Acting-Out Politics

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

Grateful for President Trump’s easy tongue we got very important information about Adam Schiff, the Chairman of Intelligence Committee who is leading the impeachment inquiry. In one of his recent rallies President who is generally prone to use canards is mentioned Schiff’s “un-athleticism” and his “small neck” among other pearls of knowledge. These drops of scholarly intelligence are quickly becoming a very valuable information for many Trump’s admirers.

When the Republican Representatives or councils are interrogating the witnesses they pronounced their words very rapidly, probably because they‘re rushing to assert their positions and ideas before they start to question the witnesses. And even when they do, they are all the time interrupting those who have answering, inserting their own speech inside the answers of witnesses and often even interrupting themselves. Besides, their own verbalizations are full of juicy emotions and intonations that express obvious suspicion, skepticism, irritation, mocking and irony. But when Adam Schiff starts to talk we feel fresh air around – we are able to hear articulation of meaning. Semantic clearness makes heavy hints and greasy equivoques of Republicans to disappear. Mr. Schiff’s speech is clean, ideas are clear and so the essence of what he is saying regardless of your agreement or disagreement.

Why is there such a difference in the very manner of talking in public on part of Adam Schiff (and to a substantial degree of the other democratic congressmen and the witnesses) in comparison with the emotionally stressed logic and grimaces of the Republican Congressmen?

Just imagine – Representative Adam Schiff is like the first man on Earth. How much the first Adam saw, how much he had to notice! How much he was able to remember! To understand! After Trump’s jokes about Schiff we (watching the hearings on TV) noticed something about Schiff’s eyes which are able to look and to see so much without turning them away from the unbearable things before him – the truth of the evil some people carry inside – the cruelty, greed, hate, belligerency, dishonesty, indifference for other people, etc.

We thank Adam Schiff not only for his intellectual tirelessness, but for being strong morally and emotionally and for being an exemplary American politician in any circumstances.

Utopianism associated with the proliferation of electronic technology and cyber-culture…
Franco Berardi

Human beings respond to the new state of hyper-stimulation by a panic reaction…
Franco Berardi

It was not easy to go through the 20th century of wars, episodes of hunger and permanent looking for job – without mass-culture. Pop-entertainment added smiles to the tears, laughter to drying soul and deeper inhales to the lungs. In this sense humorous moments of life and smiling at human destiny had its compassionate aspect. Even the guitarized optimism, even the drum set, even the flat singing still have a human touch – singing through the human throat, although it was athletically taxed by the running of the rock stars from the one end of stage to another or rhythmically jumping under the jubilation of the adoring fans. But this existentially mass-cultural entertainment was respectfully appealing to human community, human beings and universal nucleus of a common humanity.

In 21st century, on the other hand, entertainment forces started to use technological machinery to shape-and-mold human beings’ perception like god did to form Adam’s body and soul. But to adapt to new – electronic/cyber forms of entertainment is a bit tricky, it demands a bit extra, it’s overstimulating your emotional peace. It’s, as if, new entertainment demands more of human dedication, than the traditional one. Entertaining technology (ET) in the new century made an impressive leap, but not necessarily ahead, but rather deeper inside the human perception. Now ET utilizes human perception more than before, when music was, as if natural sister of human soul and the point was the understanding what music is telling you, not to learn how to survive when “music” pushing-and-throwing you into abysses like athletic exercise machines and by this creates the effect of satisfaction based on the individual’s pride in his/her physical heroism while their human soul with its emotional needs is not participating in procedure at all. Technical toys for adult entertainment (like super-smart phones) – technologization of brains instead of nervous system like in rock-music, become more and more expensive while at the same time much more flattering to its private users. The latest models of cell-phones, for example, include some digital miracles, and that makes their owners to feel that now they can possess some magic powers.

One of the rare high-tech types of toys with “objectively” a near supernatural power is the new assault rifle machineguns with 100-700 round capacity magazine. New types of militant videogames with supernatural illusion of being in real space and fighting with real enemies are of prophetical power (right under hand with pressing few buttons). Another type of military videogames about fighting in the natural condition of the Earth, Venice and Mars and other galaxies is ready for consumers. All these and other types of rewarding impressions and actions are so real and attractive that the creatures of the 21st century learn to live a new ways of life with magic speed. The problem is not only that the adults while being involved with cyber and digital entertainment are psychologically transformed into children, but that these adult-children have psychologically stopped to be human beings – they are transformed into toy-specialists – toy-engineers and toy-technicians – little robots who are digitally controlling toy-technology which controls them. The area of human interaction is more and more outside them.

But the most innovative high-tech qualification is the manipulation of the human brains by billionaires and their spokespersons and by the politicians trained in semantic modification of truth about actual reality. What was before the politicians’ conscious and unconscious lying about reality, today happens to be the art and science of intellectual manipulation of human thinking’s mental operations. Human brain normally is a complicated “organism”, but techniques of manipulating human thinking can twist our cognitive operations into semi-schizophrenic (fragmented) modalities or/and artificially retarded/reduced state embellished by the emotional vignettes of subjectively felt pleasures fed by a methodical construction of hate, contempt and heroic megalomania. More and more think-tanks specialized in developing distortions of thinking, get investment money from the billionaires.

What starts with mini-singing and guitarizing (the difference between guitarizing and playing guitar is that the first activity is connected with intense exhibitionist pleasure impregnated with pride in the rock-singer’s social and financial success), step by step has developed into the invention of high-tech toys and TV-shows based on strategies of distorting human traditional – naïve and straightforward perception of reality. Semantic distortion of human language (for example, masses of refugees from Middle East and Africa to European countries are matter-of-factly called “German Nazis”) or Antifascists groups are called “Antifa” – the word eliminating the traditional meaning signifying the heroic role of the antifascist movements in history, etc., is part of the problem.

Technologization of entertainment is connected with multiplication of technicians-creators of techno-entertainment. Instead of creating the conditions for life – what became created are high-tech toys. The inventors of new electronic toys could be just desk clerks, professionals with miserable bureaucratic salaries had it not been for selling their toys to billions of people all over the world. Digitalization of entertainment causes people to handle their new toy-like obsessions – to master digital mechanisms of entertainment in order to obtain new pleasure – to feel themselves masters of operating the digital robotics, as if they are co-entertainers participating in its creation. Today, it’s not enough to play with the cartoon characters on the screen or with savvy personages of Hollywood productions. Today – to get pleasure you have to participate in the brain-mechanism that entertains you! You yourself have to be able not only answer questions which the entertaining mechanism indirectly puts to you, but also to develop these questions. You yourself have to make digital connections to create results full of new entertaining potentials – the situation is that you as an object of a complicated entertainment is participating in using the artificial mini-brains of the entertaining machines you have purchased – to forget about the burdens of the old human world, exhausting and exhausted, the real world with boring and impossible life. But now you got a chance to compete with another players of the same game, to win over other users. Making profit on video-games torpedoing life while transforming people into creatures from another planet alien to the problems of – alive earthly life.

At the end, there are two worlds – an ungraspable, unsolvable and a traumatizing real life that requires scrupulous studying and on the other hand the magic world of techno-entertainment – a life that seems really real and irresistible because it’s rewarding you with pleasures of being entertained. Traditional entertainment was already an instrument of distraction from life. Without mass entertainment during several decades after WWII this degree of infantilization we observe today, in 2019 could be impossible in US. And we couldn’t get Ronald Reagan, Dick Nixon, Bush Jr. and finally end with Trump-double or triple Jr. But with today’s high-tech super-entertainment the Trump-Lump world is just a beginning. For the first time in history the world got a pseudo-monarch with a brain of a nasty child, thin skinned and vengeful as a demon, greedy like a tyrannosaurus and belligerent as a high-tech nuclear missile looking for targets.

How much longer can this continue? Even the newspapers well experienced in redacting and perfuming the political texts have to let the raw hate and shameful beating and labeling the political opponents to jump on the pages like clowns on the circus ring. With TV news the situation is even worse – TV success-makers have always preferred to throw for their audience cheap hotdogs instead of the traditional puritanical stakes – but today the political opera offered to the public is often loud slaps, uppercuts and juicy spits.

Insulting verbal constructions, unrealistic lies (some of them are like child’s metaphors), and tough like teeth threats (as if accompanied by moving in the air Presidential fists) – you almost can hear these fists movements in the air. But the threats itself are arousing in the crowds pulsating hatred and aggressive impulses.

His biggest mouth in the country is permanently wide opened, like wall-speakers in every German household in the pre- and during WWII. Today, the prize-President (prize-ident) is pompously high-tech effective (through technological trick of twitter). His noise with belligerent rotting rhetoric – coils around and constricts the hearts of the simpleminded mass admirers hungry for propagandist tone.

To have loutish manners doesn’t mean not to have manners, as people sadly said in the past. And the president has his own manners, raw like blows, greedy like a palm with sweaty golden coins and simultaneously seductive, cruel and dangerous intentionality.


Giasone e il Centauro 1


Giasone e il Centauro 2

Why in the first still Centaur (Laurent Terzieff) looks at the Jason-the child, while in the second still he puts his gaze down?


Everything’s sacred in nature. Remember, my boy: there’s nothing natural in nature. When it seems natural to you, it’ll be the end. Something else will start. Good-bye sky, Good-bye Sea. But now the sky is beautiful! To look at it makes us happy… Don’t you think that even a little piece of nature could be possessed by a god? What you see is an apparition. Look at that black streak on the sea, shining and pink like oil. The shadows of the trees. A god is hidden everywhere you look. lf he is not, he’s left traces of his sacred presence: the silence, smell of the grass, the chill of fresh water. Yes, everything’s sacred. But sanctity is also a curse. Whilst the gods love, they also hate. May be you think that besides being a liar, l ‘m also too poetic. For ancient man the emotion he feels at the sight of a summer sky equals the more internal, personal experiences of modern man. You’ll travel to distant lands. You’ll experience things in a world we can only imagine. That which it can’t foresee, sadly, are the errors it will lead you to. Who knows how many there’ll be? That which man has witnessed in the cultivation of grains, that which he has understood from seeds as they are reborn, represents a definite lesson: the resurrection. But this lesson is no longer useful. That which he has gleaned from seeds holds no more meaning for you. It’s like a distant memory that no longer affects you. In fact, there are no gods.


Giasone/Jason as a child who is welcoming the world as soon as he is seeing it

Giasone and Chirone are in the midst of the world


Giasone is thirteenth years old – he is listening to his teacher (Centaur): Life is very realistic. Only he who is mythical is realistic and vice versa. This is what our divine reason foresees. That which it cannot foresee, sadly are the errors it will lead you to.

Il Centauro Chirone (Laurent Terzieff) instructs Jason (Juiseppe Gentile) in his first adult adventure – You’ll go to your uncle who stole your throne, and reclaim your rights. To eliminate you, he’ll have to come up with an excuse. He’ll send you on a quest, may be to retrieve the Golden Fleece…


Centaur – What are you doing here? What are we doing here?
Jason – Is it a vision?
Centaur – We are both inside you. You have produced us.
Jason – But I knew only one Centaur.
Centaur – No, you have known two – The sacred one, when you were a boy, and the desecrated one, when you became a man. But what was sacred is preserved in the new – desecrated form. And now we are one beside the other. He speaks not much of course, I can speak for him.
Jason – Why I have to know all of this?
Centaur – Because it is reality. You to love Medea and you also pity her. You understand her catastrophe, her confusion connected with her being from ancient world but living in a new world.
Jason– But why are you telling this to me?
Centaur– Because nothing can stop the old centaur from thinking. And nothing can stop the new centaur from expressing it.

Centaur during his apparition in front of Jason is opening to him the unbearably cruel truth of his adult destiny

In a world which is based on calculation of one’s advantages and gains as ultimate value, compassion to others and the ability to sacrifice career and social success is above human power


After doing what he had to do – to encourage Jason for his betrayal of Medea and their children, to prepare him to be strong for the sake of his future, Centaur Chiron (Laurent Terzieff) feels… post-factum compassion for Medea (Maria Callas) for what awaits her.

Medea’s older son whom she in despair after her husband’s betrayal, will kill – to share with Jason their mutual suffering (the only feeling they will have in common together, forever).

Pasolini is rehearsing with Laurent Terzieff the last scene of brief final talk between Centaurus Chiron and Jason

Soon after the war the American youth with democratic sensibility (AYDS) started to “divorce” the elder generations (with its authority over the socio-economic life, over weapons and money at the disposal of the country and over American way of life). Young Americans with democratic sensibility (YADS) became disappointed with wars, financial inequality and conservative strictness which authorities – wealthy magnates, governmental officials and heads of families were matter-of-factly imposing on the population. YADS were tired to follow, to appeal, to need consultations, to ask questions – to ask for permissions and to adapt. They wanted to create their own life, to do what they want. They wanted to live as they like, to be equal to “adults”, to prove that they can “survive” without the elders (with their air of superiority and condescension). More, they wanted to live, not just survive. They grew tired of being employees, workers and students in relation to the elders hooked on inequality, despotism and wars. They wanted to be able to hire themselves by themselves and “make” money in ways they could prefer.

This post-WWII “divorce” between generations of Americans created mass-culture. And mass-culture changed everything. And nothing – this everything was nothing. The appearance of life changed radically although it took some time to notice this change. The appearance of life has changed, but not its essence. What can you expect from kids, except groundless idealism, impulsive passions and stubborn capriciousness? Yes, adult business, adult wars, adult education and adult private life started to change, when the new generation began creating its own life and build its own – youthful adulthood. The young started to sell what they themselves created, and they started to sell to people of their own age or even younger. They started to sell to children, through the pockets of their parents – little nice sing-songs and song-sings. They started to make music using technology of “minimal musical accompaniment”. Soon this minimum becomes gross super-maximum on, as if, magically enlarged stages, while the swollen guitars became the symbol of the “daringly” phallic pop-glory! The girls and kids in the audience felt joyfully hysterical, and this artificial ecstasy became not only the definition of human freedom, but the teens and teenagers’ democratic right for a “radical” sexual liberation.

But one problem among others is that the youth started to sell the muse of music while unconsciously identifying with… the social status of adults, and it’s very difficult to be teenager hating adults but without role models of mature age. So, they were doomed to imitate the adult behavior while sincerely dreaming to be “absolutely different”. The result is that they were different from the adults in how, not in what. They kept the essence of greed and financial megalomania while indulging in illusion of being different from conventionally outdated American adults.

Some of them became impressively reach without any help or advice from business people of the previous generations. Eventually they were able to hire the older specialists, but on their own, young talents and dealers’, conditions. Everything was more than successful, but… together with semi-unconsciously self-injecting some adulthood into their blood the new generations lost something that only adults can sustain, support and enhance, like rationality (although technical and manipulative), realism (although flat and dogmatic) and cognitive maturity (although calculative and egoistically rooted). Traumatized by the conservative tendencies borrowed from previous generations, YADS tried to cut themselves from adulthood as such, and this means that they enveloped themselves with socially normed immaturity and functional childishness necessary for financial success (from the American adults the young generation took the plebeian yearning for success free from existential spirituality, but from their own past they developed tasteless bombast and noisy pomposity).

Mass cultural people (oriented on quick and smooth consumption) are by definition over-fixated on the present tense, on immediate winning (without considering the consequences of their actions and quality of their success), on any chance for self-assertion (based on megalomaniacal feelings), on yearning to prevail over the situations and on feeling dizzily high from any success. Adulthood, unintentionally internalized by the youth became infantilized, but the youth growing into nominal adults are assimilated their forerunners’ concentration on survival and control over life and became dogmatically serious and fixated on the manna, moons and mines of money regardless of their idealistic worldview.

Mass culture encourages escapism from the “boring” and always risky political reality, so only American youth with conservative sensibility (AYCSs) can stay politically oriented because they’re emotionally supported by the hate for others – hate is immanently self-aggrandizing: hated people are always devaluated in the eyes of the haters and, therefore, elevate the self-value of haters. AYDSs are prone to be involved in rock concerts subculture, and if they still have a practical attention to political “controversies” they more and more dissolve them in easy lyrics, music-pusik and drug-alcohol chats, even while some super-stars periodically make self-promotional concerts with sentimentally empathic humanistic tonality. AYCSs are inside the athletic segment of mass culture – they are fans of sport-superstars and happily participants of grandiose athletic events and high-tech gun-training ranges (the private guns subculture is an impressively active part of mass cultural agitation). Both – AYDSs and AYCSs are widely internalizing the post-modernist Hollywood and TV entertainment and “scientific” suggestions of how to feel good, optimistic, self-respectful, strong and happy and group-involved.

The impulsively ecstatic aspects of mass-cultural perception of the world already practically destroyed serious art and aesthetic sensitivity which was always the background of literature and in 20th century made it even possible the existence of serious (although financially peripheral in US) film culture. Without serious art – garden of humanistic – liberal arts sensibility, human psyche is losing its dedication to existentially spiritual human life. Personal emotional crudeness (in AYDS) and brutalization (in AYCS) become progressively inevitable and helped by growing people’s psychological attachment to digital technologies. The most primitive dogmas make a nest in the souls of the AYCS, like the most desperate fears in the souls of AYDS.

Many of AYDS became much richer than their fathers ever were. In the case of the elder generations their humanity was blended with industrialization – they were part of a giant system of industrial production and had a feeling of participating in producing collective results important for whole country. In addition, they were lucky to enjoy the post-war democratic liberalization. But today, the new adults who were the kids of post-WWII are cut from togetherness of the size of the whole country their parents were a part of. Today, the AYDS and AYCS are mainly geared for money-making as such – for financial sector of the economy, techno-scientific education and “heavy” dreaming about petty money schemes. These interests are isolating the people from the public life of the country. They dream about jobs connected with local opportunities, technical knowledge and “high-tech” results. They are doomed just to make careers, just to make success. For them bosses make the decisions while the business of the employees is do their job effectively. From the rebellious youth we came to a prosperous, but in no way a stable, reliable and respectable philistinism.


Kathe Kollwitz, “A Child Faces War… Again”, 1925, Woodcut

Kathe Kollwitz as an expressionist (in this context it means that she in her works is more expressive and emotionally profound than just a realistic and naturalistic artists) is a master of numerous techniques – printmaking, sculpture, ink and pencil drawing, etching, woodcut, etc.

But what is rather exceptional in Kollwitz’ personality is the dedication of her art to the most terrifying human experiences (which most of the people prefer to detour by their attention when they go to museums or open art magazines). Her art depicts the experiences inflicted on the most helpless people – children and adults, weak and poor – by those with super-prosperous and prosperous lives, those who use wars to make more wealth and conquer more territories.

Kathe Kollwitz has dedicated her work to these monsters with human appearance – no, she didn’t dignify these people by including them into her works of art. She shows us their victims – the hungry, the homeless, the crippled by poverty and wars, and mainly children paralyzed by fear – poverty and hunger, and still appealing for salvation. And she shows those adults who have dedicated their whole life to the desperate attempts to save children in spite of often facing the impossibility of achieving much.


Kathe Kollwitz, (1867 – 1945)


Charles Avery, “Indescribable”, 2013


Charles Avery, “Indescribable”, 2013 (1)

I learned the intellectual lessons of the inevitability of clashes and wars by two international events/situations – US opening the Second front between USA and Nazi Germany, and US deciding to radically enlarge American investment into high-tech weapons including nuclear after the Soviet retard-idealists like Gorbachev offered the Americans drastic mutual reduction of military spending as soon as the Russians had decided to dismantle their version of Socialism together with Communist ideology.

Indeed, why did Americans enter the war? And why didn’t they use the lucky situation to save a lot of money by accepting the Russian proposal and starting to spend the extra means on peaceful investments – in peaceful economy, life, science, culture instead of continuing to spend on high-tech weapons?

The answer to the first question beside the propagandist “good words” of ideological motivations (like anti-Nazi posture and the necessity to defend democracy) is that American leadership became sure that if US will not open the second front the Soviet Russians can swallow up a big chunk of Europe. Besides, closer to the end of war militant conservatives amidst American leadership were very interested in Nazism as an ideology (its ability to despotically rule over the masses while simultaneously keeping them happy because it encouraged their contempt and hate for everybody who is not Arian). In other words, Nazi ideology taught its American disciples how to rule while simultaneously nurturing in masses nationalist megalomania and hate, for example not only for fascists, but also towards anti-fascists, towards “socialists”, minority groups and non-Americans in general and contempt for other countries. Also Americans learned from Nazis scientific sophistication and technological achievements in the area of military needs. It is well known how many Nazi doctors, technical scientists and even intellectuals were transferred from Germany to comfortable abodes of American Democracy.

The answer to the second question is even more amazing. Close to the end of 20th century Soviet Russian leadership became ready to sacrifice their country – the Soviet Union in exchange for collaboration and friendship with US – it liberated itself from the Soviet ideology for the sake of eliminating from the world the danger of nuclear Holocaust. They became a new capitalist country in order to start a new epoch of relations with United States and the world – they offer to mutually destroy nuclear weapons and together proclaim to the world the real possibility of eternal peace on the Planet Earth guaranteed by regular inspections. The miracle was that US declined, simply and quickly, while adding a humorous remark that Russia doesn’t need any more high-tech weapons anyway – US will protect it from any dangers. More, US took course on drastic increase investments of its capital into high-tech and super-nuclear weapon systems. Why not to use the opportunity for a worldwide peace?

What can be the reason for refusing the chance for a future of peace over permanent menace of disastrous wars? Of course, the idolatrous fixation on technology is human obsession. Technology stimulate superstitions because it promises power and wealth, both to a superfluous degree. While life is preferable to the death, but power and wealth, it seems, are… even more preferable than living. Power (weapon systems) and wealth (profit making) were somehow able to psychologically conquer life – to become human life’s twin-gods and transform life into their servant and slave correspondingly. Gaining private power and gaining private wealth became not just meaning of life, but its essence, part of life with a status of being more than life. It gained strength to suffocate life, to become a pseudo-living for the sake of power and wealth, not for living in body, soul and understanding life and world.

Something is rotten, it seems, not just in the human species, but in the very logic of Creation. Of course, it would be too easy to accuse God-Creator and feel ourselves as poor victims. Instead let’s concentrate on Charles Avery’s puzzling Semantic Construction “Indescribable”.

Avery’s dogs or dog – two headless dogs or one two-body dog, may be have/has the ability to clear for us the very logic of animosity – preference for (totalitarian) domination over (democratic) friendship. The absence of heads underlines the primacy of blind (instinctual) vitality (of alive bodies) over emotional intelligence (which needs head to settle in). Those brainless dogs or dog are/is full of energy to live, to jump, to press or resist pressure, but the intra-bodily contradictory excitements or mutuality of two bodies, rivaling and clashing muscular stresses are full of rivalrous energies and like in the boxing or wrestling are full of intra-bodily “technology” of competition and fight. This pre-soul and pre-thinking vitality is monotonous while versatile and is potentially or actually destructive.

Being bodily connected through a mutual (joint) neck (without any heads) is Avery’s startling image of symbiotic identification in animal and human kingdom(s) – of a totalitarian unity irresistible for people with underdeveloped individualities and limping rationality. Automatically similar or even identical mass ideological views, like the Soviet Communist ideology or American Conservative ideology of domination by financial dealers and billionaires and their political vassals over human life are not saving from mutual hate. One-neck-ness is a term defining the condition of people under ideology of domination which controls the togetherness symbolized by Avery’s headless-brainless dog(s). Similarly thinking people are not less in a situation of rivalry and competition, but even more aggressive with one another – rivalry with similarity even more despotic, like sometimes between brothers, sisters and identical twins. “Socialist” or “Capitalist” countries can engage in even more furious wars with their “doubles” than politically different systems with their opposites. This situation is depicted by Avery’s dog(s). The paradox here is that the American conservative leaders detest post-Communist Russia much more than they did the Soviet Communist system – that’s why they decided to respond to Russian proposal of mutual disarmament by not reducing but over-financing development and production of American arms. Avery’s dog(s) is/are playful with itself/each other, but this playfulness is potentially dangerous, like “Ultimate Fight” is becoming more and more popular among adults and kids alike among athletes and audiences in comparison with the traditional boxing and wrestling.

Countries are not equally aggressive in their militancy, but the problem is, that when one country attacks another, the country-victim is, naturally, prone to defend itself and in the process it becomes, if not equally, but comparably aggressive. That is what can happen with Avery’s dog(s) – their militancy can become exaggerated and equal and as such more natural. They can become even more headless/brainless. And so are people in war – instead of sensing/thinking they develop and apply/deploy a pre-intuitive computer-like manipulative calculation – they push-and-pull like Trump his opponents and himself. Avery’s dog(s) feel itself/each other through its own/their neck(s), as pure brainlessness and soullessness. It/they is/are fighting with mutual/self-anger and self-hate. They perceive themselves/one another as meaningless, as nothing, like it happened and continues to happen with wars for domination – most wars of human history.

May be, the situation with Avery dog(s) and with what this image signify is not so much indescribable, but rather unresolvable. The paradox of war is the ultimate identity of the fighting sides, when indiscriminate murder becomes immanent motivation of both fighting equally with one another and with itself, wounding and killing each other and themselves and are carrying mutuality of insatiable domination and reciprocity of inevitable togetherness dreaming of apocalyptic end.


Charles Avery (1973-)


Nana meets the anonymous gaze of the viewers – she is, as if, semi-consciously appealing to the public either to protect herself from her still unknown ordeals or for us just to know that she exists, she – a unique, an incredible, a kind of existential philosopher, a person who, as if, is close to martyrdom, an impossible beautiful soul. But it’s very risky, almost absurd to look for unique configuration of destiny.

———–

The extraordinary nature of Nana’s personality is marked in front of viewers by the fact that she has abandoned her baby together with her husband and her marriage itself. Oh, no, her marriage wasn’t a “disaster” and her husband wasn’t “monster” or a “cheater”. Conversely, he was much more loving and tender than usual men, and their way of life together was much more refined and prosperous in comparison with the typical upper middle-class families. And yet, Nana has decided to abandon her marriage and her baby. Oh, no again – Nana is quite a normal person, she is an attractive woman, she is without irrational moods or strange capriciousness or particular material calculations. As much as common sense is applied, she loved her husband and child. She loved her life, but…

Nana couldn’t accept the domestic goodness of family life, its plebeian pretentiousness, its silent but permanently felt pride. It’s not that Nana had her own critical perspective of modern society’s standards of proper or not proper life, but she had a problem with today’s life style and child rearing practices or manner of love between the adults. And it’s not that Nana had ideas about what’s wrong with our society. But she doesn’t feel herself normally vis-à-vis our “progressive” “democratic” society. She wanted to discover what she wants, what is the problem with her life? Godard gives her the chance to find for herself an alternative world according to her “ontological” taste. That is the beginning of Godard’s film.

She refused her husband, because, probably, she wanted human love to be different (but she didn’t know how). She refused her child perhaps because she didn’t want him to become a philistine oriented on competing for a spot in social hierarchy and bragging about the wealth of his family or become vengeful if success didn’t dignified it. She didn’t know for sure, what was the reason of her resistance. Is Nana a mental case or just a spiritually oriented person, feeling disappointed with philistine orientation of her society, with too many wars, with growing terrorism provoked by the West to justify its persistently intensifying politics of domination over the World?

If to consider that at the end of the film Nana was murdered by those who preferred profit to her life, she can be considered being a martyr, but for majority of people Nana could easily avoid the dangerous spots of life had she stayed with her husband and child, so in this sense she herself responsible for her death, etc. But how we, the viewers of Godard film will decide the meaning of Nana’s short life? How will we interpret Godard’s epigraph to the film quoting the proverb by Montagne – “Lend yourself to others but give yourself to yourself”?

————


The “receptionist” at the police station is registering Nana as a minor offender. His gaze doesn’t belong to a human being but to a system processing humans according to its own logic which human sensibility cannot fully grasp.


Godard opposes Nana to people who take life as it is. He juxtaposes the scene of this touchingly naïve couple (accompanied by the chanson in the style of the epoch) with the scene of terrorist attack Nana is trying to escape from. The song poetically reflects a hopeful view of Parisian life in spite of starting war. There is no place for a person like Nana in a life of innocent philistinism. We see that the guy expects an answer from the girl to his marriage proposal – the situation we see here was elaborated in a couple of years later in Jacques Demy’s lyrical stylization “The Umbrellas of Cherbourg” (1964).


The philosopher treats Nana as Artaud’s character in Dreyer’s film treats Jeanne D’ Arc. He addresses the philosophical side of her questions and her confusions but not what in her life and personality produces them. Of course, he is a philosopher, not a psychologist.


Nana’s pre-linguistic, “pre-symbolic” dance in which mute body yearns for gestures and rhythms to produce the first acts of speech. Intuitive living is dominating Nana’s life, and such style of being is not just free, but frivolous. Nana’s dance in reality is an opera without sounds or words.


Becoming “conventional adult” for Nana is overture to self-destruction because today’s money-power competes with traditional psycho-semiotic power ruling through language – an issue Nana never had the time or education to brood about. Money calculation is a new language fighting with the traditional human languages for domination. But human language is human, while money-calculation is the despot from another world.


Nana appears in a situation of being lower than the level of profit for both sides of the deal. It’s like making profit on firing workers and selling the business instead of staying in business. Godard predicted the style of profit making in the beginning of 21st century that sacrifices not only the workers but work itself, not only what is human but humanity itself.

Posted Aug, 15, 2017 –   To Become Ontologically Authentic Personality (Complex Of Sublime Selfhood) Or To Share Life With Others – Jean-Luc Godard’s “Vivre sa vie/My Life To Live” (1962) by Acting-Out Politics

Posed on June/23/2014 –     “Vivre sa vie/My Life to Live” (1962) by Jean-Luc Godard  by Acting-Out Politics

Sep, 28 2012 –     Jean-Luc Godard’s “Vivre sa vie/My Life to Live” (1962) – One Extraordinary Woman’s Path Through Marriage, Motherhood, Search for Job, Prostitution, Romantic Love and Verbal Communication with Others by Acting-Out Politics

« Previous Entries  Next Page »

Calendar

November 2019
M T W T F S S
« Oct    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Topics

Categories

Archives

Recent Comments