In response to the statue destruction, and trying to think through the
implications of this for film, it may be that this poses a question about the
status of film in our cultures. It seems that public effigies such as statues
are particularly prone to this kind of violence at moments of transformation.
The symbolic value for the visual media is obvious but what is it about this
particular artform (sculpture) which makes it the number one target for
'revolutionary' mobs? We know that books are burned and 2-dimensional images
defaced but there's nothing quite like a statue being toppled to send the news
editors' hearts-a-pounding. Is it something about 3D extension in space? If so
does the statue have to resemble the hated figure? (could we imagine the
destruction of a cubist statue having the same impact?)
In comparison to these overtly 'spatial' artforms, film seems to be pretty low
down the list of objects to be eliminated. Apparently, Sadaam made (or had
made) an action film of the coup d'etat which brought him to power, with
himself (played by an actor) as the hero. Pre-war BBC news bulletins even
showed clips and cited this as evidence of his meglomaniac tendencies. But
what is to become of this film? Why is it not the target of the mobs or the
de-Baathification police? Is it because film is not obviously a 'spatial'
artform (film cannisters have no symbolic value) or, conversely, is film too
precious - would the destruction of all prints of this film be too much of a
barbaric act even for the anti-Saddam conquerers to contemplate? It will be
interesting to see what, if anything, happens to this film under the new
regime.
Ricardo
Ricardo Domizio
Visiting Lecturer
London Metopolitan University
|