I'm Still Here - devastating film on the psychological impact of military dictatorship

I’m Still Here is a devastating film that delves into the experience of people living under military dictatorship in Brazil the 1960’s and 70’s while also resonating in the here and now.

The film focuses on the family of Rubens Paiva, a former Labour party congressman who fled into exile after being removed from congress following the 1964 military coup. The film begins after his return to Brazil and much of the early part of the film depicts his happy middle class family life. The family live by the beach in Rio de Janeiro and spend happy days there with friends. They enjoy sports and games, listen to popular music, go to the cinema, have parties.

But while the family seem happy, in the background, Rubens is in regular contact with the underground left-wing resistance. Rubens and his wife Eunice worry about the future and the safety of their children and ponder whether to go back into exile. Their oldest daughter who is becoming increasingly politically aware is sent away to London to keep her safe. And while the film presents the Paiva’s as a happy, comfortable family, the threat of the military regime is a constant presence with military helicopters flying overhead, trucks on the streets and checkpoints on the roads.

The film turns with Rubens’ arrest by the military police in January 1971. For days afterwards, military police remain in the Paiva’s home while offering no information on Rubens’ whereabouts. Then Eunice and their 15-year-old daughter Eliana are also arrested and brought to military prison for questioning. While Eliana is released after a day, Eunice spends days in the prison as her interrogators demand information on supposed left-wing terrorists. In the background we hear the screams of other prisoners being tortured and see their blood on the floors. To the viewers and Eunice’s horror, we can only speculate if Rubens or Eliana are among those screaming or bleeding.

Eunice is eventually released but with still no information on the whereabouts of her husband. As Eunice searches for answers, she hides her fears to protect her children and continues to project a façade.

The film becomes a harrowing portrayal of how the uncertainty of not knowing whether Rubens is alive or dead becomes a psychological torture worse than the grief of loss. Fernanda Torres who plays Eunice, gives an astonishing performance in conveying this struggle. The film title references Eunice’s persistence in her struggle for answers and for justice. For so many thousands of families in Brazil and across much of South America during this time, this uncertainty continued for decades with no answers. Assuming that their loved ones had been killed but without the closure of knowing for sure or being able to bury them. This taps into experiences felt in so many countries around the world where violent repressive regimes have been or are in power.

And while the film addresses a particularly dark period in Brazilian history, it also speaks to issues today. Much of director Walter Salles earlier work has addressed political themes including his 2004 biopic of a young Ché Guevara, The Motorcycle Diaries. But with his first narrative film in 12 years, Salles clearly wants to draw connections between the historical events of the film and recent and current events in Brazil and around the world. It is not so long ago that Jair Bolsonaro was president of Brazil, a far-right president who openly harked back to the days of military rule. While Bolsonaro was eventually defeated, him and his politics still have support in Brazil. The far-right in Brazil have relentlessly attacked the film while defending the dictatorship. The film however, has been a massive hit in Brazil and the renewed attention the film has brought has pushed the Brazilian authorities to finally legally recognise the violent, unlawful death of Rubens Paiva over 50 years after he was killed, helping to demonstrate the influence that art can have.

Ultimately the film is also a reminder of the challenges for the left when coming up against the machinery of the capitalist state and the measures the state can resort to when it feels threatened. The left cannot rely on just a few good people in parliament, it needs the support and strength of mass movements of people in order to challenge the state and bring about real change.

Mickey 17 - scabrously entertaining film of class struggle

Mickey 17 is the fascinating new film by Korean auteur Bong Joon Ho, following on from the huge success of his 2019 Oscar-winning film Parasite. While carrying many of the same themes as Parasite, Mickey 17 is much larger in scope to go with its significantly bigger Hollywood budget, the biggest Bong has worked with to date.

Mickey 17 follows the story of Mickey Barnes, who together with his business partner Timo join an interplanetary colonising mission to escape murderous debt collectors on Earth. Without reading the fine print, Mickey signs up to be an expendable on board the four-year mission to the planet Niflheim. As Mickey dutifully explains through voiceover, he quickly realises an expendable is there to carry out the most dangerous jobs on board the ship. This includes exposing himself to deadly radiation, testing out vaccines and being fed experimental food and medicines. As an expendable, each time Mickey dies, his body is reprinted and his memories reimplanted within 24 hours. Mickey 17 thus, is the seventeenth iteration of Mickey Barnes.

Complications ensue however when Mickey 17 is left for dead on the frozen planet Niflheim. He survives and returns to the ship only to find that Mickey 18 has already been printed. The presence of two Mickey Barnes sets up a brilliant dual performance by English actor Robert Pattinson who manages to clearly delineate the two Mickeys with different personalities. Pattinson is best known for his roles in blockbusters such as Twilight and The Batman but has also had a far more interesting career outside the mainstream in works by auteur directors such as David Cronenburg and Claire Denis.

The presence of Mickey 17 and Mickey 18 however violates the strict rules against multiples after the case of a serial killer using multiples of himself to commit murders while escaping justice. If Mickey 17 and Mickey 18 are to coexist, they will have to escape the attentions of the mission’s leader, the failed politician, Kenneth Marshall. Marshall, having been voted out on Earth, decides to colonise Niflheim where he dreams of a perfect world inhabited by a new, white, super-race. Although director Bong Joon Ho has stated that Marshall is not a reference to any particular politician, Kenneth Marshall, as played in a skin-crawling performance by Mark Ruffalo, does seem to combine the genocidal rhetoric of Adolf Hitler with the clownish mannerisms and vanity of Donald Trump. Marshall is accompanied at all times by the Lady Macbeth like figure of his wife Ylfa, played by Toni Collette, who guides him and soothes his ego. There is also a wholly unnecessary side-plot in which Ylfa is on a quest to find the perfect sauce to serve with dinner.

A particularly memorable dinner scene with the Marshalls and Mickey 17, in which Mickey is served steak contrasts sharply with the indistinguishable slop Mickey is accustomed to in the rations. With the mission taking longer than expected and supplies starting to run low, of course as an expendable, Mickey had been subjected to much reduced rations of slop compared to other crew members.

The film does start to fray with a chaotic final act after Kenneth Marshall decides to exterminate the native creatures, so-called creepers, from Niflheim. But it fits in with much of Bong Joon Ho’s work which has often looked at human’s destructive relationship with nature. Indeed, as a film, Mickey 17 brings together so many of the themes explored in his previous works such as Korean language pictures Parasite and The Host as well as his Hollywood co-productions Snowpiercer and Okja.

The overarching theme of Mickey 17 though is class struggle and how workers are treated as expendable under capitalism. Mickey 17 is the extreme example but there is a clear divide in the film between those who do the work on the ship and those who are in control. The film also references the MAGA movement’s slavish devotion to Trump as plenty of people are on the ship because they believe in Kenneth Marshall and will happily follow him to the ends of the universe (literally).

The film has faced some criticism for not focusing more on the ethical questions around reprinting humans, or on Mickeys experience of dying. Characters ask Mickey what it is like to die, and he has no answer. In truth I think there are so many themes and questions in this film, it can be hard to focus on any one of them. Certainly, Mickey 17 as a film is not as sharp or tightly focused as Parasite in its political edge, but it is still fascinating to watch and scabrously funny. And while there have been concerns by film industry insiders that Mickey 17 will not recoup its enormous budget, Bong Joon Ho’s reputation as a brilliant film-maker remains intact.

On Rainbow Armbands, Solidarity and Homophobia in football

There is something I find uncomfortable about the media coverage this week surrounding the issue of club captains wearing rainbow armbands. It is of course hugely important that players show solidarity with the LGBTQ community and demonstrate that they are accepting of all involved in football regardless of their sexuality or gender identity. Three players have been singled out though for choosing not to wear the armband, for writing their own message on the armband, and for refusing to wear a rainbow themed training top. It is noticeable that all three players are black and African. Ipswich club captain Sam Morsy, an Egyptian international chose not to wear the armband. Crystal Palace captain Marc Guehi who was born in Cote d'Ivoire wrote religious messages on his rainbow armband. While Manchester United player Noussair Mazraoui allegedly refused to wear a rainbow themed training top which led the team to scrap wearing the top so as not to single him out.

I think the media coverage and fan backlash against the three players has been unfair to them and doesnt consider the broader contexts. When thinking about homophobia in Africa, we cannot ignore the role of Europeans in introducing it, spreading it and enforcing it on the continent. The strictest laws against homosexuality in Africa derive from laws introduced by the white, Christian, British Empire. It is too easy then for white British people to condemn these African players without acknowledging the role their own country played. But given that homosexuality is illegal in Morocco and Egypt, it could cause problems for Morsy and Mazraoui to publicly show solidarity with LGBTQ people even if privately they were not homophobic. It isn't easy for players to go against their own country's laws, particularly when they are still international players. Neither player has explicitly commented on their reasons for not wearing the armband or training top but that broader context needs to be taken into account.

Its also worth noting that, at a time when one of the biggest issues in the world today is the ongoing genocide of Palestinians, Morsy and Mazraoui are two of the very few footballers who have shown solidarity with Palestinians. Given the political context when the establishment is so anti-Palestinian, their small gestures of solidarity have been far more meaningful than the wearing of rainbow armbands. Many footballers who have spoken out in solidarity with Palestinians have faced severe backlash with players being suspended and even sacked by clubs

The wearing of rainbow armbands is a small tokenistic gesture. It hasn't been shown to reduce homophobia in football where homophobic chants and insults are still common and there are still no openly LGBTQ players in the premiership. Furthermore we have seen where even when players go beyond armbands and are outspoken in support of the LGBTQ community, their solidarity is often paper thin. Jordan Henderson had been very vocal when he was captain of Liverpool, until he decided money was more important and accepted a move to Saudi Arabia. Likewise former England international David Beckham who was paid huge amounts to support the Qatar world cup.

Forcing players to show solidarity against their will isn't the way forward, the same way that players should not be forced to wear a poppy. And it is hypocritical of institutions to try and enforce such solidarity on individual players when they have no problem with homophobic institutions and states. Football authorities had a massive opportunity to protest against homophobia before and during the 2022 world cup hosted by Qatar and yet they did nothing. Even planned tiny tokenistic gestures didn't go ahead as authorities and players lacked the courage of their convictions. And football has shown to be perfectly happy to take the money from homophobic states like Saudi Arabia and Russia. When European players and institutions from liberal, gay-friendly countries can't even show solidarity with the LGBTQ community its hard to expect those from countries where being LGBTQ is illegal to do so.

2024-25 English Premiership Prediction

 

2024-25 Seasons Predictions

 

1.     Arsenal

2.     Manchester City

3.     Liverpool

4.     Tottenham

5.     Chelsea

6.     Newcastle

7.     West Ham

8.     Aston Villa

9.     Manchester United

10. Brighton

11. Crystal Palace

12. Bournemouth

13. Fulham

14. Wolves

15. Everton

16. Southampton

17. Nottingham Forest

18. Brentford

19. Ipswich

20. Leicester

This is probably more a case of hoping that Manchester City won’t win it again but I’m going for Arsenal for the title this season.

Arsenal have brought in Ricardo Calafiori who will strengthen what was already the leagues strongest defence. He may need time to adapt to the premiership but Arsenal have enough strength in depth in defence, especially with the long awaited return of Jurrien Timber from injury, that Calafiori can be afforded time. Signing another attacking player to provide cover for Saka or an alternative to Havertz would have boosted Arsenals chances, but the squad is already strong enough to mount a serious challenge.

Manchester City winning the charity shield last weekend actually augurs well for Arsenal as the last time City won it was in 2019 which was also the last season City didn’t go on to win the league. Arsenal fans will be clutching at such straws in hope but the City squad also looks a little light for now especially in attack following the sale of Julian Alvarez and the injury to Oscar Bobb. They were expected to sign an attacking player before the end of the transfer window but that didn’t happen. Even so, if City can maintain their usual standards than it will take something extraordinary from their challengers to beat them.

Liverpool are the third strongest on paper but their season will depend on how the squad, which was built to suit Jurgen Klopp, will adapt to new manager Arne Slot. Preseason friendlies showed a very different tactical approach from Klopps and it managed to produce results in preseason, it will be interesting to see how that goes in a competitive season. With Martin Zubimendi being the latest high-profile midfielder to snub a move to Anfield, a lack of signings is a worry. They should still be strong enough for third, but they won’t challenge the top two this season without reinforcements.

Tottenham should have finished fourth last season but missed out after an end of season collapse in form. The signing of Dominic Solanke could be the missing piece that completes the puzzle for Spurs and pushes them over the line. He will add goals to an exciting but sometimes impotent attack. They also desperately need to sort out their defense this season as they cannot continue to concede so many goals if they want to challenge for top four.

Chelsea are a conundrum to predict, they could conceivably finish anywhere between fourth and fourteenth. On paper they have the squad to finish in the top four but new manager Enzo Maresca will need time to settle in and work out his best team. Expect some topsy-turvy results early in the season but if Maresca is given time they should finish the season strongly.

Newcastle had a quiet transfer window but will be helped by the lack of European football this season. If they can avoid the injuries that hampered them last season they should improve and challenge for the European places.

An ambitious transfer window from West Ham and new manager bounce under Julen Lopetegui should see them rise up the table but probably still just short of challenging for champions league places.

Aston Villa wont be able to maintain the momentum of last season. Champions League football is a big step up for a small squad, and while there was plenty of movement in the transfer window, the squad wasn’t significantly strengthened.

Manchester United are treading water under manager Erik Ten Hag who is simply not the man to progress them further. A lot of money was spent by them in the transfer window without making the squad much stronger. There are still obvious gaps in the team at LB, RW and CM while Zirkzee is too similar to Hojlund. And there are reasons why Bayern and Juventus before them were happy to sell DeLigt. They could do well in a weak Europa League tournament but I will be very surprised if Ten Hag is still in charge next season.

Brighton had the highest spending transfer window of any team, using the money made from sales in previous windows. They have made a strong start to the season but that wont last. With such a young, new manager and so many new players it will be interesting to see how they cope when things aren’t going so well. With the quality they have a comfortable mid-table finish should be achievable.

Crystal Palace were the form team towards the end of last season but the summer break has disrupted their momentum. They have bought well in the transfer window though and should be comfortable in mid-table.

Similarly, Bournemouth and Fulham look safe in mid-table and have also bought well to replace key departures.

The remaining seven teams are likely to struggle against relegation.

Wolves have had a quiet transfer window. My predictions last summer of doom and gloom weren’t quite accurate but I haven’t seen any progress being made this summer while teams around them have strengthened.

Everton have made a disastrous start to the season. Their hands have been tied financially while the takeover saga rolls on. They have one of the strongest centre back partnership in the league and they will have to rely on them as much of the rest of the team is desperately weak. The lack of goals upfront is a particular concern. It wont be pretty but manager Sean Dyche should just about manage to grind out enough results to keep them up.

Southampton look the best placed to survive of the newly promoted teams after a strong transfer window. Signing Aaron Ramsdale was a real coup. Manager Russell Martin may have to adjust his playing style for something more pragmatic to get results but they have the players to stay up.

Nottingham Forest’s quiet transfer window could actually help them settle down after the chaos of previous windows. The squad still seems weak though and the season will be a struggle.

I think the bubble is starting to burst for Brentford. Getting promoted to the premiership and staying up was a fantastic achievement for them but we started to see the signs last season that the good times could be over. Ivan Toneys departure was a massive loss, especially with the injury to his replacement.

Ipswich had a very busy transfer window following promotion and have made some excellent signings. Irish viewers will be particularly keen to see Ogbene, Szmodics and O’Shea do well. But overall the squad is probably not at the level required for survival, this seasons Luton, gutsy but ultimately too weak.

Leicester will be heavily reliant on the ageing Jamie Vardy for goals following the departure of Iheanacho and injury to Daka. While they still have many of the players from their last spell in the premiership the league has got stronger in their absence and I don’t think they will have enough to stay up.

Palestine Solidarity in Football

 This article was first published in edited form on rebelnews.ie on the 29th October 2023

On Wednesday 25^th October we saw another awesome display of solidarity with the people of Palestine by Glasgow Celtic football fans with thousands of fans waving and displaying Palestinian flags during their Champions League match against Atletico Madrid. This ongoing solidarity with Palestinians facing genocidal attack by Israeli forces comes despite appeals from the club for fans to desist as the club faces fines by the European football governing body UEFA. These fines show the hypocrisy of UEFA who ban Palestinian flags as a political symbol saying that football and politics should not mix. This contrasts with the widespread gestures of support for Ukraine and shows that politics and football are allowed to mix only under certain conditions. It is also part of a wider trend around Europe to demonise and criminalise Palestinian solidarity even in the face of widespread support by people for the Palestinian cause.

The flag display was organised by the Green Brigade fans group who distributed flags to supporters as they entered the stadium. This follows on from Palestinian flags being displayed at Celtic’s recent Scottish league games. After a similar display in 2016 during a match against Israeli team Hapoel Be’er Sheva, the club were fined £9,000 by UEFA. The Green Brigade responded at the time with an online fundraiser that raised £130,000 for medical aid for Palestine and to create a football academy in Bethlehem.

While the Green Brigade helped organise these shows of solidarity, it is clear from the numbers at Celtic Park on Wednesday, that the support for Palestine among Celtic fans is much bigger than just the one fan group. The club however have responded to recent events by banning the Green Brigade from away matches in a bid to stop such scenes from recurring. While there has been no news yet on a potential fine this time, this is just one of a series of incidents of note around Europe regarding Palestinian solidarity in football.

Notably two footballers have been punished by their clubs and football authorities for showing solidarity with Palestine. Dutch footballer, Anwar El Ghazi, who is of Moroccan descent, was dropped by his German club Mainz, less than a month after joining, after he shared a post on Instagram expressing solidarity with Palestine. The club objected to the Instagram post which included the line ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, a common slogan and chant of the Palestinian cause but which Israels supporters claim is anti-semitic. El Ghazi later stated online that ‘Every individual, be it in Palestine or elsewhere, has the right to security, a loving home and opportunities to grow’. This utterly uncontroversial statement wasn’t enough for Mainz though who proceeded to sack El Ghazi on the 27^th October. This appalling action by Mainz must be challenged by fans, players and player unions, at the very least it’s a case of illegal dismissal.

Another footballer, the Algerian, Youcef Atal of French club Nice was accused of defending terrorism for posting a video about Palestine on social media on 14^th October. Despite immediately removing the post and later posting that he denounces all forms of violence, the Nice public prosecutor opened an investigation and he was suspended by his club. On 25^th October the player received a seven-match ban by the French football authorities.

Both of these cases highlight a shocking overreach by authorities in punishing those who express solidarity with Palestinians.

Previously we have also seen Arsenals Egyptian footballer Mohamed Elneny forced to withdraw social media posts supporting Palestine in 2021 after a sponsor, the Italian coffee company Lavazza demanded action. Arsenal also censored and dropped German footballer Mesut Ozil for expressing solidarity with Uighurs who are being oppressed by China. The club were quick to act to avoid criticism from China.

These incidents are in stark contrast to what happens to those who express solidarity with Israel or Ukraine. Arsenal footballer Olexander Zinchenko and Tottenham footballer Manor Solomon both received criticism from fans for expressing solidarity with Israel during the current bombing campaign on Gaza. But the clubs and authorities were silent and there was no widespread media attention or condemnation.

Despite protestations from footballing authorities that football and politics shouldn’t mix, many leagues and clubs chose to show solidarity with Israel with minutes of silence, wearing of black armbands and displaying of Israeli flags to remember those killed by Hamas, but no mention of the thousands more Palestinians killed by Israel.

This almost descended into farce in the run-up to an international game between England and Italy on the 17^th October at Wembley Stadium in London. Numerous Tory politicians demanded that the football association (FA) light up the Wembley Stadium arch in the colours of the Israeli flag for the match as they had previously done for Ukraine last year. The FA resisted pressure from the government and decided to instead hold a minute silence at the start of the match which was then booed by fans as it only mentioned Israel and Sweden and made no mention of Palestine.

This followed over a year of solidarity being shown with Ukraine following the Russian invasion with the full support of footballing authorities. The European and global football authorities even went further by taking the unprecedented step to ban Russia and its clubs from all international competitions. In the history of football this has only happened once before, to Yugoslavia following the outbreak of war in 1992. To put this into context, even Nazi Germany was not banned, indeed they were allowed to host the Olympics. The decision to ban Russia though begs the question, why only them? Why not Israel for its ongoing oppression and murder of Palestinians, why not Saudi Arabia for the war in Yemen, why not the USA for Afghanistan and Iraq?

Footballing authorities cannot continue to say politics and football don’t mix and then pick and choose which politics can mix with football. Ultimately the power to change football and support real solidarity with oppressed peoples lies with the sports two largest stakeholders – fans and players. Footballers can have a voice, if enough of them speak out. Players like the Egyptian Mohamed Salah who has expressed solidarity with Palestinians have a role to play but there needs to be more. And player unions must be stronger in protecting players who do speak out. Fans meanwhile can take inspiration from Celtic’s Green Brigade and show real solidarity with Palestinian people by resisting any attempts to suppress such solidarity.

Film Review: Killers of the Flower Moon

This review was first published in edited form on rebelnews.ie on the 13th November 2023

The stunning new film from veteran director Martin Scorsese tells some of the story of the horrific murders within the Osage Nation in Oklahoma between 1918-31. These little-known events are often left out of the story of Native American history but show the intersections of colonialism and racism that have characterised the experience of Native Americans since the arrival of Europeans.

The Osage people were originally from the Ohio area but had been forced west to Kansas by the arrival of the Europeans and subsequent wars. Like many other tribes, the Osage were then displaced by the US government to Oklahoma, then known as Indian Territory, in the 19^th century. Indian Territory was seen as empty and barren, with little arable land, it was considered worthless with little settlement at the time by those of European descent. The Osage were able to purchase an area of land, that became what is now Osage County, the largest county in modern Oklahoma.

In the early 20^th century oil was discovered in Osage County and with the Osage people retaining ownership of the land many of them became hugely wealthy. Early on the film includes a montage of scenes showing Osage people enjoying their new found wealth with luxurious homes, fancy clothing and new modern inventions such as cars and airplanes in an important counter narrative to the usual Hollywood depiction of Native Americans as primitive or noble savages. This is despite federal law that meant that their money was governed by white administrators. But this wealth also attracted a dark side as people moved in to try and grab some of that wealth for themselves. While many found work providing goods and services to the Osage, others resorted to manipulation, corruption and murder resulting in a series of murders and unexplained deaths of Osage people. While the film focuses on the murders of members of the Kyle family, it is thought that the number of murders during this period could have been well over a hundred.

The Kyle family become particularly wealthy thanks to the oil, and their wealth draws the attention of the rich and powerful William Hale, a local white rancher, played in the film by Robert DeNiro. Hale is hugely popular and influential in the area due to his philanthropy and friendly relations with the Osage people. When his nephew Ernest Burkhart, played by Leonardo DiCaprio returns from Europe where he served in the American army during World War I, Hale has plans for Ernest to work his way into the lives of the Kyle family. Starting out as a taxi driver, Ernest quickly meets Mollie Kyle, played by Native American actress Lily Gladstone, who becomes his main passenger. Under orders from his uncle, Ernest tries to engage Mollie in conversation, eventually breaking through her quiet, dignified exterior. The film details their growing relationship which eventually leads to marriage. Even as their relationship is developing though, Mollie is forced to deal with a number of deaths of close family members.

The most shocking scenes of the film show the gruesome aftermaths of the murders of Mollies sisters Anna and Rita. With her parents and siblings all dead, Mollie is now the sole owner of her family’s land rights, which upon her death would thus transfer to Ernest.

With no investigation from the local sheriffs who are seemingly in cahoots with the murderers, Mollie and Osage leaders attempt to gain help from federal agencies in Washington. Despite the mounting evidence of murders, they are initially ignored as federal government has little interest in what happens to Native Americans in rural Oklahoma. Finally agents from the Bureau of Investigation (BOI, forerunner of the FBI) are sent to Osage County to investigate. Much of the second half of the film details the BOI investigation which is slowed by intransigence and obstructions by Hale, Burkhart and their accomplices.

With Ernest and William eventually arrested the film eventually turns to their trial which takes some twists and turns, including a strong cameo from Brendan Fraser as Hale’s lawyer.

The film then ends with Scorsese making an appearance on screen to make clear his view on the case. It is a touch very reminiscent of Spike Lee in his more righteous films.

The film while presenting a really shocking story is very well made as you would expect from Martin Scorsese. Robert DeNiro is remarkably restrained as William Hale, giving his best performance in decades. Leonardo DiCaprio, employing a permanent scowl goes a bit over the top at times especially towards the end. Lily Gladstone gives a revelatory performance as Mollie, quiet and dignified but full of righteous anger and despair as she realises her family is being killed off. The film also features a large cast of Osage people in various roles and the film was filmed in Osage County in Oklahoma.

The film is to be commended for showing a little-known disgraceful part of American history but it is very subtle in showing these murders as a part of a wider American story. Early in the film there is a brief reference to the Tulsa massacre, a contemporary event that saw the destruction of a wealthy black neighbourhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma by white racists. Little connection is made to the wider history of Native Americans, instead giving a microcosm and almost encouraging its audience to go out and find out more.

The film works very hard to elicit audience sympathy for Ernest Burkhart, only to pull the rug on that sympathy late in the film as the true extent of his involvement in the murders is slowly revealed. There has been some criticism that the film centres Burkhart and Hale as its main characters and not the Osage people. Indeed, during production the script underwent changes, following consultations with the Osage community, in order to strengthen the part of the Osage in the film. Scorsese though, who has always revelled in making films centred on villains, is probably not the right director to make a film centred on the Osage people despite his obvious sympathy for them.

The other main criticism has focused on the film’s length, at three and a half hours long, it is one of the longest cinematic releases in recent years. English film critic Mark Kermode argues that the film feels as if it was designed for online streaming where its length wouldn’t be an issue. Having been partly funded and produced by Apple, that is certainly a possibility. However, the film is so detailed that it didn’t feel too long with in particular, the numerous scenes of Osage life and culture providing important context.

Overall, Killers of the Flower Moon is a powerful depiction of a terrible event in American history that points obliquely towards the broader history of colonialism, racism and capitalist greed in the Americas.

Film Review of Civil War

Civil War is a terrifying vision of America, that is big on spectacle but ultimately struggles for meaning.

The film is set in an undefined near future, during a civil war with three regional factions fighting against the federal government of the USA. Texas and California have joined together as the Western Forces, under a flag featuring two stars instead of the usual 50, the Florida Alliance consists of much of the southeast while the north west forms the New Peoples Army. The rest of the states, known as the loyalist states, remain under the nominal control of the federal government and the president in Washington DC.

The prelude to the film shows the president preparing to give a speech on the progress of the war. As he prepares his lines full of bravado to declare the government is winning the war, the viewer is reminded of Donald Trump in his manner, even if in this scene he is a (presumably unintentionally) doppelganger for Keir Starmer!

The film centres on a small group of journalists and photographers led by a jaded veteran war photojournalist Lee Smith, played by Kirsten Dunst. At a protest which turns violent, in New York, she meets a young aspiring photojournalist who idolises her. The two join with a Reuters journalist and a ageing New York Times journalist to drive the dangerous route to Washington DC. They are determined to get a massive scoop by meeting and interviewing the president before Washington falls, although they doubt if he is even still alive.

While New York had seemed vaguely normal, as they travel southwards we soon see the destruction the war has caused. They cannot travel directly to Washington DC but must take a circuitous route to Charlottesville on the other side of the city, where the Western forces are amassing ahead of a major assault on the capital. Highways are blocked by burnt out cars, whole towns are bombed out and abandoned, people are living in refugee camps, helped by international aid groups. 

The group have a number of encounters with opposition militia and government forces, often in the midst of fighting, although not always clear who is who in the fight. The group witness war crimes being committed by both sides as opposition forces shoot captured government soldiers, while a particularly horrific scene shows government militia men throwing civilians they have killed into a mass grave. Jesse Plemons has a memorable uncredited cameo as a racist militia man demanding to know where the journalists are from.

A jarring incident occurs when the group encounter a small town where everything seems to be functioning normally and a bemused shop assistant tells them the townspeople are ignoring what is happening in the rest of the country. While in another incident they encounter two soldiers and a sniper shooting at each other even though they don't know which side they are on.

The film shows the brutality of war and in close and often horrifying detail but the film struggles to give real depth or meaning to it. The viewer is given no real reasoning for how or why the war started. While, as I said earlier, the president has some echoes of Trump, it is not enough to say that a Trump presidency will inevitably lead to civil war. As we know, it didn't. And while that can be a liberal interpretation of the film, it is equally possible to say that the president is vague enough that he could be any American president. At a time when, under a Biden presidency, police brutality is being utilised against peaceful protesters across the USA, it is not enough to say that a Trump presidency would, unlike other presidents, lead to fascism.

The film also conveniently ignores that journalists are often deliberately targeted in conflict, as we have seen notably recently in Palestine and Gaza where countless journalists have been murdered by Israel. Having the journalists targeted would have made for a very different film, but the sometimes cosy relationship between journalists and army as depicted in the film feels unrealistic.

Ultimately, the film works as a spectacle, with some gripping action and tense scenes of danger. It is a terrifying vision of what is possible, but don't look for any insight into how or why it could be possible.