Fascist reunion under the BMW logo in Bucharest

On March 14, the Christian Democratic Foundation led by the ex-Minister of External Affairs, Teodor Baconschi, organized jointly with the Organization of Women of PD-L, the Hanns Seidel Foundation and two ultraconservative groups (the Pro-Life Foundation and the Family Alliance), a conference called "family and life ethics" under the patronage of Bavaria Motors and the big BMW logo.

A big moral dilemma for the speakers. What would BMW do? 

The discussion between various religious  fundamentalists and conservative politicians had many fascist aspects: a strong nationalist discourse, the anti-choice radical view, homophobic statements, the social eugenics project of a woman MP (Ms. Turcan), the "good"example of the new Hungarian constitution, the presence of a fascist leader that was using "classic" nazi citations to make his argument.  All under the German brotherly support of the Hanns Seidel Foundation, whose representative used his time to explain that "abortion is murder".

Bogdan Stanciu, the Pro-Vita representative, made a presentation in which he praised the current Constitution of Hungary, emphasizing its focus on Christianity, nation, anti-choice and anti-gay marriage. Baconschi congratulated his presentation by using the words "articulate, coherent and true", adding that Stanciu's references are also "our references" (the Goebbels reference also, I assume).

The old cliche of the "liberal holocaust" that destroys the greatness of the Romanian nation, together with demographic fears and the apocalypse-to-come, was connected again to the disappearance of the conservative family and religious beliefs.

As a sort of conclusion to the anti-women-anti-gay-anti-poor talk, Baconschi closed the hateful monologues by stating the alliance between the ruling party (which he represents as vice-president) and the ultraconservative group Pro-Vita, whose president comes also from the New Right fascist organization. He also mentioned that those who look for tolerance can go to a brothel (a pun in Romanian, the expression "tolerance house" means brothel).


Nevertheless, the audience was allowed to comment for the last 10 minutes when several feminist voices attacked this event harshly and they encountered an unexpected support from the crowd, most of the audience was cheering their in-your-face comments. 




thanks to Medusa for her coverage and here is the page of the event [both in Romanian].

Camping in Bucharest

Selling carpets in Bucharest, around 1925

Camp has to do with posing. Maybe it is about the French origin of the word, maybe it is about the theatrical element of posing for an old photo or for a painting. Camp bodies express excess, dolce far niente, non-productivity, they escape the capitalist logic of production, of efficiency, of giving all you got, of dying on stage. It is always about something more, something in excess, something that goes beyond the expectations. I remember the perfect example: Odin actors were studying not photos but paintings to increase the theatricality of their movement on stage, to go beyond the every-day-life energy, to dilate their bodies. The reason was that there is an inherent excess there, the painted models have to stay for a long time in one position that cannot be efficient in a daily situation. A Camp situation. The same situation with our two characters from above: posing for a nice photo, they are acting excessive and they produce a nonchalant theatricality. A beautiful example of Camp. Bucharest style.

Two Romanian performances in Budapest

I went last week to two shows from a shabby theatre from Bucharest that i would never think of attending in a local situation. But my subject re-position, on the margins of Romanian culture, made me curious about what these awful Romanians with their horrible theatre culture have to say. Last week i had a great feeling: to be detached from a culture that is stuck in pre-1968 epistemology that is, first of all, vomited on stage.

But about the two shows and their complete opposition:

One was made without a director, specially fit for 2 old actors unable to move and get out of their emplois. The rest of the actors on stage were simply there, no acting involved, always ready to give a line or to create a situation for their two decrepit stars in order to produce the big joke that everyone in the audience was crazy about. Disgusting shite. The worst part besides the first-year acting school cliches was their usage of a famous Russian play that brings public for sure. One of my all time favourite plays with so many insights and dark complicated parts was transformed into a cheap slapstick comedy with no characters whatsoever, just 2 dead actors on stage, and dead in a Peter Brook way.

The situation changed for the next show: a Hungarian play staged by a Hungarian hysteric male director with a strong creative standpoint. Same company, that he was telling me about after the play: "Isn't it amazing that i manage to do it here?" The performance was a mise-en-scene in the most sincere way: in a Butlerian way, Bocsardi shows the fake of heterosexual matrix, nothing more than an act played by some actors who don't know what they act but they have to play for an audience with patriarchal expectations. Impossibility of representation, relation spectator-performer, end of narration, dilating the performing body, the character as abjection and many more ideas are explored in this small show. One of the best directors that I've seen for last years.
I wanted to read some reviews after the show and it was oh so predictable: Romanian critics crushed the show in their specific style, their Christian rightist instincts never lie. And they are true in pushing this show on the margins: it is definitely dangerous for their theatrical milieu. the most apprecieted part was the moment when the Actress has a long monologue on showing her love and affection for the Actor, the place where the matrix is shown just in order to be deconstructed and proven empty later. The critics got only this moment of expressing "noble feelings" in an old acting school way and that's everything they enjoyed in the show. That was for me the moment where I felt the tension in a special way: they started well they can't ended in this patriarchal manner. I was hoping that the show will go on. And it did. Just in order to show that it is just acting, that they can fool you, that there is nothing behind, the stage is empty, no essentialist oppressions are hidden there and are just shown, acted out, put on display, not lived. And the last scene worked perfect in this sense: the dead characters were all the time on stage in their coffins, they are killed once more by the actor, in a gesture that proves their emptiness, a lack of flesh, a lack of corporeality, just full body masks.

Damn right: Death to the characters!