kagablog

March 6, 2010

2010 Bradford International Film Festival: Packed With Underground Greatness

Filed under: dionysos andronis, film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 8:32 am

By Mike Everleth

Bradford International Film Festival

The 16th annual Bradford International Film Festival, which will run March 18-28, is a total celebration of all forms of cinema, from classic films to modern world cinema to a tribute to Cinerama and more. But, most excitingly, is a bombastic collection of some of the best, most exciting underground films being made today.

From Bad Lit’s perspective, the most thrilling screening of the entire 10-day affair is the new film by British filmmaker Peter Whitehead, Terrorism Considered as One of the Fine Arts. In the U.S., Whitehead is a “lost” filmmaker from the underground’s heyday in the ’60s, being left out of most histories of the underground movement. Whitehead directed several influential films, including Wholly Communion and The Fall, before dropping out of filmmaking in the mid-’70s.

Film historian Jack Sargeant wrote extensively about and interviewed Whitehead for his wonderful book on Beat cinema, Naked Lens. Whitehead was also featured, along with South African filmmaker Aryan Kaganof, in the documentary By Any Old Light by Dionysos Andronis and Ca Ca Ca, although that doc hasn’t been seen much in the U.S.

According to the BIFF website, Terrorism Considered as One of the Fine Arts “is based around a mesmerising psychogeographical exploration of modern-day Vienna. The film incorporates a record of the subversive underbelly of the city into poetic meditations on conspiracy theory, eco-terrorism, time and cinema (the story of Carol Reed’s film The Third Man is retraced).”

Fittingly, the screening of Whitehead’s return will be preceded by another film by Dionysos Andronis, called Pandrogeny Manifesto, which features gender-bending artist Genesis P-Orridge and his wife Lady Jaye, filmed before her untimely death in 2007.

In addition to the Whitehead screening, there are loads of fantastic underground films from the U.S. screening at BIFF, many of which I’ve written about many, many times on Bad Lit.

read more here

March 4, 2010

‘LES SEPT ÂMES’

Filed under: dionysos andronis, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 11:23 pm

*
5931 CHRISTOPHE-COLOMB
> ——————————————————–
>
> You are all invited
> to the launch of
> ‘LES SEPT ÂMES’
> magazine
>
> which includes
>
> an ode to Harry Crosby
> by Lamashtu
>
> a review of the book ‘Noise & Capitalism’
> by Blake Hargreaves
>
> a hypno-telepathic interview with Peter Whitehead
> par J. X. Roberts
>
> and some trashy industrial-faith images
>
>
>
>
> The evening begins with a 5 to 7 vernissage of
> Francis Ouellette (HOBO CULT RECORDS)’s
> collage work
>
> and will be followed by an informal mini-retrospective of films
> by
>
> CA CA CA
>
> BY ANY OLD LIGHT
> L’IMPASSE suivi de POUR EN FINIR AVEC LE JUGEMENT DE DIEU
> THE MAN WE WANT TO ANGER
>
> and the launch of the VHS label
> MODULI TV
>
> plus more if you snivel
>
> (accompanying DVDs include Peter Whitehead’s new film Terrorism Considered As One of the Fine Arts,
> A live performance by DEFLAG HEMOERRHAGE/HAIEN KONTRA
> an interview with Mattin
> a conference in Berlin about ‘Noise&Capitalism’
>
> and
>
> a noisy mash of short work bullshit by CA CA CA/LAMASHTU
>
>
> HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE

February 13, 2010

THE INFLUENCE OF PETER WHITEHEAD ON THE NEW GENERATION OF EXPERIMENTAL FILM MAKERS

Filed under: dionysos andronis, film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 10:08 am

Peter Whitehead was born in 1937 in Liverpool. Even if he has not made films since 1978 he remains, however, the most important representative of the avant-garde cinema in the UK. And this is so, even though he has shot films other than experimental films. Peter Whitehead is among that group of film makers who have shaken the European film making scene. Despite his hasty cessation of his film making activities, Whitehead continues, even today, to influence the young experimental film makers in Europe as well as in the USA.

In order to prove this thesis, let’s place in parallel the film making work of Peter Whitehead to the work of five young experimental film makers, four European (Isaac Julien, Mara Mattuschka, Ian Kerkhof, Dionysos Andronis) and one American only: Richard Kern. Let’s concentrate on a few aesthetic common points which will feed our debate.

Whitehead has inherited the aesthetic novelties of the ‘Cinema Direct’ and he has transferred them poetically into his own films. The use of a lightweight camera, also the minimum of persons working in the film crew - the camera man, the sound engineer, etc. - Whitehead has replaced them with one person.
In this way, in practically all his films, Whitehead is the only one in charge during the shooting. This gives to his films a great/strong flexibility in the camera movement which can appear brutal but which is, in reality, very astonishing and efficient. In Wholly Communion (1965 - 33 min) the successive zoom in/zoom out on the readers at the Albert Hall Festival of Poetry breaks the aesthetic rules of television documentary and introduces a creative dialogue between the audience and the film.

In the same way, Richard Kern (born 1954) is happy to film events being the only person in the film crew. This has not, however, reduced his competence as a film maker nor the length of his films. In Right Side Of My Brain (1984) the camera runs for 30 minutes following the characters in the intentionally unlit interior and exterior scenes. This helps to underline the psychological instability of the heroin as well as the darkness of her soul.

Whitehead is content to record the artistic documents by practising their placement in the abyss. In the Benefit Of The Doubt (1967 - 60 min) Whitehead emphasizes the distance between the audience and the filmed theatrical show (the play Us of Peter Brook) by complicating, with his new stage direction, his starting point. Equally, in Wholly Communion it is the recited poetry which defines the protagonists, whilst in Daddy it is the sculptures of Niki de St. Phalle. The eye of the film-maker filters with a new touch of distance the pre-existing artistic production.

The Bulgarian-Austrian ‘Mara Mattuschka’ (born in 1959) on the instruction of Peter Whitehead made the same use of documentary recordings. Her hysterical monologues are accentuated by the double stage direction of the film producer (who does not fail to complicate the narrative structures thanks to the game played between the improvised and the non-improvised. Her film Cerolax reminds us of the Benefit Of The Doubt where “this new art form, let’s say, emphasizes in the comedian a new notion of responsibility, taking into accounts all the facts. If, of course, the written dialogue exists, it can happen that the actor overrides it by using his own inspiration, his own exaltation, his indignation, his dream … “(in Positif Magazine …)

By mixing intentionally the cinema to other art forms, Peter Whitehead becomes the defender of a new form of cinema which is not ‘multi-media’ art, nor is it mainstream cinema but something rather more powerful. The Wholly Communion film is full of recited poems which completes the poetic values of the movie format. It is not by chance that it also exists in a collection of poems published the same year (1965) by Lorrimer.

The same is for Benefit Of The Doubt which is neither theatre nor cinema. As for the latter, if we are dealing with a filmed play, it is nevertheless taken from the seventh art, in so far as it takes a visual depth, a photogenic, and intensified image, a dimension of movement which is in part lost in the theatre (op. cit) - Mattuschka also escapes the theatre image with her personal way of using the out-of-focus as well as using jerky and neurotic shots.
In all Peter Whitehead films the frequent use of hard rock music backing is obvious. This type of music inspires him directly - not because of its mass popularity but rather for its power as well as its utopian dimension. This last dimension makes the link with its aesthetic propositions. The direct inspiration of the hard rock music attributes to several of his scenes the character of a ‘cine-clip’ belonging to a bigger production, but rather than utilising the aesthetic of the video clip which has all the artifices of technology, with Peter Whitehead the cine-clips incorporated in his films are shot in the manner of a craftsman using one camera only.

In the film Tonite Let’s All Make Love In London (1967) there is an original cine- clip sequence shot by Peter Whitehead with The Rolling Stones and their song We Love You.

Across the reconstruction by the members of the group of the condemnation scene of Oscar Wilde locked in prison the director places the first stone of his edifice - the theme of the film pins on the sexual liberty of this revolutionary epoch and its negative defeat by the media.

It is true that the cine-clip has remained famous thanks to its simplicity of presentation but also for its economy as regards the requirements of the mass public.

The Whitehead cine-clip aesthetic has directly influenced many recent film makers. Even Derek Jarman used a similar method in Edward II (1991) where Annie Lennox is filmed using only one panoramic shot.

The caricature is a stylistic intention of Peter Whitehead in his film Daddy (1973). Niki de St. Phalle holds the leading role pretending to be Lili Marlene whilst the other actors are very grotesque. The character of the Colonel father incorporates the power (and its parody) whilst his military uniform is always accentuated. Niki is also very caricatured by wearing cartoon clothes. Peter Whitehead achieves very well the expression of the eternal violence between the two sexes and has shown to us that this violence is unavoidable since the two sexes are inseparable and inter- dependants.

This metaphorical use of human caricature in order to suggest the oppressive rapport of the sexual battle is very similar in the work of Kern. In all of Kern’s films one can find the roles of executioner and victim which are attributed most of the time to a man and a woman respectively. It is not by chance that both authors have been attacked by feminists, especially in Kern’s work, who is the king of the 1980s (meta-punk) cinema. The sex acquires a negative and prerogative interpretation - as in all the musical and social movements of the same name - with Kern sex is represented as a socially oppressive instrument, as well as submission of the individual. The sexist aspect of his films aims to reveal the disgusting side of forced sex in the bosom of contemporary male chauvinistic society. Sometimes these images become very violent and sexist and this is done to inform us of the true sadistic character that human relations have obtained. The scene of his film The Evil Cameraman (1990 - 10 min) where we can see at the end a woman tied up and tortured by a man who slips and falls onto the ground, are very similar to those scenes of Daddy beating up his wife and also seen sticking a sword in her arse in front of the eyes of their stupefied daughter.

This attitude of provocation which permeates sex, in common in both of the two authors, can also have a feminine interpretation. Niki de St. Phalle speaks of this: “The agent had lots of personal problems in connection with this film, being rather misogynous, he wanted to say ’see how women really are - they are sick’; ‘this is what they want to do to us: paralyse us’; ‘we must fight back, they are all crazy and psychopaths’. In fact to do this was an act of vengeance. I was not at all in agreement.” (In Ecran Magazine No.28 Aug/Sep 1974 p 32)

In the manner of a fanatical anarchist Peter Whitehead draws his set of themes through the brutality of power which permeates many different examples: the police for The Fall (1969 - 110 n), the father-master for Daddy (1973 - 90 min), the media for Tonite Let’s All Make Love In London (1967 - 70 min). His constant reference on this topic is more evident in The Fall, which is a militant documentary of a great poetic value, a film which maintains its actuality.
Having participated in the student revolution at Columbia University in New York in April of 1968 and having filmed their collective manifestation as well as their brutal interruption because of the transgression of the university campus by the New York police, Peter Whitehead offers us a testament which was going to influence several militant anarchist documentarists in Europe.

The Englishman Isaac Julian (born in 1960) made his debut in 1983 with the medium length documentary Who Has Killed Colin Roach? (35 min) which has as its theme the assassination of a black militant by the Ku Klux Klan and the suspect role of the police.

Also, his following documentary Looking for Langston Hughes (1984 - 46 min) has a similar theme. His work as a reporter reminds us of a Peter Whitehead film by the fact of the active participation in the protestors events.

It is this anarchist ideology which pushes Peter Whitehead to denounce the atrocities committed by a ‘Marxiste’ generation of the ’60s and during the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s. But he does it in an allegorical and shocking way - his last film Fire On The Water (1978 - 90 min) is based on the same motive. The final scene summarizes everything : a chicken is tortured by a pianist who tries to accompany the song from The Doors The End - symbol of this generation of ex-anti authority who have now become oppressors, with the help of the chicken’s body - the chicken parts are slowly tearing apart.

The pornography together with hints of sadomasochism in the film Daddy has not only influenced Richard Kern but even more so the Dutchman Ian Kerkhof (born in 1964). In relation to this subject Peter Whitehead is advanced: ’sexuality is for me like a theatre. Pornography is like a sacred dance, the latest ulterior image of beauty’ (In Entropy No.1 p14). This way, the images of Daddy tied up on a chair, having to eat his own excrements whilst his vengeful daughter practices in front of him a lesbian sketch - the images are replaced in Kerkhof’s work by those of a killer who, in the film Ten Monologues of the Lives of the Serial Killers (1994 - 54 min) masturbates himself in front of the camera whilst telling us of his disgusting acts. This film has obtained the first prize in the 5th week of the experimental cinema of Madrid in April ‘95.

The conglomeration of the symbols is obvious in each of Whitehead’s films, especially in Daddy. The film sets have Freudian connotations which are created by Niki de St. Phalle in an intentionally excessive manner. For example, all the stuffed animals (even the rats) which are parts of the father’s collection are destined to underline a special feeling for each scene.

In my film The Lamp (1994 - 13 min) it is exactly this rich atmosphere with Freudian connotations directly inspired by Peter Whitehead which I wanted to recreate. The icon of Christ filled with traces of lipstick, the ugly faces of the Christians believing in different ideas, aim only to reveal the misery of a sexually oppressed universe, which is in contrast to the one in which a young couple frolic behind a bush in the same area.

These examples proving the influence exercised by Peter Whitehead on the new generation of experimental film makers do not stop here. The TV documentary The Falconer, produced by Channel 4 of BBC confirm this and can give also new reference points.

this article first published here

January 5, 2010

by any old light

Filed under: dionysos andronis, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 8:46 pm

071.jpg070.jpg

December 10, 2009

a letter from aryan kaganof to peter whitehead after watching “terrorism considered as one of the fine arts”

Filed under: peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 7:00 pm

0141.jpg

December 8, 2009

Terrorism considered as one of the fine arts (2009), a film by Peter Whitehead

Filed under: reviews, dionysos andronis, film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 9:30 pm

0129.jpg

Peter Whitehead hadn’t made a film for 32 years – his last film dates back to 1977. Now, he’s back behind the camera to bring us the film of his latest novel of the same name. In this feature-length film of 2h35, Whitehead portrays an icy town which is nonetheless peopled with the feminine graces of several young actresses. Above all, it is a portrait of Vienna today. Its hero is Michael Schlieman, an MI6 agent working with the British Secret Services to solve the mystery of why several operations failed in the past. There are points in common with the sinking of Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior and the murder of a photo-journalist from the same organisation. Schlieman is part of an eco-terrorist group and Whitehead, his alter-ego, shows us that his novel is based on “fear and control, or better still, about the fear that the state spreads in order to control” (from the Viennale 2009 Catalogue).

The film opens in Vienna’s Third Man Museum where Schlieman has come to question a beautiful young archivist, played by Sophie Strohmeier. He is hoping to use this research to write a novel. The archivist ends up playing the role of interpreter for his contacts. The colour blue is present in several scenes of this river city, and lines of Seferis and Kazantzakis’ poetry are superimposed on the image. The lines are an accompaniment to the fluidity of the narrative.

Schlieman has to find the young Maria Lenoir, the daughter of Nora, the main character in one of Whitehead’s earlier novels published in 1990, “Nora and …”. A mystical spinning top spins throughout the film, and the local band Black Flash performs its songs while Schlieman’s monologue constantly causes us to lose our bearings. Most scenes are accompanied by instrumental music composed by Whitehead himself.

The film is directed in a way that is different from Whitehead’s earlier films. The images are not packed with formal research on the aesthetics of destruction, but the poetic sensation here comes from the structure of this complicated, multi-layered story. At the end of the third section, Schlieman is found assassinated, without any answers to his questions at the start of the film. His body is lying on the seat of a carriage in the Vienna subway. A line from Homer tells us that “Blue death closes his eyes” – this is the third Greek poet quoted in the film. We filmed the “making of” the latest feature-length film and Whitehead told us that “together, the people he questioned are plotting his murder” (op.cit. “By any old light” published on kagablog, 07-10-08).

“After having destroyed the Third World now we are also destroying this planet” (Whitehead, op.cit. from the Viennale 2009 Catalogue).

Written by Dionysos Andronis, translated by Lucy Lyall Grant

peter whitehead in paris

Filed under: dionysos andronis, film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 2:51 pm

0130.jpg

http://www.cinematheque.fr/fr/projections/archives/fiche-manifestation/peter-whitehead,10885.html

PETER WHITEHEAD

2009 - 153’’

Le résumé :

Evénement : Peter Whitehead présente ses deux derniers films, son plus court (Un film…) et son plus long (Terrorism Considered as One of the Fine Arts), tous deux liés et en prolongement du chef d’oeuvre The Fall. Deux essais romanesques sur les dimensions politique, idéologique, technologique et psychique de l’image telles qu’elles ont caractérisé la première décennie du XXIe siècle, iconophile jusqu’à la démence et que les cinéastes, experts en matière de représentation et de montage, furent peutêtre le mieux à même de ressaisir.

Séance présentée par Nicole Brenez et Antoine Thirion.

Un film…
de Peter Whitehead
Grande-Bretagne/2009/3′/vidéo
Contribution au film collectif Outrage & Rébellion.

Terrorism Considered as One of the Fine Arts: A Dialogue Between Peter Whitehead and Sophie Strohmeier
de Peter Whitehead
GB/2009/150′/vidéo
Libre adaptation par l’auteur de son roman éponyme, paru chez Hathor Publishing en 2007. “Le vrai but de l’avant-garde doit être de fomenter et accomplir des actes de guerre. Nommez-les “Terrorisme” si vous voulez. L’avant-garde doit englober un théâtre urbain permanent de violence ciblée, une violation méditée des formes frigides et stériles. Mais sa stratégie requiert finesse et subtilité. Un dernier cri – un appel à l’action déguisé en art. Car nous sommes en guerre. Il n’existe pas de paix, sauf en imagination. L’art ne concerne pas l’art, même célébrant l’inouï ; il doit être politique. Comment ? À l’ère où images et artefacts sont consommés aussi vite que du papier toilette ? Comment l’art peut-il provoquer l’action directe ? La seule question qui importe (hormis celle du suicide), ainsi que Jean- Lucifer Godard l’a montré et prouvé grâce à ce suprême artefact d’avantgarde qu’est La Chinoise est celle-ci : comment un film peut-il mobiliser à la fois la population de la Sorbonne et le peuple des travailleurs en France, comment peut-il les armer de chansons et de slogans poétiques, d’images disloquantes, de mots ardents et autres sabres pour découper et démembrer le réel ? (…) L’ “art” d’avant-garde doit aspirer à être dangereux, belliqueux et direct. Comment ramener de la réalité, affronter l’holocauste de la virtualité universelle, rendre l’homme et la femme de la rue heureux et comblés de se sentir réels ?” Peter Whitehead, mai 2006.
Pour le reste, cf : www.nohzone.net

Vendredi 11 Décembre 2009 - 20h00 - SALLE HENRI LANGLOIS - Vidéo
En présence de Peter Whitehead

November 25, 2009

Le terrorisme considéré comme un des beaux arts (2009), un film de Peter Whitehead

Filed under: dionysos andronis, film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 5:37 pm

Peter Whitehead n’avait pas filmé depuis 32 ans. Son avant-dernier film datait de 1977. Maintenant il retourne derrière la caméra pour nous transférer à l’écran son dernier roman éponyme. Dans ce long métrage de 2h35, Whitehead nous livre le portait d’une ville glaciale mais peuplée par les grâces féminines de plusieurs jeunes actrices. C’est avant tout le portrait de Vienne d’aujourd’hui. Il y incarne le rôle d’un agent MI6 Michael Schlieman qui travaille pour les services secrets britanniques afin d’élucider le mystère et l’echec des plusieurs opérations du passé. Il y a des points communs sur l’épave du Ranbow Warrior de Greenpeace et le meurtre d’un photographe-reporter de la même organisation. Schlieman fait partie d’un groupe de terrorisme écologique et son alter ego Whitehead nous révèle que son roman est centré sur “la peur et le contrôle ou plutôt sur la peur que l’état diffuse afin d’assurer son contrôle (dans le catalogue de la Viennale 2009).

Le film commence avec la Cinémathèque de Vienne et Schlieman qui y vient poser des questions à une belle et jeune documentaliste, interpretée par Sophie Strohmeier. Cette recherche aimerait aboutir à l’écriture d’un roman. La documentaliste jouera surtout le rôle de l’interprète à ses contacts. La couleur bleue est présente dans plusieurs scènes de la ville fluviale et les vers de Seferis et Kazantzakis sont suimposés à l’image. Ces vers accompagnent la fluidité du récit.

Schlieman doit retrouver la jeune Maria Lenoir, la fille de Nora qui était le personnage central d’un autre roman plus ancien de Whitehead, publié en 1990 “Nora and…”. Une belle toupie mystique tourne pendant le film et le groupe local Black Flash chante ses chansons pendant que le monologue de Schlieman ne cesse de renverser les points de répère. La musique instrumentale composée par Whitehead accompagne la plupart des scènes.

Il y a une différence sur le plan de la mise en scène avec les films anciens du cinéaste. Les images ne sont pas pleines de recherches formelles basées sur l’esthètique de la déstruction. Mais la sensation poétique est basée maintenant sur la structure de cette histoire compliquée et à plusieurs niveaux.

A la fin de la troisième partie Schlieman sera retrouvé mort assassiné sans réponse à ses questions du début. Son corps est allongé sur le siège d’un wagon du métro viennois. Et le vers d’Homère nous assure que “la mort bleue ferme ses yeux”. C’est le troisième poète grec dans le film. Nous avions filmé le “making of” du nouveau long métrage et Whitehead nous assurait que “les personnes interrogées sont en train de monter le film de sa mort” (op.cit. “By any old light” publié sur le kagablog du 07-10-08).

“Nous avons détruit le Tiers Monde et nous détrusions maintenant la planète” (Whitehead, op.cit. dans la catalogue de la Viennale 2009).

écrit par Dionysos Andronis

November 18, 2009

nora and …

Filed under: literature, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 4:24 pm

0225.jpg
0226.jpg

November 15, 2009

peter whitehead - ‘I’ve never been interested in the real world’

Filed under: film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 12:00 pm

John Preston

0214.jpg

Mystic, pioneering film-maker, falconer and father of eight, peter whitehead has led a full life. John Preston tracks one of the counter-culture’s most intriguing figures down to a modern housing estate in the midlands - and finds his address is not the only surprise in store

The car park at Kettering station is not the sort of place you expect to meet a mystic. But here is Peter Whitehead with long white hair and dark glasses emerging through the gloom of a January afternoon in a beaten-up, red Vauxhall Astra.

There can be no doubt that Whitehead is a mystic - apart from anything else, he claims to be 4,000 years old and to have been reborn early one morning in August 1996.

But he is, mercifully, a lot of other things besides: pioneer documentary-maker, novelist, falconer and the man who may have invented the pop video - an idea he finds abhorrent.

For 10 years,Whitehead ran a falcon-breeding programme in Saudi Arabia founded by King Faisal’s son, Prince Khalid Al-Faisal.

Once he showed Prince Charles around his falconry centre, a visit that went very well despite the fact that one of the falcons ejaculated over Whitehead’s hat. ‘Charles wrote to me afterwards and said it was the most extraordinary thing he’d ever seen,’ he says.

peter-whitehead_420.jpg

Having fallen into deepest obscurity, Whitehead is now making a comeback. Next month, the National Film Theatre is showing a season of his work, and there’s a new three-hour documentary by Paul Cronin, In the Beginning was the Image: Conversations with Peter Whitehead, to go with it.

The season will include Charlie is My Darling, the first documentary ever made about the Rolling Stones, as well as The Fall, the film that devotees consider to be his masterpiece, which has never received a commercial release.

Another 30 film festivals around the world are also in the process of mounting Whitehead festivals. All this belated recognition has had a dramatic effect on him.

Having sworn more than 30 years ago that he would never make another film, Whitehead, now aged 70, is planning to take up his camera again for one final time.

Recently, he’s been limbering up by shooting some footage of Pete Doherty in the recording studio, at Doherty’s request.

I’m not sure where I expected a mystic falconer to live - a cave, possibly - but certainly not in the spruce red-brick house on a modern estate that his car pulls up outside.

‘I’m selling this place,’ he declares, before he’s even opened the door. ‘In fact, I’m moving out tomorrow and going to live in Vienna.’

The money raised from the sale of his house will, he hopes, be sufficient to finance his new film. Lest anyone should think that Whitehead might be about to turn soft or commercial in his old age, it’s worth pointing out that this film, provisionally entitled Terrorism Considered as One of the Fine Arts, will be light years removed from your standard multiplex fare.

‘I’m planning to totally deconstruct linear narrative,’ he says eagerly. ‘Actually, I’m basing the whole structure on the two circular tram routes that go around Vienna.’

Most self-proclaimed independent film-makers aren’t really independent at all; they’re happy to work for anyone who backs them.

Whitehead, though, is the genuine article, and has the debts to prove it. As he says, somewhat wearily: ‘The definition of a real independent film-maker is that you never have any money.’

Until he was 45, Whitehead insists, he never owned a thing. He had, however, shown an uncommon knack for landing in the thick of the action.

Raised in conditions of great poverty in the Lake District and London, he was 13 when he was plucked out of his grammar school and sent off to a public school in Harrogate - the beneficiary of a post-war Labour scheme to give bright, disadvantaged children a leg-up.

The result of this, he says, was that ‘I realised I could get by anywhere. And I’ve exploited that all my life. But, at the same time, I’ve never belonged anywhere.’

In mid-1960s London, Whitehead was unaware of the social revolution stirring around him - he was set on becoming a classical musician. But then he got a job for an Italian television company making short documentaries.

While he had no particular interest in the work - at least not at first - it taught him ‘to look for essentials. I developed this great facility to film in any situation and to capture the essence of it’.

Since his bosses seemed to have no idea what they wanted, Whitehead began to experiment, often shooting everything in a single take so that no one could edit what he’d done.

With bewildering speed, one thing led to another. To his astonishment, Whitehead, who had never listened to a pop record in his life, was asked by Top of the Pops to film Jimi Hendrix - the first time Hendrix had been captured on camera.

Next came a request to shoot some footage of the recently formed Pink Floyd. Despite finding their music ‘ghastly’, Whitehead agreed.

He’d already met Syd Barrett because he shared a house with some friends of Barrett’s in Cambridge. ‘And then I met him again in London because I had an affair with his girlfriend.’

How did Barrett feel about that? ‘Oh, I don’t think he knew. He was far too out of it to notice.’

Whitehead paid £90 of his own money and persuaded the band to make its inaugural visit to a recording studio.

‘I recorded 11 minutes of them playing. And do you know?’ he says with an uncharacteristic note of wistfulness in his voice, ‘I made more money out of those 11 minutes than from anything else I’ve ever done.”

Soon he was shooting the Stones in Dublin, Allen Ginsberg at the Royal Albert Hall and Led Zeppelin at the Roundhouse.

In 1967, he shot Benefit of the Doubt, about the VietnamWar. Given Whitehead’s approach - and the spirit of the times - one might assume that his films would be unwieldy monuments to self-indulgence.

In fact, they’re very sharply observed, often extremely funny and surprisingly cohesive. After making a documentary about Swinging London, called Tonite Let’s All Make Love in London - typically, Whitehead claims to have been bored to tears by Swinging London - in 1968 he went off to New York intending to make a similar film there.

But once in America he became swept up in the civil-rights movement. After a day spent filming Bobby Kennedy, Whitehead wished him good luck in his bid to become President.

‘Kennedy gave me this odd look and said, “There are lots of things standing between me and the White House”.’ Three weeks later, Kennedy was assassinated.

Whitehead’s response to all this upheaval was to make The Fall, a film that was in part about a student sit-in at New York’s Columbia University and in part an exploration of what it means to be a documentary-maker.

In a move that anticipated the work of Nick Broomfield by many years, he put himself in the frame - the director trying to make sense of what he’s recording while simultaneously examining his role in shaping it.

But, by this point, Whitehead had become so obsessed with film-making that he could scarcely tell the difference between reality and his filmed version of it.

‘I’d reached a stage where I couldn’t do anything without relating it to the possibility or necessity of filming it. I would walk down the street and imagine I was filming the whole time. In my head, I’d be zooming and editing away.

‘Then at night I used to dream that I was in a film and that when the film came to an end I’d be dead. I felt that by filming things I was connecting with them, but in fact it was quite the opposite. The camera was essentially separating me from life.’

As soon as he’d finished The Fall, he had a nervous breakdown. ‘I didn’t know who I was any more. I seemed to have this public existence, but it felt like a completely false self to me.’

Soon afterwards came one of his epiphanies. On a visit to the Edinburgh Film Festival in 1969, Whitehead ran out of the cinema and sat on a park bench, wondering what to do with his life.

‘While I was sitting there, a little old man came by with some bread and started literally calling the birds out of the air. One of the birds would land on his shoulder, and he’d say, “Not you Charlie; it’s Rose’s turn first.” I realised that he recognised each bird and it struck me that here was an example of someone who was completely in touch with the natural world.’

At that moment, Whitehead decided to stop making films. ‘As soon as I’d done so, I had this incredible feeling of relief and ecstasy.’ In future, he resolved, he too would become a birdman - more specifically a breeder of falcons, this despite knowing nothing about them.

He bought his first falcon for £8 after seeing an advertisement in Exchange & Mart. ‘When I saw it, I felt this enormous sense of identification. It was if I had re-connected with my myth.

‘You see, I had to go through my symbolic dismemberment and fragmentation to find myself again - just like Osiris in Ancient Egypt, whose body was broken up into 13 pieces. He had to be put back together again, although his penis, of course, was never found.’

This is vintage Whitehead. As he talks, his conversation snakes about, shoots off at tangents and is punctuated by occasional cries of, ‘Oh no, I’ve lost my thread again!’

Yet, somehow, it always manages to come back to the original subject. Perhaps because this, invariably, is Whitehead himself.

He is, quite possibly, the most self-absorbed person I have ever met, someone whose life has been spent immersed in a rich soup of symbolism, allusion and introversion.

As he admits, ‘I’ve never been remotely interested in the real world - although you could argue that I’m trying to become a little more interested in it at the moment.’

But however preoccupied he may have been with his myth, there was never any danger of Whitehead’s own penis getting lost. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, he clocked up a considerable number of affairs, with -among others - Nico, the artist Niki de St Phalle, Sharon Tate, Bianca Jagger and Nathalie Delon.

Having made up his mind to become a falconer, though, he left all these fleshly concerns behind and set off into the Moroccan desert, determined to be ‘restored into the bosom of nature’.

For the next few years, he smuggled falcon eggs back to England, hatching the birds at his home in Kettering and then training them. At this point, he was approached by Prince Khalid Al-Faisal, who invited him to set up a falcon-breeding programme.

Given a lavish budget and a purpose-built falconry on top of the highest mountain in Saudi Arabia, Whitehead suddenly found himself surrounded by princes, Rolls-Royces and private jets.

‘I ran this very successful artificial insemination programme. The birds for breeding were usually brought up without contact with other birds. As a result, they became “imprinted” on me and weren’t sure if I was a bird or they were human. The males would copulate on my head and then ejaculate into this specially made hat I wore to collect their semen.’

But when the first Gulf War broke out in 1991, Whitehead had to escape with his falcons in the middle of the night and flee to Spain.

In the end, he sold his birds for a knock-down price and returned to England in much the same state as he had left it - almost empty-handed.

1120330742_10036142001_bio-biography-rolling-stones-sf1.jpg

Settling back in Kettering, he wrote novels at the rate of two a year, which he published himself in the absence of any commercial interest. ‘I was quite happy writing away and assumed that that was how I’d spend the rest of my life. But then last year all these film festivals came calling’

At this point in our conversation I am beginning to think that Whitehead has no more surprises left to spring on me. But here, as it transpires, I am quite wrong. A propos of nothing, he suddenly announces, ‘At this moment I have three months to live.’

Is he sure? He nods. ‘I’ve been under a death sentence for the past five years - ever since I had my heart attack. Now I’m living on half a bypass, I’ve got two leaky valves, atrial fibrillation and I’m inoperable.

‘That’s why I want to get this film made as soon as possible. I’ll be really angry if I suddenly have a week to live. Not that I have any fear of death, because I know it’s not the end - but because I have so much left to do.’

And there is one further surprise in store. I knew already that Whitehead is a much-married man - one of his wives was Dido Goldsmith, niece of the late Sir James - and that he has fathered several children. In both cases, though, I have badly underestimated the numbers.

‘I have eight children,’ he says. ‘Seven daughters and a son.’

And how many times has he been married? ‘Let me see. Four, I think. Something like that.’

There might be more? ‘It’s possible. I can never quite remember.’

His latest wife turns out to be just 24 years old. ‘She’s Polish, a lovely girl. She’s not very happy about my moving to Vienna, but you know’ He lifts a hand then lets it fall, ‘What can you do?’

Despite his leaky valves and his limited life-expectancy, Whitehead insists he’s in a very optimistic state at the moment.

‘On the whole, I feel great, although I do have bad days. The weather affects me a lot. Apparently, one third of people who die from a second heart attack do so on a day when the atmospheric pressure drops or rises by more than 10 millibars. One third die within two hours of waking on a Monday morning and one third dies within two hours of having sex.

‘So you see,’ he says, offering what seems a peculiarly practical piece of advice from a mystic, ‘if you want to live forever, remember not to have sex just after waking up on a Monday morning if it looks like it’s going to rain.’

this interview first publlished in the telegraph

November 14, 2009

peter whitehead’s Three Nohzone Novels Review by Cameron Lindo

Filed under: reviews, literature, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 6:00 pm

0175.jpgReading “Terrorism Considered As One Of The Fine Arts”, the first part of the “Nohzone Trilogy”, by Peter Whitehead, is like slipping on a cosy pair of slippers, or climbing into a hot bath. Its hero, Michael Schlieman, an academic drafted into MI5 whilst at Cambridge, loves the Lakeland poets, malt whisky, pretty young girls and a bit of noir. He has a helpless everyman quality which is endearing, but only to the point where familiar references hold sway. But this is Peter Whitehead, and familiar references are the first things up against the wall.

Schlieman has gone AWOL in the Lakes, and his story is pieced together by a narrator who searches for him at first in the Lake District itself, then in carefully annotated second hand books, then in laboriously decoded web addresses and finally in the reaches of his own psyche. A tale of intrigue involving eco terrorism and the sale of nuclear material ensues. We learn about him through his associations with a pair of Femmes Fatale (who may or may not be aspects of his own anima), through his painstaking self-immolation in myriad concealed hypertexts and from rumours divulged by his estranged MI5 handlers. The cosy hot chocolate-ness rapidly takes on a wormwood bitterness.

Widescreen atmospheric inserts give us heady glimpses of Egyptian brothels, homely snapshots of the slightly depressing provincial lecture circuit, and nouvelle vague memories from Paris in the late sixties, all cranked up with a dose of laboratory strength laudanum.

Whitehead makes use of copious literary quotations, from De Quincey to Kawabata to Kotzwinkle to Coleridge. These serve ostensibly as a frame of reference, but become inevitably a springboard into the void, a void into which all his characters, and indeed ourselves, seem to be headed.

A central theme is that of the palimpsest, a text written over other erased texts, and here Whitehead has not only written over the erased remains of all his other novels, but also succeeds in interweaving the events in his characters’ lives to such an extent that the reader experiences a vertiginous feeling of déjà vu, a warp in consensus reality.
The novel’s most significant achievement, however, is to present a cogent narrative that emerges from the chaos of its shattered compositional style.

Each thread is a link in a vast interconnected labyrinth of allusions, a Qabbalistic raft of elision, a glittering panoply of synaptic flashes multiplying and self fertilizing, rather like neural pathways in the human brain, out of which emerges a new mindset. One cannot divorce oneself from complicity in this process, and in fact the fourth novel in the trilogy, “ And Death Shall Have No Domain Name” may or may not manifest solely in the mind of the reader.

Michael Schlieman straddles this web like Adam Kadmon, the archetypal man, the great within the small, He represents an opium- drenched messiah who not only drags Eros and Thanatos in his slipstream, but heralds the new google consciousness beloved of information technology evangelists.

In Nature’s Child, part two of Peter Whitehead’s Nohzone trilogy, we find ourselves becalmed in a pastoral lacuna. From the opening quote by Coleridge and references to the climactic anomalies of El Nino, to the conclusion with its clear parallels in shamanic transformation, we have Nature as transcendent force, mystical and physical in equal measure.
Whitehead gives us Nature besieged, in the overt story of eco-terrorism, which serves as the exoskeleton of the tale. Beautiful and idealistic young people bent on the assassination of corrupt and double-dealing French businessmen coupled with revenge on murdered activists (think Rainbow Warrior). The possibility of eco-disaster as an anarchistic lesson in political chicanery.

Central to the novel, and indeed to the entire trilogy, is Maria, and Nature’s child is specifically Maria’s story. Like Nature, however, nothing here is straightforward, and while Maria would seem to be a chimera, in that she is a shattered glass reflecting myriad different elements, she is also, like Nature, a quantum polymorph whose life encapsulates millions of alternate potentials which happen to be crystallised into one particular narrative by Michael Schlieman.

Those of us who are easily distracted should take comfort, however, in the gripping style of Schlieman and Maria’s encounter. We are quickly enmeshed in a quagmire of spy thriller thrust and counter thrust, whereby everything we think we know is rapidly eroded, and gradually the artifice of surety is deconstructed until nothing is true (and probably everything is permitted).
Reassuringly we are soon in familiar Whitehead territory, as the protagonists engage loins and the real action begins. An intense psychodrama ensues, in which the struggle for dominion over mind is engrossing and deeply erotic.

In Girl On A Train, Peter Whitehead resolves some of the thematic strands which have entwined, in ophidian fashion, around the central pillar of the caduceus that is Nohzone.
Taking as a template Kawabata’s “Snow Country” and the notion of plagiarism; of novels, of lives, of the curlicues of existence; he revisits his old stomping grounds- academia, spies, sex, the esoteric. Milton Schlieman travels to Japan for a Kawabata conference, encounters a mixed race courtesan on a train, then becomes involved with a pretty translator, who turns out to be more than just a cunning linguist.

The novel pivots on a sex-magickal ritual in which the ghost of Kawabata is evoked. As with all of Whitehead’s novels the occult perpetually hovers at the periphery of the narrative, waiting to warp events whenever the parameters of reality are weakened. Whether it be ghostly occurrences, discreet espionage or unspoken emotional agendas, the hidden constantly strives to be revealed. Here, revelation is held up to us like a trophy head, then snatched back, leaving perhaps a greater awareness of just how precarious the truth is.

At the culmination of Girl On A Train we discover the Girl’s (Yoko’s), letter to Schlieman, where a story of two sisters’ lives unfolds. In it we have a tale of sibling devotion and a hitherto unexpectedly frank expurgation of events. This narrative, coming as the denouement of so many twists, turns, false alleys and blurred memories, is shocking in its candour, as well as profoundly moving. One cannot help striving for explanations, tying up loose ends, correlating the miasma of half lives, chimeras, ghosts.

The final nail in this sarcophagus is both disorienting and hugely audacious, as our presumptions are turned on their heads yet again. The facts themselves are too pivotal to expose here, suffice to say we question novelistic logic and simultaneously our own precarious foothold on reality. To simply recount the events of a Peter Whitehead novel is always to reduce it’s epic nature to the level of the prosaic. His writing is literature as total immersion, and his world is one where writing and magic are co-conspirators.

Peter Whitehead has always stood at the brink of cultural change, documenting and shaping significant resonances long before their delineations have been absorbed into the mainstream. With the Nohzone Trilogy, he anticipates a truly interactive new breed of novel.

Prepare to have your mind messed with.

this review first appeared here

November 5, 2009

terrorism considered as one of the fine arts

Filed under: film, peter whitehead, new media politics (k3) — ABRAXAS @ 11:19 pm

053.jpg
054.jpg

October 13, 2009

peter whitehead - an evaluation by dionysos andronis

Filed under: dionysos andronis, film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 4:42 pm

0263.jpg
0264.jpg
0265.jpg

July 15, 2009

Filed under: film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 11:08 pm

0154.jpg

July 10, 2009

christina kennedy on “by any old light”

Filed under: dionysos andronis, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 5:25 pm

Kaganof, the enfant terrible of the SA film scene and one of the country’s most original and audacious artistic voices, is back – this time in front of the camera – in By Any Old Light.

This doccie, directed by Ca Ca Ca (yes, really) and Dionysos Andronis is a montage of film clips, interview snippets, performance excerpts and conversations between Peter Whitehead, “the father of independent filmmaking”, and Kaganof.

British director Whitehead is best remembered for his revolutionary 1969 indie film The Fall, but has also filmed the likes of Mick Jagger, Syd Barrett and Allen Ginsberg.

Switching styles
The style of avant-garde, postmodern “guerrilla” filmmaking evident in By Any Old Light will not be to everyone’s tastes but there are certainly some interesting propositions to chew on, such as the controversial notion of terrorism as “one of the fine arts”, when protest is nudged beyond anarchy to be an effective method to fight violation and abuse.

this review first appeared on cue, july 2009

July 5, 2009

national arts festival grahamstown: Programme 3: Glenda Kemp, Orgie, By any old light

Filed under: dionysos andronis, film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 2:38 pm

Glenda Kemp (South Africa 2008)
Director: Genevieve Louw
Courtesy of Michaelis School of Fine Art (UCT)

A brief and erotic excursion into the past and present of seventies exotic dance sensation and devout Christian Glenda Kemp. Echoing the conflict between Christ and the Devil, split-screen images merge the world of the flesh and the spirit.

Orgie (South Africa 2009)
Director: Hein de Vos
Cast: Jan Ellis, Vicky Davis
Courtesy of Made in Africa

The first glimpse of a proposed feature based on the novel by Andre P. Brink, inspired by his obsessive and erotically charged relationship with the poet Ingrid Jonker. Unflinching in its examination of the damage lovers can inflict, the book can take its place beside The Story of O and Venus in Furs.

BY ANY OLD LIGHT (France 2008)
Director: Dionysos Andronis
Featuring: Peter Whitehead, Aryan Kaganof, Dionysos Andronis

The meeting between South Africa’s controversial filmmaker/writer/poet Aryan Kaganof and Britain’s elder statesman of cinematic subversion Peter Whitehead - filmmaker, writer, occultist, musician, lover, joker - is beautifully observed. Whitehead proposes that terrorism is the last creative act - a work of art, in fact.
Age restrictions: 13 (N)
Duration: 67

Tuesday 7 July 10:00 am @ Olive Schreiner

May 23, 2009

on the art of dying

Filed under: art, peter whitehead, philosophy — ABRAXAS @ 11:47 pm

dying is an art, just as art is a permanent, untiring, relentless adversary, whose hidden agenda is always a continuous practice at dying, continuous fraught initiations into the mysteries of the Angel of Death. She is the muse.

Peter Whitehead

May 17, 2009

mark rothko - STRAIGHT FROM HELL - 20TH CENTURY SUICIDES

Filed under: art, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 7:24 pm

Namida King

Rothko: “If I choose to commit suicide, everyone will be sure of it. There will be no doubts”.

untitled-print-c10289995.jpeg

In London’s Tate Modern gallery, is a room devoted to the work of the Russian born artist Mark Rothko. A room without windows, without a view, no portal to signs of outer space or the passage of outer time. On the walls are six large paintings, related in colour (mostly dark maroon, with red overlays and black … spilt wine, dried blood) each one the size of a domestic room’s wall. In such a smaller room, the experience of surrender to them would be interlaced with a deeper, darker foreboding, apprehension of entrapment, enforced containment. Framed spaces large enough to engulf you, an enforced embrace, yet at the same time seeming to en-courage (en-power) you to float out of time and space completely. Capitulate to the infinite. Le gout de l’infini. A tension between absence and presence that threatens, offering an aching insight into the anguish and pain of Rothko’s all-too tangibly bedevilled vision of the world within. Within these seductive spaces, the imagination is at its outer limits, soft-edged, floating, formless. shimmering. Some might say: colour and texture reduced to pure spirit.

0241.jpg

This large room with its six paintings is probably the closest example of a Rothko chapel in Houston. A more than half-decent equivalent for we Londoners, in which to garner some faith in the face of a world of commodities, and dying hope. Sit in the room within the room, half close the eyes and the paintings become carpets, magic carpets, sacred spaces, images shored up against Osirian fragmentation, delineated by mere brush stokes, mostly rendered invisible in the sombre, imperturbable light. Spaces in which, on which, through which, the mind attempts to focus on infinity and yet, not unwillingly, accepts defeat; accepts the pleasure of the pure aesthetic, the subtle and tantalising beauty that reminds us of feeling, rekindles emotion, a sense of the flesh we only temporarily, vicariously inhabit; beyond sensations, the inner dream webs of Being, dying, cassation, the mind fading at the edges, losing memories, fearing dreams; dissolving the hard-edged frames that are the load-bearing structure of the prison house of reason. Each rectangular painting, a grave.

untitled_1969.jpg

London has these six paintings, not by mere chance but by good fortune.

The paintings were originally commissioned in the late 50’s for the walls of the very fashionable Four Seasons Restaurant in the magnificent architectural masterpiece, the Seagram building on New York’s Park Avenue. Rothko built huge scaffold structures in his studio, from which he could paint the images, creating the exact dimensions of the restaurant, the whole project inspired, he said, by Michelangelo’s murals for the Laurentian Library in Florence, where the window spaces are deliberately blinded; the interior suffused with uneasy melancholy. Rothko said Michelangelo had achieved exactly the feeling he was looking for, which he hoped to recreate, making the viewers feel they were “trapped in a room where all the doors and windows are bricked up, so that all they can do is butt their heads forever against the wall”. The word “forever” is more than ominous …

blue_grey.jpg

But something was calling Rothko from within, and rather than the bright and more colourful images of his earlier work, despite himself, the paintings demanded their own life and spirit, and came out darker than anything he had painted before. Reluctantly, he recognised the images were completely unsuitable for a classy, chic restaurant - people eating caviar and chatting stock market prices and worldly nonsense - and withdrew from the commission.

earth_green.jpg

Rothko had always considered J M Turner to be a profound inspiration, especially in his own earlier work. He had almost certainly seen single, large gallery rooms devoted entirely to this one artist, to the later almost abstract Turner seascapes, as if they too had been painted as murals in a single inter-connected vision; so he presented the set of paintings to the Tate Gallery, to show his affection for England and its artists, and the first time they were hung together in the Tate, Rothko was there to supervise. The space was compact, the light reduced, so that the subtle layered surfaces, each relating to the other, presented a brooding ambience, demanding contemplation. Stillness. Uncertainty. Doubt …

0242.jpg

The murals, painted with oil on canvas in 1958 or 1959, each with either black or red on maroon, bestow a variety of invitations to escape from the self. The largest painting seems to have a floating door in its centre, like an Egyptian temple door (always fake, painted to resemble a real door). The shape floating on the darkest of the taller paintings curiously seems to suggest the stone pillars of Stonehenge. Another has an inner shape that conjures up a double window, opening upon nothing … the faint hint of preternatural light, in wash of colour floating down. Each painting is an implied orifice, a call to the womb, to a highly seductive and yet threatening inner contained space and night … death and imminent birth in a terrible embrace.

0243.jpg

The words of Tim Buckley’s Song to the Sirens … “Death my bride, I’m as puzzled as the new born babe … ” would seem an ideal caption. As the murals would also be an appropriate setting for Mozart’s The Magic Flute … the Temple devoted to Isis and her dismembered lover, Osiris. Or the grottos in which Gerard de Nerval imagined he too had soared and fallen with the sirens: “J’ai revé les grottes ou nagent les sirènes … “

0244.jpg

How could a man, a once poor man now rich and clebrated around the world, who could create such sublime minimalist beauty, die such a savage bloody death at his own hand? But as Sylvia Plath foresaw and foretold - a warning no artist can ignore - that dying is an art, just as art is a permanent, untiring, relentless adversary, whose hidden agenda is always a continuous practice at dying, continuous fraught initiations into the mysteries of the Angel of Death. She is the muse … Rothko dared to warn us of such enigmas, the conflict between sensuality and spirit, in all his work, but then gave us the revelation of its deepest anguish, the proof beyond any denial, in his death, at his own hand. As a solace, he offered us moments of peace on the Way. Go to the Tate Rothko temple and dare to imagine your own death, as you recall Rothko’s final ritual in the sensual arms of his imagined siren bride.

Take a train south from St. Petersburg and you arrive in Dvinsk. It is now called Daugavpils. Once, its people were largely Jews. Its heart was devoted to commerce. And Les Fleurs du Mal. Many of the poorer pretty young Jewish girls were forced to choose prostitution to survive. It was not difficult to perceive many valid reasons, under savage Russian military oppression, for families of the better-off Jews to dream of immigration. Rothko’s mother was sixteen when she married. Her son, Marcus Rothkowitz was a late child, the youngest of four, enveloped from birth in the seductive dream of ultimate, if not infinite, freedom; by means of the escape to England: or America.

Rothko was eleven when his father died. Freud would write that the death of the father inflicts a terrible psychic burden on a son - the most dangerous age for the death to occur is around the age of eleven. At the age of nine, though, Rothko had (vicariously as it would turnout) denounced his father’s traditional ways, announced that he would no longer attend the family’s local Jewish temple; with the family. You might say he had killed his father a couple of years before his father really died; ultimately assuming within himself a supreme sense of power, albeit forever undermined by guilt. The youngest son (eight years younger than his brother), the sensitive and hypochondriac favourite of his mother, he had been blessed (and cursed) by achieving his unconscious incestuous goal … through the death of the father, full possession of her. Thus his doomed passion for the oceanic, le mer, la mère, had begun …

Rotho’s paintings are screens in which liquid (oil colour) floats, temporarily arrested in time, restless, moon- and tide-driven seascapes; crystalline structures (and non-structures) trapped on the verge of lattice formulation or dissolution, poised at the tantalising threshold of melting or crystallising as witnessed on a translucent glass microscope slide; ideally, under polarising light.

Hard at the edges (he had killed his father) and soft at the centre (he had won his mother), this Oedipal son would live all his life with the sphinx’s smile taunting his dreams, a tortured painter who wanted most of all to escape the pain of light, the father’s domain, light as power, sexual power, the permanent predicament of seeing, or being seen; omnipotence or dismemberment; the project of becoming blind, but gifted with clairvoyance and insight, like Tiresias: always the adversary and yet redeemer of Oedipus. In his work, Rothko seems to be desperately trying to deny the very existence of that real, sun-lit father’s world; he would see nothing of that real world but everything in a lunar mindscape reminiscent of a fellow Russians vision, Tarkovsky - as in Solaris, or Stalker. It would not have been a surprise if Rothko had painted all his work as variations on the theme of the colour violet …

And so it was that Rothko, despite every success and all the recognition he might have imagined he needed, after creating temples in which his murdered father’s spirit might be deemed to promise him forgiveness, he was finally forced to give up the struggle to maintain harmony over his inner chaos (denied in his harmonious musical paintings). At the violet hour he murdered himself - murdered the father in himself (at a late age he had fathered a child with a much younger wife, much to his own and everyone’s surprise) - as brutally as he was capable.

His paintings are an evolving, meandering record of his perpetual confrontation with a death desired, at the arterial heart’s crossroads. Murder of his other, guilty self; the self that had could only see, eventually, as false, fake, inauthentic. There was no going back to innocence; there never is, after the father is murdered at the crossroads.

It seems almost churlish to mention it: mere names resonating oddly, but Borges would surely celebrate the parallels. In Edgar Allen Poe’s most prestigious short story(many say his most profound expression of the inward windings and secret aspects of his own creative process). The writer of fictions which are nevertheless true; and yet are also not true? In the story entitled “The Purloined Letter” the principle character is the Detective Dupin. It is Dupin who toils at the mystery and finally, with weird Tiresian insight, reveals the esoteric truth behind a somewhat symbolic theft of a letter, a theft which enables the commitment of a number of more serious crimes, summed up in the phrase: “The ascendency depended on the robber’s knowledge of the loser’s knowledge of the robber.”

The detective brought in to investigate the death and apparent paradoxes of Rothko’s suicide, was a certain Detective Lappin.

Rothko killed himself in the early morning of February 25th, 1970; alone in his 69th street studio. His assistant found him and ran to a neighbour to say: “I think Mr. Rothko is very sick.” A terrible understatement, as the artist was lying spread-eagled on his back as if crucified in a huge pool of dried blood. Another assistant, Frank Ventgen was called and saw immediately that Rothko was dead. Two policeman assumed a suicide, but called on Detective Lappin to verify the facts. At the time, the fabled detective was being accompanied in his work by a newspaper reporter, Paul Wilkes, writing a story with the odd working title: “Why so many Real-Life Detective Stories End with a Rubber Stamp”. Lappin at the time was reading Puzo’s The Godfather.

The first description of Rothko’s suicide, taken from the detective’s brash account, turned out to be wrong in important details. He described the body lying in a pool of blood, the water in the sink still running. To save the people who found the body the trouble of cleaning up! Lappin sees the razor blade with kleenex tissue attached to it and comments, somewhat laconically, that suicides invariably try not to cut their fingers when cutting their wrists. Rothko’s trousers were neatly folded over the back of a chair. Lappin decides he didn’t want to get blood on them: cutting his wrists at the sink, he fell back to the floor when the blood levels got too low. Lappin seemed full of certainty, even noticing a number of small “hesitant cuts” on the forearm, declaring them as trials of the sharpness of the blade.

Lappin calls the artist’s doctor who confirms he was depressed after a recent operation, his health generally bad. Lappin declares with the certainty of one who was there at the time: ”An open-and-shut suicide”.

But the story of Rothko’s death was already metamorphosing into fiction. He had not had a recent operation and there was only one hesitation cut. The journalistic account (Wilkes wasn’t there when the body was found) became more than current gossip but the gospel truth, so much so that the artist Robert Motherwell pronounced he was surprised, on hearing the story, that the suicide had been so ritualistic. The story people heard and later read, was purloined by an opportunist journalist from the Detective Lappin’s fanciful pulp-fiction version of the events, mostly speculations of his own invention; especially as he had never heard of Rothko, and must have surveyed the huge abstract paintings around the studio as proof of the poor man’s unbalanced mind.

The police examiners decided that Rothko had taken a huge dose of barbiturates before killing himself. Later official autopsy found that Rothko had a “marked senile emphysema” and advanced heart disease, and did not have long to live. There were two cuts that caused the death, one 2½and a half inches long and a half inch deep on the left arm, and one 2″ long and 1″ deep on his right arm, deep enough to almost sever the brachial artery. The report misspelt his name as Rothknow; and the corpse was numbered #1867. Official police versions, taped and never transcribed, depended mostly on Lappin’s street-cred assumptions.

Rothko had taken a large dose of a drug, Sinequan, prescribed to him by his psychiatrist Dr. Klein, presumably to numb some of the pain, but mostly, his perceptions of his actions. He took off his shoes and suit, laying his trousers over the back of the chair. He made the cut in his left arm first, and the deeper one in the right. He was lying on his back, when found, in a pool of blood six foot by eight foot; with his “arms outstretched”.

Rothko had often talked of suicide and written about it. He’d told his assistant Ahearn, “If I choose to commit suicide, everyone will be sure of it. There will be no doubts … “ He often referred to the “accidental deaths” of Jackson Pollock and David Smith, both drunk and killed by crashing their cars. Clearly forms of suicide. And despite the severity of his own illnesses, he continued to smoke and drink, aware that he was hastening his own death.

Recent separation from his wife and very young son, together with the knowledge of the imminence of a natural death from his failing health, Rothko chose the death that he could be utterly sure of, a theft of what time remained of his life. He wanted a death framed in his own space and time, his own hands, determined to make it conscious, utterly tangible and known, every detail under his control, robbed it of its uncertainty. Made it his own creation. He defeated God as he had defeated his own father. A solitary death, a singular vision, unseen, which now can only be imagined by us.

One of Rothko’s friends wanted to take a photograph of the body lying in its pool of congealed blood, but he was persuaded not to, and so we are fortunately spared the theft of this painfully real image, which would surely have always clouded our perceptions of his paintings … would we not see his body, crucified, hovering on the surface of every canvas? Unsullied by the pagan facts of his self-murder, we are left with blameless images of his paintings, striving towards transcendence of the real, the body, the flesh, the

callous impersonality and decay of the material world: each painting a tentative, barely perceptible step towards the final blood-letting, in which his congealed blood, bone-dry on the concrete harsh floor, would surely have suggested the surfaces and colourings of the red and black on maroon canvasses hanging, forever, for us, in the Tate Modern.

this article first appeared on peter whitehead’s website

April 20, 2009

daddy

Filed under: film, peter whitehead, sex — ABRAXAS @ 11:52 pm

0237.jpg0236.jpg

by any old light

Filed under: dionysos andronis, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 5:38 pm

0227.jpg
0226.jpg

April 19, 2009

Alan Moore on anarchism

Filed under: dionysos andronis, peter whitehead, philosophy — ABRAXAS @ 3:42 pm

0198.jpg

Anarchy is, it has always been, a romance. It is clearly the best way (or the ugliest way) to rule the world, that everybody should be the master of its own destiny, everybody should be the own leader. This is something I can still believe, I think even a cursory look. Around the world and Denmark (???) in particular. It is a 0,000 point per cent of the world’s population that causes 99,9999 per cent of the world’s problems. And that point per cent is not the jewish banks’ conspiracy, it’s not the secret homosexuals’ conspiracy, it’s not even the scientologists. It is the leaders. What we need is an administration of ourselves.

From an on line interview, transcribed by Dionysos Andronis

April 14, 2009

wholly communion & tonite let’s all make love in london

Filed under: film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 8:15 pm

0154.jpg
0155.jpg
0156.jpg

April 13, 2009

peter whitehead: the word and the image

Filed under: film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 10:17 pm

0146.jpg
0147.jpg
0157.jpg
0158.jpg

April 5, 2009

Filed under: film, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 8:22 pm

083.jpg

March 20, 2009

by any old light

Filed under: dionysos andronis, peter whitehead — ABRAXAS @ 1:40 pm

0257.jpg

This contemporary documentary on the life and opinions of Peter Whitehead is made in the independent spirit of the great British director’s work – a ‘challenge to rationality’. What this means is that By Any Old Light proceeds as a collage of interviews, walks, lectures, interactions, poetic rants, erotic glimpses, performances and archive footage.

Whitehead reflects on his work past and present and discusses the conception of his occult mytho-world view. The film records a meeting between Whitehead and filmmaker/poet Aryan Kaganof in London in 2008. The film is styled in accordance with Kaganof’s ‘guerrilla’ aesthetic of filmmaking, using cheap equipment (mobile phone cameras for example) to achieve experimental results, mixing (audio) soundscapes, the spoken word, with postmodern imagescapes.

It’s fascinating to note how contemporary Whitehead’s ideas about politics, media, conspiracy, violence and protest, the role – after Debord – of the spectacle, developed in his 1968 film The Fall, appear. The film gives him space to think aloud and explain the concept behind his latest film, based on his books ‘Terrorism Considered as One of the Fine Arts’, ‘Girl on the Train’ and ‘Nature’s Child’ and developed and expanded via the internet.

Yet in some ways By Any Old Light illustrates the shortcomings of digital cinema, especially when placed alongside Whitehead’s own startling cinematic works. Whitehead’s utilisation of the hand-held camera emerged during a golden age of auteur filmmaking and his beautiful celluloid colours and astonishing compositions are strikingly at odds with the ugliness of modern DV. Whitehead always placed great emphasis on the ‘word’ and will perhaps be disappointed with the need for subtitles.

By Any Old Light is a good update on Whitehead’s work and influence. But ultimately, the film illustrates how the young avant-garde can still learn a lot from an old master, acknowledged in this film as “the father of independent filmmaking”.

Mark Goodall

this review first appeared here

Next Page »