[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man



Your post is so rich, Beth, .... Fedor Vasilyuk says, on the topic of psychotherapy practice, that the very first thing a patient says when you meet 'em should be what you work with.

Unfortunately, the DVD of "Manchester" is not released here till February 21. I'll certainly be watching it then though.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 6/02/2017 3:02 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote:
Beth, I really like your point at the beginning about how interruptions can
help us understand perezhivanie. Perhaps you were only referring to
specific kinds of interruptions (politics and children), but I am also
reminded of the way that many stories and films are periodically
"interrupted," as we return to the outer frame of the narrator and his
listener who briefly pause to reflect on the story-in-progress before
plunging back in. Notably, in Fate of a Man this does *not* happen; the
outer narrative only bookends the main story at beginning and end.

This was a very rich post, and I suspect that everyone will be picking it
apart for quite some time. But two very quick thoughts. You write: "I think
perezhivanie is about truth, somehow, although I am not sure how." Later:
"we won't understand this process until we see children as full people. And
simultaneously as children." (Unlike, for instance, in Fate of a Man.)
Perhaps the relevance of truth to perezhivanie has something to do with the
fact that people cannot genuinely co-create something in the sense of
playmakers if one is deceiving the other? If the adult deliberately
misleads the child for his own welfare (as in Life Is Beautiful), however
ethical, there is a hierarchical relationship implied which would appear to
be at odds with the spirit of shared perezhivanie.

Second, re. Manchester By the Sea: I wonder if an alternate reading might
be that perezhivanie *is* possible, but it has only barely started by the
movie's end. I see any potential perezhivanie occurring not with the
ex-wife, but with the teenager. Might the intimate way that they bicker and
argue, and develop a distinctive rapport, have anything to do with this?
The teenager seems to be teaching Casey Affleck something no one else can
tell him....I'm not sure.

Chris

On Sunday, February 5, 2017, Beth Ferholt <bferholt@gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bferholt@gmail.com');>> wrote:

Thanks for the calling out to Monica and me, Mike and Andy -- I had to stop
checking XMCA for a couple of weeks so I did not see the discussion or your
notes to me in the chain, until today.  One of the the strengths of XMCA is
that it creates a conversation that can include people who can not always
respond that very day, or even week, due to various forms of interruption!
Often these "interruptions" are children or political events, which can
help us to understand perezhivanie.

As well as spending time at JFK, recently, many of us here in New York have
been attending local protests to keep our neighborhoods feeling safe for
everyone.  I live in a neighborhood in Brooklyn that includes several
Muslim communities and several Jewish communities (as well as a few Russian
and Polish communities), and at the local protests these past few weeks
some people have had photographs of their family members who were killed by
the Nazis attached to the back of their "never again" signs. Also we all,
Muslim, Jewish, etc. families, have been often bringing  our children to
the protests.

So I have been thinking a lot about children and hope, during the past few
weeks.  It is within this frame that I saw this film.  I think the film was
expecting us to see the child as only benefitting from the main character's
lying, saying that he was the child's father, and of course the child did
benefit, but I think that perezhivanie is about truth, somehow, although I
am not sure how.

My second thought is that Manchester by the Sea must have been referencing
this film, with its return-to-the-space-where-the-house-was scene, and
also
with the choice to replace the lost self (as father) / family or no.  I
think it might help this conversation if we all saw both films, actually.
Two thoughts on this methods suggestion for our conversation, before I
return to the topic itself.

1) It is odd how closely the two films are related, as I did not know that
the two films were related when I told Chris to see Manchester by the Sea
in relation to thinking about perezhivanie.  I told Chris when I saw him in
person, and I think that discussions about perezhivanie are often different
in person.  We learned at LCHC in the 2004/5 playworld projects that these
in person discussions about perezhivanie have a pronounced proleptic
structure, mirroring the topic of study, such that the conclusion of the
discussion appears at the start: It feels like magic is happening.  (I
think this has something to do with how good teachers see the things in
their classroom that are useful or no before they happen or "behind their
heads" ... when you are very present you have this "sixth sense," which is
really an experience of time moving in two directions at once ... being
very present can often require a lot of in person time and being with
children speeds up the process.)

2) It is a strength that the XMCA conversations can continue through all of
our different schedules.  It is a negative that they are not in person, and
seeing films together can really help.  This is where we went on the
perezhivanie facebook page when it was briefly in English and in Russian --
with a film, and it was very helpful.  (Of course I am thinking of this
while considering the changing role and form of LCHC and Mike's
participation in LCHC and XMCA.  I am thinking of the mistakes that are
communication.  A story about this that I thought of recently, which shows
this point well, and seems worth retelling BECAUSE when studying
perezhivanie the form is often (always??) the study of the content: As a
newish graduate student Mike once said "thank you" to me when I made a
comment in the afternoon about an AM conversation that day.  Mike's "thank
you" encouraged me to pay extra attention to this comment/thought of mine,
which later became important in our analysis of a difficult-to-decipher
playworld event.  I was thinking of this event as I walked and talked with
a doctoral student of my own -- I seem to have a heavily spacial memory
process and my student and I were walking through a doorway -- and I
suddenly realized that Mike could have been thanking me for holding the
door for him at this time in the past when his feedback was so important to
me ... maybe he did not hear my comment, but just thanked me for holding
the door ... in fact it now appears to me that this was probably the case!)

The interesting thing to me about the above 2 points is the framing.  It IS
the "()" within the "()" that interests me. Maybe Framing is all
communication or all thought or consciousness ... Bateson? ... but I think
we need to tackle framing head on when discussing perezhivanie.  The two
films are very different in regards to framing, I think this is why they
are most interesting to think about together, but first I have two
citations for thinking about time that I use frequently in my writing on
perezhivanie.

These seem worth repeating here, as this thinking about time in space/time
seems to me to be thinking about framing ... the "()" makes us double back
in time as we read -- :

(As to Performance, Alfredo copied the Schechner quote above.)

Dewey's relation of the notion of object to prolepsis (on XMCA):
Mike (2007) used the term “temporally double sided” to describe this
phenomenon of growing back and towards the future and the past
simultaneously.

What I am (still) thinking about, now, most often:
It is the juxtaposition of temporal double sidedness with stages that
creates perezhivanie. What Schechner argues is that this juxtaposition
provides the rhythm that allows us to raise ourselves up and hover,
suspended momentarily in a state of being simultaneously ourselves and not
ourselves: our past and future selves (someone else).

So my first point is about framing and my second is about children.  The
Fate Of Man is all about the frames / "()". The stories are nested within
eachother, repeating themselves, maybe even sort of like a fractal, or
anyhow a spiral?  I have some congenital prosopagnosia, getting worse as I
age and definitely bad with a film like this.  I kept thinking we were back
at the ferry as the form of the conversation and context images repeated
themselves, as I could not recognize the face of the character who was the
audience for our hero's story!  Manchester by the Sea, on the other hand,
had no frames.  We just jumped right in and rode it through. I only saw
Manchester once but do others think this is true? relevant?

I think that the question of children's position in relation to adult
perezhivanie is central in both of these films. The children in both of
these films appear to want the main characters to try again at being
fathers.  This is a critique of films about children -- I can not think of
the name of the person who made this critique, but I can find it for anyone
if needed -- : We adults often make films not about children but about our
own childhoods.  We make films about children who are no longer with us.
But is this really best for the films, as films are usually best when they
are somehow in dialogue with their topic, this is a characteristic of the
medium, no?

If you do not have some pretense, some playing again, you can not have
perezhivanie.  But I think that Fate of Man is not about perezhivanie,
although in a different way than Manchester by the Sea is not about
perezhivanie.  In Manchester by the Sea there is no other with whom to
perezhivanie because the main character and his former wife still love each
other, or at lease he still loves her and she returns enough of the love to
keep him loving her, and neither of them can pull the other up because they
both hit bottom together and in the same story.  In Fate of Man there is is
no chance for perezhivanie because the other needs to be involved in some
honest way, or there is no dialogue.

In Fate of Man the hero seems to me to be playing out his memory in the
real world.  A child is not an other with whom one can ever perezhivanie.
This is not perezhivanie as there is no real world as a player, and this is
why our hero's heart will fail him.  He did not reach bottom and then start
to pull himself up by connecting with another with great bravery.  Instead,
as he says himself, he just snapped -- he is now living in a dream.

As Larry put it, above in this chain: "In other words, navigating through
the suffering and existential emptiness is not a hero’s journey." And this
point is relevant, again, to our method for studying perezhivanie.  I don't
think we can manage this one on our own (XMCA), even as a group that allows
for conversations over extended time periods.

If form and content are related in this process, I'd say that we won't
understand this process until we see children as full people.  And
simultaneously as children.  Children have something to tell us about this
process that no one else can tell us, and they are not going to tell us
this in a way that those of us who are researchers/scholars can listen,
without the bridge of the teacher voices.  How to include these voices in
our research is key.  And the answer has something to do with art, as well
as with time and space.

I am going to send this as it is long enough already, and then catch up
with the related chains after I do ... And I won't say more now, but I
agree with all the people who thought this was a great pick to start the
discussion.  Many levels to discuss and I also found many aspects of the
film related to perezhivanie in many ways! Beth

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

How about a documentary movie about the first Trump voter who dies as a
result of repeal of Obama Care? That would be a perezhivanie within a
perezhivanie!

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 21/01/2017 12:03 PM, Helena Worthen wrote:

I am late to this discussion, but I have been paying attention. I was
reluctant to expose myself to the emotional challenges of the film. I
knew
that between the majestic music, the stunning black and white images,
the
beautiful human faces and bodies (and some very ugly ones), and the
twists
of the story, I was going to be deeply moved. However, I have been
reading
two books by Svetlana Alexievich -- Voices from Chernobyl and Secondhand
Time - which tell equally heartbreaking, horrifying stories of
suffering.
Reading her work inclines me to place the film in the context of the
period
of deStalinization after Kruschev's 1956 speech to the 20th Congress of
the
CPSU, which gave the signal that it was permissible to begin to talk
freely
about Soviet history. It was a period of trying to build a story that
could
explain and honor, if not justify, the extreme suffering of the Soviet
people. This film seems to me to set out to accomplish that. So does
Alexievich's book, which is a compilation of interviews done between
1991
and 2012, with people who had something to say (good and bad) about the
Soviet regime and the experience of its dissolution. She got the 2015
Nobel
Prize for this book.  And I sense that Andy, or someone, is anticipating
that the US is going to have to produce some works of scholarship or
art,
or both, that attempt to explain what is happening now here in the US --
for example, this afternoon, under President Trump.

Helena Worthen
helenaworthen@gmail.com
Vietnam blog: helenaworthen.wordpress.com

On Jan 19, 2017, at 4:00 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote:

For some reason I couldn't see the subtitles showing up in Fate of a Man
the first time, so I started to watch it dubbed in English instead. But
the
mannered Hollywood accents definitely were not exactly helping to
convey
the "real Russian soul" Robbins talks about! It felt like I was being
asked
to imagine Cary Grant inhabiting Andrei's perezhivanie-ing body. So, I
started over with the subtitled version.

Here are some quick initial reflections: wonderful movie, and in Andrei
one
of the more memorable characters I have seen. But I also found myself
thinking how big a difference there is between watching a film on my
12-inch laptop with headphones (my only option at the moment), and
sitting
back and immersing yourself in a darkened theater or at least on a
widescreen TV without any other distractions, allowing ourselves to
"fall
into this space" by virtue of our very awareness of the illusion
generated
by the frame, as Beth and Monica put it. This difference becomes even
bigger if the screen you're viewing it on also enables you to quickly
check
email from time to time during the movie, as many people do these days.
If
we are to consider the film experience as a model (analogy?) for
perezhivanie or even a certain kind of simulation of it, this effect
that
occurs when we lose ourselves in a film would be undermined by an
especially small frame or poor viewing conditions. At what point does
"the
knowledge that the movement we experience is just an illusion" (p. 2 in
their article) undermine the perezhivanie-like quality of film as
opposed
to forming an integral part of it? And, might the way distraction
functions
to undermine perezhivanie in the context of film in any way mirror how
we
"distract" ourselves in the course of living lives from conscious
engagement with the perezhivanie we are otherwise undergoing? Is
viewing
a
film on a 12-inch screen while checking email and calling it an
"experience" in any way analogous to the self-deceptions and escapes we
engage in during the course of either experience-as-struggle or
experience-as-contemplation? I did not check email while watching Fate
of a
Man, by the way. Just in case you're wondering.

As for the film itself: I was struck by the incidental way in which the
earlier loss of his childhood family is introduced and acknowledged at
the
very outset, and how this contrasts with the dramatic ongoing
perezhivanie
that ensues going forward: it is as if this early loss is "taken for
granted" as also part of the Russian experience.  We are not privy to
any
perezhivanie he might have presumably undergone before that point; it
is
simply not "within the frame." At several points, I was reminded of
Satyajit's World of Apu (last movie in his trilogy), where there was
also a
set of early losses and a relationship formed with a "son." Have any of
you
seen it? I think it would also be a good example of perezhivanie.

I would not want to overemphasize the use of literary motifs, since
Bondarchuk was presumably not making any references to the concept of
perezhivanie as such. But there were several devices that evoked Beth
and
Monica's passage from To The Lighthouse ("Time stand still here"), and
their metaphor of a life (or more specifically, a perezhivanie within a
life) spiraling back over itself to bring two disparate moments into
juxtaposition in a way such that "your life becomes three-dimensional
again" (p. 2). One occurs in the various scenes when Andrei gazes up at
the
sky in reverie and all we see are clouds, or the scene where he lies in
the
grass after his first escape and the camera pans back as it becomes
very
quiet, leaving nothing but him swallowed up in the vastness of nature.
There is a certain timeless quality to these scenes, a sense that he is
momentarily transcending the linear temporal flow of his life as he
either
stands outside it and "stands still" in it. It could be a thousand
years
passing by in those clouds, or just the 17 years of his second phase;
it
suddenly doesn't matter. Another thing I noticed was the use of the two
musical themes: the love song the accordionist plays for him and Irina,
and
the festive music incongruously piped in at the concentration camp
during
that amazing scene around Part 1, minute 45 where the prisoners are
being
marched in and the crematorium is going full blast down the road. At
some
point (I couldn't relocate it) Andrei has a flashback where he revisits
the
love song and his memories of Irina; then at minute 20 in Part 2, while
processing his family's death after coming home from the war, he finds
himself hearing the concentration camp song on the record player and is
suddenly transported back to that traumatic experience. Yet he does not
smash the record right away; he stares at it for a minute, almost as if
he
is resituating these two moments in relation to each other.

Perhaps I am overanalyzing, but I found both these motifs to speak to
Beth
and Monica's examples in the way they bring two moments back into
contact
with each other.

Finally, Mike and Andy's discussion in the Misha thread about the
watching
of a film functioning as perezhivanie for those viewers for whom it
reflects and repeats their own experience, raises a question about the
difference between extended perezhivanie and the personal re-enactment
of
one's perezhivanie within a much smaller time scale (the two or three
hours
spent watching the movie). I hope at some point we could delve more
into
this issue of time frame and time scale in various forms of
perezhivanie.
Chris


On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
wrote:
Thank you Marc! It was the third "plane" which was my intention in
providing "Fate of a Man" for discussion. You picked out what were for
me
also the main (but by no means the only) instances of perezhivanija in
this
movie.

It seems to me that Sokolov (the author) offers one perezhivanie in
particular as the main theme of the movie. At the beginning of the
movie,
the man and boy walk up the path to the camera and at the end of the
movie
they walk off together again. So this is the central theme. As you
say,
when Sokolov's family has all been killed, even his talented war-hero
son
who was going to be a famous mathematician, his life has become
meaningless. I really liked your reflections of Sokolov's reflections
too.
He sees the young orphan boy who, he discovers, has no family and
doesn't
even know what town he comes from, but is aimlessly living on pieces
of
rubbish. He sees that the two of them are in the same situation. So
after
some time mulling this over a they sit together in the truck, he lies
to
the boy and tells him that he is the boy's father, and they embrace.
But
the boy questions this and he reasserts his claim and the boy accepts
this.
The man is able to define a new meaning for his life; he has done this
autonomously without the help of a therapist, but he still needs
another,
the boy, to embody that meaning. But he knows it is his own invention.
The
boy on the other hand has to be made to believe it is true; he is not
sufficiently mature to manufacture this meaning himself, but as a
child
he
can be guided by an adult. As you say, Marc, it is very significant
when
Sokolov tells us how he is now, again, worried about his own death.
What if
I died in my sleep? that would be a shock for my son!

For me, this reflection causes me to look back on the man's whole
struggle
during the war: in the first phase he does not differentiate between
his
life as a father and husband and his life as a Soviet citizen - war is
his
duty and he is confident, as is everyone else, of victory. His bravery
in
driving his truck to the front line under fire reflects the fact that
he
has never imagined his own death. Then he finds himself prostrate
before 2
Nazi soldiers who we assume are going among the wounded shooting
anyone
who
has survived. But surprisingly, he is allowed to live, but is to be
used as
a slave. Sokolov has been confronted by his own mortality for the
first
time and he chooses life, but accepts slavery (Sartre and Hegel both
thematize this moment in their philosophy). In this second phase of
Sokolov's life he is a survivor. Everything hinges on surviving and
returning to his wife and family. As you point out, Marc, his later
reflections on this are particularly poignant, when he discovers the
futility of this hope. Eventually, the life of forced labour becomes
unbearable. He cries out: "Why are we forced to dig 3 cubic metres
when
1
cubic meter is enough for a grave!" Sokolov has accepted and embraced
death
after all. (Transition to the third phase.) To his German masters this
is
an unendurable act of defiance. As David points out, there are flaws
in
the
scene which follows, but ... he confronts his own death defiantly,
stares
it in the eye, spits on it, and his life again gains meaning as a
"brave
Soviet soldier" unafraid of death even in such an impossible moment.
Not
only does he survive, but takes the Nazi Colonel prisoner and hands
the
war
plans over to the Red Army. Now, when he is offered the chance to
return to
his wife as a war hero he declines and asks to be sent back to the
front.
His life has adopted this new meaning which casts his life as a father
into
the shade. He no longer fears death. But he is persuaded to take time
off
and learns of the death of his family. As Marc relates, the continued
survival of his son, who is now also a war hero, provides continued
meaning
and integrates the two themes in his life. This takes work, as Marc
points
out, and he has the assistance of an older man, in achieving this
redefinition of his life. But tragically, with the death of his son
(and NB
the end of the war, albeit in victory) his life is again without
meaning.
Fourth phase. He has survived, but has no purpose. By becoming a
father
again (Fifth phase), he regains the fear of death and meaning in his
life.
It is real work, and we witness this psychological turmoil as he copes
with
the idea that this scruffy orphan boy could be a son to him, and
eventually
he manages it.

The transition between each phase is a critical period during which
Sokolov's personality is transformed. Note also, that there is a
premonition of this perezhivanie in Sokolov's earlier life: his family
is
wiped out in the Civil War and the famine of 1922, then he meets his
wife-to-be, also raised in an orphanage, and they together create a
life
and have 17 happy years before the Nazi invasion intrudes. So from the
beginning of the movie we are introduced to the main theme.

These are the main moments in the movie, which caused me to select it
for
discussion rather than any other movie. Also, there is no doubt that
in
producing this movie in 1958 the Soviet government was engaged with
its
people, in a process of collective perezhivanie and by reflecting on
the
collective perezhivanie during the period of the war, before and
after,
they aim to assist the people in collectively assigning meaning to
this
terrible suffering and like the man and his "son" walking again into
the
future. As a propaganda movie, of course, it is open to much
criticism,
but
that is hardly the point. I appreciate Marc's analysis in terms of the
other concepts he has introduced. I wouldn't mind a recap on these. In
terms of Vasilyuk's concepts, Sokolov's life-world is *simple and
difficult*. The boy's life world is *simple and easy*.

Can we continue to discuss "Fate of a Man", while I open another movie
for
analysis? I think there are at least 10 subscribers to this list who
have
published in learned journals on the topic of perezhivanie in
childhood.
Perhaps one of you would like to reflect on the boy's perezhivanija?

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making
On 18/01/2017 5:14 AM, Marc Clarà wrote:

Hi, all,
and thank you, Andy, for sharing this amazing film, which I didn't
know. I
think it will be very useful to share and discuss our respective
views
on
perezhivanie.

In my view, the film could be analyzed in terms of perezhivanie in
three
different planes. First, we could consider the person who watches the
film,
and we could study how the meaning she forms for the film
restructures
her
relationship with aspects of her real life -such as, for example, her
own
death or the death of a beloved one, etc. (perhaps this is a little
bit
like what Beth and Monica, or Veresov and Fleer, do with their study
of
playworlds?). In this plane, which would be perhaps the most
naturalistic
one, the film could be studied as an human-made cultural artifact
which
restuctures psychological functions; here, the meaning formed for the
film
by who watches it and uses it as mediator in her relation to her real
life
would be an m-perezhivanie.

In a second plane, we could proceed as if the film was real life, and
we
could consider Sokolov telling his story to the man he meets by the
river
(a little bit like Carla telling her story to me). In this plane,
Sokolov's
narrative (i.e., what is showed to us as narrated flashback) could be
considered as a cultural artifact that Sokolov uses to relate to all
what
happened to him. At this plane, the meaning of this narrative would
be
the
m-perezhivanie that, in that moment, mediates the relationship
between
Sokolov and the war events he experienced years ago (but these events
are
still very present to him, so although relating to past events, there
is
here a Sokolov's activity [towards the past war events] which is in
present
-this echoes Christopher when, within our conversations, said: “Part
of
this might also be a question of what it means to describe and
represent
one's own perezhivanie figuratively/narratively (whether to others,
or
to
oneself), as opposed to living that perezhivanie. Especially if the
attempt
to capture/represent one's own perezhivanie is, perhaps, also central
to
the living of it?”

In a third plane, we could proceed as if Sokolov's narration was not
a
retrospective narration, but the on-time sequence of events with
on-time
Sokolov's explanation of these events (in the moments in which the
narrator
voice is assumed within the flashback). In this plane, there are
several
interesting perezhivanie phenomena. Clearly, there is a Sokolov's
activity
of experiencing-as-struggle, which initiates when he realizes that
all
his
family, except one son, had been killed 2 years ago. At this moment,
his
life becomes meaningless; the meaning (m-perezhivanie) he uses to
relate
to
all his life (including the past) at this moment is expressed in his
conversation with his oncle: “it's got to be that this life of mine
is
nothing but a nightmare!”. In this moment, Sokolov's past in the
prision
camp becomes also meaningless: then, his link to life (the
m-perezhivanie
that made being alive meaningful to him) was meeting his family; but
at
that time his family was already dead, so when he discovers it, he
realizes
that this m-perezhivanie (the idea of meeting his family) was linking
him
to death, not to life, so all his efforts to surviving become
meaningless:
“Every night, when I was a prisioner, I talked with them. Now it
turns
out
that for two years I was talking with the dead?”. In this
conversation,
however, his oncle offers him an alternative m-perezhivanie to relate
to
his life: he still has a son, so the m-perehivanie of meeting his
family
can still turns Sokolov's life meaningful: “you've got to go on
living.
You
have to find Anatoly. When the war is over, your son will get
married,
you
will live with them. You will take up your carpentry again, play with
your
grandkids”. It takes some time to Sokolov to enter into this
m-perezhivanie, but he does it and his life becomes meaningful again:
“and
then, unexpectedly, I've got a gleam of sunlight”. But, then, Anatoly
also
dies. How to keep living? Here, Sokolov holds the m-perezhivanie that
linked him to life until that moment, and therefore, he needs a son;
pretending being the father of Vanya turns his life meaningful again.

Another interesting thing, still at that level, is how Sokolov's
relation
with his own immediate death changes along the different occasions in
which
he faces it. I thing here there are examples of
experiencing-as-contemplation -in my view, this is not
experiencing-as-struggle because the situation of impossibility (the
immediate death) is removed existentially (Sokolov's life is given
back to
him), so that there is not a permanent situation of impossibility
which is
initially meaningless and is turned into meaningful. In each occasion
in
which Sokolov is faced with his immediate death, the m-perezhivanie
that
mediates this relationship is different. When he is captured, his
m-perezhivanie is expressed as: “here's my death coming after me”.
When he
is conducted to meet the nazi official, the m-perezhivanie is
expressed
as:
“the end of your misery”, “to my death and my release of this
torment,
I
will drink”. In the first, the death is running after Sokolov; in the
second, it is Sokolov happily going to meet death. Later, at the end
of
the
film, he faces his immediate death again, and the m-perezhivanie is
expressed as: “I'm really worried that I might die in my sleep, and
that
would frighten my little son”.

Well, just some thoughts after watching this wonderful film.

Best regards,

Marc.

2017-01-15 0:06 GMT+01:00 Christopher Schuck <
schuckcschuck@gmail.com
:
Yes, definitely that article! And specifically, when I used
"pivoting"
I

couldn't help but think of Beth's earlier example about how a child
will
use a stick as a pivot for a horse. Perhaps a somewhat different
application but related, no?

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <
a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
wrote:

Chris, all,

your post is totally relevant to Beth's and Monica's article in the
special issue. They write about film and perezhivanie (quoting
Sobchack)
the following:

The reason that film allows us to glimpse the future is that there
is a
connection between filmic time and ‘real’ time: “The images of a
film
exist
in the world as a temporal flow, within finitude and situation.
Indeed,

the
fascination of the film is that it does not transcend our
lived-experience
of temporality, but rather that it seems to partake of it, to share
it”
(1992, p. 60).

And later

"Specifically, the way that the flow of time becomes
multidirectional is
that “rehearsals make it necessary to think of the future in such a
way

as
to create a past” (1985, p. 39). As Schechner ex-plains: “In a very
real
way the future – the project coming into existence through the
process
of
rehearsal – determines the past: what will be kept from earlier

rehearsals
or from the “source ma-terials” (1985, p. 39)."
Alfredo


________________________________________
From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
<xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.e
du>
on behalf of Christopher Schuck <schuckcschuck@gmail.com>
Sent: 14 January 2017 21:43
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fate of a Man

But that's both the limitation and strength of art or fictional
narrative
as opposed to real life, isn't it? That art focuses our attention
and
highlights certain features in a way that is idealized and
artificially
"designed" to convey something more clearly and purely (but less
organically and authentically) than it would be conveyed in the
course
of
living it, or observing someone else living it? One way to get
around
this
would be, as David says, to analyze the film in terms of clues as to
the
stages of emergence. But maybe another way to use the film would be
to

view
it not so much as a complete, self-sufficient "example" of
perezhivanie,

as
a *tool *for pivoting back and forth between the concept of
perezhivanie

as
imaginatively constructed (through fiction), and the concept of
perezhivanie as imaginatively constructed (through our real living
experience and observation of it). So, it would be the *pivoting*
between
these two manifestations of the concept (designed vs. evolved, as
David

put
it) that reveals new insights about perezhivanie, rather than
understanding
the concept from the film per se.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:08 PM, David Kellogg <
dkellogg60@gmail.com
wrote:

I think there's a good reason why Andy started a new thread on
this:
he's a

very tidy thinker (quite unlike yours truly) and he knows that one
reason
why xmca threads are seldom cumulative is that they digress to
related

problems without solving the immmediate ones.

Yes, of course, a film allows us to consider an example of

"perezhivanie",
but it is a designed perezhivanie rather than an evolved one; it
doesn't
explicitly display the various stages of emergence required for a
genetic
analysis, unless we analyze it not as a complete and finished work
of
art
but instead for clues as to the stages of its creation (the way
that,
for
example, "Quietly Flows the Don" was analyzed to determine its

authenticity).

I remember that In the original short story, the schnapps drinking
scene seemed like pure sleight of hand: an artistically gratuitous

example
of what eventually gave Soviet social realism such a bad name.
David Kellogg
Macquarie University

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Carol Macdonald <

carolmacdon@gmail.com
wrote:

Fellow XMCa-ers

I have watched it through now, thank you Andy, but right now only

empirical
psychological categories come to mind.  I will watch it again and
in
the
meanwhile let my fellows with more recent experience of
/perezhivanie/

take

the discussion further.
It is a kind of timeless story, and modern film techniques would

perhaps
be

more explicit. At the least I would say it has for me a Russian
understanding of suffering, perhaps because of their unique

experience
of

it. But having said that, WWII must have generated other similar
experiences, apart from the first part about Andrei's family
dying
in

the
famine.

Carol

On 14 January 2017 at 02:15, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
wrote:

I watched it in two parts with subtitles:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16w7fg_destiny-of-a-man-
1959-pt-1_creation
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x16wat4_destiny-of-a-man-
1959-pt-2_creation

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden
http://home.mira.net/~andy
http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-

decision-making
On 14/01/2017 2:35 AM, Beth Ferholt wrote:

Thank you for taking us to a shared example.  I think that
having a
--
Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin)
Cultural Historical Activity Theory
Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za





--
Beth Ferholt
Assistant Professor
Department of Early Childhood and Art Education
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
2900 Bedford Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11210-2889

Email: bferholt@brooklyn.cuny.edu
Phone: (718) 951-5205
Fax: (718) 951-4816