Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 14:46:04 +1000 (EST) From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au> Subject: M-I: Response to Hugh and Chris Hugh's almost-gracious response to my post on The Pride of the Marines (POM) raised an issue that is occupying me - the matter of aesthetic judgement. Let us take specifically the political scenes in Land & Freedom (L&F) and POM. On *one* viewing of both sequences I formed the judgement that Maltz did this better than Loach/Allen. Hugh's writes that his first response here was to call me a "Stalinist". On reflection even he would admit I suspect that this was premature. I am as ever anxious to break from the sterile politics of Stalin versus Trotsky and this has been interpreted that I am "soft on Stalinism" or some kind of closeted Stalinist but surely there can be little doubt that I prefer the politics of Jim Allen to those of Albert Maltz? Chris B. responded to Hugh's post pointing out that he enjoyed the political scene in L&F even though he came to a different political position from Hugh's. And I will come back to Chris's position later. But I want to insist that we leave such political considerations aside when we come to judge the films. As far as L&F is concerned I absolutely support the position that the peasants should have seized the land and done what was necessary with the former owners to ensure that they were not a present or future threat. But in aesthetic terms I felt that I was at a branch meeting. The kind we used to have in the Communist League when we in Brisbane debated the Portuguese revolution to decide whether we should join up with the SWP. Our debates then were abstract ad absurdissimum. We should have been debating Australia, of course. Similarly in L&F I felt that the central concern was not the actual peasants but the rehashing of the united versus the popular front debate. Now again my trotskyist training was very thorough and I have just succeeded in thinking that such matters are not the life and death of the revolution. But more importantly in aesthetic terms I was hurled out of the drama and I form the judgement that in aesthetic terms this was a mistake. Now Chris' reaction is intriguing for my position. Implicit in what he says is an aesthetic criterion. Relevant here is the Bakhtinian distinction between polyphonic and monologic texts. The polyphonic text is superior because it contains many voices - roughly points of view. So for Chris L&F was polyphonic and he read it as he felt he should. I agree with Chris that the L&F provided enough for one to form one's own political conclusions. I also support the notion that this is an important aesthetic criterion. But I still prefer Maltz's scene - why? Well the number of positions within Maltz's set piece were very complex. I especially liked the tension between what I felt was populism and class based radicalism. The text does close this all off with patriotic hymn but for a moment class anger does take the stage. It is only until the end of the sequence that I get the feeling that I am at a branch meeting and the Browderites have won the vote and the debate's over. So here I am forming my judgement of the aesthetic superiority of the Maltz text based on the complexity of the drama mirroring the complexity of life. Art must simplify reality of course but there is a balance there and I think Maltz comes closer to achieving it. There's a wonderful poem "The Cool Web" by Robert Graves which says what I am trying to articulate here and with comrades indulgence I will quote it in full, because I do not know how to abbreviate it to make my point and do it justice at the same time. Children are dumb to say how hot the day is, How hot the scent is of the summer rose, How dreadful the black wastes of evening sky, How dreadful the tall soldiers drumming by. But we have speech, to chill the angry day, And speech, to dull the rose's cruel scent. We spell away the overhanging night, We spell away the soldiers and the fright. There's a cool web of language winds us in, Retreat from too much joy or too much fear: We grow sea-green at last and coldly die In brininess and volubility. But if we let our tongues lose self-possession, Throwing off language and its watery clasp Before our death, instead of when death comes, Facing the wide glare of the children's day, Facing the rose, the dark sky and the drums, We shall go mad no doubt and die that way. So to sum up I preferred i.e. judged as aesthetically superior POM because it was much closer to the "roses's cruel scent" while L&F smacked too much of the watery grasp of language, had too much of the "cool web" about it. So I have broached two aesthetic criteria here - the Bakhtinian polyphonic one and another which I will call the reality criterion. I also implied that I felt that the latter was more important. Why? Well, to be frank at this stage of my reading in aesthetics I cannot say. There is another problem here which is bothering me, and which I may return to. Namely how does one separate out the ethical/political from the aesthetic? After all isn't the notion of Polyphony an ethical as well as an aesthetic criterion? Again I have no answer here. I have been contemplating trying to use Bhaskar's notion of constellationality where when we have two terms where one over reaches the other. So of the ethical and the aesthetic which is the over reaching term? For me always the ethical but does this not lead us back to Hugh's position? However I will leave this here unless there is an expression of specific interest. Now having said all that a caveat. Both films would need to be studied in much more detail than I could give them. I specially regret that POM does not seem to be readily available. But nevertheless I think we broached a very important topic namely the autonomy of the aesthetic and the necessity of aesthetic judgements. y --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005