COURAGE

povezovanje zbirk

This twelve-page typewritten document, which the author endorsed with his signature, represents a condensed version of his memoirs. After his release from prison in 1964, Steinhardt wrote several versions of his memoirs, out of which some were confiscated by the secret police, while others reached Radio Free Europe and were broadcast in the late 1980s. Steinhardt very much valued this manuscript, which he considered his literary testament, so he dedicated considerable effort to its preservation with a view to future publication. One version of the memoirs, which the author entrusted to a friend before his death in 1989, was published immediately after the fall of communism and became a best-selling book. There is another published version of the memoirs, which was discovered more than two decades later, hidden in the monastery of Rohia, where Steinhardt became a monk in 1980. The short version, confiscated by the Securitate and preserved in this collection, focuses even more clearly than the published ones, which number hundreds of pages, on the same identity issue: the author’s conversion to the Orthodox faith, which happened while he was imprisoned. This central event in his life illustrates that Aleksander Wat’s widely-known prison experience was not unique in the Soviet bloc. Steinhardt’s conversion, however, was neither a result of his illumination in adverse conditions nor a part of his strategy of physically and mentally surviving the experience of imprisonment; it was his response to an identity question, which imprisonment did not trigger, but only precipitated. This short version of his memoirs makes this clear by chronologically reiterating his formative years, the intense socialisation with his Romanian friends and the bothersome questions related to his Jewishness, to show ultimately that he realised well before his imprisonment that he was closer to the Romanian intellectuals of his generation than to the Jewish community. As Steinhardt put it, his conversion was a “love story: a double falling in love with both the Christian Church and the Romanian nation.” Particularly interesting also is the author’s perspective on the tragedies of the twentieth century, which affected him directly, i.e., the adversities he had to endure as a Jew under a right-wing military dictatorship and as a Romanian intellectual under the communist regime. Unlike others who experienced such traumas, Steinhardt chose to come to terms with his troubled past not only by forgiving his perpetrators, but also by forgetting about retribution. As he put it in order to justify his option for monasticism, the prison experience had shown him “the world as it is,” and this made him willing to regard it “not with animosity, but from a distance.”

These are elaborate minutes of the session in which the current issues in the film industry in Zagreb were on the agenda. At the session, Ivo Jelovica, Vatroslav Mimica, Jurica Peruzović and Stjepan Draganić also participated along with the members of the Ideological Commission of the CC LCC and the Commission for Cultural and Educational Issues of the Central Committee of the Socialist Alliance of the Working People of Croatia (SAWPC). The document is important because it shows how the members of the Commission steered the film industry in Croatia, the production of films, and how they managed recruitment and staff within that industry. The participants in the meeting analysed the situation in Croatia: who is engaged in the film business, the need for two art centers/production companies; Jadran film and Zagreb, and the related issue of finances, staff and quality of achievement. The role of the Film Council was also emphasized as the authoritative body for quality, but also the ideological "regularity" of productions, whose role was to approve screenplays. In addition to this, the question was raised as to whether such "socialistic morality" could be ensured in the film company. Particularly interesting was the part of the discussion on the staff in film companies, when Dule Štrbac, a member of the Commission, noted that the problem surrounding Jadran film was the accumulation of personnel who were politically and morally problematic, but who were professionals of the highest quality. He appointed Branko Marjanovic as such, saying that he was considered an irreplaceable film director and expert, but also mentioned his film The Watch on Drina (Straža na Drini) from the time of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), and emphasized how he "brings together people who fit his understanding and concepts." Branko Belan was appointed as a troublemaker, as he was the screenwriter of the film Odnarođeni, whose screenplay was awarded the highest Ustasha prize at the beginning of January 1945. The third person featured in a negative context was Krešo Golik, who "declares himself as an Ustasha dorojnik" and wrote that the Ustasha "will never surrender alive." The members of the Commission wondered how such people had the ability to work, and on the other hand "our staff" has failed to hold on. An example in Zagreb Film was Zvane Črnja, a playwright, as an imposing cadre, although it was said that he should not be engaged in certain duties.

Frane Trenta emphasized that "strong political and party personnel should be placed in these companies," and Milos Zanko supported him by saying that the Council should not appoint people who are not "on course" and that the Film Council should also provide the appropriate staff.

It is interesting to note that the record also mentions the work of the party organization in the company and that in past years opposing to them meant to be left out of work and to starve, to be without social security, to remain without any protection, to be silent or to obey ... This especially very clearly shows the role of LC organization in directing the work of film companies, censorship and monitoring the "ideological correctness" of the personnel and policies of the companies themselves.

Mile Počuča finally concluded that sit the enemies of socialism or at least the problematic people were sitting in both companies, and advocated a special meeting to see who should be thrown out and who should stay. It was concluded that the meeting should be held.

By 1995, the document was, along with the other records of socio-political organisations, a part of the Archive of the Institute of History of the Labour Movement of Croatia/Institute of Contemporary History. That year, in July, it was handed over to the Croatian State Archives (CSA) where it is kept today. The documents are accessible for use without any restrictions.

A work from the "Exploitation of the Dead" cycle showing a large factory complex with chimneys. The picture of the great factory complexes is one of the synonyms for socialism, which was the very reason why Stilinović used it. But shown on a black background and in combination with red geometric figures, it becomes the subject of Stilinović's criticism and indicates the weariness of this socialist symbols.

Mladen Stilinović's work from the "Exploitation of the Dead" cycle, depicting a photograph of one of the typical Party gatherings. The photograph itself, outside the context of Stilinovic's work, would represent visual proof of the Party gathering. But, as a part of his work, it points to the weariness of such gatherings, and thus to the end of the socialist period.