Reviewing Old Movies

 

by Laura Lai/ Review

Movie title: ‘The Great Dictator’ (1940)

Main actors: Paulette Goddard (as Hannah) and Charlie Chaplin

Written and Produced by Charlie Chaplin

In reviewing old movies I am making a temporary leap from 1935 to 1940 because new academic circumstances required that I mention favorite speakers and speeches. After having mentioned the historical ones, I thought to be even more original and remind Charlie Chaplin’s speech in the movie ‘The Great Dictator’ (1940).

In 1940, Charlie Chaplin wrote and produced his first sound movie – a political satire. ‘The Great Dictator’ is a satire of the nazi regime. The movie starts with the end of WWI and its plot takes place in a country called Tomainia. It is followed by the uncertain interwar period: economic depression, lots riots, and a new political party in power in Tomainia. Charlie Chaplin plays the role of a Jewish barber suffering of amnesia after WWI, as well as the role of the nazi dictator.

            The humor of this satire derives from the new circumstances the Jewish barber suffering of amnesia is dealing with when he escaped from hospital and wants to work in his barbershop in a political context in which Jewish properties were closed by the new government. Chaplin satirizes nazi’s passion for war machines, as well as the long speeches of the dictator. Lots of sequences from this movie still put a smile on our faces. But the most memorable of all is the ‘Dictator’s Speech’:

‘I'm sorry, but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible. Jew - Gentile - Black Man, White. We all want to help one another, human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness. Not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. And this world has room for everyone, and the good Earth is rich can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way. Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed…’

It was very brave of Charlie Chaplin to publicly satirize the German dictator and his political regime. He was one of the few public figures to make prove of such courage face to a conquering army and an expending criminal regime. Let us just remember that in 1940, following a defeat in France, the British public opinion was convinced that the island will be occupied by the nazis. Winston Churchill, British Prime-Minister at that time, hold his ‘We Shall Fight on the Beaches’ memorable speech to encourage and to lead the nation to victory.

Trump vs. Biden. Comment on the Second Presidential Debate (I)

 

by Laura Lai/Comment

There were supposed to be three U.S. Presidential Debates in 2020. After the Debate Commission cancelled the second debate, scheduled for October 15^th, the third one became the second and last debate before the elections. It took place on October 22^nd, as scheduled. And it brought in front of the American voters the current U.S. President, Donald J. Trump, running for a second mandate, and the Democrats’ nominee, the former U.S. Vice-President, Joe Biden.

The overall tone and atmosphere of this second debate was different and improved in comparison to the first debate. The moderator, Kristen Welker, did handle it remarkably well! The debate covered six topics: fight against the coronavirus, national security, family/health, immigration, race and environment.

            On the fight against the coronovirus, Donald Trump had an effective 2-minute response: he stressed the external source of this plague, that the mortality rate is decreasing, the spikes in Florida, Texas, Arizona are gone, the vaccine is coming and that this plague is a world-wide problem. Effective was also the three-time repetition of ‘it’s gone’: ‘the spike in Florida – it’s gone!’, ‘the spike in Arizona – it’s gone!’ Very effective, I would say, in settling an encouraging tone.

            On the same matter, Joe Biden encourages people to wear masks, stressed the importance of mass testing, and kept things in general: ‘I’ll shut down the virus’, ‘I’ll take care of this’. Obviously, nobody has a solution to the coronovirus and everybody is waiting for the vaccine on which there are many unknowns: nobody knows, for example, how long we will stay immune. But specialists know now more things than at the beginning when everybody was confused. Biden reminded lots of Trump’s mistakes from that beginning and confusing period.

            The topic on the national security was a kind of accusation ping-pong. Trump mentioned all Biden’s family taking money from different foreign governments, while Biden accused Trump that he is advertising his businesses, which thrived during his mandate. A concrete example of Trump business in a particular place that got from that percentage to that percentage would have been more convincing. On the other side, I have heard of a news that one of Trump’s hotels in Canada got closed because clients – opponents of Trump – avoided the hotel. That is an example of the way being president affected his business.

            Similarly to the first debate on the issue of health insurance for American families, Joe Biden stressed that health insurance is a right not a privilege and he had presented his plan: first, the ‘Obama Care’ will pass with a public option and it will be called ‘Biden Care’; second, the premiums and drug prices will be reduced; third, the private insurance will be kept as he is a supporter of it; and, fourth, those with pre-exiting conditions will be protected. Two of the four-point plan, are also mentioned by Trump. His Administration will protect those with a pre-exiting condition and would focus on keeping down the drugs’ price and premiums. (to be continued)

Trump vs. Biden. Comment on the Second Presidential Debate (II)

 

by Laura Lai/Comment 

Until the topic on race, both candidates competed in convincing who a better executive would be. It is on the topic of race, that Trump showed that he can also be a leader:

‘Yes, I do [understand why Black parents fear for their children]. He [referring to Joe Biden] was in government for 47 years. He didn’t do anything except the 1994 when he did such a harm to the Black community (…). Nobody has done more for the Black community than Donald Trump (…). Nobody had done what I’ve done. Criminal Justice Reform – Obama and Joe didn’t do it; they might have wanted it, but if you would see the arms I’ve got twisted to get that done, it was not a pretty picture. And everybody knows, including some liberals that cried in my office – they cried in the Oval Office (…).’

During this debate, Trump talked to both the moderator and Biden, and he also looked straight to the camera. Joe Biden played again well with the camera, pointing to the viewers – many of them potential American voters – and made several emotional appeals: ‘we should be talking about your families, but this is the last thing he [Trump] wants to talk about’, because of the coronavirus, many families have an empty chair in the kitchen, the family table pops-up again in his speech, his daughter works as a social worker, there are 5000 children that were separated from their families and there are difficulites to reunite them, etc. – this contrasts with Trump’s pragmatism. On this matter, Joe Biden got a spontaneous crtitique from Donald Trump:

‘Typical politician! China… and then he looks at the family round the table… Typical politician! I’m not a typical politician. That’s why I got elected.’

All along the debate, Biden was ‘Joe’ for Trump, while Trump was several time ‘this guy’ for Biden. Anyway, there is lot of improvement in comparison to the first debate, when words like ‘liar’, ‘irresponsable’, ‘clown’ were more frequent in Biden’s discourse. What stayed constant, thought, was the elegance of the current First Lady and the wife of Joe Biden.

            And speaking of elegance, the Debate Commission on Presidential Elections decided to cut the microphone to all speakers that exceed their time. When one hears the two candidates talking particularly referring to past different policies and decisions on those issues, one can easily understand that there is a lot of history between them – in the sense that they can long argue. The cutting of the microphone of two people that have a lot to say, the cutting of microphone at this high level of politics that the entire world is watching may easily degenerate in a half sound political movie and half mute. I was, actually, fearing that I would see each speaker mumbling something important, but without microphone and that we all must lip read! ‘October 22^nd Night Show’ is what I was thinking. But no! I was wrong. The cutting of the microphone issue was dealt elegantly and speaker’s reaction to being cut was elegant, too. In the end, it was an ‘October 22^nd, Presidential Debate Night’.

To sum up, this last U.S. Presidential Debate brought together two people with a different character, different stand on political issues and two different approaches to political issues, but one goal – that of becoming the President of the United States. Donald Trump and Joe Biden have different career backgrounds – which was a reason for Trump to remind Biden that he had 47 years time to implement all the ideas he had that evening, and eight recent years as vice-president. Donald Trump was more precise – and quicker – in exposing his arguments and in providing answers, while Joe Biden sometimes looks for his words, needs to remember what he wanted to say – only during this debate he corrected himself two or three times and resumed with ‘excuse-me’. Of course, it is excusable from a human point of view! Just that this was a presidential debate for the highest position on the planet. Despite many voices saying that it was a draw and that there was no winner of this debate, there was a winner. There is a winner of this debate, even if they both got an ‘A’. The fact that one got an ‘A+’ and the other one an ‘A-‘ we still have a winner of this last debate!

You may also want to watch the Saturday Night Show – a political satire of these two presidential debates with Alec Baldwin (Donald Trump) and Jim Carrey (Joe Biden):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsije1KetVw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozGr4IsTUng

Trump vs. Biden. Comments on the First Presidential Debate (I)

 

photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Comment

The first of the Presidential debates series took place on September 30^th, 2020. It brought in front of the American voters the current U.S. President Donald J. Trump, running for a second mandate, and the Democrats nominee, former U.S. Vice-President, Joe Biden. [1] The candidates were invited to answer a series of questions prepared by moderator Chris Wallace on American policies that are of great interest for the American voters.

Not everybody watching this debate is American citizen or an eligible voter in the up-coming Presidential elections. And I am one of those people. The general interest of those non-eligible to vote is for the American economy to boom and to avoid any crisis, so that the all the other world’s economies not to get in a recession in this inter-connected economic world. The reasons why a non-eligible voter would watch the American Presidential debate are different, but, generally, they are a treat for any political scientist. Besides, I love ideas and I love debates.

Chris Wallace – who btw accomplished his moderator task fantastically well and with lots of professionalism without raising his voice not even when he had to talk over the candidates talking over each other – was disappointed by the outcome of this debate. He said afterword: ‘I baked this beautiful, delicious cake and then frankly the President put his foot in it.’ [2]

As a political scientist who loves ideas and loves debates but without any right to vote in the American elections, I want to make some objective comments about the language of both candidates. Obviously, both candidates used English language! J

            The way Chris Wallace was disappointed by the President, I was disappointed by Joe Biden’s discourse. Many of his answers include a judgment of Trump: ‘irresponsible’, ‘liar’, ‘billionaire’, ‘clown’, ‘he has no plan’, ‘he doesn’t know how to do that’, etc. Arguments to suggest that the opponent is ‘irresponsible’, ‘liar’, etc. would have been better, as the voters can understand what lack of qualities is referred to through arguments. Trump seemed, to me, dragged into this and spontaneously reminding that Biden was not the first in his class, ‘I think I’m debating you [the moderator] not him’, ‘good luck! [with answering a question] – so, he did not call him ‘stupid’, but put the argument first and left the voter understand what he implies – and he also referred to some corruption allegations implying the son of Joe Biden. Generally, he mainly referred to achievements so far (alone or in comparison to the Obama Administration in which Joe Biden was Vice-President).

            Furthermore, Donald Trump, at his turn, was arrogant with Joe Biden through words: ‘you’re second’, ‘for 47 years [of Biden’s political career] you didn’t do nothing’, but I am not sure how to interpret the frequent laughter of Joe Biden to Trump’s arguments either, if not as arrogance-related. Joe Biden developed at length on the answer of health – as in the Administration he served, there was an intensive work and debate on ‘Obama Care’ – and on environment, that the Democrats have at heart more than the Republicans proved to so far. The point is that despite the fact that Joe Biden developed at length these issues frequent in his speeches as politician, he seems to pull himself together and retake his answer when interrupted with some difficulty. In my opinion, Donald Trump did not come to this debate to create chaos as it was afterword argued, or to ‘put his foot in a beautifully baked cake’. My interpretation of the frequent interruptions is that the current President is quick-minded, used to take decisions quickly, eventually risk everything or to win everything – and this is about his probably 47 years in business. A career politician instead is a field in which things are discussed over and over, decisions are changed over and over, time is lost over and over … on public money.

            Let us take the recent example of the U.S. Southern Border. It took months that in terms of sufferance feel like ages, centuries even, since the moment the U.S. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency situation and required the Congress for a $4 billion financial support in humanitarian aid, to the moment the Democrats approved it. During this pandemics, I read that the President wanted to provide ‘right-away’ the American people with some financial support for housing during this pandemic, but the Democrat politicians made things difficult.

Trump vs. Biden. Comments on the First Presidential Debate (II)

 

photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Comment

During the debate, Donald Trump talked to the moderator and to Biden. But Joe Biden talked to the moderator, very little to Trump and more with the viewers. Joe Biden was probably advised by his campaign staff to look straight at the camera, point with his finger and address himself directly to the voters either by asking them something or by saying ‘he has no intention to make it better for you all at home.’ He does that several times during the debate. It is part of the campaign technique to be more convincing that a candidate fights for the voters, while Donald Trump did not do that not even once.

            Yes, I think he should do that, too, because each of them wants to be President in the best interest of the American people, each of them the way he understands it. For example, Trump tried to condemn ‘white supremacy’ saying ‘boys stand back’, as Biden condemned ‘violence’ when invited to say ‘law and order’. Not all Republican voters are rejecting science on environmental issues, and the Administration seemed to have realized that and made some steps on the environment direction. The mask has become a state-policy during this pandemic, it is a winning point that Trump brought it with him and showed that he wears it, when necessary. Obviously, the recent news on the President and the First Lady being infected with the new virus COVID-19, showed that he did not wear it as necessary as he should have, but the fact that he had it with him as an electoral effect was a good idea. It reminded me of Boris Johnson campaigning to be the UK Prime Minister, who brought a fish with him to support his argument against the European Union and the Common Fishery Policy. The issue of taxes brought up by Joe Biden could not be worked out during the debate – this is understandable. But there are two more debates to come, on the 15^th and on the 22^nd of October 2020.

Almost simultaneous with the Presidential debate in the United States, New Zealand organized in Auckland the debate between Jacinda Ardern, the current (socialist) Prime-Minister running for a second mandate and Judith Collins, the representative of the National Party. [3] New Zealand is holding on October 17^th the elections scheduled for September and postponed afterword to avoid the spreading of the new virus. Elections are held for the position of Prime-Minister, because as in the case of many countries former colonies of the British Empire and current members of the Commonwealth, the position of head of state is still symbolically conferred to the Queen. It is the case of Canada, for example, but not of the United States – both former colonies of the British Empire.

            The debate in New Zealand was also organized on policies of interest for the New Zealanders voters, and it got positive echoes in the international press [4] as an example clashing over policies and arguing for them, as well as for the mutual complements and laughter. Jacinda Ardern is known to have declared that politics should be ‘something fun’ rather than a ‘blood sport’.

            The debate’s atmosphere in New Zealand was different than the one in the United States. No doubt! I would not rush to call it a difference of culture or difference of mentality. What was it then? To me, it was first and foremost, two men competing on the one side, and two women competing on the other side. It means that there are automatically a different stand and a different behavior. If Jacinda and Judith complemented each other is because the moderator, Patrick Gower, invited them to do so. I particularly found original the invitation of Patrick Gower that each of the candidate to identify themselves with … a tree. On this occasion, Ardern mentioned the Pohutukawa (a tree with red flowers) and Collins mentioned the Kowhai (a tree with yellow flowers). That is what I was saying: two women, who chose flowers… two trees with flowers. Would men choose a tree with flowers? In a formal discussion, most of them probably would. In practice, after drinks, some choose the bushes.

All in all, in any debate the essence is the argument. The constant interruptions of Joe Biden by Donald Trump show that the current President lost sight of the fact that he is in a formal and live broadcasted debate. In an informal discussion, in which he had to discuss with his business collaborators to react first and to acquire first a certain product on the market, interruptions only prove that one deals with prepared collaborators that can answer quickly any question. Similarly, in a class, when a student is cross-examined by two teachers, the student must be quick, reply quickly and interruptions welcome and they are part of the conversation that otherwise is very appreciated and the student gets a high grade – yes, I speak from my experience. In formal debates though, the constant interruptions may disturb the viewers, but I would not call it a ‘chaos’ either. It was an ‘interesting’ debate, as Chris Wallace said it at the end, in which the different stand on different policies between the Republican and the Democrat sides were clear.