Every Mischief Has Its Map: On Becoming in Shum Bola
By Guzal Koshbahteeva
From an early age, many children in Uzbekistan grow up watching Shum Bola. The story of Qoravoy, filled with humor and mischief, captivates both young and adult audiences. Often broadcast on national television, the film feels cheerful at first but leaves many viewers unexpectedly thoughtful, even quiet. My father first recommended Shum Bola to me. I remember watching it with him as a child and then returning to it over the years. I grew up with this film, and every time I returned to it, I found a little less mischief and a little more truth.
∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗
The title Shum Bola (1978) translates into English as The Mischievous Boy. In Uzbek cinema, Shum Bola (1978), directed by Damir Salimov and adapted from G'afur G'ulom’s acclaimed novella, stands out for its deceptively simple narrative.
At first glance, the story of Qoravoy, a mischievous boy whose harmless actions, such as stealing eggs, hatching schemes, and wandering through the small villages in Uzbekistan, present a light-hearted adventure filled with humor; however, under this episodic structure lies deeper meanings: a meditation on responsibility, the tentative shaping of inner life, and the hardships of the time.
The story follows a character known as Qoravoy, a playful nickname for someone younger with a slightly darker skin tone. The protagonist's actual name remains unknown throughout the film. He lives with his widowed mother, older sister, and baby sibling. His mother single-handedly tries to provide and take care of her family. The boy has not yet experienced the taste of responsibility; therefore, he avoids house chores and often escapes to spend time with street kids.
The film opens with Qoravoy and a group of boys tormenting a neighbor's rooster. When the neighbor catches them, the boys scatter. Soon after, Qoravoy is brought home by the ear and delivered to his mother by the angry neighbor. Seeing her exhaustion and understanding the challenges of raising three children alone, the neighbor demands an apology, then forgives the boy and leaves him with his family.
Although Qoravoy briefly shows remorse, it fades quickly. Almost immediately, he attempts to steal butter and eggs from home to share with a friend. His mother catches him mid-act, scolds him, and lightly taps his head through his doppi (Uzbek traditional headwear), unaware that he has hidden an egg beneath it; the egg cracks, leaking down his face. Humiliated and overwhelmed by shame, Qoravoy runs away.
This moment marks the story's true beginning; his escape from home becomes the start of an inner transformation.
Figure 1. A screenshot from Shum Bola. (Salimov, 1978)
Why the mischief?
First, understanding Qoravoy’s role in the film requires close attention to the qualities that define his behavior: a combination of curiosity, impulsiveness, intelligence, and a developing sense of justice.
Qoravoy, in the film, can be described as a curious and energetic child. He playfully explores the world, frequently disregarding the rules without considering the consequences. Later in the film, he admits that he can turn to lies as a habit. At the same time, he can work hard when treated fairly and respects those who show him kindness. He is not lazy or intentionally careless. He is intelligent, quick-witted, and decisive, always ready to act. Nevertheless, a crucial element of his character emerges early in the film: he does not easily forgive a wrong done to him and finds a way to repay the injustice.
The mischievous side serves as a survival technique. On several occasions throughout the film, he finds himself in the wrong place and at the wrong time. One of the examples is when he accidentally falls into a tandoor (clay oven) and witnesses a secret affair between a woman and her lover. Out of hunger, he steals a handful of palov. When caught, he does not panic and begins to blackmail the two, saying that he will tell others about their affair. The woman pleads with him to stay silent, offering bread, while the man gives him some money. He accepts, says nothing, and leaves.
Figure 2,3,4. Screenshots from Shum Bola. (Salimov, 1978)
At other times, the boy is a scapegoat, mainly because he is a child lacking both social status and parental protection and therefore unlikely to be believed.
The same night, he decides to sleep outside with the coins hidden in his mouth. By morning, a nearby theft has occurred. Villagers gather and, without asking questions, accuse him. He is punished not for his actions but for who he is. At that moment, the film quietly reveals one of its profound realities: Qoravoy is not believed, even when he tells the truth, because he is a child. His presence is suspicious by default. Thus, mischief becomes his way of surviving a world where being young means being powerless.
Another side of Qoravoy’s mischievousness is his instinct to restore what he sees as justice through playful and calculated revenge. After being hired by a wealthy man, Boy O‘ta, to work in his orchard, Qoravoy warns him that his only flaw is a tendency to lie from time to time. The man, driven by greed more than concern, hires him anyway. One day, while picking apples, Qoravoy is momentarily drawn to the sound of young girls singing and playing nearby. As a child, he is captivated by the scene; however, Boy O‘ta finds him watching the scene, harshly scolds and beats him with a whip. Hurt and humiliated, Qoravoy retaliates without anger through a carefully crafted series of lies.
First, he tells the man that his favorite knife has been broken. Then, his beloved horse died. He continues: the firewood he had saved for winter has burned to ashes. Finally, he delivers the most painful blow, telling him that his favorite grandchild has passed away. These webs of lies he tells are cruel yet telling. They portray Qoravoy’s sharp wit and sense of balance while also revealing the reality he faces: a world that denies him the freedom and joy of simply being a child, punishing his curiosity.
Figure 5,6,7,8,9. Screenshots from Shum Bola. (Salimov, 1978)
Imposed maturity;
It is noteworthy that Qoravoy’s environment consistently tells him what he must not do, yet does not offer any explanation as to why. It is as if the adults around him assume such knowledge is self-evident and passed down as common sense rather than taught through reasoning. Michel Foucault, in Discipline and Punish (1979), explores how modern forms of power function through discipline and internalized control rather than overt punishment. Although Foucault’s analysis focuses on Western institutions, his ideas apply to understanding the film’s portrayal of Eastern society. People learn to obey not because they understand the rules but because they are trained to follow them. Foucault called this the creation of the docile body, a person who is shaped to fit into various systems of control. (Nian, 2021) Qoravoy also grows up in a similar world, where he is always told what not to do, but never explained why. The adults around him expect obedience without explanation, as if understanding is assumed. Therefore, his mischief becomes a way to explore the rules and borders on his own terms and push back against this silent authority.
Next, teaching is a recurring theme in Shum Bola, but it does not take the form of direct instruction. Along the travels of Qoravoy, he encounters people who "teach" him not by guiding him but by exposing him to choices he instinctively knows are wrong. There is a scene at the teahouse where the protagonist and his friend are in the company of thieves. Later, they are joined by a domla, a figure who is traditionally associated with moral guidance and sacred knowledge (ilm). His presence should signify transparency or correction; instead, he becomes a passive participant. Like the boys, he is pressured into drinking, and when the lead thief begins delivering his self-justifying monologue about the futility of honest labor, the domla appears quietly complicit. In an unsettling gesture, he even covers one of the thief's coins with his bowl. The thieves, noticing, react with immediate violence. This sudden collapse of the social order creates chaos, allowing the boys to escape.
For the protagonist, this moment turns into a compressed moral lesson. He witnesses how violence quickly follows corruption and how those who supposedly have the knowledge lack moral conviction. Furthermore, he begins to understand that the lifestyle offered by the thieves is chaotic, unjust, performative, immoral, and notably unstable. This event teaches him that to live in mischief is also to live in the constant threat that punishment will come, not because one is guilty but simply because one is present. The scene is an important shift in Qoravoy's inner transformation; it contributes to seeing that the mischief might be a way to survive, but it is not a path that leads to dignity.
It is also worth noting the emotional pressure of this moment. While they are sitting with the thieves, Qoravoy, who was forced to sing and eat with them, requests permission from the lead thief but gets a passionate monologue that explains how easily they earn money and that he would never be able to do so through honest labor. During this monologue, it becomes clear that he is trying to self-justify his actions and push the boy into this way of living, even remarking that from now on, they will live and die together. The scene also describes the amount of emotional pressure and fear that the protagonist experiences. He feels intimidated and helpless. The experience underscores the psychological cost of mischief as survival; it may offer temporary escape but not autonomy or safety.
Over the course of the film, mischief slowly shifts from something playful to something necessary, then to something unsustainable. Qoravoy does not abandon the mischief only because of the punishments he receives. Through his experiences, he realizes that mischief has limitations and cannot give him meaning and fulfillment. The protagonist learns his lessons by placing the pieces together and differentiating morality from superficial choices. However, the lessons he learned are not a result of guidance but of his endurance. Thus, the story is not so much about mischief. Rather, it is about becoming. He had to go through inner transformations that describe how people learn when explanations are withheld and how strength is often invented in silence.
Closing Thoughts;
Shum Bola holds a meaningful place in Uzbek cinema. The film does not romanticize childhood or idealize its central character. The writer and director depict the ordinary details of life, its complexity, and hardship, centering their story on a boy whose daily experiences quietly accumulate into something formative.
Qoravoy learns through friction, without direct guidance. He learns to navigate a world filled with contradictions and uncertainty, searching for meaning along the way. He is not a representation of every child in the country; rather, his experiences reflect cultural tensions and emotional landscapes that resonate within a specific Uzbek context. Furthermore, through him, the film becomes an expression of elements of national identity, suggesting that it is shaped by endurance, adaptation, and the lived experience of individuals like Qoravoy.
References:
Nian, Z. H. (2021). A book review of Foucault’s Discipline and Punish with educational reflections. Open Access Library Journal, 8(4), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107466
Uzbekfilm. (1978). Shum Bola [Film still]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN_YECwjY6g
