Acting-Out Politics

Weblog opens discussion about the psychology of Bushmerican style of behavior.

Emil Nolde, “Courtship”, 1919

According to the Nolde’s painting there are at least three keys to earthly happiness – two of them belong to the seductively behaving young man and one to the woman in the moment of being seduced. The first opener of earthly happiness is the man’s eyes shining with blueness brighter than the sky itself. Second is the optimistically blue and energetically crafty fingers of his right hand – suggesting to the woman heavenly (but on the earth) happiness. The confident movements of his fingers suggest that his seductive intention is directly connected with the promise of money in exchange for the woman’s sexual favors. The third magic key to the success of the business of courtship is the heavenly blue sparkle in the woman’s eyes (in a justified contrast to the “sinful” darkness of her gaze). The success of seduction is impossible without at least some degree of greed in the person targeted by courtship (which always takes super-generous pose).

Of course, the woman is also not without her own seductive posture in relation to her seducer. Her playful thigs and, of course, her almost wild pubic hair is a rather radical and insisting promise. But the man’s sexual appeal (which we notice right under the woman’s as if lazily pantomimed right knee) is not completely blue, but blue mixed with the green as a natural color of earthy flora with its remarkable ability to expand to the heaven.

Earthly happiness needs a private beach (or a wild corner of it) – the sun’s abode, which with some quite human imagination can be transferred into private interiors with a dosed light. But our negotiators of marital or just sexual celebration are certainly on the corner of wild beach framed by the calm river. Here primordial naturalness embraces with reasonable donation on part of rational financial calculation.

Healthy active sexuality needs money to solidify itself, like money needs sexuality to intensify its existence. The both ingredients obviously need, respect and appreciate each other. Marriage appeals to them, because even use of the fig list of love makes money and sex inevitably vailed. Look at our personages of Nolde’s painting – how involved they are into elaborating of the establishment of their relationship. The both are equally don’t want to end as stupid and insipid simpletons. They both want to possess the greenness and blueness of their togetherness.

Emil Nolde, 1896

Emil Nolde 1867-1956

This face can be human if not its facial expression that is completely wiped clean from any sensitivity, not already mentioning compassion for what these eyes see. This face is like the front part of a missile on its way to destroy or like an armored car with an electronic choice of targets. This person (Mr. Herdhitze) is ready at any moment to start his destructible mission. He is a fighter with the soul of high-tech weapon.

Pay attention to his smile – it’s a smile full of irony addressed to another person. This smile’s energy is at the expense of somebody else, whom Herdhitze (Ugo Tognazzi) in this moment is targeting – Mr. Klotz (Alberto Lionello). It is not a smile of mutuality, equality, friendliness. It’s rather a smile which, as if, assessing and measuring the fighting distance of inequality between them – the person who is smiling (who feels in charge of the situation) and the one who soon will be put in his place.

Herdhitze holds in front of his mouth a secret about Klotz’s son which soon will completely debilitate Klotz as an opponent

Now we see, that the face we already saw in two previous stills is changed again – now there is no indifference as face armor or smile. Herdhitze’s eyes became naïve, as if dreamy, it’s Mr. Herdhitze was parodying his interlocutor and financial competitor Mr. Klotz who doesn’t know why Herdhitze unexpectedly visiting him and what a deadly surprise expects him about his son’s super-scandalous sexual identity which his competitor is victoriously ready to announce. By postponing his blow to the Klotz, by as if closing his mouth by keeping in front of it his secret between his two palms Herdhitze is laughing at Klotz’s ignorance about his son’s horrifying truth which is supposed to shock Klotz’s mind and heart to the degree that he instead of continuing to be financial rival will be transformed into the toy or poppy in Herdhitze’s hands.

Herdhitze holds in front of his mouth and nose his exclamatory finger of, as if, silencing the truth

The face of the billionaire Herdhitze changed again. Now he keeps in front of his closed mouth and nose his exclamatory finger. Now, when the secret achieved what it had to and shut up Klotz’s arrogance in front of his rival and now collaborator, the time is for Herdhitze to offer Klotz friendship to reward him with keeping the secret of his son untouchable. More, he offered him to unite their enterprises – to create the biggest monopoly in the world… by the price of the radical sacrifice Klotz’s perverted son. Like destructive fire in the forest creates rejuvenation of whole area, it is a time to sacrifice purposeless and empty-minded boy for his father’s enterprise.

Mr’s Klotz’s face shows his sensitivity – his emotional impulsiveness, which, as it’s well known, is not the best psychological background for a businessman, especially of Klotz’s caliber. While Herdhitze after WWII had to make a plastic operation, Klotz was continuing to do the same things he did during the war. Klotz (Alberto Lionello), in spite of his Hitler mustache and a hint of the hairdo was and is… a musician. He is able to create poems-songs accompanying them by the harp music he played himself.

Here we see Klotz horrified by Herdhitze’s revelation about Julian, Klotz’s son (Jean-Pierre Leaud). But Herdhitze’s proposal of sacrifice for self-enrichment was for Klotz like a beam of light – a salvation with one strike, which healed him through his own generally pragmatic orientation and artistic inspirations. Having hated his industrial rival Herdhitze during decades of their fight for economic domination, now Klotz decides that uniting their billions is healthier solution than to keep the son-sexual deviant as a dirty mark on his, Klotz’s name and future industrial and financial achievements.

Klotz’s artistic occupations (his closeness to art) were helping him to keep a cheerful nature which survived Herdhitze’s “nuclear attack”.

Klotz already was disappointed in his son before. He had no idea about his son’s demonic secret, but he didn’t like his independent attitude and emotional stubbornness. Now, when Herdhitze’s terrifying revelation struck him he not only “survived” it, but understood better the ambiguity of the reality (when his enemy of many years instead of just destroying him made a “rational” proposal of stopping hating one another and unite in peace with one another and in promising war with their new competitors. And this only on one condition – to get rid of his son whose disgusting secret is a direct danger for his father! Klotz was always suffering that his son was refusing to work with him in their family business, and this made him feel ashamed in front of his business colleagues. And now he feels free, and who has liberated him is, paradoxically, his old enemy, his business rival. That’s how an enemy becomes a friend, while his own son was the main obstacle for Klotz to feel himself happy. Viva production!

Here is Julian (Jean-Pierre Leaud), the sacrificed son of Mr. Klotz. He is just silently disappeared to nowhere, “vanished” by the words of peasant workers working for their master, Julian’s father. He was well educated for his age. And he was a burden not only for his father and mother, but for the universal industrial and money-making muscle of humankind.

Of course, we are talking here about blue eyes not in a decorative (romantic) and not in a factual (prosaic) sense, but how some religious believers or people with unconscious superstitious needs can be prone to feel even without the blue eyes but through other symbols of megalomaniacal sensitivity – this imaginary support of the frightened and exhausted human ego and the impoverished human identity.

Anna, the main character in Bergman’s “The Passion of Anna” is an irresistible human being when she is deploying her passionate appeal to those who are listening to her. When she is in this situation her suffering and her persuasive power become the one, and people cannot resist her truthfulness. She becomes a preacher of the human heart itself, defender of the human soul. She becomes the personification of… goodness itself, savior of the universal wisdom.

But then Anna (Liv Ullmann) often feels that something stands between her bottomless sincerity and the perception of her conviction by another person, that what is perceived is somehow not identical with her aspiration. Then anxiety inside her is awakening and growing together with her disappointment – her facial expression becomes exactly as we see in this shot – it starts to communicate her suspicion, her doubt in the sincerity or even good intention on the part of her interlocutor.

If Anna feels that her sincerity and suffering are not wholeheartedly embraced – that another person is skeptical about her noble efforts to enlighten him/her (even when nothing negative or critical was expressed), she tends to start to see in another human being a predatory monster from the hell.

In short, Anna’s reaction on human topics of human morality and responsibility can easily collapse into her full blown depression with paranoid impulses. And her heavenly eyes would express a cosmic human grief and frustration.


Do you know that the Soviet Union (now post-heroically dead) and USA (pompously and proudly alive) have blue eyes or some other attributes people use to believe in as supernatural qualities of themselves, some others or inanimate constructions they idolize and look at with awe? Blue eyes can be the carrier of the sky which by itself is the lucky offspring of the heaven. Blue eyes for some can be the path to the depth of the soul, to the essence of being, even when this depth is above us. In short, blue eyes are the symbolic indicator of a connection with an aggrandized reality rooted in human religious aspirations, simply speaking with beliefs rooted in people’s megalomaniacal pretentions. Not blue eyes as such, of course, but what it can mean in people’s unconscious perception.

The people’s perception of their countries can be blue-eyed. Jingoism is blue-eyed or the very worship of political or military leaders. It has happened, when people believe that their country is exceptional – superior to all other countries. Very often patriotism transformed into “flagriotism” – the human tendency to aggrandize one’s country in a bragging way. It happened in the Soviet Union with its military parades, Nazi Germany with its militarist theatrics and USA under Trump, when any criticism of him and our country is viewed as treasonous (instead of being understood for what it often is – care about democracy, an existentially-spiritual attempt to help our country by improving our efforts and ways).

But let’s return to Ingmar Bergman’s film, where the person named Anna (Liv Ullmann) with heavenly eyes is not conscious about her megalomaniacal tendencies and likes to secularly preach “pop-goodness and pop-kindness” offering herself as an example of supreme moral wisdom.

People like Anna (in Liv Ullmann’s surgical performance) is like traditional extremists of religious or ideological beliefs – she can even reach a point of trying to physically hurt another people, as Bergman points out at the end of his film, to hurt in order to save them from their “wrong path”, from being “the enemy of Truth”. The reason some people can behave righteously violently (like many in our country today who arm themselves with high-tech assault weapons in order to commit mass murders because in their minds and hearts they believe that they personify the ultimate, true moral posture).

Sometimes a whole countries can behave under the influence of megalomaniacal psychological obsession. Under the influence of self-glorification complex they easily become a danger to neighboring nations and themselves. Their leadership should keep destiny of Bergman’s and Ullmann’s Anna as a warning. Boasting about their countries’ exceptionalism and superiority – being the first and the best in the world provides people delirious justification for behaving arrogantly – from supreme, superhuman position. It’s from here come the danger of the massive destructions of the human lives and nature, and political and economic achievements of civilization.

“The Passion of Anna” is focused on aesthetic investigation of intimate and social relationships, it teaches us how similar can be psychology of personal love and hate on the one hand and psychology of social animosity on the other, or psychology of so called peaceful times vs. psychology of war, or how “healthy” competition and calculation of profit can transform human life into total mutual hate. Traditional differentiation between Bergman as an artist of intimate relations and Kurosawa as an artist of military conflicts and social clashes is outdated. It looks that external and internal lives of the characters is much more psychologically connected, as personal and macro-social problems. The Kurosawa’s films are impregnated by analysis of intimate relations, while Bergman films by analysis of societal strains and clashes. Intimate and social fights are based on similar psychological configurations, which allow us, for example, to extrapolate from Anna-Andreas Winkelman (Max von Sydow) or Elis Vergerus-Eva (Erland Josephson and Bibi Andersson) to inter-social and inter-national problems, to the very social climate people live in.

Collaboration and competition, tenderness and incompatibility, fight for domination inside the very love, revengefulness and tolerance, sparkles of fury and ability to forgive and ask for forgiveness, intellectual honesty and rivalry, and justice and equality vs obsessive greed, etc. are simultaneously categories of intimacy and human macro-relations through the borders and languages.

Anna (Liv Ullmann) – the carrier of the heaven and Andreas Winkelman (Max von Sydow) – the carrier of the sky, are both the carriers of symbols of hidden megalomania. It’s not surprising that they have lost their relationships, because both have the negative energies of their inability for equality and the absence of the ability for at least moments of forgiveness for the sake of one another, for life.

On the other hands, Andreas and Eva who in the moments of mutual confessions are prone to close their eyes and are able to share their self-frankness, also cannot belong together, but the self-critical moments between them open hope for emotional togetherness if not with each other, then at least in possible future…

The sphere of objectified knowledge has been enormously enhanced, while available time for conscious elaboration has inversely decreased… This double dynamics has provoked an explosion of unawareness… The critical mind is unable to function in conditions of info-nervous saturation, while the rate of education and its quality have fallen and deteriorated… What takes place is actual darkening of the social mind, the decay of human rationality…
Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi, “The Second Coming”, 2019, p. 13, 19, 114

Trade wars are the stuff real wars are made of…
Slavoj Zizek, “Trump’s Conflict with China is a genuine war”, August 10, 2019

Digital introduction of the film’s characters

Why to introduce the characters of the film to viewers in a digital form? May be, because it’s emphasizing the instrumental, mechanical character of the human life in our time? When the emotional breath of the human soul disappears under the burden of mental calculations, people start to behave like robots – they don’t know what to do except to act according to mechanical logic of necessity, although this only deepens their blind dependence and general chaos and creates the illusion that everything is continuing – is moving along while nobody knows why, how and where to. What in digital system is an automatic order, in life is its opposite, but we don’t know, in what kind of opposite we are find ourselves locked.

Extra- multibillionaire with financially geopolitical interests

The incarnation of P.J. Lurz from Texas in his German office.

“Close-up” of the mighty international mogul – you don’t need a human face when you are getting instead the banknote of the trillion dollars value – that’s why P.J. Lurz came to Berlin.

Multi-billionaire’s pragmatic wisdom

Versatility of P.J. Lurz’ intellectual competence is impressive

The multi-billionaire can talk about any subject

During a pop-carnival revelous “duel” between P.J. Lurz and his secretary (one of the leading figures in the terrorist organization) is represented in a curious way – “the first strike” is by the billionaire using a toy (noisemaker blowout) in her direction, while she behaves, as if, she is impulsively afraid of his toy. The billionaire here obviously dominates the terrorist. It looks like Lurz is provoking the terrorist group to act. But what is connoted by and so powerful in and dangerous with his plastic parper toy? It is the billionaire’s money which is his superweapon. We see that to provoke the terrorists to act is the very function of Lurz’ big money which can kill you, make you immortal or help you to kill others.

Everyday life of a revolutionary-terrorist organization

What we see here is not a terrorist act, but a prosaic bank robbery by a terrorist group, which is in a banal need of money. The person who happens to be an obvious victim is the husband of one of the terrorists (Pietra Vielhaber – Margit Carstensen) who resourcefully uses the situation to get rid of the man she hates already for several years.

Professional murderer hired by the terrorist group (Paul – Raoul Gimenez) demands from his temporary landlady (member of the group) – a college professor and an intellectual – to be his mistress. He became like a bone stuck in the very throat of her very life, but when he was murdered by the secret police, she felt his… common humanity and cried (Fassbinder’s lesson to the personage of his own film).

The abandoned desk of the rebellious group includes traces of “political pondering” (disordered chess figures), chaotic banknotes in a creative disorder and a trivial pack of cigarettes

Ilse Hoffmann (Y Sa Lo), domestic and bodily presence in the group, is dramatically overdosed on drugs and soon will die.

Carnivalesque event in all its cathartic irresistibility and as an underground political demarche

P.J. Lurz’s secretary Susanne Gast during the carnival which masks the fact of kidnapping him, was very playful – maneuvering and inexhaustible, like children playing war games

Carnival is moving towards its culmination, and a person in a transvestite outfit is the leader of the plot to kidnap the mighty billionaire while using the chaotic and cheerful atmosphere.

Edgar Gast (Udo Kier) – the commander of the terrorist group who appreciates the kidnapped billionaire’s collaboration, is blackmailing the German government to exchange Lurz’s life for governmental acceptance of the group’s demands. Of course, the terrorists we see in the film are middle class people, lazy and disoriented by general chaos. They like to think of themselves as romantic fighters, but until the secret police hadn’t murder one of their members, their rebellious orientation moved according to verbal channels of their chats with one another.

While the carnival with blackmail extends itself into the next days…

… The multibillionaire behaves with an amazing courage by joining the terrorists in asking the government to trade him in exchange for accepting their demands. In the film, by the way, we never hear any demands which, probably, disappeared in the general confusion of life.

In this shot we see them all – P.J Lurz in the background, Suzanne Gast (Hanna Schygulla) and her husband Edgar Gast (Udo Kier) as a couple, Rudolf Mann (Harry Baer) with his back to viewers and between the spouses Hilde Krieger (Bulle Ogier – the college professor). They all look like wax-figures.

The super-businessman and virtuoso financial dealmaker looks human only on the TV screen, but in actual life he more and more looks like stuffed doll.


Only after the end of the film – only step by step the viewers gave a chance to understand, that the ultimate reason of the preventive counter-measures against the danger of terrorist attack and ultimately this very attack (kidnapping Lurz) is the existence and actions of the self-sacrificial billionaire himself – his masterful staging of the conflict between German government and terrorists with a purpose of making a grand and crown sell.

This statement belongs as a joke to the Berlin Police Chief (Hark Bohm). In other words, it is big money that creates the geopolitical conflicts between Western democracies and terrorists who started to try to undermine them.

We live Between Being and Non-Being, Ritualistic Loving with Roaring Accompaniment of Hating, Between Stupidity and Calculations, Obsessive Optimism and Compulsive Despair

Pay attention to Paul’s (Jacques Dutronc) almost completely crushed smile – echo of an almost destroyed soul. It’s a barely smile of a body existentially separated from its soul.

Paul has lost his feeling of being able to love and deserving to be loved. Here, he is sitting on the same bench where obviously a proletarian family is enjoying its togetherness – Paul is, as if, trying to feel close to family happiness which he personally has lost and frankly, never had. But the longer Paul sat there on the bench it became clear to him that this family is “fake” – these people just hope to make a little money by impersonating family happiness.

Paul is suddenly “attacked” by a homosexual man (valet at the hotel where Paul was temporarily living) who started to frantically beg Paul to use him sexually referring to his impressive competence and without any commerce intended. Paul retreated like a boy running from police.

Sometimes, when a person doesn’t know how to realize love s/he feels it’s necessary to do something eccentric and absurd, impressive and strong. Without understanding what he is doing, Paul frantically jumps on Denise (his previous mistress – Nathalie Baye) over the table where they were eating. But in reality such pompous impulses are mute and without expected results. They’re just futile despair of lost or pseudo-togetherness.

Pay attention to Cecile’s (Cecile Tanner) contemptuous grimace when she is looking at her father (Paul). Indeed, she just feels disgust toward him who cannot be successful in this society. At her age and in an environment of merciless fight for success (in the atmosphere of belligerent ambitions) it’s easy to look down at “losers“.

Paul is struck by a casual car and is between life and death (between absence and presence of god nearby)

Paul is still between life and death, while his x-wife and daughter (casual witnesses of the accident) were rushing away from the scene.


With life provoking in us the desire for various simultaneous entrepreneurship and for opening up of new spaces for social success – we invent fetishes to balance our restlessness – populist political fakes, obsessive hobbies, wealth appropriation, alcohol, pills, drugs, money-money-money in order at least to soften our worries, worries, worries. The world, in the perception of today’s people, is full of dangerous surprises, which they believe can betray them at any moment. You need likeminded friends but even these common identity – buddies for common survival (old by tricky “technology”) is as chaotic like the world and their survival-success may not include you. It’s felt necessary to make a group with a common, collective mind. So, totalitarian tendencies become stronger and stronger – group against group, ideology against ideology, team against team, country against country and all against all.

The Murder of Children In Wars or By Hate, Their Utilitarian Use and Exploitation, Their Physical, Emotional or Sexual Abuse Are the Morbid Vices of the Adult Power

Kate Kollwitz, “Apotheosis of Love For Children”

Mother knows and loves her baby even with closed eyes. Their ability to see each other sublimates and enlarges their love. Mother’s gaze irradiates love and awakens love in the gaze of the child.

Kate Kollwitz, “Widows and Orphans”

Wars abruptly intervene into bonds of fathers and children. But transforming women into widows and children into orphans, wars endanger even the more primordial ties of mothers-children‘s unconditional love by traumatizing it with incurable grief – by destroying the life of mothers-children as a couple – the basic happiness of procreation. Warmongers are rewarded by wars with extra billions and power over geopolitical spaces by transforming human life into torment and previous children into suffering haters with souls full of pain and indifference. To kill children through war technology is like to kill them by following the order of King Herod.

Kate Kollwitz, “Mother Trying to Save Children from the Demon of War”

The more humans live through wars the more the human soul becomes poisoned by aggressive alertness and vengeful need to dominate and the more human race develops technical science to have the capacity to kill more and more adults and children. Human history makes war-murder a giant snow-ball.

Kate Kollwitz, “The Mother Trying to Save Her Son from the Death”

Hunger, diseases and permanent fear of bombs and bullets during the wars or breaks between wars (like in our country today, where mentally deficient murderers easily can buy high-tech machine-guns) make mothers unable to nurture the next generation with normal human souls. In this Kollwitz’s work we see how desperately a mother is trying to save her son from death (seen in the left upper corner of the drawing).

Kate Kollwitz, “The Death Taking the Mother from Her Little Daughter to the Land of the Dead”

Mothers are less and less able to save the future generations. We see here how the child is trying in vain to save her mother from the monstrous figure of death triumphing over human life.

Kate Kollwitz, “Two Little girls attempting to save their sister from the Death”

Ancient and recent histories teach children the horrors of wars much more than freedom and happiness. Some people who are traumatized by war will say that freedom ought to be defended. For them war is something like freedom in action. But freedom can develop only if humans have the ability to overcome killing and hate to be able to talk with other people on equal terms, human to human, without megalomania, with a good will instead of manipulation, bribery or financial seduction, without calculation of advantage over the other side. To be capable to talk positively it’s necessary to get a humanistic education, but now less and less people are interested in knowing history, psychology, sociology, serious art, while more and more people learn how to scheme, mislead, lie, fabricate pseudo-information and manipulate and buy loyalty for money. Peace (overcoming war) is only possible if both sides really want peace, are really able to want it.

Kate Kollwitz, “A Horrified Mother Trying Not to Let Her Daughter Be Grabbed By Death


Most of Kathe Kollwitz’s drawings, sketches and sculptures were created during the WWI, WWII and during the interval between them. But today-ness of her art is impressive. How many children have perished from hunger and bombings of Yemen, Syria, Iraq, etc.! And new wars are ready to go. And every day at least 20 American veterans of the Iraq war take their own lives and nobody was here to adequately address their suffering.

Return To Chantal Akerman’s Cinematic Elegy “Night and Day” – The Existentially Spiritual Femininity And The
Abandonment Of Angels

Is the heroine of the film Julie (Guilaine Londez) waiting now for a friend or, conversely enjoying a moment of break from people? This ambiguity in her will sustain itself to the very end of the film.

Julie and Jack (Thomas Langmann) are lucky with each other not only because they are in love but because they love to spend time together. In their case it means to accumulate their emotional and cognitive power.

Julie and Jack love to share with one another the world – not so much the objective – visible world which is possible to touch and pleasant to glue to with one’s eyes. They rather don’t like to lend themselves to the noise and chaos. They love to exchange with one another their own and others’ thoughts and verbal and visual images. In other words, they love sharing with each other their internal “events”, understanding of their feelings.

Sometimes they liked just to sit together and be something like blissfully lost – not to think of anything and enjoy some kind of emptiness together – two bodies dissolved in non-being.

After making love they could feel that blissful togetherness they habitually enjoy so much cannot be given forever, and then they could sense that even this eclipse of happiness can be just its another side, its echo or its twin.

Joseph (Francois Negret), like Jack, is a taxi-driver – as a matter of fact he drives the same car, only Jack does it during night while Joseph by days. One day when Julie was meeting Jack in the morning he introduced her to Joseph who was just starting his working day.

When during the week Jack returned home in the mornings after night work, Julie who also didn’t sleep during the night (she usually just walked the Parisian streets and squares) fell asleep with him on equal. They always shared with one another their insomnia, sleepiness or wakening up.

Jack and Joseph unexpectedly became for Julie’s twin brothers – two angels, always melancholic because they both were doomed to disappear. Masculinity (not as power, but as isolation from immortality of femininity) is mortal. While women’s bodies are also mortal, like men’s, femininity is eternal. Masculinity in spite of all its orgasmic and ejaculatory excitements and fanfares is doomed. Woman’s eggs are not only part of female physiology, but of her soul, while men’s spermatozoids are outsiders to human soul and they act in secrecy.

Uniqueness of Jack and Joseph was that they, as if, knew that they are doomed and lived with this truth inside. For Julie they were radically different from all other young men – they lived burdened by their intuition about their radical mortality of being outsiders of or peripheral to the very chain of procreation, just capable of reproduction. It’s from here their melancholy, their touching and irrecoverable sadness. It’s for this reason of Julie’s feminine power, her love for them both was irresistible for her.

Julie’s love was trying to emotionally and physically nurture them with her unconditional and inexhaustible power of carrier of procreation – a function she shares with the Creator Himself. The more she loved Jack – the more she loved Joseph. Joseph’s presence opened her eyes to the reason she loves Jack, and her love for Jack reinforced her to love Joseph. They were irresistible for Julie’s unlimited femininity. Poor men invent power games, trying to out-strength, out-power and outsmart one another. They invent hate, weapons to be able to fight one another. They invent money and wealth to outdo each other. They are jealous and envious towards one another. They are so miserable, so weak in front of their destiny. And it’s her mission – the mission of her femininity to help them, until she is able.

Whose hand has a hold of Julie’s hair? She couldn’t be sure herself. It’s not important at all – who is embracing Julia, Jack or Joseph. Embracing her is embrace by both of them.

Jack’s torso turned towards his destiny, that Julie sees from behind, is the torso of Joseph, both are belonging to her sad knights of masculinity.

Julie turns towards the summer in Paris.

Something strange was taking place inside Julie’s soul, something she herself couldn’t grasp.

Where is Julie going? Away from the masculine mortality – from men being touched by the feeling of being doomed, in spite of their touching appeal? Men’s love is as discrete as light consisting of pieces of itself. Does she want to continue serving immortality itself – sharing her femininity with the ones who are painfully doomed? Is she now in a process of choosing an abrupt and wholesome revolution in human relationships? And how to know what could be the content of such a revolution?

Chantal Akerman

Chantal Akerman (1950-2015)

Ernst Barlach is a German expressionist sculptor, printmaker, lithographer and writer. He is especially known for his sculptures protesting against war. During the rise of Nazi party most of Barlach’s works were confiscated as degenerate art.

Ernst Barlach, “Flying Angel with Closed Eyes”, 1927

Ernst Barlach, “The Tormented Face of the Flying Angel with Closed Eyes”, 1927
Ernst Barlach, “The Tormented Face of the Flying Angel with Closed Eyes”, 1927

The face of the angel is painfully strained by her inhuman effort not to surrender to (human) crying – she doesn’t want her tears to be seen – crying angel can make people suffer even more than they already are. But even angel is not able to help to dissipate this cosmic grief which swallowed people after WWI.

The photo of Ernst Barlach as a very young man (with a face of a cupid)

Ernst Barlach at a very young age

This photo is very close to the previous one. But its larger format gives us the chance to see not just Barlach’s cupid-like face, but to notice his critical refusal of the psychological condition of decision makers, consists of megalomania, calculation of advantage, and also greed and vanity – the very engines of catastrophic existential perversion generating human inequality and injustice and as a result – mountains of agonizing human suffering.

Ernst Barlach in his later years

As we compare this Barlach’s old age photo with that of his young age he obviously didn’t restore his belief in human race. Conversely, he is looking at the human world as his flying angel could, had she kept her eyes opened. Barlach’s facial expression in this photo is that of a martyr. He is a martyr of seeing the truth of human society and understanding what he sees – probably the highest title an artist in modern times can deserve. As we see him in this photo, he, as if, sees today what he saw back then (when he was still alive) – in the second part of the thirties. His gaze is not reproaching humankind for violence towards itself – he is weeping for us, for our ancestors and descendants, for our stupidity, belligerency and cruelty, for our spiritual emptiness, for our mindless exploitation of God’s Name (by using It as a justification of our crimes and indifference) and for our betrayal (without understanding this) of Christ.

There are rare artists whose human appearance is like a work of art, when their spiritual nature makes a unique work of art from them.

« Previous Entries  Next Page »


September 2019
« Aug    




Recent Comments