Comments on: Lights, camera, revolutionary action!

By: Rav

Rav — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:03:11 +0000

Sal, as a filmmaker and genuine lover of cinema I find it disheartning and almost depressing that you can find such an obtuse angle at which to view the medium.

The incredible things that different films and I guess more importantly different ideas (conceptually – not politically/historically) can bring to the way you perceive your own existence seem to be very low down on your list.

I’m not one to namedrop (anymore) – each person’s tastes are there own. Tarkovsky to Spielberg – whatever. The point is that you’re open minded enough to rise above such a paltry use for film. Film is not a dramatized essay. It is not a manifesto with icing on top. It’s an art of storytelling.

Ken Loach is fine, but he is about as creative and thought-provoking as Monica Ali. That, by the way, is far from a compliment.

I suppose by my own logic I’ll have to say that you can view films in a one dimensional way if that’s how you like. I’d urge you to seriously reconsider though.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:22:50 +0000

I think I covered the basic idea of your piece, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I’m simply saying that you can’t just strip away time, place, and cultural context to suit your vague notions of ahistorical occupation and resistance.
So no, I’m not setting up a straw man, and no, I’m not talking about zero-sum power relations, I’m saying that it’s only by taking away the core substance of context – historical and cultural – that you are able to make your hackneyed comparison between Iraq and [insert name of occupation here], and that is, perhaps, not the best way to approach such a complex subject.

By: Salman Shaheen

Salman Shaheen — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:09:44 +0000

All good points Mitchell, and it would be easy to agree with you if I were indeed arguing in favour of generalising all of history to zero-sum power relations, but I fear you’re setting up a bit of a straw man here and I think you know that…

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:39:36 +0000

Sal, your understanding of history may confirm what you think of the present, but I think any self-respecting historian would avoid your approach in this matter.

Aside from the common denominator of occupation that you point to for these “two great injustices”, links between British rule in Ireland and American occupation in Iraq are incredibly tenuous. I say this in relation to your last paragraph where you claim:

“And when we have stripped away time and place, when the cultural context is removed, what’s left is a naked imbalance of power, the subjugation of one people by another and the inevitable resentment and resistance that this will foster.”

I don’t think this should be approached in such a broad-brush manner. By disregarding the times when occupations occur, by ignoring geographical (and therefore geopolitical) factors, and by (bafflingly) pushing aside the cultural context, you remove the vital clues that can point towards the answers of the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ in relation to resistance and resentment.

By your reasoning, I could compare the American occupation of Iraq with the Assyrian occupation of Babylonia. After all, Assyria was the superpower of the time, ruled with an iron fist, and its occupation spawned a resistance movement. This would be a fair comparison in relation to your approach, but would in fact be bollocks, simply because Assyria’s occupation of Babylonia had fundamentally different dynamics to that of America in Iraq.

Occupations have to be dealt with on their own cultural and historical terms; it would be all but impossible to appreciate the “imbalance of power” (clothed or otherwise) or the nature of the subjugation without considering such crucial elements.