In the late 1920s, American capitalism inspired a German opera about a city built on greed … “Everything is defined by money. Everything can be bought, including human relations”. The opera’s creator decried capitalism. In the wake of the 1929 Wall Street Crash, Bertolt Brecht (and Kurt Weill) wrote about New York. Here’s my radio piece, which aired one year to the day after the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

“Whatever you do / You’ll still have to struggle / Your position is bad / It’ll worsen. / This cannot go on, but / What is the answer?” – Palagea (1)

The Mother somehow manages to be among Brecht’s warmest plays despite being contained entirely in the thankless task of agitation with no historic shifts, and no exotic transpositions across time or space. The explanation is found in the characters that people the piece – not the frozen grandeur of iconic heroes and their grand gestures but the everyday graft of an inexhaustible rabble many of whom we see before/after being revolutionised (the mother – Palagea – of the title, losing her family in the process, Nikolai, the squeamish teacher drawn ever closer without ever growing less insufferable). That human nature is changeable is one of Brecht’s greatest, deathless assaults against traditional drama, where personality is destiny, and people are sorted by virtue, generally having two modes at most (villains who prove heroes, or vice-versa – but the final position considered as their ‘true self’).

“Reading is class war” – Palagea (6c)

Just how much Palagea has changed is underlined toward the finish as she proves unable to relate with other mothers. She rejects their religion, and when she minimises mourning her son (a revolutionary) for the revolution, defends her pragmatism: “It wasn’t reason that made me weep. But when I stopped, reason had something to do with that.” (10) She is even reconciled to his executioners: “…in being against him, they were against themselves.” And: “There’s not an animal would surrender its young as you do.” (13) The play ends without resolution, but the struggle is ongoing.

These are books that are helpful for the Christian in better understanding their world past and present.  Some of the books are not written from an explicitly Christian perspective, but are nonetheless quite valuable.

1.  Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington  [y, l, e, p, s]

Huntington’s thesis is that the world is broken down into 9 different civilizations that each have a different main worldview/religion and that wars are most likely to occur where several civilizations come in close contact with each other – due to the friction created by mutually exclusive ideas.  Huntington’s work has proved to be a solid predictor over the last 20 years.

2.  Culture Wars by James Daveson Hunter  [y, l, e, p, s]

Hunter provides acute analysis on the American cultural landscape, describing battlelines drawn over American culture of the orthodox vs. progressive.  A must read for getting a better look at hot-button issues in contemporary America.

3.  Social and Cultural Dynamics by Pitrim Sorokin  [e, p, s]

Sorokin has a mountain of historical and cultural analysis on the history of western civilization.  He describes this history as oscillating between ideational culture and sensate culture.  Ideational culture is where the Western civilization was driven by the world of ideas (typically Christian ones).  Sensate Culture is where Western civilization has abandoned ideas and been preoccupied with pleasuring ourselves (#10 on this list does a great job in explaining the latter in our present context).

4.  Intellectuals by Paul Johnson  [e, p, s]

Johnson takes a look side-by-side at the thoughts and lives of several key intellectuals over the past two centuries (specifically:  Rousseau, Shelley, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, Brecht, Sartre, Edmund Wilson, Victor Gollancz, Lillian Hellman, Cyril Connolly, Norman Mailer, James Baldwin, Kenneth Tynan, and Noam Chomsky).  He lets the reader come to their own conclusions… but the conclusions are obvious:  these intellectuals lived lives either horribly inconsistent with their ideas OR their horrible lives drove their suspect ideas.  Paul Johnson also happens to be a very well respected historian whose other works are standard texts at Universities everywhere.

5.  Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber  [y, l, e, p, s]

Weber’s thesis for the first half of the book is pretty shocking – the Puritans started capitalism and that no one but the Puritans could have started capitalism.  Never before had capitalism been created because no one had a Calvinistic view of the world before where work was sacred and one did not spend one’s wealth because their focus was on the world-to-come.  Capitalism required an immense amount of initial capital to begin the new paradigm and the Puritans were the first people to be able to inadvertently create the system.  Weber spends the second half of the book explaining how capitalism destroyed the Puritans four generations later as the wealth accumulated became an iron cage.

6.  Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn  [y, l, e, p, s]

Kuhn levels the idea that the history of science follows the Darwinian model of slow-and-steady progress.  He coins the term “paradigm shift” to explain how the history of science is a history of completely new-and-superior paradigms leveling older paradigms (ie.  Quantum Mechanics and Newtonian Mechanics).  The thesis of the book has implications though for other fields as well.

7.  Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey  [y, l, e, p, s]

Excellent book on worldview that I have commended here numerous times.  Get it and read it.

8.  Christ and Culture by H. Richard Niebuhr  [e, p, s]

See write-up on this one here.

9.  Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark  [y, l, e, p, s]

Fascinating look on how Christianity spread from a marginalized Judean sect to the state religion of the Roman empire in under three centuries.  Stark is a well-respected historian and this book is a standard text at most Universities.  I think the implications of how Christianity was so successful in the pluralistic Mediterranean area has important lessons to teach Christendom today.

10.  Sensate Culture by Harold O.J. Brown  [y, l, e, p, s]

Brown picks up where Sorokin (#3) left off.  He takes a good hard look at Sorokin’s categories in light of modern American culture.

(c=children; y=young adult; l=lay leader; e=elder; p=pastor; s=scholar)

“People don’t move me. They are not guiltless.” – Mauler (3)

St Joan of the Stockyards (1974 production)

Very much an ensemble piece, with large parts of the action being conducted between choruses representing meat-packers, stock-breeders and wholesalers (in a business-class manner Caryl Churchill would later echo with Serious Money), St Joan has at its heart a strange dance between Mauler, a meat trader stricken with doubts (“Oh, what a bloody business we are in”) which may or may not be tactical, and Joan, from the Black Straw Hats (akin to Salvation Army) who confronts him (literally) with the “invisible people” he exploits.

In an attempt to counter her idealistic onslaught, Mauler’s serpentine assistant, Slift, shows her how lowly-paid workers exploit each other, but she sees through crime to the logic of need: “You have shown me not / The baseness of the poor but / The poverty of the poor.”

“The cruel thing about hunger is that / However often you satisfy it, it always comes back again.” – Mrs Luckerniddle (7)

“…nothing, however good it looks, should be termed good unless it / Really helps, and nothing counted honourable but what / Irrevocably changes the world, which is in need of change. / I was just what the oppressors wanted. / Oh, inconsequential goodness! / Oh, negligible virtue! (…) Take care that when you leave the world / You have not merely been good, but are leaving  / A better world!” – Joan (8)

Joan exploits the curious hold her innocence has on the softening Mauler by sitting down in solidarity with the jobless from his plant (“The snow will be falling on someone you know”) but, in her heroism, she refuses to compromise herself with pragmatic matters, and the workers lose out as a result of her negligence. She dies, still preaching, pure and useless, canonised by her movement, who have been bought out / ’supported’ by Mauler (“We’ll promise them that the rich will be punished – after death, of course.”)

“For there is a gulf between the top and bottom, wider / Than between the high Himalaya and the sea / And what gos on at the top / Is not known at the bottom / Nor on top what goes on at the bottom / And top and bottom have two languages…” – Joan (8)

Brecht’s real heroes are ‘flexible’ tricksters or unromantic pragmatists, and his happy endings, few – the frustration of seeing how the world really – mostly – works is supposed to send the audience out at the final curtain wanting to change it. But this play has what is maybe his most enduringly hopeful exchange – between workers who have tried and failed to convince the police that they are equals and should unite. One turns to the other: “Will it always be like this?” The audience considers the tragic conception of the human race, so endlessly fallible, the good intentions gone awry, original sin, hubris and nemesis. And, as they are taken away: “No,” answers the other.

“In five minutes, I can turn any man into such a pitiful wreck it would make a dog weep. Is it my fault if people don’t weep?” – Peachum (1:3)

Brecht’s early spectacular (which was spectacularly successful – not often the case for his work in his lifetime) features crime and punishment as close friends, a beggars’ bureau, a kind of anti-wedding burlesque, ballads including ‘…of Immoral Earnings’ and ‘…of Sexual Obsession’, all building to a public execution that’s aborted for the audience’s sake (stage-signposted: ‘THE APPEARANCE OF THE DEUS EX MACHINA’).

“Mankind can keep alive thanks to its brilliance / In keeping its humanity repressed / For once you must try not to shirk the facts / Mankind is kept alive due to bestial acts.” (Second Threepenny Finale: ‘What Keeps Mankind Alive’)

See video above for taster trailer of what happened when Robert Wilson joined forces with the Berliner Ensemble for a recent production.

“The law was made for one thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don’t understand it, or are prevented by naked misery from obeying it.” – Peachum (3:7)

Peachum, the king of the beggars, may have the quotes here, but Macheath (who would enter popular culture as ‘Mac the Knife’) has a hell of a black wit, and Polly, Peachum’s daughter, delivers an antisocial star turn with her song (and imagined alter-ego) ‘Pirate Jenny’ (“As they ask which has got to die / And you’ll hear me as I softly answer: the lot!”).

“Our judges are absolutely incorruptible: it’s more than money can do to make them give a fair verdict.” – Peachum (3:7)

Bertolt BRECHT

(Almanya, 1898 – 1956)

ACI MUT

Önce sevinç uyutmadı beni hiç, ardından
Üzüntüler nöbet tuttu bütün gece içimde.
Sonunda ikisi de gidince başımdan
Uyumuşum, ama ah, her bahar gecesi
Bir yaslı güz sabahı getirdi ardından.

Bilirsin, senin derdin benimdi hep
Benimki de bilirim, tümüyle senin
Paylaşamazsam bir sevinci seninle
Hiç olmazdı ah, benim de sevincim.

Türkçesi: Deniz Özder

Violence: Big Ideas/Small Books (Paperback)
by Slavoj Zizek

“what is robbing a bank compared with the founding of a new bank?”, 04-12-2008 By John L Murphy “Fionnchú” (Los Angeles)

This “Big Ideas/Small Books” offering may repeat much of this Slovene philosopher’s earlier critiques. As it’s the first work I’ve read by him, I depend on others to verify this. My review seeks to explain what earlier reviewers have not paid as much attention to: the contents rather than the mood. Zizek certainly tackles big ideas in this brief paperback, so its portability and relative concision may recommend it to those who, like me, had heard of this provocateur but hesitated to enter his dense, diffuse, albeit often entertaining debates.

Zizek’s relevant: “The same philanthropists who give millions for AIDS or education in tolerance have ruined the lives of thousands through financial speculation and thus created the conditions for the rise of the very intolerance that is being fought.” (37) He compares their guise as “liberal communists” (think Bill Gates or George Soros) to a dirty postcard that shows, if moved slightly, “the obscene figure” who’s “at work beneath” the news of debt cancellation or the eradication of an epidemic. Global capitalists need to generate enormous wealth before they can distribute it to others. King Leopold and Andrew Carnegie– and I might add the Bonos and Brangelinas, perhaps (oddly, Zizek does not name such celebrity counterparts, whom free trade’s promoter Thomas Friedman labelled “super-empowered individuals” outside the nation-state or the “electronic herd” of corporate dominance)– have more in common with today’s Davos jetsetters and Hollywood trendsetters than we might have suspected.

On the surface, the “liberal communist” ten-point plan on pg. 18 sounds great; the “RED” campaign for Africa or wearing pink ribbons for breast cancer research or the Google slogan “do no evil” match these goals. So, what’s Zizek’s gripe with doing good while making a profit? Capitalism must thrive. This creates injustice.

The balance of wealth redistribution by dot.commers and rock stars may be cloaked in humanitarian liberties, but “it allows the capitalism system to postpone its crisis.” No Marxist, but schooled as a former Yugoslav subject and ex-Party member/dissident, Zizek notes that while such liberal largess avoids “the destructive logic of resentment and enforced statist distribution of wealth which can only end in generalised misery,” it also sidesteps the evils of concentrated affluence and power that keep the rich doling out handouts to the dependent poor.

As a Lacanian, what irritates Zizek? The gap between reality and the Real, the “inexorable ‘abstract,’ spectral logic of capital that determines what goes on in social reality.” (13) An economist may report how an impoverished Third World nation keeps “financially sound” even as the poverty’s apparent to any observer.

How do such criticisms of “liberal communism” fit into the book’s larger subject of violence? It’s a loose tailoring. Thematic stitches may not always be visible. He begins with defining three types of violence. First, there’s subjective violence: the kind we can identify “performed by a clearly identifiable agent.” (1) Behind this lurks a “symbolic” violence within language. It repeats the role that social domination plays in our habitual speech. For instance, “gold” when named as such means “we violently extract a metal from its natural texture, investing it with our dreams of wealth, power, spiritual purity, and so on, which have nothing to do with the immediate reality of gold.” (61)

Third comes “systemic” violence, the “often catastrophic consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems.” (2) The book in “six sideways glances” sidles around its impacts, allowing us to more dispassionately dissect the forms of violence, under critical control even as we peer towards its fearful emanations. The first section investigates the “trap” of “liberal communism” that I have already opened. The second looks into alienation as a solution rather than a problem to the Western need to assert “the right not to be harassed,” to keep one’s distance from others who may threaten us by their demands to be recognized and respected. (41) This chapter’s more difficult, but the gist of it– which I verified when I studied this very passage today on a crowded subway with my iPod plugged in– asserts the advantage of European civilization: “the alienation of social life.” (59) Rather than a failure, this opening up of a private zone in public allows us to obey rules mechanically, while insuring a proxemic space around us that preserves our inner world. This encourages peaceful coexistence in a multicultural realm.

Part Three confronts the eruption of violence, with the protests over the Danish caricatures of Muhammed and 2005’s French banlieu riots. The urge to tear down not the enemy’s camp, but to burn one’s own Parisian neighborhood (even a mosque), Zizek explains as a need for those demeaned to be noticed as citizens. This outburst also shows the impotence of such violence. True fundamentalists, such as Tibetan Buddhists or the Amish, he reminds us, foster indifference rather than insecurity towards the mores of non-believers. Those insecure, such as the Muslim mobs in Pakistan, only betray their desperate fragility, their own projected inferiority. Those complaining about Euro-American dominance, Zizek insists, nevertheless define their opposition as aligned against its hegemony. (Porto Alegre fails to oust Davos: the neo-liberals have no genuine alternative vision in a late-capitalist empire, either.) Religious fundamentalists who have gained the spotlight, he adds, situate themselves in the true source of challenge today: religion supplants science as “one of the possible places from which one can deploy critical doubts about today’s society.” (82) Science now solves our problems; religion stirs them up?

This chapter could have discussed further the limits of politically-correct “rules” when refusing to treat the uncomfortable truths it will not report for fear of inciting intolerance. Also, the vexed problems of massive immigration into the First World deserve more than an apercu or two. Still, Zizek provokes thought. He prefers to wander into (however astute or quirky) analogies to chocolate laxatives or Wagner.

In the fourth section, liberalism and fundamentalism both get castigated. Zizek reminds us that the European tradition always has mocked the divine; he finds such treatment “unimaginable in an Islamic culture.” (106) I suppose so from the well-known, recent evidence, but still I wondered if this was too broad a statement for the past fourteen centuries? He points out an often overlooked abuse of rhetoric: discussing the hyperbolic equivalence of Israeli policies towards Palestinian with the Nazis “strangely contradicts Holocaust denial” preached by many in the Arab and Muslim worlds. (110)

He also reminds us of the fate of those who dare to speak out against liberal pieties; Oriana Fallaci’s fall from leftist grace comes from her daring “to take the multiculturalist subservient ‘respect’ for the Muslim Other seriously.” She incites contempt for exposing the “assymetry” of allowing Eurabia to colonize the continent, while Europe constantly retreats, apologizes, and urges only more “respect” for a regressive, intolerant barbarism. She failed to perceive how “fake” Western tolerance can be; it’s “a sign of hidden and patronising racism.” (114-15) Again, Zizek tends to raise many topics deserving more than a paragraph or two, but that’s the tendency of his methods: to stir up our reactions.

This section’s also digressive, but the whole book’s so. It’s like hearing a fascinating but erratic professor. Zizek has elsewhere belittled teaching; he’s a professor who does not have to enter the classroom except when he wants, if at all. Yet, you get the sense of his restless range. I highlight what intrigued me; you may find an entirely different set of references that may rouse your enthusiasm. The book’s full of detours, sideways glances, and momentary asides.

Israel & Palestine kindle more sparks. Zizek’s at his best when urging a non-statist, truly sacred space for Jerusalem. He wonders at the U.S., the most religious of advanced nations, allying so strangely with the most atheist land (70% in some Israeli polls) which exists on the nature of its religious foundations! If Israel had been created two centuries ago, it’d have shared the roots of most “founder states;” its sin appears to be for the left that it was created after such imperial campaigns were delegitimized.

Skirting back to tolerance, Zizek as an atheist encourages us to remember how Europe’s contribution to progress rests in its freedom not to believe. Blasphemy only works in a religious space. If we give in to all those who protest, we risk strengthening the pact between fundamentalists and the PC-left: “a society immobilised by the concern for not hurting the other, no matter how cruel and superstitious this other is and in which individuals are engaged in regular rituals of ‘witnessing’ their victimisation.” (130) Botox injectors get equated with those forced to endure clitoridectomies by a too-capacious liberal tolerance granting a dimwitted approval to even oppressive cultures.

Instead, Zizek rallies for the courage to condemn religion if it indeed is truly entangled with hatred. We must fight religion if at its core we find violence. Apologists keep assuring us that we can rescue the truth of genuine faith from savage hijackers. Zizek inverts the game. Hack down the roots of violence. He dismisses cloaking its motives as if in a misused “authentic core” of a noble religion. The truest pacifists, he asserts, are those who lack belief. He wishes to advance atheism as a truly disinterested method to attain peace– free of the Big Other of Marxism, monotheism, or consumerism, for that soul-dispiriting matter.

Section five’s for me less engrossing. Yet, it has its moments. It covers “tolerance as an ideological category.” Zizek observes how the price of living in the free West means that we may suffer violence, torn from our cultural roots so as to survive in our multicultural West. Within this milieu, the greatest art endures after it has been wrenched– as with Homer or Shakespeare– from its original context.

Society pretends to allow us free choice, but we have no option, usually, but to profess love for our parents or our flag. We’re caught in a paradox of acting as if what’s prescribed is preferred, as if we had some say in the choice. Juxtapositions float by: a TV show “Nip/Tuck” and the ground-floor vs. first-floor labelling of buildings in the U.S. vs. abroad; “The Birds” and the shot of the plane hitting the Twin Tower; Bukharin & Stalin compared to the hapless heroines of Lars von Trier’s film trilogy. This portion left me somewhat at sea, but I kept paddling along.

In the last section, “Divine Violence,” G.K. Chesterton provides unexpected evidence for what Zizek proposes as a truly mature acceptance that there’s no larger supernatural rationale for our fate. Catastrophes occur, but God’s gone. He wonders if the Incarnation and Crucifixion represent a God who’s abandoned the transcendental to be truly and ultimately human. There’s no Ascension, no Easter in Zizek’s theology, therefore. God’s demolition of the protector, and His assumption of the mortal, stands for our own existential plight. There remains, nonetheless, Judgment Day. But, it’s delayed by the leftists. They promise that the “banks of rage” pent-up by so much injustice will bailout the oppressed. But, like the French or Soviet revolutions, the day of reckoning, and of utopian payback, gets postponed endlessly.

The epilogue reviews the main points. Three lessons earn summation: 1) When we shout down violence outright as “bad,” we participate in mystifying its less visible social forms. Our capitalist system furthers the violence that erupts, by the inherent unfairness of the economic rules we all must agree to play by. 2) Real violence can evade those who try to act out their outrage. Twice Brecht’s motto echoes: “What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank?” 3) Subjective and systemic violence intertwine. Acts can be violent or not depending on context. I doubt if his immediate comparison to the Higgs field of quantum physics would be one that anyone else would supply for clarification! Still, Zizek stays on track: “the first gesture to provoke a change in the system is to withdraw activity, to do nothing.” (214)

What is there to be done? For one distrustful of Marx, of the state, of Kapital, not to mention God? Zizek concludes: “The threat today is not passivity, but pseudo-activity, the urge to ‘be active’, to ‘participate’, to mask the nothingness of what goes on.” The true challenge? To step back. Abstaining from the political game, refusing to shop to stimulate the economy that has tottered because of our overspending– I wonder what effect our concerted effort not to fuel capitalism, vote for oligarchies, or buy into credulity might achieve? Zizek’s discussion may not provide any answers, but his typically barbed appeals may cause us to reorient ourselves away from the structures imposed on us that appear like natural facts.

Por Rafaela Musto

Tudo tem classe. Os animais, as escolas, as pessoas (têm?), os produtos, as palavras, a sociedade, até as passagens de avião! Já que insistem tanto em dividir as coisas em classes, eu me pergunto: cadê a classe pensante?

O termo Intelligentsia, fortemente ligado à Rússia e União Soviética é o nome que se dá a uma classe social formada por intelectuais engajados a serviço da cultura e da revolução. Mas o termo é muito mais antigo e abrangente que isso, e diz respeito não só a grupos elitistas – moralistas (independente da posição política) ou revolucionários, mas a uma classe social envolvida em trabalho pensante, criativo, crítico, com o intuito de desenvolver e disseminar a cultura, abrangendo e contando com todos os demais grupos sociais e intelectuais.

Chamada de “Intelligentsia brasileira”, a geração de 68 talvez tenha sido a última geração literária do país. Não há como negar que seu aprendizado intelectual e sua percepção estética foram forjados pela leitura. Foram criados lendo e tomaram certo gosto pela palavra argumentativa e questionadora que infelizmente não resistiu nas gerações seguintes…

Faziam parte de uma classe restrita, que se reconhecia como tal não pelos bens materiais, mas pelas idéias e leituras que faziam do mundo. Era comum perguntarem “para quê você lê esse livro?” ao invés de “por quê?”. Nas discussões em grupo que faziam sobre os livros descobriam novos sentidos, significados e mensagens nem sempre explorados pelo autor, e faziam isso também na música, no cinema, nas artes plásticas e, sobretudo na própria vida.

Havia uma curiosidade natural pelas idéias teóricas e as universidades eram extensões da vida prática e incubadoras de grandes questionamentos. Os movimentos e organizações estudantis, as teorias, os debates, os cursos sobre Marcuse e Althusser (quem?), as pesquisas acerca do emergente estruturalismo de Lévi-Strauss, Saussure e Jakobson eram fomentados e incentivados pelos alunos e professores. O espaço era aproveitado, o tempo era vivido, as idéias teóricas não ficavam apenas esquecidas na mente ou no papel.

Não ouso dizer nem que hoje essas idéias sobrevivam na mente. No papel, talvez, em alguma instante da biblioteca. Ah, mas para quê ou por quê ir à biblioteca se você pode encontrar tudo no Google, copiar o trabalho de um colega e fazer uma “colinha” para a prova de amanhã? É, a universidade não é mais a mesma. O espaço agora é aproveitado para outras coisas. Debates? “Em uma sala sem ar-condicionado não dá, né? Prefiro ficar na minha casa vendo televisão ou, se eu for uma pessoa esperta, estagiando no Citibank. Afinal, faculdade é para isso, não? Aumentar o círculo social, freqüentar as baladinhas da Vila Olímpia e principalmente conseguir um emprego bacana, andar engravatado e poder comprar um sapato do Louboutin no fim do mês ou quem sabe o carro do ano…” (esse trecho é reprodução de conversas reais!)

Não tem sentido saber da psicologia no trabalho, ou da história da economia brasileira, ou até mesmo dos estudos de Brecht a respeito do teatro contemporâneo se o que importa é saber fazer uma planilha organizada no Excel e ajudar o chefe a desgrampear os documentos da exportação do mês. Por isso que a gente ouve por aí que a faculdade não ajuda em nada, que tudo de útil a gente aprende trabalhando em frente a um computador.

Sem dúvidas as experiências práticas são as mais enriquecedoras, ainda mais quando se tem uma base teórica que nos permite criticar e analisar a nossa função. O problema é que, em tempos onde a “Casa branca descarta possibilidades” e a “Bolsa de valores anuncia quedas” (ué, elas também andam?), as pessoas já nem sabem em que classe estão. Acredito que na classe das coisas, inanimadas. 

A universidade, o trabalho e as pessoas ficaram vazios,  tão frios e mecânicos quanto o ar-condicionado do escritório. Bom, se é pra ter classe, que haja a luta entre elas também (até isso elas fazem) e que a vencedora seja uma classe crítica e engajada e não aquela conquistada com aulas de etiqueta!

KİTAPLAR YAKILIYOR

Buyurunca Hitler Hazretleri
zararlı fikirlerle dolu kitapların yakılmasını
halkın önünde, alanlarda,
öküzler odun yığınlarına araba araba kitap taşıdı.
Gözden düşmüş şairlerden biri,
hem de en iyilerinden biri,
şöyle bir göz gezdirdi yakılacak listesine,
gitti aklı başından:
Unutulmuştu kendi adı.
Hemen seğirtti çalışma odasına,
sanki öfkesinden kanatlanmıştı.
O saat bir mektup karaladı zorbalara:
‘Benimkileri de yakın!’ dedi. ‘Benimkileri de!
Yapamazsınız bana bu kötülüğü,
kenarda bırakamazsınız beni!
Ben de hep gerçeği söylemedim mi kitaplarımda?
Neden davranırsınız bana yalancıymışım gibi?
Yakın benimkileri de!

Bertolt BRECHT

Türkçesi: A. Kadir

Sugiere J que quizá sea mejor quitar la palabra POEMA del posteo DEL ESCUCHAR POCO. He copiado el texto un par de veces para editarlo más poéticamente pero cuando reemplazo palabras se me desvanece, al final lo dejé como estaba. Yo pensaba en Brecht, o en Peter Handke pero sin mucho resultado. A ver si leyéndolos de nuevo. __ (domingo en la mañana: _ introduje muchos cambios, hice lo que pude…)

Today’s post takes us to the end of Brecht’s first flush in Berlin – again, all props to Ronald Hayman for source material (single quotes – from his text, double – those he quotes himself). Precisely because this is his most formative phase, I’ll be moving on after – there may be a post touching on his years of exile (inc the incongruous Hollywood years) and more on the Berliner Ensemble – but expect less of a chronology in favour of splintering through posts on individual plays, collaborators or tactics/teachings.

Rejoining our hero in the afterglow of The Threepenny Opera’s success found him materially more comfortable, but still looking to progress closer to life: ‘The activities reported in contemporary newspapers could not be dramatised through forms like Ibsen’s:

“Petroleum cannot be manipulated into five acts…fate’s no longer an integral power but more like fields of force to be observed as they send out currents in opposite directions.”

Under Brecht’s tutelage, Helene Wiegel, one of the faces of his theories, ‘called out her “Dead, dead” in a totally emotionless, penetrating voice…without any grief, but so firmly and irresistibly that at this moment the naked fact of her death had more effect than any private pain could have evoked…she used white make-up to indicate the effect death has on all who are present at it’.

Simultaneously work resumed on musical follow-up The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny and the first Lehrstucke – agit-proppy ‘instruction plays’. ‘During the projection of a film…showing stills of dead bodies’ in the first’s debut,  ‘the audience became restive. Brecht ordered the speaker to announce: “Repeat showing of the badly received portrayal of death”. The sequence was then repeated’. A balancing act ‘…between Marxist didacticism and showbiz’.

By the time Mahagonny arrived, Nazis were demonstrating outside the opera house. Weill had been denounced, and Brecht was working with a more radical composer, Hanns Eisler. Riots and police finished the finale. ‘At the following night’s performance, policemen lined the walls of the auditorium and the houselights were left on’. In response, Brecht drew up a table, bulleting and contrasting epic and dramatic theatre.

“…some irrationality, unreality and frivolity should be introduced in the right places to assert a double meaning.”

He found unlikely support via a chance encounter of traditions: ‘The stylised story-telling of Noh drama offers a means of alternating between action and choric comment without any loss of clarity or intensity’. For ‘The Decision’, ‘…an important mission is endangered by one person: unless he dies, the others cannot go on… In re-enacting the events that led up to their decision, they take it in turns to play their victim – an ingenious dramatic device which deprives him of individual character while implying that each of them sympathises with him’.

1930: the Nazis, who Brecht had long mocked when he noticed them at all, were voted into opposition. Perhaps coincidentally, Brecht’s characters were depicted as increasingly twisted and grotesque, in the manner of Kabuki – ‘masks, padding and stilts…overgrown fingers…exorbitantly wide shoulders which made his arms look short…progressively dehumanised…Galy Gay had four successive masks…greasepaint and powder’.

Up next: St Joan of the Stockyards + the screenplay for Kuhle Wampe. ‘In the final scene [Joan's] declaration of her newfound faith in violence is outshouted by the capitalists and salvationists [in league], who can now afford to canonise her because she has [inadvertently] helped preserve the status quo’ (Tretiakov’s ‘factographic’ technique had been an influence). Then: The Mother. And Measure for Measure remade into Round Heads and Pointed Heads – an allegory on Hitler’s rise (‘Racism as…diversionary strategy’).

‘Judgement is always of the essence in Brecht’s plays… One of his ideas was that a new theatre should be built in Berlin, constructed like a lawcourt, and each evening two famous trials would be recreated’ (Socrates, witch trials, Grosz…) It wasn’t to be. Back at The Mother, ‘Questionnaires were distributed at each performance, and changes made to the text according to points which arose’. Also contributed to anti-Nazi revue as it became the largest party. It was titled Oh Yes We’re Sooo Satified.

‘…on 27 February 1933 the Reichstag building was burnt. During the night…4000 communist officials and Party members were rounded up, together with writers and intellectuals who had resisted Nazism. Brecht was clever enough not to be home. He was in the clinic of a friendly doctor…’ From there – without returning home – to Prague: ‘It was obvious that none of them could go back to Berlin in the near future; it was not obvious that Brecht would stay in exile until he was fifty’.

The Reichstag fire

“Elle doit pouvoir courir vite et loin, et revenir au premier coup de sifflet. Elle doit savoir se siffler elle-même, sévir contre elle-même, se détruire elle-même”

Bertolt BRECHT – Essais sur le fascisme, novembre 1937

“D’après la gauche, il est possible de conserver le monde bourgeois sans le fascisme, donc sans sacrifier la culture bourgeoise, par le biais de réformes. En réalité, il n’est possible de sauver le monde bourgeois qu’en sacrifiant la culture bourgeoise.”

En regard des mesures excessivement rigoureuses actuellement appliquées contre la raison humaine dans les Etats fascistes, mesures non moins méthodiques que violentes, il est permis de se demander si cette raison pourra résister au puissant assaut qu’elle subit. Les affirmations optimistes de caractère général, « La raison finit toujours par triompher », ou « L’esprit ne s’épanouit jamais aussi librement que lorsqu’on lui fait violence », ne mènent évidemment nulle part. De telles assurances sont elles-mêmes peu raisonnables.

En effet, la faculté de penser, chez l’homme, peut être extraordinairement endommagée. Cela vaut pour la raison des individus comme pour celle de classes et de peuples entiers. L’histoire de cette faculté de penser révèle de longues périodes de stérilité partielle ou totale, d’épouvantables exemples de régression ou de dépérissement. Le crétinisme, avec des moyens adaptés, peut être organisé sur une grande échelle. L’homme est capable à la rigueur d’apprendre que deux et deux font cinq, et non plus quatre. Le philosophe anglais Hobbes écrivait déjà au XVIIe siècle : « Si le théorème comme quoi la somme des angles d’un triangle est égale à deux droits s’avérait nuisible aux intérêts des hommes d’affaires, ceux-ci feraient immédiatement brûler tous les manuels de géométrie (1) »

Il faut admettre que chaque peuple ne produit jamais une quantité de raison supérieure à ce qu’il peut utiliser (le cas échéant, le surplus ne serait pas reçu), mais qu’il en produit souvent moins. Si donc nous ne pouvons attribuer à la raison un emploi bien déterminé, une tâche bien précise, momentanément nécessaire au maintien de l’état de choses existant, nous ne saurions garantir qu’elle traverse sans dommage cette époque de persécution accentuée.

Quand je dis que la raison ne peut espérer s’en tirer que si elle est nécessaire au maintien de l’état de choses existant, je pèse soigneusement mes mots. J’ai de bons motifs pour ne pas dire qu’elle doit être nécessaire à la transformation de l’état de choses existant. A mon avis, le besoin de raison pour améliorer une situation fort mauvaise n’autorise pas pour autant à espérer la mise en ouvre de cette raison. Les mauvaises situations peuvent se prolonger incroyablement. Il vaut mieux dire : « Plus la situation s’aggrave, plus la production de raison diminue », qu’inversement : « Plus la situation s’aggrave, plus la raison produite augmente. »

Je crois, néanmoins, je le répète, que les peuples en produisent autant qu’il en faut pour maintenir l’état de choses existant. Reste à évaluer la quantité requise. Car, encore une fois, si l’on cherche quelle production de raison escompter dans les temps immédiatement à venir, il faut se demander quelle est la dose nécessaire au maintien de l’état de choses existant.

Il est indéniable que la situation des pays fascistes est fort mauvaise. Le niveau de vie baisse, et ils ont tous besoin, sans exception, de la guerre pour se perpétuer. Mais il serait erroné d’en conclure qu’une faible quantité de raison suffit au maintien d’une si mauvaise situation. Au contraire, la somme de raison qu’il faut ici employer et constamment produire, sans jamais trop longtemps la limiter, n’est pas mince, bien qu’elle soit d’une nature à part.
Il s’agit pour ainsi dire d’une raison estropiée. Elle doit être réglable, prête à augmenter ou à diminuer plus ou moins automatiquement. Elle doit pouvoir courir vite et loin, et revenir au premier coup de sifflet. Elle doit savoir se siffler elle-même, sévir contre elle-même, se détruire elle-même.

Analysons la nature de la raison ici requise. Le physicien doit être en mesure de construire pour la guerre des instruments d’optique permettant des observations à grande distance, mais il doit également être capable de ne pas voir des phénomènes fort dangereux pour lui, qui se passent sous ses yeux, disons dans son université. Il est chargé de construire des dispositifs de défense contre les agressions étrangères, mais il lui est interdit de réfléchir aux agressions dont le menacent ses propres autorités. Le médecin dans sa clinique cherche un remède au cancer qui guette son patient, mais il n’a pas le droit de chercher de remède contre les gaz et les bombes qui le guettent lui-même dans sa clinique. Car le seul remède contre les gaz consisterait à remédier à la guerre. Les travailleurs de l’intellect doivent sans cesse perfectionner leurs facultés logiques pour administrer leurs domaines spécialisés, mais ils doivent également savoir ne pas appliquer ces facultés logiques aux domaines généraux. Ils ont à faire en sorte, de par leur métier, que la guerre soit terrible, tout en laissant à des individus d’une intelligence manifestement limitée le choix même de la guerre ou de la paix. Dans ces domaines généraux, ils voient mettre en ouvre des méthodes et des théories qui, transposées dans leur discipline, physique ou médecine, paraîtraient moyenâgeuses.

La quantité de raison dont les classes dirigeantes ont besoin pour exécuter les affaires courantes ne dépend pas de leur libre décision ; de toute façon, elle est considérable dans un Etat moderne, et le devient encore plus dès qu’il s’agit de poursuivre les mêmes affaires par un autre moyen, la guerre. La guerre moderne consomme une énorme quantité de raison.

N’allons pas croire que l’école moderne a été instituée parce que les classes dirigeantes de l’époque, obéissant à des motifs idéalistes, voulaient servir la raison ; il fallait élever le niveau d’intelligence de larges couches de la population pour servir l’industrie moderne. Si maintenant on rabaissait excessivement le niveau d’intelligence des travailleurs, l’industrie serait condamnée. Il n’est donc pas question de l’abaisser considérablement, aussi souhaitable que cela puisse paraître aux classes dirigeantes, pour des raisons bien déterminées. On ne peut faire aucune guerre avec des analphabètes.

Si la dose de raison nécessaire ne dépend pas de la libre décision des classes dirigeantes, cette quantité requise et de ce fait assurément garantie ne répondra pas non plus aisément aux critères de qualité que pourraient souhaiter les classes dirigeantes.

La vaste diffusion de la raison par l’intermédiaire de l’école a déjà entraîné, outre une élévation de la production industrielle, une élévation non moins extraordinaire des exigences formulées par de larges masses populaires dans tous les domaines ; leur revendication de pouvoir trouve ici un solide fondement. On peut établir le théorème suivant : les classes dirigeantes, dans le dessein d’opprimer et d’exploiter les masses, doivent investir chez celles-ci de telles quantités de raison d’une telle qualité, que l’oppression et l’exploitation elles-mêmes s’en trouvent menacées. Ces réflexions de sang-froid amènent à conclure que les gouvernements fascistes, en attaquant la raison, se lancent dans une entreprise donquichottesque. Ils sont obligés de laisser subsister, et même de susciter de grandes quantités de raison. Ils peuvent l’insulter autant qu’ils veulent, la présenter comme une maladie, dénoncer la bestialité de l’intellect : ne serait-ce que pour diffuser ce genre de discours, ils ont encore besoin d’appareils de radio dont la fabrication est l’ouvre de la raison. Pour, maintenir leur domination, ils ont besoin d’un potentiel de raison chez les masses égal à celui dont les masses ont besoin pour supprimer leur domination.

Novembre 1937

l. – Cf. Le Léviathan, de Thomas Hobbes, publié en 1651, partie l, chapitre XI : « Of thé différence of Manners », p. 161 de l’édition des « Pélican Classics », 1968. (N.d.T.)

Bertolt BRECHT (“Ecrits sur la politique et la société” Edition L’Arche 1971

Another instalment in my series boiling a biography into barest posts – we’re up to the third, 1924, Berlin, and page 105 of the original book, which it would be fairly graceless of me not to recommend, considering.

Back to Brecht, writing Man Equals Man, and his lead character, Galy Gay:

“Here is the donkey who feels inclined to survive as a pig / The question is: is he living? / He is lived.”

Peter Lorre in 'Man Equals Man'

For all of which, he was ‘defiantly optimistic’ that human personality was malleable by technology, and this was not some mystic reverse but an opportunity. For Brecht, this was a “new human type” – ‘mendacious, optimistic, flexible’ (“…it is only seldom he can afford an opinion of his own”), but the play would also feature ‘the first of many trial scenes in which justice is not done, and is seen not to be done’ (‘active’ Nazis including Hitler were escaping with similarly slight sentences during this period).

‘When G.F. Hartlaub originated the phrase die neue Sachlichkeit in 1924, he applied it to the new realism with the socialist flavour, but as the phrase became fashionable, it was associated with…Bauhaus art, George Grosz’s caricatures, the abolition of upper case letters in typography, Hindemith’s music and Max Beckmann’s paintings’; Grosz & Herzfelde: “the artist would no longer be the Bohemian, sponge-like enemy of society…but a healthy, clear-thinking worker in the collectivist society”. Brecht was in synch:

“I feel no need for a thought of mine to achieve immortality. I’d prefer everything to be consumed, rearranged, used up.”

To pass his feelings to his actors: ‘Stanislavsky had had encouraged them to think of their character in the first person; Brecht forced them to stand back…by interpolating “he said” or “she said” when rehearsing dialogue’. Elisabeth Hauptmann: “Brecht finds the formula for ‘epic theatre’ – play from memory (quoting gesture and posture) – “demonstration scenes” (as B. calls them) emerge.” – ‘Instead of pretending that something was happening in the present tense, the actor would visibly be reproducing something from the past’ (“I give the unvarnished events, so that the audience is left to think for itself”).

Similarly epic, but non-Brechtian productions around this time: Piscator’s Flags, and Engel’s version of Coriolanus – and preceded by Gerhard Hauptmann’s Before Sunrise + The Weavers. The latter, writing in 1912: “The modern dramatist…may sometimes work toward a drama which like a house, an architectural creation, never moves from where it is situated.” Brecht would talk about favouring “roots” over the “dramatic event” (side-note – Meyerhold’s criticism of Piscator: “made a new theatre, but used old actors”).

“…no innuendoes, secrets, ambiguities, twilight; but facts, clear illumination of every recess, impartiality, no combination of comedy and pathos.”

Brecht now underwent a political education – ‘Marxism satisfied him as Christianity never had… His commitment was to looking at life from beneath…Brecht would argue that Shakespeare’s plays had been followed by “300 years in which the individual [having emerged from 'feudal anonymity''] evolved into a capitalist”. ‘ Soonafter, he would meet Kurt Weill, and the two would create the Mahagonny Songspiel, with projections, placards, ‘real, unmistakable tunes’. The set? A boxing ring (Sternberg: “You don’t think in straight lines, you think in knight’s gambits”).

He would work with Piscator for the next year, and learn much about staging in the process (conveyor belts, grotesque masks, marionettes, ‘the human face blown up gigantically’ – ‘a complex theatrical counterpoint to expose the disparity between subjective impressions and objective actualities or between private ambitions and historical events…while the obsequious minister reassured the Tsarina that everything would turn out all right, a list of lost battles was projected…and a film sequence showing her being shot’). ‘Piscator wanted a functional theatre that could speak not just through the actor’s mouth but through each of its component parts… The main weakness was the texts he used’.

Original Threpenny Opera Poster

Elisabeth Hauptmann translated and introduced Brecht to The Threepenny Opera, which would be the next production (that they could interest a producer in). The rehearsals were beset by personnel problems, but the first night was a palpable hit with both critics and crowd (‘heralding a new world in which the barrier between tragedy and comedy is removed. This is a triumph of the open form.’ – Ihering; ‘it’s the fashionable show, always sold out’ – Kessler). So: ‘…for the first time he had a very large income’.

One shouldn’t assume that such success means the production had been compromised, and mimesised his nemesis, ‘culinary theatre’ – ‘Disliking empathic acting, Brecht incorporates scenes in which characters perform: this makes the actors act, as it were, in inverted commas. Disliking linear narrative and loving ballads, he writes digressively, extravagantly taking space for songs which are relevant only thematically…rancour is balanced by Weill’s catchy music…by the song’s irrelevence to the on-stage situation’.

Brecht had another five years in Berlin, but they would be increasingly difficult and conflicted. You know who. Coming soon.

A sideshuffle – click-thru below to watch Kuhle Wampe (‘Empty Belly’), as written by Brecht about endemic unemployment in the Weimar Republic.

Full film here. The sound quality is pondlike, and the action often overwritten by subtitles bigger than extras, but consider medium-fails as A-Effekts and stay the course. Not that I’ve made it all the way through myself yet.

Continuing my respectful filleting of Ronald Hayman’s ‘Brecht’ bio, it’s time to speed through the playwright’s first wave of productions – staggered over a few days and set in a city increasingly filling with Nazis… He spent full days with other theatrefolk who “push each other about, write about each other” and, initially at least, the enemies he chose for himself were other playwrights:

“The compassion of the dramatists (Hauptmann, Ibsen) was the beginning of the end. The plays are all two-dimensional… There’s only one view to be taken of the characters and events – the writer’s. The stalls are taught to be ‘understanding’ about everything.”

‘He was glad that he had not imposed his own views…did not want to interfere with the spectator’s “splendid isolation” or invite them to identify with the hero’; “There’s a higher kind of interest: in making comparisons, in recognising what is dissimilar, incomprehensible, inexplicable.” His first chance to express his beliefs would be in directing current closest collaborator Arnolt Bronnen’s Parricide, but his methods caused the cast to mutiny – “It would never have been any good with them in it,” was his sarcastic verdict when they walked out, but it was he who was replaced.

There was no money, but it all to do. ‘Many of the images and some of the theatrical ideas he was evolving derive from the need to economise. When power was in short supply, he saw a production lit with headlamps intended for cars. Having fallen in love with the effect, he never used coloured light in his theatre’.

Drums in the Night

Brecht’s first play to be staged was Drums in the Night. The audience ‘…was totally unprepared for the downbeat ending. Expressionist plays usually end with ecstatic defiance, and it looked as though Brecht’s sympathies were with the rebels: no one was expecting Kragler to lose interest in them and reach out shamelessly for the pleasures his pregnant girlfriend could provide’. The critics saluted his audacity, with the same good humour they’d stiff his next, In the Jungle of Cities.

Next, he would produce a silent film with Karl Valentin (Mysteries of a Barber Shop) before moving on to an adaptation of Christopher Marlowe’s Edward II – ‘a play which shows a king losing his dignity – a spectacle then rare on the German stage – and pivoting on a relationship in which two male lovers destroy each other… With Neher as his designer, he evolved a simple visual style, dressing the lords and even the king in sackcloth’. Rehearsals became a necessary ordeal for the actors – he made them ‘repeat over and over again gestures and inflections that seemed important: he wanted each piece of stage business to be expressive of the whole character’.

When Valentin observed soldiers should be afraid before a battle, “as white as cheese”, ‘…they were given white make-up to wear, which made them indistinguishable from each other…it was one of Brecht’s first alienation effects’. Additionally, Asja Lacis, the assistant director who’d studied with Meyerhold, picking up the idea of making ‘actors puppet-like’: “I tried to choreograph the extras to a strong thythm. Their faces should be immobile and expressionless. They knew neither why they were shooting nor where they were going.”

Baal belatedly followed, to no coherent reception. Brecht settled full-time in Berlin in 1924. Many felt the Nazis were already finished after their abortive putsch. Elisabeth Hauptmann was now his closest co-worker, and Man Equals Man the next original script.

This amiable enough BBC2 doc is presented here mostly for its footage of the Berliner Ensemble (including  Helene Wiegel’s definitive Mother Courage). That said, I spent much of it snarling at the (American) voice behind the voice-over for pronouncing our immortal firebrand’s name as ‘Bresht’. There may have been some unworthy feelings of superiority draped over a series of small tuts. I liked it even less when a fellow German talking head up-popped to pronounce it the same way.

Can it be? ‘Bresht’? Sound like a drunk remakrking on a bosom. I’ve always liked the brutal percussiveness of ‘Brekt’. I think I’m going to ignore the correction, at least until told in the real world. You should follow your soft + yielding bourgeois heart.

Reading Ronald Hayman’s biography of Betrolt Brecht. Still toddling through the early, pre-production chapters, but there have been some formative notes + quotes I thought worth recording. And so…

School: ‘…teachers tried to encourage patriotism, and the boys were subjected to inflammatory lectures from pioneer pilots and captains of submarines’ (awful, monsters, etc). Likewise, Brecht’s lifelong love of the parable form was rooted in extensive Lutheran bible studies (the first play of his juvenalia was titled Die Bibel – one can well imagine his wolf-cub relish).

“In nine years of being marinaded in an Augsberg Gymnasium, I didn’t succeed in helping any of my teachers to make any real progress…”

‘When a friend of Brecht’s tried to cheat by rubbing out some of the red underlinings [denoting mistakes], the teacher could easily spot the erasing. Brecht…drew additional red lines under sentences that had no mistakes in them and then complained…the teacher improved Brecht’s mark.’ Looking back on his school days:

“[the teacher] teaches his pupil to be a replica of himself. The pupil learns everything he needs to succeed in life. It’s the same as what’s needed to make progress in the school – deceit, a semblance of knowledge, the ability to revenge oneself with impunity, speedy mastery of commonplaces, obsequiousness, servility, willingness to betray one’s equals to the higher authorities, etc etc.”

Brecht and Paula Banholzer

It wasn’t long before he took the liberty of introducing himself, naturally enough, to the guitar, the opposite sex, and the ballad: ‘He loved the way that popular songs tacked cursorily from one subject to another or reduced a major natural disaster to a rhythmic couplet…discontinuity appealed to Brecht more than the idea of a single form which is ‘right’… Interruptions served as a reminder that there was no such thing as inevitability. The course of history could have run quite differently if events had been interrupted in different ways’.

His main influences as he started to write himself were ‘Villon (who became the model for Brecht’s first anti-hero, Baal), Buchner, Rimbaud, Verlaine and Wedekind’ – the latter especially (his line “Morality is the best business in the world” reads as positively proto-Brechtian).

An early incarnation of Baal was written as a direct response to Expressionist playwright Hanns Johst’s painfully-titled The Lonely One: Downfall of a Man. ‘Johst’s play was merely a clumsy restatement of the assumption that artists are generically different from other people. As a poet himself, Brecht could see that the poet must be an ordinary creature of physical habit’.

‘Brecht’s father, like his teachers, often inflamed his anticonformism. After losing a suitcase of his, he was defiantly unrepentant: “First, you could have done the same yourself; second, I hope you never get it back; third, I hope the new owner of the things more than you did, and fourth, you can easily get new things”.’

Brilliantly, he sent a copy of Baal to Johst along with a letter brassily compounding pugnacity and hauteur: “I quite understand if you say Baal and anything else I go on to write if I feel like it are nonsense, but if you say nothing, then I must think you want me to take offence” (Feel no pity for the Expressionist dinosaur – in time he would rise to high cultural office under the Nazis).

As political tumult increasingly overtook the domestic scene, Brecht’s next proposed play, Spartakus, starred a Spartacist, Glubb, but also his shadow, Kragler: ‘…who refuses to do any more fighting. He has had enough. “Everyone is top dog inside his own skin.” His girl may be pregnant by another man, but he will still be more comfortable in bed than on the barricades… Like Brecht, who had pretended to study medicine and took pleasure in defying expectation, Kragler makes weakness into strength: he has the courage of his own cowardice. And like Baal, he is fortified by indifference to bourgeois morality’; ‘What Kragler seemed to be disrupting was the bourgeois twilight, “sentimentality and business, domesticity and turpitude, high-mindedness and opportunism” (Ernst Fischer).’

Around this time, Brecht saw the comic, Karl Valentin, who would influence his ideas about performance (as Charlie Chaplin would, later):

“One immediately had the strong feeling that this man won’t make jokes. He is himself a joke.”

Karl Valentin

Brecht was now twenty, had sired his first child (“…among the peasants. May it grow fat and wise and not curse me!” – he would not see him often) and was moving to Berlin. Stafan Zweig sets a new scene: ‘Boys – and not only professionals – paraded up and down the Kurfurstenedamm wearing make-up and false waistlines; every schoolboy was set out to make money, while senior government officials and bankers were to be seen shamelessly flirting with drunken sailors…Girls boasted about their perversions, and in every school in Berlin they would have been in disgrace if they were suspected of virginity at the age of sixteen’.

His mother died. He regretted her suffering (“I no longer remember her face when she wasn’t in pain”) and that he had not been more forthright about his debt to her (“I loved her in my way, but she wanted to be loved in hers.”)

“I search for new forms and experiment with my feelings like other writers. but then I always come back to knowing that the essence of art is simplicity, grandeur and sensitivity, and the essence of its form, coolness.”

And so, another new play was begun, with the others still unperformed. Many of his love affairs had long since ended in estrangement (“like a whirlpool that forms where there’s a hole, an empty place”) and some of those he still maintained proved irritants (“her laughter’s no less unsettling than a haemorrhage”).

By 1920, ‘Brecht was already fantasising about having a theatre of his own. He would hire two clowns, and in the interval, pretending to be spectators, they would chat loudly about members of the audience and about the play, making bets on what was going to happen in the second half’. An occasional position writing reviews for a paper ended when the fledgling critic refused to rein in his scorn, as evidenced in the resulting farewell toward the owners: “… [they] understand as much about literature as a train driver does about geography.”

More blah on the actual beginnings of his actual stage career soon. I know you’ll wait.

.
Teatro Brecht / T.075.5272340
Fontemaggiore/ T. 075.5286651

Botteghino TeatroBrecht
T. 075.5272340

(Siz, benim de Kronik Muhalif’ten “kaldırılmış” yazım olduğunu biliyor musunuz? Bu konuda siteden şutlanmış bazı arkadaşların -ki, onlara da geleceğiz!- çığlık çığlığa ortalığı ayağa kaldırdıklarını görünce, neredeyse bir yıl önce yazdığım o yazı geldi aklıma. İyi ki bilgisayardaki klasörlerin birinde kalmış da, şimdi burada yayınlayabiliyorum…)

Hrant'ın ikinci ölüm yıldönümünde yayımlanan Agos'un birinci sayfası

Bu haftaki Agos’un birinci sayfasının hemen ortasında duran siyah beyaz fotoğrafa ve o fotoğrafın tam ortasında, kendisinden yaşça ve boyca küçük çocukların üzerine kanat germiş gibi kollarını iki yana açmış duran, objektifi en çok hak eden çocuğun fotoğrafına bakıp da, içi titremeyen biri yoktur sanıyorum. Bu fotoğrafın bende yarattığı heyecan ise, birdenbire anlamış olmanın, o bilmenin verdiği küstahlıkta heyecanını da yapmacıklığa kurban edenlerinkinden farklı ve anlaşılmaz bir heyecandı. 19 Ocak’ın ikinci kirli tekrarında, Agos’un birinci sayfasından bizlere, nereye kaçırdığını kendisinin de anlayamadığı tebessümünü postalayan “Fotoğraftaki çocuk”un, Hrant’tan başkası olacağına ihtimal vermediğim halde yine de; “Neden o olsun ki” diye diklenerek bir daha, sanki çocukluk arkadaşını, bütün kafaların pirinç büyüklüğünde olduğu eski fotoğraflardan seçmeye çalışır gibi bir daha bakıp, bana verileni değil, benim hak ettiğimi, daha doğrusu hak edeceğimi bulmaya ve almaya çalıştım o gazete sayfasından…

Gazeteyi eline alır almaz “Hrant bu” diyenlerden değilim dolayısıyla… Ben keşfini erteleyip, daha sonra, “bu Hrant’mış ya” diyenlerdenim. Onu hemen seçmekte acele edenlerden değil. Onun yokluğunu bunca hissetiğimiz şu zamanları, hesaplı kullananlardan. Buldum mu, elinde biraz daha, çok değil, bir iki dakika daha fazla tutabilmek için çırpınanlardan. Bunu yaparken, bir fotoğrafa dahi bu telaşını çaktırmamaya çalışacak kadar, aklını hırpalayanlardan…

"Fotoğraftaki çocuk": HRANT DİNK

“Aaaa, meğer bu Hrant’mış ya.”

* * *

“Bugün onunla dolu bir gazete daha çıkarıyoruz. O çocuğu özlüyoruz. İçimizdeki çocuğa dokunmamızı sağlayan, bize yeniden hayat veren o çocuğu… Ölümün karşısında gülümseyerek durabilen o çocuğu…

Bugün bizim de fotoğrafımız çekiliyor. Birimiz en öne geçmeye, bazımız kafasını yandan uzatmaya çalışıyor. Ama kimse fazla heveslenmesin… Çünkü her fotoğraf hâlâ O’nu çekiyor. Açılmış kolları, parıltılı gözleri ve büzülmüş dudaklarıyla…”

Birinci sayfadan böyle sesleniyor Agos, kurucusuna ve doyamadığı yol arkadaşına.

Etyen, Çok mu Mahçupyan?

Ancak, hem ölümünün üzerinden geçen ikinci yılın ağırlığının bir daha ve aynı anda üzerinize çullanmasından yorulan, hem de Agos’un belki de en hüzünlü sayılarından biri olan bu sonuncusunun burukluğuyla kasılan ruhunuz, biraz gün yüzü gördüğünde yeniden sayfaları çevirmeye başlıyor ve Etyen Mahçupyan’ın, “Hrant’ın sırrı” başlıklı yazısına rastlıyorsunuz.

Etyen Mahçupyan, “Hrant’ın sırrının ‘kendi olmak’ olduğunu” anlattığı yazısında düşüncelerini açıklayıp, birkaç nasihati de kulağınıza iliştiriyor.

Şöyle:

“Kaybedilenler, biz yaşadığımız için yaşatılma şansına sahipler. Ama yaşamak, değişmek, farklı bakmak, yüreğindeki bilinmeyenleri keşfetmek demek.

O nedenle, artık Hrant övgüsünü bir kenara bırakıp, kendimiz övgüyü hak eden bir şeyler yapmalıyız. Ancak o zaman Hrant gerçekten de övülmüş olur.

Bizler Hrant’tan çok daha önemliyiz. Çünkü hâlâ yaşıyoruz… Hâlâ değiştirebiliyoruz… Ve kendimize bu imkânı tanıdığımız oranda, kaybedilenleri de değişimin unsurları haline getirebiliyoruz.

Hrant’ı överek sıradanlaştırıp dondurmayın. Onu klişeler içine hapsederek ruhsuzlaştırmayın. Kendiniz olun… Çünkü Hrant’ın da sırrı buydu…”

* * *

Kendi kendisinin kahramanı olmayı başarabilmiş Etyen Mahçupyan’ı bilmem ama, benim için, tam da Agos’un birinci sayfasındaki “Fotoğraftaki çocuk”un hemen yanından akan yazıda tarif edildiği üzere, “Ölümün karşısında gülümseyerek durabilen” bir çocuk, kahramandır. Hele hele, “İçindeki çocuğu çoktan öldürmüş olanlar”ın, “karşısında kendilerini aciz hissettikleri” bir çocuk, hiçbir klişeye yenilmeyecek kadar güçlü bir kahramandır.

Brecht’in, hem sıklıkla bu sitedeki yazılarımda, hem de Hrant’ın ölümünün hemen akabinde yazdığım, Radikal Genç’te yayınlanan ve kimseye söylemesem de içten içe hep Kronik Muhalif’in gizli bir manifestosu saydığım “Genç Haşarı” yazısında alıntıladığım “Toplum olarak ihtiyacımız olan şey kahramanlar değil, kahramanlara ihtiyacı olmayan bir toplumdur olsa olsa” sözüne olan sarsılmaz inancıma rağmen, benim kendime, “Ölümün karşısında gülümseyerek durabilen” bir çocuğu kahraman olarak tayin etmem, sizin güngörmüş yetişkinliğiniz ve kendinden gayrı kahraman tanımayan muazzam kişiliğinizden veto yiyecekse, bunu pek de umursamam sayın Mahçupyan.

Ama, en azından aksine kafa yoracak zamanı da ayırabilirim, işi tümden kendimi kaybedip, çelişmek konusunda sizinle yarışmaya vardıracak kadar.

Zira, “her fotoğraf hâlâ O’nu çekiyor” sözü, “Hrant’ın sırrı” başlıklı yazıyı ortaya çıkarabilen bir beynin kolaylıkla seçebileceği kadar efsanevi bir dille yapılmış bir övgü barındırıyor bence.

“Hayır” mı?

Bu cevabı vermenizi ne çok isterdim sayın Mahçupyan!

Ama siz yazdıklarınızdan, söylem ve eylemlerinizden bir tek kendiniz mahçup olmuyorsunuz anlaşılan.

Bugüne kadar içinde Hrant’ın adının ve yaptıklarının anıldığı yazılarınızı incelesek, hiç kimsenin yapmadığı kadar Hrant övgüsü yaptığınızı tespit edebiliriz beraberce. Bunu biliyorsunuz!

Peki, siz ne söylüyorsunuz? Ne istiyorsunuz?

Hrant’ı sizden başka kimsenin övmemesi, endişelerinizi bastırmaya yardımcı olur mu mesela? Yoksa, “övgüyü yapan dozdur” mu diyorsunuz? Meydanlarda toplanan kalabalıkların, “yığın” oldukları için bağımsız düşünebilme yetileri olmadığından dem vuruyor olmanız olasılığı nedir?

Eğer öyleyse, “Hepimiz Hrant Dink’iz” sloganının bir övgü olmadığını söylemek zorundayım. Hatta bunun bir slogan olduğunu söyleyenlerle bile enikonu tartışırım. “Hepimiz Hrant Dink’iz” bir tavırdır sayın Mahçupyan. Övünülecek bir tavırdır üstelik.

Geçen iki yılda, “‘Hepimiz Hrant Dink’iz’ çığlığının aslında ‘hepimiz insanız’ anlamı taşıdığını” anlatığınız en az 20 yazınızı referans gösterebilirim size. Dolayısıyla, “Hrant’ı övmeyi bir yana bırakıp, kendimiz övünülecek şeyler yapmalıyız” demeden önce, bu ülkede yaşayan barış yanlısı azınlıkların, halkların kardeşliğine inanmış halkların duymayı fazlasıyla hak ettiği bu sözü haykıranların, ne denli övünülecek bir tavrı kuşandıklarını da anlatmalısınız.

Bunu özellikle belirtmediğiniz bir yazıda, Hrant’ın övülmesinden ciddi ciddi rahatsız olmuşa benzeyen tuhaf telkinlerinizi, “başımızdan aşağı boca ettiğinizde”, sorgulanırsınız çünkü.

Çünkü korkarım, “Biz Hrant’tan daha değerli” değiliz sayın Mahçupyan. Üzgünüm ama, galiba siz de değilsiniz ve aslında neden olmadığımızı, neden olmadığınızı da kendi yazınızdaki bir gafınızla, gayet net özetlemişsiniz: “…Çünkü hala yaşıyoruz” diyorsunuz, “Hala değiştirebiliyoruz.”

Siz yaşıyor musunuz, sayın Mahçupyan?

Siz, değiştirebiliyor musunuz?

Peki, değiştirmekten kastınız, gazetedeki bir iki genç yazarın gitmesinden ibaret mi? Yok değilse, bizim gözümüzden kaçan ‘devrimlerinizi’, ‘yeniliklerinizi’, yüzeysel bir dille de olsa, biraz açar mısınız?

Kusura bakmayın ne olur; putperestlikten sizin kadar arınamadığımız için, pek net göremiyoruz…

* * *

“Bizler Hrant’tan çok daha önemliyiz. Çünkü hâlâ yaşıyoruz…” harikulade bir cümle bana kalırsa. Bu sözü yalnızca söylemekle kalmayıp, bir de söylediği sözü eylemleriyle dengeleyen birini de bulursak, Hrant’ı övmekten gönül rahatlığıyla vazgeçebiliriz. Gerçi, biz de sabah akşam “Hadi Hrant’ı övelim de, put olsun!” diye kendimizi paralamıyoruz ya, maksat, sizin keyfiniz yerine gelsin.

Ama bana kalırsa, “daha önemli” olmak için, “yaşıyoruz” sözünün tam karşısına gerçekten de adamakıllı bir ‘hayat’ koymak gerekir. Sanırım o zaman siz de ‘yaşadığınızı’, bu tür yazılarla ilan etmek çilesinden kurtulabilirsiniz. Öyle ya, sizin hayatınız, ‘övünülecek şeyler’ barındırmaya başladığında içinde, nasıl olsa ‘yaşadığınız’ gerçeği herkes tarafından teslim edilecektir.

“Hrant’ın sırrı”nı açıklarken, sizden bunu da duymak isterdim:

“O, bağıra bağıra ‘yaşadığını’ söylemedi, yaşadı.“

Dolayısıyla bugün sizin ‘yaşadığınızı’ ilan ettiğiniz yazınızda bir ‘hayat’ göremeyişimizi de, koşup ona anlatmaya sabırsızlanıyoruz nedense.

Siz dururken… ölmüş bir adamla sanki yaşıyormuşçasına, sizi çekiştiriyoruz.

“Hrant” diyoruz, “sen ölmüştün hani? Niye bu kadar ‘HAYAT’sın hala”?

EMRE DURSUN
Ocak ‘09, İstanbul

A short but image heavy post on what I’m up to at the moment (apologies for the blur, it happens):

Gestern, Theater am Schiffbauerdamm – Berliner Ensemble! Wunderbar, einfach Klasse! Es war das erste Mal, daß ich dieses Theater besuchte und es war  insgesamt ein sehr positives Erlebnis.

Ich muß dazu erwähnen, daß ich kein Brecht-Fan bin, in dem Sinne was dessen Biografie betrifft.  Ein verwöhnter Enkel kaiserlicher Bourgeoisie, der sich gekünstelt versuchte einem Sozialismus zu nähern, den es nie wirklich gab.  In seinen Werken hat er allerdings den Zeitgeist immer wieder getroffen – auch wenn einem seine ausgesuchten DarstellerInnen in historischer Betrachtung leid tun. Er konnte offensichtlich Leben und Spiel nicht so ganz auseinanderhalten? 

Intendant Peymann ist ein ähnlich interessanter Zeitgenosse, sollte man sich die Mühe machen, seine Exaltiertheiten auszuhalten?

Aber eines ist beiden gemein, sie haben in wichtigen Teilbereichen den Zahn der Zeit erkannt, interpretiert und inszeniert und das billiant. Die ‘Mutter Courage …’ im Brecht-Theater ist ein zeitgenössisches Highlight.

Ganz stark waren die Schauspieler, allen voran Carmen-Maja Antoni und Christine Drechsler – das war Power über Stunden

• Wie schafft es Brasilien der Krise zu trotzen? In dem sie das genaue Gegenteil tun, was die bürgerlichen Ökonomen raten

• Musterland Bolivien: Wachstum, solide Staatsfinanzen, beispielhafte Sozialprogramme

• Gute Noten für Boliviens Wirtschaftspolitik

• Honduras: Eliten, die sich mit allen Mitteln wehren, die daran gewöhnt sind, auf Kosten der Allgemeinheit reich zu werden

_skywalker_

“Reicher Mann und armer Mann standen da und sah’n sich an. Und der Arme sagte bleich: Wär ich nicht arm, wärst du nicht reich.”

Bert Brecht (1898 – 1956)

Was haben Megan Fox, Madonna, Helmut Schmidt, der Zentralrat der Juden und Hans-Magnus Enzensberger gemeinsam? Und was Thilo Sarrazin, Hugo Chavez, McCain, Michael Bay, Oskar Lafontaine und Saddam Hussein?

Sie sind weder alle blond, noch Nobelpreis relevant, nicht alle sexy, vielleicht alle etwas schlauer als der Durchschnitt, sie drehen keinen gemeinsamen Film und singen kein gemeinsames Lied – zum Glück. Nein, die Wahrheit ist, dass alle einmal öffentlich jemand anders mit Hitler vergleichen haben oder öffentlich mit ihm verglichen worden sind.

Das gewissermaßen als Vorwort. Anfangen möchte ich diesen kleinen Beitrag anders. Ich möchte mit einem Stückchen Weisheit meines ehemaligen Deutschlehrers beginnen, einer Weisheit, die ich nicht überprüfen kann und auch nicht will, aber die mir irgendwie nie aus dem Kopf ging. Es sagte einmal: “Jeder Teil der zeitgenössischen Literatur, sowie der Literatur nach B. Brecht bezieht sich in irgendeiner weise auf Brecht.” Beurteilen ob das der Wahrheit entspricht kann ich nicht. Brecht wusste sich sehr wohl und sehr direkt zu äußern, wenn er es wollte (entgegen einigen Erfahrungen aus der Schulliteratur), so schrieb er 1934 über Adolf Hitler folgendes Gedichtchen:

Adolf Hitler dem sein Bart,
ist von ganz besond’rer Art.
Kinder, da ist was faul,
so ein kleiner Bart und so ein großes Maul.

- B. Brecht, Alfabet 1934

Der kleine Bart hat seit dem niemanden mehr erfolgreich gemacht, das große Maul ist bei Prominenten aller Lager immer wieder beobachtet worden. Allerdings sind die Prominenten zumeist nur prominent, weil sie polarisieren können und dazu gehört nun manchmal auch ein “großes Maul”. Deshalb möchte ich hier einige Aussprüche kommentiert wiedergeben, die alle das große Maul und den eindeutigen Bezug auf Adolf Hitler gemeinsam haben.

Beginnen möchte ich mit einem vermeidlichen Skandal im britischen Parlament. Zum Glück haben wir in Deutschland diesen Diskurs schon geführt und mussten uns nicht so harter Worte bemühen, wie die Leute auf der Insel. In England gibt es in Folge eines Spesenskandals Ermittlungen gegen einige Abgeordnete. In diesem Kontext kommentierte der Parlamentarier “David Wilshire” gar nicht gentemanlike: “Eine ganze Gruppe von Personen als unerwünscht zu erklären hat zu Hitlers Gaskammern geführt.” ( “Branding a whole group of people as undesirables led to Hitler’s gas chambers” ). Vielleicht hätte eine solche Äußerung für Friedrich Merz (CDU) damals eine Perspektive geboten, anstatt zu Klagen und dann die Partei zu verlassen, dann hätte er sich entschuldigt und jetzt wäre seine Zeit gekommen. Die Steuererklärung auf einem Bierdeckel, dafür wäre Deutschland jetzt reif, oder? Nur Arbeits- und Sozialgeneral .. ähm .. Minister Jung würde wohl in eine arge Schieflage gekommen, wenn eine Ganze Brache von Steuerberatern ausfiele – die müssen doch den Zaubertrank braue.. ähm .. die Wachstumskräfte freisetzen.

Die wohl aktuellere Diskussion über Hitler entfachte vor einiger Zeit Thilo Sarrazin (SPD, Bundesbank Vorstand) in Verbindung mit dem Zentralrat der Juden. Dieser, bzw. dessen Generalsekretär Stephan Kramer, lies verlauten, er habe den Eindruck, Sarrazin erweise „mit seinem Gedankengut Göring, Goebbels und Hitler große Ehre“. Die Bundesbank kommentierte nicht, aber entzog Sarrazin das Ressort “Bargeld” – wahrscheinlich nur um nicht kommentieren zu müssen. Aber was war passiert? Sind nicht die Juden die Banker-Familien Deutschlands? Die Familie Rothschild zählte die letzten beiden Jahrhunderte zu den einflussreichesten Familien Europas. Was also hat Sarrazin verlauten lassen, dass er derartig diffamiert wurde? Er ließ sich interviewen und verteilte dieses Mal keine guten Ratschläge (Wer sich erinnert: Man könne sich von 4,25€ pro Tag “vollständig, gesund und wertstoffreich” ernähren oder man solle sich, wenn einem kalt sei, einfach mal einen dicken Pullover überziehen.), sondern etwas härtere Tiefschläge. So ließ Sarrazin über die Berliner Bevölkerung verlauten: “Die Türken erobern Deutschland genauso, wie die Kosovaren das Kosovo erobert haben: durch eine höhere Geburtenrate. (…) Je niedriger die Schicht, desto höher die Geburtenrate. Die Araber und die Türken haben einen zwei- bis dreimal höheren Anteil an Geburten, als es ihrem Bevölkerungsanteil entspricht. Große Teile sind weder integrationswillig noch integrationsfähig. Die Lösung dieses Problems kann nur heißen: Kein Zuzug mehr, und wer heiraten will, sollte dies im Ausland tun.” Harter Tobak. Aber das stört Sarrazin natürlich keineswegs, denn: “Ich muss niemanden anerkennen, der vom Staat lebt, diesen Staat ablehnt, für die Ausbildung seiner Kinder nicht vernünftig sorgt und ständig neue kleine Kopftuchmädchen produziert.” So macht er sich unantastbar. Das sich da der Zentralrat der Juden einschalten muss, das ist natürlich klar, denn 0,04% der Türken sind nun mal Juden (das entspricht dem Anteil der DVU Wähler bei der letzten Europawahl). Ende vom Lied war, dass Sarrazin sich entschuldigte: “Die Reaktionen, die mein Interview in “Lettre International” verursacht hat, zeigen mir, dass nicht jede Formulierung in diesem Interview gelungen war.” (So macht man das!) Der Zentralrat entschuldigte sich ebenfalls und musste sich gefallen lassen, dass der Spiegel (und Tagesspiegel) Kolumnist H.M. Broder der Organisation einen “erbärmlichen Zustand” bescheinigte und sich gleich selbst für den Posten des Generalsekretärs vorschlug. Ob Sarrazin sein Bargeld Ressort zurück hat, weiß man nicht …

Grade diese pauschalisierten Äußerungen Sarrazins bringen mich zum nächsten großen “Hitler”-Sager. Denn ich möchte mich hier nicht dem Vorwurf unausgewogener Berichterstattung preisgeben (ausgewogen heißt in dem Fall: “besonders offen und unideologisch (…), konsequent vermeident, darüber Auskunft zu geben ob eine Sache nun richtig oder falsch [ist]” – Dirk Maxeiner). Also möchte ich nun eine politisch eher links gerichtete Persönlichkeit der Geschichte in den Fokus nehmen, die es ebenfalls schaffte gleich einige Millionen über einen Kamm zu scheren. Trotzki war nach Lenins Tod die herausragende revolutionäre Persönlichkeit seiner Zeit. Anführer der Oktoberrevolution gegen Stalin und zu nennen in einer Reihe mit Marx, Engels und Lenin. Doch in diesen Text passen weder seine revolutionären Taten, noch sein ideologisches Wirken. Auf nur einen uncharakteristischen Satz möchte ich ihn reduzieren, um Leuten wie Sarrazin oder Wilshire zu sensibilisieren noch besser polarisieren zu können: “Nicht jeder erbitterte Kleinbürger könnte ein Hitler werden, aber ein Stückchen Hitler steckt in jedem von ihnen.” – Artikel “Porträt des Nationalsozialismus”, erschienen in der “Neuen Weltbühne”, 10. Juni 1933. Abgefahren, oder? Damit hätten wir auch einen kommunistischen Hitler-Sager und ich bitte alle sich mal an die eigene Nase zu fassen, denn nach Trotzkis Definition von Kleinbürger sind wir alle ein bisschen Hitler.

Zurück zu den zeitgenössischen Figuren des öffentlichen Lebens, den kleinen und größeren Berühmtheiten. (Übrigens: Kennt ihr A. Bierce? Er definierte Berühmtheiten mal als “Weithin sichtbares Elend“; denkt mal drüber nach!) Also – vor allem für diejenigen, die sich bisher durch diesen Text gebissen haben, weder Merz, noch Sarrazin kannten, noch Trotzki – wenden wir uns zu zwei Hauptpersonen von taff, SAM, Punkt 12 und explosiv: Megan Fox & Madonna. Hier werden Seitenhiebe für mich schwer – Megan Fox kenne ich nur aus der Pro7 Vorschau zu Transformers und Madonna aus dem Radio. Aber beide Damen haben es faustdick hinter den Ohren.

Fangen wir mit Megan Fox an. Sie und der Transformers Regisseur Michael Bay schafften im September eine mediale Streitkultur auf persönlicher Ebene – das begann damit, dass Bay zu Protokoll gab:”Nun, das ist Megan Fox. Sie sagt einige sehr lächerliche Dinge, weil sie 23 Jahre alt ist und erst erwachsen werden muss. Niemand kannte Megan Fox, bis ich sie gefunden habe und sie für Transformers engagierte.” Im Vorfeld des Interviews hatte sich Megan Fox abfällig über den Transformers Film geäußert, aber dennoch steckte Fox nicht zurück, sondern konterte hart und unfair: “Er ist wie Napoleon und er will sich einen Ruf als wahnsinniger, anrüchiger Verrückter schaffen. Er will an seinem Set wie Hitler sein. Es ist ein Albtraum, für ihn zu arbeiten, aber wenn man ihm außerhalb des Sets begegnet und er nicht im Regisseur-Modus ist, dann mag ich seine Persönlichkeit irgendwie sehr, weil er so unbeholfen ist, hoffnungslos unbeholfen.” (Ob Megan Fox sich am Set waschen durfte ist ungeklärt -> “Ne te lave pas, je reviens” (Napoleon an Josephine)) Der Streit wurde bald beigesetzt, auf die unkonventionelle Weise – kein Bargeldressortentzug, keine Abwahl, keine Revolution. Megan Fox gab bei einem MTV Interview zum zweiten Teil von Transformers (in dem sie wieder mitspielt ..) an “So sind Mike und ich einfach. So sprechen wir.“! Augen verdrehen erlaubt.

Bei Madonna war es eine ganz andere Schiene. Es war doppelte Publicity und die alte Powerfrau weiß, wann man wie auf den Putz hauen muss, dass man öffentlich wahrgenommen wird. Taktisch richtiger Zeitpunkt, klare Positionierung, deutliche Positionierung und .. außerhalb Amerikas. Alles richtig gemacht. Was war geschehen?
Madonna zeigte zum Auftakt ihrer Welttournee in walisischen Cardiff während eines Liedes Bilder und kleine Videos von Konflikten und Kriegen in der Welt und blendete dazwischen – wohlwissend was sie tat – Bilder von Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe und .. huuups .. John McCain ein. Dem Pommesfabrikanten, der damals im Wahlkampf gegen dem jetzigen US-Präsidenten Barack Obama ankämpfte. Obama kam natürlich auch in Madonnas Videos auf diesem Konzert vor … in einer Reihe mit Al Gore und Mahatma Gandhi. (Ich hoffe das ist nicht die Grundlage für den Friedensnobelpreis …, Bitte, sagt dass das nicht wahr ist!!!) Naja, hier gab es kein Nachspiel, wahrscheinlich wusste niemand ob es in Wales Gesetze gab oder gibt oder wie das da läuft, deshalb hat man das bleiben lassen und .. Madonna und Obama waren in den Schlagzeilen. McCain auch, aber .. nicht immer sind “bad news, good news”.

Zum Schluss noch ein vielleicht publizistisches Beispiel (davon ab, dass die Piratenpartei irgendwie von der Bildfläche verschwunden ist), dass mit der Vorratsdatenspeicherung zusammenhängt. Wer sich zurückerinnert: Damals war der Finanzminister noch Innenminister und hieß Wolfgang Schäuble (wir hatten damals auch einen weniger verwirrten Verkehrsminister, aber darum gehts nicht). Dieser hatte zusammen das Gesetz zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung auf den Weg gebracht und ärgerte sich nun gewaltig über eine Verfassungsbeschwerde von ca. 6.000 Bürgern, die bei dem Bundesverfassungsgericht die sofortige Aussetzung der Zwangsspeicherung verlangten. Schäuble wörtlich: “Wir hatten den ,größten Feldherrn aller Zeiten’, den GröFaZ, und jetzt kommt die größte Verfassungsbeschwerde aller Zeiten.” Geändert hat es dann nichts – alle waren entsetzt, Schäubles Ansehen im Internet sank unter Null und .. nichts und. Klage wird verhandelt. Sofortige Aussetzung: Abgewiesen.

Wer glaubt, dass sich mit der FDP in der Regierung etwas ändern könnte, nur weil sie in ihrem Wahlprogramm verlauten ließ: “Die FDP fordert [...] die Abschaffung der Vorratsdatenspeicherung [...] Die anlass- und verdachtsunabhängige Vorratsdatenspeicherung hat die FDP von Anfang an abgelehnt.”, der liegt falsch. Im Koalitionsvertrag einigten sich die Parteien darauf, den Beschluss des Verfassungsgerichts abzuwarten. Kein Fortschritt.

Aber – und damit möchte ich enden – zum Trost der FDP Wähler eine kleine Weisheit des berühmten SPD Politikers Franz Müntefering “Es ist unfair Politiker an den Wahlversprechen zu messen.”