Montag, 14. Februar 2011

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K LeGuin

With a clamor of bells that set the swallows soaring, the Festival of
Summer came to the city Omelas, bright-towered by the sea. The ringing
of the boats in harbor sparkled with flags. In the streets between
houses with red roofs and painted walls, between old moss-grown
gardens and under avenues of trees, past great parks and public
buildings, processions moved. Some were decorous: old people in long stiff robes of mauve and
gray, grave master workmen, quiet, merry women carrying their babies
and chatting as they walked. In other streets the music beat faster, a
shimmering of gong and tambourine, and the people went dancing, the
procession was a dance. Children dodged in and out, their high calls
rising like the swallows' crossing flights over the music and the
singing. All the processions wound towards the north side of the city,
where on the great water-meadow called the Green Fields boys and
girls, naked in the bright air, with mud-stained feet and ankles and
long, lithe arms,exercised their restive horses before the race. The
horses wore no gear at all but a halter without bit. Their manes were
braided with streamers of silver, gold, and green. They flared their
nostrils and pranced and boasted to one another; they were vastly
excited, the horse being the only animal who has adopted our
ceremonies as his own. Far off to the north and west the mountains
stood up half encircling Omelas on her bay. The air of morning was so
clear that the snow still crowning the Eighteen Peaks burned
withwhite-gold fire across the miles of sunlit air, under the dark
blue of the sky. There was just enough wind to make the banners that
marked the racecourse snap and flutter now and then. In the silence of
the broad green meadows one could hear the music winding throughout the
city streets, farther and nearer and ever approaching, a cheerful
faint sweetness of the air from time to time trembled and gathered
together and broke out into the great joyous clanging of the bells.

Joyous! How is one to tell about joy? How describe the citizens of
Omelas?

They were not simple folk, you see, though they were happy. But we do
not say the words of cheer much any more. All smiles have become
archaic. Given a description such as this one tends to make certain
assumptions. Given a description such as this one tends to look next
for the King, mounted on a splendid stallion and surrounded by his
noble knights, or perhaps in a golden litter borne by great-muscled
slaves. But there was no king. They did not use swords, or keep
slaves. They were not barbarians, I do not know the rules and laws of
their society, but I suspect that they were singularly few. As they
did without monarchy and slavery, so they also got on without the
stock exchange, the advertisement, the secret police, and the
bomb. Yet I repeat that these were not simple folk, not dulcet
shepherds, noble savages, bland utopians. There were not less complex
than us.

The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and
sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather
stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the
treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the
terrible boredom of pain. If you can't lick 'em, join 'em. If it
hurts, repeat it. But to praise despair is to condemn delight, to
embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else. We have almost
lost hold; we can no longer describe happy man, nor make any
celebration of joy. How can I tell you about the people of Omelas?
They were not naive and happy children--though their children were, in
fact, happy. They were mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose
lives were not wretched. O miracle! But I wish I could describe it
better. I wish I could convince you. Omelas sounds in my words like a
city in a fairy tale, long ago and far away, once upon a time. Perhaps
it would be best if you imagined it as your own fancy bids, assuming
it will rise to the occasion, for certainly I cannot suit you all. For
instance, how about technology? I think that there would be no cars or
helicopters in and above the streets; this follows from the fact that
the people of Omelas are happy people. Happiness is based on a just
discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor
destructive, and what is destructive. In the middle category,
however--that of the unnecessary but undestructive, that of
comfort, luxury, exuberance, etc.--they could perfectly well have
central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of
marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources,
fuelless power, a cure for the common cold. Or they could have none of
that: it doesn't matter. As you like it. I incline to think that
people from towns up and down the coast have been coming to to Omelas
during the last days before the Festival on very fast little trains
and double-decked trams, and that the trains station of Omelas is
actually the handsomest building in town, though plainer than the
magnificent Farmers' Market. But even granted trains, I fear that
Omelas so far strikes some of you as goody-goody. Smiles, bells,
parades, horses, bleh. If so, please add an orgy. If an orgy would
help, don't hesitate. Let us not, however, have temples from which
issue beautiful nude priests and priestesses already half in ecstasy
and ready to copulate with any man or woman, lover or stranger, who
desires union with the deep godhead of the blood, although that was my
first idea. But really it would be better not to have any temples in
Omelas--at least, not manned temples. Religion yes, clergy no. Surely
the beautiful nudes can just wander about, offering themselves like
divine souffles to the hunger of the needy and the rapture of the
flesh. Let them join the processions. Let tambourines be struck above
the copulations, and the gory of desire be proclaimed
upon the gongs, and (a not unimportant point) let the offspring of
these delightful rituals be beloved and looked after by all. One thing
I know there is none of in Omelas is guilt. But what else should there
be? I thought at first there were no drugs, but that is
puritanical. For those who like it, the faint insistent sweetness of
drooz may perfume the ways of the city, drooz which first brings a
great lightness and brilliance to the mind and limbs, and then after
some hours a dreamy languor, and wonderful visions at last of the very
arcane and inmost secrets of the Universe, as well as exciting the
pleasure of sex beyond all belief; and it is not habit-forming. For
more modest tastes I think there ought to be beer. What else, what
else belongs in the joyous city? The sense of victory, surely, the
celebration of courage. But as we did without clergy, let us do
without soldiers. The joy built upon successful slaughter is not the
right kind of joy; it will not do; it is fearful and it is trivial. A
boundless and generous contentment, a magnanimous triumph felt not
against some outer enemy but in communion with the finest and fairest
in the souls of all men everywhere and the splendor of the world's
summer: This is what swells the hearts of the people of Omelas, and the
victory they celebrate is that of life. I don't think many of them
need to take drooz.

Most of the processions have reached the Green Fields by now. A
marvelous smell of cooking goes forth from the red and blue tents of
the provisioners. The faces of small children are amiably sticky; in
the benign gray beard of a man a couple of crumbs of rich pastry are
entangled. The youths and girls have mounted their horses and are
beginning to group around the starting line of the course. An old
woman, small, fat, and laughing, is passing out flowers from a basket,
and tall young men wear her flowers in their shining hair. A child of
nine or ten sits at the edge of the crowd alone, playing on a wooden
flute.

People pause to listen, and they smile, but they do not speak to him,
for he never ceases playing and never sees them, his dark eyes wholly
rapt in the sweet, thing magic of the tune.

He finishes, and slowly lowers his hands holding the wooden flute.

As if that little private silence were the signal, all at once a
trumpet sounds from the pavilion near the starting line: imperious,
melancholy, piercing. The horses rear on their slender legs, and some
of them neigh in answer. Sober-faced, the young riders stroke the
horses' necks and soothe them, whispering. "Quiet, quiet, there my
beauty, my hope..." They begin to form in rank along the starting
line. The crowds along the racecourse are like a field of grass and
flowers in the wind. The Festival of Summer has begun.

Do you believe? Do you accept the festival, the city, the joy? No?
Then let me describe one more thing.

In a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas,
or perhaps in the cellar of one of its spacious private homes, there
is a room. It has one locked door, and no window. A little light seeps
in dustily between cracks in the boards, secondhand from a cobwebbed
window somewhere across the cellar. In one corner of the little room a
couple of mops, with stiff, clotted, foul-smelling heads, stand near a
rusty bucket. The floor is dirt, a little damp to the touch, as cellar
dirt usually is.

The room is about three paces long and two wide: a mere broom closet
or disused tool room. In the room, a child is sitting. It could be a
boy or a girl. It looks about six, but actually is nearly ten. It is
feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective, or perhaps it has become
imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect. It picks its nose
and occasionally fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals, as it sits
hunched in the corner farthest from the bucket and the two mops. It is
afraid of the mops. It finds them horrible. It shuts its eyes, but it
knows the mops are still standing there; and the door is locked; and
nobody will come. The door is always locked; and nobody ever comes,
except that sometimes--the child has no understanding of time or
interval--sometimes the door rattles terribly and opens, and a person,
or several people, are there. One of them may come in and kick the
child to make it stand up. The others never come close, but peer in at
it with frightened, disgusted eyes. The food bowl and the water jug
are hastily filled, the door is locked; the eyes disappear. The people
at the door never say anything, but the child, who has not always
lived in the tool room, and can remember sunlight and its mother's
voice, sometimes speaks. "I will be good, " it says. "Please let me
out. I will be good!" They never answer. The child used to scream for
help at night, and cry a good deal, but now it only makes a kind of
whining, "eh-haa, eh-haa," and it speaks less and less often. It is so
thin there are no calves to its legs; its belly protrudes; it lives on
a half-bowl of corn meal and grease a day. It is naked. Its buttocks
and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own
excrement continually.

They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have
come to see it, others are content merely to know it is there. They
all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and
some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty
of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of
their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their
makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of
their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery.

This is usually explained to children when they are between eight and
twelve, whenever they seem capable of understanding; and most of those
who come to see the child are young people, though often enough an
adult comes, or comes back, to see the child. No matter how well the
matter has been explained to them, these young spectators are always
shocked and sickened at the sight. They feel disgust, which they had
thought themselves superior to. They feel anger, outrage, impotence,
despite all the explanations. They would like to do something for the
child. But there is nothing they can do. If the child were brought up
into the sunlight out of that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed
and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were
done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight
of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms. To
exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that
single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands
for the chance of happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within
the walls indeed.

The terms are strict and absolute; there may not even be a kind word
spoken to the child.

Often the young people go home in tears, or in a tearless rage, when
they have seen the child and faced this terrible paradox. They may
brood over it for weeks or years. But as time goes on they begin to
realize that even if the child could be released, it would not get
much good of its freedom: a little vague pleasure of warmth and food,
no real doubt, but little more. It is too degraded and imbecile to
know any real joy. It has been afraid too long ever to be free of
fear. Its habits are too uncouth for it to respond to humane
treatment. Indeed, after so long it would probably be wretched without
walls about it to protect it, and darkness for its eyes, and its own
excrement to sit in. Their tears at the bitter injustice dry when they
begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept
it. Yet it is their tears and anger, the trying of their generosity
and the acceptance of their helplessness, which are perhaps the true
source of the splendor of their lives. Theirs is no vapid,
irresponsible happiness. They know that they, like the child, are not
free. They know compassion. It is the existence of the child, and
their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of
their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of
their science. It is because of the child that they are so gentle with
children. They know that if the wretched one were not there sniveling
in the dark, the other one, the flute-player, could make no joyful
music as the young riders line up in their beauty for the race in the
sunlight of the first morning of summer.

Now do you believe them? Are they not more credible? But there is one
more thing to tell, and this is quite incredible.

At times one of the adolescent girls or boys who go see the child does
not go home to weep or rage, does not, in fact, go home at
all. Sometimes also a man or a woman much older falls silent for a day
or two, then leaves home. These people go out into the street, and
walk down the street alone. They keep walking, and walk straight out
of the city of Omelas, through the beautiful gates. They keep walking
across the farmlands of Omelas. Each one goes alone, youth or girl,
man or woman.

Night falls; the traveler must pass down village streets, between the
houses with yellow- lit windows, and on out into the darkness of the
fields. Each alone, they go west or north, towards the mountains. They
go on. They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they
do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less
imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe
it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to
know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.



The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
by Ursula K LeGuin - from The Wind's Twelve Quarters

Wallace Shawn über den Schauspieler - von Michael

http://www.truth-out.org/wallace-shawn-why-i-call-myself-a-socialist-is-world-really-a-stage67417

Sonntag, 13. Februar 2011

Ridley Scott

"Träumen Androiden von elektrischen Schafen?", nach dieser Erzählung von Philipp K. Dick drehte Ridley Scott 1982 den Film "Blade Runner".  Der kam zunächst in einer vom Studio geforderten Fassung mit erklärender Erzählerstimme und unpassenden Happy-end heraus. Erst 1992 erschien dann der "Director's cut. 116 Minuten, fast zwei Stunden Düsternis, Nässe und Harrison Ford. 

Um es klar zu sagen, ich habe diesen Film bisher mindestens 15 Mal gesehen und langweile mich immer noch nicht. Genauer, wenn ich einen Lieblingsfilm habe, dann ist dieser es. Jetzt ist es heraus, mein liebster Film ist ein Science Fiction movie aus Hollywood. Ade alle Ansprüche auf höhere Kunstweihen.

So viele Details in meinem Kopf, die leuchtenden Schirmstiele der Menschen im Dauerregen der Metropole, (Metropolis war ganz sicher eine der Inspirationsquellen für Scott.) die allüberall flackernden Neonreklamen, einer der traurigsten Filmtode überhaupt, wenn Rutger Hauer einfach aufhört. (Ein anderer großartiger Filmtod ist der des kleinen Jungen in "Es war einmal in Amerika") 



Eine Liste der schönsten Filmtode wäre auch mal lustig.

Exzellente Darsteller, eine, zur Erscheinungszeit, bis dahin ungesehehene Visualisierung einer futuristischen und doch erkennbaren Welt und eine melancholische, sogar morbide und doch humanistische, komplizierte Geschichte über eine mögliche Zukunft oder eine noch nicht so gesehene Gegenwart. (Humanistisch klingt furchtbar, auch wenn es so etwas Gutes meint, nicht?)
Auf der Berlinale läuft jetzt ein neuer Film von Ridley Scott, der aus tausenden Privat - Videos zusammengeschnitten wurde. Youtube hatte aufgerufen, am 24. Juli 2010 den eigenen Alltag zu drehen, und die entstandenen Filme dann zur Verfügung zu stellen. 80 000 Menschen von überall auf dem Erdball machten mit. In Deutschland fand an dem Tag die Love Parade in Duisburg statt und auch deren katastrophales Ende ist Teil des Filmes geworden. 4500 Stunden Material! "Life in a day" ist ein Versuch die Bilderflut der Schnipsel und Stückchen, die täglich das Netz überfluten zur Beschreibung der modernen Welt zu nutzen. Ganz verschiedene Sozialitäten und Kulturen zusammengeworfen, verbunden durch den Ablauf eines Tages. Ich habe bisher nur Ausschnitte sehen können, aber die fand ich hochspannend.

Lachen, weil gestern ein Unbekannter gefrustet war


Theater geht an die Nerven

Ich war heute Abend in einer Impro-Show, kurz, lustig und riskant. Riskant, weil Improvisation immer auch schief gehen kann. Es gibt dafür das (in diesem Zusammenhang) sehr passende Wort "verrecken".
Oder - es klappt, zündet, flirrt, packt. Aber nix ist sicher.


Jeder Schauspieler kennt und erzählt unzählige Anekdoten, selbsterlebte und nahezu mythologisch gewordene, über Bühnenkatastrophen, vom einfachen "Hänger", bis zu Fehlfunktionen hochkomplizierter Bühnenkonstruktionen.
Die Vorstellung, in der sich das Haarteil der Diva während ihres tragischen Schlußmonologes selbstständig machte und in wildem Flug vom ihrem vom Weinkrampf geschüttelten Haupt flog, vergisst keiner der Beteiligten. Ebenso, die, in der ein Schauspieler nicht erschien und wir alle offenen Mundes und bebenden Herzens miterlebten, wie ein anderer, eine grosse dialogische Auseinandersetzung in einem Geniestreich alleine durchkämpfte, sich selbst die Fragen stellend, die es dann zu beantworten galt.

Grundsätzlicher gilt für jede Premiere - nie ist sicher, wie und ob der Abend gelingt. Und wäre es anders, wäre es schrecklich. Ohne die Möglichkeit der Niederlage, gäbe es auch nicht die Momente des Fliegens, da wo alles stimmt.
Und Lampenfieber ist doch die Lust am möglichen Versagen oder Triumphieren, oder? Und Fieber ist ansteckend, es überträgt sich auf die Zuschauer. Auch sie gehen das Risiko mit ein. Werden sie mitgerissen, vergnügt, beteiligt? Oder werden es, wie so oft Pflichtstunden, Qualzeit.
Und eben dieses Risiko für beide Seiten ist es, was Theater, von den vorproduzierten medialen Kunstformen unterscheidet. Es ist live. Wie Sport. Man kann mitfiebern. Oder mitverrecken. Aber man ist beteiligt. Und möglicherweise liegt auch hier die Ursache für die starken Reaktionen, die ich auf Theater fühle.

Langeweile ist wie gedehntes, unerträgliches Zuschauen beim Hinsiechen von Energie, Lust, Kreativität, Lebenszeit. Es ist kein Risiko eingegangen worden und alle, Macher wie Zuschauer, werden bestraft.

Freitag, 11. Februar 2011

Gestern wäre Bertolt Brecht 113 geworden


Ich möchte vor'n Taler nicht
Dass mir der Kopf ab wär.
Da spräng ich mit dem Rumpf herum
Und wüßt nicht, wer ich wär.
Die Leute schrien all und blieben stehn
Ei guck einmal den! Ei guck eimal den

Banksy 4















Der Giftbaum von William Blake zum Thema Streit

A Poison Tree

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe:
I told it not, my wrath did grow.
And I water'd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with my smiles
And with soft deceitful wiles.
And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright;
And my foe beheld it shine,

And he knew that it was mine,
And into my garden stole
When the night had veil'd the pole:
In the morning, glad, I see
My foe outstretch'd beneath the tree. 

Der Giftbaum

Ich war zornig auf den Freund;
sagt' es ihm: mein Zorn verblich.
Ich war zornig auf den Feind;
schwieg: mein Zorn vermehrte sich. 

Nächtens, Morgens, furchtverseucht,
hielt ich ihn mit Tränen feucht,
sonnte ihn im Lächeln mein
und mischt' List und Trug darein.


Und er wuchs bei Tag und Nacht,
hat den Apfel mir erbracht,
bis mein Feind, verlockt vom Glanz
(wissend, er gehört mir ganz) 

sich in meinen Garten stahl,
als verhüllt der Sterne Strahl:
Morgens seh ich, mit Vergnügen,
meinen Feind am Giftbaum liegen.  



Ein Giftbaum

Ich war wütend auf den Freund:
schalt ihn und der Zorn verschwand.
Ich war wütend auf den Feind,
schwieg, der Zorn wuchs kurzerhand.

Träufte Nachts viel Furcht darauf,
morgens Tränen noch zuhauf,
wärmte ihn mit Lächeln fein,
gab ihm sanfte Lügen ein.

So wuchs er bei Tag und Nacht,
wuchs zum Apfelbaum voll Pracht.
Und mein Feind sah seinen Glanz,
wusste er gehört mir ganz,

hat nach ihm sich still gereckt,
als die Nacht den Nordstern deckt.
Morgens sah ich mit Vergnügen
den Feind dann unterm Giftbaum liegen.

Das obige Bild heisst Nebukadnezar, dass ist der mit dem Menetekel.

Mittwoch, 9. Februar 2011

Streiten als Fortbewegungsmittel

Gläubige jüdische Männer (Frauen tuen es sicher auch, aber "natürlich" nicht offiziell.) verbringen einen Grossteil ihres Lebens damit, die Thora auszulegen, über jedes Komma, jeden Nebensatz wird gestritten, um zu klarerer Auslegung, genauerem Verständnis zu gelangen. Auslegung in dieser Form wäre für mich ein mögliches Synonym für Streit.
Wir definieren "streiten" fast immer als Gegenüberstellung von Unvereinbarkeiten, Kampf um Schuld- oder Rechtzuweisung oder, im schlimmsten Fall, als Methode den "Gegner" zu besiegen, zu zerstören. Aber wenn wir angstfrei streiten, mit Interesse am Irrtum, mit Offenheit für Zweifel und der Akzeptanz, dass Einigkeit nicht das einzige mögliche Ziel seien kann, dann gibt es doch nichts Schöneres, oder? 
Gefangen in unseren eigenen Köpfen, Herzen, Därmen ist der Andere immer letztendlich ein Mysterium und deshalb, je nach Situation, bedrohlich oder faszinierend oder beides gleichzeitig. (Natürlich oft auch einfach uninteressant.) Wenn wir Nähe wollen... (Ich bin mir bewusst, dass das ein geschundenes, leicht abgenutztes Wort ist, aber ich weiss kein besseres.) Wenn wir Nähe wollen, müssen wir also streiten, kommunizieren, einander auslegen.

Francisco de Goya Die streitenden Brüder

Kommunikation = Mitteilung, Unterredung (seit 16. Jh.); Verständigung, Informationsaustausch (20. Jh.); abgeleitet aus lat. communicatio = Mitteilung. Als liturgischer Begriff der katholischen Kirche bedeutet Kommunikation = „die Kommunion empfangen“. Im 15. Jh. erhält das Verb communicare die Bedeutung etwas gemeinsam, gemeinschaftlich machen, teilnehmen lassen, sich besprechen, teilhaben, Anteil nehmen, zu Rate gehen; treffen, vgl. communis = gemeinschaftlich, öffentlich, gemeinsam, allgemein, gewöhnlich.
Kommunikation in dieser ursprünglichen Bedeutung ist eine Sozialhandlung, in die mehrere Menschen einbezogen sind. Wesentliche Aspekte dieser Sozialhandlung sind zum einen Anregung und Vollzug von Zeichenprozessen und zum anderen Teilhabe, in der etwas als etwas Gemeinsames entsteht . Kommunikation wird häufig als „Austausch“ oder „Übertragung“ von Informationen beschrieben. „Information“ ist in diesem Zusammenhang eine zusammenfassende Bezeichnung für Wissen, Erkenntnis oder Erfahrung. Kommunikation als Sozialhandlung dient der Problemlösung: Durch Kommunikation werden Hindernisse überwunden, die sich allein nicht bewältigen lassen. 

Dienstag, 8. Februar 2011

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec



Nun bist du mit dem Kopf durch die Wand.
Und was wirst du in der Nachbarzelle tun?