Page 147 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 147
cinematic road to a redefinition of the balkans
ly yet importantly, described in novels and pictured in films. Porumboiu’s
film concludes a whole epoch of many political films’ approach to captur-
ing of social realities in all Balkan countries, with maybe the specific excep-
tion of Greece and Turkey.
The film A fost sau n-a fost? can be taken as one of the most represent-
ative key cases of what was happening in the cinematic minds at a certain
point in time in the Balkans, when the results of the so-called transition to
democracy were becoming disappointingly obvious. The historical signi-
fier of communism in the Balkans is just only one among other signifiers,
such as the Ottoman rule, notion of the nation, (ethnic) identity and diver-
sity – all involving a lot of emotionalised collective memories and conflict-
ing narratives. A fost sau n-a fost? transcends the inherent determinations
that follow from such signifiers. Although the film does not present any
standpoint, concerning Romanian relations to other Balkan countries, it,
in a general attitude, inscribes itself in a somewhat programmatic vision of
Dina Iordanova, saying: “As soon as ‘being Balkan’ is no longer a trouble-
some position but it is recognised instead as a tolerable agenda, the surrep-
titious reluctant togetherness and the acquiescent ignorance of one’s own
neighbours may come to an end” (Iordanova, 2006: 9). This could be well
understood as an echo of yet another Bulgarian scholar, Maria Todorova‘s
observation: “It is virtually axiomatic that, by and large, a negative self-per-
ception hovers over the Balkans next to a strongly disapproving and dis-
paraging outside perception. I am acutely aware that resorting to a notion
like ‘the Balkan people’ and how they think of themselves smacks distinctly
of ‘national character,’ a category that I oppose passionately on both meth-
odological and moral grounds” (Todorova, 2009: 38).3 Where Todorova sees
a moral dimension, we may add an aesthetic dimension as well, which in
films works through cultural and social signifiers, which also command
the gaze of film authors. This is related to Porumboiu‘s movie, where there
is a strong message that actually the “revolution” functioned as a catalyst
for a realisation that “what had seemed to be there actually wasn’t there”.
The film, therefore, throws us in a social and moral void. This is, as far as
such kind of a film can go. Its aesthetic gesture (which is composed from
above mentioned elements of film narration) points towards a need of a so-
cial invention, considering the dystopian world that resulted from the infa-
mous “transition” and towards a search for a new paradigm of the organi-
3 Let me make a note that the first edition of the cited book by Maria Todorova ap-
peared already in 1997.
145
ly yet importantly, described in novels and pictured in films. Porumboiu’s
film concludes a whole epoch of many political films’ approach to captur-
ing of social realities in all Balkan countries, with maybe the specific excep-
tion of Greece and Turkey.
The film A fost sau n-a fost? can be taken as one of the most represent-
ative key cases of what was happening in the cinematic minds at a certain
point in time in the Balkans, when the results of the so-called transition to
democracy were becoming disappointingly obvious. The historical signi-
fier of communism in the Balkans is just only one among other signifiers,
such as the Ottoman rule, notion of the nation, (ethnic) identity and diver-
sity – all involving a lot of emotionalised collective memories and conflict-
ing narratives. A fost sau n-a fost? transcends the inherent determinations
that follow from such signifiers. Although the film does not present any
standpoint, concerning Romanian relations to other Balkan countries, it,
in a general attitude, inscribes itself in a somewhat programmatic vision of
Dina Iordanova, saying: “As soon as ‘being Balkan’ is no longer a trouble-
some position but it is recognised instead as a tolerable agenda, the surrep-
titious reluctant togetherness and the acquiescent ignorance of one’s own
neighbours may come to an end” (Iordanova, 2006: 9). This could be well
understood as an echo of yet another Bulgarian scholar, Maria Todorova‘s
observation: “It is virtually axiomatic that, by and large, a negative self-per-
ception hovers over the Balkans next to a strongly disapproving and dis-
paraging outside perception. I am acutely aware that resorting to a notion
like ‘the Balkan people’ and how they think of themselves smacks distinctly
of ‘national character,’ a category that I oppose passionately on both meth-
odological and moral grounds” (Todorova, 2009: 38).3 Where Todorova sees
a moral dimension, we may add an aesthetic dimension as well, which in
films works through cultural and social signifiers, which also command
the gaze of film authors. This is related to Porumboiu‘s movie, where there
is a strong message that actually the “revolution” functioned as a catalyst
for a realisation that “what had seemed to be there actually wasn’t there”.
The film, therefore, throws us in a social and moral void. This is, as far as
such kind of a film can go. Its aesthetic gesture (which is composed from
above mentioned elements of film narration) points towards a need of a so-
cial invention, considering the dystopian world that resulted from the infa-
mous “transition” and towards a search for a new paradigm of the organi-
3 Let me make a note that the first edition of the cited book by Maria Todorova ap-
peared already in 1997.
145
