Breathe In (2013) – Drake Doremus (dir.)

Posted on 03/08/2013 by Michael

Breathe In – happy family

Spoiler alert. DON’T read this review if you plan to see this film!

This is a stereotypical film, with stereotypical characters, a stereotypical plot and a stereotypical end.

Four main characters:

The husband. Reaching the dangerous age and the mid age crisis. A musician, but not as good as he would like and in the old adage, those who can’t do, teach. He plays occasionally in a local orchestra and is going for a better job, but he has lost the confidence of youth and doubts if he will get it. At the same time he seems to be doing quite well. After all how many homes do you know that have a baby grand piano in the entrance hall?

The wife. Dutiful, has worked ‘hard’ to provide her husband with a good and secure home, with all the trimmings. Has successfully brought up their daughter. Her biggest aim in life is to amass the biggest collection of ceramic biscuit barrels – a quite unique challenge. Supportive of her husband but with a bit of an acid tongue which means she doesn’t always go the whole way in carrying out her traditional marital role in being a dutiful wife. An organizer, but mainly of domestic trivia.

The daughter. Thinks she’s an adult but really immature, perhaps the result of being brought up in a biscuit barrel collecting household. Not an intellectual or a musician but an athlete. Considers she can take a relationship break-up but inside she is hurting. Reaches the age of 18 during the course of the film and does a little girl dance when presented with a new car on her birthday. That dance could have been seen as a bit of a joke if it wasn’t for what else happens in her life, she is really still a little girl. A poor little rich girl – if not millionaire status.

The outsider (and home-wrecker). She is literally an outsider. She British on a sabbatical in a north American town. She is truly a genius as a musician – which she shows when the husband (for some inexplicable reason) tries to humiliate her on her first day in the piano class he teaches. Why she would be attracted to him after that episode is a wonder. She’s mature for her age, in that way the opposite to the daughter, and is told so by the husband when they have an innocent few beers after a swimming gala gets washed out. But she comes with her own baggage. Father dies at an early age, lived with her uncle, to whom she was very close, and he has died just before she leaves for America. That death has meant that she has rejected the piano as it brings back too many bad memories – the uncle was a brilliant pianist as well.

The Plot. There’s not a great one. Intimate, guilty eye contact between the Outsider and the Husband from the beginning. She understands him. She may not intend to do so but she effectively seduces him after finding the local boys immature and after only one thing. They make a very amateurish and last minute plan to run away together. But before they get any further than a few miles down the road a message is received that the daughter, now aware that there is something going on between her father and the outsider, gets stupidly drunk and crashes her new car.

The mad rush to the hospital. The unity between mother and father over what they have in common, i.e., their daughter, this after the mother had also realised through the empty wardrobes that the two had run away together and as a consequence, in her anger, had broken some of her ceramic biscuit barrels – an indication that the family equilibrium had been disturbed.

The last time we see the Outsider she is sitting alone, beside the baby grand, when the parents come home from the hospital. The daughter is not seriously hurt. Her pretty features are undamgaed and all she sports is a plaster over one of her eyes.

The next (and last) scene is a repeat of the one that opened the film. The three of them are in the garden of the house having their photos taken by a professional photographer, this is obviously an annual ‘family tradition’. They all smile. Any transgressions have been forgiven.

The fourth person is absent.

Family values have won the day.

We steal secrets – the story of Wikileaks

Posted on 24/07/2013 by Michael

We steal secrets – the story of Wikileaks

‘Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.’

Joseph Heller, Catch-22

The director, Alex Gibney, has stated that his ideas changed when making this film. At the beginning he thought it was about the ‘machine’ but what it’s actually about is ‘wildly complex, interesting and extraordinary people’. And his depictions of these people, particularly the two who are in the forefront of the controversy following the massive disclosure of secret US files in October 2010, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, says a lot about those who bask in the limelight of others but disappear back under their stones when the going gets tough.

Once the Obama administration became aware of the imminent disclosure of their illegal, vicious, murderous and reckless activity, first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan, they declared all out war on their perceived enemies. Their principal targets were a successful Australian hacker and a young US soldier working in intelligence analysis in a quiet Army base outside of Baghdad.

The hatred that the American establishment has for these two individuals is palpable and comes out clearly in the documentary. State officials, including the supposed liberal (and at one time possible first woman US President, Hilary Clinton) as well as ‘shock-jock’ TV presenters and head-banger right wingers predicted the end of the world as we know it and some of these crazies even called for ‘contracts’ to be taken out on Assange – they don’t need to do that for Manning as he’s already in their clutches.

This approach is contrasted with the ‘reasoned’ and quiet declarations of the avuncular Michael Hayden, at one time head of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), filmed at the bottom of a dark wood panelled staircase, a location oozing wealth and power. Being head of the CIA, one of the biggest criminal organisations in the world with a history of destabilization of legitimate governments and their substitution with neo-Fascist regimes, such as in the Congo in 1961 and Chile in 1973 (to mention only two) he would have an insiders knowledge of the secrets the US doesn’t want the world to know about.

But for all his soft-spoken words he revealed ‘secrets’ of his own and the title of the documentary comes from his admission that ‘we (the US) steal secrets’. Now that’s no real revelation and only those who are extremely naive would be surprised by such an admission. But by admitting the truth of what the western intelligence agencies are doing, and have done for decades, he merely exposes the imperialist countries for the hypocrites they are.

For 45 years, during what was known as the Cold War, western propagandists tried to make people believe that it was only the evil communists who were gaining information about their own populations. What this approach lacked was any historical context and background. In the same way that individuals can be accused of paranoia the socialist countries were very much aware of the activities of foreign imperialists in trying to destabilise their societies. For example; the British and American attempts to foment unrest in Albania; the support given to Greek Fascists in their fight against progressive, anti-Fascist forces: and the open support provided by the west in fomenting disorder in Hungary in 1956.

In the film Hayden tries to give the impression, without actually saying so, that the stealing of secrets was from the enemies of the United States’ much vaunted (but rarely experienced by the vast majority of the population) ‘freedom and democracy’. This interview would have taken place long before the most recent disclosure to show up western imperialist hypocrisy by Edward Snowden. The PRISM programme showed that the US will spy on anyone and when caught out the reply from the administration was that it’s data collection would protect the American people from ‘terrorism’, the cover all for anything since the attack on the tower blocks in New York in 2001.

An investigation in Britain into the legality of what GCHQ (the British government’s spy centre) did in relation to PRISM, and also in the bugging of ‘friendly’ countries diplomatic representatives during conferences in the UK, came to the conclusion that it was all legal – surprise, surprise. And no doubt these activities are legitimate in the US as well. But this legitimacy is merely based upon the will of 535 people in the US and 650 in the UK – the numbers on the respective parliamentary legislatures. Due to a parliamentary fetishism that exists within those two countries these decisions do not get challenged, they may be legal but are they what society in general wants?

Wikileaks seeks to ask that question by releasing documents that are normally kept from the general population even though they are the ones who have provided the resources that allow governments to carry out their activities on the national and international stage. Even though here is a mad rush to privatise everything in sight in most countries throughout the world it’s still the public who pay billions of pounds to prop up the military/industrial complex that is such an important player in the field of espionage. So the people involved are ‘public servants’ but how often are the accountable to, and do they really serve, the public?

But this issue, this principle, seems to get forgotten in the second half of the film. Those who are in support of Assange at the beginning find reasons to distance themselves from him at the end.

The reasons?

‘His paranoia means that he thinks everyone is out to get him’. Paranoic he might be, but there seems to be a lot of reasons for that.

‘He considers the cases brought against him by the two women in Sweden are part of a ‘honey-trap”. This gets complicated. But the sequence of events is strange. The call for his extradition only comes after the US is upset about the leak. Part of this argument is that the US would never put pressure upon another sovereign government for its own aims. In the same way that none of the governments that refused air space to the flight of the Bolivian President when it was thought that the latest whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, might have been on board, would ever had done so at the behest of the US Government. Also, without going into the details of the case, the issue with the women seems to revolve around a HIV test rather than actual forced rape, I assume an anomaly between Swedish and British law in this matter, but something that hasn’t been made clear in reporting in this country.

‘He considers that if an Afghan civilian is exposed as helping the invading forces he should accept the consequences of his actions.’ Now in all these wars of imperialist aggression the assumption is made that ‘we’ ( and I don’t include myself in that ‘we’) are the ‘good guys’ and all the rest are murdering blood-thirsty, indiscriminate terrorists. It’s not terrorism to kill innocent people (for fun) from a helicopter gun-ship half a mile up in the sky but it is terrorism to plant a bomb by the side of the road in an ambush of invading forces’ troops.

The good guys invaded Iraq with spurious and – we later learnt – totally erroneous intelligence and was hence an illegal war in the first place. But anyone, Iraqi or other, who considers that this invasion should be resisted is automatically condemned as a terrorist. This is surely the same stance taken by the invading Nazis in WWII towards resistance fighters in the occupied countries.

There was also a point that I found strange. Wikileaks promises total anonymity and untraceability, on their website, to anyone who wants to send information. But whistle-blowers can feel isolated and worry that they might be exposed. Now Bradley Manning was not exposed by anything published by Wikileaks but by a pathetic one time hacker who saw more fame and fortune by whistle-blowing on the whistle-blower and we are treated to his crocodile tears towards the end of the film. Due to that betrayal Manning is now undergoing a show trial in a military base in the US. But for some reason some of the erstwhile friends of Assange consider that there should have been some structure that could support whistle-blowers in the future. What world are they living on?

The whole persecution of both Assange and Manning is being made front page news in order to deter future whistle-blowers. Yes, the US administration (and other western governments) are angry at these two individuals but the reason for the high-profile trials, the potential punishments up to and including the death penalty and the extremist statements are all geared to prevent others from doing something similar in the future.

The attitude of the New York Times (which was characteristically pusillanimous and sycophantic), the self righteous British journalists and Gibney in this film in finding ways to not be seen to be associated with Assange (although with the argument that they are doing so to protect their own ‘integrity’) will only make the goal of the secretive states to act with impunity in the future all that much easier.

Westerbork Internment Camp – Northern Holland

Posted on 21/07/2013 by Michael

Westerbork Rail Memorial

Westerbork Internment Camp – Northern Holland

Established in the north-east corner of the Netherlands, Westerbork reverted from being a place of refuge to a transit area towards the death camps during the Nazi Occupation during the Second World War.

Westerbork was opened in October 1939 to accommodate refugees that had been coming from Germany since Hitler’s success in the 1933 elections. In subsequent years more and more refugees arrived, perhaps with the same hope as the Dutch seemed to hold as the war clouds grew over Europe, that the Netherlands would remain neutral. However, instead of being welcomed by the Dutch indigenous Jewish community these refugees from Germany were considered as ‘parasites’, making the future plans of persecution and extermination a much easier task for the Fascists.

(As an aside here it’s worth making reference to the words written by a German Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller. He was an anti-Communist who, at first, supported Hitler’s rise to power in 1933 but began to see that he might had made a somewhat serious error of judgement.

The official version from the Martin Niemöller Foundation reads:

Then they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Other versions insert a line for the others, Jews, Sinti (Roma gypsies), homosexuals, who were to suffer under Nazism – and has often been used in more modern contexts to try to break down apathy in the face of attacks upon the general population. In Britain today we could add verses about those on Welfare Benefits and Immigrants but whether the rest of the population would see the parallel is another matter.)

Westerbork Rail Memorial and Sentry Tower

The physical location of Westerbork (one of 26 such camps at one time) indicates the segregation that the Dutch sought to impose on the German immigrants – it’s in an isolated area now and would have been even more so in the 1940s.

All this background made it easy for the Fascist invaders to carry out their plans against ‘undesirables’ once the camps were taken from Dutch control in July 1942. For almost three years there had been a strange atmosphere in Westerbork. Religious ceremonies took place there, including weddings, and there were cultural and sporting activities and there was even a system of Jews policing themselves. As it subsequently became a stopping place to the death camps it’s a bit disconcerting to see photos of smiling inmates in the Westerbork museum.

The small museum contains an interesting collection of photographs, signs that would have been used in the administration of the camp which provided a sense of normality as well as a reconstruction of part of the living accommodation.

Westerbork Camp Museum

In the first months of SS control those being deported had to walk to the nearest railway station, about 3 kms away, but by the end of 1942 a spur had been built so that the cattle trucks could be driven directly into the camp – the end of this line is now one of the memorials in the camp area. Tuesday was the set day for deportation and the anticipation became a source of fear. Eventually more than 102,000 Jews and 250 Sinti were deported, the majority to Auschwitz and Sobibor in Poland, never to return. On what used to be the parade ground are 102,000 upended bricks to commemorate these individuals.

Westerbork Camp Memorial – 102,000 Bricks

An issue which throws up a number of questions is that it was the Jewish ‘governing’ body that administered the deportation process and selected those who were to be deported. Many of the photos that have survived show the active participation of the Jewish police in this process, even carrying an old woman on a stretcher to the cattle trucks. The argument that they did this to avoid deportation themselves is no excuse. It stands as a fallacy side by side the argument of those German soldiers who were at the other end of the railway line, at the extermination camps, that they were ‘just obeying orders’.

A total of 93 transports left the camp, the last on September 13, 1944. This last train carried 279 prisoners including Anne Frank and her family. On 12 April 1945 the camp was liberated by the Canadians and at that time there were still 876 prisoners in the camp. Previous to liberation the SS and Dutch collaborators had fled to the north.

Westerbork Extermination Camp Memorial

Practicalities

Herinneringscentrum Kamp Westerbork

Oosthalen 8

9414 TG Hooghalen
T (0031)593 – 592600
F (0031)593 – 592546
E info@kampwesterbork.nl

Official website of the Westerbork Monument and Museum.

GPS of entrance: N 52 ° 55 – E 006 ° 34

Opening Times:

Monday to Friday 10.00 – 17.00
Saturdays and Sunday 13.00 – 17.00
Weekends April to September 11.00 – 17.00
Closed on December 25 and 31, January 1 and January 3 to January 27

Adult entrance to museum: €6.50

Public Transport:

By train it’s not easy and would entail at least one (possibly two) changes to get to Beilen from Amsterdam. From Beilen the bus to Assen (number 23 – one an hour) would take you to Hooghalen Centrum, from where it’s a couple of kilometres to the entrance of the complex and the museum. The Memorial site is another couple of miles from the car park by the museum, but there’s a mini bus service to take you there every 20 minutes – whilst the museum is open – single € 1.5, return € 2.00.