Valentin Dyakonov. 9/11 art

Recently, Moscow residents had the opportunity to compare two radically divergent points of view on the same event - the terrorist attack on New York on September 11, 2001. The first point of view comes from eyewitnesses of the tragedy: the Museum of Modern Art on Petrovka presents the exhibition “This is New York: The Democracy of Photographs” 1 . The second point of view combines eleven fragments - according to the number of directors who participated in the creation of the film "11'09'01" , which was shown on September 11 on the NTV channel.

The topic of terrorist attacks and their significance in world life should be approached with great caution. 9/11 generated so much chatter that any sane person wanted to cover their ears, pull the plug, and so on. What didn't they talk about! And about the end of postmodernism, and about the beginning of the twenty-first century. Sometimes there was a sad impression that people had found a reason to open this notorious twenty-first century, in which science fiction writers and futurists, from Arthur Clarke to Steven Spielberg , placed so many terrifying or amazing events. We would not be able to withstand a new batch of forecasts and bold generalizations.

Thank God, both the exhibition organizers and the film directors refrained from making far-reaching conclusions. Not in everything, of course, but I think that’s not the main thing. This is not about the political significance of 9/11, but about how to capture it in the language of art. And here, in style, themes and mode of depiction, a chasm appears between the two images of 9/11. We cannot talk about the right to this or that construction of the image of tragic events. Nobody in the world can guarantee it. But both of them latently really want to prove that they are right. This leads to aggression in the presentation of material from both sides. It does not turn into an open squabble, but creates a very clear “conflict of interpretations.” At the same time, it seems that one point of view inevitably entails another.

1. Collective silence

The exhibition "This is New York: The Democracy of Photographs" opened for the first time 10 days after the tragedy in the sales area of ​​a small store on Prince Street in Lower Manhattan. Since then, the exhibition has been constantly updated. In general, it is still being replenished: anyone who has photographs related to the tragic events can send them to the exhibition website. There they will be scanned, cleaned up, the best will be selected and added to the exhibition.

From the press release: "The exhibition organizers realized that people needed to be given the opportunity to experience what happened in a purely human way and that the media was not able to do this." Let's leave the clumsiness of the style to the conscience of the translators. In connection with this declaration, one thing is alarming: for some reason, individual grief is expressed in the most neutral way, through the means of photography. Moreover, reportage, assigned to the world of media. America, the country of group therapy and individual psychologists, has proven incapable of generalizations. The exhibition presents - as many as you like - individual angles, shooting locations, shooting objects. And there is not a single thought connecting everything together. Except as expressed in the photographed handwritten poster from the scene of the tragedy. It is addressed to “everyone taking pictures” and is signed simply - firegirl (feminine “firefighter” in Russian). “Since I constantly have to “get out of the frame” taken by the next observer, I want to ask - why are you taking photographs? Do you really think that this will help you get rid of the grief and sadness caused by this event? An employee of the New York fire department, who was prevented from doing her job in the most extreme of all possible situations, asked a question that faces us, the audience, not only, I think, in Russia, but also in other countries.

There are no captions under the photographs. They are hung on strings, as if they were still drying in a darkroom. The organizers purposefully created the effect of relevance of the photographs to show that the tragedy remained with us. The album released after the exhibition also does not contain a single word or comment. Also - relevance. Everyone must understand without words what is happening. The irony is that everyone understands - thanks to the media.

One psychologist I know, a Russian working in the United States, said that Americans are a teenage nation. After the attacks, America immediately gathered its strength: donated blood en masse and helped search for the missing. Lack of reflection and good reaction are typical for teenagers. A teenager rarely understands metaphors. He believes in them, ignoring their convention. Of course, the exhibition cannot indicate the state of mind of all Americans. But the conclusion is clear. "Twins" is a metaphor for America, America is, according to teenage logic, a metaphor for the whole world. And since the teenager, as already mentioned, believes in metaphors, the “twins” become America, and America becomes the whole world. And the world is fighting terrorism. For some reason, where America needs it.

The thinking style of the organizers speaking on behalf of the entire country raises doubts. This is a demonstration of battle wounds. This democracy is more reminiscent of the Middle Ages in its anonymity. The observers bowed before the apocalyptic reality and lost their own grief in its light. What human reaction could there be to this? In the book of reviews for the exhibition there are both warm words and conspiracy theories. And a few words that best convey the impression of the exhibition: “My reviews will no longer help them.”

Let us describe a photograph that will serve as a bridge to a completely different principle of understanding the tragedy. It is a nondescript photograph, lost among the spectacular images of human suffering and disaster. It depicts an ordinary New York street, almost European in its crampedness. Clotheslines are strung between houses. Restaurant signs are worn. There is no compositional center in this photograph, no information . But it, the only one in the exhibition, has an inscription made on a computer: “Here is New York.” This is an optimistic photograph, perhaps the only one in the exhibition. An unknown photographer, hardly a professional one, found New York outside the Twins.

2. Author's speech

And eleven directors from different countries demonstrated how far the rest of the world can be from them.

French producer Alain Brigand said in an interview with the Guardian newspaper that the idea for the film came to him the day after the attacks. The speed of reaction is comparable to "Democracy of Photos". Brigan decided to bring together 11 directors from eleven countries. Everyone had to make a film in connection with the incident, 11 minutes and 9 seconds long plus 1 frame (09.11.01). Directors were given complete freedom of expression, without any allowance for political correctness or ethics. In addition, the budget for all films was the same, regardless of location.

On the first anniversary of the attacks, the film was shown at a festival in Toronto. It immediately caused a storm of indignation in the United States. film reviewer Washington Post Desson Howe wrote in his review:

Either way, the film is terribly disappointing. Anyone whose heart was broken by the events of September 11 already knows that while many mourned the loss of life, there were people who rejoiced and celebrated. Now the victims find out that someone has turned their feelings into incoherent short films.

Taking into account that the Washington Post is a kind of analogue of our Rossiyskaya Gazeta and is close to the US government, this opinion can be considered official. The above passage clearly draws comparisons between the world's leading film directors and the Palestinians, whose response to the attacks is well known.

There were other reviews as well. David Steritt, a critic for the Christian Science Monitor , recommended the film as essential viewing for those who want to know how the events of September 11 were responded to around the world. Steritt was not the only critic in the United States to praise "09/11/01" or at least recommend it. However, the film's distribution fortunes in America until recently were not very successful. Major distributors refused to buy it. More recently, it was finally purchased by a small company called Empire, along with some new European cinema.

Those who spoke on behalf of Americans in evaluating the film clearly wanted to monopolize 9/11. The point of view represented by "Democracy of Photographs" must remain unshakable. The film offered a completely opposite approach. And it was this, and not the anti-Americanism invented out of frustration, that he offended the Americans so much. Of course, some directors were partly motivated by vindictiveness: did you want to make your tragedy a fact of world public life? Get it. But only partly. In addition, one cannot but agree with director Ken Loach (interview with the Guardian): “the right to understand this event belongs to everyone.”

As already noted, the collection film was made completely differently from the exhibition. Firstly, there is a lot of text in it: dialogues, screams, unintelligible muttering. The film by Egyptian Jozef Chakhin is structured as a lengthy dialogue between the director himself and the ghost of an American soldier. Samira Makhmalbaf made a film about how a teacher in an Afghan refugee camp in Iran tries to organize a minute of silence in the classroom in memory of the victims. The children discuss whether Allah is capable of this or not. In Sean Penn's film , an old man, slightly crazy from loneliness, talks to the dress of his dead wife, wishes him good night, and talks about the simple events that happened to him during the day. Even the short film by Claude Lellouche , author of the classic "Men and Women", although it takes place in silence, includes the text of a letter that a deaf-mute woman writes to her lover, who works as a tour guide at the World Trade Center.

Secondly, the reportage - and therefore immediacy - of the photographs from Democracy is countered by the desire to tell a story, even a parable. Here the Japanese Shohei Imamura achieves a striking effect. His short story tells the story of a soldier returning from World War II who behaves like a snake: he crawls instead of walks, does not talk to his family, and swallows rats alive. In the end, the soldier turns into a snake, which hisses something that those around him can no longer understand and which is conveyed in the hieroglyphic captions: “There are no holy wars.”

Israeli Amos Gitai talks about the consequences of reporting. On September 11, 2001, a terrorist attack occurs in Tel Aviv. A TV journalist who happened to be at the scene of the incident interferes with the work of rescuers and the police by pestering them with questions. At the same time, she is trying to go live - this is her finest hour, the report will become the engine of her career. But she is informed that a terrible event happened in New York and therefore it is impossible to go on air. She sincerely does not understand why New York could be interesting after the terrorist attack she witnessed.

And finally, probably the most offensive to the feelings of Americans. And at the same time, what links all 11 films together. And another thing that makes it possible to consider the film as a whole a great success. With rare exceptions, each director made a film about his own country. About the people he knows. In many societies, as the film demonstrates, America is not at all equal to the rest of the world. America's understanding of the tragedy is optional. And not because everyone hates America. But because so many people live their lives surrounded by their problems, and inevitably lack simple solutions. Many people around the world do not have the opportunity to join hands and form a human shield against terror against the backdrop of the ruins of the WTC: no time, no strength. Of course, the films of Samira Makhmalbaf or the Serbian Danis Tanovic present border situations: they tell about refugees who suffered in local conflicts that developed with the participation of the United States. But Sean Penn, who was declared a public enemy because he did not share the pathos of the “war on terror” with Hollywood, cannot be accused of bias. The leitmotif of the old man's mutterings from his film is the lack of sunlight in the apartment - the sun is blocked by the "twins". After the disaster, sunlight appears, but does not please, but sobers up the old man: he understands that his wife really died. The semi-darkness, which was a necessary condition for maintaining self-deception, dissipated.

3. Silence

Let's return to the idea that one point of view entails the opposite. Indeed, the dependence here is direct. If there is an official traveling memorial to the victims, exhibited at the Zurab Tsereteli Museum of Modern Art, then there is also a film about the resonance of these events, which is shown on NTV. “Silence is a funny word, very old,” wrote Sasha Cherny at the beginning of the last century.

In the case of film and "Democracy of Photographs" we are dealing with two different languages. In one of them there is no place for generalizations, conclusions, or reflection. This applies not only to the events of September 11th. Terrorist attacks are sometimes called the “second Pearl Harbor.” The film "Pearl Harbor" , dedicated to the heroism of the American military, unpleasantly struck many with one omission. At the end of the film, American pilots launched a retaliatory sortie into the enemy camp. Having bombed some military bases, they return back with a sense of restored national pride. But not a word is said about the other pilot, the one who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, killing several hundred times more people than Pearl Harbor. As if only the lives of American soldiers are important, and those who have some kind of abstract, half-fairy-tale heroism.

Another language describes individual destinies. Ken Loach, whom we quoted above, is the most committed of all directors. His leftist views are widely known, and as a socialist he cannot live without generalizations. And it makes you remember the events of the “other” September 11, 1973 - the coup in Chile, staged with the support of the American government, and the assassination of President Allende, a composer forced to flee from the Pinochet regime. The danger of such a language lies in the too easy and therefore speculative transition from the individual to the general. It's easy to get angry and say: look at us! We suffer too!

If silence is impossible, then such separation is destructive. The distance between intonations and methods of constructing an image in these languages ​​is very large. To put it simply, the organizers of the exhibition want to make the world as open as possible, but for this they will erect leaning towers in its center. Europeans and Asians, on the contrary, want to close their worlds, to draw a boundary between America and other societies (in the case of Sean Penn, between the America of “twins” and the America of personal, non-heroic destinies and events, the America of apartments). Both sides defend their point of view with a great degree of aggression. Our wish may seem good-natured, but there simply cannot be anything else: in order to achieve understanding, aggression must be eliminated.

Notes:

1 The original title of the exhibition - “Here is new york; a democracy of photographs” was translated as “This is New York: photographs taken by the people.” This article uses the "Democracy of Photos" option.