UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI FAKULTETA ZA DRUŽBENE VEDE Matija Tonejc Elementi ideologije v naraciji dokumentarnega filma Mitologije prehoda in slovenski dokumentarni film Diplomsko delo Ljubljana, 2002 UNIVERZA V LJUBLJANI FAKULTETA ZA DRUŽBENE VEDE Matija Tonejc doc. dr. Mitja Velikonja doc. dr. Breda Luthar Elementi ideologije v naraciji dokumentarnega filma Mitologije prehoda in slovenski dokumentarni film Elements of ideology in the documentary narrative Mythologies of transition and Slovene documentary Diplomsko delo Ljubljana, 2002 Kazalo Predgovor.................................................................................................................................4 1. Namen diplomskega dela....................................................................................................6 2. Teoretski del.........................................................................................................................7 2. 1. Dokumentarni film .................................................................................................................................... 8 2. 1. 1. Kratek zgodovinski pregled dokumentarne produkcije..................................................................... 9 2. 1. 2. Kaj je dokumentarni film danes ...................................................................................................... 11 2. 1. 2. 1. Iskanje poetičnosti v dokumentarnih filmih.............................................................................................. 12 2. 1. 2. 3. Načini dokumentarnih filmov ................................................................................................................... 15 2. 1. 3. Razlike v naraciji – dnevno novinarstvo proti dokumentarnemu filmu........................................... 22 2. 2. Iskanje definicije mita ............................................................................................................................. 23 2. 2. 1. Proučevanje mita skozi zgodovino.................................................................................................. 26 2. 2. 2. Barthesov mit kot semiološki sistem............................................................................................... 30 2. 2. 3. Mit kot artefakt kulture – mitopoetika............................................................................................. 35 2. 3. Mitopoetika prehoda – Mit in ideologija z roko v roki ........................................................................... 40 2. 3. 1. Mitologije prehoda – tipologija....................................................................................................... 40 2. 3. 2. Avtoriteta mita, diktat ideologije..................................................................................................... 44 3. Metoda ...............................................................................................................................47 3. 1. Odkrivanje mitopoetike........................................................................................................................... 47 3. 2. Analiza dokumentarnega filma................................................................................................................ 47 3. 2. 1. Tipologija rezov in ideološka montaža ........................................................................................... 48 3. 2. 2. Odnos med sliko in zvokom............................................................................................................ 50 4. Analiza primera ................................................................................................................52 4. 1. Zakaj analizirati boj za neodvisnost ........................................................................................................ 52 4. 1. 1. Izbira teme ...................................................................................................................................... 52 4. 1. 2. Izbira dokumentarnega filma........................................................................................................... 53 4. 2. Tekstualna analiza................................................................................................................................... 53 4. 2. 1. Film kot celota ................................................................................................................................ 53 4. 2. 2. Izbrani izsečki ................................................................................................................................. 55 4. 2. 2. 1. Otvoritveni govor...................................................................................................................................... 55 4. 2. 2. 2. Po predsednikovem govoru....................................................................................................................... 55 4. 2. 2. 3. Jutro v vojni .............................................................................................................................................. 56 4. 2. 2. 4. Odpor ........................................................................................................................................................ 56 4. 2. 2. 5. Agresor na kolenih.................................................................................................................................... 57 4. 2. 2. 6. Končna misel ............................................................................................................................................ 58 5. Zaključek............................................................................................................................59 6. Povzetek..............................................................................................................................60 7. Literatura in viri................................................................................................................61 8. Priloge.................................................................................................................................63 Priloga A – Simboli, uporabljeni v tekstovni analizi....................................................................................... 63 Priloga B – Tabele tekstovne analize .............................................................................................................. 63 Priloga C – Zgodovinski pregled analiziranega obdobja................................................................................. 71 3 Preface When examining material for this work I ran across a very interesting scheme in notes from History of journalism lectures, which explains how it is that myth is a fundamental element not only of our past, but also of our today's life. It looked like this: Diagram i: Past, Myths and History As we can see, the source of Myths is obviously past (although explaining myth away as 'merely' historical is critically entitled Euhemerism after Euhemerus of Messene who wrote the Sacred Document (Coupe, 1997:103-4)), but Myths also considerably alter the 'stories' or collection of recognitions as the diagram tells us. If we move a step forward in explaining the diagram, we should draw another arrow: from historians to history – it is them who write it: Diagram ii: The 'magical' triangle Myth at first seems to be excluded from this scheme but it is rather put in background as it is influencing all of the elements in the triangle. Interpretations, formed by myths, are just one side of the story, depending on the person, who uses them, which is why the importance of the process of (re)creating and understanding myth is crucial to understanding our history. 4 Veyne (1998: 91-104) explores how the Greeks could not live without their tales, although they criticised them in details, the only dispute was whether mythology is completely true or true just in certain facts. Which sources were then the ones that cluttered the tales with false facts? Veyne suggests that we can clean myth of all false facts and so transform it into pure history by eliminating every single element, which does not have (or for which we can not find) a corresponding event in our time. Reduction is done in two steps: eliminating of physically improbable and historically impossible. For example: how was it possible that someone became god back then, when we now that this is not possible today. Living in the times of hegemony of science and glorification of reason, we are convinced that myths no more govern our lives as they did in the centuries before, better yet, we are resorting to the greatest myth of the modern age – the myth of mythlessness. It was during the Enlightenment when systematic attempt was made to explain away mythology. (Coupe, 1997: 9- 13) It is the same question driving this work – are we aware of all the myths present in our lives? Reading Barthes's Mythologies makes one think they surround us and everything can be myth.* Mythology can be understood as a palimpsest, rewritten every time someone needs to make a change. The reinterpretation of main myths of the nation is the most evident in time of historical transition where every effort is made to maintain identity with the common fight for better times that will come after the transition. Meletinski (in Velikonja, 1996: 70) stresses that the most important notion is that of collective: mythological consciousness is – especially in the transitional period – organicistic. * Coupe