Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Archive for the ‘Films’ Category

Les Salafistes and the Horrors of the Islamic State.

with 8 comments

Ce documentaire montre de façon brute et sans voix off l’idéologie, le quotidien et la violence des djihadistes d’Aqmi. Certains lui reprochent son manque de décryptage de l’image.

Image from «Salafistes» Libération.

In France the film, Les Salafistes, has created intense controversy. At one point it seemed as if it might be banned. Now the documentary has been released, with a certificate than denies cinema entry to under-18s. In Saturday’s Guardian Natalie Nougayréde discusses the picture, which includes videos from Daesh (Islamic State – IS, also ISIS) and al-Qaida au Maghreb islamique (AQMI), with interviews with Salafists (rigorist Islamists) and jihadi leaders (Les Salafistes is gruelling viewing – but it can help us understand terror.)

She states, “The most gruelling moment comes when an Isis propaganda films shows a line of captured men walking towards the banks of a river; jihadi militants then shoot them in the head, one by one. The waters of the river start flowing with blood. And we see the pleading, panic-stricken faces of Isis’s victims, filmed close-up just before they are killed.”

Nougayréde considers that Les Salafistes “opens our eyes to a fanatical world”, that we “need to understand that ideology, however twisted and repulsive” Claude Lanzmann – the director the monumental film on the Holocaust, Shoah, she notes, has defended the film and asked for the age limit to be withdrawn. The screen shows better than any book the reality of the most fanatical form of Islamism. Lemine Ould M. Salem et François Margolin, have created a “chef d’oeuvre”. Its formal beauty brings into sharp relief the brutality of the Islamists, and “everyday life under the Sharia in Timbuktu, Mauritania, in Mali, Tunisia (in areas which have been under AQMI occupation or influence), and in Iraq. The age restriction on entry should go.  (Fleur Pellerin, ne privez pas les jeunes du film, Salafistes! Le Monde 29.1.16.)

Lanzmann also argues (which the Guardian columnist does not cite) that Les Salafistes shows that “any hope of change, any improvement, any understanding” with the violent Islamists it portrays, is “futile and illusory”.

In yesterday’s Le Monde (30. 1.16) there is a fuller account of Les Salafistes and the controversies surrounding it, as well as on Made in France a thriller that imagined a jihadist cell preparing an attack on Paris. With a planned release in November, as the Paris slaughters took place, it was withdrawn and now will be available only on VOD (View on Demand).

Timbuktu not les Salafistes.

Saturday’s Le Monde Editorial recommends seeing the 2014 fiction Timbuktu rather than Les Salafistes. The Islamic State has already paraded its murders and tortures before the world. Its “exhibitionnisme de l’horreur” poses a serious challenge to societies that value freedom of expression. In the past crimes against humanity, by Stain, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Pol Pot or Pinochet, were carried out in secret. The Nazis or the Khmer Rouge’s propaganda was designed to hide the reality of genocide; Daesh’s videos are explicit and open,  produced to terrorise their enemies and to rouse the spirits of their supporters. Margolin and Salem’s film does not, the Editorial argues, offer a sufficiently clear critical approach for a non-specialist audience. The victims only speak under the eyes of their butchers. The drama Timbuktu, where ordinary people in the city of that name are shown grappling with the everyday despotism of AQIM occupation – the rigorous application of the Islamists’ version of the Sharia, is a better way of thinking through the phenomenon of Jihadism. Its quiet and subversive message, the simple acts of playing prohibited music and smoking (banned), many would agree, unravels the absurdity and cruelty – the callous stoning of an ‘adulterous’ couple – of Islamism on a human scale.

Le Monde’s account of the controversy (La Terreur passe mal sur grand ecran) also observes that books about the Islamic State have reached a wide audience. They offer a better way, less influenced by the emotions that the cinema screen arouses, to understand Jihadism. It is equally the case that, through the Web, a substantial number of people have already seen the kind of horrific scenes Les Salafistes brings to the big screen.

The Empire of Fear.

Empire of Fear. Inside the Islamic State (2015) by the BBC correspondent Andrew Hosken is one of many accessible studies that have reached a wide audience. It is a thorough account of Daesh’s origins in the Al-Qaeda milieu and how it came to – separate – prominence in the aftermath of the US-led Coalition’s invasion of Iraq. Hosken has an eye for detail, tracing out the careers of key Daesh figures such as Zarqawi and Baghdadi. He challenges for example the widely claim that Islamic State leader Baghadadi and ‘Caliph’ was “radicalised” in a US prison in Southern Iraq in 2004. In fact “hardening evidence” indicates, “Baghdadi may have started his career as a jihadist fighter in Afghanistan and may even have known Zarqawi there.” (Page 126)

The failure of the occupation to establish a viable state in Iraq, the absence – to say the least – of the rule of law, and the importance of Shia mass sectarian killings of Sunnis in the Islamic State’s appearance. The inability of the Iraqi army to confront them, culminating in the fall of Mosul, were conditions for its spreading power, consolidation in the Caliphate, in both Iraq AND Syria, and international appeal.

Empire of Fear is valuable not only as history. Hosken states that by 2014 it was estimated that there were between five to seven million people living under Islamic State rule. “The caliphate has not delivered security, human dignity, happiness and the promise of eventual pace, let alone basic serves, but it has produced piles of corpses and promise to produce piles more.” (Page 200) He states that the “violent Islam-based takfirism” – the practice of declaring opponents ‘apostates’ worthy of death – has taken its methods from former Ba’athist recruits, always ready to slaughter opponents.

The suffering of those under the rule of Daesh is immense. “Men and children have been crucified and beheaded, homosexuals thrown to their deaths from high building and women stoned to death in main squares.” (Page 228) The Lion Cubs of the Khalfia, an army of children, are trained for battle. Even some Salafists initially allied with Daesh – with counterparts in Europe still offering succour to the dreams of returning to the golden days of the prophet, have begun to recoil. Hosken observes “..they have ended up with Baghdadi and his vision of an Islamic state with its systemic rapes, its slaves and concubines, child soldiers, murder, torture and genocide.” (Page 236)

Totalitarian Islamism.

The Islamic States efforts to capture more territory and people will continue with or without Baghadadi. The film title Salafistes reminds us that the Islamic State’s totalitarian Islamism is not isolated. It is connected to a broader collection of groups preaching rigorist – Salafist – Islamism, not all users of extreme violence, still less the public glorification of murder. The creation of all-embracing State disciplinary machines to mould their subjects to Islamic observance is a common objective of political Islam, from the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia to Daesh’s mortal enemies in Iran. The religious cleansing of religious minorities, Yazidis and Middle Eastern Christians continues under a variety of Islamic forces. Yet the degree of oppression and genocide marks the Islamic State out.

The recent Channel Four Documentary The Jihadis Next Door indicated that there is a European audience, however small, for Daesh’s genocidal propaganda. In Britain alone up to 700 people have been attracted enough by Islamic State death videos to go and join their ranks. One can imagine that amongst them some will be capable of watching Les Salfistes in a spirit far from the critical intentions of the film’s directors. It is to be doubted that they would have been reached by the scorn for Islamist rule and the resilience of humanity displayed in Timbuktu.

Hosken concludes, the “group may end up destroying itself or being destroyed by its many enemies. However, whatever happens, its virulent ideology looks likely to survive in a Middle East now riven by sectarian division, injustice, war and authoritarianism,” (Page 257)

The British left, with no government at its command, is not in a position to negotiate in efforts that try to bring “security, justice dignity and peace to a deeply troubled region”. We have little leverage over Bashar Assad’s own despotism in Syria. But we may be able to help Syrian democrats, and those fighting the Islamic State, to give our support to those fighting for dear life for freedom – from the Kurds to Arab and Turkish democrats – by ensuring that there is no quarter given to Daesh’s Salafist allies in Europe and totalitarian Islamists of any kind, independently and against those who see the Syrian Ba’athists as an ultimate rampart against IS.

To defend human rights we need to align with the staunchest adversaries of all forms of oppression, the secularists, the humanists, the democratic left, and, above all, our Kurdish and Arab sisters and brothers who, with great courage, face Daesh every day on the battle field.

Written by Andrew Coates

January 31, 2016 at 2:27 pm

Bans Start to Pour in Against Exodus Film.

with 3 comments

 

 

https://i0.wp.com/www.gatherthejews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/parting-red-sea.jpg

Bible criticised by religious authorities for inaccuracies.

Egypt has banned the film Exodus.

The statement read that the censorship board objected to the “intentional gross historical fallacies that offend Egypt and its pharaonic ancient history in yet another attempt to Judaize Egyptian civilization, which confirms the international Zionist fingerprints all over the film.” More here.

Morocco and the Arab Emirates have followed suite,

The United Arab Emirates have become the third country to ban “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” Ridley Scott’s $140 million film about the biblical story of Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt. The decision was made because of the film’s “many mistakes not only about Islam but other religions, too,” Juma Obeid Al Leem, director of media content tracking at the National Media Council, told the English-language newspaper The Gulf News. The announcement came on the heels of announcements that the film would not be shown in Morocco and Egypt because of its portrayal of Moses, as well as historical inaccuracies and giving “a Zionist view of history.” “Exodus,” produced by 20th Century Fox, was previously criticized for having white actors in the leading roles — including Christian Bale as Moses — despite being set in Egypt. It has had tepid results at the box office, taking in $52.5 million in domestic ticket sales since opening nationwide on Dec. 12, according to Box Office Mojo. It’s not the first time Arab countries have banned Hollywood films because of religion: Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah” was barred in several countries in the spring, and the animated movie “The Prince of Egypt” was forbidden in Egypt in 1998.

New York Times.

 

Written by Andrew Coates

December 30, 2014 at 5:57 pm

Bob Avakian (Revolutionary Communist Party USA) Has a Sob.

with 5 comments

Yet….even Comrade Bob sometimes has a Wee Greet.

In a spirit of comradely solidarity  we post this important and fruitful article from the website of the Revolutionary Communist Party (USA)

Watching Fruitvale Station With Bob Avakian. (Unsigned. August 2014)

“Not too long ago, I watched Fruitvale Station with Bob Avakian (BA), chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party.  Towards the very end of the film, agonizing, heartbreaking and infuriating scenes are shown: The cop shooting Oscar in the back; Oscar’s girlfriend frantically rushing to the scene, trying to find out what happened; Oscar’s loved ones gathering together and waiting desperately to find out if he would make it, only to find out he was gone forever.

As these scenes unfolded, I looked over at BA.  He was sobbing.  Not just misty-eyed. Sobbing.  And he continued to cry tears of heartbreak and rage for several minutes, as the closing credits rolled.”

This made a very big impression on me.  BA did not know Oscar Grant personally. But he felt the sting of his murder in an extremely raw and visceral way. And I think his reaction speaks volumes about who Bob Avakian is, what he represents, and what he is all about.

BA has literally been fighting against this system for 50 years.  He has been a revolutionary communist for about 45 years.  He has been shouldering the responsibility of leading the Revolutionary Communist Party for almost 40 years. And over the course of the last several decades, he has forged the theory and deepened the science for the revolution humanity needs to get free, while also providing practical leadership to the party and movement working for that revolution.

And all of this has involved not only tremendous work, but also tremendous risk and sacrifice on BA’s part as anyone with a sense of U.S. history, and/or BA’s personal history—specifically, what this reveals about the way the U.S. government viciously goes after revolutionary leaders—should well understand.

And over all these decades, and through everything described above, BA has never lost an ounce of his love and feeling for the masses of people, his sense of outrage and hatred for all the ways in which the masses suffer needlessly, and his fire for revolution to emancipate the masses all over the world.  Not one bone in his body has become numb.

Amor Vincit Omnia.

The Humble Servant of the People is indeed an example.

I’ll say it again: We had better fully recognize and appreciate what we have in BA, and act accordingly.

Say it again, say it twice, say it thrice,

And when I say “we had better,” that “we” is addressed to many different people and audiences. Yes, I am most definitely speaking to revolutionaries and communists and to all those who are already deeply familiar with and supportive of BA.  But in saying “we,” I am also speaking to those who are just now—or just recently—learning about and getting introduced to this revolutionary leader—including, to quote BA, “Those this system has cast off, those it has treated as less than human” who “can be the backbone and driving force of a fight not only to end their own oppression, but to finally end all oppression, and emancipate all of humanity.”

” BA is not only the leader of the revolution, he is also a best friend to the masses of people.” As is said, “Every Communist working in the mass movements should be a friend of the masses and not a boss over them, an indefatigable teacher and not a bureaucratic politician.” (Mao Tse Tung) My new best friend – BA as we chums call him – has more qualities,

“He is a leader who has done decades of work in the realm of theory to bring forward the scientific method, strategy and vision needed to make revolution and bring into being a radically new world where all the horrors that humanity suffers unnecessarily would be no more. He is continuing to develop the advanced scientific method that he has forged, and apply that method to all of the big questions and obstacles confronting the revolution.”

We all love advanced scientific methods.

“Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.” (Mao Tse Tung)

The world awaits.

“We must study, and learn all we can from his incredible body of work on the biggest questions of revolution and human emancipation, as well as the lessons of who he is and what he stands for as a revolutionary leader. “

We shall indeed BA.

“To behave like “a blindfolded man catching sparrows”, or “a blind man groping for fish”, to be crude and careless, to indulge in verbiage, to rest content with a smattering of knowledge – such is the extremely bad style of work that still exists among many comrades in our Party, a style utterly opposed to the fundamental spirit of Marxism-Leninism. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin have taught us that it is necessary to study conditions conscientiously and to proceed from objective reality and not from subjective wishes; however, many of our comrades act in direct violation of this truth.” (Mao Tse Tung)

But what is this we hear? Hark! The Bob (BA) is in danger!

This means taking very seriously the need to do everything we can to protect and defend BA. This means denouncing and not giving a millimeter of space to those who slander and personally attack BA, because these attacks and slanders are part of creating the poisonous atmosphere and conditions that would make it easier for the powers-that-be, or those doing their bidding, to take BA from the people of the world.

Plunged into the slough of despond at this what can we do?

Protecting and defending BA, and building a wall around him, also means boldly and sharply challenging those who may not be part of the camp of the enemy, but who are wallowing in, or at least being influenced by, arrogance, cynicism and snark, and who seek to dismiss without seriously engaging what BA has brought forward; this arrogance, snark, cynicism, and dismissal, regardless of the intent of those who fall into it, stands in the way of BA and all that he has brought forward having the reach and societal influence that this urgently needs to have.

Too true, too very true.

But the good news is: It is not too late.  We, and the masses of the planet, have BA right now. We had better realize, and let everyone know, what that means.

Heed the call and build the wall!

Maybe one day we might even get around to seeing Fruitvale Station.

Written by Andrew Coates

September 9, 2014 at 11:25 am

Venus in Fur, Film. Review. The Limits of Masochism.

with one comment

Venus in Furs.

“But the Almighty Lord hath struck him, and hath delivered him into the hands of a woman.”

Judith, xvi. 7.

Gilles Deleuze once suggested that Sacher-Masoch’s Venus in Fur was not only the inspiration for the modern word masochism but illustrated the paradoxes of punishment (Présentation de Sachar-Masoch.1967). Traditional legal systems threatened, and inflict pain, supposedly as a deterrent. By contrast the ‘desiring machine’ Severin von Kusiemski, wishes to suffer. As a parody of law,  a contract reigns over and demands the whiplash. The Biblical epigraph that heads the novel is equally misleading. Far from embodying worshiped female superiority, the Goddess Wanda, is a creation, Pygmalion style, of the narrator. In these ways one can see how the theme can take us from sexuality to forms of power. 

It is a measure of the achievement of David Ives‘ 2010 play Venus in Furs in Roman Polanski’s cinematic adaption, that it embodies these contradictions in a compelling joute between two players.

The film pans onto a Parisian boulevard. In the background is a looming thunderstorm. An unkempt actress (Emmanuelle Seigner, Polanski’s wife), Vanda, hurries into a shabby theatre. She is auditioning for a production of Venus in Furs. Inside the director, Thomas (Mathieu Amalric) is about to leave, bemoaning on his mobile the talentless candidates he’s already seen. Vanda, late beyond excuse, but pushy to the point of breaking boundaries, persuades him to let her perform.

Vanda already has the script by heart. Alternatively thick and knowing, using the vocabulary of vulgarity and erudition, she dominates Sevrin’s delirium. His infantile ecstasy when punished by a sable-wrapped aunt (playing a role not dissimilar to Mademoiselle Lambercier for Rousseau) has swollen into an infatuation for a heartless Venus. Wanda, of the play, acts this out against the backdrop of a crackling fire. At regular intervals Vanda rails at the “sexism” of the whole scenario.

If a knife and physical pain play a role, psychological cruelty that spins at the centre of the film’s drama. As the novel says, “.Nothing can intensify my passion more than tyranny, cruelty, and especially the faithlessness of a beautiful woman.”

Vanda gets her claws into the inauthenticity of Thomas’ cosseted life with a highly-educated, monied, fiancée as one senses more than a flicker of longing for submission to her edgy presence, at the borderline of the pute. Pushing an implicit conclusion Wanda suggests that his real desire is for her handsome Officer admirer, and she helps a deliciously helpless Sevrin with make-up for his new role.

Echoes of Polanski’s films, from Knife in the Water 1962  (a weapon wielded by Wanda) to Rosemary’s Baby, 1968 (the storm outside) have been noted by critics. At its best Venus in Furs rivals Pinter’s The Servant (1963) with its intense power struggle. There one significant difference from the original novel is absence of three African women. Their presence might have given an additional theme – the  ‘race play’ fashionable in some leftist sado-masochistic circles. (1)

The strengths of the film Venus in Furs (though not the original book which is as vulgar in its pretend elegant way as Vanda) lies in its language, the conversation. This – in different registers of French – is wholly lost in the subtitles, which mix Valley Girl slang with the vocabulary of American Pie. There is no charm and little humour (though you will be able to avoid them on the DVD) It is hard to imagine the original, well received, US play by David Ives written like this.

In an age when somebody is convicted in connection with a sexual obsession with pig slurry the theme of ‘perversion’ has lost its ability to interest, let alone shock. Masochism reminds many of us more of Fifty Shades of Grey (though that was apparently female) than any deep experience or insight. But in Polanski’s film, as for the psychology – the picture is up there with the greats.

(1) Lest we forget (from the Charnel House):

Written by Andrew Coates

June 27, 2014 at 9:38 am

Jean-Luc Godard: Hollande should nominate Marine Le Pen Prime Minister.

leave a comment »

Godard Now Prefers Marine Le Pen.

David Thompson once commented that Jean-Luc Godard, the celebrated, and once leftist, cinéaste was fated to remain a “Young Turk” all his life.

Now approaching his dotage Godard still feels the need to make provocative statements.

Interviewed at length in yesterday’s Le Monde and asked about the European election results he announced,

J’espérais que le Front national arriverait en tête. Je trouve que Hollande devrait nommer – je l’avais dit à France Inter, mais ils l’ont supprimé – Marine Le Pen premier ministre.”

I was hoping that the Front National would come first. I find that Hollande should nominate – I said this on France Inter, but they cut it out – Marine Le Pen as Prime Minister.

Interrogé par le journal sur les raisons de cette prise de position, le réalisateur répond : “Pour que ça bouge un peu. Pour qu’on fasse semblant de bouger, si on ne bouge pas vraiment. Ce qui est mieux que de faire semblant de ne rien faire (rires)”.

Asked by the newspaper the reasons why he took this stand, the film-director responded, “To shake things up, so that we make at least some moves towards changing things, even if they don’t really do so. It’s better than pretending to do nothing.

Jean-Luc Godard continue son propos en rappelant que “le Front national avait deux sièges au Conseil national de la Résistance. A l’époque, c’était une organisation paracommuniste. N’empêche qu’elle s’appelait Front national…” 

Jean-Luc Godard continued his theme, recalling that, “The Front National had 2 seats on the National Resistance Council. At that time it was a pro-Communist organisation. Still, despite this it was called the Front National….”

L’organisation en question n’avait rien à voir avec le Front national actuel, créé en 1972 par Jean-Marie Le Pen. Ce n’est qu’une synonymie…”, font d’ailleurs remarquer les interviewers du Monde. Mais Jean-Luc Godard n’en démord pas :“Non. Si on dit que ce n’est qu’une synonymie, on reste dans les mots, pas dans les faits. C’est un fait. Vu l’importance de la nomination, et de nommer, bien sûr, que c’est une synonymie… Le premier ministre du Luxembourg s’appelle Juncker. C’était aussi le nom d’un bombardier allemand [Junkers]

The interviewers reminded him that this Front National had nothing to do with the present-day Front National, created in 1972 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, and that only the name was identical (a synonymy). Jean-Luc Godard did not back down, “No. If you say its the same word, you are stuck in words, not facts. It is a fact. Given the importance of this nomination, this is also a synonymy as well…the Prime Minister of Luxembourg is called Junker. That is also the name of the German bombers….

Le cinéaste reconnaît qu’il n’est “pas pour eux”“Il y a longtemps, Jean-Marie Le Pen avait demandé que je sois viré de France. Mais j’ai juste envie que ça bouge un peu… Les grands vainqueurs, ce sont les abstentionnistes. J’en fais partie depuis longtemps”,

The Franco-Swiss film-maker did recognise  that he was  “not one of them” (the Front National). “Jean-Marie Le Pen wanted for a long time to kick me out of France..but I simply wish that things change. The real winners (of the elections) were those who abstained, and I’ve been one of them for a long time. “

During the same interview asked about his latest film, Adieu au Langage Jean-Luc Godard further illustrated his wide culture and knowledge by asserting that the word Parole did not exist  English.

The days of Godard’s radical films, like  Le Petit Soldat (1963) , Week-end (1967), La Chinoise (1967), not to mention his involvement in the Marxist  Dziga Vertov Group, seem so distant now. 

Written by Andrew Coates

June 13, 2014 at 10:50 am

Tomboy (film) Banned by French Catholic School.

leave a comment »

Not Suitable for French Catholic Students.

I am looking forward to seeing Tomboy – a French film which will be shown on BBC 4 this coming Sunday.

The more so as it has got up the nose of the increasingly hysterical French anti-gay movement Manif pour Tous.

The French site Rue 89 has this story today,

A Angers, des collèges catholiques privent leurs élèves de « Tomboy »

120 students at the catholic private school Saint-Martin d’Angers were due to watch the film on Tuesday.

But the cinema Les 400 coups had to cancel the showing, as the school refused to let their charges go and see the. The ban was the result of tressure from the  Manif pour tous, who link it to ‘gender theory’ ( la prétendue « théorie du genre ».

Two other schools have already followed this move.

Meanwhile a few years ago we see this when we Google the subject….

2008.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – Malaysia’s main body of Islamic clerics has issued an edict banning tomboys in the Muslim-majority country, ruling that girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam, an official said Friday.

The National Fatwa Council forbade the practice of girls behaving or dressing like boys during a meeting Thursday in northern Malaysia, said Harussani Idris Zakaria, the mufti of northern Perak state, who attended the gathering

2012.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has banned gays and tomboys from its public schools, a report on the news site Emirates 24/7 said.

There was no indication how Saudi Arabia’s religious police would detect who among the nation’s student population were gay and tomboys.

Perhaps somebody will picket the BBC.

 

Update: Campaign to ban showing Tomboy in French Schools (32,225 people have signed up): Here.

The Missing Picture: The Khmer Rouge.

with 24 comments

The Khmer Rouge carried out one of the worst genocides of the 20th century.

From 1975 to 1979 from  1.4 million and 2.2 million people died, with perhaps half of those deaths being due to executions, and the rest from starvation and disease.

The Missing Picture, which won the Certain Regard prize at Cannes in 2013, is a heart-rending account of the personal and political tragedies caused by their rule.

Cambodian film-maker Rithy Panh uses clay figures and newsreels to evoke the 4 year-long holocaust.

Panh dramatises his 1970s childhood through these painted clay figurines. A happy time, a Cambodia where people enjoy the normal pleasures of food, family parties, dancing and films, is brought to an end by the arrival of the black suited Khmer Rouge.  As part of the middle class (teachers) his parents, with their children, are sent to be the countryside to be “re-educated” in the new ideology.

They are reduced to the level of beasts of burden, scraping what food they can.

All except Panh die, amidst great suffering and the hectoring slogans of their masters. The author himself ends up in the hardest labour camps, for questioning the inequality of rations in ‘Democratic Kampuchea’.

In the film Panh looks for the “missing picture”, that is of Pol Pot, and his murders, and the genocide.

There is archive material of slaves labouring on pharaonic irrigation projects, of the Khmer Rouge leaders addressing their followers, with the portraits of Marx, Lenin, Lenin and Stalin behind the podium.

The film makes clear that resistance was impossible but that individuals and  families, by their simple dignity, refused to go along with the ideological terror.

The Missing Picture is a deeply affecting film.

Amongst the many images that haunt the audience is a calm statement: what were those in Paris and eleswherewho  endorsed the Khmer Rouge slogans thinking?

One might well ask.

The reality of life in ‘Democratic Kampuchea was soon known to the world, and the French in particular after the publication in 1977  of François Ponchaud’s Cambodge année zéro.

News rapidly got round about the genocide.

Not, apparently, though to Alain Badiou. He waxed ‘enthusiastic’ about the Khmer Rouge . He defended them tooth and nail against the Vietnamese  invaders who put a stop to their rule.

It was not until 2012 that the fêted philosopher and frequent contributor to New Left Review, expressed any “regrets” about this stand (Here).

People should see The Missing Picture and weep.

Including anybody tempted to admire Badiou.

Written by Andrew Coates

January 23, 2014 at 12:00 pm