Page 137 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 137
robar-dor in‘s mir ror: r ams and mammoths in the context of yugoslav history
ological study on the position of immigrants to Slovenia from other parts
of Yugoslavia at about the same time (Mežnarić, 1986), participated on the
production crew of the film. Her study was helpful for the creator of the
movie because (in addition to the usual sociological descriptions of the
phenomena in question and a lot of well-collected data) it also contains
extensive anthropologically marked sections, in which researchers inter-
viewed immigrant workers. These dialogues exposed the nature of prob-
lems in the inter-ethnically determined framework.
The film represented a unique breakthrough in scriptwriting in Slo-
venian cinematic production, where critics found scenarios increasingly
more “artificial.” The films that were shot on the basis of these scenarios
were perceived as “hermetic” even by domestic audiences, let alone foreign
viewers. At the beginning of the 1980s, one scriptwriter and film critic ex-
claimed that “writing scenarios is just like performing in a circus” (Rudolf,
1980: p. 54). In the case of Robar-Dorin‘s film, the script is not a matter of
“talent,” but a matter of exposing (social) problems in a manner that makes
use of aesthetic means such as parody, irony, contrast, and deconstruction.
The rather loose form of the script mentioned above also leaves a lot open
for the filming itself and to the editing, which is another difference from
the standard scripts of Slovenian films at the time. Robar-Dorin therefore
shook the prevailing outlook that the origin of a script must be a piece of
literature, which is coded differently than a film being shot. Instead of the
rapport literature (artistic practice) – script (craft of writing) – film (medi-
ated artistic practice) there is now a different rapport: sociology (science) –
script (narrativisation) – film (reality within the imaginary).
The sociological profile of the film did not produce any kind of bore-
dom effect because Robar-Dorin knew how to make use of cinematic “dis-
course” as a parallel to the sociological focus. The film did not expose just
“any” sociology. In its aesthetic code it actually exposed the production
of critical sociological research, contrary to legitimizing a particular sys-
tem of power or merely practicing utilitarian research. This comes across
through some documentary scenes that call attention to the “traditional”
link between Slovenians and wine as one of the banal attributes of their
identity. This link is presented through some documentary scenes of mass
alcoholism. There is not space here for a deeper discussion of wine drink-
ing in Slovenia, which is actually a wine-producing country.4 However, it
4 The annually published Wine Guide listed “550 of the top Slovenian wines” for 2011.
See: http://vinskivodic.si/English.html (accessed 9 December 2010).
135
ological study on the position of immigrants to Slovenia from other parts
of Yugoslavia at about the same time (Mežnarić, 1986), participated on the
production crew of the film. Her study was helpful for the creator of the
movie because (in addition to the usual sociological descriptions of the
phenomena in question and a lot of well-collected data) it also contains
extensive anthropologically marked sections, in which researchers inter-
viewed immigrant workers. These dialogues exposed the nature of prob-
lems in the inter-ethnically determined framework.
The film represented a unique breakthrough in scriptwriting in Slo-
venian cinematic production, where critics found scenarios increasingly
more “artificial.” The films that were shot on the basis of these scenarios
were perceived as “hermetic” even by domestic audiences, let alone foreign
viewers. At the beginning of the 1980s, one scriptwriter and film critic ex-
claimed that “writing scenarios is just like performing in a circus” (Rudolf,
1980: p. 54). In the case of Robar-Dorin‘s film, the script is not a matter of
“talent,” but a matter of exposing (social) problems in a manner that makes
use of aesthetic means such as parody, irony, contrast, and deconstruction.
The rather loose form of the script mentioned above also leaves a lot open
for the filming itself and to the editing, which is another difference from
the standard scripts of Slovenian films at the time. Robar-Dorin therefore
shook the prevailing outlook that the origin of a script must be a piece of
literature, which is coded differently than a film being shot. Instead of the
rapport literature (artistic practice) – script (craft of writing) – film (medi-
ated artistic practice) there is now a different rapport: sociology (science) –
script (narrativisation) – film (reality within the imaginary).
The sociological profile of the film did not produce any kind of bore-
dom effect because Robar-Dorin knew how to make use of cinematic “dis-
course” as a parallel to the sociological focus. The film did not expose just
“any” sociology. In its aesthetic code it actually exposed the production
of critical sociological research, contrary to legitimizing a particular sys-
tem of power or merely practicing utilitarian research. This comes across
through some documentary scenes that call attention to the “traditional”
link between Slovenians and wine as one of the banal attributes of their
identity. This link is presented through some documentary scenes of mass
alcoholism. There is not space here for a deeper discussion of wine drink-
ing in Slovenia, which is actually a wine-producing country.4 However, it
4 The annually published Wine Guide listed “550 of the top Slovenian wines” for 2011.
See: http://vinskivodic.si/English.html (accessed 9 December 2010).
135
