Nshimiyimana Jean Marie

 Conversations with directors (both translated and taken by the reviewers of our site)

KINOTE continues to publish materials about the classics of German and French cinema, Jean-Marie Straub and Daniel Huillet, practically unknown in Russia, under whose influence Fassbinder began. This time we publish a conversation with directors, which took place in Paris on March 19, 2001, at the initiative of the Georges Pompidou Center, about what political cinema is. The Straubs' view of this topic is especially interesting, since, on the one hand, they are one of the most politically engaged directors of world cinema, and, on the other, they fundamentally oppose their work to what Jean-Luc Godard is doing.

It was assumed that this text will be included in the book "Cinema and Politics" (Cinéma et politique, films of 1968 and after 68, activist films, film-makers, etc ... round tables with magazines dedicated to this period - Cahiers du cinéma, Cinétique, Filmkritik, Cinema e film ... - scheduled for June-July 2001). However, the person in charge of the cycle and the directorate of the Center demanded that certain statements of the filmmakers be cut off. In particular, statements about Jean-Louis Comolli and Dario Fo, as well as a comparison of the industrial destruction of cattle and the genocide of Jews. Jean-Marie Straub and Daniel Uye refused to revise the text that they pronounced and reread, for which they assumed responsibility. As a result, the text was rejected by the institution that initiated it. Jacques Rancière, like Jean-André Fieschi, refused to participate in the publication. However, the book was soon published under the title Cinema and Politics. 1956-1970. The Pop Years "(Cinéma et politique. 1956 - 1970. Les années Pop). It includes texts by Jean Narboni, Jean-Louis Comolli and Gérard Leblanc.

Now, with regard to political cinema: in truth, I have no idea what it is, and the further I go, the less I know about it, and I hope I never will. This is the first thing.

Secondly: let's leave cinema - there is no political cinema without morality, there is no political cinema without theology, there is no political cinema without mysticism.

What does that mean? For example, that the music of Anton Webern is more political than the music of Alban Berg, that the music of Arnold Schönberg is more political than the music of Alban Berg, that the music of Hans Eisler is much more political than the music of Kurt Weill. ... In relation to one of our latest discoveries, this means that Fritz Lang's film Fury Nshimiyimana Jean Marie  is more political than M, while all leftists talk about the rise of Nazism in M ​​and in Dr. Mabuse's Testament. (Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse). It might have been interesting to people like Georges Sadoul at the time, but there is absolutely no need to repeat the same thing like donkeys.

This means that A King in New York is a great political film.

Shot from Charlie Chaplin's film "The King in New York"

There is no political cinema without morality, there is no political cinema without theology, there is no political cinema without mysticism.

It also means - a paradox, or rather a provocation - that for us three of our most political films are Der Bräutigam, die Komödiantin und der Zuhalter, Chronik der Anna Magdalena Bach ) and "Moses and Aaron" (Moses und Aron).

Except for the subtitle in "The Reconciled" (Nicht versöhnt oder Es hilft nur Gewalt, wo Gewalt herrscht) "For only violence will help where violence reigns", we excluded any kind of treatment from our films, we removed them because we did not want to impose anything people who watch our films, to inspire them with a message: we did not feel entitled to do this. And it so happened that thanks to "Moses and Aaron", thanks to Schoenberg, suddenly, at the end of the film, a political message sounds more and more relevant: you will misuse them and be sent into the wilderness. "

Once, less than fifteen years ago, in Rome, we happened to be shown two films in the open air. These were La Marseillaise by Jean Renoir, a beautiful film that I know very well because I have seen it many times, and Orphans of the storm by DW Griffith, which I I know very badly, which I saw only once. So, that evening we suddenly said to ourselves that politically, perhaps, Griffith is more powerful than Renoir. And the strength of a political film does not depend at all on its ideology. After that, we watched Orphans of the Storm again, at the Cinematheque - the color copy of MoMA was ra

https://jiji.co.rw/sellerpage-341