January 9, 2021 - 12:15pm
The un-personing of Donald Trump by Twitter presents a strange paradox: the most powerful man in the world is simultaneously a nobody; Trump can still (we presume) destroy the entire world many times over, but he cannot speak to the nation he still leads on his chosen platform, a development he likely finds more personally catastrophic than losing the actual election.
There’s no point American conservatives whining about free speech or unfairness or hypocrisy: American politics has moved beyond such abstractions, whatever anyone involved claims to think. It’s as pointless as complaining about the dissonance between the policing and reporting of one side’s riots versus the other: each side wants their riots supported by the state, and the other side’s quashed; their own rioters handled with kid gloves, and the other side’s shot: there’s nothing deeper to it. There are now two popular factions, who hate each other and wish for the other’s total destruction: Trump and Biden are just the avatars in wrinkled flesh of the two opposing popular wills.
This Schmittian political landscape has urgent lessons for us in Europe: we need to disentangle ourselves from America’s political chaos as urgently as we do from China’s industrial and economic stranglehold. The result of the free-market ideology trading under the name ‘conservatism’ is that we have handed control of information to California’s tech oligarchs just as we have handed control of industry to the Chinese Communist Party. As America’s disorder deepens, and as the listing global hegemon enters into a deepened confrontation with its rising challenger, this dangerous and unsustainable situation will have profound and negative effects for every one of us in Europe — unless we act fast.
To this end, an important point was made by the EU’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell Fontelles this week. The debate about European strategic autonomy has hitherto focussed on the EU’s adoption of independent military capacity from the US, but its true ramifications are far deeper. First urging the return of strategic and medical industrial capacity to Europe from China, Borrell goes on to urge the avoidance of “excessive dependence on external suppliers” in the “strategic sectors” of “digital networks and cloud computing,” a clear reference to Europe’s dependence on the political whims of Silicon Valley oligarchs. As he states, “the aim is not to embrace autarky or protectionism, but to safeguard our political independence so that we remain masters of our own choices and future.”
Is this the beginning of a European, civilisational internet? After all, Russia and China are already proceeding at full steam with creating their own national internets — though I would argue they are better understood as the internets of civilisation states rather than nations, and may eventually extend beyond their current national borders. Just as a process of deglobalisation is already underway for industry, so will a deglobalisation of the internet likely be a result of an increasingly multipolar world, and the contested space for information flowing from it. British politicians need to start thinking about these questions ahead of time, for once, instead of being swept along by events outside their control once again.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeA lot of good points in this. Especially the tendency for modern films to be dumbed down, to emphasise form and style over substance, and to try to place historical, real geniuses into modern tropes.
Interesting article, however, Sunset Boulevard is not a film just about female victimisation. Yes, Norma Desmond is a pathetic character, but she is not the only one. Joe Gillis,the writer, drawn to her and the glamour she stands for, ends up disillusioned and dead. He is equally important. Max, the subordinated, dismissed husband is a similar, supporting character. Feminists like to see the world or market, as a wonderful place, from which women are deprived because of patriarchal greed. The remedy for this is sexual equality with the same roles open to both men and women. But what is going on in Sunset Boulevard is of an older, different order. It derives very much from the story of Adam and Eve: Norma has taken the apple of Hollywood glory, and Joe becomes complicit in following her, though slightly reluctant, as was Adam. Feminists hate the Eve story, of course, even though it might be said that Eve was the first feminist, seeking to better her natural abilities. The result of this is not positive, as expected, but the loss of Paradise, for both Adam and herself. At the end of the film, Hollywood isn’t paradise either, but a sordid place where, despite hard work and sacrifice, as in life, no one gets out alive. The other films mentioned are more contrived to fit the feminine victim idea, and full of dreadful consequences, but Sunset Boulevard sees life holistically, not through a lens of single prejudice.
The author loves creating victims. These stars enjoyed money, luxury, and many privileges. Nobody victimized them. Most women would kill to be in their place and have their game. Callas was a demanding diva, and you got it wrong. Onassis dumped her to get married. Bias of a fanatic woke feminist patriarchy hater. Boring!
Feminist writers only seem to be capable of viewing anything through a lense of fanatical female victimhood.
Biopics of famous men are usually equally critical, the recent Elvis film being a good example. What lunacy is it that drives feminists to see any depiction of women as uniquely sexist.
This is not the movie I saw. The movie I saw was highly empathetic to Callas’ genius and her efforts to reclaim her art at great personal cost. In its flashbacks Callas is shown as commanding in her relationships with the most powerful men on the planet. The music throughout is resplendent. This review says more about the author’s personal grievances than Angelina Jolie’s brilliant performance.
“commanding in her relationships with the most powerful men on the planet”
It’s seems like a common feature of post feminist “modern” women, that they see life as a d**k measuring contest with “powerful men”, while being contemptuous and ignorant of the struggles of ordinary men.
That is so true – not to mention the psychosis in so much current entertainment of women physically beating the crap out of men twice their size. I mention how Jolie/Callas dominates the men in the movie only to refute the author’s portrayal of her as victimized.
Absolutely Right. Why do women (like the author) hate other prettier, more talented and more successful women so much.
Oh dear. I have seen the film and mostly enjoyed it. Probably because you spend a lot time listening to Callas sing and gazing at Jolie’s face, both of which are mesmerisingly beautiful. It is not a biopic, if you don’t know much about her life you will still need to Google it afterwards. The film is an entertainment and a pleasant way to spend a very cold afternoon.
I appreciate this. I also wonder what it is in us female viewers of these films that keeps us coming back for this story? Because surely we as consumers play a role in shaping and maintaining this narrative? Is it a kind of existential masochism? Is it our envy of accomplished women that leads us to enjoy their “debunking” to justify ourselves in our own torpid avoidance of risk and lack of courage to stick out?
Interesting points!
What a wonderful piece of writing! Brava!
Given the director’s back catalogue, this is as much a Pablo Larrain movie as a Callas ‘biopic’. He has a distinct style, trying to find the soul of iconic women. On the other hand, El Conde, his film about Pinochet, was superb black comedy.
Can’t quite decide whether I should go and see “Maria”. Still recalling the shock on hearing the Angelina Jolie would be playing Maria Callas. I’d be quite interested to have heard Callas’ views on Jolie.
Getting the sense that there’s just too much fake history to make it worth watching. That it will try to take something complex and replace it with a simplistic narrative. There’s more than enough original source material about Maria Callas out there for anyone genuinely interested – an excellent new BBC program called “Maria Callas: The Final Act” and “The Callas Conversations” with Lord Harewood. Go for the original – not the dumbed down Hollywood version.
Some films maybe a labour of love but they are soon corrupted by the men in suits to get bums on seats. But in a world of streaming and multiple platforms, audiences are dwindling and storytelling is dying. The industry is facing its own Sunset Boulevard.
Isn’t this the real motive behind these extended put downs? Female envy. Who goes to see them, men or women?
btw – let’s be real about the actual talent and intelligence possessed by Monroe.
Hollywood abuses its female actors but it also relies on their narcissism. Firstly to accept the Weinstein Faustian pact and then to accept roles abusing former stars. Jolie could have retired quietly with her millions. She chose however to play an icon whose talent dwarfed her own.
Maria Callas’ instinct for publicity and poise exceeded her good but not perfect bel canto voice. By the time she coupled with Onasis her voice was on the way out. Now we have all the science – voice – coaches etc i think voices last longer. So her timing was good. IMO the best person to play Callas would probably be Diamanda Galás – i think she is committed to both her art and her humanism and has amazing pipes. Maybe something in the east Mediterranean gene pool? I very much doubt La Jolie is committed to anything beyond her own image and bank balance. I realise this is anti hollyweird and anti nepotism bias showing through so if Jolie is a decent sort i apologise – but would be happy to bet my initial view is right.