Regizori promitatori

M-am gandit sa enumar in aceast articol cativa regizori relativ tineri si promitatori pe care am de gand sa-i urmaresc pe viitor, pentru ca sunt sigur ca cel putin o parte dintre ei ne vor oferi inca multe surprize placute. Am banuit ca Dark Knight al lui Christopher Nolan, va fi un succes, stiind ca englezul regizase deja capodopere precum Memento sau The Prestige - si se pare ca am avut dreptate.

Iata asadar lista mea de regizori:

Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko ... 2001)
James Mangold (Identity ... 2003 & 3:10 to Yuma ... 2007)
Banjong Pisanthanakun & Parkpoom Wongpoom (Shutter ... 2004)
Eric Bress & J. Mackye Gruber (Butterfly Effect ... 2004)
Alejandro Amenábar (The Others ... 2001)
Darren Aronofsky (Pi ... 1998 & Requiem for a Dream ... 2000)
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (Das Leben der Anderen ... 2006)
Frank Coraci (Click ... 2006)
Neil Burger (The Illusionist ... 2006)
Guy Ritchie (Snatch ... 2000)
Cristian Mungiu (4 luni, 3 saptamani si 2 zile ... 2007)
Cristi Puiu (Moartea domnului Lazarescu ... 2005)
Gabor Csupo (Bridge to Terabithia ... 2007)
Spike Jonze (Adaptation ... 2002 + numeroase videoclipuri muzicale)
Matt Reeves (Cloverfield ... 2008)
Danny Cannon (Goal! ... 2005)
Radu Muntean (Hirtia va fi albastra ... 2006)
Antti-Jussi Annila (Jadesoturi ... 2006)


Nu mai sunt chiar atat de tineri, dar inca mai am asteptari de la...

Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ... 2004 & La Science des rêves ... 2006) si

Brad Anderson (El Maquinista ... 2004)

si binenteles Andrew Stanton (WALL - E ... 2008)

Si inca mai astept ca Yann Samuell, regizorul de 43 de ani al memorabilului Jeux d'enfants (2003), sa-si revina si sa mai regizeze un film de succes.

UR-FASCISM (fragment)

In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

* * *

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

Traditionalism is of course much older than fascism. Not only was it typical of counterrevolutionary Catholic thought after the French revolution, but is was born in the late Hellenistic era, as a reaction to classical Greek rationalism. In the Mediterranean basin, people of different religions (most of the faiths indulgently accepted by the Roman pantheon) started dreaming of a revelation received at the dawn of human history. This revelation, according to the traditionalist mystique, had remained for a long time concealed under the veil of forgotten languages -- in Egyptian hieroglyphs, in the Celtic runes, in the scrolls of the little-known religions of Asia.

This new culture had to be syncretistic. Syncretism is not only, as the dictionary says, "the combination of different forms of belief or practice;" such a combination must tolerate contradictions. Each of the original messages contains a sliver of wisdom, and although they seem to say different or incompatible things, they all are nevertheless alluding, allegorically, to the same primeval truth.

As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth already has been spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message.

If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores, are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine, who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.

2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.

Both Fascists and Nazis worshipped technology, while traditionalist thinkers usually reject it as a negation of traditional spiritual values. However, even though Nazism was proud of its industrial achievements, its praise of modernism was only the surface of an ideology based upon blood and earth (Blut und Boden). The rejection of the modern world was disguised as a rebuttal of the capitalistic way of life. The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.

7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia. But the plot must also come from the inside: Jews are usually the best target because they have the advantage of being at the same time inside and outside. In the United States, a prominent instance of the plot obsession is to be found in Pat Robertson's The New World Order, but, as we have recently seen, there are many others.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. However, the followers of Ur-Fascism must also be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such "final solutions" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this predicament.

10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people in the world, the members or the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party. But there cannot be patricians without plebeians. In fact, the Leader, knowing that his power was not delegated to him democratically but was conquered by force, also knows that his force is based upon the weakness of the masses; they are so weak as to need and deserve a ruler.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the Spanish Falangists was Viva la Muerte ("Long Live Death!"). In nonfascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness. By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.

Because of its qualitative populism, Ur-Fascism must be against "rotten" parliamentary governments. Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the official language of what he called Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.

* * *

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plainclothes. It would be so much easier for us if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, "I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Blackshirts to parade again in the Italian squares." Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances — every day, in every part of the world. Franklin Roosevelt's words of November 4, 1938, are worth recalling: "If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." Freedom and liberation are an unending task.

FLORILE ZIDULUI FLORILOR

L-au trezit într-o noapte şi l-au târât în faţa zidului alb. Vroia şi el, ar fi vrut dintotdeauna, dar credea cã nu-i momentul potrivit. Bezna sufocantã-l strângea ca într-un pumn, şi gardienii-l tot înghionteau. Zidul pãrea atât de mic şi subţire. I-au dat cãteva sprayuri de graffiti:
- Ãsta-i ordin de la preşedinte! Picteazã tot zidul!
Luã un spray negru de pe jos şi stropi o dungã neagrã şi subţire pe zidul alb. Apoi o dungã albastrã. O dungã oranj. Dar tocmai când se gândi cã zidul s-a sfârşit, vãzu cât de lung era de fapt. Stropi şi alte culori pe piatra rece. Dungi purpurii, bucle verzi, bucle cafenii, încercând sã termine pictura. S-ajungã pân' la tine, pânã-n piaţa în care se deschide fereastra ta. Dar nu-şi va termina pictura nici în zece ani. Şi chiar dacã ar reuşi, nu i-ar folosi la nimic. Ar fi nevoit sã continue, sã-nceapã o nouã picturã, sã meargã mai departe în jos, la vale. Nimic pe drum, doar mireasma pãmântului umed şi-a ierbii uscate. Şi chiar dacã ar ar reuşi, cãţãrându-se pe scarã pânã-n vârful zidului tot mai înalt, sã termine şi a doua picturã - şi asta i-ar lua o sutã de ani, cel puţin o sutã de ani! - tot n-ar folosi la nimic. Şi-ntre timp zidul se va înãlţa peste blocuri, peste dealuri, peste munţi, peste nori, pãnâ-n ceruri. Şi-ar trebui s-o ia de la-nceput. Şi chiar dacã ar reuşi sã termine şi a treia picturã – dar nu, asta nici într-o mie de ani nu se poate întâmpla! – atunci ar ajunge în sfârşit la capãtul zidului, ar triumfa în Piaţa Centralã, preşedintele şi mulţimea înveselitã l-ar ridica jubilând în slãvi, pentru eternitate, chiar dacã el va fi deja bãtrân şi bolnav şi nici n-ar mai înţelege ce se-ntâmplã.

Dar tu fumezi în biroul tãu trist, te joci cu un creion şi desenezi o pãpãdie pe-o foaie de hârtie. Ultima pãpãdie. Numai noaptea-ţi va spune dacã vei mai desena încã una.

OPRESCU, VOTUL EMOTIONAL, SI ESECUL DEMOCRATIEI

Voi incepe cu ce ma framanta in acest moment. Evenimentul anului de pana acum din politica romaneasca: alegerile locale. Mai precis, cele din capitala. Rezultatul final mi s-a parut cel putin dezamagitor. De trei ori am izbucnit in ultimii 10 ani din cauza unor evenimente politice din Romania, evenimente pe care, din pacate, nu le am sub control. Las la o parte orice doza de subiectivitate, si enumar cele trei mari dezamagiri:

1 intrarea lui Vadim Tudor in turul doi al alegerilor prezidentiale in 2000. Sper ca nu mai trebuie sa comentez de ce m-a deranjat ascensiunea unui politician extremist in Romania, si prabusirea temporara a centrului, rezultat al esecului guvernarilor CDR.

2 suspendarea a presedintelui in 2007.
Dincolo de preferintele politice ale fiecaruia, vom cadea de acord ca suspendarea a fost o pierdere inutila de timp si de bani. Iar imaginea Romaniei pe plan international a avut de suferit.

3 alegerea lui Oprescu pentru primaria Bucurestiului in 2008.

Voi discuta evident punctul 3. De ce m-a deranjat atat de mult alegerea bucurestenilor? Pentru ca Bucurestiul, la 18 ani dupa ce a fost umilit de minerii chemati de Ion Iliescu, alege un individ care ii este aservit fostului presedinte. Un individ care simuleaza independenta politica precum un atacant in careul advers, o independenta in care credem cu aceeasi naivitate cu care uneori visam la autostrazile suspendate, propuse de acelasi doctor Oprescu. Pe undeva stim toti ca nu se poate. Oprescu a venit numai cu solutii fanteziste - asta atunci cand a venit cu ceva, fiindca de multe ori nici macar nu a propus solutii concrete. Dar toate astea deja nu mai conteaza. Ne-am tot lamurit in ultimii 18 ani ca aproape toate promisiunile oricum nu vor fi niciodata tinute. Asa ca, daca tot visam, cel putin sa visam frumos? Visul tot vis va ramane...

Nu sunt un sustinator al PDL-ului, cum de altfel nu sunt nici un fan al lui Vasile Blaga. Dar Blaga era o solutie mai putin nefericita pentru primarie. Cum si Ludovic Orban, si PNL-ul, pe care-i simpatizez poate chiar si mai putin, erau insa o solutie si mai putin nefericita. Un politician care nu inspira foarte multa incredere, Orban a propus totusi cel mai bun program pentru Bucuresti. Rational ar fi fost sa-l preferam pe Orban, apoi pe Blaga, si abia apoi pe un al treilea candidat. (Sigur, aici au contat mai multi factori, precum campaniile neconvigatoare ale candidatilor PDL si PNL, esecurile PDL-ului la primaria capitalei - in special in perioada 2004-2008, prezenta foarte scazuta la vot etc., factori pe care ii voi discuta insa probabil in alt articol.) Insa cine mai voteaza rational? Oamenii, din nefericire, cu siguranta sunt fiinte mai degraba emotionale decat rationale. In special popoarele latine. Si in special romanii...

Si atunci ma intreb, pe buna dreptate, de ce ne-am mai baza pe democratie si, implicit, pe votul popular? Sansele de a nimeri optiunea cel mai putin proasta dintre cele valabile sau, cel putin, de a nu nimeri cea mai catastrofala varianta, sunt relativ mici. Nu inexistente, dar mici, mult prea mici. Intoarcerea la un regim totalitar sau macar autoritar nu este o solutie. Democratia, cu bunele si relele ei, este macar suportabila; totalitarismul - nu.

Nu ne mai ramane atunci decat sa speram ca omenirea va inventa, candva in secolul 21, cat mai repede, un nou sistem. Democratia, mai devreme sau mai tarziu, va esua, asa cum a esuat orice altceva pana acum. In unele tari functioneaza ceva mai bine, si bineinteles, Romania este inca o democratie tanara si fragila. Dar drumul pana la o democratie consolidata e mult prea lung si, chiar daca vom ajunge la destinatie, vom avea vesnic aceleasi probleme pe care le-am mentionat mai sus.

Ramanem pana atunci cu basmele despre autostrazi spatiale, parcuri cu caprioare si Mos Craciun auzite de la politicienii care vaneaza voturi cu obsesia unor maniaci.

Inaugurare

30 Iulie 2008. M-am gandit sa inaugurez astazi blogul.