http://new.livestream.com/frenchembassy/events/3476769
As a part of a cultural event from the French Embassy of Culture’s new bookstore, Albertine, intellectuals and authorities in different fields engage in a discussion or debate on various topics. In this particular discussion, called Special Event: A Conversation Between Marjane Satrapi and A.O. Scott, world-renowned graphic novelist and filmmaker, Marjane Satrapi (of Persepolis fame) and New York Times film critic, A.O. Scott talk about art, to summarize it in a few words. This is my review of just one of the several events held in this festival, which all range widely in topic.
Going into the discussion, I had no idea what this talk was about. The title alone is very vague. What drew me in was merely the fact that I am a fan of Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel and film, Persepolis. I had no idea in what direction this discussion would head. Prior to watching the archived video of this discussion, I also watched the French Fashion and Global Style one. However, the discussion did not hold my attention as I hoped it would. Therefore, I was slightly skeptical of this discussion, especially with how vague the description was. Fortunately, the moderator and the two guest speakers proved to be very enthusiastic and good presenters. They were vibrant and successfully bounced off of each other’s words.
The moderator began the discussion by mentioning how he wanted to ask the two speakers beforehand if there was anything they wanted to touch upon in the actual discussion, in kind of a dress rehearsal. However, they declined saying they did not want to know the questions beforehand because they did not want to have to think about the answers.
Some points that caught my attention were:
1) Is there a work of art that has been your object of desire, so elusive, that it is hard to grab, yet so dazzling that you continue to chase after it?
A.O. Scott responds to this question by saying, as a critic, he has a knack for interpretation. Therefore, works that escape that tendency fascinate him. In music, they are some recordings in the American gospel and country old-time tradition, such as songs by the Carter Family. He focuses on trying to figure out the lyrics, what they mean and why they are so haunting and incomprehensible. This is what attracts him so much. In film, Dreyer’s The Passion of Joan of Arc presents him with a story in each of the images that are at once immediate and have a great impact, but at the same time, elusive. That is what captivates him.
Marjane Satrapi answers that she is not analytical towards what she does. There is an ideal, however, it can never be reached. She would love to write as Dostoevsky, however she knows it is not possible. Rather, it is a light in the right direction. She is obsessed with her work. People say that art is not about pleasing people and that is true. However, as an artist, she is trying to convey an idea to the viewers exactly the way she wants it to be seen. The artist does not make art from himself/herself. The second the work leaves the artist, he/she is addressing it to other people. (She compares this to diary writers who hope that after they die, someone will find their diary and reflect positively on the writer’s life or personality.)
Satrapi’s argument here is a very interesting one. In my art history classes, I have often heard arguments by art majors that the artist makes art for himself, unless it is for money of course, where he is then simply catering to the client. So it is intriguing that she challenges this thought by saying, no. Art is about addressing it to the other. She addresses this notion further when she discusses her career as an artist.
Is an artist trying to make sense of a story or seeking for an answer as to who he is as the artist? Satrapi says if she were trying to find out the answer for herself, she could just go to a shrink. However, as an artist, she has the duty of communicating her ideas to others. A movie is not just about storytelling; it is also about language. How you tell a story is much more important. You do that by language. The language by which your film is conveyed must be understood by the audience. The art is not personal. It is given to the world. Here, she challenges the notion of what good art is. She says that she must be able to convey her ideas to the viewers exactly how she wants them to be understood. But does that mean that art that unintentionally expresses different ideas per viewer is unsuccessful or bad? Does art always need to convey the artist’s exact intentions?
Scott relates Satrapi’s words back to his own career as a critic. A critic is a very public job. He criticizes films. His work exists in the world for others. However, whereas Satrapi finds that her personal work is in fact very public, Scott says his public work feels completely personal. It is an intimate experience. He writes to try and make sense of what is happening. He takes the complex, decodes it, and then translates it to give it sense to the rest of the world.
Another topic Satrapi covers is the idea of destroying your art after death. She says that she always feels ashamed of her work after her moment of pride has disappeared. She would much rather destroy her shameful work than to have people remember her, after she is dead, as the producer of such crappy work.
Last note of interest for me was the idea of filmmaking. Halfway through, the discussion focuses heavily on the art of film, naturally so. Filmmaking is the only collaborative art. Whereas writing and painting can be accomplished alone, to make a film requires the input of actors and producers, amongst many other people involved. This can prove to be maddening, but also thriving. Satrapi mentions that she thrives off of the challenges collaboration produces. It makes her feel fulfilled in a way writing a graphic novel does not due to its solo nature.
Satrapi also states that film is the most powerful way of invading a country. America did not become so powerful by way of its politics. Rather, American cinema is so pervasive.The common population will recognize a former celebrity more widely than a former president. Hollywood has sold the idea of the American dream and now, that is what people want and aspire to. That is what society tells other cultures to envision as success. How is film so powerful? Because it creates empathy. It gives us someone to relate to. We can see ourselves in other people’s culture.
This discussion was very interesting. It was great for intellectual stimulation. This is just one of the ways that the French Cultural Embassy is promoting the culture (as Satrapi is based in Paris now) and making it accessible to the public. An event like this is definitely not geared to the average person . It is difficult to sit through such a long and in-depth talk about some quite complicated concepts if you do not have a strong interest in the topic. Fortunately, the festival covers many topics to reach out to a broader audience and it is a free, public event that encourages intellectual discussion and thought. Therefore, I think it is a great resource and promotion of culture.
