Double Cross At Movie's End?

LAMENT

GOOD_SENSE

I'm sure I'm not the first person to discover this, or find it amusing, but that's never stopped me before.

After seeing The Lives of Others last week, I wanted to do a John Sakkis doppleganger thing, even though there is no poet involved.

A couple times during the movie I tried to crack the joke, "I didn't know Kevin Spacey could speak German." My viewing partner was only mildly amused.

So HGW XX/7. . .



and KS




It's pretty uncanny right?. Regardless, the movie was pretty excellent, and the ending reminded me of a Chris Nealon essay I read a couple years ago, and if I remember correctly, it was trying to establish this type of writing aka poetry that can't be define as political writing or writing against a political condition (or I guess any condition in general) because the condition(s)and or era/age we currently find ourselves in has yet to be defined, or defined fully or completely, and therefore the "art" cannot be fully realized or executed because what one is writing against or making art against is has not reached that level either. The level of naming.

Anyway, what got me thinking about this is near the end of the film, when the wall has come down, and the playwright finally has a chance to meet the chancelor and ask him why he was never under surveillance only to discover that he was. During that exchange the political figure tells the playwright that no good art has been made since the wall has come down. It reminded me of a discussion that I've had a number of times about what it takes for the creation of "important" art, and yes I know I've got to define my terms, and blah blah blah. But my point is or what I just kept thinking, is is it true that the best art or most important art occurs when an artist indeed has something to write against, or paint against, etc.

More often that not, I believe so.