Solitary Subversives: from the WdW Review

3. Stepping OutSolitary Subversives is about the Power of One in the face of oppression. About how one person’s refusal to succumb to authoritarian lies can make a difference. It begins with an almost forgotten Greek film, that I vividly recall having made an impression upon me along such lines, and then relates two other stories highlighting the capacity of one person to resist against all odds. 

Solitary Subversives is our sixth article for the Witte de With Review (an initiative of Rotterdam-based Witte de With Center for Contemporary Artof which we, and I, are their…  ‘Athens Desk’). Click here for the  Witte de With Review site which contains several photos missing here. Or read on… 

Stepping Out/In. Photo by Maria Papanikolaou (with the assistance of Dimitris Lazoulos),

Iris’s Colors

As the sun rises over the sea, an exhausted film crew roll the camera and a tall, slim model begins to move toward it, wearing a black evening dress and a long, black, fury scarf with which she is seductively occupying her hands. The perfume advertisement in progress is almost in the can. Alas, the crew’s hopes for a one-take shoot are quickly dashed.

A man in a suit enters the frame, walking along the beach toward the camera, a hundred meters or so behind the model. Terrified that they will lose the early morning light, the crew scream at him to get out of the frame. When they notice that the stranger is holding up a clear plastic umbrella, the director instructs the cameraman to keep filming—the odd man with the umbrella seems to have appealed to his artistic sensibilities.

With the look of one lost in thought, sheltering mysteriously under his plastic umbrella, the man does not notice the crew even once he reaches them. The assistant director’s question forces him out of his stupor: “Can’t you see you entered our frame?” Visibly shaken by the voice, but without lowering his umbrella, the man looks at the crew and asks: “Frame, what frame?” “Our camera’s frame, can’t you see?” the assistant director snaps, pointing to the equipment, the camera, the crew.

“I am sorry. I am very sorry,” replies the man before turning toward the sea and, with the umbrella consistently over his head, walks into the water. As he enters the sea, the crew smile bemusedly. Within seconds only the floating umbrella remains visible. Their chitchat lasts a minute or so until it becomes clear that the man is not resurfacing. A couple of them strip down to their underpants and dive into the water. To no avail. The man with the umbrella has vanished.

Cut to the next scene, hours later, in broad daylight, a helicopter hovering over the sea, the police searching the beach, and a coastguard boat crisscrossing the spot where the man disappeared. An air of resignation on the faces of the uniformed and plainclothes men of authority.

Thus begins The Colours of Iris, a movie by Nikos Panayiotopoulos that I recall watching in the fall of 1974, on the day it opened in Athens. It was made before the collapse of the military dictatorship in July of that year. Scripted to bypass the neo-fascist censors, The Colours of Iris combined lyricism and the absurd to produce a subtle tale of the subversive power of a single person.

In the film’s second scene, when the film crew return to base, anonymous men from state security visit the advertising agency’s director. In a series of eerie monologues they explain to him that the absurd is acceptable as long as it is ruthlessly confined within artistic expression. The authorities’ inability  reasonably to answer the question of what happened to the man with the umbrella “creates cracks in the public’s trust of the state.” These cracks must be cemented immediately with “an explanation that is plausible, independently of whether it is true.”

A few hours later, the director convenes a press conference in which he announces, triumphantly, that “Greek advertising has, at long last, come of age.” That it has all been an advertising trick meant to promote a new umbrella brand. “The disappeared man was a figment of our advertising agency who used it to capture the consumers’ imagination.” His last words are drowned in applause, as journalists and advertisers clap and nod approvingly.

Nikos Stratis (played by Nikitas Tsakiroglou), the agency’s talented composer and sound engineer, is the only member of the crew who refuses to buy the official version. As one after the other the members of the crew accept it, some more grudgingly than others, Stratis becomes obsessed with the missing man. He stops working on the musical comedy that he was composing (which he intended to entitle The Colours of Iris), steals the banned negative depicting the man’s disappearance, tries to mobilize the press, even posts missing-person posters, and circulates photos of the man with the umbrella all over Athens.

The authorities exert some pressure on him, with the secret police harassing and searching his home, but they are confident that they can neutralize his campaign without resorting to violence. After all, he is a solitary subversive lacking the power to create cracks in the official version. Even his wife thinks he is deranged. Still, to deal one final blow to his stubborn campaign, and prove beyond doubt that Stratis’s account cannot be right, the district attorney orders a ‘reconstruction.’

So, in the film’s final scene, the original crew is back on the beach, reconstructing the scene in full view of thousands of curious spectators standing behind a police cordon. Cheerleaders entertain the crowd while marketing folk give away free umbrellas, identical to the one that the missing man had made famous. Stratis is also holding one of these umbrellas. For he has sought, and was granted, the role of the man with the umbrella in the reconstruction.

While the crew and the district attorney are getting into position, he practices his few lines with the assistance of the script girl. At last, he is told that everyone is ready, the model is in place, and the reconstruction is about to begin. Holding the clear plastic umbrella above his head, Stratis approaches the set, speaks his lines, turns toward the sea, and walks into the water until the umbrella floats and his head is fully submerged.

The crowd applauds and begins to dwindle, the show is over. Until someone shouts: “Where is he? He has disappeared! He has not surfaced!” Police divers wave despondently that they see no sign of him. An air of concern engulfs the officials. The camera then focuses on the faces in the crowd, goes into ultra slow motion and captures the expressions of disbelief, the cracks in the authorities’ credibility, the mounting force with which men and women are pushing against the police barricades, resisting officialdom and moving ominously toward the sea. A solitary subversive’s disappearance becomes a moment when the power to indoctrinate cracked.

For those of us whose early life straddled a brutal dictatorship, The Colours of Iris was a pivotal cultural resource whose utility, unfortunately, lasts to this day.

Aris’s Stance

Aris was twenty-three. I was almost forty. We were serving in the same conscript unit of the Greek Army but our lives and positions could not be more different. I was a university professor transferring from Australia to Greece, and had to complete a few months in the army for my Athens University appointment to be finalized. He was a committed anarchist who had spent nineteen months in the army, instead of the normal twelve, due to the daily prison sentences that our officers were slapping on him for insubordination. 1

My first encounter with his defiance happened during my first day in my new unit. In the morning roll call, all of us were lined up, as spic and span as we could be, awaiting our captain’s inspection. Except Aris. Purposely disheveled, he was wandering around our neat lines, inciting us to break ranks. “Stop behaving like pawns,” he derided some. “Show them that they have no right to cage us in here,” he told others. Upon the captain’s arrival, he greeted him with obscenities that were, clearly, anticipated. “Another five for you Aris,” said the captain straining to remain unperturbed by Aris’s pestering and to retain his fierce authority over the rest of us. Thus Aris’s interminable army ‘career’ was prolonged by another five days, as has been going on daily for a while.

That morning, the captain recruited me to be his private secretary, courtesy of my computer skills. In the afternoon, he summoned me to his office to discuss Aris. He was in a bind, the captain told me. On the one hand, he wanted to get rid of Aris; to give him his army discharge certificate and see his back once and for all. On the other hand, he confessed to worrying that the other officers would accuse him of giving in to an insubordinate anarchist, thus undermining regimental discipline. To reconcile the two he asked me for a favor:

“Talk to Aris. Convey my willingness to let him go home. All I am asking of him is that he stops taunting me or the other officers for two or three days. Tell him I shall turn a blind eye to his absence from the roll call, from sentry duty, from any duty for that matter. Just convince him to stay in the dorm, away from the officers’ gaze. Two days is all I am asking for. That way, I can rescind the hundreds of prison days that he has accrued to date and grant him his army discharge certificate before the weekend.”

That night, I approached Aris with the captain’s secret offer. Aris looked at me mockingly and asked: “Are you mad? Do you think I have endured what I have endured in order to reach any deal with your captain? Do you really believe that I shall give him the satisfaction of thinking that I am prepared to legitimize his power with a deal? Never will I do anything of the sort! If he wants to return me the freedom that his institution robbed me of, he must do it while I am taunting him.” Startled, I confessed to Aris that I had erred. All of a sudden, the captain’s offer seemed far less generous to me than it had seemed earlier that day. I was, unexpectedly, deeply impressed by my younger colleague’s principled stance against a forced incarceration that served our country not one iota.

As the sun rose over our barracks, Aris was at it again, taunting the captain in his usual manner. Back at the office, the captain asked me if I had conveyed his offer. Upon hearing my reply, he was livid, but also worried. “I do not want to see this impossible boy be harmed but I cannot vouch for the other officers. Especially the more junior ones,” he said. Two weeks later, his concerns proved to be well grounded. In the middle of the night, three junior officers entered the dorm, took Aris by force to a nearby warehouse, locked the door behind him, and proceeded to give him a beating that lasted for hours. His screams were only dimly heard but not one conscript failed to notice them.

The next day, during the late-morning unit inspection, as we were all lined up in the yard, Aris was taken away on a stretcher, an ambulance was waiting outside to take him to Athens’s military hospital. Both his legs and one arm had been broken, his face was unrecognizable, his left eye totally closed up. But his spirits were intact. As the stretcher passed by us, I heard him address us in his usual manner: “Stop behaving like pawns, you jerks!” And then turning to the officers who had beaten him up, he shouted: “Is that all you could do you little sissies?” “Look at this arm,” he said, waving around his only good one, showing them his middle finger. “You have failed to break it you useless bastards. Even at torture you suck!”

None of us moved or said anything. Our cowardice ruled supreme. Desperate not to prolong my army tenure with prison days added on for insubordination, I immersed myself in the shame of not saying anything. Of letting the torturers off the hook, empowering them and prolonging their reign with my silence. Aris’s stance, and my subjugation to the authority that he would never deal with, made me feel like the particularly low form of human life that I was. At that moment, it occurred to me that, unlike in The Colours of Iris, the power of one subversive, however potent it may indeed be, may not suffice to make the rest of us pull the barricades down and speak the truth.

The Health Inspector’s Insubordination

The following is an extract from a letter to the Greek Tax Office written by a public health inspector living and working in the north of Greece.

Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to your recent memo, according to which I owe the Tax Office €3000, I am writing to inform you of the following:

Over the years, the Tax Office had been returning approximately €1000 p.a. to me from taxes withheld from my monthly public sector salary. With this sum I used to finance my family’s central heating bill during our long, cold winters. Suddenly, in 2012, your office not only did not return any tax to me but, in addition, demanded an additional €1500 even though in the previous year my salary had been reduced by 20 per cent, following the austerity cuts. Combined with the doubling in the price of heating fuel, the cuts in my wife’s pension, and the fact that the drugs on which my health relies are no longer available on the National Health Service, these income cuts and tax hikes have made it impossible for my family and myself to survive in dignity.

In addition to the injury brought upon my family by the tax increases, the wage cuts, and the dismantling of our health service, there is also the insult: these ‘changes’ have been imposed upon us by a foreign occupation force and its local stooges who are legislating accordingly. Those of you at the Tax Office who are sending us reminders of taxes owed, are acting as agents of an occupying force that imposes upon our people impossible policies, policies that even the International Monetary Fund (not known for its social conscience) considers faulty and unworkable.

In short, I do not owe the Tax Office anything. Indeed, it is the Tax Office that owes me. I refuse to recognize any debt to my country’s occupiers as a debt that I have toward the Greek State and, for the same reason, I refuse to file any tax returns with your office until and unless the occupation ends and our national sovereignty is restored. As for your implied threats to confiscate my home, which I have worked a lifetime to build, during which I have always paid every penny of taxes due, I consider them to be unlawful. Defending my home and defending my country from you and your bosses is my utmost duty; a duty imposed upon me by the Greek Constitution whose Article 120 states that the preservation of the Greek state and its constitution relies on the citizens’ patriotism.

3 April 2014

[Signature withheld]


Cracks in the public’s blind trust of the powers-that-be are, indeed, potentially subversive. A single person can effect these cracks with devastating impact on illegitimate power. They are absolutely necessary if authority is to be questioned en masse and kept in check. Alas, they are anything but sufficient.

Our recalcitrant composer in The Colours of Iris succeeded in liberating a passive audience from its unexamined acceptance of the establishment’s plausible lies. My personal encounter with Aris, and my own cowardice, suggest that there is a strong possibility that the movie character’s success reflects nothing but Panayiotopoulos’s (the film’s director)—and our own—wishful thinking.

Thankfully, the jury is still out. Of these three Greek stories, the last’s finale remains unscripted, incomplete, undetermined. Solitary subversives, like our health inspector, are springing up across the country, as Greek society’s implosion continues under the ironclad policies imposed by foreign creditors and their local agents. Will the crack in the official version of our crisis lead to its shattering? Or will Greek society behave shamefully, like I did as Aris’s stretcher was being taken out of our barracks?

Leave a Reply to elenits Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


  • Yani this is nice to say but it lacks practical meaning.

    Say for example, Syriza comes to power and wishes to renegotiate the Greek debt. Syriza’s official position is that a good portion of the debt should be written off. This can’t be done due to the fact that one needs to negotiate separately with eurozone member governments at a each national parliament level. Asking these individual countries to take a haircut while they are loaning to Greece at the same time can’t be done. No national parliament would pass such resolution.

    On the other hand if the Greek debt repayment period is elongated to 70 years then the Net Present Value of the present debt is next to zero. In other words 99% (using a 10% interest) of the debt is written off via financial engineering vs. 50% immediate debt haircut Syriza wants. If you use lower 4-6%interest then the 350 Bln current debt is worth something less than 10 Bln. in today’s money. At 10% interest for 70 year repayment period the NPV is less than 1 Bil. (in other words a combo of annual inflation over 70 years makes the future value of today’s debt expressed in present value terms to be insignificant).

    And if Syriza can’t engage is such renegotiation of any substance, then what could it possibly do for Europe? Already Berlin is fuming at Italy, France and others for even suggesting growth policies (look up Focus magazine). How could possible Syriza resist Berlin’s authority in such matters? There are no cracks in the Berlin wall. It’s a solid negative response to everything that Syriza represents.

    So why are we building up hope on matters where ability to execute is very much questionable? By what means are you suggesting to accomplish the job? Resisting, calling the authorities or simply making cases does not do much for Berlin. Berlin thinks that they are already vindicated.

  • Anyway, to make a long story short. We have strong evidence of new geopolitical forces shaping the globe and NONE of these forces want a reformed EU. In fact it’s in every key player’s interest to have a weak EU because its failure has already been baked into the cake.

    I therefore find this europhilia (and calls to reform the EU) very bizarre and at a time when everyone depends on the eurozone’s demise for the next phase of plans already in motion. Such plans are at an irreversible stage and can not be withdrawn. It seems that the key players have turned the page already and there is no going back.

    Asking for solitary subversive acts to save an empty shell sounds like a call much too late.

    We are now well into the early phases of a new global contest for which no one has asked or would ever ask our opinion. IMHO, 2008 was nothing but a crash test of this new unfolding warfare on a global scale. Its main purpose was to show you that the new contest would be very unconventional and exceedingly brutal. Whether 2008 points to failures of capitalism (or modern finance) or not is quite irrelevant. The financial tsunami was akin to a controlled virus unleashed upon the world with an attached message of intent to use it for real next time around. Those who got the message are already working desperately on countermeasures which have nothing to do with the mickey mouse business of the EU’s response. Merkel’s reaction to save the euro was/is very unsophisticated and the fact remains that Europe has no protection mechanism for the 2.0 version of the same virus that would be unleashed for real next time around.

    This guy below can sense it but he can’t openly say it; so he engages in “what if” scenarios to draw our attention. But he knows what is to come next; it’s quite obvious that he has the antennae for this sort of stuff:

    • What confound me and perhaps Yanis V can solve this is how Tsipras is supporting Joncker out of democracy for EU commissioner!!! How can you want to reform and change the policies of the EU and at the same time support an ageing, very retro-thinking Eurocrat imbued with exactly the policies and thinking that you want to change. Seems to me pretty naive to think that you can convince a Dinosaur to morphe into a mammal…..

      I really do not get it.

      Further there are cases where confrontation is the only means to bring change. Yanis’s piece above extolls this point of view. So I really cannot understand the Greek left and how they think.

    • Happy to indulge: Tsipras opposed Juncker every inch of the way. What he supports is the principle of democracy. European peoples were presented by 5 candidates for the Presidency of the European Commission (amongst them Juncker and Tsipras, in strong mutual opposition). The voters gave Juncker’s party the largest number of votes. Tsipras’ point is that Mrs Merkel cannot, out of the blue, damp her party’s winning candidate for a person who never stood in front of Europeans seeking their vote. In other words, I disagree with every you say but I shall defend your right to win office if the majority backed you and not me.

    • Yani:

      I like the heroic Tsipras explanation sprinkled with a little bit of Voltaire on top. Yet, there is a much simpler and elegant explanation of simply Tsipras being self-trapped(caught in his own snare). Having participated in the undemocratic joke called EU Parliament debate as leader candidate for a minority group in the EU parliament, Tsipras has/must/can’t avoid but to declare support for the pseudo-process otherwise he invalidates himself for having played a part in the circus to begin with. It’s more of an act of self-preservation rather than high mindedness. Spinning it otherwise only diminishes the message further and makes the europanization of the African bee look like a cake walk compared to the europanization of Tsipras a la light version.

    • Sorry Dean but you have allowed your imagination to take off into the wilderness. I was privy to Alexis’ decision, as it was being made. Indeed, I may have played some role in it. And I can assure you it was motivated by nothing other than a commitment to democratic process. You may of course choose not to believe me. But, if so, I see very little profit in continuing our exchanges…

    • On this occasion, your explanation is wrong. I speak as an eyewitness. Doubt me if you want. But then just note that you are calling me a liar. Which is, of course, your prerogative.

    • Yani:

      I don’t doubt you at all because I know your efforts which started by inviting Tsipras @Austin, then the NYT article and now the European behavior of Tsipras recasting him as the next Greek PM in waiting. This part is genuine and I don’t doubt your involvement and contributions in the Tsipras image remaking.

      The rebuttal which I gave is more about what goes on in Tsipras’ mind. That he accepts your counsel and good advice I have no doubt about. However more important is what political calculations go through his mind and how he internalizes things. You may share the same space when a decision is made but it is quite conceivable that what you see as the facade does not reveal everything.

      BTW, you need to understand that thanks to you (and the Syriza campaign to remake its image) Tsipras is very much in vogue. Quite fashionable but the question is whether such campaign is substantive. About the latter there are myriad of opinions. Here is one for example (to me this sounds more like celebrity driven press because it attempts to bridge situations that are not in equilibrium):

    • What a link and what an own goal, thanks Dean.

      Der Spiegel hereby confirms the famous German irony/humour deficit – in spades! They manage to make Juncker look not only the best choice but the ONLY choice. As it is, Juncker [Luxembourg] is no doubt concerned about the Cypriot solution….plus he not only has a great weakness for Greece, but adopted a Greek adespoto 🙂

      psssst: Luxembourg’s black money is 65% German…..this protects it of course, though not from the Spiegel’s fork-tongue moralism…

    • Elenits:

      Here is another irony. Did you know that the per capita national debt of Luxembourg(Junckerland) is $3,700,000 as of December 2012? Probably above $4,000,000 per person by now. In terms of % of debt to GDP Luxembourg sports an unbeatable 3443%!!!!!

      And then they complain about Greece at $48,000 per capita which is lower than Germany’s @ $58,000, France’s @ $75,000 and U.K.’s @ $160,000.

      BTW, the charge is that Greece’s debt to GDP is a very high 174%(say 180%) but Ireland’s (a success story) is at 1000%, U.K.’s at 400%+, France’s at 180+%, not to mention Netherlands’ at 344%.

      Did anyone bother to check the symbolism of such figures?

    • Of course not. Who would dare hold the Great Powers / emulatable success stories to account? Or “little” Luxembourg, their money stash…..

  • Interesting to read the exchange on Tsipras. I’ll trust you, because, what else? I’m not partisan, but I don’t want to be on the fence, either. People don’t understand the difference. Tsipras is perfect in his interviews, so it’s nice that you think he really means what he says.