Petrica Mogos MA Thesis 415170
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
! Between denigrating nonconformity and eulogising the proletariat: Strategies of representation of intellectual figures in Romanian film (1960-1989) ! Student name: Petric" Mogo# Student number: 415170! Student email: [email protected] ! ! Supervisor: Dr. Jiska Engelbert ! Second Reader: Dr. Ericka Menchen-Trevino ! ! Media & Business! Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication! Erasmus University, Rotterdam! ! ! Master Thesis! June, 2015! ! Between denigrating nonconformity and eulogising the proletariat: strategies of representation of intellectual figures in Romanian film (1960-1989) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! “We need art, we need to have the movie industry and theatres depict the essence and the model of the man we have to shape […], so that the young people will understand and know that this is how they should be!” ! ! Nicolae Ceauşescu (in Tismăneanu, 2003, p.225) ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! #2 Abstract ! The present thesis aims to offer a valuable and authentic insight into the discursive construction of representations of intellectual figures in Romanian cinema from the early 1960s until the late 1980s. By taking into account the importance of the freedom of creation within a totalitarian geographical space, the main interest of this thesis is to reveal the hidden and latent meanings that stand behind cinematic representations of intellectuals during such a political regime. In this sense, as a result of uncovering the modes of representation employed in Romanian cinema under Communism, this research aims to trace the almost contractual relationship between compliant filmmakers and politics on the one hand, and the genuine struggles of power between dissident artists and the restrictive ideology, on the other hand. The novelty of this project is granted by the adaptation of the multimodal critical discourse analysis, when it comes to reading films through semiotics and narrative or thematic approaches, and its empirical merger with an extended range of archival records and historical documents as a means to produce a penetrating and genuine illustration of the Socialist micro-cosmos in the second half of the 20th century. The usefulness of this conceptual, methodological, and analytical combination lies in its capacity to offer an evocative series of results with respect to the ideological relationship between cinema and the state apparatus. If the Romanian intellectuals are found to be classified in the collaborative, the dissident (or even apolitical), and the grey (as a consequence of their ability to circumvent the system), their cinematic portrayals are characterised either by their nonconformity, as a way to oppose the ideology, or their working class origin, as a means to eulogise the proletariat and denigrate the upper classes. What is interesting is that, with very few exceptions, the ideological conditions imposed by the system can be clearly seen in the type of cinema produced and, subsequently, in the modes of representation employed in the case of intellectual figures. As such, if the slender liberalising politics induce the production of dissident cinematic films and representations, at the same time, Nicolae Ceau!escu’s dictatorial outbursts have a massive effect on the type of cinema that is being produced. By relying heavily on Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and intellectual organicity, Jacques Ranciére’s representational regimes of art, and Bruno S. Frey’s affirmation of the hegemonic exchange between authoritarian leaders and various forms of art, the present thesis represents a historical but still topical journey into the relationship between politics and art and between ideology and culture, ultimately emphasising the importance of cinema as a means to express the injustices of a people. ! ! ! ! ! ! Keywords: Romanian cinema, modes of representation, intellectual organicity, cultural hegemony, representational regimes of art #3 Table of contents ! Abstract and keywords$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$3! 1. Introduction$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..$5 1.1. Cinema, intellectuals and regimes of representation in Communist Romania$$$$$.$5 1.2. Thesis aims$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..$7 1.3. Research question and sub-questions$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$7 1.4. Importance of research$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..8 1.4.1. Academic relevance$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$8 1.4.2. Societal relevance$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$.$$$$.$$$$$9 1.5. Thesis outline$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..9 2. Theoretical framework$$$$$$$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..11 2.1. The rise of the intellectual: between archaic societies and modernity$$$$$$$$$.12 2.1.1. Historical framework$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$12 2.1.2. The sociology of intellectuals: between labour and capital$$$$$$$$$$$13 2.1.3. Definition$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$..15 2.2. The modern intellectual: between culture and politics$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$16 2.2.1. Intellectuals and Socialism: between theory and reality$$$$$$$$$$$$18 2.2.2. Intellectuals in Communist Romania: between dissidence and collaboration..$.$.19 2.3. Cinema and representation$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.23 2.3.1. Cinema: between political and apolitical art$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.23 2.3.2. Cinema: between product and defier of ideology$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$24 2.3.3. Cinema and representational regimes: between the visible and the invisible$$$25 2.3.4. Film spectatorship: between interpreting and constructing meaning$$$$$$..28 2.3.5. Approaches to film reading: multimodal critical discourse analysis$$$$$$$.30 3. Research design$$$$$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$32 3.1. Method$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..32 3.1.1. Archival records analysis$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$33 3.1.2. Multimodal critical discourse analysis$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$..34 3.1.3. Semiotics and narrative/thematic analyses$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$$.34 3.2. Data collection and units of analysis$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$35 3.3. Sampling$$$$$$$$$$.$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$..36 4. Results$$$$..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$39 4.1. Archival records analysis$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$..39 4.1.1. 1948-1970: between Social Realism and liberating timeframe$$...$$$$.$$39 4.1.2. 1971-1980: between creative austerity and a lack of interest in cinema$$$$$45 4.1.3. 1981-1985: between Daneliuc’s revolt and Ceau%escu’s intervention$$$$$$47 4.2. Representations of intellectuals in film$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$50 4.2.1. Nonconformist intellectuals$$$$$$$$..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$51 4.2.1.1. 1960s: between sterile lunacy and anti-hegemonic rebelliousness$$$..$$51 4.2.1.2. 1970s: between personal struggles and political conformity$$$$$$$.$.56 4.2.1.3. 1980s: between allegory as critique and lethargy as social disappointment.$..59 4.2.2. Proletarian intellectuals$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$.$62 4.2.2.1. 1960s: between emancipating proletarians and denigrating the bourgeoisie..$63 4.2.2.2. 1970s: between adulating the proletariat and articulating its psyche$$$$$67 4.2.2.3. 1980s: between Messianic destiny and social vulnerability$$$$$$$$$71 5. Conclusion$..$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.75 References$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$79 Filmography$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.$$$..86 Appendix 1: Archival documents used in this research$$$$$.$$$$$$$..$$$$$$88 Appendix 2: Films with a minor level of articulation used in this research$$$$$$$$$$$90 Appendix 3: Films with an enhanced level of articulation used in this research$$$$$$.$$.91 ! ! #4 1. Introduction 1.1. Cinema, intellectuals and regimes of representation in Communist Romania Creativity has increasingly become a vital component of society: it offers economic growth, it maintains a competitive business environment, it creates employment opportunities, and it is highly evocative of a society’s culture (Van der Pol, 2007, p.1). Despite seeming rather primitive, the idea that one’s ability of creative self-expression is highly dependent on the socio-political environment under which this capacity is exercised is an incontestable fact. Therefore, regardless of the firm influence of creativity on the prosperity and evolution of a society, creative practices require not only a stimulating climate, but, at least, a slightly tolerant socio-political setting. In dictatorial regimes such as Communism, for instance, cultural oppression and the privation of liberties are aspects deeply embedded within and accepted as social norms, legally reinforced by the very notion that any criticism addressed to the state is a criminal act (Tism"neanu, 1992, p.55). Due to such conflictual conditions, artists and creative individuals often have to seek new methods to bypass the ideological restrictions and to expose the socio-political and cultural barbarities, or at least to express their creativity. Thus, creative industries subsisting such tyrannical political regimes generally have a two-fold modus operandi: in one sense, such industries are often taken advantage of as direct political tools of manipulation, while, in another, they are used to actively challenge the very same leadership entities and socio-political settings under which they are functioning (Welch, 2001). Yet, who are the individuals that can confront such a regime’s oppressive practices through their creativity? While one can speculate that scholars, journalists or philosophers can cooperatively maintain a highly critical position through their penetrating examination of the society, one can similarly hypothesise that artists too, from filmmakers to cartoonists or composers, have the power to fight the system through their creativity.