June 17, 2009

57% abstention, but who cares?

Across Europe a mere 57% did not vote on the 7th June, but honestly, who cares? And the results of the PPE (or EPP) – Conservatives / Centre-Right parties, confirm their dominance across Europe. But who cares? To my opinion, this doesn't mean that people have voted for the right or the centre-right, but that the 40% voters who went to the polls were probably biased in favour of centre-right. Because the traditional left parties across Europe are either weakened by their internal problems, or even worse, totally crippled by leadership crises (whether it is the UK Labour, where Gordon Brown had to face resignation of 8 ministers sofar, or the French Socialistes who struggled to elect their leader last year). On top of that, or maybe for that reason, they have abandoned the debate about Europe and left it to the liberals. And that's a shame, because Europe is a reality, and thus deserves to be addressed by left parties, which should provide as strong a vision in that field as they do for national problems.

And that's how the Green / ALE / Les Verts have managed to get such high scores : they occupied the space left empty by Labour & Socialists, talking about their vision of Europe, emphasizing, rightly so, the fact that climate & environment problems could only be tackled at a regional or global level, while proposing solutions in other fields as well. And they were, in France notably, and in other countries, very successful, managing to get up to 15% votes, while traditional left parties were collapsing. They also took advantage from the fact that a number of voters traditionally inclined to the left and who take interest in European issues shifted towards the Green.

An analysis of the pre-election campaigns in both the UK & France shows how the Labour and Parti Socialiste approached the election.

The UK, first. Having opted for a UK-based vote, I watched carefully the messages broadcasted by the main parties, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats. None of them even said a single word about Europe in what they called the 'European Elections broadcast' (as I couldn't believe my eyes, I had to double-check I'd downloaded the correct programme, and not the local elections part. But yes, it was indeed, but not rightly so, I'd say, the 'European Elections' bit). So it was only babbling about the UK politics, and how each of them would manage this country properly etc...While the Green Party talked about the role they had played, and could play, in Europe, tackling the European Commission on environmental issues (Genetically Modified Organisms, correctly labelled food packaging, toxic-free toys...), but insisting also on the role they could play for education, economy..., using the clever tagline 'You might think you know us, but...think again'. This double strategy of mentioning practical achievements, as well as relating to people's preoccupations in areas traditionally privileged by left parties (economy, helthcare, jobs, human rights) seems to have paid off, as an incremental 45% share of the voters chose them in 2009 vs. 2004.

France then. Apart from the fantastic job achieved by the leader of the newly formed Green union, Daniel Cohn Bendit, or as we call him in France 'Dany the Red', who, like the Phoenix, ressuscited from his ashes ; apart from the impact this character had on the results (15% share of the votes, #2 in France and on-par with the Parti socialiste, with 14 MEPs elected), it is interesting to see how the main parties dealt with the campaign.

Both the Centre-Right (UMP, Nouveau Centre, Progressistes – 28% share of votes, 29 MEPs) and the Green (Europe Ecologie) had simple and clear proposals, covering issues ranging from environment to socio-economics (the following are extracts of their respective campaign leaflets) : 'we will commit to creating a true industrial policy in Europe', 'we will tackle the issue of illegal immigration', 'we will re-orientate our economic model towards a new green expansion based on innovation' (UMP) ; 'create a minimum salary across Europe', 'massively invest in education, research and culture', 'prevent on a European scale diseases such as cancer, asthma, obesity, hypertension' (Europe Ecologie). Those were presented as bullet points, in a very clear presentation that highlighted them. A proper campaign leaflet from people who take the election seriously.

On the other hand, the Parti Socialiste had oriented its campaign on attacking the right, and in particular N. Sarkozy. So instead of focusing on effective proposals, it spent half of the leaflet criticising N. Sarkozy and the impact of the liberal system in Europe. While the other half indeed included a number of effective proposals, these were diluted in the overall presentation, and made the whole leaflet look like it was full of technocratic jargon, made by people who didn't really care for what they were talking about.

So what's going on here? It is well known that the representatives chosen for Euro elections are not the biggest stars of their party. As an example, Brice Hortefeux, elected MEP for UMP/PPE, will not go to Strasbourg, he has higher ambitions for himself (such as becoming Prime Minister for Nicolas Sarkozy). So is it that all these parties consider Europe is and should remain devoted to technocrats, that the European Parliament is just an excuse, that the Real-Politik is till only done in the countries? Most certainly. And this is where it matters. We, the people, need a strong federal Europe, that is not only dominated by a liberal view. And that's where the left parties should take it seriously, that's where they have a definite role to play. They obviously haven't understood it, but the people who voted for the Green 'en masse' have. Future will tell if the left gets the message at some point, instead of focusing on their short-sighted tactics only inspired by getting the votes and staying into power.

June 14, 2009

Les défourailleurs sont à l'affiche - License to kill





Are thrillers and action movies any credible today if the posters and advertising don't include an armed character openly displaying his weapon? I doubt it. Examples below clearly show that action and adventure films now have to display one or 2 weapons on the advert – with the promise attached of a massive killing spree. See Underworld, Wanted, Punisher...

Action movies posters in the 50s, the 60s or even in the 70s were not so apologetic of armed violence, and weapons were rarely displayed – 'Peter Gunn', using a visual gimmick on the logo to suggest the weapon, 'Bullit' where Steve McQueen's gun remains in its holster. Also, the advertising would focus on other action elements than the weapon itself – a chase, a fight, a car-race...

In fact the first character to advocate the use of weapons is James Bond, whose 'License to kill' provides him with a sort of calm impunity, as he elegantly assumes his killing function. He created a new trend in action movies advertising, and his current avatars are nowhere ashamed of holding death ustensils, as if they were modern-life tools.

_____________________________________________________________

Un polar ou un film d'aventure est-il crédible au cinéma si son affiche ne présente pas un personnage armé ? On peut en douter et s'interroger sur la place prépondérante du pistolet dans l'évocation visuelle du cinéma dit d'action, envahissant depuis quelques années d'autres genres : l'affiche du drame passionnel, du thriller, du film fantastique.
Voici Contre-Enquête un polar psychologique plutôt que d'action - ça dézingue même assez peu (dans mon souvenir) ; qu'à cela ne tienne, c'est un Dujardin armé que l'on voit sur l'affiche !


Tout à l'avenant, la promotion des films d'aventure semble devoir rivaliser avec les promesses de tueries massives des jeux vidéo. D'où cette sorte de surenchère d'armement, non pas une mais deux armes au poing (Underworld, Wanted, GI Joe, Punisher...), comme pour signifier que ça va dézinguer encore plus et de façon ininterrompue, sur le mode "rafale" du fusil mitrailleur. La mise en scène de la violence est devenue quasi systématique dans les affiches des thrillers actuels.

A vrai dire, depuis des dizaines d'années, on voit des calibres de tous poil à l'affiche des films d'espionnage ou d'aventure ; mais peut-être ces films étaient-ils ceux d'une époque où la suggestion fonctionnait aussi bien que la démonstration, où la promesse d'action spectaculaire portait sur d'autres catalyseurs visuels du suspens : courses poursuites, traques, empoignades, corps à corps, armes blanches, étouffements, constituaient les codes dominants des affiches de films de suspense et de crime.






C'est aussi que les affiches des années 50 et 70 exploitaient davantage le noir & blanc, le dessin et l'illustration plutôt que la photographie. Dans l'affiche de Peter Gunn, Detective spécial, le jeu ludique autour du graphisme (l'iconisation naïve du nom Gunn), le dessin et la composition en cases de BD, pouvaient encore atténuer l'agression visuelle de l'arme pointée vers le spectateur.



Le héros moderne qui impose le premier une posture armée inédite en affichage, c'est Jame Bond, à l'opposé de la mêlée des illustrations figurant des détectives au pistolet prudent (Peter Gunn) ou des truands à l'arme facile (Les tontons flingueurs). Son "permis de tuer" semble lui donner cette assurance de l'espion sûr de son impunité ; la jambe négligemment croisée sur l'autre indique une certaine désinvolture. Tout se passe comme si cette désinvolture et cette impunité étaient devenues mythiques, ouvrant la voie à une multitude d'avatars contemporains, tueurs élégants et à l'allure tranquille, assortis eux aussi de beautés vénéneuses.


Dans ces innombrables déclinaisons de l'image archétypale de James bond, les protagonistes des affiches actuelles présentent une nouvelle attitude : le flingue au bout du bras abaissé. Hors du feu de l'action, la signification est plus ambiguë : imminence ou issue d'un affrontement ? Est-ce que la mort a été donnée ou est-elle à venir ? Sur ce flottement de l'interprétation, l'imagination prolifère et le pari du teasing est gagné. Mais ce qui frappe le plus, dans cet instantané du récit filmique, c'est que le revolver perd sa fonction d'arme de défense ou d'arme de crime, pour devenir un accessoire banalisé, le symbole d'une violence contenue, toute en potentialités inquiétantes. Une violence préméditée aussi, celle du personnage déterminé à tirer : soit un héros préparant une vengeance ou une défense légitime, soit un méchant prêt à tout pour aller au bout de sa folie (terroriste, parrain du crime, psychopathe). Tous construisent à travers ces images le reflet d'un monde contemporain défiant l'interprétation, schizoïde : tout à la fois policé et menaçant, méthodique et prêt à vous exploser à la figure. Car s'il fut un temps du cinéma où les revolvers étaient rangés dans des holsters (Bullit), un temps où on les exhibait lorsqu'il s'agissait de faire "parler la poudre", le personnage armé des affiches actuelles ne se soucie ni de cacher ni d'exhiber son arme, lui-même ne se cache ni ne se protège. La mort repose calmement au bout de son bras, comme un ustensile de la vie courante.