Entertainment desk
< August 17	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 18

Patsak vs. chatlanin

In the film Kin-dza-dza!, the population of the alien planet Plyuk is divided into 2 groups, patsaks (from Georgian katsap, a derogatory name for ethnic Russians, and Russian/Italian paisan, a lowest-ranking member of any group, esp. a criminal group) and chatlans (from Georgian/Armenian chatlakh, meaning "scoundrel"), who can be distinguished with a device called a "visator", which shows a green light if the person is a patsak or an orange light if the person is a chatlanin (this being the only visible distinction between them -- notably, the guy who explains all this, when asked whether the difference is nationality, race or planetary origin, does not give any meaningful answer to that question, but instead retorts, "What are you, colorblind? Can't tell green from orange?") Now, I know that what the director Georgy Danelia was trying to do here was to lampoon the supposedly egalitarian Soviet ideology which proclaimed all nationalities to be equal and even defined ethnicity in terms which expressly excluded the question of blood kinship, while at the same time hypocritically practicing various forms of ethnic discrimination against minorities in their own country (Jews, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Armenians, etc.) -- my question, however, is, why these two colors in particular? Did Danelia know of and consciously try to draw a parallel with the religious conflict in Ireland (where green and orange stood for Catholics and Protestants respectively, and which the official Soviet propaganda made kind of a big deal of at the time in order to show the West in general, and the former Anglosphere in particular, as torn apart by violence, as opposed to the supposedly tranquil Soviet block), or was this simply a coincidence? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C990:4871:79E0:D481 (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Daniela or his co-writer Revaz Gabriadze have pronounced on this subject, we cannot know. This being art, your suggested interpretation is a valid one (since it makes sense to you) but other valid ones are possible. For example, the colours are suggestive of traffic lights, where green means 'go'/continue' implying 'good' or 'OK', whereas amber means 'prepare to stop or go/caution' implying something else. I also wonder if the colours have any particular relevant meanings in the context of Georgian (or Russian) culture or politics, which might be more likely referents than the Northern Ireland 'Troubles'. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The colors are also relevant for India (orange for Hindus, green for Islam). As in the flag of Ireland, the flag of India interposes a white strip for peace. As in Ireland, the peace is relative.

The flag of Niger and the flag of Ivory Coast are also orange-white-green but the symbolism is not so clear.

commons:Category:Green and orange may point to uses of this combination.

--Error (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the color orange does have relevance in the context of Ukrainian politics -- the color green, on the other hand, doesn't. And yes, he might also have meant India (I didn't think of it because I never did connect the orange stripe on its flag to Hinduism until now) -- on one hand, it is closer to his native Georgia than Ireland, but the counterargument would be that unlike the Troubles, the religious conflict in India was never given such close attention in Soviet propaganda (India having had pro-Soviet leanings at the time), and also the fact that in the film, the "orange" Chatlans were a privileged group on their planet, just like in Northern Ireland (as opposed to the Republic of Ireland), the "orange" Protestants also have historically always been privileged over the "green" Catholics, whereas in India this was not always the case! 2601:646:9882:46E0:448D:2E5:C648:CB8D (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine's Orange Revolution took place in 2004–5; the film was released in 1986, some 18 years earlier: did orange have a relevant Ukrainian political significance before 1986?

Of course, all of these connections (and others we haven't thought of) might be true simultaneously: artists often exploit or are even inspired by coincidences and synchronicities. Or maybe the writers just chose green and orange randomly as two contrasting colours. The only way of knowing the real reason for the choice is if one of them has stated it – which maybe they have and no-one has found the reference yet. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find a source, but I'd suggest an obvious meaning for the green color is the United States dollar, and interestingly, the Soviet ruble banknotes from the 1960s through 1980s included a one-ruble note that was orange with green. However, that doesn't mean that the chatlanins are the Soviets and the patsaks are the capitalist West. The symbolism in the movie had to be more ambiguous than that, and I don't think they would have chosen colors that let you give a definite answer to the question of who is who. --Amble (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there is no actual difference between the chatlans and patsaks other than the colour indications of the visator whose cause, though consistent, is completely unknown. The distinction is arbitrary and designed merely to divide the population and create an illusory 'class' difference that can be manipulated. Compare the 'caste' distinctions between Hutus and Tutsis (etc.), which was likely exploited to make colonial rule easier, and which eventually led to genocide.

Creating (by border manipulation or other means) a local population with a majority and minority, and placing the minority in a dominant social/administrative position, was/is a classic colonialist tactic, dating back millennia. It means the minority rule with a firm hand to prevent themselves being overthrown by the majority, while the occupying or colonial power can sit back and reap the economic benefit. How all this relates to the Russian/Georgian/Ukranian situation is left as an exercise for the reader (and indeed, as I see it, to the film's audience). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.140.169 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the deliberate movement of population groups within the former USSR to dilute the local ethnic groups within former non-Russian soviet republics, these efforts have led to partial Russification of many of the former Soviet republics, and have acted as a pretext for Russia in the modern day to intervene militarily in those countries. Population transfer in the Soviet Union covers the practice, a classic example of this is what led to the Transnistria War. See the background section of that article. What had been an almost-entirely Romanian-speaking land was partially Russified during the Soviet era, and when Moldova became independent following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia has since used the pretext of "protecting" this Russian minority to intervene militarily in Moldova. --Jayron 32 16:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]