Hi Elizabeth
On 11/6/04 10:16 PM, "Elizabeth James" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Stafford
> Smith’s response was to propose that one not be too earnest in dealing with
> these issues, or more especially, these human beings, who wield power over
> others with a Kafkaesque arbitrariness rather than according to such
> principles of human rights and legal process that have so far been developed
> and promulgated (if not adopted) internationally. What is being authorised,
> encouraged, perpetrated, is (the word he used) ‘ludicrous’: that is,
> outrageous, but also in a sense laughable. The perpetrators will debate with
> you till the cows come home, they actually feed off being taken seriously.
>
> What this caution, seriously to lighten up, might mean and lead to, would
> remain to be worked out by any of us as an individual, but it felt like an
> exhilarating swerve.
I have wondered about this quite a bit. For example, there are so many
sites on the internet with funny George W Bush games or satires (my kids
keep discovering them). And I always check out Steve Bell, who must be the
most savage cartoonist around. But...in relation to this, I remember also
some comment by Howard Barker to the effect that laughter in the theatre
makes him want to puke, because it is always the sound of complicity and
defeat. And on the one hand I like to think that these jokes are signs of a
healthy human resistance (and in fact believe they are) and on the
other...if I was in Guantanamo, I wouldn't be finding much to laugh about.
The irrationality underneath this stuff is not so far from the irrationality
of Nazi Germany - I read last night a most interesting analysis of the mass
phenomenon of Nazism by Adorno, and the resemblances are frightening.
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
Blogs: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com http://alisoncroggon.blogspot.com
|