We saw the disastrous Zmijewski. Not in TVP2, and Wednesday night at the Center for Contemporary Art in Torun. The show was organized by the club Thorn Political Criticism, and the guy was Agnieszka Wisniewska from the same criticism.
not avoid comparisons to Cross Stankiewicz. There is probably a problem, because during Wednesday's projection of Ms. Wisniewski said that the Disaster was taking a glove thrown through film Solidarity 2010 . solidarity against formulated allegations of bias, as creators and supporters responded: "Make a movie it ourselves and show you how to score really was." Zmijewski showed.
At the beginning, right after the tragedy, is still normal. Under the Palace Namiestnikowski crowds, bring candles, flowers, etc. Above all, sing hymns and pray. The film is filled with long static shots of people praying or singing. Imported
are coffins. Zmijewski begins talk to people. All are rather calm, you may want to maintain the mood of seriousness, respect and common experience of what was still reigned, and which trąbiły all media (that this tragedy will change the language of public statements, etc.). Many interviewees said about the attack, but not all. Some people just mention the president or regret. Some people are distancing themselves from the conspiracy theories. One man says that after all, no reasonable person would invent some tall tales. This is in response to the earlier words of a man standing next to, who spoke about the attack. There is, however those who did not settle as it was, but I do not exclude any version - the assault - for the simple reason that there is no indication yet if the exclusion of either version.
farther in the movie, from 10 April, especially after the burial at Wawel, the communication becomes easier. When the weight is transferred from the disaster to the problem of the cross, is already "over the hump." In the film, we see only two types of characters. Early supporters of the cross. Their behaviors are characterized by: histerycznością, highlighting his own, and Polish religiosity as such, promoting the theory of the assassination. Other "defenders" Zmijewski not met. Occur both in the crowd cheering "ge-sta-after", as well as individually. The second type is people claiming to be a transfer of the cross. We all act and speak calmly, calling for the separation of church and state. There are only individually (in one case they were two men).
odnieśmy Here is the movie Stankiewicz. In Cross are all. The old people talking about Rus attack. They are reasonable people (two doctors) "just" demanding answers important questions about the responsibility for arranging such a flight, or discussing the equality of opportunities (eg, children of former communist functionaries and beneficiaries who are now in a free Poland, they still have a better "start" than their male colleagues). It palikotowa swołocz, but trying to explain his aversion to the necessity of the cross section of state and religion.
If it can be criticized for manipulating Stankiewicz, it is only by the different emphases, the apparent sympathy for the reasonable options of questions about accountability. Certainly not Stanley wyeksponowała fraction "bombings." Determining what really is problematic. You would have to first determine what "really", and then consider whether it is even possible to show that in the movie. Therefore, we are mainly interested in how the image gives us a filmmaker that has intentions and by what means the measures to the aims.
U Zmijewski is less options to choose from. Defenders of the Cross can speak calmly, they can scream. Always, however, they are talking about the same thing: it was a coup, the cross has to be, Poland is a Catholic. Non-supporters of the cross (some people swear that they are not against cross, only against the manipulation of it) has already incorporated the power of peace.
In general disaster movie is rather quiet, devoid of emotion, assembled in a cool, at least compared to Cross. Apparently Zmijewski was attacked, when broadened, that is the Political Criticism ( may have to do with this :). Probably so he could move the scene of much stricter than those cast.
Go back to the thread of conversations with people on the street. It is obvious that Zmijewski does not feel at ease that did not quite know what ask. Asks questions obvious: how you react to the news of the crash. In addition to details dopytywania conspiracy and assassination, he did not take the other threads, often fluctuates. It is obvious that they felt the distance, maybe to the strangeness of people plunged into sadness and then requesting to leave the cross or to erect a monument / array. Our experience has confirmed Agnieszka Wisniewska, who frequented the Brave New World when he came there with Zmijewski Street.
Wisniewska understood that the distance and strangeness could easily charge. Hastened to explain that, at least Zmijewski has devoted much time and work, because he wanted to give voice to these people, which usually are all in the ass. " That he spent many hours patiently listening to the assassination that he genuinely touched by the old lady with the incendiary publicity for the Tesco torch into the palace. It
who has a "those people" in the ass "is one thing, too extensive, I am here to discuss. We believe, however, that the translation of their votes, "those people" is a simple fake. Why Zmijewski went into the palace? Not because I wanted to participate in something important. Not because I wanted to talk to people. He went there to film oddity, which revealed to him. He went too in order to "take the gauntlet and show how the version. The camera was the only reason he went there. There was an additional dimension of its contact with humans, but he has established contact. Without it there would be no excuse to be there.
thus further separated himself from "those people" and further emphasized its strangeness than if he was not there. You could say that manifested indifference. It's a completely different attitude than the overt hostility fejsbukowych palikotowców. May be concluded that this hostility is as shallow as religious "fanaticism" and that's indifference is the best way to consolidate its strangeness (superiority?) Against "those people". Perhaps he did it unconsciously. In fact, he treated the people under the cross, as the cooler version of the zoo.
This is not something we would not expect the Żmijewski. It is often said that tries to observe the position of someone such as an ethnologist, or someone set up a "foreign", off the cultural community of people watch. symptomatic in this regard is his job Ogód Botanic / Zoo of 1996. In that film, Zmijewski of the closet shooting disabled children on a trip to a botanical garden and juxtaposes them with shots of zoo animals. The film told like this:
thought: what would happen if I, instead of sympathy for the (handicapped) children identified with feeling ashamed oddalanym aversion to bodily aberration and fill your heart disgust? Identified himself. I served (one) to check whether I have the courage of the vulgar way of comparing (in the form of film images) capable of independent life of children with animals in the zoo. I can. I can also show the public, by signing your name. That is indeed it was - admit that the "evil" is part of me. Denying it - zaparłbym myself. (...) In doing this job, I felt a big distaste for the idea, and to himself. It turned out that these are the things to jump over.
Why is it For us the problem? Different minorities who so "loves" Zmijewski enjoy (and rightly) a stigma of cultural protection. It is not proper to stare at disabled people, should not be said how Mr Wegrzyn, that likes to look at the Lesbians. There are different cultural and legal sanctions to protect such persons against objectification, humiliation. Their effectiveness is another matter. What is important is the fact that it is a widely shared norm in our culture. Therefore, in the movies Zmijewski objectification is the transgression of norms and how "bold" intellectually and morally in the experiment.
the defenders of the cross was and is different. Were considered scandalous, spectacle, circus, and by representatives of the influential media (TVN, GW). Stigmatizing and humiliating them was sanctioned by the authority. So it - as a spectacle - he treated them Zmijewski. He not only their uprzedmiotowił - he did earlier in his films. First, it did not exceed any standards, but only in an even more (than overt aggression) perverse way fulfilled the applicable standard in its environment. He went to the moral and intellectual sitter. Second, he stood on the side of power. Both political, and cultural factors. Apparently afraid that "those people" have enough common songs "(as told in GW) and found that it is vulnerable minority.
Another interesting topic is to clarify the political dimension Wisniewska Disasters. It is namely so that the film shows the tragedy of state monopolisation of the purely religious rituals. This allows you to challenge the separation of state and church, and insist on completion of this chapter, which is a postulate Zmijewski and KP.
illustration of this - as she said Wisniewska - was the fact that on April 10 shortly after the crash, all institutions: shops, theaters, offices suddenly closed and only the churches were opened. This was according to the form of coercion to participate in religious ceremonies, simply because there was no where to go (besides church)
not refuse the pleasure of noting that this is for you to KP on the biggest disaster in postwar Polish history is the main problem preventing done shopping! or go to the theater, the club (which now also has a dimension of consumption, such as shopping. Sometimes it even more.)
The last problem with Catastrophe is completely non-artistic nature. Prof. Zybertowicz (present at the show at the CCA) noted that the film contains a few lies without comment. It's not about opinions offensive, but a "mere" lies. The film was produced for the Biennale of Sao Paulo. It can be assumed that he would watch it a lot of people who do not follow every turn of Smolensk investigation only those who best know that Poland is in Europe. They will learn that the first
The Russians dug the whole area to a depth of 1 meter, which certifies the Polish Minister Kopacz
second Airplane 4 times approached the landing, which says a normal inhabitant of Smolensk. (In that conversation, the GW Zmijewski raves, what kind of rational - as compared with the Poles - are these ordinary Russians do not believe in assassination. They are more rational than it seems Żmijewskiemu because they know that the Russian FSB sure you carefully examine disastrous )
third The president ordered the landing. The viewer in Sao Paulo did not know that it has been found not a single proof.
4th Nobody more so than Tusk does not depend on clarifying the causes of the disaster, which he said Tusk in the Sejm. The viewer in Sao Paulo will not know that the Prime Minister does not even have document providing that a conscious decision to conduct an investigation by the Russians, according to the Chicago Convention.
This makes Zmijewski not only tells the side of power, but it becomes an active propagandist. It is even stranger is that the recognition of the parliamentary speeches (lie 1 and 4) actually anything to the film is not made. Plots or symbolically not tied to anything in the rest of the film.
In conclusion, the film actually does not surprise us nothing. It is worth noting that Zmijewski unless your document for the first time in such a flippant way talks on the side of purely political power. If someone was previously a fan of Zmijewski and Michel Foucault, from now on will have to decide at most one of them.
image comes from http://thekrasnals-pl.blogspot.com/
0 comments:
Post a Comment