From Absence to Trauma: a Study on the Representation Of

Home , Alekos Alexandrakis, Cham Albanian dialect, Christoforos Stratos, Collaborationism, Cretan resistance, Cursed soldiers

From Absence to Trauma:

A Study on the Representation of the Occupation and the Civil War in Greek Films of the Period 1946-1989

Dimos Dimoulas

A dissertation submitted

to the Department of Translation and Intercultural Studies,

School of English, Faculty of Philosophy,

In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

June 2017 ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would have never been able to complete my dissertation without the guidance of my advisor, help from my friends, and support from my family. It is my great pleasure to acknowledge people who have given me guidance, help and encouragement.

Firstly, I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor Professor Michalis

Kokkonis for the continuous support of my Ph.D. study and related research, for his caring, personal attention, motivation, ample knowledge and for providing me an excellent atmosphere of doing research. His guidance helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. Professor Kokkonis also helped me to develop my background in film theory and history, opening new horizons for me.

Each of the members of my Dissertation Committee has provided me extensive personal and professional guidance and taught me a great deal about both scientific research and life in general. I would especially like to thank Professor Yiorgos

Kalogeras. Working with Professor Kalogeras has been a pleasure and a privilege; he patiently corrected my writing and his help has been invaluable and much appreciated.

My sincere thanks goes to Assistant Professor Eleftheria Thanouli her insightful comments and encouragement, her advice and feedback but also for the hard question which incented me to widen my research from various perspectives.

I am also indebted to Associate Professor Elpida Vogli for her encouragement and advice. I also want to express my gratitude to Assistant Professor Youli

Theodosiadou for her contribution to the writing of this thesis. Lecturer Nikos Kontos has also provided valuable and insightful critique that made this thesis better.

Last, but not least, I should state my gratitude to my family and my friends. I would like to thank my parents, Vasilis and Pighi, my sister Katerina and all my friends for supporting and encouraging me spiritually throughout writing this thesis and my life iv in general. Without their blessings and positive energy, I would not have been able to finish this work.

Abstract The present thesis undertakes to examine how the historical events of the Nazi

Occupation and the Greek Civil War are represented in an extensive range of films produced between 1946 and 1989. Through a detailed reading, the study attempts a critical analysis of cinematic depictions of the 1940s events in more than eighty films.

Particular emphasis is given to the social, cultural and political environment in which movies were created and which affected the postwar filmic production.

Occupation films appeared shortly after the end of the Second World War.

However, the representation of the Civil War has been completely elided from screen.

Through a close examination of the thematic concerns of several popular films of the post-war period, the thesis explores the ways in which the issue of the Civil War actually appeared in disguised forms in the narratives of classical cinema. The historically-themed pictures of the late 1960s and early 1970s is another main focus of this thesis. By examining Occupation and Civil War-themed features released between

1967 and 1974, the thesis identifies the structure of the Dictatorship’s vision of the nation and recent history.

Regarding cinematic production after 1974, the dissertation highlights the screen representation of the Occupation and the Civil War by the representatives of the

New Greek Cinema. The post-1974 cinema has a clear left-wing orientation, in contrast to the majority of films released during the Dictatorship that had a right-wing and militaristic content. The directors of the New Greek Cinema shifted their focus from the depiction of the warfare and paid attention to marginal aspects of the conflict, such as the fate of the political refugees, or dealt with memories of the war. Therefore, the thesis is concerned with the relationship between trauma and film, centering upon pictures indicative of trauma narratives. vi

Abbreviations

CGC Classical Greek Cinema

DSE Dimokratikos Stratos Ellados Democratic Army of Greece

EAM Ethniko Apeleftherotiko Metopo National Liberation Front

EAR Elliniki Aristera Greek Left

EDES Ethnikos Dimokratikos Ellinikos Sindesmos National Republican Greek League

EEC European Economic Community

EK Enosis Kentrou Centrist Union

ELAS Ethnikos Laikos Apeleftherotikos Stratos National Peoples’ Liberation Army

ERE Ethini Rizospastiki Enosis National Radical Union

EOKA Ethini Organosi Kiprion Agoniston National Organization of Cypriot Fighters

vii

EPON Eniea Panelladiki Organosi Neon United Panhellenic Organization of Youth

ETBA Elliniki Trapeza Viomichanikis Anaptixis Greek Industrial and Developing Bank

IT Iera Taxiarchia Holy Brigade

KKE Kommounistiko Komma Ellados Communist Party of Greece

MAY Monades Asfalias Ipethrou Units of Country’s Security

NEK Neos Ellinikos Kinimatografos New Greek Cinema

PASOK Panellinio Sosialistiko Kinima Panhellenic Socialist Movement

PEK Palios Ellinikos Kinimatografos Old Greek Cinema

PTSD Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

SOE Special Operations Executive

viii

Glossary of Terms

Allaghi Change

Anendotos Agonas Uncompromising Fight catharsis purging

Dekemvriana December Events (December 1944)

Ethnikofrosini National-mindedness, National conviction katsaplias bandit komitadji Bulgarian guerilla bands lefki tromokratia white terror mavroskoufides partisans wearing black berets

Metapolitefsi restoration of democracy pedomazoma children’ transfer to countries of the Eastern Bloc pedososimo salvation of children

Pistopiitiko Kinonikon Fronimaton Certificate of Social Judiciousness

Tagmata Ethnofrouras Battalions of National Guard

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ...... iii

Abstract ...... v

Abbreviations…………………………………………………….………………….vi

Glossary of Terms ...... viii

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

PART I: THE POST-WAR PERIOD

Chapter I: The Transition Years (1950-1967) ...... 67

Chapter II: The Occupation on Celluloid ...... 79

Chapter III: The Representation of the Civil War in the Pre-1967 Film Production ...... 103

PART II: THE DICTATORSHIP PERIOD

Chapter I: Military Junta and Return to Democracy (1967-1974) ...... 128

Chapter II: The Occupation on Celluloid ...... 141

Chapter III: The Representation of the Civil War during the Dictatorship ...... 171

PART III: THE POST-1974 PERIOD

Chapter I: Restoration of Democracy and PASOK’s Hegemony (1974-1989) .. 199

Chapter II: The Occupation and the Civil War on Celluloid ...... 206

Chapter III: Screen Representations of the Civil War Trauma ...... 229

CONCLUSIONS ...... 256

WORKS CITED ...... 262

APPENDIX I: FILMOGRAPHY ...... 290

APPENDIX II: TIMELINE...... 315

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ………………...…..……………………………….317

Introduction

Greek cinema has a productive, if problematic, relationship with the past. It is problematic from the perspective of those who dismiss the historical film for its factual inaccuracies, narrow point of view, oversimplification, conventional and standardized way of representation, ideologization of the past. Productive, because the past has provided a rich source of narrative situations, compelling themes, beautiful characters and visual spectacle for Greek cinema.

As a complex genre, the historical film presents an unprecedented challenge to the researcher. Studying the representation of the German Occupation and the Greek

Civil War on celluloid is a particularly discouraging and intimidating activity, as the researcher has to overcome important obstacles; he is obliged to distinguish from a plethora of films of those that could be analyzed in the study. He must also select from an expanding corpus of approaches to textual analysis those that could seem appropriate for the project. Furthermore, the researcher is obliged to be objective when discussing such controversial and over-politicized subject as the Civil War. He is also confronted with the difficulty to select from an abundance of studies on the 1940s, a research primarily based on Greek sources, those that can be employed in the study. Finally, he has to define a set of approaches that will lead to an original contribution to scholarship about filmic representation of historical events.

Research, however, is a treasure trail; everything leads somewhere; everything opens up new worlds. It is one of the things that preserve it. When you stumble across a film for the first time, it becomes irrelevant when it was made. The first time I sampled

Theo Angelopoulos’ work was in a dirty and chilly cinema in the early 2000s at a retrospective of the director’s work in Thessaloniki. The Travelling Players, The

Hunters and Alexander the Great. Money well spent. When you are watching films that 2 are so important there ceases to be any distance between you and the screen, how can it matter when it was made? After all, Alexander the Great was released in 1980, the year I was born. Yet, those nights were as real and alive as the snowflakes that were melting off my trainers and dangling from my eyes.

This study investigates the Greek films whose subject matter is the Axis

Occupation and the Greek Civil War as cinematic and historical phenomena that appeared and developed from 1946 to 1989. Most overtly, it is an account of the

Occupation and the Civil War genre and its place in domestic cinema: From Raid in the

Aegean to The Polk File on Air, and from M. Karagatsis to Theo Angelopoulos and

Dionisis Grigoratos. The early era during which the historical film emerged and developed covers twenty years (1946-1966), a prime period for the domestic cinema industry. The late 1960s and the early 1970s was the period during which the historical feature was established as a popular genre: WWII films were at the peak of their popularity, featuring stars previously associated with other genres. However, the late

1970s and the 1980s signifies the decline of the genre, a reflection of the crisis within the film industry in Greece.

Before offering a critical analysis of the ‘Occupation’ and ‘Civil War film,’ it is necessary to locate it in the broader context of both the sociopolitical atmosphere and the domestic film production. It is argued that films respond to dominant political cοnditiοns, as well as tο changes in public οpiniοn and viewers’ interests. During specific pοlitical eras it is possible to find certain motifs, themes and styles which dοminate, and which are repeated. When pοlitical changes are under way, “the previοusly repeated mοtifs start to change” (Vanhala 5). For this reason, the thesis discusses the post-war environment; the hegemony of the Right during the 1950s; the political instability of the mid-1960s; the advent of the military Dictatorship; the 3

Restoration of democracy in 1974; the premiership of the Panhellenic Socialist Party in the 1980s. Moreover, the thesis investigates the Greek film industry, the development of the big studios; the boost of filmic production in the 1960s and its decline in the late

1970s; the dominant genres; its cultural significance (Karalis 2012).

The analysis of the ‘Occupation’ films is organized chronologically in order to relate them to the broader political, industrial and cultural context. The exploration of the genre is divided into three periods, reflecting political and historical markers as the beginning of the Civil War in 1946, the coup d’état of 1967 and the regime change of

1974. The majority of Occupation films are discussed. Nevertheless, emphasis is given to typical, distinctive and influential features. Additionally, the study pays particular attention to the ‘Civil War’ film of the period, highlighting its emergence and its development; its transformations; its thematic concerns; its ideologies projected.

In spite of their popularity, the majority of Greek historical films have received little attention in studies of Greek cinema; books and articles on historically-themed pictures remain limited. Despite an increase in the number of publications in recent years, no existing publication so far has investigated the Occupation and the Civil War films in any detail. Moreover, the critical evaluation of such films has been mainly negative because they were considered to be of low quality pictures and bad screenplays, with no artistic value or cultural importance. This thesis challenges these views.

Catastrophe, Occupation and Civil Strife

Wars and especially civil wars are events that disrupt existing orders and norms, establish new power structures and balances, and shape new relationships between individuals. Furthermore, such crucial incidents deconstruct traditional public discourses and lay the foundations for new ones, introduce different political and 4 cultural language, which is based on the winners’ vision, and have a profound impact on all aspects of the political and social environment. The historical events of the 1940s in Greece, namely the tripartite Axis Occupation and especially, the bloody Civil War, were landmarks in Modern Greek history and their consequences defined the sociopolitical context in the years to follow. While WWII was devastating for the majority of European countries, Greece in particular suffered during this period the most, as the Nazis’ withdrawal was followed by the civil strife which led to an additional economic disaster and created a deep division in the society. The impact of the Occupation and the Civil War in cultural life has also been tremendous.

Representations of the 40s events in novels and memoirs have been seen as bearers of collective memory1 and have greatly affected the way in which people understand, interpret and narrate the past. Moreover, the construction of the past has found in cinema a crucial ally and many films have become references for generations. However, one cannot but assert that these cultural products drew on the post-war social atmosphere and were deeply influenced by the political climate in which they were produced.

The Occupation of Greece by the Axis powers (Germany, Italy and Bulgaria) began in April 1941. After the capitulation, King George II and the government were evacuated to Egypt, a collaborationist regime was established and General Tsolakoglou was appointed as Prime Minister of the so-called “Elliniki Politia” [Greek State]. The territory was divided into zones, with the Germans retaining control of the big cities and the Aegean islands. Bulgarians were given the areas of Eastern Macedonia and

1 The term “collective memory” was coined by the French sociologist Maurie Halbwachs (1925), who stressed that remembering an event means remembering a social group perspective through which we understand that event. Halbwachs claimed that memory is not individual; “the process of remembrance exists only within the reals of social frameworks such as family, class and religion. Collective memory is thus individual memory shaped by the social contexts of this individual’s life” (Yosef 163). 5

Thrace, which were annexed to Bulgaria, and Italians had jurisdiction over large areas of the mainland.

The war and the occupation ruined the Greek economy and caused immense problems to the population. The requisition of foodstuffs by the occupying forces, the plundering of resources to the point of exhaustion, the massive inflation, the unwillingness of the occupiers to provide people with food and the Allied blockade resulted in the Great Famine of the winter 1941-42, during which 100,000 civilians

(especially in Athens and Piraeus) died of starvation (Clogg 124). Closely linked to the food crisis and the rising prices, which continued to skyrocket until the Nazis’ withdrawal from Greece in 1944, was the emergence of the phenomenon of the black market.

During this period, a vigorous Resistance movement arose. The National

Liberation Front (EAM) was the first massive group which was formed during the

Occupation. It was founded in September 1941 by the Communist Party of Greece

(KKE) and other left-wing groups and parties. EAM, as it declared in its manifestoes, aimed at the struggle against the conquerors and the liberation of the country. The organization’s military wing, the National Peoples’ Liberation Army (ELAS) was formed in December 1941, under the leadership of Aris Velouchiotis. The main strength of ELAS was in rural areas and as it is observed: “ELAS was most effective in the countryside where it introduced rules and punitive action, thus becoming a state within a state of chaos. It also secured the peasant populations from local bandits and provided for the unimpeded circulation of goods” (Veremis & Koliopoulos 112). The second significant resistance organization was the National Republican Greek League (EDES).

It was established by the colonel Napoleon Zervas in September 1941. EDES, whose main strength was in the area of Epirus, attracted mostly pro-royalists, liberals and all 6 those who could not accept EAM’s monopolization of the Resistance.

At the same time, Tsolakoglou was replaced by Konstantinos Logothetopoulos.

The announcement made by the puppet government that thousands of Greeks were to be sent to Germany for an involuntary draft of labor initiated a series of strikes during the first months of 1943. The huge demonstration of March 1943, organized by EAM, led to the revoking of the decision and the replacement of the Prime Minister

Logothetopoulos by the veteran pro-royalist politician Ioannis Rallis. The latter was the creator of the notorious “Security Battalions” (‘Tagmata Asfalias’); these were armed groups, manned with extreme rightists, Nazi sympathizers, opportunists, outcasts and criminal elements and their aim was to cooperate with and aid the German forces in their fight against the left partisans. The first Security Battalion was established in

September 1943 in the area of the Peloponnese. During their relatively short period of action, members of the Security Battalions chased, tortured and ruthlessly murdered thousands of leftists or supporters of EAM.2

In order to eliminate its rivals and secure its dominance in the post-war political matters, EAM launched an offensive against EDES and other minor groups in October

1943. The skirmishes, which paved the way for the Civil War, lasted until February

1944, when a ceasefire was agreed between the British government and the various

Resistance factions. In March 1944, the so-called “Mountain Government” (‘Kivernisi tou Vounou’) was established by EAM-ELAS, which, by then, succeeded in controlling many mountainous and rural areas of Greece. As Shrader points out, EAM managed to incorporate the vast majority of the Resistance Movement, which grew to hundrends of thaousands members by the autumn of 1944 (including 25,000 armed members of

ELAS) (23). Under the Caserta Agreement of September 26 1944, all the Resistance

2 On the Security Battallions, see Dordanas (2005). 7 groups in Greece agreed to put their forces under the command of the British officer

Scobie.

The Axis Powers withdrew their troops from Greece in October 1944. However, less than two months after their evacuation, a fierce and bloody clash erupted in Athens.

The December 1944 Events (Dekemvriana) involved fighting between ELAS and the

British forces, supported by the Greek government and various paramilitary groups.

The fighting, which ended with the defeat of the left-wing organizations, is thought to be another step that led into the abyss of the Civil War and “marked the future of the

Communist Party in public affairs. Its chance to become an important element in parliamentary politics through the influence it had gained during the years of occupation and resistance was forfeited in the party’s all out attempt to establish a monopoly of power in December 1944” (Veremis & Koliopoulos 116-117). However,

Vulliamy and Smith argue that the December Events was a result of the brutal and perfidious British logic:

Churchill considered the influence of the Communist partywithin the resistance

movement he had backed throughout the war – the National Liberation Front,

EAM – to have grown stronger than he had calculated, sufficient to jeopardise

his plan to return the Greek king to power and keep Communism at bay. So, he

switched allegiances to back the supporters of Hitler against his own erstwhile

allies. (web internet)

In February 1945, the Varkiza Agreement was signed between the Greek government and the Communist Party. According to the Agreement, ELAS forces undertook to disarm, amnesty was promised for “political crimes” and the government was committed to hold a referendum within a year on the issue of monarchy. Despite the 8 hopes for a peaceful resolution, the period 1945-46 was marked by the beginning of battles between left-wing and right-wing groups. In addition, thousands of left sympathizers were persecuted, tortured and murdered by various far-right paramilitary organizations (Period of White Terror).

KKE officially boycotted the 1946 elections, claiming that free elections could not be held in an atmosphere of terror, and established the Democratic Army of Greece

(DSE), which, under the leadership of the former ELAS Captain Markos Vafiadis led to impressive victories for the communists. According to Clogg: “The Democratic

Army, making effective use of guerilla tactics, scored some notable successes over the regular army” (140). However, DSE failed in their attempt to secure the town of

Konitsa, which would be the capital of the Provisional Democratic Government

(‘Kivernisi tou Vounou’), which was formed by KKE in December 1947. During the first years of the civil struggle, DSE, supporter of a Marxist regime, was being supplied by the neighboring communist states, especially Yugoslavia. As Veremis and

Koliopoulos observe: “Between 1946 and 1948 the Democratic Army was to a significant degree dependent on the kindness of Yugoslavia. […] DSE guerrillas were sheltered, fed, and indoctrinated by the republic” (121). However, the situation began to change to the disadvantage of communists; whereas American financial and military aid rapidly increased (especially after the announcement of the Truman Doctrine in

1947), DSE gradually drained of recruits and supplies. Moreover, the split between

President Tito and Stalin resulted in the closing of the Yugoslav border to the guerillas.

By August 1949, DSE was defeated and its remnants were forced to seek refuge in

Albania.

The 1940s was a devastating period for the Greek society. The occupiers’ reprisals, with mass executions, deprivation of materials and goods and the famine 9 produced a scale of casualties unprecedented in Modern Greek History: Overall about half a million citizens perished in military operations, in executions and murders (8 per cent of the total population), one million Greeks were left homeless, as hundreds of villages were burned to the ground and many were forced evacuees (Veremis and

Koliopoulos 2010). Moreover, the tragedy continued with the fratricidal Civil War which broke out shortly after the Germans’ withdrawal. As Clogg argues: “The atrocities committed by both sides assumed an added dimension of horror in that they were inflicted by Greek upon Greek” (145).

Though numbers do little to communicate the effects of the Civil War, statistics indicate the widespread violence between 1946 and 1949: It is estimated that more than

50,000 combatants died in the fighting, 700,000 civilians were forced evacuees, 50,000 communists were sent to prisons and concentration camps (Close 220) and, what is more, about 75,000 members of the DSE fled to the communist countries as political refugees (Baerentzen 88-89). Another result of the Civil War was the political schism created between communists and anti-communists, which would deeply affect and divide the society in the years to come. In the late 1940s, the ideology of “National

Conviction” (‘Ethnikofrosini’),3 aiming at neutralizing the communist influence, was devised and became the central cultural ideology of the Civil War victors. As a result, innumerable left-wing sympathizers were victims of state policies of discrimination for many decades, as they were considered “miasmas” and citizens of “lower national consciousness.” One of the things characteristic of the post-war anti-communistic atmosphere that prevailed was the notorious “Certificate of Social Judiciousness”

3 “Ethnikofrosini” (‘National Conviction’) was the central cultural ideology of the post-war state. Ethnikofrosini, the ideology of the nationally minded as opposed to the supporters of subversive ideologies, was devised during the Civil War and demanded absolute devotion to the nationalistic objectives of Greece. Its primary aim had been “to neutralize permanently the influence of the communists by adding ideological and social isolation to military defeat” (Botsiou 282). 10

(‘Pistopiitiko Kinonikon Fronimaton’),4 which was required by the authorities even as late as the 1960s. According to Veremis and Koliopoulos: “The Civil War ended with nationalist victory in the field but the scars of the strife on society left an indelible mark.

It took almost four decades for the chasm between victors and vanquished to be bridged” (127).

Narratives of the Occupation and the Civil War

The way people think about the past changes over time. Perceptions of the Axis

Occupation and the Greek Civil War have been influenced by the sociopolitical atmosphere and by certain cultural values of the era. They are also affected by the role each person might have played during the 1940s decade. One cannot but assert that the narratives that emerged after the end of the Civil War reaffirmed the dictum that history is written by the winners. The right-wing rhetoric appears just after the liberation of

Greece (1944). In the years 1945-1974, almost two out of three books published were anti-left (Marantzidis and Antoniou 224). Perceptions of the Occupation and the Civil

War, as expressed in the memoirs by some prominent leaders of the Greek army

(Komninos Pyromaglou, I Ethniki Antistasis [The National Resistance], Napoleon

Zervas, Apeleftherotikos Agon, 1941-1945 [The Fight for Freedom, 1941-1945] and

Stilianos Choutas, I Ethniki Antistasis ton Ellinon [The Greek National Resistance], memoirs of British agents (C.M. Woodhouse, Apple of Discord) or chronicles by right- wing politicians (Evangelos Averof, Fotia ke Tsekouri [Fire and Axe]) confirmed the victors’ discourses, denying the patriotism of the Left resistance and viewing the Civil

4 The Certificate of Social Judiciousness was a sort of paper of “clearance” issued by the police and which was necessary to hold a state employment, passport, driver’s license or enroll in a university. It is believed that the number of citizens who were excluded from the Certificate almost reached one million people. The Certificate was first introduced by the dictatorial government of Ioannis Metaxas (Decree 13/9/1938), to exclude communists from entering Higher Education (Universities, Colleges or Professional Schools). And especially: the public sector. It was finally abolished in 1971. For more on this topic, Kostopoulos (2006).

War as a patriotic fight against foreigners, and the Occupation as a period when the

Communist Party devised a plan to capture power (Tzoukas 400).

Furthermore, for the right-wing historiography of the 1950s and 1960s, the

Resistance movement, consisting of acts of spying and sabotage, was seen as part of the broader WWII struggle between the Allies’ bloc and the Axis (404). In addition, early right-wing narratives depicted EAM as an organization determined to establish a communist regime in Greece upon the departure of the Axis forces; in his book I Teseris

Giri tou KKE, o EDES ke I Angli [The Four Rounds of KKE, EDES and the English],

Michail Miridakis points out that EAM, supported by the Soviets, was formed in order for the communists to win power. In addition, in his work Revolution and Defeat: The

Story of the Greek Communist Party, Dimitris Kousoulas underlines that KKE was responsible for the outburst of the Civil War.

By contrast, works which favored the Left were published outside Greece; the leftist political refugees in Eastern Europe produced a considerable corpus of texts, articulating alternative versions of History. For example, in his novel Fotia [Fire]

Dimitris Chatzis, master of the craft of penning stories set in the period before and after

WWII,5 gave a chronicle of the Resistance which the author experienced firsthand; people’s participation in the fight for freedom, the issue of collaborationism, EAM’s crucial role, as well as the defeat of the Left movement after the Varkiza Agreement in

1945. Moreover, Menelaos Loundemis’ Odos Avisou, Arithmos Miden [Abyss Street,

Number Zero] vividly delineated the harsh conditions in the camp on the island of

Makronisos, where thousands of left-wing political prisoners had been detained and tortured during the Civil War. In I Aravoniastikia tou Achilea [Achilles' Fiancée], the

5 For example, the collections of short stories To Telos tis Mikris mas Polis [The End of our Small Town] and Aniperaspisti [Defenseless]. 12 popular children’s literature author Alki Zei gave her recollections of the December

1944 events and the Civil War, paying attention to the persecutions and the tortures of communists by the governmental forces and the various right-wing paramilitary groups.

After the collapse of the Dictatorship in 1974 and, especially, the years during which the Pan-Hellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) was in power (1981-1989) a shift in the reception of the Occupation and the Civil War became evident. From about

1974 onwards, a series of short stories, novels, memoirs written by EAM veterans emerged and offered an alternative perspective on the history of the 1940s (although equally biased). The wave of the left-wing memoirs reached its peak in the 1980s.

Following the official recognition of the National Resistance by the socialist government in 1982, the interpretation of the Left became the dominant discourse.

More specifically, in works such as Stefanos Sarafis’ Istorikes Anamnisis [Historical

Memories] (1980), Christos Kenourios’ Dafnes ke Dakria: Istories apo tin Ethniki

Antistasi sti Vorioditiki Ellada [Laurels and Tears: Stories from the National

Resistance in North-Western Greece] (1981) and Nikos Ziagkos’ Nees Selides apo ton

Emfilio Polemo [New Pages from the Civil War] (1986) EAM was seen as a mass movement which expressed the people’s hopes for liberation and social justice.

In short, the post-1981 rhetoric included ideas such as the establishment of EAM as the leading resistance group, the patriotic policy and the strong relationship between the Left and Greek society, EAM’s plans for social reforms in postwar times and the issue of collaboration with the enemy: “The leftist resistance was considered a clearly patriotic movement; anti-left organizations were regarded as pseudo-resistance attempting to subvert the popular movement and often turned to collaborationist attitudes (Marantzidis and Antoniou 224-225). Nevertheless, the majority of research focused on the Nazi Occupation, since the Civil War remained a taboo issue (Voglis et 13 al. 7).

With the ending of the Cold War, the events of the 1940s have gained a central position in domestic historiography. The growing interest in the themes of the

Occupation and, especially, of the Civil War resulted in an unprecedented number of studies, conferences, collections of essays, books and volumes. As Mazower asserts,

“Underlying intellectual and political concerns have changed, and slowly the Civil War is moving from the realm of politics into that of history, thereby acquiring a new significance as part of the longer-run story of the formation of the Greek nation-state”

(8). Especially after the advent of the new century, one cannot but notice a flurry of publications on the civil conflict.6 This trend was the result of many factors: the growing interest in social history, the availability of archival resources to scholars, the ideological and political atmosphere which allowed scientific research on such sensitive themes and, above all, the rise of a collective memory which wished to move beyond the dominant discourses of the clashing parties (Voglis et al: 8, 9).

As opposed to the previous era which paid attention to the military aspect and the role of the foreign powers, the post-Cold War period research mainly focused on such issues as collaborationism, local histories, gender roles and minorities’ identities.

According to Kornetis: “The importance of the conflict for the country’s political

6 For example: L. Baerentzen, J. O. Iatrides, O. Smith (ed.) Meletes ya ton Emfilio Polemo1945-1949 [Studies on the Civil War, 1945-1949], Athens: Olkos, 1992. J. Iatrides and L. Wringley (eds.), Greece at the Crossroads: The Civil War and its Legacy, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. K. Koutsoukis and I. Sakkas (eds.), Ptihes tou Enfiliou Polemou 1946-1949 [Aspects of the Civil War 1946-1949], Athens: Filistor, 2000. M. Mazower (ed.) After the War Was Over: Reconstructing the Family, Nation, and State in Greece, 1943-1960, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. H. Fleischer (ed.) I Ellada ’36-’49. Apo ti Diktatoria ston Emfilio: Tomes ke Sinehies [Greece ’36-’49. From Dictatorship to the Civil War: Gaps and Continuities]. Athens: Kastaniotis, 2003. P. Carabott and T. Sfikas (eds.) The Greek Civil War: Essays on a Conflict of Exceptionalism and Silence, London: Ashgate, 2004. Irini Lagani and Maria Bontila (eds.) Pedomazoma iPedososimo: Pedia tou Emfiliou stin Anatoliki ke Kentriki Evropi [Abduction or Salvation of Children: Children of the Civil War in Eastern and Central Europe], Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2012. Vasilis Dalkavoukis, Eleni Paschaloudi, Ilias Skoulidas and Katerina Tsekou (eds.), Afigisis ya ti Dekaetia tou 1940 [Narrations for the 1940s Decade], Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2012. 14 culture was manifested in various ways, ranging from its imprint in the official discourse of parties and politicians, to its impact on social actors and movements, and up to cultural manifestations” (94). Recently, Stathis Kalyvas and Nikos Marantzidis have formed a “post-revisionist” school of thought (Marantzidis and Antoniou 2004).

In his studies Red Terror: Leftist Violence during the Occupation (2000), The Logic of

Violence in Civil War (2006) and Armed Collaboration in Greece 1941-1944 (2008),

Kalyvas revises the assumption that the Left has been the only victim of violence during the 1940s, reanimating the debate regarding the “red” terror and exploring the issue of armed collaborationism in occupied Greece. Moreover, the work of Marantzidis (2001) focuses on the political, ideological and social attitudes of the Turkish-speaking population of Greece during the Occupation and manages to show “the complexity and ambiguity of individual and group strategies and choices and to present the relevant autonomy of the micro-level in connection with the developments at the macro-level”

(Marantzidis and Antoniou 228). In their recent book Emfilia Pathi [Civil War

Passions] (2015), the scholars explore the causes of the Greek Civil War and focus on marginalized topics.

In the field of literature, a number of novelists have recently emerged as writers of books about the 1940s events, including Kostas Akrivos (Kitrino Rosiko Keri

[Yellow Russian Candle], 2001), Nikos Davettas (I Evrea Nifi [The Jewish Bride],

2009), Marlena Politopoulou (I Mnimi tis Polaroid [The Memory of Polaroid], 2009),

Sophia Nikolaidou (Horevoun I Elefantes [The Scapegoat, 2012), Vasilis Tsiabousis

(Galazia Agelada [Blue Cow], 2013) and Vasiliki Petsa (Mono to Arni [Only the Lamb],

2015). These works shed light on hidden visions of the past traumatic experiences and exemplify the struggle involved in seeking to recover the 1940s through memory.

History on Film

From earliest embodiments in the cinema, representation of past incidents has been one of the most productive fields of film making. Historical pictures have been produced since the first years of the motion pictures industry. However, historians have seen such films as competitors that define visions of history and have viewed that the only films with a recognizable and serious historical interest are documentaries or newsreels.

Additionally, historical features have been criticized by academics and scholars of traditional historiography as inaccurate depictions of the past; they have been targeted for their “mythic tendencies, factual inaccuracies, fictiveness, superficiality, oversimplification, and narrow or ‘partisan’ point of view” (Summons 1). The tendency to describe these films as unhistorical, escapist and unrealistic has been “a dominant trend of film and historian criticism until recent decades” (Landy, Introduction 7).

Not until the late 1960s did a number of critics and historians interested in film began to rethink the filmic representations of past events, creating essays, journals and books (Rosenstone 21). However, the first major move into the topic was a Forum entirely devoted to film in the 1988 issue of The American Historical Review. Here,

Rosenstone stressed that to leave films out of the discussion of the meaning of the past is to ignore a major factor in our understanding of past events and argued in favor of beginning to take film seriously as a way of thinking about the past (23). In the same issue, White coined the term ‘historiophoty,’ which he defined as “the representation of history and our thought about it in visual images and filmic discourse” (White qtd. in Rosenstone: 23).

Films can be seen as mediums of historical thinking; as forms which can create a serious work of history (Rosenstone 39); as historical narratives which utter meaningful historical interpretations. In spite of the fact that historical films are 16 influenced by contemporary values, trends, concerns and contradictions, they serve as historical documents for the events they represent and have played a powerful role in

“shaping our culture’s understanding of the past, an influence that derives from its striking tendency to arouse critical and popular controversy that resonates throughout the public sphere (Burgoyne 1). On the other hand, Ellie Lemonidou recognizes that historical films provide a different interpretation and understanding of the past and are important elements of historic discourse; however, she stresses that such works do not replace written history (221). For Lemonidou, the role of cinema as a producer of the historical consciousness of a nation and a society cannot be underestimated (233).

There are two main approaches regarding the representation of history in film.

The first approach – exemplified by Siegfriend Kracauer’s From Caligari to Hitler

(1947), a study of the 1930s German cinema – privileges the idea of film as ‘mirror’ of society. This ‘reflectionist’ paradigm recognizes that a picture “was inescapably shaped by its historical moment or production or was understood to reflect the social and political concerns of the period in which it was made” (Summons 3). The link between filmic past and present trends is central in Marc Ferro’s Cinema et Historie (1977) and

Pierre Sorlin’s The Film in History (1980). Both Ferro and Sorlin are less interested in the issues of authenticity and accuracy than they are with the ideological construction of the films; the role of ideology in defining filmic history. Moreover, Lambrinos notes on the relationship between film and history that each picture – regardless of whether it is fiction or documentary - reflects the questions, queries and demands of the time in which it is created (qtd. in Kornetis: 102).

The second approach to the representation of history in film emerged in the

1980s introduced by such scholars as Robert Rosenstone and Robert Brent Toplin. The conceptual approach, as it was termed, privileges the idea that “historical filmmaking 17 must be judged according to its own conventions and characteristics, and it has the potential to be more than simply a primary source document (Summons 4). Compared to written history, history on film, owing to the constraints of time or the commercial priorities, is variously individualized, emotionalized, simplified, compressed.

Nevertheless, these qualities “do not preclude film from achieving a reasonable fidelity to the documentable truth, and conveying thoughtful perspectives of history” (Toplin

4). For Rosenstone, any judgment over the historical value of a film should consider its distinctive strengths; its factuality and texture, “by picking out certain traces of the past and highlighting them as important and worthy of inclusion in the narrative”

(Rosenstone 8) and its representation of metaphorical or symbolic truth, “a language that creates a series of proximate or possible realities rather than a reality that is literally true (48).

Historical Films

The ‘historical film’ genre has produced a large body of scholarly research (Rollins

1983, Chapman 2005, Eldridge 2006, Burgoyne 2008, Harper 2009). The ‘historical film’ category is generally seen as a genre which is located in the past and represents some real historical persons in real, historical context (Harper 276), as well as a narrative representation of actual events and processes (Chapman 2). A second type of historical films could include features which focus on fictitious characters in a certain historical context. There are also films which use historical material as a background, that is necessary for the narrative. Sorlin argues that historical pictures can show their historicity by referring to common historical knowledge, by reconstructing such events or showing such heroes that are known by the audience (20-21). For the scholar, historical film is perceived as a “reconstruction of the social relationship which, using the pretext of the past, reorganizes the present” (80). 18

Jonathan Stubbs argues for a wide definition of historical films which pays attention with how the features have been interpreted. Stubbs points out that the historical film is a genre which needs to be understood “not as a set of shared textual characteristics, but rather as a discursive practice centered on an unavoidably diverse body of films” (4). For, as the scholar stresses, the historical film overrules related genre labels such as the costume film or the biopic (20). Stubbs further states that other genres

“may intersect with the historical film, but they also have discursive characteristics of their own (20). Natalie Davis, on the other hand, distinguished between two kinds of historical films -those based on documentable events and those with imagined plot, in which verifiable events are intrinsic to the action (Davis, qtd. in Rosenstone: 25).

For the film scholar Marcia Landy, there can be some common themes in historical films; historical film has been a genre through which national film cultures have spoken to their national audiences: “They have chosen their themes from national mythology, national identity, famous events of a nation’s history, including the lives of great men and women, rulers and national heroes” (53). Robert Burgoyne points out that historical films share a common core feature: “they are centered on documentable historical events, directly referring to historical occurrences through their main plot lines […] The events of the past constitute the mainspring of the historical film, rather than the past simply serving a scenic backdrop or a nostalgic setting” (4).

Filmic Depictions of the German Occupation

The Greek Cinema has played a particularly pivotal role in representing the past; in articulating the impact of great historical events; in fixing stereotypes about people; in defining the ways in which individuals remember the traumatic experiences. From its earliest years, Greek cinema has exhibited a continuing engagement with screening the past and many movies have become historical references for generations. The post-war 19 development of the film industry, however, was slow, due to the destruction of the infrastructure during the Axis Occupation and a feeble, almost non-existent economy.

But despite the hardships, new production companies were established and the number of films produced gradually increased. During the period after the Liberation and in the early 1950s, the films produced in the context of the Greek “studio system” were genre based (Papadimitriou, The National: 495).

First, there was the growth in popularity of the melodrama, with such features as Christos Spentzos’Amartisa ya to Pedi mou [I Sinned for my Child] (1950), Yiorgos

Tzavellas’ O Methistakas [The Drunkard] (1950) and I Kalpiki Lira [The Counterfeit

Coin] (1955). Melodrama, which usually drew on the recent Greco-Italian War and the four-year Occupation, was indeed the genre that became the core of the post-war cinema. The genre of comedy also experienced many years of popularity, thanks to such scriptwriters and filmmakers as Alekos Sakellarios and Nikos Tsiforos. Comedy was influenced by several other cultural manifestations, such as country fairs, shadow puppet theatre (Karaghiozis), theatrical genres (revues and farce).

Another popular genre that emerged in the 1950s was the “folk costume” film or “foustanella,”7 with such movies as Golfo (1955, d. Orestis Laskos), O Agapitikos tis Voskopoulas [The Shepherdess’ Lover], (1956, d. Ilias Paraskevas), Astero (1958, d.

Dinos Dimopoulos), Lafina (1959, d. Orestis Laskos) and Sarakatsanissa (1959, d.

Vassilis Georgiadis). Its subject usually drew either on popular love idylls of the past or on foreign rural melodramas (Mitropoulou 129). As Vrasidas Karalis argues, folk costume films idealized rural space and praised the pre-urban time of communal village innocence (A History: 8). Folk costume features, which were mainly released during

7 “Foustanella” is a traditional Greek cloth, equivalent of the Scottish Kilt. The youths wear them during National Holidays. Films, whose themes were the adventures of men wearing foustanellas, took the name of this cloth. 20 the 1950s, remained popular until the end of the next decade. Approximately seventy folk costume pictures were produced from 1955 to 1974 (Kymionis 53).8

It is within this context of film production that historical subjects became popular and filmmakers began to focus on historical content. For example, the world of

Ancient Greece was the topic of the features Antigone (1961, d. Yiorgos Tzavellas) and

Electra (1962, d. Michael Cacoyannis), both adaptations of the ancient dramas. The

Byzantium featured in Kassiani I Imnodos [Kassiani the Writer of Hymns] (1960, d.

Ilias Paraskevas) and the times and life under the Ottoman rule appeared in the films O

Yenitsaros [The Janissary] (1953, d. Kostas Dritsas), I Limni ton Stenagmon [The Lake of Sighs] (1959, d. Grigoris Grigoriou) and Zalongo, to Kastro tis Lefterias [Zalongo, the Castle of Freedom] (1959, d. Stelios Tatasopoulos). The Greek War of

Independence was represented in such films as I Exodos tou Messolonghiou [The

Exodus of Mesolongi] (1956, d. Gerasimos Stavrou), Bouboulina (1959, d. Kostas

Andritsos) and the Asia Minor Debacle was the theme of the awarded O Diogmos

[Persecution] (1964, d. Grigoris Grigoriou).

But it was the incidents of the 1940s that became the major thematic concern which developed in the immediate years. Some of the nation’s best actors, actresses and directors have taken the 1940s as a movie screen canvas upon which to display their talents and skills.9 Greek Cinema incorporated films which explored the Occupation

8 Kymionis points out that the genre of folk costume films “constitutes a corpus of great historical significance but remains one of the most neglected genres of mainstream Greek film. Such films were among the first that dealt with the Greek past and showed the relationship between cinema and other forms of popular Greek art such as theatre, literature and folk tales” (53). 9 The impressive lists includes actors Thanasis Vengos, Kostas Voutsas, Kostas Prekas, Alekos Alexandrakis, Yiorgos Fountas, Lakis Komninos, Yannis Fertis, Kostas Kazakos, Angelos Antonopoulos, Yannis Voglis, Christos Politis, Vasilis Diamantopoulos, Petros Fyssoun; actresses Aliki Vouyouklaki, Jenny Karezi, Ellie Lambeti, Xenia Kalogeropoulou, Vera Krouska, Gelly Mavropoulou, Zoe Laskari, Mary Chronopoulou, Ellie Fotiou, Martha Vourtsi, Katia Dandoulaki; and directors Theo Angelopoulos, Pantelis Voulgaris, Kostas Vrettakos, Gregg Tallas, Dinos Dimopoulos, Kostas Manousakis, Nikos Foskolos, Grigoris Grigoriou, Dimis Dadiras, Kostas Karayannis, Yannis Dalianidis, Filippos Fylaktos, Errikos Andreou, Ilias Machairas. 21 era from very early: between 1946 and 1950, a period of poor film production, eleven pictures dealing with the Occupation were released. Among the first to appear were

Katadromi sto Aegeon [Raid in the Aegean] (1946, d. M. Karagatsis) and Adouloti

Sklavi [Unsubdued Slaves] (1946, d. Vion Papamichalis), two low-budget war adventures which set the pattern for the movies made in the late 1940s and 1950s. Both

Raid in the Aegean and Unsubdued Slaves contain a number of themes that run through most of the so-called “Occupation” pictures of the period. These subjects vary from the delineation of the role of saboteurs to the question of Greek women who had love affairs with the Nazis, or the depiction of the harsh living conditions during the Occupation era.

Concerning the 1950s, it appears that the movies that focused on the Occupation were relatively fewer. One cannot ignore the emergence of the popular genre of the romance film in the middle of the decade with features such as Kiriakatiko Xipnima

[Windfall in Athens] (1953, d. Michael Cacoyannis), Mia Zoi tin Ehoume [We Have

Only One Life] (1958, d. Yiorgos Tzavellas) and Mia Italida stin Ellada [An Italian

Lady in Greece] (1958, d. Umberto Lenzi). Despite that, two Occupation-themed films appeared in the season 1951-52: the drama Matomena Hristougenna [A Bloody

Christmas] (d. Yiorgos Zervos) and the adventure film I Floga tis Eleftherias [The

Flame of Freedom] (d. Panayiotis Spyrou). In addition, the 1950s was marked by the release of one of the most important Occupation films: the neo-realistic masterpiece To

Xipolito Tagma [The Barefoot Battalion] (1954, d. Gregg Tallas). This picture was based on a real story involving 160 children, the “barefoot battalion,” who were kicked out by the occupying army from Thessaloniki’s orphanages during the Occupation.

Perhaps the most successful Occupation film of the pre-Dictatorship period was the war adventure To Nisi ton Yeneon [The Braves’ Island] (1959, d. Dimis Dadiras), a 22 movie which actually solidified the genre and provided a framework for subsequent depictions of the past. The picture told the story of a fighter who was sent from the

Middle East Headquarters to Crete, so as to organize a sabotage mission. It could be stressed that Dadiras’ movie focused on discussing the role of the individual; in The

Braves’ Island, the Resistance against the Nazis was portrayed as a fight led by individuals who were struggling to liberate their country.10 The film also tackled the role of women during the Occupation by describing the activity of a singer who decisively helps the partisans and risks her life by stealing files from a German Major.

Another feature of The Braves’ Island was the emphasis on the role of the Allies; in the film, the British officer in command is considered of paramount importance for the success of the secret mission. The Braves’ Island’s box-office performance11 engendered many imitations in the following years and ensured that WWII would continue to serve as a source of inspiration for the film industry.

However, the 1960s saw the release of a series of films which undermined the conventional representations of the Occupation by telling history from below; from the point of view of ordinary folks and the socially and politically marginalized. The cycle includes the pictures Psila ta Heria Hitler [Hands Up Hitler] (1962, d. Roviros

Manthoulis), To Bloko [The Roundup] (1965, d. Adonis Kyrou) and Me ti Lamsi sta

Matia [With Glittering Eyes] (1966, d. Panos Glykofrydis) The directors, eschewing references to great men and brave deeds, highlighted the daily experiences and hardships −fears, hopes, dilemmas, frustrations and sufferings– of the everyday person.

It is suggested that such films paved the way for the achievements of many New Greek

10 One cannot but notice an influence from Hollywood WWII movies of the period such as Flying Leathernecks (1951, d. N. Ray), The Frogmen (1951, d. L. Bacon), Operation Secret (1952, d. L. Seiler), The Purple Plain (1954, d. R. Parrish), The Enemy Below (1957, d. D. Powell), The Wings of Eagles (1957, d. J. Ford) and The Young Lions (1958, d. E. Dmytryk). 11 The film sold 106,000 tickets, ranking 4th in the annual box-office (Soldatos, Vol. IV: 206). 23

Cinema (NEK) directors during the following years.

The Dictatorship years (1967-1974) could be seen as a period where commercial cinema enjoyed the last years of popularity and films, because of a lack of alternatives, were the most popular form of entertainment: 196 pictures were produced in 1967, 183 in 1968 and 131 in 1970 (Sotiropoulou, I Diaspora: 38). Furthermore, in 1968, admissions reached an all-time high of 137 million for domestic and foreign films

(37).12 Nevertheless, the dominance of cinema was about to end in the early 1970s, due to the rapid growth of its main opponent: television. The new medium, which was introduced in 1966, attracted the working class and the lower-middle class who sought for a cheaper form of entertainment. With television growing stronger, film production began to slow down; 91 pictures were made in 1971, 85 in 1972 and 47 in 1973 (38).

Moreover, the number of tickets declined sharply from the 119 million in 1971, to reach a low of 57 million in 1974 (37).13

The advent of the junta and the strict censorship that was imposed temporarily affected negatively the way of filming that became obvious in the 1966 Thessaloniki

Film Festival; during the last pre-dictatorial festival, a new generation of filmmakers, committed themselves to an artistically ambitious and a socially critical cinema, made their appearance, creating a number of independent pictures, which paved the way for the trend of the New Greek Cinema of the early 1970s.14

It has been observed that, during the colonels’ time, there was a rising interest in films with historical subject matter. Although the pictures produced during the seven-

12 Sotiropoulou writes that Greek films were responsible for more than 30% of the box-office returns (I Diaspora: 42). 13 Papadimitriou suggests that, apart from the arrival of television, the decline of film industry could be attributed to the tough competition between companies and, what is more, to the absence of a long-term vision for development and the privileging of short-term benefits (Music, Dance: 149). 14 For example, the features O Thanatos tou Alexandrou [The Death of Alexander], (d. Dimitris Kollatos), Prosopo me Prosopo [Face to Face], (d. Roviros Manthoulis), Anihti Epistoli [Open Letter], (d. Yiorgos Staboulopoulos) and the short film Jimis o Tigris [Jimmy the Tiger], (d. Pantelis Voulgaris). 24 year time span of the Dictatorship dealt with various historical subjects, the events of the 1940s monopolized the interest of the producers; forty-five movies focusing on the experience of the WWII were screened in the seven-year period.

It is noteworthy that several films which drew on the 1940s incidents were awarded in the Festivals that took place in the late 1960s; On the Borders of Treason

[Sta Sinora tis Prodosias] (1968, d. Dimis Dadiras) and Ochi [No] (1969, d. Dimis

Dadiras) garnered many awards at the Thessaloniki Festival. The trend of historically- themed movies reached its zenith in 1970, with the release of Ipolohagos Natassa

[Lieutenant Natassa], the highest grossing movie of classical cinema. The trend began to peter out by the mid-1970s, when the box-office failure of the films Os tin Teleftea

Stigmi [Till the Last Moment] (1972, d. Marios Retsilas) and Polemistes tis Irinis

[Warriors of Peace] (1973, d. Dimitris Papakonstantis), both produced by James Paris, signaled a declining interest in the Occupation themes.

By then, these films had cinematographically displayed spectacular heroics, had praised great men and highlighted great deeds. Told from the Greek perspective, WWII

“offered the possibility of projecting a tale of both heroism and victimization; of national victory but also of suffering (Papadimitriou, Greek War: 298). Most of them adopted a manichean scheme, as the Nation and its Enemies constituted the key binary oppositions (299). Movies featuring Occupation subjects covered topics such as espionage, collaborationism and the black market and were populated by typical figures: audacious Greek Army Officers, dedicated Resistance fighters and courageous women. In addition, the Resistance in such films was portrayed as

a unified movement, with undoubted nationalist aims: a continuation of the war,

but with different means. There is never any mention of the fact that the

Resistance consisted of a range of different groups with different political 25

agendas, and that the largest of these resistance groups, after the liberation,

became the nucleus for the communist fight against nationalists. (307)

The post-Dictatorship period (1974-1981) was marked by a proliferation of pictures concerned with sociopolitical matters with the production of such features as Dokimi

[Rehearsal] (1974, d. Jules Dassin), Mais [May] (1976, d. Tasos Psarras), To Vari

Peponi [The Big Shot] (1977, d. Pavlos Tassios) and documentaries such as Gazoros

Serron (1974, d. Takis Chatzopoulos), Megara (1974, d. Yiorgos Tsemperopoulos),

Martiries [Testimonies] (1975, d. Nikos Kavoukidis). But in terms of numbers, the situation was rather disappointing; despite the state funding through the Greek Film

Centre (Karalis, A History: 181),15 the number of features was gradually decreasing; twenty-four films were released in 1976, twenty-two in 1977 and only twenty in 1978

(Sotiropoulou, I Diaspora: 38). The collapse of commercial cinema was enhanced by the dissolution of Finos Film; the biggest and most important production company of the Old Greek Cinema (PEK).16

In the next decade, significant changes took place. Production slightly increased17 and new companies, which attempted to revive commercial cinema, were formed,18 creating, thus, hopes that films could bring audiences back to the movie theatres.19 Moreover, a new legislation was passed in 1980; its aim was to help re-

15 According to Rafailidis, due to the extensive state assistance, between 1975 and 1985 film production “de facto 100 percent belonged to the state” (qtd. in Karalis (2012): 181). 16 The term “Old Greek Cinema” refers to the Greek popular cinema of the period 1946-1974. 17 33 films were released in 1981, 49 in 1982 and 43 in 1983 (Tzavalas 158). 18 For example, the formation of the independent company “Greca Films – Lefakis,” which, within the period from 1977 to 1985, produced more than twenty-five films. Its biggest box-office hits include the films I Fantarines [Women Recruits] (1979, d. Dimis Dadiras), Paragelia [Request for a Song] (1980, d. Pavlos Tassios), Aris Velouchiotis (1981, d. Fotos Labrinos) and Alaloum [What a Mess] (1982, d. Yannis Typaldos, Yannis Smaragdis and Yiorgos Apostolidis). 19 The efforts to revive commercial cinema met with moderate success, as the number of tickets sold increased from 34 million in 1978 to 43 million in 1980 and 41 million in 1981 (Komninou 133). Furthermore, during the early 1980s, a small number of features with decent scripts, less introspection and good performances, such as O Anthropos me to Garifallo [The Man with the Carnation] (1980, d. Nikos Tzimas), Mathe Pedi mou Grammata [Educate Yourself My Son] (1981, d. Thodoros Maragos), 26 energize the declining domestic film industry. On the other hand, the Greek Film Centre

(EKK)20 was to play a crucial role in the film production and the New Greek Cinema directors were the first to benefit. In addition, the triumphant election of the socialist political party (PASOK) to the government in October 1981 greatly influenced the realm of cinema; one of the government’s first measures was the abolishment of the

1942 law which had imposed censorship on the film industry (Karalis, A History: 194).

Apart from that, a new law relating to domestic cinema was legislated in 1986.

Despite the generous governmental assistance,21 domestic production reached its lowest point; twenty-nine films were produced in 1984, twenty in 1988 and twenty in 1989 (Tzavalas 158). This drop in production was probably caused by the growth of television and the advent of video recorders.22 Especially after 1985, very few films could find their way to ordinary venues; they only participated in the Thessaloniki

Festival or other International Festivals (Karalis, A History: 218).

The Restoration of 1974 also affected the representation of history on celluloid.

The first post-junta generation of filmmakers did not pay attention to the genre of “war films,” as the latter was thought to be a sub-product of the condemned old, commercial cinema. (Voglis and Kakouriotis 11) and, thus, contrary to the plethora of war features in previous periods, the genre practically disappeared: there are only three Occupation

Angelos [Angel] (1982, d. Yiorgos Katakouzinos) and Loufa ke Paralayi [Loafing and Camouflage] (1984, d. Nikos Perakis) became box-office hits. For more, Valoukos (2007). 20 The Greek Film Centre, subsidiary of the Greek Industrial and Developing Bank (ETBA,) was formed in 1970. Since the collapse of commercial cinema in the late 1970s and until the 1990s, EKK has been the (almost) exclusive domestic film producer. 21 Tzavalas stresses that the generous financial support by the Greek Film Centre, which had displaced independent producers, gave the opportunity to some new directors to make their debut. For the first time in 1983 the Centre also financed the writing of some scripts (158). 22 In 1985, household ownership of television sets in Greece was more than 95%. Furthermore, in 1983, 2% of households had a video recorder, in 1985 the number increased in 10% (Sotiropoulou, I Diaspora: 138-139). 27 films (17 Sferes ya enan Angelo [17 Bullets for an Angel], Kataskopos Nelly [Nelly the

Spy] and To Kokkino Treno [The Red Train]), made in the early 1980s.

Critical Reception

A look at how reviewers responded to films with a historical subject matter can give some indication as to how the views represented in the pictures were received. The analysis of reviews could reveal commοn themes, cοncerns and debates regarding the receptiοn of history-themed features. It is noticeable that reviewers usually distanced themselves from such films. In their view, Occupation movies were usually perceived as commercial products with poor artistic and narrative quality (Soldatos, Vol. I: 235).

There were also debates amongst reviewers regarding the issue of ‘authenticity.’

Several critics tοοk issue with settings and prοps, claiming that visual appearance was a key to a realistic representatiοn. As Eleni Chalkou argues, “the industry’s attempts to make historical ‘quality’ films were largely criticized on account of their conventional narratives and the lack of authenticity” (190). Upon their release, the majority of such pictures were denounced by critics and film historians as movies where “nationalistic propaganda went hand in hand with anti-communism” (Karalis, A History: 138).

Nevertheless, the most important debate concerned an ideolοgical concern with histοrical accuracy. Film reviewers sought οut inaccuracies in the scripts and cοmpared

WWII films to the existing histοrical discourse regarding the 1940s. With regard to the

Occupation pictures which were produced and released during the Dictatorship, the most deeply-felt hostility was to be found in the magazine Sinhronos Kinimatografos

[Contemporary Cinema], with reviews usually written by Thodoros Angelopoulos23 and Vasilis Rafailidis. Sinhronos Kinimatografos’ critics distanced themselves and

23 After studying filmmaking in Paris, Angelopoulos returned to Greece and, from 1964 to 1967, worked as a film critic for the left-wing newspaper Dimokratiki Alaghi [Democratic Change]. From 1969 to 1971 he worked for the journal Sinchronos Kinimatografos. 28 denounced WWII pictures, castigating the movies’ low budget, poor technical quality and bad scripts. Moreover, although he recognized the commercial success of such stories because of the audience’s appetite for heroic films, Angelopoulos pointed out that the characters were stereotypical and condemned the feature’s manichean structure: in the plot, heroes were represented either as good or evil; Greeks were usually the winners, whereas the enemies were always defeated by the heroic patriots.24

New scholars25 have also rejected these films claiming that they were propaganda productions and that they totally lacked artistic value, mentioning as typical examples No, On the Borders of Treason and The Brave Bunch (Sotiropoulou, I

Diaspora 65). Moreover, according to Flitouris, the majority of such films represented

Greek history as a caricature (393). Additionally, Panagiotis Bramos rebuked the colonels’ attempt to support productions with ethno-patriotic content and claimed that these movies were as ridiculous as the junta itself (149). The critic also noticed that the booing of such films during the Thessaloniki Film Festival was translated as a mass protest against the colonels (149).

However, other film historians, although they recognized that the majority of such features projected nationalistic feelings, acknowledged that not all propaganda films were of low quality. For example, Tryfon Tzavalas stated that some of the WWII era films were “good samples of professional capability of the Greek cinema industry and its directors, from an artistic and technical point of view” (130).

The post-Dictatorship historical films remain controversial works in critical discussions. Movie reviewers and film historians were polarized as some praised the

24 For instance, in his review of the film No, Angelopoulos argued that it was nothing but a sentimental melodrama in that it was using the historical occurrences and the war atmosphere as the structure for the representation of a romantic story. Finally, Angelopoulos added that No failed to even reconstruct the historical period successfully (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol. IV: 596). 25 For example, Voglis (2006), Theodoridis (2006), Andritsos (2008), Mouratidis (2009) and Tzoukas (2012). 29 way modern history was delineated. Others felt that the directors idealized the role of the Left and disseminated a leftist mythology about the 1940s. Fotos Lambrinos, one of the advocates of such features, stated that the subject matter of those films shows the directors’ tendency to depict real aspects of the Greek society and also the wish to reexamine the past and to envision the future (Vol. X: 202). Moreover, Basteas wrote that the post-junta films revised official history through the restoration of historical memory and the disclosure of facts which, until then, could not be revealed (130). According to

Flitouris, after 1974, the defeated Left sought a filmic revenge; the release of the repressed memory was a fundamental aim of the new films (396).

Right-wing critics and historians denounced many of these films as communist propaganda. In his 100 Years of Film History, Tzavalas attacks post-Dictatorship historical movies, stating that the directors made films with PASOK’s financial assistance and yet “have always idealized the leftist point of view for a long period of time and have never found a blemish in their leftist ideology” (159). What is more, he writes that:

The left-wing directors should present both sides with real facts when they are

involved with movies based on political subjects; they should give not only the

leftwing writer’s opinion but also provide the facts and the truth, letting the

audiences decide. The fact is that the left wing’s writers never present the true

evidence in any of their movies and they never present the left wing’s atrocities

against the people. (149)

Regarding the films of the late 1980s, Basteas suggested that features such as Happy,

Homecoming Comrade and The Children of Helidona perfectly depicted the ideological trends of the Greek society and were requiems for a whole era (130). In addition,

Yiorgos Arabatzis stressed that the post-junta films with historical references, among 30 which were The Travelling Players, Happy Day and The Children of Helidona, managed to move between two poles: the epistemological and the ontological one (121-

122).26

The Civil War in Film

The cinematic representation of the Civil War has produced a more complicated film legacy than the depiction of the Occupation and has mirrored the continuing debate over this taboo issue. Regarding the pre-junta production, one cannot but assert that, up to 1967, the theme of the Civil War was completely absent from the screen. Whereas films with historical subject matter were devoted to the Occupation, the controversial period 1946-49 slipped from the view. According to Provata, “from 1950, the Civil

War, the guerilla fighting and the issue of communists in exile will be forbidden topics for any independent film production” (187).

During the junta years, the first pictures with direct references to the issue of the Civil War were made. The trend came to particular prominence during the first years of the Dictatorship with the release of Drapetes tou Bulkes [The Bulkes Fugitives]

(1969, d. Andreas Papastamatakis), followed in quick succession by Grammos (1970, d. Ilias Machairas) and Shake Hands [Doste ta Heria] (1971, d. Errikos Andreou).27

Cinematic fascination with the Civil War continued after the fall of the

Dictatorship with several major films released after 1974. The loosening of censorship encouraged the production of features which directly focused on difficult topics, such as the consequences of the Civil War (Mitropoulou 245). Angelopoulos’ O Thiasos

26 Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. It investigates the origins, the methods and the limits of human knowledge. Ontology is a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being, the essence of entities. 27 Despite the fact that films with historical subject matter reached their peak during the seven-year time span, there were only few Civil War-themed pictures. Voglis believes that this has to do with the dictators’ ideological shift: from the harsh anti-communism of the first post-civil war period to the ideology of “National Unity” and the overcoming of past divisions (Apo tis Kannes: 106). 31

[The Travelling Players] (1975) and I Kiniyi [The Hunters] (1977), as well as

Voulgaris’ Happy Day (1976) were milestones in the rewriting of Greek political history, dealing with the representation of some of the darker chapters of the

Occupation and the Civil War. Especially The Travelling Players indicated

Angelopoulos’ persistent focus on themes of war and defeat “offering a multi- layered Brechtian narrative combining references to myths, Greek political history from the 1930s to the 1950s and a self- reflexive strand involving the staging of a Greek bucolic drama” (Papadimitriou, The

National: 496). The films’ box office success and the critical acclaim they won on the domestic and the international circuit made them the topic of discussions in the cultural sphere.

More innovative in the treatment of the subject of the Civil War were the 1980s filmmakers, as they paid attention to the function of memory and oblivion. A number of films on this topic stand out: Taxidi sta Kithira [A Voyage to Kythera] (1984, d. Theo

Angelopoulos), Kali Patrida Sintrofe [Happy Homecoming, Comrade] (1986, d.

Lefteris Xanthopoulos), Ta Pedia tis Helidonas [The Children of Helidona] (1987, d.

Kostas Vrettakos) and O Fakelos Polk ston Aera [The Polk File on Air] (1988, d. Dionisis

Grigoratos). These pictures focus upon the heroes’ personal memories of a series of traumatic experiences that took place during the Civil War.

Studies on the Filmic Representation of the 1940s

For decades scholarship on the Greek Cinema has not granted much space to the 1940s events and the Modern Greek historiography has not yet sufficiently discussed the filmic depiction of recent history. The literature on the screen representation of the Nazi

Occupation and the Civil War mostly consists of a relatively small number of studies

(mostly articles and essays), based on systematic research, that focus on specific 32 directors (Angelopoulos, Voulgaris, Xanthopoulos).28 These works pay attention to the films that deal with the 1940s and the impact of the directors’ work on the evolution of the New Greek Cinema. Unfortunately, most of the studies have been published primarily in Greek and, thus, they are barely known outside the circle of Greek- speaking readers. This illustrates a problem faced by researchers who work on comparative studies of filmic representation of similar stories in different countries around Europe.

However, recently, a number of well-received articles and single-author works on the filmic representation of the Occupation and the Civil War were produced.

Among these, Yiorgos Andritsos’ book I Katohi ke I Antistasi ston Elliniko

Kinimatografo, 1945-1966 [Occupation and Resistance in Greek Cinema, 1945-1966]

(2004), as well as his article “I Katohi ke I Antistasi stis Ellinikes Tenies Mithoplasias

Megalou Mikous apo to 1967 mehri to 1974” [“Occupation and Resistance in Greek

Feature Films from 1967 to 1974”] (2012) are invaluable tools for their detailed mapping and description of films that dealt with the Occupation and Resistance in the post-war Greek cinema. Andritsos’ works are solid sources of historical information and valuable additions to the historiography of Greek cinema and remain, until today, a comprehensive examination of the subject matter.

One cannot but recognize the pioneering character of Andritsos’ work, which, although it does not draw on a certain film theory, is a useful guide for the researcher.

28 For example, Themelis, Konstantinos. Thodoros Angelopoulos: To Parelthon os Istoria, to Mellon os Forma [Thodoros Angelopoulos: Past as History, Future as Form] (Athens: Ypsilon, 1998), Stathi, Irini. Horos ke Hronos ston Kinimatografo tou Thodorou Angelopoulou [Place and Time in the Cinema of Thodoros Angelopoulos] (Athens: Egokeros, 1999), Rafailidis, Vasilis. Taxidi sto Mitho dia tis Istorias ke stin Istoria dia tou Mithou [Voyage to the Myth through History and to the History through Myth] (Athens: Egokeros, 2003), Stathi, Irini (ed). Vlemata ston Kosmo tou Thodorou Angelopoulou [Gazes in the World of Thodoros Angelopoulos] (Thessaloniki: ITFF, 2000), Tomai, Foteini (ed). Istoria ke Politiki sto Ergo tou Panteli Voulgari [History and Politics in Pantelis Voulgaris’ Work] (Athens: Papazisis, 2007), Kolonias, Babis (ed). Pantelis Voulgaris (Athens: Egokeros, 2002), Tomai, Foteini (ed). Pragmatikotita ke Mithos sto Kalitehniko Ergo tou Lefteri Xanthopoulou [Reality and Myth in Lefteris Xanthopoulos’ Artistic Work] (Athens: Papazisis, 2003). 33

The author demonstrates a noteworthy logic structuring and organizing the films that dealt with the Occupation and the Resistance. However, the topic of the Civil War and its representation in the Greek popular cinema is not fully investigated. But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, for Occupation and Resistance in Greek

Cinem, 1945-1966 and “Occupation and Resistance in Greek Feature Films from 1967 to 1974” provide consistent and detailed information on the topic.

In addition, Labros Flitouris’ article “O Emfilios sto Seliloid: Istoria ke Mnimi”

[“The Civil War on Celluloid: History and Memory”] (2008) attempts to examine how the historical event of the Civil War influenced the post-war directors and the films’ reception by the public, as well as to record and analyze the effect of war’s memory in cinematographic production. The article incorporates a valuable selection of films that focus on the theme of the Civil War and his aim is to offer a meticulous analysis of the

NEK films; his approach contains deep insights into the films that were produced after the fall of the military regime in 1974 and which restored history and liberated the repressed memory (396).

Nevertheless, his vision offers a rather limited understanding of the screen representation of the Civil War. Flitouris’ argument that cinema suffered from “a strong historical amnesia, since the subject matter of the Civil War was totally absent” (390), although it takes into consideration the vast majority of the productions and which look away from the traumatic events, it seems to ignore the existence of certain films that discussed and depicted the civil conflict, although in different genres. Moreover, in

“The Civil War on Celluloid” Flitouris does not include in his study a systematic examination of the films that were produced during the years of the Dictatorship and which are dismissed by the scholar as works with poor aesthetic quality.

One of the earliest works examining a large number of films was Tasos 34

Goudelis’ article “Ellinikos Kinimatografos ke Istoria: Mia Skiagrafisi” [“Greek

Cinema and History: A Delineation”] (1990) could be seen as the first attempt for an overview of the “difficult” relationship between cinema and history, as it has shed light on issues which had never been previously examined. The author focuses not only on the representation of the 1940s, but also on the ways other historical periods and events of Greek history (Classical Antiquity, War of Independence, Asia Minor Debacle) were depicted on celluloid.

It is clear that Goudelis’ representation is not elaborated, since it is limited to films which were produced after the fall of the junta; on the contrary, movies which were released during 1967-1974 are barely mentioned and dismissed as pompous and kitsch products (42). In this sense, the article is seriously incomplete and ideologically biased. Nevertheless, the author, although wrongly assumes that historical films have not been successful in the era of classical cinema, “due to the lack of freedom in ideological expression” (46), is accurate in his conclusion that historical film, from the years of its first appearance, has been strongly affected by the general political climate of the country. The article, despite the scholar’s subjective vision of the topic, has shed light on issues which had never been previously examined and which wait for a more scientific approach.

More recently, Eleni Chalkou’s dissertation “Towards the Creation of ‘Quality’

Greek National Cinema in the 1960s” (2008) examines the debate about a “quality” national cinema and offers an account of the sociopolitical and cinematic contexts within which the notions of “quality” film and New Greek Cinema developed in the

1960s. The author focuses on the most important aspects of NEK and also examines the commercial sector’s response to the demand for “quality” national cinema.

In her dissertation, Chalkou explores the rise of History as a thematic concern 35 of Greek cinema and challenges the dominant scholarly beliefs that recent History first became a thematic concern during the Dictatorship; that the Civil War did not appear in popular films of the 1960s and that PEK films took the official line on controversial issues of the past (11). On the contrary, an alternative reading is suggested, as it is argued that a strong interest in History first emerged between 1958 and 1967 and that the Civil War is present albeit in cryptic forms in the narratives of PEK, while popular films of the period offered alternative perspectives on recent history (11). Overall,

Chalkou’s dissertation, although its focus is mainly on the emergence and the aspects of New Greek Cinema, it, nevertheless, offers an alternative approach to the issue of the representation of History in the Greek cinema.

Arguments of the Thesis and Methodological Tools

The present thesis undertakes to document the Occupation and the Civil War-themed films through a longitudinal study of the releases between 1946 and 1989: from Raid in the Aegean and Unsubdued Slaves to The Children of Helidona and The Polk File on

Air. The table provided in the first appendix identifies eighty-three films about the

German Occupation and sixteen films about the Civil War. Roughly eighty-five percent of the total output focuses on the Occupation and fifteen on the civil strife and its consequences.

In this study I am taking “Occupation films” and “Civil War films” to mean the sub-genres of historical feature films which were produced, distributed and exhibited in the domestic market between the time period of the beginning of the Civil War

(1946), and the formation of the Coalition government between the Right and the Left

(1989). The diversity of historical films is a result of the fact that their most customary and common denominator is that they are given meaning and coherence by the past events that seek to depict. In the case of films referred to as ‘Occupation’ and ‘Civil 36

War’ features, the common ground is the Axis Occupation and the Greek Civil War, and there is an agreement in which films belong to this category. Thus, the primary plot of such films is derived from the 1940s events and is subsequently directly connected to those particular occurrences, or the imagined story is told in such a way that the actual events are central to the narrative.

Moreover, in some examples, historical figures (Aris Velouchiotis, Napoleon

Zervas, George Polk, Nikos Mouschountis) and events (The December 1944 Events, the transfer of children to the countries of the Eastern Bloc, the Battle of Grammos-

Vitsi) co-exist with fictional characters and imaginary situations. Of course, the criteria of the selection need explanation. First, the features’ narrative focus must be on the

1940s events. Second, they must be commercial films that had had a full release. This excludes documentaries and video films such as the video remake of the classic TV series O Agnostos Polemos [The Unknown War] (1987, d. Nikos Foskolos). Though this is partially motivated by the need to ensure a manageable study, the close relationship between television and film production in Greece makes this a significant absence.

From this timeframe (1946-1989), this study constructs a survey of the

Occupation film which charts the history and the development within the genre from the end of WWII until the 1980s. The Occupation feature has been analyzed within studies of the ‘war film’ genre (Papadimitriou 2004), or in edited collections which privilege single films or cycles (Tomai 2006). Where this study differs is that it maps the broad continuities, the changes and the shifts within the Occupation film genre, examining the relationship between Occupation pictures across forty years of domestic production, rather than their relationship to a wider genre (war film). Though the survey is structured into historical periods (1946-1966, 1967-1974, 1975-1989), continuities 37 and shifts between periods are identified and this separation provides a short-hand through which to reference the broader changes that occur. For instance, the study features analysis of films such as With Glittering Eyes and What Did You Do in the War

Thanasis? to argue that these films signified a shift from the traditional heroic approach presented in earlier Occupation features.

Furthermore, the dissertation identifies key cycles of “Occupation” filmmaking in Greek cinema. For example, the “anti-Bulgarian film cycle” of the late 1960s and early 1970s, which includes such films as The Generation of Heroes, The Brave Bunch,

The Last Komitadji and Pavlos Melas, is analyzed. Second, the thesis offers a revaluation of the Occupation feature, identifying the critical neglect of the genre despite its sustained and successful presence throughout the Greek film history.

The third aim is to provide a detailed reading of the main thematic concerns and motifs in Occupation features; a wide-range analysis of Occupation-film production identifies dominant themes and subject matter. For example, this dissertation examines the representation of women in WWII pictures. The representation of men in such films has been the subject of scholarship but analysis on female-centered features is absent, despite the release and commercial success of films with popular female stars. The study considers two specific patterns of feminine representation: the depiction of the love affairs between Greek women and Germans, and the portraying of women’s active participation in the Resistance.

This study also explores the representation of collaborationism in Occupation features. It argues that the portrayal of collaborationism in Occupation pictures has not been investigated by scholarship, despite awarded films focusing on the issue of Greek citizens who openly cooperated with the Nazis. Furthermore, the study provides a reading of the representation of the persecution and extinction of Jews, an issue that has 38 been barely touched upon by the literature of the screen representation of the

Occupation.

This quantitative analysis highlights the Occupation film’s role in the construction of public history, key periods in which shifts occurred and when new types of the subject were represented. Through its detailed reading, the thesis offers a contribution to the understanding of a genre that has attracted very few studies.

In the features about recent history, the postwar Greek cinema mainly focused on the German Occupation, rather than the Civil War. The statistics clearly show that the theme of the Civil War is under-represented and the historical film genre is dominated by representation of the Occupation. Given the abundance of Occupation- themed films, the topic of the Civil War had been elided from the screen until the late

1960s. While in the films of some of the acknowledged and prolific filmmakers of the postwar years the Occupation and the Resistance movement became major thematic concerns, the Civil War as the subject of a feature was bypassed.

The Reflectionist model and its vision of the film as reflection or mirror of society could be applied so as to examine the reasons for the “silence” regarding the

Civil War theme in postwar Greek cinema. However, this approach offers too simplistic an understanding of the relationship between film and its social context. For, as Turner asserts: “Film does not reflect or even record reality; like any other medium of representation it constructs and represents its pictures of reality by way of the codes, conventions, myths and ideologies of its culture” (qtd in Chapman, Glancy and Harper

5). It is, thus, recognized that the relationship between films and society is complex and that pictures are not straightforward mirrors of social reality.

Whereas the earliest method highlights films as reflections of their times’ objective reality, the approach of the New Film History seems to provide a more 39 valuable model for examining how films are influenced, even determined, by a number of factors; economic; industrial; technological; political. The New Film History has moved beyond reflectionism and is posited “on a more complex relationship between films and social context” (Chapman, Glancy and Harper 7). This model pays particular attention to the cultural dynamics of the film production and claims that the style and content of films are determined by the context of production: “films are shaped by a combination of historical processes (economic constraints, industrial practices, studio production strategies and relationships with external bodies such as official agencies, funding councils and censors” (7). Therefore, by adopting the vision of the New Film

History I investigate the reasons why filmmakers avoided dealing directly with the theme of the Civil War, highlighting the political, industrial and economic factors that had a deep impact in the (non) representation of the traumatic past.

At the same time, I challenge the widespread belief that the Classical Greek

Cinema of the 1950s and 1960s eschewed references to the civil strife. My argument is that some directors adopted different ways to bring to the screen taboo themes such as the Civil War. Instead of making historical films, a number of filmmakers discovered that comedies were less likely to be targeted by censors and that viewers would be more receptive to representations of painful topics, if they were treated humorously. Hence,

I analyze two popular comedies of the period 1946-1966 so as to dismiss the view that the theme of the Civil War was absent and explore the ways in which it appeared.

The films The Abduction of Persephone (1956) and Mantalena (1960), I argue, are haunted by traces and elements that “are at once concealed and discernible within a text as absent presences” (Codde 674). The traumatic event is evoked but never looked at directly; it is resuscitated through the use of narrative, characters and rhetoric that allude to the Civil War. Critical analysis of such films dealing with the Civil War needs 40 some theoretical support. Therefore, I base the discussion on Thomas Elsaesser’s theory of “absence presences,” as, in my view, his work helps us resolve the cul-de-sac of the screen representation of taboo themes such as the Civil War.

During the Dictatorship (1967-1974), a strict censorship system was imposed on the media. Every film underwent screening befοre release and was subject to pre- prοduction censοrship. Nevertheless, quite paradoxically, it was during the regime and in an atmosphere of repression that the first productions with direct reference to the issue of the Civil War were made. Within the Dictatorship period, filmmakers shifted from denial or silence regarding the civil strife to on-screen portrayal of the traumatic event. The “Civil War” film appeared as a distinct subgenre in the late 1960s and its development coincides with the peak of the production of historical pictures. The cycle was launched in 1969 with the release of The Bulkes Fugitives and continued with

Grammos in 1970 and Shake Hands in 1971.

Following the approach of the New Film History, I highlight the factors, both inside and outside the film industry, the sociopolitical framework and the context of domestic film production which affected the manner in which the Civil War was portrayed in the features produced during the Dictatorship. For, as James Kendrick asserts, not taking into consideration the political and cultural environment of an era would mean missing a crucial point that actually had a deep impact on the filmic delineation of the past, since movies have been shaped by the shifting social tides and have been battlegrounds on which various political and cultural wars were waged (53).

I argue that, contrary to the previous period, the flowering of the Civil War topic during the colonels’ time can be seen to be entirely logical and inevitable. The majority of such films were released under the auspices of the junta. It is argued that for the regime, film clearly mattered. By realizing the potential of cinema for influencing 41 public opinion, the Dictators understood the power of propaganda. Sotiropoulou points out that the colonels assisted and encouraged the making of such productions, because the pictures boosted their prestige (I Diaspora 84). Stories which would praise Greek bravery and condemn communism could spread the message of the coup that they called a “revolution.”

Most critics and film historians (Labrinos 2003, Voglis 2006, Flitouris 2008,

Andritsos 2012, Kosmidou 2012) stress that, under the junta regime, filmic representations of the Civil War affirmed the ultra-nationalistic vision of the colonels; the Communist Party was viewed as the key factor responsible for the outburst of the civil strife and the Army was identified with the fight against Greece’s enemies. At the same time, the Civil War was recognized as a revolt motivated by foreigners. Such films praised Greek greatness and virtue, exalted the army as a guardian of the country’s safety and as the positive agent of national history.

The release of such pictures was to a large extent “the result of the dictators’ provision of military equipment and personnel to assist the making of films which promoted their own military image and ethos” (Papadimitriou, Greek War: 298). The regime’s aim was to have its own interpretations of the past promoted by producers and directors, who, abandoning their previous “apolitical” position, were “willing” to carry out the task of representing the official ideology regarding the events of the 1940s.

Therefore, during the Dictatorship, Greek cinema became a means of policy through entertainment, as the colonels believed that the representation of certain models of action would make Greeks trust the regime’s aims and conduct, resulting, thus, in the sustainability of the current political situation (Provata 188, 190).

One of the characteristics of the New Film History, as opposed to the old, is that

“it regards all films, whatever their critical or cultural status, as worthy objects of 42 analysis” (Chapman, This Ship: 55). By examining previously overlooked and disregarded Civil War films made between 1967-1974, I examine the appropriation of the Civil War film during the Dictatorship for ideological and propagandistic ends. In doing that, I identify the structure of the colonels’ vision of History, as an attempt to justify and legitimize their regime.

In other words, I focus on the ways films operate conservatively to reinforce dominant ideologies. I review Michail Bakhtin’s theory of sociolinguistics, and follow his analysis as a more adequate approach to analyze the representation of the Civil War than the earlier model of “absent presences”; the latter theory presupposed the total absence of films which openly thematized the Civil War. I read two films screened in the late 1960s and early 1970s: The Bulkes Fugitives and Grammos. The readings analyze representations of the Civil War and compare the discourses that highlight the role of the Greek Army with the accounts which deny the patriotism of the leftist resistance and identify communism with the Slavic threat.29

Following Bakhtin’s theory that discourses are fundamentally dialogic, encompass distinct voices and are always placed within a specific sociopolitical context, I explore the rhetoric involved in film discourse focusing on the films’ verbal discourses (dialogues, monologues, voice-over narration, off-screen voices). In the study, I privilege dialogue over visual representation, speech over scenery, lexis over opsis,30 asserting that verbal discourses reveal character identities, relations, actions and

29 The “threat from the north” was the central axiom of Greece’s national security policies for nearly three decades after the end of the Civil War. Politicians, scholars and intellectuals saw Greece threatened by the Slavs; the enemy, as it was stressed, aimed at gaining access to the Aegean Sea and at dislodging Greeks from its territories in Macedonia and Thrace. The victors of the Civil War systematically conflated the external with the internal threat: that is, the old Slavic peril with the more recent one of communism. It is argued that the Slavic-communist threat was evoked as a complementary source of legitimacy for the post-Civil War governments (Stefanidis 2007). 30 Aristotle strongly favors verbal representation and abrogates visual discourse, writing that “the plot should be so constructed that even without seeing a play anyone hearing of the incidents thrills with fear and pity as a result of what occurs. […] To produce this effect by means of an appeal to the eye is inartistic and needs adventitious aid” (qtd. in Mitchell: 90). 43 shape the spectators’ perception of History on screen.

Between the Restoration of Democracy of 1974 and the historic formation of the coalition government of the Right-wing party with the Left in 1989, filmmakers used the past in different ways. With regard to the post-1974 era, I pay attention to the historical contexts of production and reception, which determined the release of historical films. For instance, features such as The Decent of the Nine and The Years of the Storm are easily situated within the production strategies of the Greek Film Centre during the 1980s, which was locked into a Left mentality: pictures were funded which recreated “the history of political persecutions of dissidents and the common people”

(Karalis 196).

However, the post-1974 film production represented the Civil War “without portraying war,” as the military conflict itself was not among the directors’ concerns.

(Voglis, Apo tis kannes: 106). Furthermore, during the 1980s, several directors attempted to negotiate the Civil War and its memory in a different way. A thread of films such as Voyage to Cythera and Happy Homecoming, Comrade adopted a distinctive anti-heroic tone, delineated the Civil War trauma and engaged in a self- criticism for past mistakes.

Of the films produced in the late 1980s, two features stand out for the particular concerns of this study, which centers on issues of the Civil War trauma, especially the ways in which the past has affected the work of directors in the New Greek Cinema.

The Children of Helidona and The Polk File on Air attempt to represent a painful event that extends beyond the generations that actually lived through it. These artistic feature films of the late 1980s, I argue, serve as medium that activate taboos associated with traumatic wounds − wounds that, because they are so painful, cannot be integrated into

44 the psyche or culture or ideology of the nation. Such pictures can render otherwise hidden traumatic wounds visible and perceptible and, therefore debatable and negotiable. For, as it is suggested: “films are capable of visualizing traumas because they can most effectively depict irregularities and anachronisms. Films can transport images repressed or denied by the social body, forgotten iconologies and intense flashbacks intruding upon the consciousness back into the social discourse” (Elm,

Kabalek and Köhne 9).

Thus, film functions as a medium that witnesses, remembers and is haunted and obsessed by traumatic historical events that “can neither be seen in clear light nor be fully decoded (10). My critical analysis of such films dealing with the Civil War trauma is based on the tenets of trauma theory. I borrow for my discussion Cathy Caruth and

Dominick LaCapra’s theories; their work privileges subjective remembrance while paying attention to the individual experience of trauma.

My dissertation fills a lacuna in the relationship between film and history, critically analyzes a selection of significant movies from 1946 to 1989, reevaluates films and challenges many of the assumptions that have been made about post-war

Greek cinema with respect to the filmic representation of the Occupation and the Civil

War. To date, very little attention has been paid on critical film studies to the investigation of the screen representation of History, as most of the works on Greek cinematography have centered on the study of the popular genres (melodrama, comedy, musical).31 If there is a purpose in this thesis, it is to show the diversity and variety of

31 For example, Delveroudi, E.A. I Nei stis Komodies tou Ellinikou Kinimatorgrafou, 1948–74 [Youth in the Comedies of Greek Cinema, 1948–74]. Kymionis, Stelios. The Genre of Mountain Film: The Ideological Parameters of its Subgenres. Papadimitriou, Lydia. The Greek ﬁlm musical: A critical and cultural history. Paradeisi, Maria I Parousiasi tis Neoleas sta Kinonika Dramata tis Dekaetias tou Exinda [The Representation of Youth in the Social Melodramas of the 60s]. Kokonis, Michalis “To Melodrama ston Elliniko Kinimatografo” [Melodrama in the Greek Cinema] in Savvas Patsalidis and Anastasia Nikolopoulou (eds.) Melodrama: Idologiki ke Ideologiki Metaschimatismi [Melodrama: Genre and Ideological Transformations].

45 historically-themed pictures in Greece. As such, the present work highlights the heterogeneity and the distinct character of many films. I believe that the study and the detailed bibliography will contribute to the body of scholarship that studies how the

1940s were represented in Greek cinema. Finally, I hope that this thesis contributes to the consolidation of Greek film studies as a distinct area of investigation, in a way that makes it accessible to non-Greek cinephiles. My wish is that scholars from various backgrounds will be interested in Greek cinema and studies will be written on its marginal aspects.

As with all studies, there are areas that I have been unable to tackle. Although I never intended to cover everything, I am aware of certain omissions. One such area is the field of critical reception; the examination of films’ reception is limited to Greek critics. Although I explore the presence of features in foreign film festivals, I must admit I found it difficult to focus on a presentation of foreign reviews in journals and newspapers. Finally, I do not elaborate on the relationships between Greek and foreign movies of similar thematic content. Further research on the influences of international productions on domestic films is essential in order that the movies can be placed into a wider cinematic context.

Theoretical Models

The theoretical idea of “Absent Presences,” introduced by Thomas Elsaesser, could elucidate issues related to the pre-1967 films dealing with the theme of the Civil War.

During the postwar period, I argue, the theme of the Civil War was indirectly dealt with in the Greek cinema; the traumatic historical events were present through their absence.

The most interesting and elaborate discussion of the notion of “absent presences”

46 features in the work of Thomas Elsaesser. Elsaesser first discussed the importance of the rhetoric of “absent presences” in his study about the representation of Jews in the

New German Cinema.32

The scholar observed that there are no traces of Jewish persecution and the

Holocaust either in postwar German films of the 1950s and 1960s or the films of the

New German Cinema of the 1970s. As Elsaesser suggested, the non-representation of

Jews in the films reflected their absence from Germany; not only were Jews physically absent (due to their annihilation during WWII), but it was also argued that their absence was not missed both in the public and private life of postwar German society (Presence as Absence 108). So, the theoretician tried to answer the questions that were presented to filmmakers of the New German Cinema, namely “how to show what is not there, especially if its not-being-there is not missed. […] How can the cinema show this missing as missing, how can it perform this double missing, and come to terms with it”

(108).

Elsaesser further noted that the non-representation of Jews in New German

Cinema, “the absence of positive Jewish characters and the failure of ‘German’ protagonists to show signs of regret or repentance” (108) cannot be translated as evidence of bad conscience or a cover up. On the contrary, it is recognized that a depiction of the Holocaust from the perspective of the victims, or a credible version of the Jewish experience in postwar Germany would have been very problematic. The reason is that this representation would have been at once too much and too little: “Too

32 The term refers to a period of West German cinema which lasted from the late 1960s into the 1980s. During this time, independent filmmakers such as Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Werner Herzog, Alexander Kluge, Volker Schlöndorff and Wim Venders emerged who, influenced by the French New Wave in cinema, worked with low budgets and introduced subject matter and styles that set them apart from old traditions. The New German Cinema directors produced “artistic” and social criticism films which were highly acclaimed by art house audiences and rejected the idea of making a film aiming only at financial success. 47 much, in that it would have presumed an act of empathy. […] Too little, in that it might easily have given the illusion of normality: a good Jew, the positive identification figure” (108). Elsaesser pointed out that the cul-de-sac of the representation of the

Holocaust consequences, as well as the Jewish adventure in postwar cinema could be resolved if the issues of absence and presence are not “constructed antithetically, and the possibility of presence can be recognized within absence. […] It is only within absence that one can begin to look for signs of presence, not against it” (109).

Hence, it was claimed that German directors attempted to come to terms with the past of their country, to cope with the traumatic occurrences of WWII regarding the persecution of Jews, though in a different kind of representation. Elsaesser argued that the mode of “absent presence” is accomplished through the use of various techniques, such as stylistic peculiarities (use of repetition), as well as the rhetorical strategies of reversal and irony. For Elsaesser, all the above elements point to ideas that “can be read and deciphered differently” (108, 111).

Therefore, this study begins by examining and critically evaluating the representation of the Civil War in the films The Abduction of Persephone and

Mantalena, the only important pictures of the period touching upon the sensitive subject matter of the Civil War, even though implicitly. My intention is to explore the screen presence of the theme through its absence, on the methodological base provided by

Elsaesser’s theory. Particular emphasis is placed on the delineation of the movies’ plot, as well as on their domestic reception. Finally, I pay attention to the various techniques adopted by directors so as to speak about the traumatic past events. In my critical analysis of the Civil War films which were produced and released during the

Dictatorship, I use the approach of one of the most important theorists of “discourse,” the Russian philosopher, literary critic and semiotician Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975). 48

Bakhtin, sometimes associated with Russian formalism,33operates somewhere between a structural and constructivist approach to discourse.” (Robinson, Dialogism). The scholar produced much of his work in the 1920s and 1930s. However, Bakhtin’s name was unknown to the Western literary circles until the 1960s and only after his death in

Moscow in 1975, did his work gain world-wide acclaim.

Bakhtin’s seminal text Discourse in the Novel and the model of text analysis that is proposed was written in 1935, when the philosopher was in exile in Kazakhstan.

However, his work was not published until 1973. In this innovative study, Bakhtin challenged the traditional view, according to which a text was perceived as a “closed authorial monologue” (The Dialogic 274). On the contrary, he suggested that a text is not an opaque system, isolated from a dialogic interrelationship with other texts but a place where multiple speech types and discourses interact.

The text (written or oral) is the primary given of all these disciplines and of all thought in the human sciences and philosophy in general. For, as Bakhtin points out,

“the text is the unmediated reality, (reality of thought and experience), the only one from which these disciplines and this thought can emerge. Where there is no text, there is no object of study, and no object of thought either” (Speech Genres 103). Hence, it is arguable that Bakhtin’s definition of “text” encompasses everything: from literature to visual and aural works of art, as well as every action and communication; all cultural

33 The term “Russian formalism” refers to a school of literary theory and criticism which emerged in Russia around 1915 to the 1930s. The “formalistic circle” focused on literature which was perceived as a special use of language. They stressed that the aim of literature was to distort “practical” language in order to make the reader see differently. So, they highlighted the concept of “ostranenie,” or “de- familiarization,” arguing that literature, by calling attention to itself as such, estranged the reader from ordinary experience and made the familiar seem new. For them, both form and content were important when analyzing a work of literature. Moreover, Russian formalists made a distinction between “sjuzet” (plot) and “fabula” (story). The plot is strictly literary, whereas the story is the raw material awaiting the writer’s intervention. The plot is not merely the events of the story but it also encompasses the literary devices used to narrate the story. Important Formalists included Roman Jakobson and Viktor Shklovsky. A somewhat distinct group is the 'Bakhtin Circle’ comprising Mikhail Bakhtin, Pavlev Medvedev and Valentin Voloshinov; these theorists centered on the work of Bakhtin and combined elements of Formalism and Marxism in their accounts of polyphony and of the dialogic text. 49 utterances are rooted in language, because for the Russian scholar no cultural production exists outside language. Thus, films not only include texts, they are texts themselves, since they are parts of human culture and communication (Stam 18).

Moreover, Bakhtin suggested that texts exhibit conflicting utterances and they are infected both by similar utterances and by the social context.

In Bakhtin's view, the utterance, which is defined as any instance of language in use, is the main unit of meaning, and is formed through a speaker's relation to otherness (others' words and expressions, and the cultural world in time and place): “the unique speech experience of each individual is shaped and developed in continuous and constant interaction with others' individual utterances” (Speech Genres 89). For, as the scholar writes, all our utterances are filled with others' words. These words of others

“carry with them their own expression, their own evaluative tone, which we assimilate, rework and re-accentuate” (89). An utterance is always created as a response to previous utterances of the given sphere of speech communication and is seen as a link in the chain of speech communication: “Each utterance refutes, affirms, supplements, and relies upon the others, presupposes them to be known, and somehow takes them into account” (91). An utterance is therefore always already embedded in a history of expressions by others in a chain of ongoing cultural and political moments.

Utterances are essentially dialogic. Since individuals are “shaped in the process of interaction and struggle with others' thought, this cannot but be reflected in the forms that verbally express their thought as well (92). An utterance is defined by two features:

“Addressivity," it is always being directed to someone, and "Answerability," it expects a response, anticipates an answer. Discourses (chains or strings of utterances) are thus fundamentally dialogic and inseparable from a community or a place.

So as a text, film is important because it is perceived as a form of discourse -an 50 exchange of utterances, − a series of meanings and ideas which may reaffirm or subvert the various political or social discourses of the era, since it “takes meaning and shape at a particular historical moment in a socially specific environment, cannot fail to brush up against thousands of living dialogic threads, woven by socio-ideological consciousness around the given object of an utterance” (Bakhtin, Discourse: 493) and not as a fixed and abstract language, with pretensions to ultimate truth.

Bakhtin also states that the defining characteristic of a novel, or in our case of a film, is the diversity of perspectives and discourses that exist within them. This concept of “polyphony,” of multiple voices within a text, was first developed in his work

Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, where the theorist reads Dostoevsky’s work as

“containing many different voices, not merged into a single perspective, and not subordinated to the voice of the author. Each of these voices has its own perspective, its own validity, and its own narrative weight within the novel” (Robinson, Dialogism).

Bakhtin points out that the novel, “orchestrates all its themes, the totality of the world of objects and ideas depicted and expressed in it, by means of the social diversity of the speech types [raznorecie] and by the differing individual voices that flourish under such conditions” (The Dialogic: 263). “The novel,” Bakhtin writes, “must represent all the social and ideological voices of its era, that is, all the era’s languages that have any claim of significance; the novel must be a microcosm of heteroglossia” (411).

One aspect of this analysis is the idea of speech-genres. According to Bakhtin, appropriate ways or styles of talking within a language constitute particular speech- genres. Each sphere of communication (work, army discourse, official speeches and documents etc.) tends to have specific speech genres; stable types of utterances. In the development of the notion of speech genres, Bakhtin differentiates between primary

(used in everyday situations) and secondary (used in more complex situations) speech 51 genres (61). This differentiation is combined with a distinction between practical, every-day and ideological, secondary-complex speech genres (Bruhn & Lundquist 25).

The latter are characterized by having a “distinctive and creative stylistic profile” (25).

Speech-genres include such linguistic phenomena as formal-informal style, journalese, technical terminology, idiolects. Each speech genre embeds in its language particular social values and beliefs or political views.

Hence, the basic element, the essence of a text comes from the existence of multiple voices and utterances that are represented in it and which are “artistically organized” (262). The Russian theorist states that the text is a whole which encompasses all various discourses. In this sense, a film seems to be an interaction of distinct voices or ideologies, even within a single perspective (Robinson, Dialogism), since Bakhtin points out that texts are not saturated solely with a dominant view or version regarding persons or events. Additionally, it is emphasized that the text should be forced to reveal its “social and historical voices populating language” (The Dialogic:

300). As Bakhtin puts it, the concrete social context of the discourse must be exposed as a force that determines the text’s entire stylistic structure, its form and content (300).

By considering the film as a text, I wish to define and analyze the voices which are articulated in two films of the period 1967-1974, namely The Bulkes Fugitives and

Grammos. In so doing, I analyze the master narratives and dominant discourses on the topics of the Occupation and the Civil War. What is of particular interest is how the two diametrically opposite ideological worldviews of the 1940s in Greece, that is communism and. nationalism, are represented on the screen. At the same time, I explore the possibility of the existence of a counter discourse and discuss the reasons for such a possibility. It is argued that the discourses change from period to period, depending on the prevailing sociopolitical environment and the conditions of production. For 52 instance, the lifting of censorship in 1969 bestowed a larger amount of freedom on the directors. Thus, the restriction of the 1967-1969 period gave way to more complicated representations of history; themes of reconciliation and national harmony replaced themes of espionage and betrayal.

The primary task in the third part of the thesis is to construct the theoretical framework within which it will become possible to analyze the representation of the

Civil War in the post-junta Greek cinema. More specifically, the main objective is to develop the theoretical models which will be the tools to scrutinize the treatment of the

1940s events. The core is devoted to a detailed analysis of the relevant key approaches, through which the theoretical framework will be formulated. My theoretical approach will discuss the notion of “trauma,” as introduced by scholars such as Caruth and

LaCapra. During the third period of analysis (1975-1989), mostly during the 1980s, as

I argue, directors eschewed references to the military aspect of the past occurrences and adopted a distinctive anti-heroic tone, by paying attention to the function of memory and oblivion and by attempting to delineate the Civil War trauma.

Defining Trauma

It is not easy to define theoretically the notion of trauma, since theory has undergone significant changes over the years and it has been given different descriptions at various times and under different names. What can be stressed is that the word “trauma” is derived from the Greek τραύμα and means an injury inflicted on the body. The first mention of the notion of trauma can be traced to Plato. As the philosopher claims in his most widely read dialogue Republic, there is no place for those who suffer from wounds in the perfect community of ideal individuals. In Plato’s model State, guardians

(defenders of the city) should be given physical training so as to avoid weakness and illness; on the other hand, those suffering from an incurable physical or mental disease 53 should be left to die naturally, since “in all well-ordered states every individual has an occupation to which he must attend, and has therefore no leisure to spend in continually being ill” (Plato, Pt. III, Bk. III). This is seen, as Socrates claims, in the case of a carpenter who, when ill, asks the physician for a rough and ready cure, so as to return to work as soon as possible. When the sick man is told that the treatment is a lengthy course of diet, he rejects it and “resumes his ordinary habits, and either gets well and lives and does his business, or, if his constitution falls, he dies and has no more trouble”

(Pt. III, Bk. III).

Later on, the concept of trauma was used in medical and psychiatric literature meaning “a wound inflicted not upon the body but upon the mind” (Caruth, Unclaimed

Experience: 3). Freud suggests that this wound of the mind is not a simple and curable event, but, on the contrary, since it occurs too immediately and unexpectedly to be fully known, it is, therefore, “not available to consciousness, until it imposes itself again, repeatedly, in the nightmares and repetitive actions of the survivor” (qtd. in Caruth,

Unclaimed Experience: 4). According to Caruth, in its most general definition, trauma describes:

an overwhelming experience of sudden or catastrophic events, in which the

response to the event occurs in the often uncontrolled, repetitive appearance of

hallucinations and other intrusive phenomena. […] The event is not assimilated

or experienced fully at the time, but only belatedly […] Trauma reflects the

direct imposition on the mind of the unavoidable reality of horrific events, the

taking over of the mind, psychically and neurobiologically, by an event that it

cannot control. (Unclaimed Experience: 11)

Trauma Theoy

Despite the fact that the concept of trauma has been a main focus for disciplines such as psychiatry and psychoanalysis (DePrince and Freyd 71-82),34 it has also attracted attention in the field of humanities, connecting disciplines such as literature, history and historiography, critical theory and film studies. As LaCapra observes: “In certain areas of the humanities and social sciences, trauma, along with the specific form of recall termed traumatic memory, has, in the last ten years or so, become a center of concern, even leading to the emergence of the field or subdiscipline of what is called trauma studies” (History in Transit: 107). For Elsaesser, trauma, outside any clinical context, has come to prominence “not just within the various memory discourses, but in popular culture as well, where it tends to refer not only to victims of the past and present disasters, but is extended to all survivors” (German Cinema: 7).

The term “trauma theory” first appears in Caruth’s Unclaimed Experience. In this seminal work, the scholar rereads and interprets Freud’s thoughts on traumatic occurrences in his study Moses and Monotheism, a fictionalization of the Jewish history, and positions them as essential for the approach of trauma as a concept of history (Harkins 118). By suggesting an alternative version of Jewish history, Freud claimed that history can be understood through the occurrence of a traumatic event and, thus, it could be compared with the structure of trauma. Thus, Freud proposed a possibility of history in the nature of a traumatic incident, asserting that the history of the Jews is available to them only through the experience of a trauma.

As Caruth explains, it is the trauma, the forgetting and the return of a past horrible event (the supposed murder of Moses by the Hebrews in a rebellion) that

34 For a detailed description of trauma discourse in psychiatry and psychoanalysis see for example, Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery (New York: Basic Books); Rurh Leys, Trauma: A Genealogy (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press), Thomas Elsaesser and Boaz Hagin, Memory, Trauma and Fantasy in American Cinema (Raanana: Open University of Israel). 55 constitutes the link uniting the people who left Egypt, with the people who ultimately made up the nation of the Jews (Trauma and the Possibility: 185). Therefore, the central question by which Freud conducts an inquiry into the relation between history and its political outcome is: “what does it mean, precisely, for history to be the history of a trauma?” (184).

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Latency

After the end of WWII and, especially after the Vietnam War, the concept of Post-

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), central to trauma theory, was associated with notions such as the Freudian “traumatic neurosis,” “combat fatigue” or “survivor syndrome.” The phenomenon was officially recognized in 1980 by the American

Psychiatric Association (Leys 2), whose definition states that PTSD is a mental disorder which appears when a person exposes himself/herself “to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one’s physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person” (424). The person’s response to the event must involve “intense fear, helplessness, or horror (424) and the characteristic symptoms resulting from the exposure to the extreme trauma include depression, delusions, panic attacks, sleeplessness and also a “persistent re- experiencing of the traumatic event, persistent avoidance of the stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness” (424).

According to LaCapra, the reason why consciousness cannot record and assimilate the traumatic occurrence is because the latter occurs too immediately or too soon to be fully understood and the “mode of aggression departs so far from expectations that it is unbelievable and met with incredulity and a total lack of preparedness” (History and Memory: 41). The subject, thus, is not ready to experience 56 the consequences of such an unexpected and catastrophic event. So, traumatic images and memories can be experienced only belatedly, through their repetition. LaCapra points out that in Freud’s theory, “the trauma as experience is in the repetition of an early event in a later event – an early event for which one was not prepared to feel anxiety and a later event that somehow recalls the early one and triggers a traumatic response” (Writing History: 81-82).

The notion of “latency” is also crucial to the understanding of the concept of trauma and refers to the “incubation period,” where the effects of the traumatic experience “are not apparent” (Caruth, Explorations in Memory: 7); the impact of the traumatic occurrence is realized by the person only after that period. As Freud attempted to explain the meaning of latency, he used the example of a person who

gets away, apparently unharmed, from the spot where he has suffered a shocking

accident, for instance a train collision. In the course of the following weeks,

however, he develops a series of grave physical and motor symptoms, which

can be ascribed only to his shock or whatever else happened at the time of the

accident. […] The time that elapses between the accident and the first

appearance of the symptoms is called “incubation period.” It is the feature one

might term “latency.” (84)

Acting-out and Working–through

One of the key concepts of trauma theory is the notion of “Acting-out.” It usually refers to the behavior shown by traumatized subjects, who have not yet managed to overcome and master their trauma. The person that acts-out, usually shows a tendency to repeat emotions and actions associated with the past occurrence and also repeats “a whole range of impulsive, antisocial and dangerous actions” (Sandler, Dare and Holder 329).

LaCapra observes that people who undergo a trauma have a tendency to repeat, 57

“to relive the past, to exist in the present as if they were still fully in the past, with no distance from it. They tend to relive occurrences (…) in flashbacks,35 or in nightmares”

(Acting-out and Working-through: 2). This repetition could be seen as a kind of memorial for the people they have lost, “a fidelity to trauma and its victims, the feeling, especially pronounced in certain victims, that there is something in the repetition of the past say, in a nightmare – that amounts to the dedication or fidelity to lost loved ones and is a kind of memorial that is not based on suppression or oblivion” (LaCapra,

Writing History: 144).

Another important notion in trauma theory, especially in relation to the ways a subject tries to overcome his/her trauma is the concept of “working-through.” In order to move on with their lives, traumatized persons have to acknowledge and deal with their trauma. As LaCapra explains, working-through is a process where the person tries to “gain critical distance on a problem, to be able to distinguish between past, present and future” (Acting-Out and Working-Through: 2). He further points out that:

Working-though means work on post-traumatic symptoms in order to mitigate

the effects of trauma by generating counter forces to compulsive repetition (or

acting out), thereby enabling a more viable articulation of affect and cognition

or representation, as well as ethical and sociological agency, in the present and

future. […] It does not mean total redemption of the past or healing its traumatic

wounds. (Writing History, Writing Trauma: 119)

Caruth argues that the act of working-through must involve the process of integration.

As she points out: “Trauma requires integration, both for the sake of testimony and for the sake of cure” (Trauma: Explorations: 154). Foremost among the processes of

35 The term ‘flashback’ is used in psychology to indicate a sudden, involuntary re-experiencing of a past event without full awareness of what really happened. For more, Elm, Kabalek, and Köhne (2014). 58 integration would be the act of narration: the subject’s ability to tell his/her traumatic story:

This gives to trauma theory a double set of objectives. […] It opens up trauma

theory to the experience and memory of events other than public-historical ones,

as in personal memoirs, autobiography, testimony or family history. On the

other hand, it defines traumas (…) as an issue of narrative -of telling and

listening- within the terms of which its relation to subjectivity can be best

addressed. (Elsaesser, Postmodernism: 196)

La Capra believes that the process of narration and personal testimony helps a subject to work through post traumatic symptoms in the present. It also enables one “to recount events and perhaps to evoke experience, typically through nonlinear movements that allow trauma to register in language and its hesitations, indirections, pauses and silences” (Writing History, Writing Trauma: 122).

Testimony

The act of testimony, as being part of the Working-through phase, is highly important in trauma theory. Langer defines testimony as “a form of remembering. The faculty of memory functions in the present to recall a personal history vexed by traumas that thwart smooth-flowing chronicles” (2). As LaCapra suggests, many historians draw a distinction between history and memory, since they tend to view memory, including testimony, only as an object of study or at best as an unreliable source for historical facts, “a view that threatens to render testimony redundant, since whatever it discloses has to be checked against what are presumed to be more reliable documents” (Writing

History: 108-109). The scholar believes that testimony: 59

makes truth claims about experience or at least one’s memory of it and, more

tenuously about events. […] The most difficult and moving moments of

testimony involve (…) experiential “evidence” − the apparent reliving of the

past, as the witness, going back to an unbearable scene, is overwhelmed by

emotion and for a time unable to speak.” (131)

Moreover, Elsaesser observes that, across narration, notions such as witnessing and personal testimony are both crucial and problematic:

Crucial in that participants, especially in the “memory wars,” are often

embroiled in wanting to claim: My (act) of testimony is my truth, my bearing

of witness is my claim to both truth and to the terms of my experience.

Problematic, in that such a truth is specific and local, but it may lack narratives.

Or it may lack witnesses who corroborate my truth. (Postmodernism: 198)

This highly important issue of reliability of the witnesses and survivors’ memories has two aspects: they both often testify experiences which may not be real or they sometimes try to adapt their stories into “false” memories because only these are bearable. What is more, it is claimed that witnesses and survivors of a devastating event cannot remember all the details of this occurrence when time goes by: memory betrays them. However, Langer rejects this argument by stressing that it is rather inaccurate, since the memory of traumatic events never fades despite the passing of decades (19).

Role of the Listener

The importance of narration in the process of working-through has already been observed. But it could be stressed that the narration of a traumatic event also affects the person who listens to the testimony. Dori Laub suggests that the listener becomes “the blank screen on which the event comes to be inscribed for the first time” (Bearing 60

Witness: 57). He further stresses that the listener becomes a witness, not only to the testimonies of others, but also in the process of witnessing. (Truth and Testimony: 62)

In addition, LaCapra believes that the experience of trauma by someone who did not experience the traumatizing event him/herself may be vicarious or virtual. In the vicarious experience of trauma, one “perhaps unconsciously identifies with the victim, becomes a surrogate victim, and lives the event in an imaginary way which, in extreme cases, may lead to confusion about one’s participation in the actual events”.

(History in Transit: 127). In that case, the listener usually appropriates the victim’s voice or suffering (135).

On the other hand, in the virtual experience of trauma, the listener may “put oneself in the victim’s position while respecting the difference between self and other and recognizing that one cannot take the victim’s place or speak in the victim’s voice”

(127). LaCapra seems to believe that the latter way of experiencing the event which he calls “empathic unsettlement” is much more important than the vicarious way, which is considered to be an unhealthy behavior. For LaCapra, an empathic unsettlement produces a critical ethical response and requires “the recognition of others as other than mere objects of research” and it “must be articulated with, normative judgment and sociopolitical response” (135). Therefore, the listener’s empathic response is very important in the process of working through.

Characteristics of Trauma Narratives

Since writers or filmmakers of the second or the third generation did not experience past occurrences, they meet some difficulty when trying to reconstruct the truth about such events as the Holocaust or the Greek Civil War. This situation is, thus, reflected in narratives that focus on the representation of past traumatic incidents. It is argued that trauma novels or films made by second or third generation creators share some 61 common characteristics: the issue of mediation, which refers to the existence of different interpretations and versions of a traumatic event; the element of unreliable narrators. Finally, in such texts, language seems to fail to convey its message.

Mediation

The technique of mediation refers to different versions of a story. It could be observed that in trauma narratives, stories usually have multiple versions and, thus, in the end nobody can discern which the real one is and, what is more, whether any one of the stories is true at all. As Codde observes, there is always a mediation distance between the traumatic event and the researcher (author, filmmaker, journalist) who did not experience it. He believes that people who lived the occurrences always offer a version of reality as construed by another and, so, they give only “narrative interpretations of the past” (64). Therefore, novelists and filmmakers, accepting the fact that the truth about a past traumatic occurrence is inaccessible and that crucial information could be altered, deny closure to their stories.

Unreliable Narrators

Closely linked to the element of mediation, is the use of unreliable narrators in trauma texts. Unreliable narrators are those who cannot be trusted because they fabricate events or contradict themselves when it comes to the quest for truth. Lee Behlman believes that this device is used by the creators of such narratives in order to stress “the impossibility of any unmediated, wholly accurate access” (59). What is more, such narrators may be deliberately unreliable, since they look for bringing onto the surface a version of truth that best fits with their ideology or in order to justify their actions.

Moreover, these figures may not be capable of giving a trustworthy account, due to pathological or psychological reasons caused by a past trauma. 62

Failure of language

In texts dealing with traumatic incidents, there is a suspicion towards the ability of words to carry out the unbearable task of representing any past experiences. Witnesses or survivors of occurrences such as the Holocaust insist on its uniqueness and its literalness, its necessary and sole embodiment in personal testimony and decide to remain silent, not to talk about it: “Some have hardly spoken of it, but even those who have talked incessantly, feel that they managed to say very little that was heard” (Laub,

Truth and Testimony: 64).

In the case of the Shoah,36 it is also claimed that the survivors of this event were not able to narrate what they experienced or witnessed, since the untold events had become so distorted in their unconscious memory as to make (them) believe that they themselves, and not the perpetrators, were responsible for the atrocities they witnessed or suffered. Thus, they failed to be authentic witnesses of themselves (65). What is more, survivors of traumatic situations feel that they have participated in an event that is sworn to silence and they are bearers of a “secret.” As Laub claims, Holocaust survivors tend to imagine that their persecution and execution by the Nazis was warranted and this “secret” belief in the propaganda regarding Jewish “sub humanity” compels them not to speak up or protest but to remain silent (67).

36 “Shoah” is the Hebrew term for the Holocaust. It means “calamity” and “destruction.” The word ‘Shoah’ became the typical term for the Holocaust especially in Europe and Israel as early as the 1940s. For more, http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp. 63

Outlines

This study comprises three parts which follow a chronological order and a clear periodization. Part 1 elaborates on the representation of the Occupation and the Civil

War in the pre-junta Greek cinema. The first chapter consists of an introduction to the sociopolitical context extending from the beginning of the Civil War in 1946 to 1966.

It also pays attention to the filmic production during this period, within which the historical films developed; the formation of a commercial film industry, the audiences, the establishment and consolidation of the Thessaloniki Film Festival, the legislative framework and the role of censorship.

Chapter 2 is a close examination of films with references to the Occupation, focusing on their themes. The last chapter deals with the postwar film production and explores the politics of oblivion that was promoted and which imposed both public and private silence regarding the Civil War. In this chapter, I read and reevaluate two popular comedies of Classical cinema, The Abduction of Persephone and Mantalena.

Drawing on Elsaesser poetics of “absence as presence,” I contend that the topic of the

Civil War is not absent from the pre-1967 film production.

Part 2 of the thesis concerns the representation of the Occupation and the Civil

War in the film production from 1967 to 1974. The first chapter consists of an introduction to the historical context extending from the advent of the colonels to the

Metapolitefsi in 1974. It also covers the film production during this period, paying attention to the dominant genres, the role of censorship and the rise of New Greek

Cinema. At the same time, it investigates the plethora of Occupation films, which, in most cases, followed an established and popular pattern. The last chapter turns to the exploration of the discourses about the Occupation and the Civil War, which were articulated during that period, and reads the films The Bulkes Fugitives and Grammos. 64

The presentation of the features is followed by a critical analysis, which builds on

Bakhtin’s theory of sociolinguistics. By examining the “Civil War” themed films of the era, the thesis delineates the dominant discourses, which mainly reaffirmed the junta’s views regarding the 1940s; however, a close reading will also disclose alternative and oppositional discourses.

Part 3 of the analysis pays attention to the representation of the Occupation and the Civil War in the post-1974 film production and explores issues of memory and trauma in relation to the recounting of past experiences. It begins with an account of the sociopolitical context concerning the period from the restoration of democracy to the formation of the coalition government between the Right and the Left in 1989. In the second chapter, I focus on the post-junta films with historical subject matter. Of particular interest is the work by Theo Angelopoulos, whose name became synonymous with NEK. However, at the same time, three movies made in the early 1980s were rare examples of films which, challenging the dominant left-wing rhetoric regarding the events of the 1940s, adopted a distinctive right-wing narrative point of view. I thus turn my attention to the movies 17 Bullets for an Angel, Nelly the Spy and The Red Train so as to interrogate the “right” discourses which were uttered. In the same chapter, I examine the historical films of the 1980s which negotiated the past in a different way.

Leaving aside the idealized narrations of the first generation of NEK directors, a cycle of films with historical themes paid attention to marginal aspects of the conflict

(expatriated political refugees).

In the last chapter, the thesis pays attention to the relationship between trauma and film. I center upon two films indicative of what I call trauma narratives: The

Children of Helidona and The Polk File on Air, which raise fundamental questions about the relationship between history and trauma. I also claim that these movies 65 symbolize the transition from a cinema of the “defeated Left” and the glamorization of

“the People;” such transition prevailed after the fall of the Dictatorship to the cinema of the late 1980s.

A note on the transliteration of names: I followed the simplest phonetic transcription of Greek names as they are pronounced in the language: Yannis instead of John,

Konstantinos instead of Constantine. Also, with the exception of the translations of

Greek film titles into English, as suggested by Karalis (2012), Tzavalas (2012), or provided by the Internet Movie Data Base, all other translations from the Greek language are made by the author.

PART I

THE POST-WAR PERIOD

Chapter I

The Transition Years (1950-1967)

The devastating Civil War was one of the most tragic events in Modern Greek history.

Its effects were severe and long-lasting and its legacy had an enormous impact on society, which was to remain deeply divided in the decades to come. Despite martial law being officially lifted in 1950, the first post-Civil-War decade was marked by the continuation of the harsh political measures taken against communists. The so-called

“emergency measures,” which had been in force since the Civil War era, still existed and paramilitary groups37 were still operating in the provincial areas. In addition, after the end of the Civil War in 1949, tens of thousands of communist fighters and civilians found refuge in the Eastern countries (Petropoulos 11) and whose return to Greece would be related to the broader balance of powers, in the framework of the Cold War.38

Furthermore, the ideology of Ethnikofrosini, which was devised during the Civil

War, became the central cultural ideology of the post-war state (Botsiou 282). Although it had its roots in the National Division39 of the early 20th century (Nikolakopoulos 28),

37 TEA (Tagmata Ethnikis Asfaleias [Battalions of National Security]) were the main paramilitary groups which still existed after the end of the Civil War. These right-wing groups were formed during the Civil War (1947-1948) by the government of Themistocles Sophoulis. Initially they were named MEA - Monades Ethnikis Asfalias [Units of National Security], but towards the end of the Civil War, they adopted the name MAY - Monades Asfaleias Ipethrou [Security Units of the Provinces]. During the Civil War, the TEA’s task was to ‘shield’ villages from guerillas’ attacks. After the Civil War’s end in 1949, members of MAY formed TEA, which were headed by sergeants of the Greek Army. Their task now was the country’s protection from the so-called “domestic” enemy: the outlawed communist party and its sympathizers. So, Battalions of National Security (TEA) were in force during the post-civil-war period until the end of the Junta Regime in 1974, when they were officially dismantled (Linardatos 2009). 38 The majority of the Greek political refugees (about 12,000) found refuge in Tashkent, USSR, where they were settled in the so-called “states,” settlements which were built by the Soviets during WWII for war prisoners. About 7,000 communists stayed in Hungary, where they built a new settlement, named “Belogiannis.” The Central Committee of the Greek Communist Party (KKE) was stationed in Bucharest, where also the Greek communist radio station Eleftheri Ellada [Free Greece] was established and broadcasted from (Christidis 2012). 39 The terms “National Division” or “National Schism” refer to the strong disagreements between Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos and King Constantine about Greek foreign policy during World War I. Venizelos strongly favored Greece’s alliance with the Entente, whereas the King believed that Greece should remain neutral. Their disagreement had strong political and social implications, since it poisoned political life for many decades and deeply divided Greeks for the years to come. The National Schism is considered as one of the main reasons that led to the Asia Minor Debacle in 1922. 68

Ethnikofrosini encompassed the ideas of ‘national mindedness’ and ‘law abidingness’ as they were set by the victorious Civil War parties (Papavlassopoulos and Spourdalakis

323). In addition, the exclusion of communists or left-wing sympathizers from the public sphere was implemented with the Certificate of Social Judiciousness. Victims of that harsh measure were both left-wing partisans who had fought against the Nazis, communist guerrillas who participated in the Civil War, as well as mere citizens of a left wing persuasion.

The elections that took place in the early 1950s were characterized by the plethora of parties that participated and the formation of unstable coalition governments. However, the 1952 elections produced an overwhelming majority for the right-wing Greek Rally party, which, under the leadership of General Papagos, formed thus the first stable post-war conservative government. Papagos died in 1955 and the mandate was surprisingly given by the King40 to the minister of Public Works

Konstantinos Karamanlis,41 a Macedon politician who was meant to play a major role in Greek political affairs in the decades to come. The following year, Karamanlis formed the “National Radical Union” (‘ERE’), and won both the 195642 and the 1958 elections.

The next elections took place in October 1961. The center parties formed the

Centre Union under the leadership of the veteran politician Georgios Papandreou.

40 Although Stephanos Stephanopoulos, vice-president of the government, seemed to be Papagos’ logical successor, the mandate was given by King Paul to the young, yet most successful minister of Public Works Konstantinos Karamanlis, a risky choice which could cause serious effects. Despite the fact that the King’s choice was met with mixed reactions, Karamanlis finally prevailed and managed to set a new political framework, in which he was meant to play a major role in the years to come (Christidis 2014). 41 Konstantinos Karamanlis (1907-1998) first entered politics as the “People’s Party” (‘Laiko Komma’) deputy in 1935. He was re-elected with the same party in the first post-war elections, in 1946. After the formation of the National Rally by Papagos, Karamanlis served as minister of public works until 1955, when he was promoted to the Prime Minister status. 42 It must be mentioned that women voted for the first time in Greece in the February 1956 elections, although their right to vote had already been enshrined in the Constitution of 1952. It is claimed that women strongly favored Karamanlis, “the handsome leader of the Conservatives” (Koliopoulos and Veremis 2010). 69

Karamanlis won the election with an impressive 50.8 per cent of the vote. The result was followed by strong accusations of widespread electoral fraud. Papandreou claimed that the so-called “para-state,” as well as the army and the gendarmerie had decided the outcome of the elections by putting strong pressures and intimidating voters. As a consequence, he committed himself launching the famous “Uncompromising Fight”

(‘Anendotos Agonas’) against Karamanlis’ regime.

In the November 1963 elections, the Centre Union won an insecure majority.43

The following year, Papandreou’s party secured an absolute majority of 173 seats, terminating a period of eleven years of Right Wing domination in domestic politics.

His victory, which might be seen as a vindication of Papandreou’s “Uncompromising

Fight” that had started a few years earlier, created high hopes, especially among the growing urban middle class which had strongly supported the veteran politician.

Unfortunately, Papandreou’s premiership44 lasted only eighteen months.

Despite Papandreou’s popularity, the young King Constantine did not seem to favor the prime minister’s attempts to apply reforms in the army. Their clash resulted in the prime minister’s resignation in July 1965. Papandreou was succeeded by a series of prime ministers, the so-called “apostates” because they had defected from

Papandreou’s Centre Union party, who did not manage to form stable parliamentary majorities and just marked time. After months of political negotiations between the leaders of Centre Union and ERE, elections were agreed to take place on May 28, 1967.

But, within a matter of weeks, on April 21, a group of low-rank army officers executed

43 Centre Union secured 42,3 per cent of the votes, whereas ERE won 39,4 per cent and 132 seats. 44 Papandreou’s administration attempted to democratize society, a process which was blocked by the traumatic consequences of the Civil War. Thus, the government decided to release hundreds of political prisoners, and in addition some far-right paramilitary organizations were dismantled (Giourgos and Stamatakis 20). Moreover, a significant number of refugees who had left Greece after the communist defeat in 1949 were allowed to return home. The notorious “Certificates of Social Judiciousness” fell into abeyance, emergency measures, dated back to the 1940s were lifted and union activities were left free. 70 a coup and seized power, inaugurating a period of a military regime which would last more than seven years.

Post-War Greek Cinema: The Heroic Years

In such a sociopolitical context cinema became a cultural issue of high importance.

Immediately after the Liberation, going to the movies was the main leisure activity as far as entertainment was concerned. The post-war development of Greek cinema, however, was slow, due to the destruction of the infrastructure during the German

Occupation and a feeble, almost non-existent economy. What is more, with the lack of capital and the unstable political situation, one might add the shortage of technical personnel and facilities (Tzavalas 67). But despite the harsh conditions, new production companies that invested capital were formed, film studios were constructed and the number of movies produced gradually multiplied: 8 pictures were produced in 1948, 21 in 1955 and 95 in 1963.45 This rate would not cease to increase until 1972, where the production began to slow down. As Komninou concludes: “The cinema growth during the first post-Civil war period led to the development of a national film industry, whose production was highly appealing to the audience” (82).

Furthermore, audiences, both in urban and rural areas, gradually grew larger.46

According to Karalis, at a certain stage in the post-war years, the Greek film industry was producing annually more films per capita than Hollywood (A History: 79). By the late 1960s, the number of tickets sold was more than 100 million, which in proportion with the population of the country was the greatest in Europe (Hadjikyriakou 66). But the stable quantitative development of cinema urged many who had nothing to do with

45 As Papadimitriou points out: “The transformation of producers such as Finos from small, effectively independent companies to large studios began in the late 1950s and lasted to the early 1960s. In order to survive amidst increasing competition, these companies inceased their output dramatically. For example, Finos increased film production from two or three films a year in the 1950s to an average of nine pictures a year in the 1960s” (In the Shadow: 117). 46 In the 1947-48 season, 6,415.000 tickets were sold in the area of Athens-Piraeus. Ten years later (1957- 58), the number of tickets increased to 40,918.000. During the 1960s decade, the average number of tickets sold was 100,000.000 a year (In 1968, 137,000.000 tickets were sold). Moreover, the number of theaters also grew: there were 61 theaters in 1947, 92 in 1957 and 288 in 1966 (Sotiropoulou 1995). 72 cinema before to invest their money and to seek “easy-made” profit: in most of cases, the films made by the newcomers to the field of domestic film production lacked any technical or artistic quality, but, due to the great number of tickets sold, they brought high profits to them (Mitropoulou 96-97). Of course, this situation worsened in the

1960s decade when, despite the rapid increase of productions,47 the majority of films were of low quality and imitations of established and successful models. As Tzavalas argues:

The mediocre pictures indicated that too many producers, writers and directors

did not understand that the cinema is a multi-faceted art, an original form of art

with its own style and language, and that a movie is not a stage play or a lifeless

script to be put on film without feelings for the sensibility of the viewer. (93)

The 1960s were the “golden” years of Classical Greek Cinema; about a hundred films was the average annual production, and the number of both theatres and filmgoers significantly grew. In 1961, the state legislated the first Law ever regarding the foundation of an institutional framework for cinema. Its articles prescribed: “the protection of local films, the investment of money in the industry from the profits of imported blockbusters, and screening sessions for Greek films” (Karalis, A History:

88). What is more, foreign producers were given financial benefits to shoot their films in Greece. The establishing of a state support for cinema missed a certain plan to professionalize production; however, it set in place the foundations of a functional status for the domestic film industry.

1960 was also a turning point for Greek Cinema, since the “Week of Greek

Cinema” was inaugurated and opened its doors in Thessaloniki. Six years later (1966)

47 During the 1960s decade, almost 100 Greek films were released each year in Greece. 1966-67 is the season that holds the record with 117 new films (Soldatos, Vol. III: 2002). 73 the “Week” was renamed to “Thessaloniki Film Festival” and became the most important domestic cinematic event. The Festival, despite difficulties and doubts regarding its mission, has played an invaluable role in both the development of cinema and the promotion of new directors and trends. What is more, the Film Festival preserved cinema, especially during the late 1970s, when the film industry seemed to collapse (Soldatos, Vol. I: 262).48

The Film Audience

After the end of the Civil War, the mass domestic migration towards urban centers49 completely changed the structures of Greek society. Large rural areas were depopulated and cities, especially Athens and Thessaloniki saw a speedy increase in their population.50 This newly formed urban working class, which was fighting hard to survive in the big city, sought entertainment. It might be stressed that until their moving to an urban area, the villagers’ “theatrical” experience was the traditional theatre of

Karaghiozis, as well as various theatrical plays that were staged by various travelling players (Karalis, A History: 45). Therefore, during the first post-war decades, film audiences were -in most cases- masses of uneducated and poor villagers who saw cinema not only as a cheap means of entertainment and an antidote to daily toil, but also as a vehicle to dream the pleasures of modern, urban life:

48 As Karalis points out, the Thessaloniki Film Festival evolved into a major cultural event that still defines the development of cinema in the country; the Festival, which started out as a Week of Greek Film, reoriented production and promotion practices (A History, 89). 49 In 1940, 52,4 percent of the population lived in rural areas, whereas in 1961 43,3 percent. In 1971 the percentage dropped to 35,2 percent. On the contrary, the number of those who lived in urban centers increased from 32,8 percent in 1940 to 43,3 percent in 1961. In 1971, the percentage increased to 53,2 percent (http://dlib.statistics.gr/portal/ page/portal/ESYE/categoryyears?p cat=10007369&p_ topic= 10008001). 50 Within 20 years (1951-1971) the population of the metropolitan area of Athens increased from 1.380,000 people to 2.540,000. During the same period, the population of the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki increased from 278,000 people to 557,000 (http://dlib .statistics.gr/ Book/GRESYE_02_ 0101_00031.pdf and http://dlib.statistics.gr/ Book/ GRESYE_ 02_0101_00053.pdf). 74

Against the backdrop of the big city and given the long work days, the new

urban working class went to the grand movie theatres with excitement and

enthusiasm, especially on weekends and public holidays. The cinematic

experience was their first initiation to the pleasures of urban life. On the screen

they could see opulent apartments, houses and villas; beautiful clothes;

wonderful house interiors; large kitchens with refrigerators and even bathrooms

with running hot water ̶ that is to say, the spectacle of a decent “modern family

enjoying the ideals possessions and “comforts” of Western civilization. (45)

It was not until the 1970s that a new, educated generation, influenced by broader

European trends in the cinema,51 would seek new aesthetics and new forms in films, totally rejecting the Classical Greek Cinema, and everything that it represented. This

‘urban’ generation would become the audience for films of the New Greek Cinema and would consolidate a cinema of culture.

Censorship

Official censorship in the cinema came into force in 1942 (Law 1108). According to the legislation, which was valid until the early 1960s, the entire process of film production was examined by a censorship committee. Of course, censorship was not a

Greek phenomenon; it mainly appeared after WWII both in Western countries (US,

Spain) and Eastern Bloc States (Andritsos 19). However, Greek censorship was different “from the more morally oriented censorship regulations of the Hayes Code, the Catholic Legion in the US, and the code of church officials who were members of censorship boards in European countries” (Stassinopoulou, Creating Distraction: 38).

Censorship was updated by Karamanlis’ government; the Law 4208/1961 established

51 The movements of “Free Cinema” in England, of the “Nouvelle Vague” in France and the trend of “New German Cinema” influenced both filmmakers and young, educated audiences. 75 a series of boards, whose members were both state servants and “film experts.” Their job was to exercise control, not only at the films’ release, but also during the shooting.

In addition, the board required the prior submission of scripts. For Stassinopoulou, the

Greek censors’ anti-communist bias and aversion to the depiction of ‘negative’ themes can be compared to Italian postwar censorhip decisions (Creating Distraction: 38). The threat of censorship meant that many directors complied with the censorship rules so as to make sure that their film would be projected. It also meant that production companies did not risk their money by investing in pictures which would not get a license.

Therefore, censorship affected cinema in the aspect of politics; taboo themes were ostracized and criticism of the political situation of the era was not allowed.52

Despite the existence of censors, the advent of Centre Union in 1963 created hopes for more freedom in artistic expression. This liberalization of the Papandreou regime resulted in the production of (mainly) films which attempted to articulate different discourses and challenge the dominant, conservative values. For example, the 1965

Thessaloniki Film Festival saw the screening of independent short films, whose creators sought a freedom regarding both the topic’s choice and the techniques of narration

(Sotiropoulou, I Diaspora 63). Nevertheless, as Ladikou confesses, many scenes of The

Round-up were cut by censors, something that caused the director’s frustration (8-9).

During the next festival (1966), a new generation of filmmakers made their appearance, thus, paving the way for the advent of New Greek Cinema.53

52 Censorship was exercised in all aspects of art. As Andritsos argues, famous poets (Yannis Ritsos and Nikiforos Vrettakos), critics (Markos Avgeris) and newspapers (Avgi) were persecuted for publishing articles whose themes concerned the October Revolution and the formation of left organization of EAM (National Liberation Front). Moreover, stage plays such as Aristophanes’ comedy The Birds were banned by the government (2004): 19-20. 53 For example, Kollatos (The Death of Alexander), Damianos (Mehri to Plio [As Far as the Ship]) and Papatakis (I Voski tis Simforas [The Shepherds of Disaster]). 76

Classical Greek Cinema, 1946-1966 ̶ A Conclusion

As aforementioned, Classical Cinema addressed itself to the masses of the (mostly) uneducated urban working class, as well as to people who lived in rural areas, and, thus, a strong relationship was established between films and the audiences of that kind. For filmgoers, watching a Greek picture was a ritual; an experience of social bonding, a status recognition (Karalis, A History: 86). Therefore, the aesthetics of Classical Greek

Cinema could not but reflect the aesthetics of their audience. Additionally, big studios

(Finos, Anzervos, Karayannis-Karatzopoulos, Damaskinos-Michailidis) favored an actor-centered style of filmmaking instead of image-centered cinema. Whereas in the latter actors are used to execute a preconceived plan or idea. In the actor-centered films, the position of the actor within the frame is dictated by his gut instincts as to where he/she should stand, not by the director’s vision of where the actor should be standing in order to create a striking composition (Asimow and Mader 227).

The Greek Cinema from 1946 to 1966 could be characterized as operating within the genre system. The dominant genres were melodramas, slapstick comedies and “folk costume films,”54 with comedies dominating the box office. The crime film, which first appeared in the early 1960s,55 matured in the late 1960s, in the hand of such filmmakers as Nikos Foskolos and Stavros Tsiolis. Following the tradition established during the 1940s and 1950s, the themes of the movies usually focused on family and personal relationships, the efforts of the lower classes to better their life, the

54 This genre, also known as “mountain film” or “foustanella,” had its sub-genres: “folk costume adventure” and “folk costume melodrama.” The reason behind its success was that “with its reassuring clichés and assuaging stereotypes gave a sense of continuity and strength to the urbanized masses working in factories against the depersonalized presence of state bureaucracy, urban anonymity and capitalist mechanization” (Karalia, A History: 83). 55 For example, the films Englima sta Paraskinia [Backstage Crime] (1960, d. Dinos Katsouridis), Englima sto Kolonaki [Murder at Kolonaki] (1960, d. Tzanis Aliferis), both based on Yannis Maris detective stories. In addition, the crime genre included pictures such as O Dolofonos Agapouse Poli [The Killer Loved So Much] (1960, d. Ion Daifas), O Thanatos tha Xanarthi [Death Will Return] (1961, d. Errikos Thalassinos), Amfivolies [Doubts] (1964, d. Grigoris Grigoriou). 77 consequences of “modernity,” as well as the anxieties of the mass of urbanized villagers

(Chalkou 22). It is also stressed that Classical Greek Cinema heavily drew on theatre and used theatrical elements. The stories of CGC were based on lively dialogues, something that could be explained by the theatrical origins of many of the scripts. Until the early 1950s, most playwrights were adapting their own theatrical works to film scripts and were themselves the directors (Karalis, A History: 39).56 In addition, many established film actors had a previous career in theater and incorporated theatrical techniques into their film acting. In terms of style, the Greek cinema aligned itself with theatrical practices; the camera was static, focusing on the body of the protagonists, and medium shots were prevailing, creating, thus, a sense of assurance to the audience.

There were a few exceptions, and over the course of the 60s, several first-rate films emerged that turned to social content, explored difficult themes, created well- constructed dialogues and reached new levels of technical quality. For example, the movie Prodosia [Betrayal] (1964, d. Kostas Manousakis) focused on the love affair between a German officer and a Jewish woman, a subject matter which has not been taken up in Greek Cinema. Ta Kokkina Fanaria [The Red Lanterns] (1963, d. Vassilis

Georgiadis) explored the underworld of prostitutes and pimps with “romantic empathy and deep humanism” (Karalis, A History: 134). The historical subject of the 1910 farmers’ uprising was raised in To Homa Vaftike Kokkino [Blood on the Land] (1965, d. Vassilis Georgiadis). In addition, I de Gini na Fovite ton Andra [The Mistress] (1964, d. Yiorgos Tzavellas) vividly portrayed gender roles and stereotypes, exploring the influence of social, cultural and economic factors. Such concern for realistic subjects was uncharacteristic of the majority of Classical Greek Cinema, but reflects Georgiadis

56 Alekos Sakellarios, Nikos Tsiforos and Orestis Laskos had been popular playwrights before they became script writers and movie directors. 78 and Tzavellas’ ambitions to create movies with international appeal. These films officially represented Greece in foreign festivals, received awards and were seen as works that could address international audiences.57

All in all, CGC, throughout its peak years, insisted on a single-dimensional mission: to offer cheap entertainment to the masses and escape from political oppression and harsh life-conditions; in other words, it provided an “escapist” entertainment which proved extremely popular with audiences. In that sense, films of this fruitful period were accused of propagating conservative values, “legitimizing them as modern and acceptable” (Karalis, A History: 87). What is more, movies were intended to pacify the people by focusing on the element of social consensus. As

Sotiropoulou points out, the cinema’s attempts to reduce social and financial differences, to make personal and social conflicts go away and to cultivate the logic of a ‘happy ending’ resulted in the creation of a sense of euphoria in the spectator (I

Diaspora 60).

Therefore, filmgoers realized that cinema is nothing but a means to consume images (60). By focusing, thus, on its entertaining role, CGC did not pay attention to the other aspects of its mission: the educational and political ones. Komninou concludes that the popular genres of classical cinema, especially melodramas and “folk costume films,” had an affirmative function and created a sense of positive atmosphere (85).

Therefore, viewers could accept social injustice, believing that the latter was a result of fate.

57 Both The Green Lanterns and Blood on the Land were nominated for “Best Foreign Language Film” in the Academy Awards. The Mistress was awarded with a Prize for “Best Director” in the 1965 Chicago Film Festival (Karalis 2012). 79

Chapter II

The Occupation on Celluloid

While the popular genres (melodramas, comedies, folk costume movies) of Classical

Greek Cinema have been critically examined (Delveroudi 2004; Paradeisi 1995;

Kymionis 2000), the subject of recent Greek history on film invites further research. It has been suggested that historically-themed films rarely appear in the pre-1967 Greek

Cinema and that events of the recent past, such as the German Occupation and the Civil

War, were of little concern. Despite the fact that there were several WWII themed movies immediately after the Liberation, during the 1950s and the early 1960s pictures which focused on the Occupation became rare. Panayiotopoulos claims that during the flourishing period of cinema, viewers did not see battles or bloodshed on celluloid and that past wars and recent struggles did not constitute part of the domestic film universe

(78-79). Polymeris Voglis also points out that Greek war films are relatively few and, among the reasons, one could take into account the high production cost, as well as the release of more integral and more expensive foreign war films (103). Yannis Soldatos further contends that, until 1967, war pictures were perceived as a marginal film genre

(Vol. I: 234). It is, thus, concluded that war was not “the favorite theme of Greek

Cinema” (Voglis, Apo tis Kannes 103).

Looked at from an ideological point of view, it has been argued that most of the films that dealt with the events of the 1940s usually depicted the traditional, patriotic interpretation of the recent past; a manichean moral world, where good and evil are clearly delineated and oppose each other. The nation and its enemies constitute the key binary opposition organizing these movies (Papadimitriou 299). Historically-themed films usually overstated the role of the Greek Army and praised the sacrifice of the

Greek officers (105). Furthermore, such pictures often highlighted the contribution of 80 the Western Allies in the Resistance and paid increased attention to the role of groups of saboteurs (Andritsos 82).

On the contrary, the majority of the pre-1967 historically-themed films ignored the contribution of the Left in the fight against the Nazis; the role of EAM was bypassed. It must also be noted that WWII pictures were accused of being sentimentalized versions of the real events and that they did not confront the shame of the Security Battalions, as well as the issue of collaborationism (83). Thus, in most of these films, the Occupation was usually represented as a period where all Greeks fought for freedom and, so, the Resistance was seen as being above political ideological divisions; a unified movement with nationalistic aims; a continuation of the war, but by different means. There is never any mention of the fact that the Resistance consisted of a range of different organizations with different ideologies. Overall, the majority of

WWII pictures cultivated the myth of national solidarity.

Films

Classical Greek Cinema began to incorporate themes in which World War II provided a central narrative element from very early: during the 1940s, there was a number of films which used history in their plots. Of the twenty-seven films developed from 1946 until 1950, eleven were in some way or another depicting Greece’s recent history. The movies related to the Occupation were Raid in the Aegean (1946, d. M. Karagatsis),

Unsubdued Slaves (1946, d. Vion Papamichalis), Mia Zoi Xanarhizi [A New Life

Begins] (1946, d. Kostas Gaziadis and Ilias Paraskevas), I Kriti stis Floges [Crete on

Fire] (1947, d. Antonis Papadantonakis), Ta Pedia tis Athinas [The Children of Athens]

(1947, d. Takis Bakopoulos), Nihta horis Ximeroma [Night without Dawn] (1947, d.

Antonis Papadantonakis), I Yermani Xanarhonte [The Germans Strike Back] (1948, d.

Alekos Sakellarios), Anna Roditi [Anna of Rhodes] (1948, d. Yannis Phillipou and 81

Michalis Gaziadis), Ohiro 27 [Fort 27] (1948, d. Mavrikios Novak), Yermaniki

Peripolos stin Kriti [German Patrol in Crete] (1949, d. Antonis Papadantonakis),

Teleftea Apostoli [The Last Mission] (1949, d. Nikos Tsiforos).

Early WWII films were largely nationalist, celebrating great men and deeds of the past. Additionally, the pre-1950 films mainly concentrated on representing the role of the individual rather than that of collective action. In Raid in the Aegean in particular, the struggle against the Nazis is depicted as a struggle led by heroic officers. The film features a male hero, a Greek Army sergeant who manages to flee to the Middle East.

The hero is sent back to the occupied country to free a group of patriots. Raid in the

Aegean is the first picture that contains a number of thematic motifs that run through most of the war movies of the period. These motifs vary from the delineation of the role of saboteurs to the depiction of the harsh living conditions during the Occupation.

Set in the period of WWII, Unsubdued Slaves tells the adventures of a group of friends. They had formed a theatrical team and were planning to stage Shakespeare’s

Midsummer Night’s Dream. The performance was scheduled for the day the Greco-

Italian War broke out: 28 October 1940. During the Occupation, the company members actively participate in the Resistance; they write anti-Nazi slogans on the walls at the peril of their lives and one is actually killed in the effort. The theme of Greek women who had relationships with German men so as to help the Resistance is also represented in the movie. For example, in a cabaret scene, a woman, who has had an affair with a

German officer, gives coded messages to one of the heroes. Lastly, the Unsubdued

Slaves gives a ruthless representation of the conquerors; the camera focuses on a little boy shot by a Nazi soldier because he had tried to pick up some bread that the man had just dropped.

The melodrama A New Life Begins emphasizes the role of saboteurs and the 82

Allies in the skirmishes against the occupiers. The film centers around the story of a

Greek officer who, during WWII, served at the Headquarters of the Allies in Cairo and comes back home after the Liberation. The hero then finds out that his family had gone missing during the Occupation. He starts a new life with a girl he met in Cairo, but he soon learns that she is his daughter, who was saved thanks to the family servant. Other films from the same period elaborate on various aspects of the Occupation. In Takis

Bakopoulos’ The Children of Athens, for example, through the story of a group of children who steal food and supplies from the Germans, the devastating hunger as well as the subsequent increase of the “black market” phenomenon are vividly presented.

Equally interesting is the film’s depiction of Greek partisans who were brought to concentration camps in Germany, a theme which rarely appears in CGC;58 due to the stealing of food and supplies, the heroes, Alekos and Nontas, are chased, arrested and taken to a concentration camp. After the Liberation, they return to Greece and try to rebuild their life.

But one of the best films about the 1940s conflicts is the comedy59 The Germans

Strike Back. The film, an adaptation of Sakellarios’ play, is the only picture set in the times of the Civil War and makes a comment on that painful subject, though very implicitly. Told from the perspective of a common man, The Germans Strike Back offers a truly grim glimpse into the civil strife. Thodoros is a peaceful man who hates war and does not like arguments on political issues. Much of the film visualizes the protagonist’s nightmare. One afternoon, the hero, as he is falling into a light sleep, has a dream: Hitler and the Nazis have rearmed themselves, strike again and re-occupy countries. As a result, the divided Greeks reunite and fight against the Germans.

58 Lieutenant Natassa (1970, d. Nikos Foskolos) is another film which discusses the issue of Greeks sent to concentration camps during WWII. For more information on the picture, see Part II. 59 Dermentzopoulos points out that the film is actually a “nightmarish satire” (152). 83

Thodoros’ group of five patriots finds shelter in a mental hospital and gets arrested by the conquerors. As they are to be executed, the nightmare ends. The film ends with the hero’s bitter realization that “All Greeks should see that nightmare to get wise.”

Sakellarios’ motives behind the making of The Germans Strike Back are uncertain. At one level, the director intended the film to be a critique of the civil strife.

The movie audaciously asserts that fighting over political ideologies is meaningless and that reconciliation between communists and nationalists is crucial, symbolized by the protagonist of the film. There is a scene where the hero, instead of reading communist and centerist newspapers, picks up a lifestyle magazine. Furthermore, the man prefers taking a nap rather than participating in arguments about politics. But whatever the intentions of the film script, Sakellarios, a man of right-wing political sympathies, takes a more critical look towards communists; if one looks deeply into The Germans Strike

Back, an unfavorable portrayal of communism becomes obvious. In fact, most of the references amply deride communism; the words of the communist patriot do not seem to make sense because they are perceived as sheer communist propaganda. At the same time, the partisan’s ideas are contrasted to the words of a lunatic, an inmate of the mental hospital, who cries for peace and unity: “Why do we need to shed blood, to hate and kill each other? We all walk under the sun. (…) Justice and love are the foundations of happiness. (…) Death is people’s common fate. We are all brothers, parts of the universe.” However, Thodoros bitterly discovers that these are the words of a madman and not of a “good” patriot (Karalis, A History: 53). Overall, the film asked the audience to remember their recent traumatic past in order not to repeat its mistakes.

The Germans Strike Back sold 136,000 in the area of Athens-Piraeus, topping 84 the box-office of the 1947-48 season.60 Furthermore, in the case of The Germans Strike

Back, the body of film criticism could be divided into two broad categories, depending on the critics’ ideological position; the left-wing Ermis Mouratidis pointed out that

Sakellarios made the film both to support the right-wing regime of the period and to ridicule the ideology of the left (183). Additionally, Yiorgos Andritsos wrote that the picture represented “the left ideology full of clichés” (23).

On the other hand, Lazaridis gave a favorable review, writing that The Germans

Strike Back is “a work of art which deserves to be seen by everyone” (qtd. in

Mouratidis: 187). Finally, Sargas argued that Sakellarios’ film is a flawless work and an achievement for Cinema (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol. IV: 167). One cannot but assert that

The Germans Strike Back, a feature which contains as much depression as humor, could be seen as a brave effort to preach peace and reconciliation. The picture still stands as

Sakellarios’ finest and purest work: a satire that feels as fresh today as when it was first released.

In the adventure drama Anna of Rhodes, the emphasis is on the depiction of the conditions in the Dodecanese islands during the Italian Occupation. The story, set on the island of Rhodes, explores the complicated relationship between Greek citizens and

Italian conquerors. Following the success of Raid in the Aegean, the movie focuses on the story of lieutenant Aris Galanos, who arrives from the Middle East on the occupied island of Rhodes so as to gather information regarding the defense of the Dodecanese islands. The officer meets and falls in love with Anna, a member of the Resistance. Due to her participation in the fight against the occupiers, the young woman is arrested by the Italians. However, the landing of the Allies in Sicily and the overthrow of Mussolini

60 The film was re-screened in the season 1953-54 selling 16,000 tickets and also in 1976-77 with 28,000 tickets (Soldatos 2002). 85 prevents her conviction. After the end of WWII and the unification of the Dodecanese

Islands with Greece, Aris returns to Rhodes and lives with his beloved Anna. The film, shot poorly, combines action and adventure, historical events involving the Liberation of the Dodecanese islands and romance.

The last picture of the decade about the Occupation was the melodrama The

Last mission, based on a novel by Nikos Tsiforos. The Last Mission, which raised a controversy upon its release,61 was a break-through film; it was the first picture to officially represent Greece in the 1950 Cannes Film Festival. Using the form of flashback, the film reveals the story of Maria, a young woman. During the Occupation, her father escaped to Egypt and her mother had a love affair with a German officer.

Maria got involved with the Resistance and her mother turned her in to the Gestapo.

Full of anger and rage, Maria eventually shoots her. The mother’s decision to state that she shoot herself and to ask for forgiveness from her daughter, seems to redeem her prior collaboration with the enemy. The Last Mission is the first movie which focuses on the issue of collaborationism, illustrating the love affairs between Greek women and

German men. The movie offers a vivid portrayal of the Occupation, emphasizing the heroism of the Greek Army officers. The outstanding role played by military men, symbolized by Maria’s father, correlates with the crucial role of the Allied Force

Headquarters and the active Resistance of the masses.

However, by the 1950s, the number of films dealing with the Occupation had been reduced considerably. Until 1958, only 5 films out of 160 had dealt with this theme. For example, in the season 1950-51 no picture referred to the Occupation.

History reappears in the next season with two movies dealing with WWII: Matomena

61 The film was temporarily banned in the belief that it was an insulting portrayal of Greek women. The movie was re-released after the necessary script changes (Soldatos 2002). 86

Hristougenna [A Bloody Christmas] and I Floga tis Eleftherias [The Flame of

Freedom]. The film Apo Ex Miname Dio [Out of Six Two Remained] (d. Stavros

Chatzopoulos) was the only picture of the season 1952-53. However, the next season

(1953-54) two films with Occupation themes were released: The Barefoot Battalion (d.

Greg Tallas) and I Ourani Ine Diki mas [The Skies are Ours] (d. Dinos Dimopoulos).

Recent History, entirely forgotten for five years, reemerged as a subject in the season

1958-59.

Whilst no individual reason can be cited as the driving force behind this change, there were key factors that may have had an impact. Firstly, the limited production of

WWII films can be explained “by the emphasis placed by the industry on experimenting with new themes and genres” (Chalkou 184). One cannot ignore the emergence of the romance film in the 1950s. For example, the three box-office hits by the popular couple

Ellie Lambeti and Dimitris Horn (Windfall in Athens, 1954, The Counterfeit Coin, 1955,

To Koritsi me ta Mavra [A Girl in Black], 1957). Chalkou points out that the 1950s decline of the genre in Greek cinema has been associated with a similar decay in the production of similar pictures in other European national cinemas, especially the Italian and the French (184).

In addition, during the 1950s, the trend of neorealism made its appearance in

Greek cinema. Indeed, Grigoris Grigoriou made the first neorealistic film, Pikro Psomi

[Bitter Bread] in 1951. Although it failed at the box-office, Bitter Bread is important since it “finally constructed a complete narrative based on purely cinematic performances, which avoided the theatrical elements in acting and photography. […]

Both amateur and professional actors took part in the film with performances of authentic and refreshing simplicity” (Karalis, A History: 58). Grigoriou’s effort was followed by Stelios Tatassopoulos, a leftist director, who made the neorealistic picture 87

Mavri Ghi [Black Earth] in 1952. It is a story that delineates the hard life of emery miners of the island of Naxos. As Karalis points out: “close to neorealism, the film explored working class conditions and economic exploitation with overt political references” (A History: 59).

Despite the decline of historically-themed movies, two Occupation films appeared in the 1951-52 season: A Bloody Christmas and The Flame of Freedom. In A

Bloody Christmas, the theme of sacrifice underscores the depiction of the Resistance fighters. It tells the story of a Naval Officer who, after the Liberation, comes back home from the Middle East and is confronted with the adventures his family had during the war. The film’s opening scenes show him returning home to ask himself whether his relatives survived. Through flashback, we learn that the hero’s children actively participated in the fight against the conquerors; his daughter was executed by a German firing squad and his son hides in the mountains. In the film, we get a glimpse of the harsh conditions during the Occupation. It traces in detail the cold, the hunger and the executions. The Occupation is presented as a period during which people starved and the black market phenomenon poisoning human interactions. The Flame of Freedom returns to the motif of the affairs between Greek women and the Nazi men. The movie tells the story of a young woman who is hired by the Gestapo as a secretary. Although she feels the amount of hatred exuding from the mouth of her fellow villagers, she keeps working with the enemy so as to help the Resistance.

Although A Bloody Christmas topped the box-office of the 1951-52 season by selling 179,000 tickets (Soldatos, Vol. IV: 201), it was poorly received by critics: Rozita

Sokou insisted that the film lacked inspiration and tight narrative structure (qtd. in

Soldatos, Vol. IV: 222-23). Ermis Mouratidis also castigated the film, claiming that it

“enhanced the formation of a false impression about the Resistance” (195). The critic 88 correctly observed that the director praised individual heroic actions and eschewed references to the role of the Left; the film promotes the idea of the classless nature of the fight, while the resistance by EAM was silenced.

Without doubt, one of the most outstanding films about the Occupation was the neo-realistic drama The Barefoot Battalion. The cast of the movie was not impressive: outside some little known actors, it was made up of children of the orphanages in

Thessaloniki. Notwithstanding, the film was praised by critics, was awarded the

“Golden Laurel” at the Edinburgh International Film Festival and met with box-office success. The setting of the picture is Thessaloniki in 1943. Using the flashback structure, The Barefoot Battalion reveals the real story of 160 children, the “barefoot battalion,” who were kicked out from the city’s orphanage (Papafion) during the

Occupation and were let out to starve. The orphans used to steal provisions from the

Germans and distributed them to the starving population of Thessaloniki.

Among the themes explored by The Barefoot Battalion is the controversial issue of the black market. There are images where a black marketer accuses the “barefoot battalion” of having stolen his cans of olive oil. At the same time, the orphans work with the Resistance and help an American officer flee to the Middle East and join the

Allied forces. Moreover, The Barefoot Battalion pays tribute to the resistance conducted by women. In the film, a young woman works as an interpreter in the

Gestapo, but, at the same time, she provides shelter and smuggles out partisans and foreigner fighters. The movie, a marvelous story of bravery and courage, is highly significant for abandoning film clichés about the Occupation.

The Barefoot Battalion, in spite of meagre technical support and of non- professional actors, reached 85,000 admissions and ranked third. Ranking just ahead of it on the season’s box-office chart were the comedies Windfall in Athens and Santa 89

Chiquita (Soldatos, Vol. IV: 202). Furthermore, The Barefoot Battalion was praised by critics: Kostas Stamatiou thought highly of the film and asserted that the director

“attempted to portray incidents of the Occupation period, such as children’s starvation and impoverishment (qtd. in Andritsos, I Katohi: 111). Aglaia Mitropoulou also gave a positive review, concluding with these comments:

Tallas managed to make a wonderful, neorealistic film, avoiding melodramatic

tricks, portraying the atmosphere of desperation in the “starving” Thessaloniki.

[…] His film is a document of the Nazi terrorism and shows that Tallas is able

to use his filmic means to succeed in making his non-professional actors look

similar in expression and in style. (126)

Recent history as a theme was totally bypassed until 1958, when it reappeared in Miden

Pente [Zero Five] (d. Yannis Petropoulakis). The picture renegotiates the theme of saboteurs who are sent by the Allied Headquarters in order to carry out a secret mission.

Similar emphasis on the role of saboteurs is found in films such as Dadiras’ The Braves’

Island. Dadiras was one of those directors who made reflection on the past the hallmark of his films. His historically-themed pictures are visualizations of the German

Occupation, of the struggle against the conquerors and (later) of the Civil War. In The

Braves’ Island, a model for many later films, the director tells the story of a fighter who is sent to the occupied island of Crete and organizes a sabotage mission. The sabotage is eventually executed with the cooperation of both Greek guerilla fighters and British forces.

The Braves’ Island explores the interrelation between various forces that contributed to the fight for freedom: the saboteurs, the partisans and the Allies. The director accentuates the British contribution to the fight against the occupiers: The

British officer in-command is presented as a skillful mastermind behind the sabotage; 90 he even devises how to avoid German reprisals. The film also points out the contribution of the clergy to the anti-fascist struggle. There are images of an abbot who risks his life by providing patriots with shelter and priests who are executed by the

Nazis.

The movie also tackles the role of women in the war by describing the activity of Dona, a cabaret singer;62 the heroine (played by the popular protagonist of CGC

Jenny Karezi) decisively helps the partisans and risks her life by stealing files from a

German Major who is in love with her. Although she seems to collaborate with the

Nazis, Dona secretly works for the Resistance. For her actions, she pays the highest price: the woman is captured and eventually shot dead. Karezi’s character assimilates many of the ideal qualities of the Greek woman, including bravery, heroism and determination, which she applies in the fight for the freedom of Greece. Another feature of The Braves’ Island is its emphasis on the issue of collaborationism. A partisan claims that Greek collaborators63 cause more damage to the Resistance movement than the

Germans. The man insists on punishing the collaborator, because he believes that the latter might never pay for his crimes and, after the Liberation, he will be a “dignified citizen.” At this point, the director implies that many collaborators were never punished for their crimes. On the contrary, many became wealthy and powerful, especially after the end of the Civil War.

During the early and mid-1960s, between one and four WWII movies were produced every year. In the season 1960-61, four films with historical themes were

62 It is noteworthy that songs and singing are placed at the center of the film’s plot: Dona’s mission is to sing for the Germans so as to provide the Resistance with the Nazis’ files. The main theme song Min ton Rotas ton Ourano, [Don’t Ask the Sky] composed by Manos Hatzidakis, was first recorded by Jenny Karezi, the protagonist of the movie. When it was released in 1959, it became a hit and has remained a classic ever since. Besides the original in Greek, the song was recorded by American singer Brenda Lee under the title “All Alone Am I.” The song became a top 10 hit in both the UK and the US in 1962 and won the CMA (Country Music Association) Award. 63 The character of the collaborator was performed by Artemis Matsas, who has been stereotyped as a perennial Nazi collaborator after his role in The Braves’ Island, or a traitor. 91 released: I Kritikopoula ke o Eleftherotis [The Cretan Girl and the Liberator] (d. Koulis

Kasis), O Xenos tis Nihtas [Stranger in the Night] (d. Ellie Nezeriti), I Avgi tou

Thriamvou [The Dawn of Triumph] (d. Filippos Fylaktos) and Stratiotes dihos Stoli

[Soldiers without a Uniform] (d. Dimitris Ioannopoulos). The Dawn of Triumph pays tribute to the role of women in the war, emphasizing the significance of the affairs of

Greek women with Nazi men. In a departure from prior pictures, the film provides the

Germans with a more sympathetic image. The Nazi Officer is depicted as a human being rather than as a cruel monster: The character admits that he really hates war and fights without feeling any joy, believing in the futility of wars. He also claims that he misses his parents and his home. However, the man orders the execution of twenty-five

Greeks, as a reprisal for sabotage of a German ship.

In addition to discussing issues related to espionage and collaborationism, some films tackled questions regarding the population’s behavior during the Occupation.

Soldiers without a Uniform, for example, undermines the wide-spread belief that all citizens were actively involved in the Resistance. For instance, when a young woman provides a partisan with shelter, her mother openly disagrees. Arguing against helping guerilla fighters, the woman wondered: “What if someone saw him coming here? What if the Germans start searching for him? They show no mercy.” Moreover, while she talks about the dangers of providing partisans with shelter, the heroine stresses that ordinary people should not fight against the Nazis, because they “are not soldiers.” The message presented is that a significant part of the Greeks was indifferent to the occupiers’ atrocities and disagreed with Resistance actions. As Chalkou points out:

“These people were not the outcasts, they were part of the community, loved and respected” (219).

Apart from that, the employment of the theme of collaboration is an interesting 92 point. It is suggested that the topic of cooperation with the enemy was rarely depicted in Classical Cinema. Ioannopoulos’ film is daring for suggesting that not every citizen was a member of the Resistance; that indeed, many were willing accomplices to the

German occupying army. The director wishes to show that cooperation “was widespread amongst all social classes and all kinds of people” (219). For example, the hero who acts as a collaborationist, an average middle-class man, seems to be motivated by his ideological affinity. The character tends to believe that resistance actions do not protect innocent citizens, but, on the contrary, cause harsh Nazi reprisals.

Finally, an interesting point can be traced in the way the various Resistance groups are represented in Soldiers without a Uniform. There is a scene where slogans are written on the wall opposite the Commandature. On the right, the spectators read

“Long Live Freedom,” signed by EDES, the right-wing Resistance organization led by

Napoleon Zervas, whereas in the center of the wall there is the slogan “Death to the

Huns,” signed by I.T,64 the centrist organization led by Panayiotis Kanellopoulos.65 But one more slogan, almost hidden behind a tree, could be traced: “Bulgarians out,”66 signed by EAM, the mass leftist Resistance movement. Of course the role of EAM in the fight against the Nazis was considered as a taboo issue at that time and therefore, any filmic reference to its contribution to the Resistance was forbidden, due to the political atmosphere and the strict censorship.

64 I.T. “Iera Taxiarchia” [Holy Brigade] is a Resistance group which was formed in June 1941 and made its first appearance in September 1941. The group published the newspaper “Ellinika Niata” [Greek Youth] with a tirage of 3,000, as well as the papers “Symachika Nea” [News of the Allies] and “To Ellinopoulo” [The Young Greek]. Its members were actively involved in the fight against the action of Political Recruitment, which was ordered by the Nazis on February 23, 1943. According to the command, thousands of civilians were enlisted as a workforce in Germany. Due to the massive demonstrations, riots and strikes, the action of Political Recruitment was called off on March 10, 1943). For an especially lucid and helpful account of IT, see Herbert (1997). 65 Kanellopoulos was a Greek politician, philosopher and member of the Academy of Athens. He served twice as prime minister (1945, 1967). 66 The slogan of course refers to the tripartite Occupation of Greece (German, Italian and Bulgarian). Bulgaria occupied parts of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. According to Chalkou, this slogan can be read as an attempt to distance Leftists from nationalistic accusations of serving the Bulgarians (220). 93

Hence, the visible EAM slogan implies that all Resistance groups, despite their various ideologies, fought for and served the common goal: Greece’s liberation from the occupiers. So, it is valid to claim that the element that differentiates Soldiers without a Uniform from the majority of Occupation films is the audacious direct reference to the Left’s contribution to the anti-fascist cause; there are no other pictures that directly depict the mass movement of the Left. Of course, the reference to EAM must have passed unnoticed by censorship.

In contrast with earlier films’ epic style for investigating the past, Roviros

Manthoulis’ Hands Up Hitler (1962) invokes the Occupation period through memory and comedy, providing a cohesive depiction of the effect of the war on ordinary citizens. The narrative moves through different spaces of time: from the film’s present

(1962) to the past (1941-44), from memories of the Occupation presented through flashbacks. It is the story of two close friends, who meet twenty years after the

Occupation and recollect the past occurrences. This anti-war tragicomedy was characterized as “a nostalgic look at the near past as collective memory and, as such, an attempt to understand what happened during the Occupation” (Karalis, A History:

96).

The film’s two main characters, far from being represented as brave and heroic figures, are depicted as ordinary people whose primary aim is not to organize sabotages, but just to survive hunger and terror. The movie’s protagonists are neither members of the Resistance, nor take part in demonstrations against the Nazis. An antiheroic tone, different from the majority of the Occupation films of the era, is noticeable in

Manthoulis’ movie. Hands Up Hitler also pays tribute to the resistance conducted by left-wing citizens. To support the point, the movie highlights the adventures of a leftist character, who is presented as an active member of the Resistance; he initiates 94 campaigns to mobilize citizens in support of the Resistance and is eventually shot dead by German soldiers in an Athenian neighborhood. Overall, Hands Up Hitler is not a war film, but rather a picture which uses humor, as a means of exploring recent traumatic history.

The theme of war is described in detail in Takis Kanellopoulos67 first fiction film, the independently funded,68 highly acclaimed69 Ouranos [Sky] (1962). The film depicts a group of six soldiers as they fight on the Albanian front during the Greco-

Italian War of 1940-41. The first part of Sky focuses on the life of the six soldiers before the war. The second part focuses on the devastation of war, with consideration to physical costs, as three of the soldiers get killed in battle. The third part of the film pays attention to heroes’ retreat in Greece, after the collapse of the front due to the German invasion in April 1941.

Although it is not a picture about the German Occupation, Sky is a perfect example of a ‘quality’ anti-war film of the pre-1967 period. In so doing, Kanellopoulos adopted various devices from both Eastern and Western European art cinemas and reworked them into a modern aesthetic (Mini 242); narrative details are avoided; ambiguity of the war setting, temporal ellipses between scenes are employed, unconventional use of sounds, inner monologues, voice-over narration, as well as off- screen voices are frequently used (244-245).

For the director, the theme of Sky is not the specific war; he is interested in illustrating emotions, moments and experiences that occur in any war; the human pain

67 Kanellopoulos “the lonely auteur from Thessaloniki” (Karalis 114), made his directorial debut with the short documentary Makedonikos Gamos [Macedonian Wedding] (1960), which received the “Best Short Film” Award at the “First Week of Greek Cinema” in Thessaloniki. 68 The film was privately financed by Vasilia Drakai, while his next picture Ekdromi [Excursion] (1966) was funded by the director’s brother. 69 The film won the “Best Cinematography’ Prize in the “Third Week in Greek Cinema in Thessaloniki (1962). Moreover, it was nominated for the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival (1963) and was awarded the “Silver Siren” at the Naples Film Festival (1963). 95 and loss during war. In the film, the protagonists learn that the war is not so much about glory and heroism as it is about solitude, death, the futility of war. The story deals not so much with the fight; the enemy is almost invisible. As it is argued, Kanellopoulos gives both “the dramatic experiences and emotions a universal importance beyond specific individuals” (Mini 244). The movie featured beautifully natural performances by Phedon Georgitsιs, Takis Emmanuel, Emilia Pitta and Niki Triantafillidi and is still popular today among cinephiles. Psaras points out that Sky is “an unprecedented amalgamation of temporal ellipses, lack of narrative details and loose causality” (17), adding that: “the unconventional film form, in conjunction with the slow panoramic shots of immobile silent people, clearly broke with the linear and vibrant representations of national time and space registered in the elaborate sets and the straightforward narratives of mainstream studio productions of the period” (17).

The election of the Centre Union in 1963 created hopes for a restoration of social and political stability and reinforced a tendency that had already begun in the early 1960s: that of loosening the strict control of intellectual and cultural activity. This led to a revision of cultural memory, “especially in the way that it interpreted the past”

(Karalis, A History: 107). Thus, the directors of the mid-1960s attempted to reveal and to unveil “the frightening ambiguities that had shattered a society struggling to free itself from the legacy of the Civil War and the oppression of the 1950s.” (107). What is more, new creators sought new forms of narration.70 (Sotiropoulou, I Diaspora 63).

70 This fact that some directors boldly sought for a new form of filmic expression or attitude became evident in the 1965 Thessaloniki Film Festival, when the presence, for the first time, of some noteworthy documentary films gained critical attention. The short films O Kleftis [The Thief] by Pantelis Voulgaris and Gramma apo to Sarleroua [Letter from Charlerois] by Lykourgos Liaropoulos were among the most acclaimed attempts. For more information, see Sotiropoulou (1995). 96

The box-office success in the domestic market,71 the critical acclaim72 and the awards it won73 made the psychological drama Betrayal (1964) a milestone in the filmic representation of WWII. Produced by Clearhos Konitsiotis,74 written by Aris

Alexandrou75 and directed by Kostas Manousakis,76 Betrayal is also a picture that dares touch upon another taboo of Greek history: the extermination of the Greek citizens of

Jewish faith.77 In Nazi-occupied Greece, Karl von Stein, an officer in the German army requisitions the house of Victor Kastriotis, a Greek professor of history. Despite Karl’s polite behavior, Kastriotis and and his wife distrust the Nazi officer. The lieutenant finds himself attracted to Eliza, Kastriotis’ niece, who stays with them so as to study at the conservatory. However, the truth is that Eliza is a Jewish girl, daughter of Kastriotis’ friend, who is in hiding in the professor’s home, as the political atmosphere becomes

71 The film premiered in Athens on November 23, 1964 and sold 439,753 tickets in the first-run cinemas of Athens-Piraeus (6th out of an annual production of 93 features in the 1964-65 season) (Soldatos 2004). Above Betrayal in the box-office ratings were three comedies and Yannis Daliandidis’ musical Koritsia ya Filima [Girls for Kissing] (402-403). 72 Two critics who thought highly of the film were Antonis Moschovakis and Kostas Stamatiou. Writing for the left-wing newspaper Avgi, Moschovakis thought of the picture as “a brilliant filmic work (…) which judges and condemns the Nazi ideology” (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol. IV: 514). Stamatiou argued that Manousakis’ film was a “fascinating picture” (514). It is no surprise that film historians also responded positively to the film. Mitropoulou paid attention to the skillful use of footage and its technical quality (228-229) and Mouratidis pointed out that Betrayal combined quality and box-office success (228). Moreover, Thanouli, by combining the emphasis on the historical themes with the critical appreciation of the director’s stylistic choices, examined how the “historical” and the “cinematic” collaborated to create an intriguing portrait of Nazi ideology and the Holocaust experience from a Greek perspective. For more, Thanouli (2015). 73 Betrayal won the “Silver Prize” for Cinematography, as well as for First Male Actor (Petros Fyssoun’s performance as the German lieutenant) in the “Fifth Week of Greek Cinema,” in Thessaloniki (1964). It officially represented Greece in the 1965 Cannes Film Festival and it was awarded with the Special Prize of the Peace Committee in the 1965 Moscow Film Festival. 74 Konitsiotis aimed at producing ‘quality’ films for both domestic and international market, as well as for foreign festivals. He produced such films as Epistrofi [Return] (1965, d. Errikos Andreou), Koritsia ston Elio [Girls in the Sun] (1968, d. Vassilis Georgiadis), Ekino to Kalokeri [That Summer] (1971, d. Vassilis Georgiadis] and To Agistri [The Hook] (1976, d. Errikos Andreou). 75 Aris Alexandrou (1922-1978) was a famous poet, novelist and translator. His novel To Kivotio [Mission Box] (1974) is considered as one of the classics of the 20th century Greek literature. 76 Manousakis’ first directorial attempt was the independently funded Erotas stous Ammolofous [Love in the Sand Dunes] (1958). He also wrote and directed O Fovos [Fear] (1966), which participated in the Berlin Film Festival. Set in the Greek countryside, Fear, which is an excellent but underrated picture, deals with such issues as repression, violence, patriarchal rule, ethical decay of the society, as well as the taboo theme of incest. 77 In 1941, the Jewish population of Greece numbered more than 65,000. In 1945, the officially registered survivors were less than 10,000. 54,000 Jews of Thessaloniki, 98% of the total Jewish population of the city, were shipped to the extermination camps of Auschwitz and Birkenau. 97 increasingly hostile to Jewish citizens.

The picture mainly focuses on the love between a German and a Jew – a theme that has not been taken up before or since in Greek cinema. Amidst the cruelty of the war, love blossoms between Karl and Eliza and the two are drawn into a delicate affair.

The turning point in the film comes, when the lieutenant learns about the true identity of his love. It would be possible to forget about it and refrain from doing anything. But he decides to inform on her at the Gestapo. At the same time, he asks to be transferred to the Eastern Front and fight under Friedrich Paulus’ command. After the destruction of the Third Reich, the hero returns to Berlin and learns about the fate of Jewish prisoners at the extermination camps. He then decides to come back to Greece, so as to search for his missing lover. As Karl realizes that Eliza must be dead, he puts an end to his life.

Betrayal is described as a film about WWII, but the war is used as a backdrop for the story. The movie is really a character study and marks a significant shift in portrayals of the Germans in Greek cinema; Betrayal is one of the very few features in which a Nazi character is given an extensive role and where he is portrayed as an individual. The image of Karl dοes nοt tie in tο the idea of the mοnolithic German, for the Nazis are all alike, all inseparable and indefinable frοm οne anοther. On the contrary, Betrayal depicted a more complex view of the enemy; the protagonist is a multi-dimensional figure; a puzzle. We learn at the beginning of the film that the lieutenant is a cultivated person, an intellectual; he can speak Greek and enjoys playing the piano. He claims that he joined the army despite his wish; his dream was to become an orchestra conductor. Even the reserved and suspicious professor Kastriotis begins to believe that the young German is different from the Nazi officials, an exception to the rule. 98

However, as the story proceeds, the positive image cracks. For example, in the famous “almond-orchard” scene, the protagonist reminisces about his participation in the annual rally of the Nazi Party in Nuremberg. Furthermore, the hero’s dedication to the Third Reich is evident in the scene where he rehearses a speech on the superiority of the Arian man. For the act of turning his Jewish lover in to the Gestapo, the character claims that he did his duty as a good German soldier.

The picture does not depict the young lieutenant as innocent of cruelties; a key plot point centers around the protagonist’s guilt over acts he engaged in, such as murdering innocent civilians, executing high-rank Nazi officers after their defeat in the

Battle of Stalingrad in 1943, or informing on his lover at the Gestapo. The director deliberately chooses to focus on an ordinary man who became capable of committing atrocities, because he was following orders. Manousakis’ aim was to show that the Nazi terror resulted from everyday people who became the Reich’s willing pawns.

What also characterizes Betrayal is the extensive use of newsreel footage. The director used archive footage which shows the Nazi Party propaganda rallies in

Nuremberg. When the film was screened at the Cannes Film festival, some critics objected to the use of footage which covered almost 20 percent of the narrative time, claiming that the director created a hymn to the Nazi ideology (Soldatos, Vol. I: 314).

Chalkou mentions that Manousakis objected strongly to the producer’s intervention and his practice of exploiting the archival material to the benefit of the story (194).

However, one cannot but recognize the skillful integration of the footage to the film’s narrative. It could be claimed that the director’s aim was not to highlight Nazi ideology; on the contrary, Manousakis attempted to portray the antithesis between war and peace:

Hitler’s polemical speech full of hatred is juxtaposed with the peaceful and serene atmosphere of an almond-orchard where the couple meets. 99

The most outstanding Occupation film of the pre-dictatorial period and a characteristic example of the revisionist trend of the mid-1960s (Karalis, A History:

110) was the adventure The Roundup by Adonis Kyrou (1965).78 The film chronicled an event that remained “indelible in the memories of the people of Athens” (110): the

August 1944 roundup of Kokkinia, when Germans and their collaborators rounded up thousands of men at the square of Kokkinia and executed hundreds of inhabitants.

Through the story of the main character, the film negotiated a very “difficult” topic: the

Greeks’ collaboration with the Nazis.

Kyrou filmed the Roundup at the same place that the traumatic past occurrence took place. What is more, people from the area of Kokkinia, who had actually experienced the 1944 tragic event, were used as extras by the director. Collaborators, who benefited from the post-war trend towards amnesty, might recognize themselves in Kyrou’s film (111). The Roundup belongs:

to a tradition of cruel realism which Greek audiences had not been permitted to

see before. In one of its most terrifying scenes, men with their faces covered

under black hoods point their fingers within a crowd of thousands of individuals.

[…] Nothing similar had ever been depicted before: the horror was engendered

by the image of Greeks betraying other Greeks, by the cruelty and the vulgarity

of the Germans, by the banality and the immorality of the collaborators. (110)

78 Adonis Kyrou worked for many years in France as a film critic (for film magazines Age du Cinema, Cahiers du Cinema and Positif). He also became a famous theorist of cinema with his books Surrealism in Cinema (1952) and Eroticism in Cinema (1957). He made his directorial debut in 1958 with the short film La Deroute and in 1962 Kyrou appeared in the 3rd Week of Film Festival in Thessaloniki with his second short film Irini ke Zoi [Peace and Life]. The Roundup (1965) was Kyrou’s first and last Greek feature film. Kyrou also directed The Monk (1972), an erotic gothic, based on a Louis Bunuel script but originally from a romantic novel of the 1820s by “Mnonk” Lewis.

100

Kyrou’s feature reached 165,000 admissions (Soldatos, Vol. IV: 404). Such numbers are comparatively high, if one takes into account that independent films could not easily find their way to the mass audience, due to distribution problems. Additionally,

Tzavalas praised the film’s good acting and directing, which kept “viewers of all ages intensely interested” (115) and Rafailidis, despite his objections to certain ideological aspects of the film, considered The Roundup as a noteworthy filmic event (8). For

Venardou, the most noticeable aspect of Kyrous’s film was the successful directorial attempt to highlight an ordinary man’s ability to make an ethical choice (enet.gr).

Finally, Karalis extolled the picture’s “immense realistic force and historical precision”

(A History: 50).

It is suggested that The Roundup is one of the films that paved the way for

Modern Greek Cinema. By focusing on such aesthetic and thematic motifs as “the group as protagonist, the foregrounding of the collective history, the conception of history as actual and existential wandering, the treatment of landscape as the setting, as well as the preoccupation with the notion of defeat” (Chalkou 231), Kyrou’s film is considered as a “revelation of a new aesthetic” (Karalis, A History: 110).

Other films from the same period elaborate on the theme of women who had affairs with German men. In Errikos Andreou’s Epistrofi [Return] (1965) for example, the emphasis is on how the fight for survival urged women to have sexual relations with the conquerors. In the film, the young protagonist tries to justify her choice by claiming that: “Everything is falling apart. Nothing has been left: Only black marketers and

German soldiers who want to have fun. […] I want to survive. Dying of starvation is something horrible. Life is beautiful.” As the woman believes: “What is important is that we managed to survive. Nothing else matters. Others did worse things: betrayed, sent people to the firing squad and became rich by stealing other people’s fortunes.” 101

The film avoids castigating Greek women who had relations with German men. Instead, it allows room for the viewers to judge those actions.

The theme of collaborationism is described in detail in the 1966 adventure

Xehasmenoi Iroes [Forgotten Heroes] (d. Nikos Gardelis). While most of WWII pictures portrayed the fight against the Germans as one of good versus evil, the film depicts how fascism corrupted ordinary people. Forgotten Heroes specifically describes how the collaborationist character, a young woman, adopted the Nazis’ ideology. The heroine stresses that she was attracted to the Third Reich and the fascist ideas during her studies in Germany and claims that “Greeks who really love their country sympathize with the Nazis.”

The last noteworthy history-oriented film of the pre-dictatorial era and which followed the ‘revisionist’ trend of the mid-1960s was Panos Glykofrydis’ antiheroic drama With Glittering Eyes (1966). The film takes place in a mountainous village of

Epirus and tells the story of an old man, who must choose which one of his three sons will be saved from execution. After a German soldier gets killed by guerilla fighters outside the village, thirty villagers are arrested, among them the old man’s sons, and they are about to be executed the following day, as a reprisal. The tragic father pleads with the Nazi officer for mercy and the latter orders him to choose one son out of three to be saved. Not being able to do this painful task, the tragic figure dies of a heart attack, only a few moments before the men’s executions.

It can be argued that With Glittering Eyes is a rather different feature from the majority of the pre-junta Occupation films, as the director deliberately avoids adopting patriotic rhetoric and eschews references to heroic acts against the Germans. On the contrary, the film chooses to focus on the consequences of the Nazis’ rule on the common people. According to Karalis: “Through the demythologization of the past, 102

Glykofrydis touched upon the idea of resistance itself by questioning official myths from all sides” (A History: 112-113). The old father is represented as the tragic figure in a moral drama he did not choose to take part in. Whatever his decision may be, it will be proved fatal for two of his sons: “All three are my children,” the hero desperately shouts at the Nazi officer, implying his inability to choose any one of them.

Film critics embraced With Glittering Eyes and wrote highly positive reviews;

Rafailidis praised the script writer and observed that it was the first time that a film moved beyond the conventional heroic representation of the Resistance and paid attention to the hero’s personal drama (13). Mitropoulou gave a favorable review and focused on the picture’s minimal style, its outstanding cinematography and the magnificent film score (233). Finally, Andritsos thought highly of the film and pointed out that its quality lies in the fact that it attempted to negotiate historical events from the perspective of ordinary people and to represent history ‘from below.’ An influence, thus, from earlier Occupation films, such as The Barefoot Battalion and Hands Up

Hitler could be traced in Glykofrydis’ movie (Anditsos 72).

With Glittering Eyes is a filmic achievement because, as Andritsos points out, the director, after failing to persuade big production companies to fund the film, he finally turned to an independent producer (Yiorgos Stergiou). Glykofrydis’ difficulty in finding financial support for such a project signifies the producers’ unwillingness to support a rather “unconventional” depiction of the Occupation period (161-162).

103

Chapter III The Representation of the Civil War in the pre-1967 Film Production

Τότε, θυμάσαι, που μου λες: Ετέλειωσεν

ο πόλεμος

Όμως ο πόλεμος δεν τέλειωσεν ακόμα

Γιατί κανένας πόλεμος δεν τέλειωσε ποτέ! Μ. Αναγνωστάκης, «Ο Πόλεμος»

Introduction Until the late 1960s, the Civil War and the communist defeat had been almost completely elided from the screen. While in the films of some of the acknowledged and prolific filmmakers in the postwar years the Nazi Occupation, as well as the Resistance movement became major topics, the Civil War, as the subject of a film was bypassed.

Such lack of treatment reflects the topic’s general absence from both public and private spheres. As Nikos Demertzis points out: “Shortly after its end, the Civil War almost disappeared from the official discourse of its protagonists, both the victors and the defeated. […] A politics of oblivion was promoted, which imposed both public and private silence around the issue of the Civil War” (57-58). In addition, Provata claims that: “The Civil War, the guerillas’ fight and the communists’ exile will be forbidden themes for any independent film production. On the contrary, scripts, whose protagonist were heroes from the Greek War of Independence will gain state approval, promotion and appraisal” (187).

There were numerous reasons for avoiding dealing with the Civil War topic.

First of all, it was the deep trauma caused by the civil strife that led to a silence regarding the bloody incidents of the near past. As Flitouris argues: “The Civil War caused a trauma to the Greek society and because of that, people did not realize the significance of the historical moment. This trauma not only created a tendency to 104 disavow the truth, but also suppressed any effort to approach any truth at all” (390).

Therefore, despite their deep influence on the social body of the post-war era, the Civil

War events were faced as “a sum of personal traumatic experiences which were never incorporated into a single, symbolic universe” (Demertzis 59). The post-Civil War society experienced the recent civil strife as a constant shock, “accompanied with

‘numbness’ and silence, a common defense mechanism” (59). As Karalis concludes:

The German Occupation and the Civil War had left the country in a state of deep

“trauma” which the censorship and the oppressive mechanisms of the state

precluded from representation and, consequently, objectification. The state

of collective psychological “trauma” was present but not represented; it could

be seen everywhere in the cityscape, in the behavior of the people and in the

relations between the state’s apparatuses and its citizens. It was not, however,

conceptualized or even articulated on any level of meaningful communication

without the fear of persecution and exile. (The Construction 157)

Regarding cinema, an absence of films which directly focus on the Civil War is observed; on the other hand, there is a plethora of movies with unproblematic and painless themes. Dermentzopoulos writes that “After the end of WWII, and mainly after the end of the Civil War and the development of the post-war popular cinema, the historical and war films are few, related to the rest of film production, which is monopolized by comedies, melodramas and folk costume adventures” (243). The

“deafening silence” about the Civil War could be explained, if one took into consideration the viewers’ psychology and their wish to heal old wounds. Certainly, the films reflected such urges. As Mitropoulou writes, post-war audiences wanted to forget the traumatic Civil War experiences, and so, they usually chose to watch safe, painless and entertaining stories (241). 105

Secondly, one must not forget the role of censorship in film production.

Censors, abiding by the official politics of forgetting, had the power to ban the release of a “suspicious” film which dealt with “dangerous” or “taboo” topics and, thus the film industry was prevented from making even one film which directly refers to the Civil

War violence (Demertzis 58). Provata also argues that starting in 1950, the Civil War, the guerilla fighting and the issue of communists in exile will be forbidden topics for any film production (187).

Another factor, closely related to the previous one, is the issue of potential financial failure of films which would deal directly with such events, as the civil conflict. Andritsos observes that film producers would exercise pressure on the directors, so as to make them avoid depicting anything that could provoke or cause the imposition of censorship. The fact that a banned film would lead to a financial disaster was the reason behind the producers’ pressure (92). Finally, the Civil War did not figure as a topic due to the directors’ unwillingness to portray these traumatic stories; it was believed that any attempt to depict such an incident in an objective and reliable way was condemned to fail (Mitropoulou 241).

In this context, the pre-dictatorial cinema did not directly deal with the theme of the Civil War. As Stassinopoulou argues, several directors tried to avoid censors by choosing different schemata to represent taboo issues (Anaparastasis: 261). Instead of creating war epics, filmmakers negotiated forbidden topics in the context of genres such as melodrama or satire (261-262). For example, the issue of the Civil War was indirectly represented in Koundouros’ I Paranomi [The Outlaws] (1958). The film revolves around three fugitives who are pursued in a manhunt coordinated by the gendarmerie. One of them is an ex-guerilla fighter, remnant of the past divisions, who, after the war, became a bandit so as to survive. In addition, Chalkou believes that the 106 figures of bandits and fugitives in the folk costume adventures Yerakina [Falkonress]

(1959, d. Orestis Laskos) and Lafina (1962, d. Orestis Laskos) indirectly refer to the communist guerillas and the persecuted Left (2008).

Thus, my part of thesis is to challenge the widespread belief that Classical Greek

Cinema of the 1950s and 1960s eschewed references to the Civil War. I analyze two popular comedies of the pre-junta period, Grigoris Grigoriou’s The Abduction of

Persephone (1956) and Dinos Dimopoulos’ Mantalena (1960) so as to explore the ways in which the Civil War theme surfaced. What I scrutinize here is how recent history affects the work of film directors, as they attempt to experiment with the issue of the

Civil War.

The films of Grigoriou and Dimopoulos, I argue, are haunted by traces and elements that “are at once concealed and discernible within a text as absent presences”

(Codde 674). The traumatic historical events are evoked but never looked at directly; they are resuscitated through the use of polarized narrative schemes, displacements in time and place, as well as characters and rhetoric that allude to the Civil War. In The

Abduction of Persephone and Mantalena, such elements reveal the attempts by their directors to speak about the Civil War trauma.

Films

The Abduction of Persephone and Mantalena

The comedy The Abduction of Persephone is one of the important films of the 1950s.

It was scripted by the prominent playwright Iakovos Kabanellis79 and directed by

79 Iakovos Kabanellis was a distinguished Greek playwright and journalist. He was born on the island of Naxos in 1921. In 1943, he was imprisoned in the Mauthausen concentration camp and liberated by the Allies in 1945. He wrote many famous plays which were translated to many languages, such as I Stella me ta Kokkina Gantia [Stella in the Red Gloves], Paramithi horis Onoma [Fairytale without a Name], To Megalo mas Tsirko [Our Big Circus] and I Avli ton Thavmaton [The Courtyard of the Miracles]. He also wrote the memoir novel Mauthausen (1981), where he depicted his own traumatic experience in the Nazi concentration camp. Kabanellis was also a member of the prestigious Academy of Athens. He died 107

Grigoris Grigoriou,80 one of the architects of Greek neo-realism. The film was co- produced by Anzervos81 and the Stavrakos Film School and its cast included Aleka

Katseli, Kostas Kazakos, Yannis Prineas, Vasilis Diamantopoulos and Orestis Makris.

The Abduction of Persephone is a modern version of the ancient myth of the abduction of Persephone by Pluto, and the characters bear the names of the ancient figures – Persephone, Demeter, Pluto, Zeus. The director depicts the dispute between two neighboring villages over the issue of water use: The mountainous Panohori is rich in water, but lacks land for cultivation. Its people are poor and powerless. On the contrary, there is plenty of land in the rich Katohori, but the village lacks water. That is the reason why the Katohorians get water from Panohori, without paying for it and so, the two villages are in constant strife.

The conflict between the two regions is eventually solved by love: Pluto, a young agrarian from Panohori, falls in love with Persephone, who is the daughter of

Dimitra, the richest woman of the area. Due to the fact that the latter strongly objects to the relationship, Pluto abducts Persephone and they both hide in the mountains.

Dimitra eventually accepts the situation and gives consent to the marriage. The youths’

“unification” signifies the end of the conflict between the two villages, whose residents celebrate together the happy event.

Upon its release, The Abduction of Persephone received universal acclaim by

in 2011. For more information, see: Dimitroulia, Titika. “Elliniki Stratopediki Logotehnia: To Mauthausen tou Iakovou Kabanelli” [“Greek Camp Novel: Kabanellis’ Mauthausen”], Nea Pedia, 124, Oct.-Dec. 2007 and Pefanis, Yiorgos. Iakovos Kabanellis, Anihnefsis ke Prosegisis sto Theatriko tou Ergo [Iakovos Kabanellis, Traces and Approachs in his Theatrical Work], Athens: Kedros, 2000. 80 Grigoriou directed many films for the CGC as well as plays. The TV adaptation of Iordanidou’s best- seller Loxandra (1980-81) was also a happy moment in his directorial career. He was awarded twice at the Thessaloniki Film Festival: in 1964 for the film Diogmos [Persecution] and the following year for Ochi Kirie Johnson [No Mr Johnson]. He died in 2005. 81 The film company Anzervos was founded by Antonis Zervos in 1943 and produced 47 films until 1969, the year of its founder’s death. Its most famous films include the war adventures Anna of Rhodes (1948) and A Bloody Christmas (1951) as well as the multi-awarded Nikos Koundouros’ Mikres Afrodites [Little Aphrodites] (1963) and the critically acclaimed, box-office smash hit The Counterfeit Coin (1955). 108 critics. The prominent critic Kostas Stamatiou expressed his appreciation for the film, writing that The Abduction of Persephone was a fairytale: “well-written, full of compassion for ordinary people, optimistic” (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol: IV: 290). Greek author, journalist and reviewer Marios Ploritis described the film as a satire of provincial life (291). Palaiologos praised the atmosphere of the Greek village that the filmmaker successfully created, stating:

Without claims that a masterpiece has been made, without focusing on the inner

self, the filmmaker saw the life of a Greek village and honestly represented a

part of it; an honesty that is not always expressed in poetry and literature. […]

The film reminds us of Italian films which became works of art and which were

made with almost nothing: a pound, a cabin, a donkey, a priest. (qtd. in

Grigoriou: 159)

Moreover, the picture also met with acclaim among film historians; Mitropoulou (123) reasoned that The Abduction of Persephone was an application of Grigoriou’s theory for a Greek neorealistic cinema and argued that the director managed to make a comedy of manners that reflected the reality of his time. Mouratidis wrote that the film was a

“miniature of the Greek provincial, agricultural reality regarding land and water ownership” (306). Finally, Soldatos paid attention to the amateurism of the production and claimed that the director consciously served his neorealistic vision (Vol. I: 80.

The box-office figures of The Abduction of Persephone suggest a mixed response. Grigoriou complained that a few days after its release in only three movie theatres of Athens, the film was withdrawn from distribution by the producer (158- 109

59).82 The Abduction of Persephone sold 22,000 tickets in the 1956-57 season83 and ranked fifteenth, after such films as To Amaxaki [Horse and Carriage], I Kafetzou [The

Coffee Oracle], Laterna, Ftohia ke Garifalo [Music, Poverty and Carnation] and

Protevousianikes Peripeties [Adventures in the Capital]. Right above The Abduction of

Persephone in the ratings was Tis Tihis ta Gramena [Written by Fate] with 25,000 admissions.

Mantalena is one the most fascinating films of Classical Greek Cinema and has remained popular for decades. It was written by the prominent author and playwright

Georgios Roussos84 and directed by Dinos Dimopoulos,85 one of the most productive and professional “workers” of the Classical Cinema. Mantalena was one of the four

Finos Film’s productions86 of the 1960-61 season. Its all-star cast included Aliki

Vouyouklaki, Dimitris Papamihail, Lavrentis Dianellos, Thanasis Veggos and Pantelis

Zervos. The film premiered in Athens on October 24, 1960.

Mantalena is a film that perfectly depicts the ethics of Greek rural society of the

82 Grigoriou writes that the producer A. Zervos did not actually believe in the commercial success of the film due to the lack of “recognizable” actors. Thus, he did not spend money on marketing and, as a result, The Abduction of Persephone was withdrawn from distribution after a week of its release, taking only 22,000 admissions (158-59). 83 The season 1956-57 was not very fruitful regarding the number of tickets sold. For example, Dinos Dimopoulos’ melodramatic film To Amaxaki [Horse and Carriage], which topped the box-office, sold only 138,620 tickets. Grigoriou explains his film’s medium box-office success by claiming that it was not advertised at all. Moreover, he asserts that the producer did not believe in the film and thus, The Abduction of Persephone was released at the very beginning of the season and was screened in only three Athenian movie theaters. After only a week, the picture ‘came down’ and never rereleased Grigoriou (1996). 84Georgios Roussos (1910-1984) was a successful author and journalist. Many of his novels and plays such as Triti kai 13 [Tuesday the 13th] (1954), Vasillissa Amalia [Queen Amalia] (1958), and Mando Mavrogennous (1959) were adapted for radio, cinema and TV. 85 Dinos Dimopoulos (1921-2003) was a highly acclaimed film and stage director, author and actor. His directorial debut was the Finos Film’s production The Skies are Ours (1953) and his box-office successes include films such as Amok (1963), Piretos stin Asfalto [The Asphalt Fever] (1967), I Daskala me ta Xantha Mallia [The Teacher with the Blonde Hair] (1969), I Kori tou Iliou [The Sun’s Daughter] (1971) and O Ilios tou Thanatou [The Sun of Death] (1978). He was awarded at the Thessaloniki Festival for the direction of The Asphalt Fever. He is considered as a highly skillful and professional director, although most of his works obey the commercial needs set by his production company, Finos Film. 86Apart from Mantalena, Finos produced the melodrama Ime Athoos [I am Innocent] (d. Dinos Katsouridis), the comedy Ta Kitrina Gantia [The Yellow Gloves] (d. Alekos Sakellarios) and the crime film O Thanatos tha Xanarthi [Death will Come Again] (d. Errikos Thalassinos). 110

50s and early 60s on issues such the role of women in a patriarchal society, religious prejudices, as well as domestic political differences. Set on a small island named

Aspronisi, the film revolves around two boatmen, captain Kosmas and captain

Giorgaras, who fight over who will carry more people with his boat. Kosmas, who has a young daughter, Mantalena and six more kids, dies and, shortly after, Mantalena, against the prejudiced and short-sighted community, decides to continue carrying people with her father’s boat, so as to provide for her family.

However, her fellow villagers believe that this is a man’s profession and, so, they choose Giorgaras to carry them. But the priest of the island, in his attempt to help the young woman, arranges so that during the Epiphany ceremony, Mantalena is the one who catches the holy cross. From that moment, she becomes a “blessed” person and people turn to her favor. Nevertheless, Mantalena’s fate changes again: her competitor brings a motor boat to the island and the villagers take the fastest means of transport. Furthermore, Mantalena loses everything in a destructive house fire. Due to her poverty, the young woman decides to marry Giakoumis, a well-off man instead of the man she loves: Lambis, the son of her competitor. She believes that once she gets married, she will be able to take care of her six siblings. By the film’s climax, at the intervention of the priest, the marriage between Mantalena and Giakoumis is off and the heroine finally marries Lambis, putting an end to the hostility between the two families.

Greek film critics embraced the film, and wrote highly favorable reviews.

Stamatiou observed that Mantalena was one of the few memorable productions of the season (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol. I: 461). Ploritis praised the film, stating that Mantalena was a feature which combined box-office success with quality (266). On the part of film historians, Mitropoulou focused on the marvelous cinematography by Walter 111

Lassally87 and also paid attention to the neorealistic elements of Roussos’ script (204).

Soldatos also thought highly of the film and pointed out that Dimopoulos’ picture was a film of manners (266).

Mantalena was one of the honored films of 1960, receiving three awards88 in the “First Week of Greek Cinema” which was held in Thessaloniki. In addition, it officially participated in the 1961 Cannes Film Festival. Mantalena also enjoyed considerable box-office success: appearing at roughly the same time as other box-office hits by Vouyouklaki –the classic To Xilo Vgike ap’ ton Paradiso [Maiden’s Cheeks]

(1959, d. Alekos Sakellarios) and To Klotsoskoufi [The Underdog] (1960, d. Dinos

Dimopoulos)- Mantalena was immensely popular. When the final box-office tabulations were in for the season 1960-61, Mantalena had 192,000 admissions and ranked second, after I Aliki sto Naftiko [Aliki in the Navy] (213,000 tickets). Right below

Mantalena in the 1960-61 box-office ratings was Jules Dassin’s international success

Never on Sunday with 185,000 admissions.

The Civil War as an Absent Presence

Reacting against the filmic silence of the Civil War, Grigoris Grigoriou aimed to speak about politics (Chalkou 136) and the defeat of the communist Left, though indirectly.

To begin with The Abduction of Persephone, it appears that the film is structured on the basis of a polarized narrative scheme, an element which is a common characteristic for many post-war films. Indeed, the plot of such pictures as Dio Agapes, Dio Kosmi [Two

Loves, Two Worlds], Laos ke Kolonaki [People and Kolonaki], Makrikostei ke

Kontogiorgides, Ftohadakia ke Leftades [Poor People and Rich People], I Ftohoula ke

87 Walter Lassally (1926) is a German-born British cinematographer. He worked with Michalis Kakoyannis for many years. In 1964, he was awarded with the Academy Award for “Best Cinematography” (Black and White) for Cacoyannis’ Zorba the Greek. 88 “Best Actress,” “Supporting Actor” and “Best Script.” 112 to Vasilopoulo [The Poor Girl and the Prince], O Dihasmos [The Division], Beethoven ke Bouzouki [Beethoven and Bouzouki] revolves around conflicts, which take the form of class divisions, long-running arguments between persons, families or villages. In short, one of the most typical features of the Greek films of the 1950s and 1960s is “the polarization of the fictional world into two conflicting camps, a deep schism afflicting the social domain in almost every single popular film of the period” (Chalkou 201).

From the very beginning of The Abduction of Persephone, an image of polarization into two dividing camps is created: viewers are informed that a fight takes place between two neighboring villages over the use of water: Panohori is a mountainous village, “without an inch for cultivation” but rich in water resources.

Katohori, on the other hand, is a fertile, lowland area. The dispute results from the

Catohorians’ refusal to pay taxes for the “Panohorian” water. However, water conflicts arise as an outcome of social issues. It is noticeable how class divisions are presented in The Abduction of Persephone. The mountainous Panohorians are portrayed as penniless and unemployed people, who own little or no property and sell their labor for a salary. On the contrary, Katohorians are part of a privileged class: Some of them work as merchants and others are landowners. It is significant that only one person, Mrs.

Dimitra, is the biggest landowner in the area. Therefore, people from the two villages seem to have conflicting interests: the proletarian Panohorians need land to cultivate and jobs to work, whereas the middle-class Katohorians want to use the water without paying for it. Reading the film in the context of the Civil War, it is argued that the unprivileged Panohorians, who demand their rights, bring into mind the communist partisans who fought for social justice and working class rights.

Having discussed the ways The Abduction of Persephone represented the two conflicting villages, it is worthwhile to see how the political identities of the two sides 113 are constructed in the film. The Katohorian mayor represents a type that is closely related to someone having rightist persuasions. His entry point to the film illustrates clearly the element of right-wing rhetoric. The man urges the gendarmerie officer to establish law and order and punish the Katohorians; the latter had changed the road signs so that a governmental official could not find Katohori. Furthermore, the mayor accuses Panohorians for being fierce, louts and trouble makers. On the contrary, his people are peaceful and law-abiding citizens. His ideology becomes more explicit when he asserts that “national interests are served best, if Katohori controls the water” and that “the areas of wealth production must be protected. In other words, the less privileged side poses a threat to the sources of prosperity. In this respect, the character of the Katohorian leader is seen as an embodiment of a right-wing mentality; his ideology revolves around the imposition of law and the protection of the nation’s interests.

On the other hand, the image of the Panohorian mayor is totally different. In his ideology, the character identifies with communist ideology. More specifically, the man is suspicious of state authority; there are images where the character gets angry, as he is informed that a governmental official plans to visit the village. Additionally, the mayor of the poor Panohori delivers a speech of encouragement to the villagers: “Woe betide us if we give them all and starve to death. That is why I’m suggesting that, although we are poor, we have to be courageous, just for a little more.” It is clear that the character’s call for courage and struggle alludes to the “flaming” speeches of the leftist leaders89 during the Civil War and their calls to their comrades to show no fear but determination and audacity during the harsh fight with the nationalists and the

89 The mayor’s speech cannot but bring to mind the famous speech of Captain Aris Velouchiotis in Lamia, after the town was liberated from the Nazis on October 29, 1944. 114 rightist paramilitary groups. So, it is assumed that the figure of the Panohorian mayor should be imagined as that of someone who models his words as those of the communists. Apart from that, a “polemical” atmosphere is created in The Abduction of Persephone. There are images where the mayors of the conflicting villages argue with each other: the mayor of Katohori exclaims that he is indifferent towards the problems of Panohori and that Panohorians should go to hell; on the other hand, the mayor of Panohori responds that Katohorians are nothing but “greedy peasants.” The inimical atmosphere is also strengthened through the dramatization of hostilities between the two parts. There is a scene where Katohorians feed the donkey of their enemies’ mayor with laxatives, with the purpose of making the man’s return to

Panohori more difficult. What is more, villagers steal the church’s keys from the sexton, in order to cancel the religious festival of Panohori. At the same time, Panohorians sabotage the prefect’s arrival to their neighboring village by changing the position of the road signs. Another way of reading these scenes is through the allusion to the Civil

War. The film’s “war” incidents, although comic ones, could allude to practices and tactics of the civil strife.

Additionally, the priests actively participate in the dispute between the two villages. On the one hand, the priest of Katohori argues that: “God sees, hears and judges. Since God is fair, He stands by our side.” On the other, the Panohorian priest assures the villagers that “this time God stands by us. The burglar wins once, but the householder wins all the time.” The clerics’ feud continues as Katohorians come up the mountain in order to complain about the cuttings of water supply. In this scene, whereas their priest claims that “water is given by God and it is a big sin cutting it,” the

Panohorian cleric responds that “Bread is also given by God, but you, people of

Katohori, eat it all by yourselves. That is a bigger sin.” 115

Furthermore, the main characters of The Abduction of Persephone reminds one of the divisive parts that were formed during the Civil War. For instance, Pluto’s character, the young protagonist of the film, who is hiding in the mountains after the abduction of Persephone, is an allusion to the communist guerillas. Long shots on the hero riding his horse or walking alone in the mountains, create an impression of dynamism and bravery, infusing Pluto with energy and vitality. Such iconic representations could allude ultimately to Captain Aris Velouchiotis, although Pluto does not bear a physical resemblance to him.

What is also emphasized is Pluto’s image as a “bandit,” as Persephone accuses the young man of stealing food. The word “bandit” is a direct reference to the Civil

War, which was characterized as “Simoritopolemos” (‘Bandit War’) by the nationalist side; left-wing partisans were accused of actions such as stealing food and horses, as well as abducting kids, whom they would send to the Eastern Bloc countries. Therefore, the figure of Pluto, who is seen by Persephone as a bandit, is associated with the communist fighters who, according to the governmental propaganda, were nothing but thieves and criminals.

Pluto’s ideas also bring to mind those of a communist follower. Like the communists, the hero is angry about land ownership: “What a pity! Panohorians should have orchards and farms. Who distributed land in such an odd and unfair way?”

Furthermore, Pluto tries to guide and enlighten his people, by suggesting that they should not beg for a job, but fight for what belongs to them. As he explains: “we are not beggars. We will get by our own means what belongs to us.” Pluto’s thoughts reflect the communist rhetoric regarding social justice and equality of ownership. Communist views regarding the importance of the common good over individual interests are also echoed in the scene where Pluto meets with Dimitra; when the woman offers Pluto a 116 job, the man says that all villagers need jobs. Although Dimitra presses him not to refuse the proposal, the young man claims that he does not speak for himself, but on behalf of the entire village.

Grigoriou’s film ends with two happy events: the marriage of Pluto and

Persephone and the final reconciliation of the two villages: Katohorians, after losing their jobs, begin to consider if it is worth being enemies with Panohorians. One of them argues that nothing separates them from their neighbors, since both villagers are poor and unemployed. So, Katohorians demand that all the people, whether from the one village or the other, should have jobs and food and cry for reconciliation. The film’s final scene underscores the director’s desire for reconciliation, based on the unification of the conflicting parts; Pluto and Persephone get married, the villagers toss rose-leaves and rice on the newly-weds and dance together.

One would argue that Grigoriou’s depiction of two bickerins villages, the careful delineation of different social classes and political identities, the use of “leftist” and “rightwing” rhetoric could not but bring to the audiences’ mind the dispute of the near past that divided society: The Civil War. The director, in order to refer to the Civil

War, creates a polarized scheme with the opposing villages who fight with each other.

Despite the bitter antagonism, the film ends with a harmonious scene. By stressing the resolution of the conflict, the film reveals its desire for reconciliation between the two parties (communists and nationalists), which clashed during the Civil

War. According to Chalkou, the movie’s concern with harmless transgression of the intra-community schism reveals the director’s “deep desire for social cohesion, based not on exclusion but on unification and inclusion of both sides. In short, these demands are linked to the Civil War and its consequences” (204).

Consequently, the conclusion that can be safely drawn is that the actual theme 117 of The Abduction of Persephone is that of the Civil War and its consequences rather than just the trivial dispute between the two villages. The director wishes to utter the unspeakable, but knows very well that, due to the political circumstances of the era90 and the imposed censorship, any direct reference would be virtually impossible.

Schismatic narrative, allusion and political rhetoric are the main tools used by Grigoriou to approach the past painful incidents. In The Abduction of Persephone, the signs of the

Civil War can only be traced through their absence; the painful incidents of the Past are obliquely evoked.

Directed by Dinos Dimopoulos, one of the most popular directors of CGC,

Mantalena typically follows the CGC narrative structure, having stereotypical characters, lively dialogues and a happy ending. Mantalena is also a rare instance of a comedy that deals indirectly with the Civil War topic. Like The Abduction of

Persephone, the film focuses on the opposition as a pivotal theme and comedy as the expressive code through which the divisions are made visible. We see this clearly in the elaborate depiction of both national and local disputes. The film begins with a scene at a local café in Aspronisi, where a group of men (the mayor, the priest and some locals) discuss the lack of unity and division of the island into conflicting sides, due to the antagonism between the two boat-owners. During this sequence, the villagers’ attention shifts from the local disputes on the deep national schisms of the past, particularly the division between Royalists and Venizelists during WWI:

[Villager 1:] What will eventually happen with those boatmen who jump at each

other’s throat’?

[Villager 2:] We fight with each other as well. Our village is divided into two

parties.

90 See previous section 118

[Villager 3:] As if we are divided into political parties like old times: Venizelists

and Royalists.

[Villager 4:] Half the villagers are pro-Captain Cosmas’ party and the other half

are pro–Captain Giorgaras’. (Mantalena, 5:00 – 5:18)

The two villagers dwell on the idea that both the island and Greece have been marked by destabilizing tensions and conflicts. Such tensions have their roots in political rivalries and divisions. The National Schism, a historical event which refers to the disagreement between King Constantine I and Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos over whether Greece should enter WWI, is an example of a past division of the nation.

The disagreement resulted in a deep personal rift between their followers and the wider

Greek society. Although the National Schism severely traumatized the Greeks’ unity in the second decade of the 20th century, it marked the political affairs of the first half of the century and was considered as one of the causes that led to the Asia Minor Debacle of 1922, as well. It is an event which is openly mentioned in Mantalena as a characteristic example of both the nation’s and the village’s division.

Throughout the movie, the impact of conflicts and divisions in everyday life makes itself felt very vividly. The second reference to a schism marks the transposition of the national to the local microcosm of the village and from the political sphere to the social one. The local priest doubts whether the villagers really want to be united and, to prove his claim, he recalls Aspronisi’s past split over two priests. The priest points out that, during the conflict, villagers had to choose between “two churches, two parishes, two priests and two opposing parties.” The remembrance of this past “civil war” brings to the villagers’ mind the negative effects in their daily life:

Giakoumis (a local farmer): Do you remember when their own priest was

absent? People could not be baptized, could not take the Holy Communion, and 119

could not get married.

Priest: When Father Anestis was sick and hospitalized in Athens, you had to

wait for three months to get married. And the bride was furious while waiting

to get married by “your” priest. (Mantalena, 5:50 ̶ 6:03)

Obviously, the situation was both difficult and ridiculous, since it is mentioned that some villagers chose even to delay their marriage instead of getting married by the priest of the “opposite” party. But, even after the death of Father Anestis, the island did not find peace. The reason for the new division was the existence of two mills; people who chose the first mill to grind, did not go to the opponent’s and vice versa. As the priest tells the owner of one of the mills: “when you were sick and had to stay in Athens for four months, your clients chose to starve.” The fourth schism mentioned in the film focuses on the current fight between the two boatmen, Captain Cosmas, and Captain

Giorgaras, who fight over who carries more villagers with his boat. Their dispute is passed on to the next generation, as their children, Mantalena and Lambis, keep on arguing.

The spectator, after hearing about the National Schism, which is seen as the first major division of Greek society, he/she would normally expect to hear about the other great historical event which deeply separated society: The Civil War. However, viewers witness a sudden transposition of the discussion: instead of focusing on the traumatic issue of the Civil War, the film cites a series of local and “innocent” references to past conflicts (about the priests, the windmills, the boatmen). Thus, the Civil War, which would normally follow during the narration, is elided and left out of the conversation.

It must be taken into consideration that the director deliberately eschews direct references to the Civil War and instead of that, he represents divisions from more remote historical periods, as well as from local incidents. Nevertheless, the theme of 120 the Civil War, which is first seen as absent, is not forgotten and reenters Mantalena as an absent presence. The remembrance and reference to national and local divisions cannot but evoke the ultimate Schism; the Civil War. The reality of the civil conflict and the multiple traumas caused to the society, if presented openly, would have either been dismissed by the viewers as too painful, or would have caused the introduction of censorship in defense of national unity and stability. So, the possibility of the Civil

War’s presence in Mantalena can be recognized within absence and it is only within absence that one can look for signs of presence, not against it:

This absence is automatically recognized by the audience and becomes a strong

presence: The Civil War is the actual subject of the men’s discussion. The film

therefore consciously replaces the traumatic event by other, apparently less

controversial and more remote historical periods and draws parallels with

harmless everyday situations to allude to the painful past and present. (Chalkou

209)

Moreover, the film’s main characters, Mantalena and her “rival” Lambis are involved in the creation of absent presences and they remind of the conflicting sides that were formed during the Civil War. For example, instead of portraying Mantalena as a passive character with no future prospects, the director chooses to represent her as an intelligent and active woman; an indomitable person who, after her father’s death, is willing to fight in order to survive. Thus, due to the lack of financial means, the orphan girl decides to enter into a male domain.

Reading the film in the context of the Civil War, Mantalena’s fatherlessness and poverty are associated with the left-wing guerrillas who were eventually abandoned by their allies. During the Civil War, Greek communists wrongly believed that the Soviets would raise no objections against an offensive and that Stalin would assist their fight 121 against the governmental army. Nevertheless, the Soviet leader, despite the partisans’ desperate need for help, promised but never provided DSE with heavy weaponry

(Stavrakis 176-177), as he did not believe in the communists’ success and he was also unwilling to provoke the Americans and the British by giving aid to the Greek fighters

(168).91

Furthermore, Mantalena, instead of giving up when she realizes that the villagers do not trust a woman for what is considered to be a “man’s job,” carries her family with the boat; her aim is to prove that a woman is also capable of being a ferryman. Hence, the heroine’s desperate struggle to prove her ability to work, applied to the Civil War context, cannot but bring to the viewers’ mind the desperate fight of the badly equipped92 communist partisans against the governmental forces.

In addition, villagers call Mantalena “a fierce woman,” a troublemaker getting angry all the time and swearing at those who do not travel with her boat. The mention of the word “fierce” alludes to the image of communist guerillas; the latter were conceived as fierce men, willing to torture, kidnap, rape, murder and commit any manner of atrocity to achieve their goal of turning Greece into a Soviet satellite.93

Mantalena’s “fierce” nature is also revealed in the scene of her Confession at the church. There, the heroine says to the priest:

Mantalena: I hate everyone. Even you, whom I loved like a father. I make ugly

wishes and, what is more, I feel happy when I hear that something bad happens

91 As the matter of fact, in the October 1944 meeting with Churchill in Moscow, Stalin had already agreed to be given only a ten percent influence in Greece; ninety percent influence was given to Great Britain. The Soviet leader did not want to risk the agreements with the Western countries for their Greek comrades (Stavrakis 1989). 92 Although DSE relied for support to the Soviet leadership, the latter did not provide communists with heavy material; only light supplies were sent (Stavrakis 176-77). 93 Guerilla fighters were also seen as “fierce” because of their external appearance: the typical “antartis” [armed guerilla] was thought as a hairy-chested, unclean and unshaven figure with ragged uniforms and boots sucked into mud. 122

to a villager like sickness or death. I get sad when I see happy people. I only

think how to cause damage and harm the others. […] I wish God would burn

down this island. (Mantalena, 49:24 ̶ 50:06)

What is emphasized in the film is Mantalena’s status as a troublemaker; her marginalization and her isolation from the rest of the society; her bravery despite the misfortunes; In this sense, Mantalena could be imagined not only as a fierce and relentless orphan girl who fights against all, but also as a metaphor for the “untamed” partisans who lived in the mountains, maintained high morale and went on until the end of the clash.

At the same time, the motif of injustice plays a key role in the narrative. For instance, the priest objects to the accusations against Mantalena and claims that her behavior could be explained in terms of her deep feeling of injustice. It is argued that in films of CGC, “where injustice was not explicitly attributed to social causes, it is portrayed in oblique and ambivalent terms, enabling the audience to assume multiple interpretations” (Chalkou 203). In the picture, Mantalena’s overwhelming sense of injustice, whose reasons remain vague, is located within the context of the Civil War: it could be seen as an indirect reference to the communist demand for social justice, it also implies that the cause of injustice is the Civil War and the social marginalization of the defeated Left. According to Chalkou” “Displacement, ambiguity, symbol and metaphor are the main tools used in post-war Greek cinema to allude to the Civil War and its consequences” (207).

There is also a scene where Mantalena’s donkey accidentally tolls the bell of the church. Mantalena is accused by the mayor of causing trouble once more. Although this incident seems to be absurdly trivial, a closer analysis would reveal that the mayor’s rhetoric appears to be the “right words” but enunciated at the “wrong place.” As 123

Elsaesser points out, filmmakers who wished to speak indirectly about past traumatic events, chose the mode of parapraxis, based on the Freudian notion of Fehlleistung, whose features include reversals or displacements in time and space. For example, the right thing at the wrong place or the wrong thing at the right time (Absence as Presence

109). An example of such a parapraxis would the mayor’s “trivial” talk, which actually reveals the unnamed question, namely, who were seen as troublemakers and threats to the “social stability” and to “peaceful” citizens, if not the communist partisans, who, were characterized as the epitome of threat for national security and social order.

The film also focuses on the relationship between the two young protagonists

(Mantalena and Lambis). At the beginning of the movie, Mantalena and Lambis blow into a seashell to invite the villagers and fight with each other for who can ferry more people with their boats:

Mantalena: That’s enough.

Lambis: I beat you.

Mantalena: You shut up. I wish I got rid of you.

Lambis: You swear again, don’t you?

Mantalena: Me? You are a nothing but a gudgeon and a dumb-head.

Lambis: You Sticks!

Mantalena: You face-ass handsome. (Mantalena, 2:24 ̶ 2:34)

Further on, the conflict escalates when Lambis’ father buys a motor boat so as to drive

Mantalena out of business. Indeed, the use of a mechanized boat is a decisive factor in their fight, since it tips the scales against the young heroine. As a villager emphatically says: “Now the orphan girl will be destroyed.” Even the priest advises Mantalena to give up working with the boat: “You were defeated. You dared to do difficult things.

You are a woman and you are not supposed to deal with men’s jobs. You fought and 124 lost.” The protagonists’ conflictual relation evokes the clash between the two opposing groups during the Civil War. Additionally, the reference to a “motor,” which will

“eradicate” Mantalena’s boat, is related to the Civil War and the superior firepower that was used by the governmental forces and their allies in order to annihilate DSE fighters.

It is also noticeable how the protagonists’ relationship develops throughout the narration. Gradually, Lambis begins to feel sympathy for Mantalena; he admires her fatherlessness and poverty and claims that Mantalena “fights like a man.” Furthermore, when the two protagonists accidentally meet at the mill, the ice between them begins to melt; Mantalena allows Lambis to load his bag on her donkey and when they reach the mill, the young man offers to carry her heavy bag. It is in the sequence of the meeting at the mill that Mantalena and Lambis become deeply infatuated with one another.

However, due to her poverty, the protagonist chooses to marry a rich farmer, a choice of the man she does not love over the one she really does.

Towards the end, the story reaches its climax. The priest, instead of blessing the marriage of Mantalena and Giakoumis, advises that the young woman should marry

Lambis. Mantalena, too, realizes that she should only marry for love. Thus, against all odds, the two young heroes are paired and the story is brought to resolution, as the conflict has been resolved. As it has already been stated, however, the focus of

Dimopoulos’ film is on the traumatic occurrences of the 1940s. Reading the happy ending in the context of the Civil War, Mantalena and Lambis’ marriage is associated with the director’s wish for social peace and unity; for healing the Civil War trauma; for bridging the chasm between victors and vanquished in a message of national reconciliation. As Chalkou argues:

The apparently “innocent” story about the conflict between two boat owners,

the misfortunes of the impoverished orphan girl (Mantalena) who owns one of 125

the boats, the happy end of her love affair with her rival’s son and the final

reconciliation, is located within the implied context of the Civil War. (205)

Conclusions

Taken as a whole The Abduction of Persephone and Mantalena discuss the forbidden issue of the Civil War, although in disguised forms. In both films, the viewers should consider the two fighting parties not only as enemies regarding a trivial dispute, but, they could be thought of as taking the role of the two parties, which fought for the control of post-war Greece. Both directors, to their credit, tried to work within the system while attempting to speak about the unspeakable.

The Civil War, at first sight seems absent from the plots (which focus on trivial local disputes and divisions), reenters the films as an absent but very disturbing and haunting presence. In other words, because of their powerlessness in the face of the painful past, the creation of absent presences in the films of Grigoriou and Dimopoulos involves an attempt to come to terms with it: only through the representation of comic and light plots, could the theme of the Civil War be implied and not be forgotten:

“Serving a commemorative function, they might transform the world to come (Codde

687), in the hope that the present absences will not become mere absences by being forgotten.

126

PART II

THE DICTATORSHIP PERIOD

127

Chapter I

Military Junta and Return to Democracy (1967-1974)

The political instability in the mid-60s was suddenly put to an end by a decisive coup d’ état, organized by lower-echelon military officials on the night of April 21st, 1967, known as the Revolt of the Colonels. Upon seizing power and overthrowing the democratic government, the colonels imposed a severe martial law. As a result, several prominent political figures were immediately arrested, the political parties were dissolved, labor unions were outlawed, hundreds of leftists or left sympathizers were imprisoned or exiled, members in the judiciary system and the church were dismissed, many people in the civil service, the army and in education lost their jobs for their political beliefs, and a strict censorship system was imposed on the media.

The regime, led by Colonel Georgios Papadopoulos,94 justified its action by claiming that their primary aim was to save the nation from the “communist threat:”

“Refusing to accept the end of the Civil War polarization and give up their role as guardians of a repressive state ideology, the officers invented a threat to internal order

– a possible communist uprising – to justify their armed intervention” (Koliopoulos and

Veremis 141). Papadopoulos often used medical analogies to describe the colonels’ mission; according to him, Greece was a patient in plaster and the dictators were the doctors who placed the patient in a plaster cast until the wound heals. The junta promised the regeneration of “Greece of the Greek Christians” and chose as its symbol the phoenix rising from its ashes (Xydis 508).

In 1973, the stability of the regime began to crack; In March, students occupied

94 Papadopoulos was an army colonel who was serving on the Planning Board of the Army Chief of Staff. The six years from 1967 to 1973 witnessed a considerable strengthening of Papadopoulos’ power. By 1972, the regime had turned into a personal dictatorship of the man who formerly had been only first among equals. For more, Xydis (1974). 128 the Law School of the University of Athens. In June, Papadopoulos organized a referendum, aiming at officially abolishing the monarchy. In the plebiscite of July, conducted under strict pressure, almost eighty percent of the population voted in favor of “presidential parliamentary democracy” and Papadopoulos declared himself

President of the Democracy. Papadopoulos attempted to liberalize the regime and introduce a guided democracy (Clogg 167) by adopting measures such as amnesty to hundreds of political prisoners and appointment of the veteran politician Spyros

Markezinis as prime minister with the aim of preparing democratic elections in the following year (Vakalopoulos 458). Additionally, rigid censorship slightly eased, as the notorious board of censors had loosened its grip on newspapers, magazines and films.

As a result, progressive journalism and NEK films flourished presenting a critical picture of the country’s social environment.

Nevertheless, in November 1973, students of the Polytechnic School of Athens organized a protest which turned into a huge anti-junta uprising. The Polytechnic revolt inaugurated serious events. On November 25, a coup led by Brigadier Ioannidis overthrew Papadopoulos, on the grounds that “he had adulterated the principles of April

21, 1967” (Koliopoulos and Veremis 148). The new regime, a more puritanical faction of the junta, intended to overthrow the Cypriot president Makarios and that is the reason behind Ioannidis’ decision to launch a coup.

The attempt to assassinate Makarios took place on July 15 1974: the presidential palace was bombarded but Makarios managed to escape. The Greek junta established a new government and appointed a veteran EOKA member as prime minister. At this juncture, Turkey declared its intention to invade the island, so as to “protect” the

Turkish-Cypriot minority; the latter took place on July 20. Faced with its inability to declare war, not even a successful general mobilization, the colonels gave up their 129 power to politicians; the regime disintegrated on July 24, when the former Prime

Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis was called to return from his self-exile in Paris so as to take over the administration.

130

Cinema during the Dictatorship

During the colonels’ rule, cinema remained the most popular type of mass entertainment. The Dictatorship years could be seen as a period where classical cinema enjoyed the last years of popularity; 99 films were released in the 1967-68 season, 108 in 1968-69 and 99 in the next season (Soldatos, IV: 407-412). However, the studio’s system and the cinema’s dominance was about to end in the following years, due to the rapid growth and the rising competition of the new medium, television. Although the first official broadcasting took place in 1966, within a few years, the number of households which acquired a TV set grew rapidly. The uneducated, working class masses, who had been the majority of filmgoers, eventually chose the new and free form of entertainment.

At that time, audiences, when counted by ticket numbers, were at an all-time high with a record of 137 million viewers in 1968. After 1971, admissions fell continuously to the low point of 39 million in 1973 (Karalis, A History: 137). At the same time, the number of produced features also decreased: 90 films were released in

1971-72, 64 in the next season and only 44 in the 1973-74 season (Tzavalas 143).

Moreover, some popular writers and directors of the classical era (Foskolos, Dalianidis,

Georgiadis, Grigoriou), abandoned the cinema and began working in television, creating the first TV series with immense success (Karalis, A History: 137).

Nevertheless, big producers underestimated the power of the new medium and believed that the crisis could be overcome through the production of quality features, with better scripts and more skillful direction, mostly in color (Tzavalas 137, 150). Unfortunately, the box-office results were not satisfactory (especially after 1971). On the other hand, other studios (James Paris) chose to sell films from their catalogue to television.

It is arguable that the military coup and the censorship imposed by the 131

Dictatorship temporarily halted the new wind that blew in the 1966 Thessaloniki

Festival, when a number of independently-made films and documentaries were screened and which seemed to pave the path for the advent of the trend of the New

Greek Cinema. From 1967 and for most of the years under the rule of the colonels, quality pictures with a revisionist look at the recent History, that were first screened at the Thessaloniki Film Festival, were discouraged or strictly prohibited, due to the heavy censorship in the first years of the Dictatorship. It was only in 1970 that the first film by Angelopoulos Anaparastasi [Reconstruction], marked the beginning of a new trend in Greek Cinema, what was later called as New Greek Cinema, appeared; Pantelis

Voulgaris, another director whose name is associated with the New Greek Cinema, launched his To Proxenio tis Annas [The Matchmaking of Anna] in 1972 at the

Thessaloniki Film Festival. These films probably managed to by-pass censorship restrictions because their ostensible subject matter was social and not directly historical;

Reconstruction supposedly dealt with the investigation of a crime and Voulgaris’ film with a traditional social practice, that of matchmaking, In reality both films, as well as

Damianos’s Evdokia [(aka To Koritsi tou Stratioti) The Soldier’s Girl] (1971) worked as allegories and offered a devastating critique of the social and political climate of their times.

With regard to the dominant genres, comedies and melodramas still prevailed.

In the field of melodrama, the newly founded company Klak Films was responsible for the production of low quality, yet financially successful, melodramas in the late 1960s.

In most cases, such movies were directed by Apostolos Tegopoulos and performed by the popular star Nikos Xanthopoulos.95 The crime film also matured in the late 60s and

95 Xanthopoulos, the most popular melodramatic actor of classical cinema, usually embodied a character which “established itself in the minds of the working-classes as the norm of the perfect male (Hadjikyriakou 89), in films such as as Xerizomeni Genia [Uprooted Generation], I Odisia enos 132 early 70s, with the onset of pictures such as Tsiolis’ Panikos [Panic] (1969), I Zougla ton Poleon [The Urban Jungle] and Katahrisi Exousias [Abuse of Power] (1971). These films were primarily aimed at the younger audience and usually focused on the restoration of justice and moral order, which was achieved through the acts of a vigilant male protagonist.

Notably, the junta period also saw the production of soft core porno films

(Karalis, A History: 164). As the 1970s began, several directors took advantage of the changing society within Greece, as well as the loosening of censorship and created a series of soft-core films, some of them box office successes. The circle of sex-themed films culminated in the 1973-74 season with the release of 23 soft-core movies out of an annual production of 44 pictures (Soldatos, V: 43).96 The majοrity of such films, usually shοt on Greek islands, presented a crime story as its main fοcus. However, nudity and sex scenes were the real protagonists. A bunch of professional actors of the previous era participated in many sex films,97 as well as, several directors (Omiros

Efstratiadis, Yiorgos Zervoulakos, Kostas Karayannis), who also turned their attention to the creation of low budget soft porn movies. Some of these pictures were sοld abroad; they were re-edited and οccasionally even partially re-shοt to include sequences with hard cοre porn.

The great era of films with historical topics seems to have been the late 1960s, when dozens of features reached the screen depicting the nation’s deeds. Although the

Xerizomenou [The Odyssey of an Uprooted Man], I Sfragida tou Theou [The Seal of God] and Aititos [Invincible]. 96 In the American Box office of the previous season (1972-1973) we also notice the unprecedented phenomenon of some hardcore porn movies entering the top ten chart (e.g. Deep Throat, 7th/1972, The Devil in Miss Jones, 10th/1973,) for the first and only time in the History of the American Film. See, Lewis (2000, ch.5) and Krämer (2005, ch.2). 97 For example, Anna Fonsou (To Koritsi ke to Alogo [A Girl on a Horse], 1971), Gizela Dali (O Kiklos tis Anomalias [The Circle of Viciousness], 1971), Eleni Anousaki (Diamantia sto Gimno Kormi tis [Diamonds on her Naked Body], 1972), Phedon Georgitsis (Kinigimeni Erastes [Image of Love], 1972), Vangelis Vourgaridis (Tango 2001, 1973). 133 pictures produced during the seven-year time span of the Dictatorship dealt with various historical subjects, the events of the 1940s monopolized the interest of the producers; forty-five movies focusing on the experience of the WWII were screened in the seven- year period. In addition, several films which drew on the 1940s events were awarded in the Film Festivals of the late 60s; On the Borders of Treason (1968) and No (1969) collected main awards at the Thessaloniki Festival. Most WWII-related features appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as the studios shifted to more militaristic, nationalistic themes and to a heavier emphasis on Greek heroism. It was the work of writers like Nikos Foskolos, directors like Kostas Karayannis and Dimis Dadiras and especially producers like James Paris, the master of cinematic patriοtism, that established such films as a genre and made them popular with audiences.

Significantly enough, the majority of the WWII pictures of the period were of a poor quality, for a number of reasons: small budgets, poοr facilities, lack of equipment.

In addition, the majority of such films tended to lack historical accuracy or the depiction of actual conditions during the 1940s. Some directors used the traumatic past as a mere backdrop, rather than seeking tο infοrm audiences οf the incidents and cοmplexities οf the war itself. Many Occupation features were bombastic, jingοistic adventures or dramas and followed the same rules that were established in the pre-dictatorial period: the Resistance was represented as a result of the Army and the Allies’ actiοns. These pictures οver-emphasized and praised the achievements of individual heroes, who were usually military οfficers; the latter stereotypically pοssessed a range of fixed qualities: bravery, herοism, patriotism, while their enemies were usually represented as criminals and mοnsters.98

98 One cannot but notice an imitation of the lone American hero, featured in such films as High Noon (1952, d. F. Zinnermann), Midnight Cowboy (1969, d. J. Schlesinger), Soldier Blue (1970, d. R. Nelson), The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970, d. S. Pechinpah) and Junior Bonner (1972, d. S. Pechinpah). 134

Within this framework, cοmmunists and left-wing sympathizers were seen as enemies of the nation, as forces which did not fight against the occupiers, but in fact collabοrated with them so as to realize their sinister plans and turn Greece into a Marxist state. Films about the Occupation and, especially, about the Civil War advanced anti- cοmmunist and pro-militarist discourses, which reproduced specific political ideas that the Dictatorship constantly sοught to impose in order to legitimize its rule and justify its authοritarian actions; the exaltation of the military glory, the exaggeration of threats which endanger national integrity and stability, the demonizatiοn of the Left, the hostility to the threat of cοmmunism, which was seen as the major enemy of the natiοn,99 the emphasis on the Greeks’ mοral superiority and ‘philοpatria’ (a love of one’s country).

Nevertheless, out of this multitude of mediοcrity, there stοοd some decent productions. Technically and financially assisted by the military government, they were well-structured films, thanks to the talent of their performers and their directοrs. Sοme of Greece’s best actοrs, actresses, and directοrs have taken WWII as a mοvie screen canvas upοn which tο display their skills. For example, movies directed by talented people such as Dimopoulos, Dadiras, Georgiadis, Katsouridis and performed by major stars of the period like Vouyouklaki, Karezi, Politis, Prekas, Voglis, Krouska and many others. These filmmakers intended their portrayals to convey historical reality, at least as the audiences understood it.

On the Borders of Treason is considered as the first Greek major production and was followed by a series of big budget features (I Yenei tou Vora [The Brave Bunch]

(1969, d. Κostas Karayannis), Ochi [No] (1969, d. Dimis Dadiras), Sti Machi tis Kritis

99 The colonels presented their intervention as a “revolution,” aimed at the restoration of order from chaos and the salvation of the country from the “communist threat,” as it was asserted that communists were ready to seize power. 135

[Hell in the Aegean] (1970, d. Vassilis Georgiadis), usually produced by the Greek-

American James Paris.100 The making of such super prοductions (by Greek standards) could be explained as the studiοs’ attempt tο respοnd to the threat of televisiοn and bring audiences back (Tzavalas 134). As the popularity of television was grοwing fast, film companies respοnded to the challenge of the new medium with the release οf the first Greek “super productiοns.” Major Οccupation pictures such as No, The Brave

Bunch, Lieutenant Natassa, Mediterranean on Flames and Hell in the Aegean showed that the film industry, for the sake of its own stability, needed to invest on a genre that might bring audiences back. By using themes from recent Greek history, the prοducers managed to tempοrarily bring back filmgoers. For example, On the Borders of Treason sold more than 710,000 tickets in the 1968-69 season, The Brave Bunch and No had

627,000 and 554,000 admissions respectively in the next season (Soldatos, IV: 409-

411).101

The year 1970 is marked by the foundation of the Greek Film Centre. The

Centre’s target was to “provide substantial loans as co-producer and promote the quality of Greek films domestically and abroad” (135). One of the first films which were co- produced by the Center was the patriotic adventure Papaflessas (1971, d. Errikos

Andreou). Since the collapse of cοmmercial cinema in the late 1970s and until the

1990s, Greek Film Centre has been the (almοst) exclusive domestic film prοducer.

100 James Paris (1921-1982) was one of the most prolific producers of CGC. Although he started as a supporter of quality cinema in the late 1950s and early 1960s with such pictures as Galini [Serenity] (1958, d. Yannis Markopoulos), based on the famous novel by Elias Venezis, Antigone (1960, d. Yiorgos Tzavellas), an adaptation of Sophocles ancient tragedy, and Diogmos [Persecution] (1964, d. Grigoris Grigoriou), Paris was notorious for the production of patriotic films during the Dictatorship period. 101 Despite the difference in industry side, an analogy can be drawn between Greek producers and Hollywood Studios. When television appeared in the American cultural scene in the late 1940s, it “stole” the cinema’s customer and “undermined the studio system that had dominated America’s market. and undermined the studio system” (Butler 22). As the number of films and tickets were dropping, producers were propelled to respond by making products that could not be offered by television; technical innovations such as the widescreen process CinemaScope were implemented and genres such as spectacular Biblical epics (The Robe, Demetrius and the Gladiators, The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur) were developed and which met with tremendous commercial success in the 1950s (Fraser 1988). 136

Censorship The new regime highly affected production. Its cοnservative and natiοnalistic

οrientation discouraged the advent of different film fοrms and trends, which had made their first appearance in the 1966 Thessaloniki Film Festival. During the first junta years, censοrship, the State’s attempt to prevent the release of prοgressive film work, was in full fοrce. What is more, new strict laws (140/67 and 394/68) prevented any effοrt fοr free expressiοn. According to the legislation, a series of new boards, whose members were placed in charge of protecting viewers against morally and nationally suspicious material, was formed. Almοst every feature underwent screening by authοrities befοre release and was subject to pre-prοduction screen censοrship.

According to Tzavalas: “Local productions had to have their scripts approved before shooting and reexamined, just before release to receive a license for showing” (151).

Monitoring ranged from the elimination of a few lines to a cοmplete re-writing of the script. Therefore, a highly effective cοntrοl over domestic film production was established. As a result, big studios fοcused on the release of mοvies which would be apprοved by the board. Thus, politically neutral pictures taking the form of “safe” genres (melodramas, comedies, musicals), which did not threaten sοcial stability,

Christian and natiοnal values, dοminated the annual prοduction during this periοd and addressed the great majority of filmgoers.

On the other hand, politically cοnscious directors were fοrced to stop dealing with features, which would pοssibly have had censοrship problems. Due to the threat of banning, Dimos Theos delayed the making of Kierion, a pοlitical thriller whοse stοry was lοοsely based on the murder of the American jοurnalist George Polk; the film was finally released after the restoration of democracy in 1974. Moreover, the movie Face to Face (1967, d. Roviros Manthoulis), a harsh critique of the bourgeoisie and its 137 morality, was officially banned and the director was put on the junta’s “black list.” In addition, Open Letter (1969, d. Yiorgos Staboulopoulos), a film that received an award at the Locarno Film Festival, upset the censors and was rejected by the committee of the Thessaloniki Festival. Apart from that, the films Stephania (1967, d. Yannis

Dalianidis) and Evdokia (1971, d. Alexis Damianos) also faced censorship issues.

Finally, the anti-heroic satire To Kanoni ke t’ Aidoni [The Cannon and the Nightingale]

(1968, d. Iakovos and Yiorgos Kabanellis) was banned, on the grounds of offence against the Italian and the German officers.

The political situation in 1973 also had its effects on the cinematic work:

Papadopoulos’ attempt to liberalize his authoritarian rule by forming a partly civilian government, by appointing an old politician (Sp. Markezinis) as prime minister and by promising general elections, although short-lived, resulted in the loosening of censorship. In this atmosphere of relative relaxation, a cycle of politically conscious films, which challenged and subverted the social order and the nationalistic values, were produced and released (Ioannis o Vieos [John the Violent], 1973, d. Tonia

Marketaki), Mavro + Aspro [Black + White], 1973, d. Thanasis Rentzis and Nikos

Zervos), Kraniou Topos [Calvary], 1973, d. Kostas Aristopoulos).102 In addition,

Angelopoulos started shooting his magnum opus, the historical masterpiece The

Travelling Players during the winter 1973-74, after the director cleverly managed to avoid the censors’ prohibition. The film finished during Karamanlis’ premiership in

1975 and participated, without any official support, in the Cannes Film Festival

102 The psychological drama John the Violent focuses on a murder that takes place in Athens and revolves around the issue of “guilt.” Black + White is a realistic drama about a young student, an apolitical man, who, contrary to his fellow students, does not participate in the Uprising of the Polytechnic School in 1973. Calvary is an experimental film concerning a film crew which represents the Passion of Christ with the help of the inhabitants of a small Greek village. The problems and difficulties of the people of the area of Mani are successfully linked to the Holy Passion. 138

New Greek Cinema

The advent of the new decade brought a new generation of experimental, auteur films, led by Reconstruction, Evdokia, The Matchmaking of Anna and John the Violent. The new phase was named Neos Ellinikos Kinimatografos [New Greek Cinema (NEK)], and it refers to a grouping of socially conscious, artistic films made between 1970 and the late 1980s. A bunch of talented young directors, born in the 1930s, Thodoros

Aggelopoulos, Alexis Damianos, Dimos Theos, Yiorgos Staboulopoulos and Kostas

Ferris, who were seeking expression using a new film language, stood in the forefront of this trend. The second generation was made up of directors, born in the 1940s, and included Pantelis Voulgaris, Tonia Marketaki, Frida Liappa, Nikos Panayotopoulos,

Pavlos Tassios. Both generations would dominate the New Cinema, rising to popularity in the early 1970s and remaining there through the decline of the trend towards the end of the 1980s.

Many of the New Cinema filmmakers were strongly political, generally coming from the Left. Disdainful of entertainment as promoted by the commercial cinema, they believed that film should be a means of diffusing ideas which would challenge the established order and deliver social and political commentary. For the young generation of directors, old cinema represented an ideological mechanism, which identified itself with the dominant ideology (Komninou 85). This attempt evolved into a new film culture; independent modes of production were introduced, new aesthetics and forms of cinematic narration contrary to the classical narration were adopted, emphasis was put on the experimentation of form and the director’s personal vision and distinct style dominated. Bramos argues that NEK committed patricide against commercial cinema; a patricide regarding script, choice of themes, political vision and social approach (145).

In terms of subject matter, directors offered a departure from the Classical 139

Cinema’s escapist entertainment and dealt with both contemporary concerns

(unemployment, immigration, woman’s role) and recent historical events (the Civil

War, Metaxas’ Dictatorship). NEK directors used ancient myths,103 adapted famous

Greek novels104 and also collaborated with prominent novelists.105 It could be asserted that, like other new waves of the period (German, Spanish, Portuguese), the New

Cinema was to a great extent influenced by the French Nouvelle Vague and the British

New Wave. Internationally, NEK was considered as a promising development of Greek cinema, and some of its directors – especially Angelopoulos, Voulgaris and Ferris – gained international reputation.

Some of the NEK films enjoyed unprecedented critical acclaim. For one, The

Traveling Players won several awards, including the International Film Critics’ Award

(FIPRESCI) Prize at the 1975 Cannes Festival, while it received six Awards at the

Thessaloniki Festival. Angelopoulos’ success inaugurated a new phase in NEK. Films by other directors were well received at foreign festivals; Ferris’ Rembetiko (1984) won a Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival and Voulgaris’ Petrina Chronia [Stone Years]

(1985) received prizes at Valencia and Venice Film Festivals. It has been claimed that the New Greek Cinema derived its impetus largely from Angelopoulos’

Reconstruction. The film, a reconstruction of a domestic crime in a remote Greek village, was not a conventional crime story; it rather used the death of a person as a

103 Angelopoulos’ Reconstruction was based on the classical play Agamemnon by Aeschylus (525-456 BC), one of the greatest tragic poets of classical antiquity, and his The Traveling Players was a loose adaptation of the Oresteia trilogy (Agamemnon, Hoifori [The Libation Bearers] and The Eumenides). Moreover, Nikolaidis’ experimental film Evridiki BA2037 [Euridice BA2037] (1975) and Ferris’ Promitheas se Deftero Prosopo [Prometheus in Second Person] (1975) modernized the classical myths of Orpheus and Prometheus respectively (Tzavalas 132, 148, Karalis, A History: 173). 104 For example, I Fonisa [The Murderess] (1974, d. Kostas Ferris) was an adaptation from the classic novel by Alexandros Papadiamantis. Happy Day (1976) was based on the novel O Limos [The Pestilence] by Andreas Fragkias and I Timi tis Agapis [The Price of Love] (1984, d. Tonia Marketaki) adapted the novel I Timi ke to Chrima [Honour and Money] by Konstantinos Theotokis (Tzavalas 146, 154 161). 105 Angelopoulos worked with the prominent novelist Thanasis Valtinos and the famous author and translator Petros Markaris (Tzavalas 141). 140 parable and an elegy for both the gradual extinction of villages due to immigration and the death of a culture. In addition, the director paid attention to issues such as gender roles, as well as the repressive nature of traditional values.

Regarding style, Angelopoulos adopted the technique of the non-linear narration, mediated on the boundaries between reality and falsehood and represented a landscape different from the scenery of Classical Cinema. For him, real Greece bears little resemblance to the shiny images as portrayed in commercial musicals and comedies; it is rather a place of melancholy, a country where it is difficult for one to live and also a society which hurts its people (Valoukos 37). Reconstruction was one of the honored films of 1970, receiving five awards in the 11th Thessaloniki Film

Festival (including “Best Art Film” and “Best Debut Director”) and the “Best Film”

Prize from the Hellenic Association of Film Critics.

Consequently, the release of Reconstruction appeared to critics and scholars to have brought about the start of what became the New Greek Cinema. While this may be true in one sense, the way had already been paved by the growing body of independent films that were directed in the mid 1960s, namely The Roundup, With

Glittering Eyes, As far as the Ship, Face to Face, O Zestos Minas Avgoustos [The Hot

Month August] (1966, d. Sokratis Kapsaskis), Ekdromi [Excursion] (1966, d. Takis

Kanellopoulos) and The Death of Alexander (1966, d. Dimitris Kollatos). 1966 was a landmark for the new trend; at the Thessaloniki Festival, the last before the advent of junta, a significant number of independently made, artistic films were screened and which are considered as the forerunners of the “New Wave Greek Cinema.”

141

Chapter II

The Occupation on Celluloid (1967-1974)

It is true that the past has figured prominently in the whole history of Greek cinema.

But films with a historical subject matter reached their peak during the Dictatorship period: without a doubt, the latter could be described as the Golden Age of the history- themed movies. As Chalkou maintains: “During the Dictatorship, an uninterrupted and growing interest in historical subjects emerged, which, year after year, was enriched with new thematic material from different periods of the national history” (185). It can be observed that many periods were encountered in the films of the era: the world of

Ancient Greece was the topic of the features Lysistrati [Lysistrata], a free adaptation of the ancient comedy, and Ippokratis kai Dimokratia [Hippocrates and Democracy],106 a chronicle of the life of the father of medicine. In addition, Byzantium emerged as a theme in Byzantini Rapsodia [Imperiale] and the Greek War of Independence was represented in such films as Kalavrita 1821, Papaflessas, Mando Mavrogennous and

Souliotes. Moreover, Yiorgos Dizikirikis’ Vavilonia [Babylonia] focused on the post-

War of Independence period and Orestis Laskos’ O Aetos ton Sklavomenon [The Eagle of the Enslaved] paid attention to the Cretan struggle for freedom.

Other historical themes that appeared included the peasant strikes for land ownership (I Kori tou Iliou [Daughter of the Sun]), the Macedonian Struggle of 1904-

1908 (I Yenia ton Iroon [The Generation of Heroes], Pavlos Melas), the Asia Minor

Debacle (Xerizomeni Yenia [Uprooted Generation], I Odisia enos Xerizomenou [The

Odyssey of an Uprooted Man]), Metaxas’ Dictatorship (Meres tou 36 [Days of 36]) and

Cyprus’ struggle for freedom and independence (Mia Sfera ya mena [A Bullet for me],

106 As Tzavalas points out, at the time the film was released, the junta censorship allowed the movie under the title Ippokratis [Hippocrates]. 142

To Nisi tis Afroditis [Aphrodite’s Island], Grigoris Afxentiou).

Despite the representation of different periods of history, it was the events of the 1940s decade that became the major thematic concern and flourished during that period; within seven years, forty-five movies which focused on the experience of WWII were released. The treatment of war-related themes in movies took place in a remarkable array of genres and cycles, from satire to spy films, and most predominantly in melodramas and adventures. Although a sub-genre which could be called

“Occupation films,” dealing with the 1940s decade, did exist before 1967, the distinctive “Occupation” cycle which developed by 1974 is historically specific and consolidated the genre. It can be argued that the highest point was the year 1970, when sixteen WWII films were produced. From then on, most WWII movies, fell short of producers’ expectations, as they fared poorly at the box-office. O Kirios Stathmarhis

[The Station Master] and Polemistes tis Irinis [Fighters of Peace], for instance, were big flops by taking only 6,000 and 6,500 admissions respectively (Soldatos, Vol. V: 40).

In fact, the flowering of the topic during that period can be seen to be entirely logical and inevitable. One of the reasons for the growing interest in historic subjects was the development of television; the advent of the new means and the gradual decline in tickets, forced producers to turn to popular historical themes and fund films with better quality (color) so as to attract the attention of the lost moviegoers (Tzavalas 130).

In addition, scholars and critics claimed that the rise of interest in recent history had to do with the generous support that was provided to the studios by the military regime. As Provata points out, war-themed films of the era were released under the auspices of the authoritarian regime (110). Indeed, the government’s assistance was both material and technical: locations, military equipment and extras, which were necessary for the making of super productions (by Greek standards), were generously 143 offered (Chalkou 181-82). The state’s assistance was very crucial, since it reduced the budget of the production (Voglis, Apo tis kannes: 104). For example, the army authorities provided helicopters for On the Borders of Treason and tanks for Lieutenant

Natasa. Ilias Machairas, director of the history-themed pictures Gorgopotamos (1968) and Grammos (1970), admitted that the government offered him a company of soldiers so as to help him finish both films and that these features could not have been made without the co-operation of the state (To 1946-49). Finally, the company “Geniki

Kinimatografikon Epihiriseon” was founded to help funding films. One of the first funded productions was the Occupation-themed I Haravgi tis Nikis [The Dawn of

Victory] (1971, d. Dimis Dadiras), whose premiere was attended by the junta’s vice- president Makarezos and other officials, a sign of governmental endorsement.

Voglis believes that the most important reason for the colonels’ active cooperation and assistance was the medium’s popularity; cinema had a large audience (at least until the early 1970s) and a strong impact on the masses. For the regime, film clearly mattered: stories, which would praise Greek bravery and portray the army as a guardian of the country’s safety and prosperity, the basic protagonist of national history, would address thousands of people (Apo tis kannes 104). The colonels realized the pοtential οf cinema for influencing public οpinion; they understοοd the pοwer of prοpaganda. Sotiropoulou argues that the junta assisted these films, because by referring to war activities and by making heroes of the military forces, the pictures boosted its prestige (I Diaspora 84). Hence, the regime’s aim was to have its own interpretations of the past promoted by producers and directors who, abandoning their previous “apolitical” position, were willing to carry out the task of representing the official ideology regarding the 1940s incidents.

It seems that it became common for several directors to accept the regime’s 144 monitoring. In the majority of such productions, emphasis was given to highlighting

Greek greatness and virtue and the promotion of national values (Provata 188). In addition, the heroism of the ethno-loving army was exalted and communism was castigated. Therefore, during the Dictatorship, Greek cinema became a means of policy through entertainment, as the colonels believed that the representation of certain models of action would make Greeks trust the regime’s aims and conduct, resulting, thus, in the sustainability of the current political situation (188, 190).

WWII films paid attention to the nation’s fights through a model of representation which was both pompous and kitsch (Goudelis 42). These wartime pictures were characterized by a cοnservative, non-cοntroversial approach to natiοnal histοry, representing its majοr narratives of resistance and suffering whilst fοcusing οn minοr characters rather than pοlitical figures. As in the pre-1967 period, the heroes of such features were “the brave Greek soldiers and officers” (Paradeisi, I Akirosi 204), who were sent by the Middle East Allied Headquarters to organize the National

Resistance in the occupied country.

For the majority of such films, Army officers were incarnations of goodness and bravery; men who fight the enemy in a spirit of sacrifice; patriots who lived beyond conventional values, projecting an aura of almost superhuman courage and power and personal invulnerability. According to Karalis: “In these films, army officers showcased all their self-sacrificing patriotism, superior moral virtues, and, ultimately, their messianic mission to save the nation” (A History: 138). The movie audience could view WWII as a horrific war, but one fought by men whose lives existed on a more grandiose plane of reality than those of ordinary men. On the other hand, the Nazis represented the evil “Other” and were seen as cruel monsters who do not care for human life. 145

Furthermore, the Resistance was portrayed as an apolitical movement. As

Paradeisi writes, the members of the Resistance lacked political identity, since the only

“political scheme” was Greeks vs. Germans (I Akirosi 211). For the vast majority of films, people participated in the common struggle regardless of their political standpoint and their social class (with the exception of Olokaftoma [Holocaust], 1971, d. Dimitris Papakonstantis).107 Filmmakers eschewed references to the various political groups which acted during the Occupation; they only referred to “patriots,” “guerilla fighters” or “national groups.” As Voglis and Kakouriotis observe: “The organized and mass resistance movement was absent from the film production of the era. For the

Greek cinema, only a few heroes participated in the resistance. What is more, the fight against the Nazis was portrayed as an urban phenomenon” (10).108

Occupation films almost omitted women from the picture; however, there were a few box-office hits like Concert for Machine-Guns, A Woman in the Resistance, The

Teacher with the Blonde Hair, Lieutenant Natassa, Mediterranean in Flames which told the story of heroic women in espionage and wartime adventure, but these are a fraction in the body of forty-five WWII films of the era. The chοice of women as prοtagonists in several movies could be seen as representative of the desire of the producers to depoliticize histοry and prοvide characters with whοm the audience cοuld easily identify. Consequently, the majority of such productions served as propaganda for the military regime, since “they promoted, through schematic characterization and

107 Holocaust negotiates the issue of the population’s behavior during the Occupation, undermining the view that all Greeks participated in the fight against the enemy. 108 Most WWII films escewed references to the mass resistance movement and the fighting that took place in the mountainous Greek mainland. For example, the areas of Roumeli (Central Greece) and Epirus were the centres of EAM and EDES. Moreover, the Political Comitee of National Liberation (‘Politiki Epitropi Ethnikis Apeleftherosis’), commonly known as The Mountain Government (‘Kivernisi tou Vounou’) was formed by EAM in Viniani, a village in the area of Evritania, in March 1944. The National Council, an assembly elected by the Mounain Government, first met in Korishades, a mountain village in Evritania, in May 1944. Additonally, a number of battles between ELAS and the occupying forces took place in the countryside: The Battle of Fardykampos (March 1943), the Battle of Arachova (September 1943), the Batlle of Agorelitsa (July 1944). 146 totally skeletal plot, a fanciful image of Greek history, full of evil invaders, sinister traitors, and conniving foreigners” (Karalis, A History: 139).

At the same time, it could be argued than even within this conservative and heroic phase, the seed of subversion could be found: On the one hand, On the Borders of Treason, The Brave Bunch, No, and similar top box-office films did not question the nationalistic versions of WWII history and served as propaganda for the colonels, by adopting a distinctly far-rightwing, ultra-patriotic and militarist agenda. However, against such “heroic” films, liberal productions such as The Cannon and the

Nightingale and What did you do in the War Thanasis? undermined the official visions and made an anti-war statement by telling history “from below”; from the point of view of ordinary folks and the socially marginalized; these films were made in the vein of the politically bold and revisionist films of the early 1960s (Hands Up Hitler, The

Round Up and With Glittering Eyes).

In addition, quite paradoxically, it was during the Dictatorship that the first productions with direct reference to the issue of the Civil War were made. The cycle was launched in 1969 with the appearance of The Bulkes Fugitives and continued with

Grammos in 1970 and Shake Hands in 1971. The circle of Civil War-themed films could also include On the Borders of Treason. As Paradeisi states, the feature was the first “patriotic-anti-communist” film of the period, which won the major awards in the

Thessaloniki Film Festival (I Akirosi 213). Although its story is set in the junta era, the director, by telling the story of a Soviet spy who turns out to be a Greek child who had been abducted during the 1940s, reaffirms the regime’s version about the Civil War and, especially, about the “sensitive” issue of the transfer of children to the Eastern countries by the communists (pedomazoma).

On the Borders of Treason was one of the first films which took the Civil War 147 out of oblivion, due to the fact that the Dictatorship, which decisively assisted and sponsored the production, aimed at attracting the nation’s “lost children;” those who had been misguided by the “virus” of communism or had been violently taken away from their families and wished to re-adopt the “healthy” national principles and ideas, as the latter were served by the regime (215).

With regard to On the Borders of Treason, Karalis wrote that Dadiras tried to

“create a Greek James Bond, bursting with sensuality, plot twists, and relentless action”

(139). Tzavalas points out that On the Borders of Treason “had all the qualities for the international market. The director outdid himself in this movie and rightly collected four awards in the Thessaloniki Festival. […] There were many excellent performances, and the quality of the film was one of the finest (124).

However, one would expect the production of more Civil War-themed films during that era. It is also characteristic that all these pictures came out within three years

(1968-71), which were thought to be the period of the colonels’ stabilization. (Voglis and Kakouriotis 10). Hence, it is argued that the small number of productions has to do with an ideological shifting; from the anticommunist hysteria of the first post-Civil War period to the junta’s ideology of the nation’s unity, the highlighting of “Greekness” as a distinguishing feature and the transcending of past. (Voglis, Apo tis Kannes 106).

Films on the German Occupation

Occupation films became a notable genre during the Dictatorship, without significant differences from their post-war predecessors. Movies featuring war subjects were concerned with topics such as espionage, collaborationism and the black market. As

Paradeisi states, the majority of such productions paid attention to themes such as people’s misfortunes, patriots’ heroism and the occupiers’ barbarities. (I Akirosi 204).

What is more, the role of fate, as in all typical melodramas, was crucial for the narrative 148

(204). Confronted with the proliferation of movies centered on WWII, one might be left with the impression of one undifferentiated stream of fights, heroic feats and sacrifices. In fact, distinctions can be made in terms both quality and ideology. The popularity of the genre suggests that they should not be ignored; an attempt to discriminate among the films seems valid and timely.

The cycle of Occupation productions began with Dinos Dimopoulos’ Concert for Machine-Guns (1967), a film which, although it came out two months before the coup d’état, was a landmark for a number of reasons. It was a picture which introduced the colorful spectacle of the “war melodrama” (Chalkou 152) and explored aspects of women’s love affairs with the enemies, as well as the consequences of espionage. With regard to the plot, the Concert for Machine-Guns’ female protagonist (Jenny Karezi) delivers top-secret files to the Italians. However, her treacherous activities are revealed and, in order to avoid the death sentence, she becomes a spy for the Resistance and misleads the enemies by providing them with false information. As Chalkou writes,

Concert for Machine-Guns was a picture which “shaped all the typical characteristics of the female war film, which in the following years became a smash success” (187-

188). The movie’s screenplay was signed by the prolific scriptwriter Nikos Foskolos and it was a Finos Films production. Concert for Machine-Guns was among the biggest hits in the 1966-67 season,109 and its commercial success enhanced the studios’ general shift to war-related movies during the Dictatorship. It is also noteworthy that the film’s story was the basis for Foskolos’ series The Unknown War (1971-74), one of the most successful TV series of all time.

Four years after they made Concert for Machine-Guns, Dimopoulos and Karezi were back with Mia Gineka stin Antistasi [A Woman in the Resistance], another WWII

109 The feature took 428,000 admissions in the first run cinemas of Athens-Piraeus (Soldatos, IV: 406). 149 film. Similar to the previous Concert for Machine-Guns, the picture tells the story of a

Greek woman who agrees to help the resistance by seducing a local Nazi commander and by stealing valuable documents from the German headquarters. After the latter are informed about her true intentions, she is arrested and sentenced to death. In the end, a group of patriots manage to exterminate the soldiers and set the heroine free. Both films tended to depoliticize the struggle, turning it into a test of patriotism. They avoided commentary on the moral and political questions of the war itself. Instead, they tended to focus on individual’s personal reaction to the Occupation experience.

Other Occupation films have revolved around the theme of espionage and the affairs between Greek women and Germans; the trend began with Marios Retsilas’

Apostoli Thanatou [Death Mission] in 1968 and continued with Dimis Dadiras’ box- office hit Mediterranean in Flames (1970) and Yiorgos Stamatopoulos’ I Litania ton

Iroon [The Heroes’ Litany] (1970). The plots of these pictures do not strive to go beyond the schematic representation and the usual caricatures found in WWII movies.

In these, the plot revolves around spies who try to obtain secret plans and reports from the enemy. However, most films of the period make little effort to realistically delineate spy activities. In fact, most pictures pay little attention to the mechanics of spying at all

–spies are usually women who form love affairs with the enemies in an attempt to obtain the desired plans – and emphasize the courage and self-sacrifice of the heroes over the aspects and details of espionage.

Dadiras’ Mediterranean in Flames at least makes an attempt to be different. It is a rare example of a film in which there is a modicum of attention to the technical details of spying (the heroine uses secret micro-photography so as to steal the desired objects from her German lover). However, Mediterranean in Flames hardly eschews melodrama; set in Athens during the Occupation, the picture deals with the heroic 150 sacrifice of a woman who embarks on an affair with a Nazi official in order to help the

Resistance. A somewhat similar film is The Heroes’ Litany; a singer who has a love affair with a Nazi commander so as to pass information to a Resistance group. When her actions are revealed, the heroine is arrested, imprisoned and killed.

Furthermore, the issue of collaboration is referenced in many films of the era.

Produced shortly after the advent of the Dictatorship, these pictures depict those who were working with the enemy, either out of self-interest (motivated by their desire for money and power), ideological agreement (as the heroine of the awarded Forgotten

Heroes), or a belief that working with the enemy is the only way to survive. However, the directors did not attempt to shed light on the ambivalent feelings of the collaborators toward the invaders. In Epi Eshati Prodosia [For High Treason] (1968, d. Thanasis

Papageorgiou), for example, the collaborator, although he had betrayed his comrades, pretends to be a member of the Resistance so as to save his life.

The topics of collaborationism and black market appear in Dinos Dimopoulos’ drama The Teacher with the Blonde Hair. The film was a huge commercial success and went on to become the number one box-office hit in the 1969-1970 season.110 In this feature, the collaborator informs on patriots who had organized the bombing of a bridge.

The same character is also a black marketer, as he collects tons of food in his cellar, refusing to help the starving children of the village. The story of a man who works as an interpreter for the Germans, although his son becomes a member of a Resistance group, is the main theme of Yannis Dalianidis’111 only Occupation film Afti pou Milisan me to Thanato [Those who Faced Death] (1970), a melodramatic chronicle of the turbulent years 1940-44. A film worthy of mentioning is Memas Papadatos’ A German

110 It sold 739,000 tickets in the first-run cinemas of Athens-Piraeus (Soldatos, IV: 410). 111 Dalianidis (1923-2010) was the most distinguished representative of the Greek musical. Moreover, he directed “some of the most psychologically nuanced and sophisticated Greek melodramas” (Psaras 17). 151 in Kalavrita (1970). It depicts the story of a German officer who had participated in the

Massacre of Kalavrita in 13/12/1943 and who returns to the martyred city to find a hidden treasure. The feature, scripted by the prominent stage writer Iakovos Kabanellis, negotiates difficult issues, such as collaborationism and unpunished war crimes. After the production of several “collaborationism” films in the late 60s, directors began to tire of the subject. There are references in 1970 (The Heroes’ Litany, Those who Faced

Death, A German in Kalavrita), but the following years showed a steep decline of the subject.

Another popular theme was the role of the Middle East Allied Headquarters. As observed, Occupation films of the era, like the WWII movies of the pre-junta period, usually overemphasized the Allies’ contribution to the Greek struggle. The issue appears in the highest grossing film of all time in domestic box-office history; the pompous melodrama Lieutenant Natassa. The story concerns a woman, who had participated in the Resistance and whom the Germans had taken to Dachau concentration camp as a hostage. The heroine comes back home after twenty years of treatment at an allied hospital, as she suffered from neural paralysis and amnesia. In the train that carries her back to Greece, she recalls in a flashback her traumatic past.

The movie, shot in flawless lighting, is told almost entirely through a flashback.

The director uses the technique of confessional flashback, which is characterized by the heroine’s retrospective examination of the ways she was introduced to her present situation: it starts in the Occupation period, where Natassa met Orestis, a Greek Army

Lieutenant, fell in love and fought the enemy with him. The man left for the Middle

East so as to join the Allied Forces. In 1943, the Headquarters planned to mislead the

Germans regarding the landing of the allies and use the two heroes to achieve their purpose. The plan was successful but Natassa was captured by the Nazis. However, she 152 did not succumb to torture, even if she had to deny her mother and her child.

Natassa was finally sentenced to death, as she refused to reveal valuable information to the enemy. At the last moment, however, Orestis, who came back from the Middle East, disguised as a Nazi officer, saves Natassa from death but he is killed by fellow-fighters, who thought he was a real German. Natassa was sent to a concentration camp, where she lost her memory and speech. Back in Greece, Natassa is honored as a hero by the Greek state; and seeing her lost son, a Captain of the Army,

Natassa’s ability to speak is finally restored. As Paradeisi states: “As in the majority of the war films of this period, the decisive attack against the enemy is struck by the Greek

Officers and commandos of the Allied Headquarters in Cairo” (Ipolohagos Natassa

237).

Furthermore, Yiorgos Pilihos, writing for the center-left newspaper Ta Nea, argued that Foskolos used the WWII horror so as to create a melodrama. (qtd. in

Soldatos, Vol. V: 110). The reviewer also observed that, although Lieutenant Natassa begins with a broad theme (Dachau concentration camp), it ends with a conventional melodramatic love story. At the same time, both the German Occupation and the

Resistance are conventionally portrayed in the film (110). In addition, Karalis wrote that Lieutenant Natassa was “the Pink Flamingo of patriotic films” (133) and paid attention to the lack of verisimilitude in the movie: “everything is artificial and contrived; nothing is commensurate with itself: it is a work of shocking insincerity and pretense” (133).

In Greek cinema mythology, great battles are closely linked to the actions of individual heroes. The role of saboteurs shows up in several Occupation films, which continued to appear throughout the Dictatorship. Among the favorite targets of saboteurs in these films were means of transport (loaded with war materials and troops), 153 defense plants and oil refineries. Movies of this type include Death Mission, which pays attention to the heroic feats of a group of saboteurs, focusing on their efforts to destrοy a German train. Dadiras’ Οccupation films all have a flavοr of patriοtism abοut them, and the highly successful No is a famous example. It is the story a group of saboteurs who manage to destroy Nazi facilities. The director’s next war film Mediterranean in

Flames is similar in its subject matter; it features a group of patriots who are sent to destrοy a German military base.

Moreover, in There are no Deserters (1970, d. Kostas Asimakopoulos), a Greek

Army Captain arrives in an occupied island. There, he adopts a fake identity in order to find out whether the Allies could land in Greece. The film is another example of military propaganda: it was used to show that service in the cause of war is noble, just and heroic. The plot of Dimis Dadiras’ Operation Rainbow (1971) is absolutely standard; this story line has been filmed dozens of times. A saboteur misleads the Nazis and accomplishes the mission of destroying a German train. The story of a patriot who is given shelter by a woman is discussed in The Last Prisoner (1970, d. Angelos

Georgiadis). The film’s central plot device finds the protagonist tricked into living in a cellar, believing that Greece is still under Occupation. Many years after, the man emerges from his hiding place and learns that there is no war any more. Not being able to distinguish between reality and deception, he returns to the cellar.112 As Andritsos stresses: “the film comments on the dissatisfaction of the people who participated in the Resistance, due to the fact that their hopes for a better post-war society proved to be futile” (I Katohi 259).

Noteworthy is Kostas Karayannis’ I Ridiculed Hitler (1970) one of the rare

112 The film’s plot is similar to the 1995 highly acclaimed Underground (d. E. Kusturica) where a group of Yugoslavian resistance fighters live in a cellar, as they are tricked into believing that WWII is not over. The “prisoners” learn the truth many years after, when they leave their hiding place. 154 examples of war satires. Its plot concerns a man saving the woman he loves by adopting the identity of a German officer. According to Vamvakas, the film’s anti-war satire does not confront with the “evil” other; it imitates it to the point of bringing ridicule upon the evil. (268). The Fort of the Immortals (1970, d. John Christian) is based on a true story: the kidnapping of General Heinrich Kreipe113 by the British Organization

SOE which took place in May 1944. It is set in Crete, where an English Major is sent by the Allies so as to destroy the German fuel depot of the island. What is more, the character is ordered to abduct General Kreipe. Assisted by Cretan Resistance members, the British Officer succeeds in his mission and, finally, leaves for the Middle East.

Another issue that permeates Occupation films is German retaliations.114 This theme is developed in 28 Oktovriou, Ora 5:30 [October 28th, 5:30 a.m.] (1971, d.

Kostas Karayannis), a film which successfully represents the atmosphere of fear during the Occupation. The plot centers on a Nazi Officer, who threatens to kill fifteen villagers, unless the saboteurs of a German factory surrender. The reprisals instigated by the Germans are also explored in the well-paced and well-acted Holocaust. The story concerns a small village which suffers harsh reprisals for the killing of German soldiers during a fight with the partisans; only one officer survives and finds shelter in the house of a doctor; the latter takes care of the wounded man. Shortly after that, the Nazi commander threatens to massacre all and burn down the village unless the locals give information about the resistance fighters. And then, in the face of death, people decide to fight back against the enemy; eventually, most of them are killed by the Nazis. The

113 In March 1944, General Kreipe was appointed Commander of the 22nd Air Landing Infantry Division operating on Crete. The British SOE team, helped by Cretan Resistance fighters, abducted Kreipe and managed to reach the coast, where they were picked up by the Allies and transported to Egypt. The events related to Kreipe’s kidnap were represented in the 1957 British production Ill Met by Moonlight (Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger), which was based on the book Ill Met by Moonlight: The Abduction of General Kreipe by W. Stanley Moss. 114 On the German reprisals, see Dordanas (2007). 155 best scene comes as the German officer manages to save the children by leading them into the mountains.

What is also important about Holocaust is that it negotiates the issue of the population’s ambivalent behavior during the Occupation.115 Despite the popular belief that all Greeks participated in the fight, the film suggests that this was not the case. For instance, one of the characters, representing the “modest” citizens who do not seek for trouble, speaks against those who participate in the Resistance and believes that those who killed the soldiers are to blame for the German reprisals. The character stresses that “those who rose up and are now fighting on the mountains have nothing to lose.

They are all penniless. If you have nothing to lose, it’s easy for you to play brave.”

What is more, the hero condemns his co-villagers who help the partisans.

In addition, the village’s mayor points out that any Resistance is pointless. He believes that since the Greeks lost the war, they can do nothing but surrender. The character also claims that if people do not resist the occupying forces, the latter will not harm Greeks and claims: “We don’t want to be those who will bell the cat.” Fearing that the German reprisals will cause big damage to the properties of the “peaceful civilians” due to the partisans’ actions, he argues that “we have our home and our property. We cannot lose them. Those who fight have nothing at stake.”

Yiorgos Papakostas’ Rag of Life (1969) is different from the majority of WWII melodramas. The extinction of the Greek Jews, a theme which rarely appeared in Greek

Cinema, is at the center of the movie. The film takes a look at the story of a Jewish woman, who, after she survived concentration camps, returns home to get revenge on her husband, who had informed on her to the Gestapo so as to benefit from her fortune.

115 The same theme was discussed in the 1960 adventure Soldiers without a Uniform. For more information, see Part I. 156

The issue of the Holocaust is also mentioned in Holocaust. In the picture, the protagonist, a German officer, horribly scarred in Poland, narrates:

I don’t want to remember the experience. When someday people learn what is

going on there, it would be very difficult to be believed. It is one of the most

terrifying moments in the history of mankind. Major von Gerbert executed five

thousand hostages and, among them, one thousand innocent children. He

believes that in order for a race to be extinguished, one has to strike at the root:

children. (Holocaust, 50:34 – 50:57)

With an intention to be close to the historical truth, Psomi ya ena Drapeti [Bread for a

Fugitive] (1967), a psychological war melodrama directed by Kostas Asimakopoulos explores a neglected chapter of WWII: the fate of the Italian soldiers after the Italian armistice with the Allies in 1943. The director did a good job of balancing the demands of dramatic storytelling with historical truth. The film’s setting is a mountainous village and the plot follows the adventures of an Italian fugitive who, in order to save himself from execution, finds shelter in the house of two Greek sisters. The hero falls in love with one of the women and, together, they eventually manage to escape the Germans.

Moreover, a captured Italian soldier mentions that: “In Cephallonia, a division was massacred. Almost 3,000 men,” a reference to the Massacre of the Italian Acqui

Division by the Nazis on the island of Cephallonia, in September 1943.116

The nationalistic version regarding George Polk’s murder in Thessaloniki is represented in the 1971 Enas Iperohos Anthropos [A Wonderful Man] (d. John

Christian), one of the five Greek films which focus on the notorious Polk case.117 The

116 The number was much greater: about 5,000 Italian soldiers were massacred and others drowned. For more, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Acqui_Division. 117 The other four films about Polk’s case are: Kierion (1968, 1974, d. Dimos Theos), Ipothesi Polk [George Polk Affair] (1978, d. Angelos Malliaris), The Polk File on Air (1988, d. Dionysis Grigoratos) and Polk (2014, d. Nikos Nikolopoulos and Vasilis Nikolouzos). 157 film was ineptly directed and the story was underwritten; the story was inspired by the true story of the Gendarmerie Commander In-Chief Nikos Moushountis and focuses on his participation in the Greco-Italian War and the Resistance. Moreover, Moushountis was the Gendarmerie Officer who covered up Polk’s case. The character is portrayed as the man who arrested Grigoris Staktopoulos, a left sympathizer, and accused him of helping Mouzenidis and Vasvanas, members of KKE, commit the murder. In the film,

Staktopoulos admits that he himself brought Polk to the bay of Thessaloniki but he could not imagine that the communists would murder him. As Andritsos claims: “The film adopts the official accusation against communists, despite the fact that

Staktopoulos denied his involvement and, moreover, there is a lot of evidence that

Polk’s murder was devised by the Greek secret services” (I Katohi 258).

Finally, the cinematic device of the “doppelgänger”118 has been used in two

Occupation films of the period. The movie Till the Last Moment (1972, d. Marios

Retsilas),119 produced by James Paris, is notable for being one of the features to use the theme of the doppelgänger and also one of the most extreme anti-communist propaganda films that were made during the Dictatorship. Reflecting the ideology of the radical right, the director intended the movie to serve as anti-communist propaganda. Retsilas paints an extremely negative image of the left-wing guerillas, by depicting them as bandits and common criminals as “evil creatures who, during the

Occupation, collaborated with the conquerors and now, hunted for their crimes, seek refuge.” The communists are totally ruthless, abducting ordinary citizens. For example, a group of guerillas, whose leader is the notorious Captain Tourkodimos, abducts the protagonist, a sick woman, for ransom.

118 The concept of the doppelgänger has been used for centuries; Shakespeare exploited it in The Comedy of Errors, Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities and Dostoevsky in The Double. 119 The script was based on the book To Megalo Pehnidi [The Big Game] by the famous Greek crime author Yannis Maris (1916-1979). 158

On the surface, Till the Last Moment is a typical romance. Set in the first period after the Liberation, it is the story of a gambler and fortune-hunter, Alekos Kallergis, who, due to his remarkable physical resemblance to Dimos Fokas, a dead army officer, is “hired” by Konstantinos Mavroleon, a rich businessman. Mavroleon’s daughter,

Olga, who is about to die of an unspecified disease, had a love affair with the officer, but she is unaware of her lover’s fate. The doppelgänger is asked to play the role of the lover who has returned from the battle so as to convince Olga that Fokas is alive. The double accepts the deal and, as he spends more and more time with the sick woman, he eventually falls for Olga and remains with her until her death. Although the heroine suspects the truth, she accepts the doppelgänger, choosing to live with the illusion that the man she loved, is back.

The second film which used the device of the doppelgänger was the popular I

Yenei Pethenoun Dio Fores [Midway Glory] (1973). Produced by Finos Films and directed by Takis Vouyouklakis, the film highlights the heroism of the Greek Army and stresses the officers’ sacrifice for the country. In this picture, based on a conventional script by Nikos Foskolos, the doppelgänger plays the same role; he is hired by a woman so as to convince her daughter that her father is not dead. The latter was an honored army officer who was killed during a skirmish with the Germans. The double adopts the role and gradually identifies completely with the dead officer; in the end, the man even chooses to sacrifice his life rather than reveal his true identity.

Films of anti-Bulgarian Propaganda

The relationship between Greece and Bulgaria had been always complex, as the question of Macedonia and Bulgaria’s claims over Greek territories brought the two countries to the verge of war many times during the 20th century. Of course, the

Bulgarian occupation of the areas of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace during WWII and 159 the atrocities committed against civilians worsened the relations. During the post-war period, Bulgaria was still seen as the incarnation of the “northern danger.” Although the iciness in the relations of the two countries began to melt in the mid. 1960s, the sensitive issue of Macedonia was always present, poisoning the attempts for further improvement.

The situation deteriorated after the 1967 coup d’état; the Bulgarian communist leader Zhivkov was one of the few politicians who condemned the colonels’ intervention and claimed that the jingoistic rhetoric would increase the tensions between the two neighbor countries (Valden 454). Moreover, Bulgaria boycotted the

1967 Thessaloniki International Fair, its press castigated the regime and the Bulgarian

Red Cross appealed to the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding the fate of Greek political prisoners (459).

In this negative political context, a string of anti-Slavic films was produced during the Dictatorship. The military regime showed increased interest in these features and generously supported their production. Those pictures featured the “Slavo- communist danger,” and thematized the Bulgarian Occupation of Eastern Macedonia during WWII. The filmmakers vilified the Bulgarian policy, focusing on Bulgaria’s long-term imperialist ambitions against Greek territory, which date back to the

Macedonian Struggle of the early 1900s and WWI (Andritsos, I Katohi: 251). In addition, they paid attention to the plans of “dehellenization” and “Bulgarization,” which were attempted in the Greek occupied areas (251).

These films portrayed the Bulgarian occupation during WWII as the extension of the Macedonian Struggle of the early 20th century. All movies depicted the

Bulgarians as evil invaders, while the Greek patriots were represented as heroic fighters, who sacrificed their life for the liberation of Macedonia. The highly 160 successful120 I Genei tou Vorra [The Brave Bunch] (1970, d. Kostas Karayannis) was the first in the series of anti-Slavic films which continued with I Genia ton Iroon [The

Generation of Heroes] (1969, d. Vassilis Melissinos), O Telefteos ton Komitatzidon

[The Last Komitadji] (d. Grigoris Grigoriou) in 1970 and Pavlos Melas in 1973 (d.

Fillipos Fylaktos).121 It could be argued that the above pictures metonymically refer to the communist plot to cede Macedonia to the Titoic Yugoslavia.122 At the same time, they serve as propaganda by promoting a distinctly far-rightwing and anti-communist agenda.

The plot of The Brave Bunch centers on the brave efforts of a group of patriots, who fight in the area of Eastern Macedonia. After the capitulation and the evacuation of the Greek government in April 1941, the Germans divided the Greek territory in three zones and Bulgaria was given political control of the area of Eastern Macedonia.

In The Brave Bunch, shortly after the annexation of the area to the Bulgarian State, bands of komitadjis begin to terrorize the inhabitants into accepting the Bulgarian rule.

The occupiers believed that by exercising violence against the Greek residents of

Macedonia, they would compel them to desert their homeland. The feature focuses on a Greek officer who, together with a journalist friend, return to his village, which is under the rule of a notorious komitadji, There, the brave officer, adopting the name

120 The film was one of Karayannis-Karatzopoulos’ all time biggest hits, selling 627,000 tickets in the 1969-70 season (Soldatos, IV: 411). The movie’s all-star cast included actors such as Yannis Voglis, Petros Fyssoun, Xenia Kalogeropoulou, Anna Fonsou, Emilia Ipsilanti, Thanasis Milonas, Lavrentis Dianellos, Dimos Starenios, Stavros Xenidis and Ilia Livikou. 121 The plot of The Generation of Heroes revolves around the Macedonian Struggle of the early twentieth century (1904-1908). The subject matter of Pavlos Melas is a chronicle of the life and the skirmishes of the legendary Greek officer against the Komitadjis during the Macedonian Struggle, focusing on the Bulgarian atrocities against innocent Greek civilians. 122 The ethnic Slav-Macedonians of Greece made a crucial contribution to the communist side during the Greek Civil War. Their estimated representation in the DSE ranged from more than a quarter in April 1947 to more than two-thirds in mid-1949. In order to increase their mobilization for the struggle, the KKE Central Committee declared on the 5th Plenum on January 1949 endorsed the right of Slav- Macedonians to self-determination, claiming that “as a result of the victory of DSE and of the peoples' revolution, the Macedonian people will find its full national restoration as they want it, offering its blood today to conquer it.” For more, Papavizas (2006). 161

“Alexander the Macedonian,” forms of group of the “Free Greeks of Macedonia” and they all manage to seize a Bulgarian military train. In the end, the group of patriots, assisted by the inhabitants, enter the occupied village and expel the enemies; their commander, the bloodthirsty Stepan gets killed during the battle with the Greek patriots.

From the beginning of The Brave Bunch, the Slavic threat is perceived as the dangerous one and the Bulgarians are delineated as the embodiment of evil and are blamed for crimes against innocent civilians. The film begins with a scene of panicked crowds, including women and children, dashing away for safety and falling over each other in their bid to escape from the komitadjis who invade their village. The film is filled with violent scenes, beginning with the rape of a Greek woman by a Bulgarian man. Adopting an almost “pornographic” representation of violence (Paradeisi I Akirosi

212-213), the director obsessively shows the enemy’s brutal actions (abductions, murders, cutting off tongues) and viewers see close-ups of the terrified faces and the wounded bodies of victims, especially of women who are tortured and raped by the conquerors.

Furthermore, references to the abduction of Greek children by the komitadjis in the early 20th century alludes to the sensitive theme of the children’s transfer to countries of the Eastern Bloc by the communists during the Civil War. In The Brave

Bunch, Stepan, the Bulgarian commander is of Greek origin; when he was a young boy, he was abducted by the Bulgarians and was brainwashed into becoming a “killer komitadji.”

By contrast, in The Brave Bunch Greek patriots prove themselves heroes through great deeds. Much like many WWII films of the period, the picture begins with an already established hero, personified in Lt. Nikos Devetzis, decorated for his bravery 162 during the Greco-Italian War of 1940-41. The protagonist makes all the right decisions, risks himself for the good of his village, and exhibits strong leadership, all evidenced in his actions throughout the feature. For instance, instead of staying in the hospital for the period of recovery, the officer, after the annexation of the Eastern Macedonia into

Bulgaria, decides to leave Athens and return to his village so as to fight the enemy and claims that he prefers “to die than surrender. […] Peace can only be achieved through sacrifice.” His risk-taking actions are also made evident through various actions. Most notably in his decision to secretly enter Bulgaria so as to free more than sixty Greek hostages. Notable as well is the hero’s leadership. Devetzis leads a group of patriots in an effort to harass the Bulgarian occupation forces by sabotages or surprise raids all the way up to the liberation of Macedonia from the enemy.

Like The Brave Bunch, The Last Komitadji appropriates stereotypes of the evil

Slavs and the courageous Greeks. The typically manichean script by Yannis Tziotis represents the Bulgarians as the “Other”, the Enemy as the embodiment of evil and

“Us” as the incarnation of heroism and self-sacrifice. The invaders are delineated as satanic, villainous and sadistic torturers of patriots, while resistance members are portrayed as brave fighters who sacrifice their life for the common cause and suffer tortures. When, for example, the film’s protagonist, Grigoris, a Greek resistance member, is ruthlessly tortured by sinister Bulgarians, the images are framed in the iconography of shots with dim lighting, focusing on the wounded body of the young fighter. The iconography of the hero, who is bound hand and foot, creates an impression of heroic suffering and martyrdom, as in depictions of Christian martyrs (St. Sebastian).

Close-ups on the Bulgarian officer, by contrast, focus on his sinister characteristics and convey his sadistic pleasure from other’s suffering.

As noted, these films shed light on the perennial imperialist dream of the 163

Bulgarians to annex the territories of Eastern Macedonia. In The Last Komitadji, this ambition for the rebirth of the “Great Bulgaria” is related to broader political situations

(Theodoridis 207). According to the film, Bulgaria never gave up its plan to occupy

Macedonia, as the interior monologue of the Bulgarian Colonel Anton Paiko reveals:

I finally return to you, Macedonia, after twenty-four years. When we left you in

1918, full of shame, I knew that we would be back. Bulgaria always returns to

Macedonia. And this time we should stay forever. […] Things are different now.

Hitler dominates Europe, France is enslaved, England won’t last long; even

Russia seeks to find a shelter behind the Urals. Nothing can stop us. Our fathers’

dream will eventually come true. Because, even if Germany loses the war, we

must not forget that the Russians are our brothers. Therefore, one way or

another, Bulgaria will stay in Macedonia forever. (The Last Komitadji, 1:55 –

3:17)

It is argued that the hero’s monologue clearly shows that Bulgaria, in order to fulfill its plan, is willing to ally itself with different political forces. These words prove that

Bulgarians will seek opportunities to revive the “Macedonian” question and make territorial claims. Therefore, the problem will affect the Greco-Bulgarian relations in the years to come. This is clearly shown in the end of the film, where, after the defeat of the Axis powers, the Colonel accepts the new order and becomes a member of the

Bulgarian Communist party, after he is reassured that the communist regime will not forget the issue of Macedonia. For, as the film suggests, the “Slavo-communist” danger for Greece has not been eliminated; Bulgaria, under the communist government and with Soviet support, is willing to return to Greek territory (Theodoridis 209). The director, through his revealing monologue, promoted and celebrated the Dictatorship’s mission; the colonels saw themselves as saviors from “Slavo-Communism,” the 164 perennial threat of Slavs endangering “the existence of the Greek nation and communism threatening the Greek state” (Karakasidou 238).

Furthermore, the policy of “Bulgarization” is also highlighted in the aforementioned films. In The Last Komitadji, the village’s mayor, as he recollects past traumatic events, mentions that the Bulgarians’ evil plan, which proved to be consistent through time, was to eliminate all Greeks from Macedonia. The hero also claims that, if this attempt failed, enemies would try to “Bulgarize” Greeks by force. According to

Theodoridis:

The plan of Bulgarization is the same with the plan that was attempted during

the Macedonian Struggle and the first Bulgarian occupation. […] It aims at

forcing local citizens to adopt Bulgarian consciousness, the Bulgarian language

and become parts of the Exarchate. The groups of Komitadjis, apart from

brutalities against innocent civilians, attempt to assimilate teachers, priests and

notables, in order for Bulgarization to gradually succeed. (208)

The release of those films caused Bulgaria’s reaction; in March 1970, Bulgarian officials complained to the Greek ambassador in Sofia for the anti-Bulgarian content of both The Great Bunch and The Last Komitadji (Valden 487). Moreover, Bulgarians highly objected to the production of Pavlos Melas. The dictator Papadopoulos himself paid attention to the shooting of the film and insisted that the script should be scrupulously re-mastered (505). However, Pavlos Melas, was not released during

Papadopoulos’ rule; it premiered during Ioannidis’ regime (early 1974) and, as Karalis states, it was “heavily promoted by the Dictatorship” (A History:175), topping, thus, the box-office of the season with 432,000 admissions. As noted, the Bulgarian side protested; the ambassador Popov characterized the film as anti-Bulgarian, since it portrays Bulgarians as “wild beasts” and murderers (Valden 505). Concerning the 165 cycle of anti-Slavic films, The Last Komitadji was seen as a “suspenseful story with passionate performances − a strong proof of the aesthetic and political versatility of its director” (Karalis 139). Moreover, The Brave Bunch was praised for its “fast tempo and good action, somewhat resembling Italian westerns” (Tzavalas 130).

Contesting Dominant Discourses

The Cannon and the Nightingale

In spite of the fact that the majority of the Occupation-themed films followed the pattern of highlighting the nation’s heroism and stressing the heroic values of the army officers, there were a few films which followed a different path; In contrast to No, The Fort of the Immortals, Operation Rainbow and other films which represented an epic version of the past, The Cannon and the Nightingale and What did you do in the war Thanasis? subverted the official, ultra-patriotic visions of the Occupation and came to make an anti-war statement.

The Cannon and the Nightingale, a satire which avoids heroisms, is “a moral fable about the futility of war, as well as a subversive exploration of what happens in the minds and hearts of the men who wear military uniforms” (Karalis, A History: 124).

The film, filled with great comic performances, is made in three parts, two of which take place in the 1940s decade. Set on an occupied Greek island, the first story deals with the problem of famine during the tripartite Occupation: An Italian commander decides to fix the clock of the central square by giving an olive oil can to the island’s mayor in order for the latter to take it to the clock mender. But the oil can gets lighter and lighter, as hungry people steal olive oil from it. In the end, nothing is left for the mender. As Tzavalas observes: “The people put up a passive, yet very effective resistance, and drive the occupiers to insanity” (125).

The film’s third story represents – in the form of satire – the Greeks’ feelings 166 towards the Germans and “gives strong messages of the dramatic effects of wartime occupation and struggle by the weak against the occupiers” (124). The story focuses on a Nazi officer, who commandeers a Greek house, and faces the residents’ animosity and hatred. He constantly argues with the landlord, a middle-class man, to the point of madness. In the end, the German decides to leave the house, unable to handle the negative everyday situation. According to Andritsos, The Cannon and the Nightingale is a rare example of a picture which attempts to account for historical events from the perspective of the everyday person; the filmmakers’ aim at representing people’s problems and their efforts to survive (I Katohi 258). Although The Cannon failed at the box-office,123 its ideological shift indicated the way forward for subsequent Occupation movies.

What did you do in the War Thanasis?

One of the most noteworthy history-oriented films of the dictatorial era was Dinos

Katsouridis’124 satirical drama Ti Ekanes ston Polemo Thanasi? [What did you do in the war Thanasis?.]125 Katsouridis, who began his career as a film editor, established himself as one of the most talented Greek cinematographers and directors. As opposed to directors such as Yannis Dalianidis and Dinos Dimopoulos who were under contract with Finos Films, Katsouridis was hired as a director by different companies or produced his own pictures. Written by Katsouridis and Asimakis Gialamas,126 What did

123 The film sold less than 25,000 tickets (Soldatos 2004). 124 124 Dinos Katsouridis (1927-2011) was a film editor, producer, cinematographer, writer and director. In a career spanning over five decades, Katsouridis edited more than seventy-five films and directed seventeen. He collaborated with the popular comedian Thanasis Vengos in nine films. Their last collaboration was the 1982 comedy O Thanasis ke to Katarameno Fidi [Thanasis and the Cursed Snake]. 125 The title, derived as it was from the comedy What did you do in the war daddy? (1968, d. Blake Edwards), seems to emphasize the antiwar side of the film. 126 Asimakis Gialamas (1909-2004) was a prominent playwright, journalist and scriptwriter. He also wrote comic short stories for the daily press and radio. Gialamas and Kostas Pretenderis established a regular scriptwriting partnership. Among their most popular plays were Enas Ippotis ya ti Vasoula [A Knight for Vasoula], Mias Pentaras Niata [Penniless Youth], Kati Kourasmena Palikaria [Some Weary Lads] and I Komisa tis Fabrikas [The Countess of the Factory]. 167 you do in the war Thanasis? is notable for its antiheroic portrayal of the war, and for the cohesive depiction of the effects of the Occupation on ordinary citizens.

The feature was a critical and a commercial success and is credited with contributing to a vigorous representation of WWII. Much of the praise went for

Thanasis Veggos’ passionate performance. As Tzavalas writes: “Vengos gave face to the social mentality that dominated the urban middle class of this period: unreflective yet sympathetic, passive yet with a strange sense of justice, terrified but with a certainty that things will get better” (147). The movie won three major awards in the Thessaloniki festival including “Best Artistic Film,” “Best Screenplay,” as well as the “Best Actor” award for Thanasis Veggos. What did you do in the war Thanasis? took more than

640,000 admissions, making it first highest-grossing film of the 1971-72 season.

From its first showing, the movie was recognized as a powerful emotional force for opposition to war and fascism. Whereas death in the majority of the WWII films of the Dictatorship periοd was depicted as nοble and herοic, in What did you do in the war

Thanasis? it is presented as senseless and wasteful; withοut any redeeming sense of purpοse. Fοr the movie, there is nothing heroic, glorious, or even cοurageous about the war. It is a miserable experience, where survival is a matter of chance.

Katsourdis is not so much interested in the depiction of epic scenes than in the portrayal of the conditions during the Occupation; using irony and humor, the film delineates common people’s sufferings and hardships and their desperate efforts to survive during the harsh time of the years 1941-44 (Lambrinos 235). Like most of the antiwar pictures, What did you do in the war Thanasis? does not pay attention to the historical forces underlying the conflict. In the case of the feature, the political environment, as well as the historical causes of WWII are ignored and nationalist ideologies remain unexamined. Instead, war becomes a personal battle to survive. 168

Eschewing patriotic rhetoric and avoiding representing heroic acts against the enemy, the movie draws attention to the perspective of ordinary people who got caught up in great events. The opening scene of the film shows the devastation and humiliation suffered by Greeks at the hands of foreign invaders. In this case the invaders are the

Germans. The scene is set in a factory, commandeered by the Nazis for their war effort.

It is a scene of misery and disharmony, emphasized by the shots of factory workers waiting patiently in line at the kitchen for soup. The next scenes bring us face to face with the confrontation between good and evil. The Greeks are portrayed as open, human characters, ‘real people.’ The protagonist, Thanasis Karathanasis, a poor laborer, is a typical anti-hero and bears no resemblance to the courageous officers of the majority of WWII movies of the era; the only thing Thanasis keeps in mind is what to do to survive the Nazi terror and life’s hardships.

The protagonist is called upon to testify at the trial of his neighbor, a tavern owner, accused of serving cat meat to the customers. Thanasis is also accused of perjury and sent to prison for twenty days. There, the man meets resistance fighters who plan to escape. When the Germans mistake him for Ivan, a legendary Resistance Captain,

Thanasis steadily refuses to adopt the identity of the leader. Held in a small cell at the

Gestapo headquarters, the protagonist is deprived of sleep and is subjected to interrogations using bright lights along with ruthless tortures. The hero is seen helpless, exhausted and traumatized. However, the only thing Thanasis keeps in mind is how he will escape and what he will eat so as not to die of starvation (Vamvakas 268). In What did you do in the war Thanasis?, the director undermines the construction of a “Greek hero” by portraying Thanasis as a weak man; a character who strongly disagrees with

Resistance actions because he prefers a peaceful life to tortures and death by the Nazis.

In the movie, Thanasis declares that he has no ambitions other than survival. He 169 has no interest in the war or the resistance. His commitment is to maintain the simple life of an ordinary man. Therefore, the film shows that a significant part of the Greek population, far from being heroic as portrayed by the majority of WWII films, was weak, perhaps cowardly fixated on survival in the midst of violence, starvation and terror. However, without knowing, Thanasis delivers leaflets, in which the Resistance calls for the active opposition of the Greek population to Nazi oppression. Taking leaflets to the factory where Thanasis works carries great risk, because all employees are constantly searched by the Germans. For Karalis, the hero “struggles to survive day by day of the German Occupation, through deception, mischief, or small acts of unremarkable heroism” (147).

On the other hand, the portrayal of the Germans is itself a prominent example of atrocity and evil. The Nazis are faceless, frequently shot in profile, with cruel, animal-like features; high-rank officers are characterized by ruthlessness, such as the silent, bespectacled Nazi official who orders tortures and murders in cold-blood.

Nevertheless, the director undermines the cοnvention οf a cinematic wοrld populated by Manichean views; of gοοd and wicked schemes. Evil in this scheme, for most of

WWII films of the period, are the Nazis who represent the cold-hearted, sinister force, the greater villain. By contrast, in What did you do in the war Thanasis? German soldiers are gradually humanized and represented as victims of the war too. For instance, the Nazi high-rank official is contrasted with Hans, a German private who is in charge of the soup kitchen and who eventually becomes Thanasis’ friend. The two characters form a powerful relationship and share a bond as victims of the madness and futility of the war.

One of the most unforgettable scenes in the film is when Thanasis finds Hans in the prison; there, the German soldier, falsely accused of delivering leaflets of the 170

Resistance, is seen crucified upside down and brutally tortured by the Nazis. The camera focuses on a close-up of Thanasis cleaning and rinsing Hans’ wounds: “It’s me

Thanasis. Your friend. We must go now. They are going to kill us,” the hero says to the

German man, who is finally ordered to be executed by the “faceless” Nazi commander.

The film’s final scene occurs at Thanasis’ house and foreshadows the liberation of Greece. First, a group of Nazi soldiers are out and about scouring Athenian neighborhoods in search of Resistance leaflets. Thanasis displays his anxiety by trying to hide the radio.127 He quickly leaves his room, concealing the radio under his clothes.

The picture ends with Thanasis running to escape the enemy, as the Greek National

Anthem is played on the radio.

Film critics have long highlighted the allegorical significance of Katsouridis’ picture, a reflection of Greece during the Dictatorship. For, as Karalis points out, What did you do in the war Thanasis? was “an accomplished metaphor for oppression and hope, one of the most important political comedies made after The Germans Strike

Back” (147). As Katsouridis claimed, the colonels put obstacles in his way: the director’s next production To Proxenio tis Annas [The Matchmaking of Anna] was not funded by the Greek Film Centre. Moreover, the General Army Staff did not provide technical assistance for Katsouridis’ next film Thanasi Pare t’ Oplo sou [Thanasis Get your Gun] (1972) (Stassinopoulou, Anaparastasis: 259).

127 During the Occupation, the Nazi forces sealed radio receivers in Athens to receive only the national station, which they controlled. In the countryside people were ordered to turn in their radios or faced severe punishment. For more, Zaharopoulos (1993). 171

Chapter III The Representation of the Civil War during the Dictatorship

Μητέρα, όταν κινήσαμε απ’ την πόλη,

Σκύβαν ωχροί, μουντοί οι ουράνιοι θόλοι

βαρούσανε καμπάνες, μουσικές,

τούμπανα, κόρνα, σάλπιγγες, και κάτου

απ’ τη βουή περνούσαν σκεφτικές

ανθρωπομάζες: δείπνο του θανάτου. Γ. Ρίτσος, «Γράμματα από το μέτωπο»

Introduction Contemporary Greek history has been the subject of an ideological battle which seeks to rewrite and rehabilitate ambiguous and controversial events. One arena of cultural concern has been the events of the 1940s. In the features about recent history, the directors mainly focused on the German Occupation, rather than the Civil War.

However, within the Dictatorship period, filmmakers shifted from denial or silence regarding the civil strife to on-screen portrayal of the traumatic event. The “Civil War” film appeared as a distinct subgenre in the late 1960s and its appearance coincides with the peak of the production of historically-themed pictures. The fanatical anti- communism, which was central to the colonels’ ideology, did not lead to the immediate production of anti-communist movies. In fact, it was not until the 1968-69 season that communists were featured as central characters in films.

What I particularly scrutinize here is how the major incidents of the 1940s influence the film work of directors during the junta period – specifically Andreas

Papastamatakis’ The Bulkes Fugitives, and Ilias Machairas’ Grammos– as they revolve around the themes of the Occupation and, mainly, the Civil War, a subject too vast and tragic to be encompassed in any reasonable way by cinema. Features about the Civil

War, I argue, reflect mainly the anti-communist vision of the regime and contain 172 propagandistic messages in support of the colonels’ militaristic agenda. Under the

Dictatorship, the Civil War had been represented as a just and righteous crusade against communism. Both The Bulkes Fugitives and Grammos provide us with two clear and well-documented examples of deliberate and consistent militaristic and anti-communist propaganda. The camps are divided very firmly into the good and the bad, the heroes and the villains. There is barely any ambiguity in this manichean division. The army officers are the representatives of the side of virtue and whose achievements and deeds are glorified. By contrast, the Leftists are seen as enemies of the nation; ruthless criminals; evil traitors who did not resist the enemy, but in fact collaborated with the

Nazis so as to enslave the Greek people and establish a Marxist Dictatorship.

Films

The Bulkes Fugitives and Grammos

The taboo issue of the Civil War, which was hushed during all the post-war years, finally emerges in a historical period we would least expect it: during the Dictatorship.

During the colonels’ years, one can observe the production of several films whose subject matter was the civil strife. Such films, as many Occupation pictures, were endorsed by the Dictatorship. The endorsement was both material and technical and reduced the budget of the film.

The Bulkes Fugitives is the first of a series of Civil-War themed pictures, which were produced and released during the colonels’ regime, followed in quick succession by Grammos and Shake Hands. The series of the Civil War features that emerged in the late 1960s and continued in the early 1970s served to establish some of the enduring themes of the genre. As explored in the analysis that follows, Civil War film is a cinema of patriots and traitors, of heroes and miasmas, primarily if not exclusively anti- 173 communist. Thus, all three movies of this period present a clear worldview where forces of good struggled against forces of evil, which in this case translates into ‘us’ versus

‘the communists.’

The first film of the series, The Bulkes Fugitives, was scripted by Kostas

Mouratoglou and directed by Andreas Papastamatakis.128 It was produced by Perissos

Films, a rather small company, and its cast included Thanos Martinos, Lavrentis

Dianellos and Chrisa Korizi. The release of a film like The Bulkes Fugitives was certainly well timed. However, given the film’s ideοlogical bias, it is not surprising that its reception was pοοr. Released in the 1969-70 season, the film was seen by just seven thousand viewers (Soldatos, Vol. IV 412). The Bulkes Fugitives ranked 94th out of an annual production of 99 films, after such features as I Daskala me ta Xantha Malia [The

Teacher with the Blonde Hair], Oratotis Miden [Visibility Zero], I Yenei tou Vora [The

Brave Bunch] and I Neraida ke to Palikari [The Fairy and the Lad]. Right above The

Bulkes Fugitives in the ratings was O Dosilogos [The Collaborator] with 8,500 admissions (Soldatos, Vol. IV: 410-412). It is also significant that the picture was rejected by the Festival committee and, therefore, did not officially participate in the

1969 Thessaloniki Film Festival.

Set during the Civil War, the film revolves primarily around Captain

Goulielmos, an ELAS leader, who has found refuge in the Bulkes camp.129 However,

128 Papastamatakis was the cinematographer of more than ten films. His first work was the 1963 comedy Ta Pedia tis Mantalenas [The Children of Mantalena] (d. Yiorgos Stamatopoulos). The Bulkes Fugitives was his first (and last) directorial attempt. 129 The village of Bulkes (now knοwn as Maglic) in Yugoslavia was used as a training camp for Greek cοmmunists. After the Varkiza Agreement in 1945, several thοusands of ELAS leaders and guerillas who sοught refuge to Yugoslavia were shipped to the empty village of Bulkes. There, a semi-autonomous territory, a “Greek commune,” was developed: Greek language schools, theaters, hοspitals, an orphanage, a security service, laws, local currency were fοrmed by the partisans. In 1949, fοllowing Tito’s conflict with Stalin and the defeat of the Democratic Army in Greece, the camp was evacuated and dispersed and many of its residents were transferred tο other Eastern Bloc countries (mainly in Hungary and Czechοslovakia). For the Greek government, Bulkes became the epitome of communist threat and betrayal as it accused Yugoslavia that Bulkes was formed as a “military academy” and a “war base” that trains communists for guerilla activities in Greece. 174 quarreling begins as sοοn as he arrives in the camp. When Goulielmos expresses dοubt, he is dealt with harshly by the Bulkes leadership. The communist officials accuse

Goulielmos that he is an “anti-party” element, who favors the return to the previous political state of Greece; By contrast, the ELAS Captain accuses the Bulkes authorities that they continuously distort the truth regarding the political situation in Greece; despite the fact that the Democratic Army is at a disadvantage, short of provisions and almost surrounded by the National Army, the propaganda newspaper “Foni tou Bulkes”

[Voice of Bulkes] announces that DSE is about to capture Athens. In addition,

Goulielmos disagrees with the mission of the Greek communists; instead of fighting against the enemy, partisans fight against their homeland. Furthermore, the ELAS

Captain shows strong disfavor for the hostile attitude and the repressive measures implemented by the Bulkes leadership: threats, harassments, beatings, tortures.

Due to this disillusion by the officials’ lies and practices, Goulielmos falls into disfavor with the officials, who disown him for “anti-party” activities.” Soon, the hero rejects the Party and attempts an escape from Bulkes. Together with Arapis and Brizos, two other comrades, Goulielmos manages to reach the border. There, the Captain feels redeemed; for, as he says, “three men return to their homeland; to the light; to the sun; to freedom.” When they watch a battle between nationalists and communists unfold beneath them, the fugitives descend to join a governmental unit. In the thick of the battle, the characters are awakened to their patriotic affinity with the Greek soldiers they find themselves fighting alongside. In the final scenes, the army mops up the area, arrests the repentant communists and takes them to the officer; the latter proves to be

Goulielmos’ twin brother.

The basic structure of The Bulkes Fugitives is that of an escape; in the picture, the escape leads to freedom. The main themes of The Bulkes Fugitives are authoritarian 175 oppression and human survival in a hostile environment. The director also discusses the atmosphere of espionage and the communist authorities’ repressive measures and brutal behavior towards their comrades in the Bulkes camp. Additionally, the film highlights the Greek soldiers’ heroism and self-sacrifice and overemphasizes the communist atrocities; the director vividly depicts the removal of the children to countries of the Eastern Bloc, as well as the destruction and plundering of civilians’ estates by the partisans.

The film Grammos was written by Katy Detzortzi130 and directed by Ilias

Machairas.131 Machairas’ right-wing point of view was in harmony with the anti- communist message in Detzortzi’s script. It was produced by Galaxias Films in 1970 and its cast included the little known actors Christoforos Zikas, Lefteris Giftopoulos,

Marlen Papoulia and the veteran protagonist Ilia Livikou. As the director confessed in an interview, the preparation for the film took almost two years and it would not have been completed, if the government had not rushed to their assistance by sending a military unit to be used as extras for the war scenes (Machairas, Interview by Yiorgos

Pissalidis). Compared with another film of 1971, Shake Hands, which was also in line with the official anti-communist discourse, Grammos met with relatively poorer commercial success, as it was seen by only 43,500 viewers, ranking 67th out of an annual input of 90 films of the 1971-72 season (Soldatos, Vol. V 41). Right below

Grammos in the box-office ratings was the soft core porn film Ta Vimata tis Fotias

[Steps of Fire] with less than 43,000 tickets.

130 Detzortzi wrote many film scripts during the 1960s. Her first story was the 1958 melodrama Mia Xeni Perase [A Stranger Came by] (d. Ilias Machairas). Working mainly with Machairas, she wrote the script for several WWII propaganda films (O Prodotis [The Traitor] (1967), Gorgopotamos (1968), The Collaborator (1970). Grammos was her last work. 131 Machairas has also worked as an actor, editor and film producer (founder of Galaxias Films). He made his directorial debut with the melodrama A Stranger Came by and during his career, Machairas directed more than twenty films, mainly folk costume melodramas and, during the junta period, war adventures. In the late 1980s, he also made several video films. 176

The sense of divided houses is pervasive throughout Civil War cinema. Movies such as Grammos represent the effects of war upon a family. The plot of Grammos follows the predicament of two brothers who find themselves in different political camps during the 1940s: Christos Goulas, a prominent ELAS Captain, heads a group of communist guerillas to fight against nationalists. By contrast, his brother Yiorgos is a Greek Army lieutenant, who, during the German Occupation, was actively involved in the fighting against the enemy by being a member of a non-communist resistance group. After the Nazis’ withdrawal from Greece in 1944, Yiorgos gets involved in the

Civil War by heading a National Army Unit organized for the purpose of struggling against the communist partisans.

During the Civil War, Yiorgos is captured by communists and is sentenced to death. Ironically, it is his brother who passes the death sentence, as he presides over the military court. Although the hero manages to escape, he is recaptured and murdered by a group of guerilla fighters. The fate of Christos is also tragic: By August 1949, the

Democratic Army is losing on all the war fronts and fighters are surrounded by governmental forces. During a battle with the governmental forces in the mountain of

Grammos, Christos is killed. A few days later, the Civil War is over. The film brings together motifs that characterize much of Machairas’ work: tough men as main characters; sinister enemies; brave patriots; and extensive use of location shooting.

Apart from the story of the two brothers, the film pays attention to crucial political events of the 40s: The Occupation and the post-war turbulent atmosphere; the

Battle of Makriyanni Gendarmerie headquarters;132 the December 1944 events; the

132 At the dawn of December 6, 1944 the Gendarmerie Regiment at Makriyannis’ was attacked by ELAS partisans. The battle lasted for four days with the ELAS forces eventually pulling back and withdrawing in the areas around the Regiment’s camp. The Makriyannis Gendarmerie Regiment was one of the four locations in the metropolitan area of Athens that the ELAS forces failed to take control of during the bloody December of 1944; the other three nationalist strongholds were the Hellenic Military Academy, 177 assault on Litochoro Precinct in 1946133 and the battles in the mountains of Grammos and Vitsi in the summer of 1949. The director follows a Manichean scheme, according to which, two worlds clashed during the Civil War in Greece: good forces (nationalists), who adοpted the cultural ideology of “ethnikofrosini” and who demanded devοtion to the natiοnalistic goals of Greece, fought against evil elements (communists), who aimed at enslaving Greece and turning it into a Marxist state (under Soviet control).

The film Shake Hands (1971, d. Errikos Andreou) is the last film of the Civil

War cycle, which represents the effects of war upon friends, explοring the divisiοns within a clοse circle at war with itself, between thοse who suppοrt and thοse whο resist the National Government. The plot of the movie resembles to a considerable extent

Grammos in its story about two friends who follow a different path and have a different role during the Civil War. Like Grammos, Shake Hands portrays communists as

“common criminals and extortionists, as monsters who do not care about human life and who are only interested in realizing their organized Communist plans.” (Lemonidou

225).

The Civil War films of this period were overlooked and disregarded by histοrians and academics, simply because of their pοοr artistic quality and their prοpagandistic messages. Yet such pictures are often as thematically significant and creatively dynamic as the mοst nοtable historical movies of the post-Dictatorship period.

the Cartographic Bureau and the Averof Prisons (Rizas 2011). The December Events also appear in the movies The Travelling Players (1975) and The Red Train (1982). For more, see Part III. 133 The day before the 31 March 1946 elections, a group of communist guerillas attacked the Precinct of Litochoro, a village in the region of Pieria, Central Macedonia. The order had been given to Markos Vafiadis and Yorgis Kikitsas by Nikos Zachariadis, KKE’s secretary general. For many years, this assault signified the beginning of the Civil War (Kontis 2012). 178

Critical Analysis: Affirmative and Counter Discourses Following Bakhtin’s theory that discourses (strings of utterances) are fundamentally dialogic, encompass distinct voices and are always placed within a sociopolitical context, I explore the rhetoric involved in film discourse concentrating on the films’ verbal discourses (dialogues, monologues, voice-over narration, off-screen voices) but also paying attention to crucial visual utterances. By considering the film as a text, I explore the utterances which are articulated in The Bulkes Fugitives and Grammos. In so doing, I explore the master narratives and dominant discourses on the topic of the

Civil War. What is of particular interest is how the two diametrically opposite ideological worldviews of the 1940s in Greece, that is communism and nationalism are represented in the movies. It is arguable that the discourses derive from the material of both films. Among these are: a. Army Officers and National Groups as Models of Heroism and Sacrifice. b. Communists as Criminals and Anti-Patriots. c. Communists as Responsible for the Outburst of the Civil War. d. The Civil War as a Revolt Motivated by Foreign Forces.

The above discourses provide the films with two specific fields of political action that have proven hostile to each other. On the one hand, both The Bulkes Fugitives and

Grammos construct an affirmative discourse for the role of the army and the nationalists; on the other, a negative discourse for the communists is articulated in the context of the colonels’ regime and its ultra-nationalistic and anti-communist version regarding the 1940s incidents. In addition, the analysis investigates whether there is a counter discourse lurking, −one that departs from the official vision; and despite the heavy propaganda rhetoric of the official discourse, whether there is even a timid effort for a reconciliatory attempt to bridge the gap of social and political division. 179 a. Army Officers and National Groups as Models of Heroism and Sacrifice

According to the dominant post-war discourse, the fight of the national army against communists was a struggle of the free world against the “Iron Curtain.” In that sense, both directors are preoccupied with the delineation of the army’s crucial role during the

Civil War. In The Bulkes Fugitives, Papastamatakis attempts to represent army officers and soldiers as models of heroism and self-sacrifice and celebrates their contribution to the nation’s battle against its “enemies.” Greek officers use their powers for the common good, fighting on their native soil against sinister invaders.

In The Bulkes Fugitives, Lieutenant Goulas claims that he must do his duty as

“a soldier and as a Greek” in order for people to live “free in the Holy Land of Greece.”

It is stressed that these particular utterances of oral speech are the most potent carriers of ideologically-laden discourse. The phrases “to do his duty as a soldier and as a

Greek,” and “to live a free life in the holy land of Greece” indicate that they are parts of the speech genre usually expected in the discourse of a subject whose ideological beliefs are of a right-wing, nationalist persuasion. One cannot help but notice the affinity between the ideological beliefs of the officers and soldiers of the nationalist troops during the Civil War with the modern day colonels’ motto justifying the enforcement of the Dictatorship in 1967: “Long live Greece of the Christian Greeks”

[Hellas, Hellinon Christianon].

Goulas’ commitment to doing the right thing for his country is the motivating factor behind his actions during the civil clash. Goulas is shown as a heroic officer, courageous and upright; a man who exhibits strong leadership and is willing to risk his life fighting for Greece. Additionally, privates are represented as courageous men, willing to fight against the partisans. For instance, there is a scene where a soldier of the National Army seems to be fueled with missionary zeal, as he refuses to consent to 180 the communist doctrine and is eager to fight against the Democratic Army, because, as he says, he “has enough with these bandits.”134

In Grammos, the important role of the armed forces during the 1940s is intensely stressed, constructing, thus, a strong discourse. The positive image of the Greek officer is highlighted from the beginning of the film: There is a scene where, after the execution of many patriots by the Nazis, a gendarmerie sergeant drags Christos, who had been heavily wounded, out from the shooting range to safety.135 The character’s positive delineation continues, as we are informed that the man had saved many resistance fighters from death.

The officers’ bravery is also celebrated in the scenes of the Battle of

Makriyannis Gendarmerie Regiment. Despite being besieged by ELAS fighters, the governmental soldiers refuse to surrender and go on to fighting “harder and with more faith.”. Even the cutting off of the water supply is not capable of weakening the privates’ morale. Margaritis points out that the privates’ behavior could be explained, if one took into consideration that:

Among the staff of the Makriyannis Gendarmerie Regiment, many were

“refugees” from the province. These were people who had every reason not to

wish EAM’s control and to avoid the punishment that was planned for them.

Additionally, soldiers who were actively involved in the horrible campaigns, in

the roundups, executions; tortures, beatings, were in the most difficult position.

134 The actual word the soldier uses is “katsaplias.” It is a word of unknown origin, although it is claimed that its origin is Albanian or even Turkish. Katsaplias means “bandit” and during the Greek Civil War, it pejoratively referred to the communist guerillas. 135 Shooting Ranges used to work after the Asia Minor Debacle as places for refugees. During the German Occupation, shooting ranges were used as places where patriots and members of the armed resistance were executed, as it happened at the Shooting Range of Kesariani where on September 5 1944, just a few days before the Nazis’ withdrawal from Greece, 50 Greek captives were shot to death. After the Liberation of Greece, the Kesariani Shooting Range was declared “Sacred Place.”

181

[…] These people were at Makriyannis Regiment because they could not return

home; neither at the neighbors of Athens and Piraeus nor at the provincial areas.

They were notorious there and Nemesis was lurking. (web internet)

All the same, the governmental soldiers are shown to fight with bravery during the battles against the communists. There is a scene where the national forces, as they advance, shout “aera,” a word that alludes to the Greco-Italian War of 1940-41. This particular utterance is also a bearer of ideologically-laden discourse, as it indicates an affinity between the beliefs of troops of the National Army with the Greek officers and soldiers who fought against the fascists during the Greco-Italian War. In this way, the director attempts to link the conflict between Greece and Italy, in which Greek people defended their land against the invaders, with the struggle of the governmental forces against communists. Thus, the discourse emphasizes the role of the army as the defender of the country; willing to fight against all those who plan its territorial mutilation, whether foreigners (Eastern Bloc countries) or domestic enemies (guerilla fighters).

In addition, in the scene of the Battle of Nimfaio (April 1947), gendarmerie

officers and soldiers come under heavy fire from communists, and choose to fight to

the death rather than surrender. The images of young men, who jump from the steeple

shouting “Long Live Greece” and “Love Live the Nation,” cannot but bring to the

viewer’s mind the Greek War of Independence.136 It is suggested that these particular

utterances of oral speech are not innocent; on the contrary, they carry an ideologically-

laden discourse. The phrases “Long Live Greece,” and “Long Live the Nation”

indicate that they are parts of the speech genre usually expected in the discourse of a

136 It is the legendary story of the women from the village of Souli who chose to fall from the cliff instead of surrendering to the Ottomans’ hands. 182

subject with militaristic and nationalist beliefs. To surrender represents a betrayal of

conviction and disgrace. The ethical imperative of Greek soldiers demanded death

before dishonor. Finally, when governmental officers are captured by partisans and

brought into the “People’s courts,” not only do they refuse to reveal the army’s plans,

but also scorn and sneer at the court’s members, by saying that they prefer “death to

disgrace.”

Without doubt, Grammos over-emphasizes the role of the right-wing resistance

groups137 during the Occupation and at the same time ignores the role of the leftist

EAM. In the film, Maria and her brother Yiorgos are members of a “National”

patriotic organization. The film portrays scenes where the two heroes fight valiantly

against the Germans; their main objective is to release patriots from the Nazi

dungeons. Additionally, Maria shows scars of torture, caused by “burning iron and

German hand.”

Moreover, on a suicide mission, the heroes kill a group of German soldiers and

manage to steal valuable information; the Nazis planned to destroy the infrastructure,

road and rail network, mines during their withdrawal from Greece.138 Although

Grammos is a rare example of a film that focuses on the activities of the non-

communist resistance group, the screenplay includes plot holes. For instance, it has

been proven that it was the regiment ELAS and not the right-wing groups (as it is

137 Although the left-wing ΕAM was the resistance group during the German Occupation with the largest support among the population, there were also right-wing groups that fought against Nazis, the most known of which was EDES which was founded on October 15 1941 under the military leadership of Napoleon Zervas. 138 The Nazi troops had an order to cause damage to the big industrial units across the industrial zone as well as the port facilities in Piraeus as they were leaving Greece. In the morning of 12 October 1944, Piraeus was shaken by the successive blasts at the Customs Office, the Port Authority, and the Organization of Piraeus Port. At the same time, members of ELAS were fighting against the last German military units (Grigoriadis 2011). 183

stressed in the film) that fought in Piraeus and managed to save the power plant in the

area of Keratsini.139 b. Communists as Criminals and Anti-Patriots

As noted, both Bulkes and Grammos appropriate stereotypes of communists as murderous and cruel villains. Their manichean scripts represent partisans as the sinister

“Other,” the alien body. For, as bοth films shοw, cοmmunism is a threat tο the very existence οf Greece and the goοd values the natiοn represents. According to

Theodoridis: “Communists are not represented as ideologists; on the contrary, they are portrayed as common criminals, thieves and killers; animals, jackals and blood-thirsty beasts who live in the mountains like the Bulgarian komitadjis” (216). From the beginning of The Bulkes Fugitives, communists as seen as criminals and traitors of their country. The film opens, in fact, with a scrolling text and a voice-over narrator who briefly describes the events which forced left-wing fighters to leave Greece and took refuge in the Bulkes camp:

After the December 1944 Movement, the Leftists who were responsible for

various crimes fled to various Eastern Bloc countries after the Varkiza

Agreement. There, organized again, they began their criminal activity against

their country. Bulkes was their training place and it eventually became their

base. (The Bulkes Fugitives, 1:44 – 2:12)

The film also suggests that several KKE officials were responsible for atrocious crimes committed in Bulkes against low-ranking members. There is a scene where Arapis, one of the communists who plan to escape Bulkes, says that the leadership of the camp

139 The battle of Keratsini power plant took place in 13 October 1944. Germans tried to blow up the plant and the 1st Battalion of ELAS after a fight that lasted three hours managed to save it. During the battle, 9 Greek patriots died and 8 got injured. Moreover, the neutralization of the German bomb squad prevented vast disasters in facilities important for the economy of Greece. For more on this issue, Grigoriadis (2011): 231. 184

“shut the mouth of Papinis and other comrades.” Moreover, the man states that six comrades, who had expressed their disappointment with the strategy and the practices of the Party, were executed.140

Not surprisingly, the picture goes on to invoke anti-communist feelings by celebrating the dominant post-war discourse, which sees communists as anti-patriots, whose aim was to enslave Greece and turn it into a Soviet satellite. In the film, an Army

Colonel claims that the soldiers’ duty is to “strike with no mercy against the new monster that dared to enslave our homeland, eradicating our great ideals. Fight to liberate our regions, which are tortured by Reds. Raise the Greek flag in our enslaved villages. Long live the new Ochi.”141 As Bakhtin writes, all discourses are filled with other discourses and “each utterance relies upon the others, presupposes them to be known, and somehow takes them into account (91). This piece of discourse belongs to an ideological, secondary-complex speech genre (Bruhn and Lundquist 25), usually expected in a military, ultra-rightist discourse and embeds particular anti-communist beliefs. For the film, communism is the new “monster” which threatens not only civilians’ freedom but also Greece’s own existence. Like Grammos, the utterance

“Ochi” affirms and relies upon a previous utterance; “Ochi,” an allusion to the Greco-

Italian War of 1940-41, signifies the director’s attempt to impose a link between the nation’s fight against the Italians and the struggle of the natiοnalistic troops against

140 There has been a strong debate regarding the conditions in Bulkes and the atrocities committed during the Civil war. Anastasiadis wrote that the leadership of the camp suppressed democracy and persecuted anyone who expressed a different opinion or criticized the party’s methods (119). Communists who dared to express their disagreement were considered as factionists, Trotskyists, traitors and spies (119). On the other hand, Kenourios, who sought refuge in Bulkes after the Varkiza Agreement, argues that: There was a rumor that there was a prison (in Bulkes) and also a rumor which was shocking and outrageous: that quite a few people from the group of the Greek refugees were killed and were dumped into wells or disappeared in the forest of Palanga, near the river Danube. I cannot confirm or deny such stories. I hadn’t noticed such atrocities and brutal acts […] In such cases, there is, of course, the element of hyperbole which turns something tragic into more tragic (143-144). 141 The word “Ochi” (No) marks the denial of the dictator Ioannis Metaxas to the Italians’ request for free passage to invade Greece in 28 October 1940. This denial brought Greece into the war on the Allied side. The Greek forces seized the offensive and drove Italians back through most of Albania, making thus the Greco-Italian War (1940-41) as one of the most illustrious pages in the history of Greece. 185 cοmmunists.

Additionally, after his escape from Bulkes, Goulas claims that he has been healed of the “germ of communism, whose fight is “dirty.” The utterance “germ” also carries an ideologically-laden discοurse. By describing cοmmunism in medical terms,

Captain Goulas reproduces a cοmmon post-war anti-communist discourse according to which cοmmunism was a dangerous germ, a disease that infects “healthy minds”

(Bournazos 1997). Furthermore, one cannot but notice the affinity between the views of Goulas with the mοdern day colοnels who used medical metaphοrs, by portraying themselves as “doctors,” who οperated on the “patient” (Greece) by placing the country in an orthopedic cast (Green 2004).

In The Bulkes Fugitives, the historic occurrence of the evacuation of children from the war zone to the Eastern People’s Republics during the Civil War also permeates the narration.142 This event has been characterized as one of the most dramatic and controversial episodes of the civil strife and was called either “Abduction of Children” (Pedomazoma) by the right-wing discourse or “Salvation of Children”

(Pedososimo) by the communists. It refers to the operation of evacuation of about

23,000-25,000 children between 3-15 years old to the Eastern Bloc, where they would be “well cared for and continue their education until they could safely return to their homes at the end of the war,” (Danforth and Van Boeschoten 4).

This organized effort began in 1948 and was undertaken by the KKE

Provisional Government. From the Greek government’s perspective, communists

142 The evacuation of children to the Eastern Bloc countries was one of the themes of the 1968 propaganda film On the Borders of Treason. The film depicts the story of two brothers, a major of a Greek army and a Russian spy, who turns to be one of the thousands of children who, according to the film, were brutally abducted from their families so as to be transferred to the countries of the Iron Curtain. There is a scene where the communist captain orders his soldiers to get all the children from a Greek village and then to cross the borders. As a Greek army officer claims, the communists’ aim was to turn children into “janissaries.” 186 violently abducted and transferred thousands of children to countries behind the Iron

Curtain, so as turn them into “janissaries.” As Bahktin points out, discourses are fundamentally dialogic and inseparable from the social and political context. Created as a response to the nationalistic discourse on the issue, the left-wing discourse asserted that the purpose of the operation was the children’s protection from the “barbarity of monarch fascism” (Lagani 23) the “bombardments and the atrocities of the governmental army.” (Yannakakis 21). The communists also claimed that the effort was done at the request of “popular organizations and parents … until the conditions in the country will allow their return” (Baerentzen 130).143

Regarding this tragic event, the film reaffirms the official discourse, portraying the evacuation of children as a criminal action, which aimed at violently abducting children and taking them to the Eastern Bloc countries. For example, there is a scene where Eleni, a communist captive, says that communist forces had stayed at her village

“until the end of the kids’ rescue” and claims that the reason for the operation was “to save the children from the Greek army.” Refuting the communist utterance, Goulas articulates the counter, right-wing discourse; the Army officer characterizes the abduction of children as a “disgrace” and expresses his wonder by saying: “And what would the army do to the little kids?”

Moreover, in order to highlight the violent nature of the transfer of children, there is a scene where the local officer of the Democratic Army brings into the

“People’s Court” a mother, who refuses to surrender her child to the partisans and a

143 On February 1948, the Greek Government formally submitted a complaint to the UN Special Committee on the Balkans (UN-SCOB) claimed that children were abducted so they could be indoctrinated as Communist Janissaries. The alleged purpose was also for the families to be terrorized into supporting the guerillas and to destroy the Greek race by alienating the children (Baerentzen 128). However, the real aim of the operation was not humanitarian, but military, since by taking children away, their mothers could be more easily recruited and fight for the Democratic Army. Besides, mothers could also help in the construction of fortifications, the transfer and care of injured fighters, as well as the transfer of ammunition (Kirjazovski, qtd. in Kontis: 240). 187 priest, who is accused of sending children to the National Army. When the clergyman is asked the reason why he had taken kids away, he answers that his aim was to “save them from the communists;” he claims that guerilla fighters abduct children and send them “out of Greece, away from their mothers with a view to forget that they are Greeks and become janissaries.”144 The priest believes that communists are “red monsters,” because they “burn, destroy and uproot families.”

The clergyman’s view is confirmed in the end of the scene; the last images focus on a child’s violent abduction and his mother’s desperate attempts to save it; as the

President of the People’s Court orders the soldiers to get the child from his mother’s arms, the woman, dressed in black and with a pale face, cries “My child. Oh, Jesus

Christ!” and tries hard to keep the little boy. When the communists finally take the child, the woman faints, creating an impression of suffering and misery. On the contrary, images of the unshaven and armed to the teeth communist official give the impression of a wild beast; an evil creature, who finds sadistic pleasure torturing innocent villagers. One cannot but notice that the film constructs cοmmunism and cοmmunists as pure evil, capable οf cοmmitting crimes and infecting peοple with villainοus beliefs.

In Grammos, partisans are also represented as dirt-streaked, unclean and unshaven. For instance, there is a scene where Maria does not recognize Christos; her brother grows a beard and wears shabby clothes. Even his own mother tells him: “My boy, you have become a wild man. Mountains have made you a wild man.” These particular utterances in the visual mode of film expression are also bearers of ideologically-laden discourses. The iconography of communists who have a slovenly

144 Here the film reproduces the established anti-communist discourse according to which the children who were transferred to the eastern countries would lose their Hellenic identity and would be eventually “Slavicized.” This argument of course collapsed after the return of the political refugees who proved that they had not lost their national identity (Raptis 2012). 188 appearance invokes the fearmongering post-war stereotypes. Their corrupt and anti- social morals are tied to an appearance type that is constructed as dirty, strengthening, thus, the nationalistic, anti-communist discourse which sees partisans as wild beasts and criminals.

With regard to Grammos, communists are depicted as outlaws. The view is enhanced by the words of Christos who underlines his position in society; his duty is to fight in the mountains, far away from people and claims that “the wild animal must return to his den.” On the other hand, Christos’ treatment by his family is significant.

He is seen as a “stranger” who does not belong to the family; a “wild beast” who dares to threaten his mother with a gun, because she wanted to call his brother to tell him that

Christos is back home; an alien body who has lost all of his humanity. Even his own mother tells the ELAS Captain: “My boy, you have become a wild man. Mountains have made you a wild man.”

Besides, according to the malicious and dogmatic commissar of the Bulkes camp, a real communist fighter “must forget everything: home, wife, family. Only the

Party matters. A communist must live and die for the Party.” This utterance reveals “the specific conditions and goals of a specific area of human activity” (Bakhtin 61). The instructor’s cynical discourse is a testimony and assures that a communist’s aim is an endless fight, under challenge, and in dispute with conventional social values. For, as the films suggest, communists are slaves to their ideology, by which the authorities decide everything. Communism, thus, is seen as the worst enemy, because it represents an enormous threat, both externally and internally.

189 c. Communists as Responsible for the Outburst of the Civil War

Grammos reaffirms the official discourse on communists as responsible for the civil strife. The film reinforces the stereotype by portraying leftwing fighters as men who wish to monopolize power and turn Greece into a Soviet-type state. In Grammos, the ideology of the “Three Rounds,” an idea which was formed by the victors of the Civil

War is strongly highlighted. According to this theory, KKE tried to seize power three times during the 1940s: The “First Round” war between EAM-ELAS and the forces of

EDES in October 1943, which ended with the Agreement of Plaka in February 1944.

The December 1944 events, the continuation of war between EAM-ELAS and the

National Army, as well as British forces led by General Scobie, was the “Second

Round.” The battle of Athens in December 1944 was thought to be a communist uprising against the legal Greek Government. The ELAS’ defeat by the British troops and the armed governmental forces in December 1944 did not put an end to the sinister communist plans (Tzoukas 400). The Second Round led to the Varkiza Agreement in

1945. The Civil War which began in 1946 was the “Third Round” of the alleged plan, aiming at establishing a communist State.

Thus, in Grammos communist leaders seem not to be pleased with the power sharing after the Liberation and, in order to strengthen this point of view, the director projects front-page news with headlines such as “Sarafis145 wishes to avoid signing the disarmament. Final effort to avoid rupture” and “Far-Left organizes a rally. ELAS is a self-declared revolutionary army.” The director deliberately uses the complex speech genre of the newspaper headlines, which constitutes a “secondary genre of commentary, which arises in a highly developed and organized cultural communication (Bakhtin 62)

145 Stefanos Sarafis (1890-1957) was a Greek Army officer. During the Occupation, he joined ELAS and was appointed as head of the organization’s general staff. After the December 1944 events, he was exiled to the island of Serifos. 190 and has a “distinctive stylistic profile (Bruhn and Lundquist (25). Media discοurse is an ideοlοgically-laden discοurse and embeds in its language particular pοlitical beliefs, social values and attitudes of the members οf the discourse community. The speech genre οf the newspaper titles assume shared evaluative ideοlogy, which fοrms the basis for authοrial judgments.

Apart from that, during a discussion between army officers, it is mentioned that communists want to create a “deadlock through their daily strikes and rallies.” As a high-ranking officer states, these actions are “preludes to a great tragedy” and he claims that the National Army “must be always on the alert, because communist ministers are not satisfied. They have now understood that the English have cheated them by giving six ministries.” What is more, communists are the ones who are equipped and give guns even to young children and are seen as responsible for mass murders and missing citizens shortly after the Germans’ withdrawal.146 At the same time, the period of the

“White Terror” is absent from the narrative. Indeed, there is no reference to the persecution of left-wing fighters from right-wing paramilitary groups after the Varkiza

Agreement.147

In Grammos, the director deliberately uses the complex and controversial figure of Aris Velouchiotis,148 to serve his view of the Civil War. His filmic presence is an

146 Several scholars argue that the so-called “Red Terror” was a “centrally planned (though regionally implemented) policy pursued consistently by the KKE and EAM throughout Greece. In fact, we can safely talk of a system of terror. Its goal was to ensure civilian compliance and maximize control over the population” (Kalyvas 2000). 147 “White terror” is called the persecution of left-wing Resistance fighters from right-wing paramilitary units after the Varkiza Agreement in 1945. A typical example is the far-right wing paramilitary group of Manganas who invaded Kalamata in January 1946 and murdered tens of Resistance fighters who were incarcerated. 148 Aris Velouchiotis (1905-1945) was one of the most prominent, tragic and ambiguous figures of Modern Greek history. In January 1942, he formed ELAS as the armed body of EAM. Aris first appeared as Captain of ELAS in Domnitsa, a village in the area of Evritania in 7 June 1942 where he addressed the villagers and said: “I declare the Revolution against the foreign occupiers and their local allies”: He participated in the bombing of the Gorgopotamos River in November 1942 collaborating with ΕDES and English officers. After the Liberation, he opposed the Varkiza Agreement and for that reason he was renounced by KKE. He committed suicide as he was chased by governmental forces near the small village of Mesounta, in the area of Arta. 191 inglorious one, desperately trying to encourage Christos who seems to have lost his faith in the communist revolt. At the same time, the prominent ELAS leader is represented to be angry at the KKE, which “has sold out to the English so as to gain six ministries,” resulting in losing the First Round. Moreover, Christos expresses his sorrow for the loss of the Second Round, For, as the hero says, although the military movement was prepared by ELAS, what finally happened was “small-scale fighting around the center” which resulted in “bargaining in Varkiza.” Aiming at boosting

Christos’ morale, Aris claims that “the Third Round will be the answer not only to the local pro-royalists and pro-fascists but also to the leadership of KKE, which has sold out.” As the Captain emphatically points out: “We are now organized. We will wipe them out,” giving thus the signal for the continuation of the military operations targeting at the seizure of power.

Therefore, the film eschews any sense of historical accuracy, as it creates the false impression that communists were responsible for the outburst of the Civil War. In reality, KKE sought a decent compromise with the so-called “urban” political parties without wishing to seize power. As Philippos Iliou claims, KKE appears to abandon the idea of the immediate take-over of power and to look for convergence. The pressure exerted by KKE aimed not at seizure of power but at a political solution, something which would allow EAM to take a post in the post-war scene, a post which would reflect its power and influence (353). Nevertheless, the continuing pressure on left-wing partisans by right paramilitary groups and the National Army through the establishment of a terror atmosphere,149 led many fighters to the mountains, where the Democratic

149 According to Kontis: “Without doubt, KKE would prefer to seize power through a normal, internal democratic process. But with the terror which is taking over, it is doubtful if such a process was possible. But KKE had no other option, it had either to compromise, as the French and the Italian communist parties did, or to move to an armed fighting.” For more, (2012):135. 192

Army of Greece was formed in December 1946 under the surveillance and coordination of KKE. d. The Civil War as a Revolt Motivated by Foreign Forces

The Bulkes Fugitives, reaffirming the official discourse, depicts communists as dependent upon the protection of their Eastern Bloc allies. According to the dominant post-war view, left-wing partisans were alien-inspired forces; instruments of Soviet politics and had, as their main aim, during the Civil War to seize power in order to impose a communist Dictatorship in Greece. In The Bulkes Fugitives, during a meeting with his comrades, a communist officer emphatically stresses that “People’s Republics stand by our side and they supply us with plenty of war material and food.” Moreover, during a speech delivered by the head officer of the governmental forces, it is pointed out that the army’s duty is to defend Greece from the “new domestic enemy, which is motivated by foreigners.”

In Grammos, communists are represented as obeying the foreigners’ orders who command “bloodshed,” in order for the Greeks “to become fewer.” For instance, Aris

Velouchiotis believes that when the time comes “our allies will help us by sending two hundred thousand soldiers,” strengthening, thus, the view regarding foreign help for the communists during the Civil War. Moreover, the belief regarding the role of the foreigners is highlighted in the scene where officers of the Army Staff are informed that

“thugs are moving from Albania. [….] They are supplied150 by Koritsa, Pogradets151,

Krystalopigi, Antartiko, Pisoderi.”152

150 In December 3, 1946 the Greek government protested by submitting an appeal with the Security Council of the UN. The reasons for the appeal were that, according to the government, the guerilla fighters were supplied and trained in foreign territory and that Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia was giving asylum to the fugitives, inciting the civil war and working against Greece’s territorial integrity” (Kontis 175). 151 Cities in south Albania 152 Villages in the region of Florina, in the northern Greece, near the Greco-Albanian borderline. 193

In fact, Greek communists hoped to get help from their allies, especially from the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. But KKE miscalculated the foreign factor. The Party believed in “immediate Soviet support without having any indication which would justify such expectation. They also hoped to have Tito’s help and support who had given some promises, but he finally did not send anything” (Kontis 24). The communists’ foreign allies offered nothing but little support to like-minded Greeks and their associates. As Richter points out: “everything was agreed upon by Churchill and Stalin in October 1944, with the well-known percentages. […] Stalin did not support the

Democratic Army, and he did not send a bullet” (Richter, Interview by Elias Magklinis).

Apart from that, neither the Soviet Union, nor any other socialist republic recognized the Government of the Mountain, which was established in 1947.153

Within this framework, in the movie, images of foreigners who serve as members of the People’s Courts enhance the discourse which sees the Civil War as a revolt motivated by foreign states. For instance, in the scene where Lt. Zigas is brought into a communist court, we see the figure of a foreign man, who obviously has a Slavic demeanor. This character is despised by the accused officer; the latter refuses to answer the questions of a “foreigner who judges Greeks.” The Slav’s death by the pistol of the

Greek officer is symbolic, signifying Greece’s victory over any attempt by a foreign power.

153According to Illiou: “Eastern states believe that the recognition will be related to the war performance of the Democratic Army-that is its ability to form a sufficient, permanent, territorial basis. Of course, the real reasons were other: they had to do with the balance system in the Balkan area which had been accepted by the Big Forces after WWII” (269).

194

Counter Discourse: Reconciliation as the Solution for Social peace in Post-War Greece.

As noted, Grammos reaffirms the dominant nationalistic ideology cultivated by the

Civil War victors. However, the final scene of the film ends with a reconciliatory note.

In the end of the movie and after Christos’ death by the National Army, there are scenes

of the final military operations that took place in the mountain of Grammos in 1949.

But instead of images which highlight the soldiers’ bravery and sacrifices, a totally

different situation is depicted: a young Greek Army officer, addressing himself to the

last remaining communist guerillas, calls for reconciliation:

Drop your guns and give up. Do you hear me? I’m talking to you Captain. You

can’t do anything. The whole area is full of army contingents. There are many

soldiers. We are brothers. Killing one another is disgraceful. Don’t be cheated

by what you are told. We are Greeks, we are brothers. Think of your homes,

your mothers. Greeks, let’s stop the hatred and let’s reconcile. I am coming

towards your side. (Grammos, 1:42:57 – 1:43:40)

So, we see the officer getting out of the trenches, dropping his gun and his ammunition

and moving into the open field waiting for the response. On the other hand, the

communist Captain, after taking into consideration his group’s position, as well as the

possible dangers from his enemy’s proposal, decides to walk to the field and meet with

the officer; he then orders his soldiers to drop their guns and stand up, so as to surrender

to the National Forces. Additionally, the army officer shakes his hand with the

communist, a gesture of high symbolism; it denotes that reconciliation is the path on

which the traumatized country should move so as to progress. It is, thus, suggested that

any attempt to stabilize Greece and bring peace should also include the communists.

The latter must be part of the solution and ought not to be excluded from the domestic

political and social affairs. 195

Furthermore, this view is strengthened by the figure of the old mother: the ending, with the woman, clad in black, picking up her sons’ bodies to bury them, celebrates the union of the heroes. Grammos ends with a voice-over narrator who summarizes the main point of the film: “From the peaks of Grammos, a fresh air brings the happy message: Greeks will never fight with each other. Greece, you can celebrate now.” Consequently, this discourse conveys the strong ideological message of reconciliation between the clashing parties, which deconstructs the dominant anti- communist ideology on which the post-war political system was formed.

A counter discourse which stands against the dominant vision concerning the role of communists is also evident in The Bulkes Fugitives. After the end of the battle between communists and nationalists, the Bulkes fugitives surrender to the Greek

Army. Shortly after, the soldiers march them away to the army’s headquarters where the two brothers (Goulielmos and Goulas) finally meet and reconcile. Therefore, the discourse suggests that nobody should be excluded from the social body; there are no miasmas and low-level patriots. The treatment of communists in The Bulkes Fugitives defines very precisely the limits within which the film operates; communists should abandon their “false” ideology and adopt the ideology of National Consciousness. Only under this condition, social peace and stability could be effectively constructed.

Conclusions

With regard to The Bulkes Fugitives, placing in the forefront the conditions at the communist camp is a strategic choice. Indeed, the analysis has revealed how the discourses of the film can be viewed as such that celebrate the official, ultra- nationalistic ideology of the junta. Taken as a whole, the film depicts the atmosphere of repression and terror at the Bulkes camp. At the same time, the communist officials are portrayed as coldly calculating minds and obsessed strategists, devoid of any fellow 196 feeling; men who put the Party and their ideology above all.

Beyond the focal point of the political environment at the Bulkes camp which the film makes central and emphatic, communist guerillas are shown as sinister creatures, who terrorize their low-ranking comrades and kidnap women, whom they treat as whores.154 In addition, partisans are responsible for the violent abduction of children; the punishment of citizens who do not share their views; the destruction of villages. On the contrary, the national Army represents the healthy part of the Civil

War; its members are portrayed as responsible and competent men caught in tragic situations. Thus, The Bulkes Fugitives’ dominant discourse is one that empowers the

“military” ideology of the Dictatorship; it stabilizes and reinforces the regime’s interpretation of the historical events of the 1940s.

Concerning Grammos, the director represents Greek officers as positive models and communists as evil incarnate. For the film, army members have bravely fought in the 1940s and saved the country’s territorial integrity. On the other hand, Grammos highlights the view that left partisans are responsible for the post-war turbulent atmosphere; the Civil War was a result of KKE’s decision to seize power and turn

Greece into a Marxist state. Consequently, the picture reaffirms the dominant anti- communist narrative of the political events of the 1940s. The junta obviously wished for its own version of the events to be depicted on celluloid, aiming at justifying its self- assigned mission: the prevention of the supposed “communist threat.”155

While The Bulkes Fugitives and Grammos epitomize the heroism of the army

154 For example, the character of Eleni reinforces this discourse. The woman is a left-wing partisan who is captured by governmental forces. There is a scene where, after a search, a box of condoms is found in Eleni’s pocket, highlighting, thus, the well-established belief that communists (and especially communist women) had no moral values. 155 The regime’s assistance in the production of Grammos is more than obvious; in the film’s opening credits, the names of major Euripides Papadopoulos and gendarmerie officer Telemachus Angelis are mentioned as advisors regarding military issues. This practice was not unprecedented; both Raid in the Aegean (1946) and The Brave’s Island (1959) acknowledged the support of the Ministry of Military Affairs and the Greek Army. 197 officers by showing examples of courage and sacrifice, both films undermine the official ideology of the exclusion of communists from the building of the post-war

Greece. As it is suggested, reconciliation between the state and the ex-guerilla fighters is the necessary step so as for Civil War trauma to be healed. Therefore, the message of the films’ counter discourse is that Greece should forgive its repentant children and forget the past traumatic incidents.

198

PART III

THE POST-1974 PERIOD

199

Chapter I

Restoration of Democracy and PASOK’s Hegemony (1975-1989)

The Regime of the Colonels collapsed under the pressure of the Turkish invasion in

Cyprus and democracy was restored in Greece on July 24th 1974. The veteran politician

Konstantinos Karamanlis was invited to return from Paris and assume the leadership of a civilian government. One of the government’s first measures was the release of all political prisoners and the legalization of the Communist party, which had been outlawed since 1947. Throughout this first period, Karamanlis managed to avert a catastrophic war with Turkey over Cyprus and to make the transition from the

Dictatorship to parliamentary democracy. In the November 1974 elections, the newly formed conservative party Nea Dimokratia (New Democracy) secured a massive majority of 220 seats in the Parliament. The elections were followed by the 1975 referendum and the abolition of the monarchy. Karamanlis’ party won the 1977 elections and the politician served as prime minister until 1980. In 1979, Greece signed the Accession Treaty with the European Economic Community and the country became the tenth member of the EEC in 1981.

New Democracy won the 1977 elections, after which PASOK became the major opposition party. The promise of social reform and its strong patriotic and anti-

European rhetoric greatly helped PASOK win the 1981 election. Papandreou’s triumph in 18 October 1981, which captured an impressive 48% and three fifths of the seats in the Parliament,156 is thought to be a decisive event in post-war Greek history, since it was the first time that a socialist party with a very radical program came into power, thus terminating a forty-year period of right wing dominance.

156 In the October 1981 elections, New Democracy won 35,9 per cent of the vote and 115 parliamentary seats and KKE won 10,9 per cent and 13 seats. 200

Papandreou adopted and articulated a populist strategy and attracted the masses of the non-privileged157 by promising the incorporation into the political system of all those who were excluded by the previous right-wing governments. (Lyrintzis 30). The populist mode was based on the construction of a cleavage between “the people” and its “enemies,” the Right and the foreigners, and was fully adopted by PASOK in order to construct its political identity. Thus, the party greatly appealed to the masses by representing opposition to the privileged and the right-wing forces (30, 31). PASOK disregarded all social divisions and addressed citizens as a mass of people united and struggling against a common enemy: the right (31), which was “exorcised as an evil force that had stalked the land for decades” (Koliopoulos & Vermis 162).

Papandreou’s ideology was epitomized in the slogan “Allaghi” (Change) and was based on three pillars: Sovereignty of the people, national independence and social justice. The 1981 elections inaugurated the first period of Papandreou’s rule which lasted, after the second victory in the 1985 elections, until 1989. The government of

PASOK promoted a series of vast changes in all aspects of Greek society. For example, the official recognition of all the Resistance organizations is considered as a very positive achievement since it marked the end of the ideology of the “Schism,” which was cultivated after the Civil War and deeply traumatized Greek society. What can generally be supported is that during Papandreou’s rule, left-wing strata were politically emancipated.

In late 1988, the disclosure of a huge economic scandal with the Bank of Crete, where PASOK members were involved, led to the party’s defeat in the June 1989 elections. 40 years after the end of the divisive Civil War, the Left participated in the

157 Karakousis writes that Papandreou managed to bring to surface the “other Greece”: the suppressed and isolated masses that used to live in the provincial areas, away from the centralized political system (33). 201 formation of a coalition government with the right-wing New Democracy, which had won the elections but was unable to form a government. There, the right-wing New

Democracy party, under the leadership of Konstantinos Mitsotakis158 managed to secure 144 seats in the Parliament, seven short of the overall majority. After he was given the mandate, Mitsotakis reached a historical agreement with Charilaos Florakis, leader of “Sinaspismos tis Aristeras ke tis Proodu” (Alliance of the Left and of

Progress) which consisted of KKE and the Greek Left (EAR), so as to form a short- term coalition government. The historic compromise between the Right and the Left led to the formation of a coalition government, which lasted until the November 1989 elections. Clogg believes that the communists’ involvement alongside conservatives in government “could truly be said to symbolize the healing of the wounds opened up by the Civil War forty years previously” (200).

The November 1989 elections that followed produced a result similar to the

June elections. The leaders of the New Democracy, PASOK and Alliance finally agreed to form an “ecumenical” government under Xenophon Zolotas, a retired banker. The new government lasted for a few months, until the next elections of April 1990. The short-lived coalition government of 1989-90 signified the reconciliation between the

Right and the Left and the closing of the Civil War period. Among other reconciliatory steps, the government passed a law for the “lifting of the consequences of the Civil

War” and also ordered the incineration of millions of police files on citizens of left persuasion, imposing an official policy of oblivion concerning such traumatic events as

158 Mitsotakis succeeded Evangelos Averof in 1984, after New Democracy’s bad results in the elections for the European Parliament. Mitsotakis attempted to give a more neo-liberal orientation to the ideology of the conservative party, offering an alternative to the dominant, socialist ideology of PASOK. For more, Karakousis (2006). 202 the Civil War. Decidedly, the coalition government wished to bury the past, but in society at large, “the past could not be buried that easily” (Van Boeschoten 105).

203

Post-Dictatorship Cinema

Following the Restoration of Democracy, censorship was relaxed and filmmakers were given freedom “to experiment with form and content” (Karalis, A History: 180). The first post-Dictatorship years saw a flourishing of documentaries and experimental films in Greek Film Production. There was also an increase in the production of movies with a sociopolitical and historical subject matter. But in terms of numbers, the situation was rather disappointing; despite the generous state funding, the number of features was gradually decreasing; only thirty-eight productions were released in the 1975-76 season, seventeen in 1977-78 and only fifteen in the next season. (Soldatos, Vol. V: 45-

46).

In addition, as spectators turned to television, the frequency of attendance was in progressive decline from 1974 onwards until 1977, when audience figures reached their lowest level since the 1940s; the multi-awarded Happy Day topped the box-office with only 62,000 admissions and The Hunters, the most successful film in the 1977-78 season, sold 106,000 tickets (45). It is also noteworthy that, at least until the end of the decade, low-budget soft porn films dominated both the production and the annual box- office sales; in the 1974-75 season at least half of the released movies were erotic, which sold more than 800,000 tickets (Karalis, A History: 175).

During the first period after the Restoration, the Old Greek Cinema, also termed

Classical Cinema, was considered moribund, as very few films were produced, and only some of them enjoyed a moderate commercial success. Nevertheless, there were noteworthy efforts, among which the historical melodrama I Diki ton Dikaston [The

Trial of Judges] (1974, d. Panos Glykofridis), the satire O Thanasis sti Hora tis

Sfaliaras [Thanasis in the Country of the Slap] (1976, d. Dinos Dimopoulos & Panos

Glykofridis) and, finally, the comedy Agapi mou Oua Oua [My Love Wua Wua] (1974, 204 d. Yannis Dalianidis). The collapse of commercial cinema was marked by the dissolution of Finos Film; the biggest and most important production company officially ceased to exist when Philopemen Finos, the man who greatly contributed to the development of the domestic film industry, died in 1977. His death marked the end of a whole era in Greek film history.

At the same time, new production companies were established and attempted, especially in the early 1980s to revive commercial cinema. A small independent company (Arma Films) produced the most successful film of the decade, the political drama The Man with the Carnation. The attempt to reconstruct the life of the communist leader Nikos Beloyannis sold more than 618,000 tickets, a success which brought into mind box-office successes of the classical period. At the same period, the historical film

Megalexandros [Alexander the Great] (d. Theo Angelopoulos) won the “Special Jury

Prize” at the Venice Film Festival.

During the new decade, significant changes took place. The responsibility for film production was transferred from the Ministry of Industry to the Ministry of Culture and the government passed a new legislation in 1980, whose aim was to help re- energize the collapsing domestic film industry by “securing sufficient funding and providing relative freedom as censorship was relaxed but not abolished” (Karalis, A

History: 193). What is more, the Greek Film Centre was to play a crucial role in boosting film production and the first to benefit from its policies were the New Cinema

Directors. The triumphant election of the socialist PASOK in the government in

October 1981 also had consequences in the realm of cinema; one of the government’s first measures was the abolition of the 1942 law which had imposed censorship on the film industry (194). Moreover, a new law about domestic cinema was legislated in

1986. 205

Despite the generous governmental assistance, the legislation of State awards and the introduction of the new law, which aimed at protecting and developing film production, the New Greek Cinema reached its nadir in terms of admissions. The once promising creators seemed to be trapped in existential concerns, endless navel-gazing, empty mannerism, failing, thus, to catch audiences’ needs. Especially after 1985, most of NEK films were not released in movie theaters; they only participated in the

Thessaloniki Festival, aiming at winning an award.

With regard to classical cinema, during the first years of the new decade, it might be said that there was a noteworthy revival of films which were based on the old, commercial recipe. Both the number of films and admissions increased and many veteran protagonists reappeared in the movies of the early 1980s. However, the resurrection of classical cinema was only temporal; television penetration rose sharply and the emergence of video, which became the new popular means of mass entertainment (especially after 1984), greatly affected film production. During the decade, more than 1,000 films were produced for the video market, usually low-budget comedies and melodramas, resulting in both the decrease of cinema tickets and the shutting down of theatres: “Many movie theatres closed during this period, despite the new government’s attempt to fund and promote film clubs throughout the country

(198). Film production started dwindling dramatically, and by the end of the decade it looked as if it had almost vanished.

206

Chapter II

The Occupation and the Civil War on Celluloid post-1974

The Restoration of Democracy (‘Metapolitefsi’) deeply affected the representation of history on celluloid. One cannot but assert that the first post-junta generation of filmmakers did not pay attention to the genre of “war films,” as the latter was thought to be a sub-product of the condemned old, commercial cinema. (Voglis and Kakouriotis

11) and, thus, contrary to the plethora of productions during the junta time, there are very few Occupation films after the Metapolitefsi. The liberalization of censorship encouraged the production of features which faced up to recent history and directly focused on taboo subjects, such as the Civil War and its consequences (Mitropoulou

245). However, the post-junta film production represented the Civil War “without portraying war,” as the military conflict itself was not among the directors’ concerns.

(Voglis, Apo tis kannes: 106). As Kornetis explains:

Cinema collectives, amongst which the Omada ton Tessaron [Group of Four],

Omada ton Exi [Group of Six] and KINO, engaged directly with issues such as

the experience of persecution, police collaboration and torture in the Civil War

and the post-Civil War years. Focusing mainly on the trauma of the civil

conflict, Greek cinematography after 1974 went along with the popular demand

for transparency regarding the past –and in particular the 1940s- revealing the

impact of the Civil War on the victims of the conflict. (95-96)

Due to the fact that the Left itself rather chose to push back the military aspect of the civil conflict,159 several left-wing creators assimilated this discourse of the “defeated”

159 Thirty years after, the Left and its voters needed to forget the Civil War and its consequences, due to the fact that Metapolitefsi offered an opportunity for oblivion; therefore, by forgetting the painful past, the Left could reconstruct itself and follow a new political path (Paschaloudi 2013). 207

(Voglis and Kakouriotis 11). Hence, a cycle of films such as The Traveling Players,

Happy Day and The Hunters focused on the delineation of the consequences of the Left movement’s defeat: “This depiction was exclusively from a left-wing standpoint, undermining the hegemonic anti-Communist narrative, which was standard at the time”

(Kornetis 96). In these features, leftist heroes were usually represented as the innocent victims of what the “evil Right” and its allies were doing to them.

It is suggested that there are two different portrayals of the Left movement in the cycle of the historical movies of the period: the Platonic and the Aristotelian

(Valoukos, Neos: 142). In the Platonic, the Left is seen as an ideal and an unfulfilled dream. This approach, which is found in The Travelling Players and The Hunters, brings to the surface idealized memories and traditions and is preoccupied with the question: “Why did we lose?” The second approach is the so-called Aristotelian and was adopted by Voulgaris in Happy Day. In his film, a recreation of a “microcosm of disunity and ferocity” (Kornetis 96), the Left movement is represented as having the moral superiority. The director does not pay attention to the battles and the leadership’s mistakes; it rather focuses on the communists’ persecutions, the exiles, the emergency measures and the atmosphere of terror which dominated in post-war Greece (Valoukos,

Neos: 143). The scene of the hero’s crucifixion in Happy Day is a characteristic example of the image of martyrdom that the director wishes to portray for the left fighters.

According to Valoukos, all the above films highlighted the idea that the Civil

War was a fight between fascists and democrats and that the American intervention had an imperialist nature (141). On the other hand, regarding the representation of the Right in the post-junta cinema, it could be asserted that rightist heroes were identified with conservatism, anticommunism and bigotry (142). The view of right-wing politicians 208 and citizens as servants of foreign interests was repeated in the films of the first post- junta period and crystallized the image of the Right as criminal and dangerous for

Greece.

During PASOK’s premiership, the populist and anti-rightist ideology that was promoted, became the issue of films which celebrated the party’s version on recent history. According to the government’s manichean vision: “The Right is identified with the forces that collaborated with the Nazis. These forces caused the Civil War and, later, cooperated with the Dictatorship” (Paschaloudi 123). On the other hand, People bravely resisted during the 1940s and suffered imprisonments and executions for many years.

Under this pretext, the Civil War became an issue of major filmic concern during the

1980s, since it was officially claimed that “the middle class that gained power with the socialists had its origins in the persecuted communist Left of the Civil War and the

1950s” (Karalis, A History: 196). It goes without saying that the Greek Film Centre generously funded and supported productions which recreated “the history of political persecutions of dissidents and the common people” (196).

It has been argued that these films attempted to restore historical memory through the restoration of truths and the delineation of unrevealed discourses (Basteas

130). Emblematic in this respect were the films Ta Hronia tis Thielas [The Years of the

Storm] (1984, d. Nikos Tzimas) and Stone Years (1985, d. Pantelis Voulgaris). Hence, it is arguable that both the advent of PASOK and the (temporal) revival of commercial cinema in the early 1980s “made possible the financial success of films which portrayed the Civil War or the story of the Left” (Flitouris 398).

However, as the decade progressed, other directors attempted to negotiate the

1940s and its memory in a different way. A cycle of films such as Voyage to Cythera

(1984), The Descent of the Nine (1984, d. Christos Siopahas), Happy Homecoming, 209

Comrade (1987) and, above all, The Children of the Helidona adopted a distinctive anti-heroic tone and paid attention to the function of memory and oblivion, delineated the Civil War trauma and engaged in a self-criticism for past mistakes. According to

Voglis:

Many decades after the end of the Civil War, Greek cinema managed to

approach the theme not in terms of confirmation, but it terms of objectivity and

distancing. The films’ vision is not didactic but rather ambiguous; what is more,

it does not seek to find the mainstream but the marginal. Finally, the new vision

does not heal the Civil War trauma but attempts to shed light on it.” (Apo tis

kannes: 121)

Furthermore, during PASOK’s premiership there were rare examples of films which adopted a rather right-wing narrative. Only three films made in the early 1980s, which met with moderate success, can be seen as attempts for a right-wing version to be uttered.160 Despite the plethora of such movies in the previous decades, the only serious attempt to articulate a rightist discourse came from an American production. It was the melodramatic film Eleni (1985, d. Peter Yates), adapted from the memoir with the same title by the Greek-American journalist Nick Gage (Gatzogiannis).161 Although Eleni was a foreign feature, it “stirred further public debate over the civil conflict at a time in which political polarization in the country was extreme” (Kornetis 98). The movie was a chronicle of the murder of Gage’s mother during the Civil War by bands of communist guerillas. Although praised by the American media, Eleni was panned by Greek critics and film historians and was reviled by the Left. Flitouris argued that Yates’ movie

160 17 Bullets for an Angel, Nelly the Spy and The Red Train. 161 Gage’s Eleni was published in 1983 in the U.S.A. and translated the same year into Greek by the novelist Alexandros Kotzias. 210 depictd the anticommunist atmosphere of the era as it was cultivated by the Reagan administration (398). Moreover, members of KKE demonstated at several theaters to protest the first showing of Eleni on March 1986.162

Films

In the period immediately following the restoration of Democracy, some filmmakers openly challenged nationalistic accounts of the Occupation and the Civil War, producing alternative histories of those events. The first film to attempt a revisionist look at the past and to undermine the dominant right-wing version was Angelopoulos’ epic The Travelling Players (1975), the second part of his “trilogy of history.”163 It is considered as a landmark film in the history of Greek cinema. The Travelling Players was the first major historical movie after the fall of the junta; it was a film that established Angelopoulos as one of the great auteurs of modern European cinema; the feature was one of the few Greek pictures to become a huge critical success; it became a central point of reference in the emergence of the critical discourse around the notion of the “New Greek Cinema.”164

162 As the New York Times Correspondent Henry Kamm wrote: “Scuffles broke out at two theaters and were halted by police. No arrests were made or injuries reported. Subsequent showings of the film have passed without reported incidents. The demonstrators distributed leaflets and shouted slogans that called the picture an insult to the Communist partisans. The leaflet compared the picture to ''Rambo'' and ''Rocky'' and described it as American ''anti-Communism in its crudest form.'' (web internet) 163 Angelopoulos made thirteen feature films. His work can be roughly divided in two periods: the first period, which includes the films Days of 36, The Travelling Players and The Hunters is a study on history, where the director focuses on historical events that shaped modern Greece from the period starting in 1936 until the end of the seventies. The second period starts with Voyage to Cythera and includes all the consequent films. These movies adopt a more personal vision, where the story of each picture usually revolves around a singular character (Makrigiannakis 2009). 164 Biographical information on Angelopoulos is available in Andrew Horton’s The Films of Theo Angelopoulos: A Cinema of Contemplation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), probably the best book on Angelopoulos’ work. Since 1990s, the literature on Angelopoulos work has proliferated. Horton’s The Last Modernist (Praeger, 1997) started the list of books on Angelopoulos’ work. Other studies are Nikos Kolovos, Thodoros Angelopoulos (Athens: Egokeros, 1990), Irini Stathi, Horos ke Hronos ston Kinimatografo tou Thodorou Angelopoulou [Time and Space in Thodoros Angelopoulos’ Cinema] (Athens: Egokeros, 1999), Dan Fainaru, Thodoros Angelopoulos: Interviews (University Press of Mississippi, 2001), Evangelos Makrigiannakis, The Films of Theo Angelopoulos: A Voyage in Time (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 2009), Angelos Katsourakis and Mark Steven (eds.), The Cinema of Theo Angelopoulos (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015) and Manuel Vidal Estevez, Theo Angelopoulos (Catedra, 2016). 211

The Traveling Players covers modern Greek history from 1939 to 1952. Its plot centers on a traditional group of travelling players [boulouki] on a tour through villages and towns performing the popular play Golfo but the performance is constantly interrupted and remains unfinished due to various intervening real historical events:

Metaxas’ Dictatorship, the Greco-Italian War of 1940-41, the German Invasion and the

Tripartite Occupation 1941-44, the Resistance and the Collaboration, the Liberation, the December 1944 events and the Civil War of 1946-49. As Tsekouras explains:

The travelling players either witness or participate in the historical events, but

despite seeing their group’s numbers reduce, due to deaths and departures of its

members, the actors remain more or less the same: weary by a constant touring

and detached from the people around them, who are usually strangers to them,

like the residents of the towns and villages where they perform. (web internet)

The film’s plot is a contemporary version of the Aeschylean trilogy Oresteia, based on the myth of Atreides, and the characters bear the names of the ancient figures −

Agamemnon, Orestis, Electra, Clytemnestra, Aegisthos. Agamemnon participates in the Resistance and is killed by the Nazis, after Clytemnestra and Aegisthos’ betrayal.

The latter collaborates with the enemy and informs on patriots. Orestis, a left fighter, kills both his mother and her lover so as to avenge his father’s death. The hero is arrested and executed in prison. It is stressed that the director uses myth to comment on the historical events of the period 1939-52 and to present the forces that clashed during the decade: the defeated Left and the victorious Right.

Apart from that, the distinctive feature of Angelopoulos’ film is the use of continuous space “as a living cell to actually move into another historical era” (Horton

23). For example, in one continuous sequence of the film, “a group of right-wing men wander down the empty streets of a Greek town in 1946. When they reach the main 212 square, in the same uninterrupted shot, however, it is 1952 and a Royalist government rally is taking place” (Horton 24). Another characteristic is the use of shots long in duration, as only eighty shots in nearly four hours are used: “These long shots put the spectators in a vantage point, from which they can observe at their own pace”

(Tsekouras, academia.edu). Finally, in The Travelling Players the non-linearity of time is another important feature. In the film, there are five time shifts within single scenes.

For instance, the troupe enters the town of Aeghio during the 1952 election campaign and arrives at the central square in 1939, during Metaxas’ regime. As Kosmidou concludes:

This film attempts to generate a cultural memory of the forgotten Greek Civil

War from a left-wing perspective, while the audience becomes a collective

witness. The family of the players was used as a post-memorial device to tell

the story and show the devastating consequences of history on them as they live

through the German Occupation and the Civil War. They were used as carriers

of memories, as the devastated effects of the Civil War are represented through

the family relations in the film. (128)

The Travelling Players is widely perceived and acknowledged as one of the best Greek films ever and, over time, it has been celebrated as a great achievement in the entire

European cinema. In the newspaper Ta Nea, the left-wing critic Stamatiou wrote that

Angelopoulos, a modern poet of images and sounds, made a film of great power; a polysemous monument for the betrayed generation of the National Resistance (qtd. in

Stathi: 241). Goudelis praised the director for his “ambitious epic cinema” and his attempt to represent recent history through the journey of the travelling players (45).

What is more, Eder, writing for the prestigious New York Times, pointed out that The

Travelling Players is a film of beauty and originality. He further claimed that: 213

there is no space to begin to enumerate the many marvelous things that are

accomplished. Over such a sprawling arrangement for example, Angelopoulos

manages a fair unity of mood by shooting virtually the whole film in the cold,

milky overcast of Greek winter. […] There are many scenes of equal brilliance

and force. The acting and camera work are flawless.” (web internet)

Still, The Travelling Players generated a noteworthy amount of negative state attention

(at the time of its release). The Greek Press Secretariat prevented the film’s official representation in the 1975 Cannes Festival, stating that the movie, despite its artistic value, adopts a unilateral representation of modern history, as it attempts to slander the non-communist grouping, by portraying it as being full of traitors, informers and thugs.

In addition, according to the Secretariat, the film does not delineate the differences between democratic and dictatorial regimes and, what is more, it maligns the reputation of the field marshal Papagos (Syghronos Kinimatografos 10-11).

One of the most important historical films of the period was Voulgaris’ Happy

Day, loosely adapted from the novel O Limos [The Pestilence] by Andreas Fraghias.

The film was considered as a perfect illustration of the director’s humanistic and post-

Christian ideology (Mitropoulou 279, 280). Its subject matter was the harsh conditions of a group of exiled prisoners at a concentration camp on a rocky island, focusing on both the physical and psychological violence that was exercised on them by the guards.

Although the name of the place, the time of the story, as well as the names of the heroes were not revealed, one cannot but think that Happy Day was an allegory for the Civil

War and 1950s period, when thousands of communist fighters and leftist sympathizers were exiled on the island of Makronisos, where they were interrogated, tortured and punished by their guards.

Voulgaris also negotiated broader issues, such as the cooperation among various 214 representatives of power (state, security forces, church), the way mechanisms of power operate, the use of violence as a means of persuasion and control, as well as the gradual dehumanization of oppressors. In addition, the director paid much attention to the relationship between perpetrators and victims (Mitropoulou 280). Happy Day was generally well received and, despite its long shots and the slow pace, topped the annual box-office sales, because it “captured the need of the era to objectify its traumas and discuss them in the public sphere” (Karalis, A History: 182).

Goudelis stated that Voulgaris, through a mixture of ellipsis, satire and realism, succeeded in choreographing the ghosts of the past (45). Komninos from Tachidromos described it as one of the most noteworthy political films and stressed that Voulgaris made a chronicle of Makronisos and managed to avoid sentimentalism (qtd. in Soldatos,

Vol. V: 179). Basteas wrote that the director, through the representation of the human drama, managed to give a pan-humanitarian dimension in the movie (128).

For Flitouris, the film’s commercial and critical success was a proof of the audience’s need to know about the Civil War, to watch the event and classify its repressed knowledge (397). Rafailidis was one of the few to criticize Happy Day, noting that it was not a political picture but a tender, humanitarian film, full of sympathy for those who suffer and the director’s only message was that some “bad guys” torture some “good guys” (38). Moreover, Tzavalas argued that Voulgaris “was not impartial because he ridiculed the right and presented the leftists as victims of the Right” (154).

Angelopoulos’ “trilogy of history” concluded with the historical drama The

Hunters (1977). The director, through the story of a group of middle-class hunters who find the dead body of a communist fighter from the Civil War,165 continued his

165 Mitropoulou observed that Angelopoulos drew on a real event: The body of a man who had been found in the area of Florina, in 1960. Many locals claimed that the dead man was a guerilla fighter who, during the Civil War, sought refuge in the Eastern countries, but, before he dies, he tried to cross the borders and come back home. For more, (2006). 215 delineation of Greece’s recent political history by shedding light on the post-Civil War period until the colonels’ putsch in 1967. What is also noteworthy about the film is the technique of estrangement that was applied by Angelopoulos and which was achieved through the visual style: “based on yellow, green and ochre colors, it created a cold distance between the viewer and the story, a chilly separation from any kind of empathy or identification with the characters. It was as if Angelopoulos deliberately kept his viewers away from the film, as its story unfolded in an icy remoteness” (Karalis, A

History: 184).

The temporal revival of the commercial cinema in the early 1980s and the huge commercial success of the historical film The Man with the Carnation urged the veteran scriptwriter and director Nikos Foskolos to create another Occupation film, based on the successful commercial formula of the classical cinema. 17 Bullets for an Angel

(1981) is the melodramatic chronicle of the struggles and the execution of the 17-year old Iro Konstantopoulou, member of the left-wing Resistance group EPON. The film, made in the pompous style of its creator, pays attention to the deeds of the heroine and focuses on her parents’ attempts to convince Iro to abandon the fight against the Nazis.

However, the film fails to become a realistic portrayal of Konstantopoulou’s story, due to its careless direction, its clumsy plot, its melodramatic dialogue and the unbelievable sets (we can see antennas on the roofs of buildings). The result is a film of poor quality, a cross between a war movie and a love melodrama.

The representation of the Resistance in 17 Bullets for an Angel caused the mockery of certain left-wing critics. Writing for the communist newspaper Rizospastis,

Danikas panned the film, criticizing almost every aspect of the production including poor script, cinematography, performances and historical inconsistencies. He commented that the film eschewed references to the Left’s contribution to the 216

Resistance and avoided dealing with the historical events, organizations, a whole history (4). Danikas also blamed the Greek Film Center for funding the feature, claiming that although the executive board of the Centre rejected many interesting film projects, they chose to invest on this feature, whose aim was a portrayal of the Right’s patriotism (4).

Bob Fosse’s famous film Cabaret (1972) spawned numerous imitators and could be seen as one of the catchiest musicals ever. Takis Vouyouklakis’ Nelly the Spy

(1981) operates as homage to Cabaret (at least the first part of the plot). Nelly, the Spy, the last film made by Aliki Vouyouklaki, portrays the Nazi horror through the adventures of a Greek woman who sings at a cabaret in Berlin during Hitler’s premiership. During her stay in Germany, she meets with a Jewish musician and falls in love with a British antifascist writer. When WWII breaks out, the heroine returns to

Greece and joins the Resistance. This part of the plot follows the conventional recipe of the previous period: there are patriots who help the English escape Greece, collaborationists who help the enemy and brave fighters who do not hesitate to sacrifice their life for the common cause.

In addition, the film touches upon the issue of the persecution of the Jews, but this part is the least developed. We see this theme surfacing in two instances. Firstly, the Nazis destroy the shop of a Jewish man and forbid him to marry a German woman.

As the character confesses: “We are chased and were forced to leave our jobs, they burn our houses.” We also see it when the Jewish musician, one of the protagonists, is arrested by the Germans. Although the man is set free, he cannot but leave Germany so as to avoid further problems.

The themes of the role of the communist leadership in general and its mistakes during the December 1944 events in particular are pervasive in Takis Simonetatos’ The 217

Red Train (1982). This is signaled in the early scenes, when a high-rank commissioner meets a group of guerilla fighters in the mountains; one of the partisans expresses his criticism about the party’s decisions by claiming that the communists lost the Battle of

Athens in December 1944 due to the leadership’s miscalculations and wrong decisions.

As it is stressed, instead of defending Athens, 40,000 armed men, the main force of

ELAS, were ordered to chase Captain Zervas, the leader of the right-wing EDES, in the area of Epirus, far away from the events.

The outcome of the December events resulted in a strengthening of British power in Greece. According to a guerilla fighter: “We seized ten mountains but we lost

Athens, the war, the movement.” The film, a chronicle of ELAS’ attempt to blow up the British Headquarters at the Hotel Grande Bretagne in Athens, sets out to denounce the model of the brave and unbowed left partisan. In The Red Train, the ELAS heroes are not represented as staunch and active partisans, looking after the interests of their struggle and subordinating their personal interests and wishes to those of the fight: instead of focusing on the target of destroying the hotel, some guerillas seem to be more interested in drinking, dancing and flirting.

The Descent of the Nine is a film about the defeated Left. Adapted from the novel by Thanasis Valtinos, the plot takes place in the area of the Peloponnese and follows the gradual demise of one of the last left-wing partisan bands who, after the defeat of the Democratic Army in 1949, attempt to escape from the armed enemy forces and reach the sea. In the course of their march, the heroes face many obstacles. At the end of the story, almost all members of the group get killed by armed civilians and soldiers of the National Army; only the youngest man survives. It is argued that The

Descent of the Nine is a descent to hell and stands as a metonymy for the fate of the

Left movement after the end of the Civil War. 218

The Descent of the Nine met with mixed reviews. One of the positive reviews came from Rafailidis of Ethnos, who wrote that the feature is a representation of the

Civil War horror. He also praised the marvelous direction (especially in the way the issue of “nature,” which is seen as the film’s protagonist, is highlighted), the cinematography with its marvelous pastel colors, the editing which succeeds in geometrizing space and the music which adds a “sophisticated cultural mantle to the barbarity” (66). The reviews were not uniformly positive. Dermentzoglou of Othoni wrote that the film “exhausts the audience, as the Democratic Army fails to meet with history and the audience fails to construct a story” (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol. II: 268). The director claimed that his film was a cross between the elegiac and the epic and stated that despite it being a story of defeat, his defeated heroes do not surrender, even at the moment they die (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol. V: 362).

In the film Karavan Sarai (1986), adapted from a novel by Lazaros Pavlidis,

Tassos Psarras sheds light on a controversial event of the Civil War; the operation, undertaken by the Greek army, of the evacuation of thousands of people from many villages and their transfer to big cities, where they would be safe and cared until they could return to their homes at the end of the war. The film, “a mixture of naturalism and melodrama” (Lambrinos, Vol. X: 207) tells the adventures of a peasant who, due to the hostilities between the left guerillas and the right paramilitary groups, is forced to abandon his village and come to Thessaloniki.

The atmosphere of terror during the Civil War is vividly portrayed in the film; in the opening scene, members of MAY, the notorious right-wing paramilitary group, set fire to the protagonist’s farm so as to trap the communists. Moreover, a crier announces that the military administration commanded that the village must be evacuated and that children will be transferred to the Queen’s camps, a direct mention 219 to the policy of children’ transfer to Queen Frederica’s “pedoupolis” (towns of children or Queen’s camps).166 “Whoever does not obey, s/he will be court martialed”, the crier threatens. One cannot but observe that the army deliberately chose to evacuate many villages so as to eliminate the social basis of the communist fighters, something which resulted in the final defeat of the Democratic Army in 1949.

The harsh conditions of living in Thessaloniki during the Civil War are also represented in the film. As a heroine narrates: “People face many difficulties. Most of them get food rations every day.” The woman also describes the difficulties of living in the city, especially when someone is looking for a job: as she claims: “Wherever you go, you need to have documents authorized by the Police and connections. There are many people who leave their villages. There is much poverty. Nobody cares whether you live or die and you don’t know what may happen to you from moment to moment.”

This inhuman situation is represented in the scene where a bunch of men, among which the protagonist and his son, who, in desperate need for a job, fight over who will carry people’s luggage from the bus station.

Psarras also focuses on the atmosphere of anti-communist hysteria during the

Civil War. For instance, there are scenes of constant round ups by the police and the army; when the protagonist goes to buy some clothes, a man of the State Security stops him, asking for legal documents. In addition, there are scenes where members of the

Security search Karavan Sarai to find communists who may be hiding there. As a character points out: “There are round ups all the time. If you get caught without legal documents, you will get into trouble.” What is more, in order to be enlisted for food

166 During the Civil War, more than 18,000 children, most with parents in the DSE or orphans, were moved to special camps inside Greece, under the control of the Queen Frederica. 54 children’s camps were established all over Greece in 1947. For the Queen and the Greek government, the main project was to provide shelter, food, education, and to save children in the war zone from it dangers and hardships. Additionally, it was claimed that the resettlement of children also aimed at saving the children from abduction and transfer to the socialist countries. For more, Hasiotis (2013). 220 rations, the hero is forced to go to the police station, where he must sign a paper in which he declares that he “denounces communism and its crimes.” Without that

“certificate of social judiciousness,” the man will not be able to enjoy the benefits of state help. The anti-communist feelings are also shared by the church; when the hero meets a priest so as to get a necessary paper, the latter claims that both Stalin and

Captain Vafiadis are like “Job’s suffering” for the Greeks.167

Additionally, Psarras presents the difficult conditions of communists during the last period of the Civil War. As a left-wing fighter narrates: “Things are getting worse day by day. Sixteen comrades were shot yesterday. There are no volunteers and no reserve army. We are short of food and clothes.” It goes without saying that the adventures of the communist movement in Greece are summarized in the words of a communist man who was forced to sign the paper of denouncement: As the hero stresses: “I’ m tired. I’ve been fighting since 1928. Strikes, demonstrations, work for the Party, prisons, exile, Occupation and Resistance. I can’t bear it anymore. I signed so as to be released from exile.”

Finally, the film openly criticizes the American Aid in Greece, as initiated by the Marshall Plan. For example, there is a scene where a group of starving people gather around a lorry that carries American supplies and beg for food. Instead of giving them food, the Americans offer flamboyant, colorful dresses and modern shoes, making the poor beggars wonder what to do with that kind of useless “aid.”

Karavan Sarai met with mixed reviews. New film historians paid attention to the movie’s weak points; Flitouris wrote that Psarras reproduces the polarity between the good Left and the evil Right, a vision which touches fewer film goers than before

167 The phrase usually refers to traumatic experiences that righteous people should go through patiently so as to learn to trust God. The Biblical figure of Job is referred in the Epistle of James, where the man is mentioned as an example of patience in suffering. 221

(399). Karalis noted that despite the director’s good intentions, the film “seemed to tell stories that no one was interested in any more, except the professional ideologists of the party establishment” (219).

The theme of immigration and diaspora have been popular topics in the post- war Greek Cinema. Director Lefteris Xanthopoulos focused on the issue of diaspora in his award winning documentaries Elliniki Kinotita Haidelvergis [Greek Community of

Heidelberg] (1976) and O Yannis apo ta Sotirianina [Giannis from Sotirianina] (1978).

His next work was the much-awarded Happy Homecoming, Comrade (1986). In this docudrama, the director pays attention to the story of a group of Greek political refugees who, after the end of the Civil War, sought and found shelter in Hungary. Arriving in

1950, about 1,500 communists founded a village which was named after the famous leftist fighter Nikos Beloyannis.

In Happy Homecoming, Comrade, Xanthopoulos combined the documentary and fiction. His script was based on real historical events and, apart from professional actors, many residents of Beloiannisz agreed to give their testimony. According to

Sotiropoulou: “Personal testimonies, memoirs and descriptions of events and situations were recorded and processed so as either to serve the myth or to become parts of the plot” (I diaspora 191). The film’s narration focuses on three generations: an old settler who wishes to repatriate but finally dies before his dream comes true, a young woman who decides to marry a Greek man, instead of her Hungarian lover, so as to return together to the homeland. Finally, a young boy, a third generation refugee, who becomes the vessel and the legatee of others’ memories and traumas.

In Happy Homecoming, the 1940s occurrences and their consequences haunt the narration, as “everybody’s life is defined by the events of the guerilla war and the defeat” (Athanasatou, Kali Patrida 103). However, there are no images of the Civil 222

War in the film, no scenes of battles. It seems that Xanthopoulos decided to incorporate the memory of the event, while focusing upon the individual experience of the Civil

War trauma. Under this pretext, the personal narrative offers a way through which to face the past and reflect upon the trauma. The narrative of Happy Homecoming,

Comrade involves a shift from an initial depiction of the partisans’ retreat after the defeat in 1949, which comprises newsreel footage, to a focus upon the characters’ personal memories of experiences that took place during the 1940s. For example, an old woman, one of the first refugees, gives a heartening account of her story: “I have never been to my village since 1949. I don’t want to go. Everybody died. I don’t want to return because five members of my family were slaughtered. They killed my husband, my brother in-law and my father in-law. They took them and executed them.

That is the reason why I continue wearing black.” Sotiropoulou points out that the clarity of the characters’ gaze and the truth of their testimony, have such power that can replace dozens of filmed battle scenes (“Kali Patrida” 97).

Happy Homecoming, Comrade one of the most painful and heartrending portraits of the Civil War trauma, belongs to the cycle of films which were produced in the middle 1980s and which adopted a rather anti-heroic tone. Instead of focusing on the actual events of the Civil War, the feature dealt with the fate of those who participated in the conflict and whose consequences affected their lives. Of course, the film is influenced by the dominant left-wing ideology of the period. As Athanasatou claims, Happy Homecoming, Comrade is not a film of proof, but a film of testimony

(108).

The first plane hijacking in Greek history is thematized in O Klios [The Noose]

(1987, d. Kostas Koutsomitis). On September 13, 1948, 6 high-school students from

Thessaloniki, members of the left-wing youth organization EPON, foreseeing the 223 communist defeat in the Civil War, hijacked a T.A.E. flight carrying 21 passengers from Athens to Thessaloniki. Their aim was to escape to communist Yugoslavia and, then, to come back to Greece, so as to fight on the mount Grammos against the governmental forces. The plane landed in Tetovo and, after disembarking the young hijackers, returned to Thessaloniki with all the other passengers.

Skillfully directed by Koutsomitis, The Noose successfully portrays the atmosphere of terror in Greece during the last period of the Civil War. There are images of communists who are chased in the streets of Thessaloniki by paramilitary groups; one of them is shot dead. In another scene, a pro-communist teacher is executed by a firing squad. Moreover, the film sheds light on the state forces’ violent practices.

Confessions of communists or left sympathizers are obtained by cruel methods - psychological torture, threats, humiliation, ruthess beatings.

The film also discusses the murder of the CBS reporter George Polk in May

1948, which has been a popular theme in Greek cinema. Polk, was covering the Civil

War and had been critical of both sides. Polk went missing while he was preparing for a secret interview with Markos Vafiadis, the DSE leader, at a remote mountain headquarters. The interview would have been one of the correspondent’s last assignments before returning to the U.S. Polk’s body was found by a fisherman floating in the Thessaloniki Bay; he was blindfolded, hands and feet bound, with a bullet wound in the back of the head. The right-wing government and the communists blamed each other for the murder. In a trial the following year, two communist fighters were convicted in absentia. A third man, the journalist Grigoris Staktopoulos, confessed that he helped members of the KKE commit the murder.

In The Noose, there are images of the body of Polk in Thessaloniki Bay and members of the State Security who carefully examine the evidence. Moreover, a high- 224 ranking police officer accuses Staktopoulos, a left sympathizer, that he and his comrades (the 6 youths who took control of the plane) are responsible for the murder of the American man. At the same time, when the young fugitives hear the Greek State radio announcement that they themselves are accused of planning the murder of Polk, they feel surprised; their only plan was to escape Greece, as the government was tightening the noose around them. Under these circumstances, the heroes’ desperate attempt to hijack the plane seemed to be the only possible way for them to attain freedom.

Critical observations on The Noose suggest a rather positive response. Writing for the left-wing newspaper Eleftherotipia, Mikelidis gave a favorable review. He argued that the director is preoccupied with the creation of suspense and thrills, despite the fact that the story is already known. (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol. V: 407) The critic also praised the editing and the young actors’ naturalistic performances (407). Tzavalas wrote that The Noose was “a combination of political drama and action thriller with a very strong plot” (167). Finally, in his multi-volume History of Greek Cinema,

Soldatos, who also praised the performances and the successful creation of the Civil

War atmosphere, he focused on the lack of technical means. For, as the film historian pointed out, the shortage of funding prevented the director from providing a great spectacle (Vol. II: 329).

PASOK’s triumphant victory in 1981 and its ideological platform of patriotic populism and anti-Right rhetoric encouraged several directors to adopt the party’s vision regarding recent history. The Years of the Storm is a characteristic example of a film serving as propaganda for the socialist government and its version of recent history. On the one hand, the movie stresses the foreigners’ responsibilities for the

1940s tragic events, castigating the British involvement in Greek domestic affairs. At 225 the same time, the “accursed Right” (‘eparatos Dexia’) is seen as responsible for the outburst of the Civil War, as well as for the establishment of the post-war undemocratic regime. Realizing PASOK’s propaganda objectives, The Years of the Storm also celebrates the heroism of the People and the Left’s positive contribution to the

Resistance against the Axis. For, as the director suggests, the People bravely resisted and fought against the enemy, suffering persecutions, imprisonments and executions for the following decades.

The plot centers around the adventures of two communist fighters, Alexandros and Odysseas, who, shortly after the DSE defeat in August 1949, try to get back home after their military unit was destroyed by the National Army. Using the flashback structure, the film narrates the heroes’ active participation in the Resistance and their involvement in the Civil War. Whereas Odysseas dies before he gets home, Alexandros arrives safely in his village in the Peloponnese, where he again meets his fiancée Maria.

But shortly after, the partisan is shot dead by a military squad. Maria, due to

Alexandros’ involvement with DSE, is tried, sentenced to life imprisonment, but released fifteen years later, during the Center Union’s premiership in the 1960s. In the end, we learn from Maria that her son participated in the Uprising of the Polytechnic

School in 1973, continuing, thus, the family tradition by fighting for Democracy and

Freedom. The Years of the Storm, a chronicle of the 1940s events, could be seen as a summary of the emergence, the growth and the decay of the Left movement in

Greece.168

168 In order to make his story more credible, the director gives at the end of the film a huge catalogue of the sources which were used for the script. These include books and memoirs of Resistance fighters: Petros Roussos I Megali Pentaetia [The Great Five-years], Nikos Svoronos Modern Greek History: An overview [Episkopisi Neoellinikis Istorias], Lefteris Stavrianos Saranta Epanastatika Chronia [Forty Revolutionary Years], G. Hatzipanagiotou (Captain Thomas) Politiki Diathiki Ari Velouchioti [Political Testament of Aris Velouchiotis], Stefanos Sarafis Apomnimonevmata [Memoirs], Komninos Piromaglos Apomnimoneumata [Memoirs], D. Dimitriou-Nikiforos Sta Vouna tis Roumelis [In the Mountains of Roumeli], Tasos Vournas Sinchroni Istoria [Modern History], S. Mplazakis & G. Tzompanakis Trianta 226

Tzimas internalized and used a manichean point of view, as promoted by the socialist government and depicted the foreigners and their domestic allies as the incarnations of evil and the Left fighters as heroic men and great patriots. For the director, the reasons for the outburst of the Civil War had to do with foreign intervention

(Paschaloudi 139). The discourse regarding the foreign involvement in the Greek affairs is stressed from the beginning of The Years of the Storm: In the first scene, a voice-over narrates the most crucial events of the 1940s decade focusing on the negative role of the both the British and the Americans:

After the glorious resistance of Greeks against the Axis in 1940-44, Greece had

been under the sphere of influence of England which, in order to consolidate its

position, pushed Greeks from the “heights” of the fight for the Liberation to the

“vortex” of the civil conflict. In 1949, after the US intervention, the Democratic

Army of Greece is defeated and the DSE partisans took refuge in the Eastern

Bloc Countries. (The Years of the Storm, 5:17-5:42)

Moreover, Odysseas believes that the British undermined the unity of the various

Resistance groups during the Occupation period, something which eventually led to the conflict among the right-wing and the left-wing organizations. As the hero claims:

Although the Left did everything in order to avoid the Civil War, the English

had no other way to establish their position. Their intentions were known from

the very beginning; shortly after the explosion of Gorgopotamos bridge, the

BBC praised Zervas and EDES but did not speak a word about Aris and ELAS.

In addition, the British fought against the unification of the Resistance groups.

Chronia Antistasis [Thirty Years of Resistance], N & A Madaritis Sta Vouna tis Kritis [In the Mountains of Crete], G. Manousakas O Kinigimenos [The Chased], Prokopis Panatzis O Chalasmos [The Disaster]. 227

[…] Finally, they turned Zervas against us.” (The Years of Storm, 40:34-

43:22)169

The Years of the Storm also criticizes the fatal political mistakes of the leadership of

KKE from the perspective of leftist partisans. At the same time, the film justifies Aris

Velouchiotis’ renegade stance after the Germans’ withdrawal from Greece.170 In the picture, Odysseas harshly criticizes the party’s miscalculations and the tactical errors committed by the leadership; the signing of the Treaty of Lebanon; the Agreements in

Caserta and Varkiza; the denouncement of Velouchiotis. As the protagonist confesses:

“At first, we were just a small group and eventually all Greeks became members of our group. […] How did we lose this fight? Why did we sign in Lebanon, in Caserta, in

Varkiza? Why didn’t we listen to Aris?” Besides, Velouchiotis himself openly criticizes the leadership for failing to calculate the British power during the December 1944 events: “ELAS lost the battle of Athens because it made the mistake to respond with light weapons against the English tanks. It was a big mistake to keep ELAS away from

Athens. We should not have obeyed the Greek government and General Scobie. We gave Athens away to them.”

The commercial success171 of The Years of the Storm suggested that the manichean view of opposing powers of good and evil still had a powerful grip and made a considerable impact on audiences of a leftist persuasion, as it reflected in large measure the perspective of the socialist government. For, as Voglis states: “Through an

169 According to Eudes: “Some days after, BBC makes a triumphant assessment of the Gorgopotamos’ sabotage. It was an apotheosis of EDES and general Napoleon Zervas. Not a word for ELAS and its leader Aris Velouchiotis. The English had chosen” (39). 170 Aris reacted to the signing of the Varkiza Agreement by the KKE leadership and the disarmament of ELAS, calling on the fighters to continue fighting the new enemy: the national army and the British. The Captain, refusing to surrender his weapons, was left politically isolated, as he was officially denounced as an “adventurer.” 171 The film was released in the season 1984-85 and sold 97.000 tickets, ranking 10th in the annual box offices sales from an output of 38 films (Valoukos, Filmografia: 593). 228 ecletic and vindicating reading of the past, the film activated memories by embellishing them, (…) created historical continuities and imaginary traditions, glamorized “People” who resisted and endured, and anticipated the future” (Apo tis kannes 114).

229

Chapter III Screen Representation of the Civil War Trauma

Παλιέ μου φίλε τί γυρεύεις;

χρόνια ξενιτεμένος ἦρθες

μὲ εἰκόνες ποὺ ἔχεις ἀναθρέψει

κάτω ἀπὸ ξένους οὐρανοὺς

μακριὰ ἀπ' τὸν τόπο τὸ δικό σου.

Γ. Σεφέρης, «Ο γυρισμός του ξενιτεμένου»

The years from the 1980s to the present have seen the development of “trauma cinema.”

By “trauma cinema” I refer to a group of pictures that deal with a devastating event or events. These films focus on traumatic incidents in a nonrealist mode characterized by

“disturbance and fragmentation of the narrative and stylistic regimes” (Walker 19). It is a commonly accepted idea within trauma theory that cinema tends to “figure the traumatic past as meaningful yet fragmentary, virtually unspeakabale” (43). Trauma films depart from classical cinema as they draw on innovative strategies for

“representing reality obliquely; by looking to mental process for inspiration, and by incorporating self-reflexive devices to call attention to the friability of the scaffolding for audiovisual historiography” (19). This section, therefore, will conduct a close analysis of the selected trauma films of the late 1980s, analyzed in their historical context and by way of concepts gleaned from contemporary trauma theory.

Best-selling author Dionisis Haritopoulos wrote the novel The Children

Helidona in 1981. The scriptwriter and director Kostas Vrettakos172 was determined to put the novel on screen and, after almost six years, the production team, which included

Vrettakos, the Film Centre and Greek State Television (ET1), managed to release the

172 Kostas Vrettakos (1938) was the son of the prominent leftish writer, poet and member of the Academy of Athens, Nikiforos Vrettakos (1912-1991). 230 film. Though faithful to the novel’s plot, the film Children of Helidona differs greatly in the way the characters are presented. The movie was co-scripted by Soula

Drakopoulou, and its cast included many veteran protagonists of Classical Cinema:

Alekos Alexandrakis,173 Mary Hronopoulou,174 Vasilis Diamantopoulos,175 Elias

Logothetis, Stephanos Lineos and Maria Martika.

In The Children of Helidona, Iason, a young director, and Markianos, a renowned veteran journalist, prepare a documentary for television, which is based on the story of a family of six who lived in the village of Helidona176 and whose members were separated during the Civil War years. Some members of the family participated in the Resistance and took part in the civil conflict and thus, the family was politically torn between the left partisans and the nationalist-minded (‘ethnikofrones’). During

WWII, Fotini, Angelos and Panos joined EAM and fought against the Nazis and the

Axis Powers. In the period after the Liberation, in response to an intensifying atmosphere of terror aimed at the leftists, the three siblings left their home and headed to the mountains in self-defense.177 In the Civil War period, following the terrorist

173 Alexandrakis was born in Athens in 1928 and studied Theatre at the National Theatre School. He is considered as one of the most prolific actors of CGC. He starred in more than 60 films, theatrical plays and series for television. He directed two films: The neorealistic masterpiece Sinikia to Oniro [Neighborhood of Dreams], 1961, which was banned by the government, only a few days after its release and the 1963 melodrama O Thriamvos [The Triumph]. He died in 2005. 174 Hronopoulou has a career that spans four decades starring in highly successful films. Her films to date, include Georgiadis’ The Red Lanterns and Blood on the Land, 1965, Dalianidis’ Dakria ya tin Electra [Tears for Electra], 1966, Angelopoulos’ The Hunters, 1977, and Voyage to Kythera, 1984. 175 Diamantopoulos was born in Piraeus in 1915 and died in Athens in 1999. He was an actor and director and founded his own Theatre School. He starred in more than 50 films of both Classical and New Greek Cinema. 176 Helidona is a village in the mountainous area of Evritania, a region of Central Greece. Many skirmishes between communists and nationalists took place in Evritania during the Civil War. What is more, Aris Velouchiotis made his first appearance as leader of a group of partisans during the Occupation period in the area of Evritania. 177 After the signing of the Varkiza Agreement in February 1945, which terminated the hostilities between KKE and the Greek government, and the demobilization of EAM-ELAS, a wave of strikes was launched by extreme right paramilitary groups. In the period between the Varkiza Agreement and the March 1946 elections, the so-called period of “White Terror,” and the persecution of former Resistance members took varying forms: para-state teams terrorized the countryside, thousands of left-wing fighters were arrested, tortured, murdered, many women were raped and offices of EAM were attacked. 231 upsurge against the Resistance movement but also driven by a patriotic sentiment, they joined DSE and carried out large military operations against the governmental army.

By contrast, Spyros and Akrivi did not participate in the war effort. The two heroes combined their hard line and fierce anticommunist ideology with fervent patriotic support for the national army’s military endeavors. The protagonists’ actions, both during the 1940s and afterwards, are gradually disclosed through a series of meetings and interviews, which are conducted by the media people during the preparation for the documentary.

The so-called “children of Helidona,” middle-aged at the time of the documentary’s production, see past events from their own subjective perspective and their testimonies usually contradict each other. Due to their political differences which go back to the painful Civil War period, they constantly blame each other for the incidents that took place in the past. For the children of Helidona, the making of the documentary reopens old wounds; the burning down of their house during the Civil

War, the capturing and the torture of their father by communists, the signing of a

“statement of renouncement” of KKE by Angelos, the sexual harassment of Akrivi by her brother Spyros.

Furthermore, the preparation for the documentary reaches a deadlock, since

Angelos, the notorious ELAS Captain, is not willing to narrate his story. So, both Iason and Markianos travel to Helidona in order to persuade him to talk. Finally, Angelos dies of a stroke and, thus, his testimony remains undelivered. The film ends with

Angelos’ funeral, an event that provides the opportunity to the surviving members of the family to “clash” with each other one more time.

A view at how reviewers responded to The Children of Helidona might give an indication of how the director’s approach was received. Two critics who gave favorable 232 reviews were Nikos Kolovos and Vasilis Rafailidis. Writing for the film magazine

Othoni [Screen], Kolovos paid attention to the successful choice of the veteran protagonists and praised the authenticity of the scenery. He also pointed out that the film was not an elegy for lost ideals but an ethical research into man’s traumatic past

(26). Rafailidis –a critic notoriously harsh on most Greek films– thought of The

Children of Helidona as one of the best Greek films ever (117). Moreover, the theoretician Panayotis Basteas argued that The Children of Helidona was a marvelous film, “an x-ray of the ideological trends of the Greek society and also a requiem for a whole era.” (130).

The film historian Yannis Soldatos wrote that The Children of Helidona was a movie about the limits of truth, and its relation with recent historical occurrences (Vol.

II: 319). Flitouris stated that The Children of Helidona was a film which greatly contributed to the depiction of the Civil War memory (400). For Lemonidou, such features as The Children of Helidona shifted their focus “from negotiating the war as a warfare or military conflict to depicting the lived experience” (229), the narrations of the protagonists that have nothing to do with deeds and glory.

Despite its critical acclaim, The Children of Helidona was a commercial failure.

The film opened in Greece in October 1987 but did poorly at the box-office, selling only 12,500 tickets (Valoukos, Filmografia: 594). It did not place higher than ninth in the box-office list of the season 1987-88, after such films as the comedies Vios ke

Politia [Adventurous Life] (d. Nikos Perakis) and Made in Greece (d. Panos

Angelopoulos), as well as the love melodrama Archangelos tou Pathous [Potlatch] (d.

Nikos Vergitsis) (594). The film was released in the late 1980s, a period when Greek cinema had reached its nadir as far as tickets and production rates are concerned: even the box-office leader Adventurous Life did not make more than 200,000 tickets (594). 233

The scriptwriter and director Dionisis Grigoratos struggled for almost three years to bring The Polk File on Air to the big screen (Bakoyannopoulos, qtd. in

Soldatos, Vol. V: 426). The film was put into development in 1985 by the Greek Film

Centre (EKK), ET1 and Cine Group company, with Grigoratos as scriptwriter and director. It officially premiered in the 29th Thessaloniki Film Festival (1988) and made a positive impact, winning three awards.178

The core of Grigoratos’ film has to do with the representation of an event which took place during the Greek Civil War: the assassination of the prominent American journalist George Polk. The murder of Polk has been one of the unsolved mysteries of the early Cold War.179A few days later, the right-wing Greek government “produced” a suspect: the reporter Grigoris Staktopoulos, a left sympathizer, was arrested and confessed twice that he had planned the murder. The man was sentenced to many years of imprisonment, placing, thus, the blame for Polk’s murder on the communists.

Despite Staktopoulos’ conviction, the journalist’s murder is considered as an unsolved mystery and, throughout the years, many books and reports regarding the case were published. The circumstances and the mystery around the case have been popular post- war themes.180

The picture brings together past and present by interlocking two stories that take place in 1948 and 1988. With regard to the past, the narrative represents the incidents

178 Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Supporting Actor. 179 See previous discussion. 180 Polk’s murder has been a subject of numerous books and articles. Among the Greek publications are the books: Vourvachis, Eleftherios. Poios skotose ton Polk; Mia Politiki Dolofonia ke Dikastiki Plani [Who killed Polk? A Political Murder and a Judicial Error]. (Athens: Proskinio, 2003), Kafiris, Athanasios. I Ipothesi Polk-Staktopoulou: Mia Anthropini ke Dikastiki Tragodia [The Polk Case: A Human and a Judicial Tragedy]. (Athens: Proskinio, 2008), Keeley, Edmund. Fonos sto Thermaiko: Ipothesi Polk [Murder in Thermaikos Gulf: The Polk Case]. (Athens: Gnosi, 1991), Hatziargyris, Kostas. I Ipothesi Polk: O Rolos ton Xenon Ipiresion stin Ellada [The Polk Case: The Role of the Foreign Services in Greece] (Athens: Eirini, 1988). Among the foreign publications: Marton, Kati, The Polk Conspiracy: Murder and Cover-Up in the Case of CBS News Correspondent George Polk. (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990), Vlanton, Elias and Zak Mettger. Who Killed George Polk? The Press Covers Up a Death in the Family. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996). 234 related to Polk’s murder: the journalist’s coming to Thessaloniki, his meetings with foreign officials, as well as with the young journalist Staktopoulos and, finally, his murder in May 1948. Additionally, Staktopoulos’ arrest, his isolation in prison, as well as his trial are part of the narrative. The film’s second story occurs in the present: forty years after the incident, two young people, Kosmidis, a journalist, and Agape, an actress, reinvestigate the Polk file in order to make a radio documentary. The two

“reporters” collect old newspapers, cross-examine witnesses’ testimonies and interview the protagonists who are still alive.

Nevertheless, searching for the truth is not an easy task: Kosmidis and Agape face many difficulties as they try to discern the role of the foreign agents in the case, as well as whether Staktopoulos was used as a scapegoat by the authorities. The biggest obstacles are put in their way by the actual protagonists of the incident, as their testimonies usually contradict and challenge one another. Moreover, some of those who were aware of valuable information, either are dead or do not remember vital details.

Even Staktopoulos himself, the main figure of the past story, revises his words and testimony.

What differentiates Grigoratos’ picture from other films181 on the Polk file is the alternative version that is suggested regarding the notorious case. By paying attention to Polk’s previous work in the area of the Middle East, the director does not recycle popular theories,182 but, on the contrary, sees the journalist’s murder as part of a wider geopolitical game. The latter has to do with the role of the USA in the Middle

181 See Part II. 182 As Iatrides and Keeley notice: “Various theories attribute the murder to the communists, to right-wing politicians or extremists in the security forces, to criminal elements of Thessaloniki’s underground, or to the American or Soviet secret services. A shadow of suspicion remains over a British information officer who, while posted in Thessaloniki, is known to have offered to assist foreign journalists to interview Markos Vafeiadis, the head of the insurgent Democratic Army of Greece, something Polk was attempting to do when he met his death. None of these theories has been supported with convincing proof.” For more: Iatrides & Keeley (2013). 235

East.183 What is more, there is an attempt to connect Polk’s file with present political situations, mostly with regard to USA-Greek relations: In the last scene of the film, spectators see the headline of a Greek newspaper about the 1985 Reagan’s travel advisory against Greece.184 Therefore, by linking Polk’s case with current political affairs, Grigoratos raises a general issue that has to do with the degree of the American interference in other countries.185

Critical commentary on the film suggests a mixed response. Writing for the right-wing newspaper Kathimerini, Bakoyannopoulos praised Grigoratos’ achievement and remarked that the director worked for about three years so as to do the research and gather the historical material which was necessary for the film (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol.

V: 426). Through the use of real documents, photos, newspapers, computers, the director creates a fruitful Brechtian effect of distancing (426). On the other hand, the critic disagreed with Grigoratos’ attempt to link the Polk case with present situations related to terrorism (426).

Similarly, Rafailidis assessed The Polk File on Air favorably, noting that there are three levels in the film: realistic representation, fantastic presentation and journalistic research (150). However, it was pointed out that the picture lacks narrative

183 George Polk was a CBS reporter both for Greece and the Middle East. Grigoratos implies that Polk’s activity and research in the area of Middle East regarding the US plans for oil control and the possible disclosure of the geopolitical game made him a target that had to be ‘erased’. 184 One must not forget that during PASOK’s term in office (1981-89), US-Greek relations became “cold:” There was a travel advisory, which was issued by Reagan administration in 1985, warning US citizens from travelling to Greece after the hijacking of a TWA jetliner from Athens in 1985 (Smith, 1987). In addition, there were charges in July 1987 that Greek government officials “had contacts with Abu Nidal terrorist organization” (Iatrides, 1993:159). 185 Grigoratos’ attempt is not always successful. As Neos points out: “Reagan’s travel advice, which is visible at the headlines of a newspaper, is not directly linked to the Polk case in the film. One must have special knowledge and a certain ideology so as to make the connection between the two events”. (54). In addition, Bakoyannopoulos, although recognizes Grigoratos’ effort to represent his research that lasted almost two years and pays attention to the film’s Brechtian effect of estrangement, claims that the director’s wish to make a general comment creates a problem. As the critic suggests: “Grigoratos wants to connect Polk’s case with present situations, such as terrorism and interference of Big Powers. But his material is not enough and, what is more, his claims are rather vague” (qtd. in Soldatos, Vol. IV: 426).

236 coherence and its structure was rather complicated (150). Moreover, Neos came up with a different interpretation. Writing for Othoni, he stressed that the film did not focus on the delineation of Kosmidis’ personality, despite the fact that the narrative over-focuses on his research (54). The critic also disagreed with the arbitrary directorial attempt to link the film with political events of the present and wondered what is the purpose of making another film based on Polk file (54).

Regarding the box-office figures of The Polk File on Air, the film was a commercial failure. It ended up being a box office flop, selling only 8,000 tickets and was placed eighth in the box-office list of the 1988-89 season (Valoukos, Filmografia:

594). It could be claimed that The Polk Case on Air failed due to reasons unrelated to the film itself, with the timing of its production being the basic one. It was released in the worst period of Greek cinema, when the number of admissions had declined; even the box-office leader I Fanela me to Enia [The Striker with Number 9] (d. Pantelis

Voulgaris) did not sell more than 50,000 tickets (594). Additionally, films made by established creators were box-office bombs; Theo Angelopoulos’ highly acclaimed road film Topio stin Omichli [Landscape in the Mist] sold only 40,000 tickets, ranking second on the list, and Yiorgos Panousopoulos’ M’Ayapas? [Do you love me?] had only

30,000 admissions (594).

Civil War as Trauma

Multiple Traumas and Incapability of Feeling

In The Children of Helidona, the characters’ traumas are connected to the past. With regard to Fotini, a legendary ex-partisan,186 it is observed that her trauma originates in

186 The mass mobilization and participation of Greek women in all facets of the anti-Axis struggle mark the Greek Resistance as a turning point in the history of women’s citizenship struggles and gender/identity politics in Greece. In addition, during the Civil War there was an increase in women’s battle front participation within the ranks of DSE (between 20 and 30 percent of total DSE forces). For more, Anagnostopoulou (2001). 237 the 1940s events. The woman narrates that, during the Civil War, she lost both her child and her lover, captain Psarianos. This traumatic experience made a significant impression on her mind and keeps haunting her. Fotini has lived under a cloud of doubt as to whether her two beloved persons are alive or not; although people claim that

Psarianos died, nobody saw him dead. What is more, due to her participation in the

Civil War, Fotini was arrested, sentenced to death and, finally, to life imprisonment.

On her account of the events:

I spent a year in solitary confinement in the Military Police Headquarters of

Piraeus. I suffered beatings, interrogation, humiliation. […] When I was taken

to Lamia for the trial, the mere sight of people made me cry. I was all alone

without a lawyer. Only my father came to visit me. […] I have lived a life that

I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. (The Children of Helidona, 1:09:10 – 1:

11:10)

It is argued that such terrible experiences cause Fotini to become unable to feel fear or other emotions: she claims that, due to her traumatic experiences, she is not afraid of death. Fotini’s inability to have any normal emotions, despite the fact that many years have gone by, is evident when she narrates a battle during the Civil War, when her guerilla group invaded a governmental camp and killed many soldiers. Although time has passed, her unadorned and merciless narration of the incident leaves no space for empathy for the victims: on the contrary, Fotini seems to have no regret for the killings of the privates who “writhed like fish.”

It appears that Fotini deliberately chooses not to feel anything, since she believes that the mutilation of her emotions is a way to survive. Besides, her incapability of feeling is also a way of punishing herself, as she is the one who is alive, whereas her comrades are not: when her group was surrounded during a fight, Fotini 238 was the only one who managed to survive. In addition, the heroine carries some kind of guilt for her survival.187As she bitterly narrates: “They came the following day and took the other women but not me. They died singing. They executed them. Why not me? Then I cried with all my heart. I was wondering why.”

Moreover, Fotini has adopted an almost anti-social behavior, due to her years in prison. Strongly committed to the communist ideology, Fotini testifies that she hated visits in prison because she could not stand relatives who tried to persuade her to change her beliefs. After her release, Fotini wished to remain anonymous. For, as she confesses:

“I don’t want anyone to know who I was and what I did.” Her inability to form normal social relations is proved from the fact that Fotini does not keep up with her family and seems to be alienated even from her beloved brother Angelos.

Akrivi, another member of the Helidona family, also suffers from traumas which are associated with the 40s events: the woman testifies that, during the Civil War, she saw her father captured and tortured by members of the “Mavroskoufides (‘Black

Berets’).”188 Moreover, she confesses that she suffered a lot in her life, since she sacrificed herself for the others, although no one cared for her; Akrivi explains that she got married to a man she did not love, she worked hard to provide for her family and she also visited her brothers who were imprisoned or hospitalized. Furthermore, the heroine claims that her brother Spyros tried to abuse her sexually and, because she rejected his indecent proposals, Spyros accused her of having relations with her landlord’s son. Memory of old traumas is a source of pain for Akrivi, as she wonders if

187 As Fotini explains, two judges voted for her (because she was a mother) and, so, she was not shot. The director here alludes to a real event: In 1952, Ellie Pappa, a communist fighter, although sentenced to death, was finally saved from execution because she had a baby. 188 The group of Mavroskoufides was formed by Aris Velouchiotis in 1943 in the area of Fokida, central Greece. Their name was adopted by the black berets they used to wear. They acted as Aris’ bodyguards, whom they worshipped like a God and were perceived as ruthless and merciless communist fighters. After Velouchiotis’ death in 1945, the Mavroskoufides were ruthlessly chased both by governmental forces and KKE. Many of them were captured, tortured and spent many years in prison. 239

“there is anything worse than remembering old tragedies.”

Angelos’ traumas also originate in the past. The hero, Fotini’s brother, spent his youth fighting against the Nazis and, afterwards, against the nationalists. For his actions during the Civil War, Angelos was arrested, sentenced to death, but managed to escape.

When Angelos was recaptured, he was” brutally beaten and when he was put on trial, he was taken out of the court on a stretcher.” One cannot but notice that the events of the Civil War severely traumatized Angelos. Of course, this becomes evident in his life after prison. As we learn, Angelos chose to live isolated in a small house, far away from others. His only contact with the outside world was his son. As a villager narrates:

“Since his release from prison, Angelos has never come to the coffee shop. He doesn’t even speak to his brothers. He is a strange man.”

In Panos’ example, traumas are strongly interwoven with madness. The youngest brother of the family also participated in the Civil War. As he claims, he was the last guerilla fighter who was arrested in the area of Roumeli. In The Children of

Helidona, Panos is represented clearly as mentally disturbed: his fellow villagers call him “the crazy Panos” and he himself confirms his unstable health condition: during the taping of the documentary, Panos keeps talking about things that have little to do with the topic of the show, which makes the director reprimand him.

Regarding The Polk File on Air, Staktopoulos, the protagonist of the Polk case suffers from traumas that originate in the past. First of all, the journalist’s murder and the stain of guilt that was left on Staktopoulos is a source of trauma for the journalist:

Staktopoulos officially testified that he was the man who led the American to his murderers, Mouzenidis and Vasvanas, after their last meeting at Astoria Hotel, in

Thessaloniki. Due to that testimony, Staktopoulos was sentenced by the Court to life imprisonment. But soon after his release in the early 1960s, the hero claimed that he 240 was innocent and that he was forced to plead guilty, because of the inhuman mental and physical tortures that he had suffered.

As it is shown in the film, the man had been kept in isolation for many days and ruthlessly beaten by the Police Director and other officers. Additionally, Staktopoulos carries some kind of guilt for his mother’s involvement in the case; the old woman was also arrested and spent eight months in prison, facing the false accusation that she had actually written a letter189 which was sent to the 3rd Police Precinct of Thessaloniki.

Staktopoulos’ mother was cleared of all the charges by the Court in 1949, but died a year later. Thus, these traumatic experiences- tortures, years in prison and his mother’s involvement-had kept haunting Staktopoulos. The man has lived a life carrying the stain of guilt regarding Polk’s murder and that is the reason why Staktopoulos, forty years after the occurrence, did not cease to make his efforts to clear his name and reputation.

Working-through, Acting-out

The concept of working-through, central to trauma theory, can be applied in Vrettakos’ film. As it has been mentioned, the notion refers to the subject’s conscious effort to confront and acknowledge the traumatic memories and transform them “into narrative language” (Van der Kolk and van der Hart 176). With regard to Fotini, her process of working through starts when she comes to the TV studio to watch her siblings’ account of the family story. As she listens to Akrivi’s narration of the past, Fotini, for the first time, decides to testify in order to re-establish truth regarding the traumatic past.

The working through of Fotini’s trauma can also be seen at the end of the film: after her brother’s memorial service, Fotini seems to be determined to speak. The

189 It was the letter which contained both Polk’s identity card and was thought to be written by Anna Staktopoulou. In fact, as it was proved later, a man named Bamias accidentally found the ID in the bay of Thessaloniki. Bamias asked a friend of his to write the address and post the letter to the 3rd Police Department. 241 woman insists on narrating her story, although she is told that the crew is ready to leave:

“Is it possible to call them back? I want to speak,” Fotini says. Her decision to narrate her story could be seen as the working through of her traumas, since it is suggested that the recovery from a trauma can only take place when “the story can be told; the person can look back at what happened” (176). Even Markianos observes the change in the woman’s attitude and claims that “the death of her brother affected her.”

However, Angelos’ example regarding his efforts to resolve his traumas is totally different. As mentioned, after his release from prison, the man kept away from both his family and his fellow villagers. Angelos lived in a house which was far away from the village and never talked to anyone about his traumatic experiences: his participation in the Civil War, his arrest and escape, his tortures and the years in prison.

Even his son is not aware of his father’s story. It is argued that the hero’s anti-social behavior shows that it is a symptom of acting-out. Until the very end of his life, the ex- partisan has not managed to face and come to terms with the traumatic memories of the past.

With regard to the process of working-through in The Polk File on Air, it could be pointed out that it is articulated in a different way than in Vrettakos’ film. In

Grigoratos’ picture, Staktopoulos is the hero who has tried to understand and master his traumas. Unlike Angelos in The Children of Helidona, Staktopoulos has chosen not to be silent regarding the past events. On the contrary, he has attempted to confront the source of his pain: after his release in the early 1960s, Staktopoulos applied for a re- trial, based on new evidence which, according to him, could prove his innocence.

Additionally, the act of narrating the events that shaped his life plays a primary role in 242

Staktopoulos’ effort to work through his trauma. The journalist wrote a book,190 where he presented his own account of the incidents and also gave many interviews.

Staktopoulos also appeared in Grigoratos’ film; in The Polk File on Air, Staktopoulos retold how he made the decision to admit his guilt regarding Polk’s murder and what followed his confession.

Role of the listener

Trauma theorists pay much attention to the crucial role of the listener in the process of working-through a past traumatic event. Laub claims that “the listener to trauma comes to be participant and co-owner of the traumatic event: through his very listening he comes to partially experience trauma in himself” (Bearing Witnesses: 58). As noticed, the act of testimony includes a listener who experiences the incident either vicariously or virtually (LaCapra, Writing History: 78). In The Children of Helidona, two listeners can be observed: Iason, the director of the documentary and Markianos, the veteran reporter who assists the former in finishing his project. These two men come into contact with the members of the family which was divided during the Civil War.

First, Iason is eager to finish the documentary, so he does not empathize with the stories of the informants: for him the children of Helidona are nothing but mere objects of research. He is only interested in finishing the documentary and, to achieve this, he would not hesitate to reveal and exploit painful personal stories (Kolovos 25).

For instance, Iason’s behavior towards Panos reveals his lack of empathy: instead of patiently listening to the man’s stories, the director rudely interrupts Panos, claiming that the latter must focus only on what has been previously agreed to be narrated in front of the camera and not talk about irrelevant things (stories from the Civil War that

190 Grigoris Staktopoulos. Ipothesi Polk: I Prosopiki mou Martiria [Polk Case: My Personal Testimony], (Athens: Gnosi, 1984). 243 are not related to the children of Helidona).

Another instance of Iason’s unemotional behavior as a listener is detected in the scene where Akrivi runs into the theatre where the production is taking place and wishes to speak with the director. When Iason sees her, he tells Markianos “you’d better talk to her because I can’t tolerate her anymore” and, so, he puts the journalist into the position of the listener. Therefore, it becomes obvious that, since Iason has finished his job with Akrivi, he does not need her anymore and he is unwilling to listen to her again.

So, Iason’s experience as a listener is neither vicarious, since he does not identify with any of his interviewees, nor virtual, as the man does not live the event in his imagination. The character only wishes to finish his documentary and so there is no space for “empathic unsettlement.” As he claims: “I have no right to fail. I am not capable of doing any other job.”

On the other hand, Markianos’ experience as a listener is different. As Kolovos notes, the veteran journalist is eager to collect documents, to ferret out the truth (25).

As the man admits, he spent many hours listening to the stories of the children of

Helidona and, this experience, made him a compassionate recipient of his informants’ traumatic experiences. In the scene where Iason gets rid of Akrivi, Markianos patiently listens to the distraught woman and tries to encourage, as well as to dispel her illusions regarding both Angelos’ health condition and Fotini’s behavior.

Regarding Markianos’ behavior towards Fotini, one cannot but notice that the journalist is the one who encourages the heroine to speak because, as he tells her, “the only people who can speak about Helidona are you and Angelos. […] There are people who need to know.” Furthermore, at her first meeting with Markianos, Fotini is reluctant to testify her story for the documentary. As she exclaims: “I hate those old persons who talk on TV. People do not need our grumbling.” The woman’s refusal 244 could be seen as an expression of the survivors’ fear of testifying and “not being listened to” (Burnstein 37). However, Fotini’s fear seems to be unreasonable, since Markianos, as a listener, experiences her trauma not in a vicarious way but in a virtual one.

This means that the journalist assumes the role of an empathic listener: a listener who does not completely identify with her, but is willing to put himself in Fotini’s place, though he recognizes that he cannot take her place or speak in her voice: “The only people who can talk about Helidona are you and Angelos,” Markianos points out.

So, the man does not become “a surrogate victim who appropriates the victim’s voice or suffering” (LaCapra, History in Transit: 135). Instead, he respects the “otherness of the others, which is obliterated in identification that may be attended by appropriative or extremely intrusive behavior” (135) and does not claim complete knowledge and understanding of what happened to Fotini during the turbulent years of the 40s.

Moreover, Markianos could be characterized as a listener who is “unobtrusively present, throughout the testimony” (Laub 71). When Fotini finally decides to testify about her traumatic memories of the Civil War, Markianos respects her story by not interrupting her flow of narration and not asking her questions. The journalist even tries to prevent Fotini from giving her testimony shortly after Angelos’ death: “Don’t you think that it would be better to talk to us in Athens? I think that now you must take some rest,” the man says.

In The Polk File on Air, two figures assume the role of the listener: Kosmidis and Agape. In order to prepare the documentary, they re-investigate the circumstances regarding Polk’s murder and listen to their informants’ accounts of the events.

Regarding Agape, she seems rather indifferent to the stories of the protagonists. For example, there is a scene where Agape and Kosmidis listen to Staktopoulos’ taped testimony. After a while, Agape gets bored with the narration and, instead of staying to 245 the end of the interview, she gets dressed and leaves for the theatre: “Would I miss something important, if I didn’t watch the material?” Agape asks, implying that stories of the past are not of vital importance to her.

In another scene, Agape does not have the patience to listen to Staktopoulos’ interview, due to the confusion resulting from his words. She points out that it is impossible to stay and listen to the taped material: “I am sorry, but I can’t follow his thought”, Agape claims. Like Iason in The Children of Helidona, the young woman does not identify with any of the interviewees, not even with Staktopoulos, the protagonist of the notorious case. The woman only wishes to see the documentary finished. Therefore, regarding Agape’s role as a listener, there is no space for “empathic unsettlement” with the traumatized victims.

On the other hand, Kosmidis’ attitude as a listener is different. The man is fully dedicated to his inquiry, as he is portrayed as an investigator who is eager to collect documents, to find out and cross-examine the protagonists’ confessions. That is why the journalist is seen sitting alone in a dark room, where he spends a lot of hours taping information regarding Polk’s personality. Moreover, Kosmidis is the person who interviews both Staktopoulos and Hatziargiris, Polk’s assistant. During the talks,

Kosmidis actively listens to the witnesses’ confessions and asks questions in order to clarify things. As Neos points out: “The man focuses mainly (and exclusively) on the research. He is only interested in finding evidence and seems to be serious. […] The investigator personifies the research itself” (54).

One cannot but assert that Kosmidis, as a listener, experiences trauma not in a vicarious way, but in a virtual one. This means that the hero assumes the role of an empathic listener: a listener who does not identify, but puts himself in the victims’ position, while recognizing that he cannot speak in their voice: “At least, Staktopoulos 246 speaks himself”, Kosmidis says, showing, thus, that he recognizes the hero’s courage and ability to narrate his own version of the traumatic past. In addition, the man patiently tries to understand the truth that is hidden behind Staktopoulos’ contradictory testimonies; when Agape declares that she cannot listen to the documents anymore,

Kosmidis becomes a more patient listener and he does not give up. On the contrary, he gives a reasonable explanation regarding Staktopoulos’ contradictory words, by claiming that the experience of prison and the tortures that Staktopoulos suffered, had deep psychological effects and caused enormous emotional pain on the falsely accused man.

Darkness

The element of “darkness” has been one of the strongest symbols in religion and literature. Contrasted with “light,” darkness is usually correlated with evil,191 mystery or despair. In Vrettakos’ film, the use of darkness is also symbolic. First of all, the studio where the interviews of the children of Helidona takes place is characterized by its dark atmosphere and its dim light, to such a degree, that the figures of the interviewees can be barely seen. What is more, not only Spyros, Panos and Sotiris are dressed in dark suits, but also Akrivi and Fotini appear in black dresses throughout the film. This darkness could be seen as a symbol for the mystery regarding the family’s story, since each member gives a different account of the past traumatic occurrences, namely their participation in the Resistance movement; their fight against the nationalists during the Civil War; Angelos’ signing of the “statement of renouncement;” the fate of Fotini’s son.

Moreover, Fotini not only wears black clothes, but is always presented wearing

191 For example, in the Old Testament the prophet Isaiah associates good with light and evil with darkness by warning: “Woe to those that call evil good, and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (New International Version, Isa. 5.20). 247 dark glasses. One might suggest that glasses are used by the ex-partisan as a powerful weapon: by wearing them, the heroine feels protected by both past painful sights (the

Civil War incidents) and present “demons” (the documentary crew that “chases” her).

Fotini finally takes off her glasses when, after Angelos’ memorial service, she decides to work through her trauma, by narrating her story to Markianos and Iason. Thus, the taking off of the glasses signifies the woman’s determination not to bury her head in the sand anymore, but, on the contrary, to face her traumatic past in an attempt to come to terms with it.

The element of darkness can also be traced in The Polk File on Air. First, one cannot but observe that the room where the two “reporters” reexamine the Polk file is characterized by its dim light. Although one would expect that the newspapers, the books and the files would be examined in daylight, we see the heroes reading the documents and the testimonies in a dark room: there is a scene where Kosmidis reads his papers and his face is barely seen. It is claimed that the room’s darkness, where no light can penetrate, signifies the “darkness” associated with the notorious case: the Polk file has been a haunting issue, a “dark” incident and seems to be impossible for anyone to shed light on it. So, it can be suggested that the heroes’ research is nothing but a walk in the dark.

In addition, Polk’s murder is also reconstructed in darkness. In this sequence, shot at night, the journalist is portrayed alone in the area of the White Tower of

Thessaloniki. No other person, but a black shadow, Polk’s assassin is visible in the gloomy night. Moreover, the moment the sound of the gunshot is heard, the image suddenly becomes black; even the moon disappears behind a cloud, which is very efefctive for the atmosphere. Therefore, it might be argued that the “dark” depiction of

Polk’s last moments serves the director’s aim to stress the mystery behind the 248

American’s assassination. There is nothing but shadows and unanswered questions in this mysterious case, the movie suggests.

Characteristics of Τrauma Films

The Children of Helidona and The Polk File on Air feature two types of elements usually found in trauma films, namely those of mediation and the insufficiency of language. The combination of these characteristics makes the audiences feel as if no information, no account of the past occurrences, can be taken for granted.

Mediation

Questions regarding the process of mediation within trauma theory are crucial in understanding an event which was primarily mediated. Since mediation is linked to the process of testimony, rather than to the event itself, it can be viewed as an important but also problematic issue in such texts, since it raises a question about the ethics of representation of traumatic experiences. The notion of mediation refers to different versions of a story, which appear because each time it is mediated by another person.

In The Children of Helidona, reflections on mediation can be observed namely in the example of Fotini’s past and the circumstances leading to the loss of her baby. In

Akrivi’s account regarding this event, Fotini “smothered her baby to death and hid his body under yew leaves, because the communist party ordered her to do so.” Akrivi also claims that the communists had been surrounded by the army and the baby’s cry would betray their position. On the contrary, Fotini’s record of the incidents differs from

Akrivi’s narration, as she testifies that:

I had a six-month old baby whom I had all alone under a yew. I was carrying it

when the chase began. Psarianos used his boots to remove the snow so as for

me to be able to walk. We arrived at a frozen stream. The baby was wailing. We 249

were fifty people surrounded by Special Forces of the army. I was sinking. Then

Psarianos grabbed the baby and told me that he will move to the mound so as to

fight the enemies back. I got out of the water and fainted. There, we were caught.

Psarianos managed to escape. (The Children of Helidona, 1:45:57 – 1:46:41)

Another example of different accounts of a story might be traced in the case of

Psarianos’ archives. In her narration regarding the archives Fotini claims that her brother Angelos is in the possession of the captain’s archives. On the other hand, Panos’ version differs from Fotini’s: the man claims that Fotini is lying about the archives and that he acquired “fifteen iron boxes” of Psarianos’ files and hid them near a monastery.

In order to support his claim, Panos invites Markianos to join him in a visit to the monastery so as to search for the lost files. Also, the aforementioned narrations are different from other versions regarding the topic: Markianos’ editor believes that

Psarianos carried the files with him when he fled away, whereas an army officer claims that the “one of those who was captured told us that the “black rider had the archives.”

Finally, Akrivi’s version is different from all the others’: she testifies that “Psarianos was surrounded (by governmental forces) in the area of Spearhead and burnt all the documents and then he killed himself.”

Apart from Psarianos’ archives, the captain’s fate is also under doubt: whereas in Markianos’ editor’s version the guerilla fighter escaped and never came back, Akrivi claims that the man killed himself when he was surrounded by his enemies. Regarding

Fotini’s view on Psarianos’ fate, the woman believes that both her lover and her son are still alive and thus, “something, resulting from the great and unsuccessful fight, managed to survive” (Kolovos 26). As Fotini recounts:

They claimed that he died. No one had seen him dead. Psarianos is alive. […]

He was seen the other day in Tashkent. He prepares his papers to come back, 250

since refugees are now free to return. And he is not alone; he has a son of the

same age as our son. My son is alive. (The Children of Helidona, 1:47:05-

1:47:53)

Additionally, Angelos’ past is also an issue of mediation. According to Akrivi, Angelos

“pretended to be someone ‘important’ but he finally came to sign the statement of renunciation.”192 On the contrary, Fotini’s version is totally different, since she asserts that her brother “had never signed a statement.” Moreover, as an old Helidonian woman claims: “Angelos was a lunatic who tried to slaughter Psarianos, because he had eloped with his sister,” whereas for his elder brother Spyros, the hero was a blood-thirsty man who wanted to slaughter all.

The ambiguity of the characters’ narratives characterizes the theme of different versions of the past, since in the end, viewers cannot be sure of the true content of their account. The audience will be unaware of the complete truth regarding the traumatic events, namely the Civil War. As Vrettakos claimed, the film’s subject matter was “the people’s inability to access the truth. There is a game between truth and lie. The

Children of Helidona focuses on how closely we can approach the truth through various events and whether this truth is indisputable” (28). The director further stresses that he deliberately chose to make a film about the occurrences of this era, because “it is a controversial period, where truth and falsehood seem to be real” (28).

In The Polk Case on Air reflections on the issue of mediation can be observed in the example of Staktopoulos’ past and the incidents regarding Polk’s murder. First, there is a scene where Staktopoulos officially testifies that he will disclose Polk’s killers and that Greece is innocent of the crime. However, the man’s testimony is questioned

192 Aris Velouchiotis was arrested in 1939 and sent to Corfu prison. He remained there until he signed a “statement of renouncement” of the Greek Communist Party in June 8, 1939 which was considered to be a very humiliating act for a communist. KKE never forgot and never forgave Aris for that statement. 251 by himself; in his interview regarding the Polk case, Staktopoulos gives a totally different account of the occurrence and rejects his initial confession by claiming that:

“I thought that I had the obligation to sacrifice myself for my country. And that is what

I did. Later, after the trial, I was told that I offered valuable services to Greece.” Thus,

Staktopoulos implies that he was forced to take the responsibility for the crime, so that the Greek government would not be blamed. But his latest testimony, which annuls the official one, is questioned by a headline of Makedonia newspaper: there, Staktopoulos, who was a reporter for the newspaper at the time, wrote, before his arrest, that

Cominform, the Communist Information Bureau,193 was responsible for Polk’s murder.

Moreover, Staktopoulos’ taped narration is barely believable by Agape; she hears his testimony, and she expresses strong doubts regarding the degree of truthfulness: “Staktopoulos is not sincere about everything. He does not know everything. He cannot talk about everything. He is afraid. Maybe he has forgotten who he really is.” In addition, when the two investigators cross-examine Staktopoulos’ two official testimonies, they find that the man’s confessions contradict one another: in the first confession, Staktopoulos claimed that he last met with Polk on the quay of

Thessaloniki, whereas in the second one, he testified that his final meeting with the

American took place at a restaurant named “Luxemburg.” But his second testimony is questioned both by the waiters and the singer of Luxemburg, who claim that they had not seen the two men. In addition, Staktopoulos’ official confessions are both corrected by his latest interview, where the hero claims that he last met Polk at the Mediterranean

Hotel. As Agape points out: “This man will drive us crazy. Here, he says different things than before.”

193 Cominform was an official communist forum. Soviet-dominated, the movement was formed in Poland in 1947 aiming at coordinating actions of the communist parties of Eastern Europe. Cominform was officially dissolved in 1956 following the process of DeStalinization. 252

One cannot but notice that the details regarding Polk’s last supper before his murder are also in doubt: whereas the forensic pathologist asserts that lobster and peas were found in Polk’s stomach and Staktopoulos himself claims that Polk ordered lobster with peas, the restaurant’s staff are clear in claiming that at “Luxemburg” lobster was served only with olive oil, lemon or mayonnaise and not with peas. Additionally,

Staktopoulos initially confessed that he was an accomplice in the murder of Polk, since he led the victim to his assassins, Mouzenidis and Vasvanas, both members of KKE.

But as Kosmidis stresses, this was impossible, since Mouzenidis, had already been killed one month before Polk’s murder. But Kosmidis’ findings are questioned by Anna

Voyatzi, a woman who used to provide Mouzenidis with shelter in Thessaloniki. Anna testifies that she was a witness of a meeting, where Mouzenidis and Vasvanas talked about the boat on which the two killers carried Polk to the Thermaikos Gulf. In addition,

Kosmidis interviewes an old KKE member, who states that even Vasvanas was not in

Thessaloniki at the time of Polk’s murder; he was with his comrades in the area of Pozar

Thermal Baths, where he was fighting against the Governmental Army.

Unreliability of Language

A second characteristic of trauma films consists of references to the unreliability of language. As noticed, trauma survivors tend to show suspicion towards language and its inability to carry out the intolerable duty of representing their past experiences. In

The Children of Helidona, the inadequacy of language to give a reliable account of the past is reflected in the words of Markianos, who points out that his research on the lives of the children of Helidona faced many difficulties, since the members of the family tried to defend their past through their silence and their refusal to speak about things that marked their existence. The journalist asserts that “there are secrets that we never disclose.” 253

Fotini’s example, also enhances the failure of language to narrate past traumatic incidents. When she first meets with Markianos, Fotini tells him that Iason, who desperately tries to convince her to testify her memories, “talks too much,” as she is a person who “does not like listening to many words.” In addition, Panos refuses to talk about his family’s traumatic experience. Although Iason presses him to testify about the story of the family during the Civil War, Panos not only refuses, but also says that he will “challenge anyone who dares to talk,” because he keeps “documents” for everything.

What can also be stressed is that Angelos’ example strengthens the inadequacy of language for historical reconstruction. As Iason is informed by a villager, Angelos, since his release, has not talked either to the residents of the village, or to his family.

Additionally, Markianos refers that he has seen the ex-captain many times, but the latter

“has always refused to talk about his life. He always said that the time has not come yet to talk about all these things.” By the end of the film, Angelos has a stroke that leaves him paralyzed and a stutterer, unable to articulate a word, and which finally results in his death the following day. So, the hero dies before he could make up his mind whether to talk and give his testimony. His example proves trauma victims’ suspicion towards language, since they feel that words are not able to give a truthful account of their traumatic experience.

In The Children of Helidona, the inadequacy of language is also observed in the way objects -not words- are the bearers of the truth. At Angelos’ funeral, the image of the carnation wreath that accompanies the coffin is a strong symbol. The carnations, which form the hammer and sickle, can be viewed as a symbol of the fight for the communist ideology that Angelos gave throughout his life and especially during the

Civil War. He was brutally tortured and spent many years in prison for the “hammer 254 and sickle.” Although Angelos died before he could talk about his past, the communist symbol is a witness of his true story: Angelos lived, fought and died as a true communist, who never betrayed himself, his comrades, or his ideas.

Examining The Polk File of Air, the inadequacy of language to give a credible account of the past is highlighted in Staktopoulos’ interview at the beginning of the film. There, the hero explains why he admitted his guilt regarding Polk’s murder. As

Staktopoulos continues talking, his voice begins to fade out to the point that his last sentences are barely heard. What is more, when Hatziargris, Polk’s assistant, is interviewed by Kosmidis, his words cannot be heard. The failure of language becomes more obvious during Hatziargiris second interview, when a loud noise that comes from a train, makes almost inaudible the man’s words. Therefore, the director suggests that language fails to give a credible account of the past.

Conclusions

The production of films like The Children of Helidona and the Polk File on Air reveals the varying opinions on the issue of the Civil War trauma in the society of the 1980s.

Almost forty years after the communist defeat and during the premiership of a socialist government, filmmakers felt the need to move beyond the simple and schematic representation of the two opposing sides, the nationalists and the communists and delineate the residue the civil strife had left in the psyche of its protagonists.

The reading of both films has proved that both directors present stories as a pretext for the development of the films’ main themes, namely memory and trauma of the Civil War. I tried to show that both The Children of Helidona and The Polk File on

Air engage closely with the aesthetic and political concerns of trauma theory. One last preoccupation of the two directors, which is treated in the films, is the issue of truth.

The question that emerges is whether truth can be traced in the characters’ testimonies. 255

The analysis has shown that both films embody the argument that there is no objective truth and that any attempt to shed light on traumatic events is proved to be futile. Even the main protagonists (Fotini in The Children of Helidona and Staktopoulos in The Polk

Case on Air) are not fully aware of the actual occurrences and are only bearers of their own subjective version of the events.

256

Conclusions

This thesis has traced the representation of the Axis Occupation and the Greek Civil

War in the Greek films of the period 1946 – 1989. Over sixty years later, the 1940s events still provoke considerable interest and are recognized as crucial political battlegrounds of the twentieth century. The Axis Occupation which began in 1941, with its horrible famine, plundering, collaborationism, executions, reprisals and the

Resistance, remained “one of the most politically sensitive and heavily censored issues for cinematic elaboration” (Karalis 35). The tragedy continued with the Civil War of

1946 – 49, one of the most important conflicts in the recent European history, which destabilized Greece and deeply affected the sociopolitical context in the years to come.

One of my objectives has been to place the movies in the social and cinematic context, while examining the political and cultural developments and transformations, which defined the screen representation of the 1940s. Not taking into consideration the political and cultural climate of the era would mean missing a crucial point that actually had a deep impact on the domestic cinema, since movies have been a battleground on which various political and cultural wars have been waged. For example, the precarious ideological and political environment of the 1950s, the chasm between Civil War victors and defeated, the brief democratic interval of the mid-1960s led to fundamental changes in the society and had a great influence on the film industry as it led to restrictions on the choice of themes.

With regard to the Occupation-themed films of the period 1946 – 1966, patriotism was highlighted while the contribution of the left-wing groups was minimized. I began my analysis with focusing on two features of 1946: Raid in the

Aegean and Unsubdued Slaves, suggesting that both films contain a number of themes that run through most of the Occupation pictures of the period. Furthermore, I explored 257 the dominant themes of the films in the 1950s and 1960s, focusing on pictures such as

The Braves’ Island which, as I suggested, systematically avoided admitting the political role of the Resistance, through the dissemination of apolitical characters. Despite the fact that the majority of films followed the pattern of highlighting the nation’s heroism and stressing the values of the army officers, there were few features which followed a different path; counter to Unsubdued Slaves, The Braves’ Island and other films which represented an epic version of the past, Hands up Hitler, The Roundup and With

Glittering Eyes, by drawing attention to the point of view of ordinary people, subverted the official, patriotic visions of the Occupation and came to make an anti-war statement.

Moreover, I turned my attention to the absence from the screen of the issue of the Civil War in the years before the junta, while exploring the politics of oblivion that was promoted and which imposed both public and private silence around the topic.

With the exception of the comedy The Germans Strike Back, no major films dealt directly with the Civil War until the late sixties. As argued, “the trauma of history was present but was never represented as an objectified reality” (Karalis, 39). Nevertheless, the civil strife itself actually appeared in films of the period, in cryptic forms and not in features with historical subject matter. Thus, the films The Abduction of Persephone and Mantalena were used to demostrate how they represented the historical events surreptitiously. This close reading, which drew upon Elsaesser and Codde’s poetics of

“absence as presence,” was put forward as part of an endeavor towards a critical appreciation of the filmmakers’ ability to speak about the painful past.

The Civil War, which at first sight seems absent from the plots (they focus on trivial local disputes and divisions), reenters the films as a haunting presence, takes the form of polarized narrative schemes and becomes evident in allusions, images and symbols. For Saura: “When you are faced with censorship and a very repressive system, 258 you are using your intelligence, going around things, telling the story indirectly. You could never approach the subject directly” (qtd. in Archibald: 64). Therefore, due to the directors’ powerlessness in the face of the painful past, the creation of absent presences in the films of Grigoriou and Dimopoulos involves an attempt to and come to terms with it: only through the representation of trivial stories, could the taboo theme of the

Civil War be touched and not be forgotten.

Moreover, I examined how the Axis Occupation and the Civil War were depicted in the cinema during the Dictatorship. Seen as a lively and fruitful period for the screen representation of the 1940s, the Dictatorship years was an era which expanded the limits of the topic. In an atmosphere of strict censorship and repression, some of the most commercially successful but also revealing movies about the

Occupation were released, like What did you do in the war Thanasis? Most WWII films were mainly about the heroism of the Greek army that had fought against Germany, while army officers “showcased all their self-sacrificing patriotism, superior moral virtues and, ultimately, their messianic mission to save the nation” (Karalis 138). On the other hand, all references to left-wing resistance were completely erased (138). A few films, though, went so far as to represent the sensitive topic of the Bulgarian

Occupation of Eastern Macedonia during WWII. An example of the latter includes The

Brave Bunch, in which the conquerors were represented as the embodiment of evil and were blamed for atrocious crimes against innocent civilians. The crux of such features was usually the moment “when Greek soldiers died as heroes with epic music playing in the background, as for example in the film No or when Greek women were raped by invaders, as by Bulgarian irregulars in The Brave Bunch” (139).

It was not until the advent of the Dictatorship that films began to appear that dealt directly with the issue of the Civil War. The first movies (The Bulkes Fugitives 259 and Grammos) continued the Occupation film tradition depicting the Civil War as an arena for the display of the army officer’s heroism, courage and altruism. Under the colonels’ regime, communists were portrayed as sinister and ferocious figures. Building on Bakhtin’s theory that discourses are fundamentally dialogic, encompass distinct voices and are always placed within a sociopolitical context, I explored the rhetoric involved in film discourse concentrating on the films’ verbal discourses. One of my objectives was to delineate the dominant discourses, which mainly reaffirmed the junta’s version of the 1940s.

The critical analysis showed that both films followed the same formula of glorifying the armed forces and representing the Civil War as a righteous crusade against communism. One cannot but observe that the directors adopted a Manichean scheme, according to which, patriots (nationalists) and criminals (communists) clashed during the Civil War. This was evident in The Bulkes Fugitives and Grammos, where communists are seen as threats for social stability: they are responsible for the violent abduction of children; the conviction of citizens who do not share their views; the destruction of villages. On the contrary, Army officers represent the healthy part of society; they are depicted as heroic figures, willing to sacrifice their life for the homeland. The Civil War-themed films of the era were also significant for attempting to represent a counter discourse so as to challenge and problematize the dominant view.

Unlike other films, The Bulkes Fugitives and Grammos adopt a vision which promotes the virtues of national solidarity and education for the misguided communists.

According to this discourse, nobody should be excluded from the social body and reconciliation between the state and the leftists is the necessary step so as for Civil War trauma to be healed.

The Restoration of Democracy in 1974 allowed a cinematic re-examination of 260 the 40s traumatic events free from the censorial control exercised by the colonels’ regime. Several New Greek Cinema directors were concerned with recuperating the historical periods that had been distorted and suppressed under the Dictatorship. In the first period after the fall of the junta, filmmakers uttered alternative histories of the Civil

War in political films like The Travelling Players, Happy Day and George Polk Affair.

However, at the same time, three films made in the early 1980s movies (17

Bullets for an Angel, Nelly the Spy and The Red Train) challenged the dominant left- wing rhetoric regarding the 1940s, adopted a rather right-wing narrative. I also focused on the history-themed pictures of the 1980s which negotiated the past in a different way. What particularly interested me was the adoption of a distinctive anti-heroic tone and the directors’ engagement in a criticism of past mistakes. Leaving aside the idealized narrations of the first generation of NEK directors, a cycle of films paid attention to marginal aspects of the 1940s (political refugees).

In the last part of my analysis, I explored the relationship between trauma and film. After providing an introduction to trauma theory, I centered upon two artistic movies of the late 1980s indicative of what I call trauma narratives: The Children of

Helidona and The Polk File on Air, which raise fundamental questions about the relationship between history and trauma. Using Caruth as a reference point, but also pointing beyond her to the work of LaCapra, which privilege subjective remembrance while paying attention to the individual experience of trauma, I argued that directors adopted a distinctive anti-heroic tone, by focusing on the function of memory and by attempting to delineate the Civil War trauma. I also claimed that these movies symbolize the transition from a cinema of the “defeated Left” and of the glamorization of the “People” that dominated after the fall of the junta to the cinema of memory and trauma of the late 80s. The analysis showed that filmmakers moved beyond the 261 schematic representation of the conflicting parts, the nationalists and the communists and succeeded in delineating the traces the Civil War has left in the psyche of people.

Since 1946, the range of films depicting the historical events of the 1940s has been varied and these movies have increased the audience’s understanding of the occurrences in significant ways. Features like The Round-Up, The Travelling Players or The Children of Helidona function as historical artifacts that shape people’s sense of what happened in Greece in the recent past. Hopefully the analysis of the filmic representation of the Axis Occupation and the Civil War has yielded interesting conclusions to the body of scholarship analyzing how recent history was delineated in

Greek cinema.

In closing, the final lines of this thesis cannot but confess a feeling of incompleteness for the features that were excluded, but also for the significant documentaries depicting the 1940s events. Furthermore, further exploration could be attempted to delve deeply into issues that could only briefly be touched upon here, such as the relationships between Greek and foreign movies of similar subject. Therefore, future research could involve the examination of the influences of international productions on Greek features, so that the movies could be placed into a wider cinematic context. Moreover, future studies could investigate the issue of film distribution in Greece. Very little attention has been paid to the exploration of the industry of promotion and distribution, as most of the surveys have centered on the study of the pictures’ critical reception or collected data of admissions.

262

Works Cited

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders. Washington D. C.: American Psychiatric Association: 1994.

Print.

Anagnostopoulou, Margaret Poulos. “From Heroines to Hyenas: Women Partisans

during the Greek Civil War.” Contemporary European History 10.3 (2001):

481–501. Web. 22 Dec. 2016.

Anastasiadis, Stratis. Apo tin Antistasi sti Diapsefsi [From the Resistance to the

Disillusionment]. Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2013. Print.

Andritsos, Yiorgos. “I Katohi ke I Antistasi stis Ellinikes Tenies Mithoplasias Megalou

Mikous apo to 1967 mehri to 1974” [The Occupation and the Resistance in

Greek Feature Films from 1967 to 1974]. Afigisis ya ti Dekaetia tou 1940

[Narrations for the 1940s Decade]. Eds. Vasilis Dalkavoukis, Eleni

Paschaloudi, Ilias Skoulidas and Katerina Tsekou. Thessaloniki: Epikentro,

2012. 243-264. Print.

---. I Katohi ke I Antistasi ston Elliniko Kinimatografo, 1945-1966 [Occupation and

Resistance in Greek Cinema, 1945-1966]. Athens: Egokeros, 2004. Print.

Arabatzis, Yiorgos. “Ekdohes Istorikotitas” [Versions of Historicity]. Opsis tou Neou

Elinikou Kinimatografou [Aspects of New Greek Cinema]. Ed. Diamantis

Leventakos. Athens: Kentro Optikoakoustikon Meleton, 2002. 117- 122. Print. 263

Asimow, Michael and Shannon Mader. Law and Popular Culture: A Course Book. New

York: Lang, 2004. Print.

Athanasatou, Yanna. “Kali Patrida, Sintrofe: I Epistrofi tis Istorias” [Happy

Homecoming, Comrade. The Return of History]. Pragmatikotita ke Mithos sto

Kalitehniko Ergo tou Lefteri Xanthopoulou [Reality and Myth in the Work of

Lefteris Xanthopoulos]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens: Papazisis, 2003. 100-109.

Print.

Averof, Evangelos. Fotia ke Tsekouri [Fire and Axe]. Athens: Hestia, 2013. Print.

Baerentzen, Lars. “The ‘Paidomazoma’ and the Queen’s Camps.” Studies in the

History of the Greek Civil War, 1945-1949. Eds. Lars Baerentzen, John O.

Iatrides and Ole L. Smith. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1987. 127-

157. Print.

Bakhtin, Michail. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Dialogic Imagination. Four Essays.

Trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981. 259-

300. Print.

---. “Discourse in the Novel.” The Novel. An Anthology of Criticism and Theory 1900-

2000. Ed: Dorothy J. Hale. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006. 481-500. Print.

---. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984. Print.

---. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: U of Texas P, 1986. Print.

264

Balkin, J.M. “Deconstructive Practice and Legal Theory.” The Yale Law Journal 94.4

(1987): 743-786. Print.

Basteas, Panagiotis. “Apo to Kinoniko sto Iparxiako” [From the Social to the

Existential]. Opsis tou Neou Elinikou Kinimatografou [Aspects of New Greek

Cinema]. Ed. Diamantis Leventakos. Athens: Kentro Optikoakoustikon

Meleton, 2002. 123- 144. Print.

Behlman, Lee. “The Escapist: Fantasy, Folkore, and the Pleasures of the Comic Book

in Recent Jewish American Holocaust Fiction”. Shofar 22.3 (2004): 56-71.

Print.

Botsiou, Konstantina. “The Interface between Politics and Culture in Greece” The

Americanization of Europe: Culture, Diplomacy and Anti-Americanism after

1945. Ed. Alexander Stephan. Berghahn, 2006. 277-306. Print.

Bournazos, Stratis. “O Anamorfotikos Rolos ton Nikiton stin Makroniso: I Entaxi tou

Emfiliou stin Proeonia Istoria tis Filis, o “Diithitos Ios” tou Kommounismou ke

o Rolos tis “Anamorfosis” [The Rehabilitative Discourse of Makronisos’

Victors: The Civil War’s Accession in the Age-old story of the Race,

Communism’s “Infiltrative Role” and the Role of “Rehabilitation]. To Emfilio

Drama [The Civil Drama] (proceedings of Dokimes magazine conference held

at Panteion University in October 1996). Athens: Dokimes 6 (1997). 116-121.

Print. 265

Bramos, Giorgos. “Politiko Protagma ke Amihania” [Political Project and

Embarrassment]. Opsis tou Neou Elinikou Kinimatografou [Aspects of New

Greek Cinema]. Ed. Diamantis Leventakos. Athens: Kentro Optikoakoustikon

Meleton, 2002. 145- 150. Print.

Burstein, Janet. Telling the Little Secrets: American Jewish Writing since the 1980s.

Madison, WI: The U of Wisconsin P, 2006. Print.

Burgoyne, Robert. The Hollywood Historical Film. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Print.

Caruth, Cathy. “Unclaimed Experience: Trauma and the Possibility of History”. Yale

French Studies 79 (1991): 181-192. Web. 16 Apr. 2013.

---. Introduction. Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Ed. Cathy Caruth. Baltimore:

Johns Hopkins U P, 1995. 3-12. Print.

---. Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative and History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

U P, 1996. Print.

Butler, Jeremy. Television: Critical Methods and Applications. New York and London:

Routledge. 2012. Print.

Chalkou, Eleni. “Towards the Creation of ‘Quality’ Greek National Cinema in the

1960s.” Diss. U of Glasgow, 2008. Print.

Chapman, James, Glancy, Mark and Sue Harper. Introduction. The New Film History:

Sources, Methods, Approaches. Eds. James Chapman, Mark Glancy and Sue

Harper. New York: MacMillan, 2007. 1-10. Print. 266

Chapman, James. Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film.

London: I.B. Tauris, 2005. Print.

---. “This Ship is England: History, Politics and National Identity in Master and

Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003).” The New Film History:

Sources, Methods, Approaches. Eds. James Chapman, Mark Glancy and Sue

Harper. New York: MacMillan, 2007. 55-68. Print.

Chatzis, Dimitris. Fotia [Fire]. Athens: Rodakio, 2000. Print.

Choutas, Stilianos. I Ethniki Antistasis ton Ellinon [The Greek National Resistance].

Athens, 1961. Print.

Christidis, Christos, “I Anodos tou Karamanli stin Exousia” [Karamanlis’ Rise to

Power]. I Kathimerini 16/3/2014: 27. Print

---. “I Exodos ton Politikon Prosfiyon” [The Exodus of the Political Refugees].

kathimerini.gr, 15/7/2012. Web. 2 Feb 2014.

Clogg, Richard. A Concise History of Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge U P,

1992. Print.

Close, David. The Origins of the Greek Civil War. New York: Longman, 1995. Print.

Codde, P. “Keeping History at Bay: Absent Presences in Three Recent Jewish-

American Novels.” Modern Fiction Studies. 57.4 (2011): 673-693. Print.

---. “Transmitted Holocaust Trauma: A Matter of Myth and Fairy Tales?” European

Judaism 42:1 (2009): 62-75. Print. 267

Danforth, Loring and Riki Van Boeschoten. Children of the Greek Civil War. Refugees

and the Politics of Memory. Chicago: The U of Chicago P, 2012. Print.

Danikas, Dimitris. “17 Sferes ya tin Antistasi” [17 Bullets for the Resistance]. Rev. of

17 Bullets for an Angel, by Takis Vouyouklakis & Nikos Foskolos. Rizospastis

14 Jan. 1981: 4. Print.

Davettas, Nikos. I Evrea Nifi [The Jewish Bride]. Athens: Kedros, 2009. Print.

Delveroudi, Eliza-Anna. I Nei stis Komodies tou Ellinikou Kinimatografou, 1948-

1974 [Youth in the Comedies of Greek Cinema, 1948-1974]. Athens: Geniki

Gramateia Neas Genias, 2004. Print.

Demertzis, Kostas. “O Emfilios Polemos: Apo ti Siilogiki Odini sto Politsmiko

Travma” [The Civil War: From Collective Affliction to Cultural Trauma].

Emfilios: Politismiko Travma [Civil War: Cultural Trauma]. Eds. Nikos

Demertzis, Eleni Pashaloudi and Yiorgos Antoniou. Athens: Alexandria, 2013.

43-90. Print.

DePrince, A.P. and J.J. Freyd, J.J. "The Harm of Trauma: Pathological Fear, Shattered

Assumptions, or Betrayal? Loss of the Assumptive World: A Theory of

Traumatic Loss. Ed J. Kauffman. New York: Brunner-Routledge, 2002. 71-82.

Print.

Dermentzopoulos, Christos. “O Ellinikos Laikos Kinimatografos 1950-1975” [The

Greek Popular Cinema 1950-1975]. Utopia, 90, May-June 2010: 141-153. Print 268

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P, 1987. Print.

Dordanas, Stratos. Ellines enantion Ellinon: O Kosmos ton Tagmaton Asfalias stin

Katohiki Thessaloniki, 1941-1944 [Greeks against Greeks: The World of the

Security Battalions in Occupied Thessaloniki, 1941-1944]. Thessaloniki:

Epikentro, 2005. Print.

---. To Aima ton Athoon: Antipina ton Germanikon Arhon Katohis sti

Makedonia, 1941-1944 [The Blood of the Innocent: Reprisals by the German

Occupation Authorities in Macedonia, 1941-1944]. Athens: Hestia, 2007. Print.

Eder, Richard. “The Travelling Players”. NYtimes.com, 10 April 1976. Web. 21 Dec.

2014.

Eldridge, J. Hollywood’s History Films. London: I.B. Tauris, 2006. Print.

Elsaesser, Thomas. “Absence as Presence, Presence as Parapraxis On Some Problems

of Representing Jews in the New German Cinema.” The Journal of Cinema and

Media 49.1 (2008): 106-120. Web. 13 Feb. 2011.

---. German Cinema - Terror and Trauma: Cultural Memory since 1945. New York:

Routledge, 2014. Print.

---. “Postmodernism as Mourning Work”. Screen 42.2 (2001): 193-201. Web. 13

Feb. 2011.

269

Elm, Michael, Kabalek, Kobi and Julia B. Köhne. Introduction. The Horrors of Trauma

in Cinema: Violence Void Visualization. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2014.

Print.

Eudes, Dominik. I Kapetanioi: O Elinikos Emfilios Polemos 1943-1949 [The Captains:

The Greek Civil War 1943-1949]. Athens: Exantas, 1975. Print.

Ferro, Marc. Cinema and History. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1988. Print.

Flitouris, Lambros. “O Emfylios sto Seliloid: Mnimes Nikiton ke Ittimenon ston

Elliniko Kinimatografo” [Civil War on Celluloid: Memories of theVictors and

the Vanguished in Greek cinema]. Mnimes kai Lithi tou Ellinikou Emfiliou

[Memories and Oblivion of the Greek Civil War]. R. Van Boeschoten R. et al

(eds). Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 387-404. Print.

Fraser, George. The Hollywood History of the World. London: Michael Joseph, 1988.

Print.

French, Philip. “Idealism and Illusions.” The Observer 8 October 1995. Web. 31 Oct.

2014.

Freud, Sigmund. Moses and Monotheism. Trans. Catherine Jones. New York: Vintage,

1939. Print.

Giourgos, Kostis and Nikiforos Stamatakis. “I Kivernisi Kentrou” [The Centrist

Government]. Epta Imeres, (I Kathimerini) 5 December 1999: 20-21. Print.

270

Goudelis, Tasos. “Ellinikos Kinimatografos ke Istoria: Mia Skiagrafisi” [Greek Cinema

and History: A Delineation]. Archaeologia 37 (1990):34-46. Print.

Green, Peter. From Ikaria to the Stars: Classical Mythification, Ancient and Modern.

Austin: U of Texas P. 2004. Print.

Grigoriadis, Solon. Istoria tis Sinhronis Elladas [History of Modern Greece]. Vol. III.

Athens: Eleftherotipia, 2011. Print.

Grigoriou, Grigoris. Mnimes se Aspro ke Mavro [Memories in Black and White].

Athens: Egokeros, 1988. Print.

Harkins, Gillian. Everybody's Family Romance: Reading Incest in Neoliberal America.

Minneapolis: U of Minesota P, 2009. Print.

Harper, Sue. “Bonnie Prince Charlie Revisited: British Costume Film in the 1950s.”

The British Cinema Book. Ed. R. Murphy. London: BFI, 2009. 276-285. Print.

Hasiotis, Loukianos. Ta Pedia tou Emfiliou. Apo tin Kinoniki Pronia tou Franko ston

Erano tis Friderikis. [Children of the Civil War. From Franco’s Welfare to

Frederica’s Fund]. Athens: Hestia, 2013. Print.

Hatzikyriakou, Achilleas. Masculinity and Gender in Greek Cinema, 1949-1967. New

York: Bloomsbury, 2013. Print. 271

Herbert, Ulrich. Hitler’s Foreign Workers: Enforced Foreign Labor in Germany under

the Third Reich. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge U P, 1997. Print.

Horton, Andrew. “The Master of Slow Cinema: Space and Time — Actual, Historical,

and Mythical — in the Films of Theo Angelopoulos”. Cinéaste 36. 1

(2010): 23-27. Print.

Iatrides, John. “Beneath the Sound and the Fury: US Relations with the PASOK

Government” Greece 1981-89, The Populist Decade. Ed. Richard Clogg.

London: The MacMillan Press, 1993. 154-166. Print.

Iatrides, John & Edmund Keely, “Sixty-Five Years Later: Will Justice finally Prevail

in George Polk’s case?” eKathimerini.com, June 30, 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2014.

Iliou, Philippos. O Ellinikos Emfilios Polemos; I Emploki tou KKE [The Greek Civil

War: The Involvement of the KKE]. Athens: Themelio, 2004. Print.

Kalyvas, Stathis. Armed Collaboration in Greece 1941-1944. European Review of

History 15.2 (2008): 129-142. Print.

---. “Red Terror: Leftist Violence during the Occupation.” After the War

was over: Reconstructing the Family, Nation, and State in Greece, 1943-1960.

Ed. Mark Mazower. Princeton: Princeton U P, 2000. 142-183. Print.

272

---. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. New York: Cambridge UP, 2006.

Print.

Kamm, Henry. “Greek Comunists Protest Film Eleni.” nytimes.com. 24/3/1986. Web.

11 Dec. 2016.

Karakasidou, Anastasia. “Protocol and Pageantry: Celebrating the Nation in Northern

Greece.” After the War Was Over: Reconstructing the Family, Nation, and State

in Greece, 1943-1960. Ed. Mark Mazower. Princeton: Princeton U P, 2000.

221-246. Print.

Karakousis, Antonis. Meteori Hora: Apo tin Kinonia tis Anagkis stin Kinonia tis

Epithimias [A Pending Country: From the Society of Need to the Society of

Desire]. Athens: Hestia, 2006. Print.

Karalis, Vrasidas. A History of Greek Cinema. New York: Continuum, 2012. Print.

---. “The Construction of Cinematic Realism in Mihalis Cacoyannis’ Early Films

(1954-1959).” Modern Greek Studies (Australia and New Zealand) 15 (2011):

161-173. Print.

Kendrick, James. Hollywood Bloodshed: Violence in 1980s American Cinema.

Carbondale: Southern Illinois U P, 2009. Print.

273

Kenourios, Christos. Dafnes ke Dakria: Istories apo tin Ethniki Antistasi sti Vorioditiki

Ellada [Laurels and Tears: Stories from the National Resistance in North-

Western Greece]. Athens: Iolkos, 1981. Print.

---. Sta Adita tou Emfiliou [In the deep Recesses of the Civil War]. Athens: Vima

Publications, 2011. Print.

Kokonis, Michalis. “To Melodrama ston Elliniko Kinimatografo” [Melodrama in the

Greek Cinema]. Melodrama: Idologiki ke Ideologiki Metashimatismi

[Melodrama: Genre and Ideological Transformations]. Eds. Savvas Patsalidis

and Anastasia Nikolopoulou. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press, 2001.

345-402. Print.

Koliopoulos, S. John and Thanos M. Veremis. Modern Greece: A History since 1821.

Oxford: Willey-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

Kolk, Bessel van der and Onno van der Hart. “The Intrusive Past: The Flexibility of

Memory and the Engraving of Trauma.” Trauma: Explorations in Memory. Ed.

Cathy Caruth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P, 1995. 158-182. Print.

Kolonis, Babis. Pantelis Voulgaris. Athens: Egokeros, 2002. Print.

Kolovos, Nikos, “History as Experience and as a Spectacle” [I Istoria os Vioma ke os

Theama]. Othoni: 31 Dec. 1987: 24-26. Print. 274

Komninou, Maria. Apo tin Agora sto Theama: Meleti ya ti Sigkrotisi tis Dimosias Sferas

ke tou Kinimatografou stin Ellada 1950-2000 [From Market to Spectacle: Study

for the Construction of Public Sphere and Cinema in Greece 1950-2000].

Athens: Papazisis, 2004. Print.

Kontis, Vasilis. Sosialistika Krati ke KKE ston Emfilio [Socialist States and KKE

during the Greek Civil War]. Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2012. Print.

Kornetis, Kostis. “From Reconciliation to Vengeance: The Greek Civil War on Screen

in Pantelis Voulgaris’ A Soul so Deep and Kostas Charalambous’s Tied Red

Thread.” Filmicon 2 (2014): 93-116. Print.

Kosmidou, Eleftheria Rania. European Civil War Films: Memory, Conflict, and

Nostalgia. London: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Kostopoulos, Tasos. “Ta Sinora tou Ethnous” [The Borders of the Nation], Sinhroni

Mihanismi Vias ke Katapiesis [Modern Mechanism of Violence and

Repression]. Athens: Sholi Moraiti, 2006. 349-395. Print.

Kousoulas, Dimitris. Revolution and Defeat: The Story of the Greek Communist Party.

Oxford: Oxford UP, 1965. Print.

Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German

Film. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2004. Print.

Krämer, Peter. The New Hollywod: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars. London and

New York: Wallflower, 2005. Print. 275

Kymionis, Stelios. “The Genre of Mountain Film: The Ideological Parameteres of Its

Subgenres.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies. 18.1 (2000): 53-66. Print.

LaCapra, Dominick. “Acting-Out and Working-through Trauma”. Interview by Amos

Goldber. Jerusalem, 9 June 1998. Web. 15 Sep. 2012.

---. History and Memory after Auschwitz. Ithaca, Ny: Cornell University Press,

1998. Print.

---. History in Transit: Experience, Identity, Critical Theory. Ithaca and London:

Cornell University Press, 2004. Print.

---. Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

2001. Print.

Ladikou, Alexandra. Interview with Yannis Zoumboulakis. ToVima. 14 August 2011:

8-9. Print.

Lagani, Irini. To “Pedomazoma” ke oi Ellinogiougoslavikes Shesis: 1943-1953 [The

“Transfer of Children” and the Greek-Yugoslavian Relationships: 1943-1953].

Athens: Sideris, 1996. Print.

Labrinos, Fotos. “Ellinikos Kinimatografos: Apo ti Metapolitefsi sto Telos tou 20ou

Aeona” [Greek Cinema: From the Restoration of Democracy to the End of the

20th Century.” Istoria tou Neou Ellinismou 1770-2000 [History of the New

Hellenism 1770-2000]. Vol. 10. Athens: Ellinika Grammata, 2003 Print.

276

Landy, Marcia. Introduction. The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media.

Ed. Marcia Landy. London: Athlone Press, 2001. 1-23. Print.

Langer, Lawrence L, Holocaust Testimonies: The Ruins of Memory. New Haven: Yale

U P, 1991. Print.

Laub, Dori. “Bearing Witness or the Vicissitudes of Listening” Testimony: Crises of

Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis and History. Eds. Soshana Felman and

Lori Laub. New York: Routledge, 1992. 57-74. Print.

-- “Truth and Testimony: The Process and the Struggle.” Trauma: Explorations in

Memory. Ed. Cathy Caruth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P, 1995. 61-75. Print.

Lemonidou, Elli. “World War II and the Greek Civil War in Cinema.” Mnemosyne and

Mars: Artistic and Cultural Representations of Twentieth-century Europe at

War. Ed. Peter Tame, Dominique Jeannerod and Manuel Braganca. Cambridge:

Cambridge U P, 2013. 219-239. Print.

Lewis, Jon. Hollywood v. Hardcore: How the Struggle over Censorship Saved the

Modern Film Industry. New York: New York U P, 2000. Print.

Leys, Ruth. Trauma: A Genealogy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2000. Print.

Linardatos, Spyros. Apo ton Emfilio sti Hounta [From the Civil War to the Junta].

Athens: DOL, 2009. Print.

Loundemis, Menelaos. Odos Avisou, Arithmos Miden [Abyss Street, Number Zero].

Athens: Patakis, 2015. Print. 277

Lyrintzis, Christos. “PASOK in Power. From Change to Disenchantment.” Greece

1981-89, The Populist Decade. Ed. Richard Clogg. London: MacMillan,

1993. 26-46. Print.

Machairas, Ilias. “To 1946-49 Imastan Oli Lathos” [In 1946-49 We Were All Wrong].

Interview by Yiorgos Pissalidis. Elkosmos.gr. 13/2/2012. Web. 7 Apr. 2013.

Makrigiannakis, Evangelos. “The Films of Theo Angelopoulos: A Voyage in Time.”

Diss: U of Edinburgh, 2009. Print.

Marantzidis, Nikos and Yiorgos Antoniou. “The Axis Occupation and Civil War:

Changing Trends in Greek Historiography, 1941-2002. Journal of Peace

Research 41. 2 (2004): 223-231. Print.

Marantzidis, Nikos. Yasasin Millet [Long Live the Nation]. Irakleion: Panepistimiakes

Ekdoseis Kritis, 2001. Print.

Margaritis, Yiorgos. “I Sigkrousi stou Makriyanni” [The Makriyanni Clash].

ToVima.gr. 5/12/2004. Web. 13 Jun. 2012.

Mazower, Mark. Introduction. After the War Was Over: Reconstructing the Family,

Nation, and State in Greece, 1943-1960. Ed. Mark Mazower. Princeton:

Princeton U P, 2000. Print.

278

Mini, Manayiota. “Reflections of Pain, Loss and Memory: Takis Kanellopoulos’

Fiction Films of the 1960s.” Greek Cinema: Texts, Histories, Identities. Eds.

Lydia Papadimitriou and Yannis Tzioumakis. Bristol: Intellect, 2012. 239-254.

Print.

Miridakis, Michail. I Teseris Giri tou KKE, o EDES ke I Angli [The Four Rounds of

KKE, EDES and the English]. Athens: Economicon, 1988. Print.

Mitchell, W.J.T. Picture Theory: Essays on Verbal and Visual Representation.

Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994. Print.

Mitropoulou, Aglaia. Ellinikos Kinimatografos [Greek Cinema]. Athens: Papazisis,

2006. Print.

Mouratidis, Ermis. O Palios Ellinikos Kinimatografos 1905-1967 [The Old Greek

Cinema 1905-1967]. Thessaloniki: Eneken, 2009. Print.

Neos, Thomas. “Meteori Prospathia” [Pending Effort], Othoni 34 (1988): 54.

Print.

New International Version. [Colorado Springs]: Biblica: 2011. BibleGateway.com.

Web. 13 May 2013.

Nikolaidou, Sophia. Horevoun I Elefantes [The Scapegoat]. Athens: Metehmio, 2012.

Print.

Nikolakopoulos, Elias. I Kahektiki Dimokratia: Komata ke Ekloges 1946-1967 [Week

Democracy: Parties and Elections 1946-1967]. Athens: Patakis, 2001. Print. 279

Panayiotopoulos, Panayis. “Kinoniki Via-Polemiki Sygkrousi, Kinimatografiki

Exomalinsi: Mia Kinoniologiki Prosegisi tis Apousias Tenion Machis ston

Elliniko Kinimatografo” [Social Violence-War Conflict, Film Resolution: A

Sociological Approach Regarding the Lack of War films in Greek Cinema].

War Representations [Anaparasrasis tou Polemou]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens:

Papazisis, 2006, 67-88. Print.

Papadimitriou, Lydia. “Greek War Film as Melodrama: Women, Female Stars and the

Nation as Victim. The Action and Adventure Cinema. Ed. Yvonne Tasker.

London: Routledge, 2004. 297-308. Print.

---. “In the Shadow of the Studios, the State and the Multiplexes: Independent

Filmaking in Greece. Independent Filmmaking Around the Globe. Eds. Doris

Baltruschat and Mary P. Erickson. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2015.

113-130. Print.

---. “Music, Dance and Cultural Identity in the Greek Film Musical.” Greek Cinema:

Texts, Histories, Identities. Eds. Lydia Papadimitriou and Yannis Tzioumakis.

Bristol: Intellect, 2012. 147-166. Print.

---. The Greek Film Musical: A Critical and Cultural History. Jefferson, CA:

McFarland, 2006. Print.

---. “The National and the Transnational in Contemporary Greek Cinema.” New Review

of Film and Television Studies 9.4 (2011): 493–512. Print. 280

Papavizas, George C. Claiming Macedonia: The Struggle for the Heritage, Territory

and Name of the Historic Greek Land, 1862-2004. Jefferson, NC: McFarland,

2006. Print.

Paradeisi, Maria. “I Parousiasi tis Neoleas sta Kinonika Dramata tis Dekaetias tou

Exinda [The Representation of the Youth in the Social Melodramas of the

60s]. Ta Istorika 12.22 (1995): 123-146. Print.

---. “Polemos, Drama ke Theama: I Akirosi ke i Parafrasi tis Prosfatis

Ellinikis Istorias stis Megales Emporikes Epitihies tou Ellinikou

Kinimatografou tis Eptaetias 1967-1974 [War, Drama and Spectacle: The

Annihilation and Paraphrase of Modern Greek History in the Commercial Hits

of Greek Cinema of the period 1967-1974]”. Ta Istorika 42 (2005): 203-

216. Print.

---.“Polemos, Drama ke Theama: “Ipolohagos Natassa” (1970) [War, Drama and

Spectacle: “Lieutenant Natassa” (1970)]”. Anaparastasis tou Polemou [War

Representations]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens: Papazisis, 2006: 233-238. Print.

Paschaloudi, Eleni. “I Dekaetia tou 1940 ston Politiko Logo” [The 1940s in the Political

Discourse]. Emfilios: Politismiko Travma [Civil War: Cultural Trauma]. Eds.

Nikos Demertzis, Eleni Paschaloudi and Giorgos Antoniou. Athens:

Alexandria, 2013. 113-160. Print.

281

Petropoulos, Yiorgos, “To Telos tou Emfiliou” [The End of the Civil War], 7 Meres

Mazi (Rizospastis) 29 Aug. 2004: 11. Print.

Petsa, Vasiliki. Mono to Arni [Only the Lamb]. Athens: Polis, 2015. Print.

Plato. The Republic. Trans. Desmond Lee. pt. III, bk. III. London: Penguin,

2007. §1, 387e-388a (79). Print.

Politopoulou, Marlena. I Mnimi tis Polaroid [The Memory of Polaroid]. Athens:

Metehmio, 2009. Print.

Provata, Marietta. “Stratevmeni Techni: O Ellinikos Kinimatografos sto Vomo tis

Propagandas” [Committed Art: Greek Cinema on the Altar of Propaganda].

Anaparastasis tou Polemou [War Representations]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens:

Papazisis, 2006: 181-190. Print.

Psaras, Marios. The Queer Greek Weird Wave: Ethics, Politics and the Crisis of

Meaning. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Print.

Rafailidis, Vasilis. Taxidi sto Mitho dia tis Istorias ke stin Istoria dia tou Mithou

[Voyage to the Myth through History and to the History through Myth].

Athens: Egokeros, 2003. Print.

Raptis, Michalis. “Pos Katorthosan ta Pedia tou Emfiliou stis Anatolikes Hores na

Minoun Ellines” [How the Civil War Children in the Eastern Countries

Managed to Remain Greeks]. Pedomazoma I Pedososimo: Pedia tou Emfiliou

stin Anatoliki kai Kentriki Evropi. [Abduction or Salvation of Children: 282

Children of the Civil War in Eastern and Central Europe]. Eds. Irini Lagani and

Maria Bontila. Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2012. 295-307. Print.

Reinhard, CarrieLynn. “Three Approaches to Media Reception and Audience

Reception Studies.” Academia.edu. Web. 11 Jun. 2014.

Rizas, Sotiris. Ap’ tin Apeleftherosi ston Emfilio [From the Liberation to the Civil War].

Athens: Kastaniotis, 2011. Print.

Robinson, Andrew. “In Theory Bakhtin: Dialogism, Polyphony and Heteroglossia.”

ceasefiremagazine.co.uk. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.

Rosenstone, Robert. History on Film/Film on History. Harlow: Longman, 2006. Print.

Sandler Joseph, Dare Christopher and Alex Holder. “Basic Psychoanalytic Concepts:

VI. Acting Out”. The British Journal of Psychiatry 117. 538 (1970): 329-334.

Web. 14 Nov. 2013.

Sarafis, Stefanos. Istorikes Anamnisis [Historical Memories]. Athens: Epikerotita,

1980. Print.

Shrader, Charles. The Withered Vine: Logistics and the Communist Insurgency in

Greece, 1945-1949. Westport, CT: Praeger. 1999. Print.

Shutt, John, “Greece Lures US Dollars ‘Home.’” csmonitor.com, 25 Jun. 1987. Web.

3 May 2014.

Soldatos, Yannis. Istoria tou Ellinikou Kinimatografou [History of Greek Cinema]. 5

vols. Athens: Egokeros, 2002. Print. 283

Sorlin, Pierre. The Film in History. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1980. Print.

Sotiropoulou, Chrysanthi. Elliniki Kinimatografia 1965-1975: Thesmiko Plesio –

Ikonomiki Sygkrotisi. [Greek Cinema 1965-1975: Regulatory Framework –

Economic Construction]. Athens: Themelio, 1995. Print.

-- I Diaspora ston Elliniko Kinimatografo [Diaspora in Greek Cinema]. Athens:

Themelio, 1995. Print.

---. “Kali Patrida, Sintrofe: Apo tin Prosdokia sti Diapsefsi. Stihia Istorikis Mnimis

mesa apo tous Monologous ton Politikon Prosfigon” [Happy Homecoming,

Comrade: From Expectation to Disillusionment. Elements of Historical

Memory through the Monologues of the Political Refugees]. Pragmatikotita ke

Mithos sto kallitehniko Ergo tou Lefteri Xanthopoulou [Reality and Myth in the

Work of Lefteris Xanthopoulos]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens: Papazisis, 2003.

92-99. Print.

Stam, Robert. Subversive Pleasures: Bakhtin, Cultural Criticism and Film. Baltimore:

The Johns Hopkins U P, 1989. Print.

Stamatiou, Kostas. “O Thiasos I o Mithos tou Sisifou: Mia Proti Prosegisi” [The

Travelling Players or The Myth of Sisyphus: A First Approach]. Thodoros

Angelopoulos. Ed. Eirini Stathi. Athens: Kastaniotis, 2000. 240-242. Print.

284

Stassinopoulou, Maria. “Anaparastasis tou Polemou meta ton Emfilio” [War

Representations after the Civil War]. Anaparastasis tou Polemou [War

Representations]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens: Papazisis, 2006: 254-262. Print.

---. “Creating Distraction after Destruction: Representations of the Military in Greek

Film.” Journal of Modern Greek Studies. Vol. 18, No 1, May 2000: 37-52. Print.

---.“Definitely Maybe: Possible Narratives of the History of Greek Cinema.” Greek

Cinema: Texts, Histories, Identities. Eds. Lydia Papadimitriou and Yannis

Tzioumakis. Bristol: Intellect, 2012. 129-141. Print.

Stathi, Eirini (ed.). Vlemata ston Kosmo tou Thodorou Angelopoulou [Gazes in the

World of Thodoros Angelopoulos]. Thessaloniki: Festival Kinimatografou

Thessalonikis, 2000. Print.

Stathi, Irini. Horos ke Hronos ston Kinimatografo tou Thodorou Angelopoulou [Place

and Time in the Cinema of Thodoros Angelopoulos]. Athens: Egokeros,

1999. Print.

Stavrakis, Peter. Moscow and Greek Communism, 1944-1949. Cornell U P: 1989. Print.

Stefanidis, Ioannis. Stirring the Greek Nation: Political Culture, Irredentism and Anti-

Americanism in Post-War Greece, 1945–1967. London: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Stone, Robe. Spanish Cinema. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Stubbs, Jonathan. Historical Film: A Critical Introduction. London: Bloomsbury, 2013.

Print. 285

Summons, Tom. The New Hollywood Historical Film: 1967-78. London: MacMillan,

2016. Print.

Thanouli, Eleftheria. A Nazi Hero in Greek Cinema: History and Parapraxis in Kostas

Manousakis’ Prodosia. Journal of Greek Media & Culture. 1:1 (2015): 63-77.

doi: 10:386/jgmc.1.1.63_1. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

Themelis, Konstantinos. Thodoros Angelopoulos: To Parelthon os Istoria, to Mellon

os Forma [Thodoros Angelopoulos: Past as History, Future as Form]. Athens:

Ypsilon, 1998. Print.

Theodoridis, Grigoris. “O Kinimatografos os Istoriografia ya tin Antimetopisi ton

Exthron tou Ethnous: I Tenies ya tin Slavokomounistiki Epivouli kata tin Period

tis Diktatorias ton Syntagmatarhon 1967-1974” [Cinema as Historiography for

the Treatment of the Enemies of the Nation: Films on the Slavic Communist

Threat During the Period of the Colonels’ Dictatorship (1967-1974).

Anaparastasis tou Polemou [War Representations]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens:

Papazisis, 2006: 191-231. Print.

Tomai, Foteini (ed.). Istoria ke Politiki sto Ergo tou Panteli Voulgari [History and

Politics in Pantelis Voulgaris’ Work]. Athens: Papazisis, 2007. Print.

Tomai, Foteini (ed.). Pragmatikotita ke Mithos sto Kalitehniko Ergo tou Lefteri

Xanthopoulou [Reality and Myth in Lefteris Xanthopoulos’ Artistic Work].

Athens: Papazisis, 2003. Print. 286

Toplin, Robert Brent. “The Filmaker as Historian.” The American Historical Review.

93.5 (1988): 1210-1227. Print.

Tsekouras, Paris. “Narrative and Historical Accuracy in The Travelling Players.”

Academia.edu. Web. 21 Dec. 2014.

Tsiabousis, Vasilis. Galazia Agelada [Blue Cow]. Athens: Metehmio, 2013. Print.

Tzavalas, Tryfon. Greek Cinema – 100 Years of Film History 1900-2000, Vol. 1. Los

Angeles: The Hellenic University Club of Southern California, 2012. Print.

Tzoukas, Vaggelis. “O Emfilios mesa tous. Synhrones Erminies gia ti Dekaetia 1940-

1950 ke Politikes Diamahes stin Elliniki Metaneoterikotita” [The Civil War

inside them. Modern Interpretations for the 1940-1950 Decade and Political

Debates in Greek Postmodernism.” Afigisis ya ti Dekaetia tou 1940 [Narrations

for the 1940s Decade]. Eds. Vasilis Dalkavoukis, Eleni Paschaloudi, Ilias

Skoulidas and Katerina Tsekou. Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2012. 399-416. Print.

Vakalopoulos, Apostolos. Nea Elliniki Istoria 1204-1985 [New Greek History 1204-

1985]. Thessaloniki: Vanias, 2004. Print.

Valoukos, Stathis. Neos Ellinikos Kinimatografos 1965-1981: Istoria ke Politiki [New

Greek Cinema 1965-1981: History and Politics]. Athens: Egokeros, 2012.

Print.

---. Filmographia Ellinikou Kinimatografou 1914-2007 [Filmography of Greek

Cinema 1914-2007]. Athens: Egokeros, 2007. Print. 287

Van Boeschoten, Riki. “Enemies of the Nation – A Nation of Enemies: The Long Greek

Civil War.” After Civil War: Division, Reconstruction and Reconciliation in

Contemporary Europe. Ed. Bill Kissane. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P,

2015. 93-120. Print.

Vamvakas, Vasilis. “I Politiki tis Komodias sti Geliopiisi tou Polemou” [The Politics

of Comedy in the Ridicule of the War]. Anaparastasis tou Polemou [War

Representations]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens: Papazisis, 2006: 263-276. Print.

Vanhala, Helena. The Depiction of Terrorists in Blockbuster Hollywood Films, 1980-

2001. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2001. Print.

Voglis, Polymeris. “Apo tis Kannes stis Kameres: O Emfilios ston Elliniko

Kinimatografo”. [From Guns to Cameras: the Civil War in Greek Cinema].

Anaparastasis tou Polemou [War Representations]. Ed. Foteini Tomai. Athens:

Papazisis, 2006: 103-132. Print.

Voglis, Polymeris and Spyros Kakouriotis. “Ta Pikra Hronia: Katohi ke Emfilios ston

Elliniko Kinimatografo” [The Bitter Years: Occupation and Civil War in Greek

Cinema]. Proto Plano 186, April 2006: 10-11. Print.

Voglis, Polymeris, Tsilaga Flora, Chandrinos Iasonas and Menelaos Charalambidis.

Introduction. I Epohi ton Rikseon [The Era of Divisions]. Thessaloniki:

Epikentro, 2012. 7-25. Print.

288

Vrettakos, Kostas. Interview with Kostas Terzis and Elias Kanellis. Othoni 31 (1987):

27-29. Print.

Vulliamy, Ed and Helena Smith. “Athens 1944: Britain’s dirty secret.”

theguardian.com. 30/11/2014. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.

Walker, Janet. Trauma Cinema: Documenting Incest and the Holocaust. Berkeley:

U of California P. 2005. Print.

White, Hayden. “Historiography and Historiophoty.” The American Historical Review.

93.5 (1988): 1193-1199. Print.

Wildfeuer, Janina. Film Discourse Interpretation: Towards a New Paradigm for

Multimodal Film Analysis. New York: Routledge, 2014. Print.

Woodhouse, C. M. Apple of Discord. London: Hutchinson, 1948. Print.

Xydis, Stephen. “Coups and Countercoups in Greece, 1967-1973.” Political Science

Quarterly 89. 3 (1974): 507-538. Web. 13 Jan. 2012.

Yannakakis, Ilios. “Ta Pedia tis Elladas Prosfiges stis Hores tis Anatolikis Evropis”

[Children of Greece as Refugees in the Eastern Europe Countries].

Pedomazoma I Pedososimo: Pedia tou Emfyliou stin Anatoliki ke Kentriki

Evropi. [Abduction or Salvation of Children: Children of the Civil War in

Eastern and Central Europe]. Eds. Irini Lagani and Maria Bontila.

Thessaloniki: Epikentro, 2012. 19-35. Print.

289

Yosef, Raz. The Politics of Loss and Trauma in Contemporary Israeli Cinema. New

York: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Zaharopoulos, Thimios and Manny E. Paraschos. Mass Media in Greece. Power,

Politics and Privatization. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993. Print.

Zei, Alki. I Aravoniastikia tou Achilea [Achilles' Fiancée]. Athens: Kedros, 1987.

Print.

Zervas, Napoleon. Apeleftherotikos Agon, 1941-1945 [The Fight for Freedom, 1941-

1945]. Athens: PSEAEA. Print.

Ziagkos, Nikos. Nees Selides apo ton Emfilio Polemo [New Pages from the Civil War].

Athens: Sokolis, 1986. Print. http://cineguerracivil.blogspot.gr http://dlib.statistics.gr/portal/ page/portal/ESYE/categoryyears?p cat=10007369&p_ topic=

10008001. http://dlib.statistics.gr/ Book/GRESYE_02_ 0101_00031.pdf http://dlib.statistics.gr/ Book/ GRESYE_ 02_0101_00053.pdf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Acqui_Division www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Isaiah-5-20/. www.Marxists.Org/ellinika/odmaaa/apokatastasi_170588.htm.

290

Appendix I

FILMOGRAPHY

KATADROMI STO AIGAION [RAID IN THE AEGEAN] (1946)

Written and directed by M. Karagatsis.

Producer: Ilias Pergantis. Cast. Lambros Konstantaras, Zinet Lakaz, Manos

Katrakis and Eleni Chatziargiri.

ADOULOTI SKLAVI [UNSUBDUED SLAVES] (1946)

Written and directed by Vion Papamichalis.

Producer: Novak Films. Cast: Elli Lambeti, Zoras Tsapelis, Ilias Stamatiou.

MIA ZOI XANARHIZI [A LIFE STARTS AGAIN] (1946)

Directed by Kostas Gaziadis and Ilias Paraskevas.

Screenplay: Kostas Gaziadis. Producer: Olympia Film. Cast: Lili Berde, Alekos

Deliyannis, Petros Hoedas.

I KRITI STIS FLOGES [CRETE ON FIRE] (1947)

Written and directed by Antonis Papadantonakis.

Producer: Tonis Film. Cast: Nikos Efthimiou, Rena Yalani, Alekos Karavitis.

TA PEDIA TIS ATHINAS (I SALTADORI) [YOUTH OF ATHENS (THE

VAN-DRAGGERS)] (1947)

Directed by Takis Bakopoulos

Screenplay: Ion Daifas and Timos Moraitinis. Producer: Ilias Pergantis. Cast:

Elli Lambeti, Nikos Kazis, Despo Diamantidou, Dionisis Papayannopoulos. 291

NIHTA HORIS XIMEROMA [NIGHT WITHOUT DAWN] (1947)

Directed by Antonis Papadantonakis.

Screenplay: Dimitris Bogris, Antonis Papadantonakis. Producer: Athinai Films.

Cast: Sofia Veroni, Kostas Maniatakis, Kiriakos Mavreas.

I YERMANI XANARHONTE [THE GERMANS STRIKE AGAIN]

(1948).

Directed by Alekos Sakellarios.

Screenplay: Christos Giannakopoulos, Alekos Sakellarios. Producer: Enosis

Sineryazomenon Kalitexnon, Finos Films. Cast. Vasilis Logothetidis, Lavrentis

Dianellos, Mimis Fotopoulos, Ilia Livikou.

ANNA RODITI [ANNA OF RHODES] (1948)

Directed by Yannis Fillipou and Michalis Gaziadis.

Screenplay: Yiorgos Asimakopoulos, Panagiotis Papadoukas, Vangelis

Spiropoulos, Vasilis Spiropoulos. Producer: Anzervos. Cast: Katy Panou,

Lambros Konstantaras, Yannis Prineas.

OCHIRO 27 [FORT 27] (1948)

Directed by Mavrikios Novak.

Screenplay: Dimitris Yannoukakis, Mavrikios Novak. Producer: Novak Film.

Cast: Billie Konstantopoulou, Yiorgos Loukakis, Yiorgos Velentzas.

292

YERMANIKI PERIPOLOS STIN KRITI [GERMAN PATROL IN

CRETE] (1949)

Written and directed by Antonis Papadantonakis.

Producer: Toni Films. Cast. Michalis Nikolopoulos, Vaso Samara, Sotos

Sidiropoulos

TELEFTEA APOSTOLI [THE LAST MISSION] (1949)

Written and directed by Nikos Tsiforos.

Producer: Finos Film. Cast: Smaroula Giouli, Vasilis Diamantopoulos,

Athanasia Moustaka, Miranda Mirat.

Cannes Film Festival – Official Participation

MATOMENA HRISTOUGENNA [A BLOODY CHRISTMAS] (1951)

Directed by Yiorgos Zervos.

Screenplay: Yiorgos Asimakopoulos, Kimon Stathopoulos. Producer:

Anzervos. Cast: Elli Lambeti, Nikos Chatziskos, Athanasia Moustaka.

Karlovy-Vary Film Festival – Official Participation

I FLOGA TIS ELEFTHERIAS [THE FLAME OF FREEDOM] (1952)

Directed by Panayotis Spirou.

Screenplay: Sotiris Filippopoulos, Panayotis Spirou. Producer: Piraeus Film.

Cast: Rena Yalani, Haralabos Angelopoulos, Rita Yannakopoulou.

293

I OURANI INE DIKI MAS [THE SKES ARE OURS] (1953)

Written and directed by Dinos Dimopoulos.

Producer: Finos Films. Cast. Antigoni Valakou, Aleka Katseli, Alekos

Alexandrakis.

APO EX MINAME DIO [OUT OF SIX TWO REMAIN] (1953)

Written and directed by Stavros Chatzopoulos.

Producer: Hatz Films. Cast: Nantia Siriopoulou, Adam Morfis, Nikos

Xepapadakos.

TO XIPOLITO TAGMA [THE BAREFOOT BATTALION] (1954)

Directed by Gregg Tallas.

Screenplay: Nikos Katsiotis. Producer: Peter Voudouris. Cast: Maria Kosti,

Katy Gini, Nikos Fermas, Stavros Krozos.

Edinburgh Film Festival - “David O’ Selznick” Prize

I ARPAGHI TIS PERSEFONIS [THE ABDUCTION OF PERSEPHONE]

(1956)

Directed by Grigoris Grigoriou.

Screenplay: Iakovos Kabanellis. Producer: Anzervos and Stavrakos Film

School. Cast: Kostas Kazakos, Vasilis Diamantopoulos, Aleka Katseli.

294

I PARANOMI [THE OUTLAWS] (1958)

Written and directed by Nikos Koundouros.

Producer: Finos Films, Nikos Koundouros. Cast: Titos Vandis, Petros Fyssoun,

Anestis Vlachos.

Berlin Film Festival – Official Participation

MIDEN PENTE [ZERO FIVE] (1958)

Written and directed by Yannis Petropoulakis.

Producer: Apollon Magglis. Cast: Stephanos Stratigos, Titos Vandis, Gelly

Mavropoulou.

EPISTROFI AP’ TO METOPO [RETURN FROM THE FRONT] (1959)

Directed by Yannis Petropoulakis.

Screenplay: Vasilis Betsos. Producer: Kronos Films. Cast: Eleni Chatziargiri,

Nikos Tzogias, Thodoros Moridis.

TO NISI TON YENEON [THE BRAVES’ ISLAND] (1959)

Directed by Dimis Dadiras.

Screenplay: Yannis Ioannidis. Producer: Olympia Films. Cast: Jenny Karezi,

Alekos Alexandrakis, Aliki Georgouli.

1st Week of Greek Cinema (Thessaloniki) – Unofficial Participation

295

STRATIOTES DIHOS STOLI [SOLDIERS WITHOUT A UNIFORM]

(1960)

Written and directed by Dimitris Ioannopoulos.

Producer: IBA Film. Cast: Xenia Kalogeropoulou, Michalis Nikolinakos,

Andreas Barkoulis.

1st Week of Greek Cinema (Thessaloniki) – Official Participation

I AVGI TOU THRIAMVOU [THE DAWN OF TRIUMPH] (1960)

Directed by Filippos Fylaktos.

Screenplay: Yannis Ioannidis, Filippos Filaktos. Producer: Rissa Film. Cast:

Yiorgos Fountas, Pari Leventi, Thanasis Veggos.

I KRITIKOPOULA KE O ELEFTHEROTIS [THE CRETAN GIRL AND

THE LIBERATOR] (1960)

Written and directed by Koulis Kassi.

Producer: Anthos Film. Cast: Koulis Kasis, Michalis Nikolinakos, Dina Trianti.

MANTALENA (1960)

Directed by Dinos Dimopoulos.

Screenplay: Georgios Roussos. Producer: Finos Films. Cast: Aliki

Vouyouklaki, Dimitris Papamichail, Pantelis Zervos.

296

O XENOS TIS NIHTAS (THEI KE DEMONES) [STRANGER IN THE

NIGHT (GODS AND DEMONS)] (1961)

Written and directed by Elli Nezeriti.

Producer: CheFa Films. Cast: Michalis Nikolinakos, Despina Stilianopoulou,

Likourgos Kallergis.

EPIKINDINI APOSTOLI [DANGEROUS MISSION] (1961)

Written and directed by Yannis Kapsalis.

Producer: Greca Films. Cast: Michalis Nikolinakos, Mirka Kalatzopoulou,

Nasos Kedrakas.

PSILA TA HERIA HITLER [HANDS UP HITLER] (1962)

Directed by Roviros Manthoulis.

Screenplay: Dionisis Millas. Producer: Nikos Millas, G. Troubis. Cast:

Thanasis Veggos, Vasilis Diamantopoulos, Mirka Kalantzopoulou.

TO IMEROLOGIO TIS KATOHIS [THE CHRONICLE OF THE

OCCUPATION] (1962)

Directed by Yannis Bilarikis.

Screenplay: Stavros Hatzopoulos. Producer: Hatz Film. Cast: Anna Bratsou,

Tasos Darios, Christos Frangos.

297

O KATIFOROS MIAS ORFANIS [THE DECLINE OF AN ORPHAN

WOMAN] (1962)

Written and directed by Avgoustos Sklavos.

Producer: Orestis Film. Cast: Anta Anagnostou, Yannis Beskos, Isma

Valentinou.

PRODOSIA [BETRAYAL] (1964)

Directed by Kostas Manousakis.

Screenplay: Kostas Manousakis, Aris Alexandrou. Producer: Klearhos

Konitsiotis. Cast: Petros Fyssoun, Elli Fotiou, Manos Katrakis.

Moscow Film Festival: “Special Award” of the Peace Committee.

Cannes Film Festival: Official Participation.

5th Week of Greek Cinema (Thessaloniki) – Best Actor, Cinematography.

EPISTROFI [RETURN] (1965).

Directed by Errikos Andreou.

Screenplay: Antonis Samarakis, Panos Kontellis. Producer: Damaskikos-

Michailidis. Cast: Alekos Alexandrakis, Elli Fotiou, Mema Stathopoulou.

6th Week of Greek Cinema (Thessaloniki) – Best Actress.

298

TO BLOKO [THE ROUND UP] (1965)

Directed by Adonis Kyrou.

Screenplay: Yerasimos Stavrou. Producer: Grift Film. Cast: Kostas Kazakos,

Alexandra Ladikou, Yannis Fertis, Xenia Kalogeropoulou.

Cannes Film Festival – Official Participation.

6th Week of Greek Cinema (Thessaloniki) – Official Participation.

EPIHIRISIS DOURIOS IPOS [OPERATION TROJAN HORSE] (1966)

Directed by Trenty Roumanas.

Screenplay: Thanasis Valtinos. Producer: W.R.C. Cast:. Yannis Voglis,

Christos Negas, Haritini Carolou.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Official Participation.

IROES [HEROES] (1966)

Directed by Omiros Efstratiadis.

Screenplay: Mariza Chandari. Producer: Andreas Anastasatos. Cast: Kostas

Naos, Tereza Vlandi, Charis Kerasiotis.

ME TI LAMSI STA MATIA [WITH GLITTERING EYES] (1966)

Written and directed by Panos Glykofrydis.

Producer: Yiorgos Stergiou. Cast: Lavrentis Dianellos, Yiorgos Fountas,

Yannis Fertis.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Actor, Best Screenplay, Best Music.

299

XEHASMENI IROES [FORGOTTEN HEROES] (1966)

Directed by Nikos Gardelis.

Screenplay: Panos Kontellis. Producer: Raven Films. Cast: Yannis Voglis,

Viveta Tsiouni.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Film.

CAIRO KALI ATHINA (O PRODOTIS) [CAIRO CALLS ATHENS

(THE TRAITOR)] (1967)

Directed by Ilias Machairas.

Screenplay: Katy Detzortzi. Producer: Faethon Film. Cast: Marlen Papoulis,

Stephanos Stratigos, Koula Agagiotou.

CHAIDARI 3:30 APODRASATE [CHAIDARI 3:30 ESCAPE] (1967)

Directed by Ilias Machairas.

Screenplay: Alexis Parnis. Producer: Galaxias Films. Cast: Kostas Kakavas,

Marlen Papoulia, Lavrentis Dianellos.

KONSERTO YA POLIVOLA [CONCERT FOR MACHINEGUNS]

(1967) Directed by Dinos Dimopoulos.

Screenplay: Nikos Foskolos. Producer: Finos Films. Cast: Jenny Karezi, Kostas

Kazakos.

300

O DEKATOS TRITOS [THE THIRTEENTH] (1967)

Directed by Dimis Dadiras.

Screenplay: Panos Kontellis. Producer: Paris Films. Cast: Yannis Voglis, Elena

Nathanail.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Screenplay.

PSOMI YA ENAN DRAPETI [BREAD FOR A FUGITIVE] (1967)

Written and directed by Kostas Asimakopoulos.

Producer: Kostas Asimakopoulos. Cast: Mary Chronopoulou, Spiros Fokas,

Nelly Aggelidou.

AFRODITI, TO KORITSI POU PONESE [APHRODITE] (1968)

Directed by Yiorgos Lois.

Screenplay: Popi Palassopoulou, T. Petris. Producer: Ilias Pergantis. Cast:

Anny Paspati, Karolos Pavlakis, Yiorgos Kotronis.

APOSTOLI THANATOU [DEATH MISSION] (1968)

Directed by Marios Retsilas.

Screenplay: Takis Kourtesopoulos, Nasos Economopoulos. Producer:

Kourtesopoulos Films. Cast: Stephanos Stratigos, Effi Economou, Nikos

Alexiou.

301

EPI ESHATI PRODOSIA [FOR HIGH TREASON] (1968)

Directed by Thanasis Papageorgiou.

Screenplay: Thanasis Papageorgiou, Angelos Papailias. Producer: Yannatos

Films. Cast: Kostas Mpakas, Thanasis Papageorgiou, Lida Protopsalti.

GORGOPOTAMOS (1968)

Directed by Ilias Machairas.

Screenplay: Katy Detzortzi. Producer: Galaxias Films. Cast: Marlen Papoulia,

Lavrentis Dianellos, Kostas Fyssoun.

STA SINORA TIS PRODOSIAS [ON THE BORDERS OF TREASON]

Directed by Dimis Dadiras.

Screenplay: Stamatis Filippoulis, Producer: James Paris. Cast: Kostas Prekas,

Andreas Barkoulis, Katy Papanika, Alkis Yannakas.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Production, Best Direction, Best Actor, Best

Supporting Actress

TO KANONI KE T’ AIDONI [THE CANON AND THE NIGHTINGALE]

(1968)

Directed by Iakovos Kabanellis, Yiorgos Kabanellis.

Screenplay: Iakovos Kabanellis. Producer: Sisyphus. Cast: Niki Triantafilidi.

Yiorgos Kabanellis, Yiorgos Danis.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Screenplay.

302

AGAPISA ENAN PRODOTI [I LOVED A TRAITOR] (1969)

Directed by Kostas Papanikolaou.

Screenplay: Christos Kalomparis, Stamatis Filippoulis. Producer: Cal Films.

Cast: Niki Triantafilidi, Pavlos Liaros, Stephanos Stratigos.

DRAPETES TOU BULKES [THE BULKES FUGITIVES] (1969)

Directed by Andreas Papastamatakis.

Screenplay: Kostas Mouratoglou. Producer: Perissos Films. Cast: Thanos

Martinos, Chrisa Korizi, Ilia Livykou.

I DASKALA ME TA XANTHA MALLIA [THE TEACHER WITH THE

BLONDE HAIR] (1969)

Directed by Dinos Dimopoulos.

Screenplay: Lakis Michailidis, Anthi Dimopoulou. Producer: Finos Films.

Cast: Aliki Vouyouklaki, Dimitris Papamichail, Pantelis Zervos.

KOURELI TIS ZOIS [RAG OF LIFE] (1969)

Written and directed by Yiorgos Papakostas.

Producer: Klak Films. Cast: Martha Vourtsi, Lavrentis Dianellos, Jolly Garbi.

OCHI [NO] (1969)

Directed by Dimis Dadiras.

Screenplay: Antonis David, Stamatis Filipoullis. Producer: Art Films. Cast:

Kostas Prekas, Vera Krouska, Chistos Politis.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Production, Best Cinematography. 303

YA TIN TIMI KE TON EROTA [FOR HONOUR AND LOVE] (1969)

Directed by Apostolos Tegopoulos.

Screenplay: Panos Kontellis. Producer: Klak Films. Cast: Nikos Xanthopoulos,

Dora Sitzani, Christos Negas.

AFTI POU MILISAN ME TO THANATO [THOSE WHO FACED

DEATH] (1970)

Written and directed by Yannis Dalianidis.

Producer: Finos Films. Cast: Zoe Laskari, Yannis Fertis, Chronis Exarhakos.

DEN IPARHOUN LIPOTAKTES [THERE ARE NO DESERTERS]

(1970)

Written and directed by Kostas Asimakopoulos.

Producer: SAKE Films. Cast: Alekos Alexandrakis, Alexandra Ladikou,

Katerina Chelmi.

EGO REZILEPSA TON HITLER [I RIDICULED HITLER] (1970)

Directed by Kostas Karayannis.

Screenplay: Lakis Michailidis. Producer: Karayannis-Karatzopoulos. Cast:

Kostas Voutsas, Lakis Komninos, Emilia Ypsilanti.

304

ENAS GERMANOS STA KALAVRITA [A GERMAN IN KALAVRITA]

(1970)

Directed by Memas Papadatos.

Screenplay: Iakovos Kabanellis. Producer: Memas Papadatos. Cast: Angelos

Antonopoulos, Giorgos Tzortzis, Spyros Kalogirou.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Official Participation.

GRAMMOS (1970)

Directed by Ilias Machairas.

Screenplay: Katy Detzortzi. Producer: Galaxias Films. Cast: Lefteris

Giftopoulos, Christoforos Zikas and Marlen Papoulia.

I YEVEI TOU VORA [THE BRAVE BUNCH] (1970)

Directed by Kostas Karayannis.

Screenplay: Yiorgos Lazaridis, Antonis David. Producer: Karayannis-

Karatzopoulos. Cast: Yannis Voglis, Lakis Komninos, Xenia Kalogeropoulou.

I LITANIA TON IROON [THE HEROES’ LITANY] (1970)

Directed by Yiorgos Stamatopoulos.

Screenplay: Antonis David, Kiki Segditsa. Producer: Stavros Kostoulas,

Yiorgos Stamatopoulos. Cast: Giota Soimiri, Stephanos Stratigos, Christoforos

Zikas.

305

I MESOGIOS FLEGETE [MEDITERRANEAN ON FLAMES] (1970)

Directed by Dimis Dadiras.

Screenplay: Antonis David, Stamatis Filipoullis. Producer: Damaskikos-

Michailides. Cast: Kostas Prekas, Olga Politou, Kostas Karras.

IPOLOHAGOS NATASSA [LIEUTENANT NATASSA] (1970)

Written and directed by Nikos Foskolos.

Producer: Finos Films. Cast: Aliki Vouyouklaki, Dimitris Papamichail, Kostas

Karras.

MIA GINEKA STIN ANTISTASI [A WOMAN IN THE RESISTANCE]

(1970)

Directed by Dinos Dimopoulos.

Screenplay: Lazaros Montanaris, Dinos Dimopoulos. Producer: Karayannis-

Karatzopoulos. Cast: Jenny Karezi, Kostas Kazakos, Angelos Antonopoulos.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Official Participation.

O DOSILOGOS [THE COLLABORATOR] (1970)

Directed by Ilias Machairas.

Screenplay: Katy Detzortzi. Producer: Galaxias Films. Cast: Marlain Papoulia,

Thanos Martinos, Lavrentis Dianellos.

306

O PRODOTIS PREPI NA PETHANI [THE TRAITOR MUST DIE] (1970)

Directed by Errikos Andreou.

Screenplay: Panos Kontellis. Producer: Art Films. Cast: Andreas Barkoulis,

Stephanos Stratigos, Luisa Rivelli.

ORES AGAPIS, ORES POLEMOU [LOVE TIME, WAR TIME] (1970)

Directed by Antonis Tempos.

Screenplay: Panos Kontellis. Producer: Klak Films. Cast: Aphrodite

Gregoriadou, Byron Pallis, Manos Katrakis.

O TELEFTEOS EHMALOTOS [THE LAST PRISONER] (1970)

Written and directed by Angelos Georgiadis.

Producer: NIMMA Films. Cast: Alekos Alexandrakis, Perry Poravou,

Christoforos Zikas.

O TELEFTEOS TON KOMITATZIDON [THE LAST KOMITADJI]

(1970)

Directed by Grigoris Grigoriou.

Screenplay: Yannis Tziotis. Producer: Art Films, Karayannis–Karatzopoulos.

Cast: Christos Politis, Vera Krouska, Stephanos Stratigos.

STI MACHI TIS KRITIS [HELL IN THE AEGEAN] (1970)

Directed by Vasilis Georgiadis.

Screenplay: Stamatis Filipoullis, Ignacio Iquino. Producer: Art Films. Cast:

Christos Politis, Stephanos Stratigos, Fernando Sancho. 307

28I OKTOVRIOU, ORA 5:30 [OCTOBER 28TH, 5:30 A.M.] (1971)

Directed by Kostas Karayannis.

Screenplay: Dionisis Tzefronis. Producer: Art Films. Cast: Christos Politis,

Vera Krouska, Fernando Sancho.

ANTARTES TON POLEON [OPERATION RAINBOW] (1971)

Directed by Dimis Dadiras.

Screenplay: Yannis Maris. Producer: Karayannis-Karatzopoulos. Cast: Yannis

Fertis, Elena Nathanail, Miranda Kounelaki.

DOSTE TA HERIA [SHAKE HANDS] (1971)

Directed by Errikos Andreou.

Screenplay: Vasilis Manousakis. Producer: Art Films. Cast: Christos Politis,

Christos Negas, Vera Krouska.

ENAS IPEROHOS ANTHROPOS [A WONDERFUL MAN] (1971)

Directed by John Christian.

Screenplay: Antonis David. Producer: Karabellas-Vaianos. Cast: Andreas

Barkoulis, Katy Papanika, Vasos Andronidis.

I HARAVGI TIS NIKIS [THE DAWN OF VICTORY] (1971)

Directed by Dimis Dadiras.

Screenplay: Yiorgos Lazaridis. Producer: Karayannis-Karatzopoulos. Cast:

Lakis Komninos, Miranda Kounelaki, Betty Arvaniti.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Supporting Actress. 308

IPERIFANI AETI [PROUD EAGLES] (1971)

Written and directed by Filippos Filaktos.

Producer: SAKE Films. Cast: Fedon Georgitsis, Anna Fonsou, Stephanos

Stratigos.

IPOVRIHION PAPANIKOLIS [SUBMARINE PAPANIKOLIS] (1971)

Directed by Yiorgos Zervoulakos.

Screenplay: Dimitris Zannidis. Producer: Karayannis-Karatzopoulos. Cast:

Kostas Kazakos, Yannis Fertis, Emilia Ypsilanti.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Honorary Prize

OLOKAFTOMA [HOLOCAUST] (1971)

Directed by Dimitris Papakonstantis.

Cast: Katia Dandoulaki, Lavrentis Dianellos.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best New Director, Best Supporting Actor.

TI EKANES STON POLEMO THANASI? [WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE

WAR THANASIS?] (1971)

Directed by Dinos Katsouridis.

Screenplay: Asimakis Yalamas, Dinos Katsouridis. Producer: Dinos

Katsouridis. Cast: Thanasis Veggos, Effi Roditi, Antonis Papadopoulos.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Artistic Film, Best Screenplay, Best Actor.

309

TO FROURIO TON ATHANATON [THE FORT OF THE

IMMORTALS] (1971)

Directed by John Christian.

Screenplay: Antonis David, Lazaros Montanaris. Producer: SAKE Films. Cast:

Fedon Georgitsis, Katy Papanika, Kostas Karagiorgis.

O ANTIFASISTAS [THE ANTIFASCIST] (1972)

Directed by Kostas Karayannis.

Screenplay: Lakis Michailidis. Producer: Karayannis-Kratzopoulos. Cast:

Kostas Voutsas, Katy Papanika, Yiorgos Moutsios.

O KIRIOS STATHMARHIS [THE STATION MASTER] (1972)

Directed by Dimitris Vazeos.

Screenplay: Nasos Grimanis. Producer: Inomene Kallitehne. Cast: Vasilis

Tsivilikas, Yanka Avagiannou.

OS TIN TELEFTEA STIGMI [TILL THE LAST MOMENT] (1972)

Directed by Marios Retsilas.

Screenplay: Yannis Maris. Producer: Art Films. Cast: Christos Politis, Katia

Dandoulaki, Vasilis Mitsakis.

I GENEI PETHENOUN DIO FORES [MIDWAY GLORY] (1973)

Directed by Takis Vouyouklakis.

Screenplay: Nikos Foskolos. Producer: Finos Films. Cast: Gelly Mavropoulou,

Angelos Antonopoulos. 310

POLEMISTES TIS IRINIS [WARRIORS OF PEACE] (1973)

Directed by Dimitris Papakonstantis.

Screenplay: Yiorgos Lazaridis. Producer: Art Films. Cast: Yannis Katranis,

Stephanos Stratigos, Katia Dandoulaki.

ISIDORA (1975)

Directed by Dimis Dadiras.

Screenplay: Lazaros Montanaris. Producer: Titan Film. Cast: Miranda

Kounelaki, Yannis Katranis.

O THIASOS [THE TRAVELLING PLAYERS] (1975)

Written and directed by Thodoros Angelopoulos.

Producer: Yiorgos Papalios. Cast: Vangelis Kazan, Petros Zarkadis, Eva

Kotamanidou, Stratos Pachis, Aliki Georgouli.

Cannes Film Festival - FRIPESCI (International Film Critics’ Association) Best

Film Award.

Thessaloniki Film Festival - Best Film, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best

Actor, Best Actress, Best film according to the Greek Critics’ Association.

Berlin Film Festival – Interfilm Prize.

Brussels Film Festival - Golden Age D’ Ore.

Italians Critics Association: Best Film in the World, 1970-1980.

FRIPESCI: 44th Top Film in the History of Cinema.

311

HAPPY DAY (1976)

Written and directed by Pantelis Voulgaris.

Producer: Greek Film Centre (EKK). Cast: Stathis Gialelis, Stavros

Karaloglou, Konstantinos Tzoumas.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Film, Best Director, Best Music

Prize from the Greek film Critics’ Association

IPOTHESI POLK [GEORGE POLK AFFAIR] (1978)

Written and directed by Angelos Malliaris.

Producer: Telecolour. Cast: Takis Chrisikakos, Charitini Karolou, Vangelis

Kazan.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Sound Recording, Best Male Actor.

17 SFERES YA ENAN ANGELO [17 BULLETS FOR AN ANGEL] (1981)

Written and directed by Nikos Foskolos.

Producer: Greek Film Centre. Cast: Mary Vidali, Yiorgos Fountas, Gelly

Mavropoulou.

KATASKOPOS NELLI [NELLY THE SPY] (1981)

Directed by Takis Vouyouklakis.

Screenplay: Nikos Foskolos. Producer: Karayannis-Karatzopoulos. Cast: Aliki

Vouyouklaki, Fedon Georgitsis, Danis Katranidis.

312

TO KOKKINO TRENO [THE RED TRAIN] (1982)

Written and directed by Takis Simonetatos.

Producer: Karayannis-Karatzopoulos. Cast: Lakis Komninos. Nikos Galanos,

Yeorgia Zoi.

I KATHODOS TON ENNEA [THE DESCENT OF THE NINE] (1984)

Directed by Christos Siopahas.

Screenplay: Thanasis Valtinos. Producer: Cronaca, Greek Film Centre. Cast:

Christos Kalavrouzos, Vasilis Tsaglos, Antonis Antoniou.

Moscow Film Festival – Golden Globe

Et Musique Aix-En-Province Film Festival – Special Mention

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best New Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best

Music.

TA HRONIA TIS THIELAS [THE YEARS OF THE STORM] (1984)

Written and directed by Nikos Tzimas.

Producer: Athens Film. Cast: Menelaos Ntaflos, Michalis Stamatakis, Katerina

Koutrouvida, Manos Katrakis.

Valencia Film Festival – Best Film.

KALI PATRIDA SINTROFE [HAPPY HOMECOMING COMRADE]

(1986)

Written and directed by Lefteris Xanthopoulos.

Producer: Greek Film Centre. Cast: Athina Papadimitriou, Polihronis Zefteridis and Peter Trokan. 313

Locarno Film Festival – Special Mention

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best New Director.

KARAVAN SARAI (1986)

Written and directed by Tasos Psarras.

Producer: Greek Film Centre, ET1. Cast: Thimios Karakatsanis, Dimitra

Hatoupi, Mirka Kalantzopoulou.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Film, Best Supporting Actress.

O KLIOS [THE NOOSE] (1987)

Directed by Kostas Koutsomitis.

Screenplay: Yiorgos Bramos, Vaggelis Goufas, Kostas Koutsomitis. Producer:

Profit, Greek Film Centre, ET1. Cast: Sokratis Alafouzos, Stelios Pavlou,

Vladimiros Kiriakidis.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Screenplay.

TA PEDIA TIS HELIDONAS [THE CHILDREN OF HELIDONA] (1987)

Directed by Kostas Vrettakos.

Screenplay: Soula Drakopoulou, Kostas Vrettakos. Producer: Tria Filla Ltd,

Greek Film Centre, ET1. Cast: Mary Chronopoulou, Alekos Alexandrakis, Maria

Martika,Vasilis Diamantopoulos.

Thessaloniki Film Festival - Best Film, Best Screenplay, Best Actress, Best

Supporting Actor.

Prize from the Greek film Critics’ Association

314

O FAKELOS POLK STON AERA [THE POLK FILE ON AIR] (1988)

Written and directed by Dionisis Grigoratos.

Producer: Greek Film Centre, ET1. Cast: Michalis Kosmidis, Agape Manoura,

Nikos Chitas.

Thessaloniki Film Festival – Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best

Supporting Actor.

315

Appendix 2 TIMELINE

1940 October 28th, Italy invades Greece. 1941 April 6th, Germany invades Greece. April 20th, Greek Army surrenders to Germany. April 27th, Germans occupy Athens. September 27th, EAM is formed by KKE. 1942 Winter, The Great Famine. August, EDES is organized by Napoleon Zervas. November 25th, The Gorgopotamos Bridge is blown up in the only joint Greek resistance action. 1943 June, Formation of the Security Battalions. August, Armed Clashes between ELAS and EDES. December 13th, Massacre of Kalavrita. 1944 May 17th-21st, Lebanon Conference. September 26th, Casserta Agreement. October 14th, Liberation of Athens. December 3rd, Demonstration in Athens leads to hostilities between EAM/ELAS and the British. 1945 February 12th, Varkiza Agreement. June 16th, Aris Velouchiotis is killed. 1946 May 31st, General Election September 1st, Referendum and Restoration of Monarchy, King George II returns to Athens October 28th, Formation of the Democratic Army of Greece (DSE). 1947 March 12th, Truman Doctrine. April, DSE switches from guerilla tactics to full-scale conventional warfare. May 22nd, Marshall Plan enacted. December, Battle of Konitsa. December 23rd, Foundation of the 316

Provisional Government by DSE. 1948 May 16th, the body of CBS correspondent George Polk is found in the harbor of Thessaloniki. June, The Soviet Union breaks its relations with Tito. 1949 July, Tito closes the Yugoslavian border to Greek communists. August, Operation “Torch” launched by General. Papagos. The Civil War ends with the defeat of DSE.

317

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Dimos Dimoulas (1980) studied English Language & Literature (2003) and Greek

Language (2009) at the Aristotle University in Thessaloniki, Greece. He received his

MA in European Literature and Culture from the Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotle

University (2007). Alongside holding a permanent appointment as a state school teacher of English Language, Dimoulas has been an adjunct lecturer at the Faculty of

Engineering, University of Western Macedonia, Greece and at the Department of

History and Ethnology, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece.

He has published the books Englistoria: English through the study of history

(Epikentro, 2011), Englistoria vol. II (Epikentro, 2012) and Technical English for

Engineers (Epikentro, 2017). His research focuses on film in the post-Civil War context, memory politics in the Greek cinema and screen representations of trauma and violence.

1 ii