Fwd: Re: Are tyrants good for art?

Tue Aug 14 07:48:23 CDT 2012

> Believe me, I'm not going to compare Hollywood's turning down of less
> commercial screenplays with the genuine repression faced by artists in
> fascist or totalitarian societies.  Getting a project turned down is a
> bummer, but getting tossed in a prison and tortured, or having one's family
> members threatened is a qualitatively different threat.  It's insulting to
> people who've faced real repression to call the Nixon or Reagan or Bush
> years repressive.

Intelligent people who believe that those who oppose repression, those
who resist repression or call attention to repression, through
artistic expression or other forms of expression, can not take
offesnse merely because the repression resisted is not equal to their
own.  So, if I see artists in Chicago making a film about the crime
and corruption in the police there I do not take offense, I am not
insulted by the fact that Chicago has a low crime rate, a very small
corruption problem in the police department relative to the rate of
crime and extent of police corruption here in Rio. Should Dilma, now
president of Brasil, who was tortured by a repressive totalitarian
military dictatorship take insult from those who are repressed by her
government and resist her? Repression is, whenever and wherever it
occures, real. The notion that only those who suffer extreme
repression have the right to resist or are somehow  given legitamacy
by the qualitative measure of their repressed lives, is a dangerous
one, for it prevents solidarity, and it turns away from repression
that it deems less than what others, in extreme ciricumstances and
conditions suffer.

> That being said, there probably is a sense in which a repressive environment
> can create a spark of rebellious protest that takes the form of great art.
> Whether in the Soviet Union or fundamentalist Iran or the various
> incarnations of the Chinese state, possibly even in present-day North Korea
> (though it's hard to imagine), artists are faced with the task of couching
> their rebellion in metaphor.  How far can you take it before it becomes
> obvious and brings the brunt of the State into play?  That's a different set
> of restraints than Corporate Hollywood creates, and maybe it's more likely
> to foster great art (for those who survive) than the general sucking up and
> conformism that even the current American indie film industry fosters.
>
> And, for the record, I consider Alexander Nevsky one of the greatest films
> ever made.
>
> Laura
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Nemtsov
> Sent: Aug 13, 2012 12:56 PM
> To: Phillip Greenlief , pynchon-l
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Are tyrants good for art?
>
> right. right. hardship strengthens the soul. no matter who oppresses you,
> hollywood or gulag, pardon me for those cliches
> we all have our warm memories about our soviet past when the grass was
> greener (however, 1998 seems like not it, it was more of yeltsin's break in
> that ethnically hereditary tyranny we're still having here with those two
> revolting clowns replacing each other now and then), and, for tourists, it
> might be especially dear. but please mind, in this country all real good
> art, be it tarkovsky, klimov or whoever in other venues or genres, has
> always existed neither thanks to nor in opposition to power (there are
> exceptions, of course, but they are, well, exceptions, etc.) it has always
> been totally parallel to to the regime, not even on the same plane with it.
> i suspect, it happens everywhere but can speak only from my experience in
> this country. if a tyranny is instrumental in creating good art, it may be
> so in a very, very roundabout way. to say it is "good" for anything apart
> from corruption and suffering is, well, stretching the truth ideologically.
> of course, i'm prejudiced against it, i've spent the last 50 years (almost)
> in here, and i hope that i know how much better the art could have been
> without the dubious beauty of the soviet power adorning it. the regime broke
> tarkovsky, at least, it corrupted klimov into prolonged silence and
> bureaucratic toil, it ruined eisenstein's last years, if we must speak of
> the cinema. so, how good was that for art? please
> Mx
>
> On 13.08.2012 20:14, Phillip Greenlief wrote:
>
> From: Max Nemtsov <max.nemtsov at gmail.com>
>
> hm, a hectic mix
> and, this list covers at least 3 different tyrants, with different
> degrees of tightening screws on art (not to mention, several works from
> it are specimens of pre-ordered propaganda art). and, this is cinema
> which, according to the greatest moviegoer of all times, named
> Ulyanov-Lenin, was nothing better for the masses than circus, so of
> course it thrived under the Soviets, why shouldn't it. and it
> disproportionately veers towards one director
> try to take instead, something like a typical annual output of Soviet
> film studios of mid-seventies, and see how many gems you could find.
> then, let's talk art
> Mx
>
> jesus, i just adore people nostalgic for the soviet era, it's like the
> 60s. have you lived there?
>
> ************************
> sir,
>
> well, i'm just a dumb-ass american, commenting on movies that i like.
>
> i did live in saint petersburg, but in 1998, after glasnost, so no, i didn't
> live there during the soviet era. i tell you what i did like about living
> there: lots of wonderful musicians to play with - going to the marinsky
> theater and seeing WAITING FOR GODOT and paying the equivalent of $3.50 to
> see it, or ballet, opera, all of it - usually less than $4 to see great
> performances - good food to buy for cheap in the sennaya ploschad - cheap
> rent (i know it's gone up a lot since then, but it's not like the cost of
> housing in the sf bay area hasn't increased since 1998 ... fuck, give me a
> break) - and the russians were no where near as snotty as any new yorker or
> bay area musician i run into.
>
> onward - do you really think hollywood is without tyrants? does not the
> capitalist system come with its own insidious brand of censorship? movies
> get made in america that can make money. art isn't so terribly important to
> the mix - the so called independent cinema movement in america (which smells
> a lot like the current brand of liberalism - meaning, it no longer exists in
> a form that is consistent with its definition) has become little more than
> an avenue for young filmmakers to show the big studios they can suck up to
> the status quo with the best of 'em.
>
> i can only judge those (russian) films through the same set of eyes that i
> view any work of world cinema, and for my money, or focused attention, those
> films on that list stand up against anything that bergman, fellini,
> hitchcock, ozu, antonioni, or any of the other great film-makers have
> produced. they present fascinating stories that engage me intellectually and
> emotionally ... works for me. the first five minutes of THE CRANES ARE
> FLYING are as good as any out there, imo ...
>
> but i'm probably suffering from the same disease as you - namely, that
> anything (in the realm of art - and hell, politics for that matter) that
> comes out of my country - nowadays anyway - is met with a great deal of
> suspicion - the system that has created it is a corrupt, morally bankrupt
> system that prizes gold above all else. that's how we measure success in
> this country - what did the box office have to say about it? even a film
> like VERTIGO is still apprehended (when professionals in the film industry
> talk about it) with: well, it didn't do so well at the box office, but time
> seems to have been kind to it - and that's just about the best film
> hitchcock ever made.
>
> look at the summer releases in america and tell me which film out in the
> theaters right now stands up against tarkovsky or klimov? the fucking DARK
> KNIGHT RISES? HUNGER GAMES? MADAGASCAR 3??? ... please. two of the best
> american films i've seen this year are - no wait, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT
> KEVIN is lynne ramsay - english ... never mind. i take it back - i haven't
> seen an independent film released from an american director this year that
> can touch any of the films on that list.
>
> ok, sorry, rant over. just sayin' ... the capitalist system is not without
> tyrants, and not without censorship and not without a lot of people toiling
> and getting exploited.
>
>
> ************************
> On 12.08.2012 23:14, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>> Battleship Potemkin (1925)
>> Alexander Nevsky (1938)
>> The Cranes are Flying (1957)
>> Ivan's Childhood (1962)
>> Andrei Rublev (1966)
>> Stalker (1979)
>> Come and See (1985)
>>
>> And for all of its repressive structures in place, Iran has a great cinema
>> movement.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joe Allonby <joeallonby at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Aug 12, 2012 1:08 PM
>>> To: Alex Colter <recoignishon at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Dave Monroe <against.the.dave at gmail.com>, pynchon -l
>>> <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Are tyrants good for art?
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oRbStmxvm4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Alex Colter <recoignishon at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "It's because traditional tyrants left a good deal of freedom in
>>>> society.
>>>> Ancient China wasn't anything like a modern democracy, but it produced
>>>> some
>>>> of the greatest art there's ever been, while Mao's China produced
>>>> nothing.
>>>> Tsarist Russia contained many kinds of discrimination and injustice, but
>>>> in
>>>> the late 19th and early 20th Century it was in the vanguard of
>>>> literature,
>>>> painting, music and dance. The Soviet Union produced little that was
>>>> even
>>>> remotely comparable. The arts flourished in the empire of the Habsburgs,
>>>> while Nazism produced Leni Riefenstahl's repugnant and much over-rated
>>>> Triumph of the Will. Whereas authoritarian regimes leave much of society
>>>> alone, totalitarianism aims to control everything. Invariably, the
>>>> result is
>>>> a cultural desert."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Dave Monroe
>>>> <against.the.dave at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Culture thrives on conflict and antagonism, not social harmony - a
>>>>> point made rather memorably by a certain Harry Lime, says philosopher
>>>>> John Gray.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19202527
>>>>>
>>>>> John Gray
>>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>