Five Stages of the Creative Understanding/Misunderstanding of Life/Death

Marcel is listening to Vinteuil’s sonata

Baron de Charlus’ pedagogical inspiration

Death as a metaphor of death

The ideas formed by pure intelligence have only a logical truth, a possible truth, their choice is arbitrary… Not that the ideas we form cannot be logically exact, but we do not know whether they are true. Only the impressions, however paltry their substance seems…is a criterion of truths and on this account alone merits being apprehended by the mind, for only the impression is capable…of leading the mind to a greater perfection and of giving it a pure joy.”
Marcel Proust, “Time Regained”

The great theme of “Time Regained” is that the search for truth is the characteristic adventure of the involuntary. Thought is nothing without something that forces and does violence to it. More important than thought is “what leads to thought”; more important than the philosopher is the poet… the poet learns that what is essential is outside of thought, in what forces us to think. The leitmotif of “Time Regained” is the word force: impressions that force us to look, encounters that force us to interpret, expressions that force us to think.

Gilles Deluze, “Proust & Signs”, Univ. of Minnesota Pr., 2000, p. 95

Sir, you’re still young. Use your youth to learn two things. First, refrain from displaying emotions that are best left unspoken. Second, don’t rush into answering questions before you have understood them. If you take these precautions, you will be saved from blurting out nonsense as if you were deaf.
Baron de Charlus to Marcel, “Time Regained” by Raul Ruiz

Moment of respite between an unstoppable movement towards death (toward the end of Marcel’s last work of art: the last phase of his life) and his tireless effort to restore the past life transformed by the archangel of time into shreds of memory.

Marcel and Odette (who in spite of and at the same time because of her past became an influential presence in high society)

Marcel as a “social butterfly” and at the same time an impartial observer of high society life. Technically he is part of it but as a writer who reports only to truth (not to publishing house entrepreneurs and influential academics) he is also a profound critic (compassionate yet sharp) of the psychological motivations, peculiarities of the morality and vulgarities of immorality of what was then the equivalent of today’s richest, 1% one percent, of the population. But why is the composition of this shot so peculiar? Why Ruiz by having Bloch stand right behind Marcel seems to be suggesting that he is, as if, waiting in line? What “line” could Ruiz possibly mean? And why Madame de Farcy’s (to the right of Marcel) facial expression is contrasting to that of Marcel‘s? How to describe and to explain this contrast?

Marcel suffers when Rachel, a prostitute psychologically made-up as an actress, became the mistress of Robert de San Loup – he knows how much anguish this romance brought to Gilberte, Robert’s wife. Gilberte… Albertine…

Marcel’s wife Albertine (passed away years ago) often comes to him by the verbally invoked magic of his memory…

… or by the frivolous magic of his painful inspiration.

Marcel is getting an unsolicited lesson from Baron de Charlus about the necessity to learn how to distant himself from the childish narcissism of naïve self-centeredness and immediate emotional reactions. But what is so particular about their poses, registered in this shot, and the directions of their gazes? What curious detail can be noticed about their hair? Why Ruiz can consider all these to be of importance?

We see here Marcel with a destiny of a psychological traveler in the vehicle of his memory (the ship), imagination (the sails) and his cognition (navigation).

Gilberte, so beautiful, modest, emotionally intelligent, irresistible, but so pathetically stupid when it comes to the necessity to intellectually address socio-political aspects of life.

Marcel (in the back row near Gilberte) looks like one of the relatives of the wealthiest family in France that already soon will find in him the person who will provide analysis of its life in truth, without any ideological distortions. Pay attention to Marcel’s flying gesture signifying the inspirational/imaginary power of his future art.

When Gilberte, the daughter of Swan, married Robert, the son of de Guermantes, nobody knew that she joins not only fame and glory but devastating emotional pain in members of this family and their endless psychological subterfuges to mask and to balance it. In this shot we see her dressed like Rachel (her husband’ mistress) to bitterly make a point to Robert that he is not noticing her when she looks like herself.

Gilberte knows that Robert’s infidelities are not the result of his indulgent nature but his mental pain but without the support of his love she sometimes feels as a doll lost in the social rituals.

Robert’s guilt for being an aristocrat with superhuman life style is pushing him not only to sexual affairs with common people of lower social standing, but into the very crucible of a meaningless and absurd war.

Both personages in this shot – de Saint-Loup (on the right) and Bloch, look equally serious. But let’s look at them more attentively. Saint-Loup is not brooding about reality – he has already made up his mind (we know about what – about heroic self-sacrificial death on the battlefield, before the eyes of his soldiers whom he wants to see that he, in spite of being rich, has chosen to be with them in common predicament of being equally targeted by the war). But Bloch is intensely thinking how to survive regardless of the circumstances (he will, indeed, survive the war and soon after he will change his name to Jacques de Rosier to survive bad times which he thinks can come, and he is acutely right about it).

Charlie Morel is the one who made a social career on the guilty feelings of people like de Charlus and de Saint-Loup. He uses many people for building his success, including Mme Verdurin, whose official protégé he is.

Social disaster (WWI) equalizes people coming from different social strata. In this still we see from the left – Duchess de Guermantes, Robert’s mother, Gilberte (the daughter of Swan and Robert’s widow), and Odette, the mother of Gilberte and ex-prostitute, all of them struck by the same grief over the loss of Robert de Saint-Loup.

By the trickery of conquering life through the witchcraft of artistry Marcel in a situation of readiness for death (from his life-long illness) is much above (stands over) the heads of aristocratic and bourgeois philistines represented in this shot by their top hats (their habit of possessing and consuming life makes them fear death).

The previous scene was Ruiz’s analogy with an earlier scene when Marcel because of the sublimity of his orientation on art and education/on knowledge and truth, was equally above the heads/top hats of rich philistines. But Marcel’s ultimate victory over death (over fear of death) is not without its own problems. It is achieved by the de-existentialization of death – by perceiving it as a kind of ending to a work of art Marcel is able to create from his life through the engine of his memory and the craft of his literary genius.

In spite of adult Marcel’s intellectual refinement and the boy-Marcel’s exuberant intellectual curiosity, they both are simultaneously ahead and behind Robert de Saint-Loup who could easily avoid dangers of war. They are lucky to be protected from military service (one by his age and other by his illness) while Robert heroically volunteered. But they are ahead of him because they are free from prejudices he needed to succumb to (the very motivation for sacrificing his life on the battlefields of WWI is one of his prejudices). Robert tragically shares his inability to see a larger socio-political perspective on war with his wife Gilberte. His guilt for being excessively rich is complicated by his guilt of having homosexual desires (pushing him to machoistic posturing including his maniacal and dogmatic patriotism) which in turn create his additional guilty feelings – in relation to beautiful Gilberte. In this shot Ruiz shows how childish interests of boy Marcel for technological toys (visual media-technology), and the creative dedications of Marcel-the writer learning about war through private letters, help them to feel distant and above the psychotic tragedy of war-making. In both of them voyeuristic posture of a quiet contemplation on war prevails over an existentially more mature/active stance on peace and war/life and death. Ruiz emphasizes here the childishness of voyeuristic position of just looking at war that majority of philistines of various nations do share with each other.

While Marcel-the adult reads about war, Marcel-the child is able to look at war through a new then cinematic technology. In both cases to look at war through the mediation of perceptional technology distorts the nature and the essence of war. It normalizes war regardless of the filmmaker’s intentions. Media make war acceptable for our unconscious – it, as if, tame war by the very fact that it is possible to look at it and not be hurt by it. Representation of war through media technology becomes innocently, on the level of the very form – propaganda of war. Today this problem has become even more absurd (for example, Americans perceive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by watching filtered reports embellished by mass media clips transforming everything into snippets of entertainment action). It is not surprising that they perceive the Republican war-mongering directed at future wars with comfort inseparable from watching TV while sitting on sofas.

In this shot we see how military and civilian targets being hit by the bombs and how our distance from action psychologically separates the viewers from the reality of the destruction on the ground. The physical comfort and psychological tranquility of Marcel-the writer over the cinematic panorama of war symbolizes imperturbability of human soul perceiving war through media technology (contributing into making people too inert to protest against the war or to protest it without due intensity and passion). People are transformed into spectators – media technology literally trains us how to be voyeuristic, to simultaneously see war and be “cool” about what we see.

Marcel becomes spiritually exhausted and pained not so much by the terrors of war per se, not by the suffering of people whom he empirically didn’t know, but by observing the suffering of those around him whom he knows and loves. Here, the private nature of Marcel’s suffering (with all its genuineness and intensity) is the second example Ruiz provides to show distancing from the actuality of war, not already a perceptional distancing (produced by media technology), but a psychological one (produced by the emotional context of the knowledge about war). Results are the same in both forms of distancing – the inability to react on war as a collective disaster, and therefore, to act in the name of human sociality, and not only as a private feeling of torment. This film made right before the starting of the new century, 21st, Ruiz already addressed the reasons for public inertia vis-a-vis the drastic militarization and global escalation of wars we are experiencing today.

In this shot with a unique composition of three Marcels – the one closest to the camera is middle-age Marcel (Proust-the writer) looking at his future “walk toward his death” (which is life of the ocean). Lower we see the dying Marcel moving towards his death (to the future life as observed by the writer and his future readers), and closer to the waters we see Marcel-the boy (playing with the waves), who with his poetic sensitivity of a talented child triggered and continues to inspire the development of Proust’s art, and determines his own future death as a wise surrender to the mighty beauty of the ocean’s life. In other words, what is dying is only our last phase (dying into life that is death), the previous phases going to the next phase of our psychological development never die – each stage just transforms into next state. They just upgrade themselves. What Ruiz shows us here is real, not mythologized immortality, but the one based on empirical correspondence of the phases of our development and symbols of eternity (when immortality is not really immortality but just felt as if it is). The presence of Marcel-the writer and Marcel-the boy in the scene of the death of Marcel Proust transforms human death into “going to death”, the artistic act of finishing the last work of art (the last phase of life) before the unknown next one.


De Charlus and Robert de Saint Loup use their love-affairs like Marcel uses the works of art and his own memory and creativity – to stage human life as it should be – artistically and philosophically transformed/improved. Of course, art of writing gave Marcel the chance to temporarily take charge over this life while love affairs are more open to chance. Still, this opportunity to monitor life framed by the memory and art is also a very relative, and Marcel appears as the spiritual brother of Charlus and Robert – with his tormenting mission of trying to transform life into art, to save life in a condition of becoming art. What is lost in Marcel’s simultaneously epic and romantic project is life as not reduced to artistic personality, life in its “objectivity” and self-centeredness, its autonomy from our subjectivity, life in its “self-determination”. In the magnificent Proustian enterprise of transformation of life into a great art life’s ontological essence is violated and banished.

Marcel’s life as love for creating work of art (inseparable from libidinous fixation on memory), is marked by the intensity and pain of amorous fascination. Alchemy of erotic love and alchemy of creative work are relatives. Love is as much about sublimation and meaning as our feelings for what we try to understand through a work of art. The both – love and artistic creativity – are works of imagination in love with truth. But alchemy of love and creative work is also alchemy of death. Love for a person or for art as a dance of life is also dance macabre – and this feeling of being on both sides of the mystery – in life and in death, makes love and creative work the most refined existential therapy that makes it possible for us to tolerate life. It saves us from the tendency to transform otherness into an enemy (more and more people in US in 21st century become vulgar with animosity and greed because they live in a country without writers and philosophers, where social success takes place of existence, entertainment – of dialogue and confession, sex – of love, and money – of culture).

The end of love is like an end of a work of art if it’s based on love for life as the container of meaning, on our concern about life as a form of being. Marcel, Robert and de Charlus work with spiritual alchemy of life/death – each tries to transform living into meaning, and death – not into a friend but to an ally, as an inevitable end of work of art or love. They know that end/death of love (for Charlus, Robert and Marcel) and end/death of creative work (for Marcel) is always relative. It’s like fire in the forest of life – even extinguished it goes on smoldering under the ashes. Their souls don’t fear physical death – they learned this truth about death’s relativity from the death of the organism of love and death of creative involvement with singular work of art. For them it doesn’t matter that physical death is not reversible – because it doesn’t matter for our soul. For those who have soul, knowledge of this soul (love for it) is more important than technical-scientific knowledge. The soul as a psychological archetype is either immortal or is as important as if it were immortal. For the (elegant) soul-carriers soul occupies the position of ego-ideal as self-ideal – it is a connection with the being of the world. For Marcel, Charlus and Robert to find artistic inspiration or love means to put the “bad eternity” of everyday living into the frame of a beginning and an end. While for common believers it is belief in immortality what saves them from the fear of life and fear of death, for Marcel it is the very mortality what saves him from the vulgarity of the earthly interests, the mortality that he trains himself to experience through re-creating the creation through producing the finite works of art.

Today’s life is a much more puritanical (moralistically pretentious) – in US more than in Europe – than in Proust’s times. Human life today is retreating from itself into its means – money, property, professions, consumption, entertainment and a fixation on rivals and enemies. Ruiz’s film returns us to a human condition when disinterested intelligence (the luxury of intelligent disinterestedness playing with life and examining it) incarnated in some people (like Proust or Ruiz) could be the object of interest on the part of population (people were still reading, still needed culture in its sublimated and critical aspects).

Ruiz describes not only the embroidered mental misery of the aristocracy-bourgeoisie social marriage, but the pernicious psychological misery of the poor either looking for success through humiliation and appeal to the wealthy while full of resentment hating them, or desperately trying to adapt to their own poorness (compensating through hate for scapegoats). Ruiz emphasizes the fact that sexuality is very often used by the poor to make it and for the rich as a channel of acting out their guilt for being rich (like de Charlus and Robert). And he depicts the need for brothels (in modern hypocritical parlance – need for sex as such, although this “purely sexual need” can be determined by a “purely” non-sexual complexes). Brothels (including male brothels) has served as a place for a human – common body-based contact between rich clients and poor (sexual servants) in a society where recognition of a common origin of those who belong to upper and lower social strata was impossible (and becoming once again in the 21st century). The elaborated scene in male brothel gives viewers the chance to observe the despair of the poor young men forced to play the role of sexual or sadistic toys for the rich client (Baron de Charlus) who feels guilty for being privileged. The importance of sexual function in some rich aristocrats is exaggerated by their imagination trying to find a resourceful/”creative” way to compensate for their inability to live according to the level of their own human decency. For example, Robert’s homosexuality and his overemphasized masculinity – both are unconscious attempts to overcome the reality of his life in imaginary (not completely existential) way.

The truth about how widespread homosexuality was during the epoch described in Proust’s novel and Ruiz’s film, challenges our today’s mania for justificatory legalistic labels – homosexual, bisexual, etc. Ruiz invites us to try to understand homosexual desire instead of trying either to moralistically debunk it or to dogmatically/fanatically normalize it. According to this film, our “instinctual” reactions can be much more often impregnated with social meanings full of unconscious human solidarity than our political fights in defense of our private idiosyncrasies (neglecting the monstrous intensification of process of social stratification in US of 21st century). Why Odette, an ordinary prostitute, became a muse of the high society? Because this society, while consciously was indulging in feeling of its exceptionality and glory, was in a desperate need of vitality it couldn’t get from anywhere else. Her elegant or just ordinary rich husbands needed her common sense to feel alive, living, being, existing.

The same about de Charlus’ and Robert’s obsession with Charlie Morel, who tries to make “career” on “rich idiots” like them or Mme Verdurin. Tormenting guilty feelings for being just regular humans (with endless banalities and without discernible talents) but living in a superhuman luxury, force de Charlus and de Saint Loup into homosexuality which became their form of admitting/confessing in being equal to the young men from the bottom of social hierarchy. Homosexual relations give them chance to feel “bodily equality” with poor without endangering their socially privileged position. Ruiz shows how de Charlus spends time in the male brothel to be beaten, humiliated and tormented by making the “gigolo’s” into dominant figures. The same kind of shame for belonging to the wealthy aristocracy pushes Robert into love affairs with the female prostitute and into the heroic death on the battlefield of WWI. Try to compare motivation for homosexuality of these people with fight for sexual rights of today’s upper middle class homosexuals who escape into private consumerism from the fight for the equality in the public realm of life. Ruiz’s film is forcing us today to try to get a wider historical and socio-cultural perspective in order to understand our desires and ways of behavior more analytically.

Does the explanation of Charlus’ homosexuality and Robert’s bisexuality as partially determined by their moral disquietude make their sexuality less real or less genuine? – Of course, not. But it adds the human context to it, makes it not only a sexual phenomenon (in agreement with cowardly strategy of today’s American pop-culture to hide behind the anonymous power of “sexual instinct”: “our sexual choice is made by our nature”) but a human one. Charlus and Robert cannot live as equal to the simple people – to moderate their wealth and privileged life style (who can?). But for them it is psychologically not enough just, for example, to share their wealth because it could be then only life (prosaic and boring soil of life). No, people like Charlus and Saint Loup need a little art, some intrigue and theater, with creative twist in the plot. They cannot accept life without some dose of seductive aestheticism, of a sublimated battle of conversion, making simple guys into a kind of dandies. To be able to convert men of the lower social strata into a sexual minority makes the “seducers” feel restored in their power over the seduced poor (we are equal but initiative is still ours). If Charlus’ homosexual desire (HD) covers itself up into masochism, Robert’s HD – is covered by his mantle of patriotism, bravado uniform of heroism and his machoistic (although elegant) mannerisms as a psychological defense. They both know very well that the young and poor French men are as much human beings as they are. Their HD is their imaginary rebellion against the “sacred” principle of inequality in human societies (including the Western democracies) they themselves are living by. It’s a compromise between their knowledge that inequality of living conditions is without justification and their factually privileged way of life. Their HD (as that of many American gays today) is a resourceful compromise with a system that can be not too happy about homosexuality but will not equalize it with “subversive leftism” and “socialist heresy”.

What homosexuality is to heterosexuality for Charlus and Robert, writing is to living for Marcel – writing is a challenge to life, but it is an imaginary/fictional challenge, it is a challenge not to real life in terms of real life (real challenge), but the one in terms of the omnipresent and sublime individuality of art creator. Proust’s fiction with its intellectualism and beauty is centered on individual characters; it doesn’t include impersonalized historical and philosophical generalizations or systemic analysis. Of course, Ruiz completes Proust by showing the socio-political aspects of the spirituality of beauty and in Proust’s analysis of the characters. But Ruiz’s major investment in Proust scholarship is his analysis of the role of Proust’s literary creativity in his relation to his own existence and to life in general. Ruiz addresses the psychology of Proust’s creativity as a certain existential strategy, as a certain solution to the enigma and challenge of life.

Ruiz represents the Proustian personality as five characters – Marcel-the boy who continues to be an important screen presence in Ruiz’s depiction of Marcel at different ages, Marcel-the youth, Marcel Proust as a writer, Marcel as a dying man who continues to analytically write about his experiences, and Marcel whose face we already cannot see – who is on his way to his death. We see that creating art in the life of Proust takes a psychologically regressive form (in spite of unique and incredible achievements of his art) of being an extraordinary attempt to monitor the powers of life and death. Marcel’s illness becomes in the film symbol of existential deficit in Proustian writer when transformation of life into fiction shows itself as an attempt of keeping life/death under aesthetic (aesthetically spiritual) control.

In the final scene of the film serving as its apotheosis (it summarizes the relationships between the creative/artistic ego of the artist and his existential ego) – the scene of Marcel Proust dying (inside the visual metaphor of his dying) we are presented with four Marcels out of five in the whole film. Who is dying is only the fifth Marcel, not the first (the child), the third (the mature writer) and not the fourth (the sick but still creatively active Marcel). Ruiz’s point here, it seems, is that the factual writer (the main character of Ruiz’s film) is the protagonist (the subject of annunciated) of the pre-adolescent boy-Marcel’s imaginary (creative) posture. It means that dying Proust is the end of the Proustian art (that nothing more will be written by Proust), that this end is the real content and meaning of Proust’s death. Marcel-the boy designs Marcel-the writer, and both of them design Marcel-the elder/his death. There is no death for Proust as a human being – beyond his metaphor of dying (beyond Proust’s last walk toward the ocean of death/life), like for traditional religious believer there is no life and death without immortality, no world without Creation and no human life without God.

Several complex semantic metaphors by which Ruiz characterizes Marcel’s orientation on art as a de-existentialized occupation, introduce us to the very psychological position lying behind Marcel’s love of observing life instead of living it.

1) In the scene where Marcel-the young adult joined others to pose for taking a collective photo with Gilberte, Robert and some other members of de-Guermantes family, the simultaneous presence of Marcel-the boy has a super-narrative – purely analytical function. While we see that Marcel-the young adult jokingly makes a flying gesture (to be registered in the photograph) we simultaneously see how Marcel-the boy as if flying/soaring around, as if above those being photographed. The impression is that the gesture of Marcel-the adult is an echo of the flying ability of Marcel-the boy, as if it is the child with his joy of feeling himself soaring above the living what inspires Marcel-the writer not to be identical with life, not to be like those around him.

2) In the same scene, right before the moment when Marcel-the young writer joined the group to be photographed together, we see a close-up of the legs of Marcel-the child standing on the ground, and a group of de Guermantes behind at the distance. The impression created by this juxtaposition of Marcel-the boy’s legs and adults in the background is that this child is a giant in comparison with ordinary adults. The both points of this scene – close-up of Marcel-the child’s legs bigger than figures of the adults in the background, and flying Marcel-the child just several moments later, are descriptions of two aspects of the psychology of art-creating. The first aspect is the innocent megalomaniacal impulse of a gifted child without which it would be impossible to reach emotional concentration on creative task of seeing life aesthetically spiritually. And the second aspect is the ability to develop the very energy of inspiration (symbolized by the ability to fly/soar over life) which can realize/elaborate/stabilize the psychological posture of not being identical with life.

3) In the scene of the first party at the Duke de Guermantes when Odette de Crecy by chance finds Marcel-the boy occupied with his optical apparatus stimulating his visual imagination, he in his mind transforms those he sees (here the aristocratic crowd), into statues and projects on their petrified faces moving colored lights. Here Ruiz demonstrates to the viewers – two psychological moves of the artist – to transform the living creatures into (dead) abstractions – cells and sinews of his art, and then to make them even more alive than they were inside life with art’s aesthetic effects (including sublimated meanings delivered here by the voice-over).

4) In the scene in a large restaurant (during the WWI) where French high society cliental dines while watching war newsreel documentaries, we see adult Marcel reading a letter from Gilberte (with her voice-over). Marcel’s position is extremely stylized – he as if is soaring up (together with his chair) over the heads of the diners and crossing the screen where we see the horrors of the battle. Simultaneously we see Marcel-the boy operating a film projector and moving up together with adult Marcel as if by a spiritual force. Here Ruiz adds the motif of Proustian artist’s relation to war to that of his relation to people – his perception of war is from outside of war (perception of war as an object of observation). This Ruiz’s visual description of artist’s perception of human made disaster is comparable (but not identical) with how today philistines while sitting on the sofas in their living rooms observe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at a comfortable distance.

The recurrent presence of Marcel-the boy together with Marcel-the writer or Marcel of older age tells us that the pre-adolescent age Ruiz considers as decisively important for forming the position of the artist in Proustian sense of the word. It is, according to Ruiz, the age when creative/artistic ego becomes a model and the basis of the existential ego. The ego of existential participation and action (which is an aspect of the mature self) doesn’t have a chance to develop.

The difference between Marcel-the boy and Marcel-the writer is the difference between the subject of annunciation (the author of the work of art) and the subject of annunciated (the hero representing the author inside the text). The point here is that Marcel-the writer who is the subject of annunciation in relation to his novels is the subject of annunciated in his creative/artistic personality. In other words, Marcel-the writer is created by the Marcel-the child, is his work of art!

But Marcel-the child – the creator of the very posture of the artist and simultaneously – of the very use of technology enhancing the artist’s vision, is psychologically just a little voyeur (an observer of parental coitus). He treats life as a primal scene! The art can be result of this infantile position if the psychological infant has a talent. But the relation of even a great writer to life can be pre-existential and de-existentialized. The functions of observation and contemplation can dominate over the ability to participate in being. The difficulty here is how to combine observation and contemplation with participation. It is a challenge for today and tomorrow to find this combination possible in the context of 21st century. It takes re-invention of art and the ability to re-invent life.

Ruiz’s film is a film as an intellectual medium that analyzes not only life of an exceptional writer, not only psychology of writing, but writer’s analysis of life and human creativity.

Raúl Ruiz (25 July 1941 – 19 August 2011)

Raúl Ruiz

Posted on Oct/7/’17 – Time Regained (TR) by Raoul Ruiz (1999) by Acting-Out Politics

Posted Oct/4/’17 – Marcel-the Writer And Marcel-the Boy During WWI – From Raul Ruiz’s “Time Regained” (1999) by Acting-Out Politics

Posted Oct/1/’17 – Three Phases Of Human Relationship With Death – From “Time Regained” (1999) By Raul Ruiz (Film Based On Marcel Proust’s Novel) by Acting-Out Politics

Posted on Oct, 24 2014 –   Volker Schlondorff’s “Un Amour de Swann/Swann in Love” (1984) – Two “Knights” Fighting for Their Peculiar Ideals and Lost in A Chivalry-less World by Acting-Out Politics