Posted at 2013.11.30 Category : 未分類
ニューヨークタイムズの書評のPodcastでアーレントの『イスラエルのアイヒマン』について話し合っていました。
Dec. 1, 2013
This week, Jane Ridley talks about “The Heir Apparent,” her new book about Edward VII; Julie Bosman has notes from the field; Adam Kirsch and Rivka Galchen discuss Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem”; and Gregory Cowles has best-seller news. Pamela Paul is the host.
このPodcastはアーレントの本について語ったものですが、映画『アーレント』の映画評がNew York Review of Booksにありました。こちらも辛口に批判的に検討しているものです。
Arendt & Eichmann: The New TruthMark Lilla
Hannah Arendt
a film by Margarethe von Trotta
Hannah Arendt: Ihr Denken veränderte die Welt [Hannah Arendt: Her Thought Changed the World]
edited by Martin Wiebel, with a foreword by Franziska Augstein
Munich: Piper, 252 pp., €9.99 (paper)
映画をいろいろな点から批判していますが、アイヒマンの裁判での真実ではなく、自分を貫く(true to yourself)ということがメインテーマになってしまっていると評者は考えています。50年後の今ではアイヒマンはbanalな役人ではなく積極的に加担していた事が明らかになっているのにそこには一切触れていないのです。
The deepest problem with the film, though, is not tastelessness. It is truth. At first glance the movie appears to be about nothing but the truth, which Arendt defends against her blinkered, mainly male adversaries. But its real subject is remaining true to yourself, not to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In her director’s statement on the film von Trotta says that “Arendt was a shining example of someone who remained true to her unique perspective on the world.” One can understand von Trotta’s reluctance to get into the details of the Eichmann case, let alone foreshadow what we know about it now, which would have violated the film’s integrity. But something else seems violated when a story celebrates a thinker’s courage in defending a position we now know to be utterly indefensible—as Arendt, were she alive, would have to concede.
Since the Eichmann trial, and especially over the past fifteen years, a great body of evidence has accumulated about Eichmann’s intimate involvement in and influence over the Nazis’ strategy for expelling, then herding, and then exterminating Europe’s Jews. More damning still, we now have the original tapes that a Dutch Nazi sympathizer, Willem Sassen, made with Eichmann in Argentina in the 1950s, in which Eichmann delivers rambling monologues about his experience and his commitment to the extermination project. These have recently been collated and analyzed by the German scholar Bettina Stangneth, and the passages she quotes in her new book are chilling:
The cautious bureaucrat, yeah, that was me…. But joined to this cautious bureaucrat was a fanatical fighter for the freedom of the Blut I descend from…. What’s good for my Volk is for me a holy command and holy law…. I must honestly tell you that had we…killed 10.3 million Jews I would be satisfied and would say, good, we’ve exterminated the enemy…. We would have completed the task for our Blut and our Volk and the freedom of nations had we exterminated the most cunning people in the world…. I’m also to blame that…the idea of a real, total elimination could not be fulfilled…. I was an inadequate man put in a position where, really, I could have and should have done more.2
また、その後にBanality of evilやthoughtlessの考えの危うさについて触れているのですが、そのような考えは従順に従うことを批判し、それに歯向かうことが素晴らしいと信じた70年代の左翼過激派とのつながりを見出しています。
In the end, Hannah Arendt has little to do with the Holocaust or even with Adolf Eichmann. It is a stilted, and very German, morality play about conformism and independence. Von Trotta’s generation (she was born in 1942) suffered the shock of learning in school about the Nazi experience and confronting their evasive parents at home, and in a sense they never recovered from it. (She convincingly dramatizes one of these angry dinner table confrontations in Marianne and Juliane.) Even today this generation has trouble seeing German society in any categories other than those of potential criminals, resisters, and silent bystanders.
When left-wing radicalism was at its violent peak in the 1970s the following false syllogism became common wisdom: Nazi crimes were made possible by blind obedience to orders and social convention; therefore, anyone who still obeys rules and follows convention is complicit with Nazism, while anyone who rebels against them strikes a retrospective blow against Hitler. For the left in that period the Holocaust was not fundamentally about the Jews and hatred of Jews (in fact, anti-Semitism was common on the radical left). It was, narcissistically, about Germans’ relation to themselves and their unwillingness, in the extreme case, to think for themselves. Von Trotta’s Hannah Arendt shares that outlook.
まさか、７０年代の左翼過激派的な思考をこの映画に見出すとは思いませんでした。下記のような映画しか思いつかないほどの知識しかありませんが。。。
Banality of evilやthoughtlessというのは結構便利で、単純化してしまうと、東京電力とか、霞ヶ関とか、大企業や官僚の不祥事に何でも適用できてしまえそうですよね。個人的には考えることをやめてしまったからというよりも『戦争と飢餓』が描き出したような背に腹はかえられない状況がこのような事態を招いてしまったのではと思っています（詳しく考えた訳ではありませんが。。。）アーレントはマルクス的な考えが嫌いだったので、こういう経済的な観点あらこの問題を検討する事はしないんでしょうけど。
Dec. 1, 2013
This week, Jane Ridley talks about “The Heir Apparent,” her new book about Edward VII; Julie Bosman has notes from the field; Adam Kirsch and Rivka Galchen discuss Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem”; and Gregory Cowles has best-seller news. Pamela Paul is the host.
このPodcastはアーレントの本について語ったものですが、映画『アーレント』の映画評がNew York Review of Booksにありました。こちらも辛口に批判的に検討しているものです。
Arendt & Eichmann: The New TruthMark Lilla
Hannah Arendt
a film by Margarethe von Trotta
Hannah Arendt: Ihr Denken veränderte die Welt [Hannah Arendt: Her Thought Changed the World]
edited by Martin Wiebel, with a foreword by Franziska Augstein
Munich: Piper, 252 pp., €9.99 (paper)
映画をいろいろな点から批判していますが、アイヒマンの裁判での真実ではなく、自分を貫く(true to yourself)ということがメインテーマになってしまっていると評者は考えています。50年後の今ではアイヒマンはbanalな役人ではなく積極的に加担していた事が明らかになっているのにそこには一切触れていないのです。
The deepest problem with the film, though, is not tastelessness. It is truth. At first glance the movie appears to be about nothing but the truth, which Arendt defends against her blinkered, mainly male adversaries. But its real subject is remaining true to yourself, not to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In her director’s statement on the film von Trotta says that “Arendt was a shining example of someone who remained true to her unique perspective on the world.” One can understand von Trotta’s reluctance to get into the details of the Eichmann case, let alone foreshadow what we know about it now, which would have violated the film’s integrity. But something else seems violated when a story celebrates a thinker’s courage in defending a position we now know to be utterly indefensible—as Arendt, were she alive, would have to concede.
Since the Eichmann trial, and especially over the past fifteen years, a great body of evidence has accumulated about Eichmann’s intimate involvement in and influence over the Nazis’ strategy for expelling, then herding, and then exterminating Europe’s Jews. More damning still, we now have the original tapes that a Dutch Nazi sympathizer, Willem Sassen, made with Eichmann in Argentina in the 1950s, in which Eichmann delivers rambling monologues about his experience and his commitment to the extermination project. These have recently been collated and analyzed by the German scholar Bettina Stangneth, and the passages she quotes in her new book are chilling:
The cautious bureaucrat, yeah, that was me…. But joined to this cautious bureaucrat was a fanatical fighter for the freedom of the Blut I descend from…. What’s good for my Volk is for me a holy command and holy law…. I must honestly tell you that had we…killed 10.3 million Jews I would be satisfied and would say, good, we’ve exterminated the enemy…. We would have completed the task for our Blut and our Volk and the freedom of nations had we exterminated the most cunning people in the world…. I’m also to blame that…the idea of a real, total elimination could not be fulfilled…. I was an inadequate man put in a position where, really, I could have and should have done more.2
また、その後にBanality of evilやthoughtlessの考えの危うさについて触れているのですが、そのような考えは従順に従うことを批判し、それに歯向かうことが素晴らしいと信じた70年代の左翼過激派とのつながりを見出しています。
In the end, Hannah Arendt has little to do with the Holocaust or even with Adolf Eichmann. It is a stilted, and very German, morality play about conformism and independence. Von Trotta’s generation (she was born in 1942) suffered the shock of learning in school about the Nazi experience and confronting their evasive parents at home, and in a sense they never recovered from it. (She convincingly dramatizes one of these angry dinner table confrontations in Marianne and Juliane.) Even today this generation has trouble seeing German society in any categories other than those of potential criminals, resisters, and silent bystanders.
When left-wing radicalism was at its violent peak in the 1970s the following false syllogism became common wisdom: Nazi crimes were made possible by blind obedience to orders and social convention; therefore, anyone who still obeys rules and follows convention is complicit with Nazism, while anyone who rebels against them strikes a retrospective blow against Hitler. For the left in that period the Holocaust was not fundamentally about the Jews and hatred of Jews (in fact, anti-Semitism was common on the radical left). It was, narcissistically, about Germans’ relation to themselves and their unwillingness, in the extreme case, to think for themselves. Von Trotta’s Hannah Arendt shares that outlook.
まさか、７０年代の左翼過激派的な思考をこの映画に見出すとは思いませんでした。下記のような映画しか思いつかないほどの知識しかありませんが。。。
Banality of evilやthoughtlessというのは結構便利で、単純化してしまうと、東京電力とか、霞ヶ関とか、大企業や官僚の不祥事に何でも適用できてしまえそうですよね。個人的には考えることをやめてしまったからというよりも『戦争と飢餓』が描き出したような背に腹はかえられない状況がこのような事態を招いてしまったのではと思っています（詳しく考えた訳ではありませんが。。。）アーレントはマルクス的な考えが嫌いだったので、こういう経済的な観点あらこの問題を検討する事はしないんでしょうけど。
 | 戦争と飢餓 (2012/12/12) リジー コリンガム 商品詳細を見る |
スポンサーサイト
Tracback
この記事にトラックバックする(FC2ブログユーザー)