Peter Lorre Retrospective: Screening and discussion with Felix Hofmann, July 19, 2018, Zeughaus Kino, Berlin
Felix Hofmann Filmkritik author, and together with Harun Farocki, director of the TV feature PETER LORRE – DAS DOPPELTE GESICHT (The Double Face of Peter Lorre) (1984), will talk about the film on July 19 at 8:00 pm within the framework of the Peter Lorre Retrospective at the Zeughauskino in Berlin. A discovery from Farocki’s estate will also be shown.
During the inventorying of the archive at the Harun Farocki Institut we found a 16 mm working copy which features an interview with the actress Gisela Trowe conducted by Felix Hofmann. Trowe played the role of a prostitute in the film DER VERLORENE (The Lost One) (1951) (D: Peter Lorre). The interview was conducted in 1984 in her apartment in Hamburg. It was filmed by Farocki and Hofmann for the WDR feature PETER LORRE – DAS DOPPELTE GESICHT (The Double Face of Peter Lorre) (1984), however it is not contained in the final version of the feature. The working copy, which we have digitized*, will be screened for the first time publically within the framework of the film series “Das Gesicht hinter der Maske. Hommage an den Schauspieler Peter Lorre” (The Face Behind the Mask. Homage to the Actor Peter Lorre) at the German Historical Museum’s Zeughauskino in Berlin, together with the film PETER LORRE – DAS DOPPELTE GESICHT.
Guests: Felix Hofmann and Volker Pantenburg
Thursday July 19, 2018, 8:00 pm
Unter den Linden 2
* The digitization of the material was completed within the framework of Archive außer sich, a project of Arsenal – Institute for Film and Video Art in cooperation with Haus der Kulturen der Welt as part of The New Alphabet, a HKW project supported by the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media due to a ruling of the German Bundestag.
July 2nd, 2018, Event / Projects
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