UNDERGROUND FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Kinder, M, The Subversive Potential of the Pseudo-lterative, in scrupulously performed under De Sica's direction and photographed Film Quarterly(Berkeley), no. 2, 1989-90. by g.R. Aldo, exhibit, for Bazin. Langkjoer, B, Det indre melodrama, in Kosmorama( Copenha fidelity to the aesthetic of neo-realism. A conflicting position is Bailey, Paul."Looking Up For Rain, "in Sight Sound (London), taken some years later by Jean Mitry whose objection is not to the vol.139,no.205,Fall993. ol. 3. no. 12. December 1993. significance. Duration in Umberto D, according to Mitry, ""is nothing Bonadella, Peter, Three Neorealist Classics by Vittorio De Sica, in more than banality and is charged very simply with prolonging, Cineaste(New York), vol 23. no. 1, 1997. beyond the tolerable, events whose sense is clear from the very first Inages. These events are as follows: Umberto D. a retired civil servant among the aging demonstrators at a rally in support of increased Umberto D is often considered Vittorio De Sica's masterpiece, the pensions (Umberto is played by a Carlo Battisti, a university profes- purest example of Cesare Zavattini's aesthetic, and most highly De Sica pressed into service ce after a chance meeting on the streets developed expression of this historic collaboration of director and of Rome. )Impoverished but genteel, about to be dispossessed. screenwriter. It may also be the most relentlessly bleak of the great completely alone except for the company of his dog, Flike, and the works of neo-realism occasional companionship of a young servant girl, Umberto deter- De Sica was aware from the start that Umberto D might be mines to take his own life. His only concern is for Flike, for whom he susceptible to the same charge of subversion that had greeted Miracle attempts to find a home before doing away with himself. Failing in the in Milan. On the other hand, he had hoped, as he pointed out in a later first attempt, Umberto determines to kill himself and Flike, and comment, that"the story of that old retired office worker, his tragic failing again, has no recourse but to take up once more an entirely solitude, his boundless sadness and his pathetic, awkward attempts at hopeless existence. Were it not for his indifference to hostility, warming his heart(would have)a kind of universality that would be Umberto's confrontation with cold, often hostile persons and instit understood by everyone. This was not to be the case. De Sica tions would earn him the sympathy of the viewers, and the viewers the accused by many, including the then junior minister Giulio Andreotti. pleasure of the well-earned sentimental response. But De Sica, of washing Italys dirty laundry in public, of irresponsibility in Zavattini, and Aldo take the necessary measures of script, direction, and camera that distance the viewer and deny easy sympathy. The mobilized forces strongly opposed to exporting images of an Italy cruelty of society's neglect of Umberto (which so offended the depressed and without justice; following Umberto D, the foreign authorities), and lack of compassion of peers and institutions(whic distribution of films that were declared unflattering to Italian society no doubt offended the charitable), and Umberto's grievou was banned. The authorities feared, and with good reason, what the centeredness finally elicit, through the manipulations of style, the critic Georges Sadoul and a few others most admired. At the time of detachment of the viewer (and his or her attendant dissatisfaction) its first showing, Sadoul noted that Umberto d(along with Sciuscia. from Umberto's despair. The rigor of Umberto D explains both its Bicycle Thief, and Miracle in Milan) constituted an extraordinary initial failure and its subsequent reputation. Bazin's prediction was act of accusationagainst contemporary Italy. Official hostility was borne out: Umberto D would prove"a masterpiece to which film followed by critical indifference, and to complete the disastrous history is certainly going to grant a place of honor reception, Umberto D failed miserably at the box office. The story of old age, loneliness, and spiritual and material poverty was not likely Mirella Jona affront to appeal to audiences who, in 1952, were eager to forget the past and to embrace the economic miracle that they thought--correctly as it urned out-was just around the corner Critical debate since the release of the film has focused on what is UMUD'A YOLCULUK generally understood to be its central aesthetic question, the question See JOURNEY OF HOPE f duration. Jean Collet mong the first to underscore that through the restitution to film of real time De Sica had succeeded in giving the most banal of situations remarkable depth. But it is Andre Bazins essay, "De Sica: Metteur en Scene, "that most completely UNDERGROUND delimits and defines the issue. Bazin is specifically interested in those privileged moments in Umberto d that afford a glimpse of what"a truly realist cinema of the time could be, a cinema of'duration" France-Germany-Hungary-Yugoslavia, 1995 Two scenes particularly-Umberto going to bed and the awakening those perfect instances Director: Emir Kusturica duration determined by character creates a mise-en-scene that re- places drama with gesture, narrative with act. For Bazin, in these Production: CiBY 2000(France), Pandora Film(Germany), Nov Film(Hungary ), with the participation of Radio-TV-Serbia,Komuna- a person to whom nothing in particular happens(that)takes on the Belgrade and Chaplain Films(Bulgaria); color; 35 mm; running time quality of spectacle. Zavattini's lengthy descriptions of the most 167 minutes(some prints are 192 minutes). Released 19 June 1995 in minute though absolutely necessary movements and expressions, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, and 20 June 1997 in the United State 1258
UNDERGROUND FILMS, 4th EDITION 1258 Kinder, M., ‘‘The Subversive Potential of the Pseudo-Iterative,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), no. 2, 1989–90. Langkjoer, B., ‘‘Det indre melodrama,’’ in Kosmorama (Copenhagen), vol. 139, no. 205, Fall 1993. Bailey, Paul, ‘‘Looking Up For Rain,’’ in Sight & Sound (London), vol. 3, no. 12, December 1993. Bonadella, Peter, ‘‘Three Neorealist Classics by Vittorio De Sica,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 23, no. 1, 1997. *** Umberto D is often considered Vittorio De Sica’s masterpiece, the purest example of Cesare Zavattini’s aesthetic, and most highly developed expression of this historic collaboration of director and screenwriter. It may also be the most relentlessly bleak of the great works of neo-realism. De Sica was aware from the start that Umberto D might be susceptible to the same charge of subversion that had greeted Miracle in Milan. On the other hand, he had hoped, as he pointed out in a later comment, that ‘‘the story of that old retired office worker, his tragic solitude, his boundless sadness and his pathetic, awkward attempts at warming his heart (would have) a kind of universality that would be understood by everyone.’’ This was not to be the case. De Sica was accused by many, including the then junior minister Giulio Andreotti, of washing Italy’s dirty laundry in public, of irresponsibility in projecting a negative view of the country. Against Umberto D were mobilized forces strongly opposed to exporting images of an Italy depressed and without justice; following Umberto D, the foreign distribution of films that were declared unflattering to Italian society was banned. The authorities feared, and with good reason, what the critic Georges Sadoul and a few others most admired. At the time of its first showing, Sadoul noted that Umberto D (along with Sciuscia, Bicycle Thief, and Miracle in Milan) constituted an extraordinary ‘‘act of accusation’’ against contemporary Italy. Official hostility was followed by critical indifference, and to complete the disastrous reception, Umberto D failed miserably at the box office. The story of old age, loneliness, and spiritual and material poverty was not likely to appeal to audiences who, in 1952, were eager to forget the past and to embrace the economic miracle that they thought—correctly as it turned out—was just around the corner. Critical debate since the release of the film has focused on what is generally understood to be its central aesthetic question, the question of duration. Jean Collet was among the first to underscore that through the restitution to film of real time, De Sica had succeeded in giving the most banal of situations remarkable depth. But it is André Bazin’s essay, ‘‘De Sica: Metteur en Scène,’’ that most completely delimits and defines the issue. Bazin is specifically interested in those privileged moments in Umberto D that afford a glimpse of what ‘‘a truly realist cinema of the time could be, a cinema of ‘duration.’’’ Two scenes particularly—Umberto going to bed and the awakening of the servant girl—exemplify those perfect instances in which duration determined by character creates a mise-en-scène that replaces drama with gesture, narrative with act. For Bazin, in these sequences ‘‘it is a matter of making ‘life time’—the continuing to be a person to whom nothing in particular happens—(that) takes on the quality of spectacle.’’ Zavattini’s lengthy descriptions of the most minute though absolutely necessary movements and expressions, scrupulously performed under De Sica’s direction and photographed in revealing long takes by G.R. Aldo, exhibit, for Bazin, ‘‘complete fidelity to the aesthetic of neo-realism.’’ A conflicting position is taken some years later by Jean Mitry whose objection is not to the concept of duration, but to what is, in his view, a duration without significance. Duration in Umberto D, according to Mitry, ‘‘is nothing more than banality and is charged very simply with prolonging, beyond the tolerable, events whose sense is clear from the very first images.’’ These events are as follows: Umberto D., a retired civil servant is among the aging demonstrators at a rally in support of increased pensions. (Umberto is played by a Carlo Battisti, a university professor De Sica pressed into service after a chance meeting on the streets of Rome.) Impoverished but genteel, about to be dispossessed, completely alone except for the company of his dog, Flike, and the occasional companionship of a young servant girl, Umberto determines to take his own life. His only concern is for Flike, for whom he attempts to find a home before doing away with himself. Failing in the first attempt, Umberto determines to kill himself and Flike, and failing again, has no recourse but to take up once more an entirely hopeless existence. Were it not for his indifference to hostility, Umberto’s confrontation with cold, often hostile persons and institutions would earn him the sympathy of the viewers, and the viewers the pleasure of the well-earned sentimental response. But De Sica, Zavattini, and Aldo take the necessary measures of script, direction, and camera that distance the viewer and deny easy sympathy. The cruelty of society’s neglect of Umberto (which so offended the authorities), and lack of compassion of peers and institutions (which no doubt offended the charitable), and Umberto’s grievous selfcenteredness finally elicit, through the manipulations of style, the detachment of the viewer (and his or her attendant dissatisfaction) from Umberto’s despair. The rigor of Umberto D explains both its initial failure and its subsequent reputation. Bazin’s prediction was borne out; Umberto D would prove ‘‘a masterpiece to which film history is certainly going to grant a place of honor .’’ —Mirella Jona Affron UMUD’A YOLCULUK See JOURNEY OF HOPE UNDERGROUND France-Germany-Hungary-Yugoslavia, 1995 Director: Emir Kusturica Production: CiBY 2000 (France), Pandora Film (Germany), Novo Film (Hungary), with the participation of Radio-TV-Serbia, KomunaBelgrade and Chaplain Films (Bulgaria); color; 35 mm; running time: 167 minutes (some prints are 192 minutes). Released 19 June 1995 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, and 20 June 1997 in the United States;
FILMS. 4th EDItION UNDERGROUND N慧到 distributed in the U.S. by New Yorker Films; filmed 1994 on location Publications in Belgrade and Plovdiv, Bulgaria, and at the barrandov studios in Prague, Czech Republic Books. Producers: Pierre Spengler (executive), Maksa Catovic, Karl Handke, Peter, A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia, New Baumgartner; screenplay: Dusan Kovacevic with Emir Kusturica York. 1997. photography: Vilko Filac; editor: Branka Ceperac: production Norris. David, In the Wake of the Balkan Myth, London, 1999 design: Miljen Kreka Kljakovic: art directors: Branimir Babic, Vladislav Lasic: set design: Aleksandar Denic; costumes: Nebojsa BFl Companion to Eastern European and Russian Cinema, Lon- Lipanovic; original music: Goran Bregovic don,2000 Cast: Miki( Predrag) Manojlovic(Marko ) Lazar Ristovski(Petar Articles Popara Crni-Blacky); Mirjana Jokovic(Natalija): Slavko Stimac (Ivan): Emst Stotzner(Franz): Srdjan Todorovic (Jovan); Mirjana Levy, Emmanuel, ""Underground, "in Variety(New York ), 29 May aranovic(Vera): Milena Pavlovic (elena); Danilo""Bata"Stojkovic 4 June 1995 (Deda): Davor Dujmovic- Perhan(Bata): Dr Nele Karajlic (falling Finkielkraut, Alain, "" L'imposture Kusturica, in Le Monde(Paris), Gypsy): Dragan Nikolic (Film Director): Emir Kusturica (Arm 2June1995. Dealer); and others Malcolm, Derek, "The Surreal Sarajevan Dreamer, in Guardian (London), 29 June 1995 Awards: Palme d'Or, Cannes International Film Festival, 1995: Best Propos de emir Kustur Cahiers du Cinema(Paris), no 492 Foreign Language Film, Boston Society of Film Critics Awards, 1997. June 1995 1259
FILMS, 4 UNDERGROUND th EDITION 1259 Underground distributed in the U.S. by New Yorker Films; filmed 1994 on location in Belgrade and Plovdiv, Bulgaria, and at the Barrandov studios in Prague, Czech Republic. Producers: Pierre Spengler (executive), Maksa Catovic, Karl Baumgartner; screenplay: Dusan Kovacevic with Emir Kusturica; photography: Vilko Filac; editor: Branka Ceperac; production design: Miljen Kreka Kljakovic; art directors: Branimir Babic, Vladislav Lasic; set design: Aleksandar Denic; costumes: Nebojsa Lipanovic; original music: Goran Bregovic. Cast: Miki (Predrag) Manojlovic (Marko); Lazar Ristovski (Petar Popara Crni — Blacky); Mirjana Jokovic (Natalija); Slavko Stimac (Ivan); Ernst Stötzner (Franz); Srdjan Todorovic (Jovan); Mirjana Karanovic (Vera); Milena Pavlovic (Jelena); Danilo ‘‘Bata’’ Stojkovic (Deda); Davor Dujmovic-Perhan (Bata); Dr. Nele Karajlic (Falling Gypsy); Dragan Nikolic (Film Director); Emir Kusturica (Arms Dealer); and others. Awards: Palme d’Or, Cannes International Film Festival, 1995; Best Foreign Language Film, Boston Society of Film Critics Awards, 1997. Publications Books: Handke, Peter, A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia, New York, 1997. Norris, David, In the Wake of the Balkan Myth, London, 1999. BFI Companion to Eastern European and Russian Cinema, London, 2000. Articles: Levy, Emmanuel, ‘‘Underground,’’ in Variety (New York), 29 May- 4 June 1995. Finkielkraut, Alain, ‘‘L’imposture Kusturica,’’ in Le Monde (Paris), 2 June 1995. Malcolm, Derek, ‘‘The Surreal Sarajevan Dreamer,’’ in Guardian (London), 29 June 1995. ‘‘Propos de Emir Kusturica,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 492, June 1995
UNDERGROUND FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Zizek, Slavoj, Multiculturalism, or the Cultural Logic of Multina- The events of the second part, " The Cold War, take place in tional Capitalism, " in New Left Review, no. 225, September- 1961 In postwar communist Yugoslavia, Marko has become a cele- October 1995 brated poet, close to president Tito. He has married Natalia, and Kusturica, Emir, "Mon imposture, "in Le Monde(Paris), 26 Octo- together they have created a mythology of themselves as brave anti ber 1995 Fascists. A film is to be shot about their heroic experiences in the Gopnik, Adam, ""Cinema Dispute, in The New Yorker, 5 Febru truggle. Simultaneously, Marko and Natalia still keep a large number ary 1996 of people, Blacky included, in the cellar. They trick them into Hedges, Chris. "Belgrade Journal: Scathing 'Conscience' of Balkans thinking that the war goes on by playing soundtracks of Nazi Spares no One. An interview with Dusan Kovacevic, in The Ner bombings and Hitlers speeches. They use them as slave labor to York Times, 8 February 1996 manufacture arms that Marko trades internationally. One day Marko Robinson, David, "A Tunnel Vision of War: An Interview with Emir and Natalia descend to the cellar to attend the wedding of Blacky's Kusturica, in The Times(London), 5 March 1996 n Sweaty drunkenness reigns over this claustrophobic celebration Yates, Robert. " Gone Underground. 'in The Guardian(London), and the wedding guests, all intoxicated, end up fighting over unsettled 7 March 1996 accounts. In the turmoil the walls of the cellar crumble. The members Maslin, Janet, ""From Former Yugoslavia, Revelry with Allegory, of the wedding disperse in disarray and most of the enslaved inhabi- in New York Times. 12 October 1996 tants of the underground run away. Blacky and his son climb above Dieckmann, Katherine, When Kusturica Was Away on Business ground and end up at the shooting site of a film which is supposed to in Film Comment(New York), vol 33, no 5, 19 September 199 glorify the heroic past. Mistaking the set for reality and believing that Turan, Kenneth, "Sarajevans Journey from Cinema Hero to Trai- World War Il is still going on, they kill all the extras wearing German Los Angeles Times, 6 October 1997. uniforms. The son drowns in the Danube, and Blacky is captured by the police. Marko and Natalia escape the coming trouble, blowing up Jordanova, Dina, ""Kusturica's Underground (1995): Historical Alle- the house and the cellar gory or Propaganda, in Historical Journal of Film, Radio and TV The third part, again called"War, is set in the 1990s at an Hants), vol. 19. no. 1, 1999 unidentified battlefield, presumably Bosnia, where the protage cross paths one last time. Marko and Natalia have continued in international arms sales, and are wanted by Interpol. Blacky, still mourning the loss of his son thirty-five years earlier, is now in Underground is a historical film exploring the violent state of command of the paramilitary forces shelling a nearby city. In a final affairs in Yugoslavia. The films narrative spans over five decades, showdown Marko is killed by his own brother, Ivan, one of the people highlighting episodes taking place in 1941, 1961, and 1993. Real formerly confined in the underground. The paratroopers shoot Natalia events are combined with fictional historical encounters and od Blacky passes by without recognizing his former friends nces. Documentary footage of selected moments of Yugoslav The films epilogue offers a sharp contrast to this apocalyptic istory is used as a background against which the fictional protago. ending. In a utopian wedding scene all the protagonists come back to nists mingle with real historical personalities a la Forrest Gump. The life and gather together for a wedding feast on the Danube's sunny film is characterized by elaborate scenes, ornate props, and a haunting shores. As they cheerfully celebrate, the piece of land on which they musical score. Visually, the film is very dark, shot mostly in variou stand breaks apart from the mainland and quietly floats away. The shades of brown. There is even a shot taken from an unborn baby's wedding guests are too busy dancing and singing to notice that they point of view, watching out of the darkness of the womb. The film are being carried away into an unknown destination This final scene is the defining image that screenwriter Kovacevic Underground is screenwriter Dusan Kovacevic's and director and director Kusturica had in mind for this project. They were Emir Kusturica's personal take on Yugoslav history. In the film they Kusturica explained in a 1996 interview with David Robinson: " go follow closely the lives of three protagonists-Marko, a cunning cynic: Blacky, an artless dunce; and Natalia, an opportunistic blonde- away never really knowing what has happened to them. That is the who are shown at various stages of their lives that largely coincide way of the Balkan people. They never rationalize their past. Somehow the highlighted moments of Yugoslav history the passion that leads them forward is not changed. I hope some day Blacky both have a crush on Natalia, and many of their actions are people may find better ways to use the passion they have so far persistently used to kill one another determined by this romantic rivalry. The somber backdrop to these sensual affairs. however is a war with no end. Underground was awarded the golden Palm at the 1995 Cannes In the first part, called *War, which opens with the nazi International Film Festival, adding to the previous Golden Palm fo Kusturica's When Father Was Away on Business(1985)and his Best bombing of Belgrade in 1941, Marko, an energetic black marketeer, Director award for Time of the Gypsies(1989), and enhancing the takes a group of friends and relatives to a cellar which he has equipped director's reputation as a"Balkan Fellini. "The award carried weight as an air-raid shelter. It soon turns out that he has planned the whole with international critics. most of whom saw the film as an esoteric rescue operation with the intention of enslaving the people in the piece of elitist cinema preoccupied with the messy state of Balkan cellar. Above ground, Marko and Blacky complete a series of reckless affairs but nonetheless endorsed it. Underground, however,came urglaries that they present as motivated by anti-Fascist zeal. After under critical fire for the historical and political propositions upon performing a daring anti-Nazi stunt which is nothing else but another which the story was built. The main accusation was that the film was manifestation of a philanderer's showmanship, Marko gets rid of a well-masked version of Serbian propaganda, presented at a time Blacky by sending him to"" in the cellar. He can finally claim when Serbia was largely believed to be the aggressive force in the atalia exclusively for himself. Yugoslav break-up war. Others charged that by making a film in 1260
UNDERGROUND FILMS, 4th EDITION 1260 Zizek, Slavoj, ‘‘Multiculturalism, or the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism,’’ in New Left Review, no. 225, SeptemberOctober 1995. Kusturica, Emir, ‘‘Mon imposture,’’ in Le Monde (Paris), 26 October 1995. Gopnik, Adam, ‘‘Cinéma Disputé,’’ in The New Yorker, 5 February 1996. Hedges, Chris, ‘‘Belgrade Journal: Scathing ‘Conscience’ of Balkans Spares no One. An interview with Dusan Kovacevic,’’ in The New York Times, 8 February 1996. Robinson, David, ‘‘A Tunnel Vision of War: An Interview with Emir Kusturica,’’ in The Times (London), 5 March 1996. Yates, Robert, ‘‘Gone Underground,’’ in The Guardian (London), 7 March 1996. Maslin, Janet, ‘‘From Former Yugoslavia, Revelry with Allegory,’’ in New York Times, 12 October 1996. Dieckmann, Katherine, ‘‘When Kusturica Was Away on Business,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 33, no. 5, 19 September 1997. Turan, Kenneth, ‘‘Sarajevan’s Journey from Cinema Hero to ‘Traitor,’’’ in Los Angeles Times, 6 October 1997. Iordanova, Dina, ‘‘Kusturica’s Underground (1995): Historical Allegory or Propaganda,’’ in Historical Journal of Film, Radio and TV (Hants), vol. 19, no. 1, 1999. *** Underground is a historical film exploring the violent state of affairs in Yugoslavia. The film’s narrative spans over five decades, highlighting episodes taking place in 1941, 1961, and 1993. Real events are combined with fictional historical encounters and occurrences. Documentary footage of selected moments of Yugoslav history is used as a background against which the fictional protagonists mingle with real historical personalities à la Forrest Gump. The film is characterized by elaborate scenes, ornate props, and a haunting musical score. Visually, the film is very dark, shot mostly in various shades of brown. There is even a shot taken from an unborn baby’s point of view, watching out of the darkness of the womb. The film leaves a lasting and unsettling impression. Underground is screenwriter Dusan Kovacevic’s and director Emir Kusturica’s personal take on Yugoslav history. In the film they follow closely the lives of three protagonists—Marko, a cunning cynic; Blacky, an artless dunce; and Natalia, an opportunistic blonde— who are shown at various stages of their lives that largely coincide with the highlighted moments of Yugoslav history. Marko and Blacky both have a crush on Natalia, and many of their actions are determined by this romantic rivalry. The somber backdrop to these sensual affairs, however, is a war with no end. In the first part, called ‘‘War,’’ which opens with the Nazi bombing of Belgrade in 1941, Marko, an energetic black marketeer, takes a group of friends and relatives to a cellar which he has equipped as an air-raid shelter. It soon turns out that he has planned the whole rescue operation with the intention of enslaving the people in the cellar. Above ground, Marko and Blacky complete a series of reckless burglaries that they present as motivated by anti-Fascist zeal. After performing a daring anti-Nazi stunt which is nothing else but another manifestation of a philanderer’s showmanship, Marko gets rid of Blacky by sending him to ‘‘hide’’ in the cellar. He can finally claim Natalia exclusively for himself. The events of the second part, ‘‘The Cold War,’’ take place in 1961. In postwar communist Yugoslavia, Marko has become a celebrated poet, close to president Tito. He has married Natalia, and together they have created a mythology of themselves as brave antiFascists. A film is to be shot about their heroic experiences in the struggle. Simultaneously, Marko and Natalia still keep a large number of people, Blacky included, in the cellar. They trick them into thinking that the war goes on by playing soundtracks of Nazi bombings and Hitler’s speeches. They use them as slave labor to manufacture arms that Marko trades internationally. One day Marko and Natalia descend to the cellar to attend the wedding of Blacky’s son. Sweaty drunkenness reigns over this claustrophobic celebration and the wedding guests, all intoxicated, end up fighting over unsettled accounts. In the turmoil, the walls of the cellar crumble. The members of the wedding disperse in disarray and most of the enslaved inhabitants of the underground run away. Blacky and his son climb above ground and end up at the shooting site of a film which is supposed to glorify the heroic past. Mistaking the set for reality and believing that World War II is still going on, they kill all the extras wearing German uniforms. The son drowns in the Danube, and Blacky is captured by the police. Marko and Natalia escape the coming trouble, blowing up the house and the cellar. The third part, again called ‘‘War,’’ is set in the 1990s at an unidentified battlefield, presumably Bosnia, where the protagonists cross paths one last time. Marko and Natalia have continued in international arms sales, and are wanted by Interpol. Blacky, still mourning the loss of his son thirty-five years earlier, is now in command of the paramilitary forces shelling a nearby city. In a final showdown Marko is killed by his own brother, Ivan, one of the people formerly confined in the underground. The paratroopers shoot Natalia. Blacky passes by without recognizing his former friends. The film’s epilogue offers a sharp contrast to this apocalyptic ending. In a utopian wedding scene all the protagonists come back to life and gather together for a wedding feast on the Danube’s sunny shores. As they cheerfully celebrate, the piece of land on which they stand breaks apart from the mainland and quietly floats away. The wedding guests are too busy dancing and singing to notice that they are being carried away into an unknown destination. This final scene is the defining image that screenwriter Kovacevic and director Kusturica had in mind for this project. They were determined to use it as a metaphor for the Yugoslav people, who, as Kusturica explained in a 1996 interview with David Robinson: ‘‘go away never really knowing what has happened to them. That is the way of the Balkan people. They never rationalize their past. Somehow the passion that leads them forward is not changed. I hope some day people may find better ways to use the passion they have so far persistently used to kill one another.’’ Underground was awarded the Golden Palm at the 1995 Cannes International Film Festival, adding to the previous Golden Palm for Kusturica’s When Father Was Away on Business (1985) and his Best Director award for Time of the Gypsies (1989), and enhancing the director’s reputation as a ‘‘Balkan Fellini.’’ The award carried weight with international critics, most of whom saw the film as an esoteric piece of elitist cinema preoccupied with the messy state of Balkan affairs but nonetheless endorsed it. Underground, however, came under critical fire for the historical and political propositions upon which the story was built. The main accusation was that the film was a well-masked version of Serbian propaganda, presented at a time when Serbia was largely believed to be the aggressive force in the Yugoslav break-up war. Others charged that by making a film in
FILMS. 4th EDItION UNFORGIVEN Belgrade at the time when Serbia was at war with his own Bingham, Dennis, Acting Male: Masculinities in the Films of James Sarajevan director like Kusturica was committing an act of betrayal. Stuart, Jack Nicholson, and Clint Eastwood, Piscataway, 1994 Many in his native Bosnia denounced him as an intellectual traitor Gallafent, Edward, Clint Eastwood: Filmmaker and Star, New who had taken the side of the aggressor. The media noise was York. 1994 significant, but the debate remained quite cryptic for larger audiences. Knapp, Laurence F, Directed by Clint Eastwood: Eighteen Films The director was so upset by the controversy that he declared Analyzed. Jefferson. 1996 a withdrawal from filmmaking-a promise which he did not keep. He Munn, Michael, Gene Hackman, London, 1997. returned to cinema soon thereafter and continued shooting in Serbia O' Brien. Daniel, Clint Eastwood: Film-Maker, North Pomfret. 1997 Articles: -Dina yordanova McCarthy, Todd, Variety(New York), 3 August 1992 Merrick, H, and P Ortoli, ''Le survivant d un monde englouti, in THE UNFAITHFUL WIFE Revue du Cinema(Paris), September 1992 Jameson, R. T, and H Sheehan, ""Deserves got nothin'to do with See LA FEMmE InFidele it, in Film Comment(New York), September-October 1992. Combs, R, and others, "Shadowing the hero, in Sight and Sound (London ), October 1992 UNFORGIVEN Coursodon, J P, and M. Henry, Positif(Paris), October 1992. Jousse, T, and C. Nevers, Cahiers du Cinema(Paris), October 1992. Boutroy, P, Sequences(Montreal), November 1992. USA,1992 Pawelczak, A, Films in Review(New York). November-Decem- ber1992. Director: clint eastwood Tesson, C,"Laventure interieure in Cahiers du Cinema(Paris) December 1992 Production: Warner Bros. Technicolour, Panavision; running time: Dowell, P, Cineaste(New York),1992 31 minutes. Filmed on location in Alberta, Canada. Horguelin, T, ""L'eternel retour, ' in 24 Images(Montreal),Decem- ber-January 1993 Producer: Clint Eastwood; executive producer: David Valdes Tibbets, J. C, "" Clint Eastwood and the Machinery of Violence, in screenplay: David Webb Peoples: photography: Jack N. Green Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury, Maryland), January 1993 editor: Joel Cox. assistant directors: Scott Maitland. Bill Bannerman Wilson, M. H, "The Perfect Subject for the Final Western, Grant Lucibello, and Tom Rooker: production design: Henry Cinema Papers(Melbourne), January 1993 Bumstead: art director: Rick Roberts and Adrian Gorton: music: Greenberg, H.R., Film Quarterly(Berkeley), Spring 1993 Lennie Niehaus; sound editors: Neil Burrow, Gordon Davidson, Witteman, Paul,"Go Ahead, Make My Career, in Time(New Marshall Winn, Butch Wolf, Cindy marty, James Isaacs, and Karen York), 5 August 1993 G. Wilson; sound recording: Rob Young, Michael Evje, and Bobby Grenier, Richard, Clint Eastwood Goes PC, in Commentary, vol Fernandez: costumes: Valerie o'Brien 97. no. 3. March 1994 Beard, William, "Unforgiven and the Uncertainties of the heroic, Cast: Clint Eastwood (William Munny); Gene Hackman(Little Bill): Canadian Journal of Film Studies(Ottawa), vol. 3, no. 2 Morgan Freeman(Ned Logan); Richard Harris(English Bob); Jaimz Autumn 1994 Woolvett(Schofield Kid): Saul Rubinek(Ww. Beauchamp); Frances Engel, L, Rewriting Western Myths in Clint Eastwood,'s New Old Fisher(Strawberry Alice); Anna Thompson(Delilah Fitzgerald) Western. in Western American Literature. vol 29, no 3, 1994 David Mucci(Quick Mike). Kelley, Susan M, and Armando J Prats, Giggles and Guns: The Phallic Myth in Unforgiven/Back from the Sunset: The Western Awards: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supportin Eastwood Hero, and Unforgiven, in Journal of Film and Actor(Hackman), Best Cinematography, and Best Editing, 1992 Video(Atlanta), vol. 47, no. 1-3, Spring- Fall 1995 Deloria P J. "Title: America. in American Historical Review, vol l1,no.5,1995 Premiere(Boulder), vol 9, July 1996 Publications Ingrassia, Catherine "Im Not Kicking, I'm Talking: Discursive Economies in the Western, in Film Criticism(Meadville), vol Books 20, no. 3, Spring 1996. McCarthy, T, in Premiere(Boulder), vol. Il, October 1997 Smith. Gus Richard Harris: Actor by accident. 1990. 1999. grassia. Catherine "Writing the West Iconic and literal Truth in Zmijewsky, Boris, and Lee Pfeiffer, The Films of Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven, in Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury ) voL. 26, New York. 1993 no. 1, January 1998 1261
FILMS, 4 UNFORGIVEN th EDITION 1261 Belgrade at the time when Serbia was at war with his own native land, a Sarajevan director like Kusturica was committing an act of betrayal. Many in his native Bosnia denounced him as an intellectual traitor who had taken the side of the aggressor. The media noise was significant, but the debate remained quite cryptic for larger audiences. The director was so upset by the controversy that he declared a withdrawal from filmmaking—a promise which he did not keep. He returned to cinema soon thereafter and continued shooting in Serbia and internationally. —Dina Iordanova THE UNFAITHFUL WIFE See LA FEMME INFIDELE UNFORGIVEN USA, 1992 Director: Clint Eastwood Production: Warner Bros.; Technicolour, Panavision; running time: 131 minutes. Filmed on location in Alberta, Canada. Producer: Clint Eastwood; executive producer: David Valdes; screenplay: David Webb Peoples; photography: Jack N. Green; editor: Joel Cox; assistant directors: Scott Maitland, Bill Bannerman, Grant Lucibello, and Tom Rooker; production design: Henry Bumstead; art director: Rick Roberts and Adrian Gorton; music: Lennie Niehaus; sound editors: Neil Burrow, Gordon Davidson, Marshall Winn, Butch Wolf, Cindy Marty, James Isaacs, and Karen G. Wilson; sound recording: Rob Young, Michael Evje, and Bobby Fernandez; costumes: Valerie O’Brien. Cast: Clint Eastwood (William Munny); Gene Hackman (Little Bill); Morgan Freeman (Ned Logan); Richard Harris (English Bob); Jaimz Woolvett (Schofield Kid); Saul Rubinek (W. W. Beauchamp); Frances Fisher (Strawberry Alice); Anna Thompson (Delilah Fitzgerald); David Mucci (Quick Mike). Awards: Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Hackman), Best Cinematography, and Best Editing, 1992. Publications Books: Smith, Gus, Richard Harris: Actor by Accident, 1990, 1999. Zmijewsky, Boris, and Lee Pfeiffer, The Films of Clint Eastwood, New York, 1993. Bingham, Dennis, Acting Male: Masculinities in the Films of James Stuart, Jack Nicholson, and Clint Eastwood, Piscataway, 1994. Gallafent, Edward, Clint Eastwood: Filmmaker and Star, New York, 1994. Knapp, Laurence F., Directed by Clint Eastwood: Eighteen Films Analyzed, Jefferson, 1996. Munn, Michael, Gene Hackman, London, 1997. O’Brien, Daniel, Clint Eastwood: Film-Maker, North Pomfret, 1997. Articles: McCarthy, Todd, Variety (New York), 3 August 1992. Merrick, H., and P. Ortoli, ‘‘Le survivant d’un monde englouti,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), September 1992. Jameson, R. T., and H. Sheehan, ‘‘Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September-October 1992. Combs, R., and others, ‘‘Shadowing the Hero,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), October 1992. Coursodon, J. P., and M. Henry, Positif (Paris), October 1992. Jousse, T., and C. Nevers, Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1992. Boutroy, P., Séquences (Montreal), November 1992. Pawelczak, A., Films in Review (New York), November-December 1992. Tesson, C., ‘‘L’aventure intérieure,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1992. Dowell, P., Cineaste (New York), 1992. Horguelin, T., ‘‘L’étérnel retour,’’ in 24 Images (Montreal), December-January 1993. Tibbets, J. C., ‘‘Clint Eastwood and the Machinery of Violence,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), January 1993. Wilson, M. H., ‘‘The Perfect Subject for the Final Western,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), January 1993. Greenberg, H. R., Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1993. Witteman, Paul, ‘‘Go Ahead, Make My Career,’’ in Time (New York), 5 August 1993. Grenier, Richard, ‘‘Clint Eastwood Goes PC,’’ in Commentary, vol. 97, no. 3, March 1994. Beard, William, ‘‘Unforgiven and the Uncertainties of the Heroic,’’ in Canadian Journal of Film Studies (Ottawa), vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1994. Engel, L., ‘‘Rewriting Western Myths in Clint Eastwood’s New ‘Old Western,’’’ in Western American Literature, vol. 29, no. 3, 1994. Kelley, Susan M., and Armando J. Prats, ‘‘Giggles and Guns: The Phallic Myth in Unforgiven/Back from the Sunset: The Western, the Eastwood Hero, and Unforgiven,’’ in Journal of Film and Video (Atlanta), vol. 47, no. 1–3, Spring-Fall 1995. Deloria, P. J., ‘‘Title: America,’’ in American Historical Review, vol. 11, no. 5, 1995. Premiere (Boulder), vol. 9, July 1996. Ingrassia, Catherine, ‘‘‘I’m Not Kicking, I’m Talking’: Discursive Economies in the Western,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville), vol. 20, no. 3, Spring 1996. McCarthy, T., in Premiere (Boulder), vol. 11, October 1997. Ingrassia, Catherine, ‘‘Writing the West: Iconic and Literal Truth in Unforgiven,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), vol. 26, no. 1, January 1998
UNFORGIVEN FILMS. 4 EDITIoN Unforgiven McReynolds, Douglas J, ""Alive and Well: Western Myth in Western moral roots, especially in the precise calculation of the effects of Movies, in Literature/Film Quarterly(Salisbury), vol 26, no 1, violence, its running commentary on honourable behaviour, and its consciousness of the power of falsity of reputation. Plantinga, Carl, ""Spectacles of Death: Clint Eastwood and Violence At a time of increasing violence in society, a return to a classic in Unforgiven, in Cinema Journal(Austin), vol. 37, no. 2, genre permits a distanced examination of issues of revenge, guns, and inter 1998 respect. The story stems from an incident wherein a drunken cowboy slices up the face of a prostitute in Big Whiskey, Wyoming, in 1880 Gene Hackman, as Little Bill Doggett, in a wonderfully written and performed part that reveals unexpected depths in the hackneyed role Like its predecessor Tightrope, Unforgiven-a film critic Pat for the cowboy, choosing economic stability for the whoremaster Dowell calls"droll, dry and deadpan-marks a turning point in the over a harsher justice, and thereby enraging Strawberry Alice, whe career of Clint Eastwood. Just as the almost cartoonish, ultra-violent leads the other prostitutes to put up a S1,000 reward for the lives of the Dirty Harry image changes in Tightrope to a single father nearly two cowboys involved. This incentive draws a collection of misfit vercome by his human frailty and seeking redemption througl bounty hunters, including English Bob(Richard Harris), a British family values, so Unforgiven challenges earlier film stereotypes, not dandy, accompanied by his own dime-novel journalist/flack; the just of Eastwood,'s own spaghetti-western type but also of what has be Billy-the-Kid, whose become of the Western genre itself. The classic American morality extreme myopia makes him potentially lethal to his comrades; and story has fallen on sad days, exhausted by overexposure and made Eastwood himself, as Bill Munny, a long-retired gunfighter turned decadent by the gimmickry of special effects exaggerating form over marginal pig farmer, who is a widower with two children and substance. producer and director eastwood returns the form to its riendless, except for an old colleague-Ned Logan(Morgan Freeman) 1262
UNFORGIVEN FILMS, 4th EDITION 1262 Unforgiven McReynolds, Douglas J., ‘‘Alive and Well: Western Myth in Western Movies,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), vol. 26, no. 1, January 1998. Plantinga, Carl, ‘‘Spectacles of Death: Clint Eastwood and Violence in Unforgiven,’’ in Cinema Journal (Austin), vol. 37, no. 2, Winter 1998. *** Like its predecessor Tightrope, Unforgiven—a film critic Pat Dowell calls ‘‘droll, dry and deadpan’’—marks a turning point in the career of Clint Eastwood. Just as the almost cartoonish, ultra-violent Dirty Harry image changes in Tightrope to a single father nearly overcome by his human frailty and seeking redemption through family values, so Unforgiven challenges earlier film stereotypes, not just of Eastwood’s own spaghetti-western type but also of what has become of the Western genre itself. The classic American morality story has fallen on sad days, exhausted by overexposure and made decadent by the gimmickry of special effects exaggerating form over substance. Producer and director Eastwood returns the form to its moral roots, especially in the precise calculation of the effects of violence, its running commentary on honourable behaviour, and its consciousness of the power of falsity of reputation. At a time of increasing violence in society, a return to a classic genre permits a distanced examination of issues of revenge, guns, and respect. The story stems from an incident wherein a drunken cowboy slices up the face of a prostitute in Big Whiskey, Wyoming, in 1880. Gene Hackman, as Little Bill Doggett, in a wonderfully written and performed part that reveals unexpected depths in the hackneyed role of small town sheriff, decrees financial reimbursement as punishment for the cowboy, choosing economic stability for the whoremaster over a harsher justice, and thereby enraging Strawberry Alice, who leads the other prostitutes to put up a $1,000 reward for the lives of the two cowboys involved. This incentive draws a collection of misfit bounty hunters, including English Bob (Richard Harris), a British dandy, accompanied by his own dime-novel journalist/flack; the ‘‘Schofield Kid,’’ a self-promoting would-be Billy-the-Kid, whose extreme myopia makes him potentially lethal to his comrades; and Eastwood himself, as Bill Munny, a long-retired gunfighter turned marginal pig farmer, who is a widower with two children and friendless, except for an old colleague—Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman)