Pelshval

Antropologiske betraktninger om pelshvaldrift

Page 31 of 42

Be happy + FAQ

I never understood the point of advertising. Oh, I’ll admit any day that if all my friends are raving about Vex – “and you know, it actually works,” – I might very well buy Vex regardless of what it’s for or whether I need it. But if some smooth humanoid that looks like Bambi pops up on my device and starts reeling off reams of pseudo-scientific twaddle about Vex’s riboneucleic effect on the peptic lumen of my wrinkles – not to mention if Bambi uses expressions such as “nature’s own” (in which case Vex is probably made of seaweed) – I’ll go and make a cup of coffee or turn off the device. Most likely the latter, because Bambi will be be sure to turn up again in the course of whatever it is I’m watching, and I won’t want more than one cup of coffee.

No, I never understood the point of advertising. Until now, that is. Now that I am actually paying a little attention to the ongoing election campaign in my country. (No need to look it up – just municipals, no big deal.) And now I finally understand the point of advertising.

You see, if you’re producing something you know will most likely not have the desired effect, you can’t let Bambi tell the public, “well, at least it probably won’t hurt you” or “it may stain your clothes”  or “be sure to bring an iron with you wherever you go”. With her gleaming unnaturally bright soft smile, she will – nay, she must – say that our wrinkles will disappear within 6 months, or that there is a 6-year guarantee or simply: no wrinkles. If you’re producing something that is essentially just seaweed or sawdust, your product’s survival hinges on your capacity to convince us, the public, what it is not, to wit: worth our money. Mind you, we, the public will be paying not only for the seaweed and the blender, packaging, pectin and chemical preservatives but for a bevy of lawyers hovering over every word uttered or written by your company. In spite of all their legalese precautions, there are always a few cranks around who will take you to court because they can effectively prove that the wrinkles did not go away, so you also need a few economists who can calculate the potential losses of the worst case number of lost lawsuits.

Q: But what if the campaigning politician is actually telling the truth, what then?

A: Stupid question. The only people who will vote for him or her will be friends and family. Who wants truth, for heaven’s sakes? Elections are like Christmas parties. We want gifts. That is what we have been taught to expect. Why would we otherwise take the trouble of standing in line somewhere to cast a ballot? We want something in return, don’t we.

Q: But surely there are some politicians and some voters who……?

A: Yes, yes, all right. Of course there are people, even some politicians, both on the so-called left and the so-called right side who seriously care – and many of them are even well-informed, take pains to stay informed and believe it is their duty as citizens to try to understand the complexities of our world. Nevertheless, the bottom lines of elections always tend to smack of seaweed or, worse, sawdust.

Q:Why? Anybody can have their say!

A: Yes, but not during elections. Elections are not about issues, but about what political party will get the job of governing the country or municipality. The people who talk are elected by their parties to say nice cheerful things that will make voters happy and vote for them, not the things that will depress voters.

For instance: Europe is tiny and there is a tidal wave of desperately poor and traumatised people rocking its fragile outer borders. Already, there are many cracks in the border, and people just go on dying by the thousands, attempting to cross. How do our politicians propose to deal with this issue? Some of them say (thankfully, many others do not agree) “We don’t want refugees here!” Have they ever taken a moment off from their politicking to imagine what would happen if the tables turned, if Europe were sacked, as the Roman empire once was, by very angry, very illiterate and very hungry millions? Where would we go? Who would give us asylum? Do you think voters want to hear about that?

True, these are only municipal elections, so the global situation is really not on the agenda. But the climate should be. Is my municipality willing to carry its part of the burden of changing the way we live here? This is a cold country. We use an awful lot of electricity. It is also a very long and sparsely populated country, so we use an awful lot of cars to get around. In 2014, carbon emissions from road traffic had  grown by 25% compared to 1990, while our total greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 3-4%. Do you think voters want to be told that from now on, they will not be allowed to drive to work?

So, yes, by all means, try Vex. Maybe the wrinkles will disappear, but if they don’t, don’t worry, be happy.

Grave robbery in Sweden

Of course, you don’t have to believe the common-law wife of the late Stieg Larsson. They’d been living together for more than thirty years when he died, but I’ll grant you any day that we can’t rule out that she’s a scheming bitch. I mean, all I know, except that “know” is a misnomer here, is what I have read and heard – and as we all know, the official and generally accepted version tends, in the end, to have been that of the winning side and, as such, not necessarily the side that deserved to win. Hers is not the winning side.

So if you are one of the “Men who Hate Women” (the original title of Stieg Larsson’s first book – in translations it was changed against his wishes) or, for that matter, a woman who hates women, you will probably be more prone to assume that her story is a construct, and there are no doubt very many reasons to hate women, among the most common: there are innumerable bitchy sarcastic mothers, soft-spoken sadistic teachers, scheming seductive mistresses and, not least, intolerably stupid and ignorant wives. People who have had to endure any of the above for a whole upbringing, not to mention a whole married life, need to work hard to defend their sanity.

By now I will have infuriated some people to the extent that they are pelting tomatoes at me, so I hasten to add parenthetically that there are equally many God’s-gift-to-womenkind-narcissist men, presidents (male of course) of countries we wish we had never heard of, barons of gruesome crime, professional practitioners of torture (and I don’t mean dentists), ect., etc.

So, back to the men who hate women: They tend to crack in the end. Just read Stieg Larsson’s books: The female protagonist and principal hero is a woman who has endured every kind of abuse from men who appear to be normal, who lead normal lives, but who hate women and crack when they think nobody hears or sees.

She herself is anything but bitchy, sarcastic, sadistic, intriguing, seductive, intolerably stupid or ignorant. She’s not even soft-spoken. She’s blunt and abrupt and hurt, with good reason, though mostly silent and sullen. She doesn’t ask for pity, but the male protagonist and secondary hero, senses her pain through her silent anger and reaches out to her.

Do you honestly think that anybody could write three enormous bricks of crime fiction in homage to a pained, silent and talented woman if he had been living, for decades, with a scheming lynx?

So I go for the widow’s story. I believe her for various reasons: In those days – when they became a couple – marrying was something leftists just did not do. Moreover, this particular couple had every reason not to publicise their relationship because he was a profiled investigative journalist who occasionally received death threats.

I have not heard anybody dispute that they lived together for over thirty years or that he received death threats. That is not at issue. The pivotal element is that according to Swedish law, your estate passes to your next of kin when you die unless you’ve left a will. But he died young, in the sense that when you are 50 and in good health – to all appearances – drawing up a will feels ridiculous. I for my part have not done so either, and I am older than he was when he died (and similar laws apply in my country). Since they were not legally married, he was “intestate”, and his estate – the vast proceeds of book sales and the right to administer the copyright of his books – passed to his father and younger brother. And they, to my horror, accepted something that was theirs only through a jinx, since obviously his wife was his next of kin in every way but on paper.

Now in my initial list of pet hates – hates of certain kinds of women and certain kinds of men – I forgot to mention another hate object: that of certain kinds of parents.

Hating one’s parents is hardly more politically correct than hating one’s children. But I assure you that there are people who have good cause to hate the one or the other (not that hating does them any good).

It appears that until the age of nine, Stieg Larsson was brought up by his grand-parents in the country. When his grandfather died, he was sent to live with his parents in town but did not much appreciate the move, it seems. His mother died young, and I find little online information about his relationship with his father, except that there wasn’t much of it. Judging from what has happened after he died, I can well understand that.

You see, the most damning indictment of the father and brother is neither subjective nor conjecture but literally on paper: The fourth installment of Millenium has absolutely nothing to do with Stieg Larsson! It is true that he left material that he had intended for a fourth volume, but in her legal conflict with the family, his widow has refused to release his computer. So a second-rate writer has been hired to invent a sequel to Millenium. It is being released now.

I turn my back on it, and since money evidently matters more than honour to the father and brother of Stieg Larsson, I urge everyone who reads what I write to refrain from purchasing anything at all that bears his name, since the proceeds go, not to the person he would have wanted to inherit him, but to usurpers of his copyright. Please read only borrowed versions of Millenium I-III. Please do not purchase or even borrow volume IV of the series. It is a travesty.

The so-called “Larsson estate”, as well as the publisher and the rogue writer David Lagercrantz have abused what they usurped to even help themselves to Stieg Larson’s characters. This is all the more reprehensible since they have no understanding of his values, attitudes and views, according to the widow (and by golly, do I ever believe her!)

They are scavengers that feed on carrion. May they be perpetually haunted by foul smells.

The games they play

I hear they brought in a new top gun in Nigeria. Everybody’s very pleased, it seems, except the Nigerians, of course, but they don’t count. “Finally, democracy comes to Nigeria”, observers say. As for the Nigerians, I admit they did vote for Buhari, but I expect they did so mainly to please us.

I really can’t understand what’s so great about Buhari. He’s far too old, for one thing. I’m much younger than him, but I’m definitely too old to rule a country. I’m so out of date that I don’t even approve of Facebook. And anyway, why don’t they give a new guy a chance to get rich? Why a previous “military ruler”. After all, democracy is all about giving new people the opportunity to milk their country’s economy.

Speaking of “military ruler”: isn’t that a euphemism for “dictator”? Keeping up with euphemisms is very demanding, and getting more so by the day. You know, learning new concepts takes a greater toll as you grow older, and I am definitely getting older. Very demanding, yes. The Castros are dictators, for instance, so was Chavez and his failed look-alike Maduro, but the obsolete gang in Saudi Arabia are merely rulers, the butcher-general with the cute name in Egypt (after such an epithet, I’d better refrain from stating his name) is probably a “military ruler”.

That horrible person Netanyahu is never referred to as anything but a “friend”. True, for the moment he has been downgraded to “business relation”, but that’ll pass soon enough. Putin, is another matter. He is not a “friend”, but he is so rich that nobody dares refer to him as anything but “ruler”. Now there’s an example of someone who should step down and give a new kid on the block a chance to get rich. The United States are good at that, I must admit: presidents there step down all the time, graciously. The problem in the United States is that presidents aren’t really the ones who rule, are they. Not even Bush was entirely to blame for everything. The ones who rule do get rich, though, very rich, if not  as rich as Putin.

Actually, Goodluck Jonathan apparently also stepped down graciously. That was probably very smart of him. He may well be back in power before long.

Buhari will have real terrorists to cope with. His future as top gun will probably depend on his success in that field. At this point, the writer of this post has reached a semantic roadblock: Do we have a word for “real terrorist” as opposed to the euphemistic “terrorist”? I feel a strong need to express my deep sympathy with the Nigerian people, many of whom are fighting for their lives against “morbid power freaks’ human instruments of torture”. But the word terrorist, as it is normally used, no longer covers this concept. Instead it all too often is a synonym for “political opponent against whom we wish to use non-democratic and violent means of suppression”.

I really do appeal to you, reader, to help me, but unfortunately, as you see, I do not allow comments on this site as I have become a little paranoid about “cyber-terrorism”. I leave you to parse the expression “cyber-terrorism”.

 

Point of view

In my town, people don’t like Mr Putin. Come to think of it, I don’t like him much myself. In my town people look down their noses at Rambos, and Mr Putin, it would seem, is a Rambo. Around here, they prefer the spindly type, the Spidermans, agile and supple. And they don’t condone belligerence either. Behave, civilly, they say, and you will be treated civilly.

As a matter of fact, there are lots of things people in my town don’t prescribe to; religion, for instance, unless it’s decorous and discreet, like make-up – the less the better – and mainly only for soirées or carnivals. Nor do they prescribe to opera, in spite of our having recently built a gloriously expensive and glamorous opera house – too much drama, life just isn’t like that. And as for ballet: forget it!

Around here, real men (as opposed to “you-know-whos”) don’t sing. Never. Not even when they are drunk. Not even the “you-know-whos”. Except at football games. So if I tell you that they don’t even condone belligerence at football games, that’s saying quite a lot, wouldn’t you say? And what they say is true: most of them have never been treated uncivilly, nor have their relatives.

On the other side of the river, people are somewhat different. They say: treat us civilly and we will be civil to you. For all I know, men might even sing on the other side of the river, and they certainly are religious, very religious. That’s a bit scary; after all, godliness is a kind of madness isn’t it, a reality distortion. They are, moreover, often polite and downright considerate towards elderly people. Some, very few of them – misfits of course – will even kill to defend a mother’s honour.

Like us, most of them censure violence. But they will frown – more than that, will knit their brows in anger – if you drag their dignity through the mud. They may even congregate, who knows, and – eh – “discuss” the situation. There will be voices calling for a calming of the spirits, and there will be other voices clamouring for action.

Oh, and I forgot to add that many of the people in the town on the other side of the river have relatives who are being treated far from civilly in far-away places. I have no relatives, no loved ones, no childhood friends festering in any dungeon. Nobody I know has ever been reduced to a shadow of himself from ill-treatment. Ever! I wonder, I really wonder, what sort of a person I would be if that were not the case.

What I do know from other people’s experiences of dictatorship is that if you have been painfully trained to distrust the police, you will never completely trust the police again, even after the introduction of democracy.

This business of outlook is really quite striking, don’t you think. In my town, if you ask people to define the term dignity, they would have to think very hard, and I am pretty sure that afterwards they would never forget the mental exercise, because the very concept is in the process of slipping away from us here.

If you ask anybody on the other side of the river, I suspect they won’t even have to think. They will know at once what to reply.

So, back to Mr Putin, I had this very odd experience the other day: I saw him for a moment on a Russian television channel addressing people in an auditorium, the Duma perhaps – I have no idea. Now my Russian is very rusty, to say the least, but he was trying to explain some policy that was not faultless and that had been criticised. I listened to him for five minutes and thought: My word, what a nice man! He was not haranguing them, not berating them and not even being defensive. He was not oratorial, as US presidents are without exception – yes, even Mr Obama – not assuming the role of God’s representative on earth, unlike US presidents. He was just talking easily and pleasantly to his audience. He admitted without the slightest hesitation that the chosen course had disadvantages, but he humorously suggested that the same would apply to any other course. He spoke, not like a teacher, more like a colleague about the need to weigh the disadvantages of any course against those of other courses.

Maybe Mr Putin is a Spiderman, after all. Maybe he is subtle. Do we like subtlety better than Rambo? Do we like “satire” (i.e “satirical” drawings) better than a punch in the jaw?

Two sides of Mercy

Christianity claims to be merciful. And indeed, for believers who have no problem with the awkward concepts “original sin”, “immaculate conception”, “resurrection”, etc., who are happily married, give birth to healthy children, and who don’t have to steal to feed their young, the mercy of Christianity may well be a blessing. Caring for their loved ones, generating waves of well-being around them, being loved and cared for in return, some of them may well be happier than most.

But for those believers who have AIDS or bear more children than they can feed (due to the ban on  contraception) or who are homosexual, or who take abortion or, for that matter, don’t take abortion although they desperately need to, purgatory will not wait till the afterlife.

Lunging at the Catholic Church is not my agenda. No sir! It’s just that in my initially Protestant country, Christianity has all but disappeared. Before it gave way to rationalism, much of the country was straight-backed, mirthless, harsh and petty. People were poorer in my childhood than now and often unforgiving, unhappy and far from blessed. Pleasures of the senses were Satan’s temptations, and I have childhood memories of a joyless community with a starkly plain church –  even the music was plain. Fear was everywhere; fear of the dark, the trees, the neighbours, your parents, the headmaster…

No wonder, then, that my compatriots preferred rationalism. Protestantism was unlovely.

My agenda is neither the Catholic nor the Protestant faith. I am reading Anthony Burgess, and I have read my Graham Green. They have both written about failed Catholics, outcasts from the church, who never ceased to grieve over their lost faith. Though I have never been Catholic or Protestant, I grieve with them.

In my post-protestant, secular surroundings, rationality is Law. True, we do see church weddings, mostly – I dare say – thanks to female vanity. True, some children still get baptised, mostly as a matter of hedging bets – as the parents explain: “there is no harm in being on the safe side”. And yes, people still celebrate Christmas. Apart from that, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the majority of my compatriots are preoccupied with other than temporal concerns.

Concepts such as “faith” carry little weight. These are secular times. We are proud of being analytic, educated. We make so-called informed and rational decisions. We try to apply good sense even in our choices of partners – no sentimental baulking at considerations of the candidate’s income and medical status, after all, taking a partner is much like buying life insurance. Passion is defined as “just sex”, idealism is sniggered at, and “eternal love” is wistfully relegated to  Hollywood.

Now religion, on the other hand, does things differently. Burgess describes a young Catholic male coming home for Christmas to an adoring younger sister with shining eyes and a graceful mother with a soft contralto voice, to smells of a house full of imminent Christmas goodies, eager expectations of traditions including communion in the local village mass, followed by the falling apart of everything when it is revealed that he is homosexual. The church condemns and abhors what he is and what he does, since he refuses to promise to refrain from being what he is and doing what he cannot help doing.

The failure, to my mind, is not the young man, the failed Catholic. The failure is the Church. Its flocks need  – above all  – kindness, need to learn to be kind, need at least to try not to be unkind, need to believe that there is goodness beyond the absolutely ludicrous horrors mankind seems to insist on perpetrating.

While rationality is a fine thing, we have abused it to strip our lives of all that is transcendental. I think we need a rethink: How to reconcile rationality with the irrational, which will never go away, no matter how we deny its existence? How to marry the two and beget transcendental, rational offspring? I really think the Church – Catholic and Protestant – has missed its mark by a mile, failing to understand even a fraction of the modern mind, in the West or in the East or South, certainly in the North.

Alternative warfare – Christmas proposition

UNESCO has published a list of killed journalists. This year there were 60 of them. Sixty killed journalists! That’s a lot of dead journalists. Many were killed in 2013, too. And not only in Syria! Just take a look at UNESCO’s list:

Unesco condems killing of journalists

Being dead may, however, be better than being tortured in a prison. I can’t tell you, because I’ve never been tortured, but I don’t think I could bear it. What I do know is that for every dead journalist there are probably many more rotting in sinister jails. It’s a marvel that there are any of them left.

I depend on those people! So do you. So do we all. Without intrepidly investigative journalists, we would still be back in the middle ages, ignorant, rebellious perhaps, but impotent. We would sign infinite petitions to our kings and the Virgin Mary, asking for their protection against barons that would, without a doubt, exploit us till we could take no more and wouuld lie down in some corner to wait for the next life. That’s the way things still are in much of Central America, where they’ve been killing judges and journalists for decades.

Thinking about the perpetrators – the moron killers we hear of from the Middle East and Mexico, for instance – I find myself wishing that somebody would go and whip them out of their beds and hang them up in the nearest tree. If there is no tree or lamp post at hand, at least they should be given public whippings.

But what can I do? I am opposed to capital punishment, opposed to torture. So I have to rethink, to calm down and try to examine the consequences of hanging hundreds of depraved morons from trees and lamp posts.

To begin with, we know from morally primitive societies (I shall refrain from giving examples of what I consider morally primitive societies), that if you kill one of them, there will be hell to pay, collective retribution against your entire tribe. You and a lot people you care for will be wiped out, one way or another. They can take your water, or your electricity or your hospitals or your livelihood or they can simply shoot you.

What if, you might say, we wipe them out first? Well, I admit that reading about the journalists this morning, that was approximately what I thought. The problem is that they have access to as many and as lethal firearms as we do. Maybe not the same firearms, maybe not as “superior”, as it were, but somehow, we keep seeing again and again that the outcome of wars is not as foreseeable as the weather. Thanks, not least, to journalists, this should now have become eminently clear.

Moreover, as a colleague of mine pointed out today, people in Mexico, Guatemala or IS are not likely to be genetically more prone to depravity than the rest of us. To every story there is, implicitly if not explicitly, a prologue.

For reasons I need not go into, I have seen a lot of newborn babies in my life. I have seen many small children, many adolescents, and many adults. Need I add that when something went seriously wrong somewhere along that line, what happened was almost always preceded by a series of unfortunate circumstances. An unhealthy society is countless series of unfortunate circumstances.

So my Christmas proposition is to capture them (and having done so, to resist at all costs the temptation to spit at them, bruise them, or tell them to fuck their mothers, and of course, to refrain from any of the infamous methods applied by the US authorities at Guantanamo), feed them, and proceed to question them. They will be incarcerated in conditions that satisfy the terms of international law. Next, they will be educated, brainwashed, if you will. They will be subjected to education in accordance with their respective religions. If they are Catholic, they will be taught by Catholics, if they are Moslems, they will be taught by Moslems, if they are atheist, they will be taught by atheists. The consequences of their past acts will be made clear to them – consequences for their families, their communities, their countries and, finally, the world. They will be taught by social scientists and psychologists. Modern educational principles will be applied, i.e. student participation will be stimulated. They will be recalcitrant, sullen, nasty, deceitful etc., even more so than high school students, but they will be adults who take pride in being able to justify themselves, so something will penetrate in spite of their emotional resistance.

Some, many, will have been so brutalised that nothing will move them. Many will be so traumatised that reintegration will be unlikely. If released, many will return where they came from, hardened. At any rate, they will all have to serve long sentences for war crimes, or in the case of the Mexican butchers, for gang murders.

On the other hand, many others will come around, will regret their acts, will want to help put a stop to continued violence and the devastation of their respective regions. They in turn will educate others.

I put it to you, that such an approach would cause bewilderment and chaoes in the “enemy camp”. It should be clear now, that perpetual shoot-outs will not permanently solve any of the underlying long-term issues that caused the current debacles.

What’ll it be, eh?

I have just read an article in El Pais  which alerted me to a debate that appears to be raging in many academic circles. The writer refers to the immortal opening lines of Dicken’s novel Tale of Two Cities, which he finds particularly relevant. And who could disagree?

It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light,
it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,

Just as in Dickens’ time, the debate stands between those who hold that this is the best of all possible worlds, and that it will just continue getting better and, on the other hand, those who hold that, at a steadily accelerating pace, we are heading for an apocalypse. The article warns against both the complacency of the one camp and the irrational alarmism of the other.

The article continues that it is true, as Professor Steven Pinker reaffirms (cf. The Better Angels of Our Nature, 2011) that people know more than ever before about ongoing and imminent disasters thanks to the global internet. That is a very good point which certainly goes a long way to explain the anxiety with which many people view the future. According to the article, many scientists who do not see eye to eye with Professor Pinker agree, too, that the number of deaths due to war has tended to decline, but that, they add, is not necessarily the result of a decline in violence: From 1946 on, medical care in war zones has improved, so that fewer lives are lost as a result of, for instance, inections and fevers. However the number of permanently physically incapacitated persons has risen from 3 for every war fatality to 10.

At any rate, there are also other very serious issues that need to be addressed fairly rapidly. What gives rise to alarm is not so much the issues as such as the fact that they are not really being addressed.

Personally, by my very nature, I am rather inclined to complacency. But being one of the last living specimens of my species, cetacea hirsutis, popularly known as the furry whale, I can’t help noticing that the waters I traverse increasingly taste, smell and feel like last week’s soup. Ugh!

I certainly admit there is much to be said, very much, in favour of the six or seven decades following WWII. But as for the future, I beg to differ with Professor Pinker, whose intentions, I am sure, are honourable: He is a psychologist, after all. If I were a psychologist and lost faith in humans’ commitment to improve the world we all live in, I would have to call in sick. Fortunately, I am not a psychologist.

I can only meekly refer, once again, to the afore-mentioned soup we have got ourselves into and urge friend and foe alike to get their acts together quick.

Added on 18 March 2018: See interview of Stephen Pinker on Al Jazeera

Kunst versus virkeligheten versus realisme versus underholdning

En sjelden gang blir jeg glad. Det er i alle fall sjeldent om vinteren, siden jeg hverken kan eller vil gå på ski, nyte julebord eller se på TV. Men glad ble jeg.

Det er også ytterst sjelden jeg føler jeg har oppdaget sannheten, og godt er det, for jeg har problemer nok som det er – det er ikke lett å være pelshval om vinteren – om jeg ikke også skulle ha en personlighetsforstyrrelse.

Men nå har det seg slik at jeg er blitt glad og har oppdaget sannheten nesten samtidig, og det midt på vinteren! Det er for øvrig ikke jeg som har oppdaget sannheten, men en filmskaper som har oppdaget den for meg. Filmskaperen heter Roy Andersson, men hva sannheten er, kan jeg sannelig ikke si, bare se i hans filmtrilogi.

desember_vennerBildet til høyre har ingeting med hans filmtrilogi å gjøre, men jeg ville ikke ha tatt med meg kamera på min hundetur i kveld, om jeg ikke nettopp hadde sett  “En duva satt på en gren och funderade på tillvaron”.

Personene til Roy Andersson sier nesten ingenting. Det er ikke minst derfor det er blitt film av dem: De har et problem de ikke er klar over, kanskje et problem mange av oss andre også har uten å være klar over det: Vi får ikke egentlig satt ord på det vi føler og tenker.

Noen omgir seg riktignok med skummende tale, egen og andres. Andre klarer i det minste å konversere såpass at de unngår at samvær ebber ut i flakkende blikk, stillhet som høres og noen som stormer ut av rommet (eventuelt også andre som stormer etter).

Personene i Roy Anderssons filmtrilogi gjør ikke det. De later ikke en gang til å prøve å kommunisere ordentlig. De er liksom forbi det der med samtale. De fleste av dem virker rent ut sagt litt stakkarslige, men det er likevel de som bærer det filmene har å fortelle oss, og det er ikke lite. Filmene sier det meste, og mere til. Ja, det er kunst, påstår nå jeg.

De er også underholdning og de handler om livet. Er de dermed også realistiske? Tja. Hva er nå egentlig realisme?

Voksne pelshvaler har levd så lenge at de er lut lei “ismer”, men ismenes tid er nok ikke over og blir det kanskje aldri. Det later til at ett av menneskets fortrinn fremfor andre arter er dets evne til å strukturere og katalogisere. Denne evnen blir for eksempel målt i intelligenstester. Også kunst må finne seg i å bli katalogisert, akk. Pelshvaler har sett ismene, trendene, motene og skolene går i beina på hverandre. Vi har sett neo-gotikk og neo-neogotikk for ikke snakk om nyklassisme som altså er neo-neo-neoklassisme. Nå har vi lenge lidd under minimalismen, som grovt forklart går ut på å skrelle vekk alt, og erstatte det med ingenting. Dyrt er det og, om ikke i produksjon, så for forbrukeren (paradoksalt nok).

Noen vil kanskje hevde at Roy Anderssons filmer er minimalistiske. Den mannen kan nemlig virkelig skrelle vekk. Men det som kommer i stedet er ikke “ingenting”! Alt han lager er omhyggelig konstruert inne i et hermetisk studio: gater, kafeer, og alt det andre merkelige han finner på. Hvert fottrinn høres, hvert glass eller albu som plantes på bordet, hver fugl som flytter seg og hver kvist som brekker. Høres, registreres og lagres. Hver scene er et bilde, et vakkert bilde, intet mindre, som minner meg om bilder jeg har sett i National Gallery, for eksempel, og i Danmark (Hammarshøi). Selv scener i triste femtitallsleiligheter. Ingen skal fortelle meg at femtitallsleiligheter ikke er virkelige! Her dreier det seg ikke om et maleri som gjenspeiler virkeligheten, men om en virkelighet som gjenspeiler malerier gjennom hundrevis av år.

desember_nattMen hvilken virkelighet dreier deg seg om, og hva er handlingen? Stiller du meg disse spørsmålene, vil jeg spørre tilbake: Hva handler virkeligheten om? Slik jeg ser det handler filmen om deg og meg, om hvordan vi forholder oss til nuet og til fremtiden.

Sannheten jeg har oppdaget er at kunst i alt for stor grad har vært opptatt av “plot”, for å bruke et moderne ord. Kunstnere har ønsket å tekkes publikum med å utruste litteratur, film og sågar billedkunst med historier om kamp mellom det gode og det onde, om ofre og helter, om overvinnelse mot alle odds, om forsakelse for fellesskapets skyld og mye annet vakkert. Jeg skal være den siste til å kaste sten på en god historieforteller. En god historieforteller er som en ypperlig tegner. Begge trengs!

Det pelshvaler ikke liker er alt juggelet som henges på den gode historien i film, i malerier og i romaner, selv i musikk. Kanskje kommer jeg tilbake til alt det pelshvaler ikke liker i et senere innlegg. Kanskje ikke. Sikkert er det at mange gode fortellere, tegnere og musikere utnyttes til å lage juggel. Dette er et stort kapittel jeg ikke skal si et ord mer om nå.

Fordi folk gjerne liker – og med god grunn – en god historie, så utnyttes den gode historien ad infinitum. Resultatet er en endeløs rekke filmer som, fra en pelshvals perspektiv, knapt kan skilles fra hverandre.

Roy Anderssson har viet mesteparten av sin kunst til kommersialiteten uten anførselstegn. Han har vært, og er enda, en av reklamefilmens mestere. Ærlig og redelig reklame, slik jeg ser det. Trilogien hans er produktet av overskuddet han har opparbeidet av å vie sin kunst til uforfalsket kommersialitet. (Her er det altså noen tranpiller å svelge.)

For meg er hans navn som gravert i stein etter at jeg igjen har sett at han uten “plot”, uten torturscener, uten snev av sentimentalitet, nostalgi eller erotikk, uten biljakt, psykoterror eller “fantasi”, uten hyl og/eller skrik og med så mye malerisk estetikk klarer å fortelle så mye om livet slik det er og antyde så mye om livet slik det kunne ha vært. Men kjedelig er det ikke: En som var til stede under visningen på filmfestivalen i Venezia (hvor han vant Gulløven), beskrev tilskuerne da de kom ut i dagslyset som “shellshocked”.

Vær hilset Mester Andersson!

Muren og elefantene

Vi feirer i disse dager murens fall. Benket foran TV lytter vi rørt til folk som klarte å komme seg over eller under den og gleder oss med dem som så den falle, og det er ikke bare én men flere elefanter blant oss i rommet.border-fence

Ingen nevner vår tids murer, for eks, den i Ceuta  og den langs USAs sørlige grense.

BBC skrev allerede den 29/9 at så langt i år hadde offisielt 3072 mennesker mistet livet i forsøk på å krysse Middelhavet. (Middelhavet fungerer jo som en mur.) De skriver videre at kilden deres anslår at det reelle tallet er tre ganger høyere.

Sør for murene lever man farlig, i den grad man lever. I Guatemala, Honduras og Mexico var det i 2012 henholdsvis 6025, 7172 og 26037 drap. Dette er vel og merke de offisielle tallene. (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime).

Statistikk viser et klart samsvar mellom fattigdom og vold. Mer enn det: Det later til å være klart dokumentert at fattigdom der det er store forskjeller mellom fattig og rik (som dem vi ser i Mellomamerika) regelrett avler vold. (Det er mye dokumentasjon for dette, noe av det så faglig at det nesten er uleselig, f.eks. fra World Bank. Denne avisartikkelen sier vel ganske kort noe av det samme, mens Oxfam har nettopp utgitt en viktig rapport viet til emnet.

Ja, det later til å være generell enighet om dette, men inntektsforskjellene bare øker! Er ikke det rart? Også i Norge! Veldig rart altså. Dreier det seg om noe vi mennesker ikke kan kontrollere? Eller er det faktisk slik at vi kan velge om vi beskatter de rikeste eller de fattigste i samfunnet?

Jeg går ut fra at de fleste av oss er enige om at elefanter i rommet ikke bidrar til noe godt inneklima. Vi må bare ikke gjøre noe nummer ut av dem, for slik må det vel være, akk; trist for druknende afrikanere, selvfølgelig, men livet er nå en gang slik det er. Vi putter tross alt gjerne penger på bøsser. Vi er i alle fall ikke slemme, som Assad og IS.

Huff ja, syrerne – var det to millioner av dem som er på flukt, sa du? Men vi må passe på å ikke la slike tanker forsure hverdagen, ikke sant?

Utover enigheten er det nok mye rusk. Det er det fine med demokrati (som for øvrig har mange ulemper). Vi har ulike løsninger eller ingen løsninger, og ulike måter å fremme eller ikke fremme våre eventuelle synspunkter på. Enten vi hisser oss opp eller ikke, går i demonstrasjonstog, driver med selvskading, ber til Gud eller er sivilt ulydige, så gir vi uttrykk for noe, og i de fleste tilfeller er det helt greit.

Vi får være takknemlige for at vi bor trygt og godt inne i den fine glasskulen vår, med druknende, sultende mennesker behørig utestengt, på utsiden. Av og til flimrer det ubehagelige syn over skjermen: ansikter fordreid av hat, men det er ikke vår virkelighet. Det er bare på TV. Nå er det snart jul, og finstas og fest. Av og til er det bryllup. Vi kan snurre rundt og rundt oppå toppen av brudekaken inni glasskulen vår. Jeg lurer på om jeg skal omdøpe meg til Festhvalen.

Og nå litt spansk historie

Jeg skylder en av mine nærmeste en forklaring på hvem denne karen var, og så tenker jeg at andre heller ikke tar skade av å få vite det. Primo de Rivera

Primo de Rivera var en diktator som kom til makten i Spania ved statskupp i 1923, og som holdt fortet til få måneder før han døde i 1930. Det spesielle ved Riveras maktovertakelse var at hans statskupp møtte relativt lite motstand. Den katolske kirken, militæret og størstedelen av det samlede arbeidsgiverskapet støttet det aktivt. Men at venstresiden ikke steilet, skyldtes at han – slik de senere forsto – seilte under falskt flagg. Han ga nemlig sin verbale tilslutning til en reformplattform kalt “el regeneracionismo” (gjenskapingen mer enn gjenoppbyggingen).

Denne plattformen vant veldig bred tilslutning, og det kan en lett forstå. Jeg pleier gjerne å omtale spansk historie som “un desastre”. Etter den kristne overtakelsen av Andalucía levde Spania av skattene fra Søramerika uten å bygge opp noe eget næringsliv. Dette var blitt klart for de fleste utdannede spanjolene på slutten av 1800-tallet. Landbruket var utarmet og primitivt, og den industrielle revolusjonen var knapt påbegynt (bortsett fra i Cataluña).

Samtidig opprettholdt landet en glitrende og uforskammet luksuriøs fasade. Politisk makt var nominelt en parlamentarisk pendel, men pendelen dirret bare så vidt innenfor oligarkiet (bestående av de samme som på 1900-tallet skulle støtte Rivera og Franco), noe som ga et falsk inntrykk av stabilitet utad. Tingenes reelle tilstand, nemlig nød for størstedelen av befolkning, var ikke-tema, internt i landet og andre steder. Man forholdt seg til maktapparatet, og det virket stabilt nok.

I løpet av siste fjerdedel av 1800-tallet krevde stadig flere at Spania måtte gjenskape seg selv. Mer enn det: Det var etterhvert stadig færre som ikke delte dette synet.

Det var ikke minst utallige kunstnere, politiske og filosofiske tenkere, dyktige kafétalere og frie skribenter som spredde ulike varianter av disse tankene. For så vidt en fin tid, kan man si, i hvert fall ville jeg muligens ha kost meg i en av de store spanske byene rundt århundreskiftet.

Det var yrende intellektuell aktivitet, en ideblomstring uten like, men, som vi så ofte har sett i historien: Mens noen tenkte og pratet og skrev ad infinitum, var det andre som faktisk handlet, oftest ut fra egne interesser. Det var en uoverstigelig kløft mellom teori og praksis som aldri fikk anledning til å korrigere hverandre, og tingenes elendige tilstand fortsatte som før fram til krigen.

Som nøytralt land tjente Spania godt på krigen, da landets eksport til begge sider steg dramatisk, samtidig som importen sank. Det var imidlertid kun en ørliten del av befolkningen som fikk nyte godt av de raskt økende gullreservene. Matvaremangel og stadig verre kår for det overveldende flertallet av befolkningen førte til det vi i våre dager omtaler med eufemismen “sosial uro”. Vi kan bare tenke oss hvor skremmende de omstreifende flokkene av eiendomsløse, arbeidsledige, sinte og sultne mennesker må ha fortont seg for oligarkiet, ikke minst mot bakteppet av den russiske revolusjonen.

Primo de Rivera var en del av oligarkiet, og han videreførte langt på vei nettopp det han i utgangspunktet angivelig ønsket avvikle. Han var en militær diktator som forbød alle politiske partier, alle regionale språk (hovedsakelig baskisk, galicisk og katalansk) og kulturuttrykk, og slo hardt ned på fagorganisert og venstrepolitisk motstand. Riktignok lot han bygge ut et jernbane- og veinett, dessuten demninger, men dette ble gjort ved hjelp av lån fra utlandet, noe som igjen førte til sviende inflasjon.

Forholdene for en del industriarbeidere ble imidlertid vesentlig mye bedre under hans ledelse, da han i likhet med Mussolini lot opprette fagforeninger i statlig regi med statlige meklere. Industriledere kunne ikke lenger herse helt som de ville.

Ikke desto mindre var Spania ved inngangen til 30-tallet fortsatt en “desastre”, et bakvendtland, spesielt på landsbygda.

Da det jeg har skrevet så langt, ikke er kontroversielt, gir jeg ingen referanser. Det jeg imidlertid lurer på, er hvilken status De Ribera har i Spania i dag.

I dag som tidlig på 1900-tallet er velgernes forakt for hele politikerkasten grenseløs. Nå som da er taler spekket med ordene “patria” og “gloria”, ord som enda kan bevege. Slik sett minner Spania om USA, hvor  politikerne gjerne også har Gud med i teamet sitt. Likevel og som følge av de siste årenes stadige avsløringer av politisk korrupsjon i alle kriker og kroker av forvaltning og næringsliv, er begrepene “politikk” og “politiker” blitt odiøse for spanjoler flest. Det forunderlige er at korrupsjonen bare fortsetter. Politikerne tar sjanser, akkurat som investorer. Blir de avslørt, tar den påfølgende etterforskningen mange år, og i mellomtiden får de ordnet seg.

I Riveras hjemby er minnesmerket til ham svært godt fremhevet, omgitt av blomsterbed of fontener. Jeg tipper det finnes de som tenker at det ville være greit med en ny Rivera. Han ville ha bragt avisene til taushet og stoppet avsløringene av korrupsjon, tenker noen. Mens andre tenker: Han ville ha fått fjernet alle politikerne, og da ville det ikke lenger være korrupsjon. Jeg er redd vi begynner å nærme oss de alt for enkle løsningenes tid.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Pelshval

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑