nationalist fervour of a diasporan Armenian in this film is revealed as incidental to a deeper family crisis. The underlying question is whether we can make peace without resolving crises in our personal relationships.

Other viewers saw hope and the possibility of change in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations from their juxtaposition with Armenian-Turkish relations. The Turkish chapter, 'Lost&Found', presents stories of constructed, chosen and incidental identities among its three protagonists. Armenian-Turkish relations do not have to be hostage to established stereotypes and clichés, and identities may be multiple and fragmented. In this way, in the words of one viewer in London, they may find a way to meet each other and reach accommodation.

The discussions following the screenings covered a wide range of topics reaching beyond film, including the incentives for trade between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the democracy deficit in Armenia and Azerbaijan and the role of creative arts in reconciliation. Overall, the capacity of film to open questions, within individuals, and both within and across communities, was clear both at these events and in the presentations of the film in Turkey and the Caucasus last October. This is perhaps not the most conventional 'peacebuilding film', but it supports the notion that peacebuilding films are not about offering solutions but but about posing questions. If life does indeed imitate art, and viewers come away from Memories Without Borders posing new questions of themselves and the conflict they are living through, then the film will have succeeded.

Memories Without Borders can be watched online here

This article appeared for the first time in the first issue of CommonspaceExtra

photo: The cover picture of the documentary film Memories without Borders (picture courtesy of Conciliation Resources.)

 

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Russia adds pressure on Armenia ahead of key elections; recalls Ambassador in Yerevan for consultations

Russia adds pressure on Armenia ahead of key elections; recalls Ambassador in Yerevan for consultations

Ahead of key parliamentary elections,scheduled to be held in Armenia on Sunday, 7 June, Russia continues to attempt to put pressure on the Armenian Government led by prime minister Nikol Pashinyan. On 30 May, Russia recalled its Ambassador to Yerevan for consultations. A terse statement, published on the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said, "The Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Armenia , S.P. Kopyrkin, has been summoned to Moscow for consultations in connection with the steps taken by the Armenian leadership to move closer to the European Union, which are detrimental to cooperation within the EAEU." This followed a statement issued the day before, by the leaders of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) that challenges the Armenian trajectory towards approximating to the European Union. Vladimir Putin is undertood to have personally pushed the other four EAEU leaders to issue the statement, which said: "Taking into account the significant risks to the economic security of the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) arising in connection with the preparation of the Republic of Armenia for accession to the European Union, as well as the need to prevent the associated damage to the member states of the Union: decided that the members of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council from the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation will report at the next meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in December 2026 on the possible consequences of the suspension of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union with respect to the Republic of Armenia. We share the position on the need to hold a national referendum in the Republic of Armenia as soon as possible on joining the European Union or continuing to be part of the Eurasian Economic Union."
Editor's choice
News
The leaders of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union issued a tough statement warning fellow-member state Armenia of the consequences of its desire to join the European Union.

The leaders of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union issued a tough statement warning fellow-member state Armenia of the consequences of its desire to join the European Union.

The leaders of the states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEAS) issued a tough statement warning fellow-member state Armenia of the consequences of its desire to join the European Union. The stark, sharply worded,  warning, comes days before crucial parliamentary elections in Armenia, scheduled for 7 June. The full statement said, “We, the Presidents of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation, Taking into account the actions of the Republic of Armenia aimed at joining the European Union, including the approval in 2025 by the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia and the signing by the President of the Republic of Armenia of the Law of the Republic of Armenia "On the Start of the Process of Accession of the Republic of Armenia to the European Union", as well as the confirmation by the European Union of the European aspirations of the Government of the Republic of Armenia, expressed in the joint declaration following the first Armenia-European Union summit, adopted on 5 May 2026, Taking into account the significant risks to the economic security of the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) arising in connection with the preparation of the Republic of Armenia for accession to the European Union, as well as the need to prevent the associated damage to the member states of the Union: decided that the members of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council from the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation will report at the next meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in December 2026 on the possible consequences of the suspension of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union with respect to the Republic of Armenia. We share the position on the need to hold a national referendum in the Republic of Armenia as soon as possible on joining the European Union or continuing to be part of the Eurasian Economic Union. Astana, May 29, 2026” A meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council was held in Astana, Kazakhstan, on May 29, 2026. The meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in a restricted format was attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko , Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev , Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov , Armenian Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan, and Chairman of the Board of the Eurasian Economic Commission Bakytzhan Sagintayev. From the Russian side, the meeting was also attended by Deputy Prime Minister and member of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission Alexey Overchuk and Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov . The heads of delegations from EAEU observer states, including President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev , Vice President of Cuba Salvador Valdés Mesa, Minister of Industry, Mines, and Trade of Iran Mohammad Atabak, and CIS Secretary General Sergei Lebedev, joined the expanded meeting . Following the meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, a number of documents were signed .

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)