source: OK - Apartment

Carmen Maura

Without a doubt, she is one of the most important actresses of the Spanish director. She appeared in his first feature-length movie in 1978, and in one of his recent productions Volver in 2009. Carmen Maura’s popularity in Europe grew undoubtedly thanks to Almodóvar, who in the 80’s made her an icon of his movies. The culmination of their collaboration was “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown“,  where Maura played Pepa – a voice-over actress abandoned by her lover. She received many awards for this role, including the European Film Award. Although “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown” is the most fruitful cooperation of Almodóvar with Maura and the first Almodóvar’s movie which was so successful internationally, the roles she played in his earlier productions: “What Have I Done to Deserve This?” and “Law of Desire“, were much more recognizable. The phenomenal Gloria’s creation- as a women tired of life and constantly struggling not only with problems of mothers and wives, is still one of the most distinctive and feminine characters of the Spanish cinema. In turn, her role as a transsexual Tina in “Law of Desire” made Carmen a visual icon of the local gay communities. Almodóvar and Maura’s several-year-long cooperation was stopped by a fierce quarrel after shooting “Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown”. The couple made peace only a few years ago, during auditions for “Volver“. Maura played the role of a returning from the dead mother of two adult sisters, Raimunda and Sole, who would help them organize their chaotic lives.

Victoria Abril

Beautiful Victoria Abril is one of the most successful and well-known, not only in Europe but also around the world, Spanish actress. In contrast to Carmen Maura, she does not owe her career that much to Pedro Almodóvar. Thus, Abril took the position of Maura as the muse of the Spanish director. In his movies, he often picked handsome Antonio Banderas to be her main partner. She repaid Almodóvar with some really great and daring roles, such as creation of a former porn star Marina from “Tie me up!”, full of erotic tension. The movie provided her with a tremendous growth in popularity, even in Hollywood. Abril by Almodóvar is also Rebeca from “High Heels” – a movie that shows typical for the director situation of mother and daughter involved in unresolved issues from the past and a quite recent murder. Moreover, Victoria is a peculiar and original journalist Andrea from “Kika” – perhaps the most kitschy, colorful and quite funny production of the Spanish director.

Verónica Forqué

Great grotesque movie Kika draws attention to another Almodóvar’s muse – Veronica Forqué, who had so far appeared in minor roles in Matador and “What Have I Done to Deserve This?” Forqué has become a showcase of controversial black comedy of the Spanish director. The role played by her – an optimistic, full of serenity and warmth naive beautician Kika, is perhaps the most striking and memorable character of all Almodóvar’s productions. It could not be otherwise, since Kika is accompanied by many conflicting emotions. On one hand it is a hilarious and deliberately incredibly tacky story, on the other it is a story about sex and death in which you often cannot find the boundary between the deliberate kitsch and tacky vulgarity.

Marisa Paredes

Marisa Paredes for Almodóvar’s movies of the 90’s was as important as Carmen Maura for his productions from the previous decade. Paredes has left a huge imprint on Almodóvar’s best productions from this period. In “The flower of My Secret” she marvelously played the role of a lonely and unhappy bestselling romance novelist, who after the disappointment of marriage and a suicide attempt finds balance in her life when she returns home to her mother.  In brilliant “All About My Mother” Parades partnered Cecillia Roth, the movie’s Manuela, and she helped the director to give the movie an unique atmosphere of the story, dedicated for the first time so directly and openly to women and actresses at the same time. Besides, the role of Huma Rojo was created by the director especially for Paredes, who at every opportunity thanks Almodóvar for the chance to play such an interesting character.

source: OK - Apartment

Cecilia Roth

Cecilia Roth tied acting knots with Almodóvar in the 80’s, but their cooperation then was definitely of superficial character, and the actress appeared in movies rather than played in them. This situation changed after  “All About My Mother”. Anyway, the director stressed that Cecilia Roth from the 80’s and the one that played a major role in his film in 1999, are two very different women and actresses. For several years Roth matured in Almodóvar’s eyes and she greatly improved her acting skills. About her role in “All About My Mother”  the director was to say: “When I watch her in the movie and I feel her heartbeat as Manuela, I know that I am dealing with one of the most moving roles I’ve ever seen.” Besides, this production from the late 90’s is still the most outstanding position in Pedro Almodóvar’s filmography. It is a kind of tribute paid to the feminine world, filled with unique emotions, passions and dramas.  In “All About My Mother”  the director so skillfully combined elements of a trashy romance with artistically perfect American melodrama that today this movie is mentioned as Almodóvar’s masterpiece and his every movie should refer to it.

Rossy de Palma

A fantastic Almodóvar’s supporting actress, thus for such roles she was nominated twice for major awards in the Spanish film industry. Before the girl from Majorca met on her way the famous director in the mid-80s, she was a singer and dancer working part-time in a fancy cafe in Madrid, where she charmed Pedro Almodóvar. Outstanding,  not to say transsexual beauty of Rossy de Palma is the quintessential director’s idea of femininity – of course, suspended between the two sexes image, a little vampire, but extremely expressive.  From the episode in “The Law of Desire” de Palma was appearing in Almodóvar’s  movies until “The flower of My Secret”. But with her remarkable beauty, of course, she best inscribed in a grotesque atmosphere of “Kika”.

Penelope Cruz

The latest muse of the director. When she first appeared in Almodóvar’s plot, Live Flesh in 1997, she was already a fairly well known, even outside Spain, actress.  For many years she had been treated as less talented, except in “Open Your Eyes”, and she was entrusted only with undemanding roles, in which the most important seemed to be her great Latin beauty. It was Pedro Almodóvar who put her on top by giving her the role of Raimunda in “Volver”. Besides, the role of Raimunda, more than Lena in “Broken Embraces“, gave Cruz full opportunity to show her acting skills, especially that there is a context for comparison in the movie.

“Broken Embraces” is the first production created for the Spanish beauty, where not only her acting skills but also her appearance is displayed. Lena is the perfect embodiment of passion, emotions and feelings that accompany the process of creating movies, not just those of Pedro Almodóvar. Yet, “Broken Embraces” – the most personal work of the Spanish director, is about such creation.

Pedro Almodóvar creates an unusual bond with his muses. If such bond did not exist, his kitschy, melodramatic and sentimental stories would become only meaningless and nicely packaged platitudes. The director is gifted with a remarkable sixth sense for finding the perfect actress who perfectly understands the character created by him. And again, if not the perfect agreement, the magic of Almodóvar’s cinema would pop like a soap bubble. The artist undoubtedly understands women like no other, he tries to penetrate deeply in their psyche to understand the complexity of their nature and their emotions. Almodóvar defines femininity in almost every story, the issue of gender is not the determinant, hence in his films we can observe fascinating and thoroughly feminine transsexuals. Under the wings of the Spanish director, the outstanding actresses had the opportunity to show the full range of their great skills. It is doubtful that Pedro Almodóvar’s search for perfect actresses to play leading roles in his movies has finished with Penélope Cruz. Due to that fact, we can predict that the author is still able to surprise the viewer. And it is probably more than once.

Translation: Kamila Kwiecień

Segregation in the cinema

Finding some fresh perspective from which issue of segregation could be shown in the cinema is surely not an easy task. There were dozens and dozens of films made dealing with this theme and they include unquestionable classics such as “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1962) based on famous Harper Lee’s bestseller. There is a wide selection of biographies such as “Malcolm X” (1992) or “The Rosa Parks Story” (2002) and Spike Lee’s films dealing with racial stereotypes – sufficient to mention “Do The Right Thing” (1989) or “Bamboozled” (2000). Even if the theme is narrowed down to black women and evolution of their situation there is still a big number of films to mention, such as “The Color Purple” (1985) or “Their Eyes Were Watching God” (2005). Director Tate Taylor faced quite a big challenge – to make a film which will basically tackle the same issue but from a new perspective, with freshness and originality. A controversial book by Kathryn Stockett turned out to be exactly what he needed to succeed.

American black maids, tell your stories

The main character, Skeeter, is a young woman who has just come back from the university to her hometown Jackson, Mississippi. She wants to be a journalist or a writer (or both), she is kind and open-minded. Jackson turns out to be a place full of narrow-minded, racist people where black maids are treated as people of inferior category. For Skeeter this attitude is completely inexplicable and her growing anger leads to the idea of showing another perspective through interviewing and publishing the stories of black maids – women who are forced to neglect their own families to take care of white rich women’s children, who have to stand humiliation and racist remarks made by white people as if they did not exist. It is very difficult to convince any maid to talk to a white woman but when Skeeter finally succeeds she hears stories about separate toilets for black people – for the fear of white people catching diseases from them, about insulting remarks every day, about heartless white mothers who neglect their children, about stereotypes, racism and white people’s wrongly understood priorities. Some stories are funny – mocking stupidity of white people, others are sad, all of them give food for thought. What is important is that these stories are stories of average people, of everyday life. They are far from civil rights movement, they show normal, mundane reality and how life of black maids really looked like at that time.

No ideology, just life

It seems to be a very good choice made by Tate Taylor – not to go into political, ideological discourse, the film does not show big struggle against segregation. As already mentioned, it rather focuses on everyday reality and how maids were trying to cope with it. This is why this picture sticks out from all the other pictures, it condemns racism but not directly, rather by showing characters undergoing change in their way of thinking after seeing another side’s perspective. And it is not as if all people just suddenly stop being racist, but at least some of them start to think and this is where every change starts.
“The Help” is exceptionally well acted and basically all the characters are very well developed. Viewer can identify with some of them and hate others, but does not remain indifferent towards any of them. It does not happen often to have such a wide array of various characters in one film. Emma Stone as Skeeter is charming and natural and you take to her right away from the beginning of the film, the same as to Octavia Spencer as cheeky maid Minny. You might hate Hilly Holbrook but this is because Bryce Dallas Howard did great job creating villain, exaggerated but somehow fitting in the convention of the film. Cast and characters are probably the strongest point of this film.

Tears and laugh

Even though this film tackles a difficult issue and sometimes moves you to the verge of tears, it also can make you laugh. Thanks to this combination you do not have the feeling of watching politically correct film about how bad racism is, but a realistic, true story of everyday challenges and little pleasures. Don’t get me wrong. This film IS a Hollywood-style picture, it is not any alternative voice of American cinema industry. It can be seen as slightly naive or accused of using simplifications but it is naïve in this rather charming, non-disturbing way. One can also say that we have already seen all this. But have we really? It is a powerful picture which will make you think. Personally I don’t think you can ask anything else from a good film.

A few years ago you said you were fed up with world which is ruled by Crazy Frog.

I started as a musician in entirely different time. When I started a band in the 80s there were tanks on the streets and Jaruzelski ruled the country; later on there was the first decade of freedom – choking on it as well as on the wild capitalism; today we are in the European Union so the situation changed again. These changes occurred not only in a social-political context, sufficient to have a look at the media, which are based entirely on the Internet. These times of Crazy Frog simply have to be different – I am not criticizing it, I am just trying to observe and understand. Nowadays the compilation of mp3 files downloaded from the Internet has move value than a record. On the other hand – digital space gives enormous opportunities for beginning artists, who are outside the biggest mainstream radio stations. I am not going to ever write a protest-song that Internet sucks, it would be ridiculous (laughs). Parallel to this social-political and technological path the music as such changed as well. Rock’n’roll is not longer revolutionary, it became a part of pop culture.

Do you feel part of it yourself?

Part of the culture – yes. Pop culture? I don’t know. I am aware of the fact that it is very easy to become a specialist on everything in Poland. Unfortunately, a while ago I was tempted myself – TVN (Polish commercial TV channel) especially liked me. They kept calling me saying ‘Mr. Muniek, say something’. About designer drugs, Polański, Kaczyński, Tusk, about my wife, about John Paul II. Fuck! Once Bob Dylan sung ‘Gotta Serve Somebody’ and this is how it works in Polish media. There are certain puzzles: somebody will jump all over Kaczyński, someone else will criticize Tusk and another one will curse the Church.

What role you were supposed to play in this puzzle?

I haven’t been assigned any yet I guess. A few years ago I gave the same interview for ‘Gazeta Wyborcza’ and ‘Dziennik’, I talked about exactly the same things: that I believe but I am skeptical at the same time, that I have various friends – also homosexuals – and that I don’t mind it, that I feel closer to Gombrowicz than to Sienkiewicz. ‘Gazeta Wyborcza’ underlined that I am liberal and have lesbian and gay friends and ‘Dziennik’ printed in bold that I am the Church’s guy: once bad but now converted. Sorry – this is a paranoia! So now when a journalist from TVN calls me I say ‘Madam, I can talk about my record!’. I simply know my narrow specializations – my own music, culture, censorship, I don’t want to babble about everything. Obviously you have to have some relations with the media, but you can’t jump out of every fridge. I am not shooting at the TV, I simply mind my own business.

Don’t you sometimes feel like shooting?

What’s the point of shooting, it’s better to switch it off. With whom I am supposed to fight? With Kaczyński and Tusk? They will fade away in a few years. People are so excited about all this now but eventually we are nothing more than a sandwich between the Smoleńsk crash and weather forecast.

Media also became a part of pop culture?

Yes and this annoys me because rock’n’roll always opted for individualism. If anything from this remained in me – because the slogan ‘sex, drugs and rock’n’roll’ is empty today, doesn’t mean anything anymore – this will be exactly such an individualist attitude. While decorating the Christmas tree I was watching TV and suddenly some guy jumped out, completely innocent person, and he shouts ‘Come on people, rock!’. And what? He became a rock star in one second!

Today we have bigger spectrum – twenty years ago nobody would hear about him.

This problem is wider: it shows how the television formats and softens everything. Today it seems that Roxette is rock’n’roll because they hold guitars. Obviously it is also a result of the fact that now we can see more than 500, 200 or even 15 years ago.

A word ‘post-politics’ made a career recently.

Politics is a part of pop culture, unfortunately the most trashy part. In music pop culture consists of The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and some passing star and in the politics these passing stars create pop culture. I remember that in the 80s I was amazed by the Western media, I didn’t understand it when my foreign friends were saying that their media suck and they should be blew off (laughs). I thought ‘What the fuck they are saying!’. Now I understand them, even though I still wouldn’t like to blow off anything. People who work hard whole day need these media so that in the evening they can forget about problems and see how somebody dances on the ice, in the water, fuck, on the hay.

But media don’t mean only the entertainment.

No, we have an enormous choice, so everyone can surely find something which he finds interesting – thanks to this the society is very divided today. Once, when you met a person your age, he knew the same films and bands. In the 80s there were a lot of such connotations – somebody said he was listening to The Clash or Iggy Pop and you knew everything straight away. Today it is not like this, which – by the way – is very interesting, I like observing it. I hate this bullshit that once it was awesome. People often say that there used to be more ambitious things, now it’s all massive. Not at all! There was both ambitious and massive stuff.

What place in pop culture has – often overused word – commercialism? What does it mean?

For us, Poles, it is new. On the other hand in the United States a word ‘commercialism’ is very popular. For me commercialism means for example singing songs about John Paul II only because they surely will be a financial success. Pretending to be saint with selling 200,000 CDs at the same time. This is pure cynicism and commercialism!

Are these two concepts synonymous? Commercialism is always cynicism?

There are musicians and businessmen. Usually they combine these two functions and it requires finding balanced proportions. I belong to this group myself: I started in the backyard and now I am working in a small business and I hire around 15 people. Everyone wants to sell their work – CD, book, painting – nobody can say that he just wants to sit in a closed room and create. Earning money by your work is nothing wrong, some push it too far however and then they become not only commercial, but also cynical. You will see how many football fans there will be next year in Poland! Everyone – from hip-hop, through pop to rock! Back to the last question, it is true that very often pop culture and commercialism are accused groundless of simply everything.

Many people accuse you of commercialism.

T.Love went through the way characteristic for Polish bands created in the 80s – we earned first money only after some time, after 1989, but now we are earning quite good money. I am not ashamed to say it because it is a natural way of the majority of well-known bands. Is it a commercialism? Probably yes but I don’t know how negative this concept should be. I am happy that I have a few recognizable songs because thanks to this I can hire soundmen and sound during the concert as I always dreamt to. There has to be moderation in everything! People often tell me ‘You used to be awesome’. But we play the same songs, only much better than we used to (laughs)!

You said once that you liked only the first, garage records of Dire Straits. Later on the band became more popular, you stopped liking it. Can money sometimes be harmful to music?

Yes, every musician has surely right to choose. I don’t want to attack Dire Straits because it is a classic rock band, but their first three records were fantastic and then there was attempt at adjusting to the market, widening instrumentation, enormous tours. Dire Straits can be – metaphorically speaking -  kind of example that sometimes money can harm the music. In their case it completely changed their sound. I am sure though that many people would say exactly the same about T.Love, throughout years we evolved a lot. I usually answer that I follow my own way, probably Knopfler would say exactly the same (laughs).

Similar discussion took place recently in a political debate – it concerned the differences between privatization and commercialization of the hospitals.

For me another example of negative commercialization is giving up investing in yourself – this is clearly visible in the macro scale, with the stadium bands. Some of them converted huge profits into huge spectacles for fans, others stuffed their pockets with this money. It is not commercialism itself but its negative effects. After all commercialism itself is not bad!

Do you remember when you made a decision about commercialization of T.Love?

In 1989 Communism was beaten up, people went out to the streets, were happy. Then I went to London and worked hard -  I remember that when I came back I came to the conclusion that we have to go in the direction of professionalism. Of course, I still wanted to play with my friends, but to earn money to support my family at the same time. Whole life can’t be based on the same notion that it will stay the same: we are losers but we can at least say we still play in a garage! I am supposed not to earn money because for fuck’s sake 30 years ago I used to listen to The Clash?

The Clash which by the way earned quite a big money from their music.

(Laughs) Yes, even though they had very Leftist attitude to it. Once – even though I used to and I still love The Clash – I didn’t like it, because at the times of the Communism I had bad connotations with the Left. They used to sell record at a very law price, a few in a price of one. Curiously when they, a symbol of the Left, were accused of recording for a big company CBS, Joe Strummer said: ‘If we hadn’t recorded for CBS, you wouldn’t have heard us at all!’

Accusations of commercialism are absurd because commercial artists are these whose work succeeded and creating works for people to like them is the most essential meaning of art. Today fulfilling this basic task is considered to be something negative.

It’s the same with the word ‘success’. In the United States people exaggerate another way, everyone shouts ‘Success! Wow!’. I like the most the Scandinavian attitude: an artist is not ashamed to talk about his work but doesn’t swagger either. This solution in the middle is the best: it is between Poland, where artist is afraid of saying anything and the United States where there are all the time histories such as Western-like Puff Daddy or tragic Michael Jackson.

Maybe we just go too far with such a strict assessment of pop culture. In Poland educated actors criticize those who haven’t gone to any film schools forgetting at the same time that the most outstanding American actors are not graduates of such schools either.

Similarly in music – majority of remarkable musicians were strictly connected with pop culture. Sometimes they were there from the beginning, sometimes just since a certain point in their career, but usually one way or another they belonged to it. But – as The Rolling Stones sung – Time is on my side and with time these musicians become bigger and bigger and finally they go beyond pop culture.

They go further and further and with time they become immune statues. Fryderyk Chopin, whose love for salon life was laughed at by Adam Mickiewicz, has nothing to do with pop culture for Poles today.

Yes but who would now say that Mozart and Bach belong to pop culture? Nobody! The rule was always the same, it used to be even worse because artists were often connected with the court, which was meant – translating to contemporary times – political putting out.

This rule concerns not only music. Similarly the most remarkable figures of Polish literature – Jan Kochanowski and Henryk Sienkiewicz – would be part of pop culture today.

Not to mention Mickiewicz! Artists from the centre of pop culture can instantaneously jump onto the statue. Unfortunately we absolutely can’t see it, we don’t have a proper perspective and there is a very visible parallel after all.

19th century’s blues won over American salons very Fast, after the Second World War rebellious rock appeared and with time it found its place in the biggest record labels. The same happened to hip-hop lately. Is there any alternative genre now which might become the mainstream music?

It’s true that the history of majority of music genres is very similar. I talked earlier about the slogan ‘sex, drugs and rock’n’roll’ – today sex is in every advertisement and drugs on the streets. You don’t have to play rock to maltreat yourself (laughs). I think that today there is no place for romantic heroes such as Janis Joplin or Jim Morrison. Generally speaking I think that something like generation doesn’t exist anymore. In the 80s it was easier: here was Jaruzelski, Urban was telling some bullshit, the tanks were out in the streets and we all were in the opposition. It put together bands such as Kult, Dezerter, Armia, Republika, T.Love etc and it brought about common social expression of Polish rock’n’roll. I mentioned divisions of the world and people’s interests. At that time creating common expression was easier because we all knew films made by Holland, Kieślowski, Zanussi and Wajda.

Today nobody will become a generation’s voice?

Mass media tried to come up with some phenomenon at any cost. They described something called ‘Generation JP2’ which I consider to be a complete nonsense. I think that such ‘generations’ ended irrevocably with the development of mass media and appearance of the Internet.

To sum up this conversation – what do you feel when you hear your song in Radio ZET?

I am not ascetic – it doesn’t bring me any medal but I’m not depressed either.

Interview: Marek Korcz and Jan Radomski

Translation: Martyna Bojarska



http://www.flickr.com/photos/tezzer57/421939727/sizes/m/

Sir William Wilde – father of Oscar – is still claimed to be the creator of modern otology. This famous doctor was also a respected connoisseur of art, literature and history as well as a great lover of Ireland and a treasure of knowledge about his country. All these virtues determined that he gained respect of the great men of his age, for example Napoleon II or the Prince of Wales – later Edward VII.

Mother of Oscar was a distinguished person, too. She fought for the freedom of Ireland during the Springtime of Nations. As leaders of the separatist movement of Ireland had been arrested, she became one of the two women working as editors-in-chief in the magazine “The Nation.” She wrote under the nickname “Speranza”:

“Oh! for a hundred thousand muskets glittering brightly in the light of heaven, and the monumental barricades stretching across each of our noble streets, made desolate by England — circling round that doomed Castle, made infamous by England, where the foreign tyrant has held his council of treason and iniquity against our people and our country for seven hundred years… One bold, one decisive move. One instant to take breath, and then a rising; a rush, a charge from north, south, east and west upon the English garrison, and the land is ours”.

When the publication of the newspaper was suspended on a charge of instigating a revolt, one of its editors and the founder of Young Irish Party – Gavan Duffy was arrested and judged for high treason, Speranza shouted at the general prosecutor: “I am the one to blame! I wrote these provocative articles!” This incident provoked riots that were quickly put down. Her real name was Jane Francesca Elgee and she had Italian blood flowing through her vessels. She was very proud of her name which – as she believed – was a distorted form of “Alighieri.” She claimed that the great Dante was one of her ancestors. Francesca was an extremely intelligent woman and studied languages for her own pleasure as a child. She spoke Latin, French, German and Italian, read Aeschylus, wrote poems and political pieces. Marriage with sir William Wilde soothed her turbulent nature. This open-minded but quite specific couple kept the house “dirty and original, messy and scenic.” All these facts determined that the whole Dublin talked about the Wildes. This relationship bore sons: the elder William and the younger Oscar Finwal O’Flaherty Wills born on the 16^th of October 1854 and a daughter Isola, who died as a child. Lady Wilde was so desperate to have a daughter that, before Isola was born, she had dressed Oscar in girlish clothes and all people referred to him as “she.” The younger son inherited his father’s consciousness of greatness and predilection to alcohol and mother’s faith in his own talent as well as impressing height and posture.

Both sons of William and Speranza were brought up in a liberal way, even for contemporary times. Boys took part in boozy parties organized by their parents, which were attended by the most distinguished people of the time. Oscar listened to heated debates, absorbed every word, got to know the secrets of discussion and learnt how to play the first fiddle.

The old age believes in everything. The middle age doubts everything. The young age knows everything

The serene times ended when Oscar was sent to a famous Portora School in Enniskill. It was not a friendly place for a sensitive boy – the strict discipline of Protestantism hovered inside the old walls. Moreover, Oscar did not belong to the best pupils – he was way back in maths – “Just like every purely artistic soul, he remained a complete thickhead in this field;” he had also problems with composition. The experiences of school convinced him that “you cannot learn anything that is worth knowing” and that “we teach people how to develop memory, but never teach them how to develop themselves.” He was also critical of teachers: “everyone that is unable to study by themselves starts teaching other people.”

While the young Wilde did not care much about studying, he paid special attention to his outward appearance already as a child. The origins of Oscar-dandy mark the time when the depriver-to-be strolled around Portora School in impeccably ironed clothing, neatly combed long hair and a top hat that was used by other boys solely on Sunday. He was so perfect in terms of appearance that it was tempting to stain this aesthetic perfection. Oscar was an artist through and through and – because all the fields of art already had their masters – he decided to be “the archpriest of attire.”

Complex personality and isolation from peers determined that Oscar – unlike his older brother – was not liked in Portora School. Numerous interests of the boy, from literature to painting, during the last years of education focused on the ancient world: the Greece of the past started to show its secrets to Wilde. He studied and admired the hexameter rhythm, the cult of youth, the beauty of ephebes, the bravery of Alexander…

Oscar Wilde returned to Dublin as a holder of Trinity College grant. The social life he led in Dublin was in fact the same as in Enniskill. While other youngsters wandered around pubs and flirted with waitresses, he preferred to spend time on his own or at parents’ home that was vibrant with social life. All the distinguished people of Dublin appeared there at weekends.

School work came easily; he was a grant holder for several times and graduated from Trinity College with a golden medal.

Oscar Wilde moved to Oxford a day after his twentieth birthday.

It was a place where the descendants of old families exercised their privileges and basked in luxury. The rest of people could only watch them or try to buy their way to the privileged circle. Wilde chose the other way – isolation.

Despite excellent physical conditions, Wilde did not participate in any kind of sports competition.

“I never liked kicking nor being kicked.” There are plenty of allegedly authentic stories according to which Wilde was plagued – also physically – by his colleagues from Oxford. The most famous one says that one day he was attacked, incapacitated and dragged to a hill. Oscar rose, shook off and said: “Indeed, the view is spectacular.” The truth is that the stories were invented by boys that wanted to stress their valour and effeminacy of Oscar. It is true, on the other hand, that Wilde alone routed four colleagues that forced into his room after a boozy evening. Once, still in Trinity School, when one of the pupils laughed at his poem, Oscar made use of his exceptional physical strength. As one of the witnesses recalls: “as he delivered a blow from the right side, it was like a thunderbolt: then he showered the surprised tyrant with a hail of crushing blows and in this way finished him. And people say about this bloke “pale youngster”! When I read such nonsense in newspapers, I always recall his boxing skills. I think that his blow would even make an ox blink and shake its head.”

In fact, it was difficult to get closer to him, though receptions thrown in his rooms in Magdalen College quickly became renowned and drew crowds of students. He got a name also due to organizing “the evenings of beauty” – tea parties for young ladies and their minders. Oscar had to remove the obscene female nude paintings that decorated the walls of his apartments in order to organize the meetings. There was no problem with attendance; it is obvious when it comes down to men. Young ladies, in turn, participated with pleasure, since Oscar was always very popular among women.

Father of Oscar – William, died in 1876. He got away with his numerous love affairs throughout all his life. By the end of his life, however, he got involved in an extramarital relationship with his patient, who soon got pregnant. The woman, having realized that the renowned doctor had no intention of providing for her and the child, accused him of a rape. After this incident, William Wilde completely withdrew from the public life, declined in health and drank more than he had used to.

Mother of Oscar moved to London after the death of her husband. She hoped it would be easier to conceal her poor life that was provided for by a pension after her husband.

Because in life the point is to be a bit impossible

Having finished his education in Oxford, Oscar Wilde came to London, where he rented a flat in the gipsy district by Salisbury Street. He could not afford a lavish life with a small inheritance from his father. Wilde had to write articles for newspapers to survive.

Nothing grows in the shadow of a great tree – this is how we can describe social relations around young Wilde, literally and figuratively. This huge “professor of aesthetics” – as he called himself – focused around himself more and more admirers – followers. Everything in his person was excessive – height, emotions, intensity of social and intellectual life. He liked shocking with clothing: “He wore a velvet coat, a soft shirt with a turndown collar, a long fantastic tie, satin shorts, silky stockings, low-cut shoes with silver clasps, a beret on his head, and a sunflower in his hand. He sailed into the stable Victorian like a ship under unknown flag, dressed in this costume that he perceived as the second Reformation”. Many stories about his eccentricities in this subject are highly exaggerated. He found a rich circle of followers that surpassed him in terms of original clothes and eccentricity of behaviour.  Wilde answered with innate self-confidence that showed his imitators their place: “Anyone could have done that. The most difficult thing was to get people to thing I had done it”. He was so different, so interesting visually and intellectually that he raised fear, intrigued and at the same time attracted people. How many times the colour of his eyes was the subject of discussions!

In spite of the popularity among the London society, his artistic inspirations did not earn due respect. Wilde decided to be the messenger of the new art in America. He set out for New York. “As regards my motive for coming to America, I should be very disappointed if when I left for Europe I had not influenced in however slight a way the growing spirit of art in this country, very disappointed if I had not out of the many who listen to me made one person love beautiful things a little more and very disappointed if in return for the dreadfully hard work of lecturing… I did not earn enough money to give myself an autumn at Venice, a winter in Rome, and a spring at Athens”. As was his custom, Wilde charmed the New York elite, who came in crowds to watch his operetta Panience and listen to his lectures. The local press described him as follows: “The most striking thing about the poet’s appearance is his height, which is several inches over six feet, and the next thing to attract attention is his hair, which is of a dark brown colour, and falls down upon his shoulders… When he laughs his lips part widely and show a shining row of upper teeth, which are superlatively white. The complexion, instead of being the rosy hue so common in Englishmen, is so utterly devoid of colour that it can only be described as resembling putty. His eyes are blue, or a light grey, and instead of being ‘dreamy’, as some of his admirers have imagined them to be, they are bright and quick — not at all like those of one given to perpetual musing on the ineffably beautiful and true. Instead of having a small delicate hand, only fit to caress a lily, his fingers are long and when doubled up would form a fist that would hit a hard knock, should an occasion arise for the owner to descend to that kind of argument… One of the peculiarities of his speech is that he accents almost at regular intervals without regard to the sense, perhaps as a result of an effort to be rhythmic in conversation as well as in verse”. Wilde himself wrote to his friend: “My dear Jimmy, they are considering me seriously. Isn’t it dreadful? What would you do if it happened to you?” He became a star comparable to contemporary celebrities whose behaviour and costumes are intently described in tabloids. His style of dressing found many followers, particularly among the students of Harvard. “He fascinated everybody who was worth fascinating, and a great many people who were not”.

“His hair was rolled his elaborate curls in the style of Nero, which raised inherent resemblance to ancient Caesars. Oscar imitated Balzac by wearing dress from the year 1848, decked with pendants, he carried an ivory cane with a turquoise handle and a fur coat with green covering”. This is how Paris saw him. Despite knowing Wictor Hugo, Goncourt or Verlain, Wilde preferred to retreat into the hotel room for days and nights. He drew the curtains and read the works of Balzac, Flaubert and Baudelaire by the light of an incessantly lit lamp. He worked without any rest on his own poems though he knew they might not find a publisher. He used to tell his friends that he would publish them in three copies: “One for myself, one for the British Museum, and one for Heaven. I have some doubts about the British Museum”.

Soon Wilde returned to London with a firm resolution to achieve fame and fortune. He settled in the exclusive district of Grosvenor Square by Charles Street. Oscar lived lavishly – upmarket restaurants and extravagant clothes were often followed by long fasting. He believed invariably and obstinately that the fame he deserved and financial profits are close. Before it happened, on the 29^th of May 1884 Wilde married Constance Lloyd, a daughter of a lawyer from Dublin. Constance was a pretty and generous woman and it was impossible to find any fault in her – apart from gaps in intellect. And intellectual talk was indispensable for Wilde to live. Oscar described their relations as follows: “I am like a Persian, who lives by warmth and worships the sun, talking to some Eskimo, who answers me with praise of blubber and nights spent in ice houses and baths of foul vapour”.

Wilde cheered up in the evenings that he spent among the London elite. This strangely dressed, loud giant that initially aroused mistrust quickly became the life and soul of the party. People held their breath when they listened to his stories and monologues. These oratory stunts were soon expressed by means of short stories and fables that were initially listened to by his sons. These drafts were composed during party games with alcohol and cigarettes rather than behind a desk. Then, his mind worked at full capacity and was extremely sensitive to stimuli from other people and beautiful things. Later it was enough “just” to commit these impressions into paper.

An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all

At some point Wilde neglected his company and spent almost all his time at home. He did not leave his desk and smoked one cigarette after another: – “A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want?”. Oscar found himself in a frenzy of writing and after two weeks he completed The Picture of Dorian Gray. It was the year 1890 and Wilde was 36. The first version of the book, published in “Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine,” was flooded by criticism and the author had to remove the most controversial homosexual motives that were present in the book. But The Picture… consolidated his reputation of a dandy with suspicious reputation. He fuelled the interest with the book by demonstrating intimate relations with a boy, whose name was, by the way, John Gray. Wilde perceived the boy as an evidence of his motto: “If you create of work of art, life will immediately copy it”. The press was boiling and described The Picture of Dorian Gray as a “poisonous book that stinks with the suffocating smell of moral and intellectual decay.” The perpetrator of the indignation answered the numerous charges: “It is poisonous if you like, but you cannot deny that it is also perfect, and perfection is what we artists aim at…”; “Leave my book, I beg you, to the immortality that it deserves”.

Wilde soon moves to Paris, where he writes Salome and still lives as the darling of high-born and renowned artists. Saint James Theatre in London stages his Lady Windermere’s Fan – a play that aroused admiration of the audience and scepticism of the critics. Adoration for this comedy and its author turned Wilde into a wealthy man that could finally gratify his aesthetic and material whims and devote himself to “the great aristocratic art of absolute idleness”. Abundance of objects and esteem at every turn quickly let him forget the times when cigarette butts and cheap alcohol made up the main stimulus for his work. Unlike the majority of artists, this outstanding mind fed not only with spiritual food but primarily – as befits to a dandy – with the beauty of surrounding objects, exclusive costumes, delicious dishes and expensive oriental cigarettes. “I put all my genius into my life; I put only my talent into my works” – he used to say. Since childhood, he believed in his mission of spiritualizing the senses – now it started to come true. His fight against commonness concentrated on bourgeois morality, since he perceived it as the essence of hypocrisy. He became a symbol of a man whom people loved to hate.

“I made art a philosophy, and philosophy an art: I altered the minds of men and the colours of things: there was nothing I said or did that did not make people wonder… whatever I touched I made beautiful in a new mode of beauty; to truth itself I gave what is false no less than what is true as its rightful province, and showed that the false and the true are merely forms of intellectual existence. I treated Art as the supreme reality, and life as a mere mode of fiction. I awoke the imagination of my century so that it created myth and legend around me”.

Gaius Petronius of Victorian England – this is how he could be described.

36-year-old Wilde reached the top of popularity. Controversies around him and his works seemed to be reaching the zenith. In the autumn, Oscar Wilde met, through a poet Lionel Johnson, 21-year-old lord Alfred Bruce Douglas, called “Bosie” by family and closest friends. The meeting meant for Wilde materialization of his eternal fascinations with the ancient Hellenic customs. A relation between an older man and a young man was the essence and the highest dimension of love in the ancient Greece. Wilde followed the way discovered and praised by Xenofont, Plato and Epicurus. Co-relation of a man and a boy was primarily intellectual, educational and spiritual; the erotic aspect was less important. “Because to influence a person is to give him one’s own soul. He does not think his natural thoughts, or burn with his natural passions. His virtues are not real to him. His sins, if there are such things as sins, are borrowed. He becomes an echo of someone else’s music, an actor of a part that has not been written for him. The aim of life is self-development. To realise one’s nature perfectly – that is what each of us is here for”.

A few years later, in a courtroom, Wilde, who was accused of immoral deeds, defined his affection for the young lord in the following way: ‘The love that dares not speak its name; in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art, like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as “the love that dares not speak its name”, and on that account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an older and a younger man, when the older man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so, the world does not understand. The world mocks at it, and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it’.

To be continued…

TŁUMACZENIE: MAREK PLINTA; marek.plinta@gmail.com

Are you a rebel?

Not anymore. I used to be one.

What did you rebel against?

Against everything.

And did you stop rebelling because of the political system change or just because you became more mature?

I’ll say it this way – who doesn‘t rebel  in one’s youth,  will be a son of abitch for old age.

Or maybe sometimes there is nothing to rebel against?

There always is! I just think that rebellion should belong to the young. At the age of secondary school you rebel because of hormones, and later, because e.g. you can’t find a job or you feel that the world is unfair. Next buses come and you can’t take a seat in any of them. And then, perforce, you stand up to it. You don’t study and gain the knowledge only so that somebody stole the best time of your life, after all. And that’s the way it is – this time is being stolen by the country and capitalism with its rises and falls cycles that affect the whole nation.  At the moment, finding a job after studies is extremely difficult. I had a classic reason for rebellion – I was brought up in communism, when defining an enemy was not a problem. You knew exactly what to rebel against – it was natural, because this system had neither arms nor legs and its head was in its ass, and its ass in the place of a head.

If you were born twenty years later, in the generation that does not know the communism from the experience – would you be different?

That’s a futurology. I don’t like wondering , what would have been if Polish history had been different, or what my life would have looked like.

But maybe then the communism would be replaced by  capitalism?

In the time of socialism we missed capitalism. It was a decline of the previous political system – the end of  Zbigniew Messner’s rule, the beginning of Mieczysław Rakowski, the first attempts of system liberalization.  At that time you could already get the passport, go to West Berlin and see capitalism,  not in the cinema or on the glass screen anymore, but with your own eyes.  People are rushing nowhere, there are no queues in the shops – that was the world I was dreaming about  and I wished so much so that our reality looked like that. However, I didn’t realize that capitalism does not only equal full shelves in the shops, nice roads, relaxed people and large advertising boards, but also a system that has its good and bad sides. Now I know that capitalism, especially the one after the Septemeber 11th, is able to smother a man very much as well.

And how should this rebellion be represented now – by peaceful slogans voicing or  by fight?

Each way of attracting attention to yourself is a good one. You can rebel at your own home writing poems or not voting in elections assuming that it won’t change anything anyway.  You can also organize yourself and take part in institutionalized rebellion. Nowadays, it is legal to establish an organization, whereas before 1989 you could go to prison for that. At that time, rebellion was an act of courage and now it is a natural reaction of a discontented nation. You can lobby in media, organize demonstrations, as  my friends from Rozbrat did [the name of  a squat taken by some anarchists from Poznań in 1994, now functioning as a centre of alternative culture;  there has been a conflict for a few years in Poznań, the sides of which are city authorities and Rozbrat activists – editorial note].

Don’t you think that anarchists who try to use authorities’ mechanisms become grotesque?

It depends on how you look at it.  If you consider these people as anarchists within the meaning provided by Kropotkin and Bakunin – fighting the nation, aiming at revolution and disappearance of rights – then I never supported that type of anarchism. In my opinion, it’s a group that affects Poznań socially and culturally, which decides about its colour and simply constitutes  part of the city.  That is why I absolutely don’t think that it is grotesque.  Squaters’ culture is part of our reality. Let’s think how our life would look like without anarchists.

The truth is that these are the anarchists who rebel against corporations  that destroy their employees and not the frightened subordinates. I treat this culture with a particular fondness because I grew up from the libertarian societies myself and I think that anarchists should be regarded as an unhealthy little ulcer on the healthy little ass of the capitalism.

Only  negotiating with the city may deprive the anarchists  of the independence.

No, the single fact of conversations with official factors is something obvious and understandable for me. Poznań  is known for its alternative culture, whereas the politicians governing the city are technocrats deprived of any cultural intuition. Drowning of this huge potential would be foolish on the city’s side. I think that each matter should be approached individually and both sides of the coin should be taken into account. In this case, I definitely support anarchists.

In that case – maybe anarchists should have been interested in the attempt to legalize their activity earlier, Rozbrat has existed for over fifteen years after all.  Don’t you think that  alternative culture lacks professionalism and that it is totally detached from the legal and marketing domain?

That’s just the beauty of anarchists! They don’t feel the need to function in official circles because this is their essence. It is not their idée fix but  a part of the worldwide culture. The squatter movement is based on their  disagreement with the city. Obviously, in case of emergency some compromises should be reached.

Let’s go back to the all-Polish subjects. You talked about the need for the rebellion. Can the election in 2005 and the rule of the Law and Justice party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość) as well as the idea of the fourth Republic of Poland be called a rebellion?

It was not a revolution but a social engineering, the ability to read the political reality, which can’t be denied to Jarosław Kaczyński. It was calculating, cynical and embedded with political marketing. With the use of propaganda, several contrived slogans were managed to have been persuaded to the Polish people. It was an extreme populism. I feel connection to the third Republic of Poland, the system of which helped me feel that I live in my own country in 1989. However, after 2005, after elections, I have felt like I lived in a different country for two years.

In that case, after the elections in 2007  did you feel like after a successful uprising?

Of  course! I remeber, it was 21st October. I sent two and a half thousand SMS messages -  I know thanks to the billing that came to me later (laughs). Everybody was mobilized then. I knew a lot of people who always voted for the left wing, but at that moment they decided to vote for the party that could stop the madness of the fourth Republic of Poland.

What were the symptoms of this madness?

Two people, who never were foreground characters of the democratic opposition,  became influential in Poland. Persons from the seventeenth and eighteenth ground suddenly stood against the heroes – Jacek Kuroń, Adam Michnik, Karol Modzelewski, Władysław Frasyniuk and many more outstanding characters. Commandos from 1968 and the workers form the 80’s were forgotten. This madness was an attempt of the aggressive distortion of our history, our identity and self-appropriation of the polishness.  For me, the diagnosis of the fourth Republic of Poland was clear: we were heading straight towards the quasi-dictatorial nation, in which the authorities were to think for you –where you are supposed to work, whom to value, whom to make friends with, what is black and what is white. The moral revolution was announced and later Andrzej Lepper was taken to the government, I ask then – where, the fuck, their morality was?

However, attacking Lech Wałęsa, Adam Michnik, Tadeusz Mazowiecki and Jacek Kuroń did not begin in 2005. Maybe it is not only politicians’ fault but also the whole society’s.

I’m surprised that these characters do not have their monuments yet. But this is probably the question of the Slavic mentalism – the Bolsheviks fought most severely the Mensheviks, who were their allies not so long ago. I think that the crucial factor is also the jealousy. It is known that the greatest power of the Polish opposition was the Worker Defence Committee (Komitet Obrony Robotników). Now that we are living in the democratic country, many people, who at the time of communism were simple cowards, envy those, who contributed to the overthrowing of the previous political system. Avant-garde of the changes is always eaten by those, who later are allowed to have their say. Adam Michnik is envied that he  took a chance  he got from Lech Wałęsa and created the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, that became one of the symbols of the constitutional changes. Additionally, these societies could present to the Polish people a specific vision of Poland – tolerant, open, solidary etc. Such vision of Poland suits me fine, I agree with it.

And what is your opinion about the relation of Gazeta Wyborcza towards general Wojciech Jaruzelski? This subject evokes the greatest emotions in our society.

I assume what follows – I think that the year 1989 was an only Polish miracle. I think that as a result of the geopolitical conditionings as well as the general clinical death of communism, the talks were held. It is known that both sides wanted to outsmart each other – which is typical of any clash . However all this cunningness found its happy ending, which – taking into account the past of our country – should be understood within the category of a miracle. I don’t believe in any confidential arrangements, since due to that compromise our homeland became a democratic country. After the year 1989, the Polish people decided who is supposed to govern their homeland. In my opinion, people who led to the Round Table at the red side should be well respected.

Anyway, many beneficiaries from the previous political system regard communists who caused changes – Wojciech Jaruzelski, Czesław Kiszczak, Florian Siwicki or Mieczysław Rakowski – as traitors. That was the most dangerous group of people, they blocked all reforms in Poland, starting with Edward Gierek and ending with the round-table changes.

However, this massive revolution, that ended with the Round Table and collapse of the communism, led to capitalism – the system which, according to many, is unfair, anyway, you talked about the reasons for modern rebellion yourself.

That was an operation on the living organism. After the year 1989 nothing was given free – everything was thrown on the streets and to have something – you needed to stoop to get it. I also started to fight, to stoop, to pick up and it was hard of course, but this state of affairs was good for me. I remember that at the time of reforms of Leszek Balcerowicz I worked in students cooperative societies. Before reforms I earned more than my father, who has  academic degree of Doctor  and was a manager of the research and development centre.  I was laughing that  experience and knowledge are of no use, because you could take me as an example, a person without education – I was still doing my degree at that time – walking around the Old Town , sweeping and earning four times more than him. Fortunately, Balcerowicz came and this absurdity came to an end. The truth is that I became a bankrupt because of him but I understand that there was no other option.

Do you think that after the year 1989 the correctness of the communists’ idea of the mythic ‘thick line’ should have been verified  [the truth is that Tadeusz Mazowiecki’s words ‘thick line’ meant  detachment from the communistic continuity of authorities, however, after many years  the ‘thick line’ slogan started functioning as a symbol of neglect of dignitaries of the previous political system verification – editorial note.] ?

And again we are entering the world of futurology. The idea of verification alone is not bad in fact. Usually, the law in itself is not evil, after all. The danger is in executors of this law, in its interpreters.  We saw how  in Poland the attempts of inspections looked like. These are delicate matters because it is very easy to destroy a man whereas it is very difficult to cancel it afterwards, for the reason of which I am a firm opponent of the death penalty.  We know how the public prosecutors offices and courts function in Poland, therefore I can also imagine how the inspection would look like. That’s why, after many years,  Adam Michnik deserves being agreed with.

You are a rebel who admires the year 1989. There are people who wouldn’t agree with your assessment, stating that you could talk about the revolution only if the changes were made with  the use of weapons, verifying all the communist activists.

In every political storms there are some madmen, and for me the civil war is a madness.

Such an event would mentally divide this country for many generations. In 2005 we had a sample of it – fortunately a little one – during the rules of Kaczyński brothers, who, in my opinion, introduced a state of a mental civil war in Poland.

Of course, there are some other reasons, including the rational ones – the game with the use of weapons would have finished very quickly because the whole police and army was on the communist side. Don’t forget that Polish people can lose in a very nice way. In 1989 I also thought that direct confrontation would be better than negotiations but I was young and stupid then (laughs).

In that case maybe the history of Polish rebellions, which ended with the victorious Round Table, proves that pragmatic view on the reality is better than romantic revolution?

To cause any change you need both a pragmatic view and romantic fight will. The success of the year 1989 was a result of  connection of visionary intellectual thoughts with the workers. The basis of our country was industry where the workers were crucial, therefore they were the workers whom the communists feared most as only they were able to dismantle this system. And workers always care only about the full plates and meat. Therefore, the fact that in Poland apart from the full plate and meat they also cared about the freedom is a huge success.

We talked about the rebellion against the communism and against the capitalism. Do you think that you can justify the fundamentalist attitudes such as protesting against the national minorities with the emotions and the need of rebellion?

No, certain matters can’t be justified anyhow. The diagnosis is simple – the racists are idiots. The most dangerous tools with  which you can manipulate the society is religion and nationalism. Sometimes connection of these two elements leads to a disaster and sometimes only one of them is enough. Paradoxically, we should be thankful to Stalin that Poland is a homogenous country with regard to nationality. It’s enough to take a look at what happened to Yougoslavia after the death of Josip Tito, or at the second Republic of Poland, remember about Volinia and Ukrainian Insurgent Army. The world should not be so close to religion and nationalism but deal with the culture first of all.

Some time ago you criticized a fundamentalist rebel – Che Guevara. In the song “A letter to Che” you sang about him: “The blood dries on the banners, I remember you only form the photo, commandant Che Guevara.

Yes, I regard him as a criminal, who became an icon of the popculture. It’s a paradox of the modern world that young people wear his image on  shirts because he looks handsome, as at least  women that I know say (laughs). Che Guevara functions just like Marylin Monroe and John Paul the Second.

Don’t you feel the lack of the legal wing political force  in Poland in this capitalistic reality?

I miss it like an oxygen! There must be a balance and at the moment I only find a choice between the lesser of  two evils. All my elections looked like that, apart from the European Union referendum. I remember how I was nervous before it, I cursed our little compatriots watching the eurosceptics’ shows but fortunately the referendum was successful. Only then I voted for, earlier and afterwards I always voted against.

Maybe it is a result of your rebellious nature, maybe you would never be able to find a political party suitable for you?

No, Poland simply lacks classic – within the European meaning – social democracy. All interesting political trends are niche, hidden in the undergound. We choose between the worse and better right wing, whereas, my heart is on the left side.

And what about the wallet?

It’s also on the left side.

Adam Michnik has it on the right.

So we differ at this point (laughs).

Recently feminism, a trend stemming from the left wing attitudes, became popular in Poland

I will not talk on this subject since I regard it as a women’s subject. It is very difficult to talk about it. I am a guy and I have no intentions to disturb feminists’ work.

And what about anticlericalism?

Yes, I support it by all means. I already talked about two matters that I consider most dangerous. Of course, I have nothing against religion in the strict sense, I don’t  reject the Decalogue. However, the realization of the religiousness is exactly the same as politics. It is directed only at the immediate benefits. The art of politics and religion is an art of  fight and war. The Church always finds an army which is able to support it. Let’s listen to the Radio Maryja – what has it to do with the Decalogue?

On the other hand – there is a circle of Tygodnik Powszechny.

Yes, but nobody wants to listen to them anymore. This is a tragedy of honest people.

Poland lacks not only social democratic party but also a liberal one.

Yes, definitely. The true liberal wouldn’t talk about castration of the pedophiles or wouldn’t think about introduction of anti-nicotine  law of this sort. Some time ago, somebody of this sort was the Union of Freedom (Unia Wolności) for me, the party that paid a high price for its pride.  Of course, intellectual potential of the politicians from the  Union of Freedom allowed them to behave this way but party based only on the intelligence will never come to power in Poland. It’s enough to open the atlas and see how many cities with more than seventy thousand citizens  and how many villages and little towns are there in Poland -  there lies the secret of Polish elections.

Are we doomed to populism?

We may have to deal with lesser or bigger populism. It will never disappear. Nobody has ever invented anything better than democracy and democracy is based on populism.

Not so long as ten years ago Jacek Kuroń was a popular politician, who was not supported by marketing. Today such a person would stand no chance.

Yes, we are watching the world that doesn’t exist, the world of illusion. Even a politician is a simple human  being who has a  right to the weakness and a mistake, but we can’t see such politicians because the marketing forbids them to show it. The media must live on something therefore they chase sensations and politicians simply want to be in media. A politician is a different sort of a person. The classic art of journalism that assumes listening to the both sides does not exist anymore. Media became the justice administrator that immediately assesses who is guilty and who is not. The journalism evolves in the direction it is not supposed to. Nobody wants to reach the truth because somebody else may be faster.

And do you look at any politician kindly at the moment?

No I don’t. Some time ago it was Jacek Kuroń who allowed me to understand the world but now I don’t find anyobody like that. Polish politics died for me the day Kuroń died.

Talked:

Marek Korcz

Jan Radomski

Krzysztof „Grabaż” Grabowski: Born on the 13th March 1965. He graduated from the history faculty at the University of Adam Mickiewicz. He is one of the most recognizable figures of the Polish rock. The founder of the legendary band “Pidżama Porno”and currently the leader of the “Strachy na Lachy” band.

Photo: Sławomir Nakoneczny

Tłumaczenie: Edyta Romańczuk angtlumaczenia@poczta.fm

First of all, it has to be said what  Sex Pistols created ? They constructed, gave foundations, for a new subculture called punk or punk rock. A subculture is a set of people with distinct behavior and beliefs within a larger culture. In direct meaning, punk means rotten, worthless. In a prison slang, it is a term for a person who is sexually submissive. Punk rock initially used to be described as the primitive, guitar music, based on rock and roll of 1960s bands such as : The Seeds and Detroit bands : The Stooges and MC5. Nowadays punk rock  tends to mean the anti-establishment musical movement of the period of 1976-80, exemplified by the Sex Pistols, The Damned, The Clash, The Ramones and their descendants. Firstly the new trend in music was perceived by the mass media in the summer of 1977 by the “Times” and “Newsweek”. It has led to the creation of some punk rock clubs in the USA and Great Britain. People who started to find common identity with this stream of new subculture, formed their own style. It was a style of exuberant ugliness. Men and women alike wore short hair, that had been cut seemingly and dyed in unnatural colors. Flesh was pierced in sundry locations, at times with safety pins.

However many people claimed that the pure punk was created by Sex Pistols and they are the only  representative of this genre. According to the claims of this people, other bands were part of the phenomenon of the punk rock music but it is not the same as punk. The Sex Pistols were the only  band, that was able to make a real, nature revolt. Their rebellion seems to have no signs of fake and in this thesis  the phenomenon of theirs popularity is included.

The band was initially created in 1972 by Steve Jones and Paul Cook and was called The Strand. The excellent view on who this boys were is the fact that  Jones has stolen the first guitar for the band. At this point we can find the roots of their legend. They came from nowhere, they were nobodies and they managed to conquer the world. They were breaking all rules, it was easy, they did not have a guitar so they stole one. At this time Steve Jones regularly spent his weekends at the “Let It Rock” shop in the Kings Road, which was run by Malcom McLaren and Vivienne Westwood. Jones tried to influenced  MacLaren to become the manager of the band. Finally he organized them a rehearsal in Covet Garden Community Center. At first Jones and Cook played there with Glen Matlock as bass player. MacLaren found that the main need for the band was to find an original singer . McLaren became acquainted with a regular visitor to his shop, which was now known as “Sex”, the green-haired teenager, a lost soul, John Lydon. Lydon auditioned for the band by accompanying Alice Cooper on the shop’s jukebox. As a result of Jones’ continual comments about the state of Lydon’s teeth he became Johnny Rotten. McLaren borrowed a slogan off one of his T-shirts and dubbed the band “Sex Pistols”. Initially they worked mostly on 60’s covers with the likes of the Small Faces. They also started writing their own material. It is extremely important that all members of the band came from the very low social background. When they formed the band none of them had a good job or acquired good education. Steve Jones and John Lyndon did not work at all, Glen Matlock worked in MacLaren’s shop and Paul Cook had his job in the brewery. When Jones was asked about the reasons for creating the band he just said extremely straight “It was something to do(…) I think it was the New York Dolls who turned me on the idea. I saw them at a Faces concert and I had never seen anything like that. They where musically lousy, but very interesting, extremely crazy”. He said that he previously worked as a windowcleaner but it was a completely worthless engagement. Their career started in November 1975 when they played their first big concert as support to Bazooka Joe. Then they were invited to many punk rock festivals or rock concerts. On October 8th Sex Pistols signed to EMI, recording their debut single “Anarchy In The UK” shortly afterwards. If there had been not the one, scandalous interview in the TV, they would just stayed one of hundreds of rock bands in UK. On the of 1st December the band appeared on Thames TV’s “Today” program, as late replacements for another band, only arriving around five minutes before going on air. They were interviewed live by Bill Grundy, who proceeded to provoke the band and encourage them to “say something outrageous”. For Steve Jones in particular, this was an open invitation and he happily obliged with a number of vulgar worlds (to put it mildly) the early evening audience. The next day the front pages of the daily newspaper were covered with pictures of the band, prompting EMI to drop them. Anxious promoters cancelled all but three of the shows booked for December’s “Anarchy” national tour in February 1977. Sex Pistols became well known, not for their music or special philosophy, but just thanks to the scandal, primitive behavior in front of the cameras. They just showed that they did not care about any rules of good behavior and about the establishment. It was the first time in the television in England that somebody let himself to behave in such a manner. It was a shock. On one side English conservative society was not prepared for such words, but on the other many people, tired of being constrained by conservatives, believed that Sex Pistols can make something to crush those rules.

In February 1977 Glen Matlock left the group. In one of the interviews Steve Jones explained the reasons for Matlock’s departure : “Glen liked Beatles.(…) all the rest of us hate Beatles. And it showed that Glen loved them. He came with a lot of Beatles influed accords and tunes that I couldn´t play. Besides we didn´t get along with his that good either.” It was completely stupid justification. Jones just showed that he did not care what other people thought. Sex Pistols replaced Matlock’s vacancy by the persona of Sid Vicious. The funniest thing in this situation was, that Vicious had never played the bass before. Although for Jones it was not a trouble, for the question : “But he coudn´t play” he gave such an answer “No, but he´s learning”. It was he, allegedly, who threw a glass during the Damned’s set at the punk all-dayer at the 100 club, blinding a girl in one eye, he played in one of the proto-punk bands, Flowers Of Romance, as a drummer, he could not play bass but he had the image. Soon they managed to sign a new deal with A&M company. It lasted about a week, before the group’s behaviour, at the company HQ, after the signing ceremony, lost them another contract. Although they kept the advance cash (£75,000). This time, however, the single that was lost by A&M company, was their magnificent “God Save The Queen”. It was a track that guaranteed to cause outrage in a country being wound up into a jingoistic fervour for the Queen’s silver jubilee year. Virgin Records noticed it happily and took Sex Pistols when almost no other company was prepared to (signing them for a miserly £15,000 cash advance), and released “God Save The Queen” in time for ‘Stuff the Jubilee’ celebrations. The single, that hit in the most holy symbol of England, was something so controversial that almost anyone couldn’t pass it by steadily. For conservatives it was almost a crime. But for many people, Sex Pistols gave a signal that, the monarchy in the United Kingdom was something archaic. The very important aspect of this situation were the social roots of Sex Pistols. They criticized the monarchy, so they also attacked the system, where the poor people have no chance for development and money went for maintaining the royal family. Many people understood the Sex Pistols’ single in such way, but it is more possible that the band just wanted to express a hatred for a sophisticated, pompous way of Queen’s living and of course just made money on the scandal. To promote the record, Virgin and McLaren, dragged the reluctant Sex Pistols on to a river boat, the well-named Queen Elizabeth. The boat sailed up and down the Thames, past the Houses of Parliament, blaring out “Anarchy”, “God Save The Queen” and the rest of the Pistols’ limited set. Things on board got a little bit lively when the booze and the speed kicked in and the captain radioed for assistance. A police boat escorted them to the shore. A lot of fans and the Pistols management team were arrested and given a good kicking in the back of the van, on the way to the police station. Such events created their image and legend. This incident caused a wide objection against Sex Pistols, they were even brutally attacked. John Lyndon was hurt by knife in his leg and Paul Cook was beaten by teddy boys. It showed people that members of the band paid a huge price for their nonconformity and fighting with conservatism (no matter if it was the truth). In November 1977 Sex Pistols released their the best album : “Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Sex Pistols”. The offensive word “bollocks” in the title of the album caused a moral thunderstorm again. The authorities banned advertising it in the TV, markets chains refused to sell it. But few weeks later band’s lawyer won the case in the court and the title was opened to the public eye. It was a great album, and each of the tracks became instant hits at the punk clubs. Sex Pistols were on the very top of their career. They gained mass of fans, became famous and created a kind of new lifestyle. This lifestyle depended on the total rejection of all rules, that the society believed in and destroying all authorities. Unfortunately, from the other side, Sex Pistols turned up on the verge of catastrophe. Sid Vicious, in the meantime, was fast becoming a junkie. John Lyndon, who was taking more speed, than was probably good for him, started to distance himself from the rest of the group. Soon their USA company, Warner prepared them a tour in America, putting up $1,000,000 as a guarantee of their good behaviour on the USA soil. The tour started in Atlanta and ended in disaster. Sid, who was in a bad way with heroin, was beaten up by the Warner people hired to ensure the million dollars came back to the company at the end of the tour. San Antonio, Texas, was the venue for the next gig and the trouble started as soon as the boys came on stage. The audience pelted the Pistols with beer cans and food. Sid reacted by suggesting that : “You cowboys are all a bunch of fucking faggots” and felt obliged to defend his point of view by administering a tap on the head with his bass guitar to a member of the audience. What is more members of the team did not resist the tension between each other. Steve Jones had a huge argument with Paul Cook and refused to continue the common tour. John Lyndon had enough cooperation with everybody, especially with the manager Malcolm MacLaren. Soon after Sid Vicious went back to New York, got even more messed up on heroin, became involved in the death of his girlfriend Nancy and killed himself on 2nd February 1979. He was 21 when he died. That was the end of the short story of Sex Pistols.

Sex Pistols constructed something really extraordinary, they created almost ideal filthy, teenage rebellion. They were loud and noisy and they didn’t care what you thought. They came from nowhere to generate a legend and soon disappeared. Sex Pistols completely change the monolithic music industry and generate, the simple, but different from all that had been before, kind of music. There was no ‘do-it-yourself’ scene before the Sex Pistols and no destroying it after they gone. Sex Pistols were the mouthpiece of the simple philosophy that is included in three words : repulsion, despair and rebellion. They did not believe in any positive values like friendship, love or truth everything was just a cheat. They felt a total emptiness in the reality. It is greatly reflected in the text of their song “No feelings” :

“ I only ever leave you when you’ve got no money

I got no emotions for anybody else

You better understand I’m in love with myself

Myself, my beautiful self

(…)

I kick you in the head you’ve got nothing to say

Get outta the way ’cause I gotta get away

You never realize I take the piss out of you

You come out to see me and I beat you black and blue

Okay I send you away.”

To understand their phenomenon it have to be said, that their world, was the world of huge cities, slums, anonymous blocks of flats, something called “ASPHALT JUNGLE”. That was the place where the human being can not find its place to live. The society, for Sex Pistols and the whole punk subculture, with its institutions and values was just a prison, a web without escape. The only one constructive value in the whole punk philosophy was to be free in the simplest meaning of it, just like in the Sex Pistols’ song “I want to be me”. The very characteristic feature of the Sex Pistols ideas was that they did not have any illusions about themselves. They knew that they had been bad and ugly, but they are the only one who were not hypocritical and showed it. Sex Pistols did not believe in any changes that can improve the situation., so there was a statement : “no future”. Therefore they thought that they did not ought to engage in any political issues. Their vision of the world and the society caused a great fury and the eagerness to destroy. What is more, talking about Sex Pistols, it can not be omitted that they just loved to provoke. It can be said that they had the ability to shock in theirs blood. It is also very characteristic that the rebellion of punks, of Sex Pistols was directed also against the previous rebellion of the hippies. The hippies had their own ideology and some authorities, punks rejected everything. Sex Pistols and their descendants were not humanistic, they changed the statement “Love and Peace” on “War and Hate”. It is also very important that the panel of ideas created by Sex Pistols, were extraordinary, because they were built by people without education, who comes from very low background of society. Many people that dealt with John Lyndon or Sid Vicious the same identity, found in his activity a kind of inspiration. They understood them and just wanted to make a rebellion and became nonconformists like they were.

In the summary it should be said that the story of Sex Pistols proved that people to create something original, to provoke, to make a cultural mess, do not have to be prodigies. The members of Sex Pistols were ordinary but insolent boys, who made a legend and disappeared (I do not want to mention their come back in the 90s, because it was a total misunderstanding). They were almost the most rebellious band in the history, so that the history has to remember about them.

Bibliography :
1. http://www.thefilthandthefury.co.uk/home.html

2. http://www.punk.px.pl/Filozofia77.html