Page View
Kamarck, Edward (ed.) / Arts in society: confrontation between art and technology
(1969)
Rosenberg, James
Notes and discussion: [report from Edinburgh], pp. [262 and 263]-274
PDF (14.9 MB)
Page 270
and tossing the final couplet at us with a spine-chilling mordancy that gave the whole production an impact (this was also during the Czechoslovak crisis) even greater than - albeit quite different from - what Brecht had originally intended. As yet, no Broadway or West End producer has shown any interest whatever in transferring this curious plant to a commercial hothouse, nor are they apt to, I fear, but in the unlikely event of its finding its way to America, I can only urge it as a "must" for anyone interested in the craft of acting, the art of the theatre, or the science of life. The Film Festival part of the Edinburgh summer was something of an oddity, featuring, and being built around, three "gala" performances of three totally commercial films: Nobody Runs Forever, a conventional adventure thriller starring Rod Taylor; and two films which had already been seen in the U.S., to extremely mixed notices - Wild in the Streets and Albert Finney's Charlie Bubbles. The bulk of the Festival, however, 270 was made up of more "festival-type" material - new and unknown films by largely new and unknown directors, many with a strongly Eastern European tinge. One looked in vain for films by the big names - Antonioni, Fellini, Truffaut, Resnais, Kurosawa, Bufluel, Bergman (although there was one by the Bergman critic, Jorn Donner)- or even by some of the younger generation "old masters," Bellochio, or Skolimowski, or Lelouch. In fact, the only big name I recognized instantly in leafing through my program was Godard, and one of the films I made a point of seeing was his latest release, Weekend (at least, I assume it is his latest; although, since Godard has films the way rabbits have rabbits, it is always hard to keep up with him.) To say that this was one of the major scandals of the summer would be an understatement. It was, to be sure, not quite on a par with the Ken Dewey "Happening" scandal of a few summers back - for one thing, not so many people saw it - but a good many people did feel impelled to boo and U U U Uff i to demonstrate their displeasure by walking out. It was hard to say whether the protesters were animated by aesthetic or political animus primarily, since, in addition to containing a number of prolonged and deliberately tedious harangues against the imperialist West generally and the U.S.A. particularly, the film has more genuinely disgusting and horrifying footage than any I personally have seen since Franju's legendary Blood of Beasts - to which many of its sequences are heavily indebted. Certainly you would be wise, as a prospective viewer, to skip dinner before you go (and don't plan to eat afterwards, either; this film should do more for the cause of vegetarianism than Shaw ever did!) In other words, it can hardly be described as a pleasant or enjoyable evening (to put it as mildly as possible, it is not the ticket for the man who loved Sound of Music). Yet that is the whole point. Like most serious films and plays today, it aims at being, not a divertissement, but an experience - and, as with any powerful or profound experience, you are apt to emerge from it shaken, upset, perhaps angry, almost certainly confused. But this, I'm sure, troubles Godard not a whit. Gone is the good old 19th Century view that art should provide moral uplift and intellectual enlightenment. Clearly Godard and his confreres (among whom I include such figures as Genet, Truffaut, Pinter, Peter Brook, etc., etc.) believe that they are dealing with an audience of middle-class moral imbeciles who are so anesthetized against every free and honest human response that they can only be roused from their torpor by the shock tactics of blasphemy, obscenity, violence, and calculated lunacy. And who - reading the headlines everyday- is to say that they are seriously mistaken? On the other hand, I think it is Philistine short-sightedness, indeed, to try to dismiss Weekend and other works like it as sheer perverse obscurantism and charlatanism. There are, as always in Godard, some "cute" and overly ingenious touches, but there is no overlooking the intense moral earnestness - one might say even, moral naivete - of the work.
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/| Copyright, 1969, by the Regents of the University of Wisconsin.| For information on re-use, see http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/Copyright