Mon texte, Cellule Yagaza, à lire dans la revue TINA online
« C’est une voix sans visage. Une voix sans corps. Une voix qu’on peut reconnaître pourtant, qu’on peut identifier ».
▻https://editionsjou.net/2025/06/16/110-cellule-yagaza-par-pierre-menard
Playtime (1967) de Jacques Tati - Analyse et commentaires par Yannick Rolandeau
Festival international Docu Days
5 au 11 juin : nous serons à Kyiv à l’invitation du Festival international Docu Days UA
DOCU DAYS est un festival international du film documentaire sur les droits humains, aujourd’hui mondialement connu et reconnu, qui se tient chaque année à Kyiv. Invitées à sa 22ème édition, nous y représenterons Ukraine CombArt et le Réseau européen de solidarité avec l’Ukraine (notre délégation : Marianne Babich, Marie et Dominique Rebaud, Sophie Bouchet-Petersen).
Nous vous en avons parlé dans notre Newsletter de décembre 2024 puis dans celle de mai 2025 : après de premières rencontres en novembre avec la délégation de Docu Days conduite par Kateryna Singurova, de passage à Paris, nous sommes restéEs en contact et faisons, à leur invitation, le voyage de Kyiv.
▻https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2025/06/05/festival-international-docu-days
Bilan du 78ème #Festival_de_Cannes : le miroir du chaos du monde
▻https://lvsl.fr/bilan-du-78eme-festival-de-cannes-le-miroir-du-chaos-du-monde
Le 78ème Festival de Cannes s’est achevé ce samedi 24 mai par le sacre d’Un simple accident de #Jafar_Panahi. À tous points de vue, les films sélectionnés étaient le reflet d’innombrables inquiétudes contemporaines et d’un monde en proie au chaos. Le Vent Se Lève y était présent. Reportage et analyse. Le Festival de Cannes a […]
#Culture #Cinéma #Géopolitique #Palme_d'or #Un_simple_accident
Le 47ème Festival International de Films de Femmes de Créteil
Une édition toujours fidèle à ses engagements
Depuis la fondation du Festival International de Films de Femmes (FIFF) à Sceaux en 1979 par Jackie Buet et Elisabeth Thréard, nous étions quelques féministes cinéphiles et universalistes à l’avoir régulièrement suivi. Nous étions toutes convaincues qu’à l’instar d’un grand nombre de romancières ou de poétesses, des réalisatrices méconnues existaient et qu’il fallait seulement avoir la passion, le courage et la persévérance de les découvrir et de les faire connaître en exhumant les unes, comme Alice Guy, en honorant les confirmées, comme Margareth Von Trotta, et en invitant et encourageant celles qui viennent de faire leurs premiers pas dans la réalisation. Nous n’étions guère étonnées par l’envergure internationale que le FIFF a rapidement gagnée grâce à son caractère unique et singulier. Mais nous étions souvent frustrées de le voir timidement accueilli sur le plan national et parfois même occulté.
▻https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2025/06/02/le-47eme-festival-international-de-films-de-fe
Sabotages sur la Croisette
►https://lundi.am/Sabotages-sur-la-Croisette
Donc un geste à reprendre. Couper. Geste essentiel du cinéma. Le coupez du tournage comme le suggère le texte de revendication, mais aussi le geste du montage.
« ET… COUPEZ ! La promotion du monde de substitution que vous fabriquez, avec vos séries et vos films, qui veut nous faire oublier la planète réelle, pourrie d’usines, d’autoroutes, de béton et de mines.
ET… COUPEZ ! Le courant de vos industries militaires-technologiques. » (texte de revendication)
ET … COUPEZ ! les prétentions politique de Juliette Binoche ou de Catherine Deneuve. Couper la bien-pensance et l’engagement qui ne coutent rien. Couper le « Festival de Cannes très politique mais sans éclat ». A côté des sabotages, la dénonciation et les signatures passent pour ce qu’elles sont : des engagements sans gestes, de la bien-pensance. Le monde va si mal. « Qui dénonce s’exempt » (le Comité Invisible)
#Cannes #Nice #cinéma #sabotage #électricité
Cannes 2025 : #A_light_that_never_goes_out, et la musique fut
▻https://lvsl.fr/cannes-2025-a-light-that-never-goes-out-et-la-musique-fut
Avec A light that never goes out, Pauli-Matti Parppei s’émancipe du cadre surexploité du retour au pays. Il délaisse l’attendu conflit de classe pour une étude de la réaction des corps à la musique expérimentale. En 1986, The Smiths sortait son troisième album avec, à la neuvième place, une ballade intitulée : « There Is a Light […]
L’édition du Playboy qui a servi de modèle pour les scènes dans Apocalypse Now de Coppola
►https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_Now
L’agression des États Unis contre le Vietnam prend la forme de la guerre qu’on connaît le 7 ou 8 mais 1965 lors ce que la 173e brigade aéroportée américaine arrive à Da Nang.
▻https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War#1960s
Au mois de janvier 1966 après avoir subi les premières défaites le Pentagone se sert des filles du magazine Playboy pour remonter la morale de ses soldats. Cinq ans plus tard la 173e brigade rentre aux États Unis après avoir souffert 1.602 morts et 8.435 blessés.
Le reportage raconte une visite à partir du 10 janvier 1966.
La réalité fut différente de l’image optimiste dessinée dans l’article du Playboy.
►https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Airborne_Brigade_Combat_Team#Vietnamkrieg
▻https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Airborne_Brigade#Vietnam_War
The brigade arrived in South Vietnam on 7 May 1965, the first major ground combat unit of the United States Army to serve in the country. Williamson boldly predicted on arrival that his men would defeat the Viet Cong (VC) quickly and that they “would be back in Okinawa by Christmas”.
►https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Airborne_Brigade_Combat_Team#Vietnamkrieg
Im Mai 1965 wurde die Brigade als erste größere Einheit der US Army während des Vietnamkriegs nach Südvietnam verlegt. Das Haupteinsatzgebiet der Skysoldiers war das Gebiet nördlich von Saigon, das die militärische Bezeichnung „War Zone D“ trug. Am 8. November 1965 geriet die Brigade während der Operation Hump in einen Hinterhalt von 1.200 Vietcongkämpfern und verlor 48 Mann bei den darauffolgenden schweren Gefechten.
...
Nach ihrer Rückkehr in die Staaten 1971 wurde die Brigade am 14. Januar 1972 in Fort Campbell, Kentucky deaktiviert und aus der aktiven Armee ausgegliedert. Während des Krieges wurden 1.602 Soldaten des Verbands getötet, 8.435 wurden verwundet.
Voici le texte de cet article remarquable. C’est un exemple de propagande de guerre d’une grande qualité, à te déchirer le coeur il donne l’impression d’avoir participé au voyage de la playmate Playboy de l’an 1964. En 2025 la propagande est pplus directe et plus subtile à la fois. Les textes longs n’intéressent plus guère les jeunes gens alors que dans les années 1960 le Playboy approcha le zénith à cause de la qualité de ses textes toujours dans l’esprit du temps machiste et bien sûr pour les photos de jeunes femmes dénudées.
PLAYMATE FIRST CLASS : JO COLLINS IN VIETNAM
(p 145)
Playboy’s GI Jo Delivers a Lifetime Subscription to the Front
(Photo begin PHOTOGRAPHY BY LARRY GORDON)
Above: Jo mokes a few last-minute logistic chonges of her own prior to deploning in Soigon. “Any girl would reoch for a mirror,” she soys, “with 400 men outside her door (Phot end)
MOST MILITARY strategists agree that, aside from actual firepower, nothin means more to an army than the morale of its men. And since thc days of GI Joe, the American fighting man has seldom appeared on the frontiers of freedom without an abundant supply of that most time-honored of spiritlifting staples: the pinup. From the shores of Iwo Jima 10 the jungles of Vietnam, the pinup queen has remained a constant companion to our men at arms; but the longlegged likenesses of such World War Two lovelies as Grable and Наworth haye given way to a whole new breed of photogenic females better known as the pLavnoy Playmates. It was only a mauer of time, therefore, until centerfolddom’s contemporary beauties would be asked to do their bit for our boys in uniform. That time came last November, when Second Lieutenant John Price— a young airborne officer on duty in Vietna Editor-Publisher Hugh Hefner the following letter:
“This is writen from the depths of the hearts of 180 officers and men of Company B, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade (Seperate) stationed at Bien Hoa, Republic of Vietnam. We were the first American Army troop unit committed to action here in Vietnam, and we have gone many miles—some in sorrow and some in joy, but mostly in hard, bone-weary inches. . . . We аге proud to be here and have found the answer to the question, “Ask what you cin do for your country." And yet we cannot stand alone—which brings me to the reason for sending you this request.
“The loneliness here is a terrible thing — and we long to see a real, living, breathing American girl. Therefore, we have enclosed with this letter a money order for a Lifetime Subscription to PLAYBOY magazine for B Company.
It is our understanding that, with the purchase
(p 146) of а Lifetime Subscription in the U.S, the first issuc is personally delivered by a Playmate. It is our most fervent hope that this policy can be extended to include us. . . . Any опе of the current Playmates of the Month would be welcomed with open arms, but if we have any choice in the matter, we have unanimously decided that we would prefer the 1965 Playmate of the Year— Miss Jo Collins.
(p 146)
(Photo begin)
Above: Roses ore the order of the day os two members of Compony B welcome Jo to Vietnam on beholf of their wounded Project Ploymate officer, Lieutenont John Price, hospitalized back at battolion headquorters in Bien Hoo. Below: Jo delivers company’s Lifetime Subscription certificcte at Lieutenant Price’s bedside {left} ond odds bonus buss (right) of her own to go with it.
“If we are not important enough . . . to send a Playmate for, please just forget about us and we will quietly fade back into the jungle.” (Photo end)
Deciding that only old soldiers should fade away, und deeply touched by the paratroopers plea, Hefner immediately began drawing up plans for the successful completion of Project Playmate. “When we first received the request,” Hef recalls, € weren’t at all sure how the Defense Department would feel about PLAYBOX sending a beautiful American girl into Vietnam at a time like this, but. Licutenant Price’s letter was too moving to just put aside and forget. The lieutenant had obviously been a PLAYBOY reader for quite a while, since he remembered а special Christmas gift offer the magazine published several years ago, which stated that a lifetime subscriber from any city with a Playboy Club would have his first issue delivered in person by a Playmate. Оf course we don’t have a Playboy Club in Vietnam at the moment, but we figured we could overlook that little technicality under the circumstances." Along with the usual complications and military restrictions any average civilian encounters when attempting to travel to Vietnam these days, many more technicalities had to be ironed out
(Photo begin)
Left: PLAYBOY’S pretty Vietnom volunteer visits Lieutenont Price’s wordmotes at the Evocuofion Hospitcl. "Most af them hod been bodly hurt,” soys Jo, “but no one ever camploined.”(Photo end)
(p 147)
(Photo begin)
Above: Aboard Bien Hoa’s newly decorated Bunny bus (left), Jo takes a guided tour of Company В’s base-camp orea, stopping off to admire the imaginative floor-to-ceiling Playmate motif (right) adorning the PX ("lt was the closest the fellows could come to o real Playboy Club") (Photo end)
(Photo begin)
Center: A bit foot-weary during her first day ot the front, Playmate First Class Collins hitches a ride with some armored admirers (left) back to the company mess hall; seems pleaased that an autographing gal can always find a strong back (right) in Bien Hoa when she needs one. Above: Jo lunches with Company B enlisted men (left), who show more interest in signatures than sustenance; after chow (right), she hoists their Bunny flog. (Photo end)
(p 148)
(Photo begin)
Below: Before leaving Bien Ноa, Jo makes a tour of other companies’ “Playboy Clubs” ("We ran across these ‘clubs’ at every GI base”). (Photo end)
through the proper channels before Jo received the necessary Government ance for а late-February flight to the front lines. “The fellows in Company В said it would be a privilege if I could visit them,” remarked the Playmate of the Year when asked how she felt about her upcoming tour of delivery duty in the war-torn Far East, “but the way I see it—J’m the one who’s privileged.
Her call to arms came much sooner than expected, however, when word was received that Lieutenant Price had been wounded in action on January 3, and that her morale-boosting mission might have to be canceled unless Jo could reach the injured officer’s bedside at a Bien Hoa combat-zone hospital before his scheduled evacuation from Vietnam on January 13. All additional red tape still pending prior to Jo’s departure quickly bypassed: afternoon (January 9), Playmate First Class Collins and her party—which included PLAYBOS’s Playmate and Bunny Promotion Coordinator Joyce Chalecki as acting chaperone and staff photographer Lаrrу Gordon departed departed from Francisco on a Pan Am jetliner bound for Saigon. Commenting on some of her own last-minute logistic problems before take-off, Jo later told us: “Things were so hectic those last few days before we left that I was sure we’d never make it.
(Photo begin)
Top: Trooper Collins ond her MP escorts prepare to board their “Playboy Special" chopper for the second doy’s agenda of battle-zone visits in Vietnom. “Toke it from me," Jo smiles, “those bulletproof vests they moke you wear do nothing for a girl’s figure." Center: With her own whirlybird safely flanked by two gun ships (left), Jo listens in on conversation between chopper jockeys. Above: She arrives ot Special Forces comp atop Black Virgin Mountoin. (Photo end)
just pictures on page
(Photo begin)
Below: At Loy Ninth, Jo Collins in Vietnam puts in yeamon service with the busines: end of her outograph pen (left) at the request of still another group of green-bereted fans; then she’s shown oround nearby Coe Dai Temple (right), which she found “so peaceful to be so close to war.” (Photo ende)
(p 149)
(Photo begin)
Above: Visiting Playmote queen is crowned with a green beret (left) by Special Forces mon assigned to this criticol mountain outpost, signifying she bears this famed guerrillo-fighting group’s very special seal of approval; our Gl Jo gets on-the-job instruction (right) in mortar firing. (Photo end)
For openers, I was avay visiting friends in Oregon when the news came in about Lieutenant Price being wounded. The plans called for my flying to Chicago in mid February, where I would team up with Larry and Joyce, get my travel shots and dear up all the final details for the trip. Hef phoned me about the sudden switch in Project Playmate, and I spent the next five days flying back and forth—first to Seattle for my passport when I found out Oregon doesn’t issue them; then to Los Angeles, where I got my smallpox vaccination, checked out some lastminute details with my agent at American International Studios and raided my apartment for the clothes I figured I’d be needing. As it was I managed to meet Larry and Joyce at the Francisco airport and board our jet to Vietnam all of spare.” (In typical above-and-beyond-the-call fashion, trooper Collins—an aspiring actress whose recent film credits include minor roles in Lord Love а Duck and What Did You Do in the War, Daddy? —neglected to mention that, in reporting for duty on such short notice, she’d had to bypass an important audition for a principal part on TV’s Peyton Place.)
Some 8000 miles and 18 hours after their Stateside rendezvous, Jo and her PLAYMATE staffers landed at Saigon’s Tan Son Nhut Air Base, where 400 American troops and a regiment of newsmen and photographers had turned out to greet them. After a brief review of her assembled admirers, Jo was introduced to Lieutenant Clancy Johnson and Private First Class Marvin Hudson, two of Lieutenant Price’s friends in the 173rd Airborne Brigade who had ever-so-willingly voluntcered to serve as а stand-in reception committee for their wounded buddy back at Bien Hoa. Mindful of his guerrilla training, Private First Class Hudson put on a one-man camouflage display when, after handing Jo her Com pany В (for Bravo) tribute of red roses, he subsequently blushed a deep crimson and succeeded in concealing the telltale lipstick print she had just planted on each of his checks.
(p 150)
(Photo begin)
Left: Arriving at Bu Dор, a strategic supply base near the Cambodian border, Jo poses with fellow Green Berets (top) while Special Forces shutterbug їп the foreground snaps away for post’s scrapbook. Before calling it a day in the field, Jo passes muster (center right) under mister’s keen-eyed surveillonce. (Photo end)
Following the deplaning festivities, the three PLAYBOY recruits were taken to a nearby “chopper” pad and given a whirlwind aerial tour of Saigon and the outlying districts aboard the “Playboy Special”—a Brigade helicopter especially renamed in honor of their visit. “That first chopper ride really started things off with excitement,” reports GI Jo. "It seemed as though we’d hardly even arrived, and there we were over hostile country being given our first taste of what they call ‘contour flying.’ That’s where you skim the treetops to prevent possible enemy snipers from getting a clear shot at you and then, suddenly, shoot straight up at about 100 miles per hour to 3500 feet so you can check the area for Viet Cong troop movements from outside their firing range. After our stomachs got used to it, we figured we were ready for just about anything.” Back on terra firma, the PLAYBOY troupe was joined by Jack Edwards, who took time out from his regular duties as Special Services Director for the Saigon based press and military officials to act as the trio’s liaison man during its forthcoming three-day tour of the surrounding combat areas. As Jo later told us: "Jack was so concerned about our running into a V.C. ambush after we left Saigon that he wound up worrying enough for all of us. He managed to get us rooms at the Embassy Hotel in Saigon after our original reservations at the Caravelle somehow went astray; he kept press conferences down to a minimum so we could spend most of our time with the men at the front, arranged a firstnight sightseeing trip to some of the Saigon night clubs in case our own morale needed bolstering and, in general, watched over us like a mother hen. By the end of the first evening in Vietnam, we were all so pleased we’d come that, when one reporter reminded me I could end up getting shot during the next three days, I told him that the only shot I was still worried about was the one for cholera I was scheduled to get the next morning. (continued on page 198)
(Poto begin)
Left: Jo spends part of her lost day in the Far Eost visiling with veteran South Vietпamesе regulars at advanced combat area near Airborne Brigade headquarters; then meets General Williamson (center left), who proclaims her the first female Sky Soldier. (Photo end)
(p 198)
VIETNAM (continued from page 150)
"The following day (Tuesday, January 11), Jo and her colleagues got a chance to test their calmness under fire. Arriving at Tan Son Nhut at 0830 hours, dressed in combat fatigues, they were issued bulletproof vests before boarding the “Playboy Special” with their MP escorts for an initial frontline foray. "I is a question of safety before says Jo, “but I couldn’t help feeling a little insecure. After seeing some of Saigon’s Vietnamese beauties Lieutenant Price referred to in his letter and catching a glimpse of myself in combat gear, I was afraid the guys wouldn’t be nearly as homesick for an American girl once they had а basis for compari” Flying low over cnemy-infiltrated territory and encircled by three fully manned gun ships fying escort, the “Playboy Special” made its first stop at the 173rd Airborne Brigade Headqu: ters in Bien Hoa. Here, any fears our pretty Playmate might have harbored about her uniform appeal were summarily dispatched by the parade of smiling paratroopers waiting on the airstrip to greet her.
Most of the men of Company B were on jungle patrols during Jo’s first visit to Bien Hoa, but the one man most responsible for her being in Vietnam — Lieutenant John Price — was present and accounted for at his unit’s surgical ward. In spite of a severely wounded arm that will require several additional operations before it сап be restored to full use, Lieutenant Price managed to muster
up enough energy to give his favorite Playmate a healthy hug or two when she showed up to deliver his company’s Lifetime Subscription certificate and the latest issue of rrAvpov. The lieutenant’s al reaction to seeing the Company B sweetheart standing there in the flesh was “Gosh, уоште even prettier than your pictures.” Flattered, Jo sealed her PLAYBOY delivery with а well-timed kiss, and consequently convinced the company medics that Price was well along the road to recovery by evoking his immediate request for a repeat engagement. In fact, his condition seemed so improved that the doctors waived hospital regulations for the day to allow him to accompany Jo to lunch at Camp Zenn—the Company B base camp on the outskirts of Bien Hoa.
After lunch, Jo put her best bedside manner to use as she paid a brief call on cach of the men in Lieutenant Price’s ward, “A few of the fellows asked me to help them finish а letter home, others. ight for their cigarette; but most of them just wanted to talk awhile with a from their own native land. A couple of times I was sure I would break down and bawl like a baby, but 1 managed to control myself they brought in a badly wounded buddy who. ked if he could see me before going into surgery. When I got to his side, he was bleeding heavily from both legs and І didn’t know what to do or say to comlort him. Then he looked up at me with his best tough-guy grin and simply said, "Hi, gorgeous” After that, I lost all conuol and the old tears really flowed.”
Belore leaving Bien Hoa, Jo made additional bedside tours at the 93rd Medical Evacuation Hospital and the 3rd Surgical Hospital, where the doctors on duty decided to add some Playmate therapy to their own daily diet by piling into the nearest empty beds during her rounds, Not until their day’s tour 1 ended and their chopper was warming up for the flight back to Saigon did Jo and her companions suddenly realize how close to actual combat they’d been for the past several hours, “We were all ready to go and standing outside the Brigade Oflicers Club when I first heard the sound of shots coming explains Jo. “Then a few mortar shells went off, but it still didn’t sink how near the action we really wei І guess we’d all been too busy meeting wounded soldiers and talking to dic men on the base to notice anything before. Then, right before our chopper lifted off, a series of flares went off and lit up everything for miles. I kept thinking how great it would have been if all those boys had been back home watching a Fourth of July celebration instead of out there in the jungle fighting for their very lives.”
(p 199)
Wednesday, the group headed out toward some of the more crucial combat zones in the Saigon military theater. First on the day’s itinerary was a stopover at Nu Ba Den, a strategic communications outpost under the command of Forces troops who had long since renamed their precarious hilltop position “Black Virgin Mountain.” Rising some 3200 feet above the surrounding countryside and under continuous as assault from Viet Cong guerrillas hidden in the densely wooded areas below Black Virgin Mountain is defended by a small detachment of Special Forces personnel and the South Vietnamese regulars placed in their charge. But despite the precariousness of their position, these wearers of the famed Green Berets greeted the PLAYBOY group with a typical show of Special Forces readiness: crowning Jo upon arrival with her own green beret‚ escorting һеr to various lookout points around the installation and serving as interpreters when Viemamese soldiers asked to meet her.
From Black Virgin Mountain the “Playboy Special" flew its charges to а Special Forces encampment at Lay Ninth whose boundaries encompass the majestic Cao Dai Temple - seat of the Cao Dai religion, which combines teh teachings of Buddhism, Christianity and Confucianism. “The temple itself. was right оut of a fairy tale,” remembers Jo. “But its presence right in the middle of a combat theater made everything about it that much more strikingly unusual. We entered barefooted and were met by a different world, full of ornate columns, uncaged white birds and young headshaven priests, while just outside me uniform walked about with their guns always ready at their sides.”
Another 85 miles over enemy lines brought the passengers of the “Playboy Special” to the village of Bu Dop, one of the most strategically critical military outposts in the entire Vietnam war zone. Located on the Cambodian border and protected by the 5th Special Forces Group, this vital base had, only three months earlier, been the scene of an ambush that cost the lives of all the men then assigned to its defense. “The Green Berets at Bu Dop went out of their way to try and maintain a relaxed air around us,” Jo later said, “but you could still cut the tension with а Knife. We were introduced to just about everyone there was to meet — from the group commander to most of his American and South Vietnamese guerrilla fighters — but it seemed as though none of them ever left his field position or took his eyes off the surrounding jungle. Some of the edge was taken off our nerves when the village chief and his two wives came by to welcome us, since they all projected the
(p 200)
feeling of complete calm by nonchalantly walking about the community with nothing on from the waist up.”
Whatever tranquilizing effect the sight of a Vietnamese vukkĺlage chief and his two topless ladies fair might had on the threesome was short-lived, however, for the next stopover on their tour took them well outside the barbed-wired gates of Bu Dop and across the same jungle trail they had just been told was often swarming with Cong. “Like red blooded female cowards,” jokes the 20-year-old Playmate of the Year, “ and I hit the раnic button the minute caught sight of the bullet-holes in the side of our truck. And we both swear we saw Larry’s shutter finger shake through an entire roll of film, but he refuses to admit it.” As it turned out, the purpose of th junket into the unknown was to let some of Jo’s South Vietnamese fans — stationed minutes away in a small Montangnard hamlet — get a glimpse of their green-bereted glamor girl before she left.
The final item on Wednesday’s agenda was a flight to Vung Tau, a scenic coastal village on the Mekong Peninsula where American and South Viemamese troops can enjoy a few days of much-needed rest and rehabilitation before their next tour of duty in the interior. “At first,” says Jo, “I was afraid to ask any of the fellows how they felt about going back into combat after having a chance to get away from it all. I figured they’d all like to forget about war and just lie on the beach there until everything got settled. It didn’t take me long to find out otherwise. Many of our boys in Vietnam may only be 17- and 18 year-olds who don’t know much about world politics, but I came away from places like Vung Tau convinced that they know why they’re there. Nobody’s going to make them throw in the towel.”
Jo’s last day in Vietnam wound up being the busiest of all. With a gallant assist from Brigadier General Ellis W. Williamson — Airborne Commander in Vietnam — she got a second chance to complete her mission as planned when the frontline troops from Company B were called back to Bien Hoa for a 24-hour lifetime subscriber’s leave and a long-awaited look at the Playmate of their choice. One by one, the combat weary paratroopers filed off their choppers and hurried over for a hard-carned hello from Jo — a few even produced crumpled-up copies of her December 1964 Playmate photo they’d been carrying in their helmet liners in hope of someday having them autographed. “When I saw all those happy faces running toward me from every direction, I knew we’d finally gotten our job done,” she said.
One more trір to the front was on the agenda before Jo would be ready to head back to Saigon and a Hawaii bound jet. Landing in War Zone D, Jo was escorted to combat headquarters, where a grateful general was waiting to hand her a farewell memento of her short stay in Vietnam — a plaque upon which had been inscribed the words: “Know ye all men that, in recognition of the that thar Playmate Jo Collins traveled to the Republic of Vietnam to deliver subscription to PLAYBOY magazine to sky soldiers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade and demonstrated exceptional courage by volunteering to travel into hostile area and in doing so exhibited the all-the-way spirit typical of true airborne troopers - I, Brigadier General Ellis W. Wilmson, do appoint her an honorary Sky Soldier, done this 13th day of Januту, 1966.”
"The day after her Saigon departure, Jo recived further praise from high places for the job she had done. Between visits in Honolulu to Triper Army Hospipital and Pearl Harbor, she was called on the phone by Ambassador Averill Harman, who wished to express his and Secretary of State Dean Rusk’s congratulations on all the good reports they’d heard concerning her morale-lifting mission. Needless to say, Jo was highly honored by the tributes of so dignified a brace of statesmen, but, as she put it, “The finest compliments I could ever receive have already been sent in the letters of over 200 fellows I was lucky enough to meet somewhere near Saigon.
It remained for the men of Company B to pay their Playmate postmistress the highest honor, however, by renaming their outfit “Playboy Company” and thus assuring Jo that her presence south of the 17th Parallel would not be soon forgotten. When asked how she felt becoming the official mascot for this troop of front-line sky soldiers, a jubilant Jo replied, “I’ve never been prouder.“ As the company’s new namesake, PLAYBOY seconds that statement.
Contenu de l’édition 13/1966
▻https://archive.org/details/playboy-magazines-1953-2013/PlayBoy/Playboy%201966/5%20-%20May%201966/page/145/mode/1up?view=theater
Coppola argues that many episodes in the film—the spear and arrow attack on the boat, for example—respect the spirit of the novella and in particular its critique of the concepts of civilization and progress. Other episodes adapted by Coppola— the Playboy Playmates’ (Sirens) exit , the lost souls ("take me home") attempting to reach the boat, and Kurtz’s tribe of (white-faced) natives parting the canoes (gates of Hell) for Willard (with Chef and Lance) to enter the camp—are likened to Virgil and “The Inferno” (Divine Comedy) by Dante. While Coppola replaced European colonialism with American interventionism, the message of Conrad’s book is still clear.
...
Colleen Camp, Cynthia Wood and Linda Beatty as Playboy Playmates. Wood was the 1974 Playmate of the Year, and Beatty was the August 1976 Playmate of the Month.
...
Typhoon Olga wrecked 40–80% of the sets at Iba and on May 26, 1976, production was closed down. Dean Tavoularis remembers that it “started raining harder and harder until finally it was literally white outside, and all the trees were bent at forty-five degrees”. Some of the crew were stranded in a hotel and the others were in small houses that were immobilized by the storm. The Playboy Playmate set was destroyed, ruining a month’s scheduled shooting. Most of the cast and crew returned to the United States for six to eight weeks. Tavoularis and his team stayed on to scout new locations and rebuild the Playmate set in a different place.
Cerise sur le gateau - cette édition contient une interview avc Jean Paul Sartre.
▻https://archive.org/details/playboy-magazines-1953-2013/PlayBoy/Playboy%201965/5%20-%20May%201965/page/69/mode/1up?view=theater
Cannes 2025 : #Enzo, un film à quatre mains
▻https://lvsl.fr/cannes-2025-enzo-un-film-a-quatre-mains
Avec Enzo, présenté en ouverture de la Quinzaine des cinéastes 2025, #Laurent_Cantet et #Robin_Campillo proposent un film à mi-chemin entre le récit d’apprentissage et le portrait d’adolescent qui interroge la figure traditionnelle du #Transfuge_de_classe. Un geste subversif aussi intime que politique. L’année dernière, les festivaliers présents pour l’ouverture de la Quinzaine […]
Philippe Mangeot sur Instagram :
Hier, Juliette Binoche a ouvert le festival de Cannes en saluant la #photo-journaliste Fatma #Hassouna, assassinée à #Gaza avec dix de ses proches le 16 avril dernier
Qu’elle l’ait fait était indispensable. Ce que l’armée israélienne inflige aux habitants de Gaza questionne le droit et l’urgence de documenter, convoque notre regard et engage le #cinéma tout entier.
Pourtant, Juliette Binoche, comme Thierry Frémaux quelques jours auparavant, a employé une curieuse formule : Fatma « a été tuée par un missile ». D’Israel, il n’a pas été question.
Si le nom d’#Israël devient si tabou qu’on ne puisse le prononcer, alors le mal #antisémite a gagné. Quand le comprendront-ils ?
@philippe.duke La photo 2 est tirée du film ‘Put Your Soul on Your Hand And Walk’ que la cinéaste Sepideh Farsi a consacré à ses échanges avec Fatma Hassouna, et qui fait partie de la sélection Acid à Cannes 2025.
Guerre à Gaza : la photojournaliste Fatima Hassouna assassinée dans le bombardement de sa maison par Israël
Publié le 16 avril 2025
cf. aussi : ►https://seenthis.net/messages/1115622 || franceinfo.fr 2025-05-15
Sepideh Farsi : « Je veux rendre leur humanité à Fatma Hassona et au peuple palestinien »
[Article en accès libre]
►https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/140525/sepideh-farsi-je-veux-rendre-leur-humanite-fatma-hassona-et-au-peuple-pale
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkI52MJkZ7A
Héroïne d’un film sélectionné au festival de Cannes, la photojournaliste palestinienne Fatma Hassona a été tuée le 16 avril par un bombardement israélien. En compagnie de la réalisatrice Sepideh Farsi, Mediapart lui rend hommage et évoque tous les journalistes assassinés à Gaza depuis le 7-Octobre par Israël.
Jonas qui aura 25 ans en l’an 2000 : Un film d’Alain Tanner, co-écrit avec John Berger sur l’écoulement du temps et l’écriture de l’histoire, mais aussi, littéralement, le saucissonnage du film en fragments.
▻https://liminaire.fr/ecriture/proces-verbal/article/jonas-qui-aura-25-ans-en-l-an-2000
PALESTINE VIVRA ?
▻https://bellaciao.org/PALESTINE-VIVRA-1305
Sur CinéMutins, nous essayons de continuer à diffuser des films qui montrent la situation passée et récente de la Palestine face au grand effacement en cours. #Contributions
/ #Guerres_-_Conflits, Afrique - Proche/Moyen Orient, #Cinéma_-_Vidéo
Quand passent les cigognes
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rINnJat-5k&pp=ygUVdGhlIGNyYW5lcyBhcmUgZmx5aW5n
▻https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quand_passent_les_cigognes
Quand passent les cigognes (titre original russe : Летят журавли, Letiat jouravli) est un film soviétique de Mikhaïl Kalatozov sorti en 1957. Il s’agit de l’adaptation cinématographique de la pièce de Rozov, Éternellement vivants[. En 1958, le film reçoit la Palme d’or au festival de Cannes.
#cinéma #guerre #antifascisme #libération #Quand_passent_les_cigognes
Palme d’or à Cannes en pleine guerre froide ! Ça ne nous donnerait pas un indice sur la température de la guerre actuelle ?
En bas de l’affiche en langue anglaise on peut lire :
Distributed by Warner Bros. at request of the U.S. Dep. of State in cultural exchange agreement with Soviet Union.
La traduction francaise exacte du titre original russe Летят журавли est Les grues volent mais c’est tellement plus beau avec les cigognes.
On peut effectivement se poser la question si la signification du film a bien été comprise à l’époque. (ATTENTION ironie) Aujourd’hui d’un point de vue « vert », « chrétien-démocrate » ou « social-démocrate » s’impose le message que les femmes russes sont prêtes à tout pour encourager leurs fils, amants et maris à partir se battre pour la Russie contre l’Occident. La traduction de « grue » par « cigogne » ( ach, j’aime tellement l’Alsace et la Lorraine ...) serait alors un indice pour une campagne de propagande russo-communiste réussie . De la fake news et une vérité alternative ante litteram quoi .
;-)
C’est pour le grand public qui n’a pas vu le film et qu’on prend pour de niais . Qu’on profite de Youtube et Mosfilm qui rendent accessible en haute définition ce chef d’oeuvre émouvant .
Le sacrifice mis à nu : sur #Tardes_de_soledad d’Albert Serra
▻https://lvsl.fr/le-sacrifice-mis-a-nu-sur-tardes-de-soledad-dalbert-serra
Avec Tardes de soledad, #Albert_Serra dresse le portrait d’Andrés Roca Rey, jeune péruvien de 28 ans, superstar de la tauromachie contemporaine. Violence extrême de la mise à mort, solitude du matador et du taureau, artifices scéniques, gestes millimétrés et virilisme exacerbé des toréros… Sans prendre parti pour ou contre la #corrida, le cinéaste espagnol […]
La Peur au Ventre : enquête dans l’urgence
▻https://radioparleur.net/2025/05/07/la-peur-au-ventre-film-face-a-lurgence
Aux États-Unis, sonne l’alarme d’une bascule historique dans les luttes féministes : le droit à l’avortement est enterré. Dans La Peur au Ventre, la réalisatrice, Léa Clermont-Dion, nous promène dans un film documentaire hésitant, au cœur des mouvements pro-choix et “pro-vie” étasuniens comme canadiens. Anti-avortement : jeunes et mobilisé·es Iels sont vieux, adultes mais […] L’article La Peur au Ventre : enquête dans l’urgence est apparu en premier sur Radio Parleur.
#Au_fil_des_luttes #Carousel_1 #Antifascisme #avortement #cinéma #cinéma_documentaire #droit_à_l'avortement #Etats-Unis #Féminisme #International #intersectionnel #liberté
Unfashionable Revenge in Stanley Kubrick’s Aryan Papers
▻https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17526272.2024.2360319#references-Section
4.5.2023 by Joy McEntee
Abstract
Stanley Kubrick’s project on the Holocaust, Aryan Papers, was dear to his heart. He worked on it for a long time, but he could not, in the end, bring himself to complete the planned film. This article canvasses some of the reasons other scholars have supplied for this film remaining unmade, including the notion that the Holocaust is unrepresentable. However, it points to a novel explanation. I argue that Kubrick’s plot modifications, particularly to the conclusion, doomed the project. Specifically, Kubrick has a Jewish woman take revenge for war-time atrocities. Discussing revenge in relation to the Holocaust has until recently been as impious as representing the Holocaust itself. Jewish revenge was unfashionable in Holocaust films of all kinds when Kubrick was working on Aryan Papers in the early 1990s. Kubrick’s planned film was generically ahead of its times. The vengeful Jewish woman had to wait for Inglourious Basterds in 2009.
Introduction
Sue Vice and I are both asking why Aryan Papers, Stanley Kubrick’s long-gestated film about the Holocaust, remained unmade. Various reasons have been offered. Perhaps Kubrick, Jewish by descent, was too depressed by the material (Abrams Citation2023). Perhaps he anticipated overwhelming commercial competition from Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List (Citation1993, McEntee Citation2022, Abrams Citation2023: 362–363). After all, he abandoned his cherished Napoleon project when the market for Bonaparte films went cold after the failure of Waterloo (Citation1970). Perhaps it was because it was impossible to ‘scrub [Aryan Papers] clean of Jewishness’ or ‘dejudaize’ it in the same way he had done other productions (Weissman Citation2004: 12, Abrams Citation2018, Citation2023, O’Malley Citation2018). Perhaps the actress he selected to play his protagonist, Johanna Ter Steege, was not bankable in Hollywood like Meryl Streep of Sophie’s Choice (Citation1982) or Liam Neeson of Schindler’s List (McEntee Citation2022). Perhaps Kubrick’s failure to make Aryan Papers was the result of his own stultifying micromanagement towards the end of his career, and his growing indecision (Fenwick Citation2020, Citation2022). This variety in interpretation reveals that, because we are dealing with a film that remained unmade, and with its incomplete archival traces, all we can do is speculate.
But is it possible Kubrick could not bring himself to make Aryan Papers because the Holocaust resists cinematic representation? Kubrick’s widow Christiane has been interviewed as saying:
He was […] in a state of depression, because he realized it was an impossible film. It’s impossible to direct the Holocaust unless it’s a documentary. If you show the atrocities as they actually happened, it would entail the total destruction of the actors. Stanley said he could not instruct actors how to liquidate others and could not explain the motives for the killing. ‘I will die from this,’ he said, ‘and the actors will die, too, not to mention the audience.’ (Karpel Citation2005)
That the Holocaust is impossible to represent is the tenor of many critical discussions of art in its wake (Langford Citation1999, Trezise Citation2001). Clearly, this is less a matter of what cannot be represented than what should not. It is not that representing the Holocaust isn’t possible or attempted, but the effort to do so is somehow in the most abominable of taste; it is blasphemous, obscene, and taboo. However, this sentiment was rather shop-worn when Kubrick worked on Aryan Papers in the early 1990s. As Kent Jones says, even by 1985, ‘Theodor Adorno’s exhaustively quoted 1949 statement “To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric” had been thoroughly decontextualized and reduced to an edict that a parent might deliver to a child’ (Jones Citation2010: 33).
Nonetheless, the industrialized murder of millions of people is a catastrophe that beggars the imagination and the will to aestheticize. Certainly, there is a critical accord that the Holocaust exceeds the genericising tendencies of Hollywood. This is why Steven Spielberg’s melodramatic Schindler’s List is often compared unfavourably with Claude Lanzmann’s gruelling, genre-defying assemblage of testimonials in Shoah (Citation1985). As Miriam Bratu Hansen says, these two films are usually held to embody ‘two mutually exclusive paradigms of cinematically representing or not-representing the Holocaust’ (Hansen Citation1996: 294). Schindler’s List and Shoah have different foci: where Schindler’s List emphasizes survival, Lanzmann decided that his subject matter was death, the gas chambers from which no witnesses returned, and which were, therefore, unrepresentable (Jones Citation2010: 36). This is perverse, considering Lanzmann’s film contains witness statements from those who skirted the periphery of the gas chambers or even entered them. However, the horrors of the Holocaust, according to Lanzmann, absolutely should not be communicated (Citation2010: 49). Gillian Rose challenges such ‘Holocaust piety,’ including special pleading about its representation, in these terms:
To argue for silence, prayer, the banishment equally of poetry and knowledge, in short, the witness of ‘ineffability’, that is, non-representability, is to mystify something we dare not understand, because we fear that it may be all too understandable, all too continuous with what we are—human, all too human. What is it that we do not want to understand? What is it that Holocaust piety in film and reviews once again protects us from understanding? (Citation1996: 43)
What do we fear may be ‘too understandable,’ ‘too human,’ ‘too continuous’ with our lived contemporary experience? Instead of taking the line that the Holocaust is unrepresentable, I will open this special issue by speculating about another inhibition that prevented Kubrick from realizing Aryan Papers. His proposed plot modifications included centralizing a Jewish woman and allowing her to take violent revenge for war time atrocities. I suggest the complexities of vindicating, condemning, or withholding judgment on a Jewish woman’s revenge presented Kubrick a conundrum he could not solve. Kubrick’s plot ideas include a rape scene and several alternative endings with various permutations. In some endings, she dies. In some, she survives. I will focus here on this dithering about the ending, as it seems to bespeak a particularly knotty set of problems.
I argue that Kubrick’s film remained unmade, not necessarily because Kubrick could not bring himself to represent the Holocaust, but because his film was ahead of its generic times. The generic moment for the Jewish woman’s revenge had to wait for Quentin Tarantino in 2009 and Inglourious Basterds (Citation2009). That film features the mass murder of Nazi perpetrators of atrocity by a vengeful Jewish woman. As Matthew Boswell points out, Tarantino even has the temerity to place the cinematic spectator in the position of a Nazi suffering at the hands of a brutally vengeful Jew (Boswell Citation2011: 175). Following Rose (Citation1996), Boswell (Citation2011) describes such works as Tarantino’s as representing ‘Holocaust impiety.’ This is the antithesis of ‘sentimental or sanctimonious approaches to the genocide’ (1). These pious attitudes are represented in different ways by Schindler’s List – with Spielberg tending to the sentimental – and Shoah – with Lanzmann tending to the sanctimonious in his paratextual remarks. Kubrick was not habitually either sentimental or sanctimonious. I doubt that fear of Holocaust impiety inhibited him, although its moment had not yet come when he was working on Aryan Papers in the early 1990s.
Materials and methods
The evidence that supports this paper comes from the Stanley Kubrick Archive at the University of the Arts, London, and the research was conducted in late 2021. Because I live in Australia, and because the Covid pandemic had closed international borders, I employed a proxy researcher, Dr. Cassie Brummitt, to go into the Archive on my behalf. We would meet via Zoom, go over the catalogue, and agree on a plan for each day’s exploration. Cassie would then consult the materials, take notes, transcribe passages, and report to me in writing and again via Zoom. I would interpret her notes and synthesize key insights. Cassie and I have described our methods more fully in James Fenwick and Kieran Foster’s forthcoming Studying the Unmade (McEntee and Brummitt CitationForthcoming). Briefly, Cassie adopted the role of a self-reflexive ‘archivist researcher,’ a concept she derives from Lynée Lewis Gaillet (Gaillet Citation2012: 50) in approaching the ‘skeletal, damaged, or […] non-existent’ archival traces that are left by an unfinished film (Fenwick Citation2021: 4).
As both Cassie and I have a background in Adaptation Studies, we focussed on a detailed comparison of the novel and the draft screenplays. Adaptation studies and archival research are not necessarily compatible. James Fenwick asserts the currency of archival research and the ‘New Film History,’ and particularly ‘Women’s Film History’ (Fenwick CitationForthcoming, N. Pag.). However, Fenwick also draws attention to the limitations of novel-to-screenplay and screenplay-to-screenplay comparisons, on which the current article relies, as they fetishize the auteur at the expense of other film workers whose labour becomes submerged when a film fails to make it into production. This would appear to place the current trend in archival studies, at least as advocated by Fenwick, at odds with adaptation studies. However, I would seek to reassert the relevance of the kind of study I have undertaken in terms of Robert Stam’s observation that ‘adaptations … can take an activist stance toward their source novels,’ recontextualizing them ideologically (Stam Citation2000: 64). Kubrick takes an activist stance to the novel he was adapting, Louis Begley’s Wartime Lies (Citation2007), repositioning the main characters to centralize Tania and explore her agency: he remodelled gender relations in the drama, so the woman became the focal point. The apparent incompatibility of archival studies and adaptation studies is not a barrier, nor is conducting novel-to-screenplay and screenplay-to-screenplay comparisons redundant. Rather, bringing together these two methodologies – one relatively new, one relatively old – produces new insights. And it can help excavate the work of unsung film workers, like Johanna Ter Steege.
Results
Wartime Lies: plot outline
Centring the woman, allowing her to take revenge and to die are all significant departures from the novel Kubrick was adapting, Louis Begley’s Wartime Lies. The focalizer is a young Jewish boy, Maciek. He begins the novel in the upper-middle-class household of his widower doctor father and unmarried Aunt Tania. Tania and Maciek are particularly close to Maciek’s grandfather (Tania’s father). As the war closes in, the family splits up and relocates. Tania and Maciek begin living under assumed names and flee to Warsaw. Their existence is one long series of lies and impostures as they seek to conceal their Jewish identity from informers. Tania and Maciek escape the train to Auschwitz thanks to Tania’s bravado and resourcefulness. Maciek and Tania make their way to a remote village named Piasowe where Tania gathers intelligence about other refugees in the hopes of finding Grandfather. She discovers that he has been betrayed and shot. She and Maciek flee. The novel’s end sees them settling into Cracow using Aryan papers. They continue to live under assumed names as Roman Catholics.
Aryan Papers: script revisions
Screenplay versions in the Archive reveal important things about how the film, and Tania’s role, were conceived and reworked during the drafting process. There are dramatic changes to the end of the story. In many documents, Kubrick suggests that the ending should be changed so that Tania kills Miska, the man who brags about Grandfather being killedFootnote1 as well as some village elders who are German sympathizers.Footnote2
The text of one of the screenplay treatments is explicit about framing these murders as Tania’s taking revenge.
Tania screamed when she saw her [father’s corpse], and she rushed to the wagon and threw her arms around him, sobbing.
…
Jozef [a partisan] handed Tania his pistol.
“Avenge yourself. Honour your father,” Jozef said.
Tania wild-eyed, her mouth open, looked at the pistol, then took it from Jozef.
“Have mercy … Oh please have mercy!”
“Shoot them! Shoot the swine!!” Jozef said.
Tania stared at the couple, filled with hate, seeming not to hear Jozef.
“Oh, please … Dear God, save us … ”
“Avenge your father. Shoot them!”
Tania raised the pistol, aimed at the man, and fired.
But she missed.
Even on his knees, he was bobbing around too much.
“I want to live. Oh, please, God help me. I want to live.”
“So did all the innocent victims you and traitors like you helped to send to their death,” Jozef shouted.
Tania started to tremble violently.Jozef walked over to her and said, “Come, Tania. Move closer … move closer.”
He took her by the arm and moved her forward slowly until she was only about a yard away from the man and woman who continued to beg piteously.
“Now, shoot them, in the head,” Jozef said, quietly.
Tania aimed the pistol and shot the man in the head.
His wife let out a horrible scream and Tania shot her, too.
Afterwards, Jozef pinned the death warrant to the man’s shirt.Footnote3
Kubrick also references a ‘Kaputt’ [sic] ending, which may refer to an ending that kills off all the major characters.Footnote4 Kubrick’s annotations indicate the potential problems with this finale: ‘If we use the Kaputt ending where Tania may be killed, you need the father to tidy up the ending.’Footnote5 Later draft treatments show another substantial change to the ending of the story.Footnote6 Some treatments entirely cut the Piasowe episode in favour of Tania and Maciek joining the partisans, which puts Tania in the thick of the fighting. According to Kubrick’s notes, ‘If T [Tania] joins the partisans, some partisan military action is called for.’Footnote7 An annotated draft treatment dated 12 June 1992 ends thus: ‘The Russian offensive has smashed German resistance, and Tania and Maciek are caught up in the cruel and vengeful fighting between the partisans and the retreating Germans. / Their long battle for survival ends when they are overrun by the advancing Russian army.’Footnote8 In other treatments, Nowak is recast as a German informant and tells Tania where to find Grandfather; Tania finds Grandfather alive, and Maciek survives a battle between the partisans and the Germans. The three survive at the end of the script.Footnote9
All the proposed changes to the script, even in the early drafts, make Tania a much more active figure: whether that’s going to kill Miska (in the earliest drafts), or joining the partisans and killing the village elders. She essentially propels the action at the end of the film. She is resilient, resourceful, and powerful. In some annotations and drafts, he arms Tania, suggesting she kills Miska ‘with a knife’ and that ‘Komar gives Tania a gun when she goes out with the Bimber [bootleg vodkal] / Teaches her how to shoot it / Perhaps we see her use it.’Footnote10 One synopsis even suggests she kills Miska with a Baby Browning semi-automatic Komar has given her, not only emptying it into him but reloading the magazine to finish killing him.Footnote11
Kubrick’s script revisions also do interesting things with the motivation for this revenge. In two early drafts, Nowak rapes Tania.Footnote12 But in later drafts, the rape scene is cut.Footnote13 In most drafts, Nowak does not rape Tania. In some, he merely flirts with her (as he does in the novel); in some, he does not. Rape revenge, then, is removed as a motivation as the script evolves.
Discussion
Revenge
Revenge is a thorny subject. To take an impious attitude towards it, revenge is an all-too-human impulse out of which people are only schooled by the most elaborate enculturation towards the piety of forgiveness. Revenge is the justice of the marginalized. It is what is left to victim/survivors when the law is absent or fails them. Forgiveness is not always appropriate, and expectations that victim/survivors should forgive an atrocity as enormous as the Holocaust, or any part of it, ‘so [to dilute] the principle of forgiveness as to make its transaction trivial or empty’ (Lang Citation2005: 26). But advocating revenge is unfashionable. As Rosenbaum (Citation2013) says, ‘It’s difficult if not impossible to have honest conversations about revenge’ (12). He interrogates nice, ‘artificial’ (Citation2013: 12) distinctions between revenge and justice in contemporary ‘revenge-averse’ society (Citation2013: 19). He says, ‘Revenge is the one human instinct that dares not speak its name. The mere mention of it is widely regarded as undignified – barbarism at its most naked, one of those nasty impediments to civilization itself.’ (Citation2013: 32) If art after the Holocaust is considered barbarous, so is revenge.
Focussing on the era he dubs the Post-Holocaust, Lang (Citation2005) writes in similar terms about the silence about revenge in relation to the Holocaust, which he says amounts to repression (19). Writing in 2005, Lang said that revenge and forgiveness should remain live issues in contemporary discussions of the Holocaust precisely because its enormity puts it beyond the pale of justice (17–18). This silence about revenge and the Holocaust has pertained until recently, even though retaliation for atrocities did occur, including by death camp inmates and partisans (Lang Citation2005, Rosenbaum Citation2013).
But the willingness to confront Jewish revenge has evolved with the times and gone in and out of fashion. Indeed, it seems only to have been possible to talk about Jewish revenge for wartime atrocities in certain eras, with reluctance creeping in at others. As Rosenbaum says, at the end of World War II,
Whether [death camp inmates’] lawless acts of retribution are examples of justice or revenge didn’t seem to matter much to anyone since no one—except Nazi guards […]—complained about it. Most people believed that these sporadic, improvised acts of vengeance were completely just and justified given the enormity of evil, and the scale of mass death, that the Nazis and their abettors had visited on Europe. (Citation2013: 17)
But despite this, survivors testifying at trials sixty-five years later would find it to be seemly to be seeking justice, not revenge (Rosenbaum Citation2013: 17). In the world off-screen, revenge was outmoded in the 2010s. Indeed, in 2010 the Jewish holy books were revised and re-edited to redact the vengeful God of the Israelites (Rosenbaum Citation2013: 6). Only in the movies, says Rosenbaum, was revenge aired (Citation2013: 28).
But not in all movies all the time. In 1985, Lanzmann finished Shoah, which in Sue Vice’s estimation, is about ‘destruction’ rather than ‘rescue or resistance’ (Citation2023: 1). This film allows the discussion of revenge only in an anti-Semitic outburst in front of the Chelmno church on Easter Sunday morning. A crowd member suggests a Rabbi attributed the genocide of Jews to Christ’s vengeance for the events surrounding the crucifixion. Shoah remains mute on Jewish revenge, however. That has to wait for a separate film made of Shoah outtakes, Sobibór, October 14, 1943, 4pm. (Citation2001). There, Yehuda Lerner testifies to the joy of revenge. It is telling that this film was not released until Citation2001, 16 years after Shoah. In another outtake, never released but available as part of Lanzmann’s online archive, Lanzmann interviews Abba Kovner, who masterminded the elaborate conspiracy of survivors who planned the mass poisoning of 6 million Germans in an act of Nakam, or revenge (Lang Citation2005, Porat and Yuval Citation2020, Porat Citation2023). However, in Sue Vice’s account, the interview did not centre on that extraordinary undertaking (Citation2023).
However, while the revenge was being edited out of Jewish holy books, interest in Jewish revenge was growing Hollywood. Steven Spielberg’s Munich (adapted from George Jonas’ book Vengeance) came out in Citation2005, Defiance in Citation2008 and Inglourious Basterds in Citation2009. All feature Jewish revenge. Munich features a campaign of retaliatory assassinations carried out by former Mossad agents for the 1972 massacre of Olympic athletes by Black September terrorists. Defiance and Inglourious Basterds feature revenge for World War II atrocities associated with the Holocaust. A widespread interest in revenge in any era bespeaks perceived failings of the mechanisms of the law and justice of the State in that time or on that topic. Rosenbaum says
there has been an inverse relationship between injustice under the law and the abundance of revenge novels, plays, and films that spring from the imagination of artists. If the legal system didn’t treat emotion as contraband, if it better appreciated the human need to feel avenged, vengeance wouldn’t have become such a staple of our common culture. Our revenge cravings become ravenous whenever justice is left undone. (Rosenbaum Citation2013: 29)
As Lang says, Holocaust Justice has not yet been achieved and may never be achievable (Citation2005: 18). If revenge is ever understandable, it is in the circumstance where justice via the law is not available. It is a wonder there are not more movies about Jewish vengeance.
Yet even in Hollywood action movies like Munich and Defiance, revenge is carefully hedged about. In the case of Munich, vengeful action is carefully gendered. Golda Meir (Lynn Cohen) gives a speech taking responsibility for the decision to go beyond civilized laws and seek revenge. Hers is the mens rea of the vengeful action. However, the actual assassinations are carried out by a team of men: Avner Kaufmann (Eric Bana) and his associates. Theirs is the actus reus. This is by contrast with Aryan Papers, where Tania takes vengeful action herself. In Defiance, the Jewish protagonist brothers, who lead an armed militia in the forests, have heated debates about revenge, which some say debases them to the level of animals. There is a squeamishness about owning revenge as a justifiable response, even in the absence of the law, the zone beyond the law, in wartime situations where people are making up all the laws for themselves. Piety surrounds not just the Holocaust but also revenge, at least as far as conventional Hollywood products are concerned. Defiance explores Jewish vengeance but repudiates it; Inglourious Basterds, by contrast, rejoices in a Jewish woman’s vengeance. These films may demonstrate a growing appetite for Jewish vengeance in the mid- to late-2000, but Kubrick was making Aryan Papers in 1992 and 1993. Only Genghis Cohn (Citation1993) dared to deal with revenge, and then through the ameliorating frame of comedy. There seems to have been a lack of appetite for the serious consideration of Holocaust revenge in the early 1990s, when Kubrick was making Aryan Papers.
The ‘Holocaust genre’
Regarding timing, something has to be said here about Kubrick’s relationship to ‘the Holocaust film’ as a genre. In 1999, Langford said the category was itself ‘scandalous’ and ‘problematic’ (23). However, Langford went on to acknowledge that Sophie’s Choice from Citation1982 and Schindler’s List from Citation1993 ‘[helped] trace out the parameters of a still nugatory new genre’ (Citation1999: 25). Kubrick’s relationship with generic filmmaking was unique. Elsaesser (Citation2020) characterizes him as making experimental ‘one-offs’ and ‘prototypes,’ films that anticipated future generic developments, as 2001: A Space Odyssey (Citation1968) set the agenda for science fiction films that came after it. Where his film could not be the defining film for an emergent genre, Kubrick lost interest. As Elsaesser says,
Kubrick, who usually nursed his projects for up to twenty years, abandoned or set aside certain films because he sensed that they would have arrived after another prototype had become the defining blockbuster. This was the case with Brian Aldiss’ story ‘Super-Toys Last All Summer Long’ a.k.a. ‘Pinocchio’ and ‘Artificial Intelligence,’ which Kubrick put aside after the success of Star Wars, and the abandonment of ‘The Aryan Papers’ […], which would have been released after Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. […]. ‘Kubrick’s films,’ as one of his temporary collaborators put it, ‘seem to be out of time.’ (Elsaesser Citation2020: 34)
And as Rauch’s (Citation2021) audience survey study demonstrates, Schindler’s List has become the film that defines ‘the Holocaust genre’ for young British moviegoers (110). This is partly because of a subsidized educational campaign that saw the film placed in every school in the UK (Hansen Citation1996: 294, Pearce Citation2017: 242). What Rauch’s young informants ‘expected’ of ‘the Holocaust genre’ is revealing. Their preconceptions were that such films would represent concentration camps and focus on Jewish inmates (Rauch Citation2021: 102). Films that Rauch’s interviewees identified as ‘different’ included Defiance (Rauch Citation2021: 102–103). Defiance is set in the forests and focuses on the armed resistance of a Jewish militia rather than focusing on the camps and passive suffering. Aryan Papers would, likewise, have been ‘different.’ As Gary Weissman has observed, a hierarchy of suffering has been established in Holocaust representation, with the gas chambers at once central and unrepresentable (Weissman Citation2004: 196–197), and all other aspects of the Holocaust ‘peripheral’, so that ‘some aspects of the Holocaust,’ such as the partisan experience or simply the experience of slipping under the radar, as Tania and Maciek do, become less ‘authentic, noteworthy or significant’ (Weissman Citation2004: 211). Thus, Kubrick’s film, which would have dealt with ‘peripheral’ matters, might have suffered in generic comparison with Shoah or Schindler’s List had it been realized.
Because Kubrick worked proleptically, it is easier to compare Aryan Papers with films that would have come after it than with films that went before, but positioning it in relation to other films in the genre yields insights into how ground-breaking it would have been had it come out in 1993 or 1994. It would have been like Sophie’s Choice in that it was to have focused on a woman, but Aryan Papers would have been in advance of Sophie’s Choice in that it imagined her taking action, however morally equivocal, rather than passively suffering. It was to have been more like 2008’s Defiance than 1993’s Schindler’s List in that it was set in towns, farms and forests rather than labour – or death – camps, and the victim/survivors take up armed resistance. It anticipated 2009s Inglourious Basterds in figuring Jewish vengeance for wartime atrocities. Aryan Papers, then, would have been in advance of the generic times. Perhaps this is why it remained unmade.
Rauch’s informants expected Holocaust films ‘to create sympathy for the victims’ (Citation2021: 104). Aryan Papers would have featured the problem of creating sympathy for the avenger, who may, in some readings, become the monster. It is not that Kubrick was incapable of creating sympathy for monsters. After all, he had done it with Alex De Large in A Clockwork Orange (Citation1971). However, Tania’s revenge is not straightforward. As it is unlikely that the final script would have settled on rape revenge, Tania would not have been avenging herself. Rather, she would have been avenging another, a true victim. She would have been a proxy avenger. And then, too, it is revenge against collaborators rather than directly against Nazis. It is against criminals of a lesser order, if you like: mere traitors rather than monsters. Yet everything about the casting and costuming of Johanna Ter Steege that can be gleaned from the Archive indicates that Kubrick sought to generate sympathy for her (McEntee Citation2022). However, the dithering with the end of the script that becomes apparent in the Archival traces indicates some indecision, some excess that would not be contained about the figure of the vengeful Jewess.
Death or survival?
Death, of course, is one way to contain excess. In the ‘kaput’ ending, Kubrick kills Tania off. It is possible that Kubrick could imagine generating sympathy for Tania’s revenge but could not imagine her getting away with it. The ‘kaput’ ending has a certain symmetry to it. Tania, having taken revenge, would have to be duly punished and expelled from the scene. This is certainly the ending Tarantino imagined for Shoshana Dreyfuss (Mélanie Laurent) in Inglourious Basterds. Her revenge is richly earned, and Tarantino even revels in it, but she is still punished for it. Then, too, killing your protagonist is a sure way to shock an audience out of their complacency.
Like Schindler’s List, the alternative endings to Aryan Papers that see Tania survive – and in one case even escape to Israel (Abrams Citation2023: 354) – give the lie to the fact that vast numbers of Jews caught up in the chaos of occupied Europe died. This is why Shoah, while narrated by survivors, never tells their tales of how they survived. That is left to the later outtakes, including Sobibór, October 14, 1943, 4pm. But as Gary Weissman points out, Lanzmann is dissatisfied with closing that film with Yehuda Lerner’s tale of escape. He immediately turns to an account of how the gas chambers were demolished, the convoys stopped, and the extermination ended (Weissman Citation2020: 181–182). Lanzmann moves the tale beyond ‘individual survival’ (Weissman Citation2020: 182), and draws back to bring the whole of the death camp into the frame. Lanzmann is interested in individual stories only insofar as they illustrate the general story of the destruction of European Jews.
Incommensurability and revenge: the problem of scale
By contrast with Lanzmann’s tendency to move the tale beyond individual survival, Tania and Maciek in Aryan Papers are individualized, and not necessarily representative. Tania’s revenge is similarly individualized. There is a big problem with individualized revenge: it is inadequate in the face of atrocity on the scale of the Holocaust. That takes a scheme on the scale of Abba Kovner’s Nakam. Revenge such as Tania’s cannot touch the larger problem of the industrialization of genocide. But how much can a 2-hour entertainment, as Aryan Papers was planned to be (Abrams Citation2023: 350), or a 3-hour entertainment, as Schindler’s List is, address mass suffering, let alone systematic redress? Lanzmann took 9.5 hours to address the suffering without considering redress. While he does everything possible to reveal the horrors of the Holocaust without actually showing the gas chambers in operation, Lanzmann’s 1985 Shoah is silent on the subject of successful resistance, and Jewish vengeance is considered only in outtakes, deliberately left on the cutting room floor in Citation1985 (though revived later, when the times were right).
Authorizing Aryan papers
About Schindler’s List, Claude Lanzmann said, ‘There is no reflection, no thought, about what is the Holocaust and no thought about what is cinema, because if [Spielberg] would have thought, he would not have made it – or he would have made Shoah’ (Lanzmann in Sklar Citation1994: 1). This is a statement of breath-taking egotism, in which Lanzmann stakes his claim as the only authorized representative of the Holocaust and Shoah as the only possible representation. And subsequent critics have abetted this egocentric manoeuvre, elevating Shoah to the sine qua non of Holocaust films. I do not wish to argue with this manoeuvre except to point out that it suggests that it is not so much the case that the Holocaust is unrepresentable as that there are only certain licensed, authorized representations, preferably those that approach as nearly as possible the harrowing nature of the events Holocaust victims went through themselves. Gary Weissman points out that this is an impossibility precisely because, far from being unrepresentable, the Holocaust is
only representable. We can watch a Holocaust movie, visit a Holocaust museum or memorial site, or read a Holocaust book, but we cannot experience or witness the reality of the Holocaust itself; and the more conscious we are of differences between the past reality and its representation, the more elusive the Holocaust seems to be. (Weissman Citation2004: 209. Emphasis in the original)
Putting Shoah on a pedestal has consequences. Shoah is not for everyone. Specifically, it is not for mass audiences. Weissman asks a series of questions about what can make the Holocaust as a subject more approachable, particularly for a group he dubs the ‘nonwitnesses’ – those second and third-generation descendants of survivors and those sympathizers not related at all:
When representing the Holocaust, how much horror can be shown without repelling viewers? How much horror can be described without alienating readers? How horrific and bleak can the story be without turning audiences away? How Jewish can a depiction of the Holocaust be without losing the patronage of an overwhelmingly non-Jewish audience? These questions are not easily answered. (Weissman Citation2004: 10–11)
In doing so, he interrogates the kind of snobbery that underlies Lanzmann’s totalizing claim to the space of Holocaust representation: ‘Nonwitnesses can be drawn to whatever makes the Holocaust accessible for a mass audience, even if this means finding fulfilment in the “wrong” kind of Holocaust representation’ (Weissman Citation2004: 148). For all that Kubrick might not have shared Spielberg’s sentimentality, it seems clear that Aryan Papers would have resembled Schindler’s List as a Hollywood fiction film more than it resembled Shoah. It would have been a ‘wrong’ kind of Holocaust film relative to Shoah. But does this make it a ‘wrong’ film tout court? Or just a film out of its time? The evolution, or devolution, of Holocaust films towards Inglourious Basterds suggests that Aryan Papers was just a film out of its time.
Conclusion
James Fenwick cites Kubrick’s growing indecision, rather than Hollywood’s practice of reducing risk by avoiding fashionable genres, as being responsible for Aryan Papers remaining unmade (Fenwick Citation2020, Citation2022). There is, indeed, substantial evidence in the Archive that Kubrick dithered over the production location and production company for Aryan Papers (Fenwick Citation2020). However, while there is evidence in the script revisions that he dithered about the ending of the film, the treatments evolved consistently in ways that imagined a Jewish woman’s active revenge. Such revenge, as is the way of all revenge, was impossible either to vindicate or deny. Nor was there a mainstream market appetite, in the early 1990s, for the serious consideration of Jewish vengeance. This suggests that it was not Kubrick’s indecision alone that doomed the film, but the ‘industrial logic of Hollywood,’ including its ‘fear of [commercial] failure’ (Fenwick Citation2022). Jewish vengeance was to wait for 2001, Sobibór, October 14, 1943, 4pm, and ultimately for 2009, with Inglourious Basterds, a work of ‘Holocaust impiety’ that imagined a Jewish woman’s revenge writ large. In the early 1990s, piety, shame or denial surrounded Jewish revenge, particularly enacted by a woman, making it unrepresentable.
Cinema’s reticence only imitates the tendencies of Holocaust historiography. As Lang attested in 2005, the subject of Jewish vengeance for the Holocaust was then only beginning to be discussed in historical scholarship. A full account of Abba Kovner’s Nakam was to wait for Dina Porat in the 2020s (Porat and Yuval Citation2020, Porat Citation2023). I can understand the reluctance to confront this aspect of the Holocaust experience. Revenge of any kind raises uncomfortable questions. To return to Gillian Rose’s question about the plea for silence about the Holocaust, ‘What is it that we do not want to understand? What is it that Holocaust piety […] protects us from understanding?’ (Citation1996: 43). I submit that the confrontation that is withheld by the failure to realize Aryan Papers is the confrontation with Jewish revenge as an ‘all too human’ response to the Holocaust. A less pious approach to all aspects of the Holocaust, including vengeful impulses, might yield a truer picture. It is time to have an honest conversation about revenge. The need has never been more urgent.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution Dr. Cassie Brummitt made to this article in conducting research with the raw archival data, and Professor Sue Vice for her wise counsel.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
This work was supported by School of Humanities Research Committee, University of Adelaide.
Notes on contributors
Joy McEntee
Dr. Joy McEntee SFHEA is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer in the Department of English, Creative Writing, and Film at the University of Adelaide. Her work focuses on American film, especially Stanley Kubrick, and adaptation. She is currently writing a monograph on women in Kubrick’s cinema and an edited collection on Kubrick and race, both for Liverpool University Press.
Notes
1 Notably SK/18/2/1/4 ‘WL Notes Book 1.
2 War T Lies SK Box 3; Three script treatments are identical and dated 11-14-92 (14th November 1992), pp. 119–129.
3 War T Lies SK Box 3; Three script treatments are identical and dated 11-14-92 (14th November 1992), pp. 127–129.
4 This is first mentioned in SK/18/2/1/5 Synopsis and then seen in SK/18/2/1/6 Annotated ‘Draft’ Treatment with Archive Newsreel use noted.
5 SK/18/2/1/5 (alt ref SK/18/2/1/3) Synopsis -16 May 1992.
6 See SK/18/2/1/7 Annotated Draft Treatment and all subsequent treatments.
7 SK/18/2/1/4 (alt ref SK/18/2/1/2) WL Notes Book 1 - PDF – 26 Jul – 12 Oct 1991.
8 SK/18/2/1/6 Annotated ‘Draft’ Treatment with Archive Newsreel use noted – 12 June 1992 p. 125.
9 SK/18/2/1/7 (alt ref SK/18/2/1/4) Annotated Draft Treatment -– May-Jun 1992.
10 SK/18/2/1/4 (alt ref SK/18/2/1/2) WL Notes Book 1 - PDF – 26 Jul – 12 October 1991.
11 SK/18/2/1/5 (alt ref SK/18/2/1/3) Synopsis – 16 May 1992, p. 12.
12 SK/18/2/1/7 Annotated Draft Treatment and SK/18/2/1/8 Partially Annotated Draft Treatment.
13 SK/18/2/1/10 onwards, Arian Papers’ treatment with scene list and shooting plan.
References
2001: A Space Odyssey, 1968. Film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. UK and USA: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Abrams, N., 2018. Stanley Kubrick: New York Jewish intellectual. New Brunswick, Camden and Newark, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Abrams, N., 2023. “A monstrously difficult subject”: Stanley Kubrick’s Aryan Papers (1991–1993). Journal of Jewish Identities, 16 (1 & 2), 349–368.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Begley, L., 2007. Wartime lies. London: Penguin.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Boswell, M., 2011. Holocaust impiety in literature, popular music and film. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
A Clockwork Orange, 1971. Film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. USA: Warner Bros.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Defiance, 2008. Film. Directed by Edward Zwick. USA: Paramount Pictures.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Elsaesser, T., 2020. Stanley Kubrick’s prototypes: the author as world-maker. In: J. Szaniawski ed. After Kubrick: a filmmaker’s legacy. London and New York: Bloomsbury, 29–48.
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Fenwick, J., 2020. Stanley Kubrick produces. New Brunswick, Camden, Newark, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press.
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Fenwick, J., 2021. Unproduction studies and the American film industry. London: Routledge.
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Fenwick, J., 2022. Failure, unmade films, and hollywood. Flow [online]. Available from: ▻https://www.flowjournal.org/2022/02/failure-unmade-films-and-hollywood/(open in a new window) [Accessed 12 December 2022].
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Fenwick, J., Forthcoming. Archival fragments, gaps, absences, and silence: the unmade and film history. In: J. Fenwick and K. Foster eds. Studying the unmade, unseen, and unreleased: histories, methods, theories. Intellect.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Gaillet, L. L., 2012. (Per)forming archival research methodologies. College Composition and Communication, 64 (1), 35–58. doi:10.58680/ccc201220858
View
(Open in a new window)Web of Science ®(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Genghis Cohn, 1993. Tv. Directed by Elijah Moshinksy. UK: BBC.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Grossman, J., 1991. War and memory. The New York Times, 5 May.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Hansen, M. B., 1996. “Schindler’s list” is not “Shoah”: the second commandment, popular modernism, and public memory. Critical Inquiry, 22 (2), 292–312. doi:10.1086/448792
View
(Open in a new window)Web of Science ®(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Inglourious Basterds, 2009. Film. Directed by Quentin Tarantino. US and Germany: Weinstein Company and Universal Pictures.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Jones, K., 2010. Approaching “Shoah”. Shoah. Criterion Collection, 30–43.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Karpel, D., 2005. The real Stanley Kubrick. Haaretz [online]. Available from: ▻https://www.haaretz.com/2005-11-03/ty-article/the-real-stanley-kubrick/0000017f-f69a-d318-afff-f7fbd3570000(open in a new window) [Accessed 5 May 2023].
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Lang, B., 2005. Forgiveness, revenge, and the limits of Holocaust justice. In: Post-Holocaust: interpretation, misinterpretation, and the claims of history. Bloomington and Indiana: Indiana University Press, 17–31.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Langford, B., 1999. ‘You cannot look at this’: thresholds of unrepresentability in Holocaust film. The Journal of Holocaust Education, 8 (3), 23–40. doi:10.1080/17504902.1999.11087094
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Lanzmann, C., 2010. From the Holocaust to “Holocaust”. Shoah. Criterion Collection, 44–57.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
McEntee, J., 2022. Unrealisable woman: Tania in Stanley Kubrick’s Aryan papers. Senses of Cinema [online], 103. Available from: ▻http://www.sensesofcinema.com/2022/feature-articles/unrealisable-woman-tania-in-stanley-kubricks-aryan-papers/(open in a new window) [Accessed 1 May 2023].
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
McEntee, J. and Brummitt, C., Forthcoming. Disinterring Johanna Ter Steege: Aryan papers and the materiality of the Stanley Kubrick archive. In: J. Fenwick and K. Foster, eds. Studying the unmade, unseen, and unreleased: histories, methods, theories. Intellect.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Munich, 2005. Film. Directed by Steven Spielberg. USA: Universal Pictures.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
O’Malley, J. P., 2018. Scholar reveals Morbid roots of lost Stanley Kubrick script. The Times of Israel [online]. Available from: ▻https://www.timesofisrael.com/scholar-reveals-morbid-roots-of-lost-stanley-kubrick-script/(open in a new window) [Accessed 25 April 2023].
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Pearce, A., 2017. The Holocaust in the National Curriculum after 25 years. Holocaust Studies, 23 (3), 231–262. doi:10.1080/17504902.2017.1296068
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Porat, D., 2023. Nakam: the Holocaust survivors who sought full-scale revenge. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Porat, D., and Yuval, E., 2020. Nakam—the blood of Israel will take revenge: to kill six million Germans. In: The fall of the sparrow: life and times of Abba Kovner. Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 210–237.
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Rauch, S., 2021. Rethinking Holocaust film reception: a British case study. London: Lexington Books.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Rose, G., 1996. Mourning becomes the law: philosophy and representation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, T., 2013. Payback: the case for revenge. London: University of Chicago Press.
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Schindler’s List, 1993. Film. Directed by Steven Spielberg. USA: Universal Pictures.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Shoah, 1985. Film. Directed by Claude Lanzmann. France: Les Films Aleph/IFC Films.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Sklar, R., 1994. Lanzmann’s Latest: After ‘Shoah,’ Jewish Power. Forward, 30 September.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Sobibór October 14, 1943, 4 pm, 2001. Film. Directed by Claude Lanzmann. France: Les Films Aleph/IFC Films.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Sophie’s Choice, 1982. Film. Directed by Alan J. Pakula. UK and USA: Universal Pictures.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Stam, R., 2000. Beyond fidelity: the dialogics of adaptation. In: J. Naremore, ed. Film adaptation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 54–76.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Trezise, T., 2001. Unspeakable. Yale Journal of Criticism, 14 (1), 39–66. doi:10.1353/yale.2001.0016
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Vice, S., 2023. Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah outtakes: Holocaust rescue and resistance. London, New York, and Dublin: Bloomsbury.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Waterloo, 1970. Directed by Sergei Bondarchuk. Italy and Soviet Union: Columbia Pictures and Paramount Pictures.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Weissman, G., 2004. Fantasies of witnessing: postwar efforts to experience the Holocaust. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
View
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
Weissman, G., 2020. Yehuda Lerner’s living words: Translation and transcription in Sobibór October 14, 1943, 4 pm In: E. McGlohin, B. Prager and M. Zisselsberger eds. The construction of testimony: Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah and its outtakes. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 175–205.
(Open in a new window)Google Scholar
PDF : ▻https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17526272.2024.2360319
#cinéma #histoire #holocauste #shoa
Vietnamkrieg: Happening Vietnam
▻https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/499499.vietnamkrieg-happening-vietnam.html
8.6.2025 von Susann Witt-Stahl - Zur Ästhetisierung und Inszenierung des US-amerikanischen Krieges in Indochina
Im Vietnamkrieg war Kulturindustrie erstmals an vorderster Front im Einsatz. »Vietnam – das war Rock ’n’ Roll und ein großes Barbecue«, erinnerte sich ein Veteran fasziniert an sein Kriegserlebnis; dabei bleibt ungewiss, ob er die Grillpartys mit Tonnen von Steaks in den Camps der US Army oder das verbrannte Fleisch der Napalm-Opfer meinte.
Audiovisuelle Technik liefere Bild- und Tonstreifen, »auf dass jeder seine eigene Realität inszeniere«, so Paul Virilio in seiner Studie zur »Logistik der Wahrnehmung« im fortgeschritten industrialisierten Krieg. In Vietnam hörten die US-Soldaten bereits via Radio und Kassettenrekorder nahezu immer und überall Popmusik – sogar in den Helikoptern über Kopfhörer. Für den B-52-Piloten avancierte das Ausklinken der Bomben mit Iron Butterflys »In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida« zum Auftakt eines ästhetischen Hochgenusses am in wenigen Sekunden losbrechenden Inferno.
Der bereitgestellte »Tonstreifen« erzeugte einen rauschhaften Taumel zwischen Fiktion und Realität: »Und dann war’s nicht mehr nur Musik, sondern Erfahrung, Leben-als-Film, Krieg-als-(Kriegs-)Film, Krieg-als-Leben«, notierte der Reporter und Drehbuchkoautor von »Full Metal Jacket«, Michael Herr, für seinen Bestseller »Dispatches«. Das mag zur Erklärung des Zynismus gegenüber Leiden und Sterben beitragen, der selbst die eigenen Kameraden nicht verschonte: Als 1968 bei der Belagerung von Khe Sanh der Bordschütze eines US-Hubschraubers von der feindlichen Artillerie getroffen wurde und in die Tiefe stürzte, applaudierten einige Marines.
»Man ist ›draußen‹, was man sieht, wird eigentümlich fern, damit aber nicht schlicht negiert, abgeblendet, sondern zum Spektakel, das man in gewisser Weise aufmerksamer betrachtet als ohne die Distanzierung«, beschrieb der Kulturpsychologe Rainer Schönhammer einen Zustand, der sich in der Feststellung »Das ist wie Kino« manifestiert und später mit dem Walkman steigern sollte. Solche »Distanzierung« der Soldaten vom grausamen Geschehen korrespondierte mit dessen Annäherung an die Wohnzimmer zu Hause durch Television – in Vietnam fand der erste Krieg statt, der zeitversetzt im Fernsehen durch zur Identifikation mit den US-Truppen anhaltende Bewegtbilder mitverfolgt werden konnte.
»Indian Country«
Dass die gesellschaftliche Linke in den USA mit dem Vietnam-Soundtrack und aufrüttelnden Bildern kulturelle Hegemonie erlangte, ist ein Mythos. Die Antikriegsbewegung konnte kurzzeitig durch einen breiten Konsens gegen die Wehrpflicht und mit der Forderung »Bring the Boys Home!« eine Massenbasis aufbauen. Das galt aber nicht für die Solidaritätskampagnen zur Unterstützung des nationalen Befreiungskampfs der Vietnamesen. Antiimperialistische Gegenkultur und Kunst wurden stets überblendet von einer Flut emotionalisierender Bildstrecken in den Illustrierten über die Entbehrungen der »Boys« im Dschungel Vietnams. Vor allem aber wurde die linke Kultur übertönt von Songs über Sex und Drogen, über das Gefühl einer neuen Lost Generation, im Stich gelassen und nicht verstanden worden zu sein.
Solcher rebellischer Soundtrack, der tendenziell voyeuristischen Kriegsbetrachtung, der Front und Heimatfront kulturell durch gleichermaßen unkritische Nähe und Distanz miteinander verband, war vom Narrativ des »sinnlosen Krieges« getragen. Es förderte zwar Defätismus und schwächte die Kampfmoral, aber es war keineswegs Ausdruck von Opposition gegen die imperialistischen Kriege der USA: »Wir waren empört und enttäuscht, alle, Linke, Liberale, Rechte, nicht weil wir Krieg führten, sondern weil wir den ›falschen Krieg‹ führten«, schilderte der Literaturwissenschaftler Jack Zipes eine damals verbreitete Haltung. Sie resultiere aus der militärischen Supermachtstellung der USA: Die Amerikaner kennten den Krieg nur aus ihren Kinderspielen und Filmen. Er passiere nur im Ausland, weil die Menschen dort noch nicht zur Freiheit und Frieden fähig seien. »Deshalb müssen wir manche Länder besetzen«, erklärte Zipes die ungebrochene Kriegslust der Amerikaner. »Krieg ist für uns die zweite Natur.« So kamen Marvin Gaye mit »What’s Going on«, die Doors mit »The Unknown Soldier«, wie die meisten anderen Musiker, die mit ihren Protestsongs Reichweite erzielten, über die Verzweiflung am Krieg als »Naturgewalt« kaum hinaus. Sie ließen ihn vielmehr als metaphysische Größe erscheinen und verschleierten damit seine politischen und ökonomischen Gründe.
Dass Rock ’n’ Roll vorwiegend Fortsetzung des Krieges mit anderen Mitteln war, machte auch die Entwicklung der südvietnamesischen Musikszenen deutlich. Der amerikanische Kulturimperialismus und das Bedürfnis der US-Soldaten, am Mekong Delta Haight-Ashbury-Feeling zu erleben, sorgten dafür, dass in Saigon eine bizarre Hippiewelt aufploppte. Die Mitglieder populärer vietnamesischer Bands wie CBC ließen ihre Haare wachsen, kleideten sich wie die »Blumenkinder« in den USA und coverten Psychedelic-, R&B- und Rocksongs von Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin und Jimi Hendrix. Höhepunkt war das aus Kreisen des Van-Thieu-Regimes unterstützte Saigon International Rock Festival am 29. Mai 1971, das als vietnamesisches »Woodstock« gefeiert wurde – obwohl von der Bühne Kriegspropaganda kam und der Erlös ans Militär ging. Durch solche Spektakel mit kanalisierter Gegenkultur konnten die Amerikaner auch besser die »guten Indianer« erkennen – Vietnamesen, die das spiegelten, was sie unter »Zivilisation« verstanden.
Die Vietnam-Klischees der US-Militärs und Mainstreammedien waren voller Assoziationen zu den Indianerkriegen. Alle Vietnamesen wurden, wie Asiaten allgemein, als »Gooks« (Schlitzaugen) verachtet, und die ideologisch und kulturell jenseits der »Frontier«, der vordersten Siedlungsgrenze verorteten Kämpfer der Nationalen Front für die Befreiung Südvietnams und die Bevölkerung der Demokratischen Republik Vietnam sollten barbarisiert werden. Die Amalgamierung von kolonialherrschaftlichem Zivilisationschauvinismus mit eliminatorischem Antikommunismus ermöglichte es, eine nahezu uneingeschränkte Lizenz zum Abschlachten der »Roten« in »Indian Country« auszustellen.
In den Video-und-Soundtracks der Propaganda wurden diese Feindbilder in hässlichsten Farben ausgemalt. Die integrierte Gegenkultur hingegen romantisierte das kolonialistische Klischee. Der Kulturwissenschaftler John Hellmann analysierte die Hippiemode mit Stirnbändern, Konsum von Drogen wie Peyote etc. als Huldigung des »edlen Wilden«, der »das weiße Amerika an seinen Grenzen herausforderte«. Was die rebellische mit der etablierten Kultur verband, war, dass die real existierenden Vietnamesen und deren Lebenswelt im dunkeln blieben. Anders als in antiimperialistischer Kultur, die das menschliche Antlitz von »Victor Charlie« (des kommunistischen Vietnam) freilegte, ragte ihr Blick nur selten über die Kehrseite des amerikanischen Traums hinaus.
Der militärische Blick
Die kulturelle Retrospektive auf den Vietnamkrieg ist von Nostalgie geprägt. Der Soundtrack wird mit immer neuen Compilations der »Oldies« aus den Flower-Power-»Good Times« vermarktet, auf deren Covern US-amerikanische Elitesoldaten im Muskelshirt, aber nie Vietnamesen zu sehen sind. Heute sind die Hits fast nur noch als Soundtracks der Vietnam-Hollywoodfilme bekannt.
Diese sind von einer narzisstischen Regression durchwirkt, die zur Verarbeitung von Verlusten und eigenen Traumata reicht, aber die Aufarbeitung des imperialistischen Krieges als Verbrechen weiter vereitelt. Francis Ford Coppola operierte zwar in seinem cineastischen Meisterwerk »Apocalypse Now« – wie Joseph Conrad in seiner Romanvorlage – am offenen »Herzen der Finsternis« westlicher Zivilisation und stellte die Obszönität der Inszenierung von Massenvernichtung als Happening bloß; er tat das aber mit den Mitteln der Ästhetisierung des Krieges, eines faschistoiden Matrixbestandteils der Kulturindustrie des Kapitalismus.
Längst ist die sekundäre Entwirklichung der damaligen Ereignisse in Geschichtsrevisionismus umgeschlagen. Im Vietnam-Film »Wir waren Helden« von 2002 war die wehrkraftzersetzende Hippiekultur, die mit den Animals »We Got to Get out of This Place« verlangte, bereits den alten Heldenepen gewichen – »Lay me doon in the caul caul groon«, heißt es in der Ballade »Sgt. MacKenzie«, die den Schlüsselszenen des Streifens unterlegt ist und den Soldatentod als unabwendbares »Schicksal« darstellt.
Georg Seeßlen hatte 1989 in einem Essay über die Entwicklung des Kriegsfilms konstatiert: »Das Kino ›sieht‹ nicht deshalb wie eine Kriegsmaschine, weil wir gar nicht anders als militärisch sehen können, sondern deshalb, weil es seinen Blick den Technologieschüben verdankt, die zivil nicht zu erlangen sind.« Das gilt für alle Kulturindustrie. Daher ist sie nicht an der Realität der vergangenen Kriege interessiert – sie konzentriert ihre Potentiale voll und ganz auf die Mobilisierung für die zukünftigen.
Archive Fever: Stanley Kubrick and “The Aryan Papers”
▻https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/archive-fever-stanley-kubrick-and-the-aryan-papers
24.3.2011 by Richard Brody - It could be that what makes Internet trawling so irresistible is the way its unexpected tributaries mimic the processes of thought itself. I was all prepared to write a little post about an exhibit, at the Cinémathèque Française, of materials from Stanley Kubrick’s vast archives—and, in particular, about a description of those holdings, their history, and their current state of availability (at the University of the Arts, in London), by Dorian Chotard, in Libération. I was going to write that, although, in my own research, I have been very fortunate to be able to consult some of the great cinema archives, I find the trend toward the historicization of the cinema through library and museum collections and the studies they foster to be equivocal at best. On the one hand, contemporary filmmakers are often inspired by their understanding of classic films; on the other, the inspiration of new films by classic films instead of by life often leads to sterile work, and, for critics, the excess devotion to classic cinema often obstructs the appreciation of what’s new.
But, one link leading to another, here’s what I came up with: it turns out that Stanley Kubrick had planned, in 1993, to make a film, “The Aryan Papers,” about the Holocaust—an adaptation of Louis Begley’s first novel, “Wartime Lies.” One dévoté has compiled a superb online dossier relating to the project, and its byways are utterly fascinating. First, there is a documentary “Unfolding the Aryan Papers,” by Jane and Louise Wilson, about Kubrick’s unmade film. Second, there’s an extraordinary story about the Dutch actress Johanna Ter Steege, who was to be its star. Geoffrey Macnab tells it well in the Independent:
Back in Holland, Ter Steege waited patiently. She was told that production would begin in three or four months’ time. Nothing happened. Harlan called her regularly, telling her that shooting was postponed but not to worry. She didn’t take other jobs. Then, after seven months, she was informed that Kubrick had decided not to make the film. News had filtered through of Steven Spielberg’s plans for Schindler’s List. Kubrick and the top brass at Warner Brothers were worried that The Aryan Papers would suffer commercially if it appeared after Spielberg’s movie. It was widely accepted that the box office for his earlier Vietnam war-themed feature Full Metal Jacket had been affected by appearing after Oliver Stone’s Platoon. Kubrick didn’t want to suffer the same experience twice. The audience, he feared, wouldn’t countenance two Holocaust films at the same time.
In Haaretz, A. J. Goldmann wrote of Kubrick’s longstanding desire to make a film about the Holocaust, and cited Kubrick’s brother-in-law and producer, Jan Harlan (from the book “Stanley Kubrick Archives”) about Kubrick’s attempt, in 1976, to recruit Isaac Bashevis Singer to write the script:
Singer, who—unlike many of his friends—was not a Holocaust survivor, declined, saying, “I don’t know the first thing” about the Holocaust.
Goldmann also cites Kubrick’s response to the film by Steven Spielberg that put “The Aryan Papers” out of commission:
Frederic Raphael, who co-authored the screenplay for “Eyes Wide Shut,” recalls Kubrick questioning whether a film could truly represent the Holocaust in its entirety. After Raphael mentioned “Schindler’s List,” Kubrick replied: “Think that’s about the Holocaust? That was about success, wasn’t it? The Holocaust is about six million people who get killed. `Schindler’s List’ is about 600 who don’t. Anything else?”
So—returning to the thought that launched these extraordinary byways—what I most value in directors’ archives is the virtual realization of the films that directors didn’t make, which, Jean-Luc Godard has said, are often as important as the ones they actually made.
Photograph: A test photo of Johanna Ter Steege for “The Aryan Papers.”
#cinéma #holocauste #shoa
Vu avec les enfants :
– An American Werewolf in London (John Landis, 1981). Avec Jeny Agutter, s’il te plaît. Grosse éclate.
– A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018). Avec Emily Blunt et monsieur Blunt. Pas ouf, mais un film d’horreur PG-13, c’est pratique vu que mes petits ont 13 ans.
– Volcano (1997), avec Tommy Lee Jones et Anne Heche. On sous-estime les films catastrophe des années 90. C’est un tord.
– Daylight (1996), avec Sly Stallone. C’est con mais c’est bon. C’est l’époque où dans les films grands publics, le principe c’est que le personnage noir, il meurt, mais le chien il est sauvé alors ça va.
– Starship Troopers (1997), qu’on a regardés le lendemain d’être allés voir Total Recall. Les gamins n’ont pas tardé à repérer que les uniformes devenaient de plus en plus explicitement nazis au fur et à mesure du film, et on en a profité pour une petite discussion à ce sujet. (J’avais pas remarqué, à l’époque, que dans la première scène du film, à l’école, le sujet du cours est « l’échec de la démocratie ».) Sinon : c’est du gore familial, c’est gentiment crado, ça passe crème.
– Réservoir Dog (1992, Tarantino), juste avec la grande qui voulait le voir. C’est tout de même un peu dur, mais les dialogues ciselés.
– Beyond the Infinite Two Minutes (2020). Un petit film japonais tourné en « one shot », mais on passe son temps à se demander comme c’est faisse, c’est super-malin, très rigolo, c’est sympa de voir comment ils ont poussé aussi loin que possible le principe initial du petit paradoxe temporel (les fameuses deux minutes du titre).
– Tremors (1990) avec Kevin Bacon et Fred Ward. Figure-toi que je l’avais jamais vu. On recommande : c’est con et c’est fun.
– Creepshow (1982, de George Romero, écrit par Stephen King). C’est con mais c’est bon.
– Lake Mungo (2008). Une sorte de found footage, un petit chef d’œuvre du genre, avec une grosse ambiance bien prenante.
– Ringu (1998). Je ne l’avais jamais vu. OK, ça fait peur. Mais ça ne fait tout de même pas très peur. Je crois que sa réputation
– The Candidate (1972) avec Robert Redford trop trop beau. On suit ce candidat démocrate sympathique qui s’initie à la politique.
– Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid (1992, de Carl Reiner). Mon film préféré avec Steve Martin. La meilleure parodie de film noir.
– French connection (1971). Du coup il est mort.
– The Elephant Man (1980).
– What We Do in the Shadows (2014). Très marrante parodie de film de vampires. Je crois que c’est devenu un peu culte, depuis.
– Runaway Jury (2003). C’est Diala qui a dit qu’il fallait le voir, parce que ça ressemble pas mal à Juror #2.
– Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).
Et pour le dernier jour des vacances : Samurai Cop (1991), parce qu’il faut bien un jour initier les enfants à l’art du nanard.
Alors je savais que celui-là était très mauvais, mais pfiou dites-donc, c’est assez invraisemblable. Le coup de la perruque parce que pour les reshoots, l’acteur principal avait coupé ses beaux cheveux longs, j’étais pas prêt…
« Beyond the Infinite Two Minutes » est tout à fait excellent, et probablement fait avec un budget de rien du tout.
D’après sa fiche Wikipédia, Two Minutes a été réalisé avec 3 millions de yen japonais, ce qui ferait moins de 20 000 euros.
#Salonique au tournant du XXe siècle : un moment de centralité culturelle dans une périphérie impériale
▻https://metropolitiques.eu/Salonique-au-tournant-du-XXe-siecle-un-moment-de-centralite-culturel
À la veille de son rattachement à la #Grèce en 1912, Salonique est une périphérie dynamique de l’Empire ottoman. En y documentant l’essor du #cinéma, Tunç Yildirim donne à voir une ville ouverte sur l’Europe occidentale, dont l’effervescence culturelle rivalise avec celle d’Istanbul. Au XIXe siècle, l’Empire ottoman est considéré par les grandes puissances occidentales comme l’homme malade de l’Europe. Tout au long du siècle, il subit de nombreuses pertes territoriales, en particulier dans les Balkans où de #Essais
/ #Turquie, Grèce, Salonique, cinéma, #culture, #Empire_ottoman, #Thessalonique, #histoire
Avant Deadpool, la France avait créé ce super-héros fou ! - YouTube
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s60JPh4Vks
Avant The Boys, avant Marvel et DC, il y avait Mister Freedom. Découvrez l’histoire du super-héros interdit que Hollywood veut oublier. Un film culte, subversif et totalement fou, réalisé en 1969 par William Klein, avec Serge Gainsbourg, Yves Montand, Jean-Claude Drouot et Philippe Noiret.
Mister Freedom n’est pas un film de super-héros comme les autres : c’est une bombe politique déguisée en parodie pop-art, qui explose les clichés du rêve américain et dénonce la manipulation médiatique.
Dans cette vidéo, on vous plonge dans ce chef-d’œuvre oublié qui dénonce la propagande, l’impérialisme, et le pouvoir des images, bien avant que Marvel ou DC ne dominent Hollywood.
Mister Freedom — Wikipédia
▻https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Freedom
Mister Freedom, un superhéros américain, vient sauver la France de Red China Man et de Moujik Man. Mais il ne parvient qu’à semer désordre et chaos, à répandre la violence et faire couler le sang. Reprenant les thèmes sociétaux qui prévalaient en pleine guerre froide et en période d’enlisement de la guerre sanglante du Vietnam, William Klein adopte un ton loufoque et satirique qui tourne les prétentions américaines expansionnistes en matière de démocratie en une opérette décadente et burlesque, avec un missionnaire plus clownesque que crédible. Mise en exergue d’une dégénérescence qu’on retrouvera selon un genre similaire dans le film Idiocracy trente ans plus tard.
Stanley Kubrick - Aryan Papers
▻https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Kubrick's_unrealized_projects#Aryan_Papers
In 1976, Kubrick sought out a film idea that concerned the Holocaust and tried to persuade Isaac Bashevis Singer to contribute an original screenplay. Kubrick requested a “dramatic structure that compressed the complex and vast information into the story of an individual who represented the essence of this man-made hell.” However, Singer declined, explaining to Kubrick, “I don’t know the first thing about the Holocaust.”
In the early 1990s, Kubrick nearly entered the production stage of a film adaptation of Louis Begley’s Wartime Lies, the story of a boy and his aunt as they are in hiding from the Nazi regime during the Holocaust—the first-draft screenplay, entitled Aryan Papers, was penned by Kubrick himself. Full Metal Jacket co-screenwriter Michael Herr reports that Kubrick had considered casting Julia Roberts or Uma Thurman as the aunt; eventually, Johanna ter Steege was cast as the aunt and Joseph Mazzello as the young boy. Kubrick traveled to the Czech city of Brno, as it was envisaged as a possible filming location for the scenes of Warsaw during wartime, and cinematographer Elemér Ragályi was selected by Kubrick to be the director of photography.
Kubrick’s work on Aryan Papers eventually ceased in 1995, as the director was influenced by the 1993 release of Spielberg’s Holocaust-themed film Schindler’s List. According to Kubrick’s wife Christiane, an additional factor in Kubrick’s decision was the increasingly depressing nature of the subject as experienced by the director. Kubrick eventually concluded that an accurate Holocaust film was beyond the capacity of cinema and returned his attention to the A.I. Artificial Intelligence film project.
In 2005, William Monahan was hired to adapt Wartime Lies for Warner Independent Pictures in co-operation with John Wells Productions.
In 2009, Kubrick’s brother-in-law Jan Harlan announced his desire to produce the film and hire Ang Lee or Roman Polanski to direct.
In 2020, it was reported that Luca Guadagnino hoped to direct the film, and that he had examined Kubrick’s papers on the project, held at the Stanley Kubrick Archive at University of the Arts London.
#cinéma #holocauste #shoa
Serve un ennesimo festival per rendere il mondo del #cinema accessibile
▻https://scomodo.org/serve-un-ennesimo-festival-per-rendere-il-mondo-del-cinema-accessibile
L’Ennesimo #film Festival è una kermesse culturale che si pone l’obiettivo di trasformare il modo in cui le persone vedono il mondo attraverso il cinema, mostrandone contemporaneamente al pubblico le varie declinazioni in ambito internazionale. Il nome “Ennesimo” riflette l’intento di avvicinare il pubblico al mondo del cortometraggio in modo inclusivo, senza pretese artistiche che […] L’articolo Serve un ennesimo festival per rendere il mondo del cinema accessibile proviene da Scomodo.
Au #Procès Depardieu, la #Victimisation_secondaire comme stratégie de défense
▻https://radioparleur.net/2025/04/09/la-victimisation-secondaire-comme-strategie-de-defense
Le procès de l’acteur Gérard Depardieu s’est tenu pendant quatre jours. Il a révélé une méthode de défense basée sur la victimisation secondaire, une double peine infligée aux victimes de violences sexistes et sexuelles. C’est inédit. Le comportement de l’avocat de Gérard Depardieu, agressif et « misogyne parmi les misogynes », choque dès le […] L’article Au procès Depardieu, la victimisation secondaire comme stratégie de défense est apparu en premier sur Radio Parleur.
#Au_fil_des_luttes #Carousel_1 #cinéma #justice #Procès_Pélicot #VSS
Verso il #25_aprile: RIC e la Federazione delle Resistenze partono dal Sudtirolo
▻https://resistenzeincirenaica.com/2025/04/06/verso-il-25-aprile-ric-e-la-federazione-delle-resistenze-part
In vista del 25 aprile, RIC , la Federazione delle Resistenze e lo #Spazio_77 danno il via a una serie di iniziative che intrecciano memoria, storia e pratiche di #Resistenza. Si comincia da #Bolzano/Bozen, con due giornate (e un bonus) per decostruire la memoria coloniale, riscoprire la Storia e la città. 📌 Workshop: ricerca... Continua a leggere
##RIC #CINEMA #odonomastica #Trekking #Urbanistica #alto_adriatico #Bolzano_film_festival #Fiume #Fiume_o_morte #guerriglia_odonomastica #Liberazione #Trekking_Urbano
