Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label journalism. Show all posts
1.2.11
Dancehall Vol. 2
A shortened and edited part of my dissertation has found its way into my friends' Ben and Hannah's journal, Dancehall. It's got new poems by Peter Manson and a selection of responses to November's Instal festival at the Tramway, which a lot of us as part of the Glasgow Open School took part in. You can order it for £2 or read it on their website here.
13.7.09
Explaining Lars Von Trier
There is a good interview with Lars Von Trier in last Sunday's Observer magazine, but it could have been far better if the interviewer wasn't so intent on explaining Von Trier and his films. It assumes so much of the reader - that they are of the same viewpoint as them, which appeared to be that Von Trier is weird and mad and needs understanding and explaining away into a nice little narrative that makes sense of it all.
Par example, little asides such as this reaction to Von Trier's excitement at a potential idea that try to include us in the author's sneery condescension:
""One of my techniques," he says, "is to defend an idea or a view that is not mine. So, for instance, it could be that I make a film about the human side of Hitler. That would be very interesting to me."
I tell him that I can't wait. He nods, either ignoring, or not registering, my sarcasm."
I am fascinated by the same idea that Von Trier is. To argue for, or to defend an idea that you do not agree with is a real intellectual challenge, and one that would be very interesting to to explore with such an interesting film-maker. But no. Instead, the author asks him to define his politics.
What frustrates me in a lot of pieces like this is the desire to simplify and "narrativise" the artist being interviewed. The author of the piece - presumably under a certain amount of editorial pressure to produce something that has some semblance of structure, answers questions set out in advance, and of course, isn't too "highbrow" for a Sunday afternoon supplement - ends up trying to pound the artist into a narrative that they go into the meeting wielding like a baseball bat. Round pegs into square holes. The narrative in this case seems to be that Von Trier is crazy but something's made him crazy and it's possible that that something can be found in his films or in the fact that the person he thought was his dad isn't actually his dad. OK, discovering that would have certain repercussions, but this simple pop-psychology narrative imposed on these stories is so simple it cannot be the answer to all ills.
There is a film that exists - The Five Obstructions, made by Von Trier himself - that gets much, much closer to "understanding" him. This article comes across as tired and out of date. It is essentially a rehash of previous profiles and the giggling fits that the author seems so remarkable are probably Von Trier having some fun with the questions he gets ad infinitum.
Because Von Trier seems to be able to quite successfully separate his self - or parts of it - from his films, interviewers are left in a tiz. I would expect Sean O'Hagan, the interviewer here, to be aware of the possibility of these sorts of issues, especially within art. If we accept that artists are interested in what makes us what we are, and what makes society what it is, it is absurd to expect them to spend their careers broadcasting their personal feelings of the Iraq war, of right and left politics, of feminism, of economics, of whatever. There's nothing quite so boring - and boorish - as someone pontificating on their view of the world, assuming that you care.
(What a sentence to end a blog posting! Ha ha. Irony not lost).
Par example, little asides such as this reaction to Von Trier's excitement at a potential idea that try to include us in the author's sneery condescension:
""One of my techniques," he says, "is to defend an idea or a view that is not mine. So, for instance, it could be that I make a film about the human side of Hitler. That would be very interesting to me."
I tell him that I can't wait. He nods, either ignoring, or not registering, my sarcasm."
I am fascinated by the same idea that Von Trier is. To argue for, or to defend an idea that you do not agree with is a real intellectual challenge, and one that would be very interesting to to explore with such an interesting film-maker. But no. Instead, the author asks him to define his politics.
What frustrates me in a lot of pieces like this is the desire to simplify and "narrativise" the artist being interviewed. The author of the piece - presumably under a certain amount of editorial pressure to produce something that has some semblance of structure, answers questions set out in advance, and of course, isn't too "highbrow" for a Sunday afternoon supplement - ends up trying to pound the artist into a narrative that they go into the meeting wielding like a baseball bat. Round pegs into square holes. The narrative in this case seems to be that Von Trier is crazy but something's made him crazy and it's possible that that something can be found in his films or in the fact that the person he thought was his dad isn't actually his dad. OK, discovering that would have certain repercussions, but this simple pop-psychology narrative imposed on these stories is so simple it cannot be the answer to all ills.
There is a film that exists - The Five Obstructions, made by Von Trier himself - that gets much, much closer to "understanding" him. This article comes across as tired and out of date. It is essentially a rehash of previous profiles and the giggling fits that the author seems so remarkable are probably Von Trier having some fun with the questions he gets ad infinitum.
Because Von Trier seems to be able to quite successfully separate his self - or parts of it - from his films, interviewers are left in a tiz. I would expect Sean O'Hagan, the interviewer here, to be aware of the possibility of these sorts of issues, especially within art. If we accept that artists are interested in what makes us what we are, and what makes society what it is, it is absurd to expect them to spend their careers broadcasting their personal feelings of the Iraq war, of right and left politics, of feminism, of economics, of whatever. There's nothing quite so boring - and boorish - as someone pontificating on their view of the world, assuming that you care.
(What a sentence to end a blog posting! Ha ha. Irony not lost).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Me
- Mark
- I am writing a PhD at the University of Glasgow entitled "The Poetics of Time in Contemporary Literature". My writing has been published in Type Review, Dancehall, Puffin Review and TheState. I review books for Gutter and The List. I am also an editor and reviewer at the Glasgow Review of Books.