Page 1

couv_print:Mise en page 1

19/06/2009

08:29

Page 1

The Sinful 60’s & 70’s

Reflections on an era…

The Sinful Sixties and Seventies course is destined to enlighten students interested in the period and to challenge them to reflect on occurrences, movements and the prevailing mood of that time.

This work entitled, “Reflections on an Era”, is made up of the written student contributions to this course and will enable readers to catch a glimpse of what was happening in a variety of international contexts. These texts have been compiled and edited with a great deal of care by the editing team, Stéphanie Jensen, Julie Bernard, Cécile Gasnault, Armand Agha and Simon Jeannin. The book that the students take away from the class will remain with them as an accomplishment at Essec. The editors will also feel doubly proud of what they have created for the members of the class. It was my privilege and my pleasure to have worked with a great team of students. Gregory Sayer – Essec, June 2009

The Sinful 60’s & 70’s - Reflections on an era…

Ultimately it will also help them to touch base with older members of staff in the companies where they work and who had grown up in an Anglo-Saxon environment and experienced some of the travails of the youngsters of this epoch.

simon jeannin, julie bernard, stéphanie jensen, cécile gasnault, armand agha, frédéric jousset, audrey lavigne, sophie loustau, christophe menger, magaly rohé, mai-lan fitoussi, amandine platet, daphné vialan, mathieu ribaudière, anne-lise mithout, émilie loncan, lucile mourey, céline lobez, stéphanie langlois, cyril espalieu, cyrille dimier


“Reflections on an Era” by students from “The sinful Sixties and Seventies” MBA course.

A collection of dissertations A « Centre de Ressources Linguistiques » publication – June 2009


The Sinful 60’s & 70’s, Reflections on an Era Has peace in the Middle East been made impossible by the Cold War context? .......... 5 by Simon Jeannin 1960-1970: ”America contemplates Asia”............................................................................ 9 by Stéphanie Jensen Bob Dylan-The man who inspired a generation but refused to lead it .......................... 15 by Cyril Espalieu The outlook on Mental illness: a symbol of an era of revolution.................................... 19 by Audrey Lavigne The civil rights movements in the USA and South Africa................................................ 23 by Stéphanie Langlois Technology – people never had it so good......................................................................... 27 by Emilie Loncan Gay contestation movement in the 60’s ............................................................................. 31 by Anne-Lise Mithout The James Bond phenomenon through the 60’s and 70’s .............................................. 37 by Céline Lobez The Watergate scandal.......................................................................................................... 41 by Mathieu Libaudière How did populations perceive the space conquest during the 60’s & the 70’s ?.......... 45 by Sophie Loustau Struggles and Fights in the American Society during the 60’s and 70’s........................ 49 by Armand Agha How did Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music gradually turn into The Graduate and Catch-22? ........................................................................................................................ 53 by Lucile Mourey Apocalypse Now: how the Vietnam War brought about a shift in the relationship between Hollywood and the U.S government ................................................................... 57 by Cécile Gasnault

3


The Factory, Andy Warhol ................................................................................................... 61 by Maï-Lan Fitoussi The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War ....................................................................... 65 by Christophe Menger The Biafran war ..................................................................................................................... 69 by Julie Bernard Rock music, society and politics in the Sixties .................................................................. 73 by Cyrille Dimier de la Brunetière de la Croix Hope and delusion in the 60’s - a lesson for today........................................................... 77 by Daphné Vialan The legacy of photography in the 60’s and 70’s: between depiction and provocation81 by Magaly Rohe The events of May 1968 in France: causes and claims.................................................... 85 by Frédéric Jousset The 60’s and 70’s: how did those two decades revolutionize dance forms? ................. 89 by Amandine Platet

4


Simon JEANNIN

Has peace in the Middle East been made impossible by the Cold War context? Cradle of the three monotheist religions, place of birth of the alphabet, at the crossroads of the civilisations, the Middle East has been at the heart of the most violent and long lasting conflicts in the past centuries. Since the end of the Second World War, five wars between Israel and the Arabs have been declared (1948, 1956, 1967, and 1982), without mentioning the Iran-Iraq (1980-1988) and the gulf War(s). The heart of the problem remains existential claims, namely the right for the parallel existence of two people: Israel and the Arabs. In the aftermath of the 1949 conflict, it seemed that the situation could only lead to new confrontation, all the more so, as the opponents were respectively upheld by the two Blocks, the USA and the USSR in the Sixties, while the tensions seem to decrease with the “détente” in the Seventies.

I.

How did the 1956 conflict lead to a growing frustration, stirred up by the Cold War and by the engagement of the US and USSR alongside the belligerents.

A. The strategic situation of the Middle East prompted both the US and USSR to side with one party or another. The enrolment of the Eastern Bloc started in 1956 with an agreement signed between Egypt and Czechoslovakia in which the USSR agreed on a military aid to Nasser’s Egypt. The pro-Arab position of the USSR is easily understandable if one takes into consideration that the Suez Canal was a strategic shortcut for the Russian boats from the Black Sea to the Indian Ocean, compared to the usual way through Vladivostok. As a consequence, Israel immediately felt threatened by such an agreement and when the US refused to fund the Aswan Dam they saw in America a potential ally. In 1956, the Suez War ends rapidly with the withdrawal of Israel’s troops from the Sinai, under the pressure exerted by America, the Soviet Union and the United Nations. If peace is maintained until 1967, the alliance games continue, and in February 1958 Egypt and Syria join and create the United Arab Republic (UAR), under the protection of the Soviet Union. While Israel still benefits from the American support, America’s interests are at stake because of the official links between America and other Arab states, such as Iraq and Iran.

5


Thus, on the eve of the 1967 conflict, several ideological forces are present on the Middle East “playground”, stirring the antagonisms: the UAR versus Israel, the pro US Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran) versus the pro-Soviet Arab countries (Egypt, Syria). On top of this, lays the USSR strategy which consists in maintaining a hard pressure on the pro-Soviet government in Damascus, the stability of which was being constantly endangered by internal nationalist movements eager to take military action against Israel.

B. The birth of the Palestinian conscience, fuelled by the emergence of broader Arab feelings leads quickly to open armed groups As early as 1949, small groups of Palestinian people start launching military operations against Israel, from Syria, Jordan or Gaza. Politically, the years following the 1967 conflict will be those of the recognition of the Palestinian people by King Hussein of Jordan, and in December 1968 Général de Gaulle declares an armsembargo against Israel. Strengthened by this international support, the Palestinians start more violent and visible actions. II.

If the territorial consequences of the Six-Day War fuel feelings of humiliation among the Arab people, they also led to the Kippur War, which ended thanks to the worldwide context of “Détente”

A. The pressure exerted by the belligerents of the Cold War is being felt by the Palestinians Slaughtered in Jordan, they seek refugee in Lebanon, where they jeopardize the stability of the country. As a result of the failure of the different attempts to sign a peace treaty, led by the UN and the Western countries, the armed fight appears to be the only solution for the two Blocs to solve the conflict. At the same time, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) chooses to use the media to have their cause broadcast over the world: it is the hostage taking of Munich in September 1972 at the Olympic Games and the birth of modern terrorism. B. The worldwide context of “détente” led the USSR to display proof of goodwill, such as signing the Non Proliferation Treaty in July 1968. The effects in the Middle East are a series of diplomatic actions to avoid at all costs a direct conflict with the US. Thus Egypt and Syria had to get rid of their Soviet ally to launch the Kippur War in October 1973. However, the prompt response of the Israeli army put Egypt in a delicate situation: Israel has hardly pushed back the Syrian invasion onto the Eastern front when they circle the third Egyptian army in the Sinai desert. It is the moment the United States chooses to get involved: taking advantage of Russia’s slow reaction, Kissinger offers his help to find a solution, which will lead to the Oslo Agreements between Egypt and Israel in March 1979. On the Arab side, the Kippur War was supposed to be the revenge on the previous war’s humiliations,

6


though thanks to the context, it is eventually the conflict that prompted America to broker a deal towards peace in the Middle East. CONCLUSION Looking back to the specific period of time between 59 and 79, it seems interesting to notice that the peace process between Israel and Palestine followed the general trend of the relations between the two giant rivals of that time, i.e. the Soviet Union and the United States. Also noteworthy is the double movement of emancipation of the Arab countries from the Soviet influence, at a time when USSR is reluctant to lead a direct war against the American interest in a “Détente” context. The idea that emerges from this period is that the two Blocs only served their policies of conquest of new interests in the Middle East, thus fuelling the angers by supporting either Israel or the Palestinians and making peace in the Middle East dependant on their goodwill.

Bibliography -

Les 100 clés du Proche-Orient, by Alain GRESH and Dominique VIDAL Israël : géopolitique et enjeux, by Masri FEKI http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_de_l'URSS_sur_le_conflit_israélopalestinien_durant_la_guerre_froide http://www.oboulo.com/paix-impossible-conflit-israelo-arabe-1949-1973-24239.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war

7


Stéphanie JENSEN

1960-1970: ”America contemplates Asia” (originally ”The Third Mind, America contemplates Asia”, Jan.30 to Apr.19, 2009 exhibition at the New York Guggenheim museum)

The idea of reporting about the particular topic of the Asian influence over the arts in America during the 60s and the 70s came to me after reflecting on an exhibition I’ve had the chance to see at the Guggenheim museum in New York over the Easter holidays. The exhibition revolved around a wider period (1860-1989), but the section about the sixties and seventies particularly struck me.

Artists like Jasper Johns, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and Tom Marioni, among others, were very well represented, and the parallel with Asian contemplative creation was quite subtly drawn, and, linked to the subject of the class, it gave me ideas on American society in general at that time. I hope I can give a truthful account of it and make it as interesting as it was on display in New York.

9


The initial idea of the exhibition was to trace back how Asian art literally soaked through the artistic production of the 1960’s and 1970’s North America, both in plastic and intellectual dimensions. The 1960’s-1970’s section of the exhibition, which was organized chronologically (as the museum’s architecture is perfectly fit for), showed how the main -and minor- artists of the time integrated Asian sources of artistic creation, and how they truly became receptacles of that particular way of contemplative creation. In that way, it offers an alternative lineage of creative culture -whereas critics often found the origins of American arts in the European culture, the exhibition focuses on the inspiration that came from America’s Pacific vista, that is Japan. The purpose, ultimately, was to underline how Asia gave American artists new visual perspectives. The first ideological standpoint of the exhibition was to show how the period of the sixties and the later seventies, because of their mild fascination for spontaneity and randomness –sometimes confined to the absurd- oriented American artists towards Asia. The fad for New Age, for Carl Jung’s theosophy1 and for Asian spirituality only underlined this tendency, and the freedom in Asian arts (abstract calligraphy, basic use of colours and lines, and soft techniques were far more common in Asian arts than in Europeaninfluenced American arts) clearly appeared in American forms of creation of that era.

”You learn of Japanese calligraphy to let the hand take over; then you begin to watch the hand as though it is not yours…When the viscosity is right, it is close to mindlessness, or to pure essences, with nothing between your beingness and the external world. As though your beingness were transmitted without intervention.” Robert Motherwell2. Although written in the 1950’s, this quotation from one of the artists presented in the exhibition clearly announces what was about to come in America; a revolution of the status of the artist. In the coming years, he would not be considered as a master Theosophy is an Asian form of wisdom, of which beliefs include ideas such as, among others, ”consciousness [being] universal and individual”, there being an immortal ”higher self”, and reincarnation being universal. ”It is a fragment of the ancient, once universal, wisdom teaching. The masters of theosophy, located in Tibet and all around the world, preserve and extend this ancient wisdom”. Carl Jung made it popular. 2 Robert Motherwell (1915-1991) was an American abstract expressionist painter and printmaker, belonging to the New York School. Also a writer, whose essays are recognized as a bridge for those who want to learn about non-representational art. He used black paint as a basis for his paintings, a clear reference to Japanese calligraphy. 10


anymore, but as a mere transmitter, almost a witness -thus the idea of contemplation- of a creation unfolding under his bewildered and distant eyes. Already in the 1950’s, John Cage3 advocated the Zen way of creation, for its unmediated experience and its use of void, as well as the naive, intrigued posture of the artist it implied.

John Cage’s ”silent music”

By popularizing such ideas, he inspired Jack Kerouac’s spontaneous prose and his studies of Buddhist texts, that inspired his writing of The Dharma Bums, along with other postures such as anti-art and situationism. Artists belonging to the Beat Movement (Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg and others) were actually those who went deepest into accomodating the Asian postures to an American experience (one thinks of Ginsberg’s trips to Asia, of Kerouac’s nickname ”The new Buddha of American prose”…). Nevertheless, Kerouac and Ginsberg considered Buddhist spirituality in a radically different way: while Kerouac focused on meditation and the wild emptiness of Zen, Ginsberg saw in it a radically blasphematory means to mock American liberal values, and considered Asian spirituality as far superior to the dull United States, which was not the case of Kerouac. The exhibition strongly states that American artists who turned towards Asian arts actually did so in reaction to modern 3

John Cage (1912-1992) was an American composer, pioneer of chance music and nonstandard use of instruments, a leading figure of the post-war avant-garde. He studied Indian philosophy and his influences lay in various Eastern cultures. 11


Western rationalism and utilitarism, which is probably true. Movements like neoDada, Beats and Happenings were clearly inspired by total gratuity, contrary to commercial arts such as impressionism, that were at their peak in Europe; besides, Europe as a whole, was actually being rejected, as the 1963 Fluxus manifesto4 summoned artists to ”Purge the World of Europanism !”

What I really found interesting in this particular section of the exhibition was the idea that, along with absurdity and spontaneousness, humour emerged from art. While Asian art is not really renowned for its fun side, America, as part of the process of appropriation of the Asian way of creating, introduced a whole set of childish pranks and leg pulls, a mild amusement, and sometimes a cynical one at that, into their creations, as the works of Tom Marioni display (the artist’s latest exhibition was called ”Beer, Art and Philosophy, 1968-2006”, and displayed works like ”The Act Of Drinking Beer With Friends Is The Highest Form Of Art”, ”Musical Instrument That Cannot Be Played” along with Haiku poems…).

Art as an amused, unmediated experience of daily life fitted perfectly the mood in American artistic spheres, but also in general. Art in the sixties was a frantic, buoyant creation, and the period saw figures like Andy Warhol emerge, synonymous with dashing, daring forms of art, liberated from any kind of sense. While Warhol’s –and all of the Factory members- can’t really be called Zen art, it was undoubtedly made possible by the liberating gratuity Asian art brought along to America. Art, again, was only a reflection of what was happening in society: struggles for freedom (the end of 4 The Fluxus Manifesto (1963). Fluxus was an international network of artists known for mixing different disciplines during the 1960s (music, visual arts, literature…). Their manifesto encouraged a do-it-yourself aesthetic, and valued simplicity. It included a strong current of anti-commercialism and anti-art sensibility.

12


the Cold War, the triumph of liberalism, racial equality and feminism) were going on, and while those conflicts definitely found no resolution in Eastern meditation, artists seemed to have found a way of transposing them into completely free artistic expressions, such as meaningless calligraphies, minimalist photography and spontaneous happenings. It is rather interesting to watch how, during the seventies, this extravagant liberation of arts became far more serious, with much deeper experiences. Ad Reinhardt5, for instance, admired profound meditation and concentration, and the form of monochrome emerged. From a fun, colourful and frantic creation, art turned into this contemplative, serious posture, where sloweddowned time became the medium of existential awareness. Again, we can draw parallels between this posture and 1970s society. While the sixties were a real awakening, one might say that the seventies were only re-enacting this birth of a liberated form of art, only taking it a little further and making it a little more mature, which curiously resembles the way American society as a whole entered the 70’s.

”Nowhere in the world of art has it been clearer than in Asia that anything irrational, momentary, spontaneous, unconscious, primitive, expressionistic, accidental, or informal cannot be called serious art. Only blankness, complete awareness, disinterestedness.” - Ad Reinhardt.

Sources: -All information found on the Guggenheim exhibition online (http://www.guggenheim.org/newyork/exhibitions/past/exhibit/2716) -All footnotes drawn from Wikipedia

5

Ad Reinhardt (1913-1967) was an abstract painter in New York active since the early 1930’s. He was a major influence in conceptual, minimal art and monochrome painting. He is best known for his ”black” paintings, which appear at first glance to be just balck, but are actually composed of black and nearly black shades. Those paintings ask whether there is such a thing like ”absolute black”. 13


ESPALIEU Cyril

Bob Dylan The man who inspired a generation but refused to lead it

“All I’d ever done was sing songs that were dead straight and expressed powerful new realities. I had very little in common with and knew even less about a generation that I was supposed to be the voice of.” Bob Dylan, Chronicles, Volume I, p.115

Robert Allen Zimmerman was born on May 24, 1941, in Duluth, Minnesota. He lived there until the age of six, when his father began suffering of polio and the family returned to his mother's home town, Hibbing. Robert has been very interested in music since his early age: he could spend hours in a row listening to the blues and country Louisiana radio stations. At high school he could live his passion in an active way with the creation of several rock & roll fleeting bands. The only year he spent at college in 1959 at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis is a turning point in his nascent career, as he took two decisions that would influence the rest of his life: when performing at a local coffee house, he introduced himself as “Bob Dylan”, as a tribute to the Welsh poet Dylan Thomas. The second major change is that Bob literally converted himself to folk music, more serious, richer and more connected to the real life than rock & roll. This new religion had a god, Woody Guthrie, the “Dust Bowl Troubadour”. Bob had just devoured his autobiography, Bound for Glory. The influence was so strong that Bob didn’t hesitate a minute when he learnt that Woody had just been admitted in a New York hospital in 1968 for a serious Huntington’s disease : he dropped out from college and made it for the Big Apple, hoping to visit his idol and to perform in the cafés. He quickly succeeded in both projects: he entered the circle of Woody’s friends and signed a contract with Columbia in 1962. After a restricted first album mainly

15


composed of covers, Bob Dylan, the 1963 release of The Freewheelin’ became one of the major events of the twentieth century, as far as music is concerned. “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “A Hard Rain’s A-gonna Fall” were immediately erected as universal freedom anthems. On August of the same year, Dylan appeared as the muse of the Civil Rights Movement by singing with Joan Baez at the March on Washington. The break-up with political representation publicly took place no later than on January 1964 when Dylan, offered an award for his work for freedom at a gala, insulted the members of the assembly and said that there was a part of him in Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s alleged assassin. The purpose of this dissertation is to find out why Dylan broke up so quickly with a movement he had fostered six months before, and how he then sustained a 45-years long career with this weight on his shoulder. I will use two kinds of sources to lead my argumentation: Dylan’s own views described in his autobiography Chronicles: Volume 1 and my own interpretation from what I understand of his songs. 1. Dylan’s interpretation: Chronicles, Volume 1 The first volume of Dylan’s autobiography, published in 2004, is of great help in various ways for answering our question. First, for what Dylan doesn’t want to tell. The beginning of the book is a captivating evocation of Dylan’s first years in New York (1961-1963) and then we’re fast forwarded to the making of New Morning, a quickforgotten album published in 1970. Dylan can’t have hindsight on the in-between period marked by the electric U-turn and his motorcycle accident. But he gives us a strong explanation about how he feels in 1970 and all this “voice of a generation” controversy. Dylan understood the wind of change of the late 60’s maybe better than anyone else as he states that “things that have used to be in traditional black and white were now exploding in full, sunny color”. [1] But fatherhood has transformed Dylan, and he doesn’t want to be involved anymore: “Truth is I wanted to get out of the rat race. Having children changed my life and segregated me from just about everybody and everything that was going on.” [1] How could he give up so fast? To him, it’s his fullest right and people should stop having leadership expectations from him as it has never been his role: “I had a wife and children, I was trying to provide for them, keep out of trouble, but the big bugs in the press kept promoting me as the mouthpiece, spokesman, or even conscience of a generation.” [1] The extent reached by his protest songs overthrew him. The hippie movement organized the Woodstock festival close to his home so that he could come up. His fellow musicians asked him questions such as “So where do you think you’ll take the whole music scene? [1]

16


It was as if the counter-culture had seized his music and made something overpolemic far from its original meaning: “I felt like a piece of meat that someone had thrown to the dogs.” [1] This turned into paranoia, fostered by the frequent intrusions of fans at his home: “Everything was wrong, the world was absurd. Even persons near and dear offered no relief.” [1] Like the average Joe, he has revised his expectations from life downwards: “What I was fantasizing about was a nine-to-five existence. That was my deepest dream.” [1] This change can also be explained by the fact that Dylan is not able anymore to write songs as fluently as in the 60’s: “Sometime in the past I had written and performed songs that were most original and most influential, and I didn’t know if I ever would and I didn’t care.” [1] But once again, he puts this down to fans hysteria: “It was impossible now for me to observe anything without being observed.” [1] At this time, Dylan’s public appearances were voluntarily meant to fade his aura: getting photographed in Jerusalem with a skull cap to appear like a Zionist, recording a country-western record or starting a rumor saying he would be quitting music. It seems pathetic that a universal icon could resort to these tactics, but at that time, living a quiet life was the only thing that mattered to the greatest songwriter of the twentieth century. 2. My interpretation Dylan’s explanation seems at first very hard to accept : how can someone call “Come gather ‘round people wherever you roam, […] you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin'!” [2] in 1963 and only dream of “a nine-to-five existence” [1] in 1969 ? I would identify four different reasons for this radical evolution. The first one lies in the history of his idol, Woody Guthrie. Guthrie has travelled all cross the USA during his life, taking his inspiration from the workers he would meet. He wouldn’t make so much money out of his music, and more important, he wasn’t asked to play a social role. The only time it happened, when he was drafted as soldier for WW2, he answered that he was more useful singing his anti-fascist songs at home. Exactly the type of answers Dylan would make to reporters. Musicians play music and soldiers fight. The second reason can be found in Dylan’s autobiography. The warmth and detail with which he describes his performances in the cafés shows how much Dylan loves low-scale events and atmospheres. Singing songs with a global reach in genuine underground scenes, keeping time to wander in the city and read a lot was his perfect-balanced life which has all been shaken by the simple fact of recording his

17


songs. Signing for Columbia was like putting his patrimony at the public disposal. Dylan never accepted that the public could misinterpret it. The third reason comes from historical observation. Dylan sung at the March on Washington for the Civil Right Movement, which shows that he has not always been allergic to social activism. But the fact that it has been his sole protest action leads me to think that he immediately understood how such a fight was far more pragmatic than spiritual. The risk of being manipulated became too big and he found a shelter in his inner world. Explaining his spirituality could to him be made only through his songs, as he was a musician, and not in the streets. The last reason belongs to music. After a trilogy dedicated only to folk music and protest songs (The Freewheelin’ & The Times They Are A-changin’ in 1963 and Another Side of Bob Dylan in 1964), Dylan may just have considered he thrashed out the subject. If he had no message to send anymore, he didn’t need folk music anymore, as from a musical point of view, patterns are very repetitive. His electric conversion may have come from a desire to discover new musical possibilities, an adventure he led with as much ambition and talent as in the folk period.

Bibliography : [1] Bob Dylan, Chronicles, Volume I, 2004, p.114-124 [2] Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-changin’, The Times They Are A-changin’, 1963 - Biography.com articles on Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie

18


Audrey LAVIGNE

The outlook on Mental illness: a symbol of an era of revolution

The Sixties and the Seventies were an era of self awareness and research for new social codes. As such, it became also a period of revolution in the outlook of mental illnesses, those comportments excluding individuals from the socially and politically acceptable. New awareness of mental illness arose, as much as new views on it. One of the main revolutions during this period was the widespread movement rejecting mental institutions such as psychiatric hospitals, in favor of community mental health services. Since the 19th century, psychiatric hospitals had been the solution for all kinds of mental diseases, such as schizophrenia, bipolar or psychotic disorders, or even the well used hysteria, also used as a mean to dispose of an unruly wife. By 1950, Electroconvulsive therapy, insulin shock therapy, lobotomies and the "neuroleptic" chlorpromazine were widely used in mental institutions, in spite of their heavy and sometimes permanent consequences. In the 1960s, an antipsychiatry movement rose, mostly in America and West Europe, promoting deinstitutionalization, and led by Michel Foucault, R.D. Laing and Thomas Szasz. They saw the practices used in psychiatric hospitals as useless and unnecessarily cruel, moreover without general supervision. This medical movement benefited from the support of literacy, through classics such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey, who as, among other things, a former orderly in a psychiatric hospital, had an acute and intimate knowledge of the realities of a mental ward, and its coercive nature. Through the struggles of the hero, McMurphy, against the obtuse and oppressive power of the mental ward, personified by Nurse Ratched, the many flaws of the current mental wards are exposed. McMurphy is finally subjected to the worse treatment, lobotomy, as a punishment against an ultimate rebellion – the attempted throttling of Ratched. This novel was a link between the antipsychiatry movement, and the general movement against self-

19


censuring and what Foucault called “invisible forms of discipline”, smothering individual expression on a social scale. Frederick Wiseman’s censured documentary Titicut Follies portrays the same neglect and general oppression entailed by mental hospital of the period, in a candid film realized in 1967 directly in Bridgewater State Hospital for the criminally insane, a Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. It actually belonged to a series of documentaries focusing on social institutions, such as hospital, police, school, etc., in the United States. It depicted the multiple fetters keeping an individual from existing completely as themselves in society, including the loss of personal rights for those deemed as profoundly abnormal, the mentally ill in mental institutions. Even though its airing was forbidden in the United States for decades, it went a long way in promoting deinstitutionalization, either in Europe, where it met a large success, or in the USA. A consumer/survivor movement rose, basing itself on the testimony of the ones that “survived” the system. Other kinds of psychiatric medication became promoted and used, such as "psychic energizers" and lithium. Benzodiazepines gained cause in the 1970’s for anxiety and depression, as a replacement for institutionalization, or plain neglect. Mental illness received indeed a new outlook during the sixties and the seventies. As it was considered the antithesis of “normal”, as any comportment escaping the norm was considered as a mental disease, it became a component of the counterculture. At best, it was seen as a condition demanding understanding and gentler new treatments. At the most extreme, it was a glorified condition, offering freedom to the inflicted. Gay people were therefore seen as mentally ill. The Gay right movement was one of the most active during this era, acting as a counterculture creating its own codes and organization, making itself widely know since 1970 and the first Gay Pride, celebrating homosexuals’ “otherness” against the social norm, heterosexuality, and their pride in what constituted them as mentally ill, according to the law and psychiatry. In such an era of controversy and activism, in 1974 the American Psychiatric Association membership voted to remove homosexuality as an illness. It became a “sexual orientation disturbance”, even though other tendencies pertaining to sexual orientation remained seen as mental disease (transsexuality has been removed from the list of mental disease barely a month ago in France).

20


This is an example, but thanks to this revolution the stigma of mental illness was drastically reconsidered. Ironically enough, the Sixties and the Seventies were also very prolific in inducing mental diseases, among their artists notably. It began mostly with the accidental discovery of LSD, a drug derived from ergot. It was introduced by Sandoz Laboratories as a drug with various psychiatric uses, and became rapidly a therapeutic agent, whose results were very attractive. It was supposed to unlock a patient’s subconscious, and thanks to its hyper real effects, reacquaint patients with reality. However, LSD in this form was not to become a therapeutic mean, due to its many recreational uses and over use among previously perfectly sane individuals. Declared as a way to enhance self awareness and connection to the world and reality, it became a component of the new way of life promoted by most of the counterculture of the era. Its most fervent advocate, Timothy Leary, whose catch phrase "Turn on, tune in, drop out" was promoted to slogan of an entire widespread movement, actually advised “responsible individuals” to use it to better know themselves, even though the notion of “responsible” remains unclear still nowadays. "A psychedelic experience is a journey to new realms of consciousness. The scope and content of the experience is limitless, but its characteristic features are the transcendence of verbal concepts, of space-time dimensions, and of the ego or identity. Such experiences of enlarged consciousness can occur in a variety of ways: sensory deprivation, yoga exercises, disciplined meditation, religious or aesthetic ecstasies, or spontaneously. Most recently they have become available to anyone through the ingestion of psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, etc. Of course, the drug does not produce the transcendent experience. It merely acts as a chemical key—it opens the mind, frees the nervous system of its ordinary patterns and structures." (Directly quoted from Timothy Leary) If Leary came away from years of experiment relatively mentally unscathed, others were not as lucky. LSD induced schizophrenia, flashbacks, psychosis or hallucination for it most benign effect. Due to its virtue of expanding awareness, it was vastly used for inspiration during the Sixties and Seventies, with sometimes grievous effects. Among those who accounted as victims of the over use of LSD, one can count Syd Barrett, original member of the Pink Floyd, whose career was cut short due to LSD induced mental illness believed to be schizophrenia. Even after its prohibition in the Seventies, the use of LSD remained relatively widespread, giving way to other drugs, such as heroin, or crack, inducing an apparently accepted mental hazard among artistic circles.

21


Stéphanie LANGLOIS

The civil rights movements in the USA and South Africa The United States of America (USA) and South Africa are both known for racial segregation instituted by the Whites towards the Blacks, in two radically different contexts. The USA is originally a white British colony, independent since the 18th century, where Black people were sent in what was called the Transatlantic Triangular Trade. In 1950, there were 15 million of Black people [1], which represented 10% of the USA population. South Africa is an old country, which was colonized successively by the Dutch (17th to end of 18th century) and the English (officially from 1815 – Congress of Vienna – to 1934, when South Africa became a sovereign state within the British Empire, before declaring itself a Republic in 1961, leaving the Commonwealth in 1968 and reintegrating it in 1994). 1n 1946, Black people represented 68,7% of the South African population, the Whites 20%, and the other coloured people (Indians, other people of mixed origins) the remaining 11,3% [2] . Obviously, both situations were really different: in the USA, the Black people were a minority, whereas they were the majority in South Africa... But this did not prevent the white minority to decide Apartheid (a racial separation) in 1948 (although racial segregation already existed), and to abolish all the civil rights of the coloured people, as the Blacks were deprived of theirs in the USA, a situation inherited from the time of slavery... The point of this essay is thus to determine the resemblances and differences between both civil rights movements, as well as to analyse why they ended differently. We will focus on the years following the World War II, till the end of the seventies, to remain in the scope of the course. First of all, we should remember what could be considered as the origins of those movements. Discriminations had been real for long in both countries, but had not led, till then, to such an important, structured and coordinated contestation, with emblematic leaders. One of the triggering factors is admitted to be the end of World War II. Indeed, Blacks of both countries fought in the war, often in segregated units, but they were all fighting for freedom, human rights, and democracy. Quite logically, they wanted to get at home what they had defended in Europe, in North-Africa or in Asia. In the USA, the African-American Civil Rights Movement (also known as the Southern Freedom Movement [3] by those who were active in those movements) began with pacifist demonstrations (“nonviolent civil disobedience”): in 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give her seat to a white passenger in a bus in Alabama; she was arrested and convicted, which led to the year-long Montgomery Bus Boycott and 23


finally the desegregation of buses in Montgomery in 1956. In 1960, the first sit-in of black students took place in North Carolina, to be followed by others in Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, and all southern and border states. Dressed-up as professionals, the students sat quietly in segregated areas of public facilities, until they were expelled, often by force. The sit-in movement finally led to the Freedom Rides in 1961, and later on, to pacifist marches, among which was the march on Washington led by reverend Martin Luther King Jr, maybe the most famous emblematic character of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA. This march, which was “a collaborative effort of all of the major civil rights organizations, the more progressive wing of the labour movement, and other liberal organizations” [4], had a great impact for the causes of the civil rights movement: it was broadcasted on television, which made the entire country aware of what happened in the South of the USA, as well as in other states. The “I Have a Dream” speech by King is also one of the most famous allocutions of the time. All these pacifist events led to a national recognition of the Blacks’ fight for their civil rights, and finally new laws were passed: in 1954, in the Education field, the ‘Separate but Equal’ laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; in 1961, the desegregation of the buses in Montgomery was decided (following the bankruptcy of the bus company); in 1964, the Civil Rights Act “made racial discrimination illegal in public places and in many areas of employment” [5]; and in 1965, the Voting Rights Act removed all barriers to voting by black people. The Blacks now had the same civil rights as Whites... In South Africa, the Civil Rights Movement also began with civil disobedience, strikes and boycotts, led by the African National Congress (ANC) and mostly its Youth League (ANCYL), in 1949. Led by Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo, the ANCYL advocated that “white authority could only be overthrown through mass campaigns” [6]. In 1950, the May Day stay-away succeeded in expressing all the Blacks’ grievances regarding Apartheid. In 1952, the Joint Planning Council (composed of the ANC, the South African Indian Congress and the Coloured People’s Congress) decided on a “plan for the defiance of unfair laws” [7], if the Pass Laws (which prevented coloured people from travelling freely in the country) were not abolished. As no positive answer was given to these requests, the Programme of Action was launched with the Defiance campaign: black people began to use “whites only” entries, to walk in whites areas after the curfew forbidding them to do so... This programme led to more than 8,000 people being arrested for breaking the racial laws. The government seemed to release its control over Black people, before taking several supreme measures and putting the ANC leaders (including Nelson Mandela) in jail... The Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Separate Amenities Act only reinforced Apartheid, the former by condemning people encouraging others to protest against the laws, and the latter by allowing owners of amenities to decide whether they would bar the entry to coloured people. Racial separation was thus strongly confirmed. In 1954, the National Action Council for the Congress of the People was founded, aiming at constituting a Freedom Charter, emphasizing the idea of a just and non-racial South Africa, a one-person-one-vote democracy, and a fair distribution of land (Coloured people could not own their land). The Charter was

24


revised and accepted by the Congress of People in 1955, after being endorsed by the ANC. In 1959, the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) was created by some disillusioned member of the ANC, who organized demonstrations against the Pass Laws. One of these demonstrations took place in Sharpeville, where the police shot at the pacifist crowd, killing 69 people and injuring 186. This event is known as the Sharpeville massacre, and gave way to a more violent way of fighting the laws, since then marginalized... That is what we will now detail in the second part. The 1960’s saw a radicalization of the Civil Rights movements in both countries, where violence was now considered an efficient way to obtain equal rights. In South Africa, the ANC and PAC ran a campaign of terrorism and sabotage through their armed wings. Although the leader of the ANC was not in favour of violence, the obvious contempt of the government towards coloured protests increased people’s anger. Nelson Mandela was the commander or the ANC military wing. He had developed a plan (wearing his name) of “controlled sabotage, launching a guerrilla war modeled upon the FLN's struggle in Algeria” [8]. These acts of sabotage were supposed only to destroy facilities and building, not to kill anybody, although it sometimes happened. In 1962, Mandela was arrested, and many other leaders of the Civil Rights movement were arrested in 1963. The others had to escape South Africa, and to keep fighting from abroad. Only the PAC’s secret martial arm remained in the country, murdering whites, police informants and black people supporting the government. But lack of money, armament, and many arrests crippled the PAC actions. In 1963, the Rivonia trial began, accusing ANC members of treason. Mandela was among those members. All those accused were sentenced to life imprisonment, and the international community widely condemned the trial as well as Apartheid... In the meanwhile, in the USA, a new form of black protest was born, rejecting King’s principles of non-violence. It came from the Northern states and expressed its will to get more than the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They wanted the government to do something about black poverty, low wages and all forms of discriminations the non-violent movement had not dealt with. This is the birth of the notion of “Black Power” (a phrase by Stokely Carmichael) in 1966, willing not to ask the whites for their help, but instead, to create black communities, with their own rights, able to fight and use violence to defend themselves in case it should be necessary (against the Ku Klux Klan for example). Carmichael was joined in his way of seeing things by the Black Panther Party, Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam, using a “by-any-means-necessary” approach. Even before this radicalization, race riots took place in the northern cities, the first of them being in Harlem, NYC, after a policeman shot a young black without any reason. This type of riots spread during the summer of 1964, which made the government try to prevent them from repeating the following year, by offering summer jobs to young people in Harlem. The different Acts passed by the government had no immediate effect on the lives of Black people, and riots began again in 1966 and 1967. President Lyndon Johnson created the “National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders in 1967. The commission's final report called for major reforms in employment and

25


public assistance for black communities. It warned that the United States was moving towards separate white and black societies.” [9] The situation in the USA was indeed more complicated than it seemed. Obtaining the same civil rights was not enough for Black people: even though discrimination was illegal, it still existed in facts... The situation in both countries at the end of the 1970s was not completely solved: Apartheid was all the more ‘present’ and active in South Africa, the government confronting all those who dared to fight for more equality; in the USA, racial segregation was officially and legally abolished, but not so much in reality. How can we explain that the USA had seemingly a more rapid evolution regarding their minorities’ Civil Rights when in South Africa it took more than 40 years for the black majority to arrive to power and equality? We can reasonably believe that the primary role the USA played in the world influenced its evolution, enhancing this movement. The USA had to be the champions of civil rights, following the major role it had played during World War II, and could not be a criticized country regarding internal policies and discrimination... South Africa, on the other hand, saw white interests dominate the policies of the government. Whites saw the Apartheid as the only way to protect their influence and their way of life in what they considered as “their” country. They maintained this system with the energy of despair... And today, the situation is not so clear either. The ANC finally won the elections of 1994, and Nelson Mandela became the first black president of the recent republic of South Africa... But crime rate is the highest in the world, which seems to confirm the idea that not everything is solved in South Africa... The USA elected the first black president of their history, giving hope to all those who are still poor and still feel discriminated...

Notes [1] This figure is based on U.S. Census figures (given by the Time Almanac of 2005). [2] http://www.popline.org/docs/1243/132271.html [3] [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) [5] http://mypage.essec.fr/LGAN31756_sayer/colour/ [6] [7] [8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_africa#Apartheid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid

Bibliography Le pouvoir pâle, essai sur le système sud-africain, by Serge Thion, Editions du Seuil (1969)

26


LONCAN Emilie

Technology – people never had it so good In the 1964 election campaign, Harold Wilson, as leader of the Labour Party, put the stress on ‘the white heat of technological revolution’. White heat was not the most representative image at the moment. Much of the new technology dealt more with suds, shine and phoney flavours. Wilson’s government even established a Ministry of Technology with, at its head, Frank Cousins, a trade-union leader, which did not make sense at all. No one could doubt about the benefits and comfort brought by technology. In other words, as the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan actually said ‘Most of our people have never had it so good’. This quote became a popular and vulgar joke which tore round Great Britain during the 1959 election campaign. ‘A woman complains to the police that she has been raped by one of the candidates, who, she insists, was the Conservative; she knows this, ‘because she’s never had it so good’ (1). For sure, technology affects your daily life and you don’t even notice any change and comfort it has brought to you anymore – except when it deals with the new I-phone you have just bought. You don’t believe me? So can you imagine yourself just for a second without your mobile phone, your laptop computer, television and above all your pocket calculator? Computer engineers must have been considered as real busy bees shaping their own virtual hives. That was the time when the growing breed of the ‘white-coated workers’ and technocrats assumed power. Federico Faggin and Marcian Hoff launched the microprocessor revolution in 1971, then two years later, Xerox PARC, a Californian research and development company, designed the first PC (Personal Computer). But such technological progress did not remain any kind of dehumanized and robotic work. Indeed, it has completely disrupted the way human beings see themselves. Making use of such computers and advanced research laboratories, Frederick Sanger, an English biochemist, succeeded in sequencing DNA in 1975. That’s why he had received two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry. As a result, human beings became unique individuals made of DNA molecules they pass on to their offspring – included faults and vices, unfortunately. Hence the proverb: ‘like father like son’. In the seventies, children also ‘never had it so good’: in 1968, the Brown Box, the first home video game console, was invented by Ralph H. Baer, a German-born American engineer. No doubt that their parents would have preferred a simple and less addictive hobby such as the colourful and headache Rubik’s Cube, created in 1974 by Ernö Rubik, a Hungarian professor of architecture. As for teenagers, the awkward age

27


became more exciting – and more peaceful for their parents. Instead of making windows rattle because of the last hit of the Beatles, by the end of the seventies they could use their new walkman. The latter turned into a trendy accessory, as well as rollerblades invented in 1979 by two American hockey enthusiasts, brothers Scott and Brennan Olson. With both technological innovations, youth could escape from authoritarian and oppressive reality. But it was not the case for everyone, especially when it comes to working-class children who could not afford such desirable objects. Hence a bundle of frustration and bunches of fives: technological progress indirectly led to a rise in juvenile crime. Musicians and their fans never had felt ‘so good’ – as James Brown apparently noticed in 1965. The renewal of the popular music scene became closely bound-up with the wonders of electronics. Some guitarists began exploring a wider range of tonal effects by distorting the sound of their electric guitars - the ‘clipping’ effects as sound engineers put it. Vox guitars were also introduced in the sixties, especially by Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones and his Mark VI. The music industry faced huge transformations. The old song-writer was on the dole while young managers were making money. The printed music sheet disappeared for the benefit of records, which led to the first optical digital audio disc with a 150-minute playing time in 1978 by Sony. However, one must not overlook the dark side of technology at this period. As for energy, think about nuclear weapons developed after the Manhattan project and their potential destructive power. We should always keep in mind Einstein’s warning: ‘technological progress is like an ax in the hands of a pathological criminal’. For sure, the Luddites could have come back to the scene, breaking machines as rock stars were doing with their guitars on stage. Indeed, many workers never had it so sad. Technology radically changed their working environment. A factory apprentice, during Fraser’s interview, put the stress on the ‘unforgettable claustrophobic comradeship’ of the factory (2), denouncing ‘the machines which constantly break down’ (3) and repetitive movements on the assembly line. Workers did repetitive tasks like robots as well as cashiers. Indeed the sixties celebrated the advent of supermarkets and self-service stores, which led to the first bar-code scanner in 1969 – only employed in 1974. In some ironic sense, men ‘never had it so good’. Thanks to technological – and more affordable – developments, their wives could spend their time differently and forget how boring their daily life at home was. As a consequence, they were well disposed towards their husbands when they came back home. Let’s give a few figures to show the very visible growth in the acquisition of durable consumer goods at the moment: by 1971, 69% of households had a refrigerator, 91% of families had a television, and 64% had a washing machine; in 1956, only about 5% had one of these key machines. Nevertheless, at the end of the sixties, more than a half of all women could not spend hours nattering because the spread of the telephone was much slower.

28


To go deeper into the analysis, the ‘second sex’ (4) had it better than the first one. Technology and science were the catalysts of women’s emancipation. ‘The era of the Pill had begun’ as a medical historian, Dr N.E. Himes, has written. However, it may be noted that the pill only began to be widely used in Britain in the late sixties, hence roads to progressive freedom for women. As a conclusion, technology changed people’s life because it gave them more time to spend. A social and cultural revolution was at stake. At the moment technological goods created new needs, changed women’s lives, helped workers forget the tough conditions of the workplace. For sure, technology and all its far-out gadgets represented the new ‘opium of the masses’ as would have said Karl Marx.

References (1) British Society since 1945, Arthur Marwick, Penguin Books Edition, pages 85-86. (2) and (3) Work: Twenty Personal Accounts, Fraser, 1968. (4) The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir, 1949 Bibliography British Society since 1945, Arthur Marwick, Penguin Books Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/Timelines_of_Invention_and_Technology.htm

29


Anne-Lise MITHOUT

Gay contestation movements in the 60’s

During the 60’s, protestation movements arose all across America; be it about Civil Rights, feminism, anti-war, counterculture...the whole society was in motion. Along with these groups, the gay community was getting organized and asking for recognition. Whereas, at the beginning of the decade, places of homosexual gathering were forbidden by law, in 1971 Frank Kameny ran as an openly gay candidate for a seat in Congress. The 60’s enabled gay people to acquire a new visibility and to accomplish a revolution, in which the city of San Francisco played a major role. Nevertheless, the 1969 Stonewall Riots proved that America was far from cleared from homophobia. Behind the myth, were the 60’s really an era of liberation? What were the steps of this motion, and what was the true impact of gay movements on society? What were the relations between the gay community and other protest groups? In a context favourable to the development of gay prot group (I), organizations were created all over the country, and especially in San Francisco (II), which lead, to some extent, to social changes (III).

During the 60’s, the rebellion against homophobic laws, the development of protest groups in all parts of society and the specific situation of the city of San Francisco create a context particularly favourable to the spreading of gay organizations. At the beginning of the 60’s, homophobia is materialized by specific laws. Alcohol beverage law prohibits “disorderly behaviour” in bars, which is a way of meaning “homosexual gatherings”. Under New York City Law, homosexuals are not allowed to be served in bars, under penalty of revocation of the bar’s license. In 1953, Eisenhower’s government bans employment of gays and lesbians from federal jobs; local governments and some private companies follow this trend. Homosexual behaviour is considered as a crime in all the states, and prison penalty (sometimes life-long) can be sentenced against people convicted of having same-sex relations with another consenting adult ; the FBI develops a surveillance program against gay people, and the police commits regular harassment against them, for instance by raiding gay bars and arresting customers. Medical therapies including electroshock, castration and lobotomies are used in medical institutes in order to “cure” homosexuals. During the 60’s, contestation arises in society at large, be it the Civil Right movements, feminism or counterculture. The gay community is linked with all these groups, but develops on its own. It follows the example of black Civil Rights movement: its main demand is called “Gay Civil Rights”, and the slogan “Gay Power” 31


is created by the Gay Liberation Front, as an answer to the “Black Power”. In 1969, Leo Laurence from the SIR (Society of Individual Rights, the largest homophile organization in the US) encourages the gay community to join the Black Panthers, even though some of its leaders have made homophobic speeches. Lesbian movements’ relation with feminism is quite complex; although both tend to the same goal, that is setting women free from machismo, a strong anti-lesbian feeling arises among feminists, and leads quickly to separation. Feminists like Betty Friedan want to distance their action from the lesbian movement, and lesbians are excluded from the National Organization for Women. That is why lesbian associations develop as a specific branch of the gay movement. They receive help from bigger gay organizations; the first lesbian protestation group, the Daughters of Bilitis, is founded in San Francisco in 1955, and derives from the Mattachine Society (first gay organization ever). Nevertheless, the lesbian movement is divided in the mid-60’s between associations that sides with bigger gay groups, and associations that want to stand as specifically feminists (even though isolated from the larger feminist movement). The gay movement is also linked with counterculture. The founders of the first gay association, Mattachine society, wish to create a community with its own culture, like every other minority (Black, Jewish...). They try to turn homosexuality from an underground subculture to an open and specific branch of the population. Moreover, some artists who play an important part in the development of counterculture are more or less openly gay, or linked with homosexuality, which gives the gay community members example of cultural models they can recognize themselves in. For instance, Allen Ginsberg or Andy Warhol express homosexual desires in an artistic way, which contributes to the recognition of the gay community. The city of San Francisco plays a major role in the development of gay organizations. During World War I, the army rejects gay soldiers, and sends them back to San Francisco; since they often feel too ashamed to go back to their families, they generally decide to stay there, and the first gay community develops in the poor neighbourhood of Tenderloin. During the 50’s, a new wave of arrivals is due to McCarthyist prosecution, because of the link between homosexuality and radical communism. In the 60’s, homosexuals start renovating the formerly working-class neighbourhood of Castro (where housing is cheap), and create openly gay shops, bars, restaurants, theatres...That is why the biggest gay community in the US is located in San Francisco, and most organizations develop from there. At the beginning of the 60’s, only a few protest groups, among which the Mattachine organization is the most famous, exist in America. During the decade, lots of new organizations spread over the country, and lead public actions. This development follows several steps. Created in 1950, the Mattachine organization is the pioneer of the gay movement. It is founded by Harry Hay, an active communist; this is characteristic of this period: most gay people are radicals and communists. The movement starts in New York, but is relocated to San Francisco in 1955. Its first goal is to promote discussions between gay men and lesbian women, and exchanges of experience, but it soon turns into a

32


political organization. The founders want to create a community based on ethics and democratic ideals; they dream of a gay culture comparable to that of other minorities like Black or Jewish people. The first step in politics is taken in 1952 when, after one member is victim of a homophobic aggression, the organization decides to go to trial; it raises funds, hires a lawyer, distributes leaflets and publishes newsletter, and the case is finally dismissed. It is one of the first victories in gay contestation. In 1953, Mattachine goes farther in politics and asks local political candidates about their positions on gay rights issues. Criticism arises and, at this time of McCarthyism, Mattachine’s links with communism lead to a controversy. The founders are replaced by new leaders unconnected with communism, but they no longer focus on the creation of a cultural community, and the members’ mobilization dramatically decreases. Another association is created in the 50’s; it derives from Mattachine, but is dedicated to women and called the Daughter of Bilitis. Under the influence of Mattachine, the first gay publication ever, ONE Inc, is launched in 1952. Institutions call the magazine « obscene », but publication is finally authorised after a four year long trial. It plays an important role in the development of academic research about homosexuality, and launches in 1960 the idea of drafting a Homosexual Bill of Rights, that is criticized even by other gay associations, among which the Mattachine Society. In 1960, elections take place in San Francisco, and the role of gay people in the city becomes a key issue of the campaign. Indeed, one candidate accuses the other of “harboring sexual deviates within the city”, and both make homophobic declarations. Finally, some 9000 citizens vote for neither candidate. This election is symbolic of the emergence of the gay community in politics. But in the early 60’s, gay activism takes several forms; in 1962, gay bar owners found the Tavern Guild, and protest against police harassment. In 1961, San Franciscan drag artist Jose Sarria become the first overtly gay candidate to run for a political office. In 1964, the Society for Individual Rights is created in San Francisco. Its philosophy is different from that of Mattachine; instead of praising assimilation of gay people in society, it talks of “liberation”. It promotes a community feeling among its members, and encourages them to taking initiative and organizing events. In 1966, it opens the first gay community centre in the US. It publishes a monthly magazine, Vector, in which San Franciscan politics and trends are discussed. Two years later, it is the largest homophile organization in America, and finds support from the Protestant clergy. It holds Candidates Nights, during which candidates for local elections answer questions from a gay audience, and wins over New York City administration to reduce police harassment. In 1968, Frank Kameny, who had founded the Washington branch of Mattachine, coins the slogan “Gay is good”, following the model of “Black is beautiful”. Kameny is one of the main actors of the gay movement; after being fired from the Army Map Service (he is an astronomer) because of his homosexuality, he becomes a militant leader and gives a more aggressive tone to the movement, advocating confrontation between gays and heterosexuals, whereas previous leaders were in favour of pacific assimilation. He organizes public demonstrations, especially picketing in front of the

33


Pentagon, and launches campaigns in order to remove homosexuality from the official lists of mental diseases. In 1971, he runs as an openly gay candidate for a seat in Congress; although he does not win the election, he contributes significantly to improving the political visibility of the gay community. The major event in gay movement history, the Stonewall Riots, takes place in 1969. The Stonewall Inn is a bar in New York that is owned by the mafia and welcomes gay people, transvestites, and effeminate young men. On the 28th of June 1969, a police raid takes place and about 200 people are locked inside, while policemen check their identification. But customers refuse to stay inside, and a crowd (homosexuals, but also anti-war militants and other heterosexuals angry with the police) gathers around the bar and starts fighting with the police. Violence escalates and the night of riots ends with massive arrests and injuries. The next days, with the help of famous newspapers, the gay community gain sympathy and support from society at large. In the aftermath, the gay movement becomes more radical, and gains visibility. Since this rebellion was spontaneous and had a huge impact on society, it is considered as the starting point of the series of political victories of the gay community in the 70’s. This movement resulted in major changes in society, even if this statement has to be balanced. The most visible changes took place in the political field. In December 1964, during a New Year’s Eve party organized by gay associations, police officers tried to arrest guests, under the accusation that same-sex dance was forbidden by law. The case was brought to trial, and police harassment was condemned. Mattachine Society proved by a legal study that no law in New York City forbade homosexual gatherings in bars, but that only “disorderly behaviour” was banned, which did not explicitly refer to homosexuality. Based on this study, the mayor John Lindsay changed the city policies concerning arrests and banishment from administration jobs. Moreover, anti-sodomy laws were repelled in Illinois in 1962, and before 1973 in six other states. Less tangible, but of equal importance were the social changes. Several medical studies on homosexuality were performed during the period; although homosexuality was usually regarded as a mental pathology resulting from traumatic parent-child relationship, in 1956, a comparison between heterosexuals and self-identified gay men showed that there was no significant difference in happiness between both groups. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, where it was listed as a sociopathic personality disturbance. The gay identity was changing, too. Whereas homosexuals were commonly pictured (in literature, in newspapers, in movies...) as sad, outcast, characterized by self-hatred..., a new vision of homosexuality emerged, of which the most typical example is Armistead Maupin’s Tales of the City, depicting in realistic terms the funny way of life of openly gay people cohabitating with heterosexuals in San Francisco. Nevertheless, the gay community itself was divided into several subgroups: lesbians, transvestites, effeminate men, “hidden” gay...Since all those people often had nothing more in common than same-sex attraction, it was difficult for them to feel they

34


belonged to a group, and some members felt outcast even within the community. There was especially strong antagonism between lesbians and drag queens who were accused of making fun of women in a disrespectful way. At the beginning of the 70’s, a lesbian movement was developing on its own, having recognized that it did not share the same demands as gay men. Even within the male branch, there were effeminate young men, often homeless, isolated from the rest of the group and considered as the most outcast part of the gay community. This situation comes as a limit to the idea of a large liberation of gay people; some subgroups were more concerned by social change than others. Even though the gay community took advantage of the massive protest movement of the 60’s, its relations with other protest groups were ambiguous and made of misunderstandings as well as of mutual support. The city of San Francisco was the centre of the development of associations that, step by step, won important victories over administration and social prejudices. The sixties were an era of liberation, to the extent that, for the first time, an organized gay community emerged and was able to make itself heard by society. Nevertheless, it did not touch every gay person; there remained outcasts within the community, and homophobia was still felt among politicians and in the American society at large.

Bibliography: -

The queer sixties, Patricia Juliana Smith, Routledge, 1999 Timeline of Homosexual History, 1961 to 1979, Tangent Group Gay is good: how Frank Kameny changed the face of America, interview by Will O’Bryan, Metro Weekly, October 5, 2006 Milestones in the gay right movement, excerpted from The Reader's Companion to American History, Houghton Mifflin, 1991 San Francisco, premier bastion gay, Manon Lidenua, lemagazine.info, 20 novembre 2006 Early 1970’s: political split in gay movement, Leslie Feinberg, Workers World, November 11, 2006 When did the gay rights movements begin? Vern Bullough, History News Network, April 18, 2005 Shaping San Francisco, Will Roscoe, excerpts from "The Miracle Mile: South of Market and Gay Male Leather, 1962-1997", Gayle Rubin, City Lights, 1998

Wikipedia: Gay Liberation, ONE, Inc., Emeutes de Stonewall

35


Céline LOBEZ

The James Bond phenomenon through the 60’s and 70’s

“My name is Bond. James Bond.” This is probably the most famous quote associated with the well-known British secret agent on her majesty’s service. Whether vanquishing villains or seducing the next femme fatale, James Bond is never tongue-tied and his famous lines are known by many generations of fans. More than a fictional character, James Bond is a myth that has seduced both our parents and us. But do we really know him? Born in 1952 thanks to British novelist Ian Fleming, Commander James Bond is portrayed as an MI6 agent who holds the code number 007. The double-0 prefix indicates his discretionary licence to kill in the performance of his duties. His fans also remember his particular taste for vodka martinis (“shaken, not stirred”), his gadgets designed by Q, his fantastic cars (from the Lotus to the Aston Martin) and most of all, his numerous feminine conquests. The “James Bond girl”, although changing in every episode, forms a recurrent character in the movies, just like Bond’s superiors and other officers of the British Secret Service (M, who is Bond’s boss, and M’s secretary, Miss Moneypenny). All these details we know about James Bond contribute to form a coherent image of the hero in our minds. Undoubtedly shaped through the 22 movies, this image has evolved since its creation, 47 years ago. One of the great successes of the James Bond movies is that, although actors changed (6 actors for 007, from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig), the spirit has remained unchanged. If James Bond seems to be timeless, the movies nevertheless remain a great source of information about society and cinema. The 11 James Bond movies that have been realised during the sixties and the seventies logically reveal many aspects of society. In this dissertation, we will analyse the evolution of the James Bond movies during the sixties and seventies and try to emphasise all the learnings they deliver. A/ The Sixties and the creation of James Bond’s identity • Exoticism and Humour In the fifties and the sixties, spy movies were very popular but also very different from the James Bond movies we know. Based on humour and exoticism (due to the euphoria of the sixties), the James Bond movies were considered really innovative. Produced in 1962, Dr.No is obviously the founding stone of the James Bond myth, as it clearly defines the “codes” that will form the core of Bond’s identity (first appearance of recurrent characters, first use of the James Bond musical theme by 37


John Barry…). As underlined previously, exoticism is part of James Bond movies’ success. Dr. No opens in Jamaica, where Bond is sent to investigate the disappearance of a British agent. 007 is a globe-trotter, always on the move (hunter or hunted). Sean Connery also established humour as part of Bond’s personality, as proved by this dialogue with Ursula Andress (Honey Ryder): Honey Ryder, on the beach, in her bathing suit, with shells in her hands: What are you doing here? Looking for shells? James Bond: No. I’m just looking. Or this dialogue with his boss, M: M: When do you sleep 007? James Bond: Never on the firm’s time, sir. • Political Distance Even when political problems are evoked, there is neither denunciation nor accusation. James Bond movies do not aim at delivering political messages and 007 always maintains a kind of polite distance. His legendary sense of humour helps him to skip any controversial debate. Dr.No: The Americans are fools. I offered my services, they refused. So did the East. Now they can both pay for their mistake. James Bond: World domination. The same old dream. Our asylums are full of people who think they're Napoleon. Or God. In 1963, From Russia with Love offers a good idea of society, divided between East and West by the Cold War. In this movie, if spies are Soviets, we quickly realize that the real enemy is the international terrorist organization (SPECTRE). Once more, the movie does not condemn any political system or country. Actually, the Soviets, just as the Americans and the British, are just another victim of the SPECTRE organization. This image of international conflicts is really modern as it goes far beyond the simplistic opposition between East and West we can find in many movies of the period. • Technology and modernization With Goldfinger (1964) and Thunderball (1965), technology becomes a mainstay of the James Bond movies. Exotic espionage equipment, guns and vehicles (first Aston Martin DB5) become very popular elements of James Bond's cinematic missions. These items often prove critically important to Bond in successfully completing his missions. For example, in Goldfinger, with Q: James Bond: Ejector seat, you're joking. Q: I never joke about my work, 007.

38


Or in Thunderball, talking about his favourite subject, women and guns: James Bond: That looks like a woman's gun Largo: Do you know a lot about guns, Mr.Bond? James Bond: No, but I know little about women. The movies tend to be more spectacular as technology becomes the footprint of the James Bond movies. In Thunderball, spying even seems to be a pretext to justify the constant use of technology and gadgets: the scenes of 007 fighting under the sea provide a good illustration of the modernized approach of the action. This tendency is largely reinforced in You Only Live Twice (1967), in which the fantastic helicopter scene remains absolutely breathtaking today. In this episode, the plot 007 must unravel is about the stealing of US and Soviet spaceships, which is quite unrealistic. Actually, the director and producer of the movie seem to have abandoned realism for a much more shadowy and excessive approach. • The intruder On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, produced in 1969, is usually considered as an intruder (if not a failure) in the series. Instead of Sean Connery, George Lazenby embodies a much more romantic James Bond. The approach is sometimes realistic (no more gadgets, no more prototypes) but also psychedelic (in the scenery, but also in the idea of the brainwashing which echoes the use of drugs such as LSD very popular at the time). In that sense, even if the movie is radically different from the previous ones, it remains interesting as the story is more aligned with the period. B/ The Seventies: the beginning of blockbusters Now that James Bond’s identity is clearly defined and that the series is more and more popular (particularly in Europe), producers and directors will try to seduce a wider audience with blockbusters (i.e movies with a widespread audience and enormous sales). With Diamonds are Forever, the idea is to encounter the same success as You Only Live Twice (and to forget about the semi-failure of On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Sean Connery is back in the role of 007, and the emphasis is laid on technology and excess (as proved by the final scene of explosion on an oilrig, or the pursuit with the lunar vehicle which echoes Armstrong first steps on the Moon). But the real turning point comes with Live and Let Die in 1973. • Americanisation of the series In Live and Let Die (1973), Roger Moore interprets for the first time the famous secret agent and gives the movie a new tone. The movie, considered as the first step toward Americanisation, begins in New-York, in Harlem. Many characters seem to come from a “blaxploitation movie” of the 70’s (i.e. a movie targeting a black urban audience) and even the mention of the voodoo folklore echoes “black culture”. The

39


role of the redneck sheriff also contributes to give the impression of an Americanised movie. This is really a period of transition characterized by a scale change. The Man With The Golden Gun, in 1974, puts a stop to this transitional period: From then on, James Bond movies will be blockbusters. • The Blockbusters era The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) is undoubtedly the first James Bond blockbuster. Every detail of the action is excess, movement, stunt or technical display. The movie is a cocktail of action and tongue-in-cheek humour. As for the plot, a NATO and a Soviet submarine vanish in the middle of the ocean and a crazed megalomaniac living under the sea has the technology to track the two submerged vessels. Roger Moore really comes into his own in his third Bond outing. There is just the right balance of political conflicts and over-the-top action to make this a truly great 007 film. The movie is logically a real success (widespread popularity, enormous sales) and the James Bond production decides to create another movie based on the same recipe: Moonraker in 1979. With the same director, the same exhausting rhythm, and the same idea of a megalomaniac eager to change the world, Moonraker is the twin of The Spy Who Loved Me. Instead of an aquatic environment, the action takes place in the space and eugenics replaces ecological preoccupations as the major theme of the movie. In both movies, the questions raised are more modern, even if quite unrealistic (particularly in Moonraker, which is largely impacted by the science fiction phenomenon - from Star Wars to Galactica). The laser gun battles in the space show that the James Bond movies have definitely changed since the beginning of the series. After 20 years and 11 movies of exploration and definition of 007’s identity, the James Bond production seemed to have finally found the perfect recipe of the blockbuster. Nevertheless, this recipe is not eternal (contrary to Diamonds). If James Bond movies are still successful today, it is largely because they have succeeded in constantly reinventing the adventures of the most famous British secret agent, to keep in tune with the changing society, without losing the original spirit. And there is no doubt that the James Bond phenomenon will last for a long time, because as said by one of the charming James Bond girl in The Spy Who Loved Me: Cabin Girl: But I need you James! James Bond, about to leave on skis: So does England!

40


Mathieu Libaudière

The Watergate scandal After four years of Nixon’s presidency, the situation of the USA was at a turning point. The protests against Vietnam’s cost in lives was growing. In a word, the 1972 presidential election was looming large and would deeply shape USA’s future. As the pressure was increasing all over the country, a minor story in June 1972 was going to make the headlines for a long time a few months later. The five acolytes stopped and arrested at the Watergate building in possession of listening devices were going to become the initiators of the biggest political scandal of the second part of the twentieth century. In this affair, the Washington Post journalists, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, can be seen as the main prosecutors for the early stage of the investigation. After the preliminary denial of the authority, stating that the White House wasn’t in any way behind the folkloric expedition, questions were being raised and especially about James McCord, former CIA officer and also member of Nixon’s re-election committee. Taking advantage of the new means of communication, the two young journalists dug up the beginning of the whole story about the campaign financing, thanks to the famous informant Deep Throat, who would 30 years later be identified as the number two of the FBI himself, Mark Felt, tired of the endless political tricks and plots. After many attempts to dodge investigations and the resignation of numerous political staffs, the White House finally had to hand over the precious tapes which were at the very heart of the scandal. On these tapes that recorded secret conversations between Nixon and his closest advisors were supposed to reside the answer to the ultimate question: did Nixon himself order the bugging of the Watergate? In the end the recordings didn’t actually charge Nixon directly, as it only proved that he deliberately tried to slow down the investigation. Nowhere in the tapes was the proof that Nixon knew about the break-in and even less that he decided it. However these tapes were eventually going to end Nixon’s presidency as well as his political career, as the threat of impeachment by the Supreme Court triggered the President’s resignation in 1974. More than a detailed though impossible description of the whole scandal, we can focus on the impact and consequences of this affair both on the American political life and on the society on a wider level.

41


A basic statement would be that this affair shook the American political class pretty hard. At these tumultuous times when the withdrawal from Vietnam was in everybody’s mind, the Watergate was too much to bear for the public opinion. The direct consequences were the journey to prison for 31 of Nixon’s advisers, among them some of the most prominent and promising talents. The adjustment of political manner was pushed further by Congress, which demanded a closer control of the president on the decisions regarding increasingly important matters such as military deployment, financial issues and freedom of information. The way press and political entities are intertwined have also been reshaped. Before this story, the press allowed some liberty to the various presidents and conceded some shadowy area in public policy, in the general interest. The Bay of Pigs, also a big issue in the early 60’s, clearly didn’t have the same exposure. From 1973-1974, journalists were not willing to let the next affair exist without their coverage. The embarrassment of missing this scandal led to a more aggressive coverage, says former Washington Post editor L. Downie. But what we also have to think about is that the whole affair wouldn’t have been possible without the thoughtful consent of Deep Throat who was “inside the establishment”. Downie’s analysis states that unlike the common perception that the scandal was brought up by the press, it is much more the establishment that, in a way, purposely sunk itself. Woodward and Bernstein, however, created such an atmosphere of suspicion and tension that it surely led to Nixon panicking about the tapes. In general terms, by making the settlement of this affair a moral issue, we can imagine that the press tried to gain by itself the selfrespect that journalists thought to deserve. In this logic, Woodward and Bernstein objectively saw themselves as "just one piece of what happened early in the process." The press would then have been what triggered and fed the official political prosecution. Jack Nelson, who worked for the Los Angeles Times at that period, claims that "Nixon was fighting not just prosecutors and Congress but also in the court of public opinion. For all of their controlling Congress, the Democrats were not in any sense going to go after Nixon unless the public was behind it. And the public got behind it because of the press." Speaking of public opinion, the scandal surely broke apart what was left of the presidential “semi-god” status. The controversial positions adopted by Lyndon Johnson during his presidency already downed this state of fact; the Watergate was then the continuing sequel of an already started story. All the efforts of President Ford to smooth the situation and restore the presidential legitimacy seem however not to have held long. Two decades later, G.W. Bush and Neocons friends went to war because of facts not proven right but clearly proven outdated: even though the press clearly said the world was not naive, journalists were not in a strong enough position to inflect Bush policy. In this case, the Woodward and Bernstein legacy is maybe the simple fact that public announcements are now seen through the screen of scepticism.

42


Symbols of the end of a generation, Vietnam and Watergate appear as the two key elements drawing the finish line of American ingenuous attitude towards its political class, and its entrance into the last quarter of the twentieth century. To conclude, one has to realise that this day of August 1974 when Nixon had been the first and only president to resign during his ongoing term was very likely the landmark of the emergence of the “fourth power�.

Bibliography http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3542650.stm http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-06/2005-06-01-voa50.cfm?moddate=2005-06-01 http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3735 http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/usa194180/watergate.shtml

43


Sophie LOUSTAU

How did populations perceive the space conquest during the 60’s & the 70’s ?

For centuries, space discovery has always been a kind of fantasy for the public. The idea to send people in space was created by philosophers well before it became technically possible. During the 20th century, thanks to technological innovations, this dream came true. This might explain the great interest from Russian and American citizens for space conquest. First, all of them wanted to read within these advances the evolution of their respective nation. Indeed, space conquest was no more than a part of the cold war. Russians and Americans clashed by means of this discipline just as on a battlefield. Each failure affected the whole nation’s honour. At the end of the Second World War, USSR and USA appeared as the two main winners of the conflict. But this equality didn’t satisfy them. Each one of them wanted to be celebrated as the greatest power in the world. Consequently, the space conquest promoted the growth of nationalist spirit. First, it was mainly used by the Soviet Union to exhibit its power, thanks to the media coverage of the exploits of Yuri Gagarin. It was a public humiliation for the United States. From this day, every Soviet or American citizen looked at the space race to see what they considered as their nation’s evolution. The border between the technological competition (which previously used to be rather secret and considered as uninteresting by populations) and the political one became more and more blurred. A mix was created. The most important thing to understand is that space conquest wasn’t only a technological evolution such as vaccines or TV. People found in it political, economic and social stakes which didn’t present any obvious link with it. Indeed, most of them considered that such events were so important that they would inevitably impact the basis of their life. Each action decided and realized by scientists had to be approved by governments, who were deeply influenced by public opinion. More precisely, as their political careers depended on their citizens’ will, they resorted to all possible stratagems so as to make it match to their ambitions. Media were the key tool to success. Americans were far more effective than Russians. Presence of cameras during successful experiments enabled to forecast a positive image of the evolution of research and to justify endless expenses. Kennedy used to evoke the national security justification for the Space Race described as a vital front in the Cold War. Even though expenses were 45


not completely revealed, American citizens suspected their extent. Such a sacrifice would have never been accepted without this governmental manipulation. Development of fear was palpable during the 60’s and the 70’s. As long as space conquest was presented as one of the most efficient solutions to the security problem, American citizens couldn’t criticize the huge expenditure and bureaucracy linked to its expansion. Both the United States and the Soviet Union developed programs only focused on the scientific and industrial requirements for these efforts. It became a significant source of job creation. The amount spent by the United States on the space race is estimated to be about $100 billion. All this money wasn’t spent on other sectors. It was part of the relaunch plans designed by governments so as to support national growth. But it also can be seen as a kind of “segregation” providing that these amounts spent for astronomy were not available for others sectors. Even though it was a growth factor in the US, space conquest is suspected to have deepened the economic crisis of the Soviet system during the 70’s and the 80’s. However, critics were not as developed as in the US given the government’s authoritarianism. A rumour developed during the 60’s. When governments first mentioned space conquest in the Cold War context, populations thought it was a roundabout way to expand their territories. As the rivalries for limited territories on Earth kept growing, moon or such planets as Mars appeared as an alternative to overcome the problem. However, governments didn’t want to do that. Unlike other international rivalries, the Space Race was not motivated by the desire for territorial expansion. The United States didn’t claim a property right after its successful landing on the Moon. Space conquest had a direct impact on millions of people’s daily life. Governments chose to make space exploration a national concern. Governmental policies led quickly to a push by legislators and educators for greater emphasis on mathematics and physical science in American schools. Construction of planetarium installations in more than 1,200 American high schools is a relevant illustration of this phenomenon. Providing that astronauts appeared as heroes, youths just wanted to go their way. Consequently, an increasing number of students chose to study physics and mathematics up to a post-graduate level. Such studies became very popular and scientists were considered as national geniuses worldwide, deposing philosophical and literary disciplines. This attraction for astrophysics was a real necessity regarding to the ruthless competition between USSR and USA. Both governments organised a resounding propaganda in schools so as to laud national scientists’ work and to prompt youth to choose such jobs. Some sociologists claimed to recognize in this period the first American government’s strong intervention in students’ orientation insomuch that some scientists were described as the “new soldiers of the USA”. Food and micro-technology industry also benefited from the space conquest. Their scientists took part in the development of ready-to-eat and dried food. They improved sterilization and package sealing techniques. Much of the micro-technology which fuels everyday activities comes from space conquest. Most of these inventions met with great success. Consumers, fascinated by space conquest, were ready to pay a

46


higher price to access these new products. Furthermore, practicality of these innovations couldn’t be denied. Launching regularly hit the headlines and represented modern epics. The toy industry didn’t hesitate to cash in on this new market. Every kid wanted to own a space shuttle and to perform exploits just as his heroes. The German company Arnold produced the first “flying” toy with a very ingenious crank and flexible cable system. ERTL enjoyed great success with its representation of the “Mercury” shuttle. It enabled kids to discover the interior of the shuttle. Even very technical details were represented and young boys grew accustomed to these technological evolutions. Before the space conquest, the frontier between sciences and common citizens used to be very clear. Space conquest marked the century because of its impact on the daily life. So much so that millions people had a feeling they had become familiar with details which seemed inaccessible to them a few years ago. The media were a key tool for ensuring the popularity of the space conquest. Their presence during an experiment enabled it to become famous. It was the means of communication mainly used between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Each one of them tried to create the most resounding event so as to exhibit its power. The space conquest became so popular that some politicians used it as an electoral weapon. Kennedy and Johnson managed to swing public opinion thanks to their communication skills. It provided dreams to populations and successful launches established the popularity of leaders involved in its elaboration. A lot of scientific journals were created during this period as a large public wanted to be informed about progress and improve their knowledge so as to be able to speak about it. Most of them, all around the world, mainly dealt with the American evolution while they only alluded to Soviet ones. Space was a myth for most people and these journals addressed topics as simple as the reason of its black colours, location of Planet Earth in the solar system… Today, even though space innovations don’t have such a success anymore, impacts of their origins remain important. All the Global System for Mobile (GSM) technologies take part in daily life. Just as populations in the 60’s and the 70’s, nowadays, we benefit from advantages offered by these discoveries. Sciences are still considered as “the elite way” and they are meant to reflect intelligence and analysis capacities. Fantasies already persist as each new discovery raises a new mystery.

Bibliography : -“Alpha Encyclopédie”, Kister Editions, volume N°2, « astronomie » & « astronautique » articles. - « la guerre des cerveaux », Bernard Lenteric, « le livre de poche », published in 1986. -http://lepithec.chez.com/1960/1960.htm : presents some articles about the space conquest. - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_du_vol_spatial - http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-race - http://jlsfly.free.fr/espace.htm

47


Armand AGHA

Struggles and Fights in the American Society during the 60’s and 70’s

With historical hindsight, the American society of 1959 and the one of 1981 are beyond comparison. If any society knows a normal evolution, the US has undergone especially big changes, thanks to many social and societal struggles. So what were these fights and what was their influence within the US society? These fights had occured in many fields, be it in the political life (such as the witchhunt launched by McCarthy against the Communists), in international matters (e.g: protests against the Vietnam War) or national issues like the Civil Rights. More genenerally, this post-war era can be described by a c lash between the young generation, born after the WWII and willing to modernize the society, and their parents, who were more conservative. That is why we are going to study each struggle and see the link between each other. The first conflict was undoubtedly the most federative one: the witch-hunt. Politicians and most people were said to be united against communist sympathizers. McCarthyism was a movement led by Joseph McCarthy (a politician in the 50s) who considered communism as a threat to democracy, all the more so he suspected many members of the State Departement of “infesting” the Government. To a larger extent, the rise of Communism in the 50s (China, the lost of the monopol of nuclear weapon, spies in Canada and the USA) caused a paranoïa that led to an anti-communist crusade: methods were propaganda, public intimidation, denouncement, and presumption of guiltiness, so that all communist sympathiser were questioned, fired or found guilty of conspiracy or treason. And its effects subsisted long after the 50s! For example, Charlie Chaplin – who had been expulsed from the USA because of his political opinions – still could not come back in the USA for a long time! But McCarthyism is the extreme aspect of a latent stream in the American society during the whole Cold War: indeed, as the USA symbolized the prosperous liberal and capitalist consumer society, the whole country (politicians of all sides and most people) were unanimous about supporting this system in opposition to the Communist regime. Thus, the Cold War was probably the most important clash in the USA during the 60s and 70s.

49


The anti-communists campaign was quite popular, but another conflict divided the society in a very violent and deep way: the Civil Rights Fight. In fact, despite the abolition of slavery in the XIXth century, a strong racial discrimination was predominant in the whole country, especially in Southern States, where the Afro-American population was particularly present. Nevertheless, beyond a de facto segregation - a classical societal phenomenon that has always occured and will always occur in every country which welcomes foreigners - a de jure segregation was clearly separating Black and White people until the 60s: facilities, services and opportunities, such as medical care and employment, could vary a lot; according to ethnic belonging. For instance, segregation was the rule for federal Civil Service. Hence, Black people, willing to be legally equal to the WASPs, started to struggle for civil rights. They responded to the violent white behaviour with violent acts and a civil battle prevailed for many years. The first action happened in February 1960, when black students decided to sit-in in many universities (North Carolina and then in other States), so as to protest against the separation between Black colleges and White ones. However, a few universities in the Mississippi started to integrate black students between 1956 and 1965. Saying that it caused protests and riots is an understatement, but this was one of the most symbolic advancement. Another very symbolic event was the March on Washington for jobs and Freedom on August 28th, 1963: over 200’000 people (mostly black people but also other ethnic groups!) gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, where they could hear the famous “I have a dream”-speech by Martin L. King. Next year, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Besides, 1964 is a landmark for the anti-racism battle, since it was the year when the Civil Rights Act outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. But legislation has no real influence on people’s opinion, and racism was still very active in the 60s and 70s. For instance, Martin L. King was assassinated in 1968. As a general rule, White racists, represented by the famous Ku Klux Klan, which killed many black people, were opposed to Black people, who had become racists against the White, symbolized by the Black Panthers. In fact, we could oppose the Greensboro massacre in 1979 – 5 marchers were killed by KKK members – to the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute in Mexico by Tommie Smith and John Carlos in Mexico City. But beyond these symbols, the social situation of the African-American People has evolved a lot during the 60s and 70s, especially at a legal level, thanks to politicians, although racism has not been eradicated in the US society (and will never be). Another conflict where politicians played a great role was the Vietnam War. In fact, this war was waged in 1959 by the Kennedy and Jonhson Administration, developed, and ended in 1975 under Nixon.

50


But protests really began in 1962; with anti-imperialist and colonialist groups (these political groups were calle “doves” against the “hawks”, which supported the War.) These groups could be very violent, such as the four anti-war protesters who were shot in the late 60s atthe Kent State University. This event can be related to the main type of protest against the Vietnam Disaster: street protests. Many movements felt concerned by this cause, such as the Civil Rights Movement (cf. above), and they sometimes could use provocative actions, with tough responses. E.g: the Democratic National Conventionin 1968 which turned into riots: 23’000 policemen upon 10’000 protesters! Finally, the most symbolic type of protest is undoubtedly the intervention of celebrities, who perfectly used their popularity and the media. One can remember Janis Joplin and many singers during Woodstock, Jane Fonda, or John Lennon. And of course, Cassius Clay, who refused to go to war, had the strongest opposition. Although Hollywood stars have always been famous for getting involved in politics (and it is often useless!), they managed to stir up strong reactions to their actions and speeches. But, contrary to nowadays, stars had a great influence on young people. Indeed, these artists symbolized another clash, which is probably the most significant in the US during the XXth Century: the clash of generations. Of course, this kind of opposition has always existed, but the WWII and the Baby-boomer generation, which had not lived the wars, have emphasized this gap. On the one hand, parents were conservative, and on the other hand, their children were not cautious about food etc. They were busy thinking about freedom, peace, love, sex, music, prosperity and were much more optimistic about their future. In fact, almost all the struggles and fights we analyzed above are direct or indirect consequences of this misunderstanding between two generations, be it the battle between Northern and Southern States, between the Black and the White, the Young and the Old, the People and the Politicians... The World War and the extraordinary prosperity that succeeded, added to the boom of a new younger generation, have led to many social and societal fights: money was not a problem anymore in the 60s and 70s, so new problems appeared, such as social and legal equality, great principles, leisure... In a nutshell, this period was an era of great struggles which led to the globalized and carefree consumer society we know.

51


Lucile MOUREY

How did Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music gradually turn into The Graduate and Catch-22?

The 1960’s were, from many points of view, exceptional years: the Cold War, the Civil Right Movement, the Counter Culture, the emancipation of women… All these events were revolutionary, and the society of 1970 was definitely not the same one as in 1960. In this dissertation, we will try to understand how this revolution was depicted in movies, by studying two movies from the beginning of the Sixties (Mary Poppins – 1964; The Sound of Music – 1965), and two movies from the end of the Sixties (The Graduate – 1967; Catch-22 – 1970). Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music are two quite similar movies that are symbolic of the traditional family values prevalent in the early 1960’s. Both these movies present dysfunctional families: George Banks and Captain Van Trapp are both trying to run their families as if they were their bank, or their ship: George Banks states several times that “A British bank is run with precision. A British home requires nothing less”, whereas Captain Van Trapp prefers addressing his children with a whistle rather than using their names. In order to attract their father’s love and attention, the children behave badly, and drive all their nannies away: Mary Poppins is the 7th nanny in four months and Maria is the 27th in four years. In both movies, Julie Andrews’ role is to show the children that their father loves them, and by doing so she brings peace in the family. “Mary Poppins” advocates the kind of family life that Walt Disney had spent his career both chronicling and helping to foster on a national level: father at work, mother at home, children flourishing. At the end of Mary Poppins, Winifred Banks, a militant suffragette, abandons her cause to take care of her children: she uses her scarf as a tail for their kite. Mary Poppins leaves the Banks family: now that they have their mother to take care of them, they do not need a nanny anymore. Children should be raised by their mother, not by servants. The Sound of Music is also a model of a traditional family: Maria Van Trapp abandons her dream to be a nun in order to stay at home and take care of the children, to replace their mother. These movies also convey the idea that discipline is the key of a happy family: George Banks says “A British nanny must be a General”, “Precision, Discipline and rules are the tools”, while the Captain Van Trapp teaches his children military discipline. Mary Poppins and Maria Van Trapp, while making sure the children are having fun and feel

53


loved, never undermine this belief that discipline is an essential element in a good education: Mary Poppins makes sure the children behave at all times (“Close your mouth Michael, we are not a codfish”), clean their room, respect their father, etc. However, by the end of the sixties, conformity and traditionalism are no longer the key values conveyed in movies: society has changed. The Graduate is an interesting example of this switch of values, as it rejects most of the values advocated in Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music: respect of the older generations, discipline, morale, conformity… Benjamin (Dustin Hoffman), fresh out of college, realizes that he does not know what he wants to do with his life: he does not want to be like his parents, he wants his future to be “different”. He feels misfit, awkward, does not know how to express his malaise. He spends the summer drifting in his parents’ pool, refusing to think about next year, grad school, work, marriage… Ben finds himself alienated and adrift in the shifting, social and sexual mores of the 1960s, and questioning the values of society (with its keyword "plastics"). Out of boredom and rebellion, he has an affair with Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father’s partner. Things become complicated when he falls in love with her daughter. Elaine is indeed the only person who can understand what he is going through: on their first date, he opens up for the first time since the beginning of the movie: “It’s like I’ve been playing some kind of game but the rules don’t make any sense to me. They are being made up by all the wrong people”. Of course, their parents refuse that they get married, and Mr. Robinson forces Elaine to marry Carl, a more suitable man, who meets every traditional requirement: he comes from a good family, goes to medical school, and does not sleep with older, married women. Ben arrives in the middle of the ceremony, and after a fight with the parents (Ben uses a crucifix as a weapon), they both run away, to live the life they want to live, away from their parents and their rules. Benjamin and Elaine are representative of their generation, a generation that grew up in an era of changing mores, with counter culture and rebellion. They are trying to find their own set of values, only knowing that these values are to be different from those of their parents. Throughout the movie, the emphasis is put on this generation gap that seems to have grown deeper and deeper in the Sixties: none of the older characters has their first name identified in the film; only the younger characters of Benjamin, Elaine and Carl do. This new generation is trying to build their own set of rules, but they do not know where they are heading. This uncertainty, this malaise, is very well shown by Dustin Hoffman. Robert Redford auditioned for the part of Benjamin, but was finally rejected by director Mike Nichols because Nichols did not believe Redford could persuasively project the underdog qualities necessary to the role. Two interesting camera techniques are used in the film. In the scene where Benjamin is running, he is shown at some distance running straight at the camera, an effect

54


which makes him look as if he getting nowhere as he's running. In another scene, Benjamin is walking from the right side of the screen to the left, while everyone else in the scene is moving from left to right. In western culture, things that move left to right seem natural (think of the direction you read words on a page), those that move right to left seem to be going the wrong way. These two visual techniques echo the themes of the film, Benjamin is going the wrong way, and getting nowhere in life. When The Graduate was first released in Portugal, the ending was cut; the movie ended with a helpless Ben behind the glass of the church watching Elaine getting married. The reason why the film suffered such a major cut was that the dictatorship Portugal lived in those days had a solid basis in Catholic Church and family values, and the censorship was given orders not to let any bad example pass to the youth. So it was decided that the movie should end with the lesson that nothing ever should oppose the church, the state and the parents. This movie also denounces the condition of women in the Sixties. Mrs. Robinson, who is the symbol of the traditional housewife (“I got up; I fixed breakfast for my husband”), is obviously unhappy: she is an alcoholic, she has an affair with a man who could be her son, she has lost interest in everything (she majored in art in college but now she is not interested in art anymore)… But even though she is unhappy, she wants her daughter to live the same life that she did: to marry a man she does not love, to be a housewife… But Elaine refuses this life: as she is fleeing the church, her mother tries to hold her back, saying “It’s too late”, Elaine shouts “Not for me!”, refusing to live this traditional, alienating life. Catch-22, a novel by Joseph Heller (1961), which was adapted to cinema in 1970 by Mike Nichols (the director of The Graduate), is also emblematic of society in the Sixties in several ways. It is the story of Yossarian, a US army Air Forces B-25 Bombardier during World War II, who desperately tries to be declared insane by the Air Force in order to go home. But there is a law, Catch-22, which makes it impossible: any one who is crazy is to be grounded, and cannot fly anymore. The ones considered crazy are those who are crazy enough to continue flying, regardless of danger. But these pilots cannot be grounded unless they ask to. But if they ask to be grounded, it shows that they are not really crazy after all, so they cannot be grounded. Throughout the book and the movie, we find this same atmosphere of “logical irrationality”, and a fierce satire of war, bureaucracy, capitalism and a Kafka-like society. Yossarian seems to be the only sane man in an insane society, and that drives him crazy. It is interesting to notice that the first hardback edition of Catch-22 was not a bestseller, but, later on, the paperback edition set sells records, and Catch-22 is now considered a classic of American literature. This can be explained by the events that took place in the Sixties: Catch-22 grew in popularity during the years of the Vietnam War, when the general population became more attuned to Yossarian's point of view.

55


A new generation of Americans - many of them facing the prospect of being forced to fight a war they did not understand - found themselves identifying with Yossarian's situation and the phrase "Catch-22" soon became a part of the popular consciousness. Speaking about the nerve he had touched, Heller would later say "a large part of the public sentiment was my own. They saw an absurd quality, a mendacious quality in many of our political leaders and business leaders". Summing up his intentions in writing the book - which has now sold more than 10 million copies - he pointed out that "everyone in my book accuses everyone else of being crazy. Frankly, I think the whole society is nuts - and the question is: What does a sane man do in an insane society?" Despite its World War II setting, Catch-22 is often thought of as a signature novel of the 1960s and 1970s. It was during those decades that American youth truly began to question authority. Hippies, university protests, and the civil rights movement all marked the 1960s as a decade of revolution, and Heller's novel fit in perfectly with the spirit of the times. In fact, Heller once said, “I wasn't interested in the war in Catch22. I was interested in the personal relationships in bureaucratic authority.” Whether Heller was using the war to comment on authority or using bureaucracy as a statement about the war, it is clear that Catch-22 is more than just a war novel. It is also a novel about the moral choices that every person must make when faced with a system of authority whose rules are both immoral and illogical. It proved almost prophetic both about the Vietnam War, a conflict that began a few years after the novel was originally published, and the sense of disillusionment about the military that many Americans experienced during this conflict. Comparing The Graduate and Catch-22 to movies from the early Sixties such as Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music allows us to identify some of the changes that took place in the 1960’s. This decade gave birth to a new generation of young people, who had a different set of values than those of their parents. Women emancipated. The administration and the politicians were fiercely criticized (Vietnam war…). Social and sexual mores changed. Educational techniques were studied and implemented. These movies show us that in many ways, the Sixties were revolutionary years.

References: 1 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/19/051219fa_fact1?currentPage=2 1 filmsite.org 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 wikipedia.org 1 http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Catch-22-About-Catch-22-HistoricalBackground.id-176,pageNum-11.html 1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1868619.stm 1 http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catch22/context.html

56


Cécile GASNAULT

Apocalypse Now: how the Vietnam War brought about a shift in the relationship between Hollywood and the US government and Hollywood of a traumatism In 2004, Michael Moore was awarded the “Palme d’Or” for his movie Farhenheit 911 that dealt with the war in Iraq. 25 years earlier, the same award was given to Francis Ford Coppola for Apocalypse Now, a movie that is, in my opinion, a much better and much more efficient criticism of a comparable quagmire. I first intended to focus on how Vietnam War changed Hollywood’s support to the US government when it comes to war, but I think it is interesting to widen the reflection. Indeed, Apocalypse Now is essentially a movie about the perception of the Vietnam War. Its topic is highly psychological. Therefore, it is interesting to see how this film can represent several trends brought about by that war regarding its perception by the different actors, such as the role of television in making this war a live show, the disconnection between the US soldiers and the war they fight, between the authorities and their soldiers, the issue of the return (can Willard kill Kurtz and not take his place? And go back?). The US government, Americans, television and the Vietnam War There is a very memorable scene in Apocalypse Now, when a cameraman working for television asks to Willard and his men to pretend they are fighting in front of the camera. Coppola points out the manipulation of information orchestrated by the government through television. He also underlines the manner, in which television widely and massively broadcast images of the war during the conflict, to such an extent that it made the conflict an event Americans could watch almost live. Benjamin Stora, in his book Imaginaires de guerre (1997, Editions La Découverte), suggests that this actually blurred the line between civilians and soldiers: indeed, in the movie, we can see soldiers not concerned, not involved in the war they fight, thanks to technologies that limit their direct contact with the field. On the other hand, civilians see images of the war every night on their television. So both civilians and soldiers seem to be spectators of a show they do not understand, of a war they cannot see their enemy in, of horrors that end up becoming common. While television poured out images of the conflict, Hollywood was unusually quiet about it. Indeed, it broke with its traditional support for the U.S government. During the actual conflict, few movies dealing with it were released. But we can maybe talk of an indirect mention of the Vietnam War through war movies that depict past conflicts with a less enthusiastic, optimistic approach, like in Catch 22 in 1970 by Mike Nichols who shows the spectator the dark sides of the war, in a camp in Southern Italia during World War 2. The most obvious example of a disrespectful vision of the war is 57


M.A.S.H that same year by Robert Altman. Although the action takes place during the Korea War, it is clearly the cinematographic embodiment of a counterculture opposed to the Vietnam War. Disconnections Hollywood really addressed directly the Vietnam War once the conflict was over. And it did in a very critical manner vis-à-vis the US government and its decisions to undertake such a war. The uninterrupted flow of images during the conflict hindered people from being able to take the necessary step backward to build criticism. Nonetheless, the traumatism was huge and needed to be expressed. Coppola, in his movie, managed to express at the same time this traumatism and to vividly criticize a conflict depicted as a delirium. Metaphorically, both Willard’s and Kurtz’s deliria represent the one experienced by the US army, the US government, and the US people, all lost in that war. It is the story of schizophrenia and of dualisms. This is why I chose to entitle this part “disconnections”, because disconnections were operated at several levels resulting in dualisms and opposition that the American psyche was struggling with. Disconnection between Hollywood and the government regarding the war, disconnection between the government and its army, disconnection between the soldier and his war. These dualisms are metaphorically represented in Apocalypse Now by the contradictory wishes of the main characters and by the opposition between Willard and Kurtz, as well as by their similarities, the coexistence of which builds up the dramatic interest. Disconnection between the authorities and their soldiers The film begins with Captain Willard being appointed with a mission: to kill Colonel Kurtz “officially” declared insane by the military authorities. Willard must follow up the river into Cambodia, where Kurtz has set up his “realm”. The journey of Willard deep into the jungle and always further from his superiors draws the metaphor of the disconnection between the authorities and their soldiers: Willard understands more and more Kurtz, falls deeper and deeper into the same madness, and his final decision to kill Kurtz does not seem to come from his allegiance to the U.S army rather than from something more primal, maybe even to take his place as a living god. Disconnection between the soldier and his fight Apocalypse Now depicts the conflict like a traumatic vacation for the soldiers. Indeed, they are more obsessed with all sorts of traffic, with Bunny Girls, booze and drugs than with the war they are fighting. The enemy is far, and they fire gun like toys. Several scenes show their reactions whenever they think a Vietnamese might be attacking them: they shoot at random like mad men, oblivious to the damage caused, oblivious to the disproportion of their reaction. The action scene starting with the famous Walkyries ride shows that soldiers are completely lost and terrified when they finally hit the field and are physically confronted with the enemy. Several other scenes express the incomprehension of the soldiers regarding the war: it makes no sense for them, and as Kurtz explains it, they are not committed because they are only mobilised for a year. Nonetheless, Willard’s experience of going back

58


home points to the fact that the return is almost as traumatic, or maybe is the moment the traumatism is revealed. Can you return from Vietnam? This question is pretty early addressed in movies, even before the war is directly dealt with. One of the most emblematic examples is Scorsese’s Taxi Driver with Robert DeNiro in 1976. In the American psyche, the issue of the return and the after war is stigmatized as the Vietnam syndrome. In Apocalypse Now, Willard has already gone back to the US and is well aware that if he returns from Vietnam, he will not go back to normal. Kurtz embodies the non-return. Willard oscillates between the two during the whole movie as he goes deeper and deeper into the jungle and into madness. What makes return so difficult and the traumatism so hard is a sort of schizophrenia between a growing insanity and a sharp understanding of it and of the war’s nonsense. As more and more movies came to criticize the US intervention in Vietnam, and now in Iraq, it seems that Hollywood either did not come back from that time as it was before, and has made itself the visual expression of criticism when it comes to the US questionable military involvements.

59


Maï-Lan FITOUSSI

The Factory, Andy Warhol

When he was interviewed, Andy Warhol used to lie about his origins, pretending he had grown up in Mc Keesport Pennsylvania, or Pittsburgh. He also lied about his age, which scandalised some of his friends until they understood that doing so he wanted to create a new identity for himself, with a complete mythology around him. It is part of the man and explains the way he structured a society around himself, craving for his attention and love: the Factory. The Factory was born in 1965 in a spacious loft on the 47th East in New York City. It was a disused factory and he did not choose to call his workplace The Factory, people just gave this name to the place. It was a place of constant activity, and even from the day they put a big board “No entrance for whom is not waited for” people used to come in and out at every moment of the day and night. In which way do the place, its inhabitants gravitating around one man, the relationships this man structured, the cult of his figure, denote Warhol’s personality and fears? The Factory was spacious, with bare tiling, the walls were covered with aluminium and right in the middle was a large sofa. There were spotlights and film reels spilled all over the floor. In this particular context Andy Warhol used to create a court around him where everybody desperately tried to draw his attention. He was the king of the place and everyday the question was “who will he notice today?” According to Henry Geldzahler, one of his acquaintances at the time, he was completely unable to live alone and one of the major interests for him was that the Factory created perpetual movement around him. He was the very centre of this world. For example when the Factory people needed to take their car there was a strict ceremonial concerning who would be allowed to travel in Warhol’s car: first came his ministers like Chuck Wein in the mid 60’s, then his boyfriend, and finally the most well known star living with him at that particular period (they used to change very often: Nico, Edie, Richie and Brigid Berlin, Viva...) Actually Andy Warhol had always been obsessed with stars, it was a very important piece of his personality, he spent his time writing to famous people before he became himself famous, for example he pestered Truman Capote with fan letters in the 50's. But actually from the beginning of the Factory, people were struggling to get his attention, there were terrible rivalries, which Andy Warhol loved above all, he looked at these persons eager to kill for him as if he did not understand what was happening, maybe it was the only way for him to feel safe. At the same time he was a very anguished person who needed to be pampered: one night at one in the morning he called his friend Henry Geldzahler telling him that he 61


absolutely needed to talk to him and that it was really important, they finally met in a restaurant and when Henry asked him what was happening, the only thing Warhol could answer was “Say something”, it was the only thing he had to say, the only thing that made him wake up his friend in the middle of the night. It shows how deeply he needed to be surrounded, he needed to prove to himself that there would always be somebody standing up for him. Apart from the star artist, Andy Warhol was also the man who moulded some of the most well known supertars, muses of the 60’s, from Nico to Edie. It is a good indicator of his personality and his need to legitimize his own status by the frequentation of the cream of the crop. Edie -Edith Sedgwick- was part of one of the greatest American families, the Sedgwicks, a similar dynasty to that of the Kennedys. She was a real beauty, electric and attractive, nobody could cross her way without noticing her but at the same time she was a freak. She had a very troubled relationship with a tyrannical father and after several stays in psychiatric institutions she decided to make herself a place in the then boiling New York City where she began to acquire a wonderful notoriety. In 1965 when she met Warhol in a party she was 22-year-old, he immediately noticed her. When he first saw her he exclamed “She is won-der-ful” and offered her to meet him at the Factory the day after. It was the beginning of a passionate relationship between the two of them. Andy Warhol decided to mould her and many people, like Sandy Kirkland, who first only saw her as a lost wreck and then spoke of a revelation. She began to play in his films and follow him everywhere he would go. Andy Warhol always looked for people that had a real passion inside, a fire he could fuel, and he guessed that Edie was one of these extraordinary people whose qualities he knew how to exalt in order to reveal it to the rest of the world –revealing himself at the same time. Edie became the superstar of the Factory, Warhol’s “alter ego”. He had always been a social climber and she really legitimized him, propelling him into the world of the Greatest he couldn’t reach before, inviting him where he could have never been invited without her. He was really flattered to be liked by such a beautiful and rich girl who had chosen to dress, wear her hair and behaved exactly like him. If he could have been a woman he would have chosen to be Edie, he really became identified to her, like a Pygmalion. Nonetheless the Factory little by little destroyed her. She began to take drugs and became an addict. From then on the wonderful love story between Andy and Edie became more and more difficult until she decided to leave the Factory to join Bob Dylan and his manager in order to become a Hollywood star. From this day on, Andy Warhol despised her and never gave her a second chance. She had been the one to help him to reach the top but he then forgot her, only worrying about Andy Warhol. Later she said that she hated him, that he was a monster who used people for his own sake and just left them go as soon as he did not need them anymore. Actually I just

62


spoke of Edie Sedgwick here but there are many examples of persons used by Warhol for Warhol. On the 3rd of June 1968 Warhol was finally shot by Valerie Solanas a fanatic, to whom he had promised a role in a film and finally never given her. It was just after he moved out from the 1st Factory and settled the new Factory on the 33 Union Square. Andy Warhol did not die, but he became another man. He cut most contacts with the outside, declined invitations and almost stopped meeting new people. It was the end of the world and way of living he had built in 1965, a world gravitating around him, never mind what it could cost to the others. A world in which you entered knowing that you would worship the only king, Andy Warhol.

Bibliography Edie, Jean Stein (Christian Bourgois Editeur)

63


Christophe MENGER

The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War No later than last week, I was watching a video released on the web, showing images of an offensive led by American troops in a remote valley of Afghanistan. GI’s were filmed while enduring a violent skirmish. Who filmed? The very guys who were shooting at the US soldiers. That is today’s war: a subtle combination of real war and war of images. Nowadays, almost every armed conflict in the world is televised. There is no chance escaping images, snapshots or footages depicting war scenes, when something hot is actually happening on the globe. Some people consider that the CNN coverage of the first Gulf War has all triggered off. Others date this phenomenon back to the Vietnam War. One thing is sure: today, war on TV has become quite commonplace. But alongside this trivialization of war comes the rather uncontrolled aspect of images. Even if these images have become banal, they still have a lot of power and they do not leave public opinion indifferent. Young GI’s falling under the bullets of enraged Islamic fighters in a war that no one has neither really approved nor even understood creates a psychological shock. This kind of shock probably precipitated the end of the Vietnam War. Let us see how. When the first US Marines landed in Vietnam in beginning of 1965, the American media had already started for a long time the coverage of what was going to be the most dreadful military defeat of US history. At that time, there were about 20 000 American military advisors already in Vietnam, helping South Vietnamese on how to contain the Viet Cong insurgency. The American press and television was relaying the government propaganda. Gruesome photographs, pictures of Viet-Cong militiamen murdering, kidnapping and mutilating innocent civilians were served for dinner to the average US citizen, comfortably seated in his living room. North Vietnamese army was being demonized so as to stun the American population. This helped forge a favorable climate for military action. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson was re-elected in, what is to date, the biggest victory of an American President. This overwhelming success was de facto giving him legitimacy to deploy US troops on the Vietnam soil. At that time, there is no doubt that the media were utterly biased, so as to create in people’s imaginary the feeling that the USA had the moral responsibility to keep the peace and to spread freedom. And it worked pretty well! Indeed, opinion polls taken in the US shortly after the first bombing of North Vietnamese positions indicated a

65


70% approval rating for the President and an 80% approval of US military involvement in Vietnam. Yet, this honeymoon between journalists and the US Government did not last long. One must not forget that back in the Sixties, huge technological progress had been made. The boom of credit allowed lots of households to buy TV sets. The era of motion picture had started. Thanks to the massive coverage by US media, images of the conflict were extremely accessible to the crowds. The Government was now the victim of its own propaganda campaign! TV networks and press editors were less and less inclined to accept the official version of events. The impressive flow of images coming from field photographers and reporters raised doubts about the military staff information. As Anthony Barnett, a British journalist and writer, summarizes in one of his books: “The American press and TV networks became critical of the US role after the Tet uprising in 1968. The US media had allowed itself to be duped by President Johnson and the Pentagon. Their professional self-esteem could no longer tolerate continuation.1” Moreover, this period has been marked by the beginning of a new kind of journalism: photojournalism. By following the Marines combat platoons on their field missions, these journalists were immersed into the hell of jungle fighting. What the soldiers lived and could not express or share, they could. The pictures they sent finished on the front covers of magazines such as Time, Newsweek or Life. This gave a huge impact to the conflict. Until now, US citizens had regarded the Vietnam War as a faraway conflict in a mysterious country against a mysterious enemy. They knew that the US Army suffered losses, but as soon as they started to see with their own eyes the dead bodies of young GI’s lying in the swamps of a country that they had not heard of before, they started to doubt. But in wartime, the worst thing that a government can expect is the turn around in public opinion. It was already too late. These gruesome images forced the public into action. Millions of students across the country started to protest against this inhuman and unjust war, but also against the compulsory conscription. The hippie movement played also a great role in relaying the protest; artists, athletes, like Muhammad Ali who refused the show up to the draft, but above all, singers such as Joan Baez, John Lennon or Bob Dylan, used their aura to spread a message of peace. The Vietnam conflict or maybe the protestation itself rapidly became the centre of media attention in the US. Quite cynically, one could say that this national surge of peace and pacifism practically eclipsed the real war. The Americans progressively evolved from a war-supportive position to defiance towards President Johnson, whose approval rating plummeted as the contestation gained clout. Symbolically, it is when famous CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite publicly expressed skepticism for the war effort, that President Johnson understood that he had lost the

66


public opinion support, and in a sense, that he had lost the war. Johnson actually declared: “Well, if I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America”. It would be probably exaggerated to say that the US media enabled to send the 300 000 GI’s back home, still it certainly triggered off and accelerated the US withdrawal. Lots of people argue about the role that the media should play in wartime. For some, they have to unconditionally back up their government in order to create a patriotic fervor and at least to support the fighting troops. Others insist on the “third-power” that the media should exert, in order to question the almighty State, which has the power to send fighting half a million young Americans in the name of peace and freedom. Once again, all is about finding the happy medium… Barnett, Anthony. Some Notes of Media Coverage of the Falklands (1984), Essex University Press Bourke, Joanna. An Intimate History of Killing (1999), Granta Boylan, Trish. The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War www.wellesley.edu: The Effects of Photojournalism on the Protest Movement During Vietnam War

67


Julie BERNARD

The Biafran war 1966-1970 A turning point in media coverage of African conflicts and the birth of the “New Humanitarianism”

“Biafra realised that this was an angle they could play on. It had tried the political emancipation of oppressed people, it had tried the religious angle ... but the pictures of starving children and women, dying children ... touched everybody, it cut across the range of people's beliefs.” Paddy Davies - Biafran Propaganda Secretary On January 1, 1901, Britain created the protectorate of Nigeria above the former Kingdoms of Benin an Nri, after two centuries of Portuguese trade and English influence. 65 years later, on January 1, 1966, began the deadliest conflict of this country, the Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War. Opposing different ethnic groups, religions, interests, this was also the theatre for two different wars: a military one on the one side, with trained and armed state troops, and a propaganda one on the other side, trying to “fight without guns” by appealing to the world’s public opinion mercy, leading to the first African famine to become headline news and the development of the “New Humanitarism”. In 1960, when the United Kingdom started its decolonisation process in Africa, Nigeria was seen as the “Great Black Hope”. The past ten years had seen very few successes on this continent, and everyone was looking at this country, expecting it to efficiently manage its independence process and its nation’s development. This was the most populous country of Africa; it had rich oil offshore deposits, and its level of education was quite good. However, Nigeria was the creation of imperial state borders, and not necessarily relevant historically. This country assembled 3 major tribes: The Haussa-Fulanis (Muslims) in the North, the Yorubas (Protestant) in the west, and the Igbos (Catholics) in the East. And, as it has been frequently seen through history, this coexistence of those different ethnic tribes led to a Civil War in 1966. When leaving the country, the British left the majority of the power to a minority, the Haussa. Even though Igbos were better educated and the most important part of Nigeria wealth came the south, the northern part of the country was favoured in terms of salaries, infrastructures and living conditions. Hence, the Igbos felt despised and wanted to occupy a more important place in their country. In January 1966, a Coup was organised, putting an Igbo at the head of the state, General Ironsi, and eliminating the other ethnic tribes from the government. Igbos

69


suddenly became undesirable, and those who were living in the North were hunted and slaughtered, forcing them to retreat to their southern region. After Ironsi’s assassination, Igbos refused the new power that was put in place, and, through their charismatic leader, Ojukwu, they proclaimed the independence of Biafra on May 30, 1967. Consequence: A 3 years long conflict that led to a major famine in Biafra. Indeed, despite the presence of mercenaries, the Nigerian Army was way more powerful, better organised and supplied in arms. Biafran “troops” couldn’t compete, and soon had to retreat. The Capital of the Republic of Biafra, Enugu, was taken in October, as well as 2/3 of the region. The remaining Igbos territory was smaller and had no access to the sea anymore. But since they were still resisting, Nigeria organised a blockade of the region, and cut off the transportation of the International Aid, even shooting at a Red Cross plane which was heading to Biafra. “By keeping silent, we doctors were accomplices in the systematic massacre of a population.” Bernard Kouchner – Red Cross doctor However, a new type of intervention started. The United Kingdom was supporting the official state of Nigeria in this conflict; hence it was difficult for its allies to intervene. Nevertheless, an airlift from Gabon was organised in order to transport food supplies, arms and mercenaries (coming unofficially from France, Portugal and South Africa) and also journalists and Red Cross teams composed essentially of French Doctors. Journalists and Doctors were dependant from political decisions and from the neutrality policy of the Red Cross: They were supposed to cure, and not try to intervene into geopolitical matters. Still, their indignation over what was happening would gain the upper hand. Due to the blockade and the bombing of the Nigerian Army, an extermination of the Igbo tribe was taking place and a massive Famine was starting. The number of children suffering and dying from malnutrition was growing very quickly, doctors and journalists decided at that time not to helplessly assist to this anymore. After the killing of 4 Red Cross doctors by the Nigerian army, they wanted to inform the international opinion of what was happening in Biafra in order to force the States and the Red Cross to denounce it and talk the Nigerian state into officially accepting the International Aid. They gave interviews to newspaper, TV, sent photos and videos of starving children… Bernard Kouchner and Max Récamier, with the help of the other French Doctors and journalists, managed to put Biafra under the Media spotlight. Overnight, international opinion stared at this country and supported its cause without having any idea of what their claims are. “Quite suddenly, we'd touched a nerve. Nobody in this country at that time had ever seen children looking like that. The last time the Brits had seen anything like that must have been the Belsen pictures ... People who couldn't fathom the political complexities of the war could easily grasp the wrong in a picture of a child dying of starvation.” (Frederick Forsyth, journalist). British people even took to the streets to

70


denounce Wilson policy. The conflict would last until December 1969, till the fall of the town of Owerri. A Peace Accord was negotiated with the new Nigerian Government to reunify the Nation and put an end to the confrontations. Igbos abandoned their idea of sovereignty in exchange of a better democratic representation. Biafran war would have cost between 1 and 2 millions lives. Afterwards, this conflict really symbolized a turning point into the instrumentalisation of conflicts. In Biafra, the war was about to end when the international coverage started. Maybe that without the international humanitarian and media pressure, General Ojukwu would have resigned and negotiated with the Nigerian government. Maybe this “New humanitarism” only helped the personal power aspiration of the General by giving him the tools to continue his war at the cost of many lives. “The secessionist line forwarded by Kouchner and other agencies, that the Biafran people would be faced with systematic massacre by federal troops if they lost the war, turned out to be unsubstantiated. In fact, de Waal notes that even as the international relief operation was being massively expanded there was already a large amount of evidence that there would be no genocide. In the large areas of Biafran territory taken over by the federal government there had been no government massacres.” (David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond: Human Rights and International Intervention). Famine also appeared to be very relevant in order to gain sympathy and support. Sylvie Brunel analyzed the phenomena of Emergency Aid: its development led to many unwanted flaws like the instrumentalization or the embezzlement of the food help for example. In Biafra, Ojukwu is thought to have fostered the Famine to maintain the world opinion support. In every situation, Aid agencies are dependent of the willingness of the states to let them help, otherwise Aid can be blocked, or even sold in order to buy munitions. What’s more, Food help, by bringing free or very cheap food, weakened local agriculture, making countries more and more dependant to Aid, but also American and European supported products (PAC...). This conflict also questionned the neutrality policy of the Red Cross and led, in 1971, to the creation of “Médecins Sans Frontières” by French doctors, among them Bernard Kouchner and Max Récamier. Kouchner was sometimes considered as a defender of the right of interference: His position was that curing people sometimes is not enough, you have to resort to military or political intervention. Afterwards, MSF only asked once for military action, in 1994 in Rwanda, and will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999.

The Nigerian Civil War, John de St. Jorre Medecins sans frontières: La Biographie, Anne Vallaeys From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond: Human Rights and International Intervention, David Chandler L’Afrique, Sylvie Brunel The New Imperialists, Kirsten Sellars for The Spectator Nigeria-Biafra War, BBC documentary

71


Cyrille DIMIER DE LA BRUNETIERE DE LA CROIX

Rock music, society and politics in the Sixties

There’s no doubt, if you think about the Sixties as a concept, that rock music will irremediably be one of its main components. What you have to wonder is: what role did that new kind of music play in the deep social evolutions and dramatic events that shook the western world at that time? Musically speaking, rock n’ roll music was born in the 50’s in the US, from the progressive fusion of various musical genres from Blues, R’n’B (Rhythm and Blues), Jazz (all of them rather “black” genres) and Country and Folk music (rather performed by white people). It is however obvious that the precursors of that music are much more black people (Louis Jordan, Big Joe Turner), although the songs considered as the first Rock n’ Roll hits are recorded by white artists: “Rock around the clock” by Bill Haley in 1954. Rock music appears to be the first music bringing black and white influences and artists in the US.2 “If I could find a white man who sings with the Negro feel, I'd make a million dollars”. The musical dilemma of that period is well symbolised by this quote of Sam Phillips, the founder of the Sun Records label in Memphis. His dream soon becomes true when he meets a truck driver called Elvis Presley, who becomes the ultimate white robber of black hits.1 Young Americans are discovering and enjoying a new music style, with a fast beat and energetic vocals, but which soon proves to be in total contradiction with the values of the WASP dominant society then: - White, middle-class teenagers listen to what is considered at that time as a “black” sound, which is quite an issue in the segregationist America. The content of white music (country music) has been rather consensual until then, since it was dealing with classic western ballad themes. On the contrary, Rock n’ roll music remains faithful to his black roots, with more realistic lyrics, linked with the difficulties of everyday life (influence of blues tradition). - Elvis Presley’s dancing and, more widely, this music’s spirit (lyrics, beat.) are found too erotic by the dominant puritan society. Rock n’ roll music becomes quickly one of the drivers of an underlying sexual revolution, which will truly take off in the Sixties. 1,2,3

73


A quote by the Executive Secretary of Alabama White Citizens Council is symptomatic of the state of mind of the American establishment: “The obscenity and vulgarity of the Rock n’ Roll music is obviously a mean by which the white man and his children are driven at the level of the Negros”3 Rock artists and entertainers are quickly put under the pressure of political (Mac Carthy, segregationists), religious and moral forces that lead Rock music to die, and to be replaced by soft, consensual ballads in the late 50’s in the US. The second act of the life rock music takes place in Britain, where young artists, keen on American blues and Rn’B, adapt the concept of rock music to their personal aspirations and feelings. Britain is a particularly welcoming country for rock n’ roll, since none of the forces that have driven this genre out of the US (political, moral and segregationist) are strong enough to do the same in the UK: “We did not know whether Chuck Berry was black or white before seeing his face on the package of the disk” (Keith Richards) 1 British rockers will focus on the musical side of rock and take their inspiration in the rejection of an old society, faced with real economic difficulties. Musically speaking, the British post-war middle class has been strongly influenced by the blues and jazz legends (Eric Clapton, who was a kid at that time, first became famous in the 60’s as a very talented bluesman, before founding Cream and other more rock-oriented groups). 2 The British rock scene flourishes in the early 60’s, triggers the rebirth of American rock music, and the whole genre splits in 3 main influences: - Groups such as the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Byrds focus on musical arrangements and techniques, and remain rather indifferent to the political movements of their time - Groups like the Who (My Generation) and the Rolling Stones (Let it Bleed) use rock music as an insult, and start to personify more than ever what will be the universal attribute of rock music: youth rebellion. - Bob Dylan or Neil Young use folk rock songs as a political weapon (“Blowin’ in the Wind”, against segregation in 1962, “Hurricane”, ...) 2 The synthesis of these influences is successfully done in the 1965-1969 period, mostly thanks to the psychedelic movement and drugs. But above all, what brings all these rock artists together is the universality of the message or at least feelings they transmit, no matter how simple they are. The whole teenage world of that time has screamed at the Beatles ballads, or danced at the Beach Boys songs. They have expressed the views of the post-war generation which was both worried (atom bomb, Vietnam war) and full of hopes (civil rights movement, hippies…). The hippie movement is one of the most significant examples of the role of rock music as a spokesman of universal values. The Woodstock festival, held in 1969 in the

74


US, was first meant to be both a giant music event, with rock icons such as Jimi Hendrix, and the largest hippie gathering ever made (450,000 people). The general motto was “Peace, Love and Music”, and Jimi Hendrix, who is mostly known as a great guitarist, and not a political songwriter, eventually played an improvised version of “Star and Stripes”, with guitar riffs sounding like the bombs falling on Vietnam. Such events may raise the question of the confusion between vague, universal and peaceful life aspirations of the majority, fed by rock and folk music, and a precise political message, led by a few intellectuals who had little to do with rock music. 4 Paradoxically, 1969’ “Summer of Love” marks the decline of the hippie movement, which has finally become too widespread not to be in contradiction with its ideals of counter-culture. The era of illusions comes to an end in the 70’s, with new economic difficulties and is very visible in the evolution of rock music. The birth of the punk movement, shouting raw, violent and hopeless rebellion feelings, with groups such as the Sex Pistols, the Clash, is quite symbolic in that way. The Sixties rock music, representing the social and political aspirations of his times, is gone. It has accompanied its time and has been likewise shaking, full of hopes, revolts and icons who died too early…

Sources: 12345-

Piero Scaruffi – History of Rock Music, 2005 Wikipedia – History of Rock n’ Roll Youtube – The media against Rock n’ roll MSN Encarta – History of Rock music L’internaute.com – Histoire du Rock

75


Daphné VIALAN

Hope and delusion in the 60’s – a lesson for today The “Swinging Sixties” are a period of important social changes. Feminism, civil rights, economic growth, space conquest, technological progress, contributed to inspire hope in a better future. Of course, the sixties also included a great proportion of fear as the Cold War became hot with international crisis like the Bay of Pigs invasion. However, the Sixties in Western Countries look like an era of hope, between the rigid fifties and the deceiving seventies. What did become of all the hopes nurtured in the Sixties? What are the legacy and the lessons we can learn from the hopes of the Sixties? Hopes from the Sixties have turned sometimes into a bitter sentiment. It is the case in the field of arts, with the Theater of the Absurd, born in these years. The Theater of the Absurd is today, in my opinion, pushed to its limit and widely put into practice. The main characteristics of the Theater of the Absurd in Cyril’s view, as exposed in class, are: - “Broad comedy mixed with horrific or tragic images; - Characters caught in hopeless situations forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions; - Dialogue full of clichés, wordplay, and nonsense; - Plots which are cyclical or absurdly expansive.” I think this is completely typical of today’s TV series. Desperate Housewives is a mixture of comedy and thriller. In the first scene one of the heroines is overwhelmed by her four demoniac children playing tricks on the old lady living next door, and the next scene, a woman is being tortured in the basement of her house by her crazy ex husband for a complicated reason. This is an obvious mix of no laughing matters and mere comedy. In the TV show Lost, characters are indeed “caught in hopeless situations, forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions”. Lost stages survivors from an air crash trying to survive on a strange island. The audience is rapidly aware that they are not on that island by mistake and that the island has its own personality and will... People on the island are confronted to their old mistakes. Sahiyd, who used to torture innocent people as an Iraqi soldier, has to choose whether he will torture people again on the island, when he is face to face with an inhabitant of the island who has obvious strategic information and doesn’t accept to say it. Plus, some dialogues are complete nonsense, but caught in the overall nonsense of the show, it is not conspicuous. To me, it is the heritage of the Theater of the Absurd, even if it is not labeled this way. It is more subtle, the spectator is caught in the story, and cliffhangers create a

77


dependence, the story on the whole (when you assemble the different seasons of a show for example or the 24 episodes of a season from the TV show named 24) is not really important. One of the most important characteristic of absurd in my view is the meddling of comic and tragic stories and its flat treatment. A director can choose to show horrors, non sense and then he will add something lighter to provoke laughs. There is no clear-cut separation between the different styles. What was pure, provocative and meaningful in the Sixties has turned into something lighter and quite humoristic. Humor indeed is the fate known by many hopes of the Sixties. For example, fashion in the sixties expressed hopes, beliefs, even claims: clothes were made to free the women, to make women more comfortable, to express the equality between men and women. Now, fashion has no great fights. It reuses old fashions with a new humorous point of view. This is one of the main points developed by Gilles Lipovetsky, in his essay “The era of emptiness”, published in 1983. One of the chapters is called “Fashion: a playful parody”. He explains that seriousness is a taboo in our society as well as in fashion. He says that “Retro has no content, and doesn’t mean anything.” One of his most striking arguments is about ethnicity. He explains that the extermination of exotic cultures has been replaced by a soft and humoristic neocolonialism. This is the case for example with the fashion of keffiyeh. Keffiyeh is a “traditional headdress typically worn by Arab men”. During the thirties, the keffiyeh became a symbol of Palestinian nationalism. It is now a common accessory to be found in all fashionistas’ dressing room. The hope that fashion could help enhance the social condition of women or express real concern or political position has been turned down today. Some other hopes turned true. The Civil Rights Movement created much hope in the sixties. It was a fantastic fight for equality, a hard one, but it resulted in the affirmation of equalities between people of different colors. It obviously led to the election of Barack Obama last year. However, one might note that immigration is still a prickly subject and the relations between America and Mexico are an epitome of that tension. But there is still hope. This hope concerning racial equality is in direct link with the hope about economic progress. The sixties were a period of economic growth. Furthermore, the whole society seems to be engaged in a forward movement leading to the amelioration of the overall condition of everyone. For example, the son of a workman could go to college, where he would receive an education and become an engineer. Tomorrow would be better than yesterday and there was work for everybody and the whole society was becoming richer and richer. The economic crisis put an end to those hopes. The liberalism extended its grip on economic realities. Instead of reducing inequalities, it widened the gap between rich and poor, both on a national and on an international scale.

78


Hopes from the Sixties have known different fates: turned into a humorous posture or turned down by history, some also have a bitter taste like the hope of another parallel world created by drugs. Still we know the Sixties created great changes in our society; and maybe we should rethink about that period with naĂŻve eyes to find back that hope. It is all the more important as the climate crisis, economic crisis and terrorism (and the list is non-exhaustive) are making us loose the hope for better days.

Bibliography Gilles Lipovetsky, L'ère du vide : Essais sur l'individualisme contemporain, Gallimard, 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/

79


Magaly ROHE

The legacy of photography in the sixties and seventies: between depiction and provocation

Photography undoubtedly influenced one’s representation of the sixties and seventies. With the Cold War and polarization of the world emerged curiosity about other countries and the way foreign relations were handled abroad, as well as the need to express the uneasiness of a whole society. Indeed, as Walter Benjamin and Roland Barthes claimed, the representational possibilities and mass proliferation of photographic images are today key features of modern culture. In such a context of unclear boundaries between depiction and provocation, one can therefore wonder how snapshots and portraits of the time, as powerful tools, helped to capture moods, faces and the essence of a whole era, as well as were of great influence during and after this period. Be it rock star scandals or war snapshots, the sixties and seventies are largely remembered thanks to photojournalism that presents a story primarily through the use of pictures. Published in popular weekly magazines, some famous pictures allowed photographers to achieve near-celebrity status and develop a close relationship with the public they were addressing. A good example of this would be Ian Bradshaw’s famous image The Twickenham Streaker, taken in February 1974 with Michael O’Brien being led away by police after streaking at an England-France rugby game at Twickenham. Awarded “Picture of the Year” by the American magazine LIFE, this particular cliché contributed to the reputation of Ian Bradshaw worldwide. The American society was indeed eager for controversies stemming from such provocative news in brief. As French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson stated, photographs could definitely “fix eternity in an instant." Very emblematic pictures were those depicting the political unrest and the French student riots in Paris in May 68 events from Gilles Caron, Claude Dityvon and Bruno Barbey. With only still pictures, they managed to trigger the viewer’s emotions thanks to the dynamic and spontaneous manner scenes were depicted. At the time, these photojournalists, often joining the photographic cooperative Magnum Photos, gained such powerful individual vision they could chronicle the world and interpret its peoples, events, issues and personalities without being questioned.

81


As a general rule, the sixties triggered a desire to produce honest images that would crystallize mindsets about society and history, however brutal they might be. For example when he took pictures of America capturing the nation’s racial divide, juvenile delinquency and fear of the atomic bomb, the first noir photographer Robert Frank claimed his book The Americans (1958) aimed at constituting “an authentic contemporary document” embodying both the sadness and beauty in the look of America. Followed by Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlandler, they inspired a new movement in street photography with a very specific photographic technique such as the use of unusual focus, low lighting and cropping. Photos were often blurry, dark and grainy, shot at night or in dimly lit interiors. They helped to express the intangible atmosphere reigning in the United States at the time and as the photographer Ettore Sottsas pointed out, serve as a “substitute for memory”. Therefore in theory, photojournalism and street photography prevent the viewer from being misled by composites or montages, by visual trickery or any other illusions. However, both movements were rapidly criticized for being too manipulative. Aware of this, Robert Frank said once that “Photographs leave too much open too bullshit”. A good example might be the controversy around Diane Arbus’ vision of America which attracted the critical scorn of Susan Sontag for suggesting “a world in which everybody is an alien, hopelessly isolated, and immobilized in mechanical, crippled identities and relationships”. Photographing a fringe of the society such as dwarfs, Siamese or transvestites, though they really existed, was not unanimously considered as depicting reality and made part of the population uncomfortable. Besides, powerful shots can even lead to long-lasting misinformation. For instead, the emblematic photograph from Nick Ut showing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, a young Vietnamese girl, her burning clothes torn off, fleeing with other children after the dropping of a napalm bomb in June 1972. If this image certainly conveys a real suffering in the Vietnam War, the bomb was dropped by Vietnam and not the US, contrary to what most commentators claimed. Manipulation of reality may have reached its climax with the prolific photomontages, such as those from John Hartflied who typically subverted the concept of candid photojournalist creating politically subversive artworks published in German magazines. Although one would argue the purpose is not to delude the viewer into the belief that the world “really looked that way”, photographers like Jerry N. Ueslmann developed such strong printmaking skills they could blend any number of components seamlessly into one final image. Conveying very strong and effective messages through commonly considered “true” pictures, photomontages were extensively misused in the field of advertising and propaganda. To conclude, one cannot deny the cultural role of photography and the extraordinary power photographers had in order to capture a number of aspects of the social world during the sixties and the seventies, providing the viewer with a new dimension to history and historicity. Photographs of the period studied are representative of the

82


time: biased, exaggerated, denunciative and provocative. They however help bring the past and provide us with vivid memories of the sinful sixties and seventies.

Bibliography: Baird, Lisa A 2008, “Susan Sontag and Diane Arbus: The Siamese Twins of Photographic Art”, Women Studies, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 971-986. Coleman, A. D 2008, “Jerry Uelsmann; Prima Facie”, pp. 5. Dant, Tim and Gilloch, Grame 2002, “Pictures of the past: Benjamin and Barthes on photography and history”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 5, 5. De Carlo, Tessa 2004, “A Fresh Look at Diane Arbus”, Smithsonian magazine. Fayard, Judith 2003, “Eternity in an Instant”, Time, Apr. 27. Lacay, Richard 2008, “Homeland Insecurity”, Time, May 26th, Vol. 171, Issue 21. Lipscher, Juraj 2009, “Controversies. A legal and ethical History of Photography”, Leaflet about the exhibition in BNF, Paris. Rod, Usher 2001, “Naked Eye”, Time South Pacific (Australia/New Zealand edition), November 11th, Issue 45. Sottsass, Ettore 1994, The Curious Mr Sottsass, London. Wikipedia website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twickenham_Streaker.

83


Frédéric JOUSSET

The events of May 1968 in France: the causes and the claims

The events of May 1968 represent the most important social movement in France during the XXth century. It was a period of spontaneous riots led by students, unions and political parties. These people demonstrated against the existing traditional French society, consumer society, capitalism, imperialism and more directly against the head of state General De Gaulle. All French public opinion took part in this movement: rich or poor people, workers or bosses, left wing or right wing people … Generally speaking, it was a contestation of any authority. I will study this major crisis by analysing the causes and the claims of French people during May 1968. There are three points of claims I will use to describe these events: social, political and cultural. I)

The social claims: students and workers

The events of May 1968 took place during the period of “the Glorious Thirty”. During this period of prosperity, consumer society became the normal way of life in France. In 1968, 60% of French people owned a car, a washing machine and a television. There was a high rate of growth and an increase of wealth for the population. However, many people were excluded from this prosperity. Firstly, the increase of the unemployment rate (500 000 unemployed people in 1968) forced the government to create the ANPE whose mission is to help unemployed people to find a job. At this time, two million workers earned only the minimum salary, called SMIC, and therefore felt excluded from the prosperity of the sixties. In 1968, there were still shanty towns. The most popular was at Nanterre, in front of the university. Facing the great increase of students in the universities, there were many problems of place, equipment and transport. After the first student riots, the unions and the workers joined the movement by going on strike since May 14th. On May 22nd, 10 million employees could not work. They claimed as usual wage increases, better working conditions but also new claims: more autonomy of the employees and presence of unions in the companies. That is why the Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou, reached an agreement with the unions through the “Grenelle agreements”. It implemented the presence of unions in the companies, the increase of SMIC by 30% and the payment of 50% of strike days.

85


Unfortunately, these agreements did not immediately lead to the end of the strikes and riots. II)

The events of May 1968: a political crisis?

On May 1968, many people criticized the government of General De Gaulle. On presidential election of 1965, De Gaulle ran against François Mitterrand which was a surprise. On legislative elections, De Gaulle party, RPR, had difficulties to have majority on the Assemblée Nationale. That is why the legitimacy of his power was contested. During the riots, some slogans said: “France is bored”. A part of population claims the end of the term of De Gaulle: “10 years, it is enough” was shouted in the streets. Many people noticed the authority of De Gaulle. The TV channel ORTF was the only one authorized by the government. This channel was a means of propaganda for the government. That is why the term of De Gaulle was increasingly criticized. On the other side, the opposition parties had difficulties to exist. Even the most popular left wing party of this time, the French Communist Party, was criticized because of its difficulty to be objective with the politics of the USSR. Most communist people defend more the politics of Cuba and China. The other left wing parties which were not communist were divided, especially the PS (Parti Socialiste). That is why a left wing political movement, called “gauchiste”, became more and more important. This movement fought against the imperialism of the USA, the war in Vietnam, nuclear bomb … This movement led the events of May 1968 and spread their ideology. III)

The cultural aspects of the crisis:

Many changes that upset French society occurred during the sixties. The phenomenon of urbanization sped up rural exodus and led to a great development of cities and suburbs. The standard of living of French population increased thanks to the economic growth and resulted in the development of consumer society. Even religion modernized with the reform Vatican II. More and more students accessed to advanced studies. At the same time, much criticism against consumer society developed. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed the theory of “social reproduction”. This phenomenon describes the place of bourgeoisie and rich people among French society. For example, even though the access to advanced studies increased, 92% of the students belong to “bourgeoisie”. The events of May 1968 were an opportunity to denounce these social inequalities. During the sixties, a great development of a youth culture occurred. The media took part in the implementation of this culture. For instance, the young could listen to the

86


programme “Salut les copains” with particular music and topics of debate for young people. Music took part in this movement too with some groups and musicians like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Johny Hallyday... Young people were influenced by foreign movements of revolt or change like the hippies in the United States, Mao in China ... That is why youth had its own claims too, and especially about sexuality. For example, the majority of schools did not accept boys and girls in the same buildings. Even if the pill is authorized by law, it is not usual. Girls are not allowed to wear trousers! At this time, youth noticed many economic and social inequalities. For example, a big shanty town was in front of the university of Nanterre. That is why the movements of May 1968 (“gauchistes” for example) claimed more social equality among society and school system.

To conclude, we can say the events of May 1968 in France had many causes: political, social or cultural. It demonstrated a will of French society to change, and especially young people who claimed more liberty and equality. These events had many impacts and consequences on French society and firstly the end of De Gaulle term and the election of Pompidou as head of state. Pompidou was in charge of the Grenelle agreements. These events had consequences on French culture, especially on social inequalities and sexual liberties.

87


Amandine PLATET

The 60’s and 70’s: how did those two decades revolutionize dance forms?

During the 60’s and 70’s the artistic world experienced a real revolution: music, plastic art, painting, fashion… Thus, artistic works were reflecting strong economic and social changes of the society. However we often forget a part of artistic creation: dancing. Indeed, this discipline also knew a worldwide revolution, which hit various dance forms. How can we say that, as well as the other artistic disciplines, dancing was revolutionized during the 60’s and 70’s, reflecting economic, social and cultural changes of the society after the second world war? To begin with, let’s observe the new dance forms emerging on the dance floors, particularly “the twist” and disco; they strongly modified the way people were dancing together and were the embodiment of the new music styles, emerging at that time. The revolution also came from choreographers in the United States and in Europe who opposed their “contemporary dance” to classical ballet and also to “modern dance” and “modern jazz” which had emerged during the 20’s; this emergence of contemporary dance has been the basis of today’s creation. Finally, we’ll see how this revolution also reached other part of the world, particularly Japan with “Butoh” dance. This dance was a strong reaction both to traditional Japanese society and western cultural influence that was more and more discernable at that time in Japan. The Twist is considered as the leading dance of the 60’s. The song "The Twist" was written by Hank Ballard in 1959. With his group, he made up some twisting movements for the boys to do while playing music. Then in 1960, Chubby Checkers twist record reached #1 on US charts and made the rock and roll dance “Twist” famous. The basic twisting of the hips technique came straight out of the Lindy Hop and although dancers no longer touched when dancing, it was still usual to dance with a partner while dancing it socially. The simplicity of the step made the dance become a worldwide craze! It was one of the first “no contact dances” and a whole generation effectively never learned how to jive (dance rock and roll with a partner). A factor of this disaffection with “touch partner dancing” was the Hippy culture, with its sexual liberation and many other no touch dances appeared on the dance floors: the “Madison”, the “Mashed Potato”, the “Hula hoop”, the “Swim”, the “Monkey”, the

89


“Funky Chicken”…These new dances were demonstrated on teenage TV programmes such as Dick Clarke's 'American Band Stand' where teenagers were dancing on the records that were played. Reactions were very distinct: on one hand, in France for example, this dancing reassured parents; they considered that it was wiser than rock and roll. But on the other hand, it was judged “sensual and ridiculous, coming from the jungle” because of the movements of hips. In 1962, Vatican wanted to classify it as “immoral dance”. During the 70’s, the emergence of disco music, originated in African American and Hispanic communities in the United States and starting during the late 60s and early 70, also modified the way people were dancing. It marked the beginning of passion for discotheques and nightclubs where DJs were playing a mix of disco records to keep people dancing all night long. In some American cities you could find disco dance instructors or dance schools, which taught popular disco dances such as "touch dancing", "the hustle" and "the cha cha." The pioneer of disco dance instruction was Karen Lustgarten in San Francisco in 1973. Her book The Complete Guide to Disco Dancing hit the New York Times Best Seller List for 13 weeks and was translated into Chinese, German and French.

We saw the dance revolution among people, on the dance floors, but what about professional dancers and choreographers? Contemporary dance was born in the USA and in Europe during the 60’s and 70’s; it followed modern dance and today the expression “contemporary dance” is used for different techniques and aesthetics that appeared during the late 20th century. Contemporary dancers and choreographers expressed their strong will to be different from the past generation: classical ballet, neo classical ballet, modern dance, modern jazz … Merce Cunningham is at the origin of the renewal of dance thinking in the world. He is an American choreographer who realized the conceptual transition between modern dance and contemporary dance (he had been trained at Martha Graham’s school, strongly influenced by modern dance). He was very close to the music composer John Stage who taught him how to compose a choreography at random: after having created different section of a choreography he chose randomly in which order he would organize them, it was a kind of collage. As he put it, “the random technique is a way to surprise yourself, go beyond your habits, go beyond your ego” and thus go further in the creation. Merce Cunningham and John Stage were considered as urban artists as they used city’s sounds, pictures and technologies. M. Cunningham also worked with other artists: Robert Rauschenberg, Jasper Johns (both painters)… He wanted to mix dance, music and plastic arts without favouring one of these disciplines; the combination had to create a performance as a whole. The revolution was also that there were no story, no hidden sense, no principal dancer… People could consider it as absurd, but his goal was to make the spectator active and not passive: as no sense was given to the audience, people were free to interpret the choreographies following their own desire and they could choose their own principal

90


dancer. M. Cunningham had a will to oppose his “dance of intelligence” to the “dance of emotion” represented by modern dance: his creations kept a distance with emotion and stimulated the intelligence of the audience who had to think about the meaning they wanted to give to the performance. Merce Cunningham is one of the forerunners of contemporary dance; Alvin Ailey, another American dancer and choreographer had popularized it. He is the symbol of an entire generation of contemporary choreographers and dancers: Alwin Nikolais, Carolyn Carlson, Dominique Bagouet etc… Dancing had no strict rules anymore; everything was possible and we can see that nowadays that contemporary dance is still very creative.

Finally, we must note that the revolution wasn’t only European or American. Japanese artists and thinkers were strongly affected by the 2nd world war and Japan experienced a strong artistic renewal. Dancers in particular were wondering how they still could dance after the horror of atomic bomb Hiroshima. What was the meaning of aesthetic representation after this catastrophe? Thus, the Butoh appeared. “Butoh” means, “dance of step” and was also called “dance of darkness”. It typically involves playful and grotesque imagery, taboo topics, extreme or absurd environments, and is traditionally "performed" in white-body makeup with slow hyper-controlled motion, with or without an audience. Butoh rejected the “corporal language”; the body that got rid of the soul was used as a material. The first Butoh piece was Kinjiki (Forbidden Colours), by Tatsumi Hijikata, which premiered at a dance festival in 1959. Based on the novel Kinjiki by Yukio Mishima, the piece explored the taboo of homosexuality and paedophilia; this piece outraged the audience, Hijikata was banned from the festival where Kinjiki premiered and established as an iconoclast. Hijikata fought against conventional notions of dance. Inspired by writers such as Yukio Mishima, Lautréamont, Artaud, Genet and de Sade, he dealt with grotesquery, darkness, and decay. Hijikata also explored the transmutation of the human body into other forms, such as animals. He associated in 1960 with Kazuo Ohno , it was the beginning of what now is regarded as "Butoh." Kazuo Ohno is regarded as "the soul of Butoh," while Tatsumi Hijikata is seen as "the architect of this dance. Actually, Ohno, was less of a technician and choreographer, and more of a solo performer. Following the student riots in Japan, this dance challenged government’s authority and rejected the symbols and convention of traditional Japanese arts. It was also a reaction against the contemporary dance scene in Japan, which imitated the west and was too superficial according to Hijikata. Butoh's status at present is ambiguous. Accepted as a performance art overseas, it remains fairly unknown in Japan.

As other artistic disciplines, dance was revolutionized during the 60’s and 70’s. Those decades were decisive for the evolution of dance forms. A strong desire of freedom came up from new dance forms which appeared: choreographers got rid of the

91


classical rules, included other arts in their creations and were at the origins of what’s called today contemporary dance. Even in very traditional societies as Japan, rules were rejected to let the body express what is deeply in us, unreachable by the soul. Among people, this desire of freedom was also palpable: the 60’s are the beginning of “no touch dancing” and the 70’s have introduced the concept of discotheque, still topical.

Bibliography http://fr.wikipedia.org/ http://japon.canalblog.com/archives/2007/02/10/3964122.html http://schenk.chore.art.free.fr/danse-buto-definition.htm http://www.teppaz-and-co.fr/danses.html http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/americanband/americanband.htm http://contemporarydance.suite101.com/

92


“Reflections on an Era” by students from “The sinful Sixties and Seventies” MBA course.

A collection of dissertations A « Centre de Ressources Linguistiques » publication – June 2009


The Sinful 60’s & 70’s, Reflections on an Era Has peace in the Middle East been made impossible by the Cold War context? .......... 5 by Simon Jeannin 1960-1970: ”America contemplates Asia”............................................................................ 9 by Stéphanie Jensen Bob Dylan-The man who inspired a generation but refused to lead it .......................... 15 by Cyril Espalieu The outlook on Mental illness: a symbol of an era of revolution.................................... 19 by Audrey Lavigne The civil rights movements in the USA and South Africa................................................ 23 by Stéphanie Langlois Technology – people never had it so good......................................................................... 27 by Emilie Loncan Gay contestation movement in the 60’s ............................................................................. 31 by Anne-Lise Mithout The James Bond phenomenon through the 60’s and 70’s .............................................. 37 by Céline Lobez The Watergate scandal.......................................................................................................... 41 by Mathieu Libaudière How did populations perceive the space conquest during the 60’s & the 70’s ?.......... 45 by Sophie Loustau Struggles and Fights in the American Society during the 60’s and 70’s........................ 49 by Armand Agha How did Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music gradually turn into The Graduate and Catch-22? ........................................................................................................................ 53 by Lucile Mourey Apocalypse Now: how the Vietnam War brought about a shift in the relationship between Hollywood and the U.S government ................................................................... 57 by Cécile Gasnault

3


The Factory, Andy Warhol ................................................................................................... 61 by Maï-Lan Fitoussi The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War ....................................................................... 65 by Christophe Menger The Biafran war ..................................................................................................................... 69 by Julie Bernard Rock music, society and politics in the Sixties .................................................................. 73 by Cyrille Dimier de la Brunetière de la Croix Hope and delusion in the 60’s - a lesson for today........................................................... 77 by Daphné Vialan The legacy of photography in the 60’s and 70’s: between depiction and provocation81 by Magaly Rohe The events of May 1968 in France: causes and claims.................................................... 85 by Frédéric Jousset The 60’s and 70’s: how did those two decades revolutionize dance forms? ................. 89 by Amandine Platet

4


Simon JEANNIN

Has peace in the Middle East been made impossible by the Cold War context? Cradle of the three monotheist religions, place of birth of the alphabet, at the crossroads of the civilisations, the Middle East has been at the heart of the most violent and long lasting conflicts in the past centuries. Since the end of the Second World War, five wars between Israel and the Arabs have been declared (1948, 1956, 1967, and 1982), without mentioning the Iran-Iraq (1980-1988) and the gulf War(s). The heart of the problem remains existential claims, namely the right for the parallel existence of two people: Israel and the Arabs. In the aftermath of the 1949 conflict, it seemed that the situation could only lead to new confrontation, all the more so, as the opponents were respectively upheld by the two Blocks, the USA and the USSR in the Sixties, while the tensions seem to decrease with the “détente” in the Seventies.

I.

How did the 1956 conflict lead to a growing frustration, stirred up by the Cold War and by the engagement of the US and USSR alongside the belligerents.

A. The strategic situation of the Middle East prompted both the US and USSR to side with one party or another. The enrolment of the Eastern Bloc started in 1956 with an agreement signed between Egypt and Czechoslovakia in which the USSR agreed on a military aid to Nasser’s Egypt. The pro-Arab position of the USSR is easily understandable if one takes into consideration that the Suez Canal was a strategic shortcut for the Russian boats from the Black Sea to the Indian Ocean, compared to the usual way through Vladivostok. As a consequence, Israel immediately felt threatened by such an agreement and when the US refused to fund the Aswan Dam they saw in America a potential ally. In 1956, the Suez War ends rapidly with the withdrawal of Israel’s troops from the Sinai, under the pressure exerted by America, the Soviet Union and the United Nations. If peace is maintained until 1967, the alliance games continue, and in February 1958 Egypt and Syria join and create the United Arab Republic (UAR), under the protection of the Soviet Union. While Israel still benefits from the American support, America’s interests are at stake because of the official links between America and other Arab states, such as Iraq and Iran.

5


Thus, on the eve of the 1967 conflict, several ideological forces are present on the Middle East “playground”, stirring the antagonisms: the UAR versus Israel, the pro US Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran) versus the pro-Soviet Arab countries (Egypt, Syria). On top of this, lays the USSR strategy which consists in maintaining a hard pressure on the pro-Soviet government in Damascus, the stability of which was being constantly endangered by internal nationalist movements eager to take military action against Israel.

B. The birth of the Palestinian conscience, fuelled by the emergence of broader Arab feelings leads quickly to open armed groups As early as 1949, small groups of Palestinian people start launching military operations against Israel, from Syria, Jordan or Gaza. Politically, the years following the 1967 conflict will be those of the recognition of the Palestinian people by King Hussein of Jordan, and in December 1968 Général de Gaulle declares an armsembargo against Israel. Strengthened by this international support, the Palestinians start more violent and visible actions. II.

If the territorial consequences of the Six-Day War fuel feelings of humiliation among the Arab people, they also led to the Kippur War, which ended thanks to the worldwide context of “Détente”

A. The pressure exerted by the belligerents of the Cold War is being felt by the Palestinians Slaughtered in Jordan, they seek refugee in Lebanon, where they jeopardize the stability of the country. As a result of the failure of the different attempts to sign a peace treaty, led by the UN and the Western countries, the armed fight appears to be the only solution for the two Blocs to solve the conflict. At the same time, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) chooses to use the media to have their cause broadcast over the world: it is the hostage taking of Munich in September 1972 at the Olympic Games and the birth of modern terrorism. B. The worldwide context of “détente” led the USSR to display proof of goodwill, such as signing the Non Proliferation Treaty in July 1968. The effects in the Middle East are a series of diplomatic actions to avoid at all costs a direct conflict with the US. Thus Egypt and Syria had to get rid of their Soviet ally to launch the Kippur War in October 1973. However, the prompt response of the Israeli army put Egypt in a delicate situation: Israel has hardly pushed back the Syrian invasion onto the Eastern front when they circle the third Egyptian army in the Sinai desert. It is the moment the United States chooses to get involved: taking advantage of Russia’s slow reaction, Kissinger offers his help to find a solution, which will lead to the Oslo Agreements between Egypt and Israel in March 1979. On the Arab side, the Kippur War was supposed to be the revenge on the previous war’s humiliations,

6


though thanks to the context, it is eventually the conflict that prompted America to broker a deal towards peace in the Middle East. CONCLUSION Looking back to the specific period of time between 59 and 79, it seems interesting to notice that the peace process between Israel and Palestine followed the general trend of the relations between the two giant rivals of that time, i.e. the Soviet Union and the United States. Also noteworthy is the double movement of emancipation of the Arab countries from the Soviet influence, at a time when USSR is reluctant to lead a direct war against the American interest in a “Détente” context. The idea that emerges from this period is that the two Blocs only served their policies of conquest of new interests in the Middle East, thus fuelling the angers by supporting either Israel or the Palestinians and making peace in the Middle East dependant on their goodwill.

Bibliography -

Les 100 clés du Proche-Orient, by Alain GRESH and Dominique VIDAL Israël : géopolitique et enjeux, by Masri FEKI http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_de_l'URSS_sur_le_conflit_israélopalestinien_durant_la_guerre_froide http://www.oboulo.com/paix-impossible-conflit-israelo-arabe-1949-1973-24239.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war

7


Stéphanie JENSEN

1960-1970: ”America contemplates Asia” (originally ”The Third Mind, America contemplates Asia”, Jan.30 to Apr.19, 2009 exhibition at the New York Guggenheim museum)

The idea of reporting about the particular topic of the Asian influence over the arts in America during the 60s and the 70s came to me after reflecting on an exhibition I’ve had the chance to see at the Guggenheim museum in New York over the Easter holidays. The exhibition revolved around a wider period (1860-1989), but the section about the sixties and seventies particularly struck me.

Artists like Jasper Johns, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and Tom Marioni, among others, were very well represented, and the parallel with Asian contemplative creation was quite subtly drawn, and, linked to the subject of the class, it gave me ideas on American society in general at that time. I hope I can give a truthful account of it and make it as interesting as it was on display in New York.

9


The initial idea of the exhibition was to trace back how Asian art literally soaked through the artistic production of the 1960’s and 1970’s North America, both in plastic and intellectual dimensions. The 1960’s-1970’s section of the exhibition, which was organized chronologically (as the museum’s architecture is perfectly fit for), showed how the main -and minor- artists of the time integrated Asian sources of artistic creation, and how they truly became receptacles of that particular way of contemplative creation. In that way, it offers an alternative lineage of creative culture -whereas critics often found the origins of American arts in the European culture, the exhibition focuses on the inspiration that came from America’s Pacific vista, that is Japan. The purpose, ultimately, was to underline how Asia gave American artists new visual perspectives. The first ideological standpoint of the exhibition was to show how the period of the sixties and the later seventies, because of their mild fascination for spontaneity and randomness –sometimes confined to the absurd- oriented American artists towards Asia. The fad for New Age, for Carl Jung’s theosophy1 and for Asian spirituality only underlined this tendency, and the freedom in Asian arts (abstract calligraphy, basic use of colours and lines, and soft techniques were far more common in Asian arts than in Europeaninfluenced American arts) clearly appeared in American forms of creation of that era.

”You learn of Japanese calligraphy to let the hand take over; then you begin to watch the hand as though it is not yours…When the viscosity is right, it is close to mindlessness, or to pure essences, with nothing between your beingness and the external world. As though your beingness were transmitted without intervention.” Robert Motherwell2. Although written in the 1950’s, this quotation from one of the artists presented in the exhibition clearly announces what was about to come in America; a revolution of the status of the artist. In the coming years, he would not be considered as a master Theosophy is an Asian form of wisdom, of which beliefs include ideas such as, among others, ”consciousness [being] universal and individual”, there being an immortal ”higher self”, and reincarnation being universal. ”It is a fragment of the ancient, once universal, wisdom teaching. The masters of theosophy, located in Tibet and all around the world, preserve and extend this ancient wisdom”. Carl Jung made it popular. 2 Robert Motherwell (1915-1991) was an American abstract expressionist painter and printmaker, belonging to the New York School. Also a writer, whose essays are recognized as a bridge for those who want to learn about non-representational art. He used black paint as a basis for his paintings, a clear reference to Japanese calligraphy. 10


anymore, but as a mere transmitter, almost a witness -thus the idea of contemplation- of a creation unfolding under his bewildered and distant eyes. Already in the 1950’s, John Cage3 advocated the Zen way of creation, for its unmediated experience and its use of void, as well as the naive, intrigued posture of the artist it implied.

John Cage’s ”silent music”

By popularizing such ideas, he inspired Jack Kerouac’s spontaneous prose and his studies of Buddhist texts, that inspired his writing of The Dharma Bums, along with other postures such as anti-art and situationism. Artists belonging to the Beat Movement (Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg and others) were actually those who went deepest into accomodating the Asian postures to an American experience (one thinks of Ginsberg’s trips to Asia, of Kerouac’s nickname ”The new Buddha of American prose”…). Nevertheless, Kerouac and Ginsberg considered Buddhist spirituality in a radically different way: while Kerouac focused on meditation and the wild emptiness of Zen, Ginsberg saw in it a radically blasphematory means to mock American liberal values, and considered Asian spirituality as far superior to the dull United States, which was not the case of Kerouac. The exhibition strongly states that American artists who turned towards Asian arts actually did so in reaction to modern 3

John Cage (1912-1992) was an American composer, pioneer of chance music and nonstandard use of instruments, a leading figure of the post-war avant-garde. He studied Indian philosophy and his influences lay in various Eastern cultures. 11


Western rationalism and utilitarism, which is probably true. Movements like neoDada, Beats and Happenings were clearly inspired by total gratuity, contrary to commercial arts such as impressionism, that were at their peak in Europe; besides, Europe as a whole, was actually being rejected, as the 1963 Fluxus manifesto4 summoned artists to ”Purge the World of Europanism !”

What I really found interesting in this particular section of the exhibition was the idea that, along with absurdity and spontaneousness, humour emerged from art. While Asian art is not really renowned for its fun side, America, as part of the process of appropriation of the Asian way of creating, introduced a whole set of childish pranks and leg pulls, a mild amusement, and sometimes a cynical one at that, into their creations, as the works of Tom Marioni display (the artist’s latest exhibition was called ”Beer, Art and Philosophy, 1968-2006”, and displayed works like ”The Act Of Drinking Beer With Friends Is The Highest Form Of Art”, ”Musical Instrument That Cannot Be Played” along with Haiku poems…).

Art as an amused, unmediated experience of daily life fitted perfectly the mood in American artistic spheres, but also in general. Art in the sixties was a frantic, buoyant creation, and the period saw figures like Andy Warhol emerge, synonymous with dashing, daring forms of art, liberated from any kind of sense. While Warhol’s –and all of the Factory members- can’t really be called Zen art, it was undoubtedly made possible by the liberating gratuity Asian art brought along to America. Art, again, was only a reflection of what was happening in society: struggles for freedom (the end of 4 The Fluxus Manifesto (1963). Fluxus was an international network of artists known for mixing different disciplines during the 1960s (music, visual arts, literature…). Their manifesto encouraged a do-it-yourself aesthetic, and valued simplicity. It included a strong current of anti-commercialism and anti-art sensibility.

12


the Cold War, the triumph of liberalism, racial equality and feminism) were going on, and while those conflicts definitely found no resolution in Eastern meditation, artists seemed to have found a way of transposing them into completely free artistic expressions, such as meaningless calligraphies, minimalist photography and spontaneous happenings. It is rather interesting to watch how, during the seventies, this extravagant liberation of arts became far more serious, with much deeper experiences. Ad Reinhardt5, for instance, admired profound meditation and concentration, and the form of monochrome emerged. From a fun, colourful and frantic creation, art turned into this contemplative, serious posture, where sloweddowned time became the medium of existential awareness. Again, we can draw parallels between this posture and 1970s society. While the sixties were a real awakening, one might say that the seventies were only re-enacting this birth of a liberated form of art, only taking it a little further and making it a little more mature, which curiously resembles the way American society as a whole entered the 70’s.

”Nowhere in the world of art has it been clearer than in Asia that anything irrational, momentary, spontaneous, unconscious, primitive, expressionistic, accidental, or informal cannot be called serious art. Only blankness, complete awareness, disinterestedness.” - Ad Reinhardt.

Sources: -All information found on the Guggenheim exhibition online (http://www.guggenheim.org/newyork/exhibitions/past/exhibit/2716) -All footnotes drawn from Wikipedia

5

Ad Reinhardt (1913-1967) was an abstract painter in New York active since the early 1930’s. He was a major influence in conceptual, minimal art and monochrome painting. He is best known for his ”black” paintings, which appear at first glance to be just balck, but are actually composed of black and nearly black shades. Those paintings ask whether there is such a thing like ”absolute black”. 13


ESPALIEU Cyril

Bob Dylan The man who inspired a generation but refused to lead it

“All I’d ever done was sing songs that were dead straight and expressed powerful new realities. I had very little in common with and knew even less about a generation that I was supposed to be the voice of.” Bob Dylan, Chronicles, Volume I, p.115

Robert Allen Zimmerman was born on May 24, 1941, in Duluth, Minnesota. He lived there until the age of six, when his father began suffering of polio and the family returned to his mother's home town, Hibbing. Robert has been very interested in music since his early age: he could spend hours in a row listening to the blues and country Louisiana radio stations. At high school he could live his passion in an active way with the creation of several rock & roll fleeting bands. The only year he spent at college in 1959 at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis is a turning point in his nascent career, as he took two decisions that would influence the rest of his life: when performing at a local coffee house, he introduced himself as “Bob Dylan”, as a tribute to the Welsh poet Dylan Thomas. The second major change is that Bob literally converted himself to folk music, more serious, richer and more connected to the real life than rock & roll. This new religion had a god, Woody Guthrie, the “Dust Bowl Troubadour”. Bob had just devoured his autobiography, Bound for Glory. The influence was so strong that Bob didn’t hesitate a minute when he learnt that Woody had just been admitted in a New York hospital in 1968 for a serious Huntington’s disease : he dropped out from college and made it for the Big Apple, hoping to visit his idol and to perform in the cafés. He quickly succeeded in both projects: he entered the circle of Woody’s friends and signed a contract with Columbia in 1962. After a restricted first album mainly

15


composed of covers, Bob Dylan, the 1963 release of The Freewheelin’ became one of the major events of the twentieth century, as far as music is concerned. “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “A Hard Rain’s A-gonna Fall” were immediately erected as universal freedom anthems. On August of the same year, Dylan appeared as the muse of the Civil Rights Movement by singing with Joan Baez at the March on Washington. The break-up with political representation publicly took place no later than on January 1964 when Dylan, offered an award for his work for freedom at a gala, insulted the members of the assembly and said that there was a part of him in Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s alleged assassin. The purpose of this dissertation is to find out why Dylan broke up so quickly with a movement he had fostered six months before, and how he then sustained a 45-years long career with this weight on his shoulder. I will use two kinds of sources to lead my argumentation: Dylan’s own views described in his autobiography Chronicles: Volume 1 and my own interpretation from what I understand of his songs. 1. Dylan’s interpretation: Chronicles, Volume 1 The first volume of Dylan’s autobiography, published in 2004, is of great help in various ways for answering our question. First, for what Dylan doesn’t want to tell. The beginning of the book is a captivating evocation of Dylan’s first years in New York (1961-1963) and then we’re fast forwarded to the making of New Morning, a quickforgotten album published in 1970. Dylan can’t have hindsight on the in-between period marked by the electric U-turn and his motorcycle accident. But he gives us a strong explanation about how he feels in 1970 and all this “voice of a generation” controversy. Dylan understood the wind of change of the late 60’s maybe better than anyone else as he states that “things that have used to be in traditional black and white were now exploding in full, sunny color”. [1] But fatherhood has transformed Dylan, and he doesn’t want to be involved anymore: “Truth is I wanted to get out of the rat race. Having children changed my life and segregated me from just about everybody and everything that was going on.” [1] How could he give up so fast? To him, it’s his fullest right and people should stop having leadership expectations from him as it has never been his role: “I had a wife and children, I was trying to provide for them, keep out of trouble, but the big bugs in the press kept promoting me as the mouthpiece, spokesman, or even conscience of a generation.” [1] The extent reached by his protest songs overthrew him. The hippie movement organized the Woodstock festival close to his home so that he could come up. His fellow musicians asked him questions such as “So where do you think you’ll take the whole music scene? [1]

16


It was as if the counter-culture had seized his music and made something overpolemic far from its original meaning: “I felt like a piece of meat that someone had thrown to the dogs.” [1] This turned into paranoia, fostered by the frequent intrusions of fans at his home: “Everything was wrong, the world was absurd. Even persons near and dear offered no relief.” [1] Like the average Joe, he has revised his expectations from life downwards: “What I was fantasizing about was a nine-to-five existence. That was my deepest dream.” [1] This change can also be explained by the fact that Dylan is not able anymore to write songs as fluently as in the 60’s: “Sometime in the past I had written and performed songs that were most original and most influential, and I didn’t know if I ever would and I didn’t care.” [1] But once again, he puts this down to fans hysteria: “It was impossible now for me to observe anything without being observed.” [1] At this time, Dylan’s public appearances were voluntarily meant to fade his aura: getting photographed in Jerusalem with a skull cap to appear like a Zionist, recording a country-western record or starting a rumor saying he would be quitting music. It seems pathetic that a universal icon could resort to these tactics, but at that time, living a quiet life was the only thing that mattered to the greatest songwriter of the twentieth century. 2. My interpretation Dylan’s explanation seems at first very hard to accept : how can someone call “Come gather ‘round people wherever you roam, […] you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin'!” [2] in 1963 and only dream of “a nine-to-five existence” [1] in 1969 ? I would identify four different reasons for this radical evolution. The first one lies in the history of his idol, Woody Guthrie. Guthrie has travelled all cross the USA during his life, taking his inspiration from the workers he would meet. He wouldn’t make so much money out of his music, and more important, he wasn’t asked to play a social role. The only time it happened, when he was drafted as soldier for WW2, he answered that he was more useful singing his anti-fascist songs at home. Exactly the type of answers Dylan would make to reporters. Musicians play music and soldiers fight. The second reason can be found in Dylan’s autobiography. The warmth and detail with which he describes his performances in the cafés shows how much Dylan loves low-scale events and atmospheres. Singing songs with a global reach in genuine underground scenes, keeping time to wander in the city and read a lot was his perfect-balanced life which has all been shaken by the simple fact of recording his

17


songs. Signing for Columbia was like putting his patrimony at the public disposal. Dylan never accepted that the public could misinterpret it. The third reason comes from historical observation. Dylan sung at the March on Washington for the Civil Right Movement, which shows that he has not always been allergic to social activism. But the fact that it has been his sole protest action leads me to think that he immediately understood how such a fight was far more pragmatic than spiritual. The risk of being manipulated became too big and he found a shelter in his inner world. Explaining his spirituality could to him be made only through his songs, as he was a musician, and not in the streets. The last reason belongs to music. After a trilogy dedicated only to folk music and protest songs (The Freewheelin’ & The Times They Are A-changin’ in 1963 and Another Side of Bob Dylan in 1964), Dylan may just have considered he thrashed out the subject. If he had no message to send anymore, he didn’t need folk music anymore, as from a musical point of view, patterns are very repetitive. His electric conversion may have come from a desire to discover new musical possibilities, an adventure he led with as much ambition and talent as in the folk period.

Bibliography : [1] Bob Dylan, Chronicles, Volume I, 2004, p.114-124 [2] Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-changin’, The Times They Are A-changin’, 1963 - Biography.com articles on Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie

18


Audrey LAVIGNE

The outlook on Mental illness: a symbol of an era of revolution

The Sixties and the Seventies were an era of self awareness and research for new social codes. As such, it became also a period of revolution in the outlook of mental illnesses, those comportments excluding individuals from the socially and politically acceptable. New awareness of mental illness arose, as much as new views on it. One of the main revolutions during this period was the widespread movement rejecting mental institutions such as psychiatric hospitals, in favor of community mental health services. Since the 19th century, psychiatric hospitals had been the solution for all kinds of mental diseases, such as schizophrenia, bipolar or psychotic disorders, or even the well used hysteria, also used as a mean to dispose of an unruly wife. By 1950, Electroconvulsive therapy, insulin shock therapy, lobotomies and the "neuroleptic" chlorpromazine were widely used in mental institutions, in spite of their heavy and sometimes permanent consequences. In the 1960s, an antipsychiatry movement rose, mostly in America and West Europe, promoting deinstitutionalization, and led by Michel Foucault, R.D. Laing and Thomas Szasz. They saw the practices used in psychiatric hospitals as useless and unnecessarily cruel, moreover without general supervision. This medical movement benefited from the support of literacy, through classics such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey, who as, among other things, a former orderly in a psychiatric hospital, had an acute and intimate knowledge of the realities of a mental ward, and its coercive nature. Through the struggles of the hero, McMurphy, against the obtuse and oppressive power of the mental ward, personified by Nurse Ratched, the many flaws of the current mental wards are exposed. McMurphy is finally subjected to the worse treatment, lobotomy, as a punishment against an ultimate rebellion – the attempted throttling of Ratched. This novel was a link between the antipsychiatry movement, and the general movement against self-

19


censuring and what Foucault called “invisible forms of discipline”, smothering individual expression on a social scale. Frederick Wiseman’s censured documentary Titicut Follies portrays the same neglect and general oppression entailed by mental hospital of the period, in a candid film realized in 1967 directly in Bridgewater State Hospital for the criminally insane, a Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. It actually belonged to a series of documentaries focusing on social institutions, such as hospital, police, school, etc., in the United States. It depicted the multiple fetters keeping an individual from existing completely as themselves in society, including the loss of personal rights for those deemed as profoundly abnormal, the mentally ill in mental institutions. Even though its airing was forbidden in the United States for decades, it went a long way in promoting deinstitutionalization, either in Europe, where it met a large success, or in the USA. A consumer/survivor movement rose, basing itself on the testimony of the ones that “survived” the system. Other kinds of psychiatric medication became promoted and used, such as "psychic energizers" and lithium. Benzodiazepines gained cause in the 1970’s for anxiety and depression, as a replacement for institutionalization, or plain neglect. Mental illness received indeed a new outlook during the sixties and the seventies. As it was considered the antithesis of “normal”, as any comportment escaping the norm was considered as a mental disease, it became a component of the counterculture. At best, it was seen as a condition demanding understanding and gentler new treatments. At the most extreme, it was a glorified condition, offering freedom to the inflicted. Gay people were therefore seen as mentally ill. The Gay right movement was one of the most active during this era, acting as a counterculture creating its own codes and organization, making itself widely know since 1970 and the first Gay Pride, celebrating homosexuals’ “otherness” against the social norm, heterosexuality, and their pride in what constituted them as mentally ill, according to the law and psychiatry. In such an era of controversy and activism, in 1974 the American Psychiatric Association membership voted to remove homosexuality as an illness. It became a “sexual orientation disturbance”, even though other tendencies pertaining to sexual orientation remained seen as mental disease (transsexuality has been removed from the list of mental disease barely a month ago in France).

20


This is an example, but thanks to this revolution the stigma of mental illness was drastically reconsidered. Ironically enough, the Sixties and the Seventies were also very prolific in inducing mental diseases, among their artists notably. It began mostly with the accidental discovery of LSD, a drug derived from ergot. It was introduced by Sandoz Laboratories as a drug with various psychiatric uses, and became rapidly a therapeutic agent, whose results were very attractive. It was supposed to unlock a patient’s subconscious, and thanks to its hyper real effects, reacquaint patients with reality. However, LSD in this form was not to become a therapeutic mean, due to its many recreational uses and over use among previously perfectly sane individuals. Declared as a way to enhance self awareness and connection to the world and reality, it became a component of the new way of life promoted by most of the counterculture of the era. Its most fervent advocate, Timothy Leary, whose catch phrase "Turn on, tune in, drop out" was promoted to slogan of an entire widespread movement, actually advised “responsible individuals” to use it to better know themselves, even though the notion of “responsible” remains unclear still nowadays. "A psychedelic experience is a journey to new realms of consciousness. The scope and content of the experience is limitless, but its characteristic features are the transcendence of verbal concepts, of space-time dimensions, and of the ego or identity. Such experiences of enlarged consciousness can occur in a variety of ways: sensory deprivation, yoga exercises, disciplined meditation, religious or aesthetic ecstasies, or spontaneously. Most recently they have become available to anyone through the ingestion of psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, etc. Of course, the drug does not produce the transcendent experience. It merely acts as a chemical key—it opens the mind, frees the nervous system of its ordinary patterns and structures." (Directly quoted from Timothy Leary) If Leary came away from years of experiment relatively mentally unscathed, others were not as lucky. LSD induced schizophrenia, flashbacks, psychosis or hallucination for it most benign effect. Due to its virtue of expanding awareness, it was vastly used for inspiration during the Sixties and Seventies, with sometimes grievous effects. Among those who accounted as victims of the over use of LSD, one can count Syd Barrett, original member of the Pink Floyd, whose career was cut short due to LSD induced mental illness believed to be schizophrenia. Even after its prohibition in the Seventies, the use of LSD remained relatively widespread, giving way to other drugs, such as heroin, or crack, inducing an apparently accepted mental hazard among artistic circles.

21


Stéphanie LANGLOIS

The civil rights movements in the USA and South Africa The United States of America (USA) and South Africa are both known for racial segregation instituted by the Whites towards the Blacks, in two radically different contexts. The USA is originally a white British colony, independent since the 18th century, where Black people were sent in what was called the Transatlantic Triangular Trade. In 1950, there were 15 million of Black people [1], which represented 10% of the USA population. South Africa is an old country, which was colonized successively by the Dutch (17th to end of 18th century) and the English (officially from 1815 – Congress of Vienna – to 1934, when South Africa became a sovereign state within the British Empire, before declaring itself a Republic in 1961, leaving the Commonwealth in 1968 and reintegrating it in 1994). 1n 1946, Black people represented 68,7% of the South African population, the Whites 20%, and the other coloured people (Indians, other people of mixed origins) the remaining 11,3% [2] . Obviously, both situations were really different: in the USA, the Black people were a minority, whereas they were the majority in South Africa... But this did not prevent the white minority to decide Apartheid (a racial separation) in 1948 (although racial segregation already existed), and to abolish all the civil rights of the coloured people, as the Blacks were deprived of theirs in the USA, a situation inherited from the time of slavery... The point of this essay is thus to determine the resemblances and differences between both civil rights movements, as well as to analyse why they ended differently. We will focus on the years following the World War II, till the end of the seventies, to remain in the scope of the course. First of all, we should remember what could be considered as the origins of those movements. Discriminations had been real for long in both countries, but had not led, till then, to such an important, structured and coordinated contestation, with emblematic leaders. One of the triggering factors is admitted to be the end of World War II. Indeed, Blacks of both countries fought in the war, often in segregated units, but they were all fighting for freedom, human rights, and democracy. Quite logically, they wanted to get at home what they had defended in Europe, in North-Africa or in Asia. In the USA, the African-American Civil Rights Movement (also known as the Southern Freedom Movement [3] by those who were active in those movements) began with pacifist demonstrations (“nonviolent civil disobedience”): in 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give her seat to a white passenger in a bus in Alabama; she was arrested and convicted, which led to the year-long Montgomery Bus Boycott and 23


finally the desegregation of buses in Montgomery in 1956. In 1960, the first sit-in of black students took place in North Carolina, to be followed by others in Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, and all southern and border states. Dressed-up as professionals, the students sat quietly in segregated areas of public facilities, until they were expelled, often by force. The sit-in movement finally led to the Freedom Rides in 1961, and later on, to pacifist marches, among which was the march on Washington led by reverend Martin Luther King Jr, maybe the most famous emblematic character of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA. This march, which was “a collaborative effort of all of the major civil rights organizations, the more progressive wing of the labour movement, and other liberal organizations” [4], had a great impact for the causes of the civil rights movement: it was broadcasted on television, which made the entire country aware of what happened in the South of the USA, as well as in other states. The “I Have a Dream” speech by King is also one of the most famous allocutions of the time. All these pacifist events led to a national recognition of the Blacks’ fight for their civil rights, and finally new laws were passed: in 1954, in the Education field, the ‘Separate but Equal’ laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; in 1961, the desegregation of the buses in Montgomery was decided (following the bankruptcy of the bus company); in 1964, the Civil Rights Act “made racial discrimination illegal in public places and in many areas of employment” [5]; and in 1965, the Voting Rights Act removed all barriers to voting by black people. The Blacks now had the same civil rights as Whites... In South Africa, the Civil Rights Movement also began with civil disobedience, strikes and boycotts, led by the African National Congress (ANC) and mostly its Youth League (ANCYL), in 1949. Led by Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo, the ANCYL advocated that “white authority could only be overthrown through mass campaigns” [6]. In 1950, the May Day stay-away succeeded in expressing all the Blacks’ grievances regarding Apartheid. In 1952, the Joint Planning Council (composed of the ANC, the South African Indian Congress and the Coloured People’s Congress) decided on a “plan for the defiance of unfair laws” [7], if the Pass Laws (which prevented coloured people from travelling freely in the country) were not abolished. As no positive answer was given to these requests, the Programme of Action was launched with the Defiance campaign: black people began to use “whites only” entries, to walk in whites areas after the curfew forbidding them to do so... This programme led to more than 8,000 people being arrested for breaking the racial laws. The government seemed to release its control over Black people, before taking several supreme measures and putting the ANC leaders (including Nelson Mandela) in jail... The Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Separate Amenities Act only reinforced Apartheid, the former by condemning people encouraging others to protest against the laws, and the latter by allowing owners of amenities to decide whether they would bar the entry to coloured people. Racial separation was thus strongly confirmed. In 1954, the National Action Council for the Congress of the People was founded, aiming at constituting a Freedom Charter, emphasizing the idea of a just and non-racial South Africa, a one-person-one-vote democracy, and a fair distribution of land (Coloured people could not own their land). The Charter was

24


revised and accepted by the Congress of People in 1955, after being endorsed by the ANC. In 1959, the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) was created by some disillusioned member of the ANC, who organized demonstrations against the Pass Laws. One of these demonstrations took place in Sharpeville, where the police shot at the pacifist crowd, killing 69 people and injuring 186. This event is known as the Sharpeville massacre, and gave way to a more violent way of fighting the laws, since then marginalized... That is what we will now detail in the second part. The 1960’s saw a radicalization of the Civil Rights movements in both countries, where violence was now considered an efficient way to obtain equal rights. In South Africa, the ANC and PAC ran a campaign of terrorism and sabotage through their armed wings. Although the leader of the ANC was not in favour of violence, the obvious contempt of the government towards coloured protests increased people’s anger. Nelson Mandela was the commander or the ANC military wing. He had developed a plan (wearing his name) of “controlled sabotage, launching a guerrilla war modeled upon the FLN's struggle in Algeria” [8]. These acts of sabotage were supposed only to destroy facilities and building, not to kill anybody, although it sometimes happened. In 1962, Mandela was arrested, and many other leaders of the Civil Rights movement were arrested in 1963. The others had to escape South Africa, and to keep fighting from abroad. Only the PAC’s secret martial arm remained in the country, murdering whites, police informants and black people supporting the government. But lack of money, armament, and many arrests crippled the PAC actions. In 1963, the Rivonia trial began, accusing ANC members of treason. Mandela was among those members. All those accused were sentenced to life imprisonment, and the international community widely condemned the trial as well as Apartheid... In the meanwhile, in the USA, a new form of black protest was born, rejecting King’s principles of non-violence. It came from the Northern states and expressed its will to get more than the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They wanted the government to do something about black poverty, low wages and all forms of discriminations the non-violent movement had not dealt with. This is the birth of the notion of “Black Power” (a phrase by Stokely Carmichael) in 1966, willing not to ask the whites for their help, but instead, to create black communities, with their own rights, able to fight and use violence to defend themselves in case it should be necessary (against the Ku Klux Klan for example). Carmichael was joined in his way of seeing things by the Black Panther Party, Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam, using a “by-any-means-necessary” approach. Even before this radicalization, race riots took place in the northern cities, the first of them being in Harlem, NYC, after a policeman shot a young black without any reason. This type of riots spread during the summer of 1964, which made the government try to prevent them from repeating the following year, by offering summer jobs to young people in Harlem. The different Acts passed by the government had no immediate effect on the lives of Black people, and riots began again in 1966 and 1967. President Lyndon Johnson created the “National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders in 1967. The commission's final report called for major reforms in employment and

25


public assistance for black communities. It warned that the United States was moving towards separate white and black societies.” [9] The situation in the USA was indeed more complicated than it seemed. Obtaining the same civil rights was not enough for Black people: even though discrimination was illegal, it still existed in facts... The situation in both countries at the end of the 1970s was not completely solved: Apartheid was all the more ‘present’ and active in South Africa, the government confronting all those who dared to fight for more equality; in the USA, racial segregation was officially and legally abolished, but not so much in reality. How can we explain that the USA had seemingly a more rapid evolution regarding their minorities’ Civil Rights when in South Africa it took more than 40 years for the black majority to arrive to power and equality? We can reasonably believe that the primary role the USA played in the world influenced its evolution, enhancing this movement. The USA had to be the champions of civil rights, following the major role it had played during World War II, and could not be a criticized country regarding internal policies and discrimination... South Africa, on the other hand, saw white interests dominate the policies of the government. Whites saw the Apartheid as the only way to protect their influence and their way of life in what they considered as “their” country. They maintained this system with the energy of despair... And today, the situation is not so clear either. The ANC finally won the elections of 1994, and Nelson Mandela became the first black president of the recent republic of South Africa... But crime rate is the highest in the world, which seems to confirm the idea that not everything is solved in South Africa... The USA elected the first black president of their history, giving hope to all those who are still poor and still feel discriminated...

Notes [1] This figure is based on U.S. Census figures (given by the Time Almanac of 2005). [2] http://www.popline.org/docs/1243/132271.html [3] [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) [5] http://mypage.essec.fr/LGAN31756_sayer/colour/ [6] [7] [8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_africa#Apartheid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid

Bibliography Le pouvoir pâle, essai sur le système sud-africain, by Serge Thion, Editions du Seuil (1969)

26


LONCAN Emilie

Technology – people never had it so good In the 1964 election campaign, Harold Wilson, as leader of the Labour Party, put the stress on ‘the white heat of technological revolution’. White heat was not the most representative image at the moment. Much of the new technology dealt more with suds, shine and phoney flavours. Wilson’s government even established a Ministry of Technology with, at its head, Frank Cousins, a trade-union leader, which did not make sense at all. No one could doubt about the benefits and comfort brought by technology. In other words, as the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan actually said ‘Most of our people have never had it so good’. This quote became a popular and vulgar joke which tore round Great Britain during the 1959 election campaign. ‘A woman complains to the police that she has been raped by one of the candidates, who, she insists, was the Conservative; she knows this, ‘because she’s never had it so good’ (1). For sure, technology affects your daily life and you don’t even notice any change and comfort it has brought to you anymore – except when it deals with the new I-phone you have just bought. You don’t believe me? So can you imagine yourself just for a second without your mobile phone, your laptop computer, television and above all your pocket calculator? Computer engineers must have been considered as real busy bees shaping their own virtual hives. That was the time when the growing breed of the ‘white-coated workers’ and technocrats assumed power. Federico Faggin and Marcian Hoff launched the microprocessor revolution in 1971, then two years later, Xerox PARC, a Californian research and development company, designed the first PC (Personal Computer). But such technological progress did not remain any kind of dehumanized and robotic work. Indeed, it has completely disrupted the way human beings see themselves. Making use of such computers and advanced research laboratories, Frederick Sanger, an English biochemist, succeeded in sequencing DNA in 1975. That’s why he had received two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry. As a result, human beings became unique individuals made of DNA molecules they pass on to their offspring – included faults and vices, unfortunately. Hence the proverb: ‘like father like son’. In the seventies, children also ‘never had it so good’: in 1968, the Brown Box, the first home video game console, was invented by Ralph H. Baer, a German-born American engineer. No doubt that their parents would have preferred a simple and less addictive hobby such as the colourful and headache Rubik’s Cube, created in 1974 by Ernö Rubik, a Hungarian professor of architecture. As for teenagers, the awkward age

27


became more exciting – and more peaceful for their parents. Instead of making windows rattle because of the last hit of the Beatles, by the end of the seventies they could use their new walkman. The latter turned into a trendy accessory, as well as rollerblades invented in 1979 by two American hockey enthusiasts, brothers Scott and Brennan Olson. With both technological innovations, youth could escape from authoritarian and oppressive reality. But it was not the case for everyone, especially when it comes to working-class children who could not afford such desirable objects. Hence a bundle of frustration and bunches of fives: technological progress indirectly led to a rise in juvenile crime. Musicians and their fans never had felt ‘so good’ – as James Brown apparently noticed in 1965. The renewal of the popular music scene became closely bound-up with the wonders of electronics. Some guitarists began exploring a wider range of tonal effects by distorting the sound of their electric guitars - the ‘clipping’ effects as sound engineers put it. Vox guitars were also introduced in the sixties, especially by Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones and his Mark VI. The music industry faced huge transformations. The old song-writer was on the dole while young managers were making money. The printed music sheet disappeared for the benefit of records, which led to the first optical digital audio disc with a 150-minute playing time in 1978 by Sony. However, one must not overlook the dark side of technology at this period. As for energy, think about nuclear weapons developed after the Manhattan project and their potential destructive power. We should always keep in mind Einstein’s warning: ‘technological progress is like an ax in the hands of a pathological criminal’. For sure, the Luddites could have come back to the scene, breaking machines as rock stars were doing with their guitars on stage. Indeed, many workers never had it so sad. Technology radically changed their working environment. A factory apprentice, during Fraser’s interview, put the stress on the ‘unforgettable claustrophobic comradeship’ of the factory (2), denouncing ‘the machines which constantly break down’ (3) and repetitive movements on the assembly line. Workers did repetitive tasks like robots as well as cashiers. Indeed the sixties celebrated the advent of supermarkets and self-service stores, which led to the first bar-code scanner in 1969 – only employed in 1974. In some ironic sense, men ‘never had it so good’. Thanks to technological – and more affordable – developments, their wives could spend their time differently and forget how boring their daily life at home was. As a consequence, they were well disposed towards their husbands when they came back home. Let’s give a few figures to show the very visible growth in the acquisition of durable consumer goods at the moment: by 1971, 69% of households had a refrigerator, 91% of families had a television, and 64% had a washing machine; in 1956, only about 5% had one of these key machines. Nevertheless, at the end of the sixties, more than a half of all women could not spend hours nattering because the spread of the telephone was much slower.

28


To go deeper into the analysis, the ‘second sex’ (4) had it better than the first one. Technology and science were the catalysts of women’s emancipation. ‘The era of the Pill had begun’ as a medical historian, Dr N.E. Himes, has written. However, it may be noted that the pill only began to be widely used in Britain in the late sixties, hence roads to progressive freedom for women. As a conclusion, technology changed people’s life because it gave them more time to spend. A social and cultural revolution was at stake. At the moment technological goods created new needs, changed women’s lives, helped workers forget the tough conditions of the workplace. For sure, technology and all its far-out gadgets represented the new ‘opium of the masses’ as would have said Karl Marx.

References (1) British Society since 1945, Arthur Marwick, Penguin Books Edition, pages 85-86. (2) and (3) Work: Twenty Personal Accounts, Fraser, 1968. (4) The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir, 1949 Bibliography British Society since 1945, Arthur Marwick, Penguin Books Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/Timelines_of_Invention_and_Technology.htm

29


Anne-Lise MITHOUT

Gay contestation movements in the 60’s

During the 60’s, protestation movements arose all across America; be it about Civil Rights, feminism, anti-war, counterculture...the whole society was in motion. Along with these groups, the gay community was getting organized and asking for recognition. Whereas, at the beginning of the decade, places of homosexual gathering were forbidden by law, in 1971 Frank Kameny ran as an openly gay candidate for a seat in Congress. The 60’s enabled gay people to acquire a new visibility and to accomplish a revolution, in which the city of San Francisco played a major role. Nevertheless, the 1969 Stonewall Riots proved that America was far from cleared from homophobia. Behind the myth, were the 60’s really an era of liberation? What were the steps of this motion, and what was the true impact of gay movements on society? What were the relations between the gay community and other protest groups? In a context favourable to the development of gay prot group (I), organizations were created all over the country, and especially in San Francisco (II), which lead, to some extent, to social changes (III).

During the 60’s, the rebellion against homophobic laws, the development of protest groups in all parts of society and the specific situation of the city of San Francisco create a context particularly favourable to the spreading of gay organizations. At the beginning of the 60’s, homophobia is materialized by specific laws. Alcohol beverage law prohibits “disorderly behaviour” in bars, which is a way of meaning “homosexual gatherings”. Under New York City Law, homosexuals are not allowed to be served in bars, under penalty of revocation of the bar’s license. In 1953, Eisenhower’s government bans employment of gays and lesbians from federal jobs; local governments and some private companies follow this trend. Homosexual behaviour is considered as a crime in all the states, and prison penalty (sometimes life-long) can be sentenced against people convicted of having same-sex relations with another consenting adult ; the FBI develops a surveillance program against gay people, and the police commits regular harassment against them, for instance by raiding gay bars and arresting customers. Medical therapies including electroshock, castration and lobotomies are used in medical institutes in order to “cure” homosexuals. During the 60’s, contestation arises in society at large, be it the Civil Right movements, feminism or counterculture. The gay community is linked with all these groups, but develops on its own. It follows the example of black Civil Rights movement: its main demand is called “Gay Civil Rights”, and the slogan “Gay Power” 31


is created by the Gay Liberation Front, as an answer to the “Black Power”. In 1969, Leo Laurence from the SIR (Society of Individual Rights, the largest homophile organization in the US) encourages the gay community to join the Black Panthers, even though some of its leaders have made homophobic speeches. Lesbian movements’ relation with feminism is quite complex; although both tend to the same goal, that is setting women free from machismo, a strong anti-lesbian feeling arises among feminists, and leads quickly to separation. Feminists like Betty Friedan want to distance their action from the lesbian movement, and lesbians are excluded from the National Organization for Women. That is why lesbian associations develop as a specific branch of the gay movement. They receive help from bigger gay organizations; the first lesbian protestation group, the Daughters of Bilitis, is founded in San Francisco in 1955, and derives from the Mattachine Society (first gay organization ever). Nevertheless, the lesbian movement is divided in the mid-60’s between associations that sides with bigger gay groups, and associations that want to stand as specifically feminists (even though isolated from the larger feminist movement). The gay movement is also linked with counterculture. The founders of the first gay association, Mattachine society, wish to create a community with its own culture, like every other minority (Black, Jewish...). They try to turn homosexuality from an underground subculture to an open and specific branch of the population. Moreover, some artists who play an important part in the development of counterculture are more or less openly gay, or linked with homosexuality, which gives the gay community members example of cultural models they can recognize themselves in. For instance, Allen Ginsberg or Andy Warhol express homosexual desires in an artistic way, which contributes to the recognition of the gay community. The city of San Francisco plays a major role in the development of gay organizations. During World War I, the army rejects gay soldiers, and sends them back to San Francisco; since they often feel too ashamed to go back to their families, they generally decide to stay there, and the first gay community develops in the poor neighbourhood of Tenderloin. During the 50’s, a new wave of arrivals is due to McCarthyist prosecution, because of the link between homosexuality and radical communism. In the 60’s, homosexuals start renovating the formerly working-class neighbourhood of Castro (where housing is cheap), and create openly gay shops, bars, restaurants, theatres...That is why the biggest gay community in the US is located in San Francisco, and most organizations develop from there. At the beginning of the 60’s, only a few protest groups, among which the Mattachine organization is the most famous, exist in America. During the decade, lots of new organizations spread over the country, and lead public actions. This development follows several steps. Created in 1950, the Mattachine organization is the pioneer of the gay movement. It is founded by Harry Hay, an active communist; this is characteristic of this period: most gay people are radicals and communists. The movement starts in New York, but is relocated to San Francisco in 1955. Its first goal is to promote discussions between gay men and lesbian women, and exchanges of experience, but it soon turns into a

32


political organization. The founders want to create a community based on ethics and democratic ideals; they dream of a gay culture comparable to that of other minorities like Black or Jewish people. The first step in politics is taken in 1952 when, after one member is victim of a homophobic aggression, the organization decides to go to trial; it raises funds, hires a lawyer, distributes leaflets and publishes newsletter, and the case is finally dismissed. It is one of the first victories in gay contestation. In 1953, Mattachine goes farther in politics and asks local political candidates about their positions on gay rights issues. Criticism arises and, at this time of McCarthyism, Mattachine’s links with communism lead to a controversy. The founders are replaced by new leaders unconnected with communism, but they no longer focus on the creation of a cultural community, and the members’ mobilization dramatically decreases. Another association is created in the 50’s; it derives from Mattachine, but is dedicated to women and called the Daughter of Bilitis. Under the influence of Mattachine, the first gay publication ever, ONE Inc, is launched in 1952. Institutions call the magazine « obscene », but publication is finally authorised after a four year long trial. It plays an important role in the development of academic research about homosexuality, and launches in 1960 the idea of drafting a Homosexual Bill of Rights, that is criticized even by other gay associations, among which the Mattachine Society. In 1960, elections take place in San Francisco, and the role of gay people in the city becomes a key issue of the campaign. Indeed, one candidate accuses the other of “harboring sexual deviates within the city”, and both make homophobic declarations. Finally, some 9000 citizens vote for neither candidate. This election is symbolic of the emergence of the gay community in politics. But in the early 60’s, gay activism takes several forms; in 1962, gay bar owners found the Tavern Guild, and protest against police harassment. In 1961, San Franciscan drag artist Jose Sarria become the first overtly gay candidate to run for a political office. In 1964, the Society for Individual Rights is created in San Francisco. Its philosophy is different from that of Mattachine; instead of praising assimilation of gay people in society, it talks of “liberation”. It promotes a community feeling among its members, and encourages them to taking initiative and organizing events. In 1966, it opens the first gay community centre in the US. It publishes a monthly magazine, Vector, in which San Franciscan politics and trends are discussed. Two years later, it is the largest homophile organization in America, and finds support from the Protestant clergy. It holds Candidates Nights, during which candidates for local elections answer questions from a gay audience, and wins over New York City administration to reduce police harassment. In 1968, Frank Kameny, who had founded the Washington branch of Mattachine, coins the slogan “Gay is good”, following the model of “Black is beautiful”. Kameny is one of the main actors of the gay movement; after being fired from the Army Map Service (he is an astronomer) because of his homosexuality, he becomes a militant leader and gives a more aggressive tone to the movement, advocating confrontation between gays and heterosexuals, whereas previous leaders were in favour of pacific assimilation. He organizes public demonstrations, especially picketing in front of the

33


Pentagon, and launches campaigns in order to remove homosexuality from the official lists of mental diseases. In 1971, he runs as an openly gay candidate for a seat in Congress; although he does not win the election, he contributes significantly to improving the political visibility of the gay community. The major event in gay movement history, the Stonewall Riots, takes place in 1969. The Stonewall Inn is a bar in New York that is owned by the mafia and welcomes gay people, transvestites, and effeminate young men. On the 28th of June 1969, a police raid takes place and about 200 people are locked inside, while policemen check their identification. But customers refuse to stay inside, and a crowd (homosexuals, but also anti-war militants and other heterosexuals angry with the police) gathers around the bar and starts fighting with the police. Violence escalates and the night of riots ends with massive arrests and injuries. The next days, with the help of famous newspapers, the gay community gain sympathy and support from society at large. In the aftermath, the gay movement becomes more radical, and gains visibility. Since this rebellion was spontaneous and had a huge impact on society, it is considered as the starting point of the series of political victories of the gay community in the 70’s. This movement resulted in major changes in society, even if this statement has to be balanced. The most visible changes took place in the political field. In December 1964, during a New Year’s Eve party organized by gay associations, police officers tried to arrest guests, under the accusation that same-sex dance was forbidden by law. The case was brought to trial, and police harassment was condemned. Mattachine Society proved by a legal study that no law in New York City forbade homosexual gatherings in bars, but that only “disorderly behaviour” was banned, which did not explicitly refer to homosexuality. Based on this study, the mayor John Lindsay changed the city policies concerning arrests and banishment from administration jobs. Moreover, anti-sodomy laws were repelled in Illinois in 1962, and before 1973 in six other states. Less tangible, but of equal importance were the social changes. Several medical studies on homosexuality were performed during the period; although homosexuality was usually regarded as a mental pathology resulting from traumatic parent-child relationship, in 1956, a comparison between heterosexuals and self-identified gay men showed that there was no significant difference in happiness between both groups. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, where it was listed as a sociopathic personality disturbance. The gay identity was changing, too. Whereas homosexuals were commonly pictured (in literature, in newspapers, in movies...) as sad, outcast, characterized by self-hatred..., a new vision of homosexuality emerged, of which the most typical example is Armistead Maupin’s Tales of the City, depicting in realistic terms the funny way of life of openly gay people cohabitating with heterosexuals in San Francisco. Nevertheless, the gay community itself was divided into several subgroups: lesbians, transvestites, effeminate men, “hidden” gay...Since all those people often had nothing more in common than same-sex attraction, it was difficult for them to feel they

34


belonged to a group, and some members felt outcast even within the community. There was especially strong antagonism between lesbians and drag queens who were accused of making fun of women in a disrespectful way. At the beginning of the 70’s, a lesbian movement was developing on its own, having recognized that it did not share the same demands as gay men. Even within the male branch, there were effeminate young men, often homeless, isolated from the rest of the group and considered as the most outcast part of the gay community. This situation comes as a limit to the idea of a large liberation of gay people; some subgroups were more concerned by social change than others. Even though the gay community took advantage of the massive protest movement of the 60’s, its relations with other protest groups were ambiguous and made of misunderstandings as well as of mutual support. The city of San Francisco was the centre of the development of associations that, step by step, won important victories over administration and social prejudices. The sixties were an era of liberation, to the extent that, for the first time, an organized gay community emerged and was able to make itself heard by society. Nevertheless, it did not touch every gay person; there remained outcasts within the community, and homophobia was still felt among politicians and in the American society at large.

Bibliography: -

The queer sixties, Patricia Juliana Smith, Routledge, 1999 Timeline of Homosexual History, 1961 to 1979, Tangent Group Gay is good: how Frank Kameny changed the face of America, interview by Will O’Bryan, Metro Weekly, October 5, 2006 Milestones in the gay right movement, excerpted from The Reader's Companion to American History, Houghton Mifflin, 1991 San Francisco, premier bastion gay, Manon Lidenua, lemagazine.info, 20 novembre 2006 Early 1970’s: political split in gay movement, Leslie Feinberg, Workers World, November 11, 2006 When did the gay rights movements begin? Vern Bullough, History News Network, April 18, 2005 Shaping San Francisco, Will Roscoe, excerpts from "The Miracle Mile: South of Market and Gay Male Leather, 1962-1997", Gayle Rubin, City Lights, 1998

Wikipedia: Gay Liberation, ONE, Inc., Emeutes de Stonewall

35


Céline LOBEZ

The James Bond phenomenon through the 60’s and 70’s

“My name is Bond. James Bond.” This is probably the most famous quote associated with the well-known British secret agent on her majesty’s service. Whether vanquishing villains or seducing the next femme fatale, James Bond is never tongue-tied and his famous lines are known by many generations of fans. More than a fictional character, James Bond is a myth that has seduced both our parents and us. But do we really know him? Born in 1952 thanks to British novelist Ian Fleming, Commander James Bond is portrayed as an MI6 agent who holds the code number 007. The double-0 prefix indicates his discretionary licence to kill in the performance of his duties. His fans also remember his particular taste for vodka martinis (“shaken, not stirred”), his gadgets designed by Q, his fantastic cars (from the Lotus to the Aston Martin) and most of all, his numerous feminine conquests. The “James Bond girl”, although changing in every episode, forms a recurrent character in the movies, just like Bond’s superiors and other officers of the British Secret Service (M, who is Bond’s boss, and M’s secretary, Miss Moneypenny). All these details we know about James Bond contribute to form a coherent image of the hero in our minds. Undoubtedly shaped through the 22 movies, this image has evolved since its creation, 47 years ago. One of the great successes of the James Bond movies is that, although actors changed (6 actors for 007, from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig), the spirit has remained unchanged. If James Bond seems to be timeless, the movies nevertheless remain a great source of information about society and cinema. The 11 James Bond movies that have been realised during the sixties and the seventies logically reveal many aspects of society. In this dissertation, we will analyse the evolution of the James Bond movies during the sixties and seventies and try to emphasise all the learnings they deliver. A/ The Sixties and the creation of James Bond’s identity • Exoticism and Humour In the fifties and the sixties, spy movies were very popular but also very different from the James Bond movies we know. Based on humour and exoticism (due to the euphoria of the sixties), the James Bond movies were considered really innovative. Produced in 1962, Dr.No is obviously the founding stone of the James Bond myth, as it clearly defines the “codes” that will form the core of Bond’s identity (first appearance of recurrent characters, first use of the James Bond musical theme by 37


John Barry…). As underlined previously, exoticism is part of James Bond movies’ success. Dr. No opens in Jamaica, where Bond is sent to investigate the disappearance of a British agent. 007 is a globe-trotter, always on the move (hunter or hunted). Sean Connery also established humour as part of Bond’s personality, as proved by this dialogue with Ursula Andress (Honey Ryder): Honey Ryder, on the beach, in her bathing suit, with shells in her hands: What are you doing here? Looking for shells? James Bond: No. I’m just looking. Or this dialogue with his boss, M: M: When do you sleep 007? James Bond: Never on the firm’s time, sir. • Political Distance Even when political problems are evoked, there is neither denunciation nor accusation. James Bond movies do not aim at delivering political messages and 007 always maintains a kind of polite distance. His legendary sense of humour helps him to skip any controversial debate. Dr.No: The Americans are fools. I offered my services, they refused. So did the East. Now they can both pay for their mistake. James Bond: World domination. The same old dream. Our asylums are full of people who think they're Napoleon. Or God. In 1963, From Russia with Love offers a good idea of society, divided between East and West by the Cold War. In this movie, if spies are Soviets, we quickly realize that the real enemy is the international terrorist organization (SPECTRE). Once more, the movie does not condemn any political system or country. Actually, the Soviets, just as the Americans and the British, are just another victim of the SPECTRE organization. This image of international conflicts is really modern as it goes far beyond the simplistic opposition between East and West we can find in many movies of the period. • Technology and modernization With Goldfinger (1964) and Thunderball (1965), technology becomes a mainstay of the James Bond movies. Exotic espionage equipment, guns and vehicles (first Aston Martin DB5) become very popular elements of James Bond's cinematic missions. These items often prove critically important to Bond in successfully completing his missions. For example, in Goldfinger, with Q: James Bond: Ejector seat, you're joking. Q: I never joke about my work, 007.

38


Or in Thunderball, talking about his favourite subject, women and guns: James Bond: That looks like a woman's gun Largo: Do you know a lot about guns, Mr.Bond? James Bond: No, but I know little about women. The movies tend to be more spectacular as technology becomes the footprint of the James Bond movies. In Thunderball, spying even seems to be a pretext to justify the constant use of technology and gadgets: the scenes of 007 fighting under the sea provide a good illustration of the modernized approach of the action. This tendency is largely reinforced in You Only Live Twice (1967), in which the fantastic helicopter scene remains absolutely breathtaking today. In this episode, the plot 007 must unravel is about the stealing of US and Soviet spaceships, which is quite unrealistic. Actually, the director and producer of the movie seem to have abandoned realism for a much more shadowy and excessive approach. • The intruder On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, produced in 1969, is usually considered as an intruder (if not a failure) in the series. Instead of Sean Connery, George Lazenby embodies a much more romantic James Bond. The approach is sometimes realistic (no more gadgets, no more prototypes) but also psychedelic (in the scenery, but also in the idea of the brainwashing which echoes the use of drugs such as LSD very popular at the time). In that sense, even if the movie is radically different from the previous ones, it remains interesting as the story is more aligned with the period. B/ The Seventies: the beginning of blockbusters Now that James Bond’s identity is clearly defined and that the series is more and more popular (particularly in Europe), producers and directors will try to seduce a wider audience with blockbusters (i.e movies with a widespread audience and enormous sales). With Diamonds are Forever, the idea is to encounter the same success as You Only Live Twice (and to forget about the semi-failure of On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Sean Connery is back in the role of 007, and the emphasis is laid on technology and excess (as proved by the final scene of explosion on an oilrig, or the pursuit with the lunar vehicle which echoes Armstrong first steps on the Moon). But the real turning point comes with Live and Let Die in 1973. • Americanisation of the series In Live and Let Die (1973), Roger Moore interprets for the first time the famous secret agent and gives the movie a new tone. The movie, considered as the first step toward Americanisation, begins in New-York, in Harlem. Many characters seem to come from a “blaxploitation movie” of the 70’s (i.e. a movie targeting a black urban audience) and even the mention of the voodoo folklore echoes “black culture”. The

39


role of the redneck sheriff also contributes to give the impression of an Americanised movie. This is really a period of transition characterized by a scale change. The Man With The Golden Gun, in 1974, puts a stop to this transitional period: From then on, James Bond movies will be blockbusters. • The Blockbusters era The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) is undoubtedly the first James Bond blockbuster. Every detail of the action is excess, movement, stunt or technical display. The movie is a cocktail of action and tongue-in-cheek humour. As for the plot, a NATO and a Soviet submarine vanish in the middle of the ocean and a crazed megalomaniac living under the sea has the technology to track the two submerged vessels. Roger Moore really comes into his own in his third Bond outing. There is just the right balance of political conflicts and over-the-top action to make this a truly great 007 film. The movie is logically a real success (widespread popularity, enormous sales) and the James Bond production decides to create another movie based on the same recipe: Moonraker in 1979. With the same director, the same exhausting rhythm, and the same idea of a megalomaniac eager to change the world, Moonraker is the twin of The Spy Who Loved Me. Instead of an aquatic environment, the action takes place in the space and eugenics replaces ecological preoccupations as the major theme of the movie. In both movies, the questions raised are more modern, even if quite unrealistic (particularly in Moonraker, which is largely impacted by the science fiction phenomenon - from Star Wars to Galactica). The laser gun battles in the space show that the James Bond movies have definitely changed since the beginning of the series. After 20 years and 11 movies of exploration and definition of 007’s identity, the James Bond production seemed to have finally found the perfect recipe of the blockbuster. Nevertheless, this recipe is not eternal (contrary to Diamonds). If James Bond movies are still successful today, it is largely because they have succeeded in constantly reinventing the adventures of the most famous British secret agent, to keep in tune with the changing society, without losing the original spirit. And there is no doubt that the James Bond phenomenon will last for a long time, because as said by one of the charming James Bond girl in The Spy Who Loved Me: Cabin Girl: But I need you James! James Bond, about to leave on skis: So does England!

40


Mathieu Libaudière

The Watergate scandal After four years of Nixon’s presidency, the situation of the USA was at a turning point. The protests against Vietnam’s cost in lives was growing. In a word, the 1972 presidential election was looming large and would deeply shape USA’s future. As the pressure was increasing all over the country, a minor story in June 1972 was going to make the headlines for a long time a few months later. The five acolytes stopped and arrested at the Watergate building in possession of listening devices were going to become the initiators of the biggest political scandal of the second part of the twentieth century. In this affair, the Washington Post journalists, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, can be seen as the main prosecutors for the early stage of the investigation. After the preliminary denial of the authority, stating that the White House wasn’t in any way behind the folkloric expedition, questions were being raised and especially about James McCord, former CIA officer and also member of Nixon’s re-election committee. Taking advantage of the new means of communication, the two young journalists dug up the beginning of the whole story about the campaign financing, thanks to the famous informant Deep Throat, who would 30 years later be identified as the number two of the FBI himself, Mark Felt, tired of the endless political tricks and plots. After many attempts to dodge investigations and the resignation of numerous political staffs, the White House finally had to hand over the precious tapes which were at the very heart of the scandal. On these tapes that recorded secret conversations between Nixon and his closest advisors were supposed to reside the answer to the ultimate question: did Nixon himself order the bugging of the Watergate? In the end the recordings didn’t actually charge Nixon directly, as it only proved that he deliberately tried to slow down the investigation. Nowhere in the tapes was the proof that Nixon knew about the break-in and even less that he decided it. However these tapes were eventually going to end Nixon’s presidency as well as his political career, as the threat of impeachment by the Supreme Court triggered the President’s resignation in 1974. More than a detailed though impossible description of the whole scandal, we can focus on the impact and consequences of this affair both on the American political life and on the society on a wider level.

41


A basic statement would be that this affair shook the American political class pretty hard. At these tumultuous times when the withdrawal from Vietnam was in everybody’s mind, the Watergate was too much to bear for the public opinion. The direct consequences were the journey to prison for 31 of Nixon’s advisers, among them some of the most prominent and promising talents. The adjustment of political manner was pushed further by Congress, which demanded a closer control of the president on the decisions regarding increasingly important matters such as military deployment, financial issues and freedom of information. The way press and political entities are intertwined have also been reshaped. Before this story, the press allowed some liberty to the various presidents and conceded some shadowy area in public policy, in the general interest. The Bay of Pigs, also a big issue in the early 60’s, clearly didn’t have the same exposure. From 1973-1974, journalists were not willing to let the next affair exist without their coverage. The embarrassment of missing this scandal led to a more aggressive coverage, says former Washington Post editor L. Downie. But what we also have to think about is that the whole affair wouldn’t have been possible without the thoughtful consent of Deep Throat who was “inside the establishment”. Downie’s analysis states that unlike the common perception that the scandal was brought up by the press, it is much more the establishment that, in a way, purposely sunk itself. Woodward and Bernstein, however, created such an atmosphere of suspicion and tension that it surely led to Nixon panicking about the tapes. In general terms, by making the settlement of this affair a moral issue, we can imagine that the press tried to gain by itself the selfrespect that journalists thought to deserve. In this logic, Woodward and Bernstein objectively saw themselves as "just one piece of what happened early in the process." The press would then have been what triggered and fed the official political prosecution. Jack Nelson, who worked for the Los Angeles Times at that period, claims that "Nixon was fighting not just prosecutors and Congress but also in the court of public opinion. For all of their controlling Congress, the Democrats were not in any sense going to go after Nixon unless the public was behind it. And the public got behind it because of the press." Speaking of public opinion, the scandal surely broke apart what was left of the presidential “semi-god” status. The controversial positions adopted by Lyndon Johnson during his presidency already downed this state of fact; the Watergate was then the continuing sequel of an already started story. All the efforts of President Ford to smooth the situation and restore the presidential legitimacy seem however not to have held long. Two decades later, G.W. Bush and Neocons friends went to war because of facts not proven right but clearly proven outdated: even though the press clearly said the world was not naive, journalists were not in a strong enough position to inflect Bush policy. In this case, the Woodward and Bernstein legacy is maybe the simple fact that public announcements are now seen through the screen of scepticism.

42


Symbols of the end of a generation, Vietnam and Watergate appear as the two key elements drawing the finish line of American ingenuous attitude towards its political class, and its entrance into the last quarter of the twentieth century. To conclude, one has to realise that this day of August 1974 when Nixon had been the first and only president to resign during his ongoing term was very likely the landmark of the emergence of the “fourth power�.

Bibliography http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3542650.stm http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-06/2005-06-01-voa50.cfm?moddate=2005-06-01 http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3735 http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/usa194180/watergate.shtml

43


Sophie LOUSTAU

How did populations perceive the space conquest during the 60’s & the 70’s ?

For centuries, space discovery has always been a kind of fantasy for the public. The idea to send people in space was created by philosophers well before it became technically possible. During the 20th century, thanks to technological innovations, this dream came true. This might explain the great interest from Russian and American citizens for space conquest. First, all of them wanted to read within these advances the evolution of their respective nation. Indeed, space conquest was no more than a part of the cold war. Russians and Americans clashed by means of this discipline just as on a battlefield. Each failure affected the whole nation’s honour. At the end of the Second World War, USSR and USA appeared as the two main winners of the conflict. But this equality didn’t satisfy them. Each one of them wanted to be celebrated as the greatest power in the world. Consequently, the space conquest promoted the growth of nationalist spirit. First, it was mainly used by the Soviet Union to exhibit its power, thanks to the media coverage of the exploits of Yuri Gagarin. It was a public humiliation for the United States. From this day, every Soviet or American citizen looked at the space race to see what they considered as their nation’s evolution. The border between the technological competition (which previously used to be rather secret and considered as uninteresting by populations) and the political one became more and more blurred. A mix was created. The most important thing to understand is that space conquest wasn’t only a technological evolution such as vaccines or TV. People found in it political, economic and social stakes which didn’t present any obvious link with it. Indeed, most of them considered that such events were so important that they would inevitably impact the basis of their life. Each action decided and realized by scientists had to be approved by governments, who were deeply influenced by public opinion. More precisely, as their political careers depended on their citizens’ will, they resorted to all possible stratagems so as to make it match to their ambitions. Media were the key tool to success. Americans were far more effective than Russians. Presence of cameras during successful experiments enabled to forecast a positive image of the evolution of research and to justify endless expenses. Kennedy used to evoke the national security justification for the Space Race described as a vital front in the Cold War. Even though expenses were 45


not completely revealed, American citizens suspected their extent. Such a sacrifice would have never been accepted without this governmental manipulation. Development of fear was palpable during the 60’s and the 70’s. As long as space conquest was presented as one of the most efficient solutions to the security problem, American citizens couldn’t criticize the huge expenditure and bureaucracy linked to its expansion. Both the United States and the Soviet Union developed programs only focused on the scientific and industrial requirements for these efforts. It became a significant source of job creation. The amount spent by the United States on the space race is estimated to be about $100 billion. All this money wasn’t spent on other sectors. It was part of the relaunch plans designed by governments so as to support national growth. But it also can be seen as a kind of “segregation” providing that these amounts spent for astronomy were not available for others sectors. Even though it was a growth factor in the US, space conquest is suspected to have deepened the economic crisis of the Soviet system during the 70’s and the 80’s. However, critics were not as developed as in the US given the government’s authoritarianism. A rumour developed during the 60’s. When governments first mentioned space conquest in the Cold War context, populations thought it was a roundabout way to expand their territories. As the rivalries for limited territories on Earth kept growing, moon or such planets as Mars appeared as an alternative to overcome the problem. However, governments didn’t want to do that. Unlike other international rivalries, the Space Race was not motivated by the desire for territorial expansion. The United States didn’t claim a property right after its successful landing on the Moon. Space conquest had a direct impact on millions of people’s daily life. Governments chose to make space exploration a national concern. Governmental policies led quickly to a push by legislators and educators for greater emphasis on mathematics and physical science in American schools. Construction of planetarium installations in more than 1,200 American high schools is a relevant illustration of this phenomenon. Providing that astronauts appeared as heroes, youths just wanted to go their way. Consequently, an increasing number of students chose to study physics and mathematics up to a post-graduate level. Such studies became very popular and scientists were considered as national geniuses worldwide, deposing philosophical and literary disciplines. This attraction for astrophysics was a real necessity regarding to the ruthless competition between USSR and USA. Both governments organised a resounding propaganda in schools so as to laud national scientists’ work and to prompt youth to choose such jobs. Some sociologists claimed to recognize in this period the first American government’s strong intervention in students’ orientation insomuch that some scientists were described as the “new soldiers of the USA”. Food and micro-technology industry also benefited from the space conquest. Their scientists took part in the development of ready-to-eat and dried food. They improved sterilization and package sealing techniques. Much of the micro-technology which fuels everyday activities comes from space conquest. Most of these inventions met with great success. Consumers, fascinated by space conquest, were ready to pay a

46


higher price to access these new products. Furthermore, practicality of these innovations couldn’t be denied. Launching regularly hit the headlines and represented modern epics. The toy industry didn’t hesitate to cash in on this new market. Every kid wanted to own a space shuttle and to perform exploits just as his heroes. The German company Arnold produced the first “flying” toy with a very ingenious crank and flexible cable system. ERTL enjoyed great success with its representation of the “Mercury” shuttle. It enabled kids to discover the interior of the shuttle. Even very technical details were represented and young boys grew accustomed to these technological evolutions. Before the space conquest, the frontier between sciences and common citizens used to be very clear. Space conquest marked the century because of its impact on the daily life. So much so that millions people had a feeling they had become familiar with details which seemed inaccessible to them a few years ago. The media were a key tool for ensuring the popularity of the space conquest. Their presence during an experiment enabled it to become famous. It was the means of communication mainly used between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Each one of them tried to create the most resounding event so as to exhibit its power. The space conquest became so popular that some politicians used it as an electoral weapon. Kennedy and Johnson managed to swing public opinion thanks to their communication skills. It provided dreams to populations and successful launches established the popularity of leaders involved in its elaboration. A lot of scientific journals were created during this period as a large public wanted to be informed about progress and improve their knowledge so as to be able to speak about it. Most of them, all around the world, mainly dealt with the American evolution while they only alluded to Soviet ones. Space was a myth for most people and these journals addressed topics as simple as the reason of its black colours, location of Planet Earth in the solar system… Today, even though space innovations don’t have such a success anymore, impacts of their origins remain important. All the Global System for Mobile (GSM) technologies take part in daily life. Just as populations in the 60’s and the 70’s, nowadays, we benefit from advantages offered by these discoveries. Sciences are still considered as “the elite way” and they are meant to reflect intelligence and analysis capacities. Fantasies already persist as each new discovery raises a new mystery.

Bibliography : -“Alpha Encyclopédie”, Kister Editions, volume N°2, « astronomie » & « astronautique » articles. - « la guerre des cerveaux », Bernard Lenteric, « le livre de poche », published in 1986. -http://lepithec.chez.com/1960/1960.htm : presents some articles about the space conquest. - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_du_vol_spatial - http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-race - http://jlsfly.free.fr/espace.htm

47


Armand AGHA

Struggles and Fights in the American Society during the 60’s and 70’s

With historical hindsight, the American society of 1959 and the one of 1981 are beyond comparison. If any society knows a normal evolution, the US has undergone especially big changes, thanks to many social and societal struggles. So what were these fights and what was their influence within the US society? These fights had occured in many fields, be it in the political life (such as the witchhunt launched by McCarthy against the Communists), in international matters (e.g: protests against the Vietnam War) or national issues like the Civil Rights. More genenerally, this post-war era can be described by a c lash between the young generation, born after the WWII and willing to modernize the society, and their parents, who were more conservative. That is why we are going to study each struggle and see the link between each other. The first conflict was undoubtedly the most federative one: the witch-hunt. Politicians and most people were said to be united against communist sympathizers. McCarthyism was a movement led by Joseph McCarthy (a politician in the 50s) who considered communism as a threat to democracy, all the more so he suspected many members of the State Departement of “infesting” the Government. To a larger extent, the rise of Communism in the 50s (China, the lost of the monopol of nuclear weapon, spies in Canada and the USA) caused a paranoïa that led to an anti-communist crusade: methods were propaganda, public intimidation, denouncement, and presumption of guiltiness, so that all communist sympathiser were questioned, fired or found guilty of conspiracy or treason. And its effects subsisted long after the 50s! For example, Charlie Chaplin – who had been expulsed from the USA because of his political opinions – still could not come back in the USA for a long time! But McCarthyism is the extreme aspect of a latent stream in the American society during the whole Cold War: indeed, as the USA symbolized the prosperous liberal and capitalist consumer society, the whole country (politicians of all sides and most people) were unanimous about supporting this system in opposition to the Communist regime. Thus, the Cold War was probably the most important clash in the USA during the 60s and 70s.

49


The anti-communists campaign was quite popular, but another conflict divided the society in a very violent and deep way: the Civil Rights Fight. In fact, despite the abolition of slavery in the XIXth century, a strong racial discrimination was predominant in the whole country, especially in Southern States, where the Afro-American population was particularly present. Nevertheless, beyond a de facto segregation - a classical societal phenomenon that has always occured and will always occur in every country which welcomes foreigners - a de jure segregation was clearly separating Black and White people until the 60s: facilities, services and opportunities, such as medical care and employment, could vary a lot; according to ethnic belonging. For instance, segregation was the rule for federal Civil Service. Hence, Black people, willing to be legally equal to the WASPs, started to struggle for civil rights. They responded to the violent white behaviour with violent acts and a civil battle prevailed for many years. The first action happened in February 1960, when black students decided to sit-in in many universities (North Carolina and then in other States), so as to protest against the separation between Black colleges and White ones. However, a few universities in the Mississippi started to integrate black students between 1956 and 1965. Saying that it caused protests and riots is an understatement, but this was one of the most symbolic advancement. Another very symbolic event was the March on Washington for jobs and Freedom on August 28th, 1963: over 200’000 people (mostly black people but also other ethnic groups!) gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, where they could hear the famous “I have a dream”-speech by Martin L. King. Next year, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Besides, 1964 is a landmark for the anti-racism battle, since it was the year when the Civil Rights Act outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. But legislation has no real influence on people’s opinion, and racism was still very active in the 60s and 70s. For instance, Martin L. King was assassinated in 1968. As a general rule, White racists, represented by the famous Ku Klux Klan, which killed many black people, were opposed to Black people, who had become racists against the White, symbolized by the Black Panthers. In fact, we could oppose the Greensboro massacre in 1979 – 5 marchers were killed by KKK members – to the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute in Mexico by Tommie Smith and John Carlos in Mexico City. But beyond these symbols, the social situation of the African-American People has evolved a lot during the 60s and 70s, especially at a legal level, thanks to politicians, although racism has not been eradicated in the US society (and will never be). Another conflict where politicians played a great role was the Vietnam War. In fact, this war was waged in 1959 by the Kennedy and Jonhson Administration, developed, and ended in 1975 under Nixon.

50


But protests really began in 1962; with anti-imperialist and colonialist groups (these political groups were calle “doves” against the “hawks”, which supported the War.) These groups could be very violent, such as the four anti-war protesters who were shot in the late 60s atthe Kent State University. This event can be related to the main type of protest against the Vietnam Disaster: street protests. Many movements felt concerned by this cause, such as the Civil Rights Movement (cf. above), and they sometimes could use provocative actions, with tough responses. E.g: the Democratic National Conventionin 1968 which turned into riots: 23’000 policemen upon 10’000 protesters! Finally, the most symbolic type of protest is undoubtedly the intervention of celebrities, who perfectly used their popularity and the media. One can remember Janis Joplin and many singers during Woodstock, Jane Fonda, or John Lennon. And of course, Cassius Clay, who refused to go to war, had the strongest opposition. Although Hollywood stars have always been famous for getting involved in politics (and it is often useless!), they managed to stir up strong reactions to their actions and speeches. But, contrary to nowadays, stars had a great influence on young people. Indeed, these artists symbolized another clash, which is probably the most significant in the US during the XXth Century: the clash of generations. Of course, this kind of opposition has always existed, but the WWII and the Baby-boomer generation, which had not lived the wars, have emphasized this gap. On the one hand, parents were conservative, and on the other hand, their children were not cautious about food etc. They were busy thinking about freedom, peace, love, sex, music, prosperity and were much more optimistic about their future. In fact, almost all the struggles and fights we analyzed above are direct or indirect consequences of this misunderstanding between two generations, be it the battle between Northern and Southern States, between the Black and the White, the Young and the Old, the People and the Politicians... The World War and the extraordinary prosperity that succeeded, added to the boom of a new younger generation, have led to many social and societal fights: money was not a problem anymore in the 60s and 70s, so new problems appeared, such as social and legal equality, great principles, leisure... In a nutshell, this period was an era of great struggles which led to the globalized and carefree consumer society we know.

51


Lucile MOUREY

How did Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music gradually turn into The Graduate and Catch-22?

The 1960’s were, from many points of view, exceptional years: the Cold War, the Civil Right Movement, the Counter Culture, the emancipation of women… All these events were revolutionary, and the society of 1970 was definitely not the same one as in 1960. In this dissertation, we will try to understand how this revolution was depicted in movies, by studying two movies from the beginning of the Sixties (Mary Poppins – 1964; The Sound of Music – 1965), and two movies from the end of the Sixties (The Graduate – 1967; Catch-22 – 1970). Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music are two quite similar movies that are symbolic of the traditional family values prevalent in the early 1960’s. Both these movies present dysfunctional families: George Banks and Captain Van Trapp are both trying to run their families as if they were their bank, or their ship: George Banks states several times that “A British bank is run with precision. A British home requires nothing less”, whereas Captain Van Trapp prefers addressing his children with a whistle rather than using their names. In order to attract their father’s love and attention, the children behave badly, and drive all their nannies away: Mary Poppins is the 7th nanny in four months and Maria is the 27th in four years. In both movies, Julie Andrews’ role is to show the children that their father loves them, and by doing so she brings peace in the family. “Mary Poppins” advocates the kind of family life that Walt Disney had spent his career both chronicling and helping to foster on a national level: father at work, mother at home, children flourishing. At the end of Mary Poppins, Winifred Banks, a militant suffragette, abandons her cause to take care of her children: she uses her scarf as a tail for their kite. Mary Poppins leaves the Banks family: now that they have their mother to take care of them, they do not need a nanny anymore. Children should be raised by their mother, not by servants. The Sound of Music is also a model of a traditional family: Maria Van Trapp abandons her dream to be a nun in order to stay at home and take care of the children, to replace their mother. These movies also convey the idea that discipline is the key of a happy family: George Banks says “A British nanny must be a General”, “Precision, Discipline and rules are the tools”, while the Captain Van Trapp teaches his children military discipline. Mary Poppins and Maria Van Trapp, while making sure the children are having fun and feel

53


loved, never undermine this belief that discipline is an essential element in a good education: Mary Poppins makes sure the children behave at all times (“Close your mouth Michael, we are not a codfish”), clean their room, respect their father, etc. However, by the end of the sixties, conformity and traditionalism are no longer the key values conveyed in movies: society has changed. The Graduate is an interesting example of this switch of values, as it rejects most of the values advocated in Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music: respect of the older generations, discipline, morale, conformity… Benjamin (Dustin Hoffman), fresh out of college, realizes that he does not know what he wants to do with his life: he does not want to be like his parents, he wants his future to be “different”. He feels misfit, awkward, does not know how to express his malaise. He spends the summer drifting in his parents’ pool, refusing to think about next year, grad school, work, marriage… Ben finds himself alienated and adrift in the shifting, social and sexual mores of the 1960s, and questioning the values of society (with its keyword "plastics"). Out of boredom and rebellion, he has an affair with Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father’s partner. Things become complicated when he falls in love with her daughter. Elaine is indeed the only person who can understand what he is going through: on their first date, he opens up for the first time since the beginning of the movie: “It’s like I’ve been playing some kind of game but the rules don’t make any sense to me. They are being made up by all the wrong people”. Of course, their parents refuse that they get married, and Mr. Robinson forces Elaine to marry Carl, a more suitable man, who meets every traditional requirement: he comes from a good family, goes to medical school, and does not sleep with older, married women. Ben arrives in the middle of the ceremony, and after a fight with the parents (Ben uses a crucifix as a weapon), they both run away, to live the life they want to live, away from their parents and their rules. Benjamin and Elaine are representative of their generation, a generation that grew up in an era of changing mores, with counter culture and rebellion. They are trying to find their own set of values, only knowing that these values are to be different from those of their parents. Throughout the movie, the emphasis is put on this generation gap that seems to have grown deeper and deeper in the Sixties: none of the older characters has their first name identified in the film; only the younger characters of Benjamin, Elaine and Carl do. This new generation is trying to build their own set of rules, but they do not know where they are heading. This uncertainty, this malaise, is very well shown by Dustin Hoffman. Robert Redford auditioned for the part of Benjamin, but was finally rejected by director Mike Nichols because Nichols did not believe Redford could persuasively project the underdog qualities necessary to the role. Two interesting camera techniques are used in the film. In the scene where Benjamin is running, he is shown at some distance running straight at the camera, an effect

54


which makes him look as if he getting nowhere as he's running. In another scene, Benjamin is walking from the right side of the screen to the left, while everyone else in the scene is moving from left to right. In western culture, things that move left to right seem natural (think of the direction you read words on a page), those that move right to left seem to be going the wrong way. These two visual techniques echo the themes of the film, Benjamin is going the wrong way, and getting nowhere in life. When The Graduate was first released in Portugal, the ending was cut; the movie ended with a helpless Ben behind the glass of the church watching Elaine getting married. The reason why the film suffered such a major cut was that the dictatorship Portugal lived in those days had a solid basis in Catholic Church and family values, and the censorship was given orders not to let any bad example pass to the youth. So it was decided that the movie should end with the lesson that nothing ever should oppose the church, the state and the parents. This movie also denounces the condition of women in the Sixties. Mrs. Robinson, who is the symbol of the traditional housewife (“I got up; I fixed breakfast for my husband”), is obviously unhappy: she is an alcoholic, she has an affair with a man who could be her son, she has lost interest in everything (she majored in art in college but now she is not interested in art anymore)… But even though she is unhappy, she wants her daughter to live the same life that she did: to marry a man she does not love, to be a housewife… But Elaine refuses this life: as she is fleeing the church, her mother tries to hold her back, saying “It’s too late”, Elaine shouts “Not for me!”, refusing to live this traditional, alienating life. Catch-22, a novel by Joseph Heller (1961), which was adapted to cinema in 1970 by Mike Nichols (the director of The Graduate), is also emblematic of society in the Sixties in several ways. It is the story of Yossarian, a US army Air Forces B-25 Bombardier during World War II, who desperately tries to be declared insane by the Air Force in order to go home. But there is a law, Catch-22, which makes it impossible: any one who is crazy is to be grounded, and cannot fly anymore. The ones considered crazy are those who are crazy enough to continue flying, regardless of danger. But these pilots cannot be grounded unless they ask to. But if they ask to be grounded, it shows that they are not really crazy after all, so they cannot be grounded. Throughout the book and the movie, we find this same atmosphere of “logical irrationality”, and a fierce satire of war, bureaucracy, capitalism and a Kafka-like society. Yossarian seems to be the only sane man in an insane society, and that drives him crazy. It is interesting to notice that the first hardback edition of Catch-22 was not a bestseller, but, later on, the paperback edition set sells records, and Catch-22 is now considered a classic of American literature. This can be explained by the events that took place in the Sixties: Catch-22 grew in popularity during the years of the Vietnam War, when the general population became more attuned to Yossarian's point of view.

55


A new generation of Americans - many of them facing the prospect of being forced to fight a war they did not understand - found themselves identifying with Yossarian's situation and the phrase "Catch-22" soon became a part of the popular consciousness. Speaking about the nerve he had touched, Heller would later say "a large part of the public sentiment was my own. They saw an absurd quality, a mendacious quality in many of our political leaders and business leaders". Summing up his intentions in writing the book - which has now sold more than 10 million copies - he pointed out that "everyone in my book accuses everyone else of being crazy. Frankly, I think the whole society is nuts - and the question is: What does a sane man do in an insane society?" Despite its World War II setting, Catch-22 is often thought of as a signature novel of the 1960s and 1970s. It was during those decades that American youth truly began to question authority. Hippies, university protests, and the civil rights movement all marked the 1960s as a decade of revolution, and Heller's novel fit in perfectly with the spirit of the times. In fact, Heller once said, “I wasn't interested in the war in Catch22. I was interested in the personal relationships in bureaucratic authority.” Whether Heller was using the war to comment on authority or using bureaucracy as a statement about the war, it is clear that Catch-22 is more than just a war novel. It is also a novel about the moral choices that every person must make when faced with a system of authority whose rules are both immoral and illogical. It proved almost prophetic both about the Vietnam War, a conflict that began a few years after the novel was originally published, and the sense of disillusionment about the military that many Americans experienced during this conflict. Comparing The Graduate and Catch-22 to movies from the early Sixties such as Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music allows us to identify some of the changes that took place in the 1960’s. This decade gave birth to a new generation of young people, who had a different set of values than those of their parents. Women emancipated. The administration and the politicians were fiercely criticized (Vietnam war…). Social and sexual mores changed. Educational techniques were studied and implemented. These movies show us that in many ways, the Sixties were revolutionary years.

References: 1 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/19/051219fa_fact1?currentPage=2 1 filmsite.org 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 wikipedia.org 1 http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Catch-22-About-Catch-22-HistoricalBackground.id-176,pageNum-11.html 1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1868619.stm 1 http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catch22/context.html

56


Cécile GASNAULT

Apocalypse Now: how the Vietnam War brought about a shift in the relationship between Hollywood and the US government and Hollywood of a traumatism In 2004, Michael Moore was awarded the “Palme d’Or” for his movie Farhenheit 911 that dealt with the war in Iraq. 25 years earlier, the same award was given to Francis Ford Coppola for Apocalypse Now, a movie that is, in my opinion, a much better and much more efficient criticism of a comparable quagmire. I first intended to focus on how Vietnam War changed Hollywood’s support to the US government when it comes to war, but I think it is interesting to widen the reflection. Indeed, Apocalypse Now is essentially a movie about the perception of the Vietnam War. Its topic is highly psychological. Therefore, it is interesting to see how this film can represent several trends brought about by that war regarding its perception by the different actors, such as the role of television in making this war a live show, the disconnection between the US soldiers and the war they fight, between the authorities and their soldiers, the issue of the return (can Willard kill Kurtz and not take his place? And go back?). The US government, Americans, television and the Vietnam War There is a very memorable scene in Apocalypse Now, when a cameraman working for television asks to Willard and his men to pretend they are fighting in front of the camera. Coppola points out the manipulation of information orchestrated by the government through television. He also underlines the manner, in which television widely and massively broadcast images of the war during the conflict, to such an extent that it made the conflict an event Americans could watch almost live. Benjamin Stora, in his book Imaginaires de guerre (1997, Editions La Découverte), suggests that this actually blurred the line between civilians and soldiers: indeed, in the movie, we can see soldiers not concerned, not involved in the war they fight, thanks to technologies that limit their direct contact with the field. On the other hand, civilians see images of the war every night on their television. So both civilians and soldiers seem to be spectators of a show they do not understand, of a war they cannot see their enemy in, of horrors that end up becoming common. While television poured out images of the conflict, Hollywood was unusually quiet about it. Indeed, it broke with its traditional support for the U.S government. During the actual conflict, few movies dealing with it were released. But we can maybe talk of an indirect mention of the Vietnam War through war movies that depict past conflicts with a less enthusiastic, optimistic approach, like in Catch 22 in 1970 by Mike Nichols who shows the spectator the dark sides of the war, in a camp in Southern Italia during World War 2. The most obvious example of a disrespectful vision of the war is 57


M.A.S.H that same year by Robert Altman. Although the action takes place during the Korea War, it is clearly the cinematographic embodiment of a counterculture opposed to the Vietnam War. Disconnections Hollywood really addressed directly the Vietnam War once the conflict was over. And it did in a very critical manner vis-à-vis the US government and its decisions to undertake such a war. The uninterrupted flow of images during the conflict hindered people from being able to take the necessary step backward to build criticism. Nonetheless, the traumatism was huge and needed to be expressed. Coppola, in his movie, managed to express at the same time this traumatism and to vividly criticize a conflict depicted as a delirium. Metaphorically, both Willard’s and Kurtz’s deliria represent the one experienced by the US army, the US government, and the US people, all lost in that war. It is the story of schizophrenia and of dualisms. This is why I chose to entitle this part “disconnections”, because disconnections were operated at several levels resulting in dualisms and opposition that the American psyche was struggling with. Disconnection between Hollywood and the government regarding the war, disconnection between the government and its army, disconnection between the soldier and his war. These dualisms are metaphorically represented in Apocalypse Now by the contradictory wishes of the main characters and by the opposition between Willard and Kurtz, as well as by their similarities, the coexistence of which builds up the dramatic interest. Disconnection between the authorities and their soldiers The film begins with Captain Willard being appointed with a mission: to kill Colonel Kurtz “officially” declared insane by the military authorities. Willard must follow up the river into Cambodia, where Kurtz has set up his “realm”. The journey of Willard deep into the jungle and always further from his superiors draws the metaphor of the disconnection between the authorities and their soldiers: Willard understands more and more Kurtz, falls deeper and deeper into the same madness, and his final decision to kill Kurtz does not seem to come from his allegiance to the U.S army rather than from something more primal, maybe even to take his place as a living god. Disconnection between the soldier and his fight Apocalypse Now depicts the conflict like a traumatic vacation for the soldiers. Indeed, they are more obsessed with all sorts of traffic, with Bunny Girls, booze and drugs than with the war they are fighting. The enemy is far, and they fire gun like toys. Several scenes show their reactions whenever they think a Vietnamese might be attacking them: they shoot at random like mad men, oblivious to the damage caused, oblivious to the disproportion of their reaction. The action scene starting with the famous Walkyries ride shows that soldiers are completely lost and terrified when they finally hit the field and are physically confronted with the enemy. Several other scenes express the incomprehension of the soldiers regarding the war: it makes no sense for them, and as Kurtz explains it, they are not committed because they are only mobilised for a year. Nonetheless, Willard’s experience of going back

58


home points to the fact that the return is almost as traumatic, or maybe is the moment the traumatism is revealed. Can you return from Vietnam? This question is pretty early addressed in movies, even before the war is directly dealt with. One of the most emblematic examples is Scorsese’s Taxi Driver with Robert DeNiro in 1976. In the American psyche, the issue of the return and the after war is stigmatized as the Vietnam syndrome. In Apocalypse Now, Willard has already gone back to the US and is well aware that if he returns from Vietnam, he will not go back to normal. Kurtz embodies the non-return. Willard oscillates between the two during the whole movie as he goes deeper and deeper into the jungle and into madness. What makes return so difficult and the traumatism so hard is a sort of schizophrenia between a growing insanity and a sharp understanding of it and of the war’s nonsense. As more and more movies came to criticize the US intervention in Vietnam, and now in Iraq, it seems that Hollywood either did not come back from that time as it was before, and has made itself the visual expression of criticism when it comes to the US questionable military involvements.

59


Maï-Lan FITOUSSI

The Factory, Andy Warhol

When he was interviewed, Andy Warhol used to lie about his origins, pretending he had grown up in Mc Keesport Pennsylvania, or Pittsburgh. He also lied about his age, which scandalised some of his friends until they understood that doing so he wanted to create a new identity for himself, with a complete mythology around him. It is part of the man and explains the way he structured a society around himself, craving for his attention and love: the Factory. The Factory was born in 1965 in a spacious loft on the 47th East in New York City. It was a disused factory and he did not choose to call his workplace The Factory, people just gave this name to the place. It was a place of constant activity, and even from the day they put a big board “No entrance for whom is not waited for” people used to come in and out at every moment of the day and night. In which way do the place, its inhabitants gravitating around one man, the relationships this man structured, the cult of his figure, denote Warhol’s personality and fears? The Factory was spacious, with bare tiling, the walls were covered with aluminium and right in the middle was a large sofa. There were spotlights and film reels spilled all over the floor. In this particular context Andy Warhol used to create a court around him where everybody desperately tried to draw his attention. He was the king of the place and everyday the question was “who will he notice today?” According to Henry Geldzahler, one of his acquaintances at the time, he was completely unable to live alone and one of the major interests for him was that the Factory created perpetual movement around him. He was the very centre of this world. For example when the Factory people needed to take their car there was a strict ceremonial concerning who would be allowed to travel in Warhol’s car: first came his ministers like Chuck Wein in the mid 60’s, then his boyfriend, and finally the most well known star living with him at that particular period (they used to change very often: Nico, Edie, Richie and Brigid Berlin, Viva...) Actually Andy Warhol had always been obsessed with stars, it was a very important piece of his personality, he spent his time writing to famous people before he became himself famous, for example he pestered Truman Capote with fan letters in the 50's. But actually from the beginning of the Factory, people were struggling to get his attention, there were terrible rivalries, which Andy Warhol loved above all, he looked at these persons eager to kill for him as if he did not understand what was happening, maybe it was the only way for him to feel safe. At the same time he was a very anguished person who needed to be pampered: one night at one in the morning he called his friend Henry Geldzahler telling him that he 61


absolutely needed to talk to him and that it was really important, they finally met in a restaurant and when Henry asked him what was happening, the only thing Warhol could answer was “Say something”, it was the only thing he had to say, the only thing that made him wake up his friend in the middle of the night. It shows how deeply he needed to be surrounded, he needed to prove to himself that there would always be somebody standing up for him. Apart from the star artist, Andy Warhol was also the man who moulded some of the most well known supertars, muses of the 60’s, from Nico to Edie. It is a good indicator of his personality and his need to legitimize his own status by the frequentation of the cream of the crop. Edie -Edith Sedgwick- was part of one of the greatest American families, the Sedgwicks, a similar dynasty to that of the Kennedys. She was a real beauty, electric and attractive, nobody could cross her way without noticing her but at the same time she was a freak. She had a very troubled relationship with a tyrannical father and after several stays in psychiatric institutions she decided to make herself a place in the then boiling New York City where she began to acquire a wonderful notoriety. In 1965 when she met Warhol in a party she was 22-year-old, he immediately noticed her. When he first saw her he exclamed “She is won-der-ful” and offered her to meet him at the Factory the day after. It was the beginning of a passionate relationship between the two of them. Andy Warhol decided to mould her and many people, like Sandy Kirkland, who first only saw her as a lost wreck and then spoke of a revelation. She began to play in his films and follow him everywhere he would go. Andy Warhol always looked for people that had a real passion inside, a fire he could fuel, and he guessed that Edie was one of these extraordinary people whose qualities he knew how to exalt in order to reveal it to the rest of the world –revealing himself at the same time. Edie became the superstar of the Factory, Warhol’s “alter ego”. He had always been a social climber and she really legitimized him, propelling him into the world of the Greatest he couldn’t reach before, inviting him where he could have never been invited without her. He was really flattered to be liked by such a beautiful and rich girl who had chosen to dress, wear her hair and behaved exactly like him. If he could have been a woman he would have chosen to be Edie, he really became identified to her, like a Pygmalion. Nonetheless the Factory little by little destroyed her. She began to take drugs and became an addict. From then on the wonderful love story between Andy and Edie became more and more difficult until she decided to leave the Factory to join Bob Dylan and his manager in order to become a Hollywood star. From this day on, Andy Warhol despised her and never gave her a second chance. She had been the one to help him to reach the top but he then forgot her, only worrying about Andy Warhol. Later she said that she hated him, that he was a monster who used people for his own sake and just left them go as soon as he did not need them anymore. Actually I just

62


spoke of Edie Sedgwick here but there are many examples of persons used by Warhol for Warhol. On the 3rd of June 1968 Warhol was finally shot by Valerie Solanas a fanatic, to whom he had promised a role in a film and finally never given her. It was just after he moved out from the 1st Factory and settled the new Factory on the 33 Union Square. Andy Warhol did not die, but he became another man. He cut most contacts with the outside, declined invitations and almost stopped meeting new people. It was the end of the world and way of living he had built in 1965, a world gravitating around him, never mind what it could cost to the others. A world in which you entered knowing that you would worship the only king, Andy Warhol.

Bibliography Edie, Jean Stein (Christian Bourgois Editeur)

63


Christophe MENGER

The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War No later than last week, I was watching a video released on the web, showing images of an offensive led by American troops in a remote valley of Afghanistan. GI’s were filmed while enduring a violent skirmish. Who filmed? The very guys who were shooting at the US soldiers. That is today’s war: a subtle combination of real war and war of images. Nowadays, almost every armed conflict in the world is televised. There is no chance escaping images, snapshots or footages depicting war scenes, when something hot is actually happening on the globe. Some people consider that the CNN coverage of the first Gulf War has all triggered off. Others date this phenomenon back to the Vietnam War. One thing is sure: today, war on TV has become quite commonplace. But alongside this trivialization of war comes the rather uncontrolled aspect of images. Even if these images have become banal, they still have a lot of power and they do not leave public opinion indifferent. Young GI’s falling under the bullets of enraged Islamic fighters in a war that no one has neither really approved nor even understood creates a psychological shock. This kind of shock probably precipitated the end of the Vietnam War. Let us see how. When the first US Marines landed in Vietnam in beginning of 1965, the American media had already started for a long time the coverage of what was going to be the most dreadful military defeat of US history. At that time, there were about 20 000 American military advisors already in Vietnam, helping South Vietnamese on how to contain the Viet Cong insurgency. The American press and television was relaying the government propaganda. Gruesome photographs, pictures of Viet-Cong militiamen murdering, kidnapping and mutilating innocent civilians were served for dinner to the average US citizen, comfortably seated in his living room. North Vietnamese army was being demonized so as to stun the American population. This helped forge a favorable climate for military action. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson was re-elected in, what is to date, the biggest victory of an American President. This overwhelming success was de facto giving him legitimacy to deploy US troops on the Vietnam soil. At that time, there is no doubt that the media were utterly biased, so as to create in people’s imaginary the feeling that the USA had the moral responsibility to keep the peace and to spread freedom. And it worked pretty well! Indeed, opinion polls taken in the US shortly after the first bombing of North Vietnamese positions indicated a

65


70% approval rating for the President and an 80% approval of US military involvement in Vietnam. Yet, this honeymoon between journalists and the US Government did not last long. One must not forget that back in the Sixties, huge technological progress had been made. The boom of credit allowed lots of households to buy TV sets. The era of motion picture had started. Thanks to the massive coverage by US media, images of the conflict were extremely accessible to the crowds. The Government was now the victim of its own propaganda campaign! TV networks and press editors were less and less inclined to accept the official version of events. The impressive flow of images coming from field photographers and reporters raised doubts about the military staff information. As Anthony Barnett, a British journalist and writer, summarizes in one of his books: “The American press and TV networks became critical of the US role after the Tet uprising in 1968. The US media had allowed itself to be duped by President Johnson and the Pentagon. Their professional self-esteem could no longer tolerate continuation.1” Moreover, this period has been marked by the beginning of a new kind of journalism: photojournalism. By following the Marines combat platoons on their field missions, these journalists were immersed into the hell of jungle fighting. What the soldiers lived and could not express or share, they could. The pictures they sent finished on the front covers of magazines such as Time, Newsweek or Life. This gave a huge impact to the conflict. Until now, US citizens had regarded the Vietnam War as a faraway conflict in a mysterious country against a mysterious enemy. They knew that the US Army suffered losses, but as soon as they started to see with their own eyes the dead bodies of young GI’s lying in the swamps of a country that they had not heard of before, they started to doubt. But in wartime, the worst thing that a government can expect is the turn around in public opinion. It was already too late. These gruesome images forced the public into action. Millions of students across the country started to protest against this inhuman and unjust war, but also against the compulsory conscription. The hippie movement played also a great role in relaying the protest; artists, athletes, like Muhammad Ali who refused the show up to the draft, but above all, singers such as Joan Baez, John Lennon or Bob Dylan, used their aura to spread a message of peace. The Vietnam conflict or maybe the protestation itself rapidly became the centre of media attention in the US. Quite cynically, one could say that this national surge of peace and pacifism practically eclipsed the real war. The Americans progressively evolved from a war-supportive position to defiance towards President Johnson, whose approval rating plummeted as the contestation gained clout. Symbolically, it is when famous CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite publicly expressed skepticism for the war effort, that President Johnson understood that he had lost the

66


public opinion support, and in a sense, that he had lost the war. Johnson actually declared: “Well, if I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America”. It would be probably exaggerated to say that the US media enabled to send the 300 000 GI’s back home, still it certainly triggered off and accelerated the US withdrawal. Lots of people argue about the role that the media should play in wartime. For some, they have to unconditionally back up their government in order to create a patriotic fervor and at least to support the fighting troops. Others insist on the “third-power” that the media should exert, in order to question the almighty State, which has the power to send fighting half a million young Americans in the name of peace and freedom. Once again, all is about finding the happy medium… Barnett, Anthony. Some Notes of Media Coverage of the Falklands (1984), Essex University Press Bourke, Joanna. An Intimate History of Killing (1999), Granta Boylan, Trish. The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War www.wellesley.edu: The Effects of Photojournalism on the Protest Movement During Vietnam War

67


Julie BERNARD

The Biafran war 1966-1970 A turning point in media coverage of African conflicts and the birth of the “New Humanitarianism”

“Biafra realised that this was an angle they could play on. It had tried the political emancipation of oppressed people, it had tried the religious angle ... but the pictures of starving children and women, dying children ... touched everybody, it cut across the range of people's beliefs.” Paddy Davies - Biafran Propaganda Secretary On January 1, 1901, Britain created the protectorate of Nigeria above the former Kingdoms of Benin an Nri, after two centuries of Portuguese trade and English influence. 65 years later, on January 1, 1966, began the deadliest conflict of this country, the Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War. Opposing different ethnic groups, religions, interests, this was also the theatre for two different wars: a military one on the one side, with trained and armed state troops, and a propaganda one on the other side, trying to “fight without guns” by appealing to the world’s public opinion mercy, leading to the first African famine to become headline news and the development of the “New Humanitarism”. In 1960, when the United Kingdom started its decolonisation process in Africa, Nigeria was seen as the “Great Black Hope”. The past ten years had seen very few successes on this continent, and everyone was looking at this country, expecting it to efficiently manage its independence process and its nation’s development. This was the most populous country of Africa; it had rich oil offshore deposits, and its level of education was quite good. However, Nigeria was the creation of imperial state borders, and not necessarily relevant historically. This country assembled 3 major tribes: The Haussa-Fulanis (Muslims) in the North, the Yorubas (Protestant) in the west, and the Igbos (Catholics) in the East. And, as it has been frequently seen through history, this coexistence of those different ethnic tribes led to a Civil War in 1966. When leaving the country, the British left the majority of the power to a minority, the Haussa. Even though Igbos were better educated and the most important part of Nigeria wealth came the south, the northern part of the country was favoured in terms of salaries, infrastructures and living conditions. Hence, the Igbos felt despised and wanted to occupy a more important place in their country. In January 1966, a Coup was organised, putting an Igbo at the head of the state, General Ironsi, and eliminating the other ethnic tribes from the government. Igbos

69


suddenly became undesirable, and those who were living in the North were hunted and slaughtered, forcing them to retreat to their southern region. After Ironsi’s assassination, Igbos refused the new power that was put in place, and, through their charismatic leader, Ojukwu, they proclaimed the independence of Biafra on May 30, 1967. Consequence: A 3 years long conflict that led to a major famine in Biafra. Indeed, despite the presence of mercenaries, the Nigerian Army was way more powerful, better organised and supplied in arms. Biafran “troops” couldn’t compete, and soon had to retreat. The Capital of the Republic of Biafra, Enugu, was taken in October, as well as 2/3 of the region. The remaining Igbos territory was smaller and had no access to the sea anymore. But since they were still resisting, Nigeria organised a blockade of the region, and cut off the transportation of the International Aid, even shooting at a Red Cross plane which was heading to Biafra. “By keeping silent, we doctors were accomplices in the systematic massacre of a population.” Bernard Kouchner – Red Cross doctor However, a new type of intervention started. The United Kingdom was supporting the official state of Nigeria in this conflict; hence it was difficult for its allies to intervene. Nevertheless, an airlift from Gabon was organised in order to transport food supplies, arms and mercenaries (coming unofficially from France, Portugal and South Africa) and also journalists and Red Cross teams composed essentially of French Doctors. Journalists and Doctors were dependant from political decisions and from the neutrality policy of the Red Cross: They were supposed to cure, and not try to intervene into geopolitical matters. Still, their indignation over what was happening would gain the upper hand. Due to the blockade and the bombing of the Nigerian Army, an extermination of the Igbo tribe was taking place and a massive Famine was starting. The number of children suffering and dying from malnutrition was growing very quickly, doctors and journalists decided at that time not to helplessly assist to this anymore. After the killing of 4 Red Cross doctors by the Nigerian army, they wanted to inform the international opinion of what was happening in Biafra in order to force the States and the Red Cross to denounce it and talk the Nigerian state into officially accepting the International Aid. They gave interviews to newspaper, TV, sent photos and videos of starving children… Bernard Kouchner and Max Récamier, with the help of the other French Doctors and journalists, managed to put Biafra under the Media spotlight. Overnight, international opinion stared at this country and supported its cause without having any idea of what their claims are. “Quite suddenly, we'd touched a nerve. Nobody in this country at that time had ever seen children looking like that. The last time the Brits had seen anything like that must have been the Belsen pictures ... People who couldn't fathom the political complexities of the war could easily grasp the wrong in a picture of a child dying of starvation.” (Frederick Forsyth, journalist). British people even took to the streets to

70


denounce Wilson policy. The conflict would last until December 1969, till the fall of the town of Owerri. A Peace Accord was negotiated with the new Nigerian Government to reunify the Nation and put an end to the confrontations. Igbos abandoned their idea of sovereignty in exchange of a better democratic representation. Biafran war would have cost between 1 and 2 millions lives. Afterwards, this conflict really symbolized a turning point into the instrumentalisation of conflicts. In Biafra, the war was about to end when the international coverage started. Maybe that without the international humanitarian and media pressure, General Ojukwu would have resigned and negotiated with the Nigerian government. Maybe this “New humanitarism” only helped the personal power aspiration of the General by giving him the tools to continue his war at the cost of many lives. “The secessionist line forwarded by Kouchner and other agencies, that the Biafran people would be faced with systematic massacre by federal troops if they lost the war, turned out to be unsubstantiated. In fact, de Waal notes that even as the international relief operation was being massively expanded there was already a large amount of evidence that there would be no genocide. In the large areas of Biafran territory taken over by the federal government there had been no government massacres.” (David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond: Human Rights and International Intervention). Famine also appeared to be very relevant in order to gain sympathy and support. Sylvie Brunel analyzed the phenomena of Emergency Aid: its development led to many unwanted flaws like the instrumentalization or the embezzlement of the food help for example. In Biafra, Ojukwu is thought to have fostered the Famine to maintain the world opinion support. In every situation, Aid agencies are dependent of the willingness of the states to let them help, otherwise Aid can be blocked, or even sold in order to buy munitions. What’s more, Food help, by bringing free or very cheap food, weakened local agriculture, making countries more and more dependant to Aid, but also American and European supported products (PAC...). This conflict also questionned the neutrality policy of the Red Cross and led, in 1971, to the creation of “Médecins Sans Frontières” by French doctors, among them Bernard Kouchner and Max Récamier. Kouchner was sometimes considered as a defender of the right of interference: His position was that curing people sometimes is not enough, you have to resort to military or political intervention. Afterwards, MSF only asked once for military action, in 1994 in Rwanda, and will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999.

The Nigerian Civil War, John de St. Jorre Medecins sans frontières: La Biographie, Anne Vallaeys From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond: Human Rights and International Intervention, David Chandler L’Afrique, Sylvie Brunel The New Imperialists, Kirsten Sellars for The Spectator Nigeria-Biafra War, BBC documentary

71


Cyrille DIMIER DE LA BRUNETIERE DE LA CROIX

Rock music, society and politics in the Sixties

There’s no doubt, if you think about the Sixties as a concept, that rock music will irremediably be one of its main components. What you have to wonder is: what role did that new kind of music play in the deep social evolutions and dramatic events that shook the western world at that time? Musically speaking, rock n’ roll music was born in the 50’s in the US, from the progressive fusion of various musical genres from Blues, R’n’B (Rhythm and Blues), Jazz (all of them rather “black” genres) and Country and Folk music (rather performed by white people). It is however obvious that the precursors of that music are much more black people (Louis Jordan, Big Joe Turner), although the songs considered as the first Rock n’ Roll hits are recorded by white artists: “Rock around the clock” by Bill Haley in 1954. Rock music appears to be the first music bringing black and white influences and artists in the US.2 “If I could find a white man who sings with the Negro feel, I'd make a million dollars”. The musical dilemma of that period is well symbolised by this quote of Sam Phillips, the founder of the Sun Records label in Memphis. His dream soon becomes true when he meets a truck driver called Elvis Presley, who becomes the ultimate white robber of black hits.1 Young Americans are discovering and enjoying a new music style, with a fast beat and energetic vocals, but which soon proves to be in total contradiction with the values of the WASP dominant society then: - White, middle-class teenagers listen to what is considered at that time as a “black” sound, which is quite an issue in the segregationist America. The content of white music (country music) has been rather consensual until then, since it was dealing with classic western ballad themes. On the contrary, Rock n’ roll music remains faithful to his black roots, with more realistic lyrics, linked with the difficulties of everyday life (influence of blues tradition). - Elvis Presley’s dancing and, more widely, this music’s spirit (lyrics, beat.) are found too erotic by the dominant puritan society. Rock n’ roll music becomes quickly one of the drivers of an underlying sexual revolution, which will truly take off in the Sixties. 1,2,3

73


A quote by the Executive Secretary of Alabama White Citizens Council is symptomatic of the state of mind of the American establishment: “The obscenity and vulgarity of the Rock n’ Roll music is obviously a mean by which the white man and his children are driven at the level of the Negros”3 Rock artists and entertainers are quickly put under the pressure of political (Mac Carthy, segregationists), religious and moral forces that lead Rock music to die, and to be replaced by soft, consensual ballads in the late 50’s in the US. The second act of the life rock music takes place in Britain, where young artists, keen on American blues and Rn’B, adapt the concept of rock music to their personal aspirations and feelings. Britain is a particularly welcoming country for rock n’ roll, since none of the forces that have driven this genre out of the US (political, moral and segregationist) are strong enough to do the same in the UK: “We did not know whether Chuck Berry was black or white before seeing his face on the package of the disk” (Keith Richards) 1 British rockers will focus on the musical side of rock and take their inspiration in the rejection of an old society, faced with real economic difficulties. Musically speaking, the British post-war middle class has been strongly influenced by the blues and jazz legends (Eric Clapton, who was a kid at that time, first became famous in the 60’s as a very talented bluesman, before founding Cream and other more rock-oriented groups). 2 The British rock scene flourishes in the early 60’s, triggers the rebirth of American rock music, and the whole genre splits in 3 main influences: - Groups such as the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Byrds focus on musical arrangements and techniques, and remain rather indifferent to the political movements of their time - Groups like the Who (My Generation) and the Rolling Stones (Let it Bleed) use rock music as an insult, and start to personify more than ever what will be the universal attribute of rock music: youth rebellion. - Bob Dylan or Neil Young use folk rock songs as a political weapon (“Blowin’ in the Wind”, against segregation in 1962, “Hurricane”, ...) 2 The synthesis of these influences is successfully done in the 1965-1969 period, mostly thanks to the psychedelic movement and drugs. But above all, what brings all these rock artists together is the universality of the message or at least feelings they transmit, no matter how simple they are. The whole teenage world of that time has screamed at the Beatles ballads, or danced at the Beach Boys songs. They have expressed the views of the post-war generation which was both worried (atom bomb, Vietnam war) and full of hopes (civil rights movement, hippies…). The hippie movement is one of the most significant examples of the role of rock music as a spokesman of universal values. The Woodstock festival, held in 1969 in the

74


US, was first meant to be both a giant music event, with rock icons such as Jimi Hendrix, and the largest hippie gathering ever made (450,000 people). The general motto was “Peace, Love and Music”, and Jimi Hendrix, who is mostly known as a great guitarist, and not a political songwriter, eventually played an improvised version of “Star and Stripes”, with guitar riffs sounding like the bombs falling on Vietnam. Such events may raise the question of the confusion between vague, universal and peaceful life aspirations of the majority, fed by rock and folk music, and a precise political message, led by a few intellectuals who had little to do with rock music. 4 Paradoxically, 1969’ “Summer of Love” marks the decline of the hippie movement, which has finally become too widespread not to be in contradiction with its ideals of counter-culture. The era of illusions comes to an end in the 70’s, with new economic difficulties and is very visible in the evolution of rock music. The birth of the punk movement, shouting raw, violent and hopeless rebellion feelings, with groups such as the Sex Pistols, the Clash, is quite symbolic in that way. The Sixties rock music, representing the social and political aspirations of his times, is gone. It has accompanied its time and has been likewise shaking, full of hopes, revolts and icons who died too early…

Sources: 12345-

Piero Scaruffi – History of Rock Music, 2005 Wikipedia – History of Rock n’ Roll Youtube – The media against Rock n’ roll MSN Encarta – History of Rock music L’internaute.com – Histoire du Rock

75


Daphné VIALAN

Hope and delusion in the 60’s – a lesson for today The “Swinging Sixties” are a period of important social changes. Feminism, civil rights, economic growth, space conquest, technological progress, contributed to inspire hope in a better future. Of course, the sixties also included a great proportion of fear as the Cold War became hot with international crisis like the Bay of Pigs invasion. However, the Sixties in Western Countries look like an era of hope, between the rigid fifties and the deceiving seventies. What did become of all the hopes nurtured in the Sixties? What are the legacy and the lessons we can learn from the hopes of the Sixties? Hopes from the Sixties have turned sometimes into a bitter sentiment. It is the case in the field of arts, with the Theater of the Absurd, born in these years. The Theater of the Absurd is today, in my opinion, pushed to its limit and widely put into practice. The main characteristics of the Theater of the Absurd in Cyril’s view, as exposed in class, are: - “Broad comedy mixed with horrific or tragic images; - Characters caught in hopeless situations forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions; - Dialogue full of clichés, wordplay, and nonsense; - Plots which are cyclical or absurdly expansive.” I think this is completely typical of today’s TV series. Desperate Housewives is a mixture of comedy and thriller. In the first scene one of the heroines is overwhelmed by her four demoniac children playing tricks on the old lady living next door, and the next scene, a woman is being tortured in the basement of her house by her crazy ex husband for a complicated reason. This is an obvious mix of no laughing matters and mere comedy. In the TV show Lost, characters are indeed “caught in hopeless situations, forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions”. Lost stages survivors from an air crash trying to survive on a strange island. The audience is rapidly aware that they are not on that island by mistake and that the island has its own personality and will... People on the island are confronted to their old mistakes. Sahiyd, who used to torture innocent people as an Iraqi soldier, has to choose whether he will torture people again on the island, when he is face to face with an inhabitant of the island who has obvious strategic information and doesn’t accept to say it. Plus, some dialogues are complete nonsense, but caught in the overall nonsense of the show, it is not conspicuous. To me, it is the heritage of the Theater of the Absurd, even if it is not labeled this way. It is more subtle, the spectator is caught in the story, and cliffhangers create a

77


dependence, the story on the whole (when you assemble the different seasons of a show for example or the 24 episodes of a season from the TV show named 24) is not really important. One of the most important characteristic of absurd in my view is the meddling of comic and tragic stories and its flat treatment. A director can choose to show horrors, non sense and then he will add something lighter to provoke laughs. There is no clear-cut separation between the different styles. What was pure, provocative and meaningful in the Sixties has turned into something lighter and quite humoristic. Humor indeed is the fate known by many hopes of the Sixties. For example, fashion in the sixties expressed hopes, beliefs, even claims: clothes were made to free the women, to make women more comfortable, to express the equality between men and women. Now, fashion has no great fights. It reuses old fashions with a new humorous point of view. This is one of the main points developed by Gilles Lipovetsky, in his essay “The era of emptiness”, published in 1983. One of the chapters is called “Fashion: a playful parody”. He explains that seriousness is a taboo in our society as well as in fashion. He says that “Retro has no content, and doesn’t mean anything.” One of his most striking arguments is about ethnicity. He explains that the extermination of exotic cultures has been replaced by a soft and humoristic neocolonialism. This is the case for example with the fashion of keffiyeh. Keffiyeh is a “traditional headdress typically worn by Arab men”. During the thirties, the keffiyeh became a symbol of Palestinian nationalism. It is now a common accessory to be found in all fashionistas’ dressing room. The hope that fashion could help enhance the social condition of women or express real concern or political position has been turned down today. Some other hopes turned true. The Civil Rights Movement created much hope in the sixties. It was a fantastic fight for equality, a hard one, but it resulted in the affirmation of equalities between people of different colors. It obviously led to the election of Barack Obama last year. However, one might note that immigration is still a prickly subject and the relations between America and Mexico are an epitome of that tension. But there is still hope. This hope concerning racial equality is in direct link with the hope about economic progress. The sixties were a period of economic growth. Furthermore, the whole society seems to be engaged in a forward movement leading to the amelioration of the overall condition of everyone. For example, the son of a workman could go to college, where he would receive an education and become an engineer. Tomorrow would be better than yesterday and there was work for everybody and the whole society was becoming richer and richer. The economic crisis put an end to those hopes. The liberalism extended its grip on economic realities. Instead of reducing inequalities, it widened the gap between rich and poor, both on a national and on an international scale.

78


Hopes from the Sixties have known different fates: turned into a humorous posture or turned down by history, some also have a bitter taste like the hope of another parallel world created by drugs. Still we know the Sixties created great changes in our society; and maybe we should rethink about that period with naĂŻve eyes to find back that hope. It is all the more important as the climate crisis, economic crisis and terrorism (and the list is non-exhaustive) are making us loose the hope for better days.

Bibliography Gilles Lipovetsky, L'ère du vide : Essais sur l'individualisme contemporain, Gallimard, 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/

79


Magaly ROHE

The legacy of photography in the sixties and seventies: between depiction and provocation

Photography undoubtedly influenced one’s representation of the sixties and seventies. With the Cold War and polarization of the world emerged curiosity about other countries and the way foreign relations were handled abroad, as well as the need to express the uneasiness of a whole society. Indeed, as Walter Benjamin and Roland Barthes claimed, the representational possibilities and mass proliferation of photographic images are today key features of modern culture. In such a context of unclear boundaries between depiction and provocation, one can therefore wonder how snapshots and portraits of the time, as powerful tools, helped to capture moods, faces and the essence of a whole era, as well as were of great influence during and after this period. Be it rock star scandals or war snapshots, the sixties and seventies are largely remembered thanks to photojournalism that presents a story primarily through the use of pictures. Published in popular weekly magazines, some famous pictures allowed photographers to achieve near-celebrity status and develop a close relationship with the public they were addressing. A good example of this would be Ian Bradshaw’s famous image The Twickenham Streaker, taken in February 1974 with Michael O’Brien being led away by police after streaking at an England-France rugby game at Twickenham. Awarded “Picture of the Year” by the American magazine LIFE, this particular cliché contributed to the reputation of Ian Bradshaw worldwide. The American society was indeed eager for controversies stemming from such provocative news in brief. As French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson stated, photographs could definitely “fix eternity in an instant." Very emblematic pictures were those depicting the political unrest and the French student riots in Paris in May 68 events from Gilles Caron, Claude Dityvon and Bruno Barbey. With only still pictures, they managed to trigger the viewer’s emotions thanks to the dynamic and spontaneous manner scenes were depicted. At the time, these photojournalists, often joining the photographic cooperative Magnum Photos, gained such powerful individual vision they could chronicle the world and interpret its peoples, events, issues and personalities without being questioned.

81


As a general rule, the sixties triggered a desire to produce honest images that would crystallize mindsets about society and history, however brutal they might be. For example when he took pictures of America capturing the nation’s racial divide, juvenile delinquency and fear of the atomic bomb, the first noir photographer Robert Frank claimed his book The Americans (1958) aimed at constituting “an authentic contemporary document” embodying both the sadness and beauty in the look of America. Followed by Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlandler, they inspired a new movement in street photography with a very specific photographic technique such as the use of unusual focus, low lighting and cropping. Photos were often blurry, dark and grainy, shot at night or in dimly lit interiors. They helped to express the intangible atmosphere reigning in the United States at the time and as the photographer Ettore Sottsas pointed out, serve as a “substitute for memory”. Therefore in theory, photojournalism and street photography prevent the viewer from being misled by composites or montages, by visual trickery or any other illusions. However, both movements were rapidly criticized for being too manipulative. Aware of this, Robert Frank said once that “Photographs leave too much open too bullshit”. A good example might be the controversy around Diane Arbus’ vision of America which attracted the critical scorn of Susan Sontag for suggesting “a world in which everybody is an alien, hopelessly isolated, and immobilized in mechanical, crippled identities and relationships”. Photographing a fringe of the society such as dwarfs, Siamese or transvestites, though they really existed, was not unanimously considered as depicting reality and made part of the population uncomfortable. Besides, powerful shots can even lead to long-lasting misinformation. For instead, the emblematic photograph from Nick Ut showing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, a young Vietnamese girl, her burning clothes torn off, fleeing with other children after the dropping of a napalm bomb in June 1972. If this image certainly conveys a real suffering in the Vietnam War, the bomb was dropped by Vietnam and not the US, contrary to what most commentators claimed. Manipulation of reality may have reached its climax with the prolific photomontages, such as those from John Hartflied who typically subverted the concept of candid photojournalist creating politically subversive artworks published in German magazines. Although one would argue the purpose is not to delude the viewer into the belief that the world “really looked that way”, photographers like Jerry N. Ueslmann developed such strong printmaking skills they could blend any number of components seamlessly into one final image. Conveying very strong and effective messages through commonly considered “true” pictures, photomontages were extensively misused in the field of advertising and propaganda. To conclude, one cannot deny the cultural role of photography and the extraordinary power photographers had in order to capture a number of aspects of the social world during the sixties and the seventies, providing the viewer with a new dimension to history and historicity. Photographs of the period studied are representative of the

82


time: biased, exaggerated, denunciative and provocative. They however help bring the past and provide us with vivid memories of the sinful sixties and seventies.

Bibliography: Baird, Lisa A 2008, “Susan Sontag and Diane Arbus: The Siamese Twins of Photographic Art”, Women Studies, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 971-986. Coleman, A. D 2008, “Jerry Uelsmann; Prima Facie”, pp. 5. Dant, Tim and Gilloch, Grame 2002, “Pictures of the past: Benjamin and Barthes on photography and history”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 5, 5. De Carlo, Tessa 2004, “A Fresh Look at Diane Arbus”, Smithsonian magazine. Fayard, Judith 2003, “Eternity in an Instant”, Time, Apr. 27. Lacay, Richard 2008, “Homeland Insecurity”, Time, May 26th, Vol. 171, Issue 21. Lipscher, Juraj 2009, “Controversies. A legal and ethical History of Photography”, Leaflet about the exhibition in BNF, Paris. Rod, Usher 2001, “Naked Eye”, Time South Pacific (Australia/New Zealand edition), November 11th, Issue 45. Sottsass, Ettore 1994, The Curious Mr Sottsass, London. Wikipedia website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twickenham_Streaker.

83


Frédéric JOUSSET

The events of May 1968 in France: the causes and the claims

The events of May 1968 represent the most important social movement in France during the XXth century. It was a period of spontaneous riots led by students, unions and political parties. These people demonstrated against the existing traditional French society, consumer society, capitalism, imperialism and more directly against the head of state General De Gaulle. All French public opinion took part in this movement: rich or poor people, workers or bosses, left wing or right wing people … Generally speaking, it was a contestation of any authority. I will study this major crisis by analysing the causes and the claims of French people during May 1968. There are three points of claims I will use to describe these events: social, political and cultural. I)

The social claims: students and workers

The events of May 1968 took place during the period of “the Glorious Thirty”. During this period of prosperity, consumer society became the normal way of life in France. In 1968, 60% of French people owned a car, a washing machine and a television. There was a high rate of growth and an increase of wealth for the population. However, many people were excluded from this prosperity. Firstly, the increase of the unemployment rate (500 000 unemployed people in 1968) forced the government to create the ANPE whose mission is to help unemployed people to find a job. At this time, two million workers earned only the minimum salary, called SMIC, and therefore felt excluded from the prosperity of the sixties. In 1968, there were still shanty towns. The most popular was at Nanterre, in front of the university. Facing the great increase of students in the universities, there were many problems of place, equipment and transport. After the first student riots, the unions and the workers joined the movement by going on strike since May 14th. On May 22nd, 10 million employees could not work. They claimed as usual wage increases, better working conditions but also new claims: more autonomy of the employees and presence of unions in the companies. That is why the Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou, reached an agreement with the unions through the “Grenelle agreements”. It implemented the presence of unions in the companies, the increase of SMIC by 30% and the payment of 50% of strike days.

85


Unfortunately, these agreements did not immediately lead to the end of the strikes and riots. II)

The events of May 1968: a political crisis?

On May 1968, many people criticized the government of General De Gaulle. On presidential election of 1965, De Gaulle ran against François Mitterrand which was a surprise. On legislative elections, De Gaulle party, RPR, had difficulties to have majority on the Assemblée Nationale. That is why the legitimacy of his power was contested. During the riots, some slogans said: “France is bored”. A part of population claims the end of the term of De Gaulle: “10 years, it is enough” was shouted in the streets. Many people noticed the authority of De Gaulle. The TV channel ORTF was the only one authorized by the government. This channel was a means of propaganda for the government. That is why the term of De Gaulle was increasingly criticized. On the other side, the opposition parties had difficulties to exist. Even the most popular left wing party of this time, the French Communist Party, was criticized because of its difficulty to be objective with the politics of the USSR. Most communist people defend more the politics of Cuba and China. The other left wing parties which were not communist were divided, especially the PS (Parti Socialiste). That is why a left wing political movement, called “gauchiste”, became more and more important. This movement fought against the imperialism of the USA, the war in Vietnam, nuclear bomb … This movement led the events of May 1968 and spread their ideology. III)

The cultural aspects of the crisis:

Many changes that upset French society occurred during the sixties. The phenomenon of urbanization sped up rural exodus and led to a great development of cities and suburbs. The standard of living of French population increased thanks to the economic growth and resulted in the development of consumer society. Even religion modernized with the reform Vatican II. More and more students accessed to advanced studies. At the same time, much criticism against consumer society developed. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed the theory of “social reproduction”. This phenomenon describes the place of bourgeoisie and rich people among French society. For example, even though the access to advanced studies increased, 92% of the students belong to “bourgeoisie”. The events of May 1968 were an opportunity to denounce these social inequalities. During the sixties, a great development of a youth culture occurred. The media took part in the implementation of this culture. For instance, the young could listen to the

86


programme “Salut les copains” with particular music and topics of debate for young people. Music took part in this movement too with some groups and musicians like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Johny Hallyday... Young people were influenced by foreign movements of revolt or change like the hippies in the United States, Mao in China ... That is why youth had its own claims too, and especially about sexuality. For example, the majority of schools did not accept boys and girls in the same buildings. Even if the pill is authorized by law, it is not usual. Girls are not allowed to wear trousers! At this time, youth noticed many economic and social inequalities. For example, a big shanty town was in front of the university of Nanterre. That is why the movements of May 1968 (“gauchistes” for example) claimed more social equality among society and school system.

To conclude, we can say the events of May 1968 in France had many causes: political, social or cultural. It demonstrated a will of French society to change, and especially young people who claimed more liberty and equality. These events had many impacts and consequences on French society and firstly the end of De Gaulle term and the election of Pompidou as head of state. Pompidou was in charge of the Grenelle agreements. These events had consequences on French culture, especially on social inequalities and sexual liberties.

87


Amandine PLATET

The 60’s and 70’s: how did those two decades revolutionize dance forms?

During the 60’s and 70’s the artistic world experienced a real revolution: music, plastic art, painting, fashion… Thus, artistic works were reflecting strong economic and social changes of the society. However we often forget a part of artistic creation: dancing. Indeed, this discipline also knew a worldwide revolution, which hit various dance forms. How can we say that, as well as the other artistic disciplines, dancing was revolutionized during the 60’s and 70’s, reflecting economic, social and cultural changes of the society after the second world war? To begin with, let’s observe the new dance forms emerging on the dance floors, particularly “the twist” and disco; they strongly modified the way people were dancing together and were the embodiment of the new music styles, emerging at that time. The revolution also came from choreographers in the United States and in Europe who opposed their “contemporary dance” to classical ballet and also to “modern dance” and “modern jazz” which had emerged during the 20’s; this emergence of contemporary dance has been the basis of today’s creation. Finally, we’ll see how this revolution also reached other part of the world, particularly Japan with “Butoh” dance. This dance was a strong reaction both to traditional Japanese society and western cultural influence that was more and more discernable at that time in Japan. The Twist is considered as the leading dance of the 60’s. The song "The Twist" was written by Hank Ballard in 1959. With his group, he made up some twisting movements for the boys to do while playing music. Then in 1960, Chubby Checkers twist record reached #1 on US charts and made the rock and roll dance “Twist” famous. The basic twisting of the hips technique came straight out of the Lindy Hop and although dancers no longer touched when dancing, it was still usual to dance with a partner while dancing it socially. The simplicity of the step made the dance become a worldwide craze! It was one of the first “no contact dances” and a whole generation effectively never learned how to jive (dance rock and roll with a partner). A factor of this disaffection with “touch partner dancing” was the Hippy culture, with its sexual liberation and many other no touch dances appeared on the dance floors: the “Madison”, the “Mashed Potato”, the “Hula hoop”, the “Swim”, the “Monkey”, the

89


“Funky Chicken”…These new dances were demonstrated on teenage TV programmes such as Dick Clarke's 'American Band Stand' where teenagers were dancing on the records that were played. Reactions were very distinct: on one hand, in France for example, this dancing reassured parents; they considered that it was wiser than rock and roll. But on the other hand, it was judged “sensual and ridiculous, coming from the jungle” because of the movements of hips. In 1962, Vatican wanted to classify it as “immoral dance”. During the 70’s, the emergence of disco music, originated in African American and Hispanic communities in the United States and starting during the late 60s and early 70, also modified the way people were dancing. It marked the beginning of passion for discotheques and nightclubs where DJs were playing a mix of disco records to keep people dancing all night long. In some American cities you could find disco dance instructors or dance schools, which taught popular disco dances such as "touch dancing", "the hustle" and "the cha cha." The pioneer of disco dance instruction was Karen Lustgarten in San Francisco in 1973. Her book The Complete Guide to Disco Dancing hit the New York Times Best Seller List for 13 weeks and was translated into Chinese, German and French.

We saw the dance revolution among people, on the dance floors, but what about professional dancers and choreographers? Contemporary dance was born in the USA and in Europe during the 60’s and 70’s; it followed modern dance and today the expression “contemporary dance” is used for different techniques and aesthetics that appeared during the late 20th century. Contemporary dancers and choreographers expressed their strong will to be different from the past generation: classical ballet, neo classical ballet, modern dance, modern jazz … Merce Cunningham is at the origin of the renewal of dance thinking in the world. He is an American choreographer who realized the conceptual transition between modern dance and contemporary dance (he had been trained at Martha Graham’s school, strongly influenced by modern dance). He was very close to the music composer John Stage who taught him how to compose a choreography at random: after having created different section of a choreography he chose randomly in which order he would organize them, it was a kind of collage. As he put it, “the random technique is a way to surprise yourself, go beyond your habits, go beyond your ego” and thus go further in the creation. Merce Cunningham and John Stage were considered as urban artists as they used city’s sounds, pictures and technologies. M. Cunningham also worked with other artists: Robert Rauschenberg, Jasper Johns (both painters)… He wanted to mix dance, music and plastic arts without favouring one of these disciplines; the combination had to create a performance as a whole. The revolution was also that there were no story, no hidden sense, no principal dancer… People could consider it as absurd, but his goal was to make the spectator active and not passive: as no sense was given to the audience, people were free to interpret the choreographies following their own desire and they could choose their own principal

90


dancer. M. Cunningham had a will to oppose his “dance of intelligence” to the “dance of emotion” represented by modern dance: his creations kept a distance with emotion and stimulated the intelligence of the audience who had to think about the meaning they wanted to give to the performance. Merce Cunningham is one of the forerunners of contemporary dance; Alvin Ailey, another American dancer and choreographer had popularized it. He is the symbol of an entire generation of contemporary choreographers and dancers: Alwin Nikolais, Carolyn Carlson, Dominique Bagouet etc… Dancing had no strict rules anymore; everything was possible and we can see that nowadays that contemporary dance is still very creative.

Finally, we must note that the revolution wasn’t only European or American. Japanese artists and thinkers were strongly affected by the 2nd world war and Japan experienced a strong artistic renewal. Dancers in particular were wondering how they still could dance after the horror of atomic bomb Hiroshima. What was the meaning of aesthetic representation after this catastrophe? Thus, the Butoh appeared. “Butoh” means, “dance of step” and was also called “dance of darkness”. It typically involves playful and grotesque imagery, taboo topics, extreme or absurd environments, and is traditionally "performed" in white-body makeup with slow hyper-controlled motion, with or without an audience. Butoh rejected the “corporal language”; the body that got rid of the soul was used as a material. The first Butoh piece was Kinjiki (Forbidden Colours), by Tatsumi Hijikata, which premiered at a dance festival in 1959. Based on the novel Kinjiki by Yukio Mishima, the piece explored the taboo of homosexuality and paedophilia; this piece outraged the audience, Hijikata was banned from the festival where Kinjiki premiered and established as an iconoclast. Hijikata fought against conventional notions of dance. Inspired by writers such as Yukio Mishima, Lautréamont, Artaud, Genet and de Sade, he dealt with grotesquery, darkness, and decay. Hijikata also explored the transmutation of the human body into other forms, such as animals. He associated in 1960 with Kazuo Ohno , it was the beginning of what now is regarded as "Butoh." Kazuo Ohno is regarded as "the soul of Butoh," while Tatsumi Hijikata is seen as "the architect of this dance. Actually, Ohno, was less of a technician and choreographer, and more of a solo performer. Following the student riots in Japan, this dance challenged government’s authority and rejected the symbols and convention of traditional Japanese arts. It was also a reaction against the contemporary dance scene in Japan, which imitated the west and was too superficial according to Hijikata. Butoh's status at present is ambiguous. Accepted as a performance art overseas, it remains fairly unknown in Japan.

As other artistic disciplines, dance was revolutionized during the 60’s and 70’s. Those decades were decisive for the evolution of dance forms. A strong desire of freedom came up from new dance forms which appeared: choreographers got rid of the

91


classical rules, included other arts in their creations and were at the origins of what’s called today contemporary dance. Even in very traditional societies as Japan, rules were rejected to let the body express what is deeply in us, unreachable by the soul. Among people, this desire of freedom was also palpable: the 60’s are the beginning of “no touch dancing” and the 70’s have introduced the concept of discotheque, still topical.

Bibliography http://fr.wikipedia.org/ http://japon.canalblog.com/archives/2007/02/10/3964122.html http://schenk.chore.art.free.fr/danse-buto-definition.htm http://www.teppaz-and-co.fr/danses.html http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/americanband/americanband.htm http://contemporarydance.suite101.com/

92


“Reflections on an Era” by students from “The sinful Sixties and Seventies” MBA course.

A collection of dissertations A « Centre de Ressources Linguistiques » publication – June 2009

1


2


The Sinful 60’s & 70’s, Reflections on an Era  Has peace in the Middle East been made impossible by the Cold War context? .......... 5 by Simon Jeannin 1960-1970: ”America contemplates Asia”............................................................................ 9 by Stéphanie Jensen Bob Dylan-The man who inspired a generation but refused to lead it .......................... 15 by Cyril Espalieu The outlook on Mental illness: a symbol of an era of revolution.................................... 19 by Audrey Lavigne The civil rights movements in the USA and South Africa................................................ 23 by Stéphanie Langlois Technology – people never had it so good......................................................................... 27 by Emilie Loncan Gay contestation movement in the 60’s ............................................................................. 31 by Anne-Lise Mithout The James Bond phenomenon through the 60’s and 70’s .............................................. 37 by Céline Lobez The Watergate scandal.......................................................................................................... 41 by Mathieu Libaudière How did populations perceive the space conquest during the 60’s & the 70’s ?.......... 45 by Sophie Loustau Struggles and Fights in the American Society during the 60’s and 70’s........................ 49 by Armand Agha How did Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music gradually turn into The Graduate and Catch-22? ........................................................................................................................ 53 by Lucile Mourey Apocalypse Now: how the Vietnam War brought about a shift in the relationship between Hollywood and the U.S government ................................................................... 57 by Cécile Gasnault

3


The Factory, Andy Warhol ................................................................................................... 61 by Maï-Lan Fitoussi The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War ....................................................................... 65 by Christophe Menger The Biafran war ..................................................................................................................... 69 by Julie Bernard Rock music, society and politics in the Sixties .................................................................. 73 by Cyrille Dimier de la Brunetière de la Croix Hope and delusion in the 60’s - a lesson for today........................................................... 77 by Daphné Vialan The legacy of photography in the 60’s and 70’s: between depiction and provocation81 by Magaly Rohe The events of May 1968 in France: causes and claims.................................................... 85 by Frédéric Jousset The 60’s and 70’s: how did those two decades revolutionize dance forms? ................. 89 by Amandine Platet

4


Simon JEANNIN

Has peace in the Middle East been made impossible by the Cold War context? Cradle of the three monotheist religions, place of birth of the alphabet, at the crossroads of the civilisations, the Middle East has been at the heart of the most violent and long lasting conflicts in the past centuries. Since the end of the Second World War, five wars between Israel and the Arabs have been declared (1948, 1956, 1967, and 1982), without mentioning the Iran-Iraq (1980-1988) and the gulf War(s). The heart of the problem remains existential claims, namely the right for the parallel existence of two people: Israel and the Arabs. In the aftermath of the 1949 conflict, it seemed that the situation could only lead to new confrontation, all the more so, as the opponents were respectively upheld by the two Blocks, the USA and the USSR in the Sixties, while the tensions seem to decrease with the “détente” in the Seventies.

I.

How did the 1956 conflict lead to a growing frustration, stirred up by the Cold War and by the engagement of the US and USSR alongside the belligerents.

A. The strategic situation of the Middle East prompted both the US and USSR to side with one party or another. The enrolment of the Eastern Bloc started in 1956 with an agreement signed between Egypt and Czechoslovakia in which the USSR agreed on a military aid to Nasser’s Egypt. The pro-Arab position of the USSR is easily understandable if one takes into consideration that the Suez Canal was a strategic shortcut for the Russian boats from the Black Sea to the Indian Ocean, compared to the usual way through Vladivostok. As a consequence, Israel immediately felt threatened by such an agreement and when the US refused to fund the Aswan Dam they saw in America a potential ally. In 1956, the Suez War ends rapidly with the withdrawal of Israel’s troops from the Sinai, under the pressure exerted by America, the Soviet Union and the United Nations. If peace is maintained until 1967, the alliance games continue, and in February 1958 Egypt and Syria join and create the United Arab Republic (UAR), under the protection of the Soviet Union. While Israel still benefits from the American support, America’s interests are at stake because of the official links between America and other Arab states, such as Iraq and Iran.

5


Thus, on the eve of the 1967 conflict, several ideological forces are present on the Middle East “playground”, stirring the antagonisms: the UAR versus Israel, the pro US Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran) versus the pro-Soviet Arab countries (Egypt, Syria). On top of this, lays the USSR strategy which consists in maintaining a hard pressure on the pro-Soviet government in Damascus, the stability of which was being constantly endangered by internal nationalist movements eager to take military action against Israel.

B. The birth of the Palestinian conscience, fuelled by the emergence of broader Arab feelings leads quickly to open armed groups As early as 1949, small groups of Palestinian people start launching military operations against Israel, from Syria, Jordan or Gaza. Politically, the years following the 1967 conflict will be those of the recognition of the Palestinian people by King Hussein of Jordan, and in December 1968 Général de Gaulle declares an armsembargo against Israel. Strengthened by this international support, the Palestinians start more violent and visible actions. II.

If the territorial consequences of the Six-Day War fuel feelings of humiliation among the Arab people, they also led to the Kippur War, which ended thanks to the worldwide context of “Détente”

A. The pressure exerted by the belligerents of the Cold War is being felt by the Palestinians Slaughtered in Jordan, they seek refugee in Lebanon, where they jeopardize the stability of the country. As a result of the failure of the different attempts to sign a peace treaty, led by the UN and the Western countries, the armed fight appears to be the only solution for the two Blocs to solve the conflict. At the same time, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) chooses to use the media to have their cause broadcast over the world: it is the hostage taking of Munich in September 1972 at the Olympic Games and the birth of modern terrorism. B. The worldwide context of “détente” led the USSR to display proof of goodwill, such as signing the Non Proliferation Treaty in July 1968. The effects in the Middle East are a series of diplomatic actions to avoid at all costs a direct conflict with the US. Thus Egypt and Syria had to get rid of their Soviet ally to launch the Kippur War in October 1973. However, the prompt response of the Israeli army put Egypt in a delicate situation: Israel has hardly pushed back the Syrian invasion onto the Eastern front when they circle the third Egyptian army in the Sinai desert. It is the moment the United States chooses to get involved: taking advantage of Russia’s slow reaction, Kissinger offers his help to find a solution, which will lead to the Oslo Agreements between Egypt and Israel in March 1979. On the Arab side, the Kippur War was supposed to be the revenge on the previous war’s humiliations,

6


though thanks to the context, it is eventually the conflict that prompted America to broker a deal towards peace in the Middle East. CONCLUSION Looking back to the specific period of time between 59 and 79, it seems interesting to notice that the peace process between Israel and Palestine followed the general trend of the relations between the two giant rivals of that time, i.e. the Soviet Union and the United States. Also noteworthy is the double movement of emancipation of the Arab countries from the Soviet influence, at a time when USSR is reluctant to lead a direct war against the American interest in a “Détente” context. The idea that emerges from this period is that the two Blocs only served their policies of conquest of new interests in the Middle East, thus fuelling the angers by supporting either Israel or the Palestinians and making peace in the Middle East dependant on their goodwill.

Bibliography -

Les 100 clés du Proche-Orient, by Alain GRESH and Dominique VIDAL Israël : géopolitique et enjeux, by Masri FEKI http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_de_l'URSS_sur_le_conflit_israélopalestinien_durant_la_guerre_froide http://www.oboulo.com/paix-impossible-conflit-israelo-arabe-1949-1973-24239.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war

7


8


Stéphanie JENSEN

1960-1970: ”America contemplates Asia” (originally ”The Third Mind, America contemplates Asia”, Jan.30 to Apr.19, 2009 exhibition at the New York Guggenheim museum)

The idea of reporting about the particular topic of the Asian influence over the arts in America during the 60s and the 70s came to me after reflecting on an exhibition I’ve had the chance to see at the Guggenheim museum in New York over the Easter holidays. The exhibition revolved around a wider period (1860-1989), but the section about the sixties and seventies particularly struck me.

Artists like Jasper Johns, Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and Tom Marioni, among others, were very well represented, and the parallel with Asian contemplative creation was quite subtly drawn, and, linked to the subject of the class, it gave me ideas on American society in general at that time. I hope I can give a truthful account of it and make it as interesting as it was on display in New York.

9


The initial idea of the exhibition was to trace back how Asian art literally soaked through the artistic production of the 1960’s and 1970’s North America, both in plastic and intellectual dimensions. The 1960’s-1970’s section of the exhibition, which was organized chronologically (as the museum’s architecture is perfectly fit for), showed how the main -and minor- artists of the time integrated Asian sources of artistic creation, and how they truly became receptacles of that particular way of contemplative creation. In that way, it offers an alternative lineage of creative culture -whereas critics often found the origins of American arts in the European culture, the exhibition focuses on the inspiration that came from America’s Pacific vista, that is Japan. The purpose, ultimately, was to underline how Asia gave American artists new visual perspectives. The first ideological standpoint of the exhibition was to show how the period of the sixties and the later seventies, because of their mild fascination for spontaneity and randomness –sometimes confined to the absurd- oriented American artists towards Asia. The fad for New Age, for Carl Jung’s theosophy1 and for Asian spirituality only underlined this tendency, and the freedom in Asian arts (abstract calligraphy, basic use of colours and lines, and soft techniques were far more common in Asian arts than in Europeaninfluenced American arts) clearly appeared in American forms of creation of that era.

”You learn of Japanese calligraphy to let the hand take over; then you begin to watch the hand as though it is not yours…When the viscosity is right, it is close to mindlessness, or to pure essences, with nothing between your beingness and the external world. As though your beingness were transmitted without intervention.” Robert Motherwell2. Although written in the 1950’s, this quotation from one of the artists presented in the exhibition clearly announces what was about to come in America; a revolution of the status of the artist. In the coming years, he would not be considered as a master

Theosophy is an Asian form of wisdom, of which beliefs include ideas such as, among others, ”consciousness [being] universal and individual”, there being an immortal ”higher self”, and reincarnation being universal. ”It is a fragment of the ancient, once universal, wisdom teaching. The masters of theosophy, located in Tibet and all around the world, preserve and extend this ancient wisdom”. Carl Jung made it popular. 2 Robert Motherwell (1915-1991) was an American abstract expressionist painter and printmaker, belonging to the New York School. Also a writer, whose essays are recognized as a bridge for those who want to learn about non-representational art. He used black paint as a basis for his paintings, a clear reference to Japanese calligraphy. 10


anymore, but as a mere transmitter, almost a witness -thus the idea of contemplation- of a creation unfolding under his bewildered and distant eyes. Already in the 1950’s, John Cage3 advocated the Zen way of creation, for its unmediated experience and its use of void, as well as the naive, intrigued posture of the artist it implied.

John Cage’s ”silent music”

By popularizing such ideas, he inspired Jack Kerouac’s spontaneous prose and his studies of Buddhist texts, that inspired his writing of The Dharma Bums, along with other postures such as anti-art and situationism. Artists belonging to the Beat Movement (Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg and others) were actually those who went deepest into accomodating the Asian postures to an American experience (one thinks of Ginsberg’s trips to Asia, of Kerouac’s nickname ”The new Buddha of American prose”…). Nevertheless, Kerouac and Ginsberg considered Buddhist spirituality in a radically different way: while Kerouac focused on meditation and the wild emptiness of Zen, Ginsberg saw in it a radically blasphematory means to mock American liberal values, and considered Asian spirituality as far superior to the dull United States, which was not the case of Kerouac. The exhibition strongly states that American artists who turned towards Asian arts actually did so in reaction to modern 3

John Cage (1912-1992) was an American composer, pioneer of chance music and nonstandard use of instruments, a leading figure of the post-war avant-garde. He studied Indian philosophy and his influences lay in various Eastern cultures. 11


Western rationalism and utilitarism, which is probably true. Movements like neoDada, Beats and Happenings were clearly inspired by total gratuity, contrary to commercial arts such as impressionism, that were at their peak in Europe; besides, Europe as a whole, was actually being rejected, as the 1963 Fluxus manifesto4 summoned artists to ”Purge the World of Europanism !”

What I really found interesting in this particular section of the exhibition was the idea that, along with absurdity and spontaneousness, humour emerged from art. While Asian art is not really renowned for its fun side, America, as part of the process of appropriation of the Asian way of creating, introduced a whole set of childish pranks and leg pulls, a mild amusement, and sometimes a cynical one at that, into their creations, as the works of Tom Marioni display (the artist’s latest exhibition was called ”Beer, Art and Philosophy, 1968-2006”, and displayed works like ”The Act Of Drinking Beer With Friends Is The Highest Form Of Art”, ”Musical Instrument That Cannot Be Played” along with Haiku poems…).

Art as an amused, unmediated experience of daily life fitted perfectly the mood in American artistic spheres, but also in general. Art in the sixties was a frantic, buoyant creation, and the period saw figures like Andy Warhol emerge, synonymous with dashing, daring forms of art, liberated from any kind of sense. While Warhol’s –and all of the Factory members- can’t really be called Zen art, it was undoubtedly made possible by the liberating gratuity Asian art brought along to America. Art, again, was only a reflection of what was happening in society: struggles for freedom (the end of 4

The Fluxus Manifesto (1963). Fluxus was an international network of artists known for mixing different disciplines during the 1960s (music, visual arts, literature…). Their manifesto encouraged a do-it-yourself aesthetic, and valued simplicity. It included a strong current of anti-commercialism and anti-art sensibility. 12


the Cold War, the triumph of liberalism, racial equality and feminism) were going on, and while those conflicts definitely found no resolution in Eastern meditation, artists seemed to have found a way of transposing them into completely free artistic expressions, such as meaningless calligraphies, minimalist photography and spontaneous happenings. It is rather interesting to watch how, during the seventies, this extravagant liberation of arts became far more serious, with much deeper experiences. Ad Reinhardt5, for instance, admired profound meditation and concentration, and the form of monochrome emerged. From a fun, colourful and frantic creation, art turned into this contemplative, serious posture, where sloweddowned time became the medium of existential awareness. Again, we can draw parallels between this posture and 1970s society. While the sixties were a real awakening, one might say that the seventies were only re-enacting this birth of a liberated form of art, only taking it a little further and making it a little more mature, which curiously resembles the way American society as a whole entered the 70’s.

”Nowhere in the world of art has it been clearer than in Asia that anything irrational, momentary, spontaneous, unconscious, primitive, expressionistic, accidental, or informal cannot be called serious art. Only blankness, complete awareness, disinterestedness.” - Ad Reinhardt.

Sources: -All information found on the Guggenheim exhibition online (http://www.guggenheim.org/newyork/exhibitions/past/exhibit/2716) -All footnotes drawn from Wikipedia

5

Ad Reinhardt (1913-1967) was an abstract painter in New York active since the early 1930’s. He was a major influence in conceptual, minimal art and monochrome painting. He is best known for his ”black” paintings, which appear at first glance to be just balck, but are actually composed of black and nearly black shades. Those paintings ask whether there is such a thing like ”absolute black”. 13


14


ESPALIEU Cyril

Bob Dylan The man who inspired a generation but refused to lead it

“All I’d ever done was sing songs that were dead straight and expressed powerful new realities. I had very little in common with and knew even less about a generation that I was supposed to be the voice of.” Bob Dylan, Chronicles, Volume I, p.115

Robert Allen Zimmerman was born on May 24, 1941, in Duluth, Minnesota. He lived there until the age of six, when his father began suffering of polio and the family returned to his mother's home town, Hibbing. Robert has been very interested in music since his early age: he could spend hours in a row listening to the blues and country Louisiana radio stations. At high school he could live his passion in an active way with the creation of several rock & roll fleeting bands. The only year he spent at college in 1959 at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis is a turning point in his nascent career, as he took two decisions that would influence the rest of his life: when performing at a local coffee house, he introduced himself as “Bob Dylan”, as a tribute to the Welsh poet Dylan Thomas. The second major change is that Bob literally converted himself to folk music, more serious, richer and more connected to the real life than rock & roll. This new religion had a god, Woody Guthrie, the “Dust Bowl Troubadour”. Bob had just devoured his autobiography, Bound for Glory. The influence was so strong that Bob didn’t hesitate a minute when he learnt that Woody had just been admitted in a New York hospital in 1968 for a serious Huntington’s disease : he dropped out from college and made it for the Big Apple, hoping to visit his idol and to perform in the cafés. He quickly succeeded in both projects: he entered the circle of Woody’s friends and signed a contract with Columbia in 1962. After a restricted first album mainly

15


composed of covers, Bob Dylan, the 1963 release of The Freewheelin’ became one of the major events of the twentieth century, as far as music is concerned. “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “A Hard Rain’s A-gonna Fall” were immediately erected as universal freedom anthems. On August of the same year, Dylan appeared as the muse of the Civil Rights Movement by singing with Joan Baez at the March on Washington. The break-up with political representation publicly took place no later than on January 1964 when Dylan, offered an award for his work for freedom at a gala, insulted the members of the assembly and said that there was a part of him in Lee Harvey Oswald, JFK’s alleged assassin. The purpose of this dissertation is to find out why Dylan broke up so quickly with a movement he had fostered six months before, and how he then sustained a 45-years long career with this weight on his shoulder. I will use two kinds of sources to lead my argumentation: Dylan’s own views described in his autobiography Chronicles: Volume 1 and my own interpretation from what I understand of his songs. 1. Dylan’s interpretation: Chronicles, Volume 1 The first volume of Dylan’s autobiography, published in 2004, is of great help in various ways for answering our question. First, for what Dylan doesn’t want to tell. The beginning of the book is a captivating evocation of Dylan’s first years in New York (1961-1963) and then we’re fast forwarded to the making of New Morning, a quickforgotten album published in 1970. Dylan can’t have hindsight on the in-between period marked by the electric U-turn and his motorcycle accident. But he gives us a strong explanation about how he feels in 1970 and all this “voice of a generation” controversy. Dylan understood the wind of change of the late 60’s maybe better than anyone else as he states that “things that have used to be in traditional black and white were now exploding in full, sunny color”. [1] But fatherhood has transformed Dylan, and he doesn’t want to be involved anymore: “Truth is I wanted to get out of the rat race. Having children changed my life and segregated me from just about everybody and everything that was going on.” [1] How could he give up so fast? To him, it’s his fullest right and people should stop having leadership expectations from him as it has never been his role: “I had a wife and children, I was trying to provide for them, keep out of trouble, but the big bugs in the press kept promoting me as the mouthpiece, spokesman, or even conscience of a generation.” [1] The extent reached by his protest songs overthrew him. The hippie movement organized the Woodstock festival close to his home so that he could come up. His fellow musicians asked him questions such as “So where do you think you’ll take the whole music scene? [1]

16


It was as if the counter-culture had seized his music and made something overpolemic far from its original meaning: “I felt like a piece of meat that someone had thrown to the dogs.” [1] This turned into paranoia, fostered by the frequent intrusions of fans at his home: “Everything was wrong, the world was absurd. Even persons near and dear offered no relief.” [1] Like the average Joe, he has revised his expectations from life downwards: “What I was fantasizing about was a nine-to-five existence. That was my deepest dream.” [1] This change can also be explained by the fact that Dylan is not able anymore to write songs as fluently as in the 60’s: “Sometime in the past I had written and performed songs that were most original and most influential, and I didn’t know if I ever would and I didn’t care.” [1] But once again, he puts this down to fans hysteria: “It was impossible now for me to observe anything without being observed.” [1] At this time, Dylan’s public appearances were voluntarily meant to fade his aura: getting photographed in Jerusalem with a skull cap to appear like a Zionist, recording a country-western record or starting a rumor saying he would be quitting music. It seems pathetic that a universal icon could resort to these tactics, but at that time, living a quiet life was the only thing that mattered to the greatest songwriter of the twentieth century. 2. My interpretation Dylan’s explanation seems at first very hard to accept : how can someone call “Come gather ‘round people wherever you roam, […] you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a-changin'!” [2] in 1963 and only dream of “a nine-to-five existence” [1] in 1969 ? I would identify four different reasons for this radical evolution. The first one lies in the history of his idol, Woody Guthrie. Guthrie has travelled all cross the USA during his life, taking his inspiration from the workers he would meet. He wouldn’t make so much money out of his music, and more important, he wasn’t asked to play a social role. The only time it happened, when he was drafted as soldier for WW2, he answered that he was more useful singing his anti-fascist songs at home. Exactly the type of answers Dylan would make to reporters. Musicians play music and soldiers fight. The second reason can be found in Dylan’s autobiography. The warmth and detail with which he describes his performances in the cafés shows how much Dylan loves low-scale events and atmospheres. Singing songs with a global reach in genuine underground scenes, keeping time to wander in the city and read a lot was his perfect-balanced life which has all been shaken by the simple fact of recording his

17


songs. Signing for Columbia was like putting his patrimony at the public disposal. Dylan never accepted that the public could misinterpret it. The third reason comes from historical observation. Dylan sung at the March on Washington for the Civil Right Movement, which shows that he has not always been allergic to social activism. But the fact that it has been his sole protest action leads me to think that he immediately understood how such a fight was far more pragmatic than spiritual. The risk of being manipulated became too big and he found a shelter in his inner world. Explaining his spirituality could to him be made only through his songs, as he was a musician, and not in the streets. The last reason belongs to music. After a trilogy dedicated only to folk music and protest songs (The Freewheelin’ & The Times They Are A-changin’ in 1963 and Another Side of Bob Dylan in 1964), Dylan may just have considered he thrashed out the subject. If he had no message to send anymore, he didn’t need folk music anymore, as from a musical point of view, patterns are very repetitive. His electric conversion may have come from a desire to discover new musical possibilities, an adventure he led with as much ambition and talent as in the folk period.

Bibliography : [1] Bob Dylan, Chronicles, Volume I, 2004, p.114-124 [2] Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-changin’, The Times They Are A-changin’, 1963 - Biography.com articles on Bob Dylan and Woody Guthrie

18


Audrey LAVIGNE

The outlook on Mental illness: a symbol of an era of revolution

The Sixties and the Seventies were an era of self awareness and research for new social codes. As such, it became also a period of revolution in the outlook of mental illnesses, those comportments excluding individuals from the socially and politically acceptable. New awareness of mental illness arose, as much as new views on it. One of the main revolutions during this period was the widespread movement rejecting mental institutions such as psychiatric hospitals, in favor of community mental health services. Since the 19th century, psychiatric hospitals had been the solution for all kinds of mental diseases, such as schizophrenia, bipolar or psychotic disorders, or even the well used hysteria, also used as a mean to dispose of an unruly wife. By 1950, Electroconvulsive therapy, insulin shock therapy, lobotomies and the "neuroleptic" chlorpromazine were widely used in mental institutions, in spite of their heavy and sometimes permanent consequences. In the 1960s, an antipsychiatry movement rose, mostly in America and West Europe, promoting deinstitutionalization, and led by Michel Foucault, R.D. Laing and Thomas Szasz. They saw the practices used in psychiatric hospitals as useless and unnecessarily cruel, moreover without general supervision. This medical movement benefited from the support of literacy, through classics such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, by Ken Kesey, who as, among other things, a former orderly in a psychiatric hospital, had an acute and intimate knowledge of the realities of a mental ward, and its coercive nature. Through the struggles of the hero, McMurphy, against the obtuse and oppressive power of the mental ward, personified by Nurse Ratched, the many flaws of the current mental wards are exposed. McMurphy is finally subjected to the worse treatment, lobotomy, as a punishment against an ultimate rebellion – the attempted throttling of Ratched. This novel was a link between the antipsychiatry movement, and the general movement against self-

19


censuring and what Foucault called “invisible forms of discipline”, smothering individual expression on a social scale. Frederick Wiseman’s censured documentary Titicut Follies portrays the same neglect and general oppression entailed by mental hospital of the period, in a candid film realized in 1967 directly in Bridgewater State Hospital for the criminally insane, a Massachusetts Correctional Institution in Bridgewater, Massachusetts. It actually belonged to a series of documentaries focusing on social institutions, such as hospital, police, school, etc., in the United States. It depicted the multiple fetters keeping an individual from existing completely as themselves in society, including the loss of personal rights for those deemed as profoundly abnormal, the mentally ill in mental institutions. Even though its airing was forbidden in the United States for decades, it went a long way in promoting deinstitutionalization, either in Europe, where it met a large success, or in the USA. A consumer/survivor movement rose, basing itself on the testimony of the ones that “survived” the system. Other kinds of psychiatric medication became promoted and used, such as "psychic energizers" and lithium. Benzodiazepines gained cause in the 1970’s for anxiety and depression, as a replacement for institutionalization, or plain neglect. Mental illness received indeed a new outlook during the sixties and the seventies. As it was considered the antithesis of “normal”, as any comportment escaping the norm was considered as a mental disease, it became a component of the counterculture. At best, it was seen as a condition demanding understanding and gentler new treatments. At the most extreme, it was a glorified condition, offering freedom to the inflicted. Gay people were therefore seen as mentally ill. The Gay right movement was one of the most active during this era, acting as a counterculture creating its own codes and organization, making itself widely know since 1970 and the first Gay Pride, celebrating homosexuals’ “otherness” against the social norm, heterosexuality, and their pride in what constituted them as mentally ill, according to the law and psychiatry. In such an era of controversy and activism, in 1974 the American Psychiatric Association membership voted to remove homosexuality as an illness. It became a “sexual orientation disturbance”, even though other tendencies pertaining to sexual orientation remained seen as mental disease (transsexuality has been removed from the list of mental disease barely a month ago in France).

20


This is an example, but thanks to this revolution the stigma of mental illness was drastically reconsidered. Ironically enough, the Sixties and the Seventies were also very prolific in inducing mental diseases, among their artists notably. It began mostly with the accidental discovery of LSD, a drug derived from ergot. It was introduced by Sandoz Laboratories as a drug with various psychiatric uses, and became rapidly a therapeutic agent, whose results were very attractive. It was supposed to unlock a patient’s subconscious, and thanks to its hyper real effects, reacquaint patients with reality. However, LSD in this form was not to become a therapeutic mean, due to its many recreational uses and over use among previously perfectly sane individuals. Declared as a way to enhance self awareness and connection to the world and reality, it became a component of the new way of life promoted by most of the counterculture of the era. Its most fervent advocate, Timothy Leary, whose catch phrase "Turn on, tune in, drop out" was promoted to slogan of an entire widespread movement, actually advised “responsible individuals” to use it to better know themselves, even though the notion of “responsible” remains unclear still nowadays. "A psychedelic experience is a journey to new realms of consciousness. The scope and content of the experience is limitless, but its characteristic features are the transcendence of verbal concepts, of space-time dimensions, and of the ego or identity. Such experiences of enlarged consciousness can occur in a variety of ways: sensory deprivation, yoga exercises, disciplined meditation, religious or aesthetic ecstasies, or spontaneously. Most recently they have become available to anyone through the ingestion of psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, etc. Of course, the drug does not produce the transcendent experience. It merely acts as a chemical key—it opens the mind, frees the nervous system of its ordinary patterns and structures." (Directly quoted from Timothy Leary) If Leary came away from years of experiment relatively mentally unscathed, others were not as lucky. LSD induced schizophrenia, flashbacks, psychosis or hallucination for it most benign effect. Due to its virtue of expanding awareness, it was vastly used for inspiration during the Sixties and Seventies, with sometimes grievous effects. Among those who accounted as victims of the over use of LSD, one can count Syd Barrett, original member of the Pink Floyd, whose career was cut short due to LSD induced mental illness believed to be schizophrenia. Even after its prohibition in the Seventies, the use of LSD remained relatively widespread, giving way to other drugs, such as heroin, or crack, inducing an apparently accepted mental hazard among artistic circles.

21


22


Stéphanie LANGLOIS

The civil rights movements in the USA and South Africa The United States of America (USA) and South Africa are both known for racial segregation instituted by the Whites towards the Blacks, in two radically different contexts. The USA is originally a white British colony, independent since the 18th century, where Black people were sent in what was called the Transatlantic Triangular Trade. In 1950, there were 15 million of Black people [1], which represented 10% of the USA population. South Africa is an old country, which was colonized successively by the Dutch (17th to end of 18th century) and the English (officially from 1815 – Congress of Vienna – to 1934, when South Africa became a sovereign state within the British Empire, before declaring itself a Republic in 1961, leaving the Commonwealth in 1968 and reintegrating it in 1994). 1n 1946, Black people represented 68,7% of the South African population, the Whites 20%, and the other coloured people (Indians, other people of mixed origins) the remaining 11,3% [2] . Obviously, both situations were really different: in the USA, the Black people were a minority, whereas they were the majority in South Africa... But this did not prevent the white minority to decide Apartheid (a racial separation) in 1948 (although racial segregation already existed), and to abolish all the civil rights of the coloured people, as the Blacks were deprived of theirs in the USA, a situation inherited from the time of slavery... The point of this essay is thus to determine the resemblances and differences between both civil rights movements, as well as to analyse why they ended differently. We will focus on the years following the World War II, till the end of the seventies, to remain in the scope of the course. First of all, we should remember what could be considered as the origins of those movements. Discriminations had been real for long in both countries, but had not led, till then, to such an important, structured and coordinated contestation, with emblematic leaders. One of the triggering factors is admitted to be the end of World War II. Indeed, Blacks of both countries fought in the war, often in segregated units, but they were all fighting for freedom, human rights, and democracy. Quite logically, they wanted to get at home what they had defended in Europe, in North-Africa or in Asia. In the USA, the African-American Civil Rights Movement (also known as the Southern Freedom Movement [3] by those who were active in those movements) began with pacifist demonstrations (“nonviolent civil disobedience”): in 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give her seat to a white passenger in a bus in Alabama; she was arrested and convicted, which led to the year-long Montgomery Bus Boycott and 23


finally the desegregation of buses in Montgomery in 1956. In 1960, the first sit-in of black students took place in North Carolina, to be followed by others in Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, and all southern and border states. Dressed-up as professionals, the students sat quietly in segregated areas of public facilities, until they were expelled, often by force. The sit-in movement finally led to the Freedom Rides in 1961, and later on, to pacifist marches, among which was the march on Washington led by reverend Martin Luther King Jr, maybe the most famous emblematic character of the Civil Rights Movement in the USA. This march, which was “a collaborative effort of all of the major civil rights organizations, the more progressive wing of the labour movement, and other liberal organizations” [4], had a great impact for the causes of the civil rights movement: it was broadcasted on television, which made the entire country aware of what happened in the South of the USA, as well as in other states. The “I Have a Dream” speech by King is also one of the most famous allocutions of the time. All these pacifist events led to a national recognition of the Blacks’ fight for their civil rights, and finally new laws were passed: in 1954, in the Education field, the ‘Separate but Equal’ laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; in 1961, the desegregation of the buses in Montgomery was decided (following the bankruptcy of the bus company); in 1964, the Civil Rights Act “made racial discrimination illegal in public places and in many areas of employment” [5]; and in 1965, the Voting Rights Act removed all barriers to voting by black people. The Blacks now had the same civil rights as Whites... In South Africa, the Civil Rights Movement also began with civil disobedience, strikes and boycotts, led by the African National Congress (ANC) and mostly its Youth League (ANCYL), in 1949. Led by Walter Sisulu, Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo, the ANCYL advocated that “white authority could only be overthrown through mass campaigns” [6]. In 1950, the May Day stay-away succeeded in expressing all the Blacks’ grievances regarding Apartheid. In 1952, the Joint Planning Council (composed of the ANC, the South African Indian Congress and the Coloured People’s Congress) decided on a “plan for the defiance of unfair laws” [7], if the Pass Laws (which prevented coloured people from travelling freely in the country) were not abolished. As no positive answer was given to these requests, the Programme of Action was launched with the Defiance campaign: black people began to use “whites only” entries, to walk in whites areas after the curfew forbidding them to do so... This programme led to more than 8,000 people being arrested for breaking the racial laws. The government seemed to release its control over Black people, before taking several supreme measures and putting the ANC leaders (including Nelson Mandela) in jail... The Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Separate Amenities Act only reinforced Apartheid, the former by condemning people encouraging others to protest against the laws, and the latter by allowing owners of amenities to decide whether they would bar the entry to coloured people. Racial separation was thus strongly confirmed. In 1954, the National Action Council for the Congress of the People was founded, aiming at constituting a Freedom Charter, emphasizing the idea of a just and non-racial South Africa, a one-person-one-vote democracy, and a fair distribution of land (Coloured people could not own their land). The Charter was

24


revised and accepted by the Congress of People in 1955, after being endorsed by the ANC. In 1959, the Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) was created by some disillusioned member of the ANC, who organized demonstrations against the Pass Laws. One of these demonstrations took place in Sharpeville, where the police shot at the pacifist crowd, killing 69 people and injuring 186. This event is known as the Sharpeville massacre, and gave way to a more violent way of fighting the laws, since then marginalized... That is what we will now detail in the second part. The 1960’s saw a radicalization of the Civil Rights movements in both countries, where violence was now considered an efficient way to obtain equal rights. In South Africa, the ANC and PAC ran a campaign of terrorism and sabotage through their armed wings. Although the leader of the ANC was not in favour of violence, the obvious contempt of the government towards coloured protests increased people’s anger. Nelson Mandela was the commander or the ANC military wing. He had developed a plan (wearing his name) of “controlled sabotage, launching a guerrilla war modeled upon the FLN's struggle in Algeria” [8]. These acts of sabotage were supposed only to destroy facilities and building, not to kill anybody, although it sometimes happened. In 1962, Mandela was arrested, and many other leaders of the Civil Rights movement were arrested in 1963. The others had to escape South Africa, and to keep fighting from abroad. Only the PAC’s secret martial arm remained in the country, murdering whites, police informants and black people supporting the government. But lack of money, armament, and many arrests crippled the PAC actions. In 1963, the Rivonia trial began, accusing ANC members of treason. Mandela was among those members. All those accused were sentenced to life imprisonment, and the international community widely condemned the trial as well as Apartheid... In the meanwhile, in the USA, a new form of black protest was born, rejecting King’s principles of non-violence. It came from the Northern states and expressed its will to get more than the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. They wanted the government to do something about black poverty, low wages and all forms of discriminations the non-violent movement had not dealt with. This is the birth of the notion of “Black Power” (a phrase by Stokely Carmichael) in 1966, willing not to ask the whites for their help, but instead, to create black communities, with their own rights, able to fight and use violence to defend themselves in case it should be necessary (against the Ku Klux Klan for example). Carmichael was joined in his way of seeing things by the Black Panther Party, Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam, using a “by-any-means-necessary” approach. Even before this radicalization, race riots took place in the northern cities, the first of them being in Harlem, NYC, after a policeman shot a young black without any reason. This type of riots spread during the summer of 1964, which made the government try to prevent them from repeating the following year, by offering summer jobs to young people in Harlem. The different Acts passed by the government had no immediate effect on the lives of Black people, and riots began again in 1966 and 1967. President Lyndon Johnson created the “National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders in 1967. The commission's final report called for major reforms in employment and

25


public assistance for black communities. It warned that the United States was moving towards separate white and black societies.” [9] The situation in the USA was indeed more complicated than it seemed. Obtaining the same civil rights was not enough for Black people: even though discrimination was illegal, it still existed in facts... The situation in both countries at the end of the 1970s was not completely solved: Apartheid was all the more ‘present’ and active in South Africa, the government confronting all those who dared to fight for more equality; in the USA, racial segregation was officially and legally abolished, but not so much in reality. How can we explain that the USA had seemingly a more rapid evolution regarding their minorities’ Civil Rights when in South Africa it took more than 40 years for the black majority to arrive to power and equality? We can reasonably believe that the primary role the USA played in the world influenced its evolution, enhancing this movement. The USA had to be the champions of civil rights, following the major role it had played during World War II, and could not be a criticized country regarding internal policies and discrimination... South Africa, on the other hand, saw white interests dominate the policies of the government. Whites saw the Apartheid as the only way to protect their influence and their way of life in what they considered as “their” country. They maintained this system with the energy of despair... And today, the situation is not so clear either. The ANC finally won the elections of 1994, and Nelson Mandela became the first black president of the recent republic of South Africa... But crime rate is the highest in the world, which seems to confirm the idea that not everything is solved in South Africa... The USA elected the first black president of their history, giving hope to all those who are still poor and still feel discriminated...

Notes [1] This figure is based on U.S. Census figures (given by the Time Almanac of 2005). [2] http://www.popline.org/docs/1243/132271.html [3] [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) [5] http://mypage.essec.fr/LGAN31756_sayer/colour/ [6] [7] [8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_africa#Apartheid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_South_Africa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement_(1955–1968) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American#Demographics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_resistance_to_South_African_apartheid

Bibliography Le pouvoir pâle, essai sur le système sud-africain, by Serge Thion, Editions du Seuil (1969)

26


LONCAN Emilie

Technology – people never had it so good In the 1964 election campaign, Harold Wilson, as leader of the Labour Party, put the stress on ‘the white heat of technological revolution’. White heat was not the most representative image at the moment. Much of the new technology dealt more with suds, shine and phoney flavours. Wilson’s government even established a Ministry of Technology with, at its head, Frank Cousins, a trade-union leader, which did not make sense at all. No one could doubt about the benefits and comfort brought by technology. In other words, as the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan actually said ‘Most of our people have never had it so good’. This quote became a popular and vulgar joke which tore round Great Britain during the 1959 election campaign. ‘A woman complains to the police that she has been raped by one of the candidates, who, she insists, was the Conservative; she knows this, ‘because she’s never had it so good’ (1). For sure, technology affects your daily life and you don’t even notice any change and comfort it has brought to you anymore – except when it deals with the new I-phone you have just bought. You don’t believe me? So can you imagine yourself just for a second without your mobile phone, your laptop computer, television and above all your pocket calculator? Computer engineers must have been considered as real busy bees shaping their own virtual hives. That was the time when the growing breed of the ‘white-coated workers’ and technocrats assumed power. Federico Faggin and Marcian Hoff launched the microprocessor revolution in 1971, then two years later, Xerox PARC, a Californian research and development company, designed the first PC (Personal Computer). But such technological progress did not remain any kind of dehumanized and robotic work. Indeed, it has completely disrupted the way human beings see themselves. Making use of such computers and advanced research laboratories, Frederick Sanger, an English biochemist, succeeded in sequencing DNA in 1975. That’s why he had received two Nobel Prizes in Chemistry. As a result, human beings became unique individuals made of DNA molecules they pass on to their offspring – included faults and vices, unfortunately. Hence the proverb: ‘like father like son’. In the seventies, children also ‘never had it so good’: in 1968, the Brown Box, the first home video game console, was invented by Ralph H. Baer, a German-born American engineer. No doubt that their parents would have preferred a simple and less addictive hobby such as the colourful and headache Rubik’s Cube, created in 1974 by Ernö Rubik, a Hungarian professor of architecture. As for teenagers, the awkward age

27


became more exciting – and more peaceful for their parents. Instead of making windows rattle because of the last hit of the Beatles, by the end of the seventies they could use their new walkman. The latter turned into a trendy accessory, as well as rollerblades invented in 1979 by two American hockey enthusiasts, brothers Scott and Brennan Olson. With both technological innovations, youth could escape from authoritarian and oppressive reality. But it was not the case for everyone, especially when it comes to working-class children who could not afford such desirable objects. Hence a bundle of frustration and bunches of fives: technological progress indirectly led to a rise in juvenile crime. Musicians and their fans never had felt ‘so good’ – as James Brown apparently noticed in 1965. The renewal of the popular music scene became closely bound-up with the wonders of electronics. Some guitarists began exploring a wider range of tonal effects by distorting the sound of their electric guitars - the ‘clipping’ effects as sound engineers put it. Vox guitars were also introduced in the sixties, especially by Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones and his Mark VI. The music industry faced huge transformations. The old song-writer was on the dole while young managers were making money. The printed music sheet disappeared for the benefit of records, which led to the first optical digital audio disc with a 150-minute playing time in 1978 by Sony. However, one must not overlook the dark side of technology at this period. As for energy, think about nuclear weapons developed after the Manhattan project and their potential destructive power. We should always keep in mind Einstein’s warning: ‘technological progress is like an ax in the hands of a pathological criminal’. For sure, the Luddites could have come back to the scene, breaking machines as rock stars were doing with their guitars on stage. Indeed, many workers never had it so sad. Technology radically changed their working environment. A factory apprentice, during Fraser’s interview, put the stress on the ‘unforgettable claustrophobic comradeship’ of the factory (2), denouncing ‘the machines which constantly break down’ (3) and repetitive movements on the assembly line. Workers did repetitive tasks like robots as well as cashiers. Indeed the sixties celebrated the advent of supermarkets and self-service stores, which led to the first bar-code scanner in 1969 – only employed in 1974. In some ironic sense, men ‘never had it so good’. Thanks to technological – and more affordable – developments, their wives could spend their time differently and forget how boring their daily life at home was. As a consequence, they were well disposed towards their husbands when they came back home. Let’s give a few figures to show the very visible growth in the acquisition of durable consumer goods at the moment: by 1971, 69% of households had a refrigerator, 91% of families had a television, and 64% had a washing machine; in 1956, only about 5% had one of these key machines. Nevertheless, at the end of the sixties, more than a half of all women could not spend hours nattering because the spread of the telephone was much slower.

28


To go deeper into the analysis, the ‘second sex’ (4) had it better than the first one. Technology and science were the catalysts of women’s emancipation. ‘The era of the Pill had begun’ as a medical historian, Dr N.E. Himes, has written. However, it may be noted that the pill only began to be widely used in Britain in the late sixties, hence roads to progressive freedom for women. As a conclusion, technology changed people’s life because it gave them more time to spend. A social and cultural revolution was at stake. At the moment technological goods created new needs, changed women’s lives, helped workers forget the tough conditions of the workplace. For sure, technology and all its far-out gadgets represented the new ‘opium of the masses’ as would have said Karl Marx.

References (1) British Society since 1945, Arthur Marwick, Penguin Books Edition, pages 85-86. (2) and (3) Work: Twenty Personal Accounts, Fraser, 1968. (4) The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir, 1949 Bibliography British Society since 1945, Arthur Marwick, Penguin Books Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://inventors.about.com/od/timelines/Timelines_of_Invention_and_Technology.htm

29


30


Anne-Lise MITHOUT

Gay contestation movements in the 60’s

During the 60’s, protestation movements arose all across America; be it about Civil Rights, feminism, anti-war, counterculture...the whole society was in motion. Along with these groups, the gay community was getting organized and asking for recognition. Whereas, at the beginning of the decade, places of homosexual gathering were forbidden by law, in 1971 Frank Kameny ran as an openly gay candidate for a seat in Congress. The 60’s enabled gay people to acquire a new visibility and to accomplish a revolution, in which the city of San Francisco played a major role. Nevertheless, the 1969 Stonewall Riots proved that America was far from cleared from homophobia. Behind the myth, were the 60’s really an era of liberation? What were the steps of this motion, and what was the true impact of gay movements on society? What were the relations between the gay community and other protest groups? In a context favourable to the development of gay prot group (I), organizations were created all over the country, and especially in San Francisco (II), which lead, to some extent, to social changes (III).

During the 60’s, the rebellion against homophobic laws, the development of protest groups in all parts of society and the specific situation of the city of San Francisco create a context particularly favourable to the spreading of gay organizations. At the beginning of the 60’s, homophobia is materialized by specific laws. Alcohol beverage law prohibits “disorderly behaviour” in bars, which is a way of meaning “homosexual gatherings”. Under New York City Law, homosexuals are not allowed to be served in bars, under penalty of revocation of the bar’s license. In 1953, Eisenhower’s government bans employment of gays and lesbians from federal jobs; local governments and some private companies follow this trend. Homosexual behaviour is considered as a crime in all the states, and prison penalty (sometimes life-long) can be sentenced against people convicted of having same-sex relations with another consenting adult ; the FBI develops a surveillance program against gay people, and the police commits regular harassment against them, for instance by raiding gay bars and arresting customers. Medical therapies including electroshock, castration and lobotomies are used in medical institutes in order to “cure” homosexuals. During the 60’s, contestation arises in society at large, be it the Civil Right movements, feminism or counterculture. The gay community is linked with all these groups, but develops on its own. It follows the example of black Civil Rights movement: its main demand is called “Gay Civil Rights”, and the slogan “Gay Power” 31


is created by the Gay Liberation Front, as an answer to the “Black Power”. In 1969, Leo Laurence from the SIR (Society of Individual Rights, the largest homophile organization in the US) encourages the gay community to join the Black Panthers, even though some of its leaders have made homophobic speeches. Lesbian movements’ relation with feminism is quite complex; although both tend to the same goal, that is setting women free from machismo, a strong anti-lesbian feeling arises among feminists, and leads quickly to separation. Feminists like Betty Friedan want to distance their action from the lesbian movement, and lesbians are excluded from the National Organization for Women. That is why lesbian associations develop as a specific branch of the gay movement. They receive help from bigger gay organizations; the first lesbian protestation group, the Daughters of Bilitis, is founded in San Francisco in 1955, and derives from the Mattachine Society (first gay organization ever). Nevertheless, the lesbian movement is divided in the mid-60’s between associations that sides with bigger gay groups, and associations that want to stand as specifically feminists (even though isolated from the larger feminist movement). The gay movement is also linked with counterculture. The founders of the first gay association, Mattachine society, wish to create a community with its own culture, like every other minority (Black, Jewish...). They try to turn homosexuality from an underground subculture to an open and specific branch of the population. Moreover, some artists who play an important part in the development of counterculture are more or less openly gay, or linked with homosexuality, which gives the gay community members example of cultural models they can recognize themselves in. For instance, Allen Ginsberg or Andy Warhol express homosexual desires in an artistic way, which contributes to the recognition of the gay community. The city of San Francisco plays a major role in the development of gay organizations. During World War I, the army rejects gay soldiers, and sends them back to San Francisco; since they often feel too ashamed to go back to their families, they generally decide to stay there, and the first gay community develops in the poor neighbourhood of Tenderloin. During the 50’s, a new wave of arrivals is due to McCarthyist prosecution, because of the link between homosexuality and radical communism. In the 60’s, homosexuals start renovating the formerly working-class neighbourhood of Castro (where housing is cheap), and create openly gay shops, bars, restaurants, theatres...That is why the biggest gay community in the US is located in San Francisco, and most organizations develop from there. At the beginning of the 60’s, only a few protest groups, among which the Mattachine organization is the most famous, exist in America. During the decade, lots of new organizations spread over the country, and lead public actions. This development follows several steps. Created in 1950, the Mattachine organization is the pioneer of the gay movement. It is founded by Harry Hay, an active communist; this is characteristic of this period: most gay people are radicals and communists. The movement starts in New York, but is relocated to San Francisco in 1955. Its first goal is to promote discussions between gay men and lesbian women, and exchanges of experience, but it soon turns into a

32


political organization. The founders want to create a community based on ethics and democratic ideals; they dream of a gay culture comparable to that of other minorities like Black or Jewish people. The first step in politics is taken in 1952 when, after one member is victim of a homophobic aggression, the organization decides to go to trial; it raises funds, hires a lawyer, distributes leaflets and publishes newsletter, and the case is finally dismissed. It is one of the first victories in gay contestation. In 1953, Mattachine goes farther in politics and asks local political candidates about their positions on gay rights issues. Criticism arises and, at this time of McCarthyism, Mattachine’s links with communism lead to a controversy. The founders are replaced by new leaders unconnected with communism, but they no longer focus on the creation of a cultural community, and the members’ mobilization dramatically decreases. Another association is created in the 50’s; it derives from Mattachine, but is dedicated to women and called the Daughter of Bilitis. Under the influence of Mattachine, the first gay publication ever, ONE Inc, is launched in 1952. Institutions call the magazine « obscene », but publication is finally authorised after a four year long trial. It plays an important role in the development of academic research about homosexuality, and launches in 1960 the idea of drafting a Homosexual Bill of Rights, that is criticized even by other gay associations, among which the Mattachine Society. In 1960, elections take place in San Francisco, and the role of gay people in the city becomes a key issue of the campaign. Indeed, one candidate accuses the other of “harboring sexual deviates within the city”, and both make homophobic declarations. Finally, some 9000 citizens vote for neither candidate. This election is symbolic of the emergence of the gay community in politics. But in the early 60’s, gay activism takes several forms; in 1962, gay bar owners found the Tavern Guild, and protest against police harassment. In 1961, San Franciscan drag artist Jose Sarria become the first overtly gay candidate to run for a political office. In 1964, the Society for Individual Rights is created in San Francisco. Its philosophy is different from that of Mattachine; instead of praising assimilation of gay people in society, it talks of “liberation”. It promotes a community feeling among its members, and encourages them to taking initiative and organizing events. In 1966, it opens the first gay community centre in the US. It publishes a monthly magazine, Vector, in which San Franciscan politics and trends are discussed. Two years later, it is the largest homophile organization in America, and finds support from the Protestant clergy. It holds Candidates Nights, during which candidates for local elections answer questions from a gay audience, and wins over New York City administration to reduce police harassment. In 1968, Frank Kameny, who had founded the Washington branch of Mattachine, coins the slogan “Gay is good”, following the model of “Black is beautiful”. Kameny is one of the main actors of the gay movement; after being fired from the Army Map Service (he is an astronomer) because of his homosexuality, he becomes a militant leader and gives a more aggressive tone to the movement, advocating confrontation between gays and heterosexuals, whereas previous leaders were in favour of pacific assimilation. He organizes public demonstrations, especially picketing in front of the

33


Pentagon, and launches campaigns in order to remove homosexuality from the official lists of mental diseases. In 1971, he runs as an openly gay candidate for a seat in Congress; although he does not win the election, he contributes significantly to improving the political visibility of the gay community. The major event in gay movement history, the Stonewall Riots, takes place in 1969. The Stonewall Inn is a bar in New York that is owned by the mafia and welcomes gay people, transvestites, and effeminate young men. On the 28th of June 1969, a police raid takes place and about 200 people are locked inside, while policemen check their identification. But customers refuse to stay inside, and a crowd (homosexuals, but also anti-war militants and other heterosexuals angry with the police) gathers around the bar and starts fighting with the police. Violence escalates and the night of riots ends with massive arrests and injuries. The next days, with the help of famous newspapers, the gay community gain sympathy and support from society at large. In the aftermath, the gay movement becomes more radical, and gains visibility. Since this rebellion was spontaneous and had a huge impact on society, it is considered as the starting point of the series of political victories of the gay community in the 70’s. This movement resulted in major changes in society, even if this statement has to be balanced. The most visible changes took place in the political field. In December 1964, during a New Year’s Eve party organized by gay associations, police officers tried to arrest guests, under the accusation that same-sex dance was forbidden by law. The case was brought to trial, and police harassment was condemned. Mattachine Society proved by a legal study that no law in New York City forbade homosexual gatherings in bars, but that only “disorderly behaviour” was banned, which did not explicitly refer to homosexuality. Based on this study, the mayor John Lindsay changed the city policies concerning arrests and banishment from administration jobs. Moreover, anti-sodomy laws were repelled in Illinois in 1962, and before 1973 in six other states. Less tangible, but of equal importance were the social changes. Several medical studies on homosexuality were performed during the period; although homosexuality was usually regarded as a mental pathology resulting from traumatic parent-child relationship, in 1956, a comparison between heterosexuals and self-identified gay men showed that there was no significant difference in happiness between both groups. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, where it was listed as a sociopathic personality disturbance. The gay identity was changing, too. Whereas homosexuals were commonly pictured (in literature, in newspapers, in movies...) as sad, outcast, characterized by self-hatred..., a new vision of homosexuality emerged, of which the most typical example is Armistead Maupin’s Tales of the City, depicting in realistic terms the funny way of life of openly gay people cohabitating with heterosexuals in San Francisco. Nevertheless, the gay community itself was divided into several subgroups: lesbians, transvestites, effeminate men, “hidden” gay...Since all those people often had nothing more in common than same-sex attraction, it was difficult for them to feel they

34


belonged to a group, and some members felt outcast even within the community. There was especially strong antagonism between lesbians and drag queens who were accused of making fun of women in a disrespectful way. At the beginning of the 70’s, a lesbian movement was developing on its own, having recognized that it did not share the same demands as gay men. Even within the male branch, there were effeminate young men, often homeless, isolated from the rest of the group and considered as the most outcast part of the gay community. This situation comes as a limit to the idea of a large liberation of gay people; some subgroups were more concerned by social change than others. Even though the gay community took advantage of the massive protest movement of the 60’s, its relations with other protest groups were ambiguous and made of misunderstandings as well as of mutual support. The city of San Francisco was the centre of the development of associations that, step by step, won important victories over administration and social prejudices. The sixties were an era of liberation, to the extent that, for the first time, an organized gay community emerged and was able to make itself heard by society. Nevertheless, it did not touch every gay person; there remained outcasts within the community, and homophobia was still felt among politicians and in the American society at large.

Bibliography: -

The queer sixties, Patricia Juliana Smith, Routledge, 1999 Timeline of Homosexual History, 1961 to 1979, Tangent Group Gay is good: how Frank Kameny changed the face of America, interview by Will O’Bryan, Metro Weekly, October 5, 2006 Milestones in the gay right movement, excerpted from The Reader's Companion to American History, Houghton Mifflin, 1991 San Francisco, premier bastion gay, Manon Lidenua, lemagazine.info, 20 novembre 2006 Early 1970’s: political split in gay movement, Leslie Feinberg, Workers World, November 11, 2006 When did the gay rights movements begin? Vern Bullough, History News Network, April 18, 2005 Shaping San Francisco, Will Roscoe, excerpts from "The Miracle Mile: South of Market and Gay Male Leather, 1962-1997", Gayle Rubin, City Lights, 1998

Wikipedia: Gay Liberation, ONE, Inc., Emeutes de Stonewall

35


36


Céline LOBEZ

The James Bond phenomenon through the 60’s and 70’s

“My name is Bond. James Bond.” This is probably the most famous quote associated with the well-known British secret agent on her majesty’s service. Whether vanquishing villains or seducing the next femme fatale, James Bond is never tongue-tied and his famous lines are known by many generations of fans. More than a fictional character, James Bond is a myth that has seduced both our parents and us. But do we really know him? Born in 1952 thanks to British novelist Ian Fleming, Commander James Bond is portrayed as an MI6 agent who holds the code number 007. The double-0 prefix indicates his discretionary licence to kill in the performance of his duties. His fans also remember his particular taste for vodka martinis (“shaken, not stirred”), his gadgets designed by Q, his fantastic cars (from the Lotus to the Aston Martin) and most of all, his numerous feminine conquests. The “James Bond girl”, although changing in every episode, forms a recurrent character in the movies, just like Bond’s superiors and other officers of the British Secret Service (M, who is Bond’s boss, and M’s secretary, Miss Moneypenny). All these details we know about James Bond contribute to form a coherent image of the hero in our minds. Undoubtedly shaped through the 22 movies, this image has evolved since its creation, 47 years ago. One of the great successes of the James Bond movies is that, although actors changed (6 actors for 007, from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig), the spirit has remained unchanged. If James Bond seems to be timeless, the movies nevertheless remain a great source of information about society and cinema. The 11 James Bond movies that have been realised during the sixties and the seventies logically reveal many aspects of society. In this dissertation, we will analyse the evolution of the James Bond movies during the sixties and seventies and try to emphasise all the learnings they deliver. A/ The Sixties and the creation of James Bond’s identity • Exoticism and Humour In the fifties and the sixties, spy movies were very popular but also very different from the James Bond movies we know. Based on humour and exoticism (due to the euphoria of the sixties), the James Bond movies were considered really innovative. Produced in 1962, Dr.No is obviously the founding stone of the James Bond myth, as it clearly defines the “codes” that will form the core of Bond’s identity (first appearance of recurrent characters, first use of the James Bond musical theme by

37


John Barry…). As underlined previously, exoticism is part of James Bond movies’ success. Dr. No opens in Jamaica, where Bond is sent to investigate the disappearance of a British agent. 007 is a globe-trotter, always on the move (hunter or hunted). Sean Connery also established humour as part of Bond’s personality, as proved by this dialogue with Ursula Andress (Honey Ryder): Honey Ryder, on the beach, in her bathing suit, with shells in her hands: What are you doing here? Looking for shells? James Bond: No. I’m just looking. Or this dialogue with his boss, M: M: When do you sleep 007? James Bond: Never on the firm’s time, sir. • Political Distance Even when political problems are evoked, there is neither denunciation nor accusation. James Bond movies do not aim at delivering political messages and 007 always maintains a kind of polite distance. His legendary sense of humour helps him to skip any controversial debate. Dr.No: The Americans are fools. I offered my services, they refused. So did the East. Now they can both pay for their mistake. James Bond: World domination. The same old dream. Our asylums are full of people who think they're Napoleon. Or God. In 1963, From Russia with Love offers a good idea of society, divided between East and West by the Cold War. In this movie, if spies are Soviets, we quickly realize that the real enemy is the international terrorist organization (SPECTRE). Once more, the movie does not condemn any political system or country. Actually, the Soviets, just as the Americans and the British, are just another victim of the SPECTRE organization. This image of international conflicts is really modern as it goes far beyond the simplistic opposition between East and West we can find in many movies of the period. • Technology and modernization With Goldfinger (1964) and Thunderball (1965), technology becomes a mainstay of the James Bond movies. Exotic espionage equipment, guns and vehicles (first Aston Martin DB5) become very popular elements of James Bond's cinematic missions. These items often prove critically important to Bond in successfully completing his missions. For example, in Goldfinger, with Q: James Bond: Ejector seat, you're joking. Q: I never joke about my work, 007.

38


Or in Thunderball, talking about his favourite subject, women and guns: James Bond: That looks like a woman's gun Largo: Do you know a lot about guns, Mr.Bond? James Bond: No, but I know little about women. The movies tend to be more spectacular as technology becomes the footprint of the James Bond movies. In Thunderball, spying even seems to be a pretext to justify the constant use of technology and gadgets: the scenes of 007 fighting under the sea provide a good illustration of the modernized approach of the action. This tendency is largely reinforced in You Only Live Twice (1967), in which the fantastic helicopter scene remains absolutely breathtaking today. In this episode, the plot 007 must unravel is about the stealing of US and Soviet spaceships, which is quite unrealistic. Actually, the director and producer of the movie seem to have abandoned realism for a much more shadowy and excessive approach. • The intruder On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, produced in 1969, is usually considered as an intruder (if not a failure) in the series. Instead of Sean Connery, George Lazenby embodies a much more romantic James Bond. The approach is sometimes realistic (no more gadgets, no more prototypes) but also psychedelic (in the scenery, but also in the idea of the brainwashing which echoes the use of drugs such as LSD very popular at the time). In that sense, even if the movie is radically different from the previous ones, it remains interesting as the story is more aligned with the period. B/ The Seventies: the beginning of blockbusters Now that James Bond’s identity is clearly defined and that the series is more and more popular (particularly in Europe), producers and directors will try to seduce a wider audience with blockbusters (i.e movies with a widespread audience and enormous sales). With Diamonds are Forever, the idea is to encounter the same success as You Only Live Twice (and to forget about the semi-failure of On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Sean Connery is back in the role of 007, and the emphasis is laid on technology and excess (as proved by the final scene of explosion on an oilrig, or the pursuit with the lunar vehicle which echoes Armstrong first steps on the Moon). But the real turning point comes with Live and Let Die in 1973. • Americanisation of the series In Live and Let Die (1973), Roger Moore interprets for the first time the famous secret agent and gives the movie a new tone. The movie, considered as the first step toward Americanisation, begins in New-York, in Harlem. Many characters seem to come from a “blaxploitation movie” of the 70’s (i.e. a movie targeting a black urban audience) and even the mention of the voodoo folklore echoes “black culture”. The

39


role of the redneck sheriff also contributes to give the impression of an Americanised movie. This is really a period of transition characterized by a scale change. The Man With The Golden Gun, in 1974, puts a stop to this transitional period: From then on, James Bond movies will be blockbusters. • The Blockbusters era The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) is undoubtedly the first James Bond blockbuster. Every detail of the action is excess, movement, stunt or technical display. The movie is a cocktail of action and tongue-in-cheek humour. As for the plot, a NATO and a Soviet submarine vanish in the middle of the ocean and a crazed megalomaniac living under the sea has the technology to track the two submerged vessels. Roger Moore really comes into his own in his third Bond outing. There is just the right balance of political conflicts and over-the-top action to make this a truly great 007 film. The movie is logically a real success (widespread popularity, enormous sales) and the James Bond production decides to create another movie based on the same recipe: Moonraker in 1979. With the same director, the same exhausting rhythm, and the same idea of a megalomaniac eager to change the world, Moonraker is the twin of The Spy Who Loved Me. Instead of an aquatic environment, the action takes place in the space and eugenics replaces ecological preoccupations as the major theme of the movie. In both movies, the questions raised are more modern, even if quite unrealistic (particularly in Moonraker, which is largely impacted by the science fiction phenomenon - from Star Wars to Galactica). The laser gun battles in the space show that the James Bond movies have definitely changed since the beginning of the series. After 20 years and 11 movies of exploration and definition of 007’s identity, the James Bond production seemed to have finally found the perfect recipe of the blockbuster. Nevertheless, this recipe is not eternal (contrary to Diamonds). If James Bond movies are still successful today, it is largely because they have succeeded in constantly reinventing the adventures of the most famous British secret agent, to keep in tune with the changing society, without losing the original spirit. And there is no doubt that the James Bond phenomenon will last for a long time, because as said by one of the charming James Bond girl in The Spy Who Loved Me: Cabin Girl: But I need you James! James Bond, about to leave on skis: So does England!

40


Mathieu Libaudière

The Watergate scandal After four years of Nixon’s presidency, the situation of the USA was at a turning point. The protests against Vietnam’s cost in lives was growing. In a word, the 1972 presidential election was looming large and would deeply shape USA’s future. As the pressure was increasing all over the country, a minor story in June 1972 was going to make the headlines for a long time a few months later. The five acolytes stopped and arrested at the Watergate building in possession of listening devices were going to become the initiators of the biggest political scandal of the second part of the twentieth century. In this affair, the Washington Post journalists, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, can be seen as the main prosecutors for the early stage of the investigation. After the preliminary denial of the authority, stating that the White House wasn’t in any way behind the folkloric expedition, questions were being raised and especially about James McCord, former CIA officer and also member of Nixon’s re-election committee. Taking advantage of the new means of communication, the two young journalists dug up the beginning of the whole story about the campaign financing, thanks to the famous informant Deep Throat, who would 30 years later be identified as the number two of the FBI himself, Mark Felt, tired of the endless political tricks and plots. After many attempts to dodge investigations and the resignation of numerous political staffs, the White House finally had to hand over the precious tapes which were at the very heart of the scandal. On these tapes that recorded secret conversations between Nixon and his closest advisors were supposed to reside the answer to the ultimate question: did Nixon himself order the bugging of the Watergate? In the end the recordings didn’t actually charge Nixon directly, as it only proved that he deliberately tried to slow down the investigation. Nowhere in the tapes was the proof that Nixon knew about the break-in and even less that he decided it. However these tapes were eventually going to end Nixon’s presidency as well as his political career, as the threat of impeachment by the Supreme Court triggered the President’s resignation in 1974. More than a detailed though impossible description of the whole scandal, we can focus on the impact and consequences of this affair both on the American political life and on the society on a wider level.

41


A basic statement would be that this affair shook the American political class pretty hard. At these tumultuous times when the withdrawal from Vietnam was in everybody’s mind, the Watergate was too much to bear for the public opinion. The direct consequences were the journey to prison for 31 of Nixon’s advisers, among them some of the most prominent and promising talents. The adjustment of political manner was pushed further by Congress, which demanded a closer control of the president on the decisions regarding increasingly important matters such as military deployment, financial issues and freedom of information. The way press and political entities are intertwined have also been reshaped. Before this story, the press allowed some liberty to the various presidents and conceded some shadowy area in public policy, in the general interest. The Bay of Pigs, also a big issue in the early 60’s, clearly didn’t have the same exposure. From 1973-1974, journalists were not willing to let the next affair exist without their coverage. The embarrassment of missing this scandal led to a more aggressive coverage, says former Washington Post editor L. Downie. But what we also have to think about is that the whole affair wouldn’t have been possible without the thoughtful consent of Deep Throat who was “inside the establishment”. Downie’s analysis states that unlike the common perception that the scandal was brought up by the press, it is much more the establishment that, in a way, purposely sunk itself. Woodward and Bernstein, however, created such an atmosphere of suspicion and tension that it surely led to Nixon panicking about the tapes. In general terms, by making the settlement of this affair a moral issue, we can imagine that the press tried to gain by itself the selfrespect that journalists thought to deserve. In this logic, Woodward and Bernstein objectively saw themselves as "just one piece of what happened early in the process." The press would then have been what triggered and fed the official political prosecution. Jack Nelson, who worked for the Los Angeles Times at that period, claims that "Nixon was fighting not just prosecutors and Congress but also in the court of public opinion. For all of their controlling Congress, the Democrats were not in any sense going to go after Nixon unless the public was behind it. And the public got behind it because of the press." Speaking of public opinion, the scandal surely broke apart what was left of the presidential “semi-god” status. The controversial positions adopted by Lyndon Johnson during his presidency already downed this state of fact; the Watergate was then the continuing sequel of an already started story. All the efforts of President Ford to smooth the situation and restore the presidential legitimacy seem however not to have held long. Two decades later, G.W. Bush and Neocons friends went to war because of facts not proven right but clearly proven outdated: even though the press clearly said the world was not naive, journalists were not in a strong enough position to inflect Bush policy. In this case, the Woodward and Bernstein legacy is maybe the simple fact that public announcements are now seen through the screen of scepticism.

42


Symbols of the end of a generation, Vietnam and Watergate appear as the two key elements drawing the finish line of American ingenuous attitude towards its political class, and its entrance into the last quarter of the twentieth century. To conclude, one has to realise that this day of August 1974 when Nixon had been the first and only president to resign during his ongoing term was very likely the landmark of the emergence of the “fourth power�.

Bibliography http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3542650.stm http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-06/2005-06-01-voa50.cfm?moddate=2005-06-01 http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3735 http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/lessons/usa194180/watergate.shtml

43


44


Sophie LOUSTAU

How did populations perceive the space conquest during the 60’s & the 70’s ?

For centuries, space discovery has always been a kind of fantasy for the public. The idea to send people in space was created by philosophers well before it became technically possible. During the 20th century, thanks to technological innovations, this dream came true. This might explain the great interest from Russian and American citizens for space conquest. First, all of them wanted to read within these advances the evolution of their respective nation. Indeed, space conquest was no more than a part of the cold war. Russians and Americans clashed by means of this discipline just as on a battlefield. Each failure affected the whole nation’s honour. At the end of the Second World War, USSR and USA appeared as the two main winners of the conflict. But this equality didn’t satisfy them. Each one of them wanted to be celebrated as the greatest power in the world. Consequently, the space conquest promoted the growth of nationalist spirit. First, it was mainly used by the Soviet Union to exhibit its power, thanks to the media coverage of the exploits of Yuri Gagarin. It was a public humiliation for the United States. From this day, every Soviet or American citizen looked at the space race to see what they considered as their nation’s evolution. The border between the technological competition (which previously used to be rather secret and considered as uninteresting by populations) and the political one became more and more blurred. A mix was created. The most important thing to understand is that space conquest wasn’t only a technological evolution such as vaccines or TV. People found in it political, economic and social stakes which didn’t present any obvious link with it. Indeed, most of them considered that such events were so important that they would inevitably impact the basis of their life. Each action decided and realized by scientists had to be approved by governments, who were deeply influenced by public opinion. More precisely, as their political careers depended on their citizens’ will, they resorted to all possible stratagems so as to make it match to their ambitions. Media were the key tool to success. Americans were far more effective than Russians. Presence of cameras during successful experiments enabled to forecast a positive image of the evolution of research and to justify endless expenses. Kennedy used to evoke the national security justification for the Space Race described as a vital front in the Cold War. Even though expenses were 45


not completely revealed, American citizens suspected their extent. Such a sacrifice would have never been accepted without this governmental manipulation. Development of fear was palpable during the 60’s and the 70’s. As long as space conquest was presented as one of the most efficient solutions to the security problem, American citizens couldn’t criticize the huge expenditure and bureaucracy linked to its expansion. Both the United States and the Soviet Union developed programs only focused on the scientific and industrial requirements for these efforts. It became a significant source of job creation. The amount spent by the United States on the space race is estimated to be about $100 billion. All this money wasn’t spent on other sectors. It was part of the relaunch plans designed by governments so as to support national growth. But it also can be seen as a kind of “segregation” providing that these amounts spent for astronomy were not available for others sectors. Even though it was a growth factor in the US, space conquest is suspected to have deepened the economic crisis of the Soviet system during the 70’s and the 80’s. However, critics were not as developed as in the US given the government’s authoritarianism. A rumour developed during the 60’s. When governments first mentioned space conquest in the Cold War context, populations thought it was a roundabout way to expand their territories. As the rivalries for limited territories on Earth kept growing, moon or such planets as Mars appeared as an alternative to overcome the problem. However, governments didn’t want to do that. Unlike other international rivalries, the Space Race was not motivated by the desire for territorial expansion. The United States didn’t claim a property right after its successful landing on the Moon. Space conquest had a direct impact on millions of people’s daily life. Governments chose to make space exploration a national concern. Governmental policies led quickly to a push by legislators and educators for greater emphasis on mathematics and physical science in American schools. Construction of planetarium installations in more than 1,200 American high schools is a relevant illustration of this phenomenon. Providing that astronauts appeared as heroes, youths just wanted to go their way. Consequently, an increasing number of students chose to study physics and mathematics up to a post-graduate level. Such studies became very popular and scientists were considered as national geniuses worldwide, deposing philosophical and literary disciplines. This attraction for astrophysics was a real necessity regarding to the ruthless competition between USSR and USA. Both governments organised a resounding propaganda in schools so as to laud national scientists’ work and to prompt youth to choose such jobs. Some sociologists claimed to recognize in this period the first American government’s strong intervention in students’ orientation insomuch that some scientists were described as the “new soldiers of the USA”. Food and micro-technology industry also benefited from the space conquest. Their scientists took part in the development of ready-to-eat and dried food. They improved sterilization and package sealing techniques. Much of the micro-technology which fuels everyday activities comes from space conquest. Most of these inventions met with great success. Consumers, fascinated by space conquest, were ready to pay a

46


higher price to access these new products. Furthermore, practicality of these innovations couldn’t be denied. Launching regularly hit the headlines and represented modern epics. The toy industry didn’t hesitate to cash in on this new market. Every kid wanted to own a space shuttle and to perform exploits just as his heroes. The German company Arnold produced the first “flying” toy with a very ingenious crank and flexible cable system. ERTL enjoyed great success with its representation of the “Mercury” shuttle. It enabled kids to discover the interior of the shuttle. Even very technical details were represented and young boys grew accustomed to these technological evolutions. Before the space conquest, the frontier between sciences and common citizens used to be very clear. Space conquest marked the century because of its impact on the daily life. So much so that millions people had a feeling they had become familiar with details which seemed inaccessible to them a few years ago. The media were a key tool for ensuring the popularity of the space conquest. Their presence during an experiment enabled it to become famous. It was the means of communication mainly used between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Each one of them tried to create the most resounding event so as to exhibit its power. The space conquest became so popular that some politicians used it as an electoral weapon. Kennedy and Johnson managed to swing public opinion thanks to their communication skills. It provided dreams to populations and successful launches established the popularity of leaders involved in its elaboration. A lot of scientific journals were created during this period as a large public wanted to be informed about progress and improve their knowledge so as to be able to speak about it. Most of them, all around the world, mainly dealt with the American evolution while they only alluded to Soviet ones. Space was a myth for most people and these journals addressed topics as simple as the reason of its black colours, location of Planet Earth in the solar system… Today, even though space innovations don’t have such a success anymore, impacts of their origins remain important. All the Global System for Mobile (GSM) technologies take part in daily life. Just as populations in the 60’s and the 70’s, nowadays, we benefit from advantages offered by these discoveries. Sciences are still considered as “the elite way” and they are meant to reflect intelligence and analysis capacities. Fantasies already persist as each new discovery raises a new mystery.

Bibliography : -“Alpha Encyclopédie”, Kister Editions, volume N°2, « astronomie » & « astronautique » articles. - « la guerre des cerveaux », Bernard Lenteric, « le livre de poche », published in 1986. -http://lepithec.chez.com/1960/1960.htm : presents some articles about the space conquest. - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_du_vol_spatial - http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-race - http://jlsfly.free.fr/espace.htm

47


48


Armand AGHA

Struggles and Fights in the American Society during the 60’s and 70’s

With historical hindsight, the American society of 1959 and the one of 1981 are beyond comparison. If any society knows a normal evolution, the US has undergone especially big changes, thanks to many social and societal struggles. So what were these fights and what was their influence within the US society? These fights had occured in many fields, be it in the political life (such as the witchhunt launched by McCarthy against the Communists), in international matters (e.g: protests against the Vietnam War) or national issues like the Civil Rights. More genenerally, this post-war era can be described by a c lash between the young generation, born after the WWII and willing to modernize the society, and their parents, who were more conservative. That is why we are going to study each struggle and see the link between each other. The first conflict was undoubtedly the most federative one: the witch-hunt. Politicians and most people were said to be united against communist sympathizers. McCarthyism was a movement led by Joseph McCarthy (a politician in the 50s) who considered communism as a threat to democracy, all the more so he suspected many members of the State Departement of “infesting” the Government. To a larger extent, the rise of Communism in the 50s (China, the lost of the monopol of nuclear weapon, spies in Canada and the USA) caused a paranoïa that led to an anti-communist crusade: methods were propaganda, public intimidation, denouncement, and presumption of guiltiness, so that all communist sympathiser were questioned, fired or found guilty of conspiracy or treason. And its effects subsisted long after the 50s! For example, Charlie Chaplin – who had been expulsed from the USA because of his political opinions – still could not come back in the USA for a long time! But McCarthyism is the extreme aspect of a latent stream in the American society during the whole Cold War: indeed, as the USA symbolized the prosperous liberal and capitalist consumer society, the whole country (politicians of all sides and most people) were unanimous about supporting this system in opposition to the Communist regime. Thus, the Cold War was probably the most important clash in the USA during the 60s and 70s.

49


The anti-communists campaign was quite popular, but another conflict divided the society in a very violent and deep way: the Civil Rights Fight. In fact, despite the abolition of slavery in the XIXth century, a strong racial discrimination was predominant in the whole country, especially in Southern States, where the Afro-American population was particularly present. Nevertheless, beyond a de facto segregation - a classical societal phenomenon that has always occured and will always occur in every country which welcomes foreigners - a de jure segregation was clearly separating Black and White people until the 60s: facilities, services and opportunities, such as medical care and employment, could vary a lot; according to ethnic belonging. For instance, segregation was the rule for federal Civil Service. Hence, Black people, willing to be legally equal to the WASPs, started to struggle for civil rights. They responded to the violent white behaviour with violent acts and a civil battle prevailed for many years. The first action happened in February 1960, when black students decided to sit-in in many universities (North Carolina and then in other States), so as to protest against the separation between Black colleges and White ones. However, a few universities in the Mississippi started to integrate black students between 1956 and 1965. Saying that it caused protests and riots is an understatement, but this was one of the most symbolic advancement. Another very symbolic event was the March on Washington for jobs and Freedom on August 28th, 1963: over 200’000 people (mostly black people but also other ethnic groups!) gathered at the Lincoln Memorial, where they could hear the famous “I have a dream”-speech by Martin L. King. Next year, he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Besides, 1964 is a landmark for the anti-racism battle, since it was the year when the Civil Rights Act outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment. But legislation has no real influence on people’s opinion, and racism was still very active in the 60s and 70s. For instance, Martin L. King was assassinated in 1968. As a general rule, White racists, represented by the famous Ku Klux Klan, which killed many black people, were opposed to Black people, who had become racists against the White, symbolized by the Black Panthers. In fact, we could oppose the Greensboro massacre in 1979 – 5 marchers were killed by KKK members – to the 1968 Olympics Black Power salute in Mexico by Tommie Smith and John Carlos in Mexico City. But beyond these symbols, the social situation of the African-American People has evolved a lot during the 60s and 70s, especially at a legal level, thanks to politicians, although racism has not been eradicated in the US society (and will never be). Another conflict where politicians played a great role was the Vietnam War. In fact, this war was waged in 1959 by the Kennedy and Jonhson Administration, developed, and ended in 1975 under Nixon.

50


But protests really began in 1962; with anti-imperialist and colonialist groups (these political groups were calle “doves” against the “hawks”, which supported the War.) These groups could be very violent, such as the four anti-war protesters who were shot in the late 60s atthe Kent State University. This event can be related to the main type of protest against the Vietnam Disaster: street protests. Many movements felt concerned by this cause, such as the Civil Rights Movement (cf. above), and they sometimes could use provocative actions, with tough responses. E.g: the Democratic National Conventionin 1968 which turned into riots: 23’000 policemen upon 10’000 protesters! Finally, the most symbolic type of protest is undoubtedly the intervention of celebrities, who perfectly used their popularity and the media. One can remember Janis Joplin and many singers during Woodstock, Jane Fonda, or John Lennon. And of course, Cassius Clay, who refused to go to war, had the strongest opposition. Although Hollywood stars have always been famous for getting involved in politics (and it is often useless!), they managed to stir up strong reactions to their actions and speeches. But, contrary to nowadays, stars had a great influence on young people. Indeed, these artists symbolized another clash, which is probably the most significant in the US during the XXth Century: the clash of generations. Of course, this kind of opposition has always existed, but the WWII and the Baby-boomer generation, which had not lived the wars, have emphasized this gap. On the one hand, parents were conservative, and on the other hand, their children were not cautious about food etc. They were busy thinking about freedom, peace, love, sex, music, prosperity and were much more optimistic about their future. In fact, almost all the struggles and fights we analyzed above are direct or indirect consequences of this misunderstanding between two generations, be it the battle between Northern and Southern States, between the Black and the White, the Young and the Old, the People and the Politicians... The World War and the extraordinary prosperity that succeeded, added to the boom of a new younger generation, have led to many social and societal fights: money was not a problem anymore in the 60s and 70s, so new problems appeared, such as social and legal equality, great principles, leisure... In a nutshell, this period was an era of great struggles which led to the globalized and carefree consumer society we know.

51


52


Lucile MOUREY

How did Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music gradually turn into The Graduate and Catch-22?

The 1960’s were, from many points of view, exceptional years: the Cold War, the Civil Right Movement, the Counter Culture, the emancipation of women… All these events were revolutionary, and the society of 1970 was definitely not the same one as in 1960. In this dissertation, we will try to understand how this revolution was depicted in movies, by studying two movies from the beginning of the Sixties (Mary Poppins – 1964; The Sound of Music – 1965), and two movies from the end of the Sixties (The Graduate – 1967; Catch-22 – 1970). Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music are two quite similar movies that are symbolic of the traditional family values prevalent in the early 1960’s. Both these movies present dysfunctional families: George Banks and Captain Van Trapp are both trying to run their families as if they were their bank, or their ship: George Banks states several times that “A British bank is run with precision. A British home requires nothing less”, whereas Captain Van Trapp prefers addressing his children with a whistle rather than using their names. In order to attract their father’s love and attention, the children behave badly, and drive all their nannies away: Mary Poppins is the 7th nanny in four months and Maria is the 27th in four years. In both movies, Julie Andrews’ role is to show the children that their father loves them, and by doing so she brings peace in the family. “Mary Poppins” advocates the kind of family life that Walt Disney had spent his career both chronicling and helping to foster on a national level: father at work, mother at home, children flourishing. At the end of Mary Poppins, Winifred Banks, a militant suffragette, abandons her cause to take care of her children: she uses her scarf as a tail for their kite. Mary Poppins leaves the Banks family: now that they have their mother to take care of them, they do not need a nanny anymore. Children should be raised by their mother, not by servants. The Sound of Music is also a model of a traditional family: Maria Van Trapp abandons her dream to be a nun in order to stay at home and take care of the children, to replace their mother. These movies also convey the idea that discipline is the key of a happy family: George Banks says “A British nanny must be a General”, “Precision, Discipline and rules are the tools”, while the Captain Van Trapp teaches his children military discipline. Mary Poppins and Maria Van Trapp, while making sure the children are having fun and feel

53


loved, never undermine this belief that discipline is an essential element in a good education: Mary Poppins makes sure the children behave at all times (“Close your mouth Michael, we are not a codfish”), clean their room, respect their father, etc. However, by the end of the sixties, conformity and traditionalism are no longer the key values conveyed in movies: society has changed. The Graduate is an interesting example of this switch of values, as it rejects most of the values advocated in Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music: respect of the older generations, discipline, morale, conformity… Benjamin (Dustin Hoffman), fresh out of college, realizes that he does not know what he wants to do with his life: he does not want to be like his parents, he wants his future to be “different”. He feels misfit, awkward, does not know how to express his malaise. He spends the summer drifting in his parents’ pool, refusing to think about next year, grad school, work, marriage… Ben finds himself alienated and adrift in the shifting, social and sexual mores of the 1960s, and questioning the values of society (with its keyword "plastics"). Out of boredom and rebellion, he has an affair with Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father’s partner. Things become complicated when he falls in love with her daughter. Elaine is indeed the only person who can understand what he is going through: on their first date, he opens up for the first time since the beginning of the movie: “It’s like I’ve been playing some kind of game but the rules don’t make any sense to me. They are being made up by all the wrong people”. Of course, their parents refuse that they get married, and Mr. Robinson forces Elaine to marry Carl, a more suitable man, who meets every traditional requirement: he comes from a good family, goes to medical school, and does not sleep with older, married women. Ben arrives in the middle of the ceremony, and after a fight with the parents (Ben uses a crucifix as a weapon), they both run away, to live the life they want to live, away from their parents and their rules. Benjamin and Elaine are representative of their generation, a generation that grew up in an era of changing mores, with counter culture and rebellion. They are trying to find their own set of values, only knowing that these values are to be different from those of their parents. Throughout the movie, the emphasis is put on this generation gap that seems to have grown deeper and deeper in the Sixties: none of the older characters has their first name identified in the film; only the younger characters of Benjamin, Elaine and Carl do. This new generation is trying to build their own set of rules, but they do not know where they are heading. This uncertainty, this malaise, is very well shown by Dustin Hoffman. Robert Redford auditioned for the part of Benjamin, but was finally rejected by director Mike Nichols because Nichols did not believe Redford could persuasively project the underdog qualities necessary to the role. Two interesting camera techniques are used in the film. In the scene where Benjamin is running, he is shown at some distance running straight at the camera, an effect

54


which makes him look as if he getting nowhere as he's running. In another scene, Benjamin is walking from the right side of the screen to the left, while everyone else in the scene is moving from left to right. In western culture, things that move left to right seem natural (think of the direction you read words on a page), those that move right to left seem to be going the wrong way. These two visual techniques echo the themes of the film, Benjamin is going the wrong way, and getting nowhere in life. When The Graduate was first released in Portugal, the ending was cut; the movie ended with a helpless Ben behind the glass of the church watching Elaine getting married. The reason why the film suffered such a major cut was that the dictatorship Portugal lived in those days had a solid basis in Catholic Church and family values, and the censorship was given orders not to let any bad example pass to the youth. So it was decided that the movie should end with the lesson that nothing ever should oppose the church, the state and the parents. This movie also denounces the condition of women in the Sixties. Mrs. Robinson, who is the symbol of the traditional housewife (“I got up; I fixed breakfast for my husband”), is obviously unhappy: she is an alcoholic, she has an affair with a man who could be her son, she has lost interest in everything (she majored in art in college but now she is not interested in art anymore)… But even though she is unhappy, she wants her daughter to live the same life that she did: to marry a man she does not love, to be a housewife… But Elaine refuses this life: as she is fleeing the church, her mother tries to hold her back, saying “It’s too late”, Elaine shouts “Not for me!”, refusing to live this traditional, alienating life. Catch-22, a novel by Joseph Heller (1961), which was adapted to cinema in 1970 by Mike Nichols (the director of The Graduate), is also emblematic of society in the Sixties in several ways. It is the story of Yossarian, a US army Air Forces B-25 Bombardier during World War II, who desperately tries to be declared insane by the Air Force in order to go home. But there is a law, Catch-22, which makes it impossible: any one who is crazy is to be grounded, and cannot fly anymore. The ones considered crazy are those who are crazy enough to continue flying, regardless of danger. But these pilots cannot be grounded unless they ask to. But if they ask to be grounded, it shows that they are not really crazy after all, so they cannot be grounded. Throughout the book and the movie, we find this same atmosphere of “logical irrationality”, and a fierce satire of war, bureaucracy, capitalism and a Kafka-like society. Yossarian seems to be the only sane man in an insane society, and that drives him crazy. It is interesting to notice that the first hardback edition of Catch-22 was not a bestseller, but, later on, the paperback edition set sells records, and Catch-22 is now considered a classic of American literature. This can be explained by the events that took place in the Sixties: Catch-22 grew in popularity during the years of the Vietnam War, when the general population became more attuned to Yossarian's point of view.

55


A new generation of Americans - many of them facing the prospect of being forced to fight a war they did not understand - found themselves identifying with Yossarian's situation and the phrase "Catch-22" soon became a part of the popular consciousness. Speaking about the nerve he had touched, Heller would later say "a large part of the public sentiment was my own. They saw an absurd quality, a mendacious quality in many of our political leaders and business leaders". Summing up his intentions in writing the book - which has now sold more than 10 million copies - he pointed out that "everyone in my book accuses everyone else of being crazy. Frankly, I think the whole society is nuts - and the question is: What does a sane man do in an insane society?" Despite its World War II setting, Catch-22 is often thought of as a signature novel of the 1960s and 1970s. It was during those decades that American youth truly began to question authority. Hippies, university protests, and the civil rights movement all marked the 1960s as a decade of revolution, and Heller's novel fit in perfectly with the spirit of the times. In fact, Heller once said, “I wasn't interested in the war in Catch22. I was interested in the personal relationships in bureaucratic authority.” Whether Heller was using the war to comment on authority or using bureaucracy as a statement about the war, it is clear that Catch-22 is more than just a war novel. It is also a novel about the moral choices that every person must make when faced with a system of authority whose rules are both immoral and illogical. It proved almost prophetic both about the Vietnam War, a conflict that began a few years after the novel was originally published, and the sense of disillusionment about the military that many Americans experienced during this conflict. Comparing The Graduate and Catch-22 to movies from the early Sixties such as Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music allows us to identify some of the changes that took place in the 1960’s. This decade gave birth to a new generation of young people, who had a different set of values than those of their parents. Women emancipated. The administration and the politicians were fiercely criticized (Vietnam war…). Social and sexual mores changed. Educational techniques were studied and implemented. These movies show us that in many ways, the Sixties were revolutionary years.

References: 1 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/12/19/051219fa_fact1?currentPage=2 1 filmsite.org 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 imdb.com 1 wikipedia.org 1 http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Catch-22-About-Catch-22-HistoricalBackground.id-176,pageNum-11.html 1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1868619.stm 1 http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catch22/context.html

56


Cécile GASNAULT

Apocalypse Now: how the Vietnam War brought about a shift in the relationship between Hollywood and the US government and Hollywood of a traumatism In 2004, Michael Moore was awarded the “Palme d’Or” for his movie Farhenheit 911 that dealt with the war in Iraq. 25 years earlier, the same award was given to Francis Ford Coppola for Apocalypse Now, a movie that is, in my opinion, a much better and much more efficient criticism of a comparable quagmire. I first intended to focus on how Vietnam War changed Hollywood’s support to the US government when it comes to war, but I think it is interesting to widen the reflection. Indeed, Apocalypse Now is essentially a movie about the perception of the Vietnam War. Its topic is highly psychological. Therefore, it is interesting to see how this film can represent several trends brought about by that war regarding its perception by the different actors, such as the role of television in making this war a live show, the disconnection between the US soldiers and the war they fight, between the authorities and their soldiers, the issue of the return (can Willard kill Kurtz and not take his place? And go back?). The US government, Americans, television and the Vietnam War There is a very memorable scene in Apocalypse Now, when a cameraman working for television asks to Willard and his men to pretend they are fighting in front of the camera. Coppola points out the manipulation of information orchestrated by the government through television. He also underlines the manner, in which television widely and massively broadcast images of the war during the conflict, to such an extent that it made the conflict an event Americans could watch almost live. Benjamin Stora, in his book Imaginaires de guerre (1997, Editions La Découverte), suggests that this actually blurred the line between civilians and soldiers: indeed, in the movie, we can see soldiers not concerned, not involved in the war they fight, thanks to technologies that limit their direct contact with the field. On the other hand, civilians see images of the war every night on their television. So both civilians and soldiers seem to be spectators of a show they do not understand, of a war they cannot see their enemy in, of horrors that end up becoming common. While television poured out images of the conflict, Hollywood was unusually quiet about it. Indeed, it broke with its traditional support for the U.S government. During the actual conflict, few movies dealing with it were released. But we can maybe talk of an indirect mention of the Vietnam War through war movies that depict past conflicts with a less enthusiastic, optimistic approach, like in Catch 22 in 1970 by Mike Nichols who shows the spectator the dark sides of the war, in a camp in Southern Italia during World War 2. The most obvious example of a disrespectful vision of the war is 57


M.A.S.H that same year by Robert Altman. Although the action takes place during the Korea War, it is clearly the cinematographic embodiment of a counterculture opposed to the Vietnam War. Disconnections Hollywood really addressed directly the Vietnam War once the conflict was over. And it did in a very critical manner vis-à-vis the US government and its decisions to undertake such a war. The uninterrupted flow of images during the conflict hindered people from being able to take the necessary step backward to build criticism. Nonetheless, the traumatism was huge and needed to be expressed. Coppola, in his movie, managed to express at the same time this traumatism and to vividly criticize a conflict depicted as a delirium. Metaphorically, both Willard’s and Kurtz’s deliria represent the one experienced by the US army, the US government, and the US people, all lost in that war. It is the story of schizophrenia and of dualisms. This is why I chose to entitle this part “disconnections”, because disconnections were operated at several levels resulting in dualisms and opposition that the American psyche was struggling with. Disconnection between Hollywood and the government regarding the war, disconnection between the government and its army, disconnection between the soldier and his war. These dualisms are metaphorically represented in Apocalypse Now by the contradictory wishes of the main characters and by the opposition between Willard and Kurtz, as well as by their similarities, the coexistence of which builds up the dramatic interest. Disconnection between the authorities and their soldiers The film begins with Captain Willard being appointed with a mission: to kill Colonel Kurtz “officially” declared insane by the military authorities. Willard must follow up the river into Cambodia, where Kurtz has set up his “realm”. The journey of Willard deep into the jungle and always further from his superiors draws the metaphor of the disconnection between the authorities and their soldiers: Willard understands more and more Kurtz, falls deeper and deeper into the same madness, and his final decision to kill Kurtz does not seem to come from his allegiance to the U.S army rather than from something more primal, maybe even to take his place as a living god. Disconnection between the soldier and his fight Apocalypse Now depicts the conflict like a traumatic vacation for the soldiers. Indeed, they are more obsessed with all sorts of traffic, with Bunny Girls, booze and drugs than with the war they are fighting. The enemy is far, and they fire gun like toys. Several scenes show their reactions whenever they think a Vietnamese might be attacking them: they shoot at random like mad men, oblivious to the damage caused, oblivious to the disproportion of their reaction. The action scene starting with the famous Walkyries ride shows that soldiers are completely lost and terrified when they finally hit the field and are physically confronted with the enemy. Several other scenes express the incomprehension of the soldiers regarding the war: it makes no sense for them, and as Kurtz explains it, they are not committed because they are only mobilised for a year. Nonetheless, Willard’s experience of going back

58


home points to the fact that the return is almost as traumatic, or maybe is the moment the traumatism is revealed. Can you return from Vietnam? This question is pretty early addressed in movies, even before the war is directly dealt with. One of the most emblematic examples is Scorsese’s Taxi Driver with Robert DeNiro in 1976. In the American psyche, the issue of the return and the after war is stigmatized as the Vietnam syndrome. In Apocalypse Now, Willard has already gone back to the US and is well aware that if he returns from Vietnam, he will not go back to normal. Kurtz embodies the non-return. Willard oscillates between the two during the whole movie as he goes deeper and deeper into the jungle and into madness. What makes return so difficult and the traumatism so hard is a sort of schizophrenia between a growing insanity and a sharp understanding of it and of the war’s nonsense. As more and more movies came to criticize the US intervention in Vietnam, and now in Iraq, it seems that Hollywood either did not come back from that time as it was before, and has made itself the visual expression of criticism when it comes to the US questionable military involvements.

59


60


Maï-Lan FITOUSSI

The Factory, Andy Warhol

When he was interviewed, Andy Warhol used to lie about his origins, pretending he had grown up in Mc Keesport Pennsylvania, or Pittsburgh. He also lied about his age, which scandalised some of his friends until they understood that doing so he wanted to create a new identity for himself, with a complete mythology around him. It is part of the man and explains the way he structured a society around himself, craving for his attention and love: the Factory. The Factory was born in 1965 in a spacious loft on the 47th East in New York City. It was a disused factory and he did not choose to call his workplace The Factory, people just gave this name to the place. It was a place of constant activity, and even from the day they put a big board “No entrance for whom is not waited for” people used to come in and out at every moment of the day and night. In which way do the place, its inhabitants gravitating around one man, the relationships this man structured, the cult of his figure, denote Warhol’s personality and fears? The Factory was spacious, with bare tiling, the walls were covered with aluminium and right in the middle was a large sofa. There were spotlights and film reels spilled all over the floor. In this particular context Andy Warhol used to create a court around him where everybody desperately tried to draw his attention. He was the king of the place and everyday the question was “who will he notice today?” According to Henry Geldzahler, one of his acquaintances at the time, he was completely unable to live alone and one of the major interests for him was that the Factory created perpetual movement around him. He was the very centre of this world. For example when the Factory people needed to take their car there was a strict ceremonial concerning who would be allowed to travel in Warhol’s car: first came his ministers like Chuck Wein in the mid 60’s, then his boyfriend, and finally the most well known star living with him at that particular period (they used to change very often: Nico, Edie, Richie and Brigid Berlin, Viva...) Actually Andy Warhol had always been obsessed with stars, it was a very important piece of his personality, he spent his time writing to famous people before he became himself famous, for example he pestered Truman Capote with fan letters in the 50's. But actually from the beginning of the Factory, people were struggling to get his attention, there were terrible rivalries, which Andy Warhol loved above all, he looked at these persons eager to kill for him as if he did not understand what was happening, maybe it was the only way for him to feel safe. At the same time he was a very anguished person who needed to be pampered: one night at one in the morning he called his friend Henry Geldzahler telling him that he 61


absolutely needed to talk to him and that it was really important, they finally met in a restaurant and when Henry asked him what was happening, the only thing Warhol could answer was “Say something”, it was the only thing he had to say, the only thing that made him wake up his friend in the middle of the night. It shows how deeply he needed to be surrounded, he needed to prove to himself that there would always be somebody standing up for him. Apart from the star artist, Andy Warhol was also the man who moulded some of the most well known supertars, muses of the 60’s, from Nico to Edie. It is a good indicator of his personality and his need to legitimize his own status by the frequentation of the cream of the crop. Edie -Edith Sedgwick- was part of one of the greatest American families, the Sedgwicks, a similar dynasty to that of the Kennedys. She was a real beauty, electric and attractive, nobody could cross her way without noticing her but at the same time she was a freak. She had a very troubled relationship with a tyrannical father and after several stays in psychiatric institutions she decided to make herself a place in the then boiling New York City where she began to acquire a wonderful notoriety. In 1965 when she met Warhol in a party she was 22-year-old, he immediately noticed her. When he first saw her he exclamed “She is won-der-ful” and offered her to meet him at the Factory the day after. It was the beginning of a passionate relationship between the two of them. Andy Warhol decided to mould her and many people, like Sandy Kirkland, who first only saw her as a lost wreck and then spoke of a revelation. She began to play in his films and follow him everywhere he would go. Andy Warhol always looked for people that had a real passion inside, a fire he could fuel, and he guessed that Edie was one of these extraordinary people whose qualities he knew how to exalt in order to reveal it to the rest of the world –revealing himself at the same time. Edie became the superstar of the Factory, Warhol’s “alter ego”. He had always been a social climber and she really legitimized him, propelling him into the world of the Greatest he couldn’t reach before, inviting him where he could have never been invited without her. He was really flattered to be liked by such a beautiful and rich girl who had chosen to dress, wear her hair and behaved exactly like him. If he could have been a woman he would have chosen to be Edie, he really became identified to her, like a Pygmalion. Nonetheless the Factory little by little destroyed her. She began to take drugs and became an addict. From then on the wonderful love story between Andy and Edie became more and more difficult until she decided to leave the Factory to join Bob Dylan and his manager in order to become a Hollywood star. From this day on, Andy Warhol despised her and never gave her a second chance. She had been the one to help him to reach the top but he then forgot her, only worrying about Andy Warhol. Later she said that she hated him, that he was a monster who used people for his own sake and just left them go as soon as he did not need them anymore. Actually I just

62


spoke of Edie Sedgwick here but there are many examples of persons used by Warhol for Warhol. On the 3rd of June 1968 Warhol was finally shot by Valerie Solanas a fanatic, to whom he had promised a role in a film and finally never given her. It was just after he moved out from the 1st Factory and settled the new Factory on the 33 Union Square. Andy Warhol did not die, but he became another man. He cut most contacts with the outside, declined invitations and almost stopped meeting new people. It was the end of the world and way of living he had built in 1965, a world gravitating around him, never mind what it could cost to the others. A world in which you entered knowing that you would worship the only king, Andy Warhol.

Bibliography Edie, Jean Stein (Christian Bourgois Editeur)

63


64


Christophe MENGER

The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War No later than last week, I was watching a video released on the web, showing images of an offensive led by American troops in a remote valley of Afghanistan. GI’s were filmed while enduring a violent skirmish. Who filmed? The very guys who were shooting at the US soldiers. That is today’s war: a subtle combination of real war and war of images. Nowadays, almost every armed conflict in the world is televised. There is no chance escaping images, snapshots or footages depicting war scenes, when something hot is actually happening on the globe. Some people consider that the CNN coverage of the first Gulf War has all triggered off. Others date this phenomenon back to the Vietnam War. One thing is sure: today, war on TV has become quite commonplace. But alongside this trivialization of war comes the rather uncontrolled aspect of images. Even if these images have become banal, they still have a lot of power and they do not leave public opinion indifferent. Young GI’s falling under the bullets of enraged Islamic fighters in a war that no one has neither really approved nor even understood creates a psychological shock. This kind of shock probably precipitated the end of the Vietnam War. Let us see how. When the first US Marines landed in Vietnam in beginning of 1965, the American media had already started for a long time the coverage of what was going to be the most dreadful military defeat of US history. At that time, there were about 20 000 American military advisors already in Vietnam, helping South Vietnamese on how to contain the Viet Cong insurgency. The American press and television was relaying the government propaganda. Gruesome photographs, pictures of Viet-Cong militiamen murdering, kidnapping and mutilating innocent civilians were served for dinner to the average US citizen, comfortably seated in his living room. North Vietnamese army was being demonized so as to stun the American population. This helped forge a favorable climate for military action. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson was re-elected in, what is to date, the biggest victory of an American President. This overwhelming success was de facto giving him legitimacy to deploy US troops on the Vietnam soil. At that time, there is no doubt that the media were utterly biased, so as to create in people’s imaginary the feeling that the USA had the moral responsibility to keep the peace and to spread freedom. And it worked pretty well! Indeed, opinion polls taken in the US shortly after the first bombing of North Vietnamese positions indicated a

65


70% approval rating for the President and an 80% approval of US military involvement in Vietnam. Yet, this honeymoon between journalists and the US Government did not last long. One must not forget that back in the Sixties, huge technological progress had been made. The boom of credit allowed lots of households to buy TV sets. The era of motion picture had started. Thanks to the massive coverage by US media, images of the conflict were extremely accessible to the crowds. The Government was now the victim of its own propaganda campaign! TV networks and press editors were less and less inclined to accept the official version of events. The impressive flow of images coming from field photographers and reporters raised doubts about the military staff information. As Anthony Barnett, a British journalist and writer, summarizes in one of his books: “The American press and TV networks became critical of the US role after the Tet uprising in 1968. The US media had allowed itself to be duped by President Johnson and the Pentagon. Their professional self-esteem could no longer tolerate continuation.1” Moreover, this period has been marked by the beginning of a new kind of journalism: photojournalism. By following the Marines combat platoons on their field missions, these journalists were immersed into the hell of jungle fighting. What the soldiers lived and could not express or share, they could. The pictures they sent finished on the front covers of magazines such as Time, Newsweek or Life. This gave a huge impact to the conflict. Until now, US citizens had regarded the Vietnam War as a faraway conflict in a mysterious country against a mysterious enemy. They knew that the US Army suffered losses, but as soon as they started to see with their own eyes the dead bodies of young GI’s lying in the swamps of a country that they had not heard of before, they started to doubt. But in wartime, the worst thing that a government can expect is the turn around in public opinion. It was already too late. These gruesome images forced the public into action. Millions of students across the country started to protest against this inhuman and unjust war, but also against the compulsory conscription. The hippie movement played also a great role in relaying the protest; artists, athletes, like Muhammad Ali who refused the show up to the draft, but above all, singers such as Joan Baez, John Lennon or Bob Dylan, used their aura to spread a message of peace. The Vietnam conflict or maybe the protestation itself rapidly became the centre of media attention in the US. Quite cynically, one could say that this national surge of peace and pacifism practically eclipsed the real war. The Americans progressively evolved from a war-supportive position to defiance towards President Johnson, whose approval rating plummeted as the contestation gained clout. Symbolically, it is when famous CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite publicly expressed skepticism for the war effort, that President Johnson understood that he had lost the

66


public opinion support, and in a sense, that he had lost the war. Johnson actually declared: “Well, if I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America”. It would be probably exaggerated to say that the US media enabled to send the 300 000 GI’s back home, still it certainly triggered off and accelerated the US withdrawal. Lots of people argue about the role that the media should play in wartime. For some, they have to unconditionally back up their government in order to create a patriotic fervor and at least to support the fighting troops. Others insist on the “third-power” that the media should exert, in order to question the almighty State, which has the power to send fighting half a million young Americans in the name of peace and freedom. Once again, all is about finding the happy medium… Barnett, Anthony. Some Notes of Media Coverage of the Falklands (1984), Essex University Press Bourke, Joanna. An Intimate History of Killing (1999), Granta Boylan, Trish. The Role of the Media in the Vietnam War www.wellesley.edu: The Effects of Photojournalism on the Protest Movement During Vietnam War

67


68


Julie BERNARD

The Biafran war 1966-1970 A turning point in media coverage of African conflicts and the birth of the “New Humanitarianism”

“Biafra realised that this was an angle they could play on. It had tried the political emancipation of oppressed people, it had tried the religious angle ... but the pictures of starving children and women, dying children ... touched everybody, it cut across the range of people's beliefs.” Paddy Davies - Biafran Propaganda Secretary On January 1, 1901, Britain created the protectorate of Nigeria above the former Kingdoms of Benin an Nri, after two centuries of Portuguese trade and English influence. 65 years later, on January 1, 1966, began the deadliest conflict of this country, the Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War. Opposing different ethnic groups, religions, interests, this was also the theatre for two different wars: a military one on the one side, with trained and armed state troops, and a propaganda one on the other side, trying to “fight without guns” by appealing to the world’s public opinion mercy, leading to the first African famine to become headline news and the development of the “New Humanitarism”. In 1960, when the United Kingdom started its decolonisation process in Africa, Nigeria was seen as the “Great Black Hope”. The past ten years had seen very few successes on this continent, and everyone was looking at this country, expecting it to efficiently manage its independence process and its nation’s development. This was the most populous country of Africa; it had rich oil offshore deposits, and its level of education was quite good. However, Nigeria was the creation of imperial state borders, and not necessarily relevant historically. This country assembled 3 major tribes: The Haussa-Fulanis (Muslims) in the North, the Yorubas (Protestant) in the west, and the Igbos (Catholics) in the East. And, as it has been frequently seen through history, this coexistence of those different ethnic tribes led to a Civil War in 1966. When leaving the country, the British left the majority of the power to a minority, the Haussa. Even though Igbos were better educated and the most important part of Nigeria wealth came the south, the northern part of the country was favoured in terms of salaries, infrastructures and living conditions. Hence, the Igbos felt despised and wanted to occupy a more important place in their country. In January 1966, a Coup was organised, putting an Igbo at the head of the state, General Ironsi, and eliminating the other ethnic tribes from the government. Igbos

69


suddenly became undesirable, and those who were living in the North were hunted and slaughtered, forcing them to retreat to their southern region. After Ironsi’s assassination, Igbos refused the new power that was put in place, and, through their charismatic leader, Ojukwu, they proclaimed the independence of Biafra on May 30, 1967. Consequence: A 3 years long conflict that led to a major famine in Biafra. Indeed, despite the presence of mercenaries, the Nigerian Army was way more powerful, better organised and supplied in arms. Biafran “troops” couldn’t compete, and soon had to retreat. The Capital of the Republic of Biafra, Enugu, was taken in October, as well as 2/3 of the region. The remaining Igbos territory was smaller and had no access to the sea anymore. But since they were still resisting, Nigeria organised a blockade of the region, and cut off the transportation of the International Aid, even shooting at a Red Cross plane which was heading to Biafra. “By keeping silent, we doctors were accomplices in the systematic massacre of a population.” Bernard Kouchner – Red Cross doctor However, a new type of intervention started. The United Kingdom was supporting the official state of Nigeria in this conflict; hence it was difficult for its allies to intervene. Nevertheless, an airlift from Gabon was organised in order to transport food supplies, arms and mercenaries (coming unofficially from France, Portugal and South Africa) and also journalists and Red Cross teams composed essentially of French Doctors. Journalists and Doctors were dependant from political decisions and from the neutrality policy of the Red Cross: They were supposed to cure, and not try to intervene into geopolitical matters. Still, their indignation over what was happening would gain the upper hand. Due to the blockade and the bombing of the Nigerian Army, an extermination of the Igbo tribe was taking place and a massive Famine was starting. The number of children suffering and dying from malnutrition was growing very quickly, doctors and journalists decided at that time not to helplessly assist to this anymore. After the killing of 4 Red Cross doctors by the Nigerian army, they wanted to inform the international opinion of what was happening in Biafra in order to force the States and the Red Cross to denounce it and talk the Nigerian state into officially accepting the International Aid. They gave interviews to newspaper, TV, sent photos and videos of starving children… Bernard Kouchner and Max Récamier, with the help of the other French Doctors and journalists, managed to put Biafra under the Media spotlight. Overnight, international opinion stared at this country and supported its cause without having any idea of what their claims are. “Quite suddenly, we'd touched a nerve. Nobody in this country at that time had ever seen children looking like that. The last time the Brits had seen anything like that must have been the Belsen pictures ... People who couldn't fathom the political complexities of the war could easily grasp the wrong in a picture of a child dying of starvation.” (Frederick Forsyth, journalist). British people even took to the streets to

70


denounce Wilson policy. The conflict would last until December 1969, till the fall of the town of Owerri. A Peace Accord was negotiated with the new Nigerian Government to reunify the Nation and put an end to the confrontations. Igbos abandoned their idea of sovereignty in exchange of a better democratic representation. Biafran war would have cost between 1 and 2 millions lives. Afterwards, this conflict really symbolized a turning point into the instrumentalisation of conflicts. In Biafra, the war was about to end when the international coverage started. Maybe that without the international humanitarian and media pressure, General Ojukwu would have resigned and negotiated with the Nigerian government. Maybe this “New humanitarism” only helped the personal power aspiration of the General by giving him the tools to continue his war at the cost of many lives. “The secessionist line forwarded by Kouchner and other agencies, that the Biafran people would be faced with systematic massacre by federal troops if they lost the war, turned out to be unsubstantiated. In fact, de Waal notes that even as the international relief operation was being massively expanded there was already a large amount of evidence that there would be no genocide. In the large areas of Biafran territory taken over by the federal government there had been no government massacres.” (David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond: Human Rights and International Intervention). Famine also appeared to be very relevant in order to gain sympathy and support. Sylvie Brunel analyzed the phenomena of Emergency Aid: its development led to many unwanted flaws like the instrumentalization or the embezzlement of the food help for example. In Biafra, Ojukwu is thought to have fostered the Famine to maintain the world opinion support. In every situation, Aid agencies are dependent of the willingness of the states to let them help, otherwise Aid can be blocked, or even sold in order to buy munitions. What’s more, Food help, by bringing free or very cheap food, weakened local agriculture, making countries more and more dependant to Aid, but also American and European supported products (PAC...). This conflict also questionned the neutrality policy of the Red Cross and led, in 1971, to the creation of “Médecins Sans Frontières” by French doctors, among them Bernard Kouchner and Max Récamier. Kouchner was sometimes considered as a defender of the right of interference: His position was that curing people sometimes is not enough, you have to resort to military or political intervention. Afterwards, MSF only asked once for military action, in 1994 in Rwanda, and will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999.

The Nigerian Civil War, John de St. Jorre Medecins sans frontières: La Biographie, Anne Vallaeys From Kosovo to Kabul and Beyond: Human Rights and International Intervention, David Chandler L’Afrique, Sylvie Brunel The New Imperialists, Kirsten Sellars for The Spectator Nigeria-Biafra War, BBC documentary

71


72


Cyrille DIMIER DE LA BRUNETIERE DE LA CROIX

Rock music, society and politics in the Sixties

There’s no doubt, if you think about the Sixties as a concept, that rock music will irremediably be one of its main components. What you have to wonder is: what role did that new kind of music play in the deep social evolutions and dramatic events that shook the western world at that time? Musically speaking, rock n’ roll music was born in the 50’s in the US, from the progressive fusion of various musical genres from Blues, R’n’B (Rhythm and Blues), Jazz (all of them rather “black” genres) and Country and Folk music (rather performed by white people). It is however obvious that the precursors of that music are much more black people (Louis Jordan, Big Joe Turner), although the songs considered as the first Rock n’ Roll hits are recorded by white artists: “Rock around the clock” by Bill Haley in 1954. Rock music appears to be the first music bringing black and white influences and artists in the US.2 “If I could find a white man who sings with the Negro feel, I'd make a million dollars”. The musical dilemma of that period is well symbolised by this quote of Sam Phillips, the founder of the Sun Records label in Memphis. His dream soon becomes true when he meets a truck driver called Elvis Presley, who becomes the ultimate white robber of black hits.1 Young Americans are discovering and enjoying a new music style, with a fast beat and energetic vocals, but which soon proves to be in total contradiction with the values of the WASP dominant society then: - White, middle-class teenagers listen to what is considered at that time as a “black” sound, which is quite an issue in the segregationist America. The content of white music (country music) has been rather consensual until then, since it was dealing with classic western ballad themes. On the contrary, Rock n’ roll music remains faithful to his black roots, with more realistic lyrics, linked with the difficulties of everyday life (influence of blues tradition). - Elvis Presley’s dancing and, more widely, this music’s spirit (lyrics, beat.) are found too erotic by the dominant puritan society. Rock n’ roll music becomes quickly one of the drivers of an underlying sexual revolution, which will truly take off in the Sixties. 1,2,3

73


A quote by the Executive Secretary of Alabama White Citizens Council is symptomatic of the state of mind of the American establishment: “The obscenity and vulgarity of the Rock n’ Roll music is obviously a mean by which the white man and his children are driven at the level of the Negros”3 Rock artists and entertainers are quickly put under the pressure of political (Mac Carthy, segregationists), religious and moral forces that lead Rock music to die, and to be replaced by soft, consensual ballads in the late 50’s in the US. The second act of the life rock music takes place in Britain, where young artists, keen on American blues and Rn’B, adapt the concept of rock music to their personal aspirations and feelings. Britain is a particularly welcoming country for rock n’ roll, since none of the forces that have driven this genre out of the US (political, moral and segregationist) are strong enough to do the same in the UK: “We did not know whether Chuck Berry was black or white before seeing his face on the package of the disk” (Keith Richards) 1 British rockers will focus on the musical side of rock and take their inspiration in the rejection of an old society, faced with real economic difficulties. Musically speaking, the British post-war middle class has been strongly influenced by the blues and jazz legends (Eric Clapton, who was a kid at that time, first became famous in the 60’s as a very talented bluesman, before founding Cream and other more rock-oriented groups). 2 The British rock scene flourishes in the early 60’s, triggers the rebirth of American rock music, and the whole genre splits in 3 main influences: - Groups such as the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Byrds focus on musical arrangements and techniques, and remain rather indifferent to the political movements of their time - Groups like the Who (My Generation) and the Rolling Stones (Let it Bleed) use rock music as an insult, and start to personify more than ever what will be the universal attribute of rock music: youth rebellion. - Bob Dylan or Neil Young use folk rock songs as a political weapon (“Blowin’ in the Wind”, against segregation in 1962, “Hurricane”, ...) 2 The synthesis of these influences is successfully done in the 1965-1969 period, mostly thanks to the psychedelic movement and drugs. But above all, what brings all these rock artists together is the universality of the message or at least feelings they transmit, no matter how simple they are. The whole teenage world of that time has screamed at the Beatles ballads, or danced at the Beach Boys songs. They have expressed the views of the post-war generation which was both worried (atom bomb, Vietnam war) and full of hopes (civil rights movement, hippies…). The hippie movement is one of the most significant examples of the role of rock music as a spokesman of universal values. The Woodstock festival, held in 1969 in the

74


US, was first meant to be both a giant music event, with rock icons such as Jimi Hendrix, and the largest hippie gathering ever made (450,000 people). The general motto was “Peace, Love and Music”, and Jimi Hendrix, who is mostly known as a great guitarist, and not a political songwriter, eventually played an improvised version of “Star and Stripes”, with guitar riffs sounding like the bombs falling on Vietnam. Such events may raise the question of the confusion between vague, universal and peaceful life aspirations of the majority, fed by rock and folk music, and a precise political message, led by a few intellectuals who had little to do with rock music. 4 Paradoxically, 1969’ “Summer of Love” marks the decline of the hippie movement, which has finally become too widespread not to be in contradiction with its ideals of counter-culture. The era of illusions comes to an end in the 70’s, with new economic difficulties and is very visible in the evolution of rock music. The birth of the punk movement, shouting raw, violent and hopeless rebellion feelings, with groups such as the Sex Pistols, the Clash, is quite symbolic in that way. The Sixties rock music, representing the social and political aspirations of his times, is gone. It has accompanied its time and has been likewise shaking, full of hopes, revolts and icons who died too early…

Sources: 12345-

Piero Scaruffi – History of Rock Music, 2005 Wikipedia – History of Rock n’ Roll Youtube – The media against Rock n’ roll MSN Encarta – History of Rock music L’internaute.com – Histoire du Rock

75


76


Daphné VIALAN

Hope and delusion in the 60’s – a lesson for today The “Swinging Sixties” are a period of important social changes. Feminism, civil rights, economic growth, space conquest, technological progress, contributed to inspire hope in a better future. Of course, the sixties also included a great proportion of fear as the Cold War became hot with international crisis like the Bay of Pigs invasion. However, the Sixties in Western Countries look like an era of hope, between the rigid fifties and the deceiving seventies. What did become of all the hopes nurtured in the Sixties? What are the legacy and the lessons we can learn from the hopes of the Sixties? Hopes from the Sixties have turned sometimes into a bitter sentiment. It is the case in the field of arts, with the Theater of the Absurd, born in these years. The Theater of the Absurd is today, in my opinion, pushed to its limit and widely put into practice. The main characteristics of the Theater of the Absurd in Cyril’s view, as exposed in class, are: - “Broad comedy mixed with horrific or tragic images; - Characters caught in hopeless situations forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions; - Dialogue full of clichés, wordplay, and nonsense; - Plots which are cyclical or absurdly expansive.” I think this is completely typical of today’s TV series. Desperate Housewives is a mixture of comedy and thriller. In the first scene one of the heroines is overwhelmed by her four demoniac children playing tricks on the old lady living next door, and the next scene, a woman is being tortured in the basement of her house by her crazy ex husband for a complicated reason. This is an obvious mix of no laughing matters and mere comedy. In the TV show Lost, characters are indeed “caught in hopeless situations, forced to do repetitive or meaningless actions”. Lost stages survivors from an air crash trying to survive on a strange island. The audience is rapidly aware that they are not on that island by mistake and that the island has its own personality and will... People on the island are confronted to their old mistakes. Sahiyd, who used to torture innocent people as an Iraqi soldier, has to choose whether he will torture people again on the island, when he is face to face with an inhabitant of the island who has obvious strategic information and doesn’t accept to say it. Plus, some dialogues are complete nonsense, but caught in the overall nonsense of the show, it is not conspicuous. To me, it is the heritage of the Theater of the Absurd, even if it is not labeled this way. It is more subtle, the spectator is caught in the story, and cliffhangers create a

77


dependence, the story on the whole (when you assemble the different seasons of a show for example or the 24 episodes of a season from the TV show named 24) is not really important. One of the most important characteristic of absurd in my view is the meddling of comic and tragic stories and its flat treatment. A director can choose to show horrors, non sense and then he will add something lighter to provoke laughs. There is no clear-cut separation between the different styles. What was pure, provocative and meaningful in the Sixties has turned into something lighter and quite humoristic. Humor indeed is the fate known by many hopes of the Sixties. For example, fashion in the sixties expressed hopes, beliefs, even claims: clothes were made to free the women, to make women more comfortable, to express the equality between men and women. Now, fashion has no great fights. It reuses old fashions with a new humorous point of view. This is one of the main points developed by Gilles Lipovetsky, in his essay “The era of emptiness”, published in 1983. One of the chapters is called “Fashion: a playful parody”. He explains that seriousness is a taboo in our society as well as in fashion. He says that “Retro has no content, and doesn’t mean anything.” One of his most striking arguments is about ethnicity. He explains that the extermination of exotic cultures has been replaced by a soft and humoristic neocolonialism. This is the case for example with the fashion of keffiyeh. Keffiyeh is a “traditional headdress typically worn by Arab men”. During the thirties, the keffiyeh became a symbol of Palestinian nationalism. It is now a common accessory to be found in all fashionistas’ dressing room. The hope that fashion could help enhance the social condition of women or express real concern or political position has been turned down today. Some other hopes turned true. The Civil Rights Movement created much hope in the sixties. It was a fantastic fight for equality, a hard one, but it resulted in the affirmation of equalities between people of different colors. It obviously led to the election of Barack Obama last year. However, one might note that immigration is still a prickly subject and the relations between America and Mexico are an epitome of that tension. But there is still hope. This hope concerning racial equality is in direct link with the hope about economic progress. The sixties were a period of economic growth. Furthermore, the whole society seems to be engaged in a forward movement leading to the amelioration of the overall condition of everyone. For example, the son of a workman could go to college, where he would receive an education and become an engineer. Tomorrow would be better than yesterday and there was work for everybody and the whole society was becoming richer and richer. The economic crisis put an end to those hopes. The liberalism extended its grip on economic realities. Instead of reducing inequalities, it widened the gap between rich and poor, both on a national and on an international scale.

78


Hopes from the Sixties have known different fates: turned into a humorous posture or turned down by history, some also have a bitter taste like the hope of another parallel world created by drugs. Still we know the Sixties created great changes in our society; and maybe we should rethink about that period with naĂŻve eyes to find back that hope. It is all the more important as the climate crisis, economic crisis and terrorism (and the list is non-exhaustive) are making us loose the hope for better days.

Bibliography Gilles Lipovetsky, L'ère du vide : Essais sur l'individualisme contemporain, Gallimard, 1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/

79


80


Magaly ROHE

The legacy of photography in the sixties and seventies: between depiction and provocation

Photography undoubtedly influenced one’s representation of the sixties and seventies. With the Cold War and polarization of the world emerged curiosity about other countries and the way foreign relations were handled abroad, as well as the need to express the uneasiness of a whole society. Indeed, as Walter Benjamin and Roland Barthes claimed, the representational possibilities and mass proliferation of photographic images are today key features of modern culture. In such a context of unclear boundaries between depiction and provocation, one can therefore wonder how snapshots and portraits of the time, as powerful tools, helped to capture moods, faces and the essence of a whole era, as well as were of great influence during and after this period. Be it rock star scandals or war snapshots, the sixties and seventies are largely remembered thanks to photojournalism that presents a story primarily through the use of pictures. Published in popular weekly magazines, some famous pictures allowed photographers to achieve near-celebrity status and develop a close relationship with the public they were addressing. A good example of this would be Ian Bradshaw’s famous image The Twickenham Streaker, taken in February 1974 with Michael O’Brien being led away by police after streaking at an England-France rugby game at Twickenham. Awarded “Picture of the Year” by the American magazine LIFE, this particular cliché contributed to the reputation of Ian Bradshaw worldwide. The American society was indeed eager for controversies stemming from such provocative news in brief. As French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson stated, photographs could definitely “fix eternity in an instant." Very emblematic pictures were those depicting the political unrest and the French student riots in Paris in May 68 events from Gilles Caron, Claude Dityvon and Bruno Barbey. With only still pictures, they managed to trigger the viewer’s emotions thanks to the dynamic and spontaneous manner scenes were depicted. At the time, these photojournalists, often joining the photographic cooperative Magnum Photos, gained such powerful individual vision they could chronicle the world and interpret its peoples, events, issues and personalities without being questioned.

81


As a general rule, the sixties triggered a desire to produce honest images that would crystallize mindsets about society and history, however brutal they might be. For example when he took pictures of America capturing the nation’s racial divide, juvenile delinquency and fear of the atomic bomb, the first noir photographer Robert Frank claimed his book The Americans (1958) aimed at constituting “an authentic contemporary document” embodying both the sadness and beauty in the look of America. Followed by Garry Winogrand and Lee Friedlandler, they inspired a new movement in street photography with a very specific photographic technique such as the use of unusual focus, low lighting and cropping. Photos were often blurry, dark and grainy, shot at night or in dimly lit interiors. They helped to express the intangible atmosphere reigning in the United States at the time and as the photographer Ettore Sottsas pointed out, serve as a “substitute for memory”. Therefore in theory, photojournalism and street photography prevent the viewer from being misled by composites or montages, by visual trickery or any other illusions. However, both movements were rapidly criticized for being too manipulative. Aware of this, Robert Frank said once that “Photographs leave too much open too bullshit”. A good example might be the controversy around Diane Arbus’ vision of America which attracted the critical scorn of Susan Sontag for suggesting “a world in which everybody is an alien, hopelessly isolated, and immobilized in mechanical, crippled identities and relationships”. Photographing a fringe of the society such as dwarfs, Siamese or transvestites, though they really existed, was not unanimously considered as depicting reality and made part of the population uncomfortable. Besides, powerful shots can even lead to long-lasting misinformation. For instead, the emblematic photograph from Nick Ut showing Phan Thi Kim Phuc, a young Vietnamese girl, her burning clothes torn off, fleeing with other children after the dropping of a napalm bomb in June 1972. If this image certainly conveys a real suffering in the Vietnam War, the bomb was dropped by Vietnam and not the US, contrary to what most commentators claimed. Manipulation of reality may have reached its climax with the prolific photomontages, such as those from John Hartflied who typically subverted the concept of candid photojournalist creating politically subversive artworks published in German magazines. Although one would argue the purpose is not to delude the viewer into the belief that the world “really looked that way”, photographers like Jerry N. Ueslmann developed such strong printmaking skills they could blend any number of components seamlessly into one final image. Conveying very strong and effective messages through commonly considered “true” pictures, photomontages were extensively misused in the field of advertising and propaganda. To conclude, one cannot deny the cultural role of photography and the extraordinary power photographers had in order to capture a number of aspects of the social world during the sixties and the seventies, providing the viewer with a new dimension to history and historicity. Photographs of the period studied are representative of the

82


time: biased, exaggerated, denunciative and provocative. They however help bring the past and provide us with vivid memories of the sinful sixties and seventies.

Bibliography: Baird, Lisa A 2008, “Susan Sontag and Diane Arbus: The Siamese Twins of Photographic Art”, Women Studies, Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 971-986. Coleman, A. D 2008, “Jerry Uelsmann; Prima Facie”, pp. 5. Dant, Tim and Gilloch, Grame 2002, “Pictures of the past: Benjamin and Barthes on photography and history”, European Journal of Cultural Studies, 5, 5. De Carlo, Tessa 2004, “A Fresh Look at Diane Arbus”, Smithsonian magazine. Fayard, Judith 2003, “Eternity in an Instant”, Time, Apr. 27. Lacay, Richard 2008, “Homeland Insecurity”, Time, May 26th, Vol. 171, Issue 21. Lipscher, Juraj 2009, “Controversies. A legal and ethical History of Photography”, Leaflet about the exhibition in BNF, Paris. Rod, Usher 2001, “Naked Eye”, Time South Pacific (Australia/New Zealand edition), November 11th, Issue 45. Sottsass, Ettore 1994, The Curious Mr Sottsass, London. Wikipedia website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twickenham_Streaker.

83


84


Frédéric JOUSSET

The events of May 1968 in France: the causes and the claims

The events of May 1968 represent the most important social movement in France during the XXth century. It was a period of spontaneous riots led by students, unions and political parties. These people demonstrated against the existing traditional French society, consumer society, capitalism, imperialism and more directly against the head of state General De Gaulle. All French public opinion took part in this movement: rich or poor people, workers or bosses, left wing or right wing people … Generally speaking, it was a contestation of any authority. I will study this major crisis by analysing the causes and the claims of French people during May 1968. There are three points of claims I will use to describe these events: social, political and cultural. I)

The social claims: students and workers

The events of May 1968 took place during the period of “the Glorious Thirty”. During this period of prosperity, consumer society became the normal way of life in France. In 1968, 60% of French people owned a car, a washing machine and a television. There was a high rate of growth and an increase of wealth for the population. However, many people were excluded from this prosperity. Firstly, the increase of the unemployment rate (500 000 unemployed people in 1968) forced the government to create the ANPE whose mission is to help unemployed people to find a job. At this time, two million workers earned only the minimum salary, called SMIC, and therefore felt excluded from the prosperity of the sixties. In 1968, there were still shanty towns. The most popular was at Nanterre, in front of the university. Facing the great increase of students in the universities, there were many problems of place, equipment and transport. After the first student riots, the unions and the workers joined the movement by going on strike since May 14th. On May 22nd, 10 million employees could not work. They claimed as usual wage increases, better working conditions but also new claims: more autonomy of the employees and presence of unions in the companies. That is why the Prime Minister, Georges Pompidou, reached an agreement with the unions through the “Grenelle agreements”. It implemented the presence of unions in the companies, the increase of SMIC by 30% and the payment of 50% of strike days.

85


Unfortunately, these agreements did not immediately lead to the end of the strikes and riots. II)

The events of May 1968: a political crisis?

On May 1968, many people criticized the government of General De Gaulle. On presidential election of 1965, De Gaulle ran against François Mitterrand which was a surprise. On legislative elections, De Gaulle party, RPR, had difficulties to have majority on the Assemblée Nationale. That is why the legitimacy of his power was contested. During the riots, some slogans said: “France is bored”. A part of population claims the end of the term of De Gaulle: “10 years, it is enough” was shouted in the streets. Many people noticed the authority of De Gaulle. The TV channel ORTF was the only one authorized by the government. This channel was a means of propaganda for the government. That is why the term of De Gaulle was increasingly criticized. On the other side, the opposition parties had difficulties to exist. Even the most popular left wing party of this time, the French Communist Party, was criticized because of its difficulty to be objective with the politics of the USSR. Most communist people defend more the politics of Cuba and China. The other left wing parties which were not communist were divided, especially the PS (Parti Socialiste). That is why a left wing political movement, called “gauchiste”, became more and more important. This movement fought against the imperialism of the USA, the war in Vietnam, nuclear bomb … This movement led the events of May 1968 and spread their ideology. III)

The cultural aspects of the crisis:

Many changes that upset French society occurred during the sixties. The phenomenon of urbanization sped up rural exodus and led to a great development of cities and suburbs. The standard of living of French population increased thanks to the economic growth and resulted in the development of consumer society. Even religion modernized with the reform Vatican II. More and more students accessed to advanced studies. At the same time, much criticism against consumer society developed. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu developed the theory of “social reproduction”. This phenomenon describes the place of bourgeoisie and rich people among French society. For example, even though the access to advanced studies increased, 92% of the students belong to “bourgeoisie”. The events of May 1968 were an opportunity to denounce these social inequalities. During the sixties, a great development of a youth culture occurred. The media took part in the implementation of this culture. For instance, the young could listen to the

86


programme “Salut les copains” with particular music and topics of debate for young people. Music took part in this movement too with some groups and musicians like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Johny Hallyday... Young people were influenced by foreign movements of revolt or change like the hippies in the United States, Mao in China ... That is why youth had its own claims too, and especially about sexuality. For example, the majority of schools did not accept boys and girls in the same buildings. Even if the pill is authorized by law, it is not usual. Girls are not allowed to wear trousers! At this time, youth noticed many economic and social inequalities. For example, a big shanty town was in front of the university of Nanterre. That is why the movements of May 1968 (“gauchistes” for example) claimed more social equality among society and school system.

To conclude, we can say the events of May 1968 in France had many causes: political, social or cultural. It demonstrated a will of French society to change, and especially young people who claimed more liberty and equality. These events had many impacts and consequences on French society and firstly the end of De Gaulle term and the election of Pompidou as head of state. Pompidou was in charge of the Grenelle agreements. These events had consequences on French culture, especially on social inequalities and sexual liberties.

87


88


Amandine PLATET

The 60’s and 70’s: how did those two decades revolutionize dance forms?

During the 60’s and 70’s the artistic world experienced a real revolution: music, plastic art, painting, fashion… Thus, artistic works were reflecting strong economic and social changes of the society. However we often forget a part of artistic creation: dancing. Indeed, this discipline also knew a worldwide revolution, which hit various dance forms. How can we say that, as well as the other artistic disciplines, dancing was revolutionized during the 60’s and 70’s, reflecting economic, social and cultural changes of the society after the second world war? To begin with, let’s observe the new dance forms emerging on the dance floors, particularly “the twist” and disco; they strongly modified the way people were dancing together and were the embodiment of the new music styles, emerging at that time. The revolution also came from choreographers in the United States and in Europe who opposed their “contemporary dance” to classical ballet and also to “modern dance” and “modern jazz” which had emerged during the 20’s; this emergence of contemporary dance has been the basis of today’s creation. Finally, we’ll see how this revolution also reached other part of the world, particularly Japan with “Butoh” dance. This dance was a strong reaction both to traditional Japanese society and western cultural influence that was more and more discernable at that time in Japan. The Twist is considered as the leading dance of the 60’s. The song "The Twist" was written by Hank Ballard in 1959. With his group, he made up some twisting movements for the boys to do while playing music. Then in 1960, Chubby Checkers twist record reached #1 on US charts and made the rock and roll dance “Twist” famous. The basic twisting of the hips technique came straight out of the Lindy Hop and although dancers no longer touched when dancing, it was still usual to dance with a partner while dancing it socially. The simplicity of the step made the dance become a worldwide craze! It was one of the first “no contact dances” and a whole generation effectively never learned how to jive (dance rock and roll with a partner). A factor of this disaffection with “touch partner dancing” was the Hippy culture, with its sexual liberation and many other no touch dances appeared on the dance floors: the “Madison”, the “Mashed Potato”, the “Hula hoop”, the “Swim”, the “Monkey”, the

89


“Funky Chicken”…These new dances were demonstrated on teenage TV programmes such as Dick Clarke's 'American Band Stand' where teenagers were dancing on the records that were played. Reactions were very distinct: on one hand, in France for example, this dancing reassured parents; they considered that it was wiser than rock and roll. But on the other hand, it was judged “sensual and ridiculous, coming from the jungle” because of the movements of hips. In 1962, Vatican wanted to classify it as “immoral dance”. During the 70’s, the emergence of disco music, originated in African American and Hispanic communities in the United States and starting during the late 60s and early 70, also modified the way people were dancing. It marked the beginning of passion for discotheques and nightclubs where DJs were playing a mix of disco records to keep people dancing all night long. In some American cities you could find disco dance instructors or dance schools, which taught popular disco dances such as "touch dancing", "the hustle" and "the cha cha." The pioneer of disco dance instruction was Karen Lustgarten in San Francisco in 1973. Her book The Complete Guide to Disco Dancing hit the New York Times Best Seller List for 13 weeks and was translated into Chinese, German and French.

We saw the dance revolution among people, on the dance floors, but what about professional dancers and choreographers? Contemporary dance was born in the USA and in Europe during the 60’s and 70’s; it followed modern dance and today the expression “contemporary dance” is used for different techniques and aesthetics that appeared during the late 20th century. Contemporary dancers and choreographers expressed their strong will to be different from the past generation: classical ballet, neo classical ballet, modern dance, modern jazz … Merce Cunningham is at the origin of the renewal of dance thinking in the world. He is an American choreographer who realized the conceptual transition between modern dance and contemporary dance (he had been trained at Martha Graham’s school, strongly influenced by modern dance). He was very close to the music composer John Stage who taught him how to compose a choreography at random: after having created different section of a choreography he chose randomly in which order he would organize them, it was a kind of collage. As he put it, “the random technique is a way to surprise yourself, go beyond your habits, go beyond your ego” and thus go further in the creation. Merce Cunningham and John Stage were considered as urban artists as they used city’s sounds, pictures and technologies. M. Cunningham also worked with other artists: Robert Rauschenberg, Jasper Johns (both painters)… He wanted to mix dance, music and plastic arts without favouring one of these disciplines; the combination had to create a performance as a whole. The revolution was also that there were no story, no hidden sense, no principal dancer… People could consider it as absurd, but his goal was to make the spectator active and not passive: as no sense was given to the audience, people were free to interpret the choreographies following their own desire and they could choose their own principal

90


dancer. M. Cunningham had a will to oppose his “dance of intelligence” to the “dance of emotion” represented by modern dance: his creations kept a distance with emotion and stimulated the intelligence of the audience who had to think about the meaning they wanted to give to the performance. Merce Cunningham is one of the forerunners of contemporary dance; Alvin Ailey, another American dancer and choreographer had popularized it. He is the symbol of an entire generation of contemporary choreographers and dancers: Alwin Nikolais, Carolyn Carlson, Dominique Bagouet etc… Dancing had no strict rules anymore; everything was possible and we can see that nowadays that contemporary dance is still very creative.

Finally, we must note that the revolution wasn’t only European or American. Japanese artists and thinkers were strongly affected by the 2nd world war and Japan experienced a strong artistic renewal. Dancers in particular were wondering how they still could dance after the horror of atomic bomb Hiroshima. What was the meaning of aesthetic representation after this catastrophe? Thus, the Butoh appeared. “Butoh” means, “dance of step” and was also called “dance of darkness”. It typically involves playful and grotesque imagery, taboo topics, extreme or absurd environments, and is traditionally "performed" in white-body makeup with slow hyper-controlled motion, with or without an audience. Butoh rejected the “corporal language”; the body that got rid of the soul was used as a material. The first Butoh piece was Kinjiki (Forbidden Colours), by Tatsumi Hijikata, which premiered at a dance festival in 1959. Based on the novel Kinjiki by Yukio Mishima, the piece explored the taboo of homosexuality and paedophilia; this piece outraged the audience, Hijikata was banned from the festival where Kinjiki premiered and established as an iconoclast. Hijikata fought against conventional notions of dance. Inspired by writers such as Yukio Mishima, Lautréamont, Artaud, Genet and de Sade, he dealt with grotesquery, darkness, and decay. Hijikata also explored the transmutation of the human body into other forms, such as animals. He associated in 1960 with Kazuo Ohno , it was the beginning of what now is regarded as "Butoh." Kazuo Ohno is regarded as "the soul of Butoh," while Tatsumi Hijikata is seen as "the architect of this dance. Actually, Ohno, was less of a technician and choreographer, and more of a solo performer. Following the student riots in Japan, this dance challenged government’s authority and rejected the symbols and convention of traditional Japanese arts. It was also a reaction against the contemporary dance scene in Japan, which imitated the west and was too superficial according to Hijikata. Butoh's status at present is ambiguous. Accepted as a performance art overseas, it remains fairly unknown in Japan.

As other artistic disciplines, dance was revolutionized during the 60’s and 70’s. Those decades were decisive for the evolution of dance forms. A strong desire of freedom came up from new dance forms which appeared: choreographers got rid of the

91


classical rules, included other arts in their creations and were at the origins of what’s called today contemporary dance. Even in very traditional societies as Japan, rules were rejected to let the body express what is deeply in us, unreachable by the soul. Among people, this desire of freedom was also palpable: the 60’s are the beginning of “no touch dancing” and the 70’s have introduced the concept of discotheque, still topical.

Bibliography http://fr.wikipedia.org/ http://japon.canalblog.com/archives/2007/02/10/3964122.html http://schenk.chore.art.free.fr/danse-buto-definition.htm http://www.teppaz-and-co.fr/danses.html http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/americanband/americanband.htm http://contemporarydance.suite101.com/

92


couv_print:Mise en page 1

19/06/2009

08:29

Page 1

The Sinful 60’s & 70’s

Reflections on an era…

The Sinful Sixties and Seventies course is destined to enlighten students interested in the period and to challenge them to reflect on occurrences, movements and the prevailing mood of that time.

This work entitled, “Reflections on an Era”, is made up of the written student contributions to this course and will enable readers to catch a glimpse of what was happening in a variety of international contexts. These texts have been compiled and edited with a great deal of care by the editing team, Stéphanie Jensen, Julie Bernard, Cécile Gasnault, Armand Agha and Simon Jeannin. The book that the students take away from the class will remain with them as an accomplishment at Essec. The editors will also feel doubly proud of what they have created for the members of the class. It was my privilege and my pleasure to have worked with a great team of students. Gregory Sayer – Essec, June 2009

The Sinful 60’s & 70’s - Reflections on an era…

Ultimately it will also help them to touch base with older members of staff in the companies where they work and who had grown up in an Anglo-Saxon environment and experienced some of the travails of the youngsters of this epoch.

simon jeannin, julie bernard, stéphanie jensen, cécile gasnault, armand agha, frédéric jousset, audrey lavigne, sophie loustau, christophe menger, magaly rohé, mai-lan fitoussi, amandine platet, daphné vialan, mathieu ribaudière, anne-lise mithout, émilie loncan, lucile mourey, céline lobez, stéphanie langlois, cyril espalieu, cyrille dimier

Reflections on an Era  

The Sinful Sixties and Seventies course is destined to enlighten students interested in the period. This work is made up of the written stud...

Advertisement