A Cinematic Battle: Three Yugoslav War Films from the 1960S

CEU eTD Collection ProfessorMarsha Siefert Second Reader: Thesis A Cinematic Battle Supervi sor: Profess In partial fulfillmentIn partial forthe oftherequirements degree or Balázs Trencsé : Three Yugoslav War Films fromthe1960s Central EuropeanCentral University Budapest, Hungary History DepartmentHistory Master ofMaster Arts Dragan Batanĉev

Submitted to 2012 nyi

CEU eTD Collection instructions maymadewithout be not This librarian. such with accordance copiesmadein Further made. copies such any of part mustforma page the from obtained be may Details Library. European Central the in lodged t with accordance in only made be may part, or full in either process, any by Copies Author. the with rests thesis this of text the in Copyright ofCopyright Statement

the writtenthe permission oftheAuthor. i

e ntutos ie b te uhr and Author the by given instructions he

CEU eTD Collection state,social agents(the andfinallybeworkers peasants)will resolved different between conflicts which in society Yugoslav supranational a into nations different will I historiophoty that demonstrate of concept the using By mythology. collective and history Yugoslav Yugoslav the although g that film war show the in interest demonstrated Tito, to Broz Josip cinephile great a as by led government, reception and iconography production, their aimed that the from films war Yugoslav 1960s three of analysis the present will thesis my of content The Abstract ne tee ee poig imaes ves n ht WI hud ersn i the in represent should WWII what on views filmmakers‟ opposing were there enre, that they offer different views on World War II as a moment of creation of the state state the of creation of moment a as II War World on views different offer they that

towards supranationalism and classlessness and supranationalism towards the war films represented the failure of Yugoslav government in integr in government Yugoslav of failure the represented films war the ii

. I will analyse the films in terms of of terms in films the analyse will I . .

ating ating CEU eTD Collection tomyThis thesisisdedicated brother, Jovan. provi GilićNikica for yet his to enough kind were they that articles the for Zimmermann Final sources. important very some of her help valuable of all and text my of reading careful the for Siefert, Marsha Prof. reader, second my thank to like also would I analysis. film to approach new a finding me helped which history, intellectual about discussions inspiring and Prof. supervisor, thesis my thank to like would I Acknowledgements my teaching assistant Zsófia Lórá Zsófia assistant teaching my - to

- be - printed article y I hn Mrna aia Ptr tnoi, n Tanja and Stanković, Peter Jakiša, Miranda thank I ly, .

ugsin fr t ipoeet Wtot the Without improvement. its for suggestions iii

Balázs Trencsé Balázs nd I would not have been able to acquire to able been have not would I nd nyi , for his insightful advices advices insightful his for , e e ih a wl as well as with, me de CEU eTD Collection 4. 3. 2. 1. Introduction ofAbbreviations List Contents Table of

2.6. Censoring andCritical 2.5. Public ofReception 2.4. 2.3. BeingKosova 2.2. CreationofaPrivateHollywood of andCultural2.1. Political Context Yugoslavthe in Cinematography 1950s War1.2. Film Genre (State) asa 1.1. Film History and 4.2. Pavlović‟s Road to 4.2. Pavlović‟sRoadto War (Film) 4.1. New NewFilm Manforthe notthe Reception3.5. TheBiggest, Best: of War3.4. asa Spectacle Performance ofPolitical Religion 3.3. PartisansYugoslav andthe National Identity 3.2. 10,000 of andCultural3.1. Political Context Yugoslavthe in Cinematography Zaseda (TheAmbush) naNeretviBitka Kapetan Leši 1.2.1. Theoretical Framework Captain Leshi

War/Partisan/Revolutionary Film?

...... S oldiers, 75 oldiers, Captain Leshi

( Captain Leshi

r Albanian:TheOriginofCaptain Leshi and HisEnemies

as a as a Kosovar Western ( ......

The B ......

A by Ţivojin Pavlović:ABanned Ţivojin Film by ...... attle ofNeretva rmed

...... , 1960) by Ţivorad Mitrović: ACensored War Film V

...... ehicles,

......

...... Captain Leshi ......

...... , 1969): A, 1969): State 22

...... iv The Battle ofNeretvaThe Battle A

...... irplanes: MakingaWar Spectacle

......

...... -

...... Supported WarSupported Film ......

......

1960s ......

......

73 69 68 66 60 55 52 49 49 33 31 25 22 20 16 16 14 11

7 7 2 1

CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Filmography Conclusion Secondary LiteratureSecondary Primary Sources in the 4.5. TheDirector Ambush 4.4. Camera aWeapon as Protests 4.3. Echoof1968Student Interviews MaterialArchival

......

...... v

......

101 101 101 101 101

99 92 85 8 76 0

CEU eTD Collection Jugoslavije) (SKOJ) YCLY YPA (JNA) UFUS OZNA LCY (SKJ) Jugoslavija) Republika (FNRJ) FPRY AGITPROP Abbreviations List of – –

Udruţenje filmskihUdruţenje umetnika(Association Srbije of Filmof Artists Serbia) Odeljenje zanarodaOdeljenje zaštitu (The Department Security) ofNational

– – -

League ofCommunists ofYugoslavia (Savez komunista J Odeljenje ipropaganduza agitaciju (Department for agitationandpropaganda) Yugoslav People‟s Army Yugoslav People‟s – –

Young C Young

eeaie epes eulc f uolva Fdrtva Narodna (Federativna Yugoslavia of Republic People‟s Federative

ommunist League of Yugoslavia (Savez komunistiĉke omladine komunistiĉke (Savez Yugoslavia of League ommunist

(Jugoslovenska Narodna(Jugoslovenska Armija) 1

ugoslavije)

CEU eTD Collection University Press, 2002), 11. 2 Partisans: Fashioning of YU Familiengedachtnis,” 1 about metaphors into Westerns conservat modern turned director Hollywood time; their of scene political w tragedies wrote playwrights Tito new the which upon myth founding the WWII, of end the After society. fairer of wave the by Carried power. into coming communists Yugoslav and liberation of moment grandiose the without unimaginable sy “war”, of Instead film. war/partisan Yugoslav the of emergence the inspired which event historical concrete a as once even mentioned not was the are which books the films. partisan schoolbook in generated information by dominated t to returning ways generation many in was re past digitally some this Yugoslavia‟s including Evidently review to past. inspired partisan was the Research of Social memory of Institute Hamburg the at Bašić Natalija title same the series TV partisan the of episodes all When I

ntroduction ail . Goulding, J. Daniel Natalija oy fr h vco ta cn rt te itr. aual, h vcoiu hsoy is history victorious the Naturally, history. the write can that victor the for nonym

itr o ter onr fo th from country their of history The above quote highlights quote above The - Bašić, interviews Bašić found out that that the historical memory of most Yugoslavians was not not was Yugoslavians most of memory historical the that that out found Bašić interviews 1

by Aleksandar Djordjević, were broadcast on Serbian television a few years ago, ago, years few a television Serbian on broadcast were Djordjević, Aleksandar by

“De s ad ieaim i lk manner like in liberalism; and ism tnlga balkanica Ethnologia Zet Wlkig m enee. imatsnn m raice ud serbischen und kroatischen im Filmpartisanen Fernsehen. im Weltkrieg Zweite r

usual source of historical informa historical of source usual ieae Cnm: h Ygsa Eprec, 1945 Experience, Yugoslav The Cinema: Liberated -

Space inSpace Partisan Film,” - atrd esos f omr uolvas atsn im. rm three From films. partisan Yugoslavia‟s former of versions mastered

ith mythological background mythological ith

their glorious fight glorious their that three generations of Yugoslavs have been watching been have Yugoslavs of generations three that prpcie f fcin film fiction a of perspective e vl 820) 57 8(2004): vol. , Otpisani - led postwar government was built.” was government postwar led

KINO! uolv a o Lbrto “a te central the “was Liberation of War Yugoslav 2

s but rather determined by the knowledge of of knowledge the by determined rather but s , based on the plot of the 1974 partisan film of film partisan 1974 the of plot the on based ,

10 (2010): 54. - 7 qoe i Mrna aia “on o Earth to “Down Jakiša, Miranda in quoted 77, the the tion. It is interesting that interesting is It tion. Ygsa fl drcos ae films made directors film Yugoslav , , they believed they , ewr i “partisan is keyword

to show, in a in show, to

- ad o fo academic from not and , 2001

build Bomntn Indiana (Bloomington: n indirect way, the way, indirect n ing

2 World War II II War World

; ” Antic Greek Antic

e present he a better a better a

used

as a a as nd – -

CEU eTD Collection di compete, film art and commercial led, are debates theoretical dynamic journals film In aspect. esthetic and technical in matured which cinematography Yugoslav on itself mapped verve social the maintain to order its in safe felt regime show openly who filmmakers younger M Praxis oriented common, critically when a circles of generation towards Second directed identity. Yugoslav and harmonized seemed epochs previous fiercely dictatorship; hard or bureaucracy of “help” the without work, their of fruits the manages alone class working which in formed self of doctrine economic the justified Non the in position pivotal and West the from support financial to Thanks democracies. Western power, period ambivalent, sometimes independently evenfrom originalintentionsthe their of authors. history w narratives film while written advance, in casted In were guys “bad” and interpretation. guys “good” of subject a merely but truth, final the not n could government new the of crimes and mistakes changes; revolutionary and movement partisan the supranationalism towards aimed that state the of creation of moment a as II War World on views different offer they filmsthose made. were pr the outline to order in past the about films or WWII, about monolithic discourse of official history history official of discourse monolithic - Aligned movement, Yugoslavia movement, Aligned

I have chosen have I that believe I as 1960s the from films war Yugoslav three analyze will I thesis this In ot have bee have ot hn uolv oils w socialism Yugoslav when evn bhn te break the behind leaving etr gt wrs n rsiiu frin im etvl wih otiue the contributes which festivals film foreign prestigious on awards get rectors

its n criticized in historical literature historical in criticized n

image of image

the 1960s as the temporal focus temporal the as 1960s the

position, hence it could allow greater freedom in cultu in freedom greater allow could it hence position,

and classlessness. Their cinematic heterogeneousness differs from from differs heterogeneousness cinematic Their classlessness. and y ti dcd sw h lbrlzto of liberalization the saw decade this ly,

the most democratic country in the Eastern Europe. Third Europe. Eastern the in country democratic most the

p with up s t t pa o dmsi and domestic of peak its at as

witnessed a witnessed - management. It seemed that finally there was a state state a was there finally that seemed It management. d oil problems, social ed opposed nationalisms from the World War II and II War World the from nationalisms opposed the the rit, avant arxists, which wa which 3

SR n frig lsr relationship closer forming and USSR

short but gol but short , contrary to films in which history was history which in films to contrary , s

for several r several for interested only in glorification of the the of glorification in only interested - ad pitrs ru Mdaa or Mediala group painter‟s garde

appear oblems of the period in which in period the of oblems den age of prosperity which prosperity of age den easons: first, this was the the was this first, easons: ed

inte Yugoslav on the the on rnational political political rnational ere much more more much ere ral matters ral cn. Tito‟s scene.

the intellectual oe of roles s

with

ly in , CEU eTD Collection of example an film a covers chapter first The 1960s. and 1950s the bri two film, with particular for thestate, especially as tool. apropaganda differen film war about talk we When history. questioning artistic and scientific fiction, and facts between boundaries trad than much different very is which studies of field the covers film that assumption the on of based is notion which White‟s Hayden be will analysis this in premise theoretical main a for medias important most the as versio styles; directors‟ address also na their labeling on focused films partisan of antagonists iconography By films. making profitable in compete and companies production smaller form can filmmakers that decision significantly was which Yugoslavia in production film of organization the why itrepresentsvaluable historical account by recorded were 1960s the this and reforms, those conduct became nationalism 1960s from strategy, clear of lack the showed economy long: for last not did society Yugoslav of age golden the However, frame. international in film Yugoslav of establishment three main aspects: producti aspects: main three ns of war. By reception I reception By war. of ns The body of my thesis is divided into three chapters; each chapter dedicated to a a to dedicated chapter each chapters; three into divided is thesis my of body The film analyze will I which in framework a up set will I chapter theoretical my In

ces in relation to historical film. In general, war film is a genre of a special interest special a of genre a is film war general, In film. historical to relation in ces

louder and louder. Seeing as how as Seeing louder. and louder turn

took Yugoslavia into stagnation during 1970s. The spirit and the dilemmas of dilemmas the and spirit The 1970s. during stagnation into Yugoslavia took

the

Westernization of war film both in cultural and generic contexts. This film film This contexts. generic and cultural in both film war of Westernization started to wake up, while up, wake to started toa hsoigah. h d The historiography. itional the the political showdown with intellectual o intellectual with showdown political ef overviews of the political and cultural context in Yugoslavia in Yugoslavia contextin cultural and political the ofoverviews ef the

ht s o a, h wy n hc fl rpeetd opposing represented film which in way the say, to is that on, iconography and reception. The f The reception. and iconography on,

war film genre as if it were a social seismograph and that is that and seismograph social a were it if as genre film war mean film critiques in critiques film mean ,

mean I ssessing films, as well as reactions of the audience. The audience. the of reactions as well as films, ssessing e se per

the the

. the voices demanding voices the 4

i i ncsay o eie h gne n its and genre the define to necessary is it , modus political elite led by Tito was no was Tito by led elite political

suso aot hs em blurs term this about iscussion Kapetan Leši Kapetan

of journals, tionality. In a broader context broader a In tionality. ersnain f rtgnss and protagonists of representation

magazines pp reorganization of the state state the of reorganization

onents became inevitable became onents ( irst aspect deals with the the with deals aspect irst Captain Leshi Captain affected by the state‟s the by affected

of ,

and newspapers newspapers and

h esne of essence the the mid the historiophoty t

, 1960) as 1960) , willing to willing , I will I ,

s dle of dle

from from clear

CEU eTD Collection morebut, evenimportant collide, poetics artistic different weapon: cinematic other, with war to the perpetuate decided Films it film. when the support for hoped and expected government the that audience the of reaction in fight liberation partisan of apotheosis side other because tension this of result discont the and state the of structures the between ( tension national concealed of reflection if Regardless resolved. an workers state, (the agents social different between conflicts which in society Yugoslav supranational a into nations different integrating in government nation the by as well as other, the on elite political privileged and side one on population poordifferencesbetween economic the caused crisis, by the andwere elite ruling the alarmed was film banned This WWII. during fight liberation about illusions of debunking and revolution communist of demystification discuss I chapter third and final the In differen which numb large a Tito, by supported directly film Yugoslav expensive most the 1969), of seco The independence. part the Metohija, and Kosovo w Yugoslavia in nationalists Albanian and communists Albanian core its At charge. in institution state‟s political be to considered bec m vr pplr u t is Hollywood its to due popular very ame alisms ent of the political leadership political the of ent This thesis will demonstrate how demonstrate will thesis This in these film these in

in different in different part r f opne. T companies. of er ih il fe 1960 after will hich t nations were integrated into the into integrated were nations t s ati Leshi Captain Yugoslav society is not shown without internal conflicts, while on the on while conflicts, internal without shown not is society Yugoslav

war film was used as a propaganda tool ( tool propaganda a as used was film war nd chapter is dedicated to dedicated is chapter nd y unproblematic ly s ofthe country. his type type his

e akd ih rwn ntoaim n rqet for requests and nationalism growing with marked be

with the cinematic vision of war and revolution. As a a As revolution. and war of vision cinematic the with and

n pn react open an

film Captain Leshi Leshi Captain ly Captain Leshi Captain

f im reveals film of the war films represented the failure of Yugoslav of failure the represented films war the

h Ambush The , a fierce conflict takes place between the stplacebetween conflict takes the afierce , films in question there is a tension because of the of because tension a is there question in films i sie f h fc ta i ws esrd y the by censored was it that fact the of spite in ,

Zaseda 5

ie tlzto ad o a og time long a for and stylization like collectivist spi collectivist

The Battle of Neretva of Battle The Bitka na Neretvi na Bitka

o t suet rtss n 98 which 1968 in protests student to ion ( The ), or a tool of criticism ( criticism of tool a or ), is a story about the confli the about story a is were

h state the Ambush

takd y h sae officials state the by attacked rit of the of rit paat) il finall will peasants) d

, 1969) as an example of example an as 1969) , The Battle of Neretva of Battle The dooy and ideology

( the Yugoslav the The Battle The

partisan movement. partisan did not produce the the produce not did The Ambush The

of Neretva of h a in way the ct between between ct

army and and army growing ate andate

be y was ), a ), ), ), ,

CEU eTD Collection or history representing of own time. means just not were films war larger entertaining that show will I all, in All in symbols state the of sacralization of process the outline to religion political of concept the applying 1968; in Yugoslavia to related closely film war a make to of censorship the Leshi prove that documents unscrutinized previously examining by more showed often they opinion, the than my sensitivity in issues; political serious addressed filmmakers atti which films to research of parameters the expand to is aim My o carrier a as spectacles partisan Yugoslav of comparison respectful a charts Belgrade of University detai more a for space contro state stricter even and genre the between relations the topic the to newspapers in published reviews argumented poorly collectionrather of a is it otherwise but genre, the of definition theoretical film ratni betw relationship the on are they than genre, about cinematography world of studies wealthier containing other every almost in present is film war although goes, sources secondary as far As production. its of terms in researched censorship, the on sources more has film one that means which stateal the end the In film. the ue towards tude ; detecting intellectual ideas that inspired Ţivojin Pavlović, the director of director the Pavlović, Ţivojin inspired that ideas intellectual detecting ;

American war film. As a rule these essays are more oriented towards the theory of the the of theory the towards oriented more are essays these rule a As film. war American smercl oprsn f hs fls is films these of comparison Asymmetrical

so itscredibility loses and ( . Denise J. Youngblood J. Denise . uolv War Yugoslav tt ielg, n re t rgse itleta aeds ih which with agendas intellectual register to order in ideology, state -

than , both sides suffer los suffer sides both , politicians. Each politicians.

hs genr this led analysis of certain films. A recently published MA published recently A films. certain of analysis led , -

life escapades; in many (serious) respects they were ahead of their their of ahead were they respects (serious) many in escapades; life dooyo im Image Film of Ideology

Film i rltvl small, relatively is e b Ygsa fl critic film Yugoslav by ) ; nonetheless, it remains quite useful for historical approach historical for useful quite remains it nonetheless, ; ‟s

democratic reputation. of these films will be reviewed from reviewed be will films these of take take s es: films get censored, get films es: on Russian war cinema p cinema war Russian on 6 een history and film. The film. and history een

by a Serbian sociologist Serbian a by

eemnd y h dvriy f sources of diversity the by determined oty li mostly

l; unfortunately, without enough without unfortunately, l; Milutin Milutin ie o c on mited

had directors get punished, but punished, get directors

te ubr f books of number the , hl te te is other the while rovides an rovides a Ĉolić The Battle of Neretva of Battle The

more or les or more book leto o essays of ollection a different a different a ,

eaj Zvijer Nemanja f state ideology. state f s aube for valuable is

Jugoslovenski assessment

The Ambush The thesis s critical s Captain

ngle ngle at the the at better

of of - , . , ,

CEU eTD Collection 1.

(ed.), 3 o reflection clean a just not is film that is point main Ferro‟s others. overlooking while levels semantic some emphasizing films, indoc through other film by and element, influenced editing often is costume, Society expression. angles, film camera of characteristics the on depending differences interpretive socie the of image other the in while itself, case first the In way. negative and positive both in itself societ which through content, is one First relation. this of elements important four norinnocent „objective.‟” purely ta history of material the that instead suggesting past, the toward views deterministic and messianic monolithic, of abandonment the urge they rather, history; forsake not do “They historiography: traditional the of teleology Benjam Walter as a arguments of elaboration footnotes of number for space ample with book pages hundred three one for challenging,particularly is indi and secondary offers only that it opinion 1.1 Framework Theoretical

Marcia Landy, “The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media,” 2001, in: Marnie Hughes Marnie in: 2001, Media,” in Memory and History Film: Historical “The Landy, Marcia .

Film and History The History on Fil trination, glorification, etc. The f etc. trination,glorification, Studying the ways in which film can film which in ways the Studying f time long a For

ifrn frs of forms different n Mce Fual, ils Del Gilles Foucault, Michel in, m Reader

. The different treatment of film in history was initiated by authors such authors by initiated was history in film of treatment different The . y n im Te s The film. on ty

some discrepancies discrepancies some l ws elce a a as neglected was ilm

(New York: Routledge, 2009), 42.

it seems that it cannot contain as much rel much as containcannot it that seems it 3

cinematic oilpoess bt loa iaeo wa a society a what of image an also but processes, social f kes many forms and, moreover, that these forms are not are forms these that moreover, and, forms many kes orth element is the way in which social agents interpret social which in way the is element orth cn eeet s styl is element econd rect data about reality. A reality. about rect data

interventions: exist 7 witness about the reality, Marc reality, the about witness

vali ue and euze, between how society views itself and the the and itself views society how between hsoia suc de to due source historical d

film shows how the society observes society the how filmshows

mobilization of the masses, masses, the of mobilization Felix Guattari who questioned questioned who Guattari Felix e ,

hc cets significant creates which

form of a fictional film fictional a formof evant information as as information evant

Ferro came to came Ferro

common a -

y presents y Warrington h third the d large nd

CEU eTD Collection 7 6 5 University of Texas, 1999), 129. 4 cultural of field a is Film interests. political and artistic ide his accomplished have not could i because author, and bureaucratic techn financial, many on depend directors gifted most the even that neglected 1950s around gathered theoreticians film French Although 1950.1945 until in especially film, towards authorities Yugoslav of relationship the define to order in state word the with replaced be easily could society word sentence previous the In horiz the for limitations camera the are bigger the image, own its control to body accept and surprise.” transmit it, whataudiences without visibl “The society: a of what with also but possibilities, physical its with cinema.” of idea very the and expectations, audience‟s the choices, expressive the of requirements the to according but is, s always cannot film to contro ready quite not are but desire, a have which systems political in manipulations ideological of frommembers.fromitsor hidingitself mightbe

Casetti, Sorlin, Pierre Sorlin, Marc ological factors. That is why I do not analyze films in this thesis this in films analyze not do I why is That factors. ological

Ferro, Ferro, : “Cinema does not represent a society, but what a society considers representable.” considers society a what but society, a represent not does “Cinema : proclaiming Sociologie du cinema The main cause of dependency of the film on the the on film the of dependency of cause main The Sorlin, Pierre theoretician, Another Theories Cinema of l itssegment. every iea t histoire et Cinema Sociologie du cinema

t will be shown be will t

the director with director the

how what its authors desire: authors its what how , 130. , in: Casetti,, in: sd o a eoh s ht mg mkr ty o rs i odr to order in grasp to try makers image what is epoch an of side e

, 1977, in Francesco Casetti (ed.), (ed.), Casetti Francesco in 1977, ,

, 1977, in: Casetti, that even the most provocative director, provocative most the even that Theories of Cinema as without the without as a clearly defined st defined clearly a derived a conclusion from a well a from conclusion a derived 8 Theories of Cin

it is allowed to show, to allowed is it “no society ever appears on the screen as it as screen the on appears ever society “no Therefore

producer that had to coordinate business, coordinate to had that producer , 129.

a activity specific for its for specific activity 6

yle as a film a as yle

journal The bigger the ofone need The bigger superior eie o is ie te director‟s the time, its of devices hois f iea 1945 Cinema, of Theories ema , film, is oit i is cnmc basis. economic its is society , 129. air d Cinema du Cahiers

5 applicable as anindicatorasapplicable

Film auteur

as wo as

that is the visible side visible the is that

is not limited only limited not is Ţivojin

, it should not be not should it , rk of a dominant a of rk

h pro from period the known fact that that fact known

n f h film the of on synergy of the the of synergy - 1995

Pavlović

(Austin: in the the 7 ,

CEU eTD Collection 8(2009/2010): 131. 8 of condensation, of complex processes a imposing without ones, written of product a is history then written “Every latter: the to comparison the in former the of inferiority way different a in studied be must discourse). historio to opposed defin as discourse) filmic and images White visual in it about thought our Hayden and history of representation writing, history in text written and film between relationship the Analyzing past. the about testify to power enough power.hypnotic i own expressing symbolic important an preparations.” filming with harmony in done being were congress Party‟s the film. the of content the influencing history (1935), propagandistic of example good pr of weapon a as recognized gets often depende is that system the of values government; the in analyzed be can and system political a of somethingrarely that all of makers to its planned smallest de t crew, film

Tomislav cpbe f motivating of capable s

Although fi it When a uni a nt on Gavrić

political discontent. Of course, one should not keep false hopes that film on its its on film that hopes false keep not should one course, Of discontent. political ht ntcs ht e techn new that notices White er iaces and financiers heir que case in case que cooperation and conflicts amongst filmmakeamongst conflicts and cooperation

politics, give politics, , “Istorijski metod i istorija filma” [“Historical Method and Film History”]Film and Method [“Historicalfilma” istorija i metod “Istorijski ,

nds itself in the middle of middle the in itself nds oin pictures motion

graphy

oe s to o rssac aant h rpesv gvrmn in government repressive the against resistance of tool a as role which director‟s concept director‟s which n

displacement, symbolization, and qualification exactly like those like exactly qualification and symbolization, displacement, that that in away shapes it audience‟s

te ersnain f itr i vra i verbal in history of representation (the

aig tef This itself. facing

iwr for viewers

unpredictab

ny oeie affect sometimes only ntuetlzto i a documentary a is instrumentalization opaganda or the defiance against defiance the or opaganda lgcl r bogt ml vsa sucs which sources visual ample brought era ological

According to Leni Riefenstahl, “p Riefenstahl, Leni to According oiia atvs becaus activism political social interaction, film inevitably becomes a part part a becomes inevitably film interaction, social le 9

imn process filming

con os o ma that mean not does

d h cnet f historyo of concept the ed determined the flow of history, instead of instead history, of flow the determined text of its relationship with the political the with relationship its of text rs themselves, and themselves, rs

h cus o history, of course the tails

point ofview point andbecauseof it F . .

nl eso o te im is film the of version inal e

film it

ae ad written and mages

do the g the

rup o Will of Triumph s oels and powerless is

es revalorization of revalorization Novi Filmograf Novi 8 reparations for for reparations

overnment. A overnment. o hv that have not Film photy they

also

have

(the has 7 - CEU eTD Collection 14 Contemporary History 13 12 11 10 9 it endeavor, is possible that suchhistoryscreen onthe elitist an increasingly is past, the about reading serious particularly reading, which in society thetext if must askourselves where we video when age multidimensionality. modern contemporary for enough this in fact, sensitive In not and linear too seem narratives fragmentariness. historiographical written, dominate technologies and view of point by characterized certain are approaches both concreteness: of level the in only lies event same large some about narrating between difference a under events of events of subsumption the predication.” of by acts by say, to is constituted which description, are facts occur; or happen “Events an be significanc would its what of and account happened, it adequate why happen, did exactly what just about historians between („debates historiography of essentialization Jarvie‟s Ian challenges White Hayden other.” the for substitute ev a not is one but nicely, other each complement can eve films from messages way inwhich produced.”are the not differs, that medium the only is It representation. filmed a of production the in used

Hayden White, “Historiography and Hitoriophoty,” Hist for Work film to Prolegomenon A Cinematography: as “Historiography Raack, R.J. White, “Historiography and Historiophoty,” 1196. White, “Historiography and Historiophoty,” 1196. Robert Rosenstone, Robert Brent Toplin,“The Filmmak dne ut e eonzd s having as recognized be must idence Robert Brent Toplin also came to a similar conclusion, similar a to came also Toplin Brent Robert ,

language i language ry bit of comprehensiveness of bit ry History on Film/Film on History ,18 (July 1983): 416.

s equally good foundation for fic for foundation good equally s

er asHistorian,”

e‟) 9 -

11 based historian

t ow its y eosrcig h mt o a itrcl fact: historical a of myth the deconstructing by

American Historical Review they see in books: “Films and written discourse written and “Films books: in see they 10

American Historical Review (Edinburgh: Pearson EducationLimited, 2006), 132. - scale event, like war, and visualization of the the of visualization and war, like event, scale 13

seiiiy before specificity n

ei rvlto bogt s o t to us brought revolution Media 12 tionalization as well as film image film as well as tionalization is the oftheis the history future.”

In a history that studies interpretation studies that history a In became

noticing that historians expect expect historians that noticing an endemic“Given a species: , vol.93

sig o its for asking , vol. 93 - 5(1988): 1194. - 5(1988): 1215. orians,” orians,” 10 14

accuracy

I Journal of Journal e point he magistic

; the ;

a . CEU eTD Collection eve Milutin film critic Yugoslav group. blockbuster fiction science or wars Roman ancient about films questio problematic raising musical Western like characteristics geographical specific 1.2 government pot Tito‟shave the for Yugoslavia) that filmwas traditi in impossible almost become can truth the na official the while films Yugoslav several in hinted least at or treated fully were nationalism unresolved partisan peasants, the from post requisition violent in like how topics show some Yugoslavia will thesis my of content The sources. written of choice o from inclined more is people of number large of superiority the systems. oppressive affirms only which truth absolute towards tendency for goes same and – and visible. specificityDue tothe ofaudio st very is historiography of control state which in societies authoritarian and totalitarian f ma f film seems as if it was made for different narration in which laws of textuality do not apply, donotapply, of whichlaws textuality made narration in for itwasdifferent asif film seems . nts and heroes of this, ours [20 ours this, of heroes and nts

War Film asa(State) Genre

books. Film language is more receptive than historian jargon which after long periods periods long after which jargon historian than receptive more is language Film books. nipulation cannot hide that hide cannot nipulation War film is not a straightforward a not is film War s Addition .

did not learndid not howtocontrol tional historiography remained silent remained historiography tional The concept of historiophoty is especially suitable for researching history of history researching for suitable especially is historiophoty of concept The l ifclis nld the include difficulties al

s t a fud n h rsac a te einn o ti thesis, this of beginning the at research the in found was it As ns such as such ns

scientific th Ĉolić ] century, and they should not be much older than film than older much be not should they and century, ]

: is every war film historical at the same time, or do or time, same the at historical film war every is :

to learn som learn to it

thinks that “war films as their topic should have theshouldtopic have filmstheir “war as thinks that . - genr

v “ isual isual syntax obj

11 iiaiis ewe wr n hsoia film historical and war between similarities e to define simply because it does not posses not does it because simply define to e ectiveness” very often conceals often very ectiveness”

ential for socialcritique,the especiallywhen ential for onal historiography, while new media (and media new while historiography, onal , which is yet another proof that quest for quest that proof another yet is which , s ething new about history from film than than film from history about new ething nr os t ae pcfc tl like style specific have it does nor , –

variety sounds,setdesign of shots, Star Wars Star

also belong to this this to belong also s atrocities, and atrocities, s

- a tendentious a a socialist war

today today r ong s, s, CEU eTD Collection 17 16 1984), 24. 15 identity, and history national shaping in tool important an becomes thus cinema War WWII. a Yugoslavia wars: and defeats.” enemy‟s and successes “entices and arguments political certain towar love develops represents it because political, all above weapon dangerous more yet and cheaper, much have Hitler‟s symptomatic equally f Lenin‟s dimension. manipulative their for mainly them, in politicians of interest increased for children‟sorahorrorfilm. décor a just was setting war cases other in while comedy, of shades the with “contaminated” Leshi the intermingle factors intern civil, be may films war ( f war alternative more are there although or more had who heroes its of conseqences a shows it Whether event. historical particular a with deal not must W does. film historical than drama, more lot a with and view of point personal itself.” amous statement that the film is the most important art of art important most the is film the that statement amous Ivan’s Childhood Ivan’s

Ĉolić Ĉolić Milutin best illustration for this clai this for illustration best

which posesses which , , 15 the Jugoslovenski ratni film Jugoslovenski ratni film Compared with the majority of other film genr film other of majority the with Compared

Ĉolić

oit no cm it big fe te ra Wr n Rsin ii War, Civil Russian and War Great the after being into came Union Soviet

during peacetime, war film as a rule deals with physical and ethical devastation ethical and physical with deals rule a as film war peacetime, during , tr ol Wr I Hte‟ Germany Hitler‟s II, War World fter Jugoslovenski ratni film ratni Jugoslovenski

and Susan Hayward agree that war film approaches its topic from one more one from topic its approaches film war that agree Hayward Susan and ) . Finally, war film very easily adopts various components of other genres; other of components various adopts easily very film war Finally, .

by Andrei Tarkovsky. Based on the cause of bloodshed, wars as well as well as wars bloodshed, of cause the on Based Tarkovsky. Andrei by ds the motherland, or hatred towards the enemy, propagating one‟s own one‟s propagating enemy, the towards hatred or motherland, the ds

m any of attributes of Western films Western of attributes of any , 32. , 15. declaration

less directly participat directly less

toa, eiiu, oiia, cnmc bt usu but economic, political, religious, ational, m may be one of the films the of one be may m 17

Many states find key moments of their birth or survival in survival or birth their of moments key find states Many [ Yugoslav War Film War Yugoslav : “Why should I draw a draw I should “Why : ilms with poetic overtones, such as such overtones, poetic with ilms 12

] (Belgrade: Institut za film; Titovo Uzice: Vesti, Vesti, Uzice: Titovo film; za Institut (Belgrade: ]

ed in war in ed rdcd a fls in films war produced – es

film?” ,

. Many examples of the genre were were genre the of examples Many . wa

them all is better is all them

analyzed in this thesis, this in analyzed r film distinguishes itself by the by itself distinguishes film r 16 . This genre is usually realistic, usually is genre This .

For these reasons war film is film war reasons these For canon on my enemy, when enemy, my on canon military conflict or its or conflict military

Ivanovo Detstvo Ivanovo known than known rprto for preparation ly l these all ally ar film, then, then, film, ar Captain

the

CEU eTD Collection Kansas 18 helped that Second counterp Soviet its Yugoslavia to similar all are they and cinematography, representations ofwar withindividualistic recollectionofhi exaggeratio be not would decades only surfaced accomplishments other of connotations film audience motivated who direc were there Stalin‟s like dictatorships rigid in Even elite. ruling the to compliance audien the entice s yet subtle, more owned, privately are companies production where democracies do film certain opin public the shape and audience biggest the attract to supposed are which spectacles of production the for funding the control states totalitarian peacetime becomes film rule, master as somemodest African film spectacular which on battlefield new a becomes cinematography mind, in this Bearing mistakes. their f war producing By conflicts. armed after even continues war of memories for fight the since ilms war victors try to preserve from oblivion their casualties and remind the defeated of defeated the remind and casualties their oblivion from preserve to try victors war ilms

Denise J. Youngblood, J. Denise s

, 2006), bu wr past war about ing ly, WWII in WWII ly, There are several reasons why war film occupied occupied film war why reasons several are There comparison Previous

the tools of film production, which is very visible during the war itself war the during visible very is which production, film of tools the

Black Hawk Down Hawk Black Yugoslavia a br ot f a of out born was 3.

s o si sae ol, t is it goals, state suit not es till present, mostly through support of the the of support through mostly present, till e o togr militancy. stronger to ce

cinematic form served as the rationale for rationale the as served form cinematic

pwru poaad wao fr teghnn o ptits. In patriotism. of strengthening for weapon propaganda powerful a Russian War Films: On the Cinema Front, Cinemathe On Films: War Russian

have in

o iw t view to

n to claim to n resist

s udrcr te infcne of significance the underscore s

evd s n leoy bu cneprr polm, while problems, contemporary about allegory an as served about warwithout about

(2001), financed directly by the Pentagon, takes Pentagon, the by directly financed (2001), ing a (WI ad t iapae in disappeared it and (WWII) war

e a i mo in war he strong enemies strong

that w that ar ar 13

film represents represents film

banned, censored or shelved. In capitalist capitalist In shelved. or censored banned,

a singleshotfired. e ope terms complex re r ieaorpy s a fo absolute from far is cinematography ar like Stalin‟s USSR. Third USSR. Stalin‟s like 1914 story army or army

2005 tt isiuin ad ues in rulers and institutions state clashes of collective and state and collective of clashes a maintaining integrative policy integrative maintaining

fe te rmee Thus, premiere. the after

pca pae n Yugoslav in place special ehnss f control of mechanisms

ion abo ion (Lawrence: University Press of Press University(Lawrence: occasions numerous On .

to art.

stressing of stories that stories of stressing a drn te 1990s. the during war 18

First, First, ut the war; when war; the ut ly , place as well as place the the the when, political socialist

as a as tors are

it a

CEU eTD Collection 19 not briefly, it put To future. the in about and present in Films both identity Yugoslavia‟s filmmaking. define therefore and and criticism mainstream/regime (2 revolution and struggle partisans‟ Yugoslav of stalwarts ideological at look we if but narratives, as and films as constructed primarily are they mean might that genre, a are political quite be might approach thematicthis for motivation Ĉolić‟s “Yugoslav W o ideology are There cinematography. g le at impression, an creates it that use colloquial in common so is film” “partisan term The film.” “revolutionary clarify 1.2.1 1960s, their becomeshistoriophoty intheanalysisofperiod. historyofthis the unavoidable merit “ films war Yugoslav which crimes on based official The not. could historians way the legacy war the about up was emergency speak to opportunity an had filmmakers Yugoslav Finally, of threatening. as saw leadership the state a vocabulary similar of t as well as times all at maintained help the with column;” fifth traitor, domestic enemies, “foreign like: phrases militant of full was Yugoslavia Tito‟s of rhetoric enre

Denise J.Youngblood, them as “war films”, it is easier to imagine that they are true to the historical war, one of of one war, historical the to true are they that imagine to easier is it films”, “war as them . s of a particular film.” particular a of s wih s o etrl tu bcue im wt prias lo xs in exist also partisans with films because true entirely not is which ,

War/Partisan/Revolutionary Film?

Althou h i ti tei I emp I thesis this in why Branko f “war film “war f ar Film”ar h t is gac i mi it glance first at gh Ţivojin Petranović

ast on the the on ast Russian War Films authenticity authenticity , : ”

Pavlović the term the

19 pnos ht “partis that opinions

s ok cud not could work, ‟s

Given the level of freedom Yugoslav directors enjoyed in the in enjoyed directors Yugoslav freedom of level the Given ertr o ex of territory

established by established loy nd hwd in showed is more important than than important more is he readiness to defend the country from any opponent that opponent any from country the defend to readiness he

World War in Yugoslavia) should Yugoslavia) in War World

, 3. the term “war film,” rather than “partisan film” and and film” “partisan than rather film,” “war term the h b seen be ght

14 h Ambush The -

the the Yugoslavia, n im i a oua tr unmasking term popular a is film” an ae rae aot rtn on writing about dreamed have

frequent quoting of quoting frequent s te as rminologica accuracy Teeoe i te icus of discourse the in Therefore, .

t s n uohhnc Yugoslav autochthonic an is it –

if we imply that partisan films partisan that imply we if

historical literature, historical in assessing the historical historical the assessing in

tell the truth about history about truth the tell cenies I ih to wish I cleanliness, l Milutin Ĉolić Milutin the

‟s book, ‟s partisan partisan

mostly Sovie

the the t

CEU eTD Collection 67 (1969): 5. 21 6. Ţivorad 20 only film” “partisan and film” “war terms the use will I thesis this in was, revolution the correct how matter no Yet, film.” revolutionary “Yugoslav but film, spi the or sense because the also but fight, the of continuation logical the was it because only not revolution], [i.e. it after came what from freedom differentiate to impossible is it core poetic and historic the in that warandabout revolution. Moreover, that (Ranko historians film Yugoslav the of some Therefore war. the continues which revolution communist the for battle a also but USSR), or Poland (e.g. countries European Eastern other some in like occupation the against film”“partisan ideologywhenever of latte the prefer I reasons these For film.matrixpartisan genre‟s the ofthe follow not does filmwhich war a film, is, that partisan treat to correct more be would it Therefore visualization. formal Neretva of Battle Pavlović's Ţivojin place. taking is fight so with group contend films‟ the of undermining the trut claim historical to avoiding in functional is films partisan of nature genre the stressing

Nikica Ranko differentia specifica differentia - Ţika In the same manner same the In freedom partisan the of specificity The fromApart possibility that the

Munitić Gilić that

Mitrović , “Narrative and Genre Influences of the International Classical Cinema in the Partisan Films of of Films Partisan the in Cinema Classical International the of Influences Genre and “Narrative ,

various Yugoslav films about war could not easily be categorized in the same the in categorized be easily not could war about films Yugoslav various - , “Jugoslavenski film o revoluciji” [“Yugoslav Film about Revolution”], about Film [“Yugoslav revoluciji” o film “Jugoslavenski , called “partisan called , not just on the level the on just not ,

,”(Zagreb: article ,”(Zagreb: h Ambush The hfulness or, at least, verisimilitude. atleast, hfulness or,

P ltcly provocative olitically of the Yugoslav war film is exactly the combination of narratives of combination the exactly is film war Yugoslav the of

the term “war film,” although I will use it interchangeably with interchangeably it use will I although film,” “war term the Munitić

films” are , rit of the movement remained the same. the remained of themovement rit for a collection of texts on Yugoslav film soon to be published, 2012), published, be to soon film Yugoslav on texts of collection a for

claims that the topic of discussions should not be a war a be not should discussions of topic the that claims Munitić

“war film”highe a presupposes because in former films demythologization of partisa of demythologization films former in because

consistently opposing typical partisan films like like films partisan typical opposing consistently of

historical

15 r is notdisputable. argues

im o te uolv lc Wv, led Wave, Black Yugoslav the of films

- ih i Ygsai ws o ol te war the only not was Yugoslavia in fight

interpretation 20

even after the formal end of end formal the after even , but also from the from also but , Munitić Th 21 - r degree ofr degree I credibility, fight of Yugoslav people people Yugoslav of fight Munitić

Ambush e

, Ĉolić Filmska kultura Filmska ‟s emphasis of emphasis ‟s ) consider )

s n anti an as

aspect The

by ed of n - -

CEU eTD Collection 2010) 23 19 22 c his and Tito from criticism positive screeni a to invited unexpectedly approval his receive to Pula in festival film Yugoslav watched leader Yugoslav the that indications w emerging Yugoslav Yugoslavia which after and Party communist WWII 2.1 2. filmmakersthe themselves. of practice and in theory both present is it especiallybecause either, revolutionary component t because

r yas hn Tito when years ere Ţ. Štaubringer, - ia Turajli Mila

June 2, 1977, 14. . aea Leši Kapetan A Censored War Film War A Censored

Political andCultural Context ofthe Yugo .

the administrative management of cinematography under the under managementcinematography of administrative the hr ae he iprat atr fr h development the for factors important three are There he genre is tied to the historical period of the WWII, but one should not forget the the forget not should one but WWII, the of period historical the to tied is genre he

rm t bei it from cnm. hogot i rl Tt showed Tito rule his Throughout economy. ć, iea Komunisto Cinema “Tito filmu o

g i fvrt pastime favorite his ng

Josip Broz Josip

watch opened up to up opened beforehand. ( – ati Leshi Captain

filmski oTitu”[“ radnici

prior to prior dcmnay im Sri: rbln Picture Dribbling (Serbia: film documentary ,

n fl pr a, noig oty Westerns. mostly enjoying day, per film one ng of his own film in Tito‟s residence, where he received received he where residence, Tito‟s in film own his of ng Tito himself; the conflict between Tito and Stalin in 1948 in Stalin and Tito between conflict the himself; Tito 23 losest colleagues who where essentially giving essentially where who colleagues losest

the West; and the introd the and West; the n n occasion one On offic ial premiere and that the award the that and premiere ial 16 Tt‟ piae cine private Tito‟s . , 1960) by by 1960) ,

Tito Filmabout

im ta wr sree a te biggest the at screened were that films slav Cinematography inthe ,

h drco Vladimir director the ra intere great –

uction of self of uction Filmmakers Tito], about f uolv a fl: after film: war Yugoslav of - operator stated that there there that stated operator

Živorad ever watchful eyes of the the of eyes ever watchful t o te eet art, seventh the for st ad nemda Network, Intermedia and s - win - management in in management

ning film had film ning Pogaĉić 22 M

hr are There itrović OKO

his film his 1950s

was May :

CEU eTD Collection 27 Saboteur Actions agai 1945 kinematografije jugoslovenske 26 2004), 47. Period Administrative the in Cinematography Yugoslav the of 25 Belgrade: YU film danas,1996), 260 24 allowed state Cinemat for Committee of suspension of question negotiate to had film. single every for competition fierce a themselves in producers with contracts business they onwards moment that from that meaning worker” film pretense, saving economic false the under allow to refused republics Certain decentralization. political USSR became films the all financing the f the During casting. the approved and Committee state and departm of array production an established Committee film organize to supposed as well as cinemas, new was of opening education, it and founded was a Cinematography) 1946 In AGITPROP). or propaganda, like committees Party‟s his own permit. screening a

Ranković, Radenko Ranković, Radenko Vladimir Goran Miloradović, “Domaci trileri u inostranoj reziji: Obavestajne i saboterske aktivnosti protiv protiv aktivnosti saboterske i Obavestajne reziji: inostranoj u trileri “Domaci Miloradović, Goran

film crew, and gave instructions for editing of the dailies. the of editing for instructions gave and crew, film - u companies run ,

utr i the in Culture

n cud hear could one character the waycharacter did the films. Stalin in Soviet

Organizacija jugoslovenske kinematografije - Pogaĉić appoin the the the commercialization of film w film of commercialization , establishment of cinema companies and supported the import of films in in films of import the supported and companies cinema of establishment nst thenst Yugoslav Film Industry, 1945 e mngr o tee companies these of managers ted 24 Organizacija jugoslovenske kinematografije u administrativnom periodu administrativnom u kinematografije jugoslovenske Organizacija eiiin, mgnri zapisi imaginarni Definitivno,

In spite of this direct interference direct this of spite In

salse o te repu the on established

el fed uolva icuig im ws t is cnrle by controlled first at was film, including Yugoslavia, freed newly al o decentralizati for call Odeljenje za agitaciju i propagandu i agitaciju za Odeljenje

- 261. - 95 [oetc hilr Drce b Frinr: nelgne and Intelligence Foreigners: by Directed Thrillers [Domestic 1955”

utial atr h cnlc bten uolva and Yugoslavia between conflict the after sustainable ography, which helped downsize helped which ography, ilming process, the Co the process, ilming 26 ents which bureaucratized cinematography. Only cinematography. bureaucratized which ents

as raised. as whilst 17

oie z kinematografiju za Komitet n f im rdcin hc ws later was which production film of on

[ the eiiey Imaginary Definitely, , 64.

lc n sae ee cud rdc films produce could level state and blic - 1955],

import

filmmakers got the status of a “freelance a of status the got filmmakers

(oi a: Novosadska Sad: (Novi ]

approved screenplays, chose directors directors chose screenplays, approved The f The , Tito never requested glorification of glorification requested never Tito , Godišnjakza društvenuistoriju ation irst step in that in step irst mmittee supervised the work of work the supervised mmittee

the the (Department for agitation and agitation for (Department and export and

Since the policy of the state the of policy the Since closure of filming studios studios filming of closure Notes

] Nv Sd Prometej; Sad: (Novi ,] the bureaucracy the ation

direction was the the was direction rn, vza film, Zvezda arena, Cmite for (Committee 27

of films. This films. of

In 1950 In [

Organisation 1(2010): 77.

id to tied . The . ,

the .

CEU eTD Collection in Serbia, 1952 30 srpski, 2008), 29 28 impacted greatly This ope Yugoslavia liberties, cultural pessimistic cancelati space that told, be Truth arts. all in experiments modernist for space the opened and souls” the of “engineers Stalin Association for opportunities and collaboratorscompletely ontheirown. mentioned on Later portrait. Stalin‟s without celebrated collect in interested thereafter th from deleted and Abram Sovietby the director ofthis Producers social Rom. was war the after film cinematography. of control rigid its relinquish to state the forced unsustainability economic and Stalin with tax through production domestic for funding more gain to order

Ranković, MiomirGatalović, Aleksandar Vranješ, Aleksandar the ive. Afrić ive. The break from the from break The The Red Army were Mosfilm and Yugoslav companies, but for political reasons political for but companies, Yugoslav and Mosfilm were Army Red n f eeras o Becket‟s for rehearsals of on proclaimed to be war film war be to proclaimed , giving , Organizacija jugoslovenske kinematografije

- Informbiro period left period Informbiro in 1952 in -

1958 u i brought it but the Yugoslav e

changed the historical image of Rom‟s work, since in since work, Rom‟s of image historical the changed cooperation with the West. During During West. the with cooperation ] (Belgrade: Institut zasavremenu istoriju, 2010), 67 Darovana sloboda: Partija i kultura u Srbiji 1952 Srbijiu Partija Darovanakultura sloboda:i

mlmtc oie f arfcn a idvda i te i the in individual an sacrificing of motive emblematic the Partizanski filmovi i pro i filmovi Partizanski

Miroslav

the film industry as is evident in the fact that in 1957 only 7. only 1957 in that fact the in evident is as industry film the false impression that that impression false U planina U

still

USSR

im itr. h frt im f h cmuit uolva was Yugoslavia communist the of film first The history. film oiie hne i te 90. n diin o dpig certain adopting to addition In 1960s. the in changes positive

remained Krleţa ma Jugoslavije ma ned its market for the import from import the for market its ned

brought significant brought its mark on war film as well. The f The well. as film war on mark its , backed up by the political elite, called Zhdanov and Zhdanov called elite, political the by up backed , Slavica Slavica

very narrow during narrow very play paganda 29 the the

, in partisan in , 18 atn fr Godot for Waiting (19 , 65.

Yugoslav communist Yugoslav

[ ( Partisan Films and Propaganda and Films Partisan In the Yugoslav Mountains Yugoslav the In 47), directed by Vjekoslav Afri Vjekoslav by directed 47),

the Third congress of Yugoslav Writers Yugoslav of congress Third the

changes in cultural politics, as well as well as politics, cultural in changes

films - - realist story aboutpartisans brave 1958 the the .

, the , es.

1950s [ Given LibertyGiven hc ws eetd s too as rejected was which 28

Red Army Red

s That is how is That the capitalist c capitalist the

, as , defeat Slavica irst Yugoslav feature Yugoslav irst

can be s be can ] (Banja Luka: Glas Luka: (Banja ] , 1947), directed 1947), , ed the occupiers occupiers the ed : Party and Party

trs o the of nterest is barely even barely is war victory is victory war the ć een in the the in een

6% of the the of 6% who was who ountries. ountries. conflict

Culture it was it 30

CEU eTD Collection Director Film with Jovan Joca Ţivanović”], Interview Authorized An Generation:‟ „Liquidated of Voice [“The Ţivanovićem” Jocom 33 in Westerns Partisan and Yugoslavia inthe 1960s”], Westerns American Uniforms: Partisan in [“Cowboys veka” 20. godina sezdesetih 32 Srbije, 2011), 182. 1945 Yugoslavia in Culture Popular Commercial: to International 31 a had companies production companies competitive very Fe Film from criticized co film, This Kautner. Helmut director German film war a was production UFUS w which filmingcompanies cit of Jovan director the UFUS, of founders henc company, give should much too spent Zagreb) in film Jadran or Belgrade, establishment afore chapter. film war Club), Yugoslav influence Wayne John a even was there Zagreb (in Western winning repertoire, films. Yugoslav watched audience

Zoran Janjetović, Zoran oa Mi Goran aia uei, “Ka Vuĉetić, Radina frh FS, one i 1953. in founded UFUS), eforth etoe rognzto o cnmtgah cetd eesr cniin for conditions necessary created cinematography of reorganization mentioned izens is permitted is izens The p The

stival award. The success of success The award. stival

loradović, the the

fu roclamation of self of roclamation

nding, forcing some filmmakers to join their forces in t in forces their join to filmmakers some forcing nding, enterprises production smaller of duej flsi uenk Srbije umetnika filmskih Udruženje various sides in Yugoslavia in sides various

Od “Internacionale” do komercijale: Popularna kultura u Jugoslaviji 1945 Jugoslaviji u kultura Popularna komercijale: do “Internacionale” Od

“Glas „likvidirane generacije:‟ Autorizovani intervju sa filmskim rediteljem Jovanom Jovanom rediteljem filmskim sa intervju Autorizovani generacije:‟ „likvidirane “Glas bj u atznkj nfri Aeik vsen i atznk vsen u Jugoslaviji u vesterni partizanski i vesterni Americki uniformi: partizanskoj u uboji

the affection of the audience. audience. the of affection the Godišnjak zadruštvenu istoriju Tokovi istorije

t o form an enterprise an form o ere

. However, the freedom of film author had its limits: smaller smaller limits: its had author film of freedom the However, . board of directors composed directors of board s

Ti ipc wl b cniee i frhr detail further in considered be will impact This .

at that timeat - management for state econom state for management ,

2(2010), 132. 31 Poslednji most Poslednji

UFUS opened the door fo door the opened UFUS mrcn im sprse te oit ns fr ones Soviet the suppressed films American Ţivanović I n

; trying to sabotage their new opponent their new to sabotage trying meig ih dad Kardelj Edvard with meeting a

only to only 19 , thus destroying the destroying thus ,

, called upon the law that stated that a group group a that stated that law the upon called , Lre state Large . 2010): -

rdcd ih n utin ate, was partner, Austrian an with produced

receive appraisals after it won it after receive appraisals ( h ms popul most The The Last Bridge Last The Ascain f im A Film of (Association

91. ie eiig o wh to deciding time - 1991

of managers which defended both defended which managers of 32 ] (Belgrade: Institut za noviju istoriju noviju za Institut (Belgrade: ] - owned studios (Avala film in in film (Avala studios owned

ic hc wl i mn aspects many in will which

r the establishment of new, new, of establishment the r doctrine combined with the with combined doctrine

monopoly of state of monopoly r mrcn er was genre American ar , 1954), directed by the the by directed 1954), , he f he irst smaller filming smaller irst o , c poet they project ich tss f Serbia, of rtists e f h co the of ne s

. n h next the in the Cannesthe 33 - 1991.

The f The - m the om owned owned [ From

irst the -

CEU eTD Collection 35 savremene umetnosti, 2007), 28. 34 successfulvery of career who adirector Yugoslav record helda oftwentyf war, the after Mitrović immediately Yugoslavia magazines in t of film school chairman the approached film American no to was there subscribed Since got he after Cinematography Soon language. English of magazines. comic Yugoslav Prairie 1938 in comics, of author withwas fascinated the American comichis Asa booksandfilmsince childhood. ever 2.2 Western.and director, idiosyncratic of emergence the film the in as past the of glorification ideological from genre this of Examples films. war in especially companies, production smaller gave changes whose mo council art members, an had company Every interests. Party‟s as well as financial own their

Interview with Zdravko Zupan, Zdravko .

Creation of a Private Hollywood ) in the comic magazine comic the in ) on n 91 n egae te ietr of director the Belgrade, in 1921 in Born ‟s knowledge and hired him to film a documentary about the army. the about documentary a film to him hired and knowledge ‟s

ty rit, prvd screenplays approved artists, stly rise to results; in results; to rise

Ţivorad Vek stripa u Srbiji u stripa Vek

and

Mitrović Hollywood Report Hollywood Daleko je sunce je Daleko Mitrović

the partisan movement aiming to aiming movement partisan the 34 , accessed November 27, 2011,

he Film Committee Aleksandar Vuĉ Aleksandar Committee Film he

He invested earnings from drawing comics i comics drawing from earnings invested He

parallel with the gradual weakening of the control system in in system control the of weakening gradual the with parallel

[ Donald Duck Donald The Century of Comics in Serbia in Comics of Century The direct

published a western comic western a published

r sace mr ad oe for more and more searched ors ( , from which he drew first lessons about filmmaking. about lessons first drew he which from , Sun is Far Away Far is Sun Ţivorad

20 , and later continued collaboration with other with collaboration continued later and ,

Mitrov o flig Nvrhls, organiz Nevertheless, filming. for ati Leshi Captain http://novikadrovi.net/razno/3 h 15s lwy e slowly 1950s the ić , 1953). T 1953). , , and his mixture of the war film war the of mixture his and ,

existentialist re existentialist ] (Pancevo: Kulturni centar, Galerija centar, Kulturni (Pancevo: ] Duh prerije Duh , o, who was impressed by impressed was who o, Ţivorad he t he rue detour came with with came detour rue eature films.eature

( “ n private lessons private n e expression, new volved The Ghost of the the of Ghost The 35 - Ţika examination of examination

Thus started a started Thus - razno.php ”

Mitrović from M

ational itrović young

the the ,

CEU eTD Collection 39 38 37 Tokovi istorije 36 censoring of case the entertainment, on marketing. without success no brings which business” “large age is success of indicator main the where principles Hollywood ha people the and free, is country the how notion the of affirmation being not as cinematography Yugoslav debut his for background reje got scripts his of dozen a After halls. into cinemamore the failedaudience directors attractrepeatedly to other all when deeplyrootedto a preju manner idealized and stylish in represented was Kosovo films these of both of producer a being latter the film, Slavija and UFUS companies Belgrade f the so cinematography, own its developing (Abdurahman film. Albanian Kosovar a that time first the was This 1955). Mitrović instance, for Yugoslavia; of part level. culture health lowest the with regions Yugoslav backward the of one was Metohija and Kosovo a as perceived often was which Kosovo, of state region, autonomous this of documentary Interview with Interview with Petrit Imami,“Film Kosovu na posle drugogsvetskog rata Ivana Mitrović

37 studio studio Avala film

Mitrović Mitrović projects initial After Dobrivojević ln wt eooi ad oil eeomn polm, ooo a lt with late was Kosovo problems, development social and economic with Along

also shot the first feature film in Kos filmin feature first the shot also

ppy and content. and ppy - stated that he always thought always he that stated Mitrović 2 (2008): 243. Mitrović was waiting for a long time to make a feature film and finally got a chance chance a got finally and film feature a make to time long a for waiting was , “Kultura zivljenja u Jugoslaviji (1945 Jugoslaviji u zivljenja “Kultura , the the

, accessed , accessed Captain Leshi Captain previous quote previous . The film depicts cooperation ofThe filmdepicts Serbs. a dice ofKosovar culturalunderdevelopment.

Doctor M.’s Echelone M.’s Doctor Mitrović

on 38 cted, cted, on

To his advantage, new smaller companies were based on the the on based were companies smaller new advantage, his To November 27, 2011, November 27, 2011, he , which I discuss further in the thesis, the director found director the thesis, the in further discuss I which ,

went to Kosovo and Metohija, where he filmed the first first filmed the he where Metohija, and Kosovo to went does not mean that he was politically aut politically was he that mean not does

found an exotic setting in Kosovo and Metohija as a as Metohija and Kosovo in setting exotic an found Prve svetlosti Prve

film is the “most attractive entertainment” and a and entertainment” attractive “most the is film ilm image of this region was devised mainly by mainly devised was region this of image ilm 21 ovo, ovo,

. In his opi his In . http://novikadrovi.net/razno/4 ,” http://novikadrovi.net/razno/3 Ešalon Novi Filmograf - 1955),” [“Lifestyle in Yugoslavia (1945 Yugoslavia in [“Lifestyle 1955),” ( First Lights First

doktora M doktora nion this film was a novelty a was film this nion

39 a nd Albanians in electrification in nd Albanians

box office result; office box Despite Despite

5 - 6 (2008/2009):6 65.

, 1949) produced by the by produced 1949) , ( Doctor M.’s Echelone M.’s Doctor Mitrović Šalja - - , Leshi Captain razno.php razno.php

as an alternative an as sard n a in starred ) istic. Beside istic. ‟s emphasis ‟s in his elder his in

- 1955)]

. In . for 36 ,

CEU eTD Collection 41 third most powerful manin communist Yugoslavia after 40 estates” “monastic means which μετόχια, word Greek the from in location mentioned is Metohija the that fact of the to name due also official but 1974, the until province was Serbian southern this because only not is Kosovo, only of instead Metohija, Metohija. precisely, more or Metohija, 2.3 film. open of Regardless issues. historical on standpoints with dogmatic politicians and censors the of all please to impossible almost was it when time the at in enemy stronger over itself selection op that seems it true, be may in film and politics between film be foundinother the that out pointed be Austro over should Serbia of victory it the celebrated director, the of persecution serious no was there Drinu himself

Interview with Ranković was a Minister of the Internal Affairs of Yugoslavia from 1946 from Yugoslavia of Affairs Internal the of Minister a was Ranković ny s i yugr olaus i b te n o te 90. ahr t a te topic the was it Rather 1960s. the of end the by did colleagues younger his as enly .

Being Kosovar Albanian: The Origin of Captain Leshi and His Enemies ed

(

March to Drina to March The fictitious character of Captain Leshi was born in Prizren, a town in Kosovo and and Kosovo in town a Prizren, in born was Leshi Captain of character fictitious The the space for opposed interpretations of nationalis of interpretations opposed for space the Exampl in conflict in Mitrović – es of of es

the fight against Albanian nationalists in nationalists Albanian against fight the Mitrović

with Aleksandar Aleksandar with

, ati Leshi Captain NIN Captain Leshi Captain , 1964) , March to Drina to March

‟s films.‟s (1993). Mitrović

Mitrović

for alleged propagation alleged for

did not want to provoke and criticize the government as as government the criticize and provoke to want not did Ranković and . This . s ok i rte abgos Wie hs conclusion this While ambiguous. rather is works ‟s

The reason why I why reason The

– ac t Drina to March

that made that south - 22 Hungary. Similar natio Similar Hungary. 40

Josip BrozTito andEdvard Kardelj.

who attacked his World War I epic epic I War World his attacked who - western part of the province got its name its got province the of part western Mitrović

of Ser of Mitrović Captain Leshi Captain insist on insist

m and partisan movement in this in movement partisan and m demonstrate that the relationship relationship the that demonstrate bian nationalism. bian

defend himself fr himself defend - 1966. He was considered to be the be to considered was He 1966. ‟s intention, ‟s

- the

a reference to the large large the to reference a nalistic nuances can not can nuances nalistic

toponym Kosovo and and Kosovo toponym

and Serbian triumph Serbian and

Captain Leshi Captain

Even though Even om criticism om a frequently Mar

CEU eTD Collection Institut za savremenu istor Drugom svetskom ratu 43 2004), 119. 42 by explained be during authorities Serbian might with conflicts Albanian partisans to comparison in ballists of supremacy Numerical war. the during later only appeared units a mixed while Soon formed, were 1942. units partisan September Montenegrin of end the by formed was unit ballists with agreement an reached themselves representing ballists, the main Albania. Greater creating of goal anti anticommunist, an become to only to the threat majora as Italians against messages populist With Metohija. and Kosovo in to 1942 out spread November then in and Albania merchants and landowners Albanian the by financed and founded many remained withinfor Albanians, Serbia. surprisingly quite war, the after which territory a on nationalists Albanian and communists Leshi Captain fact except the that, by emphasized more even is names the of Symbolism mark. religious or national been always have regions and towns “ means Orthodox Serbian the by owned were that Ages. Middle the during monasteries region the in estates and villages of number

Robert Elsie, Robert Branislav n dsr t elre h anti the enlarge to desire a In dur movement paramilitary Albanian largest The the plateau of plateau the

Boţović

for Historical Dictionary of Kosovo of Dictionary Historical . This .

a minor role of the teacher, there are no characters of Serbian nationality in nationality Serbian of characters no are there teacher, the of role minor a

n Milorad and [

Cruelin Times Kosovo andMetohija: Quislings andCollaborationWWII in

is why dramatic conflict turns into intra into turns conflict dramatic why is iju, 1991), 296. Lekë Dukagjini Lekë

the

Vavić

Albanian nation, Balli K Balli nation, Albanian 43

that lasted only for a month. The f The month. a for only lasted that uoa rmn n Ksv i eoii Kilni klbrcj u kolaboracija i Kvislinzi Metohiji: i Kosovu na vremena Surova called Kombetar Balli of forces armed the of Members In Albanian the area is called called is area the Albanian In ,” a noted Albanian medieval nobleman. medieval Albanian noted a ,” - - acs fot i Ags 14 Ygsa communists Yugoslav 1943 August in front, fascist cnlcig oi, seily f hy oe strong a bore they if especially topic, conflicting a Yugoslav and anti and Yugoslav villains in villains (Lanham, Maryland, Toronto and Oxford: Scarecrow Oxford: and Toronto Maryland, (Lanham,

the inter the Captain Leshi ombetar attracted many sympathizers sympathizers manyattracted ombetar - Greek organization with the main the with organization Greek n WI was WWII ing - war period, and positive signals signals positive and period, war - tr ohr lain r Serbo or Albanian other fter, national war between Albanian between war national . Rrafshi i Dukagjinit i Rrafshi

irst Albanian partisan Albanian irst al Kombetar Balli

The names of of names The ] (Belgrade: 42

Press,

and - , CEU eTD Collection 44 thiswhether Leshi Captain out, pointed already was it As Metohija. and Kosovo in built be to was that state the of form nationalists Albanian and opting By culture. advanced less and more i.e. guys, “bad” and “good” in the choose to nations forced been two have would between he which conflict a about story stereotypical a of trap the avoided director fough who Serbs excluding By characters. Yugoslav federation. to threat serious a presented therefore and war, the after well exist to continued lat the that is ballists and Germans between difference main The cunningness. Leshi‟s to thanks captured easily are they when filmthe of beginning the at onlyseen Germansare ballists, who the joined deserter, atypical an Helmut, for films.Except partisans the of enemies usual the were who Germans the than role important more a play Ballists war. the during Albanians Kosovar amongst popularity their mind in having partisans. the towards support their shifted Allies paramount, became Yugoslavia of liberation the in Italians. the fighting help needed who Allies Western the from

Boţović nte iprat ainl su in issue national important Another Mitrović

and

Vavić cinematic civil war resembledcinematic civilwar American CivilWar in Westerns. the

otis ay lmns f h Wsen er, n nw usin remains question now and genre, Western the of elements many contains

surely chose ballists as the main enemies of the partisans in partisans the of enemies main the as ballists chose surely , Surova vremena naKosovui Metohiji

Mitrović

for the conflict between the communists of Albanian descent descent Albanian of communists the between conflict the for

alluded that the civil war between Albanians decided the the decided Albanians between war civil the that alluded i Ksv bt a prias n cenk, the chetniks, and partisans as both Kosovo in t 24

ati Leshi Captain , 303.

ter‟s idea of independent Kosovo independent of idea ter‟s 44

is the absence of Serbian Serbian of absence the is When the role of the Soviets the of role the When Captain Leshi Captain

in war in

CEU eTD Collection a be to considers he whom Ahmet, chase to him allowing not for Leshi Demir morning Major to following protests The her. with sleeps he and voice melodious her with attention hisbecause father bequeathedittoAhmet. anyway, piano the her give not can he that her tells Leshi embrace. his from away breaks she bo father his piano the her show to father deceased his to belonged that house the to her invites Leshi classes. music for school her to piano the lend to Leshi asks Vida professor beautiful piano only the sell to their Leshi‟s happinessBecker. spoiled is informationby the that Ahmetmet withColonelBecker. for ballists, his the and Leshi of Demir, Major leaders officer, superior his of Ahmet, permission the With partisans. brother the against fight the Leshi‟s in collaboration and Kosta thanks Becker fier break to trying are partisans voice Leshi‟s Captain with begins story The film. the of summary Leshi Yugoslavism movement, of partisan the in spectacle inte an to leading data, biographical some and in namestheir to according be inferred can descent their However, nationalists. and communists characters the of nationality screenwriter/director the that note to important is it genre 2.4 ught for his talented brother Ahmet. Being a great womanizer, Leshi tries to kiss Vida, but Vida, kiss to tries Leshi womanizer, great a Being Ahmet. brother talented his for ught .

Captain Leshi , aswell asthecensoringof filmdiscussedin In the biggest Prizren taver Prizren biggest the In him asks innkeeper An hometown. his in legend walking a be to considered is Leshi ele about arguments my follow better to order In Western of framework the in representation national of analysis of purpose the For The

Battle of Neretva Neretva of Battle

as a Kosovar Western n rze, we b Lsis elh fml, u Lsi eue. A refuses. Leshi but family, wealthy Leshi‟s by owned Prizren, in lto dsus tesle a Gra slir ad capture and soldiers German as themselves disguise platoon e emn eitne n rze. h Gra Colonel German The Prizren. in resistance German ce n everybody salutes Leshi. A singer Lola attracts Leshi's attracts Lola singer A Leshi. salutes everybody n in which characters of different nationalities support support nationalities different of characters which in ati Leshi, Captain

Captain Leshi Captain 25

resting conclusion: unlike the mainstream mainstream the unlike conclusion: resting

anann te eea dvso of division general the maintaining the the

one nation dominates. one nation next sub et of ments Ţivorad - chapter, Iwillfirstoffer a

- Mitrović the over explaining that the that explaining over

etr in Western

did not specify specify not did

Captain Captain

CEU eTD Collection he when distant gets but time, much so after Lola meet to glad is Kosta first At executed. hou Vida‟s in Ahmet seen have might he that Lola village peoplehim toa Kosta‟s tobring near the border. i committee ballist the with Yugoslav the cross Kosta suggests ballists, the with stayed who Helmut, deserter, German A help. Vida‟s with escapes j his finish Leshi let and place safe a in away all ballists.destroying large a started peasants, by supported army, communist the that them tells captur ballists the lets knowingly Eventually,Sok activities. Leshi‟s about Demir to reports friend, war Leshi‟s Sok, revenge. get to people Kosta‟s joins Leshi event, gruesome ne the day Next lines. Kosta‟s in infiltration for plan a with up comes Leshi shootout. the after Ahmet Leshi. leaves with Following retreat. Germans‟ the after ballists even the with stay to word his gave Ahmet partisan. a became Leshi after interrogation and suspicion constant under was family their because ballists the joined he that Leshi tells soon Ahmet, after s Kosta‟s to alone him takes who ballist another of traces the finding goes Leshi discovery, this by Encouraged anyone. killed has never Ahmet that Leshi to reveals who ballist a capture and back fight partisans but village, Ahmet why wonders Leshi ballists. the ended upwith war. to going of afraid was Ahmet indecisive seemingly and Inthetraitor. family h s s none ta Amt a hne. rtnig o e nae b te alleged the by enraged be to Pretending hanged. was Ahmet that announced is ws Kosta invites Lola, his old love, to escape with him to Greece. Kosta‟s courier warns courier Kosta‟s Greece. to him with escape to love, old his Lola, invites Kosta stay to him urging Leshi, help to request Ahmet‟s rejects Demir Prizren, in Back partisans three killing and retaliation Kosta‟s provoking for Leshi criticizes Demir Despite Ahmet‟s reluctance, the ballists attack the partisan headquarte partisan the attack ballists the reluctance, Ahmet‟s Despite ouse Leshi recallsouse Leshi howtwo agohe years joined the whilepartisans, soft

Greek border. Therefore, Kosta orders Sok to arrange an escape escape an arrange to Sok orders Kosta Therefore, border. Greek n Skopje. Sok reports this information to Demir, who instructs who Demir, to information this reports Sok Skopje. n

26 sotu atr ot‟ rfsl o surrender, to refusal Kosta‟s after shootout a ob. Nonetheless, Ahmet can not sit still so he he so still sit not can Ahmet Nonetheless, ob.

e tog eeyoy huh h was he thought everybody though se,

quad in the mountains. Ahmet Ahmet mountains. the in quad - scale action for action scale rs in a small a in rs e him and him e CEU eTD Collection that suggests these films “may have been open tomultiple andeven resistant,ideological readings.” which(ibid.) domination‟” alien of „form a as socialism against “resistance represented Westerns Red 1960s 45 anti such no are there anti the against fight so the international the in May, than role rather Marx main “…Karl the cowboys: given were Indians May, Karl of literature the by from films DEFA way the in Europe. Eastern First, in films similar more from as well as 1950s, the in Westerns Hollywood toconnection revolution the andthe aswellstylecivil war, as chara by followed Mitrović Miles Burning The peo Caucasian large indigenous of participation revolver, a from shooting desert, films These War. Civil following the or revolution, Russian the during USSR the of parts Asian so the to close group disobedience. kil time, the all squad the by ambushed are Kosta‟s followed who ballists Ahmet, surrender. to The refuses Kosta after feelings. shooting start who her partisans hurt Kosta after kept she secret a alive, When claims. Kosta border, she the as reach finally interest ballists best his in albeit men, many with slept she that remembers

Tim Bergfelder, Tim - imperialist sentiments provided the answer to the quest for identity.” for quest the to answer the provided sentiments imperialist

st (New York: Berghahn Books, 2004), 203. There are indications in Ber in indications are There 203. 2004), Books, Berghahn York: (New Captain Leshi Captain eid evl o te s of use the on heavily relied number of Soviet Easterns was Easterns Soviet of number oee, dooia fudto of foundation ideological However, sub western of spectrum wide a In ‟s first film with the elements of Western, of elements the with film first ‟s

Captain Leshi Captain

International Adventures: German Popular Cinema and European Co European and Cinema Popular German Adventures: International

is not a parody of parody a not is 15) t h tm we te em atr ws o yt ond Since coined. yet not was Eastern term the when time the at (1957) - called Easterns, which were mostly Soviet films set in the steppes o steppes the in set films Soviet mostly were which Easterns, called ls Kosta. Leshi embraces Vida, while Demir forgives Ahmet for his for Ahmet forgives Demir while Vida, embraces Leshi Kosta. ls - imperialis in 1960, it could be said that his films preceded Easterns in their in Easterns preceded films his that said be could it 1960, in

the

ad anti and t 1960s were. In these East German Red Westerns, inspired Westerns, Red German East these In were. 1960s

etr ioorpy icuig os cae ars the across chases horse including iconography, Western

the the produced in produced strangles Lola for concealing the fact that Ahmet is Ahmet that fact the concealing for Lola strangles - Western, nor the ironical modi ironical the nor Western, genres - mrcn oe; as notes; American Captain Leshi Leshi Captain 27

Captain Leshi Captain Dr M’s Echelone M’s Dr

the

1970s, preceded by Samsonov‟s film film Samsonov‟s by preceded 1970s, a sgiiaty ifrn from different significantly was lidarity of the oppressed, and oppressed, the of lidarity

gfelder‟s book that some of these of some that book gfelder‟s can first be categorized in a in categorized be first can a pitd u, American out, pointed was cteristics. , was premiered in 1955, in premiered was , fication of the genre genre the of fication 45

In - Productions in the the in Productions

Captain Leshi Captain l, t. The etc. ple, r

CEU eTD Collection 140. 48 47 46 to tries Leshi a is imperative teleological State.strong their that forget never will who individuals extraordinary of in place take nation different reconcile to tries prefix, state Yugoslav communist a with although processes, these All society. the in place useful his finds hero a which through collectivism and individualism new a nation, setup.” new a created, be to supposed was society integrated an … systems ethical and religions languages, nationalities, different of groups the “from Western of world the in afilm According nationalto Westerns: Croatian theoretician cosmogenesis. Hrvoje his regain and defend to orders superior‟s family‟s honour,an his against go to has Leshi Thus, it. a posed to that threat villain the eliminating and society leaving by values social the to loyalty his „hero.‟” Mitrović the their of to role aspects the fulfill darker they display as even to makeup “begin which characters Western American on mark of march onward inevitable, an as history American of sweep grand the of vision confident “a which in 1950s from Westerns “classic” genre. audie film Yugoslav the attracted Westerns

White, John White, Hrvoje

48 The strong State is even ready to forgive the hero his crudeness, as in the scene when scene the in as crudeness, his hero the forgive to ready even is State strong The including films, partisan Early Second, TheWesterns

‟s film is actually more sim more actually is film ‟s Turković An i An The

mportant step in the national cosmogenesis of the W the of cosmogenesis national the in step mportant kiss Westerns , ati Leshi Captain imk opredjeljenja Filmska

, 23. the d more importantly,for security new,classless society. a

teacher

(New York: Routledge, 2011), 23.

Vida. It is not by chance that the only Serbian character is character Serbian only the that chance by not is It Vida. was not tailored according to the pattern of Hollywood Hollywood of pattern the to according tailored not was [ ilar to 1930s American Westerns in which hero proves proves hero which in Westerns American 1930s to ilar im Preferences Film Captain Leshi Captain progress is lost.” is progress nce, and nce, 28

s, religions and cultures, relying on the help the on relying cultures, and religions s, (arb Cna z klun deans, 1985), djelatnost, kulturnu za Centar (Zagreb: ]

, share one essential quality with early with quality essential one share , Mitrović 47

nue wt mc mr idealism, more much with Infused 46

Experiences from WWII left a left WWII from Experiences

himself was in love with the the with love in was himself estern is harmonization of harmonization is estern ati Leshi Captain

Turković new : , CEU eTD Collection a that fact that The clear claim. Se same quite the lay is can it minorities Yugoslav western, other and American (Roma) in Gypsies Albanians, underrepresented and/or misrepresented be to said be Americans African Mexicans, as Just Gilić Nikica theoretician film Croatian respect, this In narrative. the in nation certain a represents why and who establish to important very is it words, other In representation. of the agents the be collectivized. to was Yugoslavia in land the that being difference only with farmers poor and landowners way this In ownership. sup who beys to close very is he of status social of enemy terms in the support passively did but hands, family, his of safety the was ballists joining for excuse his main Ahmet‟s Although communism. on blood have not did who the in Ahmet as intentions, noble their prove to willing are who ballists withAlbanians identity classic Ford‟s John in as newcomers colonized towards hostile are that Americans Native Unlike beginning the from starting government, new the organise to how Leshi) (i.e. from characters Indian the of province inversion the to capital the from comes is she films: Hollywood teacher Serbian the time, same the At West. Wild the of conquerors new the of front in retreat who Westerns in Indians to resemblance Ag Middle the since ever Kosovo to right historical claimed that nation isstillnotpoliticallyLeshi “mature”upon give family to his inheritance. memberAs a ofthe colle the towards duty his of Leshi remind to Anglo supposed is Vida White Westerns. American from typical blonde a like looks and Belgrade from comes who Vida, rb, albeit a very tal very a albeit rb, ctive by asking him to borrow to him asking by ctive

argues as follows: The symbolic value of previously analyzed generic transpositions largely depends largely transpositions generic analyzed previously of value symbolic The in State strong the line, same the Along h Searchers The

ented one, directs the story of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and that two main two that and Kosovo in Albanians ethnic of story the directs one, ented , -

turned Mitrović Mitrović - communists.

s aie (eb) r ray o osrc a e national new a construct to ready are (Serbs) natives ‟s transposed the archetypical Western conflict between rich rich between conflict Western archetypical the transposed

of, for that matter, women or North European immigrants can can immigrants European North or women matter, that for of, the

family piano for the local school, but at that moment that at but school, local the for piano family

ati Leshi Captain port ballists to preserve their land their preserve to ballists port

in order to educate the cowboy the educate to order in s ed t frie those forgive to ready is

ae f eh‟ brother Leshi‟s of case es, Vida bears some bears Vida es, - ao Protestant Saxon -

education. on CEU eTD Collection 10. Ţivorad 49 Confederate counterparts, soldiers.State American their like just politics, federalist and integrational of ballists Accordingly, rifle. a from than rather pistol a from shoots and horse white a rides Leshi cowboys, “good” all as course, Of shootouts. typical the of one b mountains the in hiding with showdown Final films. Mann‟s Anthony are and Ford John from shelters rocky ballists resembling instance, For them. between difference significant wi uniforms swap to were ballists and partisans Albanian if However, conservatism. their underlines which clothes, traditional wearing merciless, and filthy as represented are partisans spotless of forlanguage fulldurationofit. the Serbo spoke film the in heroes Albanian since especially eliminated, be not could hegemony national ofmodel the although economiccalculation, by dictatedpartly was actors choic the Therefore, actors. inexperienced with experimenting of lot a allow not could production Commercial Kosovo. in personnel technical or actors, educated enough not were to addition In western. theof genre in minorities American of treatment treat sometimes and were Albanians minorities Kosovar other the that say might one unity, and brotherhood Yugoslav of narrative the to opposition in bluntly, it put To Yugoslavia. socialist of circumstances minorities‟ tolerant ethnically the supposedly form and direct to attempts nationalist (Yugo)Slavic the to point can Prliĉko) (Petre Macedonian a and Gavrić) (Aleksandar Serb a by played are characters Albanian allists was shot in a terrify a in shot was allists

Nikica

- Ţika Besides linguistic, Besides Gilić

Mitrović th soldiers of the North and South in the American Civil war, there would be no be would there war, Civil American the in South and North the of soldiers th , “Narrative and Genre Influences of the International Classical Cinema in the Partisan Films of of Films Partisan the in Cinema Classical International the of Influences Genre and “Narrative ,

Gilić ”; (article for a col a for (article ”; ‟s observation, I would like to stress that at the time of production there production of time the at that stress to like would I observation, ‟s

Mitrović ing ambient of a nature wonder nature a of ambient ing

lection of texts on Yugoslav film soon to be published), Zagreb, 2012, Zagreb, published), be to soon film Yugoslav on texts of lection

ed in Yugoslav films in the nationalist manner similar to the the to similar manner nationalist the in films Yugoslav in ed sought stereotypizationi sought 30

Djavolja varoš (Devil‟s town), in town), (Devil‟s varoš Djavolja n visual aspect visual n

are conservative opponents conservative are s

as well. Enemies well. as voice in the new, new, the in voice - Croatian e of e CEU eTD Collection 52 51 50 andinactors alocal setting.” local with language, own their in film, domestic a in see could they film, American in saw of some satisfying was audience “the opinion, director‟s to According months.” few past i And … viewers. 100,000 more attracted “it days 20 in cinemas, Belgrade in screening started film audience.” own his creates seriously and “intentionally who director Yugoslav as“entertain was rated film the festival, Pula at premiere the After generic. and superficial too being for disputes to 2.5 people,to the notfrom meaning orParty Tito representatives. above, in Yugoslavism of idea the his despite who army, lar people‟s the of soldier a for stands Leshi Consequently, himself). Tito and Party the with (together Yugoslavia Tito‟s of pillars three the of one as represented a plays army Yugoslav li much role, prominent the hand, other the On propaganda. of film the relieve to wanted director the that argued be could It Tito. to related slogans or images as well as commisars, 1950s, the from films Interview with Dragoslav (No Name),“Filmski barometar” [“Film barometer”], ger .

Public and Critical Reception of n all other cities (starting from Pristina), fromPristina), (starting cities other all n - than Critical reviews of reviews Critical Technicolor optimistic and bright in Shot Adamović - life proportions still remains uninterested in the world of high politics. In brief, In politics. high of world the in uninterested remains still proportions life Ţivorad 51 , “Domaci filmovi beleze rekordne posete,”

Unfortunately, there are no studies determining the cause of this success. this of cause the determining studies no are there Unfortunately,

Mitrović ing” noting that ing” noting ke in the partisan spectacles from the 1970s and 1980s, when it was it when 1980s, and 1970s the from spectacles partisan the in ke ati Leshi Captain

Captain Leshi Captain Captain Leshi Leshi Captain , accessed November 27, 2011, 52

Mitrović

ypoaial lce te hrces f political of characters the lacked symptomatically

ranged Captain Leshi comes from below, i.e. from the hero who is close is who hero the from i.e. below, from comes 31 CaptainLeshi NIN

developed his own style his onlydeveloped ownstyle andbecamethe

anywhere from appraisal from the audience the from appraisal from anywhere

, Belgrade, September 18,1960.

s ntei t black to anithesis as http://novikadrovi.net/razno/3 NIN

, Belgrade, October 2,196

was the most popular film the popular in most the was

their needs: what they they what needs: their - and

- ht partisan white - razno.php 50 0.

When the When .

CEU eTD Collection Films], 56 [ 55 54 kultura 53 of dared one no because topic, sensitive only the not were ballists Mitrović freedom of “purity” the endangered drama.” psychological difficult and tragic serious, explicitly as film war of “taboo Yugoslav destroy acute “the is problem which crime” and violence “reactionists, the against struggle Leshi‟s praise who those are respect this the in vague as on Just present. to success failed director the commercial context historical have will films his that market.” international and intentions bad have not did director the that adding film, the in representing is he people the of mentality and history of Š Vehap critic film Kosovar society. stable Yugoslav of norms the to contrary action,” “individual the by established is weapon a “carrying Western ambi Kosovar in Western American Yugoslav War Film. Vol. 2

Imami, Milutin roe iisi “aea Leš “Kapetan Lisinski, Hrvoje Mira Captain Leshi Filmska kultura 19 (1960): 79. of transposition the about themselves amongst conflicted mostly were Critics olć “pkauan hsoins Ţ historicnost “Spektakularna Boglić, 56

Srbi iSrbi Albanci kroz vekove s ersnain f lain ainls. n aeul cnrle Ygsa media Yugoslav controlled carefully In nationalism. Albanian of representation ‟s f political of Ĉolić

It seems that critics were more preoccupied with the genre contamina genre the with preoccupied more were critics that seems It “aea Le “Kapetan ,

before its official release.

- rmnls pai, n nt yh r history;” or myth not and praxis, criminalist 54 - ] (Belgrade: Institut zafilm; Titovo Uzice: Ve 49 (1966): 129.

Neithe š i,” ita “noted that that “noted ita : uolvnk vsen” “ati Lsi Ygsa Western? Yugoslav Leshi: [“Captain vestern?” Jugoslavenski i:

Politika , 445. r Š r odto ie u non qua sine conditio ita, nor other opponents of opponents other nor ita,

16, n Milutin in: 1960, , - ihig ta te wr atal tyn t understand to trying actually were they than fighting, n. roe iisi nitd ht n h American the in that insisted Lisinski Hrvoje ent. ike

Mitrović Mitrović 32

a” [“Spectacular Historicity of of Historicity [“Spectacular a”

does not even know the basic elements elements basic the know even not does Ĉolić f h sria, wie h lw is law the while survival,” the of , uolvnk rti im Kjg druga Knjiga film. ratni Jugoslovenski sti, 1984), 559. Mitrović to write about the censorship the about write to 55

‟s film specified which specified film ‟s or Mitrović

Ţika s fot to effort ‟s tion which tion

], Mitrović Filmska Filmska 53 ‟s ‟s

CEU eTD Collection History Yugoslavia], in Censors Film the of profile Social Dark. 57 to “edited” were film the in issues national and historical sensitive the how analyze will I t at Metohija and Kosovo in Ahmet,Ramiz and brothers, Leshi Albanian the Leshi tho only which of out Yugoslavia, socialist in produced films feature of number the in record the held director sc out cut and overs re the of discovery The shooting. finished the after censored was fun”, “light as branded time, the at film popular very this that demonstrate sources primary unscrutinized were usually perhaps notrecordedindetail, due to nature the of Committee the itself. censorship to important is It reconstructed. partially be (1945 existence long its which from Committee‟s documentation significant holds the Yugoslavia of Archive of result a As export. impo or or distribution country the in produced materials, filmed all small.” very remained information this the of have might who people of circle the end the in so identity public, information that make to forbidden The officers. police to tr their out find could anyone if “Even protected: writers was members Committee from professions, various of members twenty roughly of consisted which Committee] hereafter Films, of Review for Committee called authority censorship cinematography 2.6

Goran Miloradović, “Lica u tami. Drustveni profil filmskih cenzora u Jugoslaviji 1945 Jugoslaviji u cenzora filmskih profil Drustveni tami. u “Lica Miloradović, Goran ught to be typical examples of commercial, popular, and uncensored filmmaking. uncensored and popular, commercial, of examples typical be to ught .

Censoring

is attractive for analysis because it portrays the communist the portrays it because analysis for attractive is ] 2 n nsa ecpin rm th from exception unusual An central a of work the on based was Yugoslavia Tito‟s in censorship Film - 3 (2004): 103. –

remarks and interventions on particular films during Committee discussions discussions Committee during films particular on interventions and remarks

March to Drina to March Captain Leshi

ns from enes

sparked temporary conflict with the officials, while others are others while officials, the with conflict temporary sparked

Mitrović 57 s cd o slne is silence” of “code is

The responsibility of the Committee was to review to was Committee the of responsibility The s im an iprac we koig ht this that knowing when importance gains film ‟s

stress that the most valuable component of every every of component valuable most the that stress 33 aen kmsj z peld film pregled za komisija Savezna

oina z rsvn istoriju drustvenu za Godisnjak rted, and to issue permits for its its for permits issue to and rted,

- nationalist conflict between conflict nationalist ati Leshi Captain modus operandi modus ue identity, it was it identity, ue - he end of WWII.of end he 195 [ nul for Annual - 5” [Faces in the the in [Faces 5” edited voice edited ova . - 1971), the the 1971), Previously

[Federal [Federal Captain Captain

Social

can - -

CEU eTD Collection 60 59 Josipwas Broz Tito, and the Cinematography Committeechairman Aleksandar Vuco. just 58 were which films foreign watched usually Tito “Comrade note: this left secretary cinephilia, passionate Tito‟s by caused also was committee this of h that.” show is: to scared not was it regime, and was it it knew everybody fierce stable how showing of the use any because had longer needed,no position, international longer its strengthened no was “it removed, was members new the by appointment the of acceptance forced the on clause the regulation, the of version distr ideological lens. an through texts literary interpreting to prone already were they because momentum, gained duty.” the are accept to members obliged “Appointed clause: binding a comes which after artists, etc.” writers, professors, scientists, experts, film usually FPRY, the of Committee of Cinematography members of Chairman the P that the stipulated by it appointed and were 1949 Committee April in adopted was concerning activities Regulation new these The apparatus. party and state of members the by controled) intellectuals of circle a to shifted was films of control of burden the 1946 February from “from since shift governance peacetime a to wartime in profile their changed clerks, and soldiers f of Films comprised bodies, of censorship Review for Committee Federal the which of heroism,partisan downplaying identity. theKosovoAlbanians‟ national through butalso memory homogenous a create to wanted censors the that show to is goal My market. international 1960s the for correct” “politically more it make

Miloradović, “Lica tami,” u 104. Uredba opregledu filmovaza javno prikazivanje Uredba o pregledu filmova za javno prikazivanje javno za filmova pregledu o Uredba ibutors and producers to appeal in the case of the proscription of some film. From that that From film. some of proscription the of case the in appeal to producers and ibutors In 1953 a new, more liberal liberal more new, a 1953 In in circumstances the describe will I film, the of parts censored the addressing Before

By By hiring intellectuals, mostly writers, the ideological control ideological the writers, mostly intellectuals, hiring Uredba rime Minister of FPRY, on the suggestion of the the of suggestion the on FPRY, of Minister rime oa t te omns rgm, sitd a wl as well (as assisted regime, communist the to loyal

in: , in: , 34

Službeni (Regulation)

Službeni

list

list 19 (1953): 181 ntoe. t em ta te first the that seems It unctioned. 29 (1949): 405 (1949): 29 59 60 h wr o ol b idealizing by only not war the

a aotd loig h film the allowing adopted was Additional fear of the members the of fear Additional - 182. n hc Tt‟ press Tito‟s which on

- 406. The Prime Minis Prime The 406.

aving

ter CEU eTD Collection enabling Leshi topretend he thus hanged, was Ahmet that announce authorities the when moment the is scene aforementioned The 60. 169: 63 important Yugoslav film inPula festival had firstto gain Tit spectacle partisan the of script the on intervened personally Mila by directed (2010), 62 Republike, IV, 5 61 C the to replied film Slavija of directors of the forests into luretheonein has executed,inorder to trap.” one ballist been that court People‟s the of proclamation scene: the remove Commit “to film Slavija advising decision, the of meeting plenary A the abroad.” in screening screening for No, for country. “Yes, decision: following the announced which council Committee alarm. of parts some editing Welles‟ Orson ide to hard very is it today Even films. certain of interpretation the in big, too often “freedom”, a them left system communist the and morals public the protect to duty and authority their in harsher even be to censors non some praised time to time from achievements. Tito since especially particular, on up end could what knew never Committee censorship the of members the the but films, the of all see to managed have not could he course, Of of process. independent completely and censored were they before films watching E or German in were they whether them watch could who us among one only the was he fact, In Serbian. in subtitles the have even not did and imported

Tihomir The significance of Tito‟s opinion on Yugoslav films is represented in a documentary a in represented is films Yugoslav on opinion Tito‟s of significance The rhv o Ygsai, rhvl holding archival Yugoslavia, of Archive ntify the reasons for banning the distribution of movies like Billy Wilder‟s Billy like movies of distribution the banning for reasons the ntify

The censorship problems with problems The censorship the pushed have may itself, audience the and elite, party the of judgment of fear The Stanojević - 62 b, dokumentacija zaTitovu biografiju, 1953).

Touch of Evil of Touch

, Neke zabeleske Neke

Tura Captain Leshi Captain

wants tojoin the ballists. jlić , in which numerous film workers testify on the account of how Tito himself Tito how of account the on testify workers film numerous which in , . Nor is it easy to understand why the Committee insisted on insisted Committee the why understand to easy it is Nor .

performing their job. Legally not strictly defined, the limits of limits the defined, strictly not Legally job. their performing [ Some Notes Some , while other details of the same connotatio same the of details other while , aen kmsj z peld imv 1944 filmova pregled za komisija Savezna Captain Leshi Captain Leshi ommittee that “even prior to the start of the actual the of start the to prior “even that ommittee ]

(Beograd: Muzej istorije Jugoslavije, Kabinet predsednika Kabinet Jugoslavije, istorije Muzej (Beograd:

his menu, nor his opinion about any film in film any about opinion his nor menu, his o‟s sympathies.o‟s Battle of Neretva of Battle

started in May, 1960 with a meeting a aof 1960with inMay, started nglish.”

, or how every winner of the most the of winner every how or , 61

Tito had, in fact, been fact, in had, Tito - e cnimd this confirmed tee 1971 Cinema Kommunisto Cinema 147 ,

- 63 mainstream Sabrina n raised no raised n

The board - , protocol 3, or , CEU eTD Collection 67 66 65 64 mark Mitrović later will critics film which in way same the in western, of category the in it putting mitig to tried listed,not are names whose film, the of Supporters views. ideological censors‟ of consistency the showing film, the of export the against mostly detail. that mostly were Leshi ban the Captain against Arguments against. 5 and ban, the for voted 16 total, in members meet plenary This of deniedtheappeal The Committee not findany whythefilmreason forbidden be forexport. should film which to genre the of needs the to adapted and point certain a to simplified are film this in with dealt issues the and characters content, “the almost DEM.” 400.000 than more of income expect we year this and country, that into export the from earned was DEM repr Germany] films of import and export of illustration at Mayer Goldwyn Metro to film this sell to itself (for presented opportunity serious company a later which German through DEM), one 170.000 to film this sell to managed company the film the of shooting

Archive ofYugoslavia, 147 Archive ofYugoslavia, 147 Archive ofYugoslavia, 147 Archive ofYugoslavia, 147 67

equal to the yearlyequal tothe ofYugoslav cinematography export toWest Germany. It is interesting that even the newly appointed members of the Committee were were Committee the of members appointed newly the even that interesting is It of council film The

s im I i idctv ta cnos h dfne te im qae wsen and westerns equated film the defended who censors that indicative is It film. ‟s

s lgt im er, oe om f u wsen wih hud o b analy be not should which western, our of form some genre, film light a is how lucrative lucrative how esents an important market for our films … Just last year around 145.000 145.000 around year last Just … films our for market important an esents ing was made with newly appointed members of the Committee. Out of 21 21 of Out Committee. the of members appointed newly with made was ing

This means that the international market value of value market international the that means This - - - - 3: 544. 3: 530 3: 550. 3: 529. 0,0 dlas fr upss f itiuin abroad.” distribution of purposes for dollars, 400,000 Slavija film Slavija uolvj film Jugoslavija Leshi

531.

was, a 1960 letter from the Committee to the agency for agency the to Committee the from letter 1960 a was, Slavija film Slavija

submitted its opinion to the Committee stating that stating Committee the to opinion its submitted 36 ttd “ Ta cuty Fdrl eulc of Republic [Federal country That “… stated:

and reiterated its firstdecision:and reiterated its Captain Leshi Captain

ate the attacks on the film by by filmthe on attacks the ate

belongs”, Captain Leshi Captain 66

but they did they but

s an As e in zed

was CEU eTD Collection 68 the of remarks becomments will marked brackets. insquared the present will Handwritten comment. my I give will I which Henceforth after ones, original the to Committee. seemless Committee the by made ones only the chan these whether indicationto no is there Also, remarks. of text typed already amend pencil a used who or remarks original the wrote who indications no are There film. the in censors finished, already was shooting the Since Committee. the of remarks and suggestions written financial success. the jeopardize equa though not film, did artistic the of editing integrity arguing additional view without of changes point their suggested from the Apparently, freedom. make to agreed director and producer film Slavija whether with.” deal to easy not was which it committeesforums with party and meetings to avoid with bedone to needed director Leshi Captain western Hollywood of topoi between Mitrović difference the to attention paying without approve to reason a for looking been have they because possibly fun, light

Interview with h fn o Acie f uolva otis ie nind n udtd ae of pages undated and unsigned five contains Yugoslavia of Archive of fund The re film Slavija Committee, the with correspondence extensive after Finally, ‟s film.‟s Mitrović tervened mostly on the voice the on mostly tervened

Mitrović according to censors‟ suggestions, even the version for Yugoslav market. The market. Yugoslav for version the even suggestions, censors‟ to according

osdrd that considered 68

eventually got the e the got eventually , n h vut o Ygsa Acie hr i n fnl ofrain on confirmation final no is there Archive Yugoslav of vaults the In Politika , January 28,1992.

tee a a necessar a was “there lly important factor might have been the prospect of its its of prospect the been have might factor important lly - overs and the segments which needed to be cut out of out cut be to needed which segments the and overs xport permit. What is more important is that both that is important more is What permit. xport

ds o auto of dose y - esrhp ht was that censorship ati Leshi Captain ges were ges - edited s and and s

CEU eTD Collection 69 quite is it version final the in even Nevertheless, family. bourgeois a of heir the been have death. for dishonourable The partisans wouldthen looklike coldbloodedexecutioners. strength no has who man sensitive a seem would Helmut this like scene a In film. the of end m is light!” the off brutal “Turn the exclamation: pathetic His of shown. not is hands defiance bare his with Lola His strangles who Kosta human. less him make to tried they completely, film the from trav a and war of end the about dreams who joker sympathetic a appears murderer stereotypical a of instead since Committee his with pub the to in come would father „Your Leshi: to says innkeeper the where line The 2. washis house one ducats.‟ worth /p.10/istobe thousand removed. and Prizren, in merchant richest the was grandfather „Your says: Vida which in scene The 1. LESHI ISFROMTHERICHFAMIL 76//p. 75and toberemoved. is light!” the off “Turn shouts: and corpse Skender‟s watching is he which in scene last His 2. removed. 1 “GERMANIN THE GANG Page 1 . The scene in which the German is trying to protect Lola when Kosta is killing her is to be be to is her killing is Kosta when Lola protect to trying is German the which in scene The .

Archive ofYugoslavia, 147 carriages money andhewouldthrow all around.”

As for Leshi‟s ancestors, according to official ideology a communist hero could never could hero communista ideology official to according ancestors, Leshi‟s for As cha The

racter of a German deserter German a of racter eant to partisans who direct the reflectors at the surrounded ballists at the the at ballists surrounded the at reflectors the direct who partisans to eant

- 3: 533.

el to sunny Spain. Since censors could not remove Helmut Helmut remove not could censors Since Spain. sunny to el Y

, Helmut, was obviously a problematic one for the for one problematic a obviously was Helmut, , 38

CEU eTD Collection 70 called Leshi, Ramiz I, and LeshiCaptain am Prizren on attack the with starts story This AGAIN: PUT BE [HANDWRITTEN well. as ballists Fr fight for]of liberation the Kosmet. final the ADDED: THEN AND finally, [HANDWRITTEN: began 1944 of autumn the In CHANGES TO: main character. its am Leshi Captain called Leshi, Ramiz I, and Prizren on attack the with starts story This autumnIn the of liberationofKosmet 1944beganthe NOW READS: /p. 1/ “CAPTAIN OVERthe LESH‟S /Rightafter credits/ VOICE FIRST opening Page 2 w whereas Demir“softness”, capriciousness. toforgive iswilling Leshi‟s reason the is This cause. have their might to known people well common the attracted only communities patriarchal and traditional in that fact the to due families, respected and rich from be to o have brothers Leshi both that, the Besides Prizren. has family his since background, rich a from comes Leshi that obvious

Abbreviation for: Kosovoand Metohija. om my hometown Prizren not only Germans needed to be forced out but their allies allies their but out forced be to needed Germans only not Prizren hometown my om

its main character.]its

GUIDANCE

THAT THE ORIGINAL LINE SHOULD SHOULD LINE ORIGINAL THE THAT 70

from G the y ot tlrts Ahmet‟s tolerates Kosta hy erman occupation.

l pao in piano nly

–

CEU eTD Collection 71 do. to told were they whatever did just they instead state; German the to equal been have not could who ballists of power the and significance the diminished additionally This well.” the but out, forced be to needed Germans only not Prizren hometown word audiencethe oftheoldinter obvious. attribute this make characters the of names the although nationalities, other and Serbian Albanian, in division no is there film Mitrović writer/director Similarlyto ballists. Germansand the then Italianand army the first of control Met and Kosovo while Herzegovina, and Bosnia in place took Yugoslavia of territory the on operations war main the However, fight”. “final and “finally” to referring on insists Committee the why is that partisancampaignin fighting freedom allies their but occupiers, German fascists.”domestic the against only not fighting country, the [HANDWRITTEN: to started units partisan the and army people‟s new The far souththe ofYugoslavia. of region underdeveloped and small a in 1944 of autumn the in starts story Our IN ADIALOGUE FOR LIST ABROADWILL THERE BE:

Archive ofYugoslavia, 147

allies allies Interestingly, the producer went one step further than the Committee, by replacing the replacing by Committee, the than further step one went producer the Interestingly, and subversive major the that suggested be to had it film the of introduction the In , the Committee refuses to define the nationality of ballists, the same way as in the in as way same the ballists, of nationality the define to refuses Committee the , with servants 71

hj, ni te e Am cm it Sri, eand ne full under remained Serbia, into came Army Red the until ohija, -

3: 534. in the final version of the film, so a line in the film goes: “From my “From goes: film the in line a so film,the of version final the in

- national when conflicts facingthe atte

Kosmet took place even before the end of the war, and and war, the of end the before evenplace Kosmettook

In this case the Committee desires not to remind to not desires Committee the case this In 40

mpts. ir servants ballists as ballists servants ir

finally] liberate liberate finally] Kosmet –

ballists, ballists, , in , CEU eTD Collection Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2011), 237 (ed.), Pintar 72 pronoun possessive the Even mentioned. ever are land Yugoslav and army Yugoslav nor un “partisan army”, “people‟s in changes censors‟ aforementioned du fairy a imply could underdeveloped” and “small (e.g. conventions genre the strengthening for suggestions merely Kosovo. were list dialogue of representation the change to on potential However, of lack the suggest nationalistic may fight prejudices to meant was which organization censorship state the in working clerk did they if Party members new take to communists Albanian of refusal the as such problems the with clashing systems, political and educational in Albanians integrate to trying unsuccessfully been had bl like customs communities, tribal This Kosmet. in values traditional and patriarchic the for regard little had which society communist “progressive” mi “underdevelopment” of notion The region.” more socio bit the a Macedonia), is actually problematic was Yugoslavia” of south far (“the Kosmet of location loc the understand to spectator foreign a for order in foranindependentright while state German Ger perspective, historical broader a from Viewed

Jan Pelikan, “Pristup Titovog rezima Kosovu” [“Tito‟s Regime Approach to Kosovo”], in Olga Manojlovi Olga in Kosovo”], to Approach Regime [“Tito‟s Kosovu” rezima Titovog “Pristup Pelikan, Jan ring theforeignring distribution consideration process. Talking about the issues of identity, it is striking that the question of nationality in nationality of question the that striking is it identity, of issues the about Talking simplification of form some encompassed definition by abroad for lists dialogue The Tito sol nt xld hptei ta te rwitn lns o te foreign the for lines “rewritten” the that hypothesis exclude not should e –

vidjenja i tumacenja i vidjenja

not belong to their tribe. their to belong not - region 238. - utrl eiiin f omt s “ml ad underdeveloped and “small a as Kosmet of definition cultural

t” “h ln” n “oetc acss” ete Yugoslavia, Neither fascists.” “domestic and land” “the its”,

a nt osdrd s a as considered not was

[ Tito: Views and Interpretations and Views Tito: ood feud, discrimination of women, etc. The authorities The etc. women, of discrimination feud, ood ati Leshi Captain - ae oe a i epeso “ne pn time”) a upon “once expression in as tone, tale allies 41 72

The sweeping generalizations written by a a by written generalizations sweeping The

h hv rfetd h preto o the of perception the reflected have ght could havecould hopedforthat. man

al context. If we neglect the incorrect the neglect we If context. al s vie b uig ytga like syntagmas using by avoided is servants society ] (Belgrade: Institut za istoriju Srbije, istoriju za Institut (Belgrade: ]

could not have claimed the the claimed have not could because of the remains of of remains the of because

c - CEU eTD Collection the Europe, ofpopulation Kosmet toliveas tried ifinpeace. in on still was war the while 1945, of spring the in later, months of Couple A NOW READS: /p. 6/ “CAPTAINLESH‟S war/ SECONDVOICEOVERthe /After Page 3 Yugos allies their but occupiers, German the against only not fighting country, the liberate to started units partisan been have could confusions new then and signifies, name a what on disscussion open no was there because name, real their by called not were nations that was problem the of essence The extreme. unnecessary h movement collaborationist should a ballists of part that being meaning nation one of terms in identification the not is pursuing am I What diversity. negate to or nationalism propagate to meant nation one on football, domestic film, domestic phenomena: “ adjective collective the for name that identity woul no was there if as army) our land, (our picture the of out is “our”

lav fascists were fascists ballists. lav

In Yugoslav public discourse, both written and oral, there is an interesting use of the the of use interesting an is there oral, and written both discourse, public Yugoslav In domaci

– d encompass all people livingind encompassall Kosovo.

ballists, domestic fascists,” which could have been interpreted as if all all if as interpreted been have could which fascists,” domestic ballists, ” (domestic) which was used to “embellish” many of the societal societal the of many “embellish” to used was which (domestic) ” created abroad, as in the line “The new people‟s army and the and army people‟s new “The line the in as abroad, created

v be nmd lain, eas ta wud e an be would that because Albanians, named been ave 42 domestic political scene, etc. To put emphasis emphasis put To etc. scene, political domestic

CEU eTD Collection 74 73 only friends waitingme.” for had i but see, to own my of anyone had longer no I where Prizren, by stopping often KNOJ, of headquarters the in work to assigned was I April In homes again.school abandoned their to get to hurry a in were refugees The andcheerfully. loudly marriages their celebrating were families their forming in prevented war the whom Those ofpopulation Kosmetreturning toitspeacefullife. slowly was still was war the while 1945, of spring the in later, months of couple A CHANGES TO: The refugeeshurry ina togettheirabandoned were homes. andcheerfully. loudly of Many

Archive ofYu KNOJ (Korpus narodne odbrane Jugoslavije =Corpse of People‟s Defence of Yugoslavia).

whom the war prevented in forming their families were celebrating their marriages marriages their celebrating were families their forming in prevented war the whom

goslavia, 147

74 -

3: 535.

73 ad is tre gig to going started kids and ,

in Pe in c . At that time I was was I time that At . on in Europe, the the Europe, in on

CEU eTD Collection CHANGES TO: upofAhmet‟s/Close photo/ Will see ever Ahmet? I Will my see brother ever I again? cratefulldusty ofoldbooks. One it? ofremained has what And now! childhood our house of is the dark and Howdeserted D NOW READS: /p. 20/ “LESHIAT AHMET‟SPHOTO LOOKS Page 4 livealready “peacefully”. in war The optimism. of atmosphere general emir was right: I willnotAhmetemir wasright: restaslong have isin the mountains.

Similarl

y to the remarks for the beginning of page 2, the Committee appreciates the appreciates Committee the 2, page of beginning the for remarks the to y

Captain Leshi Captain 44

was de facto de not over, but people but over, not

CEU eTD Collection “traitor” word end until the oftheline, instead “trait the from everything PENCIL A WITH [SCRATCHED salvation? beyond are you that and traitor a are you that fact the with reconcile to supposed I am now, what And How to join theballists didyoudare [SCRATCHED cried…] LINE:even He wasafraid… He doubted,he me.Ahmet join didnot that I stepped onthat wasroad while I follow astudent, theyknewIwill my friends.] AND TYPED IS LINE [NEXT knewFather too. Ahmet wasgoing. knewwhere I fight I the Here, from house, wentto twoyears ago. this now! hasremainedchildhood Andwhat Onedustycrate ofit? fullofoldbooks.] h lines original the Add [HANDWRITTEN: he soft but I knowhewasalways andindecisive, violence…hated heHow, did hell, endupthere? the DemirI willnotAhmet wasright: restaslong have isin the mountains.

THEN SCRATCHED OVER WITH A PENCIL: They knew They PENCIL: A WITH OVER SCRATCHED THEN

, or” written“criminal”]or” -

explain thattome!What forced you?

ere: How deserted and dark is the house of our of house the is dark and deserted How ere: 45

CEU eTD Collection 75 I am findthegangbecauseof goingto that. for Demir: Message I learned Major Ahmetthat really never became a NOW READS: /p. 28/ /FIRST RUN “LESH A AFTERINTERROGATIONTHEWOUNDED RIDING HORSE, OF BALLIST Page 5 arbitrary ofthe category “traitor.” mor something with associated be might term latter the that given dramaturgy the into fits “criminal” and “traitor” between distinction the Even avoided. also is cry ridiculous Ahmet‟s and emphasized not is youth leftist Leshi‟s reasoning sound a With that attitude macho his of superficiality and intensifies behavior brother‟s his of misunderstanding his deepens voiceover Leshi‟s Additional This THIS LINEIS“CONNECTED”THE PHOTO]” aboutAHMET‟S REMARK TO ballists? the join you made What Ahmet? you, to happened What LINE: [HANDWRITTEN

Archive ofYugoslavia, 147 page shows how the censors might have served as creative spectators and editors. editors. and spectators creative as served have might censors the how shows page

Not every suggestion by a film censor is by default wrong and counterproductive. counterproductive. and wrong default by is censor film a by suggestion every Not - IN WITHIN THE / GANG

- 3: 536.

priori a etne Amt s cow a as Ahmet sentenced e cunning from the rather the from cunning e

ballist.

ard.

CEU eTD Collection money doubtingthatthe everreturn.] gang will IT more any give not OF do now gang, the supported who INSTEAD beys and peasants Wealthy AND WRITTEN: PENCIL, A WITH SCRATCHED LINE [LAST peasants! poor giv be will land their now and villages, whole the got say, they We, free. for Kosta feeding are they that object peasants wealthy and beys that said interrogated have I ballist A thatthegangisalreadyI hope demoralized. Through Ahmet tonegotiate try Iwill go I will towards Rugovo. I am findthegangbecauseof goingto that. for Demir: Message I learned Major Ahmetthat really never became aballist. CHANGES TO: caughtThe oneswhoare willnotlater, make alive. it happens, happens trial public a them give we weapons, their us give they be: will condition My Through Ahmet tonegotiatetheterms try surrender. Iwill oftheir go I will towards Rugovo.

the termsthe surrender. oftheir

–

then what then en to the to en CEU eTD Collection 76 foreign the of feared censors the that guessed be only can It place. first the in film the of overcome to order stereotypes. very these different subtly something is film genre the shows, framed members the clarity, narrative the to contributed even some fact in crucial, not were changes their Although audience. the on films popular of influence the reject not of lot a therewere that given literature fromborrowed analysis of or methods feeling their on relied mostly they films of marking the In medium. celuloid a of specificity the knew who people viewers. careful generally are,soonerthey orlater, doomed amongst clash to themselves. moral one only have communism of Opponents friends. wer never who people wealthy the by even abandoned and knees their on be must defeated the complete, event whole the make to order In generous. seem to wants representation, artistic wh ones (“The caughtThe oneswhoare willnotlater, make alive.” it time still is there while heads their save they suggest will I thatAhmetI trust help will me upth break

Archive ofYugoslavia, 147

writers amongst them. Casting away the simplifications of a genre film, the censors did censors the film, genre a of simplifications the away Casting them.amongst writers If we look we If of case the What governmentThe communist enemy lookbadinthe wantto withits showdown didnot Mitrović o are caught later, will not make it alive.”). The victor always, especially in especially always, victor The alive.”). it make not will later, caught are o ‟ s film as a re a as film s at it today, it is hard to say why exactly the Committee forbade the export the forbade Committee the exactly why say to hard is it today, it at

- 3: 537.

Still, between them there was a small number of filmmakers and filmmakers of number small a was there them between Still, ati Leshi Captain

creation of national stereotypes. However, as However, stereotypes. national of creation

e gang. rvs s ht Yugoslav that is proves 48

– 76

it is a use of stereotypes deployed in deployed stereotypes of use a is it

–

and surrender their weapons. their surrender and –

money arbitri elegantiae elegantiae arbitri

– of the Committee the of

and that is why why is that and Captain Leshi Captain were e

CEU eTD Collection 332. 78 77 heterogeneous and illusions.” and ideals of world the with directo Yug 3.1 3. statuscult inYugoslavia toin decades come anenterta as fresh. still emotions expectations, Committee‟s were Yet,contrary film tothe the a upto built that logical seems otballists. episodethe a involving On problematichistorical interestspectators‟ in

In 1968the largest number of films been has shot in Yugoslavia during oneyear Aleksandar

Film Neretvi na Bitka

sa cnmtgah, n quantitative, in cinematography, oslav Political and Cultural Context ofthe Yugoslav Cinematography inthe 1960s Kokan Rakonjac, Rakonjac, Kokan r Aleksandar r to critique the darker, ironic, alienated, and gloomier side of human, societal, and political and societal, human, of side gloomier and alienated, ironic, darker, the critique to to 3) of expression Poland; the in film involve and Czechoslovakia notably most countries, European Eastern in tendencies French language film and form film in experimentation stylistic promote to 2) control; bureaucratic and dogmatism from film free la the increase to 1) sought: of advocates the perspective, aesthetic coherent or program specific a lacking While o The

Petrović verall rise in living standard during 1960s broug 1960s during standard living in rise verall

ovle vague nouvelle poeti decadence , Captain Leshi Leshi Captain cs is

Novi film II, 1965 II, film Novi Petrović 78

Together with Together

Petrović (

named The Battle of of Battle The

, 1961 was crucial for Yugoslav film Yugoslav for crucial was 1961 , ,” incorporating tragism which represented a “showdown with “showdown a represented which tragism incorporating ,” and vanguard Italian cinema, and later in the sixties by by sixties the in later and cinema, Italian vanguard and

novi film novi

titude for individual and collective artistic and expression and to to and expression and artistic collective and individual for titude eogd o gnrto o yug im direc film young of generation a to belonged could have caused more damage at home where the war the where home at damage more caused have could - – 1970

Ţivojin savremene teme savremene influenced initially by early 1960s films associated with with associated films 1960s early by initially influenced

Neretva (New Film): [ New Film II, 1965 II, Film New 77

s el s ulttv terms qualitative as well as Pavlović

, 1969): AState , 1969): (contemporary themes), including the the including themes), (contemporary

, Dušan ini - 1970 ng hit ht about ht

] Makavejev, Makavejev,

(Belgrade: Naucna knjiga, 1988), 1988), knjiga, Naucna (Belgrade: .

, as it as , – -

thirty five. Supported War War Supported significant progress in progress significant

“started to socialize socialize to “started Acrig to According . Puriša

os whose tors her hand, it her Djordjević e wave new new film film new right the

CEU eTD Collection 80 79 th allowed even it and country, the of parts certain in in succeeded avant Marxists, the saw also became and check from least at self of economy prosperous 1968. until lasted This creativity. their of favor in all and state contribute which Europe, around festivals ac directors of generations Younger greatergiving autonomy to of breakthrough The

Michael J. Stoil, Goulding,

- management reconciled the goals of the working class and those of the political elite political the of those and class working the of goals the reconciled management s I As co improved with cooperation cultural in directly foreig participate to right statutory the received enterprises individual 1966, In … 1960. in subsidies for enterprises established with compete to right the filmmaker of groups Independent Marxist debate. ideological and philosophical a for heated point of premises and context the within state things socialist these of all do to 4) and existence; Liberated Cinema

n countries, opening the way for direct sale of films to foreign distributors and greatly greatly and distributors foreign to films of sale direct for way the opening countries, n

find the the ae led mnind n the in mentioned already have rlfrto o ciial oine atsi ad nelcul rus ie Praxis like groups intellectual and artistic oriented critically of proliferation - BalkanCinema: Evolution After theRevolution garde painter‟s group Mediala or abovementioned New abovementioned or Mediala group painter‟s garde ing its way in way its ing ideolo

- subordinate to subordinate production opportunities. production

– during 1960s which raised the living standard living the raised which 1960s during

e Fl drcos a gety ae b cags n h legislature the in changes by eased greatly was directors Film New at a time in Yugoslavia‟s evolution when these v these when evolution Yugoslavia‟s in time a at ia apc, hl ntoaim n eti eulc ws et un kept was republics certain in nationalism while aspect, gical , 66.

the filmmakingthe enterprises:

deal the ing s, organized for the production of a single work, were given given were work, single a of production the for organized s, generation of a unique Yugoslav ide Yugoslav unique a of generation urd eonto ad wrs at awards and recognition quired

with even more serious problems like unemployment like problems serious more even with d to the liberalization of rules and regulation by the by regulation and rules of liberalization the to d 80

nrdcin Ygsai hd relatively a had Yugoslavia introduction,

(Ann Arbor: ResearchUMI Press, 1982), 49. 79

eirto o get okr to workers guest of emigration e the

serious political turbulences of turbulences political serious s

ery premises were a focal focal a were premises ery in the country. The idea The country. the in

Film. Tito‟s regime regime Tito‟s Film.

ntity. This period This ntity. h bget film biggest the der der - ,

CEU eTD Collection University Press, 2005), 208. 83 82 2003), 28. 81 conc the to opposed Yugoslavism (as integral community federal Yugoslav the to attachment affective ( before government between c intell vice and minister affairs After 1966. six the Yugoslavthe federation.” of leave to prerogatives republics of right the and enshrined constitution new The status … enhanced. were the republics whereby decentralization, political of direction constituti third Yugoslavia‟s postwar of adoption families. p the even not development; economic halted for found be to solution no was there because world, using filmof mostattra the asone Non the of founder as image its al maintain to had government The countries. capitalist raso Jugoslovenstvo organsko nprc aant h Srs Given Serbs. the against onspiracy oel. Instead, roperly.

Boţidar Nebojša arn P Ramet, P. Sabrina ectuals h bigge The T

Jakšić he golden age of Tito‟s Yugoslavia did not last for long, amongst other reasons, also reasons, other amongst long, for lastnot did Yugoslavia Tito‟s of age golden he stances on national quest national on stances Popov,

Also, instead of unity, political reforms induced distancing of the republics. The republics. the of distancing induced reforms political unity, of instead Also,

who , i sde dsperne rm h pltcl scene, political the from disappearance sudden his

, in: Popov,, in: aia ta eooi eirto bro emigration economic that capital

in: t oiia e political st

he Ygsais tt Bidn n Lgtmto, 1918 Legitimation, and Building State Yugoslavias: Three ahrd rud rtr orc Ćsć and Ćosić, Dobrica writer around gathered Nebojša - t a uuly netd no ucaig real purchasing into invested usually was it Aligned movement Aligned

Ranković

th endorsed by endorsed e most democratic country in country democratic most e Slobodai nasilje

83 -

rsdn o Ygsai bcm mry i te ys f Serbian of eyes the in martyr became Yugoslavia of president Popov (ed.), Popov , hroiu smiss ewe ntoa seiiiy and specificity national between symbiosis harmonious a ),

s al Tt edre “h cnet of concept “the endorsed Tito fall: ‟s rhuk ws etil the certainly was arthquake ions Ranković Sloboda i nasilje i Sloboda , 40.

, h tpc f hs thesis this of topic the expressed by expressed Yugoslavia ctive products.

, under which national specificity and affective and specificity national which under , 51

o greater low on in 1963 was “an important step in the the in step important “an was 1963 in on

felt

[ gt ak o th to back ught

highly influential officials influential highly Liberty and Violence and Liberty Eastern Europe. Eastern

an impetus an fall of Aleksandar Aleksandar of fall

utrl iete i odr to order in liberties cultural i i crucial is it ,

iig proof living the - sae o get workers‟ guest for estate

to show its culture to the to culture its show to - 2005 cuty was country e ne oefl internal powerful once 81 ] (Belgrade: Res Publica, Res (Belgrade: ] Yugoslavism organic

Simultaneously, as a as Simultaneously,

(Bloomington: Indian (Bloomington:

f h alleged the of o distinguish to

for example, example, for Ranković of

Yugoslav

utilized p of ept

in a

CEU eTD Collection 87 Film World: Battlefieldof the Collective and P 86 85 84 as well as3,393,632viewers that time,attracting to up records domesticboxofficeall “broke a tableaux. historical his in people ordinary the of stories neo Italian the of influence partial under was he that said Ro in Sperimentale Centro the at war the of end the seeing WWII, family, self huge Neretva 3.2 were thesefilmsfor themoment they inwhich were created. Pavlović fi war into politics of meddling from in even place its found building s is nation Muslim a of proclamation “the that by This determination. after soon antagonistic).” as seen were Yugoslavia to attachment udience with his film his with udience

Daniel J. Goulding, Ramet, Ramet, Tomislav Dobrica Dobrica .

10,000

1967, a year after after year a 1967, Whatever anecdotes circled around the shooting of shooting the around circled anecdotes Whatever Bulajić ), one thing remains unquestionable remains thing one ), Three Three Yugoslavias Three Yugoslavias

from 1969, the same year as year same the 1969, from - Šakić advertising by its director, Veljko Veljko director, its by advertising Ranković Ćosić S oldiers, 75 , “Filmski svijet Veljka Bulajića: popriste susreta kolektivnog i privatnog” [“Veljko Bulajić‟s [“Veljko privatnog” i kolektivnog susreta popriste Bulajića: Veljka svijet “Filmski ,

differs from his colleagues his from differs , LiberatedCinema.. declared

provoked the provoked ‟s

fall Tito unofficially r unofficially Tito fall Kozara , 208 , 208. Ranković A

at a at

rmed

(1962), a partisan epic of a smaller scale than scale smaller a of epic partisan a (1962),

meeting of the League of Communists of Serbia in May 1968May in Serbia of Communists of League the ofmeeting The Battle of Neretva of Battle The lm

me under the tutelage of Cesare Zavattini,” Cesare of tutelage the under me as a 17 a as reaction of the of reaction , 57.

V s xuso fo te at. f o sc a obvious an such a to If party. the from expulsion 's er oe ds rvcto of provocation adds one genre ehicles, 22

The Battle of Neretva of Battle The rivate”], - year Mitrović – ecognized the right the ecognized 52

- Hrvatski filmski ljetopis this f this Bulaji old lieutenant. old enseless.”

historian Jovan Marjanović Jovan historian A ilm would have never been made been never have would ilm irpla

and ć , 84 Cmn fo a epcal partisan respectable a from Coming .

which was filmed was which

In the spirit of organic Yugoslavism, organic of spirit the In Bulajić - Pavlović 85 nes: Making a War Spectacle realism in an attempt to incorporate to attempt an in realism

The Battle of Neretva of Battle The The dispute over dispute The ,

86 it becomes clear how important how clear becomes it

He “had received his training training his received “had He

attracted the attention of the the of attention the attracted of Muslims to national self national to Muslims of , becau ,

h Ambush The - 58 (2009): 19. se he participated in participated he se with Tito‟s blessing Tito‟s with , who, supported who, , Neretva

87 Muslim nation Muslim

so it could be could it so

(henceforth

by .

without Kozara Ţivojin

- -

CEU eTD Collection 90 2010). 89 1965 88 total a with guns, machine 5,000 and airplanes 22 vehicles, armed 75 included also inventory financed companies 58 appeal in struggle Yu the screenplay the of parts certain edited himself Tito crew. film the to assistance and help possible every Yugoslav the urging by project state a Neretva made practically who producer generous a and process scriptwriting to contributed Tito soldiers. grandeur of sense the by explained Titosupportand asked to shooting the of b the of Puriša that said be cannot it Therefore, problems some were which after there Skopje, in earthquake the of because postponed be to had it but 1963, in start scheduledto first was Shooting from1943. Neretvaofbattle the about filmstory to a decided festival, Pula at awards multiple winning After Europe. Eastern in festival film respectable most the from coming important, most the far, by awards,” international several garnering

Interview with Bulajić, Dejan ia Turajli Mila ], (Belgrade: Savez filmskih radnikai Festival

goslav leader, advised by advised leader, goslav Djordjević No other Yugoslav film ever had such generous support of the state. Following Tito‟s Following state. the of support generous such had ever film Yugoslav other No be only might film one of producer a be to himself upon took Tito why reasons The Kosanović attle itself. By 1967 By itself. attle 89 Neretva

ć, and gave permission for his character to be omitted from the film. It seems as if as seems It film. the from omitted be to character his for permission gave and iea Komunisto Cinema , Dvadeset godina jugoslovenskog filma 1945 filma jugoslovenskog godina Dvadeset

or . 90

Pavlović

Novi List

economy and Yugoslav People‟s Army (henceforth YPA) to extend to YPA) (henceforth Army People‟s Yugoslav and economy Bulajić , Rijeka, June 5,2005. ih h fnnil osrcin f h poet p ni 1967. until up project the of construction financial the with

, because it was more connected to the celebration of 20 years years 20 of celebration the to connected more was it because , Bulajić dcmnay im Sri: rbln Pcue ad nemda Network, Intermedia and Pictures Dribbling (Serbia: film documentary , Neretva Neretva Bulajić

established his almost untouchable position as a director a as position untouchable almost his established

s im n w wy: s cnutn truhu the throughout consultant a as ways: two in film ‟s f hmnsi soy bu svn wudd partisan wounded saving about story humanistic a of , did not want to cast his long shadow on a collective a on shadow long his cast to want not did , 88

was a reaction to war films by Aleksandar Aleksandar by films war to reaction a was Neretva n 1,0 slir priiae, hl te film‟ the while participated, soldiers 10,000 and

amongst which Moscow Film Moscow which amongst jugoslovenskog filma, 1966), 80. 53

Bulajić .

- 1965

could choose his next project, so he so project, next his choose could

[ Twenty Years of Yugoslav Film, Yugoslav of Years Twenty

Festival award was, award Festival Petrović

1945 s - , CEU eTD Collection 96 95 (England Eiche (Italy), Film Igor YPA, then Kinema; and (Zagreb) 94 93 92 http://www.film.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=27 91 historical own its about film the of audience the and producer the both paper, on at least is, class working the case, this In nations. Yugoslav all from representatives with myth hand, other the On Yugoslav. about less and cinematographies, Slovenian and Croatian Serbian, about discussion more was there so funding more gained centres film republic 1960s, the of authent and republics Yugoslav all of resources the compiling history: makingany money thereconstructionofbattle as real in aspossible. management. financial inefficient being reason main the ever, Neretva $.” mil 4,5 around was sum official the while $, mil 12 was budget estimated market. foreign attract to managed he producers, because funds, film Yugoslav from money any spend not managers. the from financing additional get would he facto different to colleagues Yugoslav his and him Velimir actor stars, film the of One dwindle. to began budget production organized, poorly was shooting long year half a and one profit. film‟s the of division the in participated later they that claiming explosions. 12,000 of

Kreševljaković, Interview with Bulajić, Igor Interview with Bulajić, im pnn ceis itd s rdcr Ygsa cmais on fl (aaeo ad arn film Jadran and (Sarajevo) film Bosna companies Yugoslav producers as listed credits opening Film ed Kreševljaković, Sead

Stoimenov, Bulajić From a producer‟s point of view two aspects are important for important are aspects two view of point producer‟s a From 95 -

USA). is considered is

The final expenses of expenses final The 94

who paid expensive foreign expensive paid who

united Yugoslav companies in production in companies Yugoslav united “ Partizanski film Veljko Bulajić izVilusa

Ekspres Dnevnik

to be one of the world‟s most expensive non expensive most world‟s the of one be to 91

opne sosrn te film the sponsoring Companies “ , Belgrade, December, 22, 1968. ejo uai i Vilusa, iz Bulajić Veljko , November 26, 1969.

[

Partisan Film Neretva - Bata Ţivojinović recently stated that Bulajić used to take to used Bulajić that stated recently Ţivojinović Bata ”.

were never made public: “according to “according public: made never were

], documentary film (Serbia: Absinthe Production, 2009). actors and distributed the film to the international the to film the distributed and actors 54

br Fl (emn) n Uie Commonwealth United and (Germany) Film nberg ries where, after entertaining the workers workers the entertaining after where, ries 93

” Later on Bulajić claimed that he did he that claimed Bulajić on Later of a Yugoslav film, about Yugoslav about film, Yugoslav a of

ac esd n pi 1, 2012, 13, April on cessed Bulajić Bulajić -

English language films films language English icity. From the middle the From icity.

92 “benefactors,” called

simply did not spare spare not did simply Bulajić

H owever, since the since owever, 96 ‟s filming of filming ‟s

In any case, any In Variety , the the ,

CEU eTD Collection 98 97 in opponents army, enemy‟s fighters looking forshelter from omnipresent the enemy. sh long extreme apocalyptic and shots aerial this using by conflict intensified director equipped The poorly planes. and between tanks i.e. German machinery, faceless and and partisans man a between conflict of scenes the for narrative. partisan the in players important of representation identify to meg time director‟s the Still, no protagonists. the has with himself effects, pyrotechnical by overwhelmed viewer, a poorly that so are connected lines Narrative Welles. Orson or Brynner, Yul as such stars of appearances characters underdeveloped and plot bad obscurity, “dramaturgical 3.3 authenticity. de this In events. the of reconstruction the achieve to aiming place, took itself battle the where location battle the to pertaining testimonies and documents possible, as history to co his and director The identical. close almost as physically remain circumstances given in will that film a ahistorical startingwar as ofYugoslav point society. gove the agenda this pushing By struggle.

Šakić Interview with Bulajić, .

Partisans and the Yugoslav National Identity , “Filmski svijet Veljka Bulajića,” 20. In contrast tocontrast In of iconography the towards turn I Before make to attempt unusual Bulajić‟s in manifested was authenticity, aspect, second The - fictionalization of a war film genre Tito genre film war a of fictionalization

Mitrović NIN , Belgrade, January 15, 1967.

and Bulajić Pavlović

s im hy ae ay ae, a faces, many have they film ‟s - writers analyzed to the smallest detai smallest the to analyzed writers rnment tried to shape the workers‟ perception of perception workers‟ the shape to tried rnment ‟s war films in which partisans fight with only the only the fightpartisans with which filmsin war ‟s 55

ots that capture endless lines of exhausted exhausted of lines endless capture that ots acted as a symbolic guarantor of historical historical of guarantor symbolic a as acted 97 Neretva

n so te im n lot h same the almost in film the shot and alomania did not jeopardize the basic the jeopardize not did alomania

I ol lk t pit u the out point to like would I , Bulajić ” 98

deserves to be praised praised be to deserves

ih xrml short extremely with ogt hc the which mongst l in the written written the in l CEU eTD Collection filmskog scenarija, 2000), 26. in: 99 pr the pursuing partisans the of sacrifice and humanity on is insists director army of the producers main the of of one Glorification was YPA people. that mind proud in bearing understandable the with unity their from strength drawing unity. partisans‟ with the confronted when inevitable seems defeat their Therefore, disorganized. completely are and chetniks of Chetni horde. frenzied a like irrationalism The partisans. destroy horses their riding sabres, drawn to with partisans the charge they when scene the in culminates them calls Welles) (Orson leader stand they While monsters. gruesome more as portrayed are Chetniks partisans. the with shootouts of couple a in and woman a hanging of scene the in briefly only shown are Ustashas chetniks. and ustashas traitors,” “domestic Italy‟safter surrender in 1943. deserted soldiers Italian of majority the since events, historical real with tied also is conduct distrib the helped trade a like seems motivation His fascism.” without “Italy for fight to order in cause their joins he prisoner, him take partisans the When more a is Riva fascist. arrogant an of typology the affirming suicide, commits and obey to refuses he partisans, wounded the carry to him order and officer first the capture partisans When Riva. Captain and Moreli General milder Somewhat hospitals. and schools bomb they when shown is obduracy their children; their and civilians partisans, against fighting are they that emphasize officers German film the of beginning very the At dangerous. most the is German

Nevena zzv ang filma ratnog Izazov otay o troyial sae eeis te atsn lo lk a fearl a like look partisans the enemies, shaped stereotypically to Contrary foreign as Italians the and Germans the from Apart Daković , “Klisei ratnog filma i filmaratnog “Klisei , to o te im n h itrainl market. international the on film the of ution

[ h Calne f a Film War of Challenge The

ks are the opposite opposite the are ks

li ratni film kao klise,” [“War Film Clichés, or War Film as a Cliché”] a Film as War or Clichés, Film[“War klise,” kao film ratni li complex character who questions the goals of fascism. of goals the questions who character complex 56 - n rn o a otoo cuc, hi political their church, orthodox an of front in , Kajv: utri etr Vnak bna Festival banja: Vrnjacka centar; Kulturni (Kraljevo: ], f md t pes Iain co Italian please to made off

partisans, they fight amongst themselves themselves amongst fight they partisans,

ramn ws ie t Italians, to given was treatment occupiers, 99

rt t b tl, Riva‟s told, be to Truth Neretva - otection of the the of otection rdcr who producers Neretva features the features ess army army ess . The The . CEU eTD Collection Image. Sociological Analysis of Partisan War Epics 101 100 of territory the on living nations different of equality other every and economic political, out.” stands them of none that so treatment same the have army partisan the in nationalities Yugoslav “all dedication and courage of terms In Muslims.” and Montenegrins Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians, Serbs, h greets partisan one proclamation, a reading When won.” nations our of all of unity and “brotherhood Neretva of battle the in that them viewers reminds which the to message Tito‟s in film, the of beginning very the at visible is Yugoslavism portrayal. cinematic their in nations Yugoslav of equality the to related were all that doubt no is There nations. different of mostwell, landowners. often wi and other, each against fight partisans films two other the in whereas Neretva in partisans the Moreover, certain. is victory war when moment a in collaborators of groups in while fight, superhuman in partisans Accordingly, liberation. the writing, history official in holes black the out filled scenes these addition, In serious. or petty whether crime, of type any for own their punish do partisans that suggest and USSR; the in common was as hav leaders wartime that viewer the ensure they purpose: double a serve moments court These friend. best his be killed who chetniks imprisoned to threatened and rank his of stripped is them of one a are Partisans discussion. a after but person, one by made justice;” and “democracy of spirit the in decisions important make partisans film the Throughout manoeuvring. impede significantly they although wounded,

Nemanja Zvijer, Nemanja Zvijer, “Ideologija i vrednosti u jug In

elc cas ifrne ad ed n nopoiig ih aant h enemy, the against fight uncompromising an lead and differences class neglect Bulajić

like the execution of ustashas in Bleiburg, or the Belgrade bourgeoisie after after bourgeoisie Belgrade the or Bleiburg, in ustashas of execution the like Ideologijafilmske slike.analiza Socioloska partizanskogratnog spektakla ‟s spectacle the unity of partisans is embodied in the cooperation of fighters fighters of cooperation the in embodied is partisans of unity the spectacle ‟s

101 Captain Leshi Captain

At first glance glance first At oslovenskomratnom spektaklu,” 34. Neretva

and ] (Belgrade: Filozofski fakultet, 2011), 142. e not made decisions arbitrarily and dictatorially, and arbitrarily decisions made not e 57 hs ieai bohrod n uiy “means unity and brotherhood cinematic this The Ambush The

- uolv hrces of characters Yugoslav are immortalized in the heat of the almost the of heat the in immortalized are lso strict with their own people: people: own their with strict lso the main heroes try to elimi to try heroes main the is “brothers, Yugoslav nations, nations, Yugoslav “brothers, is - martialed because he shot shot he because martialed 100

the final decision is not is decision final the

th certain classes as classes certain th Neretva The concept of concept The

[

Ideology of

production

nate Film Film CEU eTD Collection 104 103 102 one possible as countries many as in movie the sell to intention the for except characters: Yugoslav playing actors foreign the of treatment the by supported be could argument This all his have to wanted director the point some at that possibility a as legitimate as be can observation inspiring This worldviews. almost and c was socialism‟ inconspicuous of are man „new a film, through nationalities way, that in that fact Yugoslav the imply could that sense between broader a In insignificant. differences the that w exclusivity out national pointing of concept the extent certain a to theplays roleoftheother. ofacharacter InNemanjaZvijer‟s withacastinglike opinion, this in roles several are there hegemony, cultural de certain a demonstrated so doing by and characters Albanian played actors Albanian Unlike actors. Yugoslav for especially importance, gained also nations,between alsolotfor thesurgeofnationalisms. but lefta ofspace diversity to right the protected which Yugoslavism, organic for instead opting Yugoslavism, a three the of any in named not was nation Yugoslav of concept the that notice easily can one welcome, 1970s. after “reopened” Neretva in proclamation the in mentioned not are Albanians Interestingly, state. new fo was it hard how demonstrated Yugoslavia.” socialist

Zvijer, Sabrina P.Ramet, Zvijer, “Id 103 Wit , while on the other hand Muslims are, though the status of this nation was just just was nation this of status the though are, Muslims hand other the on while , Ideologijafilmske slike

pr fo te at ht h flmkr pi eta teto wih ain were nations which attention extra paid filmmakers the that fact the from Apart nalyzed films. Not even Not films. nalyzed h such a complex national representation, the significance of the casting process process casting the of significance the representation, national complex a such h 104 eologija i vrednostijugoslovenskom u ratnom spektaklu,” 35.

The ThreeThe Yugoslavias, onstituted, a hero and a comrade, completely freed of all the national chains and chains national the all of freed completely comrade, a and hero a onstituted, h Egt Cnrs o LY n 94 n ws o rsle utl the until resolved not was and 1964 in LCY of Congress Eighth the

- 102 star acting crew complete and then just then and complete crew acting star

oee, hs mrsin a b tik gvn that given tricky be can impression this However, , 144.

r Yugoslav communists to integrate the Albanian nation in a in nation Albanian the integrate to communists Yugoslav r Neretva 286.

as a state a as 58 Neretva

- supported film used the idea of integral of idea the used film supported

as simultaneously undermined indirectly indirectly undermined simultaneously as in which the actor of one nationality one of actor the which in gave away the rest of the parts. parts. the of rest the away gave

Captain Leshi Captain

ati Leshi Captain in which non which in The

Battle of of Battle gree of gree -

CEU eTD Collection 106 105 should such as that and backbone presentthe always ofthesystem itself.” individual an than dominant more situation every in and always victo final to way their on one as together acting always are who individuals prominent without team a are “Partisans stands: principle which (1962), victims. level international twenty the celebrate to made was it and producers War. Liberation the of leader 1970 released c Second. the being WWII War, Patriotic First The as known also is Napoleon with war historical depict films these and scenes battle graphic for passion the share films both Russia, of invasion Napoleon‟s of backdrop the against set for models role ideological and aesthetic the of Peace duke, while Bondarcuk Sergei got ofthe the artilleryman, role Slovenian Martin. Orson why reasons other find easily cannot oe to loser

Zvijer, “Ideologija i vrednostijugoslovenskom u rat Denise J.Youngblood, , which he had finished shortly before s before shortly finished had he which , epic actor/director‟s Soviet the that seems it Bondarchuk, of Speaking

Another similar film would be Hollywood star Hollywood be would film similar Another

Neretva -

1972) which, in accordance with Brezhnev‟s politics rehabilitated Stalin as the the as Stalin rehabilitated politics Brezhnev‟s with accordance in which, 1972) glorifies exceptional soldiers, officers and politicians. For politicians. and officers soldiers, exceptional glorifies

Neretva a the was

Russian War Films,

the reconstruction of a massive historical event. In a like manner, like a In event. historical massive a of reconstruction the

and -

turned five

105

Liberation -

at oit epic Soviet part The - mythological points in life of a nation, since in Russia the Russia in since nation, a of life in points mythological

Liberation 158 -

159. served as a reminder of Yugoslav and Soviet war Soviet and Yugoslav of reminder a as served ry. Later on that can imply that the collective is collective the that imply can that on Later ry.

Welles had to play the role of a Serbian chetnik Serbian a of role the play to had Welles 59 nom spektaklu,” 35.

tarting the shooting of shooting the tarting

Neretva a also was 106

- Liberation

fifth anniversary of Victory Day. Victory of anniversary fifth - . Even though Bondarchuk‟s film is film Bondarchuk‟s though Even . studded s studded

produced by the state state the by produced

Ovbzdne 1968 (Osvobozhdenie, pectacle pectacle Bulajić Neretva The Longest Day Longest The ‟s film, was one was film, ‟s

n foreign and an opposite opposite an a and War

- On an On 1971, Even Even

CEU eTD Collection Routledge, 2005), 102. 107 resurrection. and th wrote himself death sacrificial director the while Christ's Christ‟s, replaced revolutionaries the of by sacrifice the mystery, Evreinov‟s marked process teleological a as t mediaeval mysteries, on mainly relied content and form of terms in which Revolution October the after immediately made in victory to order create aunifiedidentity ofthespectators. and sacrifice great of moments of commemoration a as states the by supported were spectacles both least, not but last, And grandeur. historical of spirit the reinvigorate to a state performed directors and revolution communist of moments important of reconstruction the in participants of number enormous an engaging spectacles mass were Evreinov Nikolai by directed in platform religion. used ofpolitical were Leader the and Party communist I land, of Gentile concepts Emilio of setup theoretical the of help the in performance of elements the tracing for framework theoretical short Bulajić a draw to try first will I sound, may it as ambitious As Yugoslavia. Tito‟s of religion political the in established moment historical a of representation performative a as 3.4

rk Fischer Erika .

War Spectacle as a Performance of Political Religion ‟s film and 1920 theatre performance theatre 1920 and film ‟s The Storming of the Winter Palace Winter the of Storming The performance theatre Soviet Famous ai My m in this part of the thesis is to examine if examine to is thesis the of part this in m - Lichte, at religion originates in theatre, as “in order to believe in gods, man had first had man gods, in believe to order “in as theatre, in originates religion at

nd shot at authentic locations where depicted events took place, trying place, took events depicted where locations authentic at shot nd har, arfc, iul Epoig om o Pltcl Theatre Political of Forms Exploring Ritual: Sacrifice, Theatre,

, shares a couple of common motives with motives common of couple a shares ,

heatre genre in which the history of the World was narrated narrated was World the of history the which in genre heatre

was only one out of many theatre performances theatre many of out one only was The 60 h Somn o te itr Palace Winter the of Storming The

Storming of the Winter Palace Winter the of Storming

The Batlle of Neretva of Batlle The will investigate in which way the the way which in investigate will - ulig Bt tete n film and theatre Both building.

Neretva Neretva Neretva parallel between parallel

s consistent a as

. Finally, with Finally, . can be treated be can . Both works Both . and set up a up set and

Nw York: (New (1920), (1920), 107

CEU eTD Collection 111 2008), 76. 110 109 108 f as religion in itself establish to tends wounded reason this For generations. future suppose comrades were been the have for freedom must of that gift grief the earn and to pain endured the implying naturalistic, always is partisans other when evenGermans perple remain astrongenemy colleagues offensive singing, withlikesupport during their soldiers Wounded suffering. their of glorification through casualties war of ideologization of example an are courageously partisans survival whose for the wounded of religious role martyrological concealed the is barely context this of in motive level conspicuous most a The symbolism. to them elevating corporeality of features certain Although can. arts former way the in spectator the involve physically to unable being latter the film, and theatre/performance between difference big a is there Surely, playing. was he role the before body performer‟s revolutionaries, andexperience participationinahistorical event. the with act could who spectators the as well as themselves, play who revolutionaries the of st the out pointed Evreinov art and reality between border the erasing event.” social „real,‟ a into turned event theatrical the the that so spectators between the and bond actors a establish to wanted “director the because theatre, classic a than more rev the of gods.” participants these conceiving of gift the acquire to

Todor Fischer Fischer Erika Fisc Erika The wounded soldiers are one of the symbols of a specific political religion which which religion political specific a of symbols the of one are soldiers wounded The corporeality The Kuljić

- - Lichte, Lichte, her ollows: ollows: , - Kultura secanja Lichte, Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual “

The Transformative Power of Performance: A New Aesthetics New A Performance: of Power Transformative The Political religion Political lto t at n pa about play a in act to olution d to be rememberedd tobe andcelebrated, just martyrs. Christian like 110

Neretva

[ f efrac fo Erio owrs fe emphasize often onwards Evreinov from performance of Culture of Memory

xed by the partisans‟ partisans‟ resistance.Deathxed bythe and ofthewounded . Emilio Gentile defines a rather fluid notion of political of notion fluid rather a defines Gentile Emilio . Neretva Neretva , 100. , 99.

is the sacralization of a political system founded on an on founded system political a of sacralization the is

is a rather standard mim standard rather a is ] (Belgrade: Ĉigoja štampa, 2006), 288 61

108

More importantly, Evreinov hired real real hired Evreinov importantly, More fight in the film. The wounded people wounded The film. the in fight coe Rvlto wih a much was which Revolution October

etic narrative, it exploits exploits it narrative, etic rong corporal presence corporal rong

(New York: Routledge, York: (New - 289.

109 the d

By 111

CEU eTD Collection Philosophy of thePyrotechnical Viewon Worldand History”], 117 116 the partisans. 115 Views and Interpretations Manojlovic Olga in: Titoism”], of Religion Civil in Charisma 114 Baton, or Youth‟s Baton] 113 112 propaganda. communist as seen been have would film the otherwise producers, foreign with compromise a probably most was which Army.” discrete his suggests Tito of absence physical the because sacralisation. simply false, be might in missing is who Tito, to paid is attention biggest g next the in spectacle purposes, comparison For collectivism. of value the increases a canonizationearned secular in the Yugoslav communist pantheon. and leader, heroji narodni a of status his all as of spread well “the facilitated as birthday Tito‟s celebrated which baton Youth‟s of code collective life.” society‟s a its of and life individual‟s an to of aspect every permeate collectivity to wishes it and the and and obligatory individual the commandment the and of monism, subordination ideological unconditional power, of monopoly unchallengeable

Zvijer, “Ideologija i vrednostijugoslovenskom u ratnom spektaklu,” 31. EmilioGentile, It seems that Tito appears in appears Tito that seems It Dimitar Grigorov, “Racunajte na nas:‟ Odlomak o Titovoj stafeti ili Stafeti mladosti” [“Count on us:‟ Tito‟s Tito‟s us:‟ on [“Count mladosti” Stafeti ili stafeti Titovoj o Odlomak nas:‟ na “Racunajte Grigorov, Dimitar Vjekoslav Perica, “Herojstvo, mucenist “Herojstvo, Perica, Vjekoslav Bogdan 112 Three important pillars of Tito‟s regime were “Ti were regime Tito‟s of pillars important Three in heroes people‟s famous no are there that interesting is It 116

There were different elements of political religion in Tito‟s Yugoslavia Tito‟s in religion political of elements different were There Sutjeska,

Tirnanić Unlike the Army which produced the film, the Party is not mentioned in mentioned not is Party the film, the produced which Army the Unlike

s. Consequently, a Consequently, s. (people‟s heroes), prominent fighters who, with who, fighters prominent heroes), (people‟s Politics Religion as “Psihologij ,

one of the main characters is the people‟s the is characters main the of one

] (Belgrade: Institut zaistoriju Srbije, Arhiv Jugos Godišnjakza društvenu istoriju Sutjeska a i filozofija pirotehnickog pogleda na svet i istoriju” [“Psychology and and [“Psychology istoriju” i svet na pogleda pirotehnickog filozofija i a -

uolv consciousness;” Yugoslav

(Princeton: Princeto political religion political because he was wounded during this battle, but still continued leading continued still but battle, this during wounded was he because vo i karizma u civilnoj religiji titoizma” [“Heroism, Martyrdom and and Martyrdom [“Heroism, titoizma” religiji civilnoj u karizma i vo 117 62

As the the As

1 - n University Press, 2006), xv. 3 (2008): 136.

is intolerant, invasive, and fundamentalist, and invasive, intolerant, is Sineast - Pintar (ed.), Pintar substitute of the Party one can identify can one Party the of substitute Neretva 113 to himself, [communist] Party and and Party [communist] himself, to

10 (1969/1970): 75. nte eeet a te ut of cult the was element another

hero Savo hero

. lavije, 2011), 582 115 their courage and tragic death tragic and courage their Tito

oee, hs impression this However, 114 –

vidjenja i tumacenja i vidjenja

Neretva Kovaĉević, while the the while Kovaĉević,

- 597. : first of all, a all, of first : wih only which , et partisan reat

Neretva,

[ Tito:

CEU eTD Collection 120 119 118 was … Yugoslavia one‟s feeling rather and touching as that well as used and better much marching “In region. terrain mountainous the in manoeuvre and hide the to advantage an as knowledge knew they Therefore home. their as Yugoslavia their defending literally either were partisans Many imaginedspace. ancommon establishing thus „Jugoslavija,‟ earth the with touch one‟ defending country, the from locally knowledge terrain of edge of motives the exploiting by Macedonia re … film Partisan withconnected the earth, land: i.e. Tito.” to tried I people common the of those Bulajić God.” of “surrogate a as Tito viewed population the of parts many but ideology rationalist the of voice the into absence physical his transforming objections, any without missions impossible the even execute to partisans stimulated authority Tito‟s of strength The Tito.” tonight. fall dead in another to partisan one from circles note a when scene the in like messages, his through present is leader Yugoslav five Headquarters, Supreme the

Miranda Interview with Todor 119 invisible divinity. According to sociologist Todor sociologist to According divinity. invisible

in partisans Tito, to devotion their to addition In Kuljić lo sin smlr eiiu atiue t Tt: Truh h mi caatr and characters main the “Through Tito: to attributes religious similar assigns also

Jakiša , Tito , “Down toEarth Partisans: Fashioning of YU Veljko Bulajić, - (Belgrade: Institut za politicke studije, 1998), 292. ofgrd h nto o hmln ad f ainl terri national of and homeland of notion the configured

– –

were gradually expended and adjusted to a bigger home unit named named unit home bigger a to adjusted and expended gradually were . The „telluric‟ ideas presented in partisan films films partisan in presented ideas „telluric‟ The . n mtpoia sense metaphorical a in Dnevnik

silence and then the camera films the sentence: “Prozor must “Prozor sentence: the films camera the then and silence - pointed stars and physically absent Tito. Nevertheless, the Nevertheless, Tito. absent physically and stars pointed

, Novi Sad, November 26, 1969. s own homes from out of the underground and staying in in staying and underground the of out from homes own s partisan ground level movement movement level ground partisan

hw huhs cnen eoin ad h sii of spirit the and emotions concern, thoughts, show 63 way through the grounds, the new territory of of territory new the grounds, the through way

- homes, or they stood up for the whole the for up stood they or homes, – Space inPartisan Film,” 120

oorpial mpe ad thus and mapped topographically Kuljić

Bulajić

, socialist Yugoslavia had a had Yugoslavia socialist , s im r organically are film ‟s and of partisan partisan of and tory from Slovenia to to Slovenia from tory –

KINO! such as originating originating as such

10 (2010): 55. strategic strategic 118

CEU eTD Collection 125 Memory and History: where sites certain memoryin of tornbeenmemory has that sensethe with up 124 123 European territories not controlled by the fascists in1941. short the of phenomenon the with mythology 122 121 a became Neretva on bridge unique the demolishing, second the since Ever expenses. all cover w promise The the during again filmingof once demolished be to only rebuilt, was bridge the war the After safety. p the night following the that notice to failed they that move Tito‟s by surprised so were Germans The bridge. andthe up blew plan cunning a conceived Tito side, other the on waiting were Germans the Knowing hopeless almost an in o themselves direction possible only found the where partisans situation WWII in battle real the during data, of filming the o one in visible also is land the towards partisans of relation pantheistic almost This surrender. to willing not were fascination, religious a of sort some in as partisans, which land the “wounding” and drilling of impression the create to managed forgot that wherever they were, political never apartisans terrain, inaccessible to retreated they reasons security was for When commitment. controlled they territory the on existence the population, the ident of protection an became partisan Yugoslav the operations, appropriated.”

Turajlić Turajlić Jaki Lieu de mémoire de Lieu ybls o te re space free the of Symbolism ša, lieu de mémoire de lieu It would not be an overstatement to say that by using pyrotechnical effects pyrotechnical using by that say to overstatement an be not would It

“DownEarth to Partisans,” 59. , , Cinema Komunisto Cinema Komunisto Neretva 121 as never kept, quite possibly because the film did not make enough money to to money enough make not did film the because possibly quite kept, never as Neretva

is a site of memory, “a turning point where consciousness of a break with the past is bound is past the with break a of consciousness where point turning “a memory, of site a is nie atsn i Cia r SR h js priiae i military in participated just who USSR or China in partisans Unlike Les , though ,

Lieux Mémoirede

124 -

the demolition of the bridge on this river. According to historical to According river. this on bridge the of demolition the

, documentary. , documentar visited by many tourists as a site of memory of WWII, of memory of site a as tourists many by visited Bulajić a sense of historical continuity persists.” According to: Pierre Nora, “Between Nora, Pierre to: According persists.” continuity historical of sense a -

o atr o relati how matter no to river the crossed and bridge temporary a up set artisans freedomfollowed.

promised to rebuild the bridge with the film‟srevenues. the with bridge the rebuild promisedto

y. ,” –

Representations but torn in such a way as to pose the problem of the embodimentthe theproblem of pose to as way a such in torn but - lived Uţiĉka republika (Republic of Uţice), one of the rare rare the of one Uţice), of (Republic republika Uţiĉka lived 64 f retreat was over the bridge on Neretva river. river. Neretva on bridge the over was retreat f

ey ml i was it small vely 122

26 (Spring 1989): 7.

t ctgr i fl: n diin to addition in film: in category ity f the most famous stories about stories famous most the f –

is established in the partisan partisan the in established is

125

although Bulajić 123

CEU eTD Collection 127 126 the caught problems economic) and (nationalist other and by, went time As outlook. their be simplified consequently which could movement partisan the did, of aspect negative films the for sensitivity war Soviet even or p and ideological American, groups, two in categorized way the in WWII of importance neither which watched memories groups, 40. than younger of spectators cinema of 70% that stated himself director The state. their of creation the for WWII of importance the of generations Yugoslav equaltoa practically reconst like spectacles war. the revived also he movie, d cameraman one scene bombing a of shooting the during accident unfortunate an by and tanks; and trucks of tens as well as castle, 1 villages, shooting the of purpose the for Namely, war. of reconstruction the fellowmen,with his because andJews especially partisans both fac Sea Red the of crossing Moses‟ resembles scene this music expressive by Followed glade. grassy sunny a onto riverbank steep a from bridge the crosses wounded and partisans of line religious strong a with film the of end stunning a of part a was overnight, crossed partisans which bridge, temporary funnil

Zvijer, “Ideologija i vrednostijugoslovenskom u ratnom spektaklu,” 36. Interview with Bulajić, y enough, the bridge was destroyed during the film shooting and not the war. The The war. the not and shooting film the during destroyed was bridge the enough, y 127 I would argue that by re by that argue would I oftendency unrecognized yet a shows bridge the about story The

thus cinemas served as some kind of temples in which the youth without any war any without youth the which in temples of kind some as served cinemas thus Neretva h Somn o te itr Palace Winter the of Storming The 126

Bulajić

Many pupils, students and soldiers went to watch the film in organized in film the watch to went soldiers and students pupils, Many Nedeljne novosti - , nor other other nor , mythological subtext. In a long sequence shot, a seemingl a shot, sequence long a In subtext. mythological ‟s motion pictures as pictures motion ‟s ruction of history.

- The Battle of Neretva of Battle The playing the battle, battle, the playing uolv a spectacles war Yugoslav , Belgrade, January 25,1970. 65 olitical. Yugoslav spectacles simply lacked the the lacked simply spectacles Yugoslav olitical.

icons of political religion. The reasons for reasons The religion. political of icons Neretva ied ied Bulajić

is, actually, a hypertrophied version of version hypertrophied a actually, is, – n hc te c o promne is performance of act the which in

in short, short, in

i symbolically “reminded” younger younger “reminded” symbolically n Yugoslav official release were were release official Yugoslav n

hpd h fih n historical in faith the shaped Bulajić ed extinction. Bulajić

Bulajić did not just film the the film just not did

also destroyed 4 4 destroyed also

‟s spectacle ‟s y endless endless y -

CEU eTD Collection 17 (1970), 22. 132 131 130 129 113. 128 for wishes that clear was it after Soon bridge. Neretva impor unexplained numerous connections” logical problem. of “lack main a its noticing harsh as also was story Zagreb from the critic a of Boglić, quality of expense the at content action of up Ljotić, Dimitrije by filmed significance.” internal lower a of Tirnanić film a and mentality and manner suitable Neretva newspaper daily viewership by inten him.” of expected we Bulajić 1969), 29, (November on Sarajevo, in held premiere the at guest main The itself. project the of size the by caused appraisals with welcomed was film the first at government, 3.5 more andmore.dwindled Was becausethesefilms it enough notattract did viewers? politi Yugoslav of attention

Tirnanić Tirnanić Milutin Mira Ranko .

The Biggest, not theBest: Reception of

Boglić Slightly unexpectedly, the first sharp critique came from a film critic of a leading leading a of critic film a from came critique sharp first the unexpectedly, Slightly that Given performed this task remarkably and I can say that he accomplished everything that everything accomplished he that say can I and remarkably task this performed

and concluded that the viewers got a “film a got viewers the that concluded and Munitić Ĉolić reprimanded first , “Psihologija i filozofija piroteh , “Psihologija i filozofija pirotehnickog pogleda,” 74.

, “Neretva kao legenda i ziva slika” [“Neretva as a Legend and Live Picture”], Live and Legend a as [“Neretva slika” ziva i legenda kao “Neretva , , “Bitka na Neretvi,” , do jugo Adio Politika sifying film‟s promotion. h Btl o Nere of Battle The

128 a Tt hmef h atr acig h fl sae: “Comrade stated: film the watching after who himself Tito was , Milutin , -

film! 130 fe te im nee cinemas entered film the After Bulajić cians, their interest for instrumentalization of the war spectacles spectacles war the of instrumentalization for interest their cians,

and then co then and

tant historical details such as the reason for blowing up the the up blowing for reason the as such details historical tant (Belgrade: Centar film, Srpski kultu Srpski film, Centar (Belgrade: Politika Ĉolić

for saying that saying for nickog pogleda,” 77. , 1969, in: Milutin . He invested a lot of effort to find good elements in elements good find to effort of lot a invested He . tva mpletely deconstructed mpletely

66 eevd upr fo vros ees f the of levels various from support received

The BattleThe ofNeretva Ţivojin

Ĉolić

of a grand outer format, but not quite not but format, outer grand a of Neretva ,

Jugoslovenski ratni film a national holiday, Statehood holiday, national a Pavlović Bulajić rni klub; Kragujevac: Prizma, 2005), 2005), Prizma, Kragujevac: klub; rni

being the most popular film in film popular mostthe being Neretva

‟s films could have been have could films ‟s re t ahee bigger achieve to tried , defining the pillingthe defining,

, 253. Filmska kultura Filmska 129

131 Bogdan 132

Mira Mira

Day Day and

CEU eTD Collection 136 135 134 133 ofperception movement thepartisan following inthe decades. the shaped that one the certainly Yugoslavia, Tito‟s of artefact cultural important an flaws became obvious the of spite in end, the In project. state a of purpose of demystification the prevent not did pretentiousness his with mercy no had critics that seems it time, own its in film the of success partisan popularized country. communist small relatively a from came film the because only it and countries film Greek a to it 80losing to exported accomplishments. was film The Yugoslavia. Sutjeska, in spending scenarios. undeveloped on based films indirectly called speakers The of premiere the after years 6 1975, in Zagreb in banned then and filmed was which discussion TV a to related scandal a for questions unpleasant of lot a invited that Yugoslav film year. that reports Serb office from box to according illustration, an As true. come not would history Yugoslav

Stoimenov, Šakić Ranko Kinematografija uSrbiji u 1969 , Yet, it cannot be said that that said be cannot it Yet, and out pan not did market international the on success great a of expectations The “Filmski svijet Veljka Bulajića,” 21. Munitić which was ia in 1969 only 276,290 viewers saw the film, 100,000 less than the most popular most the than less 100,000 film, the saw viewers 276,290 only 1969 in ia Partizanski film Neretva , Te slatke filmske laze… Neretva and the expensiveness of the project. It is interesting though, that the state the that though, interesting is It project. the of expensiveness the and

made first from byhis assistant

Bulajić 133 Z , documentary . Actor Ljubisa Actor .

lot o te cdm Awar Academy the won almost [

Cinematography inSerbia in 1969 out i nt e a hne o iet h nx pria spectacle partisan next the direct to chance a get not did Bulajić [ Those Sweet Film Lies… Neretva

Big (expensive) projects in Yugoslav cinematography Yugoslav in projects (expensive) Big 134 Neretva

Samardţić in a group of directors who were making expensive were who directors ofgroup in a

Bulaj hr ae niain ta de o h reckless the to due that indications are There

67 i nt ep h itrainl fimto of affirmation international the help not did

alwn te eae bu te iis and limits the about debate the allowing , ić

about the film budget. This issue ignited ignited issue This budget. filmthe about Neretva. thinks that thinks ], (Belgrade: Vuk Karadţić, 1977), 210. ], (Belgrade: Institut za film, 176. 1971), 135 fr h bs frin picture, foreign best the for d

Neretva

h Btl o Nere of Battle The

136 did not get the Oscar the get not did

Bulajić When it comes to comes it When

because of because Neretva

tva .

CEU eTD Collection Narodna knjiga, 1990), 90. 137 in being human every of side animal the of debunking the was heresies biggest the of one unity” and “brotherhood of ideology on founded state a In II. War World of mythology own its constructed that society revolution and war the on that show to is aim My etc. illusions, former the with up break symbolically to order in Eisenstein, Sergey idol, first his than style he rule communist where the place establishing a of in consequences film whole the shot intentionally director the instance, For of reflections show to try ill be would it into copied completely is biography director‟s the that claim any fiction, of work Pavlović collaborators history and politics [ boo separate and newspapers I Izgnanstvo self or autobiographical less fram the contextualizedwithinprimarily be will film. favorite and personal most his stated, himself he as and, 4. h Lcmtv Rider Locomotive The

Ţivojin judged. Instead, using other sources which can not be considere be not can which sources other using Instead, judged. Zaseda (TheAmbush) Zaseda I plan to use all these written sources in order to establish the proportion in which in proportion the establish to order in sources written these all use to plan I Zaseda ‟s life story and artistic views were built in built were views artistic and story life ‟s

Pavlović,

– [

xl I Exile ( Belina sutraBelina The Ambush The Jezgro napetosti Jezgro –

Djavolji film Djavolji

and ] and ]

a war fought for the ideals of liberty and equality. equality. and liberty of ideals the for fought war a Pavlović

- [ ih which with , 1969) was the fourth feature film directed by directed film feature fourth the was 1969) , referential: autobiography referential: The Whiteness of The Whiteness ks

slua pn krvi pun Ispljuvak

ego napetosti Jezgro by

– [ The Nucleus of Tension of Nucleus The

Dva

‟s experience on the form and the content of content the and form the on experience ‟s Živojin [ The Devilish Film Devilish The The Ambush The

razgovora Pavlović

Pavlović 68

Tomorrow

ework of ework

[

h Nces f Tension of Nucleus The

[

hwd h ncsiy f h dset n a in dissent the of necessity the showed [ presents a highly personalized perspective personalized highly a presents Two Conversations Two n ta h apid dfeet directing different a applied he that and Bodu Sputum Bloodful A The Ambush The ] ( ] ]; and even notes about his friends and friends his about notes even and ]; : A – Belgrade: BIGZ, Srpska knjizevna zadruga, knjizevna Srpska BIGZ, Belgrade:

]. Pavlović Planeta filma Planeta

Banned Film Banned 137

In this chapter this In . Given that this movie is a is movie this that Given . ‟s literary texts, all more or or all more texts,literary ‟s d autobiographical, I will I autobiographical, d ],

[ ; i itriw in interviews his ]; Film Planet Film Jahac na lokomotivi lokomotivi na Jahac ; sas n film, on essays ];

Ţivojin Ţivojin The Ambush The The Ambush The

]; diaries ]; Pavlović Pavlović saw the the saw .

CEU eTD Collection 144 1999), 290. 143 still calledParty. was League the Colloquially, Yugoslavia. of Party Communist called was it year this Before 1952. after party 142 141 youth wing oftheCommunist Party of Yugoslavia. 140 139 138 monste “social a into turned which Party the with finished was he that fact the position, painting.” individualistic and destructive anarchic, “legalizing of endorsement his to due that council University the concluded of member a become Belgrade in Arts Fine of Academy the of committee in communistshaken. politicswasseriously faith his 1956 of revolution Hungarian the after but films, Eisenstein‟s Sergey and USSR the boy. in engraved left were period Informbiro and collectivization the and Ambush partisans the between conflict cruel chetniks, the witnessed he where Jagodina, town, 4.1 history. his project openly to destiny creative own his stake to afraid not was

Pavlov Interview with Pavlović, Interview with Pavlović, Interview with Pavlović, LCY stands for the League of Communists of Yugoslavia was the official name of the Yugoslav communist Yugoslav the of name official the was Yugoslavia of Communists of League the for stands LCY Ţivojin KJ o Svz ouitce maie uolvj (on C (Young Jugoslavije omladine komunisticke Savez or SKOJ, .

139 New Man forthe New Film

In 1957 In Ţivojin

During the first years after the war, as a as war, the after years first the During A smoe h fl i lv wt th with love in fell who someone As . ić,

138 Pavlović

Pavlović, Izgnanstvo

but soon after he moved to rural eastern Serbia where he placed the story of story the placed he where Serbia eastern rural to moved he after soon but

Pavlović Pavlović

Izgnanstvo I: 1957, 1958, 1959 1958, 1957, I: Izgnanstvo claimed he was not disappointed; moreover, he appeared to be glad about about glad be to appeared he moreover, disappointed; not was he claimed I, I, 291.

Duga Duga NIN

was born in 1933. During World During 1933. in born was ‟s conflict with LCY with conflict ‟s

, Belgrade, October 29, 1993, 41. , Belgrade, June, 11 , Belgrade, June 11

143

141 th th , 1988, 15.

69 ,1988, 15. [ 142

Exile I Exile huh e a a addt fr political a for candidate a was he Though

member of SKOJ, of member peaks, when the teaching council and party and council teaching the when peaks, eeya lf i te ilg, h violent the village, the in life everyday e ], (Novi Sad: Prometej; Belgrade: Kwit podium, Kwit Belgrade: Prometej; Sad: (Novi ],

muit ege f uolva ws the was Yugoslavia) of League ommunist War II he stayed in a small Serbian small a in stayed he II War Pavlović 140 subjective experience subjective

he was fascinated with fascinated was he ‟s memory as a young young a as memory ‟s Pavlović

ol not could r.” 144

The He of

CEU eTD Collection Bu 82 1996), kinoteka, razgovori i eseji 146 – witnessing 145 was he that aware being not war, the after trials staged the during state” the of “enemies the at cursed publicly he that recalls director the child, a was he when atrocities watching before well writings Wajda‟s himprovided central conceptof withthe shown, be will As for path seen. the set rarely solutions directorial but mentioned, often are enemies their while voice the when film the of beginning shot tracking long famous the namely, war; the in destinies fragmented of hopelessness the convey to uses colleague Polish his means stylistic specific the recognizes also director larger than not are who fighters resistance Warsaw the of death absurd the in climax its reach that images” “unpleasant the of composed film a make to ability Wajda‟s is most admires Wajda‟s Andrzej in model the finds and 1950s the of films partisan Yugoslav mainstreamthe to alternative an for Aleksandar Makavejev, ( Archive, Film Yugoslav the in screened films of watching passionate and movies short filming from ex to willing directors young of cradle the Belgrade, more got he since painter, professional a tofilmattracted andliterature. become never has but painting in graduated Today

NIN award for the novel of the year

nuel who was, together withEisenstein, Pavlović‟s favorite director. Pavlović is one of the few writers who was awarded twice with the most prestigious Yugoslav literary award literaryaward Yugoslav mostprestigious the with twice awarded was who writersfew the of one is Pavlović Ţivojin - ie her life . n hs aaie e exchanges he magazine this In ). h nto o rvlto a dsrcin xse in existed destruction as revolution of notion The 1950s the of end the By

Pavlović, “Dva surova filma” [“Two Brutal Films”], 1960 Films”], Brutal [“Two filma” surova “Dva Pavlović, Pavlović e, u odnr pol wt ter ite ad hrcmns Te Yugoslav The shortcomings. and virtues their with people ordinary but oes, [ h Dvls Fl: sas n Interviews and Essays Film: Devilish The - 86. The second The 86.

published film critiques and essays, particularly for the magazine the for particularly essays, and critiques film published

Kanal Petrović ,

praising it for depicting war as a as war depicting for it praising

145 brutal –

, Branko , in 1985 and 1992.

Kanal Pavlović

film Pavlović also praised is praised also Pavlović film Pavlović - over suggests that each of the fighters will die soon, die will fighters the of each that suggests over Bsds h aforemen the Besides . destruction

Vuĉićević opinions

became a member of the amateur Film Club Club Film amateur the of member a became 70 s ritc xlrto ad ms importantly, most and, exploration artistic ‟s

(oi a: rmtj Blrd: Jugoslovenska Belgrade: Prometej; Sad: (Novi ] . ih young with . Already in his critiques his in Already . periment and criticize society. Apart Apart society. criticize and periment

- 1961, in: 1961,

Pavlović The Young and the Damned the and Young The brutal

imaes sc as such filmmakers, ind eoy f WWII of memory tioned Ţivojin

event. s ie xeine and experience life ‟s

Pavlović, 146

Pavlović What Djavolji film: Djavolji Pavlović

Danas by Luis by Dušan

at the the at looks looks -

CEU eTD Collection [ 151 150 149 148 147 syste no oriented is mechanistically it Therefore a roads. that paved wonder and water running electricity, to access get auto Yugoslavia and violence to affinity that the of foundation very accelerated aftermodernization ofWWII, Yugoslavia first at the At etc. urbanization, electrification, industrialization, projects as rationalistic such of victory the proclaimed elite political Yugoslav the when moment etc. anti which themes,in contemporary on in reflected end.” the till conducted be to able be alongs emerged ofpremiere destructive.” surfac point, tipping the to brought is destruction physical by caused tension psychological which in circumstances in … drive death The urges. suppressed of liberation “a is revolution that 1957) (November o is detestation” “organic revolution revolutionary‟s the of phenomenon the of essence the that realizes he revolution, October the about films Soviet first the Analyzing metaphors. inspired death and revolution with encounters close rut and property private of acquisition forceful Farewellthe in

Interview with Pavlović, Pavlović, Ţivojin Interview with Pavlović, Beside

In essence, essence, In

Pavlović, “Film irevolucija” [“Film andRevolution”], 1957, in: Pavlović, h Ambush The Izgnanstvo I Pavlović The Ambush The 149

Next War

ide them are necessary narcotic attacks on human conscience so that it would it that so conscience human on attacks narcotic necessary are them ide h sm ln o togt s rsn i hs osdrto js atr the after just consideration his in present is thought of line same The Pavlović ohr alvćs a fls are films war Pavlović‟s other ,

‟s war films, war ‟s , 409. ].

Susret Književne : “Revolutions… are the fruit of biological necessities, and ideas that that necessities,and ideas biological of the fruit are “Revolutions… :

s s rainl cts. h caatr f ht icag is discharge that of character The ecstasy. irrational as es ‟s concept of destruction reveals irrational historical f historical irrational reveals destruction of concept ‟s , Belgrade, 1969, in:Pavlović,

novine 151

just as metaphors of decay were omnipresent in his films films his in omnipresent were decay of metaphors as just - etuto wl dsper hn l te iies of citizens the all when disappear will destruction , Belgrade, 1988, in:Pavlović, 150 - heroes wander around the hovels, landfills, dirtyinns, landfills, hovels, the wanderaroundheroes

hs w position. own his f Organic metaphors of destruction were consistently were destruction of metaphors Organic 71

, hs mi porm was program main whose m, ls dsrcin f n hierarchy. one of destruction hless Hajka Pavlović destruction

Jezgro napetosti [ Manhunt 148

sight, it was a fairly natural idea wasafairly sight, it

to contemplate potent organic organic potent contemplate to ] and and ] Jezgro napetosti Pavlović

as a consequence of the the of consequence a as , 34. avdne nseni vojni naslednji v Nasvidenje Dj

avolji film rts n i diary his in writes , 193. building orces in the in orces

, 93 147 - 95.

These

CEU eTD Collection in Dom omladine Beograd, December 22, 2010, 2. 154 153 Djavolji film 152 “bad” and partisans the secure to struggle the of heat the in given were marks negative the “good” of and dilemmas. moral issues political sensitive with categorization dealing been purposes, propaganda common very from Manichean a have, 1950s the from films war numerous contrary, the On Germans/chetniks/ustashas. only was of revisionism the there films films,war 1950s in that prejudices of creation the about brought fact, partisan in has, generation first the the of as far simplicity As ideological constituted. been alleged has cinematography when period the was it that account 1950 the in dilettantism technical for especially place, in are critiques those of most case Yugoslav the in previous how matter No criticizing directors. of heavily generations started all they energetic, and Young directors. became soon French the of authors the Kozara e “pyrotechnical and anecdotalism towards reason same the For brutality. warrior‟s of concealment abo art of kitsch.” …Instead way disgusting most a in but it, beautified they history, scold not did … celluloid of way the by war the about spoke here film:who Yugoslav “Those in the representation its dominantforms of underminethe to the towards pointed who underlying darkinstincts greatwith the potential fordestroyingfragile the Yugoslav utopia. artist the against harshly react to had unity,” and “brotherhood

Dimitrij Ţivojin Ţivojin In this theoretical offensive against the older Yugoslav war films, war Yugoslav older the against offensive theoretical this In ambigmore the create to order In 152 (1962)

Pavlović, “Opsene” [“Mirages”], e Vojnov, e Vojnov, alvć “a o eouii [h Le bu Revolution], About Lie [The revoluciji” o “Laz Pavlović,

, 148. h drco pse aa te batfe” mg o wr ojcig o the to objecting war, of image “beautified” the away pushes director The

and 154 Snimanje rata posle

Battle Neretva of Therefore, it can be said, and said, be can it Therefore,

ovle vague nouvelle

[ Productionafter theWar Danas (1969). uous perception of WWII, of perception uous and critics as started also who , , no. 35, September 1962, Pavlović, in: 153 xhibitions” of Veljko Veljko of xhibitions” 72

t h rvlto, e ae revolutionary have we revolution, the ut Pavlović poutos i ms b tkn into taken be must it productions, s ], text of a lecture on the partisan], film textofalectureon given Pavlović

himself confirms it, that some of some that it, confirms himself Danas , no. 5, July 1961, in: Pavlović, Pavlović, in: 1961, July 5, no. , Ţivojin

Bulajić lo tak te affinity the attacks also

first directorship of a of directorship first Pavlović

Djavolji film Pavlović te ietr of director the , hoeiin but theoreticians

Pavlović resembles

first had first , 156.

apart apart

‟s ‟s

CEU eTD Collection 158 157 156 k 155 “unauthorized was ban this for cause main cinema,” The Belgrade one in screening order. court a by banned Yugoslavia omnibus, another film schedules. shooting short and budgets modest with sympathies producers‟ won he that and successful financially pleasi crowd career whole his throughout general, it bestdebut.omnibus audience,although the awardfor In wasbooedbythe received jury the during However, office. box the at revenues significant made afterwards which film, Sutjeska company, production omnibus an into films de with cinematography the “refreshing at aiming Culture of Ministry federal the by organized was contest This Babac. Marko and Rakonjac Kokan Belgrade, Club Film the from colleagues 4.2 Veljko like him anddirectors film. feature

ulturni centar, 2001), 56.

Bogdan Interview with Pavlović, Pavlović, Ţivojin .

Pavlović Precisely for these reasons Sutjeska film offered offered film Sutjeska reasons these for Precisely 1961 In - bureaucratization” and offering a ch a offering and bureaucratization”

Tirnanić Pavlović and Pavlović Jahac na lokomotivi 155 ng movies. At the same time he emphasized that almost all of his films were films his of all almost that emphasized he time same the At movies. ng ’s Road to’s Road War (Film)

Pavlović Pavlović , Crni talas 157

Nebojša

Kapi, vode, ratnici vode, Kapi,

Vjesnik

Grad

won the Yugoslav contest for the for contest Yugoslav the won was fighting for his own artistic artistic own his for fighting was [ Black Wave , 48.

Pajkić

, Zagreb, January 28, 1986, 19. Bulajić

rmee t h Pl Fl Fsia ti rte experimental rather this Festival Film Pula the at premiere (

h Town The , 158 aa n lokomotivi na Jahac

] (Belgrade: Filmski centarSrbije, 2008), 33. had just begun.had just

Pavlović as well as pessimism which contradict which pessimism as well as

( , 1963) which became the only film in socialist socialist in film only the became which 1963) , Drops, Waters, Warriors Waters, Drops, 73 ance to new authors. new to ance

insisted that he does not care about making about care not does he that insisted

[ h Lcmtv Rider Locomotive The

Pavlović production of a short film with his with film short a of production Lebensraum 156 Rakon , )

and sold it to a Sarajevo a to it sold and

Debutants joined their joined Debutants – Blrd: Studentski (Belgrade: ]

the battle between battle the jac and Babac to to Babac and jac s “current status “current s CEU eTD Collection Serbi expressing in vocal more and more became he 1966 after but of disrespecting and based was Yugoslavia which intellectualfirstfreedom.At on ideals the down letting for regime Tito‟s he 162 161 160 159 Isaković Borislav dissidents: were body. others, amongst council, artistic this censorship of Members internal discrete a as served also of but charge filming, in for was screenplays councilapproving artistic film‟s Avala companies. smaller in existed already had (1967). Skupljač Corman, Roger of manner Draţević the In Ray. Nicholas ambitious and Welles started Orson like and directors famous company unproductive an co of international profile the changed completely service secret Tito‟s ( fi Avala owned vaguelyhe rather criticized intellectuals” “futile pessimism. for their film, a was Sutjeska in workers of group Bogdan critic film the although and management the between conflict internal society;” the of The Return The

Ţivojin Tirnanić Tirnanić never belonged to their intellectual circle intellectual their to belonged never Although Pavlović kept professional contacts with these wri these with contacts professional kept Pavlović Although part of a wide political campaign inspired by one of Tito‟s speeches in 1963, in which in 1963, in speeches Tito‟s of one by inspired campaign political wide a of part One of the novelties novelties the of One for story his shooting While

; i perja i

162 Pavlović, , , gave a chance to the beginners, most notably to Aleksandar to mostnotably beginners, the to chance a gave Crni talas Crni talas

). In 1962 Ratko 1962 In ). with lm studio for filming of his first independently directed feature film,feature directed independently first his of filming for studio lm 159 ( - I Even Met HappyGypsies EvenMet I rdcin wih und hs tdo no sal olwo, attracting Hollywood, small a into studio this turned which productions Belina sutra Draţević

Pavlović , 34. , 39.

–

Mihailović

OZNA, ,

Ćosić ‟s support, ‟s

[ himself claimed himself Tirnanić The Whiteness of Tomorrow Draţević

discarded Draţević

was appointed as the head manager of Avala film. Avala of manager head the as appointed was - ii, Dobrica Mihiz, .

Pavlović thinks that the persecution of the creators of creators the of persecution the that thinks

Both Pavlović and and Pavlović Both h Town The

the , a Yugoslav spy in the United States and a major in major a and States United the in spy Yugoslav a , introduced in Avala film was an a an was film Avala in introduced

provincialismandCroats,linguisticSerbs disputes between of ), the first Yugoslav film to be awarded in Cannes in awarded be to film Yugoslav first the ),

74 in the 1980s the in

films

, Pavlović Ćosić ] (Belgrade: Prosveta, 1983), 346. ters a ters The Return The the some renowned writers, and later soft later and writers, renowned some dissidents‟ informal leader informal dissidents‟ nd shared some political views politicalsome shared nd Sooa Slnc n Antonije and Selenic Slobodan ,

that the cause for the ban was the was ban the for cause the that n ainls. nie Ćosić Unlike nationalism. an o te prvl rm h state the from approval the got , a pessimistic story about an about story pessimistic a , 160 Petrović

rtistic council that council rtistic

who will make will who ,

Ćosić, 161

The Town Town The with Mihiz, Mihiz, with

human and and human Povratak Draţe Pavlović ,

attacked vić -

CEU eTD Collection 165 centar, 1985), 28. Nenad 164 163 1944 Miller, Nick book: remain demonstrationsmonths afterstudent in 1968ended. Pavlović film war fact, in film; Avala in like council artistic moment awards won because solution, excellent an be to out turned This festivals. international producer, cautious but liberal, his Yugoslavia, in W and Dead films two next his produced that Beograd, FRZ company, production smaller a to going by move offer Always filmthe 1966 until onshelf for“non its the for unexpected ex

- Pavlović, Pa Ţivojin o wo es eetd y oit wtot cac fr eaiiain However, rehabilitation. for chance a without society by rejected gets who con - vlović, 1991

ed opposed to nationa to opposed ed Budjenje pacova Budjenje oia, Slobodan Polimac, hl dsorgd y hs un f events, of turn this by discouraged While

Pavlović

Pavlović, (New York:Central European University Press, 2007). started the filming of filming the started h Ambush The Planeta filma Djavolji film hite n alv Vr ad eln tu bcmn rsetd ak home. back respected becoming thus Berlin, and Vary Karlovy in n dfeet cenly t poues l oe Ygsai, e ae wise a made he Yugoslavia, over all producers to screenplays different ing

, 1968). Fearing that Fearing 1968). , h Nnofrit: utr, oiis n Ntoaim n Srin nelcul Circle, Intellectual Serbian a in Nationalism and Politics Culture, Nonconformists: The

Planeta filma Planeta could choose the topic of his next film, without any rigid supervision of an of supervision rigid any without film, next his of topic the choose could director, after the test screening test the after director,

, 205. , 86.

( Šijan hud e tragic. be should lism, as lism, The Rats Woke Up Woke Rats The

(ed.), [ Film Planet Film

can be seen in seen be can The Ambush The v razgovora Dva Pavlović - realistic of socialistreality.” depicting the ] (Belgrade: Zepter Book World, 2002), 71 2002), World, Book Zepter (Belgrade: ]

165 Perković

, 1967) and 1967) , The Ambush The sn te oiie euain rud i name, his around reputation positive the Using

75 under the umbrella of FRZ Beograd only three only Beograd FRZ of umbrella the under ‟s pessimist views will again be frowned upon frowned be again will views pessimist ‟s

[ w Conversations Two Dušan

advised Draţević Pavlović .

Kad budem mrtav i beo i mrtav budem Kad Ćosić

Perković Pavlović ‟s circle is extensively analyzed in the in analyzed extensively is circle ‟s

and the artistic council placed council artistic the and a b n mas defeated. means no by was (egae Suetk kulturni Studentski (Belgrade: ] , offered these films first to first films these offered , a that the end of hi of end the that a - Pavlović 72; 72;

Nebojša ( 163

When I When 164

‟s films ‟s t that At

Pajkić s first s

Am ,

CEU eTD Collection 167 166 the define to failed students that fact the played role important less No demands. their of fulfilled officials of number a when especially alternative, political viable a seen have nomenklatura stude gathered the of interest,” their in League not is the it because of simply Communists, leaders the from expected be not can “changes that warned he which in including intellectuals, Numerous organized. Pavlović be should society Yugoslav which in way questions important refresh allthe and open to also but demands, university narrow your just not set to courage your support we minds and hearts our all With country. this in woman or man honest every of consciousness the in question strug your following are we appreciation and excitement interest, great a With 4 on the the to Borislav with together protest, the diary banned the in testimony written justice. social of ideals the unempl the of decrease a demanded they then but standards, living students Initially, because socioeconomic crisis. oftheirpoorprotested depth oftheYugoslav 4.3

Pavlović, Ţivojin .

Echo of 1968 Stud students. Signed by almost 50 intellectuals, the message was read in public as early as early as public in read was message the intellectuals, 50 almost by Signed students. Soon, dynamic debates took place in Belgrade University Rectorate, mostly about the about mostly Rectorate, University Belgrade in place took debates dynamic Soon, seven The th

, publicly addressed the addressed publicly , Pavlović,

of June, i.e. the seconddayof protest: the Ispljuvak punkrvi can transform itself. Furthermore, it is possible that these students could not could students these that possible is it Furthermore, itself. transform can Ispljuvak punkrvi - nts who did not share share not did who nts a suet rtss t egae nvriy n ue 98 eeld the revealed 1968 June in University Belgrade at protests student day

TO STUDENTS OF BELGRADE UNIVESITY OF BELGRADE TO STUDENTS ent Protests , 121. Pavlović

of freedom, truth and justice in a in society. justice socialist and freedom,of truth

Student Assembly. Student [ A Bloodful Sputum Mihailović

A Bloodful Sputum Bloodful A a a atv priiat f hs eet ad et a left and events these of participant active an was

Pavlović 76

Mihiz he initiated sending a solidarity message solidarity a sending initiated he Mihiz

] (Belgrade: Graficki atelje Dereta, 1990), 63. ‟s radical views and doubt that the ruling the that doubt and views radical ‟s

Pavlović 167 . When the director saw the scale of scale the saw director the When .

caused discontent among some of some among discontent caused ‟s statement from the 6 fromthe statement ‟s oyment rate and return to return and rate oyment

gle which became the the became which gle 166

of June of

some some CEU eTD Collection 170 169 Sociology: Belgrade June 1968 168 Ĉuĉković partisans, distinguished many were whom of among testimony traumatic the secret kept systematically which society the included he of that whole perspective insider‟s the by impressed so was director The inmates. ex an by Nikola written letter the was 1968 and 1948 comparing started contemporary for taboo remained point historical this Stalin, supporting of accused were who citizens Yugoslav prison campGoli otok for from of creation hadpassed the 20years before 1968.Eventhough in resonated an youth that within for added][italics was that important is it side, other the On … 1948. of event defeat terrible a defeat, they that opinion my is It characteristics ofthe1968protests: Yet change. substantial any of incapable peacefully and ideas” their to support of sign disbanded the protest. a as speech] [Tito‟s “took who students 9 the on speech cease. protest should the which under terms

Interview with Pavlović, Popov, Nebojša eeec t 14, ht s te pi bten tlnss n Ttit, obviously Titoists, and Stalinists between split the is, that 1948, to Reference left epilogue This Ĉuĉković Drustveni sukobi

‟s suppressed, unofficial and, most importantly, importantly, most and, unofficial suppressed, ‟s Popov, Ĉuĉković Pavlović th Drustveni sukobiDrustveni , who sent it to Belgrade students in order to expose the brutal the expose to order in students Belgrade to it sent who ,

of June in which the Yugoslav president agreed i agreed president Yugoslav the which in June of s etr in letter ‟s med and is forming even now asnow wespeak. even isforming medand

169 – s esetv a te at oet f oil ilcis n Yugoslavia in dialectics social of moment last the as perspective ‟s , 102.

Susret are of the utmost importance. I think that they could be compared with the the with compared be could they that think I importance. utmost the of are

ulc icus o ta tm. n o te esn why reasons the of One time. that of discourse public – ] (Belgrade: Pavlović

lhuh n aeil otx lf n re no left context material in although , Belgrade, 1969, in:Pavlović,

–

Izazov sociologiji:IzazovBeogradski jun 1968. Bodu Sputum Bloodful A

reassured in his opinion that Yugoslav society was still was society Yugoslav that opinion his in reassured Sluţbeni 168

aray n 1969 in already , glasnik, 2008), 93 77

Finally, the suspense eased after Tito‟safterfamouseased suspense Finally,the

Pavlović abi wtot n cmetr. n a In commentary. any without albeit , Jezgro napetosti personal - 170 99.

eonzd h sgiiac of significance the recognized

he noticed a few valuable valuable few a noticed he sults, and suffered a romantic romantic a suffered and sults,

[

Soci history. For this reason it it reason this For history. , 39 n general terms with the the with terms general n - rsnr f oi otok, Goli of prisoner al Conflictsal

- 40. oi tk prisoners, otok Goli emotional opposition opposition emotional

torture of his of torture –

Challenge toChallenge Pavlović

CEU eTD Collection 175 174 173 Cinema 172 171 working a but state, and society a be to leading individual, not shoud notions political basic the that proposed philosophers Praxis Finally, needs. selfish own his satisfy to tries Zeka while war, the during rev potentials.” human suffocates also su not is which repression “internal i.e. alienation, and dehumanization are terms Praxis important Stalinism Yugoslav which communists, the of “criticism a was excellence criticism Praxis the in addition, philosophers Yugoslav In by 1960s. adopted Marx young of platitude famous a was which f and First thought. of school this i protests student ap the challenge a were they that said was Pavlović philosophers Marxist Yugoslav of ideas critical Defeat diary his of title first the that surprise no as comes nfluence of Praxis philosophers Praxis of nfluence

Interview with Pavlović, Zagorka Zagorka Zagorka Zagorka Aesthetic,” as Rhetoric Wave Polemics: “Black Jr., Greg DeCuir, olution that they served not so long ago; long so not served they that olution

certainly bjected only to arrest and brutal treatment of the system towards the human the towards system the of treatment brutal and arrest to only bjected . 171 Excluding 1(2010): 89. 1(2010):

did not leave a trace of trace a leave not did

.” Golubović Golubović Golubović 173

not advocating t advocating not

Pavlović

paratchiks.” n hs olau Makavejev colleague his and

h ies f tdn poet i 1968, in protests student of ideas the

I will describe in further detail further in describe will I

, in: Popov, , in:Popov, , in:Popo , in:Popov,

Susre bi fr osrcie rtcl cin n h pr o te ass to masses the of part the on action critical constructive for “bait form of form

als dbne Saiit ehd o rln epoe b Yugoslav by employed ruling of methods Stalinist debunked o t , Belgrade, 1969, in:Pavlović, 172 v,

ransparent political propaganda; thus propaganda; political ransparent

Sloboda i nasilje Sloboda i nasilje Sloboda i nasilje Sloboda

However “personalism.” his ow his oremost, it is a “merciless criticism of everything existing,” everything of criticism “merciless a is it oremost, -

it can be said that that said be can it 174

rtgnss of Protagonists n perception of the ideas of ideas the of perception n since ,

aft 78 , 48. , 45. , 37. 175 er the victory Vrana is unsure is Vrana victory the er

Pavlović

- The p The

s ahrd rud the around gathered as in th in

all about 1968 was 1968 about The Ambush The Jezgro napetosti

h Ambush The e analysis of the film itself. The n The itself. film the of analysis e ee i fact, in were, aradigm o aradigm

oilzd ih h laes f the of leaders the with socialized h Ambush The Studies in Eastern European Eastern in European Studies f personalism is present in present is personalism f

these philosophers and philosophers these

shares some shares , 39 for his films it it films his for

Subjective History of a of History Subjective c aintd rm the from alienated act

- 40. obvious

eoae wt the with resonates

journal

why h why

y ne the under ly notions with notions cannot be cannot , ,

e fought e but that but Praxis par par ext ext

he .

CEU eTD Collection 177 176 official the with clash the was inevitable.history so be, can it as extreme and subjective as was war Vrana. protagonist, the with identified he that admitted openly he ar much so Ambush why explains which afloat, company the keep distribution.” our expanding in situation unfavorable operatio this from exit the see filmmakers, We, allowed. have could resources available the than higher was years 3 last the for Serbia in production producer, ultra the supported himself Tito and state the while comedies, populist mainly films, unproblematic of production of increase criticism social his social andculturalreforms. the after that sure taste, anyone‟s or reason any for views his bend to two inclined Not previous films. his of success the after especially compromise, any for ready him make not “p tragedy the toof whodoesnotwant accept ideological anindividual deception. Pavlović

romising” director with one banned and one temporarily shelved film. These obstacles did obstacles These film. shelved temporarily one and banned one with director romising” Pavlović, Dijalog sa producentima that fact the Despite W

ns to distribution of domestic and foreign films and that is why we formed our own own our formed we why is that and films foreign and domestic of distribution to ns – ‟s insistence ‟s hen

he could not even assume when the next time was going to be when he would have would behe when to nexttimegoing the was assumewhen not even could he Perković Dva razgovora tistic freedom. tistic 176 Pavlović

Perković

end of protest Tito‟s administration will not undertake all the necessary the all undertake not will administration Tito‟s protest of end , was shrinking y shrinking was

eakd n 99 we h ws t h tp f i sces ta “the that success, his of top the at was he when 1969, in remarked on

, 34. [ started shooting shooting started

Dialogue with the Producers a

The Ambush Ambush The

admitted that the revenue from cinema tickets was not enough to enough not was tickets cinema from revenue the that admitted

subjective view of historical events, as well as in his outlining of outlining his in as well as events, historical of view subjective

Pavlović

- xesv spectacle expensive ear after year. The demand for financial success brought success financial for demand The year. after ear

received international awards, maneuverin awards, international received was the first film that he directed after his own script; script; own his after directed he that film first the was h Ambush The 79

], Pavlović Sineast

e a 35 was he

10 (1969): 43. The

netd isl s mc in much so himself invested

ate f Neretva of Battle 177 - year

His perspective on the on perspective His - old, still young and and young still old, Pavlovi

. ć g space for space g

Pavlović eso of version was quite was The The ‟s ‟s CEU eTD Collection 181 the English “blacksheep.” 180 179 178 Vranaexecute he nothav because does peasants of group a exit, village the At Jotic. bureaucrat a by over taken get achievements Zeka‟s chetniks. the defeating after dying eventually and raping looting, Zeka, commander, disillusion soon is He chetniks. eliminating of charge in things, other among was, which service security founded newly the OZNA, joins he 1945 In house. cousin's his at staying Serbia, to moves Vrana Italians, by slaughtered are parents his Cr to Serbian from nationality protagonist‟s the changed he that much so act” Vidović Ivica actor, Croatian deprive them heroi oftheir as well as films, Both film Soviet by directed film Yugoslav 1967 are film war of type this of examples a Two as spectacle. war treat not do which films war in frequent is front battle the of realm temporal and pe and location Choosing questioned. longer no was partisans the where by and 1960s, the during film Avala in council artistic the of member Po 4.4

Pavlović, Ţivojin Antonije “Vrana” means “crow”. This nickname refers to the Serbian idiom “white crow”, which is an equivalent for for equivalent an is which crow”, “white idiom Serbian the to refers nickname This “crow”. means “Vrana”

Pavlović . tre

Camera as a Weapon ć Pavlović i put i h mi caatr in character main The Pavlović

Pavlović, Isaković Planeta filma

The Ballad of a Soldier a of Ballad The

Puriša himself. The film story takes place in place takes story film The himself. [ For the Third Time Third the For

lived as a teenager) during the last couple of days of war when the victory of victory the when war of days of couple last the during teenager) a as lived ‟s screenplay for screenplay ‟s , Krivudava reka Velika deca

Djordjević

, 87.

Pavlović

c pathos. [ , appreciated by appreciated , Big Children

t actually which ,

[ Meandering River s dpc te oa dlma o te ihes n ec and peace in fighters the of dilemmas moral the depict ‟s, h Ambush The ] The Ambush The 178

(1959) about a soldier‟s home leave to help his mother. his help to leave home soldier‟s a about (1959) by Antonije Antonije by e personal documents. ] (Belgrade: Nolit 80 Pavlović

was based on the motives of two short stories: short two of motives the on based was ] (Belgrade: Nolit, 1963). s 19 is akes place in the first days of peace; and the the and peace; of days first the in place akes

Isaković Knjaţevac - er l Ie Vrana, Ive old year

, 1958). for his “unspoiled actors‟ spontaneous actors‟ “unspoiled his for ed by seeing the obnoxious partisan obnoxious the seeing by ed , who was already mentioned as a as mentioned already was who ,

(a small town in eastern Serbia eastern in town small (a riod outside of the spatial the of outside riod

Legenda 180 Jutro

[ oatian. The Lege The lyd y t by played

[ Morning 181

nd After ] 179 he ],

CEU eTD Collection 186 185 pleas a not was it and front, this on died partisans inexperienced and young Many Germans. against fought partisans 184 himself. 183 kritika.php 182 one Zeka a let become to not careful is director The interests. selfish his only satisfy to began and them Ze if Even fighting. guerilla in experienced in1968. protests nomenklatura front. Syrmian manandwith noproperty, opposed pillagingsupply heis farmers to foodfrom the inorder oneratherthanwithapicture inside.loved alocket communist, Beingapassionate Vranais to symbol ideological the giving in obvious is five act a this with of Depersonalization necklace star. a pointed her gives origin, her knowing despite he, when cemetery, local a and Vrana lovers, rights. civil his of stripped was who bourgeois a and lawyer a of daughter the Milica, with relationship his by inspired mockery friends‟ his with up put t in and life with ideology the conflict, harmonize inner Vrana‟s define to asked When nations. the between differences the and construction its of instability the reinforces building Serbian of one respect this In the peasants. to compared when effeminate more thereby and softer sounds dialect

Pavlović, For a list ofstudents‟ slogans against the “red bourgeoisie”, see: Popov, Aleksandar cn o te ra t Mlc‟ fte i ovosy eyn o smlr tria similar on relying obviously is father Milica‟s to trial the of Scene iutd n ovdn, hs a te at ra WI fot hr caiin f e Am ad Yugoslav and Army Red of coalition where front WWII great last the was this Vojvodina, in Situated ant memory ofthe war.

rn‟ opst fo ha t te s ea a re wmnzr n a drunkard, a and womanizer cruel a Zeka, is toe to head from opposite Vrana‟s alien an represents Vrana

Dva razgovora Novaković

- – 184 iesoa vlan s ti caatr cs ie fte fgr t Vrana. to figure father a like acts character this so villain, dimensional

185 so

Milica talk only about violence. Milica and Vrana kiss for the first time at at time first the for kiss Vrana and Milica violence. about only talk Milica hs s srn rfrne o h piiee acq privileges the to reference strong a is This

- called “red bourgeoisie” “red called

, Zaseda , 24.

Pavlović

[ TheAmbush

‟s coming back to historical historical to back coming ‟s –

starting with his Croatian accent in Eastern Serbia. His Serbia. Eastern in accent Croatian his with starting ], accessed December 8, 2011, hat attempt he suffers a terrible defeat.” terrible a suffers he attempt hat 81 - a a sm pltcl luin, e abandoned he illusions, political some had ka

that led to social segregation and the student the and segregation social to led that

Pavlović

183 responded: responded:

roots of the multinational state state multinational the of roots Drustveni konflikti Although they look like happy like look they Although s inse b yug Pavlović young by witnessed ls http://novikadrovi.net/kritike/56 ie b te Yugoslav the by uired Ie rn tis to tries Vrana “Ive , 96 182 - 97.

He has to has He

186

a - -

CEU eTD Collection 187 workers peasants, which in spectacles partisan to opposed As war. class a into revolution peasants the from food of requsition in chetniks and partisans the between rivalry importantly, More rival. ways dangerous and decent possible a as except all in portrayed were who chetniks the are enemies Nominal partisans. the previous exclusively history.tragic w with on, of celebration goes life normal while death, partisans‟ the behind Vrana‟s. especially absurd, looks death whereas banal, in violence revolutionary of causes The in. part took he that violence devolution. during his produced Rebel, he devolution that In bureaucrat. a … revolutionary to the devolves when say to is but that time, power, gained or recently history of of consolidation of revolution time of the process during the in happen not does revolution the of tragedy The deformationthe oftherevolutionary Accordingideals. to torched, gets headquarters c it Consequently, etc. party peasants, three kill officials confiscated, communist gets family Milica‟s of property the theft; of accused he whom workers railroad kills Jotic trial a Without occur. violence revolutionary Y of tape, celluloid a on not least at examples, unrecorded that him around is It arms. officer Jotic. again fighting dies he When

Interview with Pavlović,

from a heretic and a rebel to a policeman. After that, a bureaucrat protects taboos which he he which taboos protects bureaucrat a that, After policeman. a to rebel a and heretic a from The Ambush The revolu the surrounding silence the protects bureaucrat the words, other In brother wounded a forgets who coward a and careerist ambitious typical a is Jotic

partisan films partisan fers that WWII was not a liberation, but a but liberation, a not was WWII that fers

oi‟ nnxset courage nonexistent Jotic‟s

oppo . In . Nedjelja ses not only the official the only not ses

Pavlović 187

st chetniks, all of his glory is stolen by his antipode, police police antipode, his by stolen is glory his of all chetniks, st , Sarajevo, December 17, 1989, 20.

‟s film there are no Germans, that archetypical enemy of of enemy archetypical that Germans, no are there film ‟s Pavlović Lf de nt olw h lgc f h official, the of logic the follow not does Life . 82 rnfrs a Cms ad n i masterpiece his in said Camus as transforms,

os vn ute ad un communist turns and further even goes version of the past, but also the model the also but past, the of version civil civil

There is no higher, teleological sense teleological higher, no is There Pavlović war. By emphasizing the ruthless the emphasizing By war.

an be said that Jotic performs Jotic that said be an ,

dig, oe ak and walks love eddings, The Ambush The

are often are ugoslav tionary - and The The in of of - CEU eTD Collection 191 190 Šijan 189 188 eye and large escape not can characters main The II. War World in measured are casualties when Europe in country third the is Yugoslavia that statement the with complying youth cheerful the alongside parade the during when film atavisms.”constant ofdistorted transposing fully thus bloodshed, new the Pavlović before silence the only but victory, final the bring not did war the that indicates death absurd Vrana‟s revolution. the depicting in pursued their from Vrana losing hands. risk to ready not are they which to due conformism” “biological identity? his checking properly without freedom their for fought honestly who idealist them, unlike fanatics, While caution. due peasants. with despised always peasantry the managed Tito and Zedong Mao like people genius Only revolution. the of part be to forced yet and devouring amoeba, an on, like goes tumbling that something is Peasantry it. initiated who people the of reasons the with identical never class. middle the from originating usually were They peasants. never were revolutions these of leaders the However, Cuban. and ours Chinese, Russian, have: should it way the out turned everything peasants by done were revolutions when Only Pavlović revolut “Some him: kill direct line the by preceded mother, peasant‟s a of curse the are f allies, are classes other

ilm peasants are often cursed often are peasants ilm

Pavlović, Pavlović, Nemanja Zvijer, Ţivojin ), (Beograd: Studentski kulturni centar, 1985), 38. 190 The cult of death and violence reaches negative apotheosis in the last scene of the of scene last the in apotheosis negative reaches violence and death of cult The an but peasants, despising fanatics the of one not is Vrana if remains: question a Yet,

‟s ‟s

Pavlović, notes: This biological conform biological This Izgnanstvo I Jezgro napetosti oin f a of notion

Ideologi Dva razgovoraDva

, 531. 188 ja filmske slike, 189 people , 63. o yuae”Cmetn o i film his on Commenting are!” you ion

The Ambush The

[

Two ConversationsTwo 191 as well as the peasants‟ revolution. Even Vrana‟s last words last Vrana‟s Even revolution. peasants‟ the as well as s “pcltv asrcin wih s hrceie b “a by characterized is which abstraction” “speculative a as

ism may stand for the destructive irrationalism the director the irrationalism destructive the for stand may ism 117. The reasons which inspired peasants to go to fight were fight to go to peasants inspired which reasons The

Pavlović

the state kills the peasants without trial. During the During trial. without peasants the kills state the 83

] (edited by (edited] end, the in him kill peasants those did why ,

said peasants did so because of their own own their of because so did peasants said Nebojša crippled war veterans are walking, walking, are veterans war crippled ed to the peasants preparing to preparing peasants the to ed

‟s Pajkić

portrayal of the peasants, the of portrayal , Nenad Polimac i SlobodanPolimac i , Nenad - piercing piercing

CEU eTD Collection Kragujevac: Prizma; Thessaloniki: 38 194 Jahac na lokomot Home Way 193 192 in that sense the in well, as film feature resurrecte be will it screen the on again, once sides; all from body the drill celluloid life‟s of barrages let at navel; lens the aim artist film the let sniper, a like “Stealthily, imperative: following the l human of authenticity the register to order In filmed. are they that know not will people which in documentaries shooting of necessity the the so hasdirector overth more control room, editing the in material the of manipulation severe prevents it filming of way this with that emphasized be should it shots, sequence the of aspect important one on insist s by characterized films partisan mainstream the from back. the in actions dynamic and forefront in action basic 16 film inonly was shot days like films in color of use optimistic the avoiding war, the of image grimmer a invoked monochromy The 1950s. the in than less much though cinematography, black in shot was films, war. previous the of vision alternative an produced he how of example to Stalin‟s. the as portrait Stalin‟s film, the of th of shot reminder last very the and officials, the by passing truck the on victory communist of monument a like standing Milica girlfriend Vrana‟s of one the Aleksandar Tito, of portraits

Pav Hungarian director Miklos Jancso used the similar shooting style and storyline in his film his in storyline and style shooting similar the used Jancso Miklos director Hungarian Ţivojin lović, In his essay essay his In about said be to need words few A

] (1964), though Pavlović claims that he watched it only after only it watched he that claims Pavlović though (1964), ] Pavlović, Dva razgovora

i is ndleae splendor.” unadulterated its in d e tragic 1948 and the fact that some of Tito‟s political principles were similar were principles political Tito‟s of some that fact the and 1948 tragic e ivi , 109. Nisani! Nisani!

, 38. 16, n Ranko in: 1961, ,

[ Aim! 192

Ranković th

mostly subtlyorchestrated duetothe sequencewith shots the

e realization ofe realization his ideas. International Thessaloniki Film 1997), Festival, 185. ], written in 1961, in written ], - and

- and other Yugoslav leaders. Two images stand out: out: stand images Two leaders. Yugoslav other and Munitić The Ambush The ht wih n 99 a sil sd n Yugoslav in used still was 1969 in which white 84 Pavlović

194 et al., al., et ife, the director instructs his colleagues with colleagues his instructs director the ife,

hs osrain cn e ple t a to applied be can observations These Pavlović

Živojin camera is used as a symbolical weapon symbolical a as used is camera horter shots. Though shots. horter s ietn sye s t s e another yet is it as style directing ‟s

193

Pavlović

This filming style was different was style filming This in a poetic manner writes about writes manner poetic a in The Ambush The h Ambush The Captain Blrd: etr im RTS; film, Centar (Belgrade:

was finished: Pavlović, finished: was Pavlović Leshi

just ,

Igy jottem Igy . The whole whole The .

does not does ie his like [ My CEU eTD Collection 195 so film, any award not did festival Venice year that However, press. leftist Italian Ambush significant. less was resonance its moment that at so it, saw viewers of number small a only but screened, formally was film problematic the the after opinion viewers‟ of screen to not festival. yea previous the in award the won that the director by film new a time, same the At screened. been have would festivals two the between completed films Yugoslav all is, that selection, any have not did festival Pula censors. the of July in festival Pula for registered was filmthe that moreprobable is it However, complete. be not might material archival the since exist not did directive a such Films th of documentation Reviewed premiere. its before it stop not did censorship the how say, to is that place, first the in shown was it how is dilemma Ambush 4.5 echo amongcritics. shots the speak Metaphorically revolution. the of name the in crimes of perpetrators at “fires” that

Pavlović, .

The Director in the Ambush

held no clue about the ban or the censorship of censorship the or ban the about clue no held n n o te rvos sub previous the of one In , Pavlović o Dušan Pavlović n the screening list for the Venice festival where it got many appraisals from the the from appraisals many got it where festival Venice the for list screening the n Jahac na lokomotivi The Ambush The

Perko

claims that Petar Volk, director of the festival, “cunningly devised a plan plan a devised “cunningly festival, the of director Volk, Petar that claims fired bullets from blank andthey have caused astrong hiscameranot were

vić , as the key factor for realization of the film. In many ways a larger larger a ways many In film. the of realization for factor key the as ,

in the Arena but in a smaller hall,” probably due to the dichotomy the to due probably hall,” smaller a in but Arena the in , 112 first test screening before the start of the festival. the of start the before screening test first

- 113. - hpes hv snld u te iea poue of producer liberal the out singled have I chapters

Pavlović ws cend t h oeig f new a of opening the at screened was r The Ambush The Fdrl omte fr eiw of Review for Committee Federal e ‟s producer managed to get get to managed producer ‟s , which does not mean that mean not does which ,

of 1969 without consent consent without 1969 of 195

In that way that In

in 1995 in ing, The The The

CEU eTD Collection 200 199 198 197 Twilight Zone of theYugoslav Film 196 versa. vice allowed, of screening the that curious seems it perspective this From expenses. their cover to unable were they that fact the the off taken been have viewer would of “lack film to due repertoire a two or week a after only that so cinemas, smaller few a in it screen to permit a issue would instead but film, provocative a ban not did usually Film Pula at screening closed the Festival. at it watched film, the about wrote who critics, the of audience. the from reactions positive got it where Ljubljana, in as well as shot, was 1990. in publicly politicians. screened be to only decades, full the two next the for warehouse and a in dust collecting prosecutor the of “instruction” obeyed producer not do but here, intervene not will we art, of work perfect a is “This replied: politicians When film, the about thought they film. what asked the by impressed politicians marginal of group a was there prosecutor the for piece art communistof film, an ahighquality.” butalso “ explanation: paradox a with ban a issue not did surprisingly but shelving the reconstruct briefly thatunfortunate thecase film winanyimportant awardabroad. didnot Pavlović

Pavlović, Pavlović, Pavlović, Pavlović, Milan

Truth to be to Truth and Wave Black the against offensive political to shifting Before Nikodijević 200

A limited release of release limited A xrse hs belief his expressed Planeta filma Planeta filma Dva razgovora Planeta filma

proving that some films were suitable for screening abroad but not locally and locally not but abroad screening for suitable were films some that proving h Ambush The , Zabranjeni bez zabrane: zona sumraka jugoslovenskog filma jugoslovenskog sumraka zona zabrane: bez Zabranjeni told, prior to this ban this to prior told,

The Ambush The , 101. , 100. , 100. , 39.

was probably problematic even after Tito‟s death because of its its of because death Tito‟s after even problematic probably was

] (Belgrade: Jugoslovenska kinoteka, 1995), 22.

The Ambush The

of the film. T film. the of ht rtcs of criticism that s.” Naturally, filmmakers were financially burdened due to to due burdened financially were filmmakers Naturally, s.”

screen it.” screen at the big the at

The Ambush The fit perfectly fit 198 86 Pavlović he public prosecutor demanded to see see to demanded prosecutor public he

The film was never officially banned, but the but banned, officially never was film The The Ambush Ambush The ‟s retrospective in France in 1983 was 1983 in France in retrospective ‟s

197 in the tactics of the authorities which authorities the of tactics the in was screened in screened was

Pavlović a “aiiae” by “facilitated” was

adds thatscreening atthe h Ambush The

196 [ Banned Without Ban: Without Banned

Knjaţevac The Ambush The h Ambush The

s n anti an is

the film the 199 where it where , I will will I ,

Most was

The the the - , CEU eTD Collection August 3, 1969. 202 1969. 201 and antiheroes to to only advantage giving essence, In pessimism. country own their in disbalance political Third, false.” rathe black in played Zhdanovism reverse “a reflected presented these that is objection un cultural r fashionable a only were films problematic the that accusation an Joviĉić l’art pour l’art so some but reality, on based is that manner neorealist a in not And “black”. all are they that is accomplishments film years‟ this of characteristic basic “The used: first was press. the in appeared Wave Black Journalist term the introducing articles 1969 of summer the In because directors, Wave Black the against mediaon the pressure Yugoslav meantime, anotherIn the in republic. him work allowed his adjustabilitybecause to s a as reputation a Pavlović for prize first the won Pavlović freedom greatartistic ofof anindicator looked like could have it abroad screened when hand, fundam the on attack iconoclastic

Vladimir ( Nebojša

, for , The fact that that fact The fil his though even Surprisingly, ‟s generation,‟s which wascommendable government. oftheYugoslav

shot in Slovenia, where he found a safe haven there for himself even though he had had he though even himself for there haven safe a found he where Slovenia, in shot

Joviĉić Nebojša Glišić et n h wrd ad that and world, the in rest Borba

Joviĉić ), .” , Crni talasCrni filmu nasem u 201 Efekti crnog talasa crnog Efekti , the official gazette of the Yugoslav communist party. communist Yugoslav the of gazette official the ,

Glišić adl ae. e a as a ecpin mns Ygsa directors, Yugoslav amongst exception an also was He maker. candal

Th mc mr fmu text famous more much A

Pavlović Crveno klasje Crveno rud ht h Bak ae ietr aue ad umne the augmented and abused directors Wave Black the that argued e Ambush e Joviĉić

claimed that he is the author of an unsigned text where the term term the where text unsigned an of author the is he that claimed

and other Black Wave roseconstantly. filmmakers requested that shap that requested

was heavily criticized was closely related to the offensive the to related closely was criticized heavily was na mts f h post the of myths ental [ were a dogmatic reaction to socialist realism, as they they as realism, socialist to reaction dogmatic a were Effects of the Black Wave Black the of Effects

[ Red Wheat Red

[ The Black Wave in Our FilmBlackWaveThe in Our m was banned was m

ae hm omril abroad. commercial them made Pavlović 87

] in Pula in 1971. This was one of four films four of one was This 1971. in Pula in ] 202 e their work according to the concept of concept the to according work their e

was considered a member of this group. this of member a considered was a witn y junls, Vladimir journalist, a by written was Pavlović ta white than r ], - Ekonomska politika Ekonomska WI uolva O te other the On Yugoslavia. WWII ],

continued directing and even and directing continued Borb eaction to the political and political the to eaction a – (the supplement(the

n bt ae equally are both and Joviĉić Joviĉić , Belgrade, July 21, 21, July Belgrade, ,

started with started

rt of black black of rt s seco ‟s Reflektor nd ), ), CEU eTD Collection 208 Contemporary YugoslavFeature Film 207 Structure”], 206 205 Filmska kultura 204 War Film. Vol. 2 203 generations new the for Revolution the of demythologization to “contributed director the that of supporters society.” better he then anarchism” “biologistic surpassed and privately it treating started it.” he destroyed myth, own his and with consciously speculating by “Just rationally myth: artistic an created also world artistic own his with along a Boglić out in pointing prostitutes and film, drunkards Yugoslav rats, dirt, the of image of recurring originality” to threat serious a posed “epigonism i art his turning aimless,” and “dark too way revolution the paints who author the of intentions good the doubts critic justification.” any without and harshly explicitly, “very supports director else anything than More colleagues. accusing of plot the marked films, collective abstract some with complying start inorderinterest tocreate asociety withoutconflict ofharmony. andfull they that say to is that freedom”, “social

Ranković, Mira Milutin Milutin ia Ranković, Milan Slobodan ‟s re ‟s Boglić lhuh es osiuu, n aaie ad esaes f t of newspapers and magazines in conspicuous, less Although Milutin Ĉolić Ĉolić Pavlović Sineast marks are based on the opinion of Slobodan of opinion the on based are marks Drustvenakritika Novaković , “Utrenutku sumnje” [“The Moment Doubt”], of

71 (1970): 6. , “Zaseda”, , 206 ] (Belgrade: Institut zafilm;Titovo Uzice: Vesti, 1984), 450. Pavlović , “ , 208 Ĉolić

„Crni film‟ ili kriza „autorskog filma‟” [“„Black film‟, or the Crisis of „Auteur Cinema‟”], „Auteur of Crisis the or film‟, [“„Black filma‟” „autorskog kriza ili film‟ „Crni

5 (1968): 31 oilgs Milan Sociologist

rsvn kiia sveeo jgsoeso irnm filmu igranom jugoslovenskom savremenom u kritika Drustvena

along the way that he stole an array of scenes from the film of his his of film the from scenes of array an stole he that way the along

, an influential critic of the dai the of critic influential an , “rvti ioi il mitovi “Privatni , ‟s vision of revolution were also present. Nikola Nikola present. also were revolution of vision ‟s Politika

nto a “political program.” “political a nto

u jugoslovenskomu filmu - 32. h Ambush The

(1969), in:Milutin (1969),

] (Belgrade: Institut za 207

Ranković without any backing in a “ a in backing any without Ĉolić i smrt filmske strukture” [“Private Myths, or Death of Film Film of Death or Myths, [“Private strukture” filmske smrt i

s “rephrased” a as rep 88 , 26.

Ĉolić roaches recanted

film, 25. 1970), , ly 204 Jugoslovenski ratni film. KnjigaJugoslovenskifilm. druga ratni Politika

Filmska kultura Zagreb critic, Mira Mira critic, Zagreb Pavlović Novaković Pavlović Pavlović Puriša previous praised who

consciously built consciously for pushing notions that the that notions pushing for s sas n eouin as revolution on essays ‟s , who noted that noted who ,

65 (1969): 6.

s films. ‟s Djordjević Stojanović

Boglić

203 a pro some period hat [ Social Criticism in in Criticism Social

205 oevr the Moreover,

‟s ‟s Ĉolić that warns , vision of a of vision Morning Pavlović

Pavlović suggests suggests [ Yugoslav s and ‟s , ,

CEU eTD Collection Student 212 Dialogue A Critique: Film Yugoslav About theC and Film Feature Yugoslav the of Criticism [“The situaciji,” aktuelnoj 211 Looking atDometic 210 209 history. in “cheerful” and “positive” the all of track the on back get to necessary was it turbulences mistakes show to the right given was director The rug. the under government communist which the historiography of official crimes the the swept is it that saying without goes it but pinpoint, to willing subjective private that emphasized critics The genre. one exc of group whole a that given argumentdebatable a is which dead artistic an in him sidelined development artistic his that object They mannerism. Yugoslav Party. Vuĉelić non re ironic Bogdan history (original). “objective” proclaimedthe of criteria to subjected again hierarchy.” existing the twisting creators, th between comparison into turned by used objection the of core the Revolution.” become to order in truth the know to right a have that

Nikola Nikola Lorencin, “Pulska pomeranja: oci nepoverenja nad domacim filmom” [“Pula Shifts: Distrustful Eyes Distrustful Shifts: [“Pula filmom” domacim nad nepoverenja oci pomeranja: “Pulska Lorencin, Nikola Milorad Bogdan - identified readers are asking only for more “cheerful” films, “cheerful” more for only asking are readers identified , Belgrade, January 19, 1971. As s bevto that observation ‟s myth, so, on something not binding and not serious. Private view is not the same as as same the not is view Private serious. not and binding not something on so, myth, The Pavlovi ofthosewhocriticized voice mark that in the newspapers day after day new research is being invented in which in invented being is research new day after day newspapers the in that mark Stojanović ; in fact, it is inferior compared inferior is it fact, in ; Vuĉelić Tirnanić urrent Situation”] Pavlović 209

Reacting to the events of Pula festival in 1969, Nikola Lorencin lucidly notes lucidly Lorencin Nikola 1969, in festival Pula of events the to Reacting 212 , “Cuvari nevinosti ili necista savest,” [The Guardians of Innocence, or Guilty Conscience] Guilty or Innocence, of Guardians [The savest,” necista ili nevinosti “Cuvari , , “Kritika jugoslovenskog igranog filma i jugoslovenska filmska kritika: dijalog o jednoj o dijalog kritika: filmska jugoslovenska i filma igranog jugoslovenskog “Kritika , Film”], , “Zaseda”,

s igs fa hs poet nt hs s t sek uoiiaiy and unoriginality speak, to so his, note opponents his flaw biggest ‟s

Sineast Sineast

n h rvlto, u atr 98 n te is sgiiat political significant first the and 1968 after but revolution, the in Sineast Sineast h Ambush The

- 9 (1969): 28. 8 - 8 9 (1969): 19. Pavlović - e original and Platonic copy which… is discovered by the the by discovered is which… copy Platonic and original e 9 (1969): 34. Pavlović

210

i jsie y hwn a Saiit at o t of past” “Stalinist a showing by justice did the to ‟s critics: “Establishing facts about a work of art art of work a about facts “Establishing critics: ‟s

In other words, works of art (Platonic copy) are copy) (Platonic art of works words, other In

ideology of the collective the of ideology ć and s on o ve sol b pt on o a to down put be should view of point ‟s

The Ambush more mature advocates of that same that of advocates mature more ellent directors worked only in only worked directors ellent 211

was more vocal, more vocal, because was

is followed by Milorad by followed is

which no critic is critic no which Tirnanić - end, he ‟s CEU eTD Collection 215 CenterSerbia, 2011), 6 1963 from Cinema Polemical Wave: 214 213 p in survive to how know not do war the survived who idealists young which in revolution communist the of end the shows he feats heroic of Pavlović events.historical destructiveultimately as revolution and war of concept ownnegation. its in disappear to not history, modern its of myth founding the ideal. reconsider to society unattainable Yugoslav but lofty a as communism to loyal remaining created.” had it state the and Yugoslavia Ambush The inclined Wave fromdeviating his point.” your proves persistence beating. the Your endure to have You disobedience. of sign a is creation autonomous remotely cons the of aware dissident ( directors Wave Black pressure, political mounting of result occupied placeindirector's supporters smaller magazines and journals ( ( newspapers big for wrote they

Interview with Pavlović, Interview with Pavlović, Slobodan

o much so h Ambush The It p the as quit to had he Although

to anarchy or romantic rebellion and it would be very hard to support the claim that that claim the support to hard very be would it and rebellion romantic or anarchy to

acts as an outsider in the war film genre depriving it of its spectacular side. Instead Instead side. spectacular its of it depriving genre film war the in outsider an as acts is

Šijan possible

was one of “the honest condemnations of the essence of socialist revolution in revolution socialist of essence the of condemnations honest “the of one was

, “The Red and the Black in Yugoslav Black Wave”, in: Greg DeCuir, Jr., Jr., DeCuir, Greg in: Wave”, Black Yugoslav in Black the and Red “The , so

ht hy ee not were they that critical stance critical - 7.

that that

ersns pout f h direct the of product a represents Oko Književne Petrović , Zagreb, July 12, 1990, 25. equences his actions produced: “It should be noted that any, even even any, that noted be should “It produced: actions his equences the

novine 92 n h Scait eea Rpbi o Yugoslavia of Republic Federal Socialist the in 1972

oenet was government after 1969, thoughhehadless Makavejev, , Politika , 1988,in: Pavlović,

Pavlović neetd in interested 213 214 rofessor of film directing in Belgrade in 1973 as a as 1973 in Belgrade in directing film of rofessor

ad im oras ( journals film and )

Pavlović On 90

the

refused to leave Yugoslavia like some other other some like Yugoslavia leave to refused Ţilnik

contrary, eace, overwhelmed by the bureaucratized the by overwhelmed eace,

Pavlović ned rvd i pritne y not by persistence his proved indeed

satisfied . n hs es h ws n atypical an was he sense this In ). Jezgro napetosti or‟s long term elaboration of the the of elaboration term long or‟s

Pavlović ‟s

with ae work. later opportunities todirectopportunities films. imk kultura Filmska

the 215 , 201.

criticized

Student breaking h drco wanted director The The director Ţivojindirector The

Pavlović

Tito's and Blrd: Film (Belgrade: Yugoslav Black Yugoslav

, while ), of

the Sineast

was not not was

regime,

Black

the ).

CEU eTD Collection of Yugoslav Neretva like spectacles that images the to attention drawing by winners war the of crimes maturing intellectually war unoriginality easiest waytoundermine asthe vision history. hisheretical of charging allegations critical of series the for door the opened rel Ambush limited authorities a only increased, them films giving by critical them socially suppressed effectively of number the when However, Berlin. and creative greatof last demands the reform forsocial Yugoslavia. inTito‟s 1968, in protests student the with connection In government.

unresolved , as well as from his reflection on the representation of the war that that war the of representation the on reflection his from as well as , of pessimism The Although

freedom a uofcal bne b te eomnain f h sae rsctr ad thus and prosecutor, state the of recommendation the by banned unofficially was rejected.

revolution,

moral,

after winning awards at prestigious international festivals in Karlovy Vary Karlovy in festivals international prestigious at awards winning after ae with faced h Ambush The

ethnic but Hs ihy person highly His .

they h Ambush The

and class

predicted

bans and

issues n his on Pavlović

stemmed from from stemmed that

arising lzd n syie preto underlined perception stylized and alized

91 would Yugoutopia

himsel

is films, first

at the the at end of f

did Pavlović o deny not The Ambush Ambush The

Pavlović Pavlović WWII. s uhni memory authentic ‟s

ae o a hr time. short a for ease crumble

h significance the he responded to while to responded he

e for mannerism and and mannerism for

njoyed ne te weight the under reflects the failure failure the reflects

Battle of Battle

certain of the the of of the the of

The The the the CEU eTD Collection during Albania Greater of creation the for fought who nationalists, Albanian and Yugoslavia, con that the notice) about to story courage a narrates the have not did perhaps (or notice to failed unlikefilmpremiere censors, critics, filmYugoslavfilm.its After in unseen previously with viewers of number large attracting in American the of conventions the scene. cinema Yugoslav adapting the in genre popular very a of was which Western context the in especially 1948, in WWII. USSR in occupiers Yugoslavia the of opening against cultural the fight sublimates partisan the of collectivism the glorified which 1950s the from films war ideological less or more to reaction a as appeared Yugoslav the of future the and society. past the on views different of presentation important for most platforms the of one as cinematography with reform political fundamental at aimed intellectu Yugoslav 1960s the of history social and cultural the into insight an offer films war These communists. Yugoslav of mistakes and crimes the neglected that Y than view of point different significantly a provides context this and in which images discourse) filmic visual in it about thought our and history of representation (the historiophoty the of Interpretation the apparatusbetween Yugoslav state classes andrepresentation of and in nations these films. production,fi three aforementioned the of their of context the in sources simultaneously reception critical and iconography historical as films used have I Yugoslavia. as II War World of perception cinematic Conclusion ugoslav historiography marked by uncritical glorification of war and revolutionary victory revolutionary and war of glorification uncritical by marked historiography ugoslav The first film analysed in this thesis this in analysed film first The war Yugoslav three used have I thesis this In

itoa fl mtra hs en tepe a b uig h cnet of concept the using by at attempted been has material film fictional lms. A core issue of my research my of issue core A lms. lc bten lain omnss wo aoe lvn in living favored who communists, Albanian between flict

- 92

the Captain Lesh Captain a mix of Hollywood action and optimism, optimism, and action Hollywood of mix a

oad te et fe te ra u with up break the after West the towards

key analyzing the role of censorship in two out two in censorship of role the analyzing

event films i

, directed by directed , from the 1960s to examine the the examine to 1960s the from n h ceto o communist of creation the in

has also been the relationship the been also has Mitrović Mitrović Ţivorad al currents which currents al ‟s film actually actually film ‟s Captain

Mitrović succeeded

Leshi

CEU eTD Collection timesthe byinwhichacitizen gone for cry a as interpreted be could film his contrary, the on revolution; disallowed nihilistically bi own their are partisans that out in as sacrifice partisan of significance the Neretva or fellowship of sense any without interests fi cannot who Yugoslavs young of generation a to victorious of crimes power. for struggle desperate their and communists the outlined which vista subjective a from history observed director Pavlović as well as Yugoslavia, de the sought who intellectuals of up waking whoinspires thepartisans deity toendurean invisible unimaginable suffering. being as attributed been has Tito leader Yugoslav film, the in character concrete a of absence li better a in shown are who Italians of exception the with beasts, inhumane are enemies their while defending, market. international the on distribution film‟s the ensure to stars movie international hired had and na Yugoslav the of birth the of moment the as liberation for struggle the present to order much myth the stone was times, all of of film expensive Yugoslav most This 1950s. the from spirit collectivist the revived which film partisan whichidentity wouldeliminate between animosity and Serbs Albanians. supranationalYugoslav anattempt Civilto create thein American War as South conservative plot, the to character Serbian supporting important an adding After Metohija. and Kosovo in war the

stronger h Ambush The Neretva of Battle The . Bulajić

Pavlović a te sec o rvlto i is atcpn‟ an participant‟s its in revolution of essence the saw Mitrov

ological event of evacuation of the wounded in a difficult battle against the the against battle difficult a in wounded the of evacuation of event ological xs oes Te ietr a proeul coe a utntoa cs in cast multinational a chosen purposefully has director The powers. Axis s atsn ae l mrys nxrcby id o h trioy ht hy are they that territory the to tied inextricably martyrs all are partisans ‟s ić

brings the negation of the partisan film genre to a maximum when it turns it when maximum a to genre film partisan the of negation the brings

ght, as a concession for concession a as ght, transposed the Western conflict between the liberal North and the the and North liberal the between conflict Western the transposed by

h rdcin f oil ifrne. hae cmuit n youth, in communist heated A differences. social of reduction the Ţivojin , d , irected

Pavlović elzd ih ios blessing, Tito‟s with realized - gs eeis Ti, f ore de nt en ht he that mean not does course, of This, enemies. ggest centered statecentered havebeenbuilt. could

by Veljko Veljko by

the support of the Italian co Italian the of support the a a ecin o tdn protes student to reaction a was 93 - Stalinization of the League of Communi of League the of Stalinization

Bulajić Pavlović d hi wy n srgl fr selfish for struggle a in way their nd , presents a canonical example of a a of example canonical a presents , ‟s protagonist Ive Vrana belongs belongs Vrana Ive protagonist ‟s n ws upsd o e in set to supposed was and ml etutvns. The destructiveness. imal - produ

ts in 1968 and and 1968 in ts cer. Despite the Despite cer.

sts of sts tion tion CEU eTD Collection from edit been already had films the when late fairly came state the of intervention cases both In latter. Leshi Captain whichproject, hadsyphoned offmoney of alot asidefortheproduction set ofsmaller films. of conse a as incurred expenditure Huge when moment the at nations Yugoslav ideologies. nationalistic political like all much independence, more sought unite centers film republic would that film a create to attempt an of case the in seen was model Wa Black the felt amongst government purges initiated which 1968 of protests student censors the or producers the from interference any without cut that happened have could it so process, filming the of pessimistic. of case the in like freedom artistic of degree certain a allowed system this time, In filming. for screenplays accordi done was everything that sure made who directors of board the in personalized mechanism However, experiments. artistic for wer which self of doctrine the of implementation the with proud been have would apparatchiks Yugoslav made. was production film of commercialization du funds of lack the to Due 1950s. the of beginning the at even industry film the finance singularly possibly not could it that realized to come had which itself state Yugoslav than other no by allowed Neretva Neretva ed which only shows the lack of rigorous supervision. Certain dialogues and voice and dialogues Certain supervision. rigorous of lack the shows only which ed ati Leshi Captain g o at‟ epcain, ne te uevso o at onis hc approved which councils art of supervision the under expectations, Party‟s to ng While th in difference obvious This e not burdened with the weight of bureaucracy and were comparatively more open more comparatively were and bureaucracy of weight the with burdened not e revealed the incompetence of incompetence the revealed The Ambush The

Bulajić and h Ambush The

sure ring the conflict with Stalin, a decision regarding the need for the the for need the regarding decision a Stalin, with conflict the ring The Ambush The “dtd b te censors, the by “edited” ,

that critical films would not do it too much harm much too it do not would films critical that ‟ s spectacle had every imaginable aspect of support from the state, state, the from support of aspect imaginable every had spectacle s

also shows that during 1960s in certain cases there was no control control no was there cases certain in 1960s during that shows also when The Battle of Battle The

faced the censorship fro censorship the faced Pavlović e perception and thence the interpretation of WWII was was WWII of interpretation the thence and perception e

quence of uneconomic of quence even

official institutions to control the biggest state film state biggest the control to institutions official

s rdcr norgd h drco to director the encouraged producer ‟s

Neret 94 hs salr opne hd hi control their had companies smaller these

demonstrate their aim to minimize Albanian Albanian minimize to aim their demonstrate

va - which was financed by 58 companies in companies 58 by financed was which management in smaller film enterprisesfilm smaller managementin Pavlović m the former, and banning from banning and former, the m al management in the production the in management al

made a provocative director‟s provocative a made I ses ht p ni the until up that seems It . . A unique production unique A . ve directors, the the directors, ve

e more be - overs the

CEU eTD Collection empty and citizens‟, wealthy to belonging property of requisition for court a of T practice rulers. two the between similarity a to alluding Ambush The In war. the after separatists Albanian against fight of symbol a as other the on but side, one p of symbol a as left is that Army the only is it mind, in this Having action. film the from attention divert then would messages Marxist of repetition the because reasons similar For war. sustaineddurin thepeople ofby the expense sacrifice personalitythe of at cult cinematic the avoid to desire hisby justified be can 1960s of end films the frombefore partisan absence that fact pro could This all. at mentioned not is Tito Yugoslavism, affirms which Army People‟s of filmmaker anindividual wasnotworth all that much. opinion the and broken, was opposition intellectual strong the as soon as career his continued t of Still, period time. indefinite an for shelving their or films problematic of release short and limited a preferring Europe, Eastern the in country socialist democratic most the of aura the preserve Politi shelving. and ban discrete used: re of method Hollywood product provocative more without audience, the from reactions since positive true come not did fears censors‟ the all, After distribution. wante they remai it since nonetheless, changes the against protested producer his neither that interesting is It left. ambiguity enough still was there cut final the in although heroes, “bad” and “good” we of division a the outline from better to hero tried censors a family, of ancestry the like conventions genre removing By nationalism. he plas f h Ygsa state Yugoslav the of pillars Three

the focus of this fi this of focus the he case of case he io per ol o a ue otat n h sao o Sai‟ pcue thus picture, Stalin‟s of shadow the in portrait huge a on only appears Tito –

were not equally represented in all films. Paradoxically, in Paradoxically, films. all in represented equally not were ned unclear why was the film the was why unclear ned Ţivojin - editing films, much stronger deterrents for problematic films were films problematic for deterrents stronger much films, editing Mitrović lm was limited to the larger the to limited was lm –

h Ambush The

Pavlović ‟s ‟s cians avoided court avoided cians Kosovar

shows that a director of censored films could have could films censored of director a that shows – – 95

io te omns Pry n te Yugoslav the and Party communist the Tito, i nt ae esrhp t a at censorship face not did

reflection on Kosovar nationalism. A much much A nationalism. Kosovar on reflection etr faue n Pry representatives, Party no features Western

originally approved only for the in the for only approved originally e at i rpeetd eey y the by merely represented is Party he -

than - ordered bans of films in order to order in films of bans ordered - life depiction of soldiers. Tito‟s soldiers. of depiction life d to sell the film abroad; abroad; film the sell to d ati Leshi Captain rotection of people on people of rotection bably be due to the the to due be bably ll Ised f a of Instead . Captain Leshi Captain Mitrović

received received - althy g theg , nor , state

CEU eTD Collection showing for Mitrović space no practically is there so workers, by produced In nationalists. the supporting are who landowners wealthy against fight the in peasants Albanian mobilize to managed have this to contrary Quite Vrana. innocent killing by system the on revenge irrational an took and collectivization land the stand not could war, the win Yugosla the In peasants. Serbian rough from alienated of protagonist The battle. of status the received film the in Muslims time, same the At separatism. their of because simply nations other the to equal them proclaim to dangerous be would it that fact the to due film, this in out left completely to has nation participating every instead but army, territorial their In on majority. a up constitute they give wherever to pretensions ready are they if only state federal the in in live Albanians to acceptable society. classless a and nation Yugoslav the creating of strengthening ideology, the impression of ofidentityinsecurity thewholesystem. the of primacy the on based not was Thus, army. multinational ofa unity onthe president, but of andinviolability communism the state Yugoslav the that conclusion a to leading army, the of role the emphasize and focus of out Tito and Party the put films three all nutshell, a In ranks. their in highhandedness punish to willing are and trouble any resist can who partisans th moral soldiers‟ the raises he but film, the in appear not does Tito abroad. propaganda communist the as film the been has army disciplined highly withreduced, some exceptions, to small A friends. his and Vrana by repeated slogans political

cinematic Each of these war films, in their own way, demonstrates the failure of the stateprojectthe of failure demonstratesfilms,the their ownway, these ofwar in Each In

and The Battle of Neretva of Battle The v communist revolution. It seems that they, who have helped the partisan army partisan the helped have who they, that seems It revolution. communist v Pavlović

ersnain f h sae symbols state the of representation og sot esgs Te an eos r mr o ls anonymous less or more are heroes main The messages. short rough ‟s films reinforce ties of the peasants to the land which they relate to asto relate they which land the to peasants the of ties reinforce films‟s h Ambush The

a nation even though they did not possess it at the time of the the of time the at it possess not did they though even nation a , the Party is not mentioned at all, perhaps to avoid branding avoid to perhaps all, at mentioned not is Party the , Neretva

a group ofa group renegades captureofchetniks.faking the hpd s n feiae ra, em completely seems Croat, effeminate an as shaped there is no class division, despite this being a film film a being this despite division, class no is there Pavlović 96

‟s film, peasants are the biggest losers of losers biggest the are peasants film, ‟s

Neretva be mentioned separately. Albanians are Albanians separately. mentioned be n h 1960s the in

end there is no integrated Yugoslav integrated no is there , in , Captain Leshi Captain

ifr from differs

the peasants‟ trauma. trauma. peasants‟ the C aptain Leshi Leshi aptain

commu h official the nists nists are are

CEU eTD Collection communist the and movement partisan the of history the representing art of process dynamic based film and lackofHollywood serenity the pathetic. that discussing react the journals.circulation While for low working especially however were, There artists. with showdowns political well a to According film. scrutinized newspapers and well from critics manner, like a In distrust. great with contamination generic Aleksandar star, with case the not was which release, qualities. artistic expected in resulted and audience the attract not did which production expensive very to due although communist the of genesis the about fresco secular Yugoslavia. a into tragedy partisan transform re to difficult were which shots far audience.forYugoslavthe very attractive be to this film proved in chases soc the of side the on ranger, lone a was hero the when 1930s the from Westerns American classic of individualism the displaying in Technicolor theirwhether stateis Yugoslavia, or a collec in class working rudimentary while own, their darker hue than an out and out black out and out an than hue darker Captain Leshi Leshi Captain n ocuin I ol lk t aod weig eeaiain aot uolv war Yugoslav about generalizations sweeping avoid to like would I conclusion, In f Yugoslav visuality. distinctive a has film each genre, same the in Though

state

h Ambush The only on the analysis of three films. However, these films from the 1960s reflect a reflect 1960s the from films these However, films. three of analysis the on only

- s upported Gavrić Bulajić l criticism ilm was proportionally more popular than popular more proportionally was . Yugoslav film critics were critics film Yugoslav . Ter oc, oee, i nt ae t ht a sne hy were they since far that it make not did however, voice, Their . s im civd cl sau ol mn yas fe is official its after years many only status cult a achieved film ‟s Neretva - The Ambush The rcie shm, rtc wr as te m the also were critics scheme, practiced -

edit and censor. and edit f h 1960s the of

faced an unusually cold welcome which could have been have could which welcome cold unusually an faced Captain Leshi Captain

- after the first signs of political incorrectness of this this of incorrectness political of signs first the after and

tion ofrepublics. separate 97 - white film, with carefully fitted long sequence long fitted carefully with film, white

sal floe te fiil oiia line, political official the followed usually Neretva Neretva Neretva Neretva

mostly purists who purists mostly

that created the first big Yugoslav film Yugoslav big first the created that iety. Hollywood shootouts and horse and shootouts Hollywood iety. relies on extreme long shots which shots long extreme on relies are not even capable of clarifying clarifying of capable even not are ,

Neretva Neretva those who supported the films, films, the supported who those ion of the audience, it seemed audience, the ofion precisely because of the of because precisely

welcomed i eeuinr of executioners ain Captain Leshi Captain The Ambush The - known journals known Mitrović

is of a of is

uses ‟s CEU eTD Collection heroic ar cherished and genre film unique its had that country a as world the in renowned become Yugoslavia helped which pluralism of degree respectable a showed 1960s the from films war Yugoslav aside, conclusion gloomy This atavisms. lived was film on only that showed river Neretva the across partisans of crossing Symbolic partisans. Yugoslav the of Veljko follow to refused Bulajić war the remember not did which audience the However, glory. political of rituals performing in peaked i religion self ideology of official possibility film the partisan negating In to destruction. state Yugoslav the condemned filmmakers minded of existence the denying through dynamism social stopping level, broader a On history. questioning to by start supposed which reforms fundamental for requests the down turned juncture, key the at of likeability regime Western the allowed Tito‟s integration, cultural of models different the of search In Yugoslavia. united antago reconcile to way a regarding answer easy an offer not could also films war 1960s, the during politicians Yugoslav of incapability the to Similar in like themselves amongst fighting vi the that fact the to due whether continued, war the screen film On revolution.

war ‟s vision, perhaps because the director himself did not show firm belief in true unity unity true in belief firm show not did himself director the because perhaps vision, ‟s n

The Battle of Neretva Neretva of Battle The past.

growing nationalistic and economic problems along with persecuting open open persecuting with along problems economic and nationalistic growing Yugoslavia Yugoslavia which were which a promised land; in reality it was a st a was it reality in land; promised a Mitrović The Ambush The ‟s, and the harsh criticism of criticism harsh the and ‟s, 98 supposed to supposed

or against nationalism as in as nationalism against or nisms of different nations to create a create to nations different nismsof

reconstruct war victory in all of its its of all in victory war reconstruct itc iest, u ms o al a all, of most but diversity, tistic ate destroyed by long by destroyed ate Pavlović Captain Leshi Captain ctors started started ctors ‟s films, but but films, ‟s - - . CEU eTD Collection Mar Day Longest The Kozara Kapetan Le Kanal beo mrtav i Kad budem Jutro Ivano Hajka Grad E sunceDaleko je Crveno klasje pacovaBudjenje Potyomkin Bronenosets HawkBlack Down naNeretviBitka Balada osoldate Filmography šalon doktoraM šalon š naDrinu vo Detstvo [ [

The Town [ by Andrzej Wajdaby Andrzej The Morning

– Manhunt by Veljko Bulajić by Veljko

1962 ši

[

[ Captain

Red Wheat [

March toDrinaMarch ] [ ] by ( [

[ Sun is FarAwaySun is [ Ivan’s Ivan’s Childhood The Battle ofNeretva by

by Ken Annakin, Andrew Marton, Bernhard Wicki and Darryl F. Zannuck F. Darryl and Wicki Bernhard Marton, Andrew Annakin, Ken by The Rats Woke Up The RatsWoke The Ballad ofaSoldier The Ballad [ by Ridley Scott by Ridley Doctor M’s Echelone Doctor M’s ] byP Ţivojin PavlovićŢivojin Ţivojin Pavlović Ţivojin Leshi

[ [ When IamDeadandPale When Battleship Potemkin – uriša Djordjević Djordjević uriša ] by -

1957 1962 ] by Ţivojin Pavlović Ţivojin Pavlović ] byŢivorad Mitrović

Ţivorad Mitro

] by ) byAndrei Tarkovsky –

] by 2001 – Radoš Novaković – ] by Veljko Bulajić ] byVeljko Bulajić

1977 1963 ] byŢivorad Mitrović Ţivojin Ţivojin Pavlović ] directed byGrigoriyChukhray

–

1967 ] bySergeiEisenstein

vić –

1971

– ] by

1960 –

Ţivojin Pavlović Ţivojin

1964 -

1953 – – –

1962 1967 1969

–

1955

–

1925

–

- 1968

1959

CEU eTD Collection Zaseda Voyna imir Triumph desWillens U pl Un chienandalou Star Wars Sutjeska Slavica The Searchers Prve svetlosti Povratak Poslednji most O Ognennye versty svobozhdenie svobozhdenie aninama Jugoslavije

[ by AfrićVjekoslav

The Ambush [

The Battle ofSutjeskaThe Battle [

The Return by GeorgeLucas [ War andPeace War [

by JohnFord Fir [ [ The LastBridge Liberation [

The BurningMiles st Lights [ Andalusian Dog Andalusian

] by Ţivojin Pavlović ] byŢivojin [ ] by Triumph ofWill

[ Ţivojin Pavlović Ţivojin In the Yugoslav Mountains Yugoslav In the ] by ] byYuri Ozerov – – ] bySergey Bondarchuk –

1947

1977 1956 Ţivorad MitrovićŢivorad ] byStipe Delić ] by Helmut Kautner

] byLuis Bunuel ] bySamson Samsonov ] byLenni Riefenstahl – –

1969 100

– 1966

1971 -

- 1973

1949

– ] byAbram Rom – –

1929 1967 1954

– -

1935 1957

–

1947

CEU eTD Collection Adamović 1969 u Srbiji u Kinematografija “Filmski [“Film barometar” Barometer”]. Secondary Literature with Interviews Veljko with Interviews with Interviews saproducentimaDijalog Interviews Službeni Službeni holding archival Yugoslavia, of Archive MaterialArchival Primary Sources Bibliography film, 1971. Nedjelja 5, 2005). Dnevnik http://novikadrovi.net/razno/3 [ Federal Committee forFederal ofFilms1944 Review

list list , Dragoslav. “Domaci, Dragoslav. filmovibelezerekordneposete.”

[ [ The OfficialBulletin The OfficialBulletin

(December 17,1989), (November 26, 1969), 26, (November Ţivojin

Ţivorad

Bulajić [ Dialogue with the Producers withthe Dialogue Pavlović

: [ ] ] NIN Cinematography in Serbia in 1969 in Serbia in Cinematography

: 2 19 (1953). 9 (1949). Mitrović - Vjesnik razno.php

Oko Jnay 5 1967), 15, (January Nedeljne novosti Nedeljne NIN

aen kmsj z peld imv 1944 filmova pregled za komisija Savezna (July 12,1990), (July

101 : accessed November 27, 2011, 2011, 27, November accessed :

Jnay 8 1986), 28, (January

(September 18,1960). ,

NIN

- (1993), (1993), 1971 ].

Sineast (January 25, 1970), 25, (January ], archival fund3. ], archival 147,folder NIN Ekspres Politika

(October 29,1993).(October 10 (1969). NIN Duga

]. Belgrade: Institut za Institut Belgrade: ]. (January 28(January 1992). (December 22, 1968), 1968), 22, (December (October 2,1960).

Jn 1, 1988), 11, (June Novi List Novi

- (June 1971

CEU eTD Collection Dobrivojević Daković Ĉolić Ĉolić Ĉolić Francesco.Casetti, Boţović Boglić Boglić Boglić Tim. Bergfelder, Bašić, , Milutin. “Bitka na, Milutin. “Bitka Neretvi.” Milutin. , f [“„Black filma‟” „autorskog kriza ili film‟ “„Crni Milutin. , , Mira. “Neretva kao legenda i ziva slika” [“Neret slika” ziva i legenda kao “Neretva Mira. , , Mira. “Utrenutku sumnje” Moment ofDoubt”]. [“The “Spektakularna Mira. , aaia “e Zet Wlkig m enee. Filmpartisanen Fernsehen. im Weltkrieg Zweite “Der Natalija. (1945 Kulturni centar; Vrnjackafilmskog banja: Festival scenarija, 2000. In Cliché”]. a as Film Uzice:Vesti,1984.Titovo Cinema‟”].„Auteur andQuislings Collaborationin WWII ratu svetskom Drugom u kolaboracija Filmska kultura Mitrović 1960sProductions inthe Familiengedachtnis”.serbischen Bailv Milorad Branislav, , , Nevena. “Klisei ratnog filma ili ratni film kao klise” [“War klise” kao film ratni ili filma ratnog “Klisei Nevena. , , Ivana. “Kultura zivljenja u Jugoslaviji (1945 Jugoslaviji u zivljenja “Kultura Ivana. , - 1955)”]. ‟s Films”].‟s uolvnk rti film ratni Jugoslovenski nentoa Avnue: emn oua Cnm ad uoen Co European and Cinema Popular German Adventures: International Theories Cinema, of 1945 Tokovi istorije

17 (1970). Filmska kultura Filmska Filmska kultura

historicnost Zike historicnost Vavić Izazov ratnog filma filma ratnog Izazov . NewYork: BerghahnBooks, 2004.

Politika .

1.2 (2008). uoa rmn n Ksv i eoii Kilni i Kvislinzi Metohiji: i Kosovu na vremena Surova Ethnologia balkanica

[

uolv a Film War Yugoslav

(1969). 48 71 (1970). 102 ]. - 1995 -

Belgrade: Institut Institut za savremenu1991. Belgrade: istoriju, 49 (1966). Mitrović

[

. Austin: University. Austin: of Texas, 1999. Cruel Times in Kosovo and Metohija: Metohija: and Kosovo in Times Cruel [ The Challenge of War Film War of Challenge The

a” [“Spectacular Historicity of Historicity [“Spectacular a”

va as a Legend and Live Picture”]. Picture”]. Live and Legend a as va - 1955)” [“Lifestyle in Yug in [“Lifestyle 1955)”

8 (2004):57 Filmska kultura . egae Isiu z film, za Institut Belgrade: ].

l‟ o te rss of Crisis the or ilm‟, Film Clichés, or War or Clichés, Film im kroatischen und und kroatischen im

- 77.

65 (1969). ]. Kraljevo: ]. oslavia

Ţika

CEU eTD Collection Susan. Hayward, mladosti” Stafeti ili stafeti Titovoj o Odlomak nas:‟ na “Racunajte Dimitar. Grigorov, J. Daniel Goulding, Glišić Gilić Emilio.Gentile, Gavrić Miomir. Gatalović, Fischer Fischer Robert. Elsie, , Nikica. “Narrative and Genre Influences of the International Classical Cinema in the the in Cinema Classical International the of Influences Genre and “Narrative Nikica. , , , Tomislav. “Istorijski metod i istorija filma” [“Historical Method and Method [“Historical filma” istorija i metod “Istorijski Tomislav. , Nebojša - - 2006. (2008). Baton”]. Youth‟s or Baton, Tito‟s us:‟ on [“Count UniversityPress, 2002. Indiana on of texts Yugoslavfilm, 2012. of Films Partisan Novi Filmograf 2010. and Party York: Routledge,2008. Yor Press,Scarecrow 2004. Lichte, Erika. Erika. Lichte, Erika. Lichte, k: Routledge,2005.

itrcl itoay f Kosovo. of Dictionary Historical . Efekti crnog talasa Politics as Religion

iea tde: T Studies: Cinema utr i Sri, 1952 Serbia, in Culture Darovana sloboda: Partija i kultura u Srbiji 1952 Srbiji u kultura i Partija sloboda: Darovana Liberated Cinema: The Yugoslav Experience, 1945 Experience, Yugoslav The Cinema: Liberated Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual: Exploring Forms of Political Theatre Political of Forms Exploring Ritual: Sacrifice, Theatre, The Transformative Power of Performance: A New Aesthetics New A Performance: of Power Transformative The 7 - Ţivorad 8(2009/2010).

- Ţika . PrincetonPrinceton: UniversityPress,2006. [ Effects of Effects of the Wave Black e e Concept Key he

itrović - 1958 103 ”. Zagreb: article for an upcoming collection upcoming an for article Zagreb: ”.

]. Belgrade: Institut za savremenu istoriju, istoriju, savremenu za Institut Belgrade: ]. Lanham, Maryland, Toronto and Oxford: Oxford: and Toronto Maryland, Lanham, . London and New York: Routledge, Routledge, York: New and London . Godišnjak za društvenu istoriju društvenu za Godišnjak ]. Ekonomska politika Ekonomska - 1958 - 2001

Film History”]. History”]. Film [ . Blo . Given Liberty Given

omington:

(1969). . New . . New .

1.3

: CEU eTD Collection Shifts: [“Pula filmom” domacim nad nepoverenja oci pomeranja: “Pulska Nikola. Lorencin, “Kapeta Hrvoje. Lisinski, In Media.” in Memory and History Film: Historical “The Marcia. Landy, Kuljić Kuljić Sead. Kreševljaković, Kosanović Joviĉić Janjetović YU of Fashioning Partisans: Earth to “Down Miranda. Jakiša, Isaković rata”. svetskog drugog posle Kosovu na “Film Petrit. Imami, , Todor. , Todor. Vladimir. , Distrustful Eyes LookingDistrustful Eyes Dometic at Film”]. Western?”]. Film Reader http://www.film.ba/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=27 jugoslovenskog filma, 1966. Film, Yugoslav supplement 1991 1945 KINO! (2008/2009). , Antonije. Zoran. , Dejan. , ]. Belgrade: Institut ]. Belgrade: Srbije,za noviju istoriju 2011. - 1991

Tito. Tito. Kultura secanja 10 (2010). [ Reflektor filmu nasem u talas Crni d Itrainl” o oecjl: ouan klua Jugoslav u kultura Popularna komercijale: do “Internacionale” Od Velika deca From International to Commercial: Popular Culture in Yugoslavia 1945 Yugoslavia in Culture Popular Commercial: to International From , edited by Marnie Hughes by , edited Marnie Filmska kultura Belgrade: Institut za politicke1998. studije,

vdst oia uolvnkg im 1945 filma jugoslovenskog godina Dvadeset

“ ejo uai i Vilusa, iz Bulajić Veljko 1945 Ls: uolvnk vsen” “ati Lsi Yugoslav Leshi: [“Captain vestern?” Jugoslavenski Lesi: n ) (1969)

[ - [ Culture Memory of 1965 Big Children

19 (1960). .

. egae Svz imkh ank i Festival i radnika filmskih Savez Belgrade: ]. 104 ]. Belgrade: Nolit, 1958.

Warrington. Routledge, NewYork: 2009. [ h Bak ae n u Film Our in Wave Black The

]. Belgrade: štampa, Ĉigoja 2006 Sineast Sineast ”

cesd n pi 1, 2 13, April on accessed 8 - 9 (1969).

- pc i Pria Film.” Partisan in Space - 1965

oi Filmograf Novi

[ wny er of Years Twenty h Hsoy on History The ]. Borba .

012, 012, (the 5 iji - 6 -

CEU eTD Collection Nikodijević Munitić Munitić Munitić Munitić Miloradović Milorado Miloradović Miller,

kinoteka, 1995. kinoteka, Ban: Without Prizma, 2005. Thessaloniki: 38 1977.Karadţić, Filmska kultura „Liquidated the of zaistoriju Godišnjak društvenu Voice Directo Film [“The with Interview Authorized Ţivanovićem” An Generation:‟ Jocom Jovanom rediteljem 1945 Industry, Film Yugoslav the against Actions Saboteur and Intelligence Foreigners: 1945 kinematografije jugoslovenske protiv 1955”]. 1945 Yugoslavia in Censors Film the of profile Social Dark. the in [“Faces 1955” 1944 Intellectual Circle, Ranko. , al., et Ranko , Ranko. , Revolution”]. about Film [“Yugoslav revoluciji” o film “Jugoslavenski Ranko. , Nick. vić , Milan. Milan. , Goran. , aktivnosti saboterske i Obavestajne reziji: inostranoj u trileri “Domaci Goran. , 1945 Jugoslaviji u cenzora filmskih profil Drustveni tami. u “Lica Goran. , - 195 Godisnjak zadrustvenu Godisnjak istoriju h Nnofrit: utr, oiis n Ntoaim n Serbian a in Nationalism and Politics Culture, Nonconformists: The 5”]. do jugo Adio e lte imk laze… filmske slatke Te Zabranjeni bez zabrane: zona sumraka jugoslovenskog filma filma jugoslovenskog sumraka zona zabrane: bez Zabranjeni

Godišnjak Godišnjak za društvenuistoriju h Tiih Zn o te uolv Film Yugoslav the of Zone Twilight The

Ga „ivdrn gnrcj: Atrzvn itrj s filmskim sa intervju Autorizovani generacije:‟ „likvidirane “Glas

Živojin 66 th

International Thessaloniki Film1997. Festival, - 67 (1969). - film!.

Pavlović - 1991 egae Cna fl, rsi utri klu kulturni Srpski film, Centar Belgrade: . NewYork:2007. CentralEuropean Press, University

2 (2010). . egae Cna fl, T; rgjvc Prizma; Kragujevac: RTS; film, Centar Belgrade: 105 [ hs Set im Lies… Film Sweet Those [ Annual for

- 95 [Dmsi Trles ietd by Directed Thrillers [“Domestic 1955”

1 (2010).

Social History

. egae Jugoslovenska Belgrade: ]. Jvn oa Ţivanović”]. Joca Jovan r

, (Belgr ], ] 2 - 3 (2004). ; Kragujevac: b; d: Vuk ade: [ Banned

- - CEU eTD Collection Regime [“Tito‟s Kosovu” rezima Titovog “Pristup Jan. Pelikan, Pavlović Pavlović Pavlović Pavlović Pavlović Pavlović Pavlović Pajkić Novaković Novaković History: and Memory “Between Pierre. Nora, , Manojlovic Tito Studentski kulturni centar, 2001. Kwit podium,1999. Novi Sad:Prometej, 1996. zadruga,knjizevna Narodna kn kulturniBelgrade: Studentski centar, 1985. of Film Structure”]. http://novikadrovi.net/kritike/56 (1989). Nebojša, Nena Nebojša, , , , , , , , Ţivojin Ţivojin Ţivojin Ţivojin Ţivojin Ţi Ţivojin , Slobodan. “Privatni Slobodan. , Aleksandar. , vojin –

ijna tumacenja i vidjenja . . . . . , . Planeta filma Belina sutra Kri Djavolji razgovori eseji i film: - Izgnanstvo I: 1957, 1958, 1959 1958, 1957, I: Izgnanstvo Nebojša Pintar. Belgrade:Pintar. Institut Srbije,za istoriju Arhiv Jugoslavije, 2011. ego napetosti Jezgro vudava reka d Polimac, Slobodan Polimac, d

Sineast Pajkić Zaseda [

The Whiteness ofThe Whiteness Tomorrow [ mitovi ili smrt filmske strukture” [“Private Myths, or Death or Myths, [“Private strukture” filmske smrt ili mitovi Film Planet

. [

Meandering River 5 (1968). Jahac na lokomotivi na Jahac

[ jiga, jiga, 1990. [ [ h Nces f Tension of Nucleus The - h Ambush The

io Ves n Interpretations and Views Tito: kritika.php Šijan

106 ]. Belgrade: Zepter BookWorld, 2002. Les

[ (eds.) (eds.) The Devilish Film: Essays and Interviews Essays Film: Devilish The

[ iu d Mémoire de Lieux Exile I Exile ]. Belgrade: Nolit, 1963. ]. Accessed December 8, 2011, 2011, 8, December Accessed ]. Dva razgovora razgovora Dva [ The Locomotive Rider Locomotive The ]. Novi Sad: Prometej; Belgrade: Prometej; Sad: Novi ]. ]. Belgrade: Prosveta, 1983.]. Belgrade: Prosveta, ]. Belgrade: BIGZ, Srpska Srpska BIGZ, Belgrade: ]. Approach to Kosovo”]. In In Kosovo”]. to Approach .” [ Two Conversations Two Representations , dtd y Olga by edited ],

]. Belgrade: ].

26 ]. ]. CEU eTD Collection Robert. Rosenstone, Ranković Ranković P. Sabrina Ramet, for Work film to Prolegomenon A Cinematography: as “Historiography R.J. Raack, Popov, Popov, Pogaĉić [“Heroism, titoizma” religiji civilnoj u karizma i mucenistvo “Herojstvo, Vjekoslav. Perica, Petrović Limited, 2006. in Criticism FilmContemporary Yugoslav Feature Period periodu Press,Bloomington: IndianaUniversity 2005. Historians.” 2008. Conflicts Prometej; YU Belgrade: film1996. danas, Belgrade: Institut za Srbije,istoriju Arhiv Jugoslavije,2011. In Titoism”]. of tumacenja Religion Civil in Charisma and Martyrdom 1988.knjiga, Nebojša , Vladimir. , , Aleksandar. Aleksandar. , Nebojša , Milan. Milan. , Radenko. ,

]. Novi Novosadskaarena, Sad: Zvezdafilm, 2004.

(ed.). . [ – raiain f th of Organisation

rsvn kiia sveeo jgsoeso irnm filmu igranom jugoslovenskom savremenom u kritika Drustvena rsvn sukob Drustveni Challenge to Sociology: Belgrade June 1968 June Belgrade Sociology:to Challenge [ Definitivno, imaginarni zapisi imaginarni Definitivno, Journal ofContemporaJournal io Ves n Interpretations and Views Tito:

he Ygsais Sae ulig n Lgtmto, 1918 Legitimation, and Building State Yugoslavias: Three

Sloboda inasilje Novi film II, 1965 II, film Novi itr o Fl/im n History on Film/Film on History Organizacija jugoslovenske kinematografije u administrativnom administrativnom u kinematografije jugoslovenske Organizacija i Ygsa Cnmtgah i te Administrative the in Cinematography Yugoslav e –

[

Liberty and Violence - zzv oilgj: egasi u 1968 jun Beogradski sociologiji: Izazov 1970 ry History 107 [ New Film II, 1965 II, Film New

[ Definitely, Imaginary Notes Imaginary Definitely,

, dtd by edited ], 18 (1983). ]. Belgrade: Institu ]. Belgrade: Eibrh Pasn Education Pearson Edinburgh: . ]. Belgrade: 2003. ResPublica, ]. Belgrade: ].

1970 la Manojlovic Olga ] . Tito Tito Belgrade: Naucna Naucna Belgrade: Sluţbeni t zafilm, 1970. – ]. Novi Sad: Novi ].

ijna i vidjenja

glasnik, - [ [ Pintar. - Social Social Social 2005

. CEU eTD Collection Tirnanić Tirnanić Tirnanić filmu o “Tito Ţ. Štaubringer, Stoimenov, J. Michael Stoil, Stanojević Stojanović Šijan Šakić Sooa. Te e ad h Bak n uolv lc Wv. In Wave.” Black Yugoslav in Black the and Red “The Slobodan. , , Tomislav. “Filmski svijet Veljka svijet “Filmski Tomislav. , “scooy n Piooh o te yoehia Ve o Wrd n History”]. Sineast and World on View Pyrotechnical the of Philosophy and [“Psychology Sit Current the (1969). About Dialogue A Critique: Film Yugoslav and FilmFeature Yugoslav the of Criticism[“The situaciji” aktuelnoj jednoj o dijalog Tito]. Production, 2009 1982. Press, predsednikaKabinet Republike, IV, 5 Yugoslavia, 1963 from Cinema Polemical Wave: ljetopisfilmski [“Veljko Bga. Piooia flzfj prthikg old n se i istoriju” i svet na pogleda pirotehnickog filozofija i “Psihologija Bogdan. , kritika: filmska jugoslovenska i filma igranog jugoslovenskog “Kritika Bogdan. , , Bogdan. Tihomir. , , “Zaseda.” Nikola.

Igor. OKO

10 (1969/1970). Bulajić Balkan Cinema: Evol Cinema: Balkan

Crni talas atznk film Partizanski (1977). edited byGregedited DeCui

ee zabeleske Neke 57 ‟s Film World: Battlefield of the of Battlefield World: Film ‟s

- 58 (2009).

[ – Black Black Wav Sineast

filmski radnici o Titu” [“Tito about Film about [“Tito Titu” o radnici filmski

[ atsn Film Partisan 8 ution after the Revolution the after ution [ - oe Notes Some 9 (1969). e Bulajić r, Jr.Belgrade: Film 2011. Serbia, Center ]. Belgrade: Filmski Srbije, centar 2008. 108 - b, dokumentacija za Titovub, dokumentacija za biografiju, 1953. - 92 n h Scait eea Rpbi of Republic Federal Socialist the in 1972

a: popriste susreta kolektivnog i privatnog” i kolektivnog susreta popriste a:

, ouetr fl. eba Absinthe Serbia: film. documentary ], . ega: ue itrj Jugoslavije, istorije Muzej Beograd: ]. Collective and Private”]. and Collective . Ann Arbor: UMI Research UMI Arbor: Ann . uation”] –

Filmmakers a Filmmakers Yugoslav Black Black Yugoslav

Sineast Sineast

Hrvatski Hrvatski bout 8

- 9 CEU eTD Collection „Ide Nemanja. Zvijer, Zdravko. Zupan, Den Youngblood, White, John. Hitoriophoty.” and “Historiography Hayden. White, Vuĉelić Vuĉetić Aleksandar. Vranješ, Turković Turajli Historian.” as Filmmaker “The Brent. Robert Toplin, ć, oilšo aaii a primeru na analizi sociološkoj centar, savremene Galerija umetnosti, 2007. ofKansas, Press 2006. University (1988). Conscience”]Guilty 1960s”]. the in Yugoslavia 2(2010). in Westerns Partisan and Westerns American Uniforms: Partisan in [“Cowboys veka” 20. godina sezdesetih Jugoslaviji Banja Luka:Glas srpski, 2008. 1985.djelatnost, Intermedia Network, 2010. (1988). Mlrd “uai eiot ili nevinosti “Cuvari Milorad. , unif partizanskoj u “Kauboji Radina. , Hr , Mila. The Westerns voje. voje.

iea Komunisto Cinema Vek stripa u Srbiji u stripa Vek s J. ise Filmska opredjeljenja opredjeljenja Filmska atznk floi propaganda i filmovi Partizanski lgj i rdot u uolvnkm anm pkal: prilog spektaklu: ratnom jugoslovenskom u vrednosti i ologija

usa Wr im: n h Cnm Fot 1914 Front, Cinema the On Films: War Russian . NewYork: Routledge,2011. Student

(January 19,1971).

dcmnay film documentary . [

The Century of Comics in Serbia in Comics of Century The ik n Neretvi na Bitke

eit svs” “h Gadas f noec, or Innocence, of Guardians [“The savest” necista [ im Preferences Film 109 ormi: Americki vesterni i partizanski vesterni u vesterni partizanski i vesterni Americki ormi:

mrcn itrcl Review Historical American mrcn itrcl Review Historical American [

atsn im ad Propaganda and Films Partisan eja uaia [Ielg and [“Ideology Bulajića“ Veljka eba Dibig itrs and Pictures Dribbling Serbia: ]. Zagreb: Centar za kulturnu kulturnu za Centar Zagreb: ]. ]. Pancevo: Kulturni Pancevo: ]. - 2005 ooi istorije Tokovi Lawrence: .

93.5 93.5 93.5 93.5 ].

CEU eTD Collection Nemanja. Zvijer, Filozofski fakultet,Filozofski 2011. [ ofBattle Neretva of Analysis Sociological to Contribution Spectacle: War Yugoslav the in Values dooy of Ideology Ideologija filmske slike. Socioloska analiza partizanskog ratnog spektakla ratnog partizanskog analiza Socioloska slike. filmske Ideologija

im mg. oilgcl nlss f atsn a Epics War Partisan of Analysis Sociological Image. Film ”]. Hrvatski f

ilmski ljetopis 110

57/58.XV (2009).

. Belgrade: ]. The