Yella (2007); Dir. Christian Petzold

yella-christian-petzold-thriller

I hesitate to say too much about the plot of Yella, the psychological/corporate-business thriller directed by German director Christian Petzold, because so much of the film’s effectiveness and tension comes from watching events unfold.

I didn’t know much about Yella, except that I love the lead actress, Nina Hoss, she of the crazy expressive face, like a deer in the headlights. It is a pleasure just to watch her think, process, ponder. Petzold obviously loves her work, too: he has worked with her multiple times. Nina Hoss is perfect for material such as this: Her character’s lines are not often revealing or subtextual. The entire performance resides in the subterranean depths of the character’s personality.

Not knowing much about it was a good thing, because once you go to IMDB to check out the page for the film you will see people arguing endlessly in the message boards about what it meant, and what interpretation is “right” for the ending, etc. It’s that kind of film, with a big twist-ending reveal. I knew pretty early on that things were not what they seemed on the surface of it, and that is entirely due to the riveting performance of Nina Hoss in the title role, and also Christian Petzold’s elegant, spare, and captivating film-making. Petzold lets the camera hang back, he doesn’t too much with it, nothing too tricky, and that distance helps give the film its razor-sharp edge and unbalancing tension.

Yella is often quite scary, although you would be hard pressed to say why. Something is not right, you can feel it. The world presented is recognizable: roads, office buildings, hotels. But if you look closer, the frame is revealing more than it is saying outright. It’s like an echo of warning, a red flag going up in your unconscious, something you would do well not to ignore. Much of the film’s feeling reminded me of those times, rare (thank God), when I have found myself in what could be a dangerous situation. Yella didn’t remind me of the danger, but of the growing horrifying conviction I had that I could be in deep shit. Yella activates a serious fight-or-flight response, and it’s confusing, at first, because what we seem to be watching is a woman starting up a new job, and what can be more prosaic than that? It’s not confusing in a bad way. It’s confusing in an interesting way. The screen begs you to lean into it.

Yella1

The opening scene is key and I kept flashing back to it. Yella is first seen on the train, changing her clothes in a curtained compartment. Next, we see her walking through a quaint town, with streets that appear to be deserted, or, more accurate, emptied out. (Most of the urban landscapes in Yella are completely emptied out, giving the film its eerie quality: Where the hell is everybody?) She is followed by a red car (colors are very important in the film), driven by a man who shouts out the window at her, “Yella! Stop! Let’s talk for a minute! Come on!” He gets out and follows along behind her. He is Ben, her husband, and he is played by the blonde and boyish Hinnerk Schönemann, in a very effective performance. Despite the fact that she won’t talk to him, he keeps talking, and at one point observes, “Your walk is different. You walk like you have a new job. Like you have somewhere to go.”

yella2

I thought of that comment periodically throughout the film, especially in moments where her walk changes visibly. Suddenly, her body is deflated and exhausted, she seems limp and aimless. Like many traumatized people, Yella sees the world as an isolated place, and sees herself as isolated within it. There will be no one there to help her, no one there to save her. And so she can barely drag herself along the sidewalk in those moments. But watch how Nina Hoss modulates this character detail. It’s subtle. Her character is working on you, the audience, as opposed to being presented to you clearly. It’s eerie. It makes you question what you are seeing, and with Yella, that is the name of the game.

BenYella

Yella lives with her father in Wittenberg, in the former East Germany. I wonder if the geography of the film has more immediate resonance for Germans, but even I could understand the importance of what was happening for Yella on a socioeconomic level: She travels to Hanover for a job interview, and is hired by a big company for a trial period. Hanover, of course, is in the former West Germany, and it is still a big deal to move from East to West, it is still a giant jump in opportunity. Yella’s father is a rough-faced kind man, who works on his truck and cooks in a restaurant, and his daughter is an accountant, drawn to the corporate capitalist world: Progress. Hanover has always been a crucial city in Germany, with its airports and railways and centers of industry. Wittenberg, with its fields and hay bales and broken-down trucks in front yards and the faint hope that an airport will be built there, is a generation or two behind in development. So Yella could also be seen as representative of the striving middle-class, as well as the lingering damage done by the Soviet occupation. These events cast long shadows.

4-yella2

The plot moves as follows: Yella cannot shake Ben, and in the first 10 minutes of the film he convinces her to let him drive her to the train station to go off to Hanover. The two of them had started up a business together in Wittenberg, and things have gone south. Ben is being swindled by those pricing the computer network that he needs, and is short on cash. He is a ruined man, full of resentment, self-pity, and rage. Yella listens to his complaints, but seems more anxious to get to the station on time rather than console her agitated husband. It’s over between them. In a terrifying scene, Ben drives the car off a bridge, the car plunging into the water. The two escape the car and flop onto the sandy bank together. Yella sees her bags floating up to the shore, stumbles to retrieve them, and races off by herself, covered in sand and soaking wet, to catch her train to Hanover.

yella08

Once ensconced in the hotel in Hanover, her hair still a bit wet from her unexpected plunge into the river, she goes down to the hotel bar to have dinner. There, she becomes drawn into a nearby man’s screensaver, which shows giant crashing waves. He catches her looking, says, “Are you interested in balance sheets?” and then apologizes for being condescending. He looks almost exactly like Ben, the husband. But he is not. He is Philipp (Devid Striesow). He seems surprised to hear that she is going to work at the outfit that hired her: “They’re still hiring?” It’s an odd exchange, and Yella seems visibly rattled by it.

The next day, she reports to work only to find that the man who hired her has been escorted off the premises, and her job no longer exists. Disoriented, she goes back to the hotel. The hotel yawns with empty corridors. The place seems uninhabited. Yella is startled when Philipp enters her hotel room. “The door was open,” he said. He is a businessman, and has an important meeting the following day and needs someone who is conversant with balance sheets to accompany him.

We have barely been given enough time to recover from the car off the bridge moment before we are launched into the second phase of the film, which is the business dealings of Philipp, and then Yella. On the car ride to the meeting, Philipp coaches her. He says he learned most of these tactics from watching “John Grisham films”. She should only look at her screen, or look at one particular man in the group they will be talking to. If Philipp puts his hands behind his head, she should lean over and whisper something to him. It will disorient their opponents. He gives her a pair of glasses to wear. Yella is silent throughout the coaching. She is framed in the camera from the back seat, looking over at Philipp in profile. It’s an uneasy effect: we want to get a closer look at what is happening in the exchange. Not once does she say, or even seem to think, “Buddy, I know my job, do you think I’m an idiot?” She listens. She nods.

19092890.jpg-r_640_600-b_1_D6D6D6-f_jpg-q_x-xxyxx

Yella is not just a good support system for the high-end corporate dealings necessary in the meeting, which play out like a very hostile game of mental chess. She takes over the meeting. She speaks to the three men across the table, asking them where they have hidden some of their cash flow, because it is clear, according to her balance sheet, that something is off. She expresses serious doubts about the solvency of their company, making everyone very defensive. Because Philipp had come on so strong in the car beforehand, I half expected him to chew her out afterwards. He had given her no license to speak, let alone to dominate. Instead, he says quietly, “I underestimated you.”

More meetings follow. Philipp has built tests into his relationship with Yella, a fact that unfolds gradually. He gives her a wad of cash to deposit, and there is 25,000 left over. Yella is busted by Philipp trying to send it off through the post in an envelope. Instead of firing her, Philipp listens to her as Yella opens up about her husband stalking her. She thinks Ben has followed her to Hanover. She came into her hotel room one night and found the bed slept in, and a leftover meal lying on the coverlet (a terrible moment). The 25,000 would help him get back on his feet. She confides to Philipp that she has a guilty conscience, not because she doesn’t love Ben, but because she left him upon his ruination.

Yella attempting to steal money that doesn’t belong to her gives us an insight into her character, as well as an insight into what Philipp sees in her. She busts him taking bribe money from one of their harassed clients, and he says to her casually, “I cheat, too.”

Meanwhile, there are creepy signs that everything is not right in the world. Yella knocks a glass of water off the table in one of the meetings, the glass shatters on the floor, and nobody seems to notice. Occasionally her ears ring so loudly she has to stop and press her hands in on the side of her head. Crows caw in the trees, and giant branches sway above, drawing Yella’s eyes up and around. Ben keeps appearing: one time, terrifyingly, he is in her room when she returns. There are recurrent images. Things repeat. Yella is in a loop. At one of the meetings, the client admits that their computer network is only worth 2,000, the exact number Ben’s computer network was sold for. Philipp displays frightening bursts of temper, like Ben, but he, unlike Ben, apologizes soon afterwards.

Something has been activated in Yella through her relationship with Philipp. Her place in the world is at gleaming board meetings, discombobulating the businessmen who underestimate her. She may have come from the downtrodden East, with only one business suit in her clumsy tote bag, but that is not where she belongs, she belongs in the intimidating all-male environment of corporate gladiators. The German businessmen, trying to plead their case to the cold-eyed duo opposite them, lose their way, repeatedly fumble the pass.

The film is slick and specific in its coloring: red is important. When it shows up, it’s a signifier. Everything else is in the dark greys and dark blues of the corporate world. There are next to no extras. Hanover is an unpopulated world. The hotel is empty. The streets and squares are empty. Yella and Philipp (and Ben) seem like the only people in the world.

20363784

The film is so relentlessly from Yella’s point of view that it is difficult to get a line on her and what she wants, who she is. That is Yella‘s greatest strength. It leaves great room for mystery and puzzlement, which makes the film tense as hell. The silences in the hotel room are vast, unendurable. The tension is often unbearable, and again, it is hard to point to why. Yella is a thriller, and thrillers are so often about creating the proper mood, more than anything else. Petzold creates mood like a master.

Nina Hoss is such an interesting actress. Yella seems quite cowed through much of the film, bursting into sobs on the train or in her hotel room, and trying to put a brave face on things when confronted with experiences outside her skill set (credit card not accepted at the hotel, etc.) On the flip side, triumphant and pleased smiles nearly burst out of her face when she and Philipp realize, again and again, that they have their clients in the tough spots where they want them. She’s ruthless.

Philipp stared at the pretty woman with the serious angular face in the hotel bar, and noticed how she kept glancing over at the crashing waves on his computer. Philipp saw this and somehow sensed a woman who would be willing to bend the rules, sensed a woman who would play the game as dirty as he played it. And she would do so enthusiastically, voraciously. She was born to it. I suppose it takes one to know one.

Never have balance sheets been so thrilling, in the truest sense of the word.

yella

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

An Act of Kindness

536927_10151332710532632_78626533_n

In watching the film again, I was struck by the fact that both characters have deep connections with elderly people, he with the man he moves in the nursing home, she with her grandmother. There is no fear of the elderly, just compassion and also a respect for experience and a long life lived. It is one of the subtle elements of the script that really helps make the film.

My review of Blue Valentine.

Posted in Movies | Tagged | 3 Comments

The Books: A Collection of Essays, ‘Inside the Whale’, by George Orwell

On the essays shelf:

A Collection of Essays, by George Orwell

“Inside the Whale” is a gigantic essay which is a review of Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer (the book is its focal point), but also spans out to discuss English literature during the crucial decades of Orwell’s life: the 1920s to the 1940s. Everything busted apart then. The 19th century structures were done. It was a new world now. Orwell knew Miller slightly, and while some of his comments on Tropic of Cancer are pretty funny (he “refuses to be impressed” by all the profanity and sex), he was astonished by the book. It gave him hope that the English language was still growing and thriving. How could that possibly be the case, in a book about dead-beats and whores? Orwell writes:

But get hold of Tropic of Cancer … and read especially the first hundred pages. They give you an idea of what can still be done, even at this late date, with English prose. In them, English is treated as a spoken language, but spoken without fear, i.e. without fear of rhetoric or of the unusual or poetical word. The adjective has come back, after its ten years’ exile.

I love that. We know of Orwell’s main concern with language; it is a topic he took up again and again. He was interested in it in a political sense, but here he takes on literature. Besides, it’s all related. How we speak reveals how we think. It doesn’t follow that people with limited vocabularies have big important thoughts. It doesn’t go that way. You need language to be flexible in order for thought itself to be possible. Orwell worked over this thought again and again and again in his work, finally culminating, of course, in 1984, with its terrifying vision of a world where language has atrophied into “Newsspeak”.

Tropic of Cancer‘s scope and accomplishment reminds Orwell of James Joyce, and Walt Whitman, and so the essay is a delight, it’s really a survey course in literature. He’s a lovely writer and thinker, and it’s fun to see him enthusiastic, rather than cranky. For example, it should be no surprise that I loved to read his thoughts on Ulysses, and I think he’s right on the money:

But now and again there appears a novel which opens up a new world not by revealing what is strange, but by revealing what is familiar. The truly remarkable thing about Ulysses, for instance, is the commonplaceness of its material. Of course there is much more in Ulysses than this, because Joyce is a kind of poet and also an elephantine pedant, but his real achievement has been to get the familiar on to paper. He dared — for it is a matter of daring just as much as of technique — to expose the imbecilities of the inner mind, and in doing so he discovered an America which was under everybody’s nose. Here is a whole world of stuff which you supposed to be of its nature incommunicable, and somebody has managed to communicate it. The effect is to break down, at any rate momentarily, the solitude in which the human being lives. When you read certain passages in Ulysses you feel that Joyce’s mind and your mind are one, that he knows all about you though he has never heard your name, that there some world outside time and space in which you and he are together. And though he does not resemble Joyce in other ways, there is a touch of this quality in Henry Miller. Not everywhere, because his work is very uneven, and sometimes, especially in Black Spring, tends to slide away into more verbiage or into the squashy universe of the surresalists. But read him for five pages, ten pages, and you feel the peculiar relief that comes not so much from understanding as from being understood. ‘He knows all about me,’ you feel; ‘he wrote this specially for me’. It is as though you could hear a voice speaking to you, a friendly American voice, with no humbug in it, no moral purpose, merely an implicit assumption that we are all alike. For the moment you have got away from the lies and simplifications, the stylized, marionette-like quality of ordinary fiction, even quite good fiction, and are dealing with the recognizable experiences of human beings.

Marvelous.

And this:

It would be absurd, for instance, to look on Ulysses as merely a show-up of the horror of modern life, the ‘dirty Daily Mail era’, as Pound put it. Joyce actually is more of a ‘pure artist’ than most writers. But Ulysses could not have been written by someone who was merely dabbling with word-patterns; it is the product of a special vision of life, the vision of a Catholic who has lost his faith. What Joyce is saying is ‘Here is life without God. Just look at it!’ and his technical innovations, important though they are, are primarily to serve this purpose.

Orwell is interested in what books like Ulysses and Tropic of Cancer signify. They obviously represent some sort of break with the past. World War I had that effect on artists, worldwide. The old “forms” did not seem up to the task to describing the modern world (although that is a crazy oversimplification). Orwell sees how the language itself has been developing, and while politicians and propagandists and op-ed columnists may have atrophied themselves into Party Platform Mouthpieces, novelists and poets were bold, daring, were going inward so far that it became outward. Ulysses is the most subjective book imaginable. We are inside one man’s head, and we hear his musings about his lunch, his gassy stomach, his worries, his observations. They all pile on top of each other. This is often how the brain works, how memory and the senses work. It is not a “big” book. It is not making a big statement, it does not reach for universality, it is not “topical”. And yet by focusing solely on one man’s interior life, it becomes the most universal transcendent book ever written. The same is true, Orwell suggests, with Tropic of Cancer. It takes courage to not care what was done before. It takes courage to look at the old forms and say, “That won’t work for me.”

Orwell has a whole section in this essay about A.E. Housman, a hugely popular and influential poet in the 1920s – and, of course, he has a giant reputation to this day. But he was popular in his own day in a way that faded quickly. Orwell wrote his essay in the 1940s, and he found it interesting that Housman was so “in” so recently, and at the time he was writing Housman’s enormous popularity was “not at all easy to understand”. Orwell writes:

In 1920, when I was about seventeen, I probably knew the whole of The Shropshire Lad by heart.

And so what was it about Housman that “hit” on such a profound level to that particular generation? If you’re a Housman fan, you will love to read Orwell’s thoughts. Orwell thinks Housman’s popularity had to do with his cynical “strain”, a sort of defiant anti-establishment voice, wrapped up in the old English forms of God and country and fields and streams. Housman expressed perfectly the weariness of the youth culture at that time, who came of age during the mid-teens, and saw the world erupt in a monstrous war.

The essay ends with a discussion of literature and politics, and what happens when writers become attached to politics (or, to one particular side in a political argument). Orwell sees the self-censorship at work in some of those writers: “I probably should temper this argument, because it will get me into trouble”, and of course time has not been kind to the really political propagandist-type novelists of the 1930s. Those days are done. Some of the writing may be fine, but the novels or poems are locked in that particular decade, and do not travel very well.

‘Inside the Whale’ was written in 1940, and was included in a book of essays called Inside the Whale. WWII was exploding. Totalitarianism was on the march. It was a long long way from the days of the 1920s, when people like Joyce and Eliot and Miller began to rise, with different voices, voices more appropriate to the modern world. What would come next? What would this new war do to literature, to the English language? Orwell was already concerned about the deterioration of language, and fascism and totalitarianism made it worse. He was watching everything he loved fall apart.

Here’s an excerpt:

A Collection of Essays, ‘Inside the Whale’, by George Orwell

If one looks at the books of personal reminiscence written about the war of 1914-18, one notices that nearly all that have remained readable after a lapse of time are written from a passive, negative angle. They are the records of something completely meaningless, a nightmare happening in a void. That was not actually the truth about the war, but it was the truth about the individual reaction. The soldier advancing into a machine-gun barrage or standing waist-deep in a flooded trench knew only that here was an appalling experience in which he was all but helpless. He was likelier to make a good book out of his helplessness and his ignorance than out of a pretended power to see the whole thing in perspective. As for the books that were written during the war itself, the best of them were nearly all the work of people who simply turned their backs and tried not to notice that the war was happening. Mr E. M. Forster has described how in 1917 he read Prufrock and other of Eliot’s early poems, and how it heartened him at such a time to get hold of poems that were ‘innocent of public-spiritedness’:

They sang of private disgust and diffidence, and of people who seemed genuine because they were unattractive or weak. … Here was a protest, and a feeble one, and the more congenial for being o feeble. … He who could turn aside to complain of ladies and drawing rooms preserved a tiny drop of our self-respect, he carried on the human heritage.

That is very well said. Mr MacNeice, in the book I have referred to already, quotes this passage and somewhat smugly adds:

Ten years later less feeble protests were to be made by poets and the human heritage carried on rather differently. … The contemplation of a world of fragments becomes boring and Eliot’s successors are more interested in tidying it up.

Similar remarks are scattered throughout Mr MacNeice’s book. What he wishes us to believe is that Eliot’s ‘successors’ (meaning Mr MacNeice and his friends) have in some way ‘protested’ more effectively than Eliot did by publishing Prufrock at the moment when the Allied armies were assaulting the Hindenburg Line. Just where these ‘protests’ are to be found I do not know. But in the contrast between Mr Forster’s comment and Mr MacNeice’s lies all the difference between a man who knows what the 1914-18 war was like and a man who barely remembers it. The truth is that in 1917 there was nothing that a thinking and a sensitive person could do, except to remain human, if possible. And a gesture of helplessness, even of frivolity, might be the best way of doing that. If I had been a soldier fighting in the Great War, I would sooner have got hold of Prufrock than The First Hundred Thousand or Horatio Bottomley’s Letters to the Boys in the Trenches. I should have felt, like Mr Forster, that by simply standing aloof and keeping touch with pre-war emotions, Eliot was carrying on the human heritage. What a relief it would have been at such a time, to read about the hesitations of a middle-aged highbrow with a bald spot! So different from bayonet-drill! After the bombs and the food-queues and the recruiting-posters, a human voice! What a relief!

But, after all, the war of 1914-18 was only a heightened moment in an almost continuous crisis. At this date it hardly even needs a war to bring home to us the disintegration of our society and the increasing helplessness of all, decent people. It is for this reason that I think that the passive, non-co-operative attitude implied in Henry Miller’s work is justified. Whether or not it is an expression of what people ought to feel, it probably comes somewhere near to expressing what they do feel. Once again it is the human voice among the bomb-explosions, a friendly American voice, ‘innocent of public-spiritedness’. No sermons, merely the subjective truth. And along those lines, apparently, it is still possible for a good novel to be written. Not necessarily an edifying novel, but a novel worth reading and likely to be remembered after it is read.

While I have been writing this essay another European war has broken out. It will either last several years and tear Western civilization to pieces, or it will end inconclusively and prepare the way for yet another war which will do the job once and for all. But war is only ‘peace intensified’. What is quite obviously happening, war or no war, is the break-up of laissez-faire capitalism and of the liberal-Christian culture. Until recently the full implications of this were not foreseen, because it was generally imagined that socialism could preserve and even enlarge the atmosphere of liberalism. It is now beginning to be realized how false this idea was. Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships — an age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction. The autonomous individual is going to be stamped out of existence. But this means that literature, in the form in which we know it, must suffer at least a temporary death. The literature of liberalism is coming to an end and the literature of totalitarianism has not yet appeared and is barely imaginable. As for the writer, he is sitting on a melting iceberg; he is merely an anachronism, a hangover from the bourgeois age, as surely doomed as the hippopotamus. Miller seems to me a man out of the common because he saw and proclaimed this fact a long while before most of his contemporaries — at a time, indeed, when many of them were actually burbling about a renaissance of literature. Wyndham Lewis had said years earlier that the major history of the English language was finished, but he was basing this on different and rather trivial reasons. But from now onwards the all-important fact for the creative writers going to be that this is not a writer’s world. That does not mean that he cannot help to bring the new society into being, but he can take no part in the process as a writer. For as a writer he is a liberal, and what is happening is the destruction of liberalism. It seems likely, therefore, that in the remaining years of free speech any novel worth reading will follow more or less along the lines that Miller has followed — I do not mean in technique or subject matter, but in implied outlook. The passive attitude will come back, and it will be more consciously passive than before. Progress and reaction have both turned out to be swindles. Seemingly there is nothing left but quietism — robbing reality of its terrors by simply submitting to it. Get inside the whale — or rather, admit you are inside the whale (for you are, of course). Give yourself over to the worid-process, stop fighting against it or pretending that you control it; simply accept it, endure it, record it. That seems to be the formula, that any sensitive novelist is now likely to adopt. A novel on more positive, ‘constructive’ lines, and not emotionally spurious, is at present very difficult to imagine.

But do I mean by this that Miller is a ‘great author’, a new hope for English prose? Nothing of the kind. Miller himself would be the last to claim or want any such thing. No doubt he will go on writing — anybody who has ones started always goes on writing — and associated with him there are a number of writers of approximately the same tendency, Lawrence Durrell, Michael Fraenkel and others, almost amounting to a ‘school’. But he himself seems to me essentially a man of one book. Sooner or later I should expect him to descend into unintelligibility, or into charlatanism: there are signs of both in his later work. His last book, Tropic of Capricorn, I have not even read. This was not because I did not want to read it, but because the police and Customs authorities have so far managed to prevent me from getting hold of it. But it would surprise me if it came anywhere near Tropic of Cancer or the opening chapters of Black Spring. Like certain other autobiographical novelists, he had it in him to do just one thing perfectly, and he did it. Considering what the fiction of the nineteen-thirties has been like, that is something.

Posted in Books, James Joyce | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Icons

BuddyHollyWaylonJennings1959GrandCentral
Waylon Jennings, Buddy Holly, Grand Central Station, 1959

Sometimes I come something and all I can think of is: “Thank God that this exists.”

There’s more in this photo booth series, but I like this one best, with the middle finger protruding in from the left-hand side.

So rock and roll.

The world is a better place because this photo exists. (Of course I’m happy that both of these individuals existed, but to capture them in time like this, in a moment in their youths, carefree, wild, so close to Holly’s passing … it’s a powerful photo.)

Posted in Music | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Books: A Collection of Essays, ‘Looking Back on the Spanish War’, by George Orwell

On the essays shelf:

A Collection of Essays, by George Orwell

George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia details his personal observations of the Spanish Civil War in the mid to late 1930s. He had gone there to fight for the Republicans against the rebellion of Franco (who, of course, eventually won the battle). The issues of the Spanish Civil War are intricate and complex, and in some contexts it could be seen as one of the most important wars of the 20th century. In it, the Russians and the Nazis practiced their craft, which they would then unleash upon the world in WWII. It was a training ground for the monstrous ideologies which would overrun Europe for the next 40 years. There were many who felt duped by the Spanish Civil War, and writers fought it out in book after book. The Left, who were internationalist in sensibility and philosophy, flocked to Spain to help in the fight. Many of them left completely disillusioned (Orwell was one). He could sense how they were being used. Telling the truth about what went on during the Spanish Civil War made you no friends: it was an ideological battle, and therefore the ideology must be upheld, regardless of the mess and horror on the ground. Reading about the Left in the 1930s in New York and the rest of America, you really get a sense of that time, and how this war ignited the imagination. The Group Theatre organized fund-raisers for the cause, and threw their support behind the Republicans (and they weren’t the only ones). Orwell climbed up the ranks in his division, and stated baldly, in letters and elsewhere, that he was there to fight Fascism. That was why so many were there, helping the Spaniards. Giant superpowers of the time were pulling strings on various sides, trying to get the outcome they wanted: spies were everywhere. Homage to Catalonia is an incredible eyewitness account of this war, written by one of the great political journalists (and essayists, as we have seen) of the 20th century.

It wasn’t just that the outcome didn’t go his way that Orwell found disillusioning. It was the entire experience. It really made him. Without the Spanish Civil War, he would have been just another propagandist for Leftist causes, albeit a very talented one. The Spanish Civil War was a painful crucible: Orwell was forced to flee the Soviets’ NKVD, who were there to “liquidate” the opposition. (Again, with the terrifying use of language by totalitarians. “Liquidate” sounds like such a gentle process, involving fluids and flow.) The devastation, of being hounded out by those you supposedly supported (the Communists, who were united against Fascism as well) was formative for Orwell. It was a disillusion from which he would never recover (and thank God). The purges had begun. Orwell made a narrow escape. These were supposedly his allies (in an internationalist sense). His eyes were opened to the realities of Communism, and they would never be closed again.

He was one of the few on the Left who saw which way the wind was blowing that early. In the mid-30s, Fascism was the enemy, not Communism. The Nazis and Mussolini were the murderers to be feared and fought against. The Soviets, remember, in the mid-30s, were allies to Europe. (This would all change with the non-aggression pact, signed secretly, between Russia and Germany in the summer of 1939. For many, THAT was the eye-opening moment: wait: Russia is … evil? Who knew??) The sense of betrayal can still be felt when you read the current literature of the time. The non-aggression pact was immediately followed by the cynical carving-up of Poland, Germany and Russia sharing the spoils. (Coincidental dovetail with my recent post about the film Katyn, which details that confusing time.)

It is impossible to over-state just how much nobody wanted to hear what Orwell had to say in the mid-30s. It was damaging to the Socialist cause. He was a traitor, an apostate. He was shunned. Arthur Koestler, another “apostate”, had a similar journey. The two of them certainly have the last laugh, in terms of being right, but that was not apparent at the time. Orwell had seen the reality of the new Russia on the ground in Spain, and it terrified and disturbed him. He was also terrified and disturbed by the lies being stated in the press about what was happening in Spain, not to mention the reaction of the British public (he has nothing but contempt for them). Pacifists, many of them, Orwell felt that they had lost their ability to perceive right and wrong. (He goes into that further in his essay on Gandhi). War is horrible, Orwell did not deny that, and he wrote eloquently about the deprivations and terror of war. But there are things more horrible than war, Nazism being one, Fascism being one. If you cannot “get it up” to fight Fascists, if you try to make everything exist on a balanced scale (“yes, it is horrible, but WE have been horrible too”), then you are a coward. If you try to make your ideology fit all situations, you will lose your way morally. (This is what happened to the Left in the 30s, who swallowed the propaganda being fed to them by Stalinist Russia, ignoring eyewitness accounts of those who got out, of those who were skeptical about the official version of the truth.) If you think “War is always wrong” is a one-size-fits-all ideology, you will be overrun by monsters and you will only have yourself to blame. Orwell saw that tendency in the Left which is now pretty much set in stone: The Left wants everything to be Zero Sum (“Yes, what they did to us was horrible, but put it on the scale beside what we did to them, and it comes out equal”), and this then is an excuse to do nothing. There is a satisfaction in doing nothing, a self-righteousness. Christopher Hitchens wrote often about his break with the Left in that particular regard, although he always remained somewhat left of center. But THAT quality in Leftist thinking he had nothing but contempt for. It is so engrained in the philosophy now that it is nearly impossible to even discuss a more nuanced view of history with people who hold these views: they literally cannot perceive another way to think. It has become rigid (and therefore more fragile). It has become dogma, fundamentalist in nature. Look out.

Orwell, in this essay about the Spanish Civil War, written in 1943 ( right in the thick of WWII, when the horror had been unleashed upon the world), is angry: angry at the press filled with lies, angry at those back home who either believed the lies (because it suited them to), or disbelieved the lies (because it suited them to). He saw that everything had to do with political bias: you believed what “your” newspaper that reflected your worldview said, even if it was shoveling lies and propaganda down your throat. Critical thinking was dead. And when that dies, you are unable to perceive reality. Orwell writes about that too.

This kind of thing is frightening to me, because it often gives me the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.

He writes about the camaraderie of war, and how it changes people. How certain gestures and behavior, completely inappropriate to normal civilian life, become the norm during war (good and bad). His perspective is that living in safety, as those “back home” were, can soften you, can over-sensitize you, can turn molehills into mountains. But war has a way of clarifying and simplifying. He gives examples.

One of the effects of safe and civilised life is an immense oversensitiveness which makes all the primary emotions seem somewhat disgusting. Generosity is as painful as meanness, gratitude as hateful as ingratitude. But in Spain in 1936 we were not living in a normal time. It was a time when generous feelings and gestures were easier than they ordinarily are.

Orwell does not pull punches. The Left was used in the Spanish Civil War. Orwell, who was a True Believer, did not like being used. He was angry about it. It was a betrayal. But at least now he knew the truth and nothing, not even the scorn and contempt of his colleagues and fellow Leftists, could stop him from seeing that truth.

Homage to Catalonia is a very important book about this very important (and almost forgotten) war, and the essay I excerpt below is another fascinating examination of that war. It was a dress-rehearsal for 1939 and onward. Orwell, in his brilliance, perceived that, although he could not see the future. He could sense what was coming. He named it.

On to the excerpt:

A Collection of Essays, ‘Looking Back on the Spanish War’, by George Orwell

The backbone of the resistance against Franco was the Spanish working class, especially the urban trade union members. In the long run — it is important to remember that it is only in the long run — the working class remains the most reliable enemy of Fascism, simply because the working-class stands to gain most by a decent reconstruction of society. Unlike other classes or categories, it can’t be permanently bribed.

To say this is not to idealize the working class. In the long struggle that has followed the Russian Revolution it is the manual workers who have been defeated, and it is impossible not to feel that it was their own fault. Time after time, in country after country, the organized working-class movements have been crushed by open, illegal violence, and their comrades abroad, linked to themin theoretical solidarity, have simply looked on and done nothing; and underneath this, secret cause of many betrayals, has lain the fact that between white and coloured workers there is not even lip-service to solidarity. Who can believe in the class-conscious international proletariat after the events of the past ten years? To the British working class the massacre of their comrades in Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, or wherever it might be seemed less interesting and less important than yesterday’s football match. Yet this does not alter the fact that the working class will go on struggling against Fascism after the others have caved in. One feature of the Nazi conquest of France was the astonishing defections among the intelligentsia, including some of the left-wing political intelligentsia. The intelligentsia are the people who squeal loudest against Fascism, and yet a respectable proportion of them collapse into defeatism when the pinch comes. They are far-sighted enough to see the odds against them, and moreoever they can be bribed — for it is evident that the Nazis think it worth while to bribe intellectuals. With the working class it is the other way about. Too ignorant to see through the trick that is being played on them, they easily swallow the promises of Fascism, yet sooner or later they always take up the struggle again. They must do so, because in their own bodies they always discover that the promises of Fascism cannot be fulfilled. To win over the working class permanently, the Fascists would have to raise the general standard of living, which they are unable and probably unwilling to do. The struggle of the working class is like the growth of a plant. The plant is blind and stupid, but it knows enough to keep pushing upwards towards the light, and it will do this in the face of endless discouragements. What are the workers struggling for? Simply for the decent life which they are more and more aware is now technically possible. Their consciousness of this aim ebbs and flows. In Spain, for a while, people were acting consciously, moving towards a goal which they wanted to reach and believed they could reach. It accounted for the curiously buoyant feeling that life in Government Spain had during the early months of the war. The common people knew in their bones that the Republic was their friend and Franco was their enemy. They knew that they were in the right, because they were fighting for something which the world owed them and was able to give them.

One has to remember this to see the Spanish war in its true perspective. When one thinks of the cruelty, squalor, and futility of War — and in this particular case of the intrigues, the persecutions, the lies and the misunderstandings — there is always the temptation to say: ‘One side is as bad as the other. I am neutral’. In practice, however, one cannot be neutral, and there is hardly such a thing as a war in which it makes no difference who wins. Nearly always one stands more or less for progress, the other side more or less for reaction. The hatred which the Spanish Republic excited in millionaires, dukes, cardinals, play-boys, Blimps, and what-not would in itself be enough to show one how the land lay. In essence it was a class war. If it had been won, the cause of the common people everywhere would have been strengthened. It was lost, and the dividend-drawers all over the world rubbed their hands. That was the real issue; all else was froth on its surface.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

How Winter Kills


Taken yesterday. Full set here

green in your love on bright days
you grew sunblind
you thought me unkind
to remind you
how winter kills
lost in daydreams
you drove too fast
and got nowhere
you rode on half fare
when you got too scared
how winter kills
tear at me searching for weak seams
pain in your eyes make me cruel
make me spiteful
tears are delightful
welcome your nightfall
how winter kills
i’ll tear at you searching for weak seams
how winter kills

Posted in Personal | 1 Comment

Katyn (2007); Dir. Andrzej Wajda

In mid-September, 1939, on a bridge in Poland, groups of people flee from opposite directions. The Germans invade from behind, and the Russians approach from the front. It is utter chaos. The crowd is well-dressed, for the most part, holding suitcases, showing the suddenness of their flight. Which way to go? A mother (Maja Ostaszewska) and her young daughter try to stick together. She sees a friend, pushing through the crowd in her gleaming car, and they both have husbands who are army officers, caught behind the Russian front. They exchange hurried information. The crowd is caught on the bridge, unable to return home, unable to move forward.

If there is a better visual representation of Poland’s position in September of 1939, invaded by Germany on September 1, and invaded by Russia two weeks following, after the Molotov-Ribbontrop Pact, signed in August of 1939, I haven’t seen it. It is the opening scene in Andrzej Wajda’s 2007 Oscar-nominated Katyn.

Britain and France, due to their own signed agreements, had promised to aid Poland in case of such an invasion by Germany (nobody thought Russia would invade, amazingly enough). That aid never came. Everyone declared war on Germany, a nice gesture, to be sure, but they watched as Poland was thrown to the dogs. The non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia shocked the world, most of which had been trying to cozy up to Stalin to fight the Nazi menace. Poland was not at war with Russia. They had more to fear from the Germans. At least that was the prevailing feeling. It was a tremendously confusing time, with vast shifting of political alliances which killed millions of people.

And in April, 1940, an estimated 22,000 Poles (made of up army officers, mostly, but also a vast number of “intelligentsia”) were massacred by the Soviets, the main killing spot being in the forest of Katyn, Russia. Almost half of the Polish officer corps was wiped out. When the Soviets began their invasion, on September 17, the Polish army were under orders not to fight the Soviets, so hundreds of thousands of them were taken prisoner. Many of them were released. Many of them were shipped off to camps.

The army officers were kept in limbo, held in barracks, going through interrogations (which shows how well-planned the eventual massacre was: there was an elimination process going on, although the Polish officers all assumed they would be released) until April of 1940, when they were taken off to the forest, shot in the back of the head one by one (it must have taken hours), and tossed into a mass grave. The killing was not done spontaneously. An operation like that requires intense planning. Documents have been uncovered detailing the operation. The grave was discovered by the Germans in 1943 (because, of course, Hitler did not honor the non-aggression pact he had with his BFF Uncle Joseph, and, refusing to learn the lessons of Napoleon, invaded Russia). News of the Katyn atrocity went round the world.

But now it gets interesting. Russia blamed it on the Germans. The Germans denied responsibility. They weren’t even IN Russia in April of 1940. The Russians changed the date, though, saying that the massacre had taken place in 1941, after the German invasion. That was official Soviet policy for DECADES, until the truth finally came out (or, to be accurate: until Russia finally admitted responsibility). The Polish people, living under Soviet rule since the end of World War II, always knew the truth, but, in essence, it was a forgotten massacre. The world moved on. Who cares who did it, the Soviets or the Germans, they’re all beastly. (I am being facetious, but you can understand how the Poles may have felt that the world took that attitude.) Now picture being a Polish person in the years following WWII. Your husband, brother, father was murdered by the very people who now rule over you, and you are forbidden to even mention how they died. Or, if you do mention it, you must concede to the official version of the truth, which is: My father/husband/brother was killed by the GERMANS in 1941, not by the Russians in 1940. Even though you KNOW it is not true.

This is one of the psychological torture methods used consciously by the Soviets to dominate and cow the Polish people that Wajda explores in his brutal film.

One of the things that is difficult to understand about Stalin is that he didn’t do anything impulsively. He was unlike many (most) dictators in that respect. He planned, he thought, he had patience (a very rare quality in leaders, in general, let alone autocratic dictators). Underneath everything he did, there was a psychological reason. Killing the Polish army officers was not just because they were in the way, or they were part of the enemy. He knew it would shatter the Poles’ confidence in their own army, causing panic and disorientation that he could work to his advantage. He knew that it would cripple the Polish army moving forward. He always took the long view. He knew he could use this massacre, in other words. It would be a useful tool of psychological domination, as would be the lying about it afterwards. And he was right. He forced the Poles to swallow the enormous lie about Katyn that denied them the right to properly mourn the deaths of their family members and countrymen. And once you get a population to do THAT for you, you can do anything to them. You’ve won. Not just in terms of borders and government, but in terms of their minds.

All of this can only be inferred, because, of course, Stalin rarely left his fingerprints on anything. But we can assume that anything that happened in the Soviet Union did not happen without his express say-so. Stalin can be discerned not in the planning, but in the results. You always have to look at the results to “see” him.

William Grimes wrote:

Pity the biographer who takes on Josef Stalin. The challenges lie somewhere between daunting and impossible. Stalin took great pains to cover up the facts of his childhood and youth. Aided by state hagiographers, he revised the events of his life multiple times, making it nearly impossible to determine what role he played in the crucial events of the October Revolution and civil war. Airbrushing by state hagiographers added extra layers of obfuscation. Inconvenient witnesses tended to disappear. Secretive, introverted, and paranoid, Stalin made an art of concealing his motives and his methods.

Robert Conquest says again and again in his great book The Great Terror, “They did not understand Stalin yet.” Conquest was talking about Stalin’s colleagues and co-conspirators, but the same was true for other world leaders and opinion-makers at the time. But even the brutes surrounding Stalin in Russia weren’t on his level. They thought maybe he would calm down once it was clear he had “won”. Maybe now that we’ve put everyone in jail, we could get back to our great Socialist Revolution again, and running the country properly? Not so fast.

(Of course Stalin never ultimately won. There was always a strong resistance in Poland, of which Andrzej Wajda himself was a part of as a young man, and there were always groups committed to telling the truth about Katyn. This went on for decades.)

Wajda’s Katyn is a harrowing, relentless, and angry film showing the results of this type of propaganda, and what it does to a population.

On May 27, 1942, German Jew Viktor Klemperer wrote in his phenomenal journal, which details the increasing persecution faced by the Jews in Germany:

“I shall go on writing. That is my heroism. I will bear witness, precise witness!”

Katyn is a powerful document of bearing witness. The film says: Look. See. This Happened. It bears witness to the pain of those forced to go along with the lies. It also bears witness to the experience of the Polish army officers, imprisoned, waiting, and then killed, the film saying: These men lived, and these men died this way. Do not forget. Do not forget them. Do not look away. See. See. This happened.

Anna and her daughter wait for word of her husband. In 1943, when the Katyn grave is found, a “list” is published in the Krakow paper, with all of the names on it, “the Katyn list” it is called. The names are read out in the public square, a crowd of people waiting to hear if their “person” is on it. After the war ends, the world has shifted entirely. Whereas before, the Poles had to deal with the Germans, now they are under the Soviet thumb. The remnants of the Polish army now wear Soviet uniforms. This is obviously a matter of personal survival: you could say, “No, I don’t want to join your army, you killed 22,000 of my brothers”, but you would find yourself killed or in a gulag for 25 years if you did that. Families shatter, which we see occur in Katyn. The victims must collude with the persecutors, in order to stay alive. That’s how the system works.

One woman, Agnieszka, played by the heartbreaking and fierce Magdalena Cielecka, is determined to erect a gravestone for her brother, which includes the words: “Died in Katyn, 1940.” She speaks to the priest at her church, and when he hears of her plan, balks. “You know I can’t put up a gravestone that has those words on it.” Katyn shows that anyone close to the truth of the original massacre has been taken off in the night, never to be seen again (the priest who sanctified the mass grave in 1943, for example: disappeared). Agnieszka dresses like a student revolutionary in plain skirts, black beret, and boots, and is determined to honor her brother’s death and the truth of it. She pays the ultimate price for her truth-telling, and her brother’s gravestone, with the damning date “1940” on it, lies broken in the cemetery.

The majority of the film takes place in the aftermath of Katyn, with the people back in Poland suffering from a lack of information and a great and deliberate fog placed over their ability to find out the truth. What happened to Anna’s husband? His name was not on the Katyn list. But then, where is he? Why did he not return? Movingly, the lead character, played by the wonderful Artur Zmijewski, husband of Anna, the woman we saw on the bridge, is named “Andrzej”, after Wajda himself.

Wajda’s films are always personal. In a place like Poland, overrun by invasions for much of its history, politics are always personal. In Katyn, we see the heartbreaking and enraging results of an official program of propaganda and lies and what it does to people in their hearts, souls, and memories.

The massacre scene, when it finally comes, is brutal and almost unwatchable in its horror. It takes its time, because, after all, the massacre took time. It was methodical, deliberate. The men, dragged to the edge of the pit, murmur The Lords’ Prayer in their final moments, one after the other, after the other, after the other. The scene goes on so long and is so relentless, I found myself thinking incoherent thoughts during it such as: “Look at us…. Look at what we do to one another….” It is horrifying and important to face. Again, Wajda is saying: Look. See. This is what happened. Honor it. Remember it. These men died this way. We were not allowed to mourn them, talk about them, or grieve them. We were denied that. Those days are over now. Forgiveness may come, but first, we must allow ourselves to look, see.

Wajda does not just feel strongly about this because he is Polish, because he lived through those years, and because he has devoted his life to making films about the history of Poland (although these things are all true). He feels strongly about Katyn because his real-life father was one of the Polish army officers massacred there in 1940.

Wajda, then, is bearing witness to an atrocity in Poland’s past, but also to his father’s memory, and what his father experienced. The mournful music that pours out of the black screen before credits begin to roll has the gravitas and magnificent sorrow of a requiem mass, a requiem the Polish officers had been denied.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments

Because.


Lucille Ball, “The Dark Corner”, 1946

Because she’s so great.

Because I love this movie.

Because I can’t wait for baseball season.

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The Books: A Collection of Essays, ‘Reflections on Gandhi’, by George Orwell

On the essays shelf:

A Collection of Essays, by George Orwell

I love the first words of Orwell’s 1949 review of Gandhi’s partial autobiography, published in the 1920s:

Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent…

Christopher Hitchens would approve! Orwell’s thoughts on Gandhi are complex: On the one hand, he finds all that asceticism and holiness suspect and also difficult to maintain on a human level. On the other hand, he admires Gandhi’s political smarts and prescience (even a year earlier, nobody would have thought the British would retreat from India the way that they did). Orwell looks at Gandhi’s essential middle-class-ness: his days as a lawyer, taking dancing lessons, and wearing a top hat. Hard to reconcile with the skinny little man in a loincloth, but part of Gandhi’s human-ness, first of all, and also a “way in” to understanding Gandhi’s strengths as a political animal. He did not remove himself from the world. He engaged with the world. Britain must leave India. He did not retreat to a mountaintop and pray (or, he didn’t ONLY do that). He organized the resistance. Orwell has nothing but admiration for that, although some of the beliefs (religious in nature) are red flags to Orwell.

I particularly liked this bit, and find it relevant to our culture today:

No doubt alcohol, tobacco, and so forth, are things that a saint must avoid, but sainthood is also a thing that human beings must avoid. There is an obvious retort to this, but one should be wary about making it. In this yogi-ridden age, it is too readily assumed that “non-attachment” is not only better than a full acceptance of earthly life, but that the ordinary man only rejects it because it is too difficult: in other words, that the average human being is a failed saint. It is doubtful whether this is true. Many people genuinely do not wish to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings. If one could follow it to its psychological roots, one would, I believe, find that the main motive for “non-attachment” is a desire to escape from the pain of living, and above all from love, which, sexual or non-sexual, is hard work. But it is not necessary here to argue whether the other-worldly or the humanistic ideal is “higher”. The point is that they are incompatible. One must choose between God and Man, and all “radicals” and “progressives,” from the mildest Liberal to the most extreme Anarchist, have in effect chosen Man.

Fascinating! We are even more “yogi-ridden” now. I have serious issues with the New Age-ification of our culture, although some of it is helpful. But if you make the mistake of saying to me, (for example), “Everything happens for a reason”, you will get an earful about the atrocities of history, and an obnoxious treatise on how only privileged people who have never known serious deprivation could ever say such a stupid thing. Believe me: ask my poor friends who have tried to comfort me with such nonsense. Now, look, if such a belief helps you and comforts you, then I am certainly not going to tell you to NOT feel that way. Have at it. We all need comforts to get through life. My issue with catch-phrases like “everything happens for a reason” is that in our current-day culture (at least the one in which I operate) it is taken as Truth, when it is really just a trend in thinking, something people believe NOW, but didn’t necessarily always believe. It may be true to YOU that “everything happens for a reason”, but just accept that it is an OPINION, not a FACT. That’s my issue with that kind of thinking. Orwell obviously says it better than I have.

I think a deeper issue I have with those statements that float around in the air now is that people parrot them without thinking about them. It’s a catch-phrase, it’s “something to say” when meaningless things happen. This goes back to Orwell’s great essay Politics and the English Language: when language becomes boiled down, when people speak catch-phrases hoping that there is a deeper meaning underneath, because they don’t have the words available to them to speak in a meaningful way: we’re all in trouble. Because then the catch-phrase is a stand-in for a concept, and the concept is so boiled down by that point as to be meaningless. Language loses its impact. And when that happens, thought itself atrophies.

I know that my feelings about New Age thinking is a feeling, my own opinion. It’s my “take”. I wish the opposite were the case: that those who subscribe to such thinking weren’t such fundamentalists about it. Just admit that these are your feelings, your hopes, that you hope the world works this way, that it helps you personally to believe such things. Don’t think I’m “wrong” for not going along with the trend and for thinking “Everything happens for a reason” is an ignorant (and unhelpful) thing to say. (I’m just using “Everything happens for a reason” as an example. There are so many others. It’s everywhere.)

And there’s that great exchange from Men in Black, which sums it all up for me:

Jay: You know what they say. It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
Kay: Try it.

That “Try it” is such a perfect rejoinder to a thoughtless catch-phrase flung at you like “It’s better to have loved and lost …” Only people who have never “tried it” could say such a thing. Or, to try to be kinder (it’s difficult for me in this arena): everyone is different, one size does not fit all. Perhaps YOU were lucky enough to have loved and lost and found it “better” than not having loved at all. But that has NOT been the case for me.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

I felt so validated by that exchange (which is so hilarious to me: to be validated by Men in Black for my unpopular sentiments about New Age pablum-talk.)

Back to Orwell/Gandhi. I chose an excerpt I find particularly interesting, although the whole thing is well worth seeking out. Here, Orwell takes on pacifism, and how it is a useful concept, but perhaps made irrelevant in the 20th century by such regimes as Hitler’s and Stalin’s. He does concede that Gandhi seemed to be open to all questions. His was not a closed mind (except when it came to his religious beliefs: he would rather have let his wife die than be given meat, proscribed by a doctor, to save her life). But in terms of political questions and the world stage, Gandhi was a thinker. His belief in non-violence obviously worked for India (at least in terms of getting the British out), but what exactly were those in Russia to do? Who couldn’t even gather publicly? The British Empire, cruel in so many ways, didn’t even come close to the monstrosity that was Stalinism.

I liked this generosity from Orwell:

But if, by 1945, there had grown up in Britain a large body of opinion sympathetic to Indian independence, how far was this due to Gandhi’s personal influence? And if, as may happen, India and Britain finally settle down into a decent and friendly relationship, will this be partly because Gandhi, by keeping up his struggle obstinately and without hatred, disinfected the political air? That one even thinks of asking such questions indicates his stature.

On to the excerpt:

A Collection of Essays, ‘Reflections on Gandhi’, by George Orwell

However, Gandhi’s pacifism can be separated to some extent from his other teachings. Its motive was religious, but he claimed also for it that it was a definitive technique, a method, capable of producing desired political results. Gandhi’s attitude was not that of most Western pacifists. Satyagraha, first evolved in South Africa, was a sort of non-violent warfare, a way of defeating the enemy without hurting him and without feeling or arousing hatred. It entailed such things as civil disobedience, strikes, lying down in front of railway trains, enduring police charges without running away and without hitting back, and the like. Gandhi objected to “passive resistance” as a translation of Satyagraha: in Gujarati, it seems, the word means “firmness in the truth.” In his early days Gandhi served as a stretcher-bearer on the British side in the Boer War, and he was prepared to do the same again in the war of 1914-18. Even after he had completely abjured violence he was honest enough to see that in war it is usually necessary to take sides. He did not – indeed, since his whole political life centred round a struggle for national independence, he could not – take the sterile and dishonest line of pretending that in every war both sides are exactly the same and it makes no difference who wins. Nor did he, like most Western pacifists, specialize in avoiding awkward questions. In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: “What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?” I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the “you’re another” type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer’s Gandhi and Stalin. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi’s view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which “would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence.” After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.

At the same time there is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity. As can be seen from the phrase quoted above, he believed in “arousing the world,” which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing? The Russian masses could only practise civil disobedience if the same idea happened to occur to all of them simultaneously, and even then, to judge by the history of the Ukraine famine, it would make no difference. But let it be granted that non-violent resistance can be effective against one’s own government, or against an occupying power: even so, how does one put it into practise internationally? Gandhi’s various conflicting statements on the late war seem to show that he felt the difficulty of this. Applied to foreign politics, pacifism either stops being pacifist or becomes appeasement. Moreover the assumption, which served Gandhi so well in dealing with individuals, that all human beings are more or less approachable and will respond to a generous gesture, needs to be seriously questioned. It is not necessarily true, for example, when you are dealing with lunatics. Then the question becomes: Who is sane? Was Hitler sane? And is it not possible for one whole culture to be insane by the standards of another? And, so far as one can gauge the feelings of whole nations, is there any apparent connection between a generous deed and a friendly response? Is gratitude a factor in international politics?

These and kindred questions need discussion, and need it urgently, in the few years left to us before somebody presses the button and the rockets begin to fly. It seems doubtful whether civilization can stand another major war, and it is at least thinkable that the way out lies through non-violence.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , | 11 Comments

Because It Makes Me Happy, and Because It Never Gets Old

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , | 1 Comment