Monday, November 06, 2006

to and from Stephen Kijak

On 11/5/2006 9:17 PM, via, in response to seeing Stephen Kijak’s wonderful film about Scott Walker, premiered at The National Film Theatre, London, 31st October 2006, I said ‘… Stephen - just to say, I, my wife, and a friend attended the premiere of your wonderful film last Tuesday. I've waited a long, long time to see something about and including Scott, which treated his art properly, and the man himself with the respect and understanding he deserves. You did all of that very well - with knowledge, compassion, humour, insight, and grace. Editorially, and in terms of narrative-flow, you told your story in an interesting and dynamic way, too. The film looks and sounds great. The 'listening heads' worked well - that device added well to the emotional impact; as is germane given the strength in that sense of Scott's music. It was great seeing Lulu with a tear in her eye; and the Wally Stott section was very powerful. You did a rare thing there; and made a genuine contribution to Scott's art, by revealling [sic] things, reminding people, etc. Putting his words large on the screen was similarly powerful. As Eno says, Scott's words are peerless. They deserve to be seen. All three of us thank you for a night to remember. A fantastic achievement, Stephen. Best wishes, Anthony…’. Under the heading, '...vertiginous demands...', Stephen kindly replied, saying ‘…it is one thing to get a good review in the press, but to get this kind of feedback from the true fans, it means more than you know - thank you so much for the feedback on the film, can't thank you enough, really, it's great to know that four years spent in a bizarre twilight zone that moved in Walkeresque slo-mo was not in vain! Thanks for being there to share the first unveiling (unleashing) of the work. x Stephen…’. The film itself is amazing for any Scott Walker fan, and, interestingly, is of great interest to anyone who professes interest in anything interesting; if you're interested, that is. Are you interested? Or are you uninterested? I mean generally, in general, that is: are you asleep or are you awake?


Blogger St Anthony said...

Thast's a mighty question to posit anyone - are you interested?
As Burroughs said, what are you here for?

Wednesday, November 08, 2006 7:46:00 am  
Blogger Dr Anthony Donovan said...

I sometimes get involved in these word loops, Anthony. One little reminding-voice nods at PIL's 'Where Are You?' - that phrase being repeated over and over, and in so being it changes sense. Another reminding-voice is my mad 1st year undergrad sculpture and word thing, which went something like: 'it seems to me, seemingly so to me, be so to me, seemingly so...' etc. Words seem like objects, but they are unreliable and untrustworthy was something like the point, I'm thinking. Plato's Phaedrus - words are not objects, ideas are not objects, etc. Too true! And how dismaying!

I meet many people who profess interest in things. They say this interests them, that interests them. They profess engagement; they profess serious engagement. They feel they are better in some way for have serious interests. It's good to be alive, I feel. I like being alive. To be alive is to be interested. The world itself is interesting. The same people tell you about their interests. If one is lucky, they tell you about the interest itself rather than themselves. I see those as good days. Mostly, though, they tell you about themselves. One might assume reciprocity from this; one might think that reciprocity is guaranteed a fortiori; since one has patiently listened and faithfully reacted. Hardly. Monlogue is too often, in fact almost always, the order of the day. So I say: are you interested? And I add: are you you really interested? The sophists continue; since it is clearly their world.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006 8:32:00 am  
Blogger St Anthony said...

As old Gertie Stein wrote:
Money is what words are
Words are what money is
Is money what words are
Are words what money is

It's a fascinating subject, verbal loops and permutations ... being a great admirer of Burroughs, a lot of the stuff he did with Brion Gysin and Ian Sommerville springs to mind (all three sadly missed).
Steve Reich's early loop experiments, too.
I sometimes think I am a tool of my interests, not the other way round ... but it keeps one ticking over.
There's always something bubbling away somewhere to grab one's attention.
Those sophists, they must be watched.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:51:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home