July 4th, Wednesday, 2007, Ip nº 197

Many accomplices for a fantasy murder Versión en Español
By Carlos Lavagnino

Illustration by Carlos Almirón      

The unlikely saying, which accumulates slights on the author’s desk, would be the following: “Not everything should include a murder”.

In a massive and quiet conspiracy, worldwide culture seems to be determined to develop its stories based on murder as a basic concept, as a driving force, and as the starting (or culminating) point of every existing creation.

A procession of disturbed people, corpses and forensic scientists takes part in almost the whole fiction sphere, hand in hand with the ordinary covetous audience and the appreciation of “specialized critics”.

Surprisingly, and at the same time, several social witnesses have shown almost no reaction to the negative consequences of this phenomenon. Furthermore, something similar occurs in the creative environment where not even a vague self-criticism as regards the lack of originality arises.

Beyond the attempt to call the attention of a saturated audience in terms of sensitive and content issues, the frenetic rise of the fictional murder leads to attitudes of complicity that drives us far from the basic scene.

A line of hypothetical research could be aimed at playing a game of paranoia and corporate revenge. Entertainment industry has many reasons to go from the shock to the nightmare: new technologies, evasive and fearless consumers, amateurism threats, in fact, pure sources of inspiration to use direct metaphors to represent the crisis. Are the characters´ sufferings being held accountable for all these setbacks? Haven’t the imaginary victims stopped buying music or got tired of going to the cinema due to so many movie sequels?

A second line could hint at a cultural strategy for diluting responsibilities. The omnipresence of murder, in its most modern and shocking aspect, condemns all those reflective thoughts in connection with daily causes and effects of a less extreme but much more representative character of general human reality. In this way, everything conspires against the development of a sensitivity based on the delicate and paradoxical field of conscience and ethics.

In both cases, the search is ramified and it includes controversial suspects: the ordinary man, the main eyewitness of the fictional murder, who will pay with his consumption a minimum fee for reciprocal indulgence: “are all of us on the same ship? “At least, I am alive”, seems to be the weakest word of comfort.

Consequently, the supply of devious visions inspires people to pursue personal goals mainly constituted on the basis of the sight of relief of negative experiences, a pessimistic defence that pretends to discourage those who want to build beyond the mere act of reparation.

What will the next stroke be in this mortal competition? The future will tell how well grounded this story is.

Meanwhile, in real cities, fantasy seeks to preserve the capacity for astonishment beyond the effects, in order to bring it to life, to connect it to reality, to move it. All this happens just before the murderer arrives…

  July 4th, 2007. Independent Perspective, Riorevuelto.org.


Respecto al uso y abuso de las temáticas sanguinarias en el campo artístico, en una entrevista que le hacen a Leticia Bredice en relación a su participación en “Mujeres Asesinas”, le preguntan cómo es llegar a su casa después de haber matado a un hombre en la ficción. A lo que ella responde:

“El día que grabé “Mujeres asesinas”, volviendo a casa me apuntaron con un arma. Al otro día, cocinando me corté el dedo. La violencia mueve energías pesadas. Y lo que es loquísimo del programa es que yo hago escenas que no haría; es decir: yo no descuartizaría a nadie y menos aún lo vería. Si fuera la directora del programa no lo mostraría. No quiero ver eso, ya está! El programa es así. Yo no lo veo; no me gusta.”*

Es muy interesante analizar la falta de ética que, aparentemente, necesitan los actores en su profesión. Aún dándose cuenta de lo negativo de la propuesta pareciera que es imposible asumir una actitud consecuente. ¿Si la violencia mueve energías negativas, si no verías el programa, si no te gusta, por qué hacerlo entonces? ¿Acaso el artista es sencillamente un mercenario?

*Revista Luz, Argentina, 08/07/07.
Sabri, 10/07/2007 11:57
Creo que es todo parte de un mismo factor: la naturalidad del asunto.

La naturalidad confunde, distorsiona y no deja razonar a quienes no estan muy despiertos o con ganas de pensar por si mismos. 
Agata, 10/07/2007 14:25
Estoy de acuerdo en que aquellos que no están muy despiertos resultan más propensos a naturalizar las peores facetas de nuestra cultura.

Pero en el caso de Bredice me parece que es muy consciente de lo que hace y ya despojada de su personaje sigue matando, esta vez con su cinismo... 
Babu, 10/07/2007 23:02

You must be registered to be able to post a comment. Register here.

If you're already registered, you can login here: