Fassbinder

There is a unifying principle that underlies Fassbinder’s critique of modernity. Fascism isn’t a political program. Fascism is an inherent, pervasive condition, a cancer at the center of modern life. How do we deal with this fascism? How do we hold it at bay? Characters seek out the safety of anonymity, the cold comfort of depression, passionless lives, the perfection of inauthentic, tired, rote mechanical repetition. This is one possible response to fascism. Violence, extreme self-destruction is another. Neither are a cure, of course, but a temporary salve, a mild palliative at best. Sadomasochism in this sense is not a disease unto itself in need of further psychological treatment, but a logical response to fascism. The cauldron broils, the frustrations builds. Scapegoats become necessary. There must be a cause to our ills. This is why left wing critiques were off mark. You can not reduce the complex psychological makeup of a character to prototype. Petra’s loneliness, madness, and cruelty have nothing to do with her lesbianism, and everything to do with the fascism of modern life.

Is there no way out of this? Perhaps not. It is a bleak, pessimistic view of modern lives. The role of the artist is to bring this disquieting truth to the forefront, examine it under extreme conditions, not to present a 15-point political program to cure fascism once and for all.

Essential Directors

Andrei Tarkovsky

Ingmar Bergman

Robert Bresson

Jean-Luc Godard

Federico Fellini

Akira Kurosawa

Alfred Hitchcock

Michelangelo Antonioni

Luis Buñuel

Roberto Rossellini

Orson Welles

Satyajit Ray

Yasujiro Ozu

Stanley Kubrick

Claire Denis

Agnes Varda

David Lynch

Abbas Kiarostami

Martin Scorsese

Quentin Tarantino

Francis Ford Coppola

Jean Renoir

John Ford

Howard Hawks

Carl Th. Dreyer

Charlie Chaplin

Buster Keaton

Fritz Lang

Billy Wilder

Vittorio De Sica

Francois Truffaut

Rainer Werner Fassbinder

Sergei Eisenstein

Powell and Pressburger

Hayao Miyazaki

Kenji Mizoguchi

Béla Tarr

Edward Yang

Victor Erice

Wong Kar Wai

Max Ophuls

Luchino Visconti

Ousmane Sembène

Sergio Leone

Stephen Spielberg

John Cassavetes

Robert Altman

Werner Herzog

Lucrecia Martel

Terrence Malick

Céline Sciamma

Chantal Akerman

Eric Rohmer

Jean-Pierre Melville

Wim Wenders

Coen Brothers

Spike Lee

Hou Hsiao-hsien

Nicolas Roeg

Louis Malle

Jean-Pierre Melville

Apichatpong Weerasethakul

Paul Thomas Anderson

Pedro Almodóvar

John Huston

David Cronenberg

Otto Preminger

Elia Kazan

Harold and the Purple Crayon by Crockett Johnson

Alternative ending: Harold gets lonely, decides to draw a friend. Harold sneezes and the mouth turns into a scowl and the eyes are narrow and shifty. The friend turns into a thief and steals the crayon. Harold pursues the thief. Thief draws an open door then covers it with locks to escape. Harold unlocks the doors and corners the thief along a back alley wall. The thief draws a sanitary sewer drain then manages to slide through twisting purplish tunnels. Finally, Harold notices feint purple footsteps left by the thief near a wastewater treatment plant. Harold swipes the crayon when the thief isn’t looking. He draws a quick balloon filled with blue soot and drops it on the thief’s head from a hastily drawn ladder. The thief’s head is saturated in blue crayon. Harold quickly re-draws the mouth into a friendly smile, and the eyes into a warm and welcoming demeanor. The two smile, shake hands in an emphatic manner, Harold snaps his crayon in half and hands his new friend a crayon. The two end up up happily tracing a field where they frolic and play and let their imagination go wild.

The Primacy of the Voice

Dreyer’s first love is the voice. For silent film, the voice is heard through the lyricism of movement, the dance that forms from the interplay of staging, the shifting of light and perspective, the tempo of quick editing, the choice of when or whether to include the narrative as written text, etc. When sound broke through the 2D barrier, these earlier techniques were quickly discarded by the mature Dreyer and fell out of favor. He had mastered a whole set of silent film techniques only to abandon them on principle. After all, it would only add an unnecessary complication, interfere with the true voice carried by the lyrical performance of the actors. Why protrude or impose your own artistic stamp as a Director when a single shot allows the actors to express so much unimpeded by the conventions of film?

It was a move many critics condemned in his later works, the experience equated to watching paint dry or furniture rearranged. Gertrud, his last film, was panned for that reason. “I mean, they’re not even making eye contact half the time!” In Venice, half the audience walked out. Those that stayed gave him a standing ovation. Godard proclaimed it the best film of 1964. Had it been around at the time, it is conceivable that a Razzie nomination would have been forthcoming. True, films can polarize us, but the contrasting views don’t reside in the same filmic universe. It’s a small sample size of “genius or revolting, contrived self-indulgence” which I include the films India Song and Last Year at Marienbad.*

Already in the 1960s we see the clear emergence of a “modern film audience” well-versed and raised on the conventions and techniques of film, only to have those expectations dashed at every turn. A steady shot = boredom. Nothing is happening because something must happen within a film. It’s the Action Rule, something described by a tentative mathematical formula (A=MT), Action = Motion x Temperament. “Don’t show me the inner lives of ordinary people. Film must be about something extraordinary. Otherwise, it’s just people talking, not doing.” But this is only a matter of positioning and artistic choice. The Action Rule is often evoked when the voice stands in for the collective id of the audience and, for that reason, often becomes formulaic in its expression. A good guy beating a bad guy is an immensely satisfying experience, and better still when it is sped up in unnatural time (e.g., a John Wick fight scene). The Action Rule can often be used as a substitute for the voice or to disguise a film’s hidden ideology or secret wish-fulfillment.

Regardless, the voice is never a single unitary object, but a qualitative multiplicity. Where does the voice come from? Or better still, who is entitled to wrestle it in their vanity and pride? Much like a hot potato, perhaps, a playful dance back and forth exists between performers, the director as auteur, and the audience projecting themselves and their desires into the luminous space.

* To clear up any misconception, I rate all three films as exceptional.

The Purpose of My Art

My art is predicated upon four foundational principles:

1. Relativity – A projective geometry. Perspectives change, but we each experience the same (valid) edifice or structure.

2. Symmetry – A projective description. The totality of perspectives unite into the same edifice.

3. Invariance – The intermediate unchanging connections or conditions that allow relativity and symmetry to unfold. A kind of pre-geometry, table, stage, field, or lattice upon which calculations can be performed.

4. Complementarity – Mutually exclusive within our local domain. You cannot paint the Sistine Chapel on top of the Mona Lisa. So choose wisely.

Free Will or Agency?

There are philosophical ideas that run headlong into the scientific method that generate strange debates. Not the fruitful kind, but ones that feel more like semantics and equivocation. The best example is the zombie debate between free will vs. determinism. Really? This again? I can’t wrap my head around it. Are there philosophers still asserting that there is something intrinsically non-physical about human agency? At a certain point, we coarse-grain the distinction away. I have agency. I can reach for the pen, or not. This is not free in the sense that an absurd number of causal factors went in to constitute my ability to make that decision (evolving from a single cell organism to a fully constituted human being with arms, fingers, an opposable thumb, nerves, spinal cord, and a brain). Nor is it against my will (God, or Jigsaw, is not forcing a gun to my head demanding a hard choice). The choice is to all extent and purposes superfluous, for Natural Selection gave me the power to choose and will ultimately decide whether my choice was a wise one. Is this free will? No, it’s an intentional act, it’s agency. Physical systems have evolved to allow some things (me, you, alive things) to be able to perform intentional acts. The mystery is why anyone thinks there is a metaphysical mystery.

The other side of the debate sometimes pushes the line too far. In an attempt to assert the undeniable fact that humans are governed by the same laws of physics as rocks (yawn), a hard determinism attempts to deny intentional acts. Wait? I thought we were debating free will? Are we now denying the existence of volition in general? Oh please. No one seriously believes this. When the waiter gives me my choices to drink “coffee, tea, or water” and I say coffee, am I supposed to curse an evil God who secretly programmed me to make the decision he alone wanted? What kind of madness is this? Push that line of thinking and you’ve not elevated determinism. You’ve simply elided a key distinction between life and non-life. One of the reasons I am able to distinguish rocks from life (a key differentiator) is an ability to produce a complex range of directed, purpose-driven behavior. The choices are the environment, life negotiates that space. And we call this agency, intention. That’s not a rejection of determinism, hard or soft. It’s just not instructive, not instrumental to a discussion of what is happening. It’s akin to the waiter saying “Coffee it is, but what is the point? In the end we are all dead.” Technically, it’s not even true. But philosophically, it’s non-severable.

If we say a complete physical description is impossible by a strict reductionist method, that there is some secret sauce that is needed to explain intentional acts and in particular consciousness, surely we are not committing to the idea that this special sauce must be non-physical? Is free will merely an attempt to smuggle magic back into our world? Why? The world, governed by physical laws grasped by mathematical equations, is quite magical to behold. You don’t need to smuggle anything. Or better still, as artists would say, there is a magical way in which Hobbits and Elves do inhabit and exist in the world regardless that no fossil record of their physical existence will likely be found. The universe is always much larger than we initially are led to believe. The greatest act of freedom is the power of our imagination.

The Draw of the Single Vision

There’s a style of artistry, something I call for lack of a better word humanist, that appeals to me. It is nothing concrete in my mind, perhaps not even generalizable. I have only a vague definition of what I mean, a gossamer web, something which the rigorous push and pull of analysis might break apart the entire delicate tapestry inside my hands (though does that make it any less real?) Perhaps it is best to first explain what I don’t mean. By humanist, I don’t (simply) mean a style of thinking which elevates human matters above the divine, placing primary importance on rational empathy over and above spiritual or religious inspiration. Rather, it is a singular vision, root and branch, one constructed and aimed solely on our actual lives, that is to say, the lived experience.

I’m not even sure I can explain what quality I’m trying to identify from a loose coterie of writers, artists, filmmakers that share some deeper affinity. I can only point out master technicians of the form. To keep it simple, I’ll pick three, two filmmakers and a novelist: Robert Bresson, Agnès Varda, and Kazuo Ishiguro. There is a control each brings that is shattering (of illusion and pretense) and mesmerizing. A singular, almost divine gaze holds us in rapt attention for the entirety of the experience. Yet what we see is often trivial, mundane, ordinary, in other words, human existence in its naked unapologetic form. There is no judgment pasted over our experience or smuggled back into the world through clever artifice. There is no contemporaneous moralizing. (True, Varda hued closest to that line, but orthogonally. Varda’s reflections are only one note in an entire narrative ensemble.)

These works of art, approached and built upon a foundation of radically different techniques, impart the same message. If you want judgment, dear viewer, if you want meaning, that is yours, all yours, no one else’s. Feel free to cry, laugh, or dismiss. But this is human, singularly human. Their commitment to hold and maintain that same consistent (pervasive) level of attention to their subject matter is extremely difficult from a technical point of view. In Kazuo’s Worlds, inhumanity seeps like water through the gaps and holes of what is left unspoken but implied. Film Directors hold special admiration for Bresson, in particular, as they know how incredibly difficult it is to maintain a consistent look, measure, tone, rhythm, technical control over a film shoot while at the same time allowing the characters and the story the freedom to come alive. Few of us can achieve the mastery needed for this singular vision before we break down, no, no, this is too much, and must avert our gaze out of simple human dignity and respect (or so we tell ourselves) before we try a new approach. And they lived happily ever after. Amen. Magical thinking.

As a writer, I’m always looking for the novel entry point from which to begin to fashion and mold my clay. I can’t draw or make art, but if I did, I always supposed I would have been a sculptor by temperament. I write in a similar fashion, starting from a loose mock-up or cartoon. Then I proceed to throw words down before molding and shaping them into a single construction. I do this because I am confused and want to clarify the mess of ideas inside my head. My beautiful confusion, as Fellini would say. But these artists, have achieved something profound, not singular constructions, but singular visions. To achieve a singular vision, perhaps the height of artistic achievement, requires an exceptional level of craftsmanship. So that would be a basic ingredient in my definition of humanist: constructed from exceptional craftsmanship to produce a singular vision of human lives and the lived experience without judgment, magical thinking, or artifice. Each of these artists, master technicians in their own way, produced remarkable art that seems to descend from above, outside time but fully entrenched in the moment, carried by gossamer wings, a singular vision I never thought possible, certainly within my own abilities.