8, 10 & 39 – Numerical titles cover a variety of sins over the years: A Year In Movies 2021 – Part 8

In December of 2020, when it became clear we were not going to be returning to normal life any time soon, we purchased a big honking 55-inch 4K TV and settled in for a year of watching movies at home. By Dec. 31, 2021, we had watched 236 movies either together or separately. This is one of series of blog posts about those films.


I sometimes have to stretch to have a theme to connect the movies together that I’m going to talk about, but this batch was pretty easy to bring together under the banner of numeric titles – in fact, these could all sound like they came together in an episode of the rather strange and wonderful TV series LOST. (Remember 4, 8, 15, 16, 23 & 42?)

We watched these movies in reverse chronological order but forward numerical order. So enough of this nonsense – let’s look at the movies.


Ocean’s 8 is the fourth movie in the Ocean’s “trilogy“…

Hold on a minute before we go any further. There was never an “Ocean’s 11 Trilogy.” Just having three films in a series does not make it a trilogy – It just means that the first two movies in the series were successful enough to lead to a third movie. Now, obviously – Lord of the Rings was a trilogy — A connected series of three films that told a coherent story. The Hobbit was a bad collection of three movies that tried to tell a mostly coherent story – it too was a trilogy. What really drives me crazy is after labeling a three-movie series as a trilogy, the filmmakers go back and make a fourth movie in the series, which simply makes them all… a series.

Ok, where were we, oh yes, Ocean’s 8  (2018) is the fourth movie in a fun heist series originally anchored by George Clooney as the freshly released-from-prison Danny Ocean who wants to rob a casino. O8 takes the premise that Sandra Bullock plays Danny’s sister Debbie, who has just been released from prison and wants to… Yeah, you get the picture.

Only this time it’s told with an all-female core cast of Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Mindy Kaling, Sarah Paulson, Awkwafina, Rihanna, and Helena Bonham Carter. The film tells a really familiar story but with this all-star cast of incredibly talented women performers, it’s an absolute hoot. It’s not about originality, it’s about all the fun we have getting to the end of the story.


Ten Little Indians (1965/66) is an adaptation of Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None directed by George Pollock that includes teen heartthrob Fabian in the cast. This is one of five movie and television adaptations of the novel, along with one stage version, in which the guests at a remote house are killed, one by one. It’s a fun movie with a runtime of under 90 minutes for those who are Christie (or Fabian) fans.

I think that movies with a runtime under an hour-and-a-half are a whole genre to themselves. There’s a lot to be said for telling mystery/thriller story quickly, without any excess. Among my favorites in this category are the original Japanese anime Ghost in the Shell, the German thriller Run Lola Run that manages to tell the same story three times in 80 minutes, and the American shark thriller The Shallows.


The 39 Steps (1935), directed by Alfred Hitchcock, is an early thriller by Hitch (who is likely the most viewed director for us during 2021) that tells the story of an ordinary man getting caught up in an elaborate plot to steal British intelligence secrets by a shadowy group known as the 39 Steps. This movie has all the elements we have come to expect in a Hitchcock thriller – the everyman caught up in extraordinary events, a mysterious McGuffin that everyone seems to want, and a cameo by the director that fans watch for carefully.


Coming Attractions: A Shakespearean musical, King Kong meets Apocalypse Now, and a classic detective story.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on 8, 10 & 39 – Numerical titles cover a variety of sins over the years: A Year In Movies 2021 – Part 8

What is the DeSantis v. Disney battle really about?

Note: See bottom of post for updates on this story.

It’s been hard to miss the recent battle going on between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state’s largest employer – Disney Corp.  Gov. DeSantis wants to take away tax management privileges from areas developed by Disney over the last 50 years because Disney has been critical of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation promoted by the governor.

There are multiple levels to this battle that are worth digging into as we try to understand what’s going on.

The core of this fight is that Disney CEO Bob Chapek was forced by employee pressure to speak out forcefully against a new Florida law that forbids talking about issues related to sexual orientation and identity in kindergarten through fourth grade classes.  This has been known by critics as the “Don’t say gay” law. These critics say that the law could prevent grade school teachers from talking about their same-sex spouse if a student asked who they were married to.

The Florida legislature, under prompting from Gov. DeSantis, responded quickly by passing a bill that strips Disney of its ability to self-govern a huge area of property surrounding the  company’s theme parks in retribution for being too “woke.” (Disney has a diverse work force and has a long history of having gay pride days and events at their parks.)

 

Headline from LA Times about Disney and Anaheim.Now, one doesn’t have to love Gov. DeSantis to believe that perhaps Disney has too much control over the areas they operate. After all, Disney was involved in a fight with the government and local media of Anaheim, Calif. a few years back over special property taxes. Hint: It didn’t end well for Disney. In this case, Disney was trying to control what local news outlets were publishing about a property tax deal by keeping LA Times critics from attending the studio’s movie screenings. The Times refused to back down and got support from news outlets across the country. In the end, Disney quit trying to control what the paper had to say about the company and its taxes. Please note that this was settled not on legal grounds; Disney simply didn’t have enough power to bend the press to their will.

So how is Florida retaliating against Disney to punish them for opposing this  anti-LGBTQ+ bill? To answer that requires us to go back in time a bit. Sarah Rumpf, writing for the MediaIte blog, tells the story of how in the mid-1960s, Disney was proposing building a giant new theme park in Florida. The company quietly bought up 39 square miles of space that would come to include “the Magic Kingdom, Epcot, and Animal Kingdom, plus numerous Disney hotels, restaurants, and retails stores.”

This space would become the Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID). A 1967 Florida state law created the district to give Disney essentially all the powers of a local government. They could collect taxes (and pay some of them to the state) as well as develop infrastructure like roads, fire protection, power plants, sewage treatment and the like. (Allegedly Disney even had the right to build a nuclear power plant! They never even considered doing so, but still…) They could also take on debt for development of the area and collect more taxes than would normally be allowed to pay for all of these. (Disney would essentially be taxing itself in order to pay for infrastructure.)  While I would never want to argue about the ethics of Disney’s behavior, they clearly have done a good job of taking care of their property.

In other words, the Reedy Creek project follows a standard conservative model of allowing private industry to take over functions of government in the name of more efficiency. And regardless of what you think about these partnerships in general, this one seems to have worked relatively well. While RCID is the most prominent development district in Florida, it is far from the only one – the state has literally hundreds of them, though few are as big as Disney’s.

Now one could argue that Disney doesn’t deserve this special treatment because it’s bad for the Florida economy or for business competition. But Gov. DeSantis has made it abundantly clear that he is doing this specifically to punish Disney for being critical of the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. In fact, Republican legislators have offered to rescind the bill if Disney were willing to back off from its opposition. (It doesn’t take effect until 2023.)

There are a number of questions raised by this case:

  • Does taking away the right to govern themselves violate Disney’s corporate free speech rights? 
    Hard to say. Florida clearly has the right to revoke special tax districts. But can they shut one down to punish the company for speaking out against the governor? That’s a whole ‘nother question.
  • Team Rodent, by Carl HiaasenHaven’t progressives been critical of Disney, too? 
    They sure have, especially when it comes to real estate development. Long-time Miami Herald columnist and comic novel writer Carl Hiaasen wrote critically about Disney’s real estate dealings in a short book called Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World.
  • Is Disney going to pack up and leave Florida over this? 
    I don’t see how. A theme park is not a fungible asset. You can’t just move it somewhere else.

Updates

4/27/22

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on What is the DeSantis v. Disney battle really about?

Movies on Twitter: Representation, Nimona Rescued from Disney, & Respect for Animation

I know, I know, this is my third consecutive post on movies, and the next one is likely to be about movies, too. Little obsessed with them lately. We’ll get back to exciting media corporate mergers soon, I promise!

Why representation matters – You can’t cover a culture with one movie.

Really interesting thread on diversity and inclusion in the movies – in this case – Asian American/Canadian… One movie can’t carry the load of a whole culture. We need little movies like The Farewell and big movies like Ten Rings.


Disney turns Nimona loose to Netflix for completion.

Nimona has been rescued from Disney’s shutdown of Blue Sky Studios and has found a new home at Netflix. (Blue Sky was an edgier animation studio that belonged to Fox before Disney bought the studio out.) I know nothing about it other than everyone on Animation Twitter has been going nuts about it. As for me – I’m excited based on this one frame that is circulating.


One last commentary on how Oscar mistreated animation (again) this year.

I’m not complaining about the winners. While Encanto might not have been my first choice, it was a worthy winner for best feature animation. And The Windshield Wiper’s mediation on love was a great choice for short animation.

What bothered me was how the animation presenters mocked the genre they were supposed to be honoring. Here’s a great post about Phil Lord and Chris Miller (Mitchells vs. the Machines) on how Hollywood could treat animation right.


And finally… here’s Oscar-winning animated short The Windshield Wiper

The Windshield Wiper

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Movies on Twitter: Representation, Nimona Rescued from Disney, & Respect for Animation

1952’s The Narrow Margin is a noir thrill ride: A Year in Movies 2021 – Part 7

In December of 2020, when it became clear we were not going to be returning to normal life any time soon, we purchased a big honking 55-inch 4K TV and settled in for a year of watching movies at home. By Dec. 31, 2021, we had watched 236 movies either together or separately. This is one of series of blog posts about those films.


Dear Wife and I love older movies, especially the film noirs of the 1940s and ’50s. Film noir means literally “black film,” and these are typically black & white crime dramas with lots of shadows that take place at night in the dark places of men’s and women’s hearts.

Things never turn out well for our anti-heroes and heroines, in large part because the Production Code (also known as the Hays Code) said that criminals could never get away with their bad behavior – they always had to pay. In some of the movies we will look at in later editions of this series we’ll see that the writers and directors sometimes had to go to elaborate (and fascinating) lengths to come up with an ending that would satisfy both audiences and the Code rules.

This time I’d like to talk about one of our favorites from our year of movies:

The Narrow Margin, 1952, directed by Richard Fleischer; starring Charles McGraw, Marie Windsor and Jacqueline White. We saw it, as we so often do, on Turner Classic Movies’ Noir Alley program with an introduction and afterword from host Eddie Muller, one of the leading writers on noir.

Narrow Margin is the story of an LAPD detective sergeant who is assigned to protect a mob boss’s widow who is traveling by train from Chicago to Los Angeles to testify in a trial. Throughout the movie the detective, his colleagues, and the widow are all menaced by assassins who will do anything to stop her from testifying. If you are going to watch this movie, don’t do any digging about the plot before watching. You don’t want to spoil any of the numerous twists and turns it takes.

The film goes at a breakneck pace, with much of the action taking place within the narrow confines of a transcontinental train. It also moves quickly because it has a running time of only 71 minutes – impossible to believe today in this age of bloated, over-long movies. Narrow Margin was considered a “B movie” with a low budget, fast shoot, and a cast of relative unknowns, but it rises above its humble roots to be one of the most exciting movies we saw in 2021.

In March of this year Dear Wife and I also got to see the 1990 remake of The Narrow Margin by thriller director Peter Hyams; starring Gene Hackman, Anne Archer, James B. Sikking, J.T. Walsh and M. Emmet Walsh. The plot is roughly the same as the 1952 original, but it’s moved up north with much of the action taking place in the Canadian Rockies.  Although the movie bombed in the box office, we still thought it was a lot of fun. And with a 97-minute run-time, it mostly maintains the tight pace of the original.


Coming up next: 8, 10, 39!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on 1952’s The Narrow Margin is a noir thrill ride: A Year in Movies 2021 – Part 7

1976’s King Kong to 2019’s Godzilla King of the Monsters: A Year in Movies 2021 – Part 6

In December of 2020, when it became clear we were not going to be returning to normal life any time soon, we purchased a big honking 55-inch 4K TV and settled in for a year of watching movies at home. By Dec. 31, 2021, we had watched 236 movies either together or separately. This is one of series of blog posts about those films.

No fancy introduction this time. Just an assortment of four movies framed by a pair of prominent monster stories.


1976’s edition of King Kong, directed by John Guillermin, starring Jeff Bridges, Charles Grodin and Jessica Lange. For whatever reason — nostalgia, watching it for the first time at age 16, some great actors (it was Jessica Lange’s starring debut!) — this is my favorite of the Big Monkey movies. It also has added poignancy from featuring a very early look at the recently completed World Trade Center’s twin towers. It carries an emotional wallop now that the film maker never could have anticipated. But I won’t call it a guilty pleasure movie given that even the ever-acerbic New Yorker movie critic Pauline Kael liked it. (Watched this with my dear Mum-in-Law, who liked monster movies, too.)


Witness to Murder, 1954, directed by Roy Rowland; starring Barbara Stanwyck, George Sanders and Gary Merrill.  This is of the woman-sees-a-murder-and-no-one-believes-her genre, an is a fun film noir. It also includes the ever-popular “denazified Nazi” bad guy. Unfortunately for Stanwyck and the rest of the cast, Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window came out at about the same time and  likely took away audiences. Still, it’s a fun little period thriller.


That Hamilton Woman, 1941, directed by Alexander Korda; starring Viven Leigh and Laurence Olivier. Most Americans will have heard of Trafalgar Square and might know that it has something to do with the Napoleonic Wars era. A more engaged person will know that it’s a memorial to Admiral Horatio Nelson. But you might need to be a bit of Napoleonic-era nerd to know about Nelson’s scandalous affair with Lady Emma Hamilton. This film tells the story through flashbacks of the rise and catastrophic fall of Lady Hamilton. It also functioned as a World War II propaganda film to make people more sympathetic toward Britain. More than a bit soapy, but a lot of fun. (Again, one that was just for Mum-in-Law and me.)


Family Plot, 1976,  directed by Alfred Hitchcock; staring Bruce Dern, Barbara Harris, William Devane and Karen Black. A late-career black comedy from Hitchcock, it features a post-Jaws, pre-Star Wars score from John Williams – the only score he would do for Hitch. (I don’t have a count of how many Hitchcock films we saw in 2021, but his films would almost certainly be the most frequent director for us.) BTW, this has one of those fun Hitchcock-hosted trailers. You want to see this.


Sealed Cargo, 1951, directed by Alfred L. Werker; staring Dana Andrews, Claude Raines, and Carla Balenda. A fun World War II story of about an American fisherman (Andrews) going up against a German U-boat in a rather far-fetched story that also involves a square-rigged Danish ship. Along with seeing a lot of Hitchcock movies, we also saw a lot of fighting-the-Nazis movies as well.


Godzilla: King of the Monsters, 2019, directed by Michael Dougherty, staring Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, Millie Bobby Brown, Bradley Whitford, Sally Hawkins and Charles Dance. Part of the Titan series of monster films set in the common universe of the 2014 Godzilla reboot. There have been a number of films in this series, and we’ll be watching more of them before the year is out. I first saw King of the Monsters in the theater and wasn’t overly impressed. Then I listened to the audiobook of the novelization of the movie, and I started liking it a lot better. It has a fun cast with Vera Farmiga from Bates Motel, Millie Bobby Brown from Stranger Things, Bradley Whitford from Tick, Tick…BOOM!, and Charles Dance from Game of Thrones. Stupid fun, if you aren’t expecting too much from it. And with that, we are back to roughly where we started with 1976’s King Kong.


Coming up next: One of the most exciting noirs we saw in 2021

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on 1976’s King Kong to 2019’s Godzilla King of the Monsters: A Year in Movies 2021 – Part 6

What does the 1st Amendment and Freedom of Speech Really Mean?

The New York Times is getting a fair amount of static for the opening paragraph of their editorial about the First Amendment and free speech this morning. Here’s the headline and first two paragraphs:

America Has a Free Speech Problem

For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.

This social silencing, this depluralizing of America, has been evident for years, but dealing with it stirs yet more fear. It feels like a third rail, dangerous. For a strong nation and open society, that isdangerous.

There are certainly a lot of concerns today about free speech, but the central policy claim that we have a fundamental right to say what we want without “fear of being shamed or shunned” is something I would have hard time accepting from my commentary students.


Dr. Rosemary Pennington (who recently wrote a guest blog post here about media framing of the Russian war against Ukraine) points out that this is not at all what the 1st Amendment has to say:


Defense attorney and legal commentator Ken White, who tweets under the handle @Popehat, gives a scathing analysis of just the first paragraph of the Times’ editorial:

@popehat /12 In other words, it's nonsensical to say that an audience's response should be evaluated for decency, proportionality, fairness, kindness, and "speech encouragement," but the initial speaker's speech shouldn't be.

 

 

 

 


Dr. Jeremy Littau of Lehigh University points out the absurdity of the editorial by looking at things the Times has written in the past:


Alissa Wilkinson, a senior culture reporter and critic for Vox.com and a tenured associate professor at King’s College in New York City, points out the absurdity of the Times’ arguments:

And for those of you, like me, who do not have James 3 from the Bible memorized, here would seem to be the relevant portion:

James 3: 5-12 NIV

5 Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.

7 All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.

9 With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10 Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. 11 Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? 12 My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.


So if you use this NY Times editorial in either a commentary or media literacy class, here are some discussion questions to start with:

  1. What protection does the 1st Amendment provide us with?
  2. Does freedom of speech imply freedom from criticism? Why or why not?
  3. Why should someone speaking critically be protected from responding criticism?
  4. What responsibility do we have for what we say in public? In private?

What are your thoughts on this editorial?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on What does the 1st Amendment and Freedom of Speech Really Mean?

Media News on Twitter: Journalist killed in Ukraine, disinformation, Disney v. Employees on gay rights & TV news

American journalist/documentarian killed covering war in Ukraine


Disinformation on war in Ukraine being presented as fact checking


Disney top management and Disney employees have very different outlooks on Florida’s “Don’t say gay” law.


Big Three TV network news shows get far more viewers than cable news


And finally – The perfect live shot story from Poland

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Media News on Twitter: Journalist killed in Ukraine, disinformation, Disney v. Employees on gay rights & TV news

Old movies don’t always seem that old: A Year in Movies 2021 – Part 5

In December of 2020, when it became clear we were not going to be returning to normal life any time soon, we purchased a big honking 55-inch 4K TV and settled in for a year of watching movies at home. By Dec. 31, 2021, we had watched 236 movies either together or separately. This is one of series of blog posts about those films.

Casablanca

Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca, perhaps the most perfect movie ever made.

I always think of “old movies” being movies from the 1930s or 40s – the ones that were old to me when I first got really interested in films in the 1970s or 80s. I mean, my Dear Wife and I had our second date at a campus movie series showing of Casablanca back in the spring of 1981. Casablanca came out in 1942, so it was 39 years old when we first saw it. Which seemed pretty old to 21-year-old us. The movies we’re going to look at today date from 1937 until 1981 – So they will all be older now than “old movie” Casablanca  was on that second date… (I guess since Dear Wife and I will have been married 40 years this summer, we are also old…)


When we left off last time, we had been watching an adaptation of Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King. And we will start off this time with another Kipling story – 1937’s Captain’s Courageous, directed by Victor Fleming and staring Spencer Tracy, Lionel Barrymore, and Melvyn Douglas.

Freddie Bartholomew plays the snotty rich kid who falls off a steam ship crossing the Atlantic while getting sick after drinking too many milkshakes. He is rescued by a Grand Banks cod fishing boat that doesn’t have a radio on it. The boat, of course, can’t take him to port until it’s full up with fish. Tracy won an Academy Award for Best Actor for playing the fisherman who teaches Bartholomew’s character how to be a human being. Mum-in-law watched it with me but thought it was way too sentimental. I, of course, loved it. (I listened to an audiobook of Kipling’s original story not too long ago as well.)


Next up, we have 1981’s Eyewitness, directed by Peter Yates; starring William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, and Christopher Plummer. Dear Wife and I likely saw this first when it was new, but it’s now 41-years old, so … officially an old movie. Eyewitness is a mystery/thriller, and it doesn’t bear looking too deeply at the plot, having little connection with reality. But it does have a horse stampede in downtown Manhattan, so it’s all good fun. (There is not a current home video version as far as I can tell, but it shows up occasionally on Turner Classic Movies.)


White Christmas, 1954, directed by Michael Curtiz (of Casablanca fame); starring Bing Crosby, Danny Kaye, Rosemary Clooney and Vera Ellen. It also stars the songs of Irving Berlin. Wonderful silliness about a pair of song-and-dance men who meet up with a couple of song-and-dance women who decide to put on a show together. It is in many ways a remake of the Bing Crosby flick Holiday Inn, but unlike Holiday Inn, White Christmas isn’t afflicted by an incredibly racist minstrel show. Great songs, great dancing, enormous fun.  (For those interested, it was shot in larger-format VistaVision.)


Bell, Book & Candle, 1958, directed by Richard Quine; starring Jimmy Stewart, Kim Novak, Jack Lemmon, Ernie Kovacs, Hermione Gringold, and Elsa Lanchester. Novak plays a witch who casts a literal spell on Stewart in this supernatural romantic comedy. The joy of this film comes not so much from the silly plot as from seeing all these great performers come together in a story that helped inspire the 1960s TV series Bewitched (as did the 1942 I Married a Witch that we’ll get to later).


We close out this group with the 1976 mystery/comedy Murder By Death, directed by Robert Moore. It was written by playwright Neil Simon and has an all-star cast of Eileen Brennan, Truman Capote, James Coco, Peter Falk, Alec Guinness, Elsa Lanchester (whom we just saw in Bell, Book & Candle!), David Niven, Peter Sellers, Maggie Smith and Nancy Walker. If you’ve seen 1985’s Clue, you’ve essentially seen this movie. Strangers arrive at a house for a mysterious weekend and end up getting murdered one by one. It’s a movie that doesn’t call on you to think to deeply – just enjoy the silly ride. (Note: Contains one of the horrid yellowface performances Hollywood was so fond of.)


Coming Attractions: From 1976’s King Kong to 2019’s Godzilla King of the Monsters

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Old movies don’t always seem that old: A Year in Movies 2021 – Part 5

Guest Blog Post: Media framing the news out of Ukraine very differently than that from Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan

Dr. Rosemary Pennington

Dr. Rosemary Pennington

Yesterday morning while I was reading Twitter,  Dr. Rosemary Pennington, associate professor of journalism at Miami University of Ohio, had a great thread on how the news media have framed the story of what is happening in Ukraine so very differently from what has happened in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. She was kind enough to edit her Tweets into this guest blog post. Great reading on a part of this story that doesn’t get enough attention.


Guest Blog Post from Dr. Rosemary Pennington

For the last week, I’ve been sharing information on social media about Ukraine. Most of this information has been authored by other people because, while I have done a lot of reading on the subject of the former Eastern Bloc, I am not an expert on the subject.

What I am an expert in is media representation; specifically, the representation of Muslims and cultures/countries that were once imagined as the Orient in media.

News media and pundits have brought those two things – Ukraine and the representation of the imagined Orient – clashing together this week.

By now, you’ve likely seen video of the CBS reporter who implied Ukraine is different from Iraq or Afghanistan because, unlike those nations, Ukraine is a “civilized” country.

There’s a lot to unpack there.

First, I would turn you onto the Twitter feed of Kimberly St. Julian-Varnon, a scholar of race and Blackness in the USSR and GDR (socialist East Germany) and a PhD student in the University of Pennsylvania’s History Department. She’s been tweeting about race in Ukraine, but also about the way that Ukraine has been othered, and at time racialized, in the European imagination.

While Ukraine is being embraced right now as European as it fights off a Russian invasion, it hasn’t always been.

Second, this framing – that Ukraine is somehow civilized while MENA nations (Middle East and North Africa) like Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria are not – is Orientalist. It’s Eurocentric. It’s racist.

If we unpack the whole “Iraq and Afghanistan are uncivilized” frame it takes us back to discussions of European and American imperialism and militarism which we, as a collective “West,” have not truly reckoned with.

And, frankly, it is a framing no one needs to make.

We are watching the destruction of a nation on the internet and on TV. It is terrible. There is no need to do some sort of comparison. There is no reason to be racist to make people care about Ukraine. I saw the “Russian warship: Go fuck yourself” video. I saw the hard-core woman tell a soldier to carry seeds so sunflowers will grow when he dies. I watched explosions rip apart cities. How can one be human and watch this happen and not feel? Not care?

You do not need to compare the suffering of Ukrainians to the suffering of Afghans or Iraqis or Syrians in order to prove Ukrainians are worth protecting or saving. All human life is worth protecting and worth saving.

I almost kept my mouth shut after watching that CBS reporter spew that Orientalist and Eurocentric claptrap. But then – oh, there’s always a “but then” – I saw other reporters use the same sort of language. I saw pundits, not all speaking in English, using the same framing.

So, here I am, yelling into the internet at people who do not pay attention what some academic in Washington, DC, has to say. But, I am a former journalist and a journalism professor. My hope is always that the profession can do better, be better. So I yell.

If we don’t call out problematic, racist, things as we see them, then that framing continues. It’s why those reporters and pundits are so comfortable suggesting that Iraqis or Syrians or Afghans are somehow less human – it’s the implication, even if it’s not the intent – because not enough people have called them out on their dehumanizing coverage of conflicts in those places in the past.

Instead, journalists continue producing news coverage of places  like Afghanistan or Syria that is Islamophobic in nature and which helps fuel anti-Muslim sentiment.

Right before Russia invaded Ukraine, I’d started listening to The Trojan Horse Affair podcast. It deals with a similar issue. Listen to the podcast, if you haven’t. I won’t spoil it. But, the gist is the UK government took an Islamophobic letter at face value and used it to wage a very anti-Muslim campaign of terror against Muslims in the UK.

At the time, this witch hunt had a fair amount of support because of the historic framing of Muslims (and Muslim countries) as somehow less civilized, less modern, less human than non-Muslim countries.

Allowing people to be framed as somehow less human, or less worthy of our empathy and compassion, often means that when violence is committed against them, we fail to speak out. Rather than stand as witnesses to violence, we turn away and pretend we don’t see it.

I watched people talk about The Trojan Horse Affair podcast, particularly those not in my field, saying things like, “How could this happen?” I wanted to yell, “Because you watched 24! Because you bought the weapons of mass destruction lie! Because you believe the Middle East to be unmodern! You have for centuries, fueled by European imperial expansion into the Near, Middle, and Far East.”

How could this happen? How could experienced and educated journalists report on one tragedy – and Ukraine is a monumental tragedy – while dehumanizing the tragedy of certain other people?

Because those people are generally a) brown, b) non-Christian, and c) from non-European countries. That combination has for a very long time been portrayed in political, media, and cultural discourses as though it was foreign. As though the people with those characteristics are others not worth our time, care, or compassion because they are uncivilized and unmodern.

And, for the record, this isn’t some screed along the “Why are we talking about Ukraine and not X other conflict” lines. (Though, I think those are conversations we also have to have at some point.)

This is very much about how reporters are framing a current crisis and how troubling and, frankly, unethical it is to dehumanize one group (or many groups) of people in order to make your point.

It’s also just lazy  journalism.

We should care about the violence in Ukraine because human beings deserve to live in dignity. We should care about the violence in Syria because human beings deserve to live in dignity. We should care about the violence in Afghanistan because human beings deserve to live in dignity.

It has nothing to do with civilization or modernity. (Who gets to decide who is civilized or unmodern anyway?)

It has everything to do with ethics, compassion, and humanity.

There is amazing reporting coming out of Ukraine, but if we don’t call out the racist coverage as we see it, it will continue. And the ethical mandate for journalists to “minimize harm” will be something we can never live up to.


Dr. Rosemary Pennington is an associate professor of journalism at Miami University, where she also serves as the area coordinator of the journalism program. She’s the co-editor of two books from Indiana University Press – On Islam: Muslims and the Media with Hilary Kahn and The Media World of ISIS with Michael Krona.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Guest Blog Post: Media framing the news out of Ukraine very differently than that from Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan

Remembering Dr. Paul Farmer

Dr. Paul Farmer, a Harvard-educated doctor who devoted his life to serving the health needs of the poorest, most remote, and sickest of the world, died of an “acute cardiac event” earlier this week at a hospital in Rwanda he had helped establish. He was 62 years old. He was a huge hero of mine.

Paul Farmer

Dr. Paul Farmer, co-founder Partners In Health

The term “saint” gets thrown around pretty easily at times to describe people who seem to be perfect in a moral/religious sense. That’s a tough standard, and I don’t think many people, especially actual saints, can live up to the idea of being perfect.

As Fr. James Martin has written, the canonized saints have been egotistical, difficult, impatient, struggle with their faith, and struggle with the world. Saints can also have a sense of humor about themselves and their responsibilities. They have not led blameless lives. What they have done is devoted their life to carrying out God’s will the best they can.

Fr. Martin writes that Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Workers Party, is in the early stages of being considered for sainthood and might seem like an unlikely candidate. She got pregnant out of wedlock and had an abortion. She later had a common-law husband with whom she had a child. But what mattered most in her life was her devotion to the lives of the poor and the church’s commitment to them. That was how she directed her life after an adult conversion to Catholicism. She saw her call to “work among the poor and marginalized in the big cities.”

In my mind, Dr. Paul Farmer, who died at age 62 earlier this week, was a saint. He was far from perfect. He was egotistical, impatient, and demanding. But he also insisted that people who were poor or lived in remote areas still deserved high-quality medical care for difficult diseases like HIV/AIDS or drug-resistant tuberculosis. He co-founded  Partners In Health, a non-profit designed to build sustainable clinics in the poorest, most under-served areas.

I first learned about Farmer from Tracy Kidder’s book Mountains Beyond Mountains that told of Farmer’s campaign to bring care to the hardest to serve – people living in the mountains of Haiti or in Russian prisons. Kidder’s book got started as an article for The New Yorker 22 years ago called “The Good Doctor” that has been a staple for years for my feature writing class. As an example, Kidder tells of Farmer treating a young man with AIDS in a remote area of Haiti:

“My situation is so bad,” the young man said. “I keep injuring my head, because I’m living in such a crowded house. We have only one bed, and I let my children sleep on it, so I have to sleep under the bed, and I forget, and I hit my head when I sit up.” He went on, “I don’t forget what you did for me, Doktè Paul. When I was sick and no one would touch me, you used to sit on my bed with your hand on my head. I would like to give you a chicken or a pig.”

When Farmer is relaxed, his skin is pale, with a suggestion of freckles underneath. Now it reddened instantly, from the base of his neck to his forehead. “You’ve already given me a lot. Stop it!”

In another case, Farmer was working with a sick teen-aged girl:

A thirteen-year-old girl with meningitis had arrived by donkey ambulance. The young doctors on duty hadn’t done a spinal tap, to find out which type of meningitis, and thus which drugs to give her. “Doctors, doctors, what is wrong with you?” Farmer said. Then he did the tap himself. Wild cries from the child: “Li fe-m mal, mwen grangou.” Farmer looked up from his work and said, “She’s crying, ‘It hurts, I’m hungry.’ Can you believe it? Only in Haiti would a child cry out that she’s hungry during a spinal tap.”

Farmer routinely worked in clinics serviced by a “donkey ambulance” – literally sick people brought in by donkey. Not where you would expect to see someone with a Harvard medical degree and doctorate in antrhopology and two faculty appointments at major US universities.

In a remembrance of Farmer for the New York Times, Kidder wrote:

Paul’s basic belief was that all human beings deserve equal respect and care, especially when they are sick. His dream, he once told me, was to start a movement that would refuse to accept, and would strive to repair, the grotesque health inequities among and within the countries of the world. When I first met him — in Haiti, in 1994 — he had already created a growing health care system in a desperately impoverished area. I thought he’d done a lot already. Now, looking back, I realize that he was just getting started.

When Farmer was a medical intern, he would sometimes get his paycheck and immediately sign it over to an AIDS patient who was in danger of becoming homeless. He did not come from a wealthy family and by normal standards, he could not afford to do this. But Farmer says he was never in any danger of going homeless himself by giving away his pay. There was always be someone who could loan him money. (You can view this whole conversation between Farmer an Kidder that aired on C-SPAN back in 2003 in the video embedded below.)

Farmer was, as I mentioned at the beginning, far from perfect. Kidder told wonderful stories about his impatience with the world. He could be harsh toward those who weren’t trying hard enough, who were cutting themselves too much slack.

Little sleep, no investment portfolio, no family around, no hot water. On an evening a few days after arriving in Cange [Hatie], I wondered aloud what compensation he got for these various hardships. He told me, “If you’re making sacrifices, unless you’re automatically following some rule, it stands to reason that you’re trying to lessen some psychic discomfort. So, for example, if I took steps to be a doctor for those who don’t have medical care, it could be regarded as a sacrifice, but it could also be regarded as a way to deal with ambivalence.” He went on, and his voice changed a little. He didn’t bristle, but his tone had an edge: “I feel ambivalent about selling my services in a world where some can’t buy them. You can feel ambivalent about that, because you should feel ambivalent. Comma. 

This was for me one of the first of many encounters with Farmer’s use of the word comma, placed at the end of a sentence. It stood for the word that would follow the comma, which was asshole. I understood he wasn’t calling me one—he would never do that; he was almost invariably courteous. Comma was always directed at third parties, at those who felt comfortable with the current distribution of money and medicine in the world. And the implication, of course, was that you weren’t one of those. Were you?

Farmer was responsible for one of my favorite concepts/catch phrases – one that has spread throughout my family: the “H of G.” Kidder writes:

“An H of G” was short for “a hermeneutic of generosity,” which he had defined once for me in an e-mail: “I have a hermeneutic of generosity for you because I know you’re a good guy. Therefore I will interpret what you say and do in a favorable light. Seems like I’m the one who should hope for as much from you.”

The H of G says that we should always be looking for the best in people or a situation, even if it isn’t necessarily earned.

I must admit I have felt inadequate trying to write about Farmer. He was such a complex character who demanded so much of himself that his actions serve as a challenge to us. Kidder admits that he was at one point reluctant to write about Farmer because he knew it would challenge his own privileged life. “I knew if I followed this guy around, it would disturb my peace of mind.”

Fr. Martin did not call Farmer, a devotee of Catholic liberation theology, a saint, but it was his writings that convinced me that this funny, prickly, demanding doctor was emphatically one. In a prose poem/prayer, Martin writes:

Help me to believe that your Spirit can do anything: raise up saints when we need them most, soften hearts when they seem hardened, open minds when they seem closed, inspire confidence when all seems lost, help us do what had seemed impossible until it was done.

If Farmer hadn’t done the things he did, it would have been easy to call them impossible. I know that Farmer would have been uncomfortable being called a saint. He was just doing what he needed to do, comma…

Tracy Kidder / Paul Farmer C-SPAN Video

Click on this image to view a C-SPAN book talk by Tracy Kidder and Dr. Paul Farmer.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Remembering Dr. Paul Farmer