Page 443 [443]
Visualizations of “Hooligans”. A Bulgarian Film of the 1960s
“emotional cannon” for the legitimization of their power and as a powerful means
of political education. Because of the high impact of visual images, the different
forms of art had to be carefully discussed on many levels by decision makers. With
the establishment of the socialist regime in Bulgaria, a state monopoly was formed
and put in charge of the production and distribution of films. In Bulgaria, the
newly established state production company, D.P. Bulgarska Kinematografia, was
placed under the authority of the Committee for Science, Arts, and Culture.‘
The discussions of thematic plans and the decisions whether films should be
released or shelved became the responsibility of the so-called hudozhestveni saveti
(‘artistic councils’). The councils comprised the representatives of the various
branches of the profession—scriptwriters, film producers, and members of
Bulgarska Kinematografia’s leadership. Responsible for overseeing the production
process, “They soon established themselves as both collaborative institutions and
instruments of (self)-censorship” (Ragaru 2015: 106). The minutes and reviews
of the film Valchitsata yield useful insights for a differentiated picture of these
institutions at the beginning of the 1960s—a period of “tangible liberalization of
spiritual life” (Hristova 2014: 22; 2005).
Harsh Critique of the Script
‘The first meeting of the artistic council on the literary script Valchitsata took place
in May 1963. The script became negatively evaluated by most of the attending
film directors and film editors because of “a lack of conception”. The script re¬
volved around three main characters: Ana, a 17-year-old adolescent of divorced
parents, who—as conveyed through flashbacks—had spent years in correctional
schools. In order to find a job after her release, Ana faked her résumé as she says
in the movie, “With the forged piece of paper they accepted me at the factory
and even promoted me as a shock-worker” (Oliver 1963). But the forgery was
discovered and Ana as a minor was sentenced to placement in a labor-educational
school. From the courthouse in the capital of Sofia to the correctional school in
a remote village, Ana was convoyed by the educator Kirilov—the second main
protagonists in the scenario. The first collision between them occurred on their
way to the school: provoked by the reckless behavior of Ana, the educator struck
her. Violence as educational tool, embodied in Kirilov, was a leading theme in the
script. The main conflict was between Kirilov, for whom the students were crimi¬
nals, and the elderly director of the school, Kondov, who was meant to typify a
positive Makarenko-type director, defending the principles of education through
trust, introducing the method of self-government, and insisting on respect for the
students. For him there are no “other” children, all are “our children”. According to
> On this process: see Iordanova 2003; Stanimirova 2012; Bratoeva-Darakchieva 2013; Elenkov 2008.
* The committee was founded in 1947 with the rank of ministry, and was closed in February 1954. Its
main authorities were transferred to the Ministry of Culture.
441