‘Hewelius’ — Anti-system Mayday

Before I watched Jan Holoubek’s netflix series “Hewelius”, I read the column of Philip Memches entitled “Did Holoubek agree with Kaczyński?”. The text is so short that 1 look was adequate to catch the word "order". This caused me not to quit reading, although I seldom read reviews before watching a movie. Of course, in order not to make your own perception conditional on another interpretations. But it was besides late.

The concept of the arrangement was first utilized by Andrzej Zybertowicz in the subtitle of the book “In the grip of secret services. The Fall of Communism and the Postnomenklatura System". The Toruń sociologist points out, not only in this publication, how parasitic interest groups bargain from Poland, specified as the weave of power, business, services and the media, the arrangement, acting in a behind-the-clock way, weakens the Polish state and is deadly not only for the safety of our country, but besides for the lives of average people. The people of the treaty, from politicians to journalists, acting in their interests prey on Community-produced resources, not in the interests of society.

Zybertowicz managed to make a group of technological researchers dealing with sociology of behind-the-clock activities and informal interest groups, thus creating human resources capable of analyzing the situation of this hug, in which Poland was located in the 1990s. The scientist created a conceptual apparatus and a methodology for researching activities (subsisting with a kind of network analysis) which are seemingly unrelated, but execute an crucial will in the social creation of cognition and non-knowledge areas. This peculiar cognition determines our image of the world, which we usually silently follow in our decisions, including political ones.

It is worth reading the book and articles of this investigator in order to get an opinion on them on their own, as the concept of the arrangement is deliberately ridiculed. Especially in the circles of “Gazeta Wyborcza” – no wonder, it is part of the strategy described. The problem is that critical remarks against Zybertowicz, due to the fact that they are hard to call polemics, are mediocre quality, and are usually based on labels or an arguments of "conspiracy theory", without entering entirely into the inspiration of the described connections.

Importantly, “In the grip of secret services” was released in 1995, 2 years after the crash of the Hewelius ferry. For this reason, it is asked to examine the disaster as a case survey of the weakness of the state of the system. This is usually done by researchers, journalists and service analysts. In the case of the series, the manager made it, to what degree consciously, is simply a separate question, but 1 can conclude that the desire to make a good empirical description of the investigation suggests a certain view and terminology.

In his column, Filip Memches encourages you to watch this movie through the prism of the concept of arrangement. This is simply a wise encouragement and at the same time without pardon, for at the beginning of the column, the author writes: “I wonder if Jan Holoubek realizes that his series “Heelius” is an act of accusation against the environment, which was a political protoplast of modern times democratic elites fighting right-wing populism?’.

According to the writer “To Things” the netflix series is not only outstanding artistically, but besides as a historical story. Bowiem Poland in "Hewelius" is simply a country from the diagnosis of Jarosław Kaczyński, a country governed by a pathological arrangement described by the president of Law and Justice and its intellectual facilities, including Zybertowicz. It is simply a country of cardboard, weak due to the fact that it lacks defence and patriotic concern, a spoil for interest groups at the interface of the state, business and services. The State, quoting a classic, besides of service origin, existing “only theoretically”. The arrangement, as the movie shows, and what is empirical reality, will be all ways to destruct its enemies, as in the case of Captain Peter Binter, who has suffered a car accident, which is in fact the work of the service.

Decades for specified a diagnosis Kaczyński was treated as a “crazy” following influences of “foreign” due to the fact that it is known that “history is over” and we all have common interests with “ours” (Russia, Germany), and it frequently turns out that these are interests of transnational elites played in the most national interests – only not ours.

Did Holoubek, drawing out the image of Poland, not admit Kaczyński, though he advocates the another side of political dispute? – he rightly asks Memches.

That's an interesting question. Whether the director, and more broadly, people describing the social reality, in this case the 1990s, can realise, firstly, whose reality, who is liable for it and, secondly, learn from it. This is simply a fundamental matter, due to the fact that it is impossible to unwind this question with a simple "It is already the past", especially since it is not hard to describe the metamorphosis of the strategy from the 1930s to today. Amazingly enough, even the actors of this performance do not change, although on phase they play a fresh script. In this respect, no reflection on political nostalgia will help, due to the fact that nostalgia concerns what has passed, and the arrangement only transforms – designation of him as a dead body is simply a large mistake, due to the fact that he escapes opposition (was) – present (has not) and opposition regressions – progress, so willingly applied to the right and left.

Another crucial question is whether, and to what extent, the people serving this arrangement admit their servitude. What intellectual strategies they take to deal with this issue, assuming that they admit it under the skin somehow.

These 2 questions, and the answers to them, show their importance only with a appropriate look at "Hewelius" precisely through the prism of the concept of the arrangement, not, for example, nostalgia in the 1990s. From those years, I remember the visit of the bailiff, the counting by the parents of each gold and the clothes of the Lumpex, which were a sign of poorness alternatively than fashion. My perception was not directed at all by the notion of nostalgia, although of course I can be nostalgic on the occasion of another films, due to the fact that it is always “stakeholder”. The character of the film, to which I felt the most sympathy and understood best, due to my class background, were Aneta Kaczkowska, wife of the truck driver, and her son.

It may seem that the position of network analysis applies only to those who are higher in the hierarchy of professional groups existing in this interlaced relationship, arrangement. What about the average people? erstwhile the free market, like democracy, becomes a facade, that is, not all are equal, the most people of the folk class and mediate class lose out. They lose in the race for resources, and the reason for defeat is to follow the rules that apply only to them, due to the fact that the real rules of the behind-the-clock game know the people of the arrangement, which means that for subordinate classes it always ends in economical exploitation. In order to mask the real form of social reality, mainly through media and their officers made up of various "experts", decently make areas of cognition and ignorance, form ideology/worldview, direct attention, manage emotions. The layout works at the intersection of the base and superstructure. Just follow the stories of Polish rich people, including media barons, step by step to see that they were blacksmiths in the service forge.

In “Hewelius”, this economical subject is besides present. As Memches aptly writes: “In «Hewelius» there is simply a character of the driver of the truck. A man dies in a ferry crash, and with him sinks the vehicle he leased. The company from which he leased the truck announces to the widow (she remained with her teenage boy and is pregnant) that she will gotta cover the costs of the lost property. Meanwhile, women cannot even afford to bury their husband. Born free Poland, the destiny of specified locusts is not interested. This is the ruthless, inhuman face of the roaring capitalism.”

Full consent, but 1 more crucial reflection can be made. The driver's wife is forced to “comb” as she says, her situation is subject to economical and social degradation. Her husband does not have the ceremonial ceremony that Captain Ułasiewicz had. Death takes everyone the same way, but not everyone is treated the same after death – in this sense the show accurately shows that whoever disregards human dignity gains the enemy (the success of populism is so understandable). In addition, the widow of the captain gets assurances that she will be financially secured. This economical and symbolic difference makes women unlikable. In addition, there is simply a question of blaming the captain for the death of his husband, which is important, even before the sentence. Is it media? This media subject in the movie unfortunately does not be outside the slogans to not believe what they say on TV. The conflict between the 2 women, although managed by a complex and heterogeneous network of relationships, translates into aggression among children who see enemies within themselves, without noticing the enemy of the true: the strategy of the suffocating state. He must stay in the shadows, due to the fact that against the visible enemy it is easier to unite, otherwise all fight against everyone, but the striking rod to the cage remains invisible.

The show is great. Although both women have lost their husbands, they are incapable to be united with each other, there is no anticipation of even an interclass alliance against those who someway contributed to the tragedy (although it is simply a full array of circumstances that blurs responsibility) or masks the truth. 1 struggles for the husband's good name, the another struggles against the realities of capitalism, so they can find the guilty, due to the fact that under the law everything is fine. However, this law is decently adjusted: the mediocre take the hazard that, in the event of a random accident, they lose everything and their destiny will be their fault. The tragic rich will make money, build a fresh ferry for damages. Everybody plays, but the hazard isn't the same.

In this sense, the movie encourages an alliance in the name of opposition and rebellion against the arrangement, because, in the end, almost all of us endure through it. Our dignity suffers due to the fact that another people are slandered in the name of their interests. 1 suffers due to the fact that 1 lives in a planet where 1 cannot be honest and everyone is someway “wet” and is so subject to blackmail. “What have you done?” asked about the fact about the crash of Bitner his friend Kubar, meaning that he knew about any of the method deficiencies of the ferry. 1 suffers due to the fact that setting up a deal leads to very serious consequences, so they vanish from the horizon that can argue it, specified as courageous advocates like in the series, or journalists. You're suffering due to the fact that honest people lose to the fresh kind of man that Kubar represents in the film, who always works in the service of the arrangement, although he's most likely not a bad man.

Interestingly, his other is Aneta, the driver's wife. She is the 1 who publically says that although she is “simple, she is not stupid” and sees what is happening in front of the Maritime Chamber. She is not only cognitively perceptive, but besides courageous, as she does not accept an offer made by the servants. In fresh scenes of the film, we see the captain and I say "good morning" to each other, due to the fact that although they have had different consequences, they both know who their enemy is.

“Hewelius” shows what a nightmare life is in a country dominated by the arrangement. The worst part is that this nightmare, although not for everyone, lasts. The arrangement not only melts ships – it melts people and their dreams and hopes for a better life. Sometimes in the world, he kills, like Jolanta Brzeska, about which the movie “Loktor” shows the operation of the strategy well, and not from the distant past of the 1990s.

If we don't wake up, all we're gonna have is air bubbles surviving as much as soap bubbles.

Mayday, Mayday, Mayday...

Dr hab. Michał Rydlewski

Photo in the text header: Authorship Zmechowiec 75 – Own Job, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=179736839