culture

25 Jan 2008

Chroniclers of the Aftermath

By Maria Tumarkin

Tampa Day, 2006

For some, the end of the Howard Government was just the beginning, writes Maria Tumarkin, in conversation with filmmaker Tahir Cambis

On election night my friend Tahir Cambis neither cheered nor clapped.

You would expect some kind of civic jubilation from the man who considered John Howard to be a criminal and who has been saying so publicly at least since the sinking of SIEV X, most significantly in the 2004 documentary Anthem, which he co-directed with Helen Newman.

Yet that night in a room full of euphoric people my friend Tahir was in no mood to celebrate. Instead he looked around and saw his friend Julian Burnside, the only other man not clapping. "You don't feel like clapping," he said to Julian. "I am reminded," Julian replied, "of a real-life man tortured for a long time who is finally released and told that it's over, he can go home now. ‘It's over?' says the man. ‘It's only the beginning'."

When Tahir Cambis's name is mentioned in Australian media, he is invariably described as an award-winning film-maker, as if the first term guarantees the legitimacy of the second, as in ‘certified accountant'. The irony is that it guarantees nothing, not in this country, and certainly the Emmy Tahir won in 1997 for his documentary Exile in Sarajevo proved useless only seven years later in helping him secure a national distributor for Anthem. (And, of course, the bastions of public broadcasting were all too ready to add insult to injury. "Oh the good, old Anthem, such a powerful home-grown documentary, but unfortunately not quite our cup of tea," said the ABC and SBS wistfully, refusing to screen it. But more about Anthem later.)

"I don't have to have an opinion," says Tahir, "it's all here under our noses. How can a country be at war and not have war as part of its central election debate, focusing instead on economy and climate change? In the West, only Australia could pull it off."

While war was turned into a ‘boutique issue' during the election campaign, it is everywhere in Tahir's work. Bosnian war in Exile in Sarajevo. War on terror and its inevitable companion, war on asylum-seekers, in Anthem. War as both an historical and spiritual force in Angel of the Wind - the documentary he is working on now.

People think Tahir has an obsession with war. But then these are the people who excel at forgetting that peace is not a norm, but an exception, for most of the world most of the time. To them Tahir is a doom-sayer or a bleeding-heart, something which the man is most certainly not (he is scathing of recreational Left-wingers, has deep respect for genuine conservatives and believes that "Howardism filled a vacuum created by all parts of the political spectrum").

In Dispatches his book on reporting from the Vietnam War, Michael Herr writes: "I went to cover the war and the war covered me; an old story, unless of course you've never heard it. I went there behind the crude but serious belief that you had to be able to look at anything. Serious because I acted on it and went, crude because I didn't know - it took the war to teach it - that you were as responsible for everything you saw as you were for everything you did."

That sense of responsibility for everything you see is the blood flowing through the veins of Anthem. It is the kind of Australian documentary that is alien both stylistically and philosophically to the way in which questions of national identity have been traditionally explored in this country. Its examination of identity goes well outside of the nation's geographic borders - to Afghanistan, Iraq and post-9/11 United States. It is not a polished and combed-through cinematic text pieced together from archival footage, media coverage and a carefully measured voice-over. It is reporting from the front-lines - wild and exasperated, the kind that does not hide what Primo Levi called "scars of outrage". Anthem is pitched to resonate not with the Australian loungerooms but precisely with the world that these loungerooms tend to obscure.

Despite being rejected by ABC and SBS and not finding a national distributor, the documentary has by now been seen by thousands across Australia. "Even I fell for the idea that Australians did not want to know about asylum seekers and the war," says Tahir. What a load of shit. Constant traveling to show Anthem all across the country in special screenings organised by all kinds of organisations, from advocacy groups to Rotary clubs, convinced him and Helen of the contrary. People were desperate to know. "There is no way someone will tell me again what Australian people want and do not want to know,' says Tahir.

American journalist Philip Gourevitch, whose book on Rwanda is one of the most powerful testimonies I have read to the invisibility attained by genocide in our world, once described himself as the "writer of the aftermath". "I write", he said, not to let people's experience "slip away".

The aftermath chroniclers like Gourevitch are not at all akin to intellectual undertakers. Their job is not wash the body, sing the body, bury the body. They do not bury but dig up, as much as they can stomach. They uncover the truth of what had happened, the names of those it happened to and the ways in which life now (and forever) will no longer be the same.

In Australia, we are funny about doing our aftermath work and about those who do it for us. And, yes, Howard is no Pol Pot, but things, says Tahir, do add up. In the last decade people died, a war was waged, enormous damage has been done to the public sector and the arts. Tahir's list of grievances is long and it has to be long to be even remotely truthful - hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq, hundreds dead in the SIEV X disaster, death in detention. These are just some select highlights.

And then, of course, says Tahir, you have to look at the "great trauma visited upon Australian citizens", who, startled and ashamed by the government's zero-tolerance policy on refugees, protested, wrote articles, made friends, heart-breakingly, with families about to be deported back to the war-zones and hid asylum-seekers in their homes risking imprisonment.

These are the people, says Tahir, who "jeopardised their careers and relationships to do something they should not have to do - to ask their government to consider the possibility of treating vulnerable people as human beings." Who will account for this damage? Who will account for their trauma?

You have to be very literal indeed to claim that the last ten years are over now that the new boys and girls in suits are claiming - depending on the level of their arrogance and linguistic crudeness - to be either penning new paragraphs, turning new pages or starting brand new chapters in our proverbial history books. A change of power is never a change in power, in its pathways and DNA.

Power, writes sociologist Avery Gordon, "can be invisible, it can be fantastic, it can be dull and routine. It can be obvious, it can reach you by the baton of the police, it can speak the language of your thoughts and desires. It can feel like remote control, it can exhilarate like liberation, it can travel through time, and it can drown you in the present."

"This is over?" asked the man. "This is just the beginning."

Discuss this article

To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register

tonykevin 25/01/08 4:55PM

congratulations on a fine essay by maria tumarkin, and a good thing to read on the eve of australia day.

‘exile in sarajevo’ is a superb human documentary movie - i used it for my classes at melbourne university on peacemaking, when i still had classes there - and so is ‘anthem’.

but ‘anthem’ was too much for our squeamish media to stomach, despite its grace and wisdom . i am glad some people are seeing it in clubs etc because it deserves to be seen. and our young soldiers are still fighting and dying in afghanistan, where we should not be sending them at all.

our society cannot tolerate a mirror being held up to itself and its wrong government policies on matters of war and peace. tahir, as one of the people prepared to hold up that mirror unflinchingly, was a casualty. i was one too, with my book ‘a certain maritime incident: the sinking of siev x ’ that no reputable academic or political commentator was ever brave enough to cite as a reference. yet tahir was prepared to interview me for footage in ‘anthem’. he did not ignore this pivotal event in australia’s history, nor sentimentally sanitise it into a kind of guilt-free natural disaster. he told it as it was - as the probable result of national security agencies’ determination to keep unpapered refugees out of australia, whatever the human cost. that is the kind of event we should remember on australia day, and tahir’s film will help us remember it.

we should support and celebrate tahir cambis as an australian filmmaker of great courage and talent. his time of wider public recognition will come.

tony kevin

douglas jones 29/01/08 3:56PM

douglas jonesOkay the assumption is that we the Australian electorate are under informed or have been misinformed and that viewing such productions will enable us to take amore informed and reasoned view of recent history. The writer says that viewers are many. In a democracy the majority in theory make the policies, sure via interface with politicians or political parties. Is it a majority that is viewing and being informed? They are then doing what? Attempting retribution, attempting to ensure that the media does its function of accurately informing us so that if SievX happens it can be corrected and we do not venture into Iraqis of the future on the basis of lies and misinformation.
There is another way not involving the effort and trauma of becoming informed. Australia along with some 105 other nations is signatory to the Rome Statute information about which is yours for the click of a mouse. In essence signatories undertake to investigate and if necessary prosecute a range of war crimes under their own national system of laws. The making an aggressive war is unfortunately not an agreed criminal act despite the UN Charter for not enough countries agreed it should be a crime but much else is covered.
The Chief prosecutor of the ICC writing in the Boston review,
Boston review.net/BR32.5/moreno-ocampo.php saying, …”Many states particularly the 105 states that are currently state parties to the Rome Statute, are legally bound to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as to cooperate with the ICC and enforce its decisions”
Who would investigate? I do not know but it might seem that effort asking our members how could be worth while for we would be seeking universal justice not victors. It may be that you see no need or that you do not want to be involved. Well in the main it seems the Attorney General is responsible for prosecution. Thus little is needed other than a commitment to justice similar to investigating Sieve X or the AWB scandal or…
Folk wanting to obtain some sort of reasoned view of why what has happened did could well start with Anatol Lieven’s, “America Right or Wrong” and continue reading much else checking the substance of what he says for unfortunately spin does not stop necessarily at the doors of academia.