Page 129 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 129
robar-dor in‘s mir ror: r ams and mammoths in the context of yugoslav history
Images of Nationalism
Far from claiming that my analysis of the film, which rounds off the whole
discussion, is in any respect exhaustive, I am actually offering a somewhat
narrower contextualization of the film because this movie’s point can be
made visible (including in terms of its aesthetic form) through its place in
the controversies of the time in which it was shot. Two contexts are most
decisive within the complex historical and aesthetic determinations of the
film. One concerns the place of this film in Slovenian culture and Sloveni-
an cinema, and the other determining framework concerns the social space
of the Balkans, especially in the period before the ethnic tensions acquired
political and military shapes. I start with the contours of Slovenian culture
and its cinema, which the film not only came from, but also at the same
time reacted against.
Entertainment was a less important factor in film production in Slove-
nia because films were supposed to contribute to the “culture” of the coun-
try. There is a certain nuance in the meaning of the word “culture”, strongly
related to the notion of art in this context, within which film was invest-
ed with a mission. “For the first time in history, a film made in our own
country became part of the cultural accomplishments of the Slovenian na-
tion” (Adamič, 1954: p. 35), wrote an enthusiast in 1954, commenting on the
first few publicly screened Slovenian films after the Second World War. The
dominant cultural discourse throughout the period, preceding Robar-Dor-
in‘s movie, demanded that film put literary motifs on screen through its
own lens, which would make literature more transparent and “closer to the
people” – this last phrase being a contribution of communist jargon. It goes
without saying that such a demand implied assertions about the lesser ar-
tistic importance of film in general.
These kinds of views founded an artistic canon of sorts for Sloveni-
an cinema. Such statements could be supported by quoting some leading
Slovenian writers, who also held strong positions in the academic and po-
litical establishment. Above all, these included Josip Vidmar and others
such as Boris Ziherl, Matej Bor, Jože Toporišič, and France Bernik, who
more or less saw the importance of film in spreading and reproducing tra-
ditional Slovenian culture. Because they mostly did not write anything se-
rious about film and their observations were mainly sporadic – but none-
theless influential within the establishment – I spared the effort of looking
for them in the archives. I hope that readers will accept my condensed cov-
erage of this aspect. Hence, before the emergence of the new generation in
127
Images of Nationalism
Far from claiming that my analysis of the film, which rounds off the whole
discussion, is in any respect exhaustive, I am actually offering a somewhat
narrower contextualization of the film because this movie’s point can be
made visible (including in terms of its aesthetic form) through its place in
the controversies of the time in which it was shot. Two contexts are most
decisive within the complex historical and aesthetic determinations of the
film. One concerns the place of this film in Slovenian culture and Sloveni-
an cinema, and the other determining framework concerns the social space
of the Balkans, especially in the period before the ethnic tensions acquired
political and military shapes. I start with the contours of Slovenian culture
and its cinema, which the film not only came from, but also at the same
time reacted against.
Entertainment was a less important factor in film production in Slove-
nia because films were supposed to contribute to the “culture” of the coun-
try. There is a certain nuance in the meaning of the word “culture”, strongly
related to the notion of art in this context, within which film was invest-
ed with a mission. “For the first time in history, a film made in our own
country became part of the cultural accomplishments of the Slovenian na-
tion” (Adamič, 1954: p. 35), wrote an enthusiast in 1954, commenting on the
first few publicly screened Slovenian films after the Second World War. The
dominant cultural discourse throughout the period, preceding Robar-Dor-
in‘s movie, demanded that film put literary motifs on screen through its
own lens, which would make literature more transparent and “closer to the
people” – this last phrase being a contribution of communist jargon. It goes
without saying that such a demand implied assertions about the lesser ar-
tistic importance of film in general.
These kinds of views founded an artistic canon of sorts for Sloveni-
an cinema. Such statements could be supported by quoting some leading
Slovenian writers, who also held strong positions in the academic and po-
litical establishment. Above all, these included Josip Vidmar and others
such as Boris Ziherl, Matej Bor, Jože Toporišič, and France Bernik, who
more or less saw the importance of film in spreading and reproducing tra-
ditional Slovenian culture. Because they mostly did not write anything se-
rious about film and their observations were mainly sporadic – but none-
theless influential within the establishment – I spared the effort of looking
for them in the archives. I hope that readers will accept my condensed cov-
erage of this aspect. Hence, before the emergence of the new generation in
127
