Christopher Dickey, grand reporter for The Daily Beast, offers an excellent argument here for banning face veils in public space. In a post 3½ years ago I expressed my disapproval of France’s “burqa” ban—which had just entered into force—, though not out of high-minded principle or respect for religious freedom, as face veils are specific to certain cultures, mandated by no religion—not that this matters one way or the other—, and cannot be defended on these particular grounds. But I’ve changed my mind. The French law may have been enacted for the wrong reasons but that doesn’t mean it was wrong tout court. Now this is not to suggest that the police should stop every last niqab-wearing woman they see on the street; discretion can and should be exercised—e.g. to avoid causing a riot—, as the police generally do when witnessing persons in the act of committing misdemeanors. But they should still have the authority to stop and detain those who conceal their faces in public. So on the question of the niqab, I say ban the damn thing!
This film, which premiered at the 2013 Venice Biennale and opened in France the week before last (under the title L’Homme du peuple), was not one I was going to miss, in view of its subject matter and the director—Poland’s great Andrzej Wajda—, even though it’s a biopic, which are normally merely good at best and rarely chefs-d’œuvre. But having seen it two evenings ago, I can report that it’s a solid, entertaining, well-done film on one of the most important revolutionary leaders of our times, Lech Wałęsa, and, more generally, on one of the most momentous revolutionary movements of the twentieth century, period: the working class uprising against the Communist dictatorship in Poland—a Soviet protectorate for 45 years following the end of WWII—and that set in motion the chain of events that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of Soviet rule in eastern Europe, and the end of the Cold War. As Variety’s fine critic Jay Weissberg puts it in the introduction of his thumbs up review
There’s something fitting about Andrzej Wajda bringing Polish Solidarity leader Lech Walesa to life, just as it’s proper that he subtitles the film “Man of Hope.” For “Walesa. Man of Hope” is a natural companion piece to the great director’s landmark “Man of Marble” and “Man of Iron,” his influential duo on resistance to communist oppression. With a bit of understandable triumphalism devoid of hagiography, Wajda tracks Walesa’s career from shipyard worker to Nobel Prize winner, crafting an old-fashioned (in the best sense), at times stirring biopic that masterfully integrates an exceptional range of contempo footage…
To continue reading Weissberg’s review, go here. As for ‘Man of Marble’ and ‘Man of Iron’, which I saw in 1978 and 1981 respectively, these were remarkable films for their time but, technically and otherwise, ‘Man of Hope’ is superior (at least insofar as I remember the two early films, as I only saw them once). Wajda does a good job in depicting the wretchedness of Communist rule—particularly in the early scenes of the 1970 protests in Gdansk and Gdynia—and the economic clochardisation it brought about, but also the doubts that apparatchiks of the system had by the 1980s of their own legitimacy. And while Wałęsa is portrayed as a charismatic leader and a hero—which he was—, Wajda does not, as Weissberg accurately asserts, portray him as a saint. He is a leader with undeniable qualities but is also cocky and full of himself—are there any charismatic leaders who are not?—and who could have descended into megalomania were it not for the stabilizing presence of his loving but strong-willed wife, Danuta (that’s how Wajda depicts it at least).
À propos, I was discussing the film earlier today with a colleague, who said that he was hesitant to see it after having read a mixed review in Libération, whose critic, according to my colleague, criticized the film for being a hagiography (I have not yet bothered to look for Libé’s review). My response to this was that many on the Western European and North American left—including those who were not at all “Stalinists” or enamored of the Soviet model—were—and remain—uncomfortable with Wałęsa (and even with Solidarność itself). They intellectually understood the situation and sympathized with the workers in Gdansk but had a hard time wrapping their heads around the spectacle of a genuinely working class movement and independent trade union contesting a self-proclaimed socialist order, and with the movement’s leaders and members being, to a man and woman, devout Catholics and who worshipped the Pope (the adulation of Wałęsa and all those around him—and including lower-level regime agents themselves—for Jean Paul II is well depicted in the film). This was tough for many Western gauchistes to swallow—as was Wałęsa et al’s embrace of American support (e.g. one sees at the end of the film the hero’s welcome Wałęsa received in the US Congress in 1989, and with Dan Quayle seated in back of him while he gave his speech). Having frequented a gauchiste milieu in those years and knowing its discourse and world-view comme ma poche, I know of what I speak.
So if one has the chance to see the pic (which has yet to open in the US), do so, as I give it the green light. The review in The Guardian is here and article in the NYT is here (the film was a big hit in Poland). My anecdote of shaking hands with Wałęsa and hearing him speak is here. Trailer is here.
Saw this the other day (titre en France: Night Call). It’s a slick film, engrossing, and with an extraordinary performance by Jake Gyllenhaal, who’s in practically every frame. It will be a scandal if he is not nominated for the best actor Academy Award. In brief, the film, directed by Dan Gilroy, is set in L.A.—and mainly at night—, with the Gyllenhaal character, named Lou Bloom, a lowlife petty thieving sociopath with little formal education and no apparent friends or family—but is a smooth talker and upwardly mobile—, serendipitously deciding to become a nightcrawler: a freelancing cameraman who cruises the thoroughfares and freeways of L.A. at night riveted to police radio, so as to quickly arrive on the scene of a car accident, shooting, fire, or some other fait divers with blood and hopefully involving people killed, to film the gory scene up close and then quickly sell it to local TV stations for their 6 AM news reports of the crime and mayhem in the city the previous night. Drôle de métier. Lou, who spends his off hours on the Internet and takes online business courses, or so he says, has completely mastered the lingo of the American business world (not being a business person myself, I’ll leave it up to those who are to judge the authenticity of his jargon; it certainly sounds so to me). Lou is sans foi ni loi, i.e. without scruples, whose only ambition is to make money and get ahead. A 21st century Horatio Alger character, si vous voulez. Reviews, which are very good in both the US and (especially) France, opine that the pic is a critique of the us et coutumes of the US broadcast media and its frenetic quest for ratings. But in my view, it is a critique more generally of the capitalist system of our era. The final scene—spoiler alert!—, where we see the amoral, lawbreaking capitalist (Lou) prevailing over the representative of the state and rule of law (the police detective), symbolizes to a tee the ethos of our times. This may not have been the intended message of the director but it was my take on the film. The acting, in addition to Gyllenhaal’s stellar performance, is good all around, notably Riz Ahmed and Rene Russo. So: highly recommended. Trailer is here.
This is the title of a must-read article by Nathan Thrall—the International Crisis Group’s resident Jerusalem analyst—in the latest issue of the London Review of Books, in which he reports on the deteriorating situation in that city and the increasing rage of its Palestinian population. No money quotes, as the piece is not long (3,000 words), so one may go here and read the whole thing.
Just three comments. First, I have been among those who reject applying the apartheid label to Israel (and certainly of Israel inside the Green Line; the issue is more complex in the occupied Palestinian territories but I will still argue that the label doesn’t apply there—at least not yet). But when it comes to Jerusalem—East and West—, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the city is indeed subject to a de facto apartheid regime, if not de jure as well. Now defenders of the Israeli position will object that Palestinian residents of Jerusalem may become Israeli citizens should they so desire—the overwhelming majority having refused the offer—and thereby enjoy theoretical equal rights with Jews. But Thrall mentions some of the hurdles East Jerusalem Palestinians face when applying for Israeli citizenship, among them a knowledge of Hebrew—which does not apply to Jewish immigrants, who receive citizenship upon arrival and regardless of language capacity—and the obligation to renounce Jordanian nationality or any other they may hold. This is new to me. If it is indeed the case—and I don’t imagine that Thrall is mistaken on the question—, this constitutes brazen discrimination against Palestinians, as there is no obligation whatever for Israeli Jews—government ministers excepted—to renounce other citizenships, at the moment of naturalization or any other in the course of their lives (and I will wager that Israel has a higher percentage of citizens who are dual—or triple or quadruple—nationals than any other country in the world).
Second, on the Israeli response to the rage in East Jerusalem—of draconian police and army repression, mass arrests and prosecutions of minors, sealing off Arab neighborhoods with concrete blocks, demolishing the homes of the families of terrorists (or anyone the Israelis deem as such; a.k.a. collective punishment), randomly spraying “skunk water” in the eastern part of the city, restricting Muslim access to the Haram al-Sharif, colonizing densely populated Arab quarters with extremist settlers, proposing new “anti-terrorism” laws that will further abuse Palestinians under Israeli rule (including Palestinian citizens of Israel, PCIs), etc, etc—, WTF are Netanyahu & Co.—indeed the entire Israeli right—thinking? How do they imagine this is going to play out? What’s the end game? We’re not talking about Gaza, Jenin, or some place around which the Israelis can build a wall and try to forget about. This is their “eternal” unified capital city, but where close to 40% of the population does not enjoy the rights of citizenship and is hostile to them. And the Palestinians of Jerusalem are devoid of political leadership, with not a single person who can speak in the name of even some of them or serve as an interlocutor with the Israelis. Moreover—and I find this incredible—, the Israelis don’t want Palestinian interlocutors in Jerusalem. They don’t want to negotiate or bargain with the Palestinian residents of the city, to collectively dialogue with or treat them as anything other than barely tolerated interlopers in a city that they, the Israelis, consider to be theirs and theirs only. And the Israelis have absolutely nothing to propose to the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem (except to subtly—or not so subtly—encourage them to emigrate, or just go away). The people who run the state of Israel have become unhinged, point barre (the new state president, Reuven Rivlin, being a notable exception). Again, WTF do they expect to happen? Indian-style communal riots, with rampaging mobs in both communities chauffé à blanc murdering dozens, if not hundreds? And if this comes to pass—an eventuality that one must not exclude—, what then? If anyone who identifies with the Israeli right can give a response to this—to what appears to objective observers to be an irrational fuite en avant on the part of Netanyahu & Co.—, I’m all ears.
Third—and repeating an assertion I made in a post two years ago—, Israel, in view of the manner in which it has treated the Palestinian residents of Jerusalem over the past 47 years, has no moral right to decree itself as the eternal sovereign power over the parts of the city it occupied in 1967. The legal (non-)right was settled by UNSCR 478 in 1980. But the moral (non-)right is equally pertinent. Israel has no right to rule Sheikh Jarrah, the Muslim and Christian quarters of the Old City, Silwan, Shufat, the Mount of Olives or any other such neighborhood it conquered in ’67.
And then there’s the “Jewish nation-state law,” which, if it passes in one of its forms—and which seems likely—will further complicate matters with PCIs, plus diaspora Jews. Again, WTF are these people thinking?
UPDATE: Le Monde correspondent Benjamin Barthe, who has been reporting from Israel/Palestine for many years, has a spot on analysis in the issue dated November 25th on the volcanic situation in East Jerusalem, “A Jérusalem-Est, un mélange hautement inflammable.” The full text of the article is in the comments thread.
I’ve been reading about the speech today and just watched it on YouTube. This is President Obama’s best action of his second term. It was such an obvious thing to do, particularly as he has the authority to issue an executive order on the question. One only regrets that he waited until after the midterms to do it. On the politics of the decision—to regularize the status of undocumented immigrants with children who have been living and working in the US for at least five years—, I couldn’t care less about it, of whether it will help the Democrats or hurt them, cause problems for the Republicans, or whatever. The partisan political calculations do not interest me. And public opinion polls interest me even less. If large numbers of individuals oppose legalizing undocumented immigrants, that’s their personal opinion. What interests me is that it was the right thing to do. It is quite simply unconscionable—indeed immoral—for a state to seek to deport persons who have been living and working within its borders for many years—invariably in precarious, poorly paid jobs and with no health insurance or other benefits—, and in a state of permanent insecurity and fear for the future. And particularly if they have children, who have grown up in the country and are often citizens and native speakers of the language, but who likewise lack legal status and what this means for their lives—and who could see their parents suddenly deported, leaving them stranded. If a state is unable and/or lacks the will to deport undocumented foreigners—who have been working, paying taxes, and not been involved in criminal activity—within a relatively short period of time—up to, say, five years—, then that state has a moral obligation to allow them to stay. Period. The only thing I regret with Obama’s new policy is that it does not also include longtime undocumented immigrants without children.
As for those who are critical of Obama’s announced measure, they have no good arguments. The notion that the immigrants in question have unfairly jumped to the head of a metaphorical line—which is how it’s put—is silly and just plain ignorant, as if an actual line exists in which all potential immigrants out there take a number and patiently wait their turn. International migration does not work this way, nor does US immigration policy (or the immigration policy of any country). As for the immigrants lowering wages and taking jobs from nationals, I came across this reaction to Obama’s speech by the anti-immigration, pro-trade protectionist publicist Alan Tonelson—who’s a sort of American Nicolas Dupont-Aignan-style souverainiste—on a social media comments thread
Hooray! Working and middle class Americans will face much more low-wage competition! The Party of the Common Man serves the plutocrats’ agenda once again!
This is ignorant demagoguery, as cross-border migrants in their great majority do not compete with nationals for the same jobs. They do not operate in the same labor markets. Immigrants invariably invest sectors, or niches, of the economy that are low paying, necessitate a high degree of flexibility, and are perceived as low status in the immigrant-receiving country, having thus been deserted by nationals. And once this situation pertains, it cannot be reversed by administrative fiat. It is beyond the capacity of governments or state functionaries to administer labor markets in a complex capitalist economy. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the literature on international migration knows this. As for immigrants lowering overall wage levels of nationals, this has not been conclusively demonstrated by economists (e.g. see this NBER paper that Paul Krugman linked to today). In any case, if undocumented immigrants are being exploited by employers, paid below the minimum or normally going wage, and are bringing about localized downward pressure on the wages of nationals, then the solution is obvious: legalize them! Which is precisely what President Obama has announced he will do. Should President Hollande be so inspired…
As my previous post was on Norway, I should mention this German-Norwegian co-produced film, directed by Georg Maas, I saw last spring (French title: D’une vie à l’autre; in German: Zwei Leben) and that is mainly set in Norway (and is in Norwegian and German, with some English). Here’s the description from the review in Film Journal International
The film ingeniously blends two extraordinary and related chapters of 20th-century German history. One chapter is the Nazi’s Lebensborn program that paired SS officers and Aryan women (also from occupied countries later in the war), tasked to produce the “racially pure” babies for the Fatherland the Nazis envisioned. The second, more recent chapter concerns the East German (GDR) Stasi (State Security) exploitation of the then-grown children (the former illegitimate “Nazi brats”) and their records from the Lebensborn program that the Stasi used for their spying activities on both sides of the wall before it came down.
Two Lives, which uses frequent flashbacks to move its story across generations and countries, begins in 1990 when the Berlin Wall has just fallen and East Germany is no longer. Well, not quite, because Stasi archives have become available to the West and reveal new aspects of Communist history and spying. Among the scholars, government officials and legal noses combing the now-available files is reformist German-Norwegian lawyer Sven Solbach (Ken Duken).
In Norway on a now-peaceful home (even homey) front is Katrine (Juliane Köhler, star of Oscar-winner Nowhere in Africa and Downfall), also an issue of the Lebensborn program years before in Norway. But she was sent as a baby to Germany and raised in what was to become Communist East Germany where other “Nazi brats” ended up. But in 1990, Katrine, who has been reunited with her Norwegian mother Ase (Liv Ullmann), now enjoys a rich family life in Norway, where she lives in a quaint seaside town with her handsome and loving ship captain husband Bjarte (Sven Nordin), daughter Anne (Julia Bache-Wiig), and her mom. Ase, not exactly blameless, had, we are to believe, a relationship with a Nazi soldier in occupied Norway who fathered Katrine.
Katrine now has a successful graphic-design business and is in a lovely place (both geographically and spiritually) until Solbach comes into her life. A reformer at heart, he asks her and Ase to be witnesses in a case he champions against Norway in his effort to get reparations for war children like Katrine who were separated from their Norwegian mothers. Many of these children became stuck in what became East Germany, where travel to the West was forbidden.
But something’s rotten in the state of Norway and it’s not just the mysterious discovery of a woman’s body in the woods…
One may read the full review here (warning: it contains spoilers). It’s a good, engaging Cold War thriller—the pic was Germany’s submission for the 2014 best foreign film Oscar—and with solid acting—notably Juliane Köhler—, though I wasn’t sure how I felt about the ending. Mais c’est pas grave. I recommend it. Variety’s review is here, The Hollywood Reporter’s here, trailer is here.
In regard to the Cold War—and on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall last weekend—, there is a new, not bad German film, ‘West’ (German title: Westen; in France: De l’autre côté du mur), directed by Christian Schwochow, that I saw last month at Paris’s annual Féstival du cinéma allemand (call me an oddball but I saw six films at this over six days, all of which will be posted on at some point). The pic is set in Berlin in 1978, about a mid 30ish woman named Nelly (actress Jördis Triebel, who won the best actress prize at the 2014 German Film Awards for her role in this) who manages to smuggle herself across the Berlin Wall with her ten-year-old son Alexis (Tristan Göbel). But instead of finding immediate freedom in the West she is sent to a transit center in West Berlin, where defectors from the East remain until receiving residence and other permits from the authorities—including the Allied Forces, who were the supreme political authority in the city—, and that involves an interrogation gauntlet that can last months. Far from being welcomed with open arms, defectors were viewed with suspicion, as being possible Stasi agents whose flight from the East was enabled. And in Nelly’s case, there was added suspicion in view of her having cohabited with a Soviet/Russian scientist posted in East Berlin, the father of her son and who, three years earlier, she was told had been killed in an automobile accident while on a visit to Moscow (but was he really?). The interrogations here are mainly carried out by the Americans (the CIA operative, in an interesting casting choice, is played by the multilingual Franco-Burkinabé actor Jacky Ido). The climate of suspicion and distrust pervaded the transit center—some of whose residents had been there for over a year—, where almost everyone was suspected by everyone else of being a Stasi agent. And the psychose began to affect Nelly as well, who wanted to get the hell out of the center but was finding it complicated. As the poster below reads (in French), ‘West’ evokes ‘The Lives of Others’ and ‘Barbara‘ but skillfully differentiates itself from them. The film was supposed to have opened in the US last week but seems not to have. THR’s review is here, trailer is here.
Back to Scandinavia, I will briefly mention two Danish films seen in the past year. One was ‘Northwest’, directed by Michael Noer, which is a crime drama set in the mean streets of Copenhagen, or, more precisely, in its downscale multiethnic banlieue called Nordvest. It’s a well-done genre film of criminal gangs and the shit they do. One novelty in it—for a non-Dane comme moi at least—is seeing gang-bangers with names like Jamal and Ali trash-talking in colloquial Danish. So in the phantasms of Bat Ye’or & Co. (see previous post), these lowlife lumpens are the shock troops who will transform le vieux continent into Eurabia. GMAB. Reviews are here, here, and here, French reviews (mostly tops) are here. Trailer is here.
The other pic was ‘R’—just the letter—, co-directed by Michael Noer and Tobias Lindholm (who directed the very good ‘A Hijacking‘ and co-wrote the screenplay of the equally very good ‘The Hunt’). It opened in the US in 2011 but, for some reason, took three years to make it here. It’s a prison drama—set in the baddest penitentiary in the state of Denmark—, bearing a strong resemblance to Jacques Audiard’s 2009 ‘Un prophète‘. This one, while not quite on the same level as the aforementioned French chef d’œuvre, may be seen, though, in view of its violence and relentless bleakness, may also not be seen, particularly if one is looking for something more uplifting and/or entertaining. US reviews (generally good) are here, French reviews (mostly good, which is why I went to see it) are here, trailer is here.
Adam Shatz has a first-rate review essay—as one would expect from him—in the latest issue of the London Review of Books, on two books on Anders Behring Breivik: A Norwegian Tragedy: Anders Behring Breivik and the Massacre on Utøya, by Aage Borchgrevink—a well-known Norwegian writer and literary critic; his book was first published in Norwegian in 2012—, and Anders Breivik and the Rise of Islamophobia, by Oslo-based social anthropologist Sindre Bangstad.
Borchgrevink’s book, which Adam says is “superb,” recounts the troubled parcours of Anders Breivik and the massacre he committed on July 22, 2011 (which I had a post on at the time, ironically speculating on the possible Tea Party GOP reaction to the bloodbath). Breivik, as it happens, had friends in Oslo’s Muslim immigrant community—the largest component of which is Pakistani—as an adolescent but gradually developed a virulent hatred of them, which Borchgrevink examines in detail. Before his trial Breivik was described as a paranoid schizophrenic but he rejected the notion and psychiatric examinations found no sign of it. He did hail from a dysfunctional family, however, and steeped himself in, as Adam puts it, the “virtual netherworld of ‘Eurabia’ literature,” which, intellectually speaking, set him on his murderous path.
I’ve looked at the “Eurabia” literature, which posits that Muslims/Arabs are taking over Europe—demographically and as part of a plot hatched by France and the EU—and that Islam will, at some point in the course of this century, become the majority religion on the continent and impose “dhimmi” status on non-Muslims. It’s conspiratorial junk. Preposterous trash. Bon pour la poubelle. The author most associated with this wacky idea is the British/Egyptian Jew Gisèle Littman (better known by her nom de plume Bat Ye’or), to which one may add the nutters and cranks Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, right-wing Danish intellectual Lars Hedegaard, gay American Oslo resident Bruce Bawer, and Canadian publicist Mark Steyn, entre autres. None of these illuminés, it may be said, possess the credentials—scholarly or otherwise—to be writing articles and books on the subject. But write on it they do, and their screeds have an audience in Norway, as Sindre Bangstad details in his book on Breivik and Islamophobia. Now I happen not to like the “Islamophobia” neologism, which lacks a precise definition and tends to conflate criticism of Islam as a religion—which, in a liberal, secular democracy, is an entirely legitimate exercise of free speech—, denunciation of radical Islamism—also entirely legitimate (and which large numbers of Muslims engage in themselves)—, and the stigmatizing of Muslims as individuals, whether or not they practice the religion—which is bigotry pure and simple. But whatever label one wants to attach to it, fear and loathing of Islam and Muslims pervades a portion of the Norwegian public, as it does elsewhere in Europe and North America. So while Anders Breivik was an outlier in his act of terrorism, he was not one in his beliefs.
One is reminded in reading Adam’s essay that Breivik received the maximum sentence in Norway for his crime—of murdering 77 people—, which is 21 years imprisonment. Now this sentence can be extended indefinitely—and presumably it will be—but still, it’s crazy that in Norway cold-blooded murderers—not to mention mass murdering terrorists—can theoretically be released from prison while in the prime of their adult lives.