Colorism is a type of discrimination that affects ALL people despite racial categorization. Many believe that this term is exclusive to the black community and the dark-skin/light-skin ‘debate’ that is found in many communities. However, as displayed in the film and as examined in cultures that range from Asian to ethnic whites, displaying darker pigments (of any amount) automatically puts you in a socially inferior pool.

The film, Aferim!, is about Romanian – Gypsy racial conflicts; who is a slave and who isn’t (or who is perceived not to be) is based on a conversation surrounding blackness. The Gypsy’s were often referred to as darker, while the Romanians were whiter. The way that Costandin (the law enforcer of the town) was able to ‘bully’ people/ find the slave was based on how dark the people around him were, regardless of actual identity – If the person was darker, they were violently questioned.

Aferim is a term that connotes a job well done – a literal ‘Bravo!’…This term is exclusively held for the white men from the white men. These legacies of slavery are seen in all cultures and affect the whole world in ways that are beyond the time frame of the movie.

When I checked out this film’s profile online, multiple reviewers classified it as a Western of sorts. Initially after watching Aferim!, the connection seemed to me a bit loose, or at least unintuitive. Sure, there’s lawmen on horseback and confrontations with a nation’s violent and ugly past, but the genre comparison still didn’t fit well, at least emotionally. Maybe the forests and plains of Walachia just can’t substitute for the dusty expanses of Monument Valley.

However, after a bit more thought, one scene started to give off the Western vibe, or at least a kind of sentiment that I’ve come to associate with the Western genre. At the end of the film, a constable by the name of Constandin rides into the distance besides his son Ionita. The two men discuss the heinous act of violence that was committed right before their eyes moments ago, and Constandin muses that this is just the way of the world. Sure, he wanted things to go about more justly, but what are you gonna do? Walachia is antiziganist and practices slavery. What can I do about it? Nothing, so toodle-oo! Instead of giving the audience justice, Aferim! delivers a portrait of complacency, perhaps to remind viewers that no norm is permanent. People dismissed cruelty back then, so think again before you make light of the problems of the present.

Compre this to The Searchers, a 1956 film in which John Wayne plays a deeply racist ex-Confederate solider, Ethan Edwards. The film allows Ethan revenge on the Comanche chief who killed his brother’s family, but it does not celebrate him and depicts his vengeful zealotry as grotesque and unhealthy. Tellingly, The Searchers ends with Ethan leaving a cabin as the doors shut behind him; the film seems to say, “Thanks for your help, but you’re not wanted anymore“.

And then there’s 1973’s Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, which, as the tile suggests, tells the story of Billy the Kid’s last days as he is hunted by his ex-friend-turned-reluctant-lawman Pat Garrett. Unlike most cat-and-mouse stories, this film is bereft of tension. History dictates that Garrett shoot Billy; the audience knows what’s going to happen. So instead, director Sam Peckinpah weaves together a series of vignettes that depict the Old West as a blood-soaked frontier in which no one wants to kill each other, but they have to because they’re on opposite sides of the law. This law, by the way, is also shown to be little more than a way for wealthy ranch owners to rub out those whose deeds threaten their business operations. When Garrett finally shoot Billy dead, he fires another bullet at his own reflection before riding alone into the night, a stray child tossing pebbles at his horse, condemning him for selling-out.

Aferim!, The Searchers, and Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid are three very different films, but at their core, all are stories of inglorious ancestors. Constandin let horrific acts go unpunished. Ethan Edwards surrendered most of his life to hated. Pat Garrett  sold out to the money men. Each carries burdens of different weights and have committed sins of various degrees of severity, but none will receive a romantic ride into the sunset.

Radu Jude’s ironic yet sobering film Aferim!, an Eastern European production by Romania/Bulgaria/Czech Republic, describes the enslavement of the Roma during 1835 Walachia through the adventures of bounty-hunter Costandin and his son Ionita as they set out on a quest to capture the runaway gypsy slave Carfin and return him lawfully (yet immorally) to his rightful landowner. Most of the film shots are conservatively tripod-still and wide-angle, stretching the horizon line and extending space in the expense of close details, so that the very first impression of Costandin and Ionita is one likened to Don Quixote and Sancho Panza as they enter and exit the scene—black specks on horseback. It is in this caricature that Costandin amiably greets an old crow driving a cart of goods only to end up berating her as farewell. These jerky instances reveal anachronistic behavior challenging the uniform/authority (whether it be the landowner or God). Costandin, for example, as a respectable man should never bring himself to speak in such a manner not only to the elderly but also later to a priest. However, the priest himself lacks the tact of professionalism, openly condemning Jews, gypsies, Turks, Romanians through respective stereotypes. Despite his vulgar use of language and at times actions, Constandin remains honest to his vocation and its ethics; he refuses to free Carfin even on a guilty conscience. A strong sense of duty becomes a betrayal of his sense of morality yet the film makes one question the standard of that moral compass. The root of evil returns back to the landowner’s wife who indulges in the sensual, tempting men who cannot help themselves. The film, from the very beginning, revels in the complexities of Romanian identity, especially revealing of misogynistic patriarchy, localized control, and nationalistic attitudes many of which continue to re-surface today.

The film enjoyed international success, winning the 2016 Silver Bear award at the Berlin Film Festival and was a strong contender for the Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Film. It was one of the few films to address the slavery of the Roma that was abolished in the 1850s and deal with cinema of the European periphery, often marginalized but strongly advertised under the director’s fame. The treatment of the Roma then opens discussion to the second-class treatment of the Roma now, and in this frank exploration, Aferim! overcomes “fatalism through ironic distance and black humor” (Hendrykowski). In other respects, however, as much as it inscribes itself in the New Wave, it fails to address the issues in a more pressing and immediate manner, and in this way, reinforces stereotypes that are made within the film. When contrasted with the films of Emir Kusturica who builds a comprehensive, magical, immersion into gypsy communities, creating an empathetic Other in the viewer much more effectively, Aferim! is a rather poorly and crudely executed film.

Thursday evening I had the opportunity to attend the film screening of Aferim! at the Cornell Cinema. Before watching this film, I knew very little of Romania’s history. As far as I know, it is not covered in most history classes that an average student would take over their lifetime. This film really brought to life how Gypsy Slaves were treated during this time period. I found their treatment in the film to be comparable to the ways African American slaves were treated in the Americas. Many Gypsies were beaten and whipped throughout the film, and owners went to great lengths to recover runaways and punish them. While watching this film there were many moments that were cringe worthy. Especially when the policeman sold the young Gypsy boy. It was very evident that the child did not want to be sold, and yet the policeman went forth with the sale and made some money off of the boy.

The film was very educational for me. While I had known that in many places Gypsies were enslaved, I was unaware that their treatment was similar to that of African American Slaves in the Americas. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in Romanian history, or history in general. This story of the policeman and his son’s journey to recover a runaway slave is very eyeopening and could be a useful educational tool.

Once Aferim! ended I felt every horrid emotion possible. I was left in despair and questioned the people of the world. The film helped me to remember the hatred and disgust that has pervaded society for millennia. What infuriated me the most was the constant disrespect of the dark-skinned people, and those considered slaves, in addition to the overwhelming amounts of sexism. With this in mind, I needed time to reflect and gather my thoughts, and still it was difficult to place my thoughts into words. With this in mind, I had to reference a movie review from the New York Times.

A. O. Scott wrote a joyous review about the movie and how it was overlooked by many in foreign language and American film festivals; however, Scott still managed to address the grit and hatred which the characters acted upon from scene to scene. What gave me closure about the movie, the time which it was based, the progression of society’s moral developments, and what Radu Jude was aiming for artistically was the ending quote of Scott’s review.

 “As a species, we’re pretty awful, but we can also be a lot of fun, and even sometimes decent, compassionate and wise. How can we live with ourselves? The answer, this brilliant movie suggests, is that we can’t but somehow we do.”

At the end of the film I thought of every bad thing Constandin, lordache Cindescu, and the likes, had conflicted upon the poor people, and those lower in the social hierarchy. I thought about how messed people were in 1835 and how their mindsets set up horrible precedence for decades and millennia. However, at the end of the review, I thought about all of the people in this world, and how we all have something about us that should be changed. There is always something about us that inflicts pain upon another. There is always something about our wrongs that put us at the mercy of one another, as well as history.

During the film, Constandin asked his son – Ionita – how he thought they would be remembered in history, and questioned whether they would be remembered at all. I found this scene to be super powerful because his dwellings on this question started to translate his actions towards others that seemed to get better, of course with a foundation of decent judgment. However, Scott’s quote helped me to realize that the characters of the film, and humans of society, can live with themselves because they do not think to consider how their actions will affect the world to come, as well as its inhabitants. Correction – We, including myself, do not think about how our living sets the precedent for other lives. If we did, perhaps we’d be a better society, filled with better people.

So, how can you work to leave a better self for generations to come?