Archive for April 2005
Thursday 15 April 2004
Christian Boltanski walks along the street, waiting and watching for the streetcar, which has failed to arrive. Caught in the backward glances every couple of minutes, he fails to notice Leanna, who walks out of the corner store, having just purchased bubble gum and a bottle of water. He walks into her, and after the shuffling has completed itself, they both engage in apologies. Then he asks, ‘Don’t I know you from somewhere?’ and she replies, ‘I don’t think so.’ He squints and turns and walks away. The streetcar has still not come. The buildings frame a scene consisting almost solely of headlights.
Some guy walked into me today, she says, when she tells him about it later. He in turn tells her of the time a woman in an electric wheelchair ran over his foot. ‘I was waiting for the streetcar, ‘ he says, ‘and it was cold, I had my hood up, so I had no peripheral vision and I was reading the newspapers in the boxes, when suddenly I feel this pressure on my foot. The woman mumbles ‘shume’ and I look down to see that my right foot is pinned under her wheel. I can’t budge. I say, ‘Can you back up, my foot is stuck’. She complies. She takes off, and I’m left with a sore foot. I figured I’d at least have a bruise but I didn’t.
‘You’re lucky you didn’t lose any toes,’ she says.
A new review is up at blogTO, on the Kelly Mark show at Wynick Tuck and the show at the AGYU.
Kelly Mark is everywhere right now – at YYZ, in the news because of the Glow House, and as well, she has a show on at Wynick Tuck. Last night I dreamt that I was in Wynick Tuck noticing that none of the Letraset drawings had sold, as if they were too new, too avant-garde (such a discredited idea anyway) but now as I find the memory was nothing more than a dream, it doesn’t seem important enough to fact check to see if any have. I didn’t notice the other day when I was in.
Although in my dream, it seemed a shame, because they are quite good. Looking at them I thought of Marcel Duchamp’s machinery in the Large Glass, mostly because I recently found this great website that demystifies Duchamp’s work, and last weekend I found this other website that offers animated graphics helping to explain biochemistry. The conversion of ADP into ATP, the basic molecule of cellular energy, reminded me of the animated Large Glass. My immidiate impression was that computers are so wonderful, allowing us to animate what Duchamp envisioned, and allowing us to see what our cells are doing everyday, processes that have been difficult to imagine before.
Kelly Mark’s work using Letraset seems to represent a dynamic dance and swirl of letters, moving across page and frame to frame. While the individual pieces can stand alone, they are arranged as polyptychs and the line around which the marks are organized flow from one panel to the other. There is a dynamic machinery here, and the fontography by its black and white and serifed nature reminds me of the early century’s dynamic steam machines, which inspired Duchamp to abandon paintings of traditional subject matter in favor of engineered renderings of choclate-grinders and the hormonal process of love as if mediated by particles of malic-molded matter.
In addition to these drawings, Mark, who perhaps is punning on her name with all this, has attempted to extend the idea of drawing by taking wooden forms of the usual pottery – vases, jugs, plates, etc, and covered them with graphite, giving them the nice dark gray sheen we’re familiar with from bored schoolday scribbling. As someone who likes to fool around with a pencil now and then, I couldn’t help but wonder if she just got some raw graphite at the store and used that, or if she laboriously went at the forms with pencils. Given the nature of Conceptual practice which tends to emphasize the execution of patience rather than skill, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mark had used pencils. But again, such a detail seems minor to the finished product.
Given that contemporary pencils are a form of ceramic – the lead of pencils usually something like carbon mixed with a clay, these sculptures aren’t that far fetched … complimenting the traditional form which is made pure from clay, and replacing it with the veneer – in this case, the clay mixed with carbon and preserved with a matte varnish so that you can handle the works without dealing with smudging. Since the mid-19th Century invention of electroplating, which enabled the alchemistic goal of turning base metals into gold, there has been a long history now of coating crap with a sheen of special elements; Mark has extended this by coating a form that has lent itself to admiration with an element that has also lent itself to admiration when it falls together on a page into the light and shade of a scene, reversing the usual properties by using a veneer of ceramic on our other most malleable material, wood.
Kelly’s show at YYZ is on down the hall from Wynick Tuck. As a member of YYZ’s board of directors, I don’t feel like I should review it. Although I once reviewed a show there last January, I’ve decided that I won’t anymore. But I bring it up because of the odd coincidence of titles – Mark’s show at YYZ is called horror/suspense/romance/porn/kung-fu and consists of the recorded glow from the television which had been playing films of those genres. The show opened on April 8th, a Friday, and the next Wednesday, on April 13th, the latest show at the Art Gallery of York University (AGYU) opened with the title Horror, Science Fiction, Porn.
‘Tis the season of words it seems. For some reason the zeitgeist in our city has organized the curatorial and artistic minds into a season of alphabets. Mark’s letraset drawings tease out the inherent visual geometries of what we’ve taken for granted since we learned how to spell – that we manage to communicate, share thoughts, break hearts and win them, through designed lines.
A personal aside now – ’tis also the season of graduation, and the show at the AGYU reminded me of my own graduating April, after a rather lazy semester when I pretty much cruised to the last day … such was the nature of the school. But I’d signed up for an intro to video course for my last semester, because the previous summer I’d read Bill Viola’s book and it interested me in the medium that was everywhere but which I’d never before taken much formal interest in, focused as I was on drawing and painting.
In addition, I had a hard time with stories throughout school. I always have a case of writer’s block when I have to invent a narrative. So for my last project, for this Intro to Video class, I was stuck. But, as Charlie Kaufman knows well, an old trick is to use the present condition if you can’t make one up; so I ended up making a video on my writer’s block.
But what Viola had impressed on me was that the invention of film and video had been a sort of miracle which we long ago grew used to, forgetting that for all of time previous, that immense well of forgetting and flash, images had been static. As someone who went to school to learn painting, I had been interested in those static images, in that long history of capturing milliseconds of the universe in shapes. Television and film fools us into thinking we have peepholes into other rooms, other places, other times, all due to an optical and conceptual illusion.
My reawakened interest then was in the animated image and it gave me a new appreciation for the silent film. So my film was silent, relying on the animated image, and the narration provided by text.
Ok – so lets get back to alphabetics. I remember when David Carson was the hottest thing; Raygun seemed the coolest, most innovative magazine going in the mid-90s, at the time that I was self-consciously a student of all things cultural. Raygun sort of coincided with my first studies in Heidegger, and what was really fetching about Raygun’s ‘anti-design’ was its strained, blurred, hard to read text. Because of that, you paid much more attention to it. The seemlessness of the interface was interrupted, and you became conscious of text as a visual element.
William Gibson’s preface in the Raygun book, Out of Control (1997), pointed out that learning to read is something we spend a lot of time doing. We have to learn to use this technology over years, so that eventually it becomes something you can do unconsciously, at a glance, so much so that you can’t help but understand what the alphabet-symbols mean when printed across the chest or the ass of some girl, the mixed messages of reproductive genetics and advanced civilization combined in some petty advert for one’s alma matter or allegiance to social stereotype. Text becomes as easy to process as speech after a while, and we see past the geometry of the marks that make it up.
Which brings me to the second thing about text that’s worth mentioning – everytime I get into a conversation about how I’m an artist, the person I’m talking with usually dismiss their own attempts with, ‘oh, I can’t draw anything’. What I should say, instead of cringing and wanting to talk about anything but my ‘specialness’ because I can slap some paint around now and then, is that ‘if you can write your name you can draw’. We are forced into the repetitive exercises as children of drawing triangles and squares and circles, eventually forming the triangles of A’s and the line with curves of B’s etc until we can finally draw the simple shaped alphabet and eventually put them together into words.
So, this show at the AGYU isn’t so much one of ‘nothing to see here ‘cept a bunch of writing’, as it was a reminder for me of the shape of the letters, of the visual aspect and relationship to drawing that the written word has. It was also a reminder of my experience in artschool with video and text.
Now, what the writing in this show communicates I couldn’t really tell you, besides what’s made obvious by the title of the show. These three text based works come from the genres mentioned, but I didn’t bother to read everything. Overwhelmed by the overall message of the function of letters as symbols and drawings, I didn’t really care to read what appeared to be mostly uninteresting.
The title says it all – there’s a text of pornography, by Fiona Banner, writ large, in hot pink, ‘she grabed his cock,’ etc, and the world as become so pornofied through the internet, iMovie and relatively cheap video cameras I was bored and unmoved. In the same room was a shelf with books, ‘The Nam’ which showed off a nice design, one of the books being displayed on a plinth, the text of which being some Vietnam war story in the same blocky font used for the porn story, this time printed black and single sided.
The middle room was a little more interesting. This was the sci-fi part, but here the experience is of a projected 8mm film, consisting of nothing but the words of some contrived alien drama. The cohesion of the story is pulled apart by the projector being on a robotic armature, so that it projects the text across the walls of the gallery at different times, always moving. The animation of the projection is what I appreciated by this, and at this point I was reminded of my artschool video, where I had a line that read:
‘I wanted to move you with images
Soft, subtle, sublime
But you cannot be moved by images, only silent words’
Here, you get the attempt by the artist Rosa Barba to move you with moving words, which aren’t even silent, as we have to listen to the whir of the oldschool 8mm machine.
The back room had the ‘horror video’ by Nathalie Melikian, which again consisted of sentences that I didn’t bother to read, (I know – I’m a horrible critic) the horror aspect seemingly conveyed by the ominous soundtrack.
The PR for this show states: ‘ In conjunction with this year’s Images Festival [which is now over], the AGYU presents Fiona Banner, Rosa Barba, and Nathalie Melikian, artists who look at film but project it to another end–as film experienced through language, which is why the exhibition Horror, Science Fiction, Porn includes no actual films. This international group of artists – from Britain, Germany, and Canada – looks at language’s determinant conditioning and indeterminate effects through a variety of film genres. The conventions that establish a genre (right from the start with the writing of the script) and those that manipulate the spectator, are only partly at play in this examination as these artists relate the genres of science fiction, action, horror, and pornography to their constructions, technical apparatus, and reception.’
If the PR is the recipe for how we, the audience born yesterday, are supposed to respond, I think it’s a failure. If you check out this show, there’s no way you would respond according to this formula, but at least the language the AGYU is putting out is getting better (perhaps prompted by Jennifer McMackon’s blog which has been publicizing the ‘discombobulated PR’ you get from these institutions over the past year).
It’s text … on walls. And for the PR to say that it contains no films at all is dishonest, as the sci-fi piece uses 8mm, and the back room uses video, which admittedly isn’t film, but what’s the difference?
While film seems to be all about animating images, the use of film to project text in two of these peices blends the forms in ways that seem similar to Kelly Mark’s wooden ceramics. As for the porn piece, it seems nothing more profound than Playboy wallpaper. The most generous thing I can say about it is that it reminds me of the old double-entendre, ‘You wanna come upstairs to check out my prints?’
Kelly Mark at Wynick Tuck is on until April 30 and the show at YYZ is on until May 21, both at 401 Richmond St, and both galleries are closed Sundays and Mondays.
The AGYU show continues until June 12, at York University, Ross Building. Photos courtesy of the websites of Wynick Tuck and the AGYU.
The Crisis
Premise – 1. No one gives a shit about anything anymore. Is this true? What do people actually seem to care about?
Answer – When I say ‘people’ who do I mean? Have the generations become so stratified that one really should say:
a ‘what do old people care about’,
b ‘what do the middle aged care about?’
c ‘what do young people care about?’
d ‘what do teenagers care about?’
e ‘what do children care about?’
f ‘what do todlers care about?’
Notice how this is exactly the language of marketing research. And if you pay attention to trends, watch advertisements between the dramas and the laughs, and catch the pronouncements of the Marketeers when they make it into the news, you can answer each one.
a. What do old people care about?
Supposedly, old people care about health care. Access to medicine. The government is supposed to subsidize pills and make them easy to get a hold of. Old people are also supposed to be concerned with their retirement, and having their pensions and being able to enjoy their last years. They also supposedly have trouble getting in and out of the bathtub.
b. What do the middle aged care about?
Supposedly they care about sexual disfunction, and other medical conditions requiring the latest and greatest pill. New cars, home care, this generation seems to be the target of Canadian Tire ads for lawnmowers and power washers.
c. what do young people care about?
Supposedly, people within my age range care about bein’ kul. Too happenin to pay attention for very long, everything is zip wham flash – snappy headlines, snappy stories, George Stroumboulopoulos giving it to us straight by cutting out the fat. Dose!
Dude, I got to like get my concert tickets and shit, and I don’t watch TV because it’s stupid, and I can’t afford cable, and I don’t buy the paper cuz who cares?
So how the fuck do you know what’s going on in the world?
I don’t cuz like, who cares?
-or-
I check out Reuters on the internet, drudgereport, watch The Daily Show ….
So basically, the internet and The Daily Show is where you get your news?
Yeah.
-or-
I read the free weeklies
c. What do teenagers care about?
Apparently, teenagers have always been susceptible to vanity, self-esteem issues, and a desire to get laid. Apparently, adults have always thought this was terrible. The biological irony is that when they were teenagers, the same adults went through the same thing, only they grew up, learned why this was terrible etc – or at least that’s the old model.
Under the old model, the awfulness repeats itself and the parents are too inept at communication and memory that they give the kids a hard time, packing a suitcase full of issues for them to take into their young adulthood, and sabotaging their chances of having anything close to a fulfilling and sane relationship until they’re well into their 30s or 40s, if ever. Under the old model, the good parents can guide their kids through the process, so that they emerge mentally healthy at the end of it.
But under the New Model there are mother and daughter teams who prance around like they’re both 16. This creates the danger that the children think silly vanity is ok. I, however, imagine this scenario for that future: the horror of their botoxed parents shocks them into the awareness that unaging freakiness isn’t natural and that maybe nature’s got a good thing going with the whole ‘old folk dying to make way for the new’ thing. Eventually, the children of such people will realize this on their own and be embarrassed by the behavior of their parents who refused to grow up. (I’ve always found it more than a little weird how some people glorify immaturity since, by definition, maturity is when you’re at your prime, so why want to remain less than that? It’s like, everyone’s choosing to be ‘medium’ rather than ‘well done’. Perhaps it’s no accident that mediocre is so popular, the law of the distribution of averages withstanding).
d. What do children care about?
Apparently they can be reliably counted on to be fascinated with dinosaurs, and they like to play. Cartoons, and toys, and fanciful stories; sugar and spice and everything naughty and nice, this is what little people are made of. Especially sugar – candy fiends. Today, they are also inclined to care about weight loss.
e. What do toddlers care about?
I don’t know, learning to walk? Child development psychology is filling in those gaps for us, since no grown up alive seems able to remember their first few years outside of the womb. Probably because before we learned to speak, we had no way to organize our memories. I remember learning to spell my name one afternoon with a magic marker and a sheaf of paper, but I was past my toddler years by then.
So back to the problem – no one give a shit about anything. True or False?
T.
Because ‘no one’ doesn’t exist. Society no longer seems unified by anything except by the new language of demographics. Cultural identity is important, and people define themselves by their jobs. When you meet someone, you ask them what they do, looking to fill in the picture, looking for insight into what type of person they are. We all learn the dangers of stereotyping and prejudice, but all seem to have a feeling that a stockbroker is a different chap than a lawyer, and that the office copy girl’s life might be a bit more boring than a girl who introduces herself with the words, ‘I’m an actress’.
Interest groups, interest groups, interest groups everywhere!
So, a new question: is this a problem?
The Old School would answer that of course this is a problem. Everything is built out of the metanarratives – remember those? History, mythology, Jesus, Vitamin C …. there are problems in the world, we are citizens of a Western society, and further, citizens of a demographic nation! We have freedom of speech!
And the freedom to not give a shit.
I’m left thinking that the feeling of crisis that hangs in the air is only one under the Old Models. Under the new models, since no one cares, it’s nothing. People aren’t even paying attention. What’s the worst that could happen people ask? And what are the answers? No one can even come up with those, since everything seems to keep functioning.
Transit strike!
What transit strike, they came up with a last minute offer.
Election!
What election?
Do I really have to vote again?
Whatever, what does the government do?
As the Conservatives and the NDP keep reminding us – the Liberals haven’t done shit for 12 years and people with jobs still got their jobs, and people on welfare are still seen as poor suckers, and everywhere, Federal inaction has begun to give the impression that Ottawa isn’t necessary. They’re behind-the-scenes fellows … as long as the show keeps going on, no one thinks the stagehands are important, because razzle dazzle and …. wait, did I just see a celebrity in Yorkville? But that’s an old argument. Helicopters keep falling out of the sky because of Liberal inaction. And the broken promises, from getting rid of the GST on, it’s been Red Book dreams at election time, and the nightmare of policy review come afternoon.
Christ. I can’t help but say that the feeling of doom that I see hovering above the grave of John Paul II and the rest of the 20th Century’s cast of characters, is one exacerbated by my own dismal finances, and the irresponsibility of not even opening the bills that came in the mail because I didn’t have the money to pay them when they arrived. But now it’s all caught up with me and I’m dealing with it. I’ll get through it again; I’ll get through it for this week. I can say that a certain lack of courage of facing the problem then, because it seemed unsolvable, was out of a feeling that it’ll be solvable in the future, and in a sense that’s how it’s turned out, only the future came a little quicker than I expected. Anyway, I want to say that my behavior in this way mirrors that of the politicians and the leaders of our society. Focused on keeping the spinning machine from whirling out of control on a week by week basis – or, a quarter by quarter basis – they put off and juggle deadlines and ongoing problems. But eventually the chickens come home to roost. The Liberals are fucked because of everything John Ralston Saul warned us about ten years ago in The Unconscious Civilization. It’s all caught up to them.
The Prime Minister wanted to talk to the nation directly, because he doesn’t trust the filter of the media, and he thinks that he couldn’t do it through Parliament. Have you watched Parliament lately? There’s a call to order every few minutes. I don’t blame P.M. P.M. at all. I think it’s one of the few things he’s done that shows decisiveness. The fact that the media are all like, ‘it’s not a national crisis, what’s he thinking’ – all I can say is shame on them. The motherfuckers. They were spinning it as if the shows he was going to interrupt were a million time more important than mere politics.
Now, it’s easy to see the broadcasters as simply in the pockets of advertisers etc … of course they are … but I think what’s I found most bothersome was the visceral reaction – as if the fucking O.C. was suddenly sacred. The Globe and Mail – a print source, who is supposed to be competing with broadcasting! – took this line, printing a picture from the O.C. between politicians. Benedict the 16th – you interrupt the soap operas to show him waving to the crowd for the first time, sure – but our Prime Minister going head to head with Friends re-runs? Who does he think he is? The Pope?
Ok. Fine. I guess I have to accept that fact that whatever comes out of a Hollywood studio is in someways connected with the stringed beads and red threads of religion. Just have to face reality there. But I’m really embarrassed by a media so lacking in insight and imagination to equate speaking with your countrymen has only something you do in emergency. When actions speak louder than words, his action rose above the heckles of the Parliament and drowned out the talking heads and the Avid editors who’d have soundbited anything he’d said in Parliament to determinant of the message.
It almost makes me want to vote for the Liberals, if only Jack Layton wasn’t so damn sane and sensible. Honestly, why isn’t this guy running rings around the others? Oh, wait, I forget, because he doesn’t appeal to ‘the people’ as there are no people. Only demographics. I suppose I remain the overeducated, compassionate, bitchy demographic, which isn’t kul, and therefore, who cares what I think.
Steven Pinker writes here:
Of course, just because men and women are different does not mean that the differences are triggered by genes. People develop their talents and personalities in response to their social milieu, which can change rapidly. So some of today’s sex differences in cognition could be as culturally determined as sex differences in hair and clothing. But the belief, still popular among some academics (particularly outside the biological sciences), that children are born unisex and are molded into male and female roles by their parents and society is becoming less credible. [emphasis mine] Many sex differences are universal across cultures (the twentieth-century belief in sex-reversed tribes is as specious as the nineteenth-century belief in blood-deprived ovaries), and some are found in other primates. Men’s and women’s brains vary in numerous ways, including the receptors for sex hormones. Variations in these hormones, especially before birth, can exaggerate or minimize the typical male and female patterns in cognition and personality. Boys with defective genitals who are surgically feminized and raised as girls have been known to report feeling like they are trapped in the wrong body and to show characteristically male attitudes and interests. And a meta-analysis of 172 studies by psychologists Hugh Lytton and David Romney in 1991 found virtually no consistent difference in the way contemporary Americans socialize their sons and daughters. Regardless of whether it explains the gender disparity in science, the idea that some sex differences have biological roots cannot be dismissed as Neanderthal ignorance.
He goes on to say, after discusing the psychology of the taboo:
At some point in the history of the modern women’s movement, the belief that men and women are psychologically indistinguishable became sacred. The reasons are understandable: Women really had been held back by bogus claims of essential differences. Now anyone who so much as raises the question of innate sex differences is seen as “not getting it” when it comes to equality between the sexes. The tragedy is that this mentality of taboo needlessly puts a laudable cause on a collision course with the findings of science and the spirit of free inquiry.
Of course, this whole article has to do with the Larry Summers Affair over the winter.
Earlier in the week I dissed American intellectuals as largely all being lame, saying that the luminaries of thinking that populate American discourse tend to be Canadians working in American universities.
(Who are they you ask? Give yourself something to do and figure it out).
I forgot about Noam Chomsky. Chomsky doesn’t suffer from the mediocrity of the elites.
Andrea Dworkin at Wikipedia
Obit
In his biography of Leonardo da Vinci, Charles Nicholls argues that Bramante’s depiction of the philosopher Heraclitus is actually a portrait of Leonardo, but that the sunken eyes and tears are an affectation, as Heraclitus was seen to be a despairing philosopher, associated with melancholy.And here is Harold Bloom, with his ‘woe is me’ pose. Is Bloom really fucked up, or just using the the ‘ I’m a despairing genius!’ affectation?
While Bloom often has great perspectives and interesting things to say, I can’t help but feel this melancholic bullshit is an affectation of ‘greatness’ which Bloom projects because he wants to be seen as part of some pantheon; in reality, to me it highlights a level of mediocrity.
What the fuck is up with ‘the mediocrity of elites?’ Especially American ones, who get paraded about as if their contributions to arts and letters is something rivaling that of those from centuries past? I can count on both hands the number of truly great thinkers and contributors to the humanities in the past 50 years, and all of them are Canadian. Wait, let me think … nope, can’t come up with American names. While these thinkers may currently work in the States, they were raised in the Canadian education system.
Bloom himself credits Northrop Frye has having influenced him.
Heraclitus and Democritus by Bramante; Harold Bloom
Sunday 25 March 2001
With the acquisition of the old photo album today: As I was looking at it, weighing the idea of spending ten dollars for it, I noticed that a large number of its pages were unused. The idea occurred to me, to fill this book with contemporary photographs, to have 1910 faded black and white at the beginning, and 2001 at the end. As well, the person selling the book had Carte de Visite for sale. I had browsed through them earlier, and had a strange feeling, of looking at 19th century faces, and of course, the image of William Gibson’s imagined art work, Read us the books and the Names of the Dead.
When I got this book home, I scanned in the images of the carte de visite I had bought, and glued them into the book. I had made a sign, which read, Prelude, the 19th Century, and then, those faces, those beards, how strange they were! It is a very different world we live in. As I placed those images on the glass of the scanner, especially the one that is dated and signed, 27th August 1866, I thought of the long journey they had made, and what a strange resting place that image had found on glass between plastic and electricity. The images appear on the screen, a technology unimagined when they represented the earliest days of reproduction.
Using my Palm, I was able to determine the dates of three photographs. The first two are in the album, and are obviously taken at around the same time, since they are meant to echo one another. A picture preceding these was of a grave stone, clearly marked with a date of death of 27 May 1910. The grave is fresh, and there are flowers placed around it. I thus knew that these images were around 1910. I also noticed that the last day was a Saturday the 30th. Using my Palm, I was able to determine that it was either April 1910, September 1911, or November 1912, since those are the only months containing 30 days upon which the 30th fell on a Saturday. Closer inspection of the calendar showed that the weekends were colored differently than the weekdays, and that the first Monday was coloured differently as well. Aha! Labour day! It is September 1911. Just to make sure, I checked on the net to see when Labour Day came about, and it was established in the 1880s, so I am thus reasonably sure that these two photographs were taken that September.
The other photo, once again, a family, posed in front of a calendar. This wasn’t clear, so I scanned it in, and zoomed it up to a legible size. Manipulating the brightness and the contrast, I was able to see a clear date emerge: 1920. And, once again using the Palm, I scanned through the months for the number combination as it existed in the image: that is primarily, a Monday the 2nd, a Sunday the 8th, Sunday the 15th and a Sunday the 22nd. The Sunday the 1st wasn’t visible, so I thought that it must have been washed out by the flash. I found that August 1920 fits that description, and thus I wrote that on the back of the photo. Now regarding that grave: I want to find this grave, I want to stand where they stood and take the same photograph, only in 21st Century terms: that is, a colour snapshot, 35mm. I want to paste this in the back of the book, at roughly the same place, to provide a symmetry, and to show what 90 years does to the trees and to graves. The grave is that of a Charles Hayne, who died on “27 May 1910, at the age of 55 years 7 months”. I tried to use the net to find some records of him – this of course yielded no results and frustrated me. I now want to go to the archives downtown, and look up his death record, to find where he is buried. I think the person who sold me the book said that it came from Bridgeport, which is down around Kitchener. If I can find this information, this summer, it would be a project to accomplish.
Unrealized Moscow
Mr. Grace Kelly, His Serene Highness, lover of not only democracy and the common man, but the economics of the high-class resort, gambling, decadence, and luxury.
The King is Dead, Long Live the King!
Saul Bellow at Wikipedia
I haven’t read any of his books, but noted here because I want to keep track of the dying establishment.
Stephen Colbert on The Daily Show:
‘Do you realize that right now there is no one on Earth who is infallible? The whole thing is being run by human beings. I’m not sure if you’re aware of their track record…’
I went into Downfall with a certain reluctance; I came out with a new understanding of the history of the 20th Century. That’s no small thing, and is one of the reasons that I agree with all the good press this movie has been getting. It was not only the best World War II movie I’d ever seen, but one of the best films in general.
I wanted to see it because I’m a student of history, and I’d heard that this was based on interviews conducted with Hitler’s secretary, who was in her 20s during the last two years of the war when she worked for him. Because of this, the story is centered around her character more so than the others; but the nature of the story means we get insight into the swirl of events and the poisonous personalities involved, huddled in the underground Bunker, listening to the thunderous rumbles as the approaching Russian army shells the city.
A few years ago I was at a great talk by the painter Tony Scherman, and in his presentation he brought up the fact that in our world, with TV all over the planet, chances are there is something on the Nazis playing 24 hours a day – that at this minute, somewhere, there’s a Nazi show on. He brought it up to point out the project of ‘never forgetting’ that seems to be behind it.
At the time I was struck by the fact that, you know, history is full of atrocity, and we tend to forget them. It also seems unfair that we privilege certain stories of atrocity while ignoring others. In addition, I’ve felt that we’re living in a totally different world, so why should we keep obsessing over this stuff?
Seeing Downfall helped me understand how traumatic the war was. It’s a cliché of criticism to say that we keep getting a sanitized version of war, even now when Speilberg made Saving Private Ryan and how he made sure to have that scene of a guy looking for his arm; but that film failed in the end to make me realize the trauma because it was such a sentimental story that fundamentally seemed to insult intelligence; but similar scenes involving amputation in Downfall may have made me flinch, but this was something they experienced and took for granted, so why should I feel put upon watching it, knowing in the end it’s makeup? But the difference here, is that Downfall is a true story, an accurate recreation, filmed in a way so that by the end, I was creeped out. As I should have been. The Nazis were seriously creepy folk, which is something that isn’t usually conveyed by documentaries or by cartoon villainy.
It helped me understand that the war was such a disruptive and psychologically unsettling event, something that was the result of centuries of events, all tumbled together and out of control, that movies like this are made (that the Nazi Entertainment Industry is founded on) simply trying to understand it. The sixty years which have past seems perhaps too short a time to fully grasp what happened.
At the same time, as the recent death of the Pope reminds me, we are entering a new understanding. Because John Paul II became a priest during the Nazi occupation of Poland, and that the Cold War which he is credited with doing much to end, was a result of the epilogue of the fall of Berlin to the Red Army.
I grew up going to gun shows with my father throughout the Maritimes and saw so many Nazi artifacts that I took them for granted, artifacts being sold to collectors who wanted a piece of history more than being of the neo-variety. Such a thing to this day cannot happen in Germany – you can’t publicly display anything from that era. So, there was some controversy when this movie came out last year in Germany, because this is a German film with big-name German actors. And that was one of the things that made this so compelling – to see a film in the language in which the events actually took place, and with the historical accuracy that memory of survivors would demand. This new period of World War II studies includes films such as this, made not so much to entertain, but to document and to understand.
I’m not going to say you should go see this movie – there are lots of understandable reasons why anyone would chose not to. All I’m going to say is that I doubt you’d regret it, and thus it is highly recommended.
Downfall (Der Untergang), 2004, 148 min
Film synopsis at Tribute.ca
Film website (im Deutsch)
John Paul II 1920-2005
Pontificate 1978-2005
born: Karol Wojtyla in Wadowice, Poland
To be eventually updated with photographs when I get the digi-camera working again.