|
July 8, 2004
Gary,
I'm still reading everything but as the conference approaches - it's less than two weeks away - I'm getting snowed under more and more. But I will try to reply to everything just as soon as I can.
Here is a quick remark on nihilism, off the cuff: as far as I remember it Nietzsche recognises two kinds of nihilism. The first kind occurs when humans put something between themselves and direct sensuous existence - religion or some other kind of moral system. The second kind occurs when humans become incledulous towards these systems without returning to sensuous existence.
P.S. Have you been following the latest attempts to ban two films - Irreversible and The Anatomy of Hell? The last film is Catherine Breillat's latest. I'd like to talk about this later as well. Of course, I haven't had a chance to see the films yet.
Your stuff on Japanese Story was interesting. I saw the film last year and I must admit I didn't approach it from your angle. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with your angle. Indeed, it has been most illuminating.
start previous next
|
For those who don't live in Australia, Catherine Breillat's film Romance was initially banned in 2000 in Australia, before receiving an R classification on appeal.
This time her Anatomy of Hell received an R rating in May. An application for review of this was made by the Australian Family Association and Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, acting on behalf of South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson.
Ye gods. The Athens of the South 1970s under the ALP lead by Don Dunstan has become the city of repression under the ALP lead by Mike Rann. It only took 30 years to renounce and trash the heritage. Social conservatism rules in Adelaide.
This time I was suprised that the Classification Review Board in a three-to-one decision, decided to uphold its R rating. Suprised given the track record since 1995in banning Ken Park, Baise-Moi, Salo and In a Glass Cage.
Has Atkinson seen Anatomy of Hell? Did he fly to Melbourne to see this art-house film? Maybe he knows that the film is a filmic version of her recent book "Pornocratie" and that title is enough. It's porn.
Or maybe, as a strong traditional family man, he hates the arthouse porn of the cineastes.
So why would he be opposed to a non-erotic film in which a suicidal woman hires a gay gigolo to confront his repulsion towards the female body?
Maybe Atkinson is repulsed by Breillat's theoretical dialogue? He doesn't like ideas about a woman’s body, sex and misogyny being explored in film?
Maybe he heard about all menstrual fluids spilt onscreen, whether drunk from a glass, overflowing onto the bedsheets or simply used as lubricant for masturbation?
Or maybe Atkinsson wants to have the film banned because it has sex scenes.