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?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

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. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

Follow

 

We, the people?

Grapes of Wrath (1940)
Director: John Ford
A novel by John Steinbeck

A typical scene in a big establishment when a crisis looms. When a patient is discharged from a hospital and has to speak to somebody who has the authority to give a discount, he will be given a runaround. Nobody has the power to approve that slash in the bill. It is always about the system, or the management has to decide. Who is managing, they may ask? Nobody can give a straight answer as a management team is not one person, and his job his not permanent. Even the CEO has to safeguard his career - too much of a discount-and may lose his job. Same with a big establishment like a bank. Even the bank manager emphasises with his loyal customers, his hands are tight. He has to toe the line of stock-owners and continue squeezing the debtor for dues. 

All the big establishments invoke the fear of the weight of powers that be upon the weak. The elites and powerful side of the society are constantly rubbing shoulder with the authority and the corporations. This unholy alliance creates a deep fissure in the community, as the haves and have-nots fleet further and further away from each other. In times of calamities, this becomes apparent; the effective use of all the resources upon their disposal to pounce upon the poor ensures that the rich continue enjoying their living style. 

If history has taught us anything, we realise that the widening of economic prowess is a perfect recipe for a revolution. When they feel powerless against a perceived autocratic system, people will raise their working tools in solidarity to fight back. We saw it in the French and Bolshevik revolutions. Hunger is a potent trigger to change the course of history.

Logically, we should soon be seeing the effects of a year of Covid-induced lockdown. Civil servants continued receiving whilst the self-employed had to tighten their belts with loss of income and the inconveniences of multiple Government restrictive policies.

After the initial euphoria of the end of WW1, the world plunged into an economic depression in 1929. The weather was also against their side for the Joad family in Oklahoma. The family has to leave their farmland as the bank pressures them for outstanding payments. The family with other Okies (Oklahomans) leave their Dust Bowl State for California in their rickety truck, together with Tom, who had just been out of prison. After enduring a treacherous journey, they soon discover that California is no promised land. There is starvation, oppression by the authorities, bullying by employers and police's unholy union, and restrictions on personal liberties. 

John Steinbeck's 1939 novel is a Pulitzer-winning classic with much Reds undertone and is used as reading in many American schools. He went on to win the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1962 for that work. The book is a stark reminder that the subject matter discussed can be topical at any period. The poor will always remain impoverished despite advances in science, technology, and economic leaps and bounds. The rich and those in power will always devise ways to keep them under their thumbs. New laws will be instituted, taxes will be adjusted to accommodate the rich and novel ideas will prop up to entice the downtrodden to dance to the big conglomerates' tune.

The title 'The Grapes of Wrath' may have a Biblical reference. In the Book of Revelation, an angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the world, and threw them into the great winepress of the wrath of God [14:19-20]. Grapes, when pressed, will morph into a divine and spirited drink. Hence, when the workers are oppressed for too long, they would rise to wreak justice upon greedy and self-serving landowners and bankers. The filmmakers had to modify the storyline to not arouse legislators' curiosity when Hollywood was mainly targeted for subtly spreading communist's sentiments.

The phrase 'grapes of wrath' also appears in Julia Ward's composition of 1861 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic', a famous American patriotic song.

Roman Charity: Pero secretly breastfeeds her father,
Cimon who is sentenced to death by starvation
Peter Paul Rubens

The word 'Okies' in the 1930s was a derogatory word of sorts. It denoted westward-bound white migrant agricultural workers from cotton-growing states from the east. In 1937, California brought in the 'Anti Okie Law' to make it illegal to bring in any destitute person. It was later revoked as unconstitutional.

Not everyone in the USA, especially the Californians, took in kindly to Steinbeck's book. The idea of Americans treating their own kind with so much scorn and cruelty was too repulsive. The idea of our cooperative type of setup like the one in a communist/socialist nation instead of American democracy in solving the poors' misery was offensive. To top it all, the book presents a character who performs an act of Roman Charity. She nurses a sick and starving man.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.