Intercultural Communication Studies XVI : 2 2007
Gypsy Stereotypes and Ideology Levels in two European Feature Films
Elena Gabor, Purdue University
Abstract
The dominant ideology in Eastern Europe has kept and still keeps Roma
people (the Gypsies) at the lowest level of society through a long list of stereotypes
and active discrimination. Up to the end of the twentieth century, cinematography
tended to portray Gypsies as an exotic element in romantic settings, avoiding social
and political issues such as poverty, discrimination and marginalization. The fall of
communism marked a change, as more films used stereotypes to speak against the
dominant ideology and to create a cultural space where mutual respect, solidarity and
human rights can be learned and internalized by both Gypsies and gadje (nonGypsies). In a similar vein as Hasewaga (2006) who looked at TV messages
changing Japanese perceptions of Koreans, and (Tung 2006) who analyzed the
under-representation of Asians on American television, this paper takes an
interpretive approach to examine socio-cultural stereotypes used to portray Gypsies,
and to identify the levels of ideology present in two movies: Gadjo Dilo (Tony Gatlif,
1997, France) and Time of the Gypsies (Emir Kusturica, 1989, Yugoslavia).
Although several studies have assessed the image of Gypsies in European print and
broadcast media (Breary, 2001; Fawn, 2001; Erjavec, 2001), there has been very little written
about the presence of Gypsies in movies. This paper does not aim at an exhaustive and
positivist analysis of all films made after 1989 featuring Gypsies, but it will take an
interpretive approach as it focuses on two European movies. These movies were selected for
two reasons: first, they feature Gypsies as main characters. Second, they depict rich social and
cultural contexts, while using stereotypes in different ways to portray their main characters.
The goal of this article is two-fold: it will aim first to assess the stereotype use in
these movies. Second, through the analysis of stereotype use, it will attempt an interpretation
of both films from the perspective of ideological theory in film. Both feature films were made
after the fall of the Iron Curtain. The films are Time of the Gypsies (Emir Kusturica, 1989)
and Gadjo Dilo (Trans. The Crazy Stranger, Tony Gatlif, 1997).
This interpretive study starts from the assumption that stereotyping is a tool used in
the film world and in mass media in general to provide a set of symbols that culturally diverse
audiences can comprehend (Hayward, 1996). Through the use of conventions and stereotypes,
films can be understood and appreciated not only by the audience of one country or
community, but also by audiences in other countries. At the same time, stereotyping seems
hardly avoidable, since the narrative process usually involves a process of selection,
simplification and codification. As Douglas Kellner (1999) noted, Films take the raw material of social history and of social discourse and process
them into products which are themselves historical events and social forces. Films
can provide information about the “psychology” of an era and its tensions, conflicts,
fears, and fantasies, but it does so not as a simple representation or mirroring of an
extra-cinematic social reality. Rather, films refract social discourses and content into
specifically cinematic forms which engage audiences in an active process of
constructing meaning. (p.3)
Directing a movie is a constant decision-making process in terms of what to include
and what to leave out. As a communication medium, film also allows for various, creative
ways of story telling, while being able to exert a cultural pressure on the audience as well. As
Giannetti (2002) pointed out, "ideology is another system in film, albeit an often disguised
language that often speaks in codes" (p. 417).
This paper will interpret the ideological content and cinematographic techniques of
two European films featuring Gypsy characters from the perspective of ideological film
theory in the attempt to answer the following questions: What stereotypes have been used to
portray Gypsies in two movies where the plot focuses on their social life? How does the use of
stereotypes influence the ideological outcome of the film?
Tony Gatlif was born in Algeria in 1948 of Algerian and Gypsy parents and later
moved to France (his real name is Michel Dahmani). Some of his films [Swing (2002), Gadjo
Dilo (1997), Latcho Drom (1993), Les Princes (1983)] portrayed the Roma as victims of the
gadje discrimination (gadje is the Gypsy word for the non-Gypsies) and talented musicians.
One can say that Gatlif's films of Gypsy inspiration have often shown a political agenda and
have provided the Western World with a view inside the life of the Gypsies (Devi, 1997;
Fuller, 1998). His films have often incorporated ideological protest against the marginality of
the Gypsies, encouragement to become familiar with their culture, and insight into the
destructive impact of ethnic conflicts; Gadjo Dilo (1997) is the perfect illustration of that
perspective. Some critics (Devi, 1997; Fuller, 1998) talk about Gatlif in terms of a Gypsy
auteur, since three of his films form a “Gypsy trilogy” (Les Princes, 1983; Latcho Drom,
1993, and Gadjo Dilo, 1997). In many of his films, Tony Gatlif was simultaneously involved
in several sectors of the film work: script writing, casting, directing, producing, or supervising
the music.
Emir Kusturica (born in Sarajevo, Bosnia in 1955) is better known by the American
audience for Underground (1995) and Arizona Dream (1992). In Europe, he became famous
in mid ‘80s with Do You Remember Dolly Bell? (prizewinner at the Venice Film Festival,
1981) and When Father Was Away On Business (best-film at Cannes, 1985). Both Time of the
Gypsies (1989) and Black Cat, White Cat (1998) have their plots built around Gypsy life in
former Yugoslavia, under the economic and social pressure brought by the fall of the
communist structures and the difficulties under new born market economy.
Although not a Gypsy himself, Kusturica has a special appreciation of outsiderness.
As Horton (2000) noted for Central Europe Review, his Gypsy films draw on his childhood
lived in "a sprawling near-shanty-town of a suburb at the edge of multi-ethnic Sarajevo."
According to the interview, Kusturica considered himself lucky to have grown up among the
Roma who “started drinking earlier than us, they started sleeping with girls earlier than we did.
So, every spiritual process that every man has to go through they had instantly and with no
problems" (Horton, 2000, para 5).
Method
The theoretical pillars of this paper are the socio-psychological theory of stereotypes
and the ideological theory in film. The unit of analysis will be the stereotype, defined as “a set
of beliefs about the personal attributes of a social group. First, this paper will analyze what
stereotypes have been used in the two movies and secondly how they are shown on the screen
(content and form).
The Roma linguist Ian Hancock (1987) identified a few negative stereotypes used in
nineteenth and twentieth century American media, such as baby theft, stealing, carefree
wandering, Gypsy men as sexual threat to non-Gypsy women, and lack of political and
religious causes. Gypsies have also developed certain stereotypes about the non-Gypsies, the
gadje. Fraser (1995), Crowe (1991, 1994), Barany (2002), and Stewart (1997) studied Roma
and found that the Gypsies often view the gadje negatively as oppressive, domineering,
source of trouble, easy victims of Gypsy cunning, or sometimes positively as trustworthy, but
most significantly, the gadje are considered impure because they don't respect the Gypsy code
of hygiene—marimé.
In the process of assessing the stereotypes, I will look at how both groups (minority
and majority) are represented in: details or simplified? How complex are the relationships
between the two groups: adverse, neutral, or cooperative? What are the cultural elements used
to stereotype the Gypsy group?
To assess the levels of ideology I will use the classifications provided by Prince
(1997) and Giannetti (2002) and I will also look at the cinematic procedures (the use of
camera, light, editing and sound) that the film crew has employed to build a certain tone and
make the ideological message readable.
Literature Review
The study of stereotypes :
Ashmore and Del Boca (1981) define a stereotype as “a set of beliefs about the
personal attributes of a social group” (p. 16). There are three orientations within stereotype
theory: sociocultural, psychodynamic, and cognitive. According to the sociocultural
orientation, which is most relevant for this paper, the main function of the stereotypes is to
facilitate the manifestation of cultural values and to specify the nature of various social groups.
In this functionalist view, stereotypes support norms about how these groups and individual
group members are expected to behave and how they should be treated. The assumptions
behind this orientation are dichotomous in nature: first, that society is characterized by
consensus and “individual conduct is determined by institutionalized patterns” (Ashmore &
Del Boca, 1981, p. 23) and second, that society is formed by groups with different values and
these groups compete with each other. The research done under this orientation focuses on
level of agreement among a group of perceivers on the characteristics of a targeted social
group. According to the same orientation, at the societal level, stereotypes also serve a valueexpressive function. For example, negative images about the dirty migratory Gypsy caravans
reinforce the cultural values of the stable populations concerning stability, comfort and
neatness. Katz & Braly (1933) were the first to do research in the sociocultural direction,
especially with their work on prejudices. Later, Gilbert (1951), Fishman (1956), Gardner,
Rodensky & Kirby (1970), Bowker & Carrier (1976). Bargh (1989, 1997) and others made
relevant contributions to the study of stereotypes.
The second orientation within stereotype theory, the psychodynamic approach, is
based on Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and explains social phenomena in terms of
psychological factors. Underlying this orientation are two major assumptions: first, human
psychic and behavior are assumed to be intrapsychically determined. Second, the most
important features of adult personality are believed to be determined by the manner in which
the individual resolves the psychological conflicts that arise in the first years of life.
According to Ashmore and Del Boca (1981), this theoretical orientation views human beings
as “closed energy systems propelled by unconscious sexual and aggressive drives” (p. 27).
Stereotypes are developed in the process of developing and strengthening one’s identity,
through defense mechanisms like displacement and projection (e.g., outgroup hostility,
prejudices). In other words, people develop stereotypes as a response to their social fears in an
attempt to select who can be a friend and who cannot.
The cognitive orientation, like the psychodynamic one, focuses on action at the
individual level, rather than the social. The assumptions used in this orientation find their root
in the definition of stereotype as a “normal” cognitive structure, falling under the
imperfections and limitations of the human mind, as any other piece of information.
Lippmann (1922) was the first one to point out that reality is too complex to be fully
comprehended and responded to, which is why people tend to simplify and categorize. The
act of categorization is fundamental to the cognitive approach of the stereotyping process.
When we categorize, “we do not stereotype a person, we stereotype a person-as-a-member-ofa-group” (Taylor, 1981, p. 96). Gordon Allport (1954) agreed with Lippmann that
stereotyping is the result of normal cognitive processes. He suggested that the primary basis
for categorization is a perceived similarity-dissimilarity; for instance, objects are grouped on
basis of similarity of function or appearance. Stereotypes, both benign and pernicious, evolve
to describe categories of people, just as balls are characterized as round. An important finding
in the stereotype literature is that once people are categorized into ingroups or outgroups,
ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination often result (Billig, 1976; Fiske; 1998). The
three different perspectives of stereotype theory do not exclude each other, but rather build on
each other.
The Automaticity Theory developed by Posner and Snyder (1975) and refined by
Bargh (1989, 1997) is very important for the study of stereotypes. It postulates that
stereotypes have all the ingredients of an automatic process. A stereotype, once it is formed, is
automatically activated when the stimulus is present. In other words, people may not even
have the intention to stereotype, but their mind does it for them. The good news is that the
default process can be adjusted or corrected “in a second effortful processing stage–only if the
person has the time, attentional capacity and interest in doing so” (Higgins & Kruglanski,
1996, p. 173).
Despite some positive stereotypes (e.g., Gypsies have a natural talent for music), the
stereotypes about Gypsies are overwhelmingly negative. The dominant groups in Eastern
Europe regard Gypsies as uneducated, conniving, dirty, and lazy (Hancock, 1987).
Identification of a Gypsy is made by physical appearance (e.g., dark skin and hair), attire (e.g.,
women wear the traditional Kaldarashi costume with multiple colorful aprons and hair
separated in braids decorated with coins) or language spoken (Romanes, the language spoken
by Roma in Eastern Europe).
The Ideological Theory in Film
The ideological theory in film has been used to analyze the ideological elements,
contexts and effects of films in society, more precisely the political and socio-psychological
implications of film representations. Its basic assumption originates with Plato’s dialogues
that representation conceals a gap between art and life.
The problem of representation is central to ideological theory, as films may promote,
entrench, or mask dominant ideologies embedded in certain rhetorical practices. In other
words, almost willy-nilly each cultural product radiates ideology, and it is even more so in
film for two reasons: first, inevitably each frame carries an ideological message as it conceals
the gap between art and life. Second, films are the product of a group of people (not just an
individual) who can consciously leave their ideological mark on the final product. Jarvie
(1978) points out that "movies are sensitive to the national mood for simple reasons. They are
not created by a single individual with a camera. They are created at all stages by a group" (p.
104). Equally important, they are created for a group-the audience. The world of film comes
into existence only when it is seen by a group of people. If that audience is perceptively
educated, it takes only a few suggestive strokes to suggest an atmosphere or a specific genre
(e.g., western or samurai movies). This is where the use of conventions or stereotypes comes
into play. Carried over from previously popular theater genres like melodrama and Vaudeville,
stereotypes began to be used in film to help the audience understand the narrative.
Economically speaking, a typified character was in no need of elaborated construction. Like
writers, film creators have an audience (or several) in mind. Jarvie (1970) thinks that “the
really successful creator knows or feels something that is shared by several publics" (p. 105).
Film theorists have tried to establish criteria that would categorize the ideological
content of a film in a manner that could be used in any process of movie interpretation. They
have established as point of reference the dominant ideology existent in society at the time
when the film has been produced and from here films could basically promote or oppose that
ideology, in various degrees of intensity. Comolli and Narboni (1969) emphasized the
relationship between economics and ideology. “Because every film is part of the economic
system it is also a part of the ideological system, for ‘cinema’ and ‘art’ are branches of
ideology” (p. 754).
Like Jarvie (1970) and Monaco (2000), Comolli and Narboni (1969) consider every
film to be political. In their view, the art of cinema is even more under the power of ideology,
“because unlike other arts or ideological systems its very manufacture mobilizes powerful
economic forces” (p. 754). Since making a movie is generally expensive and its success
depends ultimately on consumers who agree to pay for the ticket, film walks a very delicate
path. Comolli and Narboni (1969) identified seven possible ideological degrees in films
ranging from those productions “imbued through and through with the dominant ideology in
pure form, that give no indication that their makers were even aware of the fact,” to films
“where the director is not satisfied with the idea of the ‘camera seeing through appearances,’
but attacks the basic problem of depiction by giving an active role to the concrete stuff of his
film” (p. 758). It seems that the authors put great emphasis on the ideological degree of both
the signified (message/topic) and the signifiers (the cinematic means used to build the
message). For them, a movie that wishes to contradict the dominant ideology does not
accomplish its mission unless both levels of meaning construction challenge the traditional
modes of depiction.
In a simpler manner, Prince (1997) classifies the presence of ideology in films as
direct or first-order (with overt ideological messages), and indirect or second-order (with
implicit, subtle social messages). A similar classification is offered by Giannetti (2002) where
he discusses three levels of ideologies: neutral (e.g., escapist films and light entertainment
movies where issues of right and wrong are treated superficially, with no analysis), implicit
(where conflicting value systems are represented, but they are not dwelled on) and explicit (as
in patriotic films, or many documentaries).
Prince (1997) also elaborates on a second important component of ideological
critique—the point of view. A film can be explicitly or implicitly ideological, but the point of
view can establish the position towards that ideology. He discusses three possible positions:
"the ideological support," when the film supports and promotes the dominant ideology; "the
ideological critique," when the film offers a critical view of the established values, and "the
ideological incoherence," when the film offers “an ideological mix meant to produce an
ambiguous product that would attract as many members of the targeted audiences as possible
while offending as few as possible” (Prince, 1997, p. 359). It is through the last three
classifications (Comolli & Narboni, 1969; Prince, 1997; Giannetti, 2002) that I am going to
interpret the two movies selected for my analysis.
Gadjo Dilo (Gatlif, 1997)
In this film, Gatlif’s primary goal was to show Gypsies “as they really are.” He wrote:
It took me fifteen years to accomplish this film trilogy. The more I shot the Gypsies,
the more I discovered I didn’t know about them. I wanted to put myself in their shoes,
so I kept living with them. I wanted to free myself of the nasty look of outsiders, who
kept telling me stupid things about Gypsies. (Gatlif quoted in Peary, 1998, para 3)
Gadjo Dilo, the final film of the trilogy, presents the story of a young Parisian man
(Stéphane) arriving in a Gypsy village in Romania searching for a Gypsy female singer, Nora
Luca. He has an audiotape with her songs from his father, who was also fascinated by her
music. The village he enters on a gray winter evening is located in a flat and cold plain. The
first person he encounters is Izidor, a Gypsy man whose son had just been arrested by the
Romanian police earlier that day. Izidor takes Stéphane to his modest home and adopts him,
presenting him to the village as the foreigner who wants to learn the Romani language (the
Romani language is the Romanes spoken by the Roma and is different from the Romanian
language spoken by Romanians). Thus Stéphane begins a process of integration and learning
about Gypsy life, language and community that will change him fundamentally over the
winter and spring that follow. The love story with Sabina brings Stéphane even closer to the
Gypsies.
The film tells the story from the point of view of Stéphane, a Westerner integrating
relatively easily within the Gypsy community. Thus, the Western audience finds it easier to
identify with Stéphane, as his reactions could be their reactions. As he becomes more and
more naturalized in the Gypsy community, the identification later includes the Roma, and
when the climax arrives—the ethnic conflict between Romanians and the Gypsies—the
viewer sees it through the desperate eyes of both Stéphane and the Roma.
The plot takes a quick turn when Izidor's son is liberated from prison. After the
Gypsy village is burned to the ground and Izidor’s son is burned alive, nothing is as it used to
be. Stéphane's action in the end, when in a Roma-like ritual he burns the tapes he had
recorded for several months as carefully as an ethnographer, becomes a value statement directed at the non-Gypsy audience. Stéphane realizes that he had acted like a tourist in search
of souvenirs trying to capture the Gypsy song and culture on tape. The striking tragedy of the
ethnic conflict shows him the superficiality of his attitude—looking for the exotic in a
community that has pains and tragedies which cannot be recorded on tape.
In the beginning of the film Izidor gives Stéphane a ride to his home in his cart.
Hospitable, Izidor lets Stéphane sleep in his one-room house on the bed, while he goes to
sleep in the barn. The next morning, the entire village gathers at Izidor’s windows to see the
“crazy stranger” (dilo in Romani language means crazy and also foolish). They look at his
torn shoes and categorize him as a “bum.” As Stéphane stands in the door’s frame, the Roma
surround him with suspicion. Stéphane smiles and walks away. One Gypsy goes into the
house to check whether he had stolen something, and a Gypsy woman asks ironically “What’s
there to steal? The fire in the chimney?” Thus the viewer finds out that this Gypsy community
is quite poor, after already receiving similar clues: muddy roads, poor improvised tents and
houses built with wood and mud bricks. It is also interesting to note that the suspicion toward
the stranger is the same suspicion that Gypsies receive every day from the gadje. Another
woman warns that nobody should go in the house after the foreigner had slept there, as he
might have left a curse behind. This is the marimé code of Gypsy culture. According to this
Gypsy code, if a non-Gypsy sleeps in a Gypsy bed, the sheets will have to be thoroughly
washed and disinfected.
One of the next shots focuses on Sabina at the entrance of a tent watching the Gypsy
confusion about the stranger, while holding a baby (not hers) in her arms and smoking. She is
dressed as Roma women from the Kaldarashi tribe as they usually are in Romania–with long,
colorful multi-layered aprons, her long dark hair covered by a scarf signifying her
matrimonial status. She has a silver tooth, which in the Gypsy culture is considered jewelry,
and a sign of richness. Her status in the village is special. We learn that after spending some
time in Belgium with her husband and making a living as a dancer, she left him and returned
to her father’s house alone. She is considered a “slut” because she has no husband and no
children.
Perhaps it is worth mentioning here that Rona Hartner won the best actress prize at
Lucarno for her interpretation of Sabina. The Romanian actress Rona Hartner and the French
actor Romaine Duris (Stéphane) are the only professional actors used in the film. Izidor, the
third main character, is a real Gypsy from the region of Transylvania (Romania) who had
never acted before.
In an interview for the Boston Phoenix, Gatlif said: “When we shot, many of the
crew were scared of catching lice and fleas. But Rona lived with the Gypsy women in their
tent, held their babies. The more she did it, the more she was a true Gypsy” (Peary, 1998).
Tony Gatlif’s love for realism is obvious in this statement. He put all his knowledge about
Gypsy traditions and culture in this film and he paid special attention to what he considered
true Gypsiness. What makes a true Gypsy?—we may ask. From Gatlif’s perspective, a Gypsy
is somebody who can be recognized as such on the screen. Rona Hartner confessed in one of
her interviews that Gatlif wanted non-professional actors as examples. He was looking at them and then
to me and would say ‘You’re not a Gypsy yet’ and I didn’t understand what he
wanted. He’d say, ‘No, no, no, I don’t want a character, I want you to be yourself
because you have enough gypsy in you.' (Kaufman, 1998, para 4 )
Worthy of emphasize here is that the search process in which Gatlif engaged Hartner—to
search for the Gypsy in her—comprises a selection and simplification that may have
something in common with the formation of stereotypes. As Hartner confessed, it was a
difficult, mentally painful process that required her to learn a great deal about the Gypsy life,
language and dance.
Gatlif did not portray Gypsies and Romanians one-sidedly or idealistically. Although
the movie underlies an ethnic conflict between the two ethnic groups, not all Romanians are
bad and not all Gypsies are good. In the geography of the film, the Romanian pub becomes
the place where ethnic tensions can be expressed in the form of jokes, ironies or fights,
because it is the only place where the two neighboring groups meet. When the bartender asks
maliciously if there are many Gypsies in France, Izidor answers emphatically on behalf of his
friend, saying that there are a lot of Gypsies in France—colonels, lawyers, doctors:
In France, nobody calls the Gypsies thieves. No one points their finger at them in
France! They travel where they want in their houses on wheels. They repair
everything–radios, television they make saucepans, wagons. Everyone loves them
because on this Earth no one works as well as they do.
This is where all the Romanians at the tables begin to laugh ironically at Izidor’s
utopian peroration. One Romanian speaks out and shatters Izidor’s fantasy: “You should go
there, too. You and your whole family.” Behind the clown-like act of Izidor, the viewer
perceives the nostalgia of a dream world where Gypsies do not suffer from discrimination and
enjoy a better life and most importantly respect from other groups.
On the way back to the village, the two try to teach each other their own languages.
Izidor tells him how to say “children” in Romanes, and Stéphane teaches him how to say
“Paris,” “Mon cher,” “My mother is a steward,” and then “Le Pen,” “Le Pen is a
motherfucker” in French. Izidor imitates every word and the effect is comic. Le Pen is a
French extreme right politician who promotes harsh policies against minorities living in
France, Gypsies included. The political message “Le Pen is a motherfucker” uttered by Izidor
who does not even know what he just said could be seen as a form of Gypsy mockery–the
ultimate resort to the symbolic energy of words from the author of the script, Gatlif, a Gypsy
himself. The statement also hints at the idea that Gypsies seem to have a Le Pen everywhere.
The spectator is drawn into the Gypsy culture at the same time as Stéphane. We learn
from Stéphane’s mistakes. When he wants to surprise Izidor by cleaning his house, Izidor gets
mad and asks him if he has turned into a woman. We learn that Gypsy society is rigidly
patriarchal.
The village that the Romanians burn down was a reconstruction designed by the
architect working with Gatlif. Still the Roma that were present at the scene began shouting
and protesting at the Romanian actors spreading the flames, as if it was a real event (Peary,
1998). Working with Roma proved to be an unusual experience for the actors and the crew.
Rona Hartner remembered that,
There was this scene where everybody was screaming “the Frenchman is going to
steal our children,” Tony Gatlif had to stop them, because they really wanted to fight.
He had to stop scenes all the time. . . . In one scene, my father in the movie was
telling me that I shouldn’t be with the Frenchman and he had to scream at me. Gatlif
didn’t put it into the movie, but the father really hit me. He hurt me. The women
saved me. They were all very involved. (Kaufman, 1998, para 9)
The Roma played themselves truthfully and with little theatricality. While Gatlif employed
Gypsies as actors for the sake of truthfulness, he also had to deal with their deep
psychological and ideological involvement in the movie.
Tony Gatlif is very careful to make his ideological position clear. It is no secret that
he wants to become the advocate of the Gypsies:
I fight for the image of the Gypsy people who, ever since they arrived in Europe,
were blamed for all the vices and sins. … What I like doing, and what I have always
done, is not taking the viewer by the hand, but invite him in the house without
cleaning it in advance. (Vigo, 1998, para 2)
The images seem to invite the viewer into the Gypsy world without attracting too
much attention to the camera techniques. Eric Guichard was responsible for the documentarylike images, with long takes, realistic shots of the set and minimal movement. One of the few
times when the camera drew attention to itself was when it tracked the two naked lovers
running through the woods. The same angle, technique and high speed of the camera are used
in a later scene where Gypsies run from the burned village through the same woods, building
a parallel effect. Also, Gatlif is careful in his use of framing to provide visual equality to
Stéphane and his Gypsy friends. When Izidor and Stéphane are together they fill equal
amounts of space on the screen.
The editing done by Monique Dartow seems to have as its only purpose to advance
the narrative, creating a realistic impression of time and space. The visual style is naturalistic,
employing continuity editing and a linear narrative structure where events follow each other
on a cause and effect relationship. It should be noted that Gadjo Dilo has a noncinematic
referent in the real ethnic conflicts that occurred in Romania and Czech Republic after 1990
(Fawn, 2001; Barany, 2002).
In terms of stereotype use, I have observed several stereotypes serving to identify
members of a certain group, ranging from costumes to behaviors. Gypsies are identified
through their costumes (especially the women’s colorful skirts and scarves), their jewelry (the
opulent golden rings on one Gypsy’s hands, or the coins in the women's braids and necklaces)
and their language (it is in the name of authenticity that the Gypsy characters speak their
native language).
One can say that the Romanian collective character defines itself solely through the
opposition towards the Gypsy group. We see no glimpse into the daily life of a Romanian.
The relationship between the two groups is tense from the beginning of the movie (Adriani’s
arrest) until the end (the accidental murder triggering the violent reaction of the Romanians).
In a way, Romanians are much more stereotyped and oversimplified than Gypsies in Gatlif’s
movie. They appear rude, aggressive, and xenophobic in comparison with the Gypsy group
that is sensitive, circumspect but hospitable, and culturally rich.
Some of the negative stereotypes about Gypsies that the movie reinforces relate to
education (illiteracy), conniving and violent behavior, sexual directness (apparent in the
vulgar language used by Sabina, or when Izidor asks Sabina for “a little fuck”). The language
use deserves separate attention, because the same vulgarity used in different contexts acquires
different meanings. First, the vulgar language addressed to the non-Gypsies is a weapon of
mockery and rejection (for example, in the opening scene where Stéphane meets the cart with
the Gypsy women who mock him in Romanes). Second, when addressed to other Gypsies it
feels like tender mockery, done with friendship (e.g., when Sabina encourages Stéphane to
insult Izidor in Romanes instead of a salute). Finally, vulgarity becomes the language of seduction in the love scene between Sabina and Stéphane, to such a degree that it leads Sabina
to bite into a tree.
According to the Comolli and Narboni’s classification (1969), Gadjo Dilo falls under
the category of
films which attack their ideological assimilation on two fronts.
First, by direct
political action, on the level of the ‘signified,’ that is, they deal with a directly
political subject. ‘Deal with’ is here intended in an active sense: they do not just
discuss an issue, reiterate it, paraphrase it, but use it to attack the ideology. (p. 757)
On the level of form (signifiers), Gadjo Dilo breaks from the ideological filter of narrative
traditions by not putting an emphasis on formal beauty and classical dramaturgy. Instead of
using professional actors, the movie used real Gypsies speaking Romanes, the unpopular
language of the Gypsy minority. The movie goes beyond the general stereotypes about
Gypsies (as talented musicians, poor, uneducated, careless people).
The signified, the final message and feeling of the movie, is opposed to the dominant
ideology as well, as it sends the message that Roma people should be treated as equal human
beings. The ideological effect is beneficial for the Roma precisely because they are portrayed
as complex individuals with multiple strengths and weaknesses.
Following Prince’s classification, Gadjo Dilo reflects a first order ideology. One
could see only five minutes of the film, thirty minutes of it or the entire film and still conclude
that the film “perspires” ideological messages through all its pores. Applying Prince’s point of
view criterion, I found that in Gadjo Dilo the "ideological critique" is present, since the film
offers a radical critique of the dominant ideology of discrimination.
The Western viewers for whom the film was designed seemed to have liked the film.
At the box office, Gadjo Dilo surpassed the results of the two previous films by Gatlif (Latcho
Drom, 1993 and Mondo, 1994). At the Locarno film festival, three thousand people stood up
and gave the director ten minutes of applause.
Subtle camera techniques used in Gadjo Dilo, like close-ups, long shots and framing
bring the Gypsies closer than the gadje viewers have ever been to a Gypsy. The identification
that occurs between the non-Gypsy viewer and the Gypsy characters could potentially take the
viewer’s mind beyond the well-known negative stereotypes about Gypsies. Thus a chance of
revisiting and perhaps altering one’s stereotypes is born.
Time of the Gypsies (Kusturica, 1989)
Emir Kusturica is one of the best known contemporary directors from former
Yugoslavia. As mentioned in the introduction, almost every film he made received awards at
a major film festival in Europe. The aesthetic pleasure and surprise in his films is built by a
careful dosage of naturalism and magic realism that critics say resembles the novels of the
South-American writers Mario Vargas Llosa and Gabriel Garcia Marquez ( Dieckmann, 1997;
Kuzmanovich, 1993; Horton, 1992).
Time of the Gypsies had an interesting fate. After winning Kusturica the best director
award at Cannes in 1989 and enjoying the financial support of Columbia Pictures, it was
quickly discarded by Puttnam’s successor at Columbia studios, Dawn Steel. Dieckmann (1997)
quotes Steel saying:
What I didn’t know [coming in] was that there were many movies in production that
were esoteric, uncommercial, and in languages other than English. In fact, one was Serbo--Croatian, a language so obscure that it had to be subtitled in its native
Yugoslavia! (p. 44)
Steel’s statement is not entirely correct, because the language used in the movie is actually
Romanes (the Gypsy language in Eastern Europe) with Serbo-Croatian influences.
Time of the Gypsies is not about the relationships between a Gypsy minority and the
gadje majority, but about the existing hierarchies and conflicts within the Gypsy minority.
The gadje are barely included in short sequences as a doctor and a nurse in a hospital in
Ljubliana, Italian police officers, or people in the squares of Italian cities. The movie
demolishes the myth of cohesive and harmonious Gypsy groups and helps the viewer better
understand the economic and social mechanisms at work in that part of Europe. If in Gatlif’s
movie the viewer gets only rare glimpses into the economic relationships among the Gypsies,
in Kusturica’s film, it is all about power dynamics and the struggle to access resources.
Perhan, the main character (played by Davor Dujmovic), is an orphan Gypsy
teenager, an accordion player with telekinetic capacities and a candid soul. He lives with his
grandmother, his sister Danira and his uncle Merdzan. Their income comes from occasional
sale of limestone to villagers and his grandmother’s healing capacities. Danira has a crippled
leg by birth and deals with daily physical pain. Merdzan is a womanizer and a compulsive
gambler who keeps dreaming about going to Germany. The third important feminine
character in Perhan’s life is his sweetheart, Azra. Unfortunately, his repeated marriage
proposals are invariably rejected by Azra’s mother, who believes that his poverty makes him
unsuitable.
The scene where the mafia boss Ahmed (Bora Todorovic) arrives in the village
brings the first clue that dignity and self-reliance represent the psychological stake of the
movie. Villagers, including Merdzan who is overwhelmed with gambling debts, surround his
car complimenting Ahmed, kissing his hand, and asking for money, which he grandiloquently
gives away. When Perhan’s grandmother cures Ahmed’s son, they strike a deal; Ahmed
agrees to take Danira to a hospital in Ljubliana and pay all medical costs. Perhan decides to
accompany his sister and promises to never leave her alone. Soon, as the car driving them to
Ljubliana picks up children sold by their families to become Ahmed’s beggars and prostitutes,
Perhan and Danira realize what Ahmed’s business is. Forced to leave his sister alone in the
hospital, Perhan accompanies Ahmed to Italy. Once they arrive in the windswept trailer camp
outside Milan, Ahmed’s band gets to “work” under the direct and abusive supervision of
Ahmed and his two brothers. After repeated physical abuse and threats that Danira would not
get the operation she needs, Perhan becomes Ahmed’s slave and specializes in breaking into
houses. Perhan is also lured with the promise that Ahmed’s people are building a house for
him and Azra back home. Ahmed leads his band with a combination of empty promises and
iron fists. However, the dynamic of the group is not perfect. Ahmed suffers a stroke that
leaves him partially paralyzed. His two brothers desert him, taking most of the “slaves” with
them. Perhan stays with Ahmed and becomes his right hand. Ahmed sends him back to
Bosnia to buy more children and to bring him another wife, and Perhan uses the opportunity
to go back to his village only to find Azra pregnant, apparently by his uncle Merdzan.
Perhan
refuses to be persuaded by Azra that the child is his. Despite this, Perhan decided to marry
Azra but with the understanding that he will sell the “bastard” child in Italy. He also finds out
that the house Ahmed had promised to build for him does not exist. Things get worse for
Perhan in Italy, where Azra gives birth to a boy, only to die immediately after the delivery,
while still dressed in her wedding gown. In Ljubliana, Perhan finds out that his sister Danira The scene where the mafia boss Ahmed (Bora Todorovic) arrives in the village
brings the first clue that dignity and self-reliance represent the psychological stake of the
movie. Villagers, including Merdzan who is overwhelmed with gambling debts, surround his
car complimenting Ahmed, kissing his hand, and asking for money, which he grandiloquently
gives away. When Perhan’s grandmother cures Ahmed’s son, they strike a deal; Ahmed
agrees to take Danira to a hospital in Ljubliana and pay all medical costs. Perhan decides to
accompany his sister and promises to never leave her alone. Soon, as the car driving them to
Ljubliana picks up children sold by their families to become Ahmed’s beggars and prostitutes,
Perhan and Danira realize what Ahmed’s business is. Forced to leave his sister alone in the
hospital, Perhan accompanies Ahmed to Italy. Once they arrive in the windswept trailer camp
outside Milan, Ahmed’s band gets to “work” under the direct and abusive supervision of
Ahmed and his two brothers.
After repeated physical abuse and threats that Danira would not
get the operation she needs, Perhan becomes Ahmed’s slave and specializes in breaking into
houses. Perhan is also lured with the promise that Ahmed’s people are building a house for
him and Azra back home. Ahmed leads his band with a combination of empty promises and
iron fists. However, the dynamic of the group is not perfect. Ahmed suffers a stroke that
leaves him partially paralyzed. His two brothers desert him, taking most of the “slaves” with
them. Perhan stays with Ahmed and becomes his right hand. Ahmed sends him back to
Bosnia to buy more children and to bring him another wife, and Perhan uses the opportunity
to go back to his village only to find Azra pregnant, apparently by his uncle Merdzan. Perhan
refuses to be persuaded by Azra that the child is his. Despite this, Perhan decided to marry
Azra but with the understanding that he will sell the “bastard” child in Italy. He also finds out
that the house Ahmed had promised to build for him does not exist. Things get worse for
Perhan in Italy, where Azra gives birth to a boy, only to die immediately after the delivery,
while still dressed in her wedding gown. In Ljubliana, Perhan finds out that his sister Danira
In one of the first scenes in the movie the village fool, a man escaped from a mental
hospital, looks straight into the camera and says:
They want to clip my wings. What’s a spirit without wings? My soul is free. Free as
a bird. . . . When God came down to earth, he couldn’t deal with the Gypsies and
took the next flight back. Not my fault.
This is the only character that looks straight at the camera, and the viewer understands that the
fool “spoke the truth,” giving the key to the interpretation of the narrative. Perhan’s death is
the end of an angelic and innocent soul who tried to deal with the Gypsies from inside the
group and lost.
Several magic scenes that defy physical reality weave seamlessly in and out more
realistic ones creating a hypnotic effect: the flying bridal veil, levitation of objects and people,
walking carton boxes that serve as toys for Gypsy children or as hiding places for adults.
Kusturica is not a fan of close-ups. He prefers deep-focus shots where he can
manipulate multiple elements like in Italian neo-realist movies. The camera is used with
creativity and imagination—we see low angle shots, high angle shots, tracking shots, used
with more audacity than in Gadjo Dilo. These are some reasons why critics describe his style
as “magic realism” (Cannon, 1998; Dieckmann, 1997; Kuzmanovich, 1993; Horton, 1992).
Another major difference between the two movies is that Time of the Gypsies
condenses stereotypes at the level of individual characters rather than groups. Perhan’s
transformation, for instance, is visible at the level of his physical appearance. At the
beginning, while he is under Grandma’s wing, he looks childish, wearing a colorful hat,
sweats and thick-framed glasses with a white patch on one lens to stimulate a lazy eye. In
Italy, as his dignity and ideals go down, his appearance goes up. Towards the end, he looks
like a young mafia boss. Still, the spectator receives several clues that Perhan’s kindness and
sensitivity are not totally compromised. In one scene, where he breaks into a house to steal, he
takes a moment to play his favorite song at a piano in the house. Later he saves a kitten from
drowning.
Ahmed is the cunning evil-doer, a grandiloquent liar, who is ready to swear on his
life, child or bread to get what he wants. We actually notice that this kind of swearing up and
down is done by negative Gypsy characters in the film” Merdzan and Ahmed. Towards the
end of the film when Perhan swears “on my Gypsy heart” that he will reunite with his family,
the viewer gets the feeling he will not.
Grandma is a woman who has a keen sense of survival. She does not seem to dwell
much on events and their significance; unlike Perhan, she reacts fast and forgets quickly. She,
her son Merdzan and Ahmed are the three characters who do not change. Everyone else suffers a transformation: Perhan loses his dignity and innocence; Azra loves, betrays and dies;
Danira is kidnapped, forced to beg and survive among thieves, finally growing to be strong.
The duplicity and the cunning manipulation of others are old stereotypes about
Gypsies. However, in virtue of between-groups stereotypes, the non-Gypsy (gadje) viewer is
used to Gypsies using duplicity on gadje, not on other Gypsies, especially not on innocent
youth like Perhan and Danira. The feeling that something is seriously wrong in a community
that has become destructive toward itself is the main ideological message of the film. Unlike
Gatlif who was preoccupied with making Gypsies recognizable on the screen, Kusturica is
focused on showing how economical pressures alter traditions and in-group ethical standards.
In Gatlif’s films the evildoers are the discriminatory non-Gypsy people, the others, while in
Kusturica’s movie the evildoers are other Gypsies.
In Time of the Gypsies, the Gypsy group appears less traditional than the one
portrayed in Gadjo Dilo. Gypsy villagers are dressed just like rural non-Gypsies. Also, Azra
has white skin, because she comes from a marriage between a Gypsy woman and a nonGypsy man. Because her skin is white, her mother increases the bride’s price when Perhan
proposes. Besides external appearances that do not follow stereotypes, the female dominance
in the family is another non-traditional characteristic shown in film. The entire village seems
to be run by women. Azra’s father is totally subordinate to his loud wife, and when Merdzan
leaves a teenager pregnant, it is her mother who comes to Grandma to claim justice, not her
father.
There are a number of negative stereotypes used regarding the Gypsies, such as
kidnapping and exploiting children, deceitful behavior, begging and stealing. According to
Prince’s (1997) classification, I found that in Time of the Gyspies we deal with a second-order
ideology, or as Giannetti (2002) calls it, an implicit ideology. The movie, addressed primarily
to European audiences, supports the dominant ideology. What the viewer sees on the screen
are the experiences of a young Gypsy man in search of happiness and financial independence.
It is relatively easy to identify with Perhan and his experience. His hopes and good intentions
are met with injustice and crime, but this is not an exclusively Gypsy experience.
Applying Prince’s (1997) concept of ideological point of view, I found that
ideological support is manifest in the film. Time of the Gypsies supports both the dominant
ideology of the gadje media condemning the illegal and abusive activities of the Gypsies, and
the ideology of the Gypsies—expressed in their culture, language, and family relationships.
Time of the Gypsies does not attack the dominant ideology, but by simply telling a story about
Gypsies, it sends a message against the dehumanizing quality of most of the stereotypes about
Gypsies. Because of this quality, the movie could be included in the category of “films which
seem at first sight to belong firmly within the ideology and to be completely under its sway,
but which turn out to be so only in an ambiguous manner” (Comolli and Narboni, 1969, p.
754).
Conclusion
The dominant ideology has kept and still keeps Roma people at the lowest level of
the society, through a long list of negative stereotypes and active discrimination. Up to the
end of the twentieth century, cinematography tended to portray them as an exotic element in
romantic approaches, avoiding social and political issues like poverty, discrimination and
marginalization. The fall of communism marked a change, as more films dared to speak
against the dominant ideology.
This paper has examined two movies that made a step in that direction: Gadjo Dilo,
(Gatlif, 1997) and Time of the Gypsies (Kusturica, 1989). The main common element of the
two films is the search for authenticity. They featured Eastern European Gypsies from
Romania and former Yugoslavia as main characters and employed real Gypsies to play their
heroes. There are three main reasons behind the involvement the Gypsy communities in the
artistic effort: first, the number of Gypsies has increased significantly in the last 20 years,
rendering them more "visible,” especially in Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Russia,
Serbia, Hungary or Romania (Barany, 2002; Fraser, 1995). Second, the fall of communism in
1989 facilitated the political emancipation of the Gypsies, a previously silent and ignored
minority. Nowadays, there is an increasing political mobilization on the part of European
Gypsy communities (Barany, 2002). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the media have
been freed from the communist censorship and the Western and Eastern distribution networks
have enlarged and intersected their territories, thus bringing the Gypsy topic to audiences that
were not familiar with it.
This paper has examined two movies that made a step in that direction: Gadjo Dilo,
(Gatlif, 1997) and Time of the Gypsies (Kusturica, 1989). The main common element of the
two films is the search for authenticity. They featured Eastern European Gypsies from
Romania and former Yugoslavia as main characters and employed real Gypsies to play their
heroes. There are three main reasons behind the involvement the Gypsy communities in the
artistic effort: first, the number of Gypsies has increased significantly in the last 20 years,
rendering them more "visible,” especially in Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Russia,
Serbia, Hungary or Romania (Barany, 2002; Fraser, 1995). Second, the fall of communism in
1989 facilitated the political emancipation of the Gypsies, a previously silent and ignored
minority. Nowadays, there is an increasing political mobilization on the part of European
Gypsy communities (Barany, 2002). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the media have
been freed from the communist censorship and the Western and Eastern distribution networks
have enlarged and intersected their territories, thus bringing the Gypsy topic to audiences that
were not familiar with it.
As mentioned previously, stereotyping involves a process of selection and suggestion
on the part of the film crew, and a process of interpretation on the part of the audience. Gypsy
viewers who experienced the events described in the films can identify with the characters. As
for the non-Gypsy viewers, the movie can offer an opportunity to learn more information
about the Romani culture and social plight. Thus, the receptive viewer may become more
sensitive to the needs of this minority. Less receptive and knowledgeable viewers may just
find their stereotypes reinforced.
Movies like Gadjo Dilo and Time of the Gypsies teach us that cinema can constitute
a place where conflicting ethnic groups could meet at the imaginary level and a process of
stereotype change could be initiated. Movies have the power to create a cultural space where
an elementary respect for dignity, solidarity and human rights can be learned and internalized
by both Gypsies and gadje.
References
Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and
stereotyping. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.). Cognitive processes in stereotyping and
intergroup behavior (pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Adison-Wesley.
Barany, Z. (2002). The East European Gypsies – Regime change, marginality, and
ethnopolitics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bargh, J.A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social
perception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought
(pp. 3-51). N Y: Guilford.
etc.....
Just looking for the Titel of the study, and you will see there... Sorry, but I do not have time....
