Wild nights would be our luxury
Jan. 28th, 2004 12:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
malsperanzaSnow again tonight. The Empire State Building dissolving in a thick gray cloud: there and not-there.
The city under snow is Draco!New York: white, cold, impossibly silent, inexpressibly beautiful, and an emotional wreck. Ah, I love it.
* * *
Office closed tomorrow, so I think I will take myself back downtown to see The Battle of Algiers again. And after that, I will go to B&N and buy the DVD.
I'm amazed that I remember so many of the individual scenes from years ago.
When the women cut their hair and turn themselves into westerners. The child in the cafe with the ice-cream cone. The marchers pouring down the steps of the casbah, ullulating.
That amazing actor who played Col. Mathieu, heroic and horrible. (And surely the model for Robert Duvall's Col. Killgore in Apocalypse Now.) And of course the guy who played Ali. Damn.
And the faces.
And Morricone's score. And the B&W: the film stock shifting almost randomly from grainy high-contrast to grey and documentary, and back again. And the camera work--that closing scene through the smoke and mist, everyone reduced to shadows.
This time round, because I am so interested just now in how fiction constructs heroes, I was mesmerized by the way the movie keeps giving us passionate portraits of extraordinarily heroic people (on both sides), and then peeling back their valor, their high ideals, to show us the bitter consequences of their idealism.
And we are drawn in by the power of ideas and the exquisite beauty of the story telling, until we find ourselves rooting for the bombers to blow up the cafe, even after we are shown the children in it. We turn our unwilling admiration on the colonel, even though we know he has performed torture,and ordered others to perform torture, and does not believe in his own cause.
It's the pull of myth that persuades us, and--terrible to say--that persuades the terrorists themselves, and the colonialists. The myth of righteousness. The corrupt power of art.
A movie with an irreducible moral center and an unequalled sense of beauty, compassion, and horror. Maybe Goya, maybe Caravaggio, maybe Conrad can match it.
Makes me want to see Fires on the Plain again.
* * *
The Horror! The Horror!
What are these rumors I hear that Nader is thinking of running again?
Tell him not to here.
The city under snow is Draco!New York: white, cold, impossibly silent, inexpressibly beautiful, and an emotional wreck. Ah, I love it.
* * *
Office closed tomorrow, so I think I will take myself back downtown to see The Battle of Algiers again. And after that, I will go to B&N and buy the DVD.
I'm amazed that I remember so many of the individual scenes from years ago.
When the women cut their hair and turn themselves into westerners. The child in the cafe with the ice-cream cone. The marchers pouring down the steps of the casbah, ullulating.
That amazing actor who played Col. Mathieu, heroic and horrible. (And surely the model for Robert Duvall's Col. Killgore in Apocalypse Now.) And of course the guy who played Ali. Damn.
And the faces.
And Morricone's score. And the B&W: the film stock shifting almost randomly from grainy high-contrast to grey and documentary, and back again. And the camera work--that closing scene through the smoke and mist, everyone reduced to shadows.
This time round, because I am so interested just now in how fiction constructs heroes, I was mesmerized by the way the movie keeps giving us passionate portraits of extraordinarily heroic people (on both sides), and then peeling back their valor, their high ideals, to show us the bitter consequences of their idealism.
And we are drawn in by the power of ideas and the exquisite beauty of the story telling, until we find ourselves rooting for the bombers to blow up the cafe, even after we are shown the children in it. We turn our unwilling admiration on the colonel, even though we know he has performed torture,and ordered others to perform torture, and does not believe in his own cause.
It's the pull of myth that persuades us, and--terrible to say--that persuades the terrorists themselves, and the colonialists. The myth of righteousness. The corrupt power of art.
A movie with an irreducible moral center and an unequalled sense of beauty, compassion, and horror. Maybe Goya, maybe Caravaggio, maybe Conrad can match it.
Makes me want to see Fires on the Plain again.
* * *
The Horror! The Horror!
What are these rumors I hear that Nader is thinking of running again?
Tell him not to here.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-28 09:41 am (UTC)A tip of the hat, in passing.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-28 02:44 pm (UTC)You should see the snow up here (Inwood)-- the parks are magnificent. Research conducted while drinking my coffee shows dogs enjoy snow.
If Nader runs again I will blow myself up in a Pinto.
Funny thing about irreducible moral centers: both the CIA and the Black Panthers used it as a "training" film. Which is kind of how I feel about life. The center seems irreducible to me, but there they go reducing it left and right (so to speak).
no subject
Date: 2004-01-28 08:12 pm (UTC)*swoons* How can anyone not love that little pale, pointy face?
If Nader runs again I will blow myself up in a Pinto
I have always felt, that if anyone ever drove me to suicide, they should expect to be coming with me. I'm just saying.
I don't know, I can't imagine people will have the same patience with Nader if he tries it again. There is just too much focused, anti-Bush rage, and I suspect it will translate to gentle peer pressure all down the line. I hope hope hope hope hope so, anyway. Where are the Teamsters when you really need them?
Have not seen Battle of Algiers. Must put it on the list!
no subject
Date: 2004-01-28 11:33 pm (UTC)Go see Battle of Algiers. I know it was playing in DC for a while this fall--worth seeing on a big screen, if possible, filmed in gorgeous B&W. See upthread for more wibbling.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 02:51 am (UTC)I have always felt, that if anyone ever drove me to suicide, they should expect to be coming with me. I'm just saying.
Excellent thought. This plan just keeps getting better.
And do see Battle of Algiers. A great film.
no subject
Date: 2004-01-28 11:06 pm (UTC)Mmm. Dominican food. Mofongo. Mondongo. Bacalao.
That icon is ... *squints* ...very white.
Dogs in snow! Wish my samoyed was still alive: in deep snow she used to grin like an idiot.
Yah, not only did the CIA and the Panthers use that film for training, but so apparently did the planners [sic] of the current Iraq occupation. (http://worldfilm.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0907%2D07.htm)
Was thinking about that when I saw the movie again: Its power comes partly from the fact that, whatever your political opinion, you can find a hero in it--*and* a justification for your hero doing the most terrible things. And then you discover that you are utterly compromised.
I guess what I meant by "irreducible moral center" is that the movie makes no concessions to the romance of ends justifying means--torture by those in power or terrorism by those oppressed: both are presented for what they are. Even though it says nothing about the background or future of the conflict, or even about what was going on in the rest of Algeria (really, it's a very claustrophobic movie), it's all about consequences--the consequences of decisions made, well or badly, for present aims.
The movie refuses, for example, to discuss the origins of the conflict (that bottomless well of who-came-first, whose-land-is-it-really, what-does-the-Koran-say, did the French mean well in the beginning, did the French give generously to the development of Algeria, did the Arabs welcome them, etc etc).
I did find myself wanting a tag or text at the end reminding us of what happened after independence. It's implied, presciently, in every frame, and especially in Mathieu's speech about Dien Bien Phu, but understandably isn't explicit.
The Pentagon crew apparently watched it in order to understand the hearts and minds of insurrectionists in Iraq--which reveals a level of ignorance and naivety among the people running that place that I find really depressing. Does everyone forget that this movie was made by an Italian with no ties to Algeria? And that it's a m-o-v-i-e? However accurate it is, and close to documentary in style (and careful in its reporting of the facts), it's a highly manipulative work of art.
But one imagines them also being captivated (as I was) by the romantic figure of Col. Mathieu, and the moral authority that emanates from him as he accuses journalists of being responsible for whether the French will win or lose (heard that elsewhere, have we?), recalls Dien Bien Phu, vows that Algiers will be different, evokes Sartre, and reminds everyone that the same soldiers carrying out the vicious colonialist enterprise are the men who fought in the Resistance.
I mean,the CIA is, and the Panthers were, communities tragically entranced by their own poetic and romantic myths. Saving the world, changing the world: they have always thought of themselves in the heroic terms of fiction (whether Pontecorvo's elevated fiction or the impoverished romance of Tom Clancy and his ilk). It terrifies me to know that the Pentagon too *still* prefers to learn history by watching movies.
Hobbes, that cynic, says: "It is a precept or general rule of reason, that every man, ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of attaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps and advantages of war."
But if reminded that men remember the injustices done them, long after the war is over, he merely answers, "Imagination and memory are but one thing, which for divers considerations hath divers names."
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 03:00 am (UTC)The actions of the film have consequences, but it doesn't seem to be apparent to everybody that the consequences aren't worth it.
That guy playing Mathieu--what a performance. *dies* *gets better*. And brilliantly written also. The only pro actor in the film, I read. And those lines about Sartre were great. "Why are the Sartres always born on the other side?" *headesks in theatre*
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 04:22 am (UTC)I keep thinking about *when* it was made: what else was going on in 1965. I mean, if Pontecorvo could see it, why was it so hard for everyone else to see? Aah, old stale water under a very old bridge.
That guy playing Mathieu
*joins death and resurrection*