Dear Bill
I had very similar reactions to this documentary. I was also suprised
when I knew it was David's work -- which made it more acceptable to me,
but I was unsure of how the average discriminating (in both
senses of the word) viewer might have their negative stereotypes
reinforced. I agree that David position as an artist gives him
justification to present this perspective, but speaking as a historian
despite the one-diamensional historical perspective I was much happier
with this presentation than the one done by Steve Humphries (Out of
Sight) a few years ago.
On Sun, 30 May 1999 11:55:33 +0100 Bill Albert <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> This is mainly for people in the UK who may have seen The Disabled Century,
> a BBC documentary screened last Thursday evening. It is written as a
> review, but is really little more than an attempt to structure my thoughts
> on how I feel about the film.
>
> The Enfreakment Of David Hevey
>
> In his wonderfully provocative book, The Creatures That Time Forgot, David
> Hevey offers a powerful critique of the work of Diana Arbus and her
> enfreakment photography of disabled people. He writes that she viewed her
> relationship with them "not as social and equal relationships but as
> encounters with souls from an underworld." Watching the first part of The
> Disabled Century, and not knowing that Hevey was producer and director, I
> kept thinking, "Whoever directed this should have read Hevey."
>
> Disabled people in this film were not so much objectified as "the other",
> although they were, as they were exploited as objects for Hevey's artistic
> ambitions. Lingering close-ups of body parts and missing body parts, of
> bulging eyes, damply nervous mouths all detracted from the hard stories of
> these peoples' lives. Artful camera angles, tricky superimpositions of
> moving pictures of war on the faces of disabled veterans, random switching
> from colour to black and white was all little but artifice masquerading as
> art.
>
> In his book, Hevey argues that photographs of disabled people often isolate
> them from the "normal" world or if they are in that world photos portray
> them as invaders from another dimension. In his film, he seems to do just
> this. Physical and social isolation are a constant theme of Hevey's images.
> Figures placed in empty institutional halls, framed and static in their
> understuffed chairs. Where were the points of contact with the real,
> tactile world outside? Of course, a great many disabled people were locked
> away in these years and Hevey's isolating imagery could be seen as an
> attempt to reflect that painful reality.
>
> As you would expect from Hevey, there were some marvellous sequences. The
> elderly deaf couple dancing to the music only they couldn't hear while
> their signed voiceovers told their horrendous story of being officially
> abducted from their families and sent to a "special" school. The wise and
> forgiving man with a learning difficulty, sounding exactly like Arthur
> Mullard, who was imprisoned in an institution for most of his life against
> the wishes of himself and his family. But marvellous sequences don't make a
> marvellous documentary.
>
> For disabled people with a knowledge of our history it was possible to give
> shape and meaning to Hevey's disjointed narrative. However, for most people
> it must have appeared as no more than a series of hard luck stories
> stitched together with too-clever photography.
>
> But thenŠ.this is David Hevey, someone whom I greatly respect and admire.
> And, what the hell do I know about things artistic? So I tried to think of
> another way in.
>
> Perhaps the series was made for the too-late-at-night-for anyone-to-be
> watching experimental ghetto slot and it was decided only later to market
> it as a mainstream documentary. This could account for the weakness of
> historical narrative.
>
> The excessive concentration on impairment, the deliberately weird imagery
> could be seen as an "in-your-face" assault. "This is impairment, get used
> to it!" Behind this, Hevey might be saying, are real people, just like you
> with stories not like yours but with feelings as easily abused. It must
> also be said that unlike most films about disability, Hevey does let people
> speak for themselves and never tries to elicit pity. While they may have
> some terrible things to tell us, the people interviewed are clearly
> comfortable with who they are.
>
> Also, any artist worth the name needs to kick against the party line and
> that line in the disability movement for many years has been the social
> model of disability. While the film does show how people were disabled by
> the system, it does not do so, as some activists might wish, by ignoring or
> downplaying impairment. In fact, it revels in, embellishes, celebrates, and
> jokes about impairment. Healthy stuff perhaps, but I would imagine only for
> those who have thought it through and are ready to come out the other side.
> The problem is that for the vast majority of people, and that includes most
> disabled people, the real orthodoxy is still the impairment-centred medical
> model of disability. For those still working within this paradigm Hevey's
> film may not be seen as subversive but rather as reinforcing.
>
> Despite my reservations, I look forward to the remaining instalments of The
> Disabled Century. After all, David Hevey is a disabled person with an
> informed and persuasive artistic vision, a vision which at its best
> challenges our ideas about how we see and represent ourselves. If we're
> lucky he will take us, even artistic philistines like me, somewhere new
> and, more importantly, somewhere liberating.
>
> Bill Albert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------
Andy Stevens
Anglia Polytechnic University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
