7 Words to Fascism

Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Before Trump was elected, I was talking to a colleague about Trump's chances to win. I did not believe he would, but my colleague thought he would. He strongly supported Trump because he thought that a Clinton presidency would lead to fascism. The idea of political correctness so contorted his political view that he thought the "says it like it is" approach was "liberating." 

A recent report reveals that the CDC may not use 7 words when it makes requests for funding. The administration  banned of these words: fetus, science-based, evidence based, diversity, transgender, entitlement, and vulnerable. It reminds me of Rick Scott's, Florida's governor, ban on "climate change" for all government officials.  Even though Florida is going to be severely impacted by climate change, (it has already been impacted-rising sea level) Scott's government refuses to acknowledge the threat. It reminds me of Orwell's "Ministry of Truth." 

I recently started listening to 1984--I have read it before. I like listening to books on tape while walking and hiking. There are many parallels in the world Orwell's Winston inhabits and the one I find myself in right now.  The "Ministry of Truth" department shares many qualities with the current administration.  "Fake news" is a standard refrain from Trump. In the "Ministry of Truth" there is no "fake news"; all the news is politically correct and reflects the narrative the government wants. The government controls everything. 


When Trump recently challenged the veracity of the ""pussy-grabbing" tape from "Access Hollywood,"
I was remind of the "Memory Hole" in 1984. This is where events, news, facts, etc. are altered to reflect what the government wants. There is no history which does not support the version supported by the government.  I'm sure Trump would love some "memory hole" devise to scrub all evidence of his sexual misconduct among other things. 

I have not talked with my colleague about the recent administration, but I wonder what he thinks.  Does he see the Trump's administration's as embracing fascist principles or "telling it like it is?" It's pretty clear to me that the administration prefers and embraces a fascist bent to its governing.   

Best animal-themed documentaries that will change how you think about them.

Documentaries have long been my favorite cinematic genre. Nothing is more compelling than “real” life stories and the best documentaries are often more dramatic, exciting and heartbreaking than anything “fiction” provides.  Moreover, documentaries elucidate, expand and enrich our lives and the world in which we live.  Often, though, they shine a light into some of the basest elements of our nature. 

Of course, documentaries cover a wide range of subjects—not only of the natural world but the humans who reside in it.  As I have sought out both written material and documentaries regarding our relationship with animals, I have seen quite a few animal-focused documentaries. The following list represents the best that I have seen on that subject. There are some notable expectations that I have not yet seen: “The Witness” and, “Henry” are just two. Nevertheless, here is my list of provocative documentaries that will force you to reconsider your relationship with (nonhuman) animals.

  

10 Animal Odd Couples:  

This documentary produced for PBS was director by Susan Fleming and Sara Marino. The film demonstrates just how intricate and interesting the lives of animals are. The truly amazing thing is that animals develop relationships with animals outside their own kind, interspecies relationships.  All the interspecies relationships shown in the film are touching, (a lion and coyote, a tortoise and a goose, a dog and a deer) but I loved the relationship a goat develops with a blind horse. The goat, with all the altruism of a saint, leads the horse daily to forge for food.  Why would he do that? The goat seems to understand that his friend is blind and needs a helping hand or hoof.  Indeed, the film interviews animal experts Temple Grandin and Marc Bertoff among others to help understand this dynamic. There is simply no other way to look at it, except that animals, just like humans, develop friendships outside their own species.

9 Blackfish:

  Gabriela Cowperthwaite directs this profound story of Tilikum, a 12,000 pound orca, who initially received notoriety because he killed his trainer, Dawn Brancheua, in what seemed to be a deliberate act.  A sad situation all around, but the filmmaker points out that this was not the first incident with Tilikum; he has some issues with his captivity. While it is sad that Dawn and others have been attacked and killed in the course of their ‘training,’ what begins to emerge is this simple question: why do we even have orcas in tiny pools in the first place. You and I might have issues with being confined in our bedroom and occasionally be forced to hop on one leg by physically inferior animals. It might force a violent and deadly attack.  Through the course of the film, we learn a lot about how smart and social these animals are and just how cruel it is to imprison them for our entertainment.  We also learn that the rhetorical employed by SeaWorld to justify their cruelty is sophistry and specious; greed overwhelms empathy and compassion.  The impact of the film has affected SeaWorld’s bottom line. The exploiters have attempted to rationalize their treatment by arguing that orcas are somehow better off living in extreme confinement and forced to engage in absurd tricks for an uninitiated audience.  If this film can hasten the closure of all marine parks, it deserves enshrinement in the cinematic cannon.  Let’s hope it does just that. 

8 Grizzly Man:

 

Werner Herzog directs this unbelievable film about Timothy Treadwell. For 13 summers, Treadwell journeyed to the Alaskan wilderness, mostly alone, to document and live with grizzly bears. Treadwell fancied himself a documentarian and shot loads of footage of the grizzly bears and over the years developed a relationship with them. He speaks to the camera throughout the film, providing commentary on the grizzlies nearby. In fact, scientists have learned quite a bit from the footage.  Herzog uses this footage along with interviews of people who knew Treadwell to paint a fascinating and introspective picture of Treadwell.  To say that he has close encounters with the bears does not really convey the gravity of some of the situations we see. What is hard to imagine is that he is all often alone, but, tragically, not always. We see how he feels about the bears and other creatures but what also comes across is a portrait of his own psyche. This is truly riveting film that it ends horrifically. I won’t spoil anything, though you undoubtedly know what happens, if you know anything of the story. Still, though, it does offer a glimpse, as unsteady as it may seem, about the connection we often feel toward animals. 

7 Project Nim:

 

 Taken from his mother upon birth, Nim, a chimpanzee, is forced to participate in a ‘social” experiment.  Nim is raised with a human family to ascertain whether nature or nurture matters more. James Marsh creates a compelling and truly sad film about Nim, who never had any say in anything that happened to him. The documentary shows both the indifference and the concern people have for animals.  Chimps are cute when they are young. But as they mature into adults, chimps become much stronger than a full grown man, and they know it. They are aggressive and smart too. So as the Nim grows up and wants to be the alpha, problems develop.  Unable to handle Nim, he is sent to a research facility and then shipped around to several other facilities, narrowly escaping a death sentence in the process.  At the end of his life, after twenty years, he is re-united with his surrogate human family and particularly, his “mother.”  Honestly, this might seem too contrived, only it’s true.  Nim’s reaction is certainly consistent emotionally with any human who might have been abandoned by his family. 

6 One Nation Under Dog:

 We have a truly tortured relationship with man’s best friend.  All of the documentaries I have seen about animals, this one is nearly impossible to make it through without welling up with tears. If you love dogs, I’d say there is no way. Directors Ellen Kent, Jenny Carchman, and Amanda Michli examine a variety of ways we love, abuse and reject dogs, and it is heartbreaking.  What do they receive for their loyalty to us? Often it is abandonment. Indeed, the other day a story was featured on the news about a 10 year old dog who was surrendered to the local shelter because their child went off to college.  All I could think of was how cruel it is for the dog. This film reminds us that even though we claim to love dogs, we often do not. The documentary is on HBO, so it is available to subscribers.  

5-1 coming soon.

Ignorance is not bliss; it is cruelty.

For the past few years, I have showed the documentary Earthlings to my English composition courses. The class is the typical research composition course required in all universities, but my class focuses on humanity's relationship with non-human animals.  Earthlings offers an overview on that perspective so it fits well with the class.

 

Earthlings is not an easy film to watch.  Many students are horrified, appalled and revolted by the imagery and some have even left during the screening, despite it being the focus of the final exam.  In fact, one student’s mother complained to the department, and I was required to offer an alternative exam, much to my frustration.  While the documentary is disconcerting, I nevertheless feel it is critical to understanding the nature of our relationships with the animals, to make the “invisible visible” as Dr. Joy says in her presentation.

Prior to screening the film, the students have already read about the treatment of animals in a variety of contexts and thus have a basic understanding about how animals are raised as food, for example. However, something about seeing the treatment resonates far more than reading about it. I remember being asked why I have to show it, that I should be able to convey the say information without the revolting imagery in the documentary.  Would I, say, show pornographic films if I were focusing on human sexuality? A fair question, I suppose, the non sequitur and false analogy fallacies aside.

 Now I prepare the students before showing it to the class; there have not been any parental, or to my knowledge, student complaints since. After the showing, I ask the students, as I have always, whether the film should be shown.  Is it too disconcerting and uncomfortable? I know that it is a difficult to watch and perhaps I was not considering some important aspect.  After all, could I not accomplish the same goals without the film? In fact, I would alter my final exam if a significant portion of the students said that I should not show it, for whatever reason. That has not been the case.

The students are generally uniform in their responses-they say that I should continue showing it. It is an important reality-check, the say. Indeed, some assert that it should be shown in high school, the import so vital.  The film forces the viewers to re-evaluate humanity’s relationship with animals and ask some fundamental questions about us, humans. Does the treatment of animals in CAFO demonstrate who we are, why we are, or what we are? Most of us tacitly endorse what happens to the CAFO animals; sometimes we openly affirm it. So, then, why should we be conveniently shielded from what our behavior directly causes, supports and sustains?  Because it makes us sad, uncomfortable, sickened, and angry? Not really good reasons, seems to me, and fortunately, the students, at least in my classes, agree. 

"But who wants to look?" Joaquin Phonex, the film's somber narrator, asks. For animals, human ignorance is not bliss; it is cruelty.  Looking forces us to confront what we stand for. Do we think that what we do to animals is okay? It's quite simple. See Earthlings so that you might better align your values with your behavior, especially what you buy. To, as the film invites, "Make the connection." I hope my students do, as I have done. 

Better Call Saul Review: Uno.

Chapter one, “Uno,” of the new series Better Call Saul worked well.  It introduces Saul, who at this point still goes by his birth name, Jimmy McGill, before he becomes the Saul we all know and loved from Breaking Bad.  To be honest, Saul was my favorite character and I was curious to see if a show can be built around him.  The first episode suggests that there is something to tell.  And because fans of Breaking Bad know that Jimmy transforms into Saul, like Walter transforms into Heisenberg, we hope that the metamorphosis is as compelling as it was for Walter.

It begins with Saul working for a Cinnabon in Omaha. He is under an assumed identify we know from the end of Breaking Bad. It seems like a sad end for Saul, who morosely watches his old commercials. He pines for the old days, like many of us do. The black and white flash forward helps convey the nostalgic sense. And while Saul wasn’t a pillar of the community, his end seems to sting a little compared with Walter White, who got what he deserved.  

The confident, fast-talking Saul we know in “Uno” is nicely juxtaposed. He is not nearly as confident as we think, as he builds up confidence in bathroom before a case involving teen necrophilia. The gallows humor from Vince Gilligan is on full display the court scene demonstrates.

The episode introduces Jimmy’s brother, Chuck played by Michael McKean, himself a brilliant lawyer. Saul’s big brother is terminally sick, we think, though no disease is identified. Saul is cash strapped, much like Walter White was, and we see how the need for money leads to risky decisions.

In an attempt to get some easy cash, Saul enlists some skateboarding grifters to swindle a rich client, but things go wrong. Not everyone cottons well to being swindled. “Uno” ends by re-introducing one of the most fearsome, psychopathic and savage characters conceived on TV—Tuco Salamanca. We already know Tuco and his penchant for violence and his connection to the Mexican drug cartel. Saul needs to put his silver tongue to work as Tuco asks him if he is “punking” he nana. This is a nice call back to Walter and Jesse’s attempt to poison Tuco.  In a seriously tense scene, Tuco asks Uncle Don Hector if he is being “punked.” Ding. Yes.  

Whether the show can sustain  a compelling narrative around Jimmy as he becomes “It’s All Good, Man” is hard to say but the first episode, chapter one, compels me to watch episode two “Mijo.”

Foxcatcher Review

Foxcatcher begins with a short clip of a fox hunt. It appears authentic as the hunters mount horses and a team of perhaps a hundred blood hounds nose the scent of a doomed fox. We see a fox released and know that he or she has little chance-to call it a sport is as absurd as calling water boarding an Enhanced Interrogation Technique. I thought immediately of how cruel and speciesist we are. But the opening of Foxcatcher, directed by Bennet Miller, invites some consideration.  Is the opening simply providing a context for the name of the film? Or does it suggest foreshadowing or an analogy?  

The film is based on true events.  Having enormous wealth, John du Pont, played with a mixture of social ineptitude and leering creepiness, is able to get whatever he wants without having really to work for it--the affliction of the rich.  So he lures Mark Shultz, played by Channing Tatum to the du Pont estate, Foxcatcher,  to train him, but it is clear that du Pont has no idea how to wrestle or how to train. He has money and that’s about it. It is why he is tolerated.  Carell plays du Pont as a despicable and disgusting person. He is quite good. 

However, the real strength of the film rests in the relationship between Mark and David Schultz, Mark’s older brother. David Shultz is played by Mark Ruffola and conveys through his performance his deep love and affection for his brother. It is affecting and sad. 

The film mines familiar familial territory—the younger brother lives in the shadow cast by his older brother. But this is hardly David’s fault—he loves his younger brother and when Mark starts acting oddly, David is genuinely concerned. Mark resists initially David’s counsel, but David loves his brother and simply will not be shut out. Eventually, Mark comes to the estate to train after initially refusing, causing Mark resent him.  This leads to a confrontation between David and du Pont, which the film intimates was the catalyst for du Pont’s coldblooded murder. 

The rich du Pont wants to satisfy his mother, played with diffidence by Vanessa Redgrave, and so funds the Olympic team. But he also wants admiration, respect, deference from his wrestlers: he deserves none. He wants what the Schultz brothers worked so hard for, but without any of the work.  When du Pont yells “why don’t you like me,” at David as he shoots him, in front of his wife, we understand that du Pont’s nothing more than a vacuous person with emotional child and mentally ill. The film paints a glum picture of the wealthy.