Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Zaporozhian Cossacks

Note  comment to the below:

May 29 2012 14:18 .The Zaporozhian love of freedom was, above all, an indigenous expression. While disrupted by Tsarism this impulse lived on in the soul of the Ukrainian peasantry intermittently enflamed by the agrarian disturbances of the region. In the Makhnovist context, the Zaporozhian tradition provided both a foundation and implicit rationale for the movement’s instinctual anarchism. The Makhnovist-Zaporozhian connection is not straightforward but is perhaps best conceptualized as, in the words of I. Kravchenko, a “religion of freedom." Kravchenko suggests:




This religion of freedom and instinctual anarchism was put in a glorified context with no clear conmection.The connection quite correctly is not straightforward.



The irony is that the Cossacks were absorbed by the Tsars as tools of oppression to silence and butcher the revolutionaires and used by the white army in pogroms of the Jews in Brisk in 1918 and other times during Hetman Khmelnytsky's massacres and pogroms of thousands with hatchets and clubs, so my research has indicated in the 1600s. My mother was girl of age 5 who survived these Cossacks and white Russians , if such they were in Brisk Lihuania(Belarus).Yet they valued freedom so much as anarchism tends to find romantic glory in the distant past, and to idealize that past.



Edward Yablonsky.

www.edwardsliteracylog.blogspot.com



http://libcom.org/history/makhnovists-beyond-rapids-zaporozhian-cossack-influence
Zaporozhian Cossacks.




At the Historical Musuem in Dnipropretrovsk an unassuming note dated November 27th 1919 bears the signature of Bat’ko Makhno. The note, promising security and financial assistance to the museum, was issued to the famous historian of the Zaporozhian Cossacks and then museum director Dmytro Yavornytsky. Beyond these details contained in the note the meeting of Yavornytsky and Makhno has receded into the realm of popular lore. According to legend, the Makhnovist counterintelligence came to the Yavornytsky’s home demanding he open the museum to fulfill necessary ‘contributions’. Understanding the seriousness of the situation Yavornytsky demanded an audience with Makhno who in turn requested a tour of the museum. During the tour, Makhno, quite fascinated by the exhibitions, requested an ancient Cossack drinking bottle as a present. In later renditions this bottle is described as an ‘elixir of life’ capable of giving immortality to its drinker. [12, p. 114]

Yavornytsky protested arguing the museum owned only two such artifacts. Makhno apparently responded by saying “For history one bottle of vodka is enough,” and took the bottle for himself. Makhno then asked to see the sword of a famous Hetman. Not to be fooled twice, Yavornytsky directed the Bat’ko’s attention towards a rusty artifact. In all, the visit was kindly and Makhno even refers to the director as “friend” in his security note. The following day fourteen cartloads of coal were delivered to the museum to help Yavornytsky through the winter months. As a final request Yavornytsky was asked to lecture on the Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Makhnovist army staff. Unfortunately the lecture was never held as Makhno was soon forced to evacuate the city. [5]
 
The Yavornytsky-Makhno meeting is a fascinating blend of history and folk memory illustrative of how the Zaporozhian heritage contributed to the Makhnovist identity. Arthur E. Adams writes: “Any effort to identify the motives of the peasant rebellions of 1918-1920 must begin with a consideration of the most powerful and glorious of all Ukrainian traditions—that of the Zaporozhian Cossacks.” [1, p. 249] Particularly for the peasant rank and file, their movement was intimately linked to the unique historical traditions of the Zaporozhian Host. The Zaporozhian tradition is a critical recurring theme in the Makhnovist narrative. It served as a wellspring of collective cultural memory and encouraged the social cohesion of the movement via references to a shared history, culture, and characteristic libertarian impulse.
 
Eighteenth century southern Ukraine was largely an unconquered territory. Ostensibly claimed by the Ottoman and Russian Empires, southern Ukraine in reality functioned as a grand refuge for peasants and outcasts seeking to escape the reach of lord and state. Voline writes that “thus for centuries, the Ukraine was the promised land of fugitives of every kind.” [16, p. 545] Beginning in the 15th century peasants that fled to the borderlands [ukraina] in search of ‘the free life’ [vol’nitsa] came to be called Cossacks. Derived from the south Turkic word qazak, or adventurer, in the Ukrainian context it came to refer to “the free, masterless man who lacked a well-defined place in society and who lived on its unsettled periphery.” [15, p. 108]. The Cossacks formed confraternities, or hosts, based around the Don and Dnieper rivers. These exclusively male encampments were open to all Christians irrespective of social background and members were free to leave at their own behest
The most fiercely independent of the Cossacks was the Zaporozhian Host. This group established their capital, or Sich, “beyond the rapids” [za porogy] in the islands of the lower Dnieper, near what would become the city of Alexandrovsk (modern day Zaporozhye). Voline describes the Zaporozhians as “men in love with liberty” who had “struggled for centuries against the attempts at enslavement by various neighbours.” [16, p. 544] The physical location of the host was integral to their free way of life providing a natural defence against Russians and Poles to the north and Turkic Tatars to the south. By the mid-17th century the Zaporozhians occupied an independent buffer zone in what would later become the provinces of Ekaterinoslav and Kherson. [8, p. 15] It is telling that the Zaporozhian and Makhnovist regions of influence correspond to a great extent. While the Zaporozhians were great allies in war, they were considered a disruptive presence during peacetime by the imperial powers. Frequently the Cossacks rose in rebellion, with the surrounding peasantry following suit “as if to an arranged signal.” [9, p. 181] The last centuries of Zaporozhian independence witnessed the famous Cossack rebellions of Stenka Razin, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Emelian Pugachev. The Zaporozhian Sich also served as a supply and recruitment base for the right-bank haidamaky movement in their struggle against the Polish nobility. (15, 192) Despite their resistance to all outsiders, an encroaching Russian Empire gradually eroded Cossack independence through the cooption of the leadership and the recognition of special rights in return for military service. Those who refused these terms were violently repressed. Using Pugachev’s rebellion as a pretext, Catherine the Great ordered the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed in 1775. In the process, the Zaporozhian leadership was exiled. Some relocated to the Kuban region while the remaining population was gradually enserfed.




While the Zaporozhians were great allies in war, they were considered a disruptive presence during peacetime by the imperial powers. Frequently the Cossacks rose in rebellion, with the surrounding peasantry following suit “as if to an arranged signal.” [9, p. 181] The last centuries of Zaporozhian independence witnessed the famous Cossack rebellions of Stenka Razin, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Emelian Pugachev. The Zaporozhian Sich also served as a supply and recruitment base for the right-bank haidamaky movement in their struggle against the Polish nobility. (15, 192) Despite their resistance to all outsiders, an encroaching Russian Empire gradually eroded Cossack independence through the cooption of the leadership and the recognition of special rights in return for military service. Those who refused these terms were violently repressed. Using Pugachev’s rebellion as a pretext, Catherine the Great ordered the Zaporozhian Sich destroyed in 1775. In the process, the Zaporozhian leadership was exiled. Some relocated to the Kuban region while the remaining population was gradually enserfed.


 
While never able to recover their former way of life, the spirit of volnitsa continued to flow through the veins of the toiling peasantry. Nationalist author L. Vynar, no friend to Makhno, was of the opinion that, “[Gulyai Polye's] inhabitants are mostly descendants of the old Cossack times, who have down to the present preserved the true Zaporozhian traditions.” [11, p. xx] The majority of Makhnovists descended directly from the Zaporozhians Cossacks and retained a strong cultural memory of their history through folk tales and song.




A specifically Zaporozhian tradition evolved over time, described by Adams as “a genuine egalitarianism, an anarchistic love of personal freedom that expressed itself in a profound distrust of all authority, and a proud tradition that, when a true Cossack is oppressed, he will rebel and fight with a fine disregard for consequences.” [1, p. 249] Integral to the Zaporozhian way of life was an early form of direct democracy, in which atamany [military chiefs] were elected at open councils [rady]. All Cossacks, regardless of their socioeconomic status, were free to participate in these often-boisterous elections. In contrast to their cousins on the right-bank of the Dnieper, the Zaporozhians experienced less social inequality and more restrictions on the power of their atamany in peacetime.


The Zaporozhians’ love of freedom could even extend to peoples outside their clan. In an event foreshadowing Makhnovist practices, the Zaporozhians released thousands of Turkish slaves in 1616 during a raid on Kaffa in the Crimea. [15, p. 112] All social outcasts and runaways seeking the free life were welcome to join the host. More surprisingly, and out of step with the other hosts, the Zaporozhians accepted Jews into their ranks. [9, 56] In his time Makhno would consciously adopt a policy of friendship towards Jews. The movement benefited from the participation of numerous Jewish intellectuals and ethnically Jewish battalions.




For Voline and Arshinov the influence of the Cossack heritage on the evolution of Ukrainian psychology cannot be underestimated. All three of our main sources for the Makhnovist narrative invoke Zaporozhian traditions as central to the indigenous development of the movement. Arshinov considered the presence of “the traditions of the Vol’nitsa … preserved from ancient times” as the most important Ukrainian factor facilitating the rise of the Makhnovshchina. [2, p. 50) For Voline the historical presence of the Zaporozhian tradition and its preservation in the memory of the peasantry through the years of enserfment is proof of a qualitative difference between the Ukrainian and Russian peasantry:



Certain parts of the Ukraine never allowed themselves to be wholly subjugated, as had happened in Great Russia. Their population always preserved a spirit of independence, of resistance, of popular rebellion. Relatively cultivated and refined, individualistic and capable of taking the initiative without flinching, jealous of his independence, warlike by tradition, ready to defend himself and accustomed, for centuries, to feel free and his own master, the Ukrainian was in general never subjugated to that total slavery – not only of the body but also of the spirit – characterized the population of the rest of Russia. [16, p. 544]

All factions of the civil war recognized the Makhnovshchina’s distinct Zaporozhian spirit. Anarchist Josef Gotman, remarked that, “in [Makhno’s] veins flowed the blood of Zaporog Cossack ancestors renowned for their independent spirit and fighting qualities.” [3] The White General A. Shkuro, remarked of the Makhnovists that they “take pride in calling themselves “Cossacks” and fantasize about re-establishing the Zaporozhian [Host].” Passing through Ekaterinoslav the peasants voiced their support of Makhno saying, “it doesn’t matter whether we’re Ukrainians or Russians, just that we’re Cossacks.” [13, Chapter 22] The Bolshevik Alexandra Kollontai wrote that “the village of Guylai-Polye took the form of a form of a fortified camp, reminiscent of old Zaporozhye.” [Pravda February 14, 1919, cited in 4] Likewise, during a May 1919 visit to Guylai-Polye, L. Kamenev’s assistant recalled that he felt as though he had been “transported back among the Zaporogs of the 18th century.” [cited in 14, p. 292] All levels of observers recognized the Zaporozhian influence. For example, in March 1919 the Supreme Military Inspectorate observed that, “Parts of Makhno’s army are strongly imbued with the spirit and traditions of a free Zaporozhye.” [cited in 4]




For Makhno himself, the Zaporozhian heritage was integral to his identity. He writes in his memoirs:



My mother often told me about the lives of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, about their free communes in the old days. I had once read Gogol’s novel Taras Bulba and was thrilled with the customs and traditions of the people of those times. But it never occurred to me that the day would come when I would feel myself their heir, and they would become for me a source of inspiration for the rebirth of this free country. [Makhno, A Rebellious Youth, 33]



During the agrarian disturbances of 1905 Makhno’s comrade A. Semenyuta would rally the local anarchist-communist group with the words: “A big cheer to you, children of the people, famous great-grandsons of the Cossacks!” [4] Peasant delegates from the region to the All Russian Peasant Congress in November 1905 similarly stated: “In our people there lives to this day that sense of freedom which was found among the Zaporozhian Cossacks.” [cited in 8, p. 236]

Nevertheless, Makhno was not one to romanticize the Cossack’s traditional role. He was well aware that the Cossacks over time had become “tools of the ruling class.” Makhno reflects in his memoirs:







Ever since they settled ages ago on the Don and Donetz, along the Kuban and the Terek, they had been the butchers of any attempt by labour to free itself. Yes, the Cossacks throughout their history had been the executioners for the toilers of Russia. Many of them had already realized this, but many still went to meet the revolutionary toilers with sabre and whip in hand. [10, 143].




At a February 1918 General Assembly in Gulyai-Polye Makhno describes the gathering as “truly of the old ‘Zaporozhian Sich’ as we knew it from history books” but added as a caveat that “the peasants were not as credulous as in olden times and they no longer met to discuss questions of church and faith.” [10, 174] For Makhno the Zaporozhians were a source of inspiration but not immune from criticism.



The organization of the Makhnovist army also echoed its Zaporozhian past. Military commanders at all levels were elected and commonly referred to as atamany. Likewise, according to V. Chop, Makhno’s title of Bat’ko betrays a clear Zaporozhian influence. [4] Makhno’s elite “black sotnia [hundred]” is also a traditional Zaporozhian term for a regimental unit. Additionally, many of the Makhnovists’ tactical maneuvers were distinctly Cossack.

Nevertheless, Makhno was not one to romanticize the Cossack’s traditional role. He was well aware that the Cossacks over time had become “tools of the ruling class.” Makhno reflects in his memoirs:




Ever since they settled ages ago on the Don and Donetz, along the Kuban and the Terek, they had been the butchers of any attempt by labour to free itself. Yes, the Cossacks throughout their history had been the executioners for the toilers of Russia. Many of them had already realized this, but many still went to meet the revolutionary toilers with sabre and whip in hand. [10, 143].



At a February 1918 General Assembly in Gulyai-Polye Makhno describes the gathering as “truly of the old ‘Zaporozhian Sich’ as we knew it from history books” but added as a caveat that “the peasants were not as credulous as in olden times and they no longer met to discuss questions of church and faith.” [10, 174] For Makhno the Zaporozhians were a source of inspiration but not immune from criticism.



The organization of the Makhnovist army also echoed its Zaporozhian past. Military commanders at all levels were elected and commonly referred to as atamany. Likewise, according to V. Chop, Makhno’s title of Bat’ko betrays a clear Zaporozhian influence. [4] Makhno’s elite “black sotnia [hundred]” is also a traditional Zaporozhian term for a regimental unit. Additionally, many of the Makhnovists’ tactical maneuvers were distinctly Cossack.

Despite its clear influence on the Makhnovshchina any appeal to a common Zaporozhian heritage is conspicuously absent from the movement’s propaganda. Indeed, even in a June 1920 appeal to the Don and Kuban Cossacks there is no mention of a common heritage, they are simply appealed to as labouring peoples. [2, p. 270-273] Some commentators have interpreted this as evidence that the Zaporozhian-Makhnovist connection is exaggerated, or an artificial attempt to harmonize Ukrainian history. [7, p. 526; 4] However, as is evident, participants and observers were keenly aware of the movement’s Zaporozhian inspiration. A possible explanation is that Makhnovist propaganda was commonly produced by non-peasant anarchist intellectuals. Many members of the cultural-educational department were urban Jews who would not have shared the rank-and-file peasant’s common Zaporozhian heritage. As such, the Makhnovist vision was expressed in the more universal language of revolutionary anarchism as opposed to the culturally limited, and potentially chauvinistic, language of Zaporozhian cossackdom. Furthermore, there is evidence that the peasant leadership also consciously adopted this attitude. None of the movement’s early proclamations mention Zaporozhian heritage. From the beginning the Makhnovshchina sought to include all exploited peoples of the region and thus avoided ethnically exclusive rhetoric. Makhno himself actively opposed any manifestations of national chauvinism and would have frowned upon any attempt to rally the troops around ethnic traditions. His language, and the movement as a whole, was based on the common heritage of the toiling worker, regardless of ethnicity, language or religion.

Particularly illuminating is the proclamation entitled “1654”. Published November 27th 1919 in the Ukrainian-language Makhnovist daily Shliakh do Voli [Road to Freedom], the title refers to the Treaty of Pereyaslav in which Bohdan Khmelnytsky, on the heel of his uprising, accepted the overlordship of Muscovy. The exact intentions of Khmelnytsky are still debated by historians, however for the Makhnovists the treaty was clearly a treasonous affair. In a clear indictment of the treaty, the anonymous author states that a slave is still a slave whether under the rule of Hetman or Tsar. [6, Shliakh do Voli, November 27, 1919]. The proclamation exhibits a willingness to critically engage Zaporozhian history and serves as a clear warning against any blind glorification of the Host. It points the reader to a perspective beyond national prejudices and towards a common solidarity through the experience of slavery. Furthermore, it presents a characteristically Makhnovist interpretation of history in which the rebellious masses are consistently betrayed by a privileged leadership.

The Zaporozhian love of freedom was, above all, an indigenous expression. While disrupted by Tsarism this impulse lived on in the soul of the Ukrainian peasantry intermittently enflamed by the agrarian disturbances of the region. In the Makhnovist context, the Zaporozhian tradition provided both a foundation and implicit rationale for the movement’s instinctual anarchism. The Makhnovist-Zaporozhian connection is not straightforward but is perhaps best conceptualized as, in the words of I. Kravchenko, a “religion of freedom." Kravchenko suggests:




If we ignore the anarchist slogans in Makhnovist manifestos, the political system of the Makhnovist movement was a romantic attempt to replace modern social relations with an idealized popular fantasy borrowed from Cossack times, which would allow people to find fraternal equality and personal freedom. Anarchism was only a modern 20th century formulation, which embodied similar values. Its doctrine, with its references to the methods of science, offered a way to make this dream a reality, while downplaying its utopianism. [4]



As a narrative thread the Zaporozhian heritage operates in the substrata of the Makhnovist story: implicit in the movement’s common language of the movement but never explicitly propagandized. At a fundamental level anarchism and Zaporozhian Cossackdom are profoundly complementary, functioning to narratively link the past with the present.

Bilbliography




[1] Adams, Arthur E. “The Great Ukrainian Jacquerie.” In The Ukraine, 1917-1921: A Study in Revolution, edited by Taras Hunczak, pp. 247-270. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.



[2] Arshinov, Peter. [1923] History of the Makhnovist Movement, 1918-1921. Translated by Lorraine and Fredy Perlman. London: Freedom Press, 2005.



[3] Berkman, Alexander. “The Man Who Saved Moscow”, Item 221. Alexander Berkman Papers, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam.



[4] Chop, V.M. “Проблема традицій запорозького козацтва в історії махновського руху.” [“The Problem of the Zaporozhian Cossack Tradition in the History of the Makhnovist Movement”] Українське козацтво у вітчизняній та загальноєвропейській історії. Міжнародна наукова конференція. Тези доповідей. Одеса: 2005, pp. 69-70. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/5.php



[5] Chop, V.M. “Ставлення до махновського руху з боку істориків запорозького козацтва Я.П.Новицького та Д.І.Яворницького.” [“The Zaporozhian Cossack Historians Navitsky and Yavornitsky’s Attitude Toward the Makhnovist Movement”] Матеріали Перших Новицьких читань. Запоріжжя: РА “Тандем-У”, 2002, pp.104-111. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/16.php



[6] Chop V.M. “Газети махновського руху.” [“Newspapers of the Makhnovist Movement”] Наукові праці історичного факультету Запорізького державного університету. Запоріжжя: “Просвіта”, 2004, pp. 239-258. http://www.makhno.ru/lit/chop/6.php



[7] Darch, Colin. “The Myth of Nestor Makhno.” Economy and Society 14 (1985): 524-536.



[8] Friesen, Leonard. Rural Revolutions in Southern Ukraine: Peasants, Nobles and Colonists, 1774-1905. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.



[9] Gordon, Linda. Cossack Rebellions: Social Turmoil in the Sixteenth Century Ukraine. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983.



[10] Makhno, Nestor. [1929] The Russian Revolution in Ukraine (March 1917 – April 1918). Translated by Malcolm Archibald. Edmonton: Black Cat Press, 2007.



[11] Malet, Michael. Nestor Makhno in the Russian Revolution. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 1982.



[12] Peters, Victor. Nestor Makhno: The Life of an Anarchist. Winnipeg: Echo Books, 1970.



[13] Shkuro, Andrei. Гражданская война в России: Записки белого партизана [“The Russian Civil War: Notes of A White Partisan”]. М.: ACT: Транзиткнига, 2004. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/shkuro_ag/22.html



[14] Skirda, Alexandre. [1982] Nestor Makhno – Anarchy’s Cossack: The Struggle for Free Soviets in the Ukraine, 1917-1921. Translated by Paul Sharkey. Oakland: AK Press, 2004.



[15] Subtelny, Orest. [1988] Ukraine: A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009, 4th edition.



[16] Voline. [1947] The Unknown Revolution. Translated by Fredy Perlman. Montréal: Black Rose Books, 1990.





Korkoro



Korkoro From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search Korkoro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korkoro


American DVD cover

Directed by Tony Gatlif

Produced by Tony Gatlif

Written by Tony Gatlif

Starring Marc Lavoine

Marie-Josée Croze

James Thiérrée

Music by Delphine Mantoulet

Tony Gatlif

Cinematography Julien Hirsch

Editing by Monique Darton

Studio Production Princes

France 3 Cinema

Rhone-Alpes Cinema

Distributed by UGC Distribution

Release date(s) August 2009 (2009-08) (Montréal Film Festival)

24 February 2010 (2010-02-24)



Running time 111 minutes

Country ‹See Tfd› France

Language French

Romani



Korkoro ("Freedom" in the Romani language) is a 2009 French drama film written and directed by Tony Gatlif, starring French actors Marc Lavoine, Marie-Josée Croze and James Thiérrée. The film's cast were of many nationalities such as Albanian, Kosovar, Georgian, Serbian, French, Norwegian, and the nine Romanies Gatlif found in Transylvania. The film also has a minor character that was played by an 11-year-old great-grandson of Django Reinhardt, a virtuoso jazz guitarist and composer of Manouche gypsy ethnicity.



Based on an anecdote about the Second World War by the Romani (Gypsy) historian Jacques Sigot, the film was inspired by the real story of a Romani who escaped the Nazis with help from compassionate French villagers, depicting the rarely documented subject of Porajmos (the Romani Holocaust).[1] Other than the Romanies, the film has a character representing the French Resistance drawn from the true story of Yvette Lundy, a French teacher who had been deported for forging the passports for Romanies. Gatlif intended the film to ba a documentary, but the lack of supporting documents caused him instead to present it as a drama.



The film premiered at the Montréal World Film Festival, winning the Grand Prize of the Americas and other awards.[2] It was released in France as Liberté in February 2010, where it grossed $601,252; revenues from Belgium and the United States brought the international total to $627,088.[3] The film's music, which was composed by Tony Gatlif and Delphine Mantoulet, received a nomination in the Best Music Written for a Film category at the 36th annual César Awards.



Korkoro has been called "a rare cinematic tribute" to those killed in the Porajmos.[4] In general, it received positive reviews from critics, including praise for having an unusually leisurely pace for a Holocaust film.[5] Critics regarded this as one of the director's best works, and with Latcho Drom consider it the "most accessible" of his films. The film is said to be showing Romanies in a non-stereotypical way, far from their clichéd depictions as musicians.
Contents [hide]


1 Plot

2 Production

2.1 Background
BackgroundFurther information: Porajmos, Antiziganism




Romani arrivals in the Bełżec extermination camp await instructionsDuring World War II, the Porajmos was the attempt by Nazi Germany, the Independent State of Croatia, Horthy's Hungary and their allies to exterminate the Romani people of Europe.[7] Under Hitler’s rule, both Romanies and Jews were defined as "enemies of the race-based state" by the Nuremberg Laws; the two groups were targeted by similar policies and persecution, culminating in the near annihilation of both populations in Nazi-occupied countries.[8] Estimates of the death toll of Romanies in World War II range from 220,000 to 1,500,000.[9]



Because Eastern European Romani communities were less organised than Jewish communities, Porajmos was not well documented. There also existed a trend to downplay the actual figures, according to Ian Hancock, director of the Program of Romani Studies at the University of Texas at Austin.[10] Tony Gatlif, whose films mostly have Romanies as subjects, had long wanted to make a documentary on this less well-known subject, but the lack of enough documented evidence coupled with the absence of accurate pre-war census figures for the Romanies made it difficult.[11]


2.2 Development
DevelopmentGatlif's quest began in 1970 when he approached Matéo Maximoff, a French writer of Romani ethnicity. The two went to Montreuil to interview the Romanies there who refused to discuss the subject. Gatlif was also researching the Justes, the French who attempted to shield the Romanies from persecution.[12] Following former French President Jacques Chirac's efforts to honour the Justes,[13] Gatlif came across Yvette Lundy,[11] a former schoolteacher in Gionges, La Marne, who had been deported for forging documents for the Romanies.[14] Gatlif came across an anecdote by Jacques Sigot, a historian who has documented the Porajmos,[15] which would later help with the story.[11] The anecdote is about a Romani family saved from being sent to the camp at Montreuil-Bellay by a French lawyer who sold them his home for a single franc. Unable to adjust to a stationary lifestyle, the family took to the streets, which led to their arrest in northern France and eventual incarceration in the Auschwitz concentration camp.[12]

The characters in Korkoro are drawn from Sigot's anecdote. The film traces the Romani Taloche's escape, with help from a French notary, from the Nazis in Nazi occupied France, and his subsequent inability to lead a non-nomadic life. The character Théodore Rosier is based on the notary in the anecdote.[11] The other Juste character, Lise Lundi, is based on Yvette Lundy and an old teacher of Gatlif's from Belcourt in Algeria who was a communist and an aide with the Front de Libération Nationale (National Liberation Front).[12]
Intended to be a documentary, Korkoro became a drama because of the lack of sufficient supporting documents. Gatlif wrote the initial script in one month; further modifications later followed which made the film's style a narrative by the characters Rosier and Lundi. Gatlif used Lundy's help to write the scenes related to her, to which he added his own experiences with his teacher. The first appearance of the Romanies in the film is inspired by the way the nomadic Romanies showed up in the middle of nowhere after Gatlif had been working on the characterisation for over a year. Another year was spent in developing Taloche's character.[11]
2.3 Casting
CastingGatlif wanted to represent the entire Romani community through the characterization of Félix Lavil dit Taloche's naiveté and purity. For example, Taloche is shown as being afraid of ghosts, which echoes the Romanies' phobia. For Taloche's role, Gatlif needed a musician with acrobatic skills, which was very hard to find. In Paris at the Théâtre de la Ville, he was impressed James Thiérrée, a grandson of Charlie Chaplin. A non-Romani, (though Chaplin's grandmother was Romani) Thiérrée learned Romani and Gypsy swing music in six months.[11)

For Théodore Rosier, Gatlif wanted someone who looked like a typical Frenchman of the time, with a "voice and face a little like that of Pierre Fresnay, Maurice Ronet, Jacques Charrier or Gérard Philippe", which he found in Marc Lavoine.[11] Marie-Josée Croze was the obvious choice for Mademoiselle Lise Lundi. Gatlif had envisioned Lundi as being like a "Hitchcock character: fragile, mysterious and strong".[11]

Pierre Pentecôte, the militia character played by Carlo Brandt, was presented with a pitiful look, rather than a caricature villain. Gatlif depicted him as a character with a drooping hat and a few extra pounds to symbolise the fat militia of the period. The orphan, P'tite Claude, was played by Mathias Laliberté. Rufus was chosen by Gatlif for the role of Fernand because of his typical French looks. Puri Dai, the grandmother, was played by Raya Bielenberg, a Soviet-born Norwegian artist and 2005 recipient of Oslo City art award, who uses music and dance in an effort to make the Romani culture better known in Norway.[16] Gatlif found her in Oslo.[11] The other notable characters in the movie, Darko, Kako, Chavo, Zanko and Tatane were played by Arben Bajraktaraj, Georges Babluani, Ilijir Selimoski, Kevyn Diana and Thomas Baumgartner respectively.[11] A minor character named Levis was played by then 11-year-old great-grandson of Django Reinhardt, a virtuoso jazz guitarist and composer of Manouche gypsy ethnicity.[17] The cast included people of many nationalities, Albanian, Kosovar, Georgian, Serbian, French and Norwegian along with the nine Romanies Gatlif found living in extreme poverty in Transylvania.[11] Arrangements were made for these Romanies to stay in France for the three to four months it took to shoot the film.[12
2.4 Filming
The film was shot in Loire, in the Monts du Forez, Rozier-Côtes-d'Aurec and Saint-Bonnet-le-Château.[18] The tools used in the movie, which were very similar to the ones employed in 1943, came from Transylvania. The barbed wire fences of the concentration camps are genuine ones built by the Nazis in Romania which can be differentiated from the ones used for cattle by their denser spacing.[12]




The male actors were asked to grow their hair and moustaches. The actors also had to diet to lose weight to achieve the look of World War II characters.[11] The costumes had a faded look, a reflection that people of the period owned few clothes, often only two outfits. None of the actors knew the script in advance and were only informed each night before of what they were to do in their daily scenes. The Romanies were not aware of the historic events that were the basis of the movie, and were only told that the story was set in hard times comparable to Ceaușescu's tenure in Romania.[12] In the scene where the Romanies revolt against the police over the death of Taloche, they were made aware of the character's death only when the scene was being shot, leading to a genuine outpouring of emotions, making their fight with the police appear more real. Gatlif later remarked in an interview that this scene stands for the actual revolt[12] by the Romanies in Auschwitz on May 16, 1944.[19]

Thierrée was the only actor allowed to improvise. His characterisation of Taloche was built on spontaneity, and in many instances, Gatlif had no clue how he would act in a scene, such as in the tap scene in which he plunges into a stairwell. In another scene, in which he dances with war music in the background, Thierrée pretended to make love to the earth like an animal. Gatlif, who had wanted the character to have the ability to sense forthcoming danger, like animals often do, stated that Thierrée was suitable for the role because he is very much an animal. The dance scene where Taloche is shown falling from a tree was done without stunt doubles.[11]

2.5 Music
MusicLiberté


Soundtrack album Korkoro by Various

Released March 2, 2010 (2010-03-02)

Genre Soundtrack

Length 50:52

Language French

Label Universal France

Producer Tony Gatlif



Music plays a very important role in all Gatlif's films, such as Latcho Drom and Gadjo dilo, Scott Tobias noted in his review for NPR.[4] Korkoro is no exception: the importance of music is evident from the opening credits in which barbed wire fences vibrate to the tune of plucked strings of a guitar and a cymbalum in line with the opening lines of the screenplay, "the barbed wire sings in the wind",[17] to the oddest tools used to make music, such as the clanking of buckets and wagon wheels.[4]

The background score was composed by Tony Gatlif and Delphine Mantoulet. The main theme of the songs is the Romani association with France. Despite the sad story, there are cheerful tracks too, with pieces for the waltz, tarantella and java. The film's music plays a prominent role from the opening credits to Catherine Ringer's track in the closing credits, "Les Bohemians", a waltz piece written by Gatlif and Mantoulet, which is described as setting the tone for the film.[20][21] "Les Bohemians" is the first French song ever featured in a Gatlif movie. Gatlif chose Ringer for the track, inspired by the "blood in the mouth" feel to her voice. The song translates as "Good luck to you all, if anyone worries that we’re gone, tell them we’ve been thrown from the light and the sky, we the lords of this vast universe."[11] The java dance piece composed by Delphine accompanies a scene where the characters secretly congregate in a barn for dancing, signifying the scenario then when public gatherings were prohibited.[17] The track "Un Poulailler A La Bastilles", sung by Gatlif's son Valentin Dahmani, plays on the existing stereotype of Romanies as chicken thieves. The film also incorporates sound effects of horses, explosions and a watch mechanism. The soundtrack also has a tune of the "Le Temps des cerises", the revolutionary song of the Paris Commune. The music for the song's version in the movie was composed by Gatlif, using clockwork sounds and banjo. Other soundtrack vocalists included Kalman Urszuj, Sandu Ciorba and Ikola.[20]




A soundtrack album was released in February, 2010. It was nominated for the César Award in 2011 in the category Best Music Written for a Film, but lost to Alexandre Desplat's The Ghost Writer.[22] Korkoro's soundtrack is said to invoke mixed feelings like good humour, nostalgia and fear, creating a universe parallel to the film.[20]


3 Themes and analysis
Themes and analysisKokoro has been compared to Schindler's List, a well-known Holocaust movie.[4] In his directing style Gatlif juxtaposed the vibrant Romani culture against the backdrop of war.[21] In particular, reviewers commented on the subtle manner in which he dealt with the horrofic aspects of war, and the manner in which he portrayed the Romanies in a non-stereotypical way. In addition to the Romani characters, the film also has a spy for the French Resistance and a Dickensian orphan.[4] Critics also made comparisons between the state of the Romanies in the film, set during World War II, and their circumstances in the present.[23]



3.1 Holocaust elements
Holocaust elementsCritics compared Korkoro to Stephen Spielberg's Schindler's List because of the sacrifices Rosier made to protect the Romanies from the Nazis. A review in Moving Pictures Network called it "Schindler's List minus the happy ending", citing a lack of comic relief, creating an inability to connect with the audience.[23] The opening scene, a close-up shot of barbed wire fences stretched along wooden posts with internment camp barracks in the background, is an image common to many Holocaust films, wrote Scott Tobias, who also commented on the "Schindlerian" actions of Rosier who gives his home to the Romanies—an assessment backed up by Eric Hynes's review in Time Out, New York.[4][24] Sophie Benamon at L'Express observed that Gatlif dealt with the horrors of the Holocaust by hinting at them through symbolism, such as portraying an abandoned child, suggesting imprisoned parents, and a clock with Hebrew markings seen lying abandoned in the middle of the railroad tracks, implying the passage of a train taking Jews to a ghetto.[25] Jr Glens Heath, writing forSlant Magazine, remarked that Gatlif's characterisation of the incomplete historic archives with which he was presented made the film a very "personal WWII historiography", where the characters "transcend victimisation" rather than mire themselves in melodrama, regarded as a typical Holocaust movie characteristic.[26] Michael Nordine wrote for Hammer to Nail that this film cannot be compared with Life is Beautiful and other "uplifting tales" with Holocaust themes because of its straightforward portrayal of realistic events.[27]



3.2 Gatlif's "Gypsy soul"
There were many reviews on the way Gatlif has depicted the Romanies, comparing it with their portrayals in his earlier movies. A reviewer in Variety said that the film's central theme lies in its depiction of the "Gypsy soul", which is its unique element, rather than its rather clichéd portrayal of the Holocaust.[28] Tobias noted that Gatlif has depicted Romanies as "a tight, syncopated unit than a motley collection of individuals", citing a scene where the members of a group are distressed, even though they have escaped from a ghetto, until a missing person rejoins them.[4] Unlike his earlier films, in which the Romanies were stereotyped as musicians, Korkoro depicts them as possessing many other skills, for example as healers and blacksmiths, and that its portrayal reveals their communitarian side along with their respect for unique individual qualities, stated Odile Tremblay at Le Devoir.[29] Brian Lafferty's (East County Magazine) comments were quite the opposite, complaining that the characterisations were "bland and generic with no unique identity" except for Taloche's, which was considered more of an annoyance.[30] Rachel Saltz at The New York Times attributed Korkoro's "unexpectedly leisurely quality" to the Gypsy way of living, their music, colours and bond with nature.[5] The film also depicts the Romanies' aversion to being tied down to one location, observed Harvey Karten at Arizona Reporter,[31] and some of their customs, such as silencing the sounds of horse's hooves with cloth bags, according to The Village Voice's reviewer Nick Schager.[32] Dan Bennett at North County Times approved of the appropriate costumes used in the movie, making it "a visually stylish and detail-friendly look at the nomadic lifestyle" that prevailed at the time.[33]
3.3 Freedom as a theme
Freedom as a themeA few critics suggested freedom as a theme in light of the importance shown by the characters to it. True to its title, which is a Romani word for freedom, Gatlif used his freedom to direct a tangential, poignant romantic story with the historical documents available to him, unlike other movies with similar themes, remarked Jacques Mandelbaum at Le Monde.[21] The Village Voice review declared that it is "a magnificent paean to the mad ecstasy of freedom".[32]The Arizona Reporter review added that, for the Romanies, freedom means "being able to keep in motion, that is, the journey, not the destination, is the reward". It observed the importance the characters give to freedom, citing the scene where Taloche becomes concerned that water is being "held against its will" in the taps, and "releases" it to overflow the sink onto the bathroom floor, and then the stairs, with Taloche blissfully sliding down the stairs as if he were on a Disney ride.[31] Alexis Campion at Le Journal du Dimanche remarked that Gatlif has refreshingly portrayed the Romanies as "free-spirited" characters and added that this historic film is a tribute to those free souls who take to the streets even today.[1] The Télérama review was of the opinion that the movie runs out of steam during the scenes depicting historic events, but gains momentum in the forests and on the roads, where its characters' passion for freedom, and hence Lavoine's and Croze's characters, get sidelined by that of Thierrée's, with his St. Vitus' dance and Dostoyevsky-like ruminations.[34] It added that Taloche is the true "incarnation" of freedom.[
Mirroring the current times

A section of critics wrote on the relevance of the movie to the current times. In an interview, Gatlif stated that he wanted the movie to mirror the current times, adding that the times have not changed much, and that while the political extermination has gone, the psychological and political views of Romanies have not. He criticised the French law that allows wanderers to stay in one place only for 24 hours. He was also critical of the plight of Romanies in Hungary, Romania and Italy.[11] He went on that the state of the Romanies now in many places, "with the rows of homeless people people waiting for a bowl of soup with a tin can on their hands", is not very different from that in the concentration camps.[12] Gatlif also lashed out against the fact that until 1969, Romanies were required to have their papers stamped at a police station or city hall whenever they arrived at or left a French village.[11] Bob Hill at Moving Pictures Network remarked that the movie draws parallels to the fact that "we are once again veering toward a culture in which regimes and wealth determine who has the right to live free — and who has no rights at all", and cited present happenings such as the developments in the Middle East, racial wars and inter-country disputes. It added that the movie makes the audience ask themselves if they live in a society that embraces or condemns diversity.[23]





3.4 Mirroring the current times

4 Release

5 Reception

5.1 Box office

5.2 Critical response

5.3 Awards

6 References

7 External links

PlotSet during World War II in rural Vichy France, the film begins with a nine year old French boy, Claude (Mathias Laliberté) escaping from an orphanage, deciding not to stay confined under state protection for the rest of his childhood. He then comes across a Romani caravan, consisting of an extended family of 20 men, women and children, who decide to adopt this orphaned boy. The Romani start calling Claude, Korkoro, the free one. Claude too gets fascinated by their nomadic lifestyle and decides to stay with them.[6]




The caravan sets up camp outside a small wine-growing village, hoping to find seasonal work in the vineyards and a place to sell their wares. The village, as was the trend, is divided into two factions—one welcomes the Romanies, and the other sees them as an intrusion. Théodore Rosier (Marc Lavoine), the village mayor and veterinarian, and Mademoiselle Lundi (Marie-Josée Croze), a school teacher and clerk in city hall, are two of the friendlier villagers. The Vichy France gendarmerie used the documentation made in the passports of its citizens to monitor their movements for which a threshold was set, along with imprisonment for violations This adversely affected the Romanies. Lundi uses her powers as a clerk, and forges their passports, removing the documentation about their movements.[5]



Later, when Rosier has an accident outside the village, he is rescued by the Romanies, who treat the mayor with their traditional healing practices. Rosier returns the favour by selling them his father's house, in a move to protect them from the Fascist policy of imprisoning the homeless. Lundi decides to provide formal education for the children by enrolling them in her school. However, these friendly gestures are not well-received by the freedom-loving Romanies, who regard life in a fixed place and formal education with rules as little better than imprisonment.



Eventually when the Nazis arrive, Rosier and Lundi are revealed to be members of the French Resistance which leads to their arrest and torture. The Nazis round up the Romanies who are then sent to concentration camps. Claude, then cared for by Rosier chooses to go with the Romanies.[6]
__________________
http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/movies/stories-of-war-through-a-gypsy-lens.html
For a more realistic and nuanced view of Gypsy culture during this period, and the role Gypsies played as victims and also resistance fighters during the Holocaust, read Jan Yoor's two fine books, "The Gypsies" (a true story about the Roma people before the war) and "The Crossing" (about Gypsies during the Holocaust).




It's a shame that Gatlif didn't use these two fine books as the basis for his movie. If he had a good writer--and somebody who could smell a cliche a mile away--he might be able to produce top-flight films.