Public Screening #08: Emile de Antonio: In the King of Prussia, July 11, 2018, Arsenal
Issue 335/336 of Filmkritik in 1984 was supposed to be dedicated to Emile de Antonio. The layout for the texts, including a 40-page conversation between Antonio and Arno Luik, had already been completed, but there was no money left for printing; the magazine ceases to be published. As the HaFI’s contribution to the “Edit Film Culture!” project, the issue is now finally to appear 400 months late via Brinkmann & Bose, conceived by Jürgen Ebert. To accompany the publication, we are showing de Antonio’s IN THE KING OF PRUSSIA (1983) – “a film about the legal process against the “Plowshares Eight‘, eight members of the Christian peace movement in US, who hammered a nuclear warhead to pieces at a weapon’s factory.” (Ebert) The accused play themselves, while the police, jury, and court staff are played by actors, with Martin Sheen as judge Samuel Saulus II.
In the King of Prussia
Emile de Antonio, USA, 1983
35mm, OV/GeS, 92 min
Wednesday July 11, 2018, 6:00 pm
July 2nd, 2018, Event / Projects
Arsenal Cinema 2
Arsenal – Institut für Film und Videokunst e.V.
Potsdamer Strasse 2
Sara Ahmed on the perfomativity of disgust (from The Cultural Politics of Emotion, 2004): “To name something as disgusting is to transfer the stickiness of the word ‘disgust’ to an object, which henceforth becomes generated as the very thing that is spoken. The relationship between the stickiness of the sign and the stickiness of the object is crucial to the performativity of disgust as well as the apparent resistance of disgust reactions to ‘newness’ in terms of the generation of different kinds of objects. The object that is generated as a disgusting (bad) object through the speech act comes to stick. It becomes sticky and acquires a fetish quality, which then engenders its own effects.”
November 7th, 2020, Tom
David Graeber (1961-2020) on What Would It Take (from his The Democracy Project. A History, a Crisis, a Movement, 2013, p. 193): “We have little idea what sort of organizations, or for that matter, technologies, would emerge if free people were unfettered to use their imagination to actually solve collective problems rather than to make them worse. But the primary question is: how do we even get there? What would it take to allow our political and economic systems to become a mode of collective problem solving rather than, as they are now, a mode of collective war?”
September 7th, 2020, Tom
T.J. Demos on why cultural practitioners should never surrender, via tranzit.sk: “For artists, writers, and curators, as art historians and teachers, the meaning-production of an artwork is never finished, never fully appropriated and coopted, in my view, and we should never surrender it; the battle over significance is ongoing. We see that battle rise up in relation to racist and colonial monuments these days in the US, the UK, and South Africa. While the destruction of such monuments results from and is enabling of radical politics, it’s still not enough until the larger institutions that support and maintain their existence as well as the continuation of the politics they represent are also torn down. This is urgent as well in the cultural sphere, including the arts institutions, universities, art markets, discursive sphere of magazines and journals, all in thrall to neoliberalism, where we must recognize that it’s ultimately inadequate to simply inject critical or radical content into these frameworks, which we know excel at incorporating those anti-extractivist expressions into further forms of cultural capital and wealth accumulation. What’s required is more of the building of nonprofit and community-based institutions, organizing radical political horizons and solidarity between social formations.”
August 21st, 2020, Tom