Issues of the transition, self-managed subjectivity and culturalisation of antagonisms in Zivojin Pavlovi_’s film When I will be white and pale* (1967) (Kad budem mrtav i beo)
Introduction
Before presenting the film, I would like to sketch a general overview of historical processes in Yugoslavia of the 60s, which will bring into light conditions for the emergence of the Black wave cinema.
A new Yugoslavia emerged as a paradoxical entity during the WWII: it broke up with the old semi-fascist Yugoslavian regime that was dominated by Serbian nationalism and growing class differences. Partisan struggle was led by Yugoslav Communists, who addressed both questions that were of crucial importance for the masses: the national and the class question. New Yugoslavia became a multinational federation and at the same time underwent a social revolution that opened a path for the transition to communism. Collectivization, expropriation of owners, nationalization, these were all main processes taking place after the WWII. However, the history cannot be conceptualized only in the movement of ‘economic policy’, to think history is to think the articulation of different spheres one to another, specifically, politics to economy, culture/art/ideology to economy and politics and so forth.
It is true that the Yugoslav film was nationalized and for some time it followed a rigid artistic doctrine of ‘socialist realism’: according to this doctrine, film should represent factories, workers and new Man. Propaganda films and documentaries were enforced by the League of Communists. Film was supposed to enlighten and educate masses according to the Party directives . However, this period did not last long, in the conditions of the conflict between Tito and Stalin in the late 40s (‘48), Yugoslavia was isolated from the West and East. The formulation of an alternative model to the socialist development became a necessity (‘autonomous path to socialism’). The Yugoslav answer was the first formal critique of Stalinism, which was called self-management socialism. The main stress was placed on the participation of workers inside production process. The state’s political control was decentralized and Party planners did not have a direct control over economy .
Also, within the film industry a new economic-political organization was established despite the fact that financial support remained centralized. As Pavle Levi described the situation: “Workers’ councils were thus introduced as decision-making bodies overseeing film production, distribution, and exhibition, while the creative personnel associated with the process of filmmaking (directors, cinematographers, screenwriters) were given the status of freelance professionals” (2007: 15). The 1960s are referred to as the ‘golden age’ of Yugoslav cinema, where many young talented authors (Petrovi, Makavejev, ilnik, Godina, Pavlovi_…) started with aesthetic experimentation and a critique of autonomous path to socialism. It is important to note that the majority of films were not opposed to socialist ideas, but were criticizing ideological dogmatism and questioned the mythology of the Yugoslav leader Tito. This was also a period of a relatively high degree of freedom, where socialist development could be and was questioned. Pavle Levi claims that there is a strong connection between new humanist Marxist school, Praxis, and the new Yugoslav film. Both theoretical and aesthetical production of that time became very influential ‘social forces’. This theoretical school ‘Praxis’ targeted dogmatic teachings and exposed a reification that is taking place in socialism. They refocused their academic and real interest around the emancipation of human beings, whilst their central reference was the work of early Marx.
One of the most important directors of the new Yugoslav film was undoubtedly _ivojin Pavlovi_ (The Enemy /1965/, See you in another war /1980/). His work from the 1960s conforms to the form of cinematic realism that the author himself termed as “poetics of viciousness” and “aesthetics of the disgusting”. His films are a portrait of the social life on the margins of economic existence (Levi). The film When I will be white and pale appeared in 1967, one year before student protested in Belgrade (and in Yugoslavia in general), it succeeds in painting a general spirit of youth. The film opened up many interesting perspectives and exerted the first and strongest critique of capitalist tendencies in the Yugoslav self-management socialism.
Scientific and political effects of the film
As we can read in the introductory text for the workshop (SEE? http://www.pagesmagazine.net/?), every translation is always already a certain interpretation. Apart from this, another important point is that there is always a certain remainder in/out of the process of translation (excess/lack). I will name these two moments as the logic of translation. My research object is film, thinking film and its consequences for the historical reality, therefore my arguments will extrapolate the (more textual) departure point of translation. I will look at three major fields, which are to a certain degree connected to the ‘logic of translation’: firstly, this film has an important documentary/realist effect: it interprets Yugoslavia of the late 60s. I argue that no other historical ‘text’ is as good in the analysis of the reform in 1965 that introduced market mechanisms, as precisely Pavlovi_’s ‘text’. However, our point is that every transition, towards capitalism or communism, has its peculiar logic: every transition is ‘translated’ differently – and this is one of the central qualities that film shows. Secondly, Pavlovi’s film was only one in the series of highly influential works that formed a film movement New Yugoslav film or Black Wave was dominated by young, talented, often amateur authors who later on became key directors in the Yugoslav film. Due to the inaccessibility of the dominant politics, many political and economical struggles were translated, displaced to the sphere of culture. This ‘culturalisation’ of antagonism in the last instance produced new public space(s), space of film movement and with it massive audiences (some Black Wave films were blockbusters). Thirdly, I will try to pinpoint a specific logic at work in the portrayal of the hero or rather the antihero. This self-managed subjectivity, the individual that managed his own life, was precisely the opposite of the new self-managed man that was supposed to be wholly integrated in the society, who was supposedly participating in all economical and political activities. The antihero ‘Jimmy the Boat’ is represented as something that is left over from the transition process, something that cannot be integrated in the self-management system and something that lays like an excrement in front of spectators.
1. Economic transition
The Yugoslavian transition to communism failed. The official ideology of the self-managed socialism proclaimed a clear break with capitalism as the alternative type of socialism seemed to be the most appropriate in overcoming the existing contradictions. The Yugoslavian model was a ‘soft’ model of transition, even though the central contradiction remained the one between labor and capital . Capital as such was never abolished, it was merely socialized, or more specifically, only the relation between capital and labor was dominated by the labor in the best case. But progressively, from the mid 60s, the advent of crisis signaled that something went wrong in political and economical terms. It was precisely Pavlovi_’s film that first uncovered, what was the underlying logic of self-management. The film is not so much focused on the discrepancy between official ideology and historical reality (classical humanist preoccupation), but represents the consequences of the introduction of capitalist (market) elements and contradictions at work in the Yugoslav society.
One of the most important and prophetic shots of the film is the long panning shot in semi-provincial setting. This shot takes us on the social journey of SFRY. It cuts through the whole society: Jimmy passes a group of fighting peasants, protesting workers and singing soldiers are on the move… This shot contains a very poetic, but also an intimidating picture that evokes the future disintegration, if the tendency is to realize. If this shot is somehow synthesizing all objective contradictions, the film show a more detailed and subtle transitional analysis of at least two important topics.
Firstly, the film reveals a definite and ever-growing gap between the city and the village. Village and province in general are literary in decay; the living conditions are extremely difficult. The scene where Jimmy steals wallets is very symptomatic: there is not much money in them! To make the situation worse, the collective ties of solidarity, reciprocal relationships at the countryside are eroded. On the other hand, the city (Belgrade) is in no regard different from the cities in the West: music and fashion trends are omnipresent between youth; there is a whole range of new professions that are linked to evergrowing culture and entertainment industry: from agents, media professionals, to journalists and musicians. The central opposition between village and city is epitomized in the recognition and production of music. The folk music of the countryside with gypsy sounds (on trumpets) could not be reconciled with the urban sounds of rock’n’roll.
The next very important topic in the film is the demystification of full employment in Yugoslavia. From the 60s on Yugoslavia never reached full employment. The socialist demand ‘work for everyone’ was radically undermined by the reforms, by the underdevelopment of some parts of the country (Kosovo, Bosnia and countryside in general). Not only that the gap (differences) remained the same, the undeveloped parts started lagging behind dramatically. The film skillfully presents us these contradictions in Jimmy’s constant search for a job, but also in the workers’ strikes and lack of jobs in the countryside. Yugoslavian Party officials (later on) resolved this problem with the opening up borders for ‘Gastarbeiter’, temporary workers that could work across Europe, but especially in Germany.
One could say that also the Eastern block underwent structural changes, which included certain capitalist elements, but I argue that the position of Yugoslavia was exceptional. Standing between East and West, pioneering self-management and the movement of non-aligned states, Yugoslavia was a different socialist formation that intertwined, worked against and with the capitalist system and socialist social formations. The phenomenon of Gastarbeiter is very telling in this regard. Gastarbeiter was internal and normal in the semi-peripheral states inside capitalist Europe (Portugal, Greece, Italy), but not at all in the case of the Eastern block countries. It was only Yugoslavia that participated in introduction of the competition on the labor markets within developed countries (tourism, another opening up). Or on the other hand, even thought the range of new (postfordist) professions connected to entertainment and culture was produced, they were not profit-oriented; even though the existence of social capital is not under question in Yugoslavia, the domination of politics over economy did not cease to exist. The distribution of wealth was debated within the enterprises and on the level of the state apparatuses. Specificity of the transition thus contains both socialist and capitalist tendencies.
2. Culturalisation of antagonism
The main political power struggle in Yugoslavia took place between bureaucrats (representatives of Communist party; political class) and managers (leaders, engineers in the enterprises; economic class). However, this was a struggle within the dominant class. Workers and students entered on the historical stage rarely - true politics is rare - with big events in the late 60s or during the 80s. Due to the inaccessibility to official ‘loci’ of power (political apparatuses), culturalisation of politics was the only politics that was happening more continously. The re-problematisation of the transition of Yugoslav self-management was not done so much by the dominant class, as it was produced and questioned in the artworks and some theoretical works of that time. The ‘culturalisation’ of politics cannot by any means be equaled with the culturalisation of politics today . The Yugoslavian culturalisation meant a struggle and a critique of the material conditions within cultural sphere. Its direct effects worked as a re-politicization of the art, but also had effect on other fields, on dominant politics itself, that is, on the Party apparatus. This displacement of politics represented some sort of aesthetical politics, it meant a retranslation of topics that were suppressed by the League of Yugoslav Communists. Certain autonomy of culture was achieved, which did not mean only a simple lapse to a bourgeois division of society. It carried also emancipatory effects for both, politics and art.
In the case of Yugoslavia, avant-garde and abstract painting, graphic arts were accompanied by a strong film movement. The latter massively contributed to the democratized atmosphere of Yugoslavia in the 60s. At that time cultural infrastructure was build across Yugoslavia, and I could argue that in some respects the exsplosive development of film contributed to the formation of new “public” spaces. In a more metaphorical sense, the new Yugoslav film itself was a public space, which triggered many discussions and incited a whole series of socially engaged films called a new Yugoslav film. I argue that many of these artworks had scientific effects and cannot be assessed only according to a purely aesthetic criterion. They offered a very strong and novel interpretation of the historical processes and questioned the divisive line between art and politics. Their position has radically undermined the “party-view”. After the massive uprisings and student revolts, the Party officials saw the advent of new abstract forms of art and social nihilism as the greatest danger to their power and further building of socialism. Film became a class enemy and official critics labeled the new Yugoslav film as Black wave film which was “presenting Yugoslavia as one big toilet”. The Black Wave film movement started in the beginning of the 60s and was ended in 1973 with an official condemnation, partial banning of films, a removal of some directors from the Academy of Film in Belgrade and even imprisonment of one director (Stanojevi_ due to his film Plastic Jesus). This event signaled a more general re-Stalinization of the self-management and deepening of political crisis. Shades of obscurity wrapped and ended the democratic atmosphere of the 60s. Contrary to the dissidents’ claims about a monolith/unequivocal history (or Party history), the film movement remains an important document of time – it shows that the historical processes are complex and cannot be reduced to a mere totalitarian grey past. As _elimir _ilnik, one of the famous and still living Yugoslav directors says: “a socially critical film is also information on the freedom of society, which produced it – otherwise it would have not existed at all”. The culturalisation of the political conflicts would not have been so successful and politically relevant if it was not translated into the other field, the one of art. The antipolitical conditions triggered artistic responses that immediately became political. The artworks did not have to proclaim their criticality and politics. It was a period when engaged art overdetermined politics. Apart from its apparent political consequences (formation of public space, repression by the Party) it had also some scientific effects (new interpretation of history).
3. Subjectivity as excrement/stain of the order, or the antihero Jimmy the Boat
The self-managed man in the self-managed society - this was an ultimate phantasm of the Yugoslav ideologues. But is not Jimmy Barka, Jimmy the Boat, actually embodiment of self-management phantasm? He can manage his own life, he is a nomad that travels from village to city, back and forth, and manages to survive. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure of this self-managed subjectivity is precisely his failure to integrate with the society.
Jimmy is a young man in his twenties who is not employed, has troubles seeking job… He is not nihilist or completely passive and he is also not a Bartlebian hero who prefers not to do anything. As Levi says, Jimmy is in permanent present, a ‘social outcast who doesn’t lack vitality’ (Levi, 2007: 36) and to some extent resembles Godard’s hero Poiccard in his A bout de soufflé.
The whole social order rests on the condition that a young man and woman enter the sphere of labour, the sphere where you can really start participating in the self-management of the social relations. However, there is a major blockage that prevents Jimmy from entering this realm of work. On the one hand, he is faced with the harshness of the social situation, rising unemployment and underdevelopment of the countryside and on the other hand, he himself claims not to be happy to work too much. This objective and subjective conditions make him a perfect example of excluded subjectivity, of something that represents a stain on the symbolic order. That is also why he is treated as a dangerous element: in the village he undermines the authority of the corrupt local headman, whereas in the city he is excluded by the law of competition. There is no space for a bad folk singer in the midst of rock and roll subculture. If only Jimmy Barka lived in the 90s or today, he would be a big success story. He tried to undermine the classical modern distinction between village and city with the fusion of his folk songs and rock’n’roll vibes in the background. He was indeed in front of time – this type of synthesis is nowadays completely normal; accordion with dance beats, trumpets with techno – the Balkan type of globalization that is the only major cultural product of the 90s in ex-Yugoslavia .
But let us return to the excluded subjectivity. The ideal self-managed personality was supposed to be someone who works a lot (shock-workers) and at the same time participates in the decision-making in political and economical realm. However, Jimmy was the other side of this subjectivity. When entering the society and its norms, he came across many difficulties. He was not ‘normally interpellated’ or recognised by the symbolic order and vice versa, he did not recognize that order as something he had to adhere. However, he was not completely excluded by the order, precisely the opposite; I argue that by this exclusion he has become something internal to it. This exclusion can be coined with the help of Agamben ‘inclusive exclusion’.
After his primal troublesome situation, he and his girlfriend were left without money, he returns to the home-village. He searches for help from his mother unsuccessfully. This break-up was only first in the series of his tragic encounters with the ‘order’. It meant a certain symbolic death for Jimmy. The village world with supposedly collective solidarity proves to be disintegrating in front of his eyes. This was not his world any more. He would have to find refuge elsewhere. The role of women in the film can be regarded precisely as guardians or facilitators of the social integration. But even when the female protagonists take care of him, e.g. the local singer, they all have their own, specific plans and desires. If in the first part of my analysis I showed that film is extremely powerful in exposing some objective contradictions his critique is merciless also vis-à-vis the innocent ‘soul’ of the countryside or urban youth in Belgrade. Pavlovi_ does not romanticize or put his hopes in the “good” human nature . It does not matter if one is in the city or in the village, what is the lesson is that one can definitely not rely on the good intentions of people. Everyone is already thinking about favors: his friend in Belgrade will set him to enter the competition because they are good friend from the childhood, the folk singer gives him opportunity to become a singer, but nevertheless she has her own plans with the journalist and her future. Pavlovi’s critique targets corrupted social relations at the countryside and more objective contradictions of the socialist order. He does not paint the antihero in a way that would trigger tears and sympathy or tat would centre us back to a good human nature. The message is much more radical and structuralist.
There is no structural place for Jimmy to enter: the village rejects him, the city rejects him and there is nowhere to hide. When he returns yet again to the village, his provocative action signifies his absurd end. Like excrement, something that is excluded by the society, he is also physically excluded. His symbolic death is concluded with the physical death. He is killed in the public toilet on a symbolic place. He ends in the only place that can be seen as appropriate for his subjectivity of excluded, as excrement. Literary he ended breathless, breathless due to the shit and shot. This is how finally the ‘resolution’ with the social order happens: the marginal subjectivity on the margins of society that we can read as a symptom of contradictions of self-managed socialism and its transitional processes. This subtle representation of the main character shows that Pavlovi’s theoretical claim is antihumanist par excellence and here I see one of the greatest strengths and actualities of his work.
*- This essay was largely inspired (specifically section on the ‘economic transition’) by the discussion led by Boris Buden on the RESET’s seminar in Mostar (February 2008), whilst other two parts are to be considered as an interaction with the introductory text for the workshop on Translation in Teheran, organized by Pages (August 2008).
Footnots
2-See an excellent book of Pavle Levi Disintegration in frames : aesthetics and ideology in the Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav cinema, Stanford University Press 1973.
3- I have developed the thesis on the self-management as specific politics and economic policy in my article From partisan primacy of politics to postfordist tendency in the Yugoslav self-management. The article will be published in the book ‘Postfordism and its discontents’ as a joint project of the Jan van Eyck Academie and the Peace Institute (2009).
4-My analysis of the transition massively relies on the book Capital + Labour in SFRY (Bav_ar, Igor, Kirn, Sre_o and Korsika, Bojan /1985/ Ljubljana: zalo_ba KRT).
5-Opening up to the West, builidng highways, toursit infrastructure is anothe raspect taht we cannot discuss here.
6-This culturalisation has precisely opposite effect in the contemporary artistic scene and cultural theory discourses. It neutralizes conflicts, and therefore participates in the destruction of the field of politics. The avant-garde role in this process is attributed to Art that frequently non-chalantly assumes the task.
7-The 90s in the former Yugoslav republics so a dramatic regression ragreding politics, art and economy. Instead of democraticised socialism, we witnessed a whole revolution of ideological state apparatuses, liberalism, nationalism within the conidtions of late capitalism. The Yugoslav wars were a tragic stage of this tranistion process. The only remaining ‘Yugoslav’project was happening on the level of music, ‘turbo-folk’. There the divison along national lines do not exist. The musicians all across regions would be popular all across Yugoslavia. This is the only true Balkan-type of globalisation today, which cannot be interpreted either via high culture critique or via capitalist expansion.
      |
    |