Hi everyone!
When I'm not following current affairs in the Middle East or tutoring high school kids in the inner-city, I'm a playwright. I'm in the process of writing a new play, tentatively titled "Tahrir." It's a very different sort of piece from what I've written in the past, different in that it's very topical as one can probably assume from its title. I mention it here because I know I have readers in Egypt and other places in the Middle East that are currently being rocked by the tidal wave of the Arab Spring. And while I've done all this research, what I feel I'm lacking is some in-depth stories from the trenches from people who have been actively involved in the protest movement, whether it be in Egypt or Tunisia, Syria or Lebanon. I am currently reading Wael Ghonim's excellent memoir "Revolution 2.0" that gives a brilliant first-hand account of how social media was responsible in large part for putting the Egyptian revolution into motion. This is very helpful, but I need more.
In a nutshell, the play tells the story of Alistair, a young American blogger who goes to Cairo in the early days of Tahrir, meets and becomes influenced by a young Egyptian activist named Gamal. Gamal comes from the Egyptian elite. He is Western-educated, lives in Heliopolis, and prides himself in his life as a playboy. His father is one of Egypt's leading businessmen with very strong ties to the Mubarak regime. But despite all this, Gamal is moved by the protesters' demands and the plight of the everyday Egyptian. As much as this is a story about Alistair's understanding of these events, it is also--perhaps more so--the story of Gamal's social awakening and the conflict he feels between his socioeconomic background and what he believes to be right. I'm still in the early days of writing the play but I do know that Gamal will be arrested in Tahrir, will be tortured at the hands of the police, and will eventually be martyred.
Contrary to the impression many of you may have received of me from this blog, I have never been particularly politically motivated...that is, until I started following the extraordinary events of the past year. I have become very impassioned and feel a strong need to express this passion through my writing, which has always been my strongest suit. So if any of you who follow my blogs regularly or just happened to stumble upon it can offer any insights or put me in touch with anyone who may have been in Tahrir or have been arrested or suffered first-hand the injustices of these governing regimes, please let me know. You can respond here with a comment or contact me on Twitter at @jonmalysiak. Your insights are invaluable. I want my play to do your story justice, especially here in the West where people may not be as aware or well-versed on what's happening in Egypt or Syria on a daily basis.
At any rate, that's my pitch. Tomorrow, back to the news analysis.
Ciao.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The Syrian Civil War
Happy Super Bowl Sunday, everyone!
As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.
Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.
It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.
In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:
Ciao.
As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.
Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.
It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.
In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:
"It's a real massacre in every sense of the word. I saw bodies of women and children lying on roads, beheaded. It's horrible and inhuman. It was a long night helping people get to hospitals."Unfortunately, I think the situation is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better especially as the Free Syrian Army advances closer to Damascus, Syria's capitol that has until now been spared most of the carnage. While diplomats and military experts are hesitant to label it thus, what we are seeing in Syria today is a civil war. Unless Russia is made to stand down from its position, there's really nothing the Security Council or anyone can legally do. And the Free Syrian Army is too scattered and ill-armed to seriously be considered capable of overthrowing the government. What are we left with? More of the same.
Ciao.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Saturday Movie Review: Coriolanus
Hi everyone!
Ralph Fiennes' critically-acclaimed modern-dress film version of Shakespeare's play "Coriolanus" finally opened in Chicago yesterday. From all the reviews I've been reading over the past few months, I was eagerly anticipating the opportunity to see it. This is one of Shakespeare's least familiar plays. I think I'd read it in college years ago but it's not one that I'd gone back to since. So I was going in to see this film without much in the way of expectations beyond great performances, great visuals, and the chance to hear Shakespeare spoken by a couple of the greatest British actors alive today--Ralph Fiennes (who also directed) as General Coriolanus and Vanessa Redgrave as his mother.
I'll start with the good. There's an immediacy to the battle scenes--of which there are several--that gives the film a quick-cut, grainy documentary quality and grounds the film very vividly in the present. Although the setting is Rome and its environs, the film looks as though it takes place somewhere in the Balkans, Belgrade perhaps during the reign of Milosevic in the '90s. The performances, of course, are outstanding, though not uniformly so. While Vanessa Redgrave and Ralph Fiennes act the hell out of their roles--both share a steely determination that's utterly convincing as mother and son--I was most impressed by Gerard Butler as Coriolanus's arch-enemy Tullis Aufidius. I've always sensed there's a fine actor somewhere in Mr. Butler but it's never had a chance to shine through. This film is his moment and he steals every scene he's in, including those that pair him off against Mr. Fiennes. As much as they loath each other and are driven to one another's destruction, I sense in Mr. Butler's Aufidius a respect--even a love--for Coriolanus despite the actions taken by both against each other. Because of Mr. Butler, I found the final scene quite moving. Seeing Coriolanus from Aufidius's eyes, made me feel for the first time a bit of sympathy for Coriolanus that I hadn't felt through any of the preceding two hours. This is one of the problems I had with the film.
I don't think it's Mr. Fiennes fault as actor or director that I found Coriolanus himself a bit of a cipher. There's a reason this isn't considered among Shakespeare's great plays. The problem is, Coriolanus is totally unknowable. We don't really understand him nor do we as an audience know all that much about him. He's a famous Roman general that saved Rome from destruction at the hands of Aufidius, leader of the Volsces. He prefers fighting to politicking, would rather be out on the battlefield commanding troops than actively courting the support of the people. He has a power-hungry and rather quietly frightening mother who seems to control him physically and psychologically. When he's nominated to become Rome's leader he's arrogant in his dismissal of the established political process and in so doing alienates himself from the populace.
That much is clear. What isn't clear though is why Coriolanus is like this. You don't have to like a character to care about him as long as you are given something that causes you to either admire or despise or have some sort emotional reaction to that character. In this case, I didn't feel anything except, after a while, annoyance because I didn't understand why Coriolanus makes the choices that he does. Consequently, I felt indifferent to him as a character. He annoyed me.
Much has been made of the way in which the film uses pseudo-cable TV newsflashes etc to convey background and context. The great BBC presenter Dan Snow is even shown at one point conducting an on-air interview with another character. (Mr. Snow speaks Shakespeare quite eloquently, in fact.) I got what Mr. Fiennes was trying to do here, but it struck me as somehow artificial and forced. It was effective at first but then the technique was used so often I found it all a bit gimmicky. I also didn't feel that Shakespeare's language, particularly in the crowd scenes and even more so in the television studio when the audience finally turns against Coriolanus, always worked within this particular contemporary milieu. I felt the themes and parallels Mr. Fiennes was trying to make as a director were a bit forced and heavy-handed. There's not a lot of subtlety to be had here which is a shame because Shakespeare as a writer is quite nuanced. Nothing needs to be hammered home.
I also found that Jessica Chastain was woefully miscast. As I've said, the performances across the entire cast are quite strong but whenever Ms. Chastain--playing Coriolanus's long-suffering wife--I felt like I was suddenly watching an amateur production. It was jarring and I wanted her to go away. Her character isn't particularly developed which may have been part of the problem, but I don't understand why a stronger actress couldn't have been cast in the role.
So all in all, I didn't like "Coriolanus" as much as I was hoping to. If you're looking for some great Shakespearean acting, like I've said, the entire cast (minus Ms. Chastain) does a good job. It's a nice opportunity to watch one of Shakespeare's more rarely performed plays, though here I think that Juliet Taymor's bloody and wonderful 2000 film of "Titus Andronicus" starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange remains a stronger cinematic adaptation.
In a nutshell, "Coriolanus" is worth seeing but don't expect an emotionally fulfilling experience.
Ciao.
Ralph Fiennes' critically-acclaimed modern-dress film version of Shakespeare's play "Coriolanus" finally opened in Chicago yesterday. From all the reviews I've been reading over the past few months, I was eagerly anticipating the opportunity to see it. This is one of Shakespeare's least familiar plays. I think I'd read it in college years ago but it's not one that I'd gone back to since. So I was going in to see this film without much in the way of expectations beyond great performances, great visuals, and the chance to hear Shakespeare spoken by a couple of the greatest British actors alive today--Ralph Fiennes (who also directed) as General Coriolanus and Vanessa Redgrave as his mother.
I'll start with the good. There's an immediacy to the battle scenes--of which there are several--that gives the film a quick-cut, grainy documentary quality and grounds the film very vividly in the present. Although the setting is Rome and its environs, the film looks as though it takes place somewhere in the Balkans, Belgrade perhaps during the reign of Milosevic in the '90s. The performances, of course, are outstanding, though not uniformly so. While Vanessa Redgrave and Ralph Fiennes act the hell out of their roles--both share a steely determination that's utterly convincing as mother and son--I was most impressed by Gerard Butler as Coriolanus's arch-enemy Tullis Aufidius. I've always sensed there's a fine actor somewhere in Mr. Butler but it's never had a chance to shine through. This film is his moment and he steals every scene he's in, including those that pair him off against Mr. Fiennes. As much as they loath each other and are driven to one another's destruction, I sense in Mr. Butler's Aufidius a respect--even a love--for Coriolanus despite the actions taken by both against each other. Because of Mr. Butler, I found the final scene quite moving. Seeing Coriolanus from Aufidius's eyes, made me feel for the first time a bit of sympathy for Coriolanus that I hadn't felt through any of the preceding two hours. This is one of the problems I had with the film.
I don't think it's Mr. Fiennes fault as actor or director that I found Coriolanus himself a bit of a cipher. There's a reason this isn't considered among Shakespeare's great plays. The problem is, Coriolanus is totally unknowable. We don't really understand him nor do we as an audience know all that much about him. He's a famous Roman general that saved Rome from destruction at the hands of Aufidius, leader of the Volsces. He prefers fighting to politicking, would rather be out on the battlefield commanding troops than actively courting the support of the people. He has a power-hungry and rather quietly frightening mother who seems to control him physically and psychologically. When he's nominated to become Rome's leader he's arrogant in his dismissal of the established political process and in so doing alienates himself from the populace.
That much is clear. What isn't clear though is why Coriolanus is like this. You don't have to like a character to care about him as long as you are given something that causes you to either admire or despise or have some sort emotional reaction to that character. In this case, I didn't feel anything except, after a while, annoyance because I didn't understand why Coriolanus makes the choices that he does. Consequently, I felt indifferent to him as a character. He annoyed me.
Much has been made of the way in which the film uses pseudo-cable TV newsflashes etc to convey background and context. The great BBC presenter Dan Snow is even shown at one point conducting an on-air interview with another character. (Mr. Snow speaks Shakespeare quite eloquently, in fact.) I got what Mr. Fiennes was trying to do here, but it struck me as somehow artificial and forced. It was effective at first but then the technique was used so often I found it all a bit gimmicky. I also didn't feel that Shakespeare's language, particularly in the crowd scenes and even more so in the television studio when the audience finally turns against Coriolanus, always worked within this particular contemporary milieu. I felt the themes and parallels Mr. Fiennes was trying to make as a director were a bit forced and heavy-handed. There's not a lot of subtlety to be had here which is a shame because Shakespeare as a writer is quite nuanced. Nothing needs to be hammered home.
I also found that Jessica Chastain was woefully miscast. As I've said, the performances across the entire cast are quite strong but whenever Ms. Chastain--playing Coriolanus's long-suffering wife--I felt like I was suddenly watching an amateur production. It was jarring and I wanted her to go away. Her character isn't particularly developed which may have been part of the problem, but I don't understand why a stronger actress couldn't have been cast in the role.
So all in all, I didn't like "Coriolanus" as much as I was hoping to. If you're looking for some great Shakespearean acting, like I've said, the entire cast (minus Ms. Chastain) does a good job. It's a nice opportunity to watch one of Shakespeare's more rarely performed plays, though here I think that Juliet Taymor's bloody and wonderful 2000 film of "Titus Andronicus" starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange remains a stronger cinematic adaptation.
In a nutshell, "Coriolanus" is worth seeing but don't expect an emotionally fulfilling experience.
Ciao.
Friday, February 3, 2012
Fear and Loathing in the Arab World: Syria, Egypt, and Algeria
Hi everyone!
As I expected, the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council came out of their negotiations yesterday with a severely watered-down version of their resolution against Syria. Whereas the original draft had stipulated Assad must step down and cede power to an acting vice president before new democratic elections were held, the document that came out of yesterday's meeting drops any mention of Assad's ouster. It also doesn't articulate an arms embargo or new sanctions. This is because Russia (quietly backed by China and India) has expressed utter antipathy toward any punishment for the Assad regime's horrendous treatment of its protesters and threatened to veto any resolution that even hinted at regime change. Russia has continued to supply pro-government forces with arms and ammunition and sees no reason why it should stop. The Kremlin claims it is no friend of Bashar al-Assad but does not agree with foreign intervention in domestic affairs. More to the point, Putin knows his own political actions lack legitimacy and, by showing any support for the Syrian protesters, he doesn't want to be seen supporting a movement that calls for the ouster of another dictator.
So thanks to Russia, we have a resolution that doesn't really mean all that much. The Arab League and the Security Council are in agreement that Assad is bad and that the country would (though the resolution doesn't say this) be better off without him. We already know this. This isn't news. So what's next? Assad continues to kill with impunity, the rest of the world (minus Russia, China, and India) collectively shakes its head, and the death toll hits 10,000.
Elsewhere in the Arab World, things aren't all that rosier. Mass protests continued in Cairo yesterday in response to the soccer stadium massacre in Port Said Wednesday night. Eyewitness reports continue to come in which only throw mud in the eye of the Egyptian security apparatus and point toward at least tacit SCAF support for what happened. Apparently, right when the game ended and the El Masry fans charged the pitch, the stadium lights blacked out, providing the rioters temporary cover as they initiated their attack against the unsuspecting al Ahry team and fans. Other reports claim security closed and locked the gates of the stadium when the violence began, in effect trapping those trying to escape inside. Al Ahry's "Ultras" as their ardent supporters are called have been very vocal in their demands that first Mubarak and now the military council step down, having taken a front-and-center role in the protests since their start a year ago.
But--lest this column be too much gloom and doom going into Super Bowl weekend--there was some levity to be had. Iran hosted a conference in Tehran this week where it expressed pride in having been the birthplace of the "Islamic Awakening." Right. Conspicuously absent from this "conference" was any mention of Syria whose protest movement, Iran insists, is the work of foreign meddling and provocation. Try telling that to the thousands of Syrian people and defecting soldiers on the streets of Homs and Hama who are being mowed down by pro-Assad tanks.
I don't know where this is all headed and I'm fearful of the worst. Democratic transition is never easy and it is unrealistic to expect the process to be a success overnight. But the West, having been burned by involvement in two wars in the region over the past ten years, is loath to jump into the fray again. I understand this reluctance but can we in good conscience sit on the sidelines while hundreds of innocent people are killed on a daily basis?
It reminds me of the attitude France took after its eight-year undeclared war with Algeria. Once Algerian independence was granted in 1962, De Gaulle turned his back on Algeria and more-or-less refused to address it or acknowledge the concerns of pro-French Algerians in both Algeria and France. As British historian Martin Evans points out in his thorough and informative but at times tedious new book "Algeria: France's Undeclared War," when considering the French Resistance movement during World War Two and France's fight to preserve its colonial integrity in Indochina, France had been in a state of war for over twenty years by the time the Algerian conflict wrapped up. Consequently, it turned inward and focused on domestic and European affairs, much as the U.S. is doing now.
I suppose only time will tell. And while I understand Egyptian rage and their fear that the military will never step down, killing each other is not the way to effect positive change. Violence begets violence. It's the stuff history is made of.
Ciao.
As I expected, the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council came out of their negotiations yesterday with a severely watered-down version of their resolution against Syria. Whereas the original draft had stipulated Assad must step down and cede power to an acting vice president before new democratic elections were held, the document that came out of yesterday's meeting drops any mention of Assad's ouster. It also doesn't articulate an arms embargo or new sanctions. This is because Russia (quietly backed by China and India) has expressed utter antipathy toward any punishment for the Assad regime's horrendous treatment of its protesters and threatened to veto any resolution that even hinted at regime change. Russia has continued to supply pro-government forces with arms and ammunition and sees no reason why it should stop. The Kremlin claims it is no friend of Bashar al-Assad but does not agree with foreign intervention in domestic affairs. More to the point, Putin knows his own political actions lack legitimacy and, by showing any support for the Syrian protesters, he doesn't want to be seen supporting a movement that calls for the ouster of another dictator.
So thanks to Russia, we have a resolution that doesn't really mean all that much. The Arab League and the Security Council are in agreement that Assad is bad and that the country would (though the resolution doesn't say this) be better off without him. We already know this. This isn't news. So what's next? Assad continues to kill with impunity, the rest of the world (minus Russia, China, and India) collectively shakes its head, and the death toll hits 10,000.
Elsewhere in the Arab World, things aren't all that rosier. Mass protests continued in Cairo yesterday in response to the soccer stadium massacre in Port Said Wednesday night. Eyewitness reports continue to come in which only throw mud in the eye of the Egyptian security apparatus and point toward at least tacit SCAF support for what happened. Apparently, right when the game ended and the El Masry fans charged the pitch, the stadium lights blacked out, providing the rioters temporary cover as they initiated their attack against the unsuspecting al Ahry team and fans. Other reports claim security closed and locked the gates of the stadium when the violence began, in effect trapping those trying to escape inside. Al Ahry's "Ultras" as their ardent supporters are called have been very vocal in their demands that first Mubarak and now the military council step down, having taken a front-and-center role in the protests since their start a year ago.
But--lest this column be too much gloom and doom going into Super Bowl weekend--there was some levity to be had. Iran hosted a conference in Tehran this week where it expressed pride in having been the birthplace of the "Islamic Awakening." Right. Conspicuously absent from this "conference" was any mention of Syria whose protest movement, Iran insists, is the work of foreign meddling and provocation. Try telling that to the thousands of Syrian people and defecting soldiers on the streets of Homs and Hama who are being mowed down by pro-Assad tanks.
I don't know where this is all headed and I'm fearful of the worst. Democratic transition is never easy and it is unrealistic to expect the process to be a success overnight. But the West, having been burned by involvement in two wars in the region over the past ten years, is loath to jump into the fray again. I understand this reluctance but can we in good conscience sit on the sidelines while hundreds of innocent people are killed on a daily basis?
It reminds me of the attitude France took after its eight-year undeclared war with Algeria. Once Algerian independence was granted in 1962, De Gaulle turned his back on Algeria and more-or-less refused to address it or acknowledge the concerns of pro-French Algerians in both Algeria and France. As British historian Martin Evans points out in his thorough and informative but at times tedious new book "Algeria: France's Undeclared War," when considering the French Resistance movement during World War Two and France's fight to preserve its colonial integrity in Indochina, France had been in a state of war for over twenty years by the time the Algerian conflict wrapped up. Consequently, it turned inward and focused on domestic and European affairs, much as the U.S. is doing now.
I suppose only time will tell. And while I understand Egyptian rage and their fear that the military will never step down, killing each other is not the way to effect positive change. Violence begets violence. It's the stuff history is made of.
Ciao.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Hooliganism for Political Means
Hi everyone!
Soccer hooliganism has always existed on the fringes of the world's beautiful game. A little healthy fan rivalry is an inherent part of any sport, sometimes it gets a little out of hand. Sometimes, unfortunately, it gets a lot out of hand. Over the past 30 years a handful of situations have erupted into something worse than good-natured ribbing, the deadliest of which was a stampede in which 78 people died during a soccer match in Guatemala City in 1996.
That dubious distinction was awarded anew last night in Port Said, Egypt. A match between two soccer clubs with an historic and deep-seated rivalry--El Masry of Port Said and Al Ahly of Cairo--spun violently out of control after El Masry came from behind to win the match 3-1. The winning goal was scored in the final seconds of play and then, as if on cue, El Masry's fans stormed the pitch, purportedly armed with knives, rocks, and clubs, and began attacking Al Ahly's team members and fans, chasing them on the field, killing indiscriminately. In the chaos, many others were trampled to death, some were suffocated, and apparently according to some reports, still others were pushed or thrown off the stands.
Where was security when all this was going on? Well, that's the question being asked by many, including the authorities. Video of the riot shows security merely standing around looking helpless, or at worst, passively complicit in the stampede. One of Al Ahly's top players, Mohammed Abu Trika, is quoted in the New York Times as saying: "People here are dying and no one is doing a thing. It's like a war."
Exactly. There's more to this than yet another example of soccer fans behaving badly. What happened last night in Port Said is an example of soccer fans behaving badly out of political motivation. In this part of the world, die-hard soccer fans are called Ultras. The Ultras are actually a fairly organized lot and were among the first to take to the streets when the protests against the Mubarak regime ignited last year. Last night was the eve of the first anniversary of what came to be known as the Battle of the Camels when pro-Mubarak forces attacked peaceful protesters in Tahrir Square with rocks, gasoline bombs, whips, knives, and clubs.
The ruling military council (SCAF) recently agreed (albeit reluctantly) to dismantle parts of the emergency laws that have been in place since Mubarak took over upon the assassination of Anwar Sadat. There's chatter that what took place last night was planned ahead of time and that the police were indeed complicit, hence their lack of involvement in doing anything to stop the massacre. Why? The military council is asserting its control and is using the riot as justification for maintaining its draconian laws as a means of further cracking down on the protesters. It's all rather obvious.
Egypt's acting head of state, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, phoned Al Ahly's satellite TV channel to offer his condolences and to assure all parties involved that the perpetrators of the violence would be dealt with accordingly and that the victims would see justice done. How convenient for him. Now all he and his military cronies have to do is point to what happened last night in Port Said as evidence that without a strong military presence, anarchy will reign.
Who are the real hooligans here?
Ciao.
Soccer hooliganism has always existed on the fringes of the world's beautiful game. A little healthy fan rivalry is an inherent part of any sport, sometimes it gets a little out of hand. Sometimes, unfortunately, it gets a lot out of hand. Over the past 30 years a handful of situations have erupted into something worse than good-natured ribbing, the deadliest of which was a stampede in which 78 people died during a soccer match in Guatemala City in 1996.
That dubious distinction was awarded anew last night in Port Said, Egypt. A match between two soccer clubs with an historic and deep-seated rivalry--El Masry of Port Said and Al Ahly of Cairo--spun violently out of control after El Masry came from behind to win the match 3-1. The winning goal was scored in the final seconds of play and then, as if on cue, El Masry's fans stormed the pitch, purportedly armed with knives, rocks, and clubs, and began attacking Al Ahly's team members and fans, chasing them on the field, killing indiscriminately. In the chaos, many others were trampled to death, some were suffocated, and apparently according to some reports, still others were pushed or thrown off the stands.
Where was security when all this was going on? Well, that's the question being asked by many, including the authorities. Video of the riot shows security merely standing around looking helpless, or at worst, passively complicit in the stampede. One of Al Ahly's top players, Mohammed Abu Trika, is quoted in the New York Times as saying: "People here are dying and no one is doing a thing. It's like a war."
Exactly. There's more to this than yet another example of soccer fans behaving badly. What happened last night in Port Said is an example of soccer fans behaving badly out of political motivation. In this part of the world, die-hard soccer fans are called Ultras. The Ultras are actually a fairly organized lot and were among the first to take to the streets when the protests against the Mubarak regime ignited last year. Last night was the eve of the first anniversary of what came to be known as the Battle of the Camels when pro-Mubarak forces attacked peaceful protesters in Tahrir Square with rocks, gasoline bombs, whips, knives, and clubs.
The ruling military council (SCAF) recently agreed (albeit reluctantly) to dismantle parts of the emergency laws that have been in place since Mubarak took over upon the assassination of Anwar Sadat. There's chatter that what took place last night was planned ahead of time and that the police were indeed complicit, hence their lack of involvement in doing anything to stop the massacre. Why? The military council is asserting its control and is using the riot as justification for maintaining its draconian laws as a means of further cracking down on the protesters. It's all rather obvious.
Egypt's acting head of state, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, phoned Al Ahly's satellite TV channel to offer his condolences and to assure all parties involved that the perpetrators of the violence would be dealt with accordingly and that the victims would see justice done. How convenient for him. Now all he and his military cronies have to do is point to what happened last night in Port Said as evidence that without a strong military presence, anarchy will reign.
Who are the real hooligans here?
Ciao.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Delhi Belly: The Best Comedy of 2011
Hi everyone!
What do you get when you cross "The Hangover" with "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" with a little disco madness in the form of the great Hindi actor Aamir Khan (who also produced the film) playing a character named "The Disco Fighter"? -- the madcap Hin-glish comedy "Delhi Belly," my pick for the funniest movie of 2011.
Never heard of it? You probably haven't unless you're one of the billion people who follow Hindi cinema, otherwise known as Bollywood. "Delhi Belly" was released last summer and grossed huge box office everywhere it seems except here in the U.S. But it is now available on Netflix in both DVD and streaming formats.
I just watched it and I have to say as ridiculous and vulgar as it is, I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.
The plot is too convoluted to really summarize but I'll try in a nutshell. Three down on their luck room-mates, Tashi (Imran Khan), Nitan (Kunaal Roy Kapur), and Arup (Vin Das) find themselves in the center of a drug and diamonds crime syndicate. A case of really bad food poisoning (hence, the Delhi Belly of the title) results in a botched drop-off involving stolen diamonds and a stool sample, a lot of shooting and chasing, a double--or was that a triple?--cross resulting in a burqa-clad getaway, and a wonderfully ludicrous end credits number to the tune of a 1970s blaxploitation pastiche called "I Hate You Like I Love You." (This is where Aamir Khan's Disco Fighter comes in.)
It definitely isn't your typical Bollywood film. Ninety-five percent of the dialogue is in English (though you may want to turn on those English subtitles for the Hindi bits) and it's running time is a brisk hour and forty-two minutes. The two musical numbers don't interrupt the flow of the story and are frankly totally tongue-in-cheek. If this had been made in the U.S. it would certainly have earned an R rating and it was criticized in India for the fact that it basically throws the Hindi film formula out the window.
I loved it.
Word of warning though: next time you order Indian take-out, you may want to rethink that Tandoori Chicken. Or, more to the point, don't order Tandoori Chicken from a street vendor in Delhi. Oh, and also...beware of living in an apartment beneath a traditional Indian dance studio. I'll say no more.
Ciao.
What do you get when you cross "The Hangover" with "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" with a little disco madness in the form of the great Hindi actor Aamir Khan (who also produced the film) playing a character named "The Disco Fighter"? -- the madcap Hin-glish comedy "Delhi Belly," my pick for the funniest movie of 2011.
Never heard of it? You probably haven't unless you're one of the billion people who follow Hindi cinema, otherwise known as Bollywood. "Delhi Belly" was released last summer and grossed huge box office everywhere it seems except here in the U.S. But it is now available on Netflix in both DVD and streaming formats.
I just watched it and I have to say as ridiculous and vulgar as it is, I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.
The plot is too convoluted to really summarize but I'll try in a nutshell. Three down on their luck room-mates, Tashi (Imran Khan), Nitan (Kunaal Roy Kapur), and Arup (Vin Das) find themselves in the center of a drug and diamonds crime syndicate. A case of really bad food poisoning (hence, the Delhi Belly of the title) results in a botched drop-off involving stolen diamonds and a stool sample, a lot of shooting and chasing, a double--or was that a triple?--cross resulting in a burqa-clad getaway, and a wonderfully ludicrous end credits number to the tune of a 1970s blaxploitation pastiche called "I Hate You Like I Love You." (This is where Aamir Khan's Disco Fighter comes in.)
It definitely isn't your typical Bollywood film. Ninety-five percent of the dialogue is in English (though you may want to turn on those English subtitles for the Hindi bits) and it's running time is a brisk hour and forty-two minutes. The two musical numbers don't interrupt the flow of the story and are frankly totally tongue-in-cheek. If this had been made in the U.S. it would certainly have earned an R rating and it was criticized in India for the fact that it basically throws the Hindi film formula out the window.
I loved it.
Word of warning though: next time you order Indian take-out, you may want to rethink that Tandoori Chicken. Or, more to the point, don't order Tandoori Chicken from a street vendor in Delhi. Oh, and also...beware of living in an apartment beneath a traditional Indian dance studio. I'll say no more.
Ciao.
Syria + Iran = A Whole Lot of Kicking and Screaming, But a Fall Nonetheless
Hi everyone!
Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.
It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.
Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...
Ciao.
Want to know the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions? Regime change in Syria. At least that's the theory posited by Rick Gladstone in today's New York Times. It's an interesting suggestion.
It turns out that Iran is more than a little dependent on its only true friend in the Middle East. It is through Syria that Iran channels its money and arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But now that Hamas's prime minister Khaled Meshal has effectively closed up shop in Damascus with no plans to return there any time soon, Iran finds itself without one of its most trusted anchors. It also seems, at least from my perspective, that Hamas is seeking to distance itself from Iran. Mr. Meshal has been on an Arab World tour lately, hoping to gain support and legitimacy from governments in the region that up until now have preferred to keep Hamas at arms' length. Iran is currently undergoing its own financial problems, what with U.S.-backed sanctions slowly crippling its economy, legal action being threatened against any banks that deal with Iran's central bank, and a threatened oil embargo. In retaliation, Iran is flexing its muscles. It threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, but everyone knows this move would only be self-defeating and isn't likely to really occur. The source of much of the world's consternation with Iran is its continued pursuit of nuclear enrichment, regardless of nearly universal objections. Despite its continued threats, however, Iran now appears to be taking a slightly more diplomatic tact in allowing inspectors from the IAEA back into the country.
Word on the street is that Iran is supporting the Syrian army by providing it with weapons and tactical training against the protesters. No doubt it sees itself as supporting its best friend and neighbor. But one can almost guarantee that this is only going to bite Iran in the ass when the Assad regime eventually (and inevitably) falls and the new Syrian government is comprised of the heretofore opposition who aren't going to respond kindly to any Iranian meddling. Once this happens, Iran will only find itself even more isolated than it already does. And let's face it, as sanctions continue to squeeze the Iranian economy, the amount it gives to Syria is going to dwindle to nothing. It's kind of ironic really. By continuing to provoke international sanctions upon itself, Iran is hurting its buddy Syria more than it's actually helping. No more Iranian money means less that can go toward buttressing Assad and his cronies which means the inevitable downfall of yet another Middle Eastern dictator.
It won't happen overnight. Syria and Iran will go down kicking and screaming. But they will go down...
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)