The Combinations, page 67
‘Wot I’m sayin’ is, it could all be over tha moment eiver side under-esti-
mates tha uvver’s line a attack. Or one uv ’em fails to produce ad-e-quate
counterplay. We’re at wotcha might call a crucial juncture…’
‘There’s been a lot of discussion, Klem, about certain statements in the
press leading up to this afternoon’s game, that here we have a dual between two
conflicting theories, a genuine head-to-head between the socalled “classical”
approach to the game & what people are calling the “hypermodern” approach.
Isn’t that like saying it’s a contest between a bow&arrow & an intercontinental
ballistic missile?’
‘Well Davey-boy set Goliath on ’is be-’ind wiff a stone tha size a yer eye,
’n’ that was maybe tha same type a fing. ’N’ Davey-boy, as that Mick Angelo
427
proved, woz no cut salami. But we’re gettin’ way off track ’ere. Wot’s important
fer our viewers ta keep in mind is while there’s lotsa talk goin’ on out there they
shouldn’t lose sight a what really matters…’
‘Do you feel we’re witnessing a conservative backlash against some of the
recent innovations that’ve been taking place?’
‘I believe tha only people innerested in words like con-ser-vative or in-no-
vation are them armchair bozos out there’ve never really been part a tha game…’
‘Never made the grade… in a manner of speaking.’
‘Basic fact is, tha game’s bigger’n all tha petty bickerin ’s been ’appenin’ on
tha sidelines. Wot we’re seein’ tonight’s a vindication a that fact. At tha end a
tha day, no matter oo triumphs or fails, oo wins tha glory or gets carted off on ’is
backside, it’s tha game that’s tha winner.’
‘Speaking for myself, it almost feels a privilege just to be sitting up here
watching this contest unfold…’
‘’Umbled is ’ow I feel, Rudes, ’umbled. We’re witnessin’ someffin’ unique
takin’ place tonight, ’n’ I reckon our viewers’re experiencin’ that, too. It’s cert’nly
no ord’nary event — you’d agree wiff that, Rudi? ’Ard ta find a comparison
wiffin recent mem’ry, eh? You-nique wouldn’t be overstatin’ it…’
‘And yet there’s always controversy waiting in the wings…’
‘General rule a thumb in this biz, Rudes, is people can’t be spected ta
agree on evryffin’…’
‘That’s sadly true. What’s your take on the recent boycotts, Klem?’
‘All I ’ave ta say on that score, Rudi, is ya can’t play tha game by turnin’
yer back on it. It’s that simple. Can’t take yer bat ’n’ ball ’n’ go sulk in a corner ’n’
spect evryffin’ ta stop on yer account. If ya want tha game ta succeed you’ve gotta
stick wiv it, even if ya don’t like tha final call. Way tha cookie crumbles,
sunshine. As they use ta say in tha lockerrooms when I was a kid, ’arden tha fuck
up, ’n if ya can’t ’arden tha fuck up, get yer mitts off tha soap…’*
‘Each side has to put the interests of the game ahead of its own interests,
is that right Klem?’
‘That’s it in a nutshell, Rudes.’
‘You look back at the past greats of the game & there’s a sense they tower
above all these debates, wouldn’t you say? The spirit of the game. Perhaps we’ve
lost something…’
‘Don’t forget all them unsung ’eros, as well. Tha ones gave it evryffin’ they
* I can’t believe my ears, that rude man just said the most horrible word on public television! [:]
428
’ad. They wasn’t in it fer tha glory or nuffin uvver than tha pewer sat-is-faction of
bein’ part a sumffin’. Sumffin’ bigger ’n’ any in-dee-vid-ual…’
‘There was an article in last Sunday’s Golem Post that a listener pointed
out, which argues that a return to the “classical” approach represents the only
remedy for the ills that’ve befallen the game in recent times. There’s some doubt,
though — & I think you probably share this view, Klem — that a conventional
response to the upheavals we’ve all experienced in the last couple of years would
be insufficient somehow. We’ve even heard calls for open revolt against the
current status quo. The Evening Standard’s editorial on Monday came within a
hair’s breadth of calling for an all out denunciation of the Old School…’
‘Look, Rudes, I don’t believe it’s ’elpful in tha slightest — ’n’ I mean this
em-fat-ic’ly — when elements in tha media keep draggin’ up tha past ’n’ dividin’
people when all uv us need ta be focused on lookin’ forward ’n’ workin’ togevver.
All this talk ’bout principles is just an un-ness-e-ssary distraction from wot ulti-
mately matters. It’s always easy ta speak ’bout makin’ a bold frust to right
perceived wrongs, ’specially if yer just standin’ on tha sidelines, but wot we need
more ’n’ anyffin’ at this point in time ’ s ta put tha past de-fin-it-ively be’ind us ’n’
get to work on tha Big Future this game ’as in store for it. For tha sake a tha
players, too…’
‘And for the fans…’
‘Abso- bloody-lutely.’
‘After all, it’s all about the love of the game.’
‘I couldn’t a said it better meself, Rudi.’
‘Cheers Klem. Well folks, you heard it, we’ve got some top action
happening live here today, & it all goes to prove the old adage, You’ve got to be in
it to win it. We’ll be back with the rest of what’s sizing up to be a thrilling
showdown in just a moment, but before we do, a look at tonight’s programmes.
We’ve got a short news bulletin coming up in half-an-hour followed by the
weather, & at eight o’clock the weekly film guide hosted by our very own Vlado
Clementis. Here’s a quick preview. Over to you, Vlado…’
‘Thank you Rudi & good evening to all our viewers out there enjoying the
commentary to the season’s decider. Stay with us afterwards for a special edition
of Unsightly Cinema, your weekly behind-the-scenes on the latest big screen hits
& one or two flops as well. Tonight we’ve got an interview with renowned
cinematographer Karel Hájek & an in-depth look at the latest offering from Jan
Němec, The Combine, an eight-hour docudrama about one artist living as an
outcast in the City… Tune-in then!’
429
430
Today’s Bumper Super Combo Crossword!
ACROSS
37. Secret system.
2. To make grotesque.
34. One who commits pederasty.
2. Subterranean passage.
40. Chatterer.
3. A mock of moonbeam.
36. Species of turncoat.
5. Circle of constant longitude. 47. Alien.
4. Guiding fact or principle.
38. Person, animal or plant much
6. Doctrinaire.
49. Conclusion that does not
7. Means of transmutation.
below ordinary size.
8. Apparatus.
logically follow.
9. Concurrence w/o apparent cause. 39. The same backwards.
10. To eject via the anus.
51. Opening in wall, usually
12. Tall equilateral structure.
41. Parody.
11. Ingenious sequence of moves. filled with glass.
13. Potion book.
42. Join by running together.
15. Formless primordial matter. 53. Hehe.
14. Obnoxious spirit.
43. To divulge or repeat foolishly.
16. What is meant.
54. The man with the axe.
17. Capital of Mitteleuropa.
44. Change into another form,
18. To expel via the mouth.
55. Instrument for unlocking.
19. Impetuous divergence.
nature or substance.
20. Likelihood.
56. Condition of existence.
22. 3 = 1
45. Metallic element of lanthanide
21. Maze.
58. Simpleton.
23. Person so deficient in mind as to series.
22. Celestial gathering.
59. What is the matter?
be permanently incapable of rational 46. Bulbous plant of genus Scilla.
24. Construct.
60. Pasted hingewise & enclosed conduct.
48. Open to eye or mind.
25. Toy musical instrument.
in a cover.
26. Lacking good sense.
50. Indefinitely continued existence.
27. Any or all of the above.
61. Large extinct bird.
29. Enigmatic or inscrutable.
52. To buy at a discount the debts
28. Absence of mind.
30. To make up, constitute.
of others, so as to profit from them.
32. Handwritten.
DOWN
31. Dark, dim.
54. Hidden or inexplicable matter.
35. Box with aperture.
1. Fossilitic turd.
33. Nonexistent omniscient nonentity. 57. Drudge.
431
0
_________
And now for a word from our sponsors…
New WARFARIN Rodenticide!
Rough on Rats! Declare War on
Rats, Mice, Bedbugs, Flies, Roaches
and Lice! Remember the Name!
WARFARIN! The trenches had
nothin’ on this! WARFARIN!
Available at All Patriotic Pharmacies!
WAR-FARIN’!
432
0
_________
UNSIGHTLY CINEMA: Welcome to the show, Jan.
JAN NĚMEC: Great to be here, Vlad.
UC: Let’s start with the question most of our viewers would probably like to ask:
How do you envisage the central character in your new film, The Combine? Is he
supposed to represent a kind of everyman in a world that’s turned dysfunctional,
where familiar rules don’t apply? Personally I got the feeling we weren’t really
watching a documentary at all, but an extended essay on the status of the
individual in modern society, the absence of certainties, the sorts of things
previous generations would’ve taken for granted — employment, social security, all
that — & which, since the Revolution, we’ve seen disintegrate. The idea of reality
itself, some might say. It seems very popular at the moment to speak about
virtu ality instead of re ality, nowadays. Whereas, under the former régime, there
were a lot of people, maybe tacitly a majority of people, who believed the official
“reality” was a sham & that actual reality could only begin when the old system
was swept away. So I wanted to ask you, was it your intention to focus on a
character who’s somehow unreal because he’s struggling to find what reality
actually is, once all the maps have been redrawn?
JN: To begin with, it’s possibly misleading to speak about a central “character” in
this film. We didn’t set out to invent a personality. It’s more about discovery.
The idea was to do the opposite of something made-up or story-like. We wanted
to examine the limits we all place on ourselves, as individuals, when we ask what
it means to exist in the present, under present conditions, aware of all those
expectations & anxieties you mentioned, but unable or unwilling to live up to
them, so to speak. There’re no professional actors in the film, but there’s acting.
In that sense it’s a documentary about people trying to discover a role for
themselves &, through that role, to better understand who they really are…
UC: Is the film autobiographical?
433
JN: In a way, yes, because it asks about itself, about its own status as a film. It’s a
film about film. At the same time, it’s about a person. About what constitutes a
person who is also the subject of a film, let’s say.
UC: Is that person you? You both share the same name…
JN: Literally? That the film’s about me? No. The thing about the name happened
because it turned out being simpler that way. We didn’t want to focus on the
purely extrinsic aspects, or make something up, & we didn’t want to call him Mr
Nobody, so the crew just started calling him “Němec,” first as a kind of joke but it
stuck. No, seriously, I always try to keep myself behind the camera. Inevitably there
are traits that may be projected onto this person called “Němec,” because you can’t
leave the camera out of the equation, & ultimately I’m the one “directing” the film
even if all the action is spontaneous & improvised. I mean, insofar as true
improvisation in front of a camera is possible. We tried to be as inconspicuous as
possible, keeping the camera out of view, using deep focus, but it’s never possible
to erase yourself completely. In the end you have to confront the question, how to
decide what the difference is between a narrative film & a documentary film?
When you say, “autobiography,” for example. Is there a difference?
UC: You have to admit it’s extremely unusual for a narrative film to run over
eight hours. Fassbinder would be one exception.
JN: Precisely. But that’s just a convention like all the others. Fassbinder would’ve
been the first to point that out, too. But it wasn’t something we really thought
about till after we cut the film. We just cut it the way we thought it had to be
cut. You produce a different cut & it’s a different film, it means something else.
UC: Warhol’s Sleep? Empire?
JN: It’s more humanistic than that.
UC: Would you describe yourself as a humanist, then?
JN: I’m concerned with knowing what humanism is, rather than using it as a
label.
434
UC: Some critics describe your work as post-humanist. Is that misleading?
JN: It is if you don’t know where you’re starting from. How can something be
“post” if there’s nothing there to begin with? Some people call Stalinism anti-
humanist. I disagree. I don’t believe you can have humanism without Stalin,
without the gulags, without the showtrials…
UC: What about Hitler?
JN: You can go all the way back through history & find the same basic thing.
Even in the Bible.
UC: Does religion answer the needs of people who’ve lost their traditional
certainties?
JN: If you mean Communism, then it’s just a matter of substituting one false
messiah for another.
UC: A false messiah?
JN: The only true messiah is people. Us. Humanity. Right, wrong, stupid,
indifferent, horrifying, whatever. We are what comes in the name of “God,”
who’s really just our enlarged sense of self in any case. Which is precisely what
cinema is, too. And when we’re gone, we’re gone. With God, you get
graveyards, churches, laws. With cinema, you have moving images that live on
even when we’re not here any more. Imagine one day, when everyone has been
wiped out by nuclear catastrophe or environmental disaster or whatever, & along
come some aliens in spaceships, & what do they find?
UC: So Nietzsche’s death of God is the death of humanity?
JN: It’s possible humanity died long ago & we’re only now discovering the facts.
UC: Let’s get back to The Combine. The main character — or should I call him a
“figure”? — has to decide about which path in life to follow. Could you tell us a
little about that?
435
JN: Firstly, “Němec” might seem unusual, because he’s obsessed with films (like
me, of course), but not with films in the ordinary sense, not any specific film you
would see in a cinema, but with the idea of a film. Or of film as such. This might
have something to do with how we perceive our place in reality, or it might not.
The problem confronting “Němec” is that he can’t picture himself outside a film
— so the question he asks himself in each situation is, What type of film am I in?
Is it this type of film or that type of film? And on this occasion, the one we’re
speaking about, which is The Combine, it’s a quest — he’s looking for something,
he thinks he knows what it is while making a show of admitting he doesn’t, &
while he’s looking he attempts to find others who might be able to help him
along the way, confirm him in his beliefs or suspicions, provide the necessary
affirmations, but all he seems to find are people who want to hinder him or
aren’t interested in his predicament, or worse still poke fun at everything from
