 Hello to you all, and welcome to this series of discussions around the aesthetics of resistance in the arts. This is a series of discussions that we're starting today and which will unfold then tomorrow on Saturday and then Sunday. My name is Laura Capelle. I'm a sociologist, journalist, and the New York Times Theatre critic in Paris. I'm very happy to be moderating this conversation with Milo Rao, Édouard-Louis, and Geoffroy de la Gainerie. So over three days, we will try and explore first how activism and artistic practice can be intertwined today, and how activism has shaped their understanding of art. Also with strategies, each of them has put in place to bridge the gap between the art world and their progressive beliefs. And finally, what forms socially engaged arts might take today. So on each day, we will spend 45 minutes together, and I hope you'll be joining us as we hopefully continue this conversation and bring it to an end on Sunday. Now, I think Milo Rao needs no introduction here since he founded this school of resistance that we're a part of this week. Many of his works are being shown every night as part of the program, so I recommend catching the Congo Tribunal to the 7pm. But let me say a few words about our other two speakers today. First of all, Édouard-Louis is a French writer who has achieved international recognition with his sociologically informed explorations of his background and experiences. Now these include the end of Eddie, history of violence, and who killed my father. He is currently working on a new project with Milo Rao, and I know, I think, they will tell us a little more about it over the course of these conversations. And finally, Geoffroy de la Gainerie is a French philosopher and sociologist who has written extensively about culture, politics, and criminal justice from the perspective of social science in books including The Art of Revolt and Judge and Punish for the ones that you can find in translation. There are many more in French for French speakers among the audience. Now, in this first discussion, we're going to be focusing on the genealogy of activism. That is, what is a socially engaged artist? What might that look like? And what that has looked like throughout history, as well as how each of the speaker's work has been shaped by their own trajectory, their own sort of coming of age as activists, so to speak. Now to start with each of you. If perhaps anyone can start, but this is a question for all of you. How do you each relate to the history of activism within the arts? Are there specific movements, specific periods of figures that have contributed to your understanding of it? Middle, you should go first. Shall I start? Yes, thank you. So thank you, Laura, for this beautiful introduction and that you are ready to moderate us. And thanks Edouard and Geoffroy that you are here for three days. So I think there are, let's say, biographical accidents that make you an activist and that make you an activist of that kind or that kind. I think for me, and this is, let's say, more my biographical background, there were some moments in my youth that brought me in a certain direction, let's say, perhaps even in a kind of, in a classical direction of activism that was that the second husband of my mother was a Trotskist. So even in Switzerland that exists, obviously. And he was introducing me, I remember, I was 11 years old and he was telling me, Milo, listen, lady is the most interesting and important figure of the century, so we were still in the 20th century. And I started reading him and I started reading Marx and then I started to understand that there seems to be underlying structures that are kind of programming us to react in that way or in that way and these structures can be changed and even only if we change these structures of how we live together, the structures of language and the structures of practices and perhaps the structures of the classes, we can change whatever, so that all this is determined. And I think that was for me a super important, a super important influence very, very early. Then 89, end of real existing communism, I was 12, 2, 13, I started Russian to read Lenin in the original version and I continued kind of preparing myself to become a sociologist and I remember it was 94 and 97 when I went for the first time to Chiapas. And this was for me the first movement that really, from close, I could understand how, for example, in upheaval functions, how you can use the internet, what they were the first one, the first big international movement that used the internet to be visible somehow and to give symbolic power to people that didn't have a big army, for example. So this influenced me a lot. So just fast, I think these are the two, three movements that made me understand and later I was, of course, Baudier was very important for me as an influence and then I started to work as an activist. And perhaps as a last comment on this, my first works as a director were not in theater. I started as a journalist and in television, but even before I was organizing big demonstrations for the socialist youth in Switzerland, in Syria and in Geneva. And there the question was, from what point to what point you would go in the city, what is written on the banners, at what moment joins watch movement together that in the end, how you organize a kind of an afternoon of speeches, when comes the music, etc. So this was for me, let's say, the first artistic approach or where I saw that I can kind of model the social body somehow as a as a as a director, a kind of a director when I was 20 years old. So that's how it started for me. Now, you mentioned Pierre Baudier, and I know he is a French sociologist for those who may not know. He's a major influence on all three of you. And I know Geoffroy has written extensively about his work in his own books. Perhaps, Geoffroy, you can tell us a little bit more about how your own social consciousness was awakened in your life. You don't hear me? Yeah, now we hear you. Okay, perfect. So hello, everybody. I'm very happy to be here with you all. I would perhaps question your question by saying that it's always very hard and problematic, the fact that we always call activist people who are leftist, in fact. And we have a tendency in the social world to depoliticize the right of the conservative. And you always ask someone who is in favor of social justice or racial justice of the right for women, they are activists, so why are you activists? But if you do pure art or if you do some things that is just the reproduction of the institutionalized way of doing aesthetics, people will not ask you, why are you a conservative activist? Or how did you become conservative? Or why are you an activist of the social order? And so I think it's very, very important to not to reserve or to use only the term activist for people who are in favor of the transformation of the world. And everyone is activist as soon as he creates. If you decide to create something, you engage yourself, you commit yourself into a practice that tends to address social, cultural structures, you can comfort them, you can aggravate them, you can transform them and so on. And so as soon as you appear in the public space, as soon as you publish something, you write something, you create something, you are an activist. And everyone is an activist, I am, Nilo is, Pascal Dussapa is, everyone is an activist, as is an activist of an idea of the world or of a conservation of a transformation of the world. So I would very, very question the notion that we have to explain why we are activists as if the other were not. And I always say that for me, it's not, I always, regarding myself, I always say that being a leftist activist is not something that is explainable. It's something that is given into the world. You just have to be born into the world and to see, I don't know, homeless people sleeping in the streets, masculine domination, rape, wars, imperialism, colonialism and so on. As soon as you look at the world as it is, you cannot be in favor of the perpetration of the world. So in fact, in my theory, the left, it's something that is given by the world. If you look at the world, you want to transform it. And in fact, it's impossible to explain that it's given as the simple fact of being in the world makes you aware of inequalities, of domination, of structural domination and so on. And so what should be explained, in fact, is why people are not leftists. How do you explain that some people are not in favor of the transformation of the world and want the world to continue as it is and not to transform it? So I think it's always a good way for me to say that it's not possible to explain how you become a leftist. It's normal. So we're going to go with left-wing activism then. So to be clear in this discussion, and perhaps Edouard now, I know of course you've written extensively about how you came to understand concepts like class and domination, but perhaps for people who may not have read your works, how would you summarize that trajectory for you? Yeah. I mean, what I think is interesting is that Milo and Joffre and me, we arrive more or less at the same moment. We create a theater, a philosophy, literature. It doesn't really matter. We create right after the 20th century. And the 20th century was a very rich moment of connection for historical reasons, for sociological reasons, for different reasons. It was a very, very rich moment in terms of connection between arts and politics with people like François Non, with people like Jean-Paul Sartre, with people like Simon de Beauvoir. And predominantly it was a moment of committed literature, what we call committed arts, art engagé, philosophie engagé, théâtre engagé, théâtre politique and all those kinds of things. And I think that the question for us was how to push that boundaries even further and how to kind of recreate and reinvent those things. And I think Milo is a neorealism and which is like an activist theater that we will talk about later. Joffre always is an oppositional theory. And what I try to think as confrontational literature is like three very similar movements of kind of trying to reinvent the links between arts and between politics. My point was to say that there's a committed art of Simon de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre mostly, but of other people too, was another that consisted in showing reality. Jean-Paul Sartre said committed art, it was shows us a reality, present us a reality, for example the life of women, the life of prostitutes, the life of black people, the life of gay people, etc. And from then on, from this fact of like showing a reality, people will be free to act or not to act. My point, which is similar at some point with Joffre and with Milo, is that I think we, in the moment we live, we know reality. We have access to reality. It's not like when Zola was showing up what was going on in the mind of the workers. It's not when Jean-Paul Sartre was showing what was going on around us in other parts of the world and everything. We live in a moment where people have the internet, where people have access to information, where people have like a massive access to media, and so people know how bad the world is. People know how racist the world is. People know how tough and heavy the masculine domination is, how like LGBT people are being treated all around the world. And so for me, the question is not anymore to show the reality if we know that reality, but how can we push people to act against a reality that they already know and that they want, they don't really want to know, you know, except for several exceptions. I think that that Orten and theories, they don't really have anything to teach us anymore. We don't have, we don't learn anymore from those kinds of things, from those realities. So the question is, when you create, how do you push people to really act? Because the rest of the time they say, there is a problem with the sound, because most of the time people refuse to be confronted towards what they already know. If you're in France, you know that. If you're black or if you're Arab, you will be put in a server and you will be arrested by the police and you will be more poor than the others most of the time, and that you won't have access to the same thing than the others. Everybody knows that if you're a woman now, you are subjected to masculine domination. Everybody knows those realities. So for me, the question is, when you write a book, when you make a piece of art, how do you make, in order to force people to be confronted to those things that they know? And for me, this is what I call the move from engaged literature, committed literature, to confrontational literature, and to confront people with that knowledge. And I think it is really a way of finding new tools, finding new literary forms, finding new ways of theater that will completely push people to be those natural activists that Geoff Ward and Henry just talked about. And when a woman or when someone, most of the time, a woman testifies about rape and people say, it's not true. It cannot be true. It's like the first reaction of the time. It cannot be true. It cannot be real. It didn't happen. And the fact that the reaction is so quick is because people, they already know that it exists. And they want to fight against that knowledge. They know that there are sexual violence. They know that there are sexual assaults. They know what is going on. And there is not even room for surprise. They don't even say, what happened? They say, no, it's not true. And the reason why the reaction is so fast in denying is because people already know the reality. And they're already prepared to protect themselves from a reality they already know, but they don't want to face. And for me, the role of art, the role of theories, the role of philosophy, the role of philosophies to kind of overcome and challenge this problem in our times. And that's what I try to do. Now, Milo, perhaps you'd like to react to that, and especially to the notion of reality, because of course, realism and new realism are key concepts for you in your work. How do you relate to that in a slightly different way than Edouard? Do you sort of agree with his notion of confrontational art? No, I think I can add to it, because I completely agree to what Choffra said, but also to what Edouard said, that we are going from something that is engaged and would show and give a place to voices that are not heard, et cetera. You know all these modern clichés, or it already became a cliché. And to somebody who as an artist or an activist or however you want to call it, create a space where things can realize themselves. So not represent, but the representation, as I say in the Gantt Manifesto, becomes itself real. For me, activism or realism is to connect knowledge and space of action. So doing and knowing somehow, to bring it together in a space of a project, for example. When we did that, I can give the example of the last film we did, and I was very happy or unhappy that Edouard Choffra didn't play the roles as Roman soldiers as I proposed, but perhaps next time. The New Gospel we did in South Italy, where I had a Cameroon activist as Jesus, and not only to give somebody a place to do, to make a statement in a film, but really to make a revolt of dignity. And the film tells how we try while doing a film to make a real revolt. So really to land, to realize the gospel into today. Not only by showing, okay, there are all these conditions and the criminalization of the refugees, et cetera, et cetera, but really drew the project's struggle and tried to change it. And even the failure is included, and even the pressure that the little group is described in the New Testament that Jesus is denied by his own group. It's not actually the police in the end of the day who makes him fall. It's the social pressure that makes the social activist group explode somehow. It's perhaps the narcissism of Jesus, et cetera. So describing, I call it actually utopian documentarism. It's like creating a situation, giving a cadrage to reality by art, that this reality can become fiction somehow, and something can happen that wasn't foreseen. And of course it goes into two directions. When we are here in the School of Resistance, for me, when we are enclosed, let's say, in the total presence of neoliberalism, without future and without past, and the presence is mediatized all the time, and we hear the same stories of the past somehow again and again, is trying to take a myth from the past, bring it to the present, to produce something new for the future. It's kind of mixing time together. That's what realism is. And one more comment I want to do, because Edouard used the word neorealism. Neorealism, I somehow quote sometime, let's say, the classical neorealism methodology of, for example, editing film. When you look like how Pasolini did his films, it's very interesting, because, for example, he deconstructs the dramaturgical space. You don't have overshoulder shots. You don't know in which relation Jesus is to the apostle. You don't even understand if they are in the same room, or he shots on somebody who is listening, and you don't see what he is listening to, because you see everything that you can understand that he listens in the face of this person. And this kind of deconstructing, not telling the story again, but deconstructing the story, and putting the different elements of this story in a room that they are free again, and can connect in many new ways. And I think there are many positive and negative aesthetic levels as a realistic writer, because normally in the common sense, realism means that somebody just writes down what happened to him, no? That's autobiographical writing. But actually, it's the understanding and realization of all the possibilities that lie in this situation, you kind of condensed as being a subject in that world. And then you see that you are many things. And I think that's what, for me, is interesting by being realistic to realize things that were not foreseen, or that they were forgotten, or they were not logically normal strategy, or there's a kind of a luxury in a normal way of telling the story, that you would say, you don't need this figure and this figure. As the last comment, our Jesus film is the first Jesus film, I think, where Jesus is only like 20 to 30 percent in the image. Normally you have at least 80 percent Jesus, and then a kind of little little things around. We have a lot of things you don't need actually in a Jesus film. You can tell Jesus film much more economically. And that's all what I'm interested in when I say I try to activate reality and not only describe it. Now, I think we're getting to the questions of the traditions that you are each in dialogue with. In a sense, you've already mentioned some, and I was wondering if perhaps Joffre would like to expand on that what your own path was, and what traditions you believe that you are speaking to, and perhaps taking to the 21st century as you're working as a philosopher and sociologist. So no sound for the people without a voice. No, I think it's very obvious that we have, and I have an Edouard and Mido too, a very special relation to sociology and especially to the work of Pierre Bourdieu. I think for me it's one of the most important thinkers. And often when I say we have to think about the world, we have to think about reality, I think that one of the major piece of work that helps us to see the reality is the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. So I have more and more a problem with thinking in terms of a tradition. I don't know, I'm not sure it's my way of thinking of what I try to do. I think it's important to reflect about another as someone who tries to inaugurate new ways of thinking. And in that sense, what is important, it's less the tradition, but the new traditions we tend to create. And for example, the relation with the DJ and Edouard, the relation with Mido, with Thomas Ostermaier, with... It's a kind of a new way of being linked with artist, writer, theoreticians. That is, I think, quite new. But I want to address what Mido said about reality and his film about the New Gospel, which we loved very much. And I think that there is always, for me, a tension about the artistic project and the notion of reality, which is to say that I think it's very hard to, I would say, to legitimate an artistic project by the will to show reality. Because if you want to think about the reality of domination and exploitation, you have to think about history, you have to think about statistics, you have to think about, I don't know, the time and some incorporation. And in that sense, I think that if you want to show and to understand reality, you are much more engaged in a sociological or theoretical project than in an artistic project. And for example, if you think about the New Gospel, and it's very important, the idea that an artistic project was linked to a real protest movement, and in a sense was one of the ways in which a strike and a social movement was developed. One question I would ask is, can't you argue that the artistic project would have forebid you to help more the movement? You know what I mean? Not only that the art was a tool for contestation or to struggle together, but didn't you sometimes experiment the possibility that to be engaged in an artistic project could have been a kind of not helped the strike or the struggle together, but have imposed some constraints that may have forbid the movement to be more powerful or you know what I mean? So at what moment is it possible to articulate authentically an artistic project and a political activism? And at which point it's sometimes it's not mostly more in contradiction than in a kind of articulation. So I don't know if I'm clear. I can answer to it. I think there are two sides. So one side is of course the negativity I think art always introduces in everything that is described. So it's always, for me, making art has a perhaps dangerous deconstructive element all in it. And you see it in the New Gospel that and it was also when we had the first presentation of the film in Venice that some of the activists were a bit unhappy about it. For example, all this making of this failure, these kind of scenes that were interrupted because you know this mix that art introduces in the field of reality and in the field of politics because I think politics, classical politics, want to tell a straight story. Going to a name and there is, I don't know, the new law or the houses or whatever, a better system. And art introduces all the failure that is necessary to reflect all the different perspectives you can have on this kind of project. And for me there the Bible I have to say was a very good, the New Testament was a very good example for me. Because when you look closer to the Bible as the central propagandistic book of the Middle East Western civilization of the last 2,000 years, I would have forbidden it from the beginning on because as propaganda it's completely deconstructive. So you have told the story from six different angles. You have a leader that fails. You have a kind of even a methodology of failure. You have somebody who is narcissistic at moments. You see all the problems of leadership. You see all the problems of a little activist group. And in the very end, I mean the basic problem is that even the Messiah is not the first one. He's baptized by somebody. Somebody was even before and when he dies, because he is God, he's asking, but God, why did you have forsaken me? So it even asks the existence of God. And this is the propagandistic book of the Christian civilization. And I think that's very interesting. And here you see for me, and that's why I was so interested in this book and in let's say old text too, that show how you try to construct a kind of a strong story that would lead you to transcendency or lead you to the kingdom of God, but at the same time you introduce everything that makes it completely impossible. Let's say the failures of humanity. And for me that's a moment and I think in the end of the day you find yourself with your comrades in it, that you somehow accept your own weaknesses. So I think you call it also shame that you are honest on what you do and you show what you do. And for me this is kind of the meta-activism. This is the beauty of activism, this kind of failure. On the other hand, and this is very practical, of course, the multiplication of the image, a strike lead of being Jesus in European cinema, etc. etc. This helps a lot to these people in terms of visibility, in terms of another way of telling a story, in another parallel world, which is perhaps the art house movie world. So this is kind of a very simple support, but it's a very complex way how you, I mean if you do it in an honest way and you're not just painting the fish of Stalin in the end of the day, but if you are doing it in a kind of present-day way, it's a very difficult and contradictory thing to do. Edouard, would you perhaps like to react to that, perhaps from your perspective as a writer to the question that Rufa asked? Yes, I mean I don't necessarily agree with Rufa on this, and the thing is we all agree on one thing, which is that representation is not enough anymore, and that representation is old-fashioned, and that there was a kind of two heady things to do in saying we're going to represent something and it will change something, and we are trying to push those borders. And what Milo is doing is for me really revolutionary from that point of view, to create a movie like the Jesus movie or to create a play that would change the reality at the moment he's creating the play, to do a play that will create a social movement at the moment he's creating the play, at the moment he's shooting he's saying okay to the people who are going to create a social movement and this will be the play. And for me this is really something completely new and radically new, and that kind of push those limits of arts that Rufa was mentioning. But on the other way, I think that there is a specific way that with which art can change people and can change reality, and when we think in terms of like political change and social change and transformation, we always think in terms of like collective and big groups suddenly being transformed, you know with the social movement, with people going in the street, with people protesting in the street. But also for me the power and perhaps the beauty of art is its possibility to change a collective that doesn't know that it exists as a collective, you know. And how many women were changed in reading Simone de Beauvoir alone in their bedroom, alone in their sofa, alone, you know, in the park reading The Second Sex from Simone de Beauvoir, and understanding this is my life, this is the oppression I'm going through, this is the oppression I'm living. How many like black people who were enduring racism read Frans Fanon or read the writings of the Black Panther Party and say this is my situation, this is my situation of oppression. And in fact, for me the power of art is already here in the way change so many individuals one after the other, and at the end create a kind of silence and almost invisible collective movement but which is a collective, you know. And when Jean-Paul Sartre was talking about politics, he always made a division between serialized individuals, so like individuals in series, one after the other and not connected. And he was asking the question, how can we go from serialized individual to a group into fusion. And a lot of the politics nowadays is still be framed in the same way, you know, like you have individuals and you have groups. And in fact, I think that art is really blurring these things. And so many pieces of arts failed to completely change the class system, failed to change the masculine domination, failed to change the sexual violence. But in fact, the capacity of the books to change the individuals is something deeply transformative and deeply collective. And I, you know, as a gay child, as a gay teenager, when I come out of the closet and when I wanted to be a different person, when I wanted to break free from my family, to watch the movies of Pedro Almodóvar or to read the books of Violet-Le Duc, or to read, to see the movies of Guzvern Saint, you know, was a way of completely, you know, liberating myself and changing myself. And okay, after the movie of Guzvern Saint or the books of Violet-Le Duc, there were no people demonstrating in the street. But also every time now I go to a bookstore, every now, every time I have a public conversation, I realize that this personal revolution was a collective revolution. And I think when we think about the limits of art and the limits of its ability and of its capacity to change reality, it's also because we always tend to forget this very special, specific power of a body changing, a body when it's reading a book, a body when it's going to theater, a body when it's listening to a song. And yes, it's not, we cannot think about politics the same way we think about arts, because even when art is politics, it's a different kind of politics, clearly. And this is what makes it rich, because we can do both at the same time, because we can write book, and we can go demonstrate in the streets at another moment. And so yeah, it's really what I think we should try to understand. Now, I believe Jofra had something to add, because I saw a raised finger. I totally agree with Edouard, but I very, very, I note that every, almost all the example he takes at the beginning, which is Simon de Beauvoir, France Fanon, Black Panther Party, is not art. It's a theory. It's precisely the opposite of art. And I think it's, yes, it's true. But I think that in terms of if you want to be aware of yourself, to learn something about yourself, to understand what we are, what produces you, I don't think that you can have emotion writing a movie. But at the end, if you want to think of art as, or you think about what kind of practice can help people to understand what they are, and what they want to do to change what they are, what they are submitted to. At the end, you need a project that is explicit about the social structure, a project that will address their conscience about their ability to learn something about themselves, about history and so on. And at the end, this logic of demonstration, of demonstration, of explicitation is what theory tends to do, or literature, a kind of literature, like Le Duc, which is a very specific kind of literature, not fictional literature. And this is in opposition to almost the entire ideology that is at the core of the artistic field today, which is based on enigmatization, of not telling what you tell, of being implicit, of hiding the apparatus of your work, and so on. And so, in fact, if we don't want to, I think that when we think about the cultural world, we don't have to, our project should not be to save what exists, but to depart from a political project, and then to interrogate what form would be the best to achieve this project. And we have to be, to think in terms of efficiency, of utilitarianism, that will help me to do what I want to do. And if what Edward says is absolutely right, I think you are engaged in a criticism of almost 99% of what is produced as art or theater of literature today, and to think that it's another way of writing during lectures, conference, and so on, that you are to do, which is based on the notion of theoretical, of explicitation, of demonstration, of historical structures, and so on. So that's why I think it engages us in interrogating why people continue to do art, if they want to change the world, because they knew that there are other possibilities to change the world, that art, that are much more efficient, which like theory or activism in the streets, or you know, political parties, but there are other structures that Edward took example from theory and not from art. Now, Miro perhaps, what would you make of that difference? Because of course you make art, but you've also written theoretical texts, so to speak, about your practice and about what you do as an, as an activist, as an artist. So what would you, how do you react to that? Yeah, I think perhaps that's for a next discussion, but I think to, what we started to do now is to divide somehow, and I can understand it, theoretics and practices, so like what you describe and what you would do. And I think in the real world, I know it's really not like this. I was very impressed by what it was that that by reading a text from somebody else who is completely separate from you, you understand, that you are part of a collective you didn't know before you were not reading this text, and you become part of a collective or of a possible solidarity, and by this of a possible struggle to normalize that this solidarity exists as, I don't know, a law for women or let's say an institution that you could create. And therefore, me art comes into the game, because I mean, I am also as a kind of a scholar of Bourdieu, knowing that every normalized social practicing is in the beginning an invention of somebody, of a group, perhaps of a group that is in power, perhaps of a group that wanted to liberate themselves, but it turned around in another way. So, for example, the creation of a parliament, which we did in the General Assembly or the creation of an international economical tribunal we did in the Congo Tribunal, because we said, why is this not existing? Why do we have a global society, a global economy, but we don't have a global law? That's by the way the discussion we will have directly after. And this is an artistic intervention or intellectual intervention if art is on the side of theory somehow. But when you then see that when you frame reality by theory or by a book or by a film, then you let emerge something that is social practice, that is a solidarity, a possible normalization of this solidarity again in the institution, for example. So, I think for me it's closely connected this, let's say, creativity, social creativity, and on the other hand a kind of the institutional history of past creativity that became a law or whatever. So, for me this is really, that's why you can read an old book and drew a book of, I don't know, a story or even the Bible, drew this book, you can understand that you are part of a collective. And this book was written 2000 years ago. I don't have even to write it, you know? And this is for me the strange thing how let's say we are kind of putting down possible practices in texts, in institutions, in theory. And I have to confess for me also that the most important texts are theoretical texts. And I think most of the people if you would ask which text was, and even for me, I mean, Eduard, you will of course criticize me and say it's not true. But also for me your texts are, in a big extent, theoretical texts for me. And perhaps you can talk next time about it, that you come, you go with realism to a point that it becomes in a way, I don't know, a methodology on looking on reality that you would use it, not only for this, let's say, a bit story that you tell, but you can then tell a lot of stories in that way and perhaps your own story. And that liberates you with that theory, you know? Like a kind of a rhetoric that you would understand. For me, Pasolini, his Jesus film is fucking boring, you know? It's not a good film. But the methodology he uses, the humanism, the way, how, again, how he makes the cadrage, he has no overshadow, all these kind of things. He decentralizes the story of Jesus. He brings it to the miserabilism and invented miserabilism and archaism of South Italy and so on. So this is extreme, it shows me who I am and who I can be. And this is what is interesting for me, but not what Jesus says or how Enrique Razzocchi plays or, you know, that's not the liberating point. I don't even have an idea who these people are. And I think this is the kind of going on a meta level by being the most concrete possible, what art normally does, the realistic art, that's for me what it is all about. So, Eduard, please hold that thought until tomorrow because we're going to have to stop this conversation for now. It's a very packed schedule today for the School of Resistance. So we will be back, we will be back tomorrow to continue this discussion at 4pm if you want to join us. And in the meantime, at 5pm, so in about 15 minutes, I think you're going to have a conversation about transnational injustice, which I'm sure you will want to follow. Thank you so much for listening and being with us today. We hope to see you tomorrow. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, love. Thank you, Eduard. See you tomorrow. Thank you, Lohan. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much wherever you are. Bye. Bye.