Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day11

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

The Decline of Cinema

The Drama of Populist-Humanism

by WILLIAM MANSON

In the mid-20th century, writers and filmmakers who had experienced the Depression first-hand were keenly sensitive to the individual’s paramount concern for independence and dignity.  In 1942, inspired by the New Deal speeches of then progressive-populist Vice-President Henry A. Wallace, composer Aaron Copland wrote his famous “Fanfare for the Common Man”—a musical piece entirely reflective of the renewed populism of the time.

Think of fictional characters such as the Joad family, whose relentless struggle against overwhelming economic forces was unforgettably depicted by Steinbeck in his masterpiece The Grapes of Wrath.  Such characters—with their stubborn sense of independence, quiet endurance, and colorful, idiomatic speech—came alive as idiosyncratic, rough-hewn individuals entirely “ill-adapted” to the corporate-style feudalism into which they were being driven.  I’m thinking also of Elia Kazan’s quietly reflective film Wild River, which realistically depicts a fiercely independent old woman (Jo van Fleet), fighting to stay on her beloved island homestead against the encroachments of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

While populist drama often focused on beleaguered small farmers, Arthur Miller’s play “Death of a Salesman” depicts the struggle of a fading, worn-out salesman, Willy Loman.  However unexceptional, Loman is an individual who has worked all his life, attained a secure, steady income as a salesman, and provided for his family—only to find that all his efforts were never reciprocated by any long-term guarantees from his company.  Willy Loman had optimistically believed in the “Dream”—in the value ostensibly placed on hard work, and the rewards of economic security it would bring.  Yet his tragic fate, so powerfully dramatized by Miller, spotlighted the new, post-WW2 era of nation-spanning corporations and accelerating economic dislocations.

In a forgotten essay “Tragedy and the Common Man” (New York Times, February 27, 1949), Miller wrote of the everyday individual’s “unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity.”  In his Sisyphean struggles, such an otherwise ordinary person may nonetheless attain a tragic, if unheralded, grandeur.  Tragedy in itself, Miller argued, attains artistic pathos in modern drama because of the timeless, compelling theme of the fiercely resolute human being who—like a modern-day Job—challenges overwhelming, capricious forces (in our modern time, the corporate juggernaut which seeks to crush those intractable, resistant persons who refuse to step aside).

Such an individual may find himself, like Willy Loman, in a life-and-death contest to preserve his autonomy, values, self-worth.  And although such an anonymous person may not prevail in terms of economic “viability,” he nonetheless retains his integrity to the end.  By actively resisting his degradation into a disposable “thing”–by challenging and questioning a status quo in which the individual is just raw material to be used up and then discarded–he attains a kind of tragic, moral grandeur.

Some sixty years later, in our over-organized, mega-corporate 21st century, such moral-humanist rhetoric may sound quite strange, if not absurd.  The fate of a single, ordinary person matters?  Why, from month-to-month, tens of thousands of Willy Lomans are discarded as outmoded and obsolescent (because of automation, mergers, consolidations, downsizing, offshoring, etc.)!  Any given mega-corporation—and there are thousands—lumbers about like a Colossus, crushing ant-like humans and gulping down other companies—only to be swallowed itself by an even-larger conglomerate.

Given such forces, what place is left for the beleaguered 21st century “little man”–    hemmed-in, diminished, confined, under siege from employers, creditors, banks, insurance companies, medical bills, and ever-intrusive marketers?  Moreover, today’s “winners”–a new breed of grotesquely ruthless, self-congratulating narcissists—do not hesitate to blithely sweep him away as just so much flotsam.

Yet the individual, even in our de-humanizing, regimented times, remains a unique human being striving for dignified work and social position.  When thwarted and “defeated” in such aspirations, he will suffer disappointment, resignation, even despair.  When dramatized in plays and films, such futile struggles may evoke the pathos of tragedy, whereby an audience sympathetically identifies with the universally human, yet unrealized, aspirations of the beaten-down yet authentic individual.

But what if the art of filmmaking, in our contemporary Zeitgeist, has abandoned this humanistic legacy derived from literature and drama?  What if it has become dominated by independent directors, technically matchless in visual technique, but coldly indifferent to such themes?  What if such directors—growing up comfortably middle-class and insulated from hunger and poverty—are indifferent or contemptuous of such human values and instead use their talents to ridicule humanity as a whole and to mock human suffering in particular?

Unlike film writers and directors of an earlier generation, today’s filmmakers—who often majored in “film studies” and emphatically did not attend the “school of hard knocks”—are generally untutored in classic drama and its perennial themes of moral dilemma, conflicting values, and the individual’s struggle to preserve his dignity and integrity.

They may claim to be “artists”–thereby despising bourgeois, philistine attitudes and celebrating fringe-deviant, nihilistic violence and flamboyant “death styles” (i.e., “slumming”).  I’m thinking of certain self-satisfied directors, seemingly narcissistically indifferent to genuine human suffering (or even coldly contemptuous of it).  Their disdain for “ordinary” people is such that they inevitably lapse into parody and demeaning caricature.  They are inordinately eager to show how cleverly they can mock such “types,” whose problems are presented as absurd and stupid.

Such ridicule and ironic mockery is far removed from the humane, 19th century sensibility of, say, Charles Dickens or Victor Hugo or Fyodor Dostoevsky.  But such directors are popular—among trendy, “well-educated,” young film-goers.  Why?  Because they sanction a cold, self-congratulating narcissism—thereby mirroring and re-affirming the present-day “politics of cruelty” which rewards various elites and rejects the remainder of humanity as “losers.”

William Manson, a psychoanalytic anthropologist,  formerly taught social science at Rutgers and Columbia universities. He is the author of The Psychodynamics of Culture (Greenwood Press).