Susan Sontag (1933-2004)

Kulturna dešavanja, predstave, izložbe, festivali, obrazovanje i budućnost mladih...

Moderator: Chloe

Post Reply
User avatar
victory
Posts: 2197
Joined: 17/12/2002 00:00
Contact:

#1 Susan Sontag (1933-2004)

Post by victory »

Image

Velika Susan Sontag, spisateljica, moralno i intelektualno nepotkupljiva aktivistkinja, veliki borac za pravdu i ljudske slobode, veliki prijatelj Sarajeva i multietnicke Bosne umrla je u 71 godini.
When Sarajevo was at its worst, she was there.

Nadam se da ce sada na nekom boljem mjestu nego sto je ova planeta, nastaviti dugonocne knjiske razgovore i flert sa Danilom Kisom koji je davno zapocet u nekom od zadimljenih pariskih lokala.

A nama jedino preostaje da i dalje cekamo svoga Godoa...

Image
Susan Sontag, Writer and Critic, Dies at 71
By REUTERS

Published: December 28, 2004


Filed at 4:42 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Author and social critic Susan Sontag, one of the most powerful thinkers of her generation and a leading voice of intellectual opposition to U.S. policy after the Sept. 11 attacks, died on Tuesday at a New York cancer hospital. She was 71.

Sontag, who had been suffering from cancer for some time, was known for interests that ranged from French existentialist writers to ballet, photography and politics. She once said a writer should be ``someone who is interested in everything.''
She was a lifelong human rights activist and the author of 17 books, including a novel, ``In America,'' that won a U.S. National Book award.

Her work has been translated into more than 30 languages. Among her best known works was a 1964 study of homosexual aesthetics called ``Notes on Camp.''

Fellow author and friend Salman Rushdie described her as ``a great literary artist, a fearless and original thinker, ever valiant for truth'' who insisted ``that with literary talent came an obligation to speak out on the great issues of the day.''

Sontag was among the first to raise a dissenting voice after Sept. 11, 2001, in a controversial New Yorker magazine essay arguing that talk of an ``attack on civilization'' was ``drivel.''

A tall and imposing figure with white-streaked, long black hair and a severe demeanor, Sontag was a fixture on the New York intellectual scene. She played herself in Woody Allen's 1983 comedy ``Zelig,'' and directed four films of her own.

She ignited a firestorm of criticism when she declared that the Sept. 11 attacks were not a ``cowardly attack'' on civilization but ``an act undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions.''

With much of America still too shocked to consider such views, she was vilified in some quarters. An op-ed piece in the Boston Globe contended the comments confirmed what many already thought about her: ``high IQ, but a few quarts low on compassion and common sense.''

Sontag has since been an outspoken critic of President Bush over his response to the Sept. 11 attacks and particularly the U.S. war in Iraq.

In May this year she wrote an essay in the New York Times about the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad, arguing that the shocking photographs of the abuse would likely becoming the defining images of the war.

The piece prompted an editorial writer at Britain's Financial Times newspaper to describe her as ``the liberal lioness ... the pride of hand-wringing elitist liberalism.''

Novelist E.L. Doctorow described her as ``quite fearless.''

``She was engaged as a writer. I remember she went to Sarajevo to do theater while the fighting was going on. She just marched right on in there,'' he said.

Born in New York in 1933, Sontag grew up in Arizona and Los Angeles before going to the University of Chicago, and later Harvard and Oxford. She wrote novels, non-fiction books, plays and film-scripts as well as essays for The New Yorker, Granta, the New York Review of Books and other literary titles.

``She was brilliant and put her brilliance to work on behalf of human rights and creativity for everybody else,'' said Victor Navasky, publisher of liberal weekly magazine The Nation.

Sontag was married at the age of 17 to Philip Rieff, an academic in Chicago, with whom she had a son in 1952.

A longtime opponent of war and a human rights activist, Sontag made several visits to Sarajevo and staged Beckett's ``Waiting for Godot'' there under siege in the summer of 1993.

From 1987 to 1989 she was president of the American Center of PEN, an international writers' organization dedicated to freedom of expression, where she led a number of campaigns on behalf of persecuted and imprisoned writers.

Rushdie, current PEN president, expressed his gratitude for her support over the fatwa issued against him in 1989 for his book ``The Satanic Verses.'' ``Her resolute support, at a time when some wavered, helped to turn the tide against what she called 'an act of terrorism against the life of the mind.'''Reuters/VNU
http://www.bhdani.com/arhiva/136/inter.htm
User avatar
victory
Posts: 2197
Joined: 17/12/2002 00:00
Contact:

#2

Post by victory »

The New York Times o Susan Sontag

Tekst je podugacak ali istovremeno i vrijedan paznje

Image
By MARGALIT FOX

Published: December 28, 2004

Susan Sontag, the novelist, essayist and critic whose impassioned advocacy of the avant-garde and equally impassioned political pronouncements made her one of the most lionized presences - and one of the most polarizing - in 20th-century letters, died yesterday morning in Manhattan. She was 71 and lived in Manhattan.

The cause was complications of acute myelogenous leukemia, her son, David Rieff, said. Ms. Sontag, who died at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, had been ill with cancer intermittently for the last 30 years, a struggle that informed one of her most famous books, the critical study "Illness as Metaphor" (1978).

A highly visible public figure since the mid-1960's, Ms. Sontag wrote four novels, dozens of essays and a volume of short stories and was also an occasional filmmaker, playwright and theater director. For four decades her work was part of the contemporary canon, discussed everywhere from graduate seminars to the pages of popular magazines to the Hollywood movie "Bull Durham."

Ms. Sontag's work made a radical break with traditional postwar criticism in America, gleefully blurring the boundaries between high and popular culture. She advocated an aesthetic approach to the study of culture, championing style over content. She was concerned, in short, with sensation, in both meanings of the term.

"The theme that runs through Susan's writing is this lifelong struggle to arrive at the proper balance between the moral and the aesthetic," Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic and an old friend of Ms. Sontag's, said in a telephone interview yesterday. "There was something unusually vivid about her writing. That's why even if one disagrees with it - as I did frequently - it was unusually stimulating. She showed you things you hadn't seen before; she had a way of reopening questions."

Through four decades, public response to Ms. Sontag remained irreconcilably divided. She was described, variously, as explosive, anticlimactic, original, derivative, naïve, sophisticated, approachable, aloof, condescending, populist, puritanical, sybaritic, sincere, posturing, ascetic, voluptuary, right-wing, left-wing, profound, superficial, ardent, bloodless, dogmatic, ambivalent, lucid, inscrutable, visceral, reasoned, chilly, effusive, relevant, passé, ambivalent, tenacious, ecstatic, melancholic, humorous, humorless, deadpan, rhapsodic, cantankerous and clever. No one ever called her dull.

Ms. Sontag's best-known books, all published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, include the novels "Death Kit" (1967), "The Volcano Lover" (1992) and "In America" (2000); the essay collections "Against Interpretation" (1966), "Styles of Radical Will" (1969) and "Under the Sign of Saturn" (1980); the critical studies "On Photography" (1977) and "AIDS and Its Metaphors" (1989); and the short-story collection "I, Etcetera" (1978). One of her most famous works, however, was not a book, but an essay, "Notes on Camp," published in 1964 and still widely read.

Her most recent book, published last year, was "Regarding the Pain of Others," a long essay on the imagery of war and disaster. One of her last published essays, "Regarding the Torture of Others," written in response to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Americans at Abu Ghraib, appeared in the May 23, 2004, issue of The New York Times Magazine.

An Intellectual With Style

Unlike most serious intellectuals, Ms. Sontag was also a celebrity, partly because of her telegenic appearance, partly because of her outspoken statements. She was undoubtedly the only writer of her generation to win major literary prizes (among them a National Book Critics Circle Award, a National Book Award and a MacArthur Foundation genius grant) and to appear in films by Woody Allen and Andy Warhol; to be the subject of rapturous profiles in Rolling Stone and People magazines; and to be photographed by Annie Leibovitz for an Absolut Vodka ad. Through the decades her image - strong features, wide mouth, intense gaze and dark mane crowned in her middle years by a sweeping streak of white - became an instantly recognizable artifact of 20th-century popular culture.

Ms. Sontag was a master synthesist who tackled broad, difficult and elusive subjects: the nature of art, the nature of consciousness and, above all, the nature of the modern condition. Where many American critics before her had mined the past, Ms. Sontag became an evangelist of the new, training her eye on the culture unfolding around her.

For Ms. Sontag, culture encompassed a vast landscape. She wrote serious studies of popular art forms, like cinema and science fiction, that earlier critics disdained. She produced impassioned essays on the European writers and filmmakers she admired, like Jean-Paul Sartre, Roland Barthes, Walter Benjamin and Jean-Luc Godard. She wrote experimental novels on dreams and the nature of consciousness. She published painstaking critical dissections of photography and dance; illness, politics and pornography; and, most famously, camp. Her work, with its emphasis on the outré, the jagged and the here and now, helped make the study of popular culture a respectable academic pursuit.

What united Ms. Sontag's output was a propulsive desire to define the forces that shape the modernist sensibility. And in so doing, she sought to explain what it meant to be human in the waning years of the 20th century.

To many critics, her work was bold and thrilling. Interviewed in The Times Magazine in 1992, the Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes compared Ms. Sontag to the Renaissance humanist Erasmus. "Erasmus traveled with 32 volumes, which contained all the knowledge worth knowing," he said. "Susan Sontag carries it in her brain! I know of no other intellectual who is so clear-minded, with a capacity to link, to connect, to relate."

A Bevy of Detractors

Others were less enthralled. Some branded Ms. Sontag an unoriginal thinker, a popularizer with a gift for aphorism who could boil down difficult writers for mass consumption. (Irving Howe called her "a publicist able to make brilliant quilts from grandmother's patches.") Some regarded her tendency to revisit her earlier, often controversial positions as ambivalent. Some saw her scholarly approach to popular art forms as pretentious. (Ms. Sontag once remarked that she could appreciate Patti Smith because she had read Nietzsche.)

In person Ms. Sontag could be astringent, particularly if she felt she had been misunderstood. She grew irritated when reporters asked how many books she had in her apartment in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan (15,000; no television set). But she could also be warm and girlish, speaking confidingly in her rich, low voice, her feet propped casually on the nearest coffee table. She laughed readily, and when she discussed something that engaged her passionately (and there were many things), her dark eyes often filled with tears.

Ms. Sontag had a knack - or perhaps a penchant - for getting into trouble. She could be provocative to the point of being inflammatory, as when she championed the Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl in a 1965 essay; she would revise her position some years later. She celebrated the communist societies of Cuba and North Vietnam; just as provocatively, she later denounced communism as a form of fascism. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, she wrote in The New Yorker, "Whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." And in 2000, the publication of Ms. Sontag's final novel, "In America," raised accusations of plagiarism, charges she vehemently denied.

Ms. Sontag was born Susan Rosenblatt in Manhattan on Jan. 16, 1933, the daughter of Jack and Mildred Rosenblatt. Her father was a fur trader in China, and her mother joined him there for long periods, leaving Susan and her younger sister in the care of relatives. When Susan was 5, her father died in China of tuberculosis. Seeking relief for Susan's asthma, her mother moved the family to Tucson, spending the next several years there. In Arizona, Susan's mother met Capt. Nathan Sontag, a World War II veteran sent there to recuperate. The couple were married - Susan took her stepfather's name - and the family moved to Los Angeles.
For Susan, who graduated from high school before her 16th birthday, the philistinism of American culture was a torment she vowed early to escape. "My greatest dream," she later wrote, "was to grow up and come to New York and write for Partisan Review and be read by 5,000 people."

She would get her wish - Ms. Sontag burst onto the scene with "Notes on Camp," which was published in Partisan Review - but not before she earned a bachelor's and two master's degrees from prestigious American universities; studied at Oxford on a fellowship; and married, became a mother and divorced eight years later, all by the time she turned 26.

After graduating from high school, Ms. Sontag spent a semester at the University of California, Berkeley, before transferring to the University of Chicago, from which she received a bachelor's degree in 1951. At Chicago she wandered into a class taught by the sociologist Philip Rieff, then a 28-year-old instructor, who would write the celebrated study "Freud: The Mind of the Moralist" (Viking, 1959). He was, she would say, the first person with whom she could really talk; they were married 10 days later. Ms. Sontag was 17 and looked even younger, clad habitually in blue jeans, her black hair spilling down her back. Word swept around campus that Dr. Rieff had married a 14-year-old American Indian.

Moving with her husband to Boston, Ms. Sontag earned her master's degrees from Harvard, the first in English, in 1954, the second in philosophy the next year. She began work on a Ph.D., but did not complete her dissertation. In 1952 she and Dr. Rieff became the parents of a son. Ms. Sontag is survived by her son, David Rieff, who lives in Manhattan and was for many years her editor at Farrar, Straus & Giroux. (A journalist, he wrote "Slaughterhouse: Bosnia and the Failure of the West," published by Simon & Schuster in 1995.) Also surviving is her younger sister, Judith Cohen of Maui.

After further study at Oxford and in Paris, Ms. Sontag was divorced from Dr. Rieff in 1958. In early 1959 she arrived in New York with, as she later described it, "$70, two suitcases and a 7 year old." She worked as an editor at Commentary and juggled teaching jobs at City College, Sarah Lawrence and Columbia. She published her first essays, critical celebrations of modernists she admired, as well as her first novel, "The Benefactor" (1963), an exploration of consciousness and dreams.

Shaking Up the Establishment

With "Notes on Camp" Ms. Sontag fired a shot across the bow of the New York critical establishment, which included eminences like Lionel and Diana Trilling, Alfred Kazin and Irving Howe. Interlaced with epigrams from Oscar Wilde, that essay illuminated a particular modern sensibility - one that had been largely the province of gay culture - which centered deliciously on artifice, exaggeration and the veneration of style.

"The experiences of Camp are based on the great discovery that the sensibility of high culture has no monopoly on refinement," Ms. Sontag wrote. "The man who insists on high and serious pleasures is depriving himself of pleasure; he continually restricts what he can enjoy; in the constant exercise of his good taste he will eventually price himself out of the market, so to speak. Here Camp taste supervenes upon good taste as a daring and witty hedonism. It makes the man of good taste cheerful, where before he ran the risk of being chronically frustrated. It is good for the digestion."

If that essay has today lost its capacity to shock, it is a reflection of how thoroughly Ms. Sontag did her job, serving as a guide to an underground aesthetic that was not then widely known.

"She found in camp an aesthetic that was very different from what the straight world had acknowledged up to that point, and she managed to make camp 'straight' in a way," Arthur C. Danto, the Johnsonian professor emeritus of philosophy at Columbia and the art critic for The Nation, said yesterday in a telephone interview. "I think she prepared the ground for the pop revolution, which was in many ways essentially a gay revolution, through Warhol and others. She didn't make that art, but she brought it to consciousness. She gave people a vocabulary for talking about it and thinking about it."
The article made Ms. Sontag an international celebrity, showered with lavish, if unintentionally ridiculous, titles ("a literary pinup," "the dark lady of American letters," "the Natalie Wood of the U.S. avant-garde").

Championing Style Over Content

In 1966 Ms. Sontag published her first essay collection, "Against Interpretation." That book's title essay, in which she argued that art should be experienced viscerally rather than cerebrally, helped cement her reputation as a champion of style over content.

It was a position she could take to extremes. In the essay "On Style," published in the same volume, Ms. Sontag offended many readers by upholding the films of Leni Riefenstahl as masterworks of aesthetic form, with little regard for their content. Ms. Sontag would eventually reconsider her position in the 1974 essay "Fascinating Fascism."

Though she thought of herself as a novelist, it was through her essays that Ms. Sontag became known. As a result she was fated to write little else for the next quarter-century. She found the form an agony: a long essay took from nine months to a year to complete, often requiring 20 or more drafts.

"I've had thousands of pages for a 30-page essay," she said in a 1992 interview. " 'On Photography,' which is six essays, took five years. And I mean working every single day."

That book, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award for criticism in 1978, explored the role of the photographic image, and the act of picture-taking in contemporary culture. The crush of photographs, Ms. Sontag argued, has shaped our perceptions of the world, numbing us to depictions of suffering. She would soften that position when she revisited the issue in "Regarding the Pain of Others."

The Washington Post Book World called "On Photography" "a brilliant analysis," adding that it " merely describes a phenomenon we take as much for granted as water from the tap, and how that phenomenon has changed us - a remarkable enough achievement, when you think about it."

In the mid-1970's Ms. Sontag learned she had breast cancer. Doctors gave her a 10 percent chance of surviving for two years. She scoured the literature for a treatment that might save her, underwent a mastectomy and persuaded her doctors to give her a two-and-a-half-year course of radiation.

Out of her experience came "Illness as Metaphor," which examined the cultural mythologizing of disease (tuberculosis as the illness of 19th-century romantics, cancer a modern-day scourge). Although it did not discuss her illness explicitly, it condemned the often militaristic language around illness ("battling" disease, the "war" on cancer) that Ms. Sontag felt simultaneously marginalized the sick and held them responsible for their condition..

In "AIDS and Its Metaphors" Ms. Sontag discussed the social implications of the disease, which she viewed as a "cultural plague" that had replaced cancer as the modern bearer of stigma. She would return to the subject of AIDS in her acclaimed short story "The Way We Live Now," originally published in The New Yorker and included in "The Best American Short Stories of the Century" (Houghton Mifflin, 1999).

Although Ms. Sontag was strongly identified with the American left during the Vietnam era, in later years her politics were harder to classify. In the essay "Trip to Hanoi," which appears in "Styles of Radical Will," she wrote glowingly of a visit to North Vietnam. But in 1982 she delivered a stinging blow to progressives in a speech at Town Hall in Manhattan. There, at a rally in support of the Solidarity movement in Poland, she denounced European communism as "fascism with a human face."

In 1992, weary of essays, Ms. Sontag published "The Volcano Lover," her first novel in 25 years. Though very much a novel of ideas - it explored, among other things, notions of aesthetics and the psychology of obsessive collecting - the book was also a big, old-fashioned historical romance. It told the story of Sir William Hamilton, the 18th-century British envoy to the court of Naples; his wife, Emma ("that Hamilton woman"); and her lover, Lord Nelson, the naval hero. The book spent two months on The New York Times best-seller list.

Reviewing the novel in The Times, Michiko Kakutani wrote: "One thing that makes 'The Volcano Lover' such a delight to read is the way it throws off ideas and intellectual sparks, like a Roman candle or Catherine wheel blazing in the night. Miniature versions of 'Don Giovanni' and 'Tosca' lie embedded, like jewels, in the main narrative; and we are given as well some charmingly acute cameos of such historical figures as Goethe and the King and Queen of Naples."

Ms. Sontag's final novel, "In America," was loosely based on the life of the 19th-century Polish actress Helena Modjeska, who immigrated to California to start a utopian community. Though "In America" received a National Book Award, critical reception was mixed. Then accusations of plagiarism surfaced. As The Times reported in May 2000, a reader identified at least a dozen passages as being similar to those in four other books about the real Modjeska, including Modjeska's memoirs. Except for a brief preface expressing a general debt to "books and articles by and on Modjeska," Ms. Sontag did not specifically acknowledge her sources.

Interviewed for The Times article, Ms. Sontag defended her method. "All of us who deal with real characters in history transcribe and adopt original sources in the original domain," she said. "I've used these sources and I've completely transformed them. I have these books. I've looked at these books. There's a larger argument to be made that all of literature is a series of references and allusions."

Ms. Sontag's other work includes the play "Alice in Bed" (1993); "A Susan Sontag Reader" (1982), with an introduction by Elizabeth Hardwick; and four films, including "Duet for Cannibals" (1969) and "Brother Carl" (1971). She also edited works by Barthes, Antonin Artaud, Danilo Kis and other writers.

Ms. Sontag was the subject of an unauthorized biography by Carl Rollyson and Lisa Paddock, "Susan Sontag: The Making of an Icon" (Norton, 2000), and of several critical studies, including "Sontag & Kael: Opposites Attract Me," by Craig Seligman (Counterpoint/Perseus, 2004). She was the president of the PEN American Center from 1987 to 1989.

In a 1992 interview with The Times Magazine, Ms. Sontag described the creative force that animated "The Volcano Lover," putting her finger on the sensibility that would inform all her work: "I don't want to express alienation. It isn't what I feel. I'm interested in various kinds of passionate engagement. All my work says, be serious, be passionate, wake up."


Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
User avatar
victory
Posts: 2197
Joined: 17/12/2002 00:00
Contact:

#3

Post by victory »

Tribute to Susan Sontag
The Decay of Cinema
By SUSAN SONTAG

Published: February 25, 1996

Cinema's 100 years seem to have the shape of a life cycle: an inevitable birth, the steady accumulation of glories and the onset in the last decade of an ignominious, irreversible decline. It's not that you can't look forward anymore to new films that you can admire. But such films not only have to be exceptions -- that's true of great achievements in any art. They have to be klix violations of the norms and practices that now govern movie making everywhere in the capitalist and would-be capitalist world -- which is to say, everywhere. And ordinary films, films made purely for entertainment (that is, commercial) purposes, are astonishingly witless; the vast majority fail resoundingly to appeal to their cynically targeted audiences. While the point of a great film is now, more than ever, to be a one-of-a-kind achievement, the commercial cinema has settled for a policy of bloated, derivative film-making, a brazen combinatory or recombinatory art, in the hope of reproducing past successes. Cinema, once heralded as the art of the 20th century, seems now, as the century closes numerically, to be a decadent art.
Perhaps it is not cinema that has ended but only cinephilia -- the name of the very specific kind of love that cinema inspired. Each art breeds its fanatics. The love that cinema inspired, however, was special. It was born of the conviction that cinema was an art unlike any other: quintessentially modern; distinctively accessible; poetic and mysterious and erotic and moral -- all at the same time. Cinema had apostles. (It was like religion.) Cinema was a crusade. For cinephiles, the movies encapsulated everything. Cinema was both the book of art and the book of life.
As many people have noted, the start of movie making a hundred years ago was, conveniently, a double start. In roughly the year 1895, two kinds of films were made, two modes of what cinema could be seemed to emerge: cinema as the transcription of real unstaged life (the Lumiere brothers) and cinema as invention, artifice, illusion, fantasy (Melies). But this is not a true opposition. The whole point is that, for those first audiences, the very transcription of the most banal reality -- the Lumiere brothers filming "The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station" -- was a fantastic experience. Cinema began in wonder, the wonder that reality can be transcribed with such immediacy. All of cinema is an attempt to perpetuate and to reinvent that sense of wonder.
Everything in cinema begins with that moment, 100 years ago, when the train pulled into the station. People took movies into themselves, just as the public cried out with excitement, actually ducked, as the train seemed to move toward them. Until the advent of television emptied the movie theaters, it was from a weekly visit to the cinema that you learned (or tried to learn) how to walk, to smoke, to kiss, to fight, to grieve. Movies gave you tips about how to be attractive. Example: It looks good to wear a raincoat even when it isn't raining. But whatever you took home was only a part of the larger experience of submerging yourself in lives that were not yours. The desire to lose yourself in other people's lives . . . faces. This is a larger, more inclusive form of desire embodied in the movie experience. Even more than what you appropriated for yourself was the experience of surrender to, of being transported by, what was on the screen. You wanted to be kidnapped by the movie -- and to be kidnapped was to be overwhelmed by the physical presence of the image. The experience of "going to the movies" was part of it. To see a great film only on television isn't to have really seen that film. It's not only a question of the dimensions of the image: the disparity between a larger-than-you image in the theater and the little image on the box at home. The conditions of paying attention in a domestic space are radically disrespectful of film. Now that a film no longer has a standard size, home screens can be as big as living room or bedroom walls. But you are still in a living room or a bedroom. To be kidnapped, you have to be in a movie theater, seated in the dark among anonymous strangers.
No amount of mourning will revive the vanished rituals -- erotic, ruminative -- of the darkened theater. The reduction of cinema to assaultive images, and the unprincipled manipulation of images (faster and faster cutting) to make them more attention-grabbing, has produced a disincarnated, lightweight cinema that doesn't demand anyone's full attention. Images now appear in any size and on a variety of surfaces: on a screen in a theater, on disco walls and on megascreens hanging above sports arenas. The sheer ubiquity of moving images has steadily undermined the standards people once had both for cinema as art and for cinema as popular entertainment.
In the first years there was, essentially, no difference between these two forms. And all films of the silent era -- from the masterpieces of Feuillade, D. W. Griffith, Dziga Vertov, Pabst, Murnau and King Vidor to the most formula-ridden melodramas and comedies -- are on a very high artistic level, compared with most of what was to follow. With the coming of sound, the image making lost much of its brilliance and poetry, and commercial standards tightened. This way of making movies -- the Hollywood system -- dominated film making for about 25 years (roughly from 1930 to 1955). The most original directors, like Erich von Stroheim and Orson Welles, were defeated by the system and eventually went into artistic exile in Europe -- where more or less the same quality-defeating system was now in place, with lower budgets; only in France were a large number of superb films produced throughout this period. Then, in the mid-1950's, vanguard ideas took hold again, rooted in the idea of cinema as a craft pioneered by the Italian films of the immediate postwar period. A dazzling number of original, passionate films of the highest seriousness got made.
It was at this specific moment in the 100-year history of cinema that going to movies, thinking about movies, talking about movies became a passion among university students and other young people. You fell in love not just with actors but with cinema itself. Cinephilia had first become visible in the 1950's in France: its forum was the legendary film magazine Cahiers du Cinema (followed by similarly fervent magazines in Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Sweden, the United States and Canada). Its temples, as it spread throughout Europe and the Americas, were the many cinematheques and clubs specializing in films from the past and directors' retrospectives that sprang up. The 1960's and early 1970's was the feverish age of movie-going, with the full-time cinephile always hoping to find a seat as close as possible to the big screen, ideally the third row center. "One can't live without Rossellini," declares a character in Bertolucci's "Before the Revolution" (1964) -- and means it.
For some 15 years there were new masterpieces every month. How far away that era seems now. To be sure, there was always a conflict between cinema as an industry and cinema as an art, cinema as routine and cinema as experiment. But the conflict was not such as to make impossible the making of wonderful films, sometimes within and sometimes outside of mainstream cinema. Now the balance has tipped decisively in favor of cinema as an industry. The great cinema of the 1960's and 1970's has been thoroughly repudiated. Already in the 1970's Hollywood was plagiarizing and rendering banal the innovations in narrative method and in the editing of successful new European and ever-marginal independent American films. Then came the catastrophic rise in production costs in the 1980's, which secured the worldwide reimposition of industry standards of making and distributing films on a far more coercive, this time truly global scale. Soaring producton costs meant that a film had to make a lot of money right away, in the first month of its release, if it was to be profitable at all -- a trend that favored the blockbuster over the low-budget film, although most blockbusters were flops and there were always a few "small" films that surprised everyone by their appeal. The theatrical release time of movies became shorter and shorter (like the shelf life of books in bookstores); many movies were designed to go directly into video. Movie theaters continued to close -- many towns no longer have even one -- as movies became, mainly, one of a variety of habit-forming home entertainments.
In this country, the lowering of expectations for quality and the inflation of expectations for profit have made it virtually impossible for artistically ambitious American directors, like Francis Ford Coppola and Paul Schrader, to work at their best level. Abroad, the result can be seen in the melancholy fate of some of the greatest directors of the last decades. What place is there today for a maverick like Hans- Jurgen Syberberg, who has stopped making films altogether, or for the great Godard, who now makes films about the history of film, on video? Consider some other cases. The internationalizing of financing and therefore of casts were disastrous for Andrei Tarkovsky in the last two films of his stupendous (and tragically abbreviated) career. And how will Aleksandr Sokurov find the money to go on making his sublime films, under the rude conditions of Russian capitalism?
Predictably, the love of cinema has waned. People still like going to the movies, and some people still care about and expect something special, necessary from a film. And wonderful films are still being made: Mike Leigh's "Naked," Gianni Amelio's "Lamerica," Fred Kelemen's "Fate." But you hardly find anymore, at least among the young, the distinctive cinephilic love of movies that is not simply love of but a certain taste in films (grounded in a vast appetite for seeing and reseeing as much as possible of cinema's glorious past). Cinephilia itself has come under attack, as something quaint, outmoded, snobbish. For cinephilia implies that films are unique, unrepeatable, magic experiences. Cinephilia tells us that the Hollywood remake of Godard's "Breathless" cannot be as good as the original. Cinephilia has no role in the era of hyperindustrial films. For cinephilia cannot help, by the very range and eclecticism of its passions, from sponsoring the idea of the film as, first of all, a poetic object; and cannot help from inciting those outside the movie industry, like painters and writers, to want to make films, too. It is precisely this notion that has been defeated.
If cinephilia is dead, then movies are dead too . . . no matter how many movies, even very good ones, go on being made. If cinema can be resurrected, it will only be through the birth of a new kind of cine-love.
User avatar
Soul_Sista
Posts: 3751
Joined: 29/01/2003 00:00
Location: anybody seen my baby?

#4

Post by Soul_Sista »

Image
Hart
Posts: 974
Joined: 30/03/2004 13:09
Location: Sarajevo

#5

Post by Hart »

lijepo da se neko sjetio...
elsa
Posts: 193
Joined: 04/04/2003 00:00

#6

Post by elsa »

Hvala joj na svemu sto je ucinila...i nadam se da joj je lijepo tamo gdje je sada... :) :) :)
User avatar
victory
Posts: 2197
Joined: 17/12/2002 00:00
Contact:

#7

Post by victory »

........
Regarding the Torture of Others
By SUSAN SONTAG

Published: May 23, 2004

I.
For a long time -- at least six decades -- photographs have laid down the tracks of how important conflicts are judged and remembered. The Western memory museum is now mostly a visual one. Photographs have an insuperable power to determine what we recall of events, and it now seems probable that the defining association of people everywhere with the war that the United States launched pre-emptively in Iraq last year will be photographs of the torture of Iraqi prisoners by Americans in the most infamous of Saddam Hussein's prisons, Abu Ghraib.
The Bush administration and its defenders have chiefly sought to limit a public-relations disaster -- the dissemination of the photographs -- rather than deal with the complex crimes of leadership and of policy revealed by the pictures. There was, first of all, the displacement of the reality onto the photographs themselves. The administration's initial response was to say that the president was shocked and disgusted by the photographs -- as if the fault or horror lay in the images, not in what they depict. There was also the avoidance of the word ''torture.'' The prisoners had possibly been the objects of ''abuse,'' eventually of ''humiliation'' -- that was the most to be admitted. ''My impression is that what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture,'' Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said at a press conference. ''And therefore I'm not going to address the 'torture' word.''
Words alter, words add, words subtract. It was the strenuous avoidance of the word ''genocide'' while some 800,000 Tutsis in Rwanda were being slaughtered, over a few weeks' time, by their Hutu neighbors 10 years ago that indicated the American government had no intention of doing anything. To refuse to call what took place in Abu Ghraib -- and what has taken place elsewhere in Iraq and in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay -- by its true name, torture, is as outrageous as the refusal to call the Rwandan genocide a genocide. Here is one of the definitions of torture contained in a convention to which the United States is a signatory: ''any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.'' (The definition comes from the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Similar definitions have existed for some time in customary law and in treaties, starting with Article 3 -- common to the four Geneva conventions of 1949 -- and many recent human rights conventions.) The 1984 convention declares, ''No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.'' And all covenants on torture specify that it includes treatment intended to humiliate the victim, like leaving prisoners naked in cells and corridors.
Whatever actions this administration undertakes to limit the damage of the widening revelations of the torture of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere -- trials, courts-martial, dishonorable discharges, resignation of senior military figures and responsible administration officials and substantial compensation to the victims -- it is probable that the ''torture'' word will continue to be banned. To acknowledge that Americans torture their prisoners would contradict everything this administration has invited the public to believe about the virtue of American intentions and America's right, flowing from that virtue, to undertake unilateral action on the world stage.
Even when the president was finally compelled, as the damage to America's reputation everywhere in the world widened and deepened, to use the ''sorry'' word, the focus of regret still seemed the damage to America's claim to moral superiority. Yes, President Bush said in Washington on May 6, standing alongside King Abdullah II of Jordan, he was ''sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families.'' But, he went on, he was ''equally sorry that people seeing these pictures didn't understand the true nature and heart of America.''
To have the American effort in Iraq summed up by these images must seem, to those who saw some justification in a war that did overthrow one of the monster tyrants of modern times, ''unfair.'' A war, an occupation, is inevitably a huge tapestry of actions. What makes some actions representative and others not? The issue is not whether the torture was done by individuals (i.e., ''not by everybody'') -- but whether it was systematic. Authorized. Condoned. All acts are done by individuals. The issue is not whether a majority or a minority of Americans performs such acts but whether the nature of the policies prosecuted by this administration and the hierarchies deployed to carry them out makes such acts likely.

II.
Considered in this light, the photographs are us. That is, they are representative of the fundamental corruptions of any foreign occupation together with the Bush adminstration's distinctive policies. The Belgians in the Congo, the French in Algeria, practiced torture and sexual humiliation on despised recalcitrant natives. Add to this generic corruption the mystifying, near-total unpreparedness of the American rulers of Iraq to deal with the complex realities of the country after its ''liberation.'' And add to that the overarching, distinctive doctrines of the Bush administration, namely that the United States has embarked on an endless war and that those detained in this war are, if the president so decides, ''unlawful combatants'' -- a policy enunciated by Donald Rumsfeld for Taliban and Qaeda prisoners as early as January 2002 -- and thus, as Rumsfeld said, ''technically'' they ''do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention,'' and you have a perfect recipe for the cruelties and crimes committed against the thousands incarcerated without charges or access to lawyers in American-run prisons that have been set up since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
So, then, is the real issue not the photographs themselves but what the photographs reveal to have happened to ''suspects'' in American custody? No: the horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken -- with the perpetrators posing, gloating, over their helpless captives. German soldiers in the Second World War took photographs of the atrocities they were committing in Poland and Russia, but snapshots in which the executioners placed themselves among their victims are exceedingly rare, as may be seen in a book just published, ''Photographing the Holocaust,'' by Janina Struk. If there is something comparable to what these pictures show it would be some of the photographs of black victims of lynching taken between the 1880's and 1930's, which show Americans grinning beneath the naked mutilated body of a black man or woman hanging behind them from a tree. The lynching photographs were souvenirs of a collective action whose participants felt perfectly justified in what they had done. So are the pictures from Abu Ghraib.
The lynching pictures were in the nature of photographs as trophies -- taken by a photographer in order to be collected, stored in albums, displayed. The pictures taken by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, however, reflect a shift in the use made of pictures -- less objects to be saved than messages to be disseminated, circulated. A digital camera is a common possession among soldiers. Where once photographing war was the province of photojournalists, now the soldiers themselves are all photographers -- recording their war, their fun, their observations of what they find picturesque, their atrocities -- and swapping images among themselves and e-mailing them around the globe.
There is more and more recording of what people do, by themselves. At least or especially in America, Andy Warhol's ideal of filming real events in real time -- life isn't edited, why should its record be edited? -- has become a norm for countless Webcasts, in which people record their day, each in his or her own reality show. Here I am -- waking and yawning and stretching, brushing my teeth, making breakfast, getting the kids off to school. People record all aspects of their lives, store them in computer files and send the files around. Family life goes with the recording of family life -- even when, or especially when, the family is in the throes of crisis and disgrace. Surely the dedicated, incessant home-videoing of one another, in conversation and monologue, over many years was the most astonishing material in ''Capturing the Friedmans,'' the recent documentary by Andrew Jarecki about a Long Island family embroiled in pedophilia charges.
An erotic life is, for more and more people, that which can be captured in digital photographs and on video. And perhaps the torture is more attractive, as something to record, when it has a sexual component. It is surely revealing, as more Abu Ghraib photographs enter public view, that torture photographs are interleaved with pornographic images of American soldiers having sex with one another. In fact, most of the torture photographs have a sexual theme, as in those showing the coercing of prisoners to perform, or simulate, sexual acts among themselves. One exception, already canonical, is the photograph of the man made to stand on a box, hooded and sprouting wires, reportedly told he would be electrocuted if he fell off. Yet pictures of prisoners bound in painful positions, or made to stand with outstretched arms, are infrequent. That they count as torture cannot be doubted. You have only to look at the terror on the victim's face, although such ''stress'' fell within the Pentagon's limits of the acceptable. But most of the pictures seem part of a larger confluence of torture and pornography: a young woman leading a naked man around on a leash is classic dominatrix imagery. And you wonder how much of the sexual tortures inflicted on the inmates of Abu Ghraib was inspired by the vast repertory of pornographic imagery available on the Internet -- and which ordinary people, by sending out Webcasts of themselves, try to emulate.

III.
To live is to be photographed, to have a record of one's life, and therefore to go on with one's life oblivious, or claiming to be oblivious, to the camera's nonstop attentions. But to live is also to pose. To act is to share in the community of actions recorded as images. The expression of satisfaction at the acts of torture being inflicted on helpless, trussed, naked victims is only part of the story. There is the deep satisfaction of being photographed, to which one is now more inclined to respond not with a stiff, direct gaze (as in former times) but with glee. The events are in part designed to be photographed. The grin is a grin for the camera. There would be something missing if, after stacking the naked men, you couldn't take a picture of them.
Looking at these photographs, you ask yourself, How can someone grin at the sufferings and humiliation of another human being? Set guard dogs at the genitals and legs of cowering naked prisoners? Force shackled, hooded prisoners to masturbate or simulate oral sex with one another? And you feel naive for asking, since the answer is, self-evidently, People do these things to other people. Rape and pain inflicted on the genitals are among the most common forms of torture. Not just in Nazi concentration camps and in Abu Ghraib when it was run by Saddam Hussein. Americans, too, have done and do them when they are told, or made to feel, that those over whom they have absolute power deserve to be humiliated, tormented. They do them when they are led to believe that the people they are torturing belong to an inferior race or religion. For the meaning of these pictures is not just that these acts were performed, but that their perpetrators apparently had no sense that there was anything wrong in what the pictures show.
Even more appalling, since the pictures were meant to be circulated and seen by many people: it was all fun. And this idea of fun is, alas, more and more -- contrary to what President Bush is telling the world -- part of ''the true nature and heart of America.'' It is hard to measure the increasing acceptance of brutality in American life, but its evidence is everywhere, starting with the video games of killing that are a principal entertainment of boys -- can the video game ''Interrogating the Terrorists'' really be far behind? -- and on to the violence that has become endemic in the group rites of youth on an exuberant kick. Violent crime is down, yet the easy delight taken in violence seems to have grown. From the harsh torments inflicted on incoming students in many American suburban high schools -- depicted in Richard Linklater's 1993 film, ''Dazed and Confused'' -- to the hazing rituals of physical brutality and sexual humiliation in college fraternities and on sports teams, America has become a country in which the fantasies and the practice of violence are seen as good entertainment, fun.

What formerly was segregated as pornography, as the exercise of extreme sadomasochistic longings -- as in Pier Paolo Pasolini's last, near-unwatchable film, ''Salo'' (1975), depicting orgies of torture in the Fascist redoubt in northern Italy at the end of the Mussolini era -- is now being normalized, by some, as high-spirited play or venting. To ''stack naked men'' is like a college fraternity prank, said a caller to Rush Limbaugh and the many millions of Americans who listen to his radio show. Had the caller, one wonders, seen the photographs? No matter. The observation -- or is it the fantasy? -- was on the mark. What may still be capable of shocking some Americans was Limbaugh's response: ''Exactly!'' he exclaimed. ''Exactly my point. This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time.'' ''They'' are the American soldiers, the torturers. And Limbaugh went on: ''You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people. You ever heard of emotional release?''
Shock and awe were what our military promised the Iraqis. And shock and the awful are what these photographs announce to the world that the Americans have delivered: a pattern of criminal behavior in open contempt of international humanitarian conventions. Soldiers now pose, thumbs up, before the atrocities they commit, and send off the pictures to their buddies. Secrets of private life that, formerly, you would have given nearly anything to conceal, you now clamor to be invited on a television show to reveal. What is illustrated by these photographs is as much the culture of shamelessness as the reigning admiration for unapologetic brutality.

IV.
The notion that apologies or professions of ''disgust'' by the president and the secretary of defense are a sufficient response is an insult to one's historical and moral sense. The torture of prisoners is not an aberration. It is a direct consequence of the with-us-or-against-us doctrines of world struggle with which the Bush administration has sought to change, change radically, the international stance of the United States and to recast many domestic institutions and prerogatives. The Bush administration has committed the country to a pseudo-religious doctrine of war, endless war -- for ''the war on terror'' is nothing less than that. Endless war is taken to justify endless incarcerations. Those held in the extralegal American penal empire are ''detainees''; ''prisoners,'' a newly obsolete word, might suggest that they have the rights accorded by international law and the laws of all civilized countries. This endless ''global war on terrorism'' -- into which both the quite justified invasion of Afghanistan and the unwinnable folly in Iraq have been folded by Pentagon decree -- inevitably leads to the demonizing and dehumanizing of anyone declared by the Bush administration to be a possible terrorist: a definition that is not up for debate and is, in fact, usually made in secret.
The charges against most of the people detained in the prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan being nonexistent -- the Red Cross reports that 70 to 90 percent of those being held seem to have committed no crime other than simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught up in some sweep of ''suspects'' -- the principal justification for holding them is ''interrogation.'' Interrogation about what? About anything. Whatever the detainee might know. If interrogation is the point of detaining prisoners indefinitely, then physical coercion, humiliation and torture become inevitable.
Remember: we are not talking about that rarest of cases, the ''ticking time bomb'' situation, which is sometimes used as a limiting case that justifies torture of prisoners who have knowledge of an imminent attack. This is general or nonspecific information-gathering, authorized by American military and civilian administrators to learn more of a shadowy empire of evildoers about whom Americans know virtually nothing, in countries about which they are singularly ignorant: in principle, any information at all might be useful. An interrogation that produced no information (whatever information might consist of) would count as a failure. All the more justification for preparing prisoners to talk. Softening them up, stressing them out -- these are the euphemisms for the bestial practices in American prisons where suspected terrorists are being held. Unfortunately, as Staff Sgt. Ivan (Chip) Frederick noted in his diary, a prisoner can get too stressed out and die. The picture of a man in a body bag with ice on his chest may well be of the man Frederick was describing.
The pictures will not go away. That is the nature of the digital world in which we live. Indeed, it seems they were necessary to get our leaders to acknowledge that they had a problem on their hands. After all, the conclusions of reports compiled by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other reports by journalists and protests by humanitarian organizations about the atrocious punishments inflicted on ''detainees'' and ''suspected terrorists'' in prisons run by the American military, first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, have been circulating for more than a year. It seems doubtful that such reports were read by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney or Condoleezza Rice or Rumsfeld. Apparently it took the photographs to get their attention, when it became clear they could not be suppressed; it was the photographs that made all this ''real'' to Bush and his associates. Up to then, there had been only words, which are easier to cover up in our age of infinite digital self-reproduction and self-dissemination, and so much easier to forget.
So now the pictures will continue to ''assault'' us -- as many Americans are bound to feel. Will people get used to them? Some Americans are already saying they have seen enough. Not, however, the rest of the world. Endless war: endless stream of photographs. Will editors now debate whether showing more of them, or showing them uncropped (which, with some of the best-known images, like that of a hooded man on a box, gives a different and in some instances more appalling view), would be in ''bad taste'' or too implicitly political? By ''political,'' read: critical of the Bush administration's imperial project. For there can be no doubt that the photographs damage, as Rumsfeld testified, ''the reputation of the honorable men and women of the armed forces who are courageously and responsibly and professionally defending our freedom across the globe.'' This damage -- to our reputation, our image, our success as the lone superpower -- is what the Bush administration principally deplores. How the protection of ''our freedom'' -- the freedom of 5 percent of humanity -- came to require having American soldiers ''across the globe'' is hardly debated by our elected officials.
Already the backlash has begun. Americans are being warned against indulging in an orgy of self-condemnation. The continuing publication of the pictures is being taken by many Americans as suggesting that we do not have the right to defend ourselves: after all, they (the terrorists) started it. They -- Osama bin Laden? Saddam Hussein? what's the difference? -- attacked us first. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, before which Secretary Rumsfeld testified, avowed that he was sure he was not the only member of the committee ''more outraged by the outrage'' over the photographs than by what the photographs show. ''These prisoners,'' Senator Inhofe explained, ''you know they're not there for traffic violations. If they're in Cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals.'' It's the fault of ''the media'' which are provoking, and will continue to provoke, further violence against Americans around the world. More Americans will die. Because of these photos.
There is an answer to this charge, of course. Americans are dying not because of the photographs but because of what the photographs reveal to be happening, happening with the complicity of a chain of command -- so Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba implied, and Pfc. Lynndie England said, and (among others) Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican, suggested, after he saw the Pentagon's full range of images on May 12. ''Some of it has an elaborate nature to it that makes me very suspicious of whether or not others were directing or encouraging,'' Senator Graham said. Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said that viewing an uncropped version of one photo showing a stack of naked men in a hallway -- a version that revealed how many other soldiers were at the scene, some not even paying attention -- contradicted the Pentagon's assertion that only rogue soldiers were involved. ''Somewhere along the line,'' Senator Nelson said of the torturers, ''they were either told or winked at.'' An attorney for Specialist Charles Graner Jr., who is in the picture, has had his client identify the men in the uncropped version; according to The Wall Street Journal, Graner said that four of the men were military intelligence and one a civilian contractor working with military intelligence.

V.
But the distinction between photograph and reality -- as between spin and policy -- can easily evaporate. And that is what the administration wishes to happen. ''There are a lot more photographs and videos that exist,'' Rumsfeld acknowledged in his testimony. ''If these are released to the public, obviously, it's going to make matters worse.'' Worse for the administration and its programs, presumably, not for those who are the klix -- and potential? -- victims of torture.
The media may self-censor but, as Rumsfeld acknowledged, it's hard to censor soldiers overseas, who don't write letters home, as in the old days, that can be opened by military censors who ink out unacceptable lines. Today's soldiers instead function like tourists, as Rumsfeld put it, ''running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise.'' The administration's effort to withhold pictures is proceeding along several fronts. Currently, the argument is taking a legalistic turn: now the photographs are classified as evidence in future criminal cases, whose outcome may be prejudiced if they are made public. The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John Warner of Virginia, after the May 12 slide show of image after image of sexual humiliation and violence against Iraqi prisoners, said he felt ''very strongly'' that the newer photos ''should not be made public. I feel that it could possibly endanger the men and women of the armed forces as they are serving and at great risk.''
But the real push to limit the accessibility of the photographs will come from the continuing effort to protect the administration and cover up our misrule in Iraq -- to identify ''outrage'' over the photographs with a campaign to undermine American military might and the purposes it currently serves. Just as it was regarded by many as an implicit criticism of the war to show on television photographs of American soldiers who have been killed in the course of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it will increasingly be thought unpatriotic to disseminate the new photographs and further tarnish the image of America.
After all, we're at war. Endless war. And war is hell, more so than any of the people who got us into this rotten war seem to have expected. In our digital hall of mirrors, the pictures aren't going to go away. Yes, it seems that one picture is worth a thousand words. And even if our leaders choose not to look at them, there will be thousands more snapshots and videos. Unstoppable.
BECHO
Posts: 2446
Joined: 03/02/2003 00:00
Location: Zürich, CH

#8

Post by BECHO »

Hvala joj na svemu i nek joj je laka crna zemlja! :(
dinash
Posts: 2002
Joined: 03/10/2002 00:00
Location: ljubljana
Contact:

#9

Post by dinash »

R.I.P.
User avatar
Saian
Posts: 15338
Joined: 08/04/2004 21:50

#10

Post by Saian »

:( :( jel zna neko da li se ovaj tuzni dogadjaj bilo kako obiljezio u Sarajevu? nisam chuo, a ako nije josh jedan u redu gafova koji se tichu sjechanja na one koji su bili tu kad je bilo najteze, jebena amnezija :x :roll:
User avatar
ja_sarajevo
Posts: 390
Joined: 25/05/2003 00:00
Location: Sarajevo

#11

Post by ja_sarajevo »

Manifestacija pod nazivom "Sjećanje na Susan Sontag" održana je sinoć u Narodnom pozorištu u Sarajevu. Grad Sarajevo zajedno sa Društvom pisaca i sarajevskim kazališnim kućama organiziralo je ovu manifestaciju, na kojoj je odana počast i na kojoj je govoreno o liku i djelu američke književnice, publiciste i redatelja nedavno preminule Susan Sontag.

Susan Sontag je 1993. godine od tadašnjeg saziva Skupštine Grada proglašena Počasnim građaninom Grada Sarajeva za nesebično angažiranje i širenju istine o stradanju grada i osobni doprinos kulturnom životu ratnog Sarajeva.

- Vijest o smrti američke književnice, publiciste i redatelja Susan Sontag, Grad Sarajevo zajedno sa svojim građanima primio je sa velikom nevjericom i tugom. Napustila nas je hrabra i plemenita osoba, koja je živjela život na svoj način - ne prilagođavajući se očekivanjima i zahtjevima drugih, kazao je gradonačelnik Sarajeva Muhidin Hamamdžić.

Utihnuo je glas borca za ljudska prava, čija je vokacija, između ostalog bila, zauzimanje za pravednu stvar. Suzan je uvijek bila na strani napadnutih, progonjenih, obespravljenih, na strani žrtve i, kako bi znala reći, «ljudi koji su ljudi i zaslužuju da ih se brani i da imaju svoje živote», dodao je Hamamdžić.

- Susan Sontag bila je primjer velikog individualca, žena koja nikada nije plovila za strujom. Upravo zato, pripadala je svim generacijama i sve generacije pripadale su njoj. Bila je jedan od rijetkih ljudi, u kojoj su se spojile sva dobrota čovjeka i veličina književnika i intelektualca. Suosjećajući sa Sarajlijama, Bosancima i Hercegovcima, Susan je utkala sebe u borbu za dostojanstvo i postojanost ovoga grada i, tako aktivno učestvovala u stvaranju njegove i povijesti cijele BiH, kazao je Hamamdžić.

Grad Sarajevo zajedno sa svojim građanima, dodao je on, izražava iskreno ljudsko hvala uzornoj književnici, intelektualnoj gromadi i, prije svega, humanisti Susan Sontag koja je tijekom svoje plemenite misije u Sarajevu, među prvima kriknula u obranu čovjeka, suživota, tolerancije. O životu i književnom djelu Susan Sontag govorili su i književnik Muharem Bazdulj te redatelj Haris Pašović.

Susan Sontag je u Sarajevu boravila devet puta. Na Festivalu MES režirala je predstavu Sammuela Becketa “Čekajući Godoa”. Dolazila je u Sarajevo više puta poslije rata posjetiti prijatelje. U svojim knjigama i člancima mnogo je pisala o Sarajevu i BiH. Svoj posljednji roman nazvan “U Americi” nosi posvetu “Mojim prijateljima u Sarajevu”. U Umjetničkoj galeriji BiH večeras će biti otvorena i izložba “Susan Sontag u Sarajevu”.
User avatar
ja_sarajevo
Posts: 390
Joined: 25/05/2003 00:00
Location: Sarajevo

#12

Post by ja_sarajevo »

Inicijativa gradonačenika Grada Sarajeva Muhidina Hamamdžića da se u čast nedavno preminule Susan Sontag "Pozorišni trg" ispred Narodnog pozorišta preimenuje u "Pozorišni trg Susan Sontag" prihvaćena je u četvrtak na sjednici Gradskog vijeća Grada Sarajeva.

Time će se građani Sarajeva, kako je kazao Hamamdžić, odužiti i odati počast velikoj prijateljici ovoga grada i hrabroj ženi - američkoj književnici, publicistici i redateljici.

U Sarajevu je već organizirano nekoliko događaja u čast ove humanistice, a najposjećeniji je bila manifestacija "Sjećanje na Susan Sontag" u sarajevskome Narodnom pozorištu, koju su organizirali Grad Sarajevo i Društvo pisaca, u saradnji sa sarajevskim pozorišnim kućama.

Susan Sontag je 1993. godine od tadašnjeg saziva Skupštine Grada proglašena počasnim građaninom Grada Sarajeva za nesebično angažiranje i širenje istine o stradanju grada i lični doprinos kulturnom životu ratnog Sarajeva.

Susan Sontag je u Sarajevu boravila devet puta. Na Internacionalnom teatarskom festivalu MESS režirala je predstavu Semjuela Beketa "Čekajući Godoa". Dolazila je u Sarajevo više puta poslije rata da posjeti prijatelje.

U svojim knjigama i člancima mnogo je pisala o Sarajevu i BiH. Svoj posljednji roman nazvan "U Americi" nosi posvetu "Mojim prijateljima u Sarajevu".

U Umjetničkoj galeriji BiH nedavno je u njenu čast postavljena i izložba "Susan Sontag u Sarajevu".
mrmot
Posts: 746
Joined: 26/05/2003 00:00
Contact:

#13

Post by mrmot »

Imala je u najmanju ruku, poprilično nepricipijelan stav glede Izraela. Izbjegavala je sustavno da se očituje o nekim stvarima četrdesetak godina, što je za nekoga ko je u velikoj mjeri bio politički angažiran, čudno. (ili nije...)
User avatar
victory
Posts: 2197
Joined: 17/12/2002 00:00
Contact:

#14

Post by victory »

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20 ... 1&s=sontag

Ed Koch, jedan od najuticajnijih americkih Jevreja je radi tekstova slicnih ovom gore urlao da ce "Susan Sontag will occupy the Ninth Circle of Hell for her outrageous assaults on Israel." (December 7, 2002, Bloomberg radio address)
mrmot
Posts: 746
Joined: 26/05/2003 00:00
Contact:

#15

Post by mrmot »

Nagrada okupiranog grada

Susan Sontag, koju pamtimo po dolasku i boravku u opsjednutom Sarajevu, dobitnik je ovogodišnje nagrade Jerusalema. Da li ta nagrada predstavlja sve ono protiv čega se Sontagova svojevremeno, dolazeći u napadnutu BiH, borila? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Izraelski ministar vanjskih poslova Shimon Peres najavio je 13. marta da je Susan Sontag laureat nagrade Jerusalema za 2001. godinu. I pored toga što je novčani dio nagrade samo 50.000 američkih dolara, ova se nagrada smatra prestižnom i dodjeljuje autorima koji pišu o slobodi pojedinca u društvu; dodjeljuje je gradonačelnik Jerusalema (Ehud Olmert) na Sajmu knjige u Jerusalemu, koji će se ove godine održati devetog maja. Prethodni laureati su, između ostalih, Simone de Beauvoir, Bertrand Russell, Jorge Semprun, Isaiah Berlin, Mario Vargas Llosa, Jorge Luis Borges, J. M. Coetzee i Don DeLillo.

Kao jedan od trojice sudija koji nagradu dodjeljuju, Peres je za Sontagovu kazao: "Ona je, prvo, Jevrejka, drugo, spisatelj, i, treće, Amerikanka. Ona voli Izrael sa osjećanjima, a svijet sa obavezom." Bosancima i Amerikancima definitivno ne treba predstavljati Susan Sontag. Ali, možda treba predstaviti zemlju u kojoj generali postaju premijeri i ministri vanjskih poslova (nije riječ o diktaturi), i sudije koje dodjeljuju nagradu koja se uručuje na Međunarodnom sajmu u okupiranom gradu. Izraelski politički aktivisti su apelirali na Sontagovu da ne prihvati nagradu, ili da je, ako je prihvati, barem iskoristi kao priliku da upozori na stravična kršenja ljudskih prava Palestinaca zahvaljujući izraelskoj politici kolektivne kazne, konfiskacije zemljišta, uništavanja kuća, slobode kretanja, akademskih sloboda, kao i u nizu drugih pitanja.

Ironično je da je najoštrija osuda došla od Koalicije žena za pravedan mir, organizacije koja uključuje devet manjih izraelskih i palestinskih udruženja žena. U pismu upućenom Sontagovoj, članice Koalicije pišu: "Želimo Vam skrenuti pažnju da Vaše prihvatanje nagrade i prisustvo u Jerusalemu predstavljaju prešutnu legitimaciju okupacije i brutalne politike protiv Palestinaca ovog grada koju vodi gradonačelnik Olmert. Time ćete također prouzročiti ozbiljan nazadak feminističkog pokreta, kao i izraelskog pokreta za građanska prava u cjelini."

Jedan od najuspješnijih proizvoda američke industrije pristanka je skoro sveti status koji Izrael i cionizam uživaju u medijima i intelektualnom diskursu. Mada ima mnogo nijansi, ovaj sveti status temelji se na poricanju jednog temeljnog fakta: formiranje države Izrael je uzrokovalo uništenje države Palestine. Možete reći šta god želite o čemu god želite pod kapom nebeskom, ali kada se dotaknete ovog pitanja, svi zašute. Ugledni američki intelektualci koji se usuđuju progovoriti o tome (i preispitati sva vanjska i domaća pitanja koja su posljedice ove činjenice) mogu se nabrojati na prste jedne ruke, a među njih, kao najvažniji, spadaju ljudi poput Edwarda Saida i Noama Chomskog.

I pored toga što ne postoji prava zavjera, ovaj konsenzus funkcionira onako kako bi trebala funkcionirati prava propaganda - čini se potpuno prirodnim i sva odstupanja od norme izgledaju užasno. Naprimjer, sasvim je prirodno da Jevrej rođen u Kijevu ili Brooklynu izađe iz aviona na aerodromu Ben Gurion i dobije izraelsko državljanstvo utemeljeno na pravu na vjekovnu domovinu s kojom nisu imali nikakvog kontakta generacijama, a u nekim slučajevima, i cijeli milenijum. Ali, sasvim je nezamislivo da palestinskom Arapinu rođenom u Jerusalemu, Jaffi ili Haifi, ili u jednom od 400 naselja izbrisanih sa lica zemlje, bude dopušteno da posjeti mjesto u kojem je odrastao. A samo palestinsko pravo na povratak je tabu.

Pozivi u Jerusalemu na međunarodne festivale ili skupove ove ili one vrste, dodjeljivanje nagrada kao što je nagrada Jerusalema, pomažu da se "proizvede pristanak" i onemogući svaka liberalna kritika. Susan Sontag sigurno razumije odgovornosti koje dolaze sa javnim radom i prilikom da se njen glas čuje. Dolazeći u Sarajevo pod opsadom, ona je tu svoju privilegiju upotrijebila da privuče svjetsku pažnju na sudbinu opsjednutog grada i neizrecive zločine počinjene nad civilima. Sontagova je u Sarajevu uspjela diktirati kako će biti predstavljena u medijima koristeći svoj identitet pisca i građanina kao primjer. Odlazeći u Jerusalem, Sontagova sebi dopušta da bude smještena u unaprijed određenu sliku svijeta u kojem se poruka slobode prenosi u kontekstu surove vojne represije nad civilnim stanovništvom. Usto, tamo će biti pozdravljena i prihvaćena prije svega kao američka Jevrejka i stupiti direktno u perverznu hijerarhiju izraelske isključivosti i prava na žrtvu. Nesuprotstavljanje nametanju tog identiteta u ovom kontekstu, i svim implikacijama koje to ima, predstavlja pravi nedostatak intelektualne hrabrosti. Takvu hrabrost je ispoljila Nadine Gordimer prije nekoliko godina kada je odbila nagradu Jerusalema kazavši da ne vidi potrebu da iz jedne države apartheida ide u drugu. To što je Gordimerova pokazala potpuno odsustvo suda u tekstu pohvala na račun Kusturicine nagrade na filmskom festivalu u Cannesu, jeste druga priča, za drugo vrijeme.

Da se vratimo predmetu: hajde da kažemo, rasprave radi, da Susan Sontag ne vjeruje u univerzalne principe, nego bira između naroda i principa. Tako Palestinci, sa svojom izgubljenom domovinom, izbjeglicama, opsjednutim izbjegličkim kampovima, korumpiranim vodstvom, otporom, žilavošću, patnjama i humanošću, naprosto nisu važni. A šta sa Izraelcima, sa otmicom nuklearnog tehničara Mordekhaija Vannunua i nehumanim uslovima u kojima je bio zatvoren više od deset godina kao zatvorenik savjesti, sa njihovim buldožerima i mecima ispaljenim na njihove građane, politikom torture, evakuacije, progona i uništavanja koju odobravaju najviši sudovi, sa njihovim Ženama u crnom koje godinama protestiraju protiv okupacije, a ni one nisu važne? To je tako prosto.

Ali, šta sa Bosancima, za koje je Sontagova već ispoljila takvu hrabrost i integritet? Da li će se sjetiti beskičmenjačkog, demagoškog i oportunog stava spram rata u Bosni tadašnjeg premijera Rabina i ministra vanjskih poslova Peresa? Gledanje izraelske televizije ili čitanje izraelskih novina između 1991. i 1995. nije se nimalo razlikovalo od gledanja ili čitanja srpske nacionalističke propagande. Štaviše, poricanje počinitelja zločina u Bosni nije bilo, jednostavno, stvar javnog mnijenja, nego zvanične politike koja je dovela do priznanja Srbije i prodaje oružja. Nakon svega, u Izraelu postoji monopol na genocid i žrtvu, kao što se vidi u odsustvu svakog javnog priznavanja Dana sjećanja izraelskih Jermena. Da li i to treba prihvatiti?

Konvencijski centar u Jerusalemu, u kojem se tradicionalno održava Sajam knjige, izgrađen je na ruševinama sela koje se jednom zvalo Khirbet al-Umma, u zemlji koja se jednom zvala Palestina. To je bilo prije nekih pedeset godina. Skoro decenija je prošla od genocidnog napada na Bosnu i Hercegovinu - za nekih četrdeset godina, kada se neko pojavi da dobije nagradu Banje Luke, da li će biti ikoga da podsjeti publiku da je sala u kojoj sjede bila jednom mjesto na kojem je stajala džamija Ferhadija?

Ammiel Alcalay
mrmot
Posts: 746
Joined: 26/05/2003 00:00
Contact:

#16

Post by mrmot »

SONTAG: Prihvatajući nagradu, rekla sam da mislim da nema mogućnosti za mir bez povlačenja Izraela. Izrael mora djelovati u tri etape: zaustaviti dalje naseljavanje, raspustiti postojeća naselja i vratiti se u granice iz 1967, koliko god teško to bilo, a jeste vrlo bolno na mnogo načina. Nema nikakve sumnje da palestinska država mora biti uspostavljena i da Izrael mora odustati od okupiranih teritorija. Pročitala sam tu izjavu, koja je bila kontroverzna, mnogi su negodovali i napustili prostoriju. Ako neko kaže da se hotel nalazi na ostacima... Svi mi živimo na ostacima nečega, Manhattan je također dom pokorenog naroda, i zaista nema nikakvog smisla reći da Izrael nije legitimna država. Vjerujem da je Izrael legitimna država i stoga ne osjećam da sam pogriješila prihvatajući nagradu. To je književna nagrada koja nije utemeljena prošle godine, kada je Ariel Sharon došao na vlast, koja se dodjeljuje na Sajmu knjige. Vladini zvaničnici su prisutni, a Shimon Peres je bio u žiriju koji je odlučivao o nagradi, što nije uobičajeno. Nagradu mi je dodijelio Likudov gradonačelnik Jerusalema Ehud Olmert. Neću reći da je sve bilo nepolitično i da je cijela stvar bila izvan političkog konteksta. Jeste utoliko što je Izrael mala zemlja i što se u tom smislu ne razlikuje od Bosne. Da se ovdje održava međunarodni festival i da se dodjeljuje nagrada, sigurna sam da bi predsjednik ili gradonačelnik prisustvovali, i da bi se tu našao i fotograf da snimi rukovanje. Samo u velikim zemljama kao što su SAD, vlada nije nimalo zainteresirana za kulturna zbivanja. Izgledalo je tako, i ljudi su me pitali kako se mogu rukovati s tim čovjekom. Što se mene tiče, osjećala sam da je nagrada književna i bila mi je čast primiti je. A pošto je Peres bio u žiriju, mislim da je savršeno dobro znao da ću dati onakvu izjavu, tim prije što ja nisam očigledan izbor za dodjelu ove nagrade. Nagrada se inače dodjeljuje vrlo apolitičnim ljudima, koji nemaju neke izražene političke poglede, ali mislim da mi je ta nagrada, barem dijelom, dodijeljena da bih dala tu izjavu. Nadine Gordimer, koja je moja prijateljica, napisala mi je pismo i tražila od mene da ne prihvatim nagradu. To nije bila laka odluka. Taj problem nisam ni predvidjela, ali odjednom sam bila suočena s njim i bila sam puna tjeskobe.
zili
Posts: 656
Joined: 10/02/2003 00:00

#17

Post by zili »

Susan Sontag je 1992. došla u opkoljeno Sarajevo. Niko je nije zvao, a ona sama nije imala nikakve veze sa prostorom Balkana. Došla je, kako je i sama rekla, jer je vjerovala da je to njena dužnost kao intelektualca koji se bori za ljudska prava i kao čovjeka koji drži do svog dostojanstva.

Prva je ono što se dešavalo u BiH okarakterisala kao genocid.

Nakon okupacije i masakra u Srebrenici (za vrijeme kojeg je boravila u Sarajevu), otišla je u Tuzlu i dočekala hiljade izbjeglica, žena i djece. Trudila se da istina o Srebrenici i američki satelitski snimci masovnih grobnica ugledaju svjetlo dana.

Preko PEN centra, prikupila je humanitarnu pomoć za pisce u opkoljenom Sarajevu. Došla je u Sarajevo i lično raznosila tu pomoć od vrata do vrata kako ne bi pisce izlagala riziku granata i snajpera.

Knjige Susan Sontag nisu prevedene u BiH.

Susan je imala ogromno srce... koje mi danas više izgleda ne zaslužujemo
------
Posts: 48
Joined: 26/01/2005 15:57

#18

Post by ------ »

Nagrada okupiranog grada

Susan Sontag, koju pamtimo po dolasku i boravku u opsjednutom Sarajevu, dobitnik je ovogodišnje nagrade Jerusalema. Da li ta nagrada predstavlja sve ono protiv čega se Sontagova svojevremeno, dolazeći u napadnutu BiH, borila?


ovo mi ostade nejasno ... :oops:

:roll:

:shock:
Last edited by ------ on 29/01/2005 17:50, edited 2 times in total.
------
Posts: 48
Joined: 26/01/2005 15:57

#19

Post by ------ »

pomno sam razmislio ... :shock:

i zakljucio slijedece ... :oops: ::

ili je bjelosvjetska politika prilicno nemoralna ... :D

ili suzan priznaje samo onoga ko vlada glavnim gradom ... :oops:

a ostilma - paprika ... :roll:

;)

ovo je fakat smijurija ... :D :D :D

:D

;)
User avatar
JBT
Posts: 5003
Joined: 20/11/2002 00:00
Location: Korea

#20

Post by JBT »

Kojim ostalima?
Mali si ti da bi je mogao popljuvat. Mozda jedino po gleznjevima ili malom noznom prstu. Mada i to sumnjam. Mali si da bi toliko pljuvacke proizveo.
Post Reply