Within the framework of the 65th Thessaloniki Film Festival, a special screening of Michael Premo’s film Homegrown took place on Tuesday, November 5th, at the Tonia Marketaki theater, on the day of the most crucial presidential election in the United States in the last decades. The film depicts the actions of an extremist group, which instigated one of the most notorious events in recent American history: The storming of the Capital that occurred in January, 2021. After the screening, a discussion followed featuring Nicolas Sevastakis, Professor at AUTh’s School of Political Sciences, the Festival’s Artistic Director, Orestis Andreadakis, and journalist-head of the Journalists' Union of Macedonia and Thrace Daily Newspapers, Yannis Kotsifos, delving into the electoral race, and the aftermath that will follow both in the USA, and in the entire world.
Prior to the screening, Mr. Andreadakis said that it would be the second time since 1605 and the Gunpowder Treason Plot that the date of the 5th of November will go down in history, making a reference to the notorious political dystopian film, V for Vendetta (2005). “We hope that tomorrow morning history will be made with Kamala Harris’ win. The documentary you are about to see demonstrates the dangers that may emerge tomorrow morning otherwise,” Orestis Andreadakis initially said. On their part, Mr. Sevastakis and Mr. Kotsifos thanked the Festival for the invitation. “I’m very glad we have gathered here on this occasion, despite the fact that this is a very pivotal moment, as Mr. Andreadakis already mentioned. The documentary we are about to see traces different issues, which we debate upon on a hypothetical and a rather ideological level in a tangible way. Here, we will sit back and watch history – or at least a tiny piece of it – unfolding right before us,” Mr. Sevastakis said. “We’d like to thank the Festival for providing us with this opportunity. Apart from everything Mr. Sevastakis observed, I’d also like to add that it’s a suitable moment for us to reflect on the role that journalism and staying informed can – and hopefully will – play in this situation, as well as to serve as a reminder of what they are capable of,” Mr. Kotsifos said.
“The last time I checked, predictions were dicey. The result will be determined by the swing states,” Mr. Andreadakis said following the film’s screening, giving the stage to the two guests. Mr. Sevastakis initially commented on the dynamic of Homegrown. “Today, we may be speaking about the elections, but we have to broaden our way of thinking and notice the way this phenomenon affects multiple levels at once. One such level is the shaping of the world of the American people. On the one hand, we have these people, their concerns, struggles, and disputes. On the other hand, we have the political and economic systems that resonate with international relations. This affiliation, I think, between the clash of different identities and the political outcome of this clash are key to comprehending this crisis, as it is a crisis that can not be exhausted in a conventional political dispute. It’s identity politics, almost an existential dispute. That is why the spirit of compromise is now gone, while it may have existed in the past. Is it possible for the notion of political community to exist once more, or are we living in the era of fractured common values?” he initially expressed. Then, he noted the importance of the January 2021 invasion at the Capitol: “Even though the USA isn’t the superpower we imagine or once was in the Cold War era, it remains at the core of globalized capitalism as all ideologies and trends stem from there. So, it is an indisputable fact that the attack at the Capitol is a grave event.”
Immediately afterwards, Mr. Kotsifos took the floor: “Watching the documentary from a journalistic point of view, the way the director’s approach towards the people greatly impressed me, as it oozed a sense of equal treatment. He managed to highlight, despite the violent behaviors, the shades of awkwardness his protagonists show when they are tasked with confronting their inner contradictions. And this, perhaps, is the key to interpreting all we attempt to detect. Whenever the discussion turned to the level of argumentation, that is when the protagonists needed to take an additional step forward to defend their ideas – either with words, or actions – that’s when an inner collapse came about gradually. Perhaps, this is the most worrying concerning everything we will be asked to convey after the elections. This clash of identities will have to be brought back to the level of argumentation,” stated Yannis Kotsifos.
Outlining the portrait of Donald Trump’s and Kamala Harris’ voters, Mr. Sevastakis mentioned: “Trump’s voters are consumed by intense feelings, while those of Kamala are, to a large extent, somewhat more moderate, perhaps enjoying a better quality of life. This is a world without confrontational issues to solve. However, there is also a portion of the new Democratic voters swarming in the last years who are seeking something more. A justice, both gender-based or race-oriented, a stronger social justice that goes beyond everything the Democratic Party can offer. It is presumed that this world will vote Kamala Harris as an anti-Trump gesture, but not wholeheartedly. Trump has managed, at least for the most part, to gear a conservative political party to the alt-right – a peculiar kind of alt-right – a much more committed and disciplined political bloc with a zealous and battle-ready identity. As such, aggressiveness is nearly one-sided,” he clarified.
Mr. Kotsifos took the floor, adding: “In the Democrat voters, a consciousness of the institutions and a desire to fix their flaws is evident. Even if you feel unappreciated, you don’t resort to extreme behavior to regain lost territory; instead, you anticipate the revival of the institutions.” Mr. Sevastakis, in turn, stressed: “In the documentary, the characters we observe don’t remain unaltered in the course of these months. They display cracks in their facades, there is a prevailing impression that they were betrayed and excluded. This issue hides at its core a conflict that will not be healed only through an electoral outcome. Identities are not dependent on the passing of time, they are something more profound triggering consequences,” Mr. Sevastakis added.
In response to a question posed by Mr. Kotsifos on Michael Premo’s directorial gaze and the distance he tried to maintain in the film, always in light of their background as activists, Mr. Andreadakis said: “This is typical in observation documentaries, keeping everyone at arm’s length so as to capture everything objectively, insofar as it is possible. To make the spectator come to a conclusion on his own. Premo follows this tradition, but he does make his position clear.” Mr. Sevastakis added: “I’d say he crafts an ethography, an anthropological depiction of this political, wanting to demonstrate how a political event of international scope such as the storming of the Capitol can be produced. I believe a similar effort would be useful in Greece, where we lack movements of such a wide range, an approach focused on the people, the reasons to take action, and their course through time, let’s say towards the far-right, or other marginal political spaces. I think it is an enviable approach.”
As to whether the attack at the Capitol was ultimately a crucial event in American history, Mr. Sevastakis commented: “The protagonists of such an event, as loutish as they may seem to us, write history as well, forcing the political system and mass media to take a closer look at them. After all, that is what has happened in the last few years. Movements are not always something exceptional and grand, they bear tragicomic aspects,” he noted. Then, he mentioned the coincidental changes in the last four years, and how they shape today’s landscape: “It’s not 2020. Each historical and political moment has its own logic and uniqueness. Nevertheless, these processes and passions that came to the forefront in 2020, carry on today.”
“At the end of the day, do we live in an era of monsters?” Mr. Andreadakis wondered, referring to this year’s tribute titled, We, The Monster. “We have gathered a series of films from each genre that covers a large part of the history of cinema, both old and new films, which were carefully selected by a very important man in film festivals, Carlo Chatrian, former Artistic Director of the Berlin and Locarno Film Festivals, which illustrate this situation. How a man next door, an employee following orders, like Eichmann, the architect and undertaker of the Final Solution, may function as a monster. The other side of the tribute is moving towards the opposite direction: how an organized society regards people who simply embody some kind of difference as monsters,” he stated, while referring to the exhibition that is the inspiration behind the tribute hosted by the MOMus- Experimental Center for the Arts (Warehouse B1-Port of Thessaloniki), showcasing works from the artists, Malvina Panagiotidi and David Sampethai.
“In the tradition of critical thought, otherness is always posing a challenge, a way to reshape your own identity, measure up against your own phantasms. How will we separate the monster that stems from the moral-political evil from the ‘monster’ that just invites us to get to know something different? As bizarre as it seems, something like that is very hard on our political stances, and on the way we interpret everyday life. Because depending on what we like, we transform the enemy into a monster and we lose the capability to discern and make distinctions.
The audience was then invited to participate in the discussion. Commenting on the identity of Trump’s supporters, and more specifically, a part of the white American population from the Midwest, as well as how their low expectations were brought forth with putting their faith in Trump, Mr. Kotsifos mentioned: “In the film, one of the protagonists says: ‘Our children will never experience the wonderful things we did until the 60s, 70s, 80s, and that stems from the sentiment of loss and injustice, which is so deeply rooted that it disregards any progress made for other population group’s children.” Mr. Sevastakis added: “They react to this imagined disdain, made up for the most part by themselves. They react in this manner, passing from radical words to extreme action.”
In response to Mr. Andreadakis’ comment about the existence of similar phenomena in Europe, Mr. Kotsifos stated: “These identity issues, which encompass political and social displacement that brings traditional political parties to a state of awkwardness, can be found aplenty in Europe, constituting the big challenge of our times. At the European leg at least, we still have a powerful need for a regulatory reform, which may indeed moderate the consequences of this displacement.” Mr. Sevastakis, on his part, added: “The key word around which these identities are structured is ‘freedom,’ or ‘liberty.’ There are some differences between the two words, but in any case, the reactants demand freedom as opposed to regulation, or the state itself. They demand this type of freedom, which contradicts the traditional image we have about the alt-right, which had traditionally been the party defined by discipline, class, hierarchy. Here, the ghost of hierarchy coexists with the spectrum of a freedom without rules, a freedom rather selfish and individualistic, I would say, a coexistence we encounter often in different types of movements such as this over the last years.”
Concluding the discussion, Mr. Andreadakis commented:” We are hoping to avoid the formation of a new ‘Monsters International.’ We, of course, cannot do much more than organize such talks, showcase films that inspire reflection, and make us regard society and politics through a critical lens, but also help us welcome sensitive and politically-oriented people such as the guests we are hosting today.”
