When looking at all the films that have been viewed in this course, they all show a distinct linear trajectory, which is represented by the shifts in driving themes behind each of the films. One of these films that exemplifies this shift is Peter Bacso’s film, The Witness (Hungarian: A Tanú). The film was made in the years following the death of Stalin and the de-Stalinization that was going on throughout the Soviet Union at the time. Bacso’s film was initially meant to be released in 1969 but was banned and wasn’t shown until 1981 at the Cannes Film Festival. The goal of this paper is to take the readings from Rothschild and Hosking and examine how these ideas are translated into the film. The film follows Jozsef Pelikan, who is in charge of maintaining the dike, as he goes in and out of jail being placed in a number of positions for which he is not necessarily qualified. With most of these jobs, he ends up failing and getting sent back to jail only to be released again. The reason for this is so that Pelikan can be used as a witness in a show trial of an old friend of his. In the film, there are several ideas that are prevalent during the Stalinist regime, such as, show trials and the desire to undermine the Imperialism. All of which become tools that Bacso uses to mock the Stalinist regime and point out its flaws.
In the Hosking’s book, he discusses the steps that occurred during de-Stalinization. These steps included improving the living conditions for prisoners. These improvements included "bars [being] taken off the windows and the barracks [being] left unlocked at night" (Hosking 332). These changes were significant because it brought back some level of humanity to the prisoners, they were no longer kept locked away like animals. Another change that was made is the reexamination of the charges against many of the prisoners. This change is shown in Bacso’s film because, at the end of the film, Pelikan does not comply during the show trial of his friend and is imprisoned and sentenced to death. These charges all came without just cause. This was a common trend during the reign of Stalin, that anyone who was considered a political enemy or against the interest of the party would simply disappear. In the film, after the death of Stalin is announced, Pelikan and many other people in real life were released. This was done because the government in place at this time acknowledged that those people, "... had been the victims of 'legal distortion'" (Hosking 332). In Bacso’s film, this process is humorously depicted as the executioner simply tells Pelikan that he is innocent and is free to leave. In actuality, the process was not as simple and many of these overturned decisions came after the accused had died. When looking at Hosking’s book and the ideas that were presented in it, very few translated over into Bacso’s film. This was because many of the ideas that Hosking discussed in his book focused on the process that took place to transition out of the Stalinist regime. Where the film served to stand a representation of all of the issues that were present in the old Stalinist regime and highlighted what changes should occur.
The reading from Rothschild’s book examines how the ideas of communism came to Hungary later than a lot of other countries much later than others in Eastern Europe. Ideas that are shown in Bacso’s film include a focus on economic advances, particularly in agriculture and change in government. Several instances of these ideas in the film include the development of the Hungarian Orange, and how Comrade Virag loses all of his power and influence. Most of the writing in Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the role that Hungary played in Eastern Europe after the death of Stalin. It primarily focuses on the relationship between the Soviet Union and other countries such as Yugoslavia and Hungary. During the time after Stalin’s death in Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia was one driving forces behind making changes within the party. One of the main points for the Yugoslavs was that, "... questions of internal structure, differences of social systems, and differences of concrete forms in developing Socialism are exclusively a matter for the peoples of different countries" (Rothschild 119). This statement was intended to serve as a sort of mission statement. The Yugoslavs wanted it to be that while many of the countries in Eastern Europe could fall under the larger banner of a socialist nation, they were able to do so as independent entities. Bacso illustrated this desired shift in the film by the removal of Comrade Virag from his position of power within the party. Virag was the party member who befriended Pelikan and put him in these various positions. Similarly to the people of Yugoslavia, who wanted to minimize outside party influence, when Virag is fired from his position it is a representation of that idea.
In conclusion, when comparing the film and the writings from Hosking and Rothschild there are some similarities between them. Both of the readings focus on how the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were preparing to move forward after the death of Stalin. While Bacso’s film served to highlight what issues that the old Stalinist practices presented and make an attempt to raise discussions about how they should be changed. While the film does not directly reference the ideas and themes presented Hosking and Rothschild, it subtly conveys a message that things need to change in order for communism to move forward.
In the Hosking’s book, he discusses the steps that occurred during de-Stalinization. These steps included improving the living conditions for prisoners. These improvements included "bars [being] taken off the windows and the barracks [being] left unlocked at night" (Hosking 332). These changes were significant because it brought back some level of humanity to the prisoners, they were no longer kept locked away like animals. Another change that was made is the reexamination of the charges against many of the prisoners. This change is shown in Bacso’s film because, at the end of the film, Pelikan does not comply during the show trial of his friend and is imprisoned and sentenced to death. These charges all came without just cause. This was a common trend during the reign of Stalin, that anyone who was considered a political enemy or against the interest of the party would simply disappear. In the film, after the death of Stalin is announced, Pelikan and many other people in real life were released. This was done because the government in place at this time acknowledged that those people, "... had been the victims of 'legal distortion'" (Hosking 332). In Bacso’s film, this process is humorously depicted as the executioner simply tells Pelikan that he is innocent and is free to leave. In actuality, the process was not as simple and many of these overturned decisions came after the accused had died. When looking at Hosking’s book and the ideas that were presented in it, very few translated over into Bacso’s film. This was because many of the ideas that Hosking discussed in his book focused on the process that took place to transition out of the Stalinist regime. Where the film served to stand a representation of all of the issues that were present in the old Stalinist regime and highlighted what changes should occur.
The reading from Rothschild’s book examines how the ideas of communism came to Hungary later than a lot of other countries much later than others in Eastern Europe. Ideas that are shown in Bacso’s film include a focus on economic advances, particularly in agriculture and change in government. Several instances of these ideas in the film include the development of the Hungarian Orange, and how Comrade Virag loses all of his power and influence. Most of the writing in Chapters 4 and 5 focus on the role that Hungary played in Eastern Europe after the death of Stalin. It primarily focuses on the relationship between the Soviet Union and other countries such as Yugoslavia and Hungary. During the time after Stalin’s death in Eastern Europe, Yugoslavia was one driving forces behind making changes within the party. One of the main points for the Yugoslavs was that, "... questions of internal structure, differences of social systems, and differences of concrete forms in developing Socialism are exclusively a matter for the peoples of different countries" (Rothschild 119). This statement was intended to serve as a sort of mission statement. The Yugoslavs wanted it to be that while many of the countries in Eastern Europe could fall under the larger banner of a socialist nation, they were able to do so as independent entities. Bacso illustrated this desired shift in the film by the removal of Comrade Virag from his position of power within the party. Virag was the party member who befriended Pelikan and put him in these various positions. Similarly to the people of Yugoslavia, who wanted to minimize outside party influence, when Virag is fired from his position it is a representation of that idea.
In conclusion, when comparing the film and the writings from Hosking and Rothschild there are some similarities between them. Both of the readings focus on how the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were preparing to move forward after the death of Stalin. While Bacso’s film served to highlight what issues that the old Stalinist practices presented and make an attempt to raise discussions about how they should be changed. While the film does not directly reference the ideas and themes presented Hosking and Rothschild, it subtly conveys a message that things need to change in order for communism to move forward.
For a list of the sources referenced, check out our list of books here.
The Witness can be purchased from Amazon.
|