Georgi Daneliya’s adventure with self-censorship and symbolism

 

Rudolf Prozserin

s1076590

Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation

 

Georgi Daneliya’s adventure with self-censorship and symbolism

Georgian film director Georgi Daneliya (გიორგი დანელია) directed the movie 33 in 1965, a “speculative fiction comedy” (Georgieva 1) starring Evgeniy P. Leonov (Евгений Павлович Леонов). The film presented a socio-critical perspective of the soviet society through an absurd story of a man with 33 teeth, his adventures in becoming famous for having an abnormal amount of teeth, leading him to a science-fictious adventure due to his Martian origin, only to wake up and see it was partially a dream. The film was banned for being anti-soviet. Daneliya directed another highly socio-critical film 21 years later. Either because of the introduction of Glasnost' or due to Kin-Dza-Dza!'s symbolist method, the movie was not banned, instead celebrated and has become well-known.

Kin-Dza-Dza! (Кин-дза-дза!) is a science-fiction cyberpunk dystopian fantasy film (4) about two soviet men [Gedevan Alexandrovich (Georgian) and Vladimir Nikolaevich (Muscovite)] finding themselves in the galaxy called Kin-Dza-Dza!, on planet Pl'uk. Once there, they get acquainted with two indigenous extra-terrestrial traveling artists. The two artists (Mr Wef and Bi) help the soviet “tourists” understand the local societal norms, which includes coloured-pants-differentiated social hierarchy, where the currency is matches and the language consists of a handful of words due to the telepathic nature of the locals. The first thing our heroes note to themselves is that it is a capitalist society. The planet Pl'uk is a desert planet as the oceans were transformed to fuel long ago. The ethnically and economically divided population is ruled by an authoritarian regime with ruthless laws and law enforcement agents. All ethical standards are replaced by strict – and absurd – rules, where one group of the population rules another. The technologically significantly more advanced people of Pl'uk demonstrate the worst human qualities with no remorse, however not being entirely alien to a soviet man of the mid-1980s. The socio-criticism and by extension the system-criticism of the far “other” inevitably forces the viewer to re-evaluate their own standards and makes one realise the utter grotesqueness of not only the capitalist world but also the very system that sanctioned this multi-layered cult film, that reached almost every household in the Soviet Union, generating expressions in the Russian language to be used and understood widely, thus bleeding into everyday conversations of the society bypassing the Goskino, the State Committee for Cinematography, the agency responsible for censoring motion picture in the USSR. The movie is divided into two parts, totaling a 135 minutes of detached and satirical entertainment for all ages, bringing about differing experiences among the varied viewers. The ever-relevant Kin-Dza-Dza! Still, even today generates fan-based material and the cult-phrase “Koo!” (Ку!) is widely known even among the youngest generation of the post-soviet population.

The adventures of Uncle Vova and Gedevan presents not only criticism of the state and the soviet society but through lovable main characters, about the viewer itself. The parallel between the two Pl'uk classes and the Russian and Georgian characters is undeniable. The bizarre social structure, burial ritual, economic system and ethical standards could not have passed the censor had the movie not used far-detached symbolism, science-fictious storyline and other means of self-censorship. Naturally, film making, as any other process of creating art, cannot in its entirety be a conscious effort. (Müller 25) As stated above, it is not sure whether Kin-Dza-Dza! escaped a ban due to a financial, societal, and ideological restructuring called Glasnost' or Daneliya's conscious and unconscious effort in self-censoring while still conveying a rebellious code to the public, after all the director was not unfamiliar with censorship of movies that are pushing the boundaries of the regime's grasp.

The indigenous Mr Wef and Bi demonstrated human character flaws such as greed, lack of empathy, and appeared as deceivers, but when in need, asked for the opposites of these negative attributes, requested mercy of the earthlings of the Soviet Union, perhaps pointing out obvious requirements, the need to be a decent, reasonable man. Daneliya not only rebelliously criticised the system, but educated the simple soviet man, reminding one of the universalities of humanity through humour, irony and other satirical tools, through a cyber-punk science-fiction movie, almost ridiculing the very need of grotesque symbolism to convey ideas critical of the status quo.

Bibliography

Georgieva, Margarita. Kin Dza Dza! (1986). 2010.

Müller, Beata. Censorship and cultural regulation: Mapping the territory. Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.

Censorship as a form of conditioning: Huxley’s Brave New World

“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.”

This quote, an excerpt from Aldous Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, reflects one of the key themes from the same well-known novel; psychological conditioning as a means of control. Huxley’s novel has arguably been as influencing as George Orwell’s ‘1984’, sharing the theme of picturing a future totalitarian civilization where censoring and conditioning seep through all layers of public and personal life. Despite focusing mainly on scientific progress as a crucial factor for a future utopia (or dystopia, if you will), there are plenty of reasons to consider the content of this novel as a perspective of understanding censorship, which will be discussed in this blog.
            Firstly, for those unfamiliar with this novel, I will list the key features of the book that have a connection with the process of understanding censorship. But I can certainly recommend the reader to read this classic if this has not been done before. Regarding the book itself: published in 1932, Aldous Huxley wove a future world where all civilization is united in one great utopia, with a managed population in which natural reproduction is absent. Instead, people are bred in so-called Reproduction & Reconditioning Centers, in which they are unconsciously indoctrinated to naturally fit into one out of five castes. Indoctrination works mainly by constant citing of maxims, which are all meant to promote an ideology focused on Fordism and consumerism. Citizens of this world have sex only for fun, solitude is forbidden, and any doubting of the system is erased by close observation, elimination and mostly by applying a hallucinogen called soma. The story focuses on a young man whose conditioning failed to restrict his freedom of thought, who is to meet a Savage boy from a small part of the world that is excluded from the utopia and whose people live in rough, deserted nature. The most important element of the novel for this blog lies in the idea of (re)conditioning, ideology and the struggle for pursuing a nigh impossible counter hegemonic view of the world.
            In the context of censorship, this work is fascinating, because it tends to assume that ideology and the censoring (or even erasure) of some of our most basic human elements (e.g. the need for solitude, parenthood, individual thought, the nature of our human relations) find their origin from ‘above’, meaning the State. Conditioning finds its origin here, but its success in the plot lies in the idea that the discourse in case is enforced and checked continuously by all the citizens. This is the source of agony for the main character Bernard, who has retained a sense of autonomous thought. In this we see reflected a key notion in the study of censorship: an example of New Censorship (as coined by Muller), which argues that censorship and ideology are imposed both by authorities and everyday social communication. Huxley’s vision describes the end of freedom of thought; substituted instead by ideology imprinted in our very genes.
            Huxley’s end-of-the-line vision creates food for thought, regarding conditioning. Now firstly we ought to understand ideology in this case in a Marxist way: as a belief system that is implemented within a society in a top-down fashion, causing subordinate clauses to subject themselves willingly to beliefs and interests that benefit the ruling classes (Lewis 26). This is altogether a notion political, philosophical and personal: in Huxley’s novel ideology dictates birth, happiness, thought and death in every possible detail. And censorship is compliant with this: ban or erase one way of thinking and living often entails promoting another manner of thought and believing. In other words, according to Billiani’s research, censorship is to be understood as a (usually dominant) discourse itself, produced in a given society and time, and expressed in repressive cultural, aesthetic, political or economic ways. Yet Huxley reminds us that we should not only view censorship as part of the public sphere and as something repressive only; rather it is something that can be considered a form of conditioning too. Brave New World erases our basic human values and substitutes this by a completely new discourse. Huxley meant this as a warning for future generations, but it can also be interpreted as part of our personal lives too: discursive ideology teaches us how to live as part of a society or civilization, dictates what one ought to achieve or pursue, and minimizes anything that does not conform to the dominant ideology.
            This definition and function of censorship serves a purpose of finding its roots in cultural studies; which draws extensively from philosophy. I am assuming censorship is a philosophical concept too, a complicated tool used for dictating not only what is ethical, but also as a means of diverting the individual’s attention away from matters that may pose a challenge to a society’s ideology. Huxley plays with this idea in Brave New World, by writing the following: “You can't consume much if you sit still and read books.”, with ‘reading books’ as an example of something that does not fit with the guidelines. By assuming that censorship may be a philosophical problem, I feel that it is worth the shot of continuously questioning the origins of one’s belief system, as well as one’s external ambitions and practices.
            In conclusion, I repeat that Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World touches upon the notion of a future utopia (or dystopia) that features indoctrination and conditioning as means to consolidate a totalitarian ideology. In more plain words: Huxley describes a world, in which the things you think and feel are just a result of genetic modification, put in and enforced by other people. This idea can be linked to cultural studies and censorship, reminding us that censoring one thing and promoting another dictate not only large external events, but also our personal beliefs and philosophical notions. Censorship is an intimate phenomenon, telling what to believe; but even with the best intentions, it is still a philosophical as well as a sociological issue in this sense. This, after all, is the message that lies perpetuated in Huxley’s novel, a reminder that censorship is neither a thing of the past nor something used solely against counter hegemonic individuals.

Bibliography:
- Müller, Beate. “Censorship and Cultural Regulation: Mapping the Territory.”  Critical Studies. Censorship and Cultural Regulation in the Modern Age. Ed. By Beate Müller. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 2004, 1-31.
- Calder, Jenni. “Huxley and Orwell: Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four”. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, 1976, 7-59.
- Billiani, Francesca, ed. Modes of Censorship: National Contexts and Diverse Media. Routledge, 2014, 1-27.
- Lewis, Jeff. Cultural Studies - The Basics. Sage, 2002, 23-27.

Good bye, Lenin! : A Review

Ecesu Erol

s1361538

Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation

Dr. Ksenia Robbe

Word Count: 1099

Good bye, Lenin! : A Review

1989. East Berlin. The fall of the Berlin Wall. Drastic changes in Germany and the reunification process. There is a tendency when talking about the consequences of the event to focus on political players rather than the people. The movie Good bye, Lenin! however chooses to focus on a single family from East Berlin and observe their lives while using the events simply as background. The social change is reflected through this one family; the transition of their clothes, furniture, jobs and relations... Through this director Wolfgang Becker achieves a more personal angle, making it more relatable for the viewer. We see the nostalgia for East Berlin, the communist pickles, the abandoned houses as a representation of what people left behind…

The main character of the movie is a young man with the name Alex Kerner who joins an anti-Berlin Wall march one night. The same night Christiane, his mother a devoted communist, sees her son getting beaten and arrested by the police. At the sight of this Christiane has a heart attack and goes into coma not to wake up for eight months. During these months a lot changes regarding East Berlin and the Kerner family. First free elections are held, Christiane’s daughter Ariane quits college and starts working at Burger King, Ariane’s boyfriend moves into the Kerner’s apartment, Alex meets Lara who enters their lives. When Christiane wakes up, the doctor warns her family that if she experiences a shock it could lead to another hearth attack which could be deadly.

Alex seeing the recent news regarding the fall of the Berlin Wall as a threat decides not to tell his mom about it. He convinces the doctors that it would be better for her to be home, where he could control what she is exposed to.

The reality becomes danger as Alex becomes the creator and protector of an illusion.

“It was in October, in the supermarket. There was this enormous queue and it was really hot and you just passed out.” The first brick of the newly constructed reality of Alex begins while still in the hospital, after his mom wakes up. It is the first lie that she is being told, for her own good.

From this point onwards Alex’s reality will face many obstacles.

Ariane doesn’t agree with Alex’s idea but she helps him nevertheless. Firstly they have to get rid of the Western furniture they had bought while bringing back the old Eastern furniture they had thrown to the streets like many others. They redecorate Christiane’s bedroom and make sure to not leave behind any signs of change. Alex breaks the antenna of the radio so that his mom won’t have access to any news. The family changes back into their Eastern clothing. This is the first steps of the illusion on which the rest will be built.

We often fall into the mistake of thinking of censorship in the very literal sense of for example the government banning a book or an album while overlooking more subtle ways of censorship. In this specific case of Good bye, Lenin!, Alex becomes the censor as Christiane becomes the one that is exposed to this censorship, the receiver.

One of the main challenges for Alex occurs when his mom asks for Spreewald Pickles. This is also one part of the movie that shows the drastic differences between East and West Berlin and how they merge from two completely different worlds into one. The contrast is very visible to the audience especially when Alex goes into the corner store that used to have empty shelves towards the fall of the Berlin Wall only to see that all the shelves are full of new products of all kinds imported from around the world. Alex, unable to buy Spreewald Pickles, will have to find different ways to keep the illusion going. He digs through garbage cans and abandoned houses to find old jars of Spreewald Pickles and similar East German products; he disinfects the ones he finds while also relabeling empty jars to make them look like the old ones. This process shows how things that appear to be true might not be so and aimed to be misleading and deceiving, a tool also used often by the ones in power to manipulate the masses.

Another major challenge that Alex faces is when his mom asks for a TV. He first starts showing her tapes of old programs pretending they are new but later on as other challenges arise, such as the big Coca-Cola ad that covers one side of a building that happens to be in Christiane view, he has to come up with more structured plans to keep the illusion strong. These fake news that he produces with his friend also show how the media is able to manipulate people and how the viewer soaks up the information given.

The main breaking point of the movie is the scene in which Christiane gets up and decides to go outside and see how far she can get. In the elevator she recognizes a Nazi symbol, while getting off the building she sees Western people moving in, she sees the old furniture on the streets and ads of IKEA and many cars. This wave of strangeness is followed by the vision of a helicopter carrying a statue of Lenin. This part of the movie represents the shattering down of the structured, unreal world of Alex. Later on Alex will produce more fake news with his friend Denis to explain everything that she has seen outside. By this point Alex realizes that he is creating the GDR that he wishes for, finding himself not only as the creator but also a part of the deception.

Overall, when we look at the ways of deception that Alex uses they are very similar to ways of censorship that states use. However in this specific case the audience, like Alex, justifies the deception, the censorship. Like in many socities that are faced with censorship, there is resistance in the movie as well, like Ariane, like Lara who don’t approve the reasons behind this deception. Towards the end of the movie we see Lara telling Christiane about the reality and the truth not having the effect they feared, Alex’s worries although relatable turn out to not be justifiable. Whether to save a moms life or remain in power censorship will always be justified by the censor and will continue to exist. In an ideal world censorship would not exist, but I suppose that is a utopia, just like the one Alex creates.

Good Bye Lenin! Dir. Wolfgang Becker. Warner Home Video, 2003.

"Good Bye Lenin." FallOfTheBerlinWall -. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.

"Good Bye Lenin!" IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2015.

Review of Waiting for the Barbarians, J.M. Coetzee

             Culture can be considered as one of the most efficient forms of protest; it draws a chord in human brains of humanity and relate ability. Literature is an example of how a writer can draw a reader into comprehending experiences beyond their own reality. The highly acclaimed South African writer John Coetzee is a case in point, his third novel Waiting for the Barbarians, an allegorical novel, acting as a protest to the wider status quo, both within the literary world and the political world.

            The central protagonist in the novel, the magistrate, is a representative of the state in an isolated frontier settlement between civilisation and waste lands, with the position of protecting the settlement from a larger threat, the “barbarians”.  The novel begins with the presence of Colonel Joll and his torture of perceived barbarians; this act ignites empathy in the magistrate.  The Magistrate following this empathy, houses a barbarian girl, who was subject to torture of Joll. The Magistrate’s shift in conscience throughout the novel entwined with his fraught relationship with the girl, ensure his gradual dissension against the authority of the empire. The novel climaxes with the realisation of the impossibility of expressing his rational dissent against the empire and the Magistrate is reduced to a madman.

            Coetzee masterly depicts (Foucauldian) “regime of truth”, how the dominant regulate rationality, acting as an informal censor. The reduction of the Magistrate as a madman, gives the state prerequisite to censor him, it stunts the possibility of dialogue. The Magistrate is isolated, like the location, he is ignored, overlooked. The Empire’s predefining extents beyond the Magistrate’s mental state, the “barbarians” are viewed as unpredictable uncivilised beings and thus irrational, this acts as a justification for excessive institutional violence. This “othering” is internalised by state actors as well as civilians, and Coetzee reveals it to be a necessary precursor for the states existence, the Empire defends civilians against the “other”. The soldiers at the end of the novel are rampant in the settlement and yet the people require their presence against the “barbarians”.

            The theme of “waiting” in the novel creates suspense and conjures the attention of the reader. Not because one necessarily believes the barbarians will indeed “attack” but because of the growing paranoia, aggravation and eventual disintegration of society within the settlement. The settlement throughout the novel dissolves both physically with settlers fleeing to the city and psychologically, this is in conjunction to the effective loss of the enemy, the fact the barbarians never arrived. This “waiting” is not unknown to us in 2015, with growing Islam-phobia in Europe, politicians rhetoric references the looming threat of fundamentalist Islam in European society abusing “our” liberal democratic pillars. The result of this “waiting” is paranoia. The paranoia instils a toxicity leading to: labelling; stereotyping; and thus ultimately a failed society.

            On the note of protest, the novel received a dubious reception in South Africa in 1980 it was not, however, censored. Coetzee’s ambiguity of place and cold winters convinced the censor “it was nowhere near South Africa”, and therefore there were “no apparent parallels” to the regime in South Africa (Poyner 46). It was however “undesirable” for other reasons, such as descriptions of implicit sex and of violence. The ambiguities in the text, go beyond an attempt to avoid the censor, they are intentional; the plot represents a story beyond the boarders of one state or one historical event.

            The novel sought to challenge the status quo through form as well as content: Coetzee’s choice to reject prevailing European (and South African) literary trends, by adopting an absurdist style, inspired by Samuel Beckett. An example of the parallels is in the relationship between protagonists: the Magistrate’s relationship with the barbarian girl is comparable to the relationship between Vladimir and Estragon (Vladmir’s inferior) in Waiting for Godot. The estranged relationship between the Magistrate with the barbarian girl including his failure to remember her face when she arrived; his failure to communicate with her; his failure to have sexual relations with her, all reveal the magistrates internal loss of his self. The peculiarity of their relationship one of inevitable superiority and inferiority, is reflective to be wider than their existence, similarly the absence of location, Coetzee describes an unnamed place and dynamic and yet as the reader it is entirely relatable. Beckett’s Vladimir reprimands Estragon for trying to leave “There’s no way out there”, both pieces have this imprisonment dynamic. Despite the physical return of the barbarian girl to her people, as the reader you recognise the depths of the torture will continue to plague her life, she like the Magistrate will never be free even outside of the Empire society.

            One could easily criticise Coetzee’s refusal to divulge into detailed descriptions of the barbarians, but Coetzee does so in defiance.  The silence acts to imitate the reality of those subject to inferior treatment in the world. The barbarian girl is silent, and appears to the have no voice, but it is more complex than that. As Nadine Gordimer contended with, also writing in Apartheid South Africa, if you are in the privileged position to be able to speak, should you and what would you say on behalf of the underprivileged? The silence represents Coetzee’s refusal to assume their (the barbarians) subjectivity. Her silence is captivating, because as the reader you are hungry for a background about the girl, and yet like the magistrate you are unable to obtain it. As the reader you are however more empathetic of the girl than the magistrate, the absence of her identity, as the leading barbarian in the novel, highlights Coetzee’s protest of othering. 

            Coetzee’s subtle depiction of a torturous society plagues the Magistrate as well as the reader. And the end does not leave the reader in peace. Cavafy’s poem (written in 1904) with the same name as the novel haunts Coetzee’s underlining question:

“And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.” (Cavafy)

Works Cited:

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting For Godot. New York: Grove Press, 1954. Print.

Cavafy, C.P. Collected Poems. Translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. Edited by George Savidis. Revised Edition. Princeton University Press, 1992.

Coetzee, J. M. Waiting For The Barbarians. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1982. Print.

Foucault, Michel, and Colin Gordon. Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. Print.

Gordimer, Nadine. “Living in the Interregnum.” The Essential Gesture: Writing, Politics, and Places. London: Jonathan Cape, 1988, 272-284.

Poyner, Jane. J.M. Coetzee And The Idea Of The Public Intellectual. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2006. Print.

GoodBye Lenin!

The German production ‘Goodbye Lenin’ directed by Wolfgang Becker and released in 2003 is set a few months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, and follows the hectic development of German Society during the first months in the aftermath of such event. Nominated and granted the most prominent awards across the European film scene, ‘Goodbye Lenin’ also received strong positive reviews across the Atlantic. The American-based review website “Rotten Tomatoes” rated “Goodbye Lenin” with a 90% out 100%, followed by the nomination to the Best Foreign Film in the Golden Globes. Such positive reception foretells an extraordinary portrayal of the creation of a collective memory to make up for the loss of stability in a transitory period.

Relying on a limited number of indoor and outdoor settings, the film narrows down the experience of two generations of East Germans to one only family composed of a strongly ideological mother and two children. The mother, Christiane falls into comma days before the GRD collapses and the communist way of living casts into oblivion. Whilst Christine, the mother, remains in an isolated hospital room, the society outside the walls undergoes dramatic and drastic changes, Christiane due to her strong faith in Communism, could not have been able to conceive. Yet, not only does the outside world move towards a radically different dimension, but the family Christiane brought up under strong communist principles, does also shift towards a new direction. Yet a real improvement in the family standards of living when Capitalism arrives is hardly recognizable. In the aftermath of the fall Christiane’s daughter, abandons university and starts to work in a chain that represents the epitome of Americanization: McDonald’s, and Alex, the second child of the family continues to work in an electricity company that now, lives up to fate the selection of East Germany employees. The intimate portrait of the daily life of this family might be seen to underlie subtle criticism towards the reduction of the individual under these two antagonistic regimens. Starting with a violently repressed protest by the GDR state forces, that drive Christiane to an eight-month-coma, the movie depicts the frustrated American dream the average citizen experiences under the umbrella of Capitalism.

Beyond the political references, the film is centered on the concept of self-censorship as a method to construct a collective memory to anchor ourselves in a world characterized by an increasing instability of time and the fracturing of lived space. When the mother wakes up from comma, Alex fears she would discover the truth of what happened to the system she committed to, the GDR. To mask reality, Alex builds a fantasy set in his mother’s bedroom where any element of an unwelcoming outside reality is being censored. Alex embarks in what the scholar A. Huyssen describes as an obsessive process of “musealization” (27).  By taking hold of cans, tins, clothes, furniture… from the GDR, Alex aims at stopping the passing of time. The objects Alex obsessively collects to can be understood as what the scholar Huyssen quoting Lubbe describes as lieux de mémoire, that is, elements that offer “traditional forms of cultural identity to a destabilized modern subject” (33). Such banal objects become reminiscences of a passed epoch that compensate for the loss of shared and communal identity. The anxiety behind Alex’s daily dumping diving trip in seek of the rests of the former GRD does not only represent his desire to protect his mother, but it gradually becomes an identity reconstruction for himself. Alex embodies a whole generation of Germans who are required to forget and forced to embrace a new identity that was and artificially constructed by external conditions, and enforced upon them. The reality Alex creates for his mother becomes a fantasy that both Alex and Christiane use to secure their fragmented identities. Yet, I must pinpoint such a bitter reality, is depicted with serenity and compassion. The camera follows the daily steps of a son who carefully takes care of his mother.

In order to protect his mother from an outside incomprehensible reality, Alex becomes immersed in a process of prohibition that turns into an active process of construction. By censoring Christine’s reality, Alex creates a myth, that merges the reality that used to be, that of the GDR he grew up in, together with his dreams and expectations of a reality that never was, projecting these images into a supra-reality where the real and the fiction come together. The particularity of such proactive censorship seems to be clearly depicted in a scene that follows the mother’s first contact with the outside. Alex falls asleep when he is on a visit to his mother’s bedroom. The mother goes outside and encounters cars from the FRG and IKEA billboards. Alex covers-up the truth by broadcasting a self-made piece of news where such contact between East and West is argued to be a GDR initiative to welcome those who flee capitalism. Such lie proves to be Alex’s deep desire as

While looking out of the living room window, and staring at the cars, Alex sighs and claims,  “I wish this was what really happened”.

Such climax scene does also raise a new question ‘Goodbye Lenin’ skillfully succeeds in portraying, that of the fear of the unknown. The fantasy Alex has created for her, enable Christina to continue to live outside the truth she censored her children from. Several months passed after Christiane wakes up from comma before she is able to confess to her children, their father never died, and was waiting for them in the West. The fear of an unwelcoming and alien environment stopped Christiane from meeting up with his husband, “marrying” the communist state in substitution for the loss. By censoring the truth to her children, Christiane build a new family framework that enables her to overcome the fear that stopped her from going towards the unknown. Here again, the censor is not only restricting the truth, but actively involved in a process of discourse creation that enables the censor’s self-identification in first place.

In short, ‘Goodbye Lenin’ excels at portraying the obstacles of regimen transition from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen.

Works cited

Good Bye Lenin! Dr. Wolfgang Becker. Perf. Daniel Brühl, Katrin Saß, Maria Simon, and Chulpan Khamatova. X Verleih AG, 2003. Film.

Huyssen, Andreas. "Present Pasts: Media, Politics, Amnesia." Project Muse 12.1 (2000): 28-36. Web.

film review Good bye Lenin!

Thikuna Canna binti Mohd Suffian

1398768

Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation

Dr. Ksenia Robbe

word count: 925

A simulated reality- film review of Good bye Lenin!

East Berlin, 1989. On the 40^th anniversary of the GDR, only days before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Alexander (Daniel Bruhl), a young German boy participates in a riot to promote the idea of walking in free borders. His mother, Christiane (Katrin Saß), is very loyal to the communist regime of the GDR. When she coincidently sees him participating in the riot against the regime, she instantly gets a heart attack and lapses in a coma. For eight months she stays in coma, and she sleeps though all the changes that East Berlin went through. She sleeps through the fall of the Berlin Wall, the first free elections, the reunification of Germany and the increasing westernization. Essentially mom overslept the triumph of capitalism.  When she finally wakes up, the doctors tell Alex and his sister Ariane (Maria Simon) that the slightest shock could cause another heart attack. Mom, being a very idealistic promotor of her socialist fatherland, would not survive in this new capitalistic Berlin. Alex and Ariane then decide to pretend nothing has changed and they create this fictional, simulated reality in which mom’s beloved socialist regime is still in charge.
                Good Bye Lenin! is  an unusual story about an all changing Berlin. This political tragicomedy is unique in its genre, as it is told from a German perspective. Social criticism on the German reunification and capitalism is given from different sides, and this is exactly what makes this movie unique. The movie is built around the representation of censorship in a constructed world. Censorship has a significant role in this movie. Not only because it is one of the main topics throughout the story, but also because we can identify different types of censorship that provide us with new perspectives on censorship itself. Shortly, it motivates us to critically think about censorship.
                In one scene, Alex says; ‘’The country my mother left was a country she had believed in, and which we kept alive until her last second. A country that in fact never existed like this. A country that in my memory will always be connected to my mother.’’ This clearly illustrates that the GDR Alex created for his mother was in fact the one he would have liked to have. In this, he not only shows resistance to this new system of capitalism, Alex also creates his own imaged regime. This imaged regime is essentially based on censoring as well.
                Another form of self-censorship can be found in Christiane’s extremely positive image of socialism. She was a fanatic promotor of the socialist GDR, or as Alex states. ‘’…my mother got married to her socialist fatherland’’. Christiane seemed to only see the good  sides of communism, and in that she censored all the negative aspects of the GDR. It is striking to realise that the socialist regime of the GDR was built upon this type of self-censorship. Christiane therefore becomes an image of an ideal socialistic regime, that in fact is in denial about its own flaws and shortcomings.
                This brings us to the different discourses that the main characters are related to. Clearly, Christiane as a very loyal and idealistic promotor of the GDR’s socialist regime would never approve of capitalism. Her daughter Ariane is somewhat different. She embraces the new system of capitalism, that brings her modernity and opportunities in life. She gives up her studies to sell hamburgers at Burger King. Alex is somewhat in between. He embraces his new life, as he states ‘’… the future was in our hands, uncertain and promising.’’ According to him, Berlin after the fall of the wall, ‘’ was the most beautiful place on earth again- in summer it felt like the centre of the world.’’ This illustrates Alex’ sympathy towards the new system of capitalism. However, he also sometimes felt nostalgic of the old Berlin he used to know. ‘’20 Years of GDR didn’t harm our health, right?’’ Alex wonders in one particular scene in which he seems to be the only one who is critical towards the new system. He doesn’t seem to realise that by keeping his mother in a simulated reality of the old GDR, he keeps himself there as well. This censorship of remembering prevents him to fully embrace the new system of capitalism, and thus his new life.
                Good bye Lenin! is as entertaining as it is reflective. It is often funny, as Alex’ determination of keeping the GDR alive leads to unexpected situations. The deep love he feels for his mother makes him determined to overcome all obstacles in keeping her healthy and happy, even if that means creating a world that is long gone. The white lies eventually come out, as it becomes increasingly harder for everyone involved to maintain all the deception. Lara (Chulpan Khamatova), Alex’ girlfriend, is in the end the one who values the truth higher than the lies. Although her motives for telling the truth were not entirely clear in the movie, she was less consumed by the imaginary world Alex created and she had a certain distance to Christiane which gave room for clear thinking. In the end it becomes clear that everyone involved feels differently about all the lies and censoring.
                In conclusion, (self)censorship is depicted in this movie as something that doesn’t necessarily have to be negative, as it can be a way of protecting your family. But, this movie teaches us that although censorship and lies can sometimes be used for a good cause, truth will eventually prevail and will be what people value highest. 

Book review

Martine Baijanova

S1337076

Tutor: Ksenia Robbe

Elective: Censorship and Social Transformation

Word count: 1001

30-03-2015

Waiting for the Barbarians -  J.M Coetzee

Penguin, originally published in 1980, 156 pp

Waiting for the Barbarians is a novel by the South African John Maxwell Coetzee, which won the James Tait Black Memorial Prize and the Geoffrey Faber Memorial Prize. Coetzee himself was the second South African who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2003. His other appraised works include Life and Times of Michael K. and Disgrace which both won the Booker prize. Nevertheless, with Waiting for the Barbarians Coetzee gained international notice. The book showcases his distinctive style of writing, which is often naturalistic, storytelling fiction (Meek 2009). Naturalistic meaning that people are shaped by their environment and that their future is determined. In Coetzee writings, there is often a maverick who has to stand up against a group. This can be clearly seen in Waiting for the Barbarians.

The novel is narrated by an unnamed magistrate in a colonial town, which is the territorial frontier of the Empire. This town is in peace and quiet until colonel Joll from The Empire arrives and stirs things up. He believes that The Empire is threatened by the Barbarians and that the Barbarians are planning an attack against them soon. This clearly depicts a state of paranoia since they see threats, which is the invasion of the barbarians, which aren’t there. Colonel Joll and his Third Bureau soldiers frequently capture barbarians during this period and torture them until they “confess” that they are preparing an attack. I put confess in between brackets since it is obvious that anyone, also in the real world, would confess to crimes they haven’t committed under tremendous torture. One can see censorship in this since the Third Bureau, or more particularly Colonel Joll, has the only say in the situation. The only role by the barbarians is to follow the role appointed by Joll. Furthermore, the soldiers are not allowed to tell the full story of the interrogations to the magistrate, again demonstrating  censorship.

The magistrate questions these raids by having internal monologues but does not explicitly discuss them with Colonel Joll or other soldiers of the Third Bureau. With this, it is clear that the magistrate is a maverick and stands alone. Even though we don’t know how other citizens or authoritarians of the town felt about the actions of the Third Bureau, it’s evident that the magistrate more and more doesn’t agree with the Third Bureau by the many internal monologues he has. Furthermore, no other people in the book are mentioned that stand up against the Third Bureau. However, this can also be out of fear, since the magistrate doesn’t really dare to take action himself. Meanwhile, he nurses a barbarian woman who was partially blinded by the interrogators and he has an intimate relationship with her. However, he eventually decides to bring her back to her people. Colonel Joll receives message about this and decides to lock the magistrate up because he believes that he was working with the barbarians. It seems clear that the magistrate could have known he would get in trouble for this, and in my opinion this clearly depicts his naivety. When reading the book, you can see it coming that Colonel Joll wouldn’t turn a blind eye on this incident, even though the magistrate’s intentions were good. Once a man treated with a lot of respect now has to fight and beg for basic needs.

Later, colonel Joll returns with more barbarians and makes a big spectacle of this. The crowd is encouraged to participate in the beatings. Appalled by this, the magistrate tries to stop this spectacle. This is the first time in the book that the magistrate knowingly takes action against the submission of the barbarians. However, the colonel doesn’t accept this and tortures him by hanging him up. Eventually the magistrate is released because the Third Bureau believes that he has nowhere to go and doesn’t possess a threat. Even though the villagers knew about the magistrate’s opinions, and didn’t necessarily share them, they were still friendly towards him when he was released. This could show that deep down they knew he was doing the right thing. The soldiers too, eventually, flee the town. By the end of the book, the barbarians still haven’t arrived, indicating that they probably will never come either.

Since the magistrate and place is unnamed it could be anyone, anywhere. Even though Waiting for the Barbarians is fiction, it is not only relevant in the period it was written, but also depicts current situations. When looking at Coetzee’s background and the period in which it was written, one can relate it to the situation in South Africa at that time, when racial discrimination was part of everyday life during apartheid. One can find censorship in this as the black people where subordinate to white people, and thus the former had the only say. Furthermore, a sphere of paranoia was created among the white people. However, as mentioned before, Waiting for the Barbarians is also relevant for nowadays. As Meek said in his article, “Substitute "terrorists" for "barbarians" and you have a history of Britain and America since 2001” (2009).

To conclude, the notion of censorship is not highly evident in Waiting for the Barbarians in my opinion. However, when looking for it, one can see hints of censorship in it. When one would read the book for pleasure, censorship would not necessarily cross their mind as being a theme of the book. However, I do not believe Coetzee intended it to be so obvious, especially looking at the period in which it was written. On a personal level, I could easily identify with the magistrate since it was written in the first person. At points I got frustrated because I feel that the treatment of the magistrate towards the end, and especially the barbarians throughout the book was outrageous. However, it gives an interesting image of society, and forces one to think outside one’s own reality. At the same time, Coetzee manages to draw his reader in, and create an emotional response.

Reference:

Meek, James. "The Many Faces of JM Coetzee." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 5 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Mar. 2015.