Having watched about 1/3 of Notre Musique - from 6 years previous to Film Socialisme - it's a thematically dense piece so I thought I'd write something about the end of the end of one film and the beginning of the other, since they're thematically similar, followed by something on Notre Musique (follow that?)
Yes, cos Godard's gnomic utterances seem to inspire reflection along certain lines - though it's difficult to say where the film stops and the thought starts!
For a start, going back to his view of TV as 'the state', Film Socialisme has the line at the end that the state is 'We', the individual 'I'; in a drama we pull together; in a tragedy not atall.
While Notre Musique has the line
The dream of the individual is to be two; the dream of the state is to be one.
There is also the line
Democracy and tragedy were wed in Athens.
To weave these together, I have to start from my previous stuff on antagonism inside communes - the mini feuds that resolve conflicts. The friction of different personalities or between husband and wife or differences between clans. Feuding allows for a modicum of force to enter into relations; dueling or fisticuffs. Not everything is state-sanctioned by policy, basically.
Now, when Godard says 'democracy is tragedy', that might apply to a state-sanctioned democracy where the individual was submerged. But it doesn't necessarily apply to the type of feudalism that is inherent in communes where policies are not allowed to dominate (the example of Detroit and federal civil legislation was cited, Drama 3).
Antagonism is a physically active situation (of the body) where there is psychic strength enabled. Where the head becomes dominant (in policy), one is much more approaching a psychological situation where tragedy is unavailable.
In a sense, this is the modern world. As I said before, Putin's aims in Ukraine are confused (his principles) because he is not allowing for the fact that strong communes are feudal and should not be tyrannised or made to come around to one point of view (the unitary state.)
Putin is very verbal and uses words to instigate conflict of a unitary state on the communes. In actual fact, the word 'tyrant' was used as the nom de plume of a coin collector of British and Anglo-Saxon kings; he meant 'absolute monarch' but, in fact, the barons had en masse equal power to the king and it was all a balancing act.
'Tyrant' in antiquity, simply meant king, hence Oedipus Tyrannus. In the plays such as also Electra, there is a psychological wash over the protagonist who sort of retreats into their shells. The Greeks invented psychology along with other things
In the drama of a commune, to paraphrase Godard, individuals come together at times of crises; but in a tragedy individuals are distinct, isolated.
This applies to the modern situation in general because of the doctrine of sameness as opposed to antagonism that enables differences to be resolved.
What I was trying to get at is that there is a principle of movement and force that gives a commune self-government through feuds (probably the blues!) This principle is being ironed-out through the neutralizing dragon of news.
It's a sort of 'zero' whereby differences of the physical reality cannot be tolerated (as in JK Rowling's case). Richard Ingrams of the 60s satirical mag Private Eye says
At 84 I would like to write another book.. but it's hard to be controversial these days, particularly if you're old. I spend a lot of time reading PG Wodehouse. He refers to a psychiatrist as a "loony doctor". That would cause great offence now. (DT)
The physical or sexual areas are not verbal but actually real flesh and blood.
Going back to Putin, he is more like a tragedian than a tyrant. But, in a sense the same applies to the neutralizing West. Communes which are free - in physical state and free-spirit - are rebellious and so can be tyrannised by a king. It's a state of balance.
In a world where force and movement do not really exist in that sense, the neutralizing news creates a despondency of individuals, and that is the tragedy of democracy which I think Godard alludes to.
