ONCE UPON a        TIME
                                                                                          ezine at l'atelier bonita
                                                     established since december 2002

Looking At The Stars                   with Geert Schuermans and The Editor                                   LOOKING AT THE STARS is a series of conversations on art, music, films and other culture vultures between Geert Schuermans (GS) and Bonita, Editor, Once Upon a Time Magazine. Geert: You compared "Bowling for Collumbine" and "Hable con Ella" as 2 forms of aggression, the former male aggression and the latter as female aggression. I understand the macho "shoot-em-up" behaviour of Michael Moore's film, but I don't see the link in Almodovar's movie (or maybe the bullfighting) to be female aggression. In my eyes that too was more a form of male violence (or, to put it succintly, a desparate kind of love). Bonita: Rather than female aggression, the opposite of male aggression is [a yearning for] an ability to communicate, sans force. And I think that is a common theme that runs through the two films. In "Bowling for Columbine," one observes the heavy-handedness of human communication which translates into non-communication, or, death. For violence is also a mode of communication, no? As is the culture of guns. Purchasing, collecting, target-practicing, hunting and shooting the weapons is a form of group activitiy sacred to many, much like a rite of passage, no? "Bowling for Columbine," macho as it is, finds its center in a segment that depicts the U.S.'s infiltrations of foreign countries during the last fifty years. This powerfully edited suite of news footage, accompanied by a saccharin sweet soundtrack, puts forth the film's message succinctly, cynically, sentimentally. In "Talk to Her" (Hable con ella"), one observes the most delicate forms of communication - if only that involves one lone subject and the surrounding air. The myriad modes of commincation depicted are between an amourous individual and an unconscious body; a woman on the verge and a mad bull; a journalist with too much worldly experience and a painfully shy boy ... "Talk to Her's" focal point is a brief but mesmerizing silent film. The technique itself pays hommage to the great D.W. Griffith and Luis Bunnel. The message? A good excuse for a boy to embark on the journey to manhood? Or, in the opinion of those who dwell upon a politically correct world, rape? Or, none of the above? (For Almodovar just wanted to poke his fingers through the cinemascope screen, something like, testing the waters of human communication?) Michael Moore's worldviews are loud, rude and lawless, while Pedro Almodovar's universe is subtle, full of longings and taboos. Moore's film takes potshots at America while Almodovar tells a 90+ minutes joke on Europe. In Moore's documentary, the subjects are almost always shown in groups but none of them actually "communicate." In Almodovar's film, the subjects are mostly alone but united in dreams and fantasies. (Am I the oly one who thinks this is a love story of the two leading male characters?) "Bowling for Columbine" and "Talk to Her" can be presented as two romance of our times, the former a narrative of materials and our fleeting world; the latter a paradise lost in the mind's murmers. Masculine aggression, feminine repos. By the way, I like the Belgian "left leaning" saying a great deal. Your turn. :-) Geert: OK I'm impressed :-) Anyway I find your view very interestig and agree with it. Still don't you think it not only has to do with Male-Female relationship or role pattern but also with a level of cultural development (not the right term but I can't find a better one). Cultural development in the broadest sense I mean. If one has the abilities to communicate in a more delicate way, one restrains from violence which indeed is also a (low) form of communication. The more one comes into contact with culture (in the strictest sense this time) the more one develops this ability I tend to believe. In our meritocrat society however culture is not seen as something useful (except maybe by some snobs who lack good taste but want to distinguish themselves) because it isn't something that will lead to financial results. A plea for more attention for culture therefore is seen as soft. Then again it once again turns your way ;-) since such soft values often go together with male female role patterns (see how in education soft courses as sociology are more attended by women while hard topics as engeneering are still male bastions). Those were my thoughts. Maybe also the remark that your made about "Hable con ella" being a love story between the 2 guys, amused me a great deal. I went to see the movie with a couple of friends. When we left the cinema I too said that there was this attraction between the 2 male characters. I got the collective response that "sometimes I have a twisted mind." Bonita: Thanks for your boundless patience.. Per usual, this reply is late. It is a given that, with some education, humans may use a little less force upon their fellows. That said, violence does not necessarily require the use of force, as demonstrated in the film "Divine Intervention." And if you are wealthy and well-connected, you don't need to perform the violence yourself. Our society is structured to legitimize any aggression that claims to protect and nurture capitalism. That is why before every attack, a western statesman will convince the world community (a/k/a UN? or is it the EU?) that "high tech weapons will be used from the air, it will be a quick war." By saying that, the aggressor hints at (1) intensive use of military and communication equipment whose stocks will surge should a war commences and completes within a "short period of time;" and (2) if an air war is fought, there will "probably be less loss of lives" thus making the defense departments of the countries involved more "credible" politically. But from any angle, this is atrocity at its height, or, violence. Sad stuff. Culture has a great deal AND very little to do with how humans behave collectively (as a nation, tribe, cult or a corporation...), and sometimes it is this *collective* effort that saves us from too much *culture.* It's improper dichotomy yet also the essence of the study of aesthetics and art history. I would love to talk about this next ... It's interesting that you also saw the nuances between the two men in "Hable con ella," funny minds think alike, no? Anyway, it's - Your turn. Geert:You touched upon the subject of propaganda, or in a way the legitimation of violence by a government. It's a subject that interests me a lot and I was wondering do you with your knowledge and fine taste see an aesthetic side tn propaganda? In a strange way that I fail to understand, I do. Maybe(!) not on the subtle manipulative ways which in essence comes down to lying in front of a large audience (e.g. the Kuwaiti girl that very convincingly lied about Iraqi soldiers killing babies), but definately in the obvious forms that look so clumsy and helpless. In Europe there are those early 20e century posters of the Catholics parties that warned "the godless and wicked socialists." Of course there are also the American posters and movies during the McCarthy era I think (?) that warned against "the devils of Communism." A couple of weeks ago I saw a documentary that showed the manipulation of the public on the war on drugs. They also showed a clip of the 20's. The message of course was that from now on drugs (marijuana) are bad. Apparently this wasn't the general idea, certainly not in the South with lots of Hispanics for whom smoking a joint was very common. Therefore the clip had as title "The new official truth". And that title I think is very typical for what I want to say. Of course it's funny, but on the other hand it is so vulnerable it becomes beautiful. Untll then.. Bonita: Back again on terra firma, otherwise known as Marseille. Culture. And culture as propaganda. The truth is, the aesthete has always been employed by the power that be. Some of the finest European paintings were created by workshops for royalties and later, corporations ... however vintage or nouveau they may be, wealth is wealth. And artists are still filling in as history's honorable mistakes. As much as capitalism glorifies art, it is a token glorification because there is really no place for the activity nor its makers. Leonardo's drawings of ordinary folks were admired but it was his blueprints for advanced weapons (WMD?) that earned his daily bread. Jackson Pollack's unconventional lifestyle attracted generations of starry-eyed abstract painters to New York's Greenwich Village, but it was Peggy Guggenheim who patronized his paintings thus elevating her own station in society--an act otherwise known as conspicuous consumption. Filmmaker Zhang Yimou's successful career has fetched him a seat in China's Communist Party, and it is for the same reason that Zhang is now manufacturing politically complementary goods. It is amusing to read that while Colin Powell tried to convince the UN Security Council to bomb Iraq; right behind him, the anti-war tapestry "Guernica" by Picasso was covered up by a blue cloth. For those of my grandparents' generation, this brings back ugly memories of Nazi book burnings (as well as Emile Nolde's red poppies, painted during the occupation, in a windowless cellar...), the black-listed artists during the McCarthy era (Chaplin exiled to France, Bunuel to Mexico, the untouchable Elia Kazan in Hollywood...); as well as Mandela, Wei Jingzhang, Wang Dan, Salman Rushdie, Edward Said, Chris Ofili of our own times. So what is art and culture? When our right brains admire a watercolor by Constable, Turner, Blake, Fuseli, Caspar Freidrich, Gericault or Delacroix, our left brains try desparately to block us from acknowledging the facts that these mersmerizing images are reminders of imperialism and fascism in the raw :-) I don't think culture can really help an individual to be less violent. But experience plus culture may prevent our primal urge to conceal "Guernica." Experience teaches one that there are a million shades of grey between the whites and blacks in our lives. And culture? It pushes the hand of Emile Nolde to reach for that tube of crimson medium for his imaginary poppies. For now, ciao. ©2004 L'Atlelier Bonita     ©2004 Geert Schuermans ________________ Geert Schuermans is an academic researcher and faculty member at the University of Antwerp where he obtained an advanced degree in Political and Social Science with specialisation in International Relations. His publications include "Asian Values: The Relation between Religion and Democracy" and "Globalisation and Fragmentation: Policies of Civilisations." Geert, who enjoys cold Belgian beer, steamy steak frites and Paul Auster's "New York Trilogy," is a resident of Antwerp. A year after receiving her Ph.D. in history, Bonita left New York City to work as a museum curator in Marseille, France. Her publications include J.F.M.: a catalogue raisonné of the graphic art of Jean-François Millet, En Route 1999, and the soon-to-be-published Empire of Our Prodigal Sons. Bonita, who is often seen in her Lazio football jersey, is the editor of Once Upon A Time magazine.

                                                   ONCE UPON      a TIME
                                                                                          ezine at l'atelier bonita
                                                     established since december 2002