Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts

Wednesday, 10 January 2024

No change?

WUSA (1970)

Director: Stuart Rosenberg


The idea of critical race theory came about because of this observation. The constitution enshrines that everyone is equal in the eye of the law and is innocent unless proven otherwise. Day in and day out, the disparity between different groups is apparent. Disproportionately high numbers of people of a particular group occupy the prisons and fill up the low socioeconomic strata of society. Proponents of critical theory insist that they are victims of systemic discrimination in society. Even though the law paints an image of fairness, in reality, the system is biased. The disadvantaged people will always stay disadvantaged. The system makes sure of that. 


The perception of the people is easily swayed. The public can easily be zombified to tell a particular narrative with all the communication tools at the disposal of the powers that be. This idea was initially mooted by the left-leaning Frankfurt School and perfected by Hitler's propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels. The widespread of social media and the rampant algorithmic manipulation in creating echo chambers are proof of this.


This 1971 film tells the narrative above in its own way. The setting is somewhat different, though. Set in the 70s Confederate town of New Orleans, it speaks of a meeting of a radio announcer (Reinhart, Paul Newman), a social worker (Rainey, Anthony Perkins), a preacher and a job-seeking recently widowed 30-something lady (Geraldine, Joanne Woodward). Rainey discovers that the research results handed to him are all fake. The powers that be in town have no interest in improving the state of the downtrodden. The white supremacists in town are pretty happy with the status quo. The radio station helps to paint a rosy picture of the bleak situation of the poor. Rainey confronts the radio owner but is just turned away. As a radio DJ, Reinhart knows very well that his job involves spreading false information and carries on anyway for the money. The preacher in it to escape his demons and sway towards where the power lies. And Geraldine is confused about the whole thing, especially so after having her husband gunned down by one supremacist. 

Things take a turn for the worse when the head of the radio station sponsors a white supremacy rally. Pandemonium struck as Rainey tried to assassinate the radio station owner during a performance as black militants demonstrated outside the venue.


Half a century after this movie, we still debate the same issues. We talk about equality, equity, justice and fairness but agree on which is what. When we do not have anything, we think communism and socialism are the way forward. When we have attained a certain comfort in life, when our hard work pays off, we do not want to part with our hard-earned money. We tend to think capitalism is best. If we can pull ourselves by our own bootstraps, why can't others?




Friday, 5 May 2023

No perfect system!

Triangle of Sadness (2022)
Director: Ruben Östlund

This is a black comedy, a satire of modern society, sniggering at the changes society has been undergoing over the years. At different parts of the film, it shows us how we fit snuggly into our roles with only one purpose (or maybe two) in life - to usurp lots of money. Power will come rolling in with moolah.

It hints at how gender roles are reversed, with ladies earning more than men. Despite their demands for equal rights and equality, they conveniently use the 'damsel-in-distress' card and chivalry when it suits them. Sex is used as a bargaining chip.

We are told that beauty is on the inside, but seeing people making a fortune from their external appearances is illogical. The whole of show biz, the fashion industry and even influencers on social media are centred around aesthetics and exhibitionism to a certain degree. They do not bring anything 'value-added' to the table of human civilisational progress. Coincidentally, the movie's title refers to a medical term used by plastic surgeons to demarcate the area between the eyebrows that carry the 'worry wrinkle', which is treated with Botox.

The movie's second part showcases the opulence of the super-rich, their wasteful actions and their overindulgences in basic necessities of sustenance. Just being at the right place at the right time, their fortunes changed. With a little bit of quick thinking, they seized their opportunities and paved the path of the aristocracy for the next generation. In the film, a capitalist Russian hit a business 'landmine' when he packaged chicken droppings from his chicken farm into a mega fertiliser industry. Paradoxically, the cruise captain the characters travel on is a drunkard Communist American. Ironically, the American thinks capitalism is flawed, whilst the Russian says down with Communism.

We are shown how the crew on the Cruise, including the unseen and unheard workers in the engine room, cleaners and kitchen staff, literally break their backs to dance to the whims and fancies of every wealthy oligarch on board.

A side joke is about an elderly couple who made a fortune making grenades for third-world countries to bomb each other into pieces. Their characters were aptly named Winston and Clementine, with reference to the UK World War 2 Prime Minister and his beloved wife, of course. In a poetic justice style, they die when terrorists hurl a similar grenade at their ship.

In the final part of the movie, only a few people aboard survive the bomb blast and are marooned on a deserted island. Here, the role reverses. The pompous rich people have no survival skills. They have to live on the fishing and outdoor skills of a lowly Filipino housekeeping manager. Money is no more the equation here anymore. The Filipina tries to rule the roost with her knowledge of providing meals. The hierarchy is broken. Now, she tries to garner favour from her special status.

The ending is purposely left hanging. The real reason for this type of ending is precisely this. No system seems to be fair to all of mankind. An obviously top-down approach will create resentment. The people at the top will utilise whatever means available to them to stay there and to ensure similar lives for their offspring, no matter how dumb and uninitiated or lazy they are. True talent will be lost.

On the contrary, a genuinely equal system will not make the cut. There must be some kind of motivation for people to look forward to. Altruism, a good afterlife or some sort of existential reason will not sell. Pol Pot and Lenin tried and failed. The Money God will just do the trick. China, under Mao, preached true Communism and see what it brought them - famine, imprisonment and low morale. Once Deng Xaio Peng opened the country to capitalist practices, we saw China becoming a threat that even the poster child of capitalism, the USA, had to retaliate against. 

Follow


Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

 

Friday, 22 April 2022

Blurred line between fact and fiction!

Inventing Anna (Miniseries, 2021)
Netflix

Believe it or not, this miniseries is based on actual events. Between 2013 and 2017, a young German heiress of Russian descent by the name of Anna Delvey was seen in the social circles of New York. She was moving around the company of who's who in the art scene and the rich and famous. Everybody was excited about her ambitious plan to create an ultra-exclusive club where the exceptionally wealthy clientele could partake. Soon every banker, lawyer, designer and leeches was dying to be in her company. The only perennial problem is that his apparently flamboyant young lady has problems mobilising her money from Germany. Her strict father is insistent that Anna earns her every single penny herself. 

People soon realise that Anna was spending way too much than she actually managed to show. Not wanting to be embarrassed, her many famous socialites and supporters of Anna's plan to build a foundation instead stay anonymous and would not like to be associated with her. This was discovered by a problematic journalist who decided to investigate Anna. She has to finish her investigations in record time as she is due to deliver her baby anytime now.

The story of Anna Delvey @ Anna Sorokin peels open the problems with modern living. Money begets money, and affluence pulls influence. Creating a persona is so important these days, and the ultimate tool to create a fake narrative is social media. It paints an illusion of prosperity and contentment when it is just a smokescreen for the ugly backdrop that lurks in the background. It is the gratifying playground of narcissists. The story is so hyperreal that it alters reality which is not so rosy.

Outstanding achievements are achieved from dreaming, but building sandcastles in the air does not hold water. One lie to cover another only gets one entangled in a web of deceit that will only reveal itself on its own finally.

Are parents really responsible for the mess that their offspring create? Can they be blamed if their children create mayhem in society? Do children come from parents or merely go through their parents? At a time when parenting is outsourced so much to nannies, schools and cyberspace, who knows who creates their personality and values? Nobody listens to their parents anymore. The children have a legitimate excuse for all their follies and failures - overbearing parenting!

It should be pretty apparent that it is a priority to save big conglomerates whenever there is an economic downturn. The justification for this is that the collapse of a large corporation has a spill down effect on the small people and the country's economy at large. The push is there to ensure their continuity at the expense of the rest of the country. The same things happen in the legal system. The average man-in-the-street will never be able to afford to appoint the shrewd legal eagles to seek justice arising from the inhumane and unscrupulous criminal antics of business concerns. The current turns of events in many high-profile cases are indeed proof that there is an invisible hand from above (definitely NOT the Hand of God!) that is controlling the narrative. By no means, beyond a shadow of a doubt, one can confidently assume that there are two sets of rules of law (not justice); one for the corporations and another for the little men (and women).

Follow


Follow



Follow


Please remove the veil of ignorance!