Wednesday, August 17, 2016

In love with Tarkovsky, translated by Alistair Ian Blyth

Bewildered, despairing, perplexed by the stupidities of society in CeauČ™escu’s Romania, that chaotic prison camp, an artificial, brutal world, agonisingly situated beyond any means of understanding. I could find no way to get to grips with that world. I could not mould myself to it, because that would have meant making too many compromises. Rather than banal happiness in semi-complicity with an aggressive and stultifying regime, I preferred to attempt to construct a world of my own, as far away as possible from the exterior world. Little by little, I began to take refuge in my own thoughts, in my own imagination, and ultimately in my own memory. For, memory was, I believed, what ultimately remained, the fundament, the firm ground in which I rooted myself when buffeted by disquietudes and desperate lack, by the paradoxes and antinomies that continually assailed me.
But what kind of memory can you construct for yourself in times constrained by fate and by forces beyond your will? Life itself was changed, it had to follow a particular path, flanked on either side by unscalable walls. I had to try to slip sideways through life, eluding life, because I was always aware that I did not have access to life’s most elementary, fundamental aspect: freedom. Only when you live in such wretched, even surreal, conditions, which verge on the ridiculous and the terrifying at the same time, do you begin to appreciate, in your unhappy lucidity, that the right to freedom is perhaps the most important characteristic and necessity of the human spirit. It was then that I discovered what freedom meant: the elementary right to live in an authentic way, to choose the experiences that can lead to the fulfilment of that absolutely necessary sentiment of what it is to be human—the negation of one’s own nothingness. It is probably the authentic and preeminent right to enter the sacred space of spirituality, in other words, the sole chance to live in the presence of a “presence”, regardless of what kind of spirituality it might be: God or the Absolute, the Platonic ideas or Aristotelian essence, Cartesian self-awareness or Kantian transcendental logic, the Hegelian Idea or Heidegger’s Being. It is whatever might be beyond the unbearable constraints of the immanence of my being, of my banal everyday life. But I understood once again that in the communist world even the right to negate one’s other nothingness was utterly forbidden.