Primarily subject matter is political, with my posts discussing my personal views on the issues of our time. Please feel free to disagree with me, and so utlise the option to 'comment', in order to add to the debate!
Welcome to the WesternJustice blog!
A young British student, this blog is simply my forum for presenting my latest thoughts and ponderings on major world issues of our time. Please comment on any articles that you have a viewpoint on and add to the WesternJustice debate!
Ok I'll keep it relatively brief, after all I am by my own admission, no film buff...
Yesterday I had the privellage of attending a film at the local cinema, and my film of choice? The Iron Lady. Much hyped up on both sides of the Atlantic I'm sure, the film was graced with the presence of the multi award winning Meryl Streep. Indeed, although relatively less famous, the film was also fortunate enough to have another proven actor in the form of Jim Broadbent (whom I must say did seem to largely suceed in impressively depicting Thatcher's long suffering other half, Dennis).
Now, I must point out that I personally have a deep rooted disfavour for the former Prime Minister upon whom the film was centred, and so it is in some form to the film's credit that it suceeded in altering some of my opinions of her. For example now I feel rather sad that she is a miserable old lady who is clearly insane and haunted by the sins and mistakes of her poltical career...
Well actually I'm lying, just like this film is. Through the films' patronising depiction of the UK's first female Prime Minister, I instead feel pity for her, genuinely, in that before she has even passed away Hollywood is ready to swoop and trivialise both her past and present. An incohernet storytelling of her life through a number of frankly unrealistic flashbacks or psychotic episodes, is simply not adequate to tell the tale of any world leader past or presnt, especially if they have been so controversial.
So, in summary I found the whole method of storytelling (ie through flashbacks) rather naff. Secondly, despite Meryl Streep's most admirable efforts, perhaps through prejudice, I remain whole heartedly against the idea of an American playing the role of a figure so quintessentially British (imagine a Brit playing Kennedy?!). Thirdly I found the underlying issue of the timing of the films' production (whilst she is still alive) as wholly inappropriate, whilst it's often patronisning and most probably false portrayal of Margaret Thatcher is simply poor.
You simply cannot biopic the life of someone such as Thatcher and make it into a Hollywood blockbuster. In three words:
Sentimental, Inaccurate, Americanised.
A fine performance by Meryl Streep, but a flawed film nonetheless.
Following a lenghtly lull in Western Justice activity (sorry!), I publish the first of two parts of an article that I have been writing, which reviews the Arab Spring. Please comment with feedback or your own opinion! Part two to be published next week...
Revolution by its’ very definition, alters the power system drastically within a short amount of time, removing the old leaders with a new, and often thoroughly chaotic, sphere of politicians and the like. Leaders who were seen as tyrannical are replaced, inevitably, with the tyrants of tomorrow.Great fanfare erupts from the smouldering shells of the fallen, destroyed empire and premiership of the past. Glorious chants and flag waving are borne out of death, destruction and despair.
Naïvely, the population dares to hope for a brighter future, blind to the rapid and brutal clambering of the fallen leading classes or even perhaps the clambering of the paupers of yesteryear, who jostle and wrestle to enter the sphere of influence they so cherish, and who, privately was at the core of their motivation for rebelling in the first place. Egypt is a case in point. Amidst national dissent in the wake of the masses realisation that they had been mistreated for so many years under Mubarak’s regime, and could in fact now barter for a better deal, pandemonium succeeded to force regime change. The ‘drug’ of change was truly infectious, a truly inoperable cancer for the military tacticians and other tyrants to try to tackle. They truly did not stand a chance!
Fresh from the comparatively less publicised and less critical events (form the Wests’ perspective), in Tunisia, the Egyptian people felt empowered. Revolution, as well publicised, is infamous for being wholly impossible to halt, or even to some sort of meaningful degree, contain. Like wildfire, the adrenalin induced by the initiative of violently and physically bringing about ‘a new dawn’, a ‘better deal’, and various other promises of freedoms, led the peoples of successive Arab states to rebel, to take to the streets to fight the regime.
The once oppressive powers were truly at the mercy of the protesters. They now had three options:
1)They could carry on their oppression of their own civilians, fighting the protesters militarily, head on.
2)They could make compromises with the growing masses threatening their premiership and influence, which they had carefully constructed across years of selfish, ultralist tyranny.
3)They could seek refuge abroad, stripping the country of its assets, getting away while the going was, relatively speaking, good.