Rabih mroue biography of williams

The one shooting exerts political-military power. The protestors stand for the polar opposite of this political concept. They expose their unprotected bodies to a situation where they are armed with nothing but their willingness to express their political goals in a collective demonstration. It is their attempt to use the means of the civil public assembly to solve political conflicts and to document and disseminate them through their own media channels.

What the person who was shot saw is saved on his cell phone. Yet the silent work does without an explanation, it lacks any judgment or interpretation supplied by the artist and does not embed the images in a narrative framework. He reduces his work to capturing this document of self-evident, professionally and routinely exerted violence. The installation fixes a short moment in time.

The closer one looks at this moment, the more complex and expressive it becomes. That micro and macro perspectives are interfused has artistic as well as biographic reasons. We see old family photos, a delicate teenager playing the guitar: life seems good in these images. His memory has been damaged. Although some people try to, remembering every instant is impossible.

When we recall a certain event, images and moments come back into our minds and when we try to narrate them we try to fill the gaps in-between. In that way, the fiction starts to interfere and becomes part of our narrative — even unconsciously. If there were three people on the same spot, who have all witnessed the same event and each were to tell you what really happened, each one of them would tell it differently because each one would relate to it differently.

This is also how historians work — they focus on certain events and desert others and therefore a selection occurs. The question is how to decide what is important and what is not? Do we have the right to choose? My answer would be yes; people, whether they are historians or not, all have the right to do so but we should be aware that this choice would only be his or her version — their personal point of view.

No one could be merely objective. Someone should choose and decide in a collective manner on what we should remember and what should we forget. It is always a power relation between the different authorities and a violent struggle between remembering and forgetting. You would hide little details or incidents and they would do the same as well.

And in some situations parents might get angry or sad because their son or daughter still remembers an unpleasant incident. In this sense memories are uncontrollable and bring surprises — most of the time they come brutally. In my work I always try to avoid accusations. For example, you described the manipulation of images in The Inhabitant of Images and this was not my point at all.

Because, for me, it is very easy to say that these images are a photomontage — end of discussion. In this non-academic lecture, I proposed to go beyond the fact that they are photomontages and believe that they are true. The person behind this image wants us to believe that it is not a fabricated one. Actually, it is made in order to transmit a message or an idea.

This is why I proposed to believe the image and try to analyze the socio-economical and political discourse behind it. For me, the interesting point is not to reveal the fakeness or to make accusations but rather to make the effort to read what is between and under the lines. In this sense what is being hidden gains significance. The main point is not to legitimize this point of view but to accept it as one among many other different ones.

In this manner there should be many versions of the same event as well as several history books. By analyzing the differences one can understand the political and social discourse they are implying. It makes one realize that history is not fixed but is a continuous conflict. One should try to collect as much as possible to broaden their perspective and comprehend history from various angles.

In truth all sensation is already memory. RM : I totally agree. For me, the present is something that one can never grasp. It slips from our hands. Actually, the only way to talk about the present is through representation. It is always said that in theatre the action is happening here and now, indicating that it belongs to the present time and it can never happen again in the same way.

Of course one can argue with this. But in any case, what does here mean, especially today with new technologies, when we can be here and there at the same time? Eventually the machines perform exactly the same way in every show so there were no differences in their rhythm or energy. However, we felt that both the rhythm and the energy were not the same because of the different reactions from the audience.

So the audience affects any performance, even when the performers are steady. One can apply the same logic to movies in relation to spectators. It is recorded but if one watches the same film two times the reaction would not be alike. Experience differs.

Rabih mroue biography of williams

One can argue that in a film there is the possibility of reshooting if an actress or actor forgets their lines, whereas in theatre no such thing exists. But what if there is a power cut whilst watching a movie, which is something very ordinary in Beirut, or if someone stands up in the middle of the film and blocks the view. There is an interruption similar to the moments when an actor forgets some of his lines in a theatre performance.

My argument is that even in a recorded projection accidental things might happen and each screening would be a considered a unique performance. Going back to your question about how to perceive the past, present, and future, I believe it is by focusing on the present in theatre; we try to talk about the past and try to think of the future. The present is where we try to represent the past and the future.

Theatre is interesting in those terms: it is all about representation. There is a concentration on a micro-narration by taking performance out of its context somehow as you did in the Pixelated Revolution , in which you performed a narrative of the Syrian Revolution with images culled from the Internet and videos posted by civilians attempting to document the latest acts of violence.

I wonder if what is represented on the stage is real or not — after performing, it turns into a new reality. Do you agree? RM : Of course it is another reality, another reading, another interpretation. Like life, people pretend they are neutral. It means nothing; nobody is neutral. The time elapses. Human beings imagine the future and the past as well.

Whilst remembering we start to invent the past. Biography [ edit ]. Awards [ edit ]. Works selected [ edit ]. Theater pieces [ edit ]. Video [ edit ]. Installations [ edit ]. Film roles [ edit ]. Notes [ edit ]. The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January