If, as Freud argues, “there is in general no guarantee of the data produced in our memory” (1976: 496), and also, as van der Kolk and van der Hart note, “memory is everything” (1995: 178), then these two seemingly paradoxical truths are perpetually negotiated in the process of arriving at meaning—often through incongruities more than seamless logic. In his analysis of terror and trauma in German cinema post-1945, Thomas Elsaesser finds that the films’ lack of direct address of the Holocaust reflects absence as presence, and moreover, an indication of parapraxis, where the concept is understood not only in traditional psychoanalytic terms (i.e., “Freudian slip”), but also implies “effort, a voluntary or involuntary persistence, usually one with unexpected or unintended results, including reversals of cause and effect, or displacements in time and space” (2014: 102). If film is an object of (traumatic) memory, but also creates memory as such, such displacements, unintended or voluntary, reveal memory as always already replete with gaps, errors, and inconsistencies as much as it is with knowable facts. If parapraxis in postwar German cinema reflects “the right thing at the wrong place, the wrong thing at the right time” (Elsaesser: 102), dislocated screen memories in post-Yugoslav cinema stage trans-ethnic memory-work as both an imperative and an impossible task. Yet while failure (of mastering the past or coming to terms with it) is integral and, moreover, necessary in parapraxis, dislocated screen memory of post-Yugoslav cinema frequently reflects a refusal to admit failure, and instead seeks out spaces of hopeful, if not healing affect in the aftermath of grave injury. In other words, mourning (as opposed to melancholia) in post-Yugoslav cinema is not constituted as a “performance of failure” (which Elaesser sees in the “counterstrategies of German cinema” (103)), but rather as a performance of possibility for moving through loss in ways that prevent it from becoming a structural absence.