Page 128 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 128
from walter benjamin to the end of cinema
Apart from the prohibition of any openly nationalist politics, in the
communist Yugoslavia ethnic identities flourished, framed by the concept
of a cultural category that was fostered by some politically established in-
stitutions – cinema producers among them. As in other communist coun-
tries, which always made an effort to utilize the rhetoric and techniques of
political populism, the Yugoslav government especially supported folklore
and other aspects of “traditional” forms of popular culture. The effect of the
prohibition of explicit nationalist politics did not equal censorship of eth-
nic identity in culture. On the contrary: culture was dominated by topics
of national (i.e., ethnic) identity throughout this period. Two specific fea-
tures of the ruling ideology in Slovenia were congruently verified by the
very existence of the Slovenian nation (as ethnicity). The “mysterious” rea-
son for the supposedly astounding survival of this ethnicity was (and still
is in daily media speech) emphatically alleged to be its culture. The com-
munist sovereign state, on the other hand, was legitimized by the fact that
it brought this nation, which survived its fabled history thanks to its cul-
ture, to the highest degree of emancipation so far. In accordance with such
idées reçues, politics took care of national cultural institutions in practical
terms, and the authorities recognized the special calling of “cultural crea-
tors”. To give an example, cinematography would not even exist in a small
nation without substantial governmental financing. It is understood that
subsidies were granted according to certain criteria. Furthermore, it went
without saying that projects on nationally (culturally and ethnically) con-
stitutive topics most often won subsidies. From the very beginning of Slove-
nian feature film in 1948 (with Na svoji zemlji ‘On Our Own Land’ directed
by France Štiglic) one can see the dominance of an at least mildly national-
ist ideology in the declared politics concerning film production.
On the other hand, Yugoslavia was unique as a communist country in
which modernist art in all areas was tolerated and even promoted so long
as the ruling bureaucracy did not see any political provocation in artis-
tic products or events. The place of modernist Yugoslav films in any classi-
fication or in aesthetic terms has yet to be determined, although I tend to
agree with the following: “The cinema of the 1950s and early 1960s in East-
ern Europe seems like a kind of ‘entre-acte’, a limbo – a transitory state. It
is a stage in between the void and the blossoming; a period that itself does
not bear meaning. Its meaning is in what comes next, in what is going to
evolve from that point on” (Pavicic, 2008: p. 21).
126
Apart from the prohibition of any openly nationalist politics, in the
communist Yugoslavia ethnic identities flourished, framed by the concept
of a cultural category that was fostered by some politically established in-
stitutions – cinema producers among them. As in other communist coun-
tries, which always made an effort to utilize the rhetoric and techniques of
political populism, the Yugoslav government especially supported folklore
and other aspects of “traditional” forms of popular culture. The effect of the
prohibition of explicit nationalist politics did not equal censorship of eth-
nic identity in culture. On the contrary: culture was dominated by topics
of national (i.e., ethnic) identity throughout this period. Two specific fea-
tures of the ruling ideology in Slovenia were congruently verified by the
very existence of the Slovenian nation (as ethnicity). The “mysterious” rea-
son for the supposedly astounding survival of this ethnicity was (and still
is in daily media speech) emphatically alleged to be its culture. The com-
munist sovereign state, on the other hand, was legitimized by the fact that
it brought this nation, which survived its fabled history thanks to its cul-
ture, to the highest degree of emancipation so far. In accordance with such
idées reçues, politics took care of national cultural institutions in practical
terms, and the authorities recognized the special calling of “cultural crea-
tors”. To give an example, cinematography would not even exist in a small
nation without substantial governmental financing. It is understood that
subsidies were granted according to certain criteria. Furthermore, it went
without saying that projects on nationally (culturally and ethnically) con-
stitutive topics most often won subsidies. From the very beginning of Slove-
nian feature film in 1948 (with Na svoji zemlji ‘On Our Own Land’ directed
by France Štiglic) one can see the dominance of an at least mildly national-
ist ideology in the declared politics concerning film production.
On the other hand, Yugoslavia was unique as a communist country in
which modernist art in all areas was tolerated and even promoted so long
as the ruling bureaucracy did not see any political provocation in artis-
tic products or events. The place of modernist Yugoslav films in any classi-
fication or in aesthetic terms has yet to be determined, although I tend to
agree with the following: “The cinema of the 1950s and early 1960s in East-
ern Europe seems like a kind of ‘entre-acte’, a limbo – a transitory state. It
is a stage in between the void and the blossoming; a period that itself does
not bear meaning. Its meaning is in what comes next, in what is going to
evolve from that point on” (Pavicic, 2008: p. 21).
126
