1089 stories
·
0 followers

The New Dark Age

1 Share

 

Such a Bright Future - by Mr. Fish

Subscribe now

CAIRO, Egypt — It is 200 miles from where I am in Cairo to the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Parked in the arid sands in the northern Sinai of Egypt are 2,000 trucks filled with sacks of flour, water tanks, canned food, medical supplies, tarps and fuel. The trucks idle under the scorching sun with temperatures climbing into the high 90s. 

A few miles away in Gaza, dozens of men, women and children, living in crude tents or damaged buildings amid the rubble, are being butchered daily from bullets, bombs, missile strikes, tank shells, infectious diseases and that most ancient weapon of siege warfare — starvation. One in five people are facing starvation after nearly three months of Israel’s blockade of food and humanitarian aid.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has launched a new offensive that is killing upwards of 100 people a day, has declared that nothing will impede this final assault, named Operation Gideon’s Chariots. 

There will be “no way,” Israel will stop the war, he announced, even if the remaining Israeli hostages are returned. Israel is “destroying more and more houses” in Gaza. The Palestinians “have nowhere to return.”

“[The] only inevitable outcome will be the wish of Gazans to emigrate outside of the Gaza Strip,” he told lawmakers at a leaked closed-door meeting. “But our main problem is finding countries to take them in.”

The nine-mile border between Egypt and Gaza has become the dividing line between the Global South and the Global North, the demarcation between a world of savage industrial violence and the desperate struggle by those cast aside by the wealthiest nations. It marks the end of a world where humanitarian law, conventions that protect civilians or the most basic and fundamental rights matter. It ushers in a Hobbesian nightmare where the strong crucify the weak, where no atrocity, including genocide, is precluded, where the white race in the Global North reverts to the unrestrained, atavistic savagery and domination that defines colonialism and our centuries long history of pillage and exploitation. We are tumbling backwards in time to our origins, origins that never left us, but origins that were masked by empty promises of democracy, justice and human rights.   

The Nazis are the convenient scapegoats for our shared European and American heritage of mass slaughter, as if the genocides we carried out in the Americas, Africa and India did not take place, unimportant footnotes in our collective history.

In fact, genocide is the currency of Western domination.  

Between 1490 and 1890, European colonization, including acts of genocide, was responsible for killing as many as 100 million indigenous people, according to the historian David E. Stannard. Since 1950 there have been nearly two dozen genocides, including those in Bangladesh, Cambodia and Rwanda.  

The genocide in Gaza is part of a pattern. It is the harbinger of genocides to come, especially as the climate breaks down and hundreds of millions are forced to flee to escape droughts, wildfires, flooding, declining crop yields, failed states and mass death. It is a blood-soaked message from us to the rest of the world: We have everything and if you try and take it away from us, we will kill you. 

Subscribe now

Gaza puts to rest the lie of human progress, the myth that we are evolving morally. Only the tools change. Where once we clubbed victims to death, or chopped them to pieces with broadswords, today we drop 2,000-pound bombs on refugee camps, spray families with bullets from militarized drones or pulverize them with tank shells, heavy artillery and missiles. 

The 19th century socialist Louis-Auguste Blanqui, unlike nearly all of his contemporaries, dismissed the belief central to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx, that human history is a linear progression toward equality and greater morality. He warned that this absurd positivism is perpetrated by oppressors to disempower the oppressed. 

“All atrocities of the victor, the long series of his attacks are coldly transformed into constant, inevitable evolution, like that of nature… But the sequence of human things is not inevitable like that of the universe. It can be changed at any moment.” Blanqui warned.

Scientific and technological advancement, rather than an example of progress, could “become a terrible weapon in the hands of Capital against Work and Thought.” 

“For humanity” Blanqui wrote, “is never stationary. It either advances or goes back. Its progressive march leads it to equality. Its regressive march goes back through every stage of privilege to human slavery, the final word of the right to property.” Further, he wrote, “I am not amongst those who claim that progress can be taken for granted, that humanity cannot go backwards.” 

Human history is defined by long periods of cultural barrenness and brutal repression. The fall of the Roman Empire led to immiseration and repression throughout Europe during the Dark Ages, roughly from the sixth through the 13th century. There was a loss of technical knowledge, including how to build and maintain aqueducts. Cultural and intellectual impoverishment led to collective amnesia. The ideas of ancient scholars and artists were blotted out. There was no rebirth until the 14th century and the Renaissance, a development made possible largely by the cultural flourishing of Islam, which, through translating Aristotle into Arabic and other intellectual accomplishments, kept the wisdom of the past from disappearing. 

Blanqui knew history’s tragic reverses. He took part in a series of French revolts, including an attempted armed insurrection in May 1839, the 1848 uprising and the Paris Commune — a socialist uprising that controlled France’s capital from March 18 until May 28 in 1871. Workers in cities such as Marseilles and Lyon attempted, but failed, to organize similar communes before the Paris Commune was militarily crushed.

We are entering a new dark age. This dark age uses the modern tools of mass surveillance, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, drones, militarized police, the revoking of due process and civil liberties to inflict the arbitrary rule, incessant wars, insecurity, anarchy and terror that were the common denominators of the Dark Ages. 

To trust in the fairy tale of human progress to save us is to become passive before despotic power. Only resistance, defined by mass mobilization, by disrupting the exercise of power, especially against genocide, can save us. 

Campaigns of mass killing unleash the feral qualities that lie latent in all humans. The ordered society, with its laws, etiquette, police, prisons and regulations, all forms of coercion, keeps these latent qualities in check. Remove these impediments and humans become, as we see with the Israelis in Gaza, murderous, predatory animals, reveling in the intoxication of destruction, including of women and children. I wish this was conjecture. It is not. It is what I witnessed in every war I covered. Almost no one is immune.

The Belgian monarch King Leopold in the late 19th century occupied the Congo in the name of Western civilization and anti-slavery, but plundered the country, resulting in the death — by disease, starvation and murder — of some 10 million Congolese.

Joseph Conrad captured this dichotomy between who we are and who we say we are in his novel “Heart of Darkness” and his short story “An Outpost of Progress.”

In “An Outpost of Progress,” he tells the story of two European traders, Carlier and Kayerts, who are sent to the Congo. These traders claim to be in Africa to implant European civilization. The boredom, the stifling routine, and most importantly the lack of all outside constraints, turns the two men into beasts. They trade slaves for ivory. They fight over dwindling food and supplies. Kayerts finally murders his unarmed companion Carlier.

“They were two perfectly insignificant and incapable individuals,” Conrad wrote of Kayerts and Carlier, “whose existence is only rendered possible through the high organization of civilized crowds. Few men realise that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings. The courage, the composure, the confidence; the emotions and principles; every great and every insignificant thought belongs not to the individual but to the crowd: to the crowd that believes blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in the power of its police and of its opinion. But the contact with pure unmitigated savagery, with primitive nature and primitive man, brings sudden and profound trouble into the heart. To the sentiment of being alone of one’s kind, to the clear perception of the loneliness of one’s thoughts, of one’s sensations — to the negation of the habitual, which is safe, there is added the affirmation of the unusual, which is dangerous; a suggestion of things vague, uncontrollable, and repulsive, whose discomposing intrusion excites the imagination and tries the civilized nerves of the foolish and the wise alike.”

The genocide in Gaza has imploded the subterfuges we use to fool ourselves and attempt to fool others. It mocks every virtue we claim to uphold, including the right of freedom of expression. It is a testament to our hypocrisy, cruelty and racism. We cannot, having provided billions of dollars in weapons and persecuted those who decry the genocide, make moral claims anymore that will be taken seriously. Our language, from now on, will be the language of violence, the language of genocide, the monstrous howling of the new dark age, one where absolute power, unchecked greed and unmitigated savagery stalks the earth.

Share

The Chris Hedges Report is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

 

Read the whole story
mikemariano
16 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Hamas Says Witkoff Personally Promised to Lift Gaza Blockade in Exchange for Edan Alexander

1 Share
US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff arrives at the Royal Palace in Doha on May 14, 2025. Photo by KARIM JAAFAR/AFP via Getty Images.

A senior Hamas official told Drop Site that the group received a direct commitment from Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, that two days after the release of U.S. citizen and Israeli soldier Edan Alexander, the Trump administration would compel Israel to lift the Gaza blockade and allow humanitarian aid to enter the territory. Witkoff, according to the official, also promised that Trump would make a public call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for negotiations aimed at achieving a “permanent ceasefire.”

“It was a deal,” said Basem Naim, a member of Hamas’s political bureau who has previously engaged in direct talks with U.S. officials. He said the pledge was made by “Witkoff, himself.” In an interview with Drop Site, Naim said the agreement was: “If we release [Alexander], Trump will speak out thanking Hamas for its gesture, obliging Israel on the second day to open the borders and allow aid to come into Gaza, and [Trump would] call for an immediate ceasefire and to go for negotiations to end the war.”

“He did nothing of this,” Naim added. “They didn't violate the deal. They threw it in the trash.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Don’t miss Drop Site stories. Become a free or paid subscriber.

The release of Alexander, who was taken by Palestinian fighters on October 7, 2023 from the Israeli military base where he was stationed, was a significant event: He was the first male soldier freed by Hamas since the war began 19 months ago. Hamas said it freed him as a “gesture of goodwill” toward Trump and because it believed it had received a commitment Alexander’s release would result in the immediate delivery of food, medicine, and fuel into Gaza.

On Friday, as Trump wrapped up his tour of Gulf nations, he briefly addressed the Gaza war and the dire humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s full spectrum blockade of Gaza. For 76 days, Israel has banned all food, medicine, water, and fuel from entering Gaza. The siege has plunged the population into a state of forced starvation. Nearly the entire population of Gaza is facing severe levels of food insecurity and thousands of children are already suffering from acute malnutrition. These numbers are expected to rise dramatically in the coming months if the blockade is not lifted. “We’re looking at Gaza, and we got to get that taken care of,” Trump said at a public event in the United Arab Emirates. “A lot of people are starving. A lot of people. There’s a lot of bad things going on.”

Naim acknowledged Trump’s remarks about starvation in Gaza, but pointed out that, the day prior, Trump had once again raised the prospect of the U.S. seizing Gaza and saying he would be “proud” to “take” the Palestinian territory and “make it just a freedom zone.” In February, standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, Trump announced that he wanted to transform Gaza into a U.S.-owned “Middle East Riviera.”

“You are not dealing with steady, stable politics,” said Naim. Trump “can say what he wants. We are looking for actions. We are not looking for words or for statements. The humanitarian disaster has to end immediately, and this is an obligation, this is not a negotiation issue. And the war has to end.”

“If someone expects to achieve any other goals without de-escalating the situation in Palestine, in particular in Gaza,” Naim added, “I think he is—I cannot say he is hallucinating, but he is at least a big dreamer.”

Trump’s “Humanitarian” Plan

Both the U.S. and Israel have been pushing plans, which would not be linked to any ceasefire, to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip. The White House has said it would empower a newly created “non-governmental” organization to formally run the program alongside U.S. security contractors. This proposal for aid distribution involves a system of political vetting and calorie restrictions, and it would require Palestinians to travel long distances and pass extensive security checks to receive meager rations of food. Pre-approved representatives of families in Gaza would be permitted to pick up food supplies once every other week under the plan. While Israeli forces would not distribute the aid, the army would be involved with security.

“There’s a plan out there that’s been offered—that’s been criticized by some—but it allows people to get aid without Hamas stealing it. And we’ll continue to work toward that in ways that we think are constructive and productive,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday. “We’re open to an alternative if someone has a better one.”

The UN and dozens of international aid groups working in Gaza have denounced the proposal, saying it would weaponize access to food and other life-sustaining supplies. They have called for an immediate ceasefire followed by unrestricted aid flow into Gaza.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a new Trump-backed group registered in Switzerland, said this week it had reached an agreement with Israel to begin operating in Gaza by the end of May. Israel has indicated that the aid distribution would be run from southern Gaza near the border with Egypt. UN officials have warned the plan could be part of Israel’s stated aim of driving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from northern and central Gaza to the south.

On May 4, the Israeli cabinet approved a plan code named “Operation Gideon’s Chariot” that it threatened to implement if Hamas did not capitulate to Israel’s demands by the time Trump finished his tour of the Gulf. Its explicit aim would be the “conquest of the Gaza Strip”: an open-ended occupation enforced by “wide-scale” attacks and the destruction of Gaza’s remaining infrastructure. Palestinians would be herded into the wasteland of what was once Rafah.

In the days leading up to Trump’s trip to the Gulf, Netanyahu authorized a dramatic escalation of Israel’s terror bombing of Gaza and began amassing troops along stretches of Gaza.

On Friday, more than 90 Palestinians were killed and over 200 wounded in Israeli attacks, according to Gaza’s health ministry. Nearly 3,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel resumed its relentless assault on March 18, with at least 250 killed in just the past two days. The Ministry’s Director General, Munir al-Barsh, described the attacks on the Strip as “the most heinous massacres of ethnic cleansing.”

The Israeli military has issued mass displacement orders for Beit Lahia, Jabalia, and other northern areas, causing panicked families to flee their homes with no safe haven to go to. “Whether you’re in shelters, tents or buildings… evacuate to the south immediately,” read leaflets dropped by the Israeli military over the areas. Footage obtained by Al Jazeera documented Israeli forces targeting and killing civilians attempting to flee with artillery fire. The forced evacuation orders came hours after 66 Palestinians were killed overnight in the north, according to staff at the Indonesian Hospital—where images uploaded by witnesses showed corpses lying on emergency room floors.

In northern Gaza, paramedic Mohammad Abu Louay reported over 15 airstrikes hitting densely populated residential zones, including Tal al-Zaatar and Jabalia camp. Entire families remain trapped or missing under the rubble. Mahmoud Basal, spokesperson for Gaza’s Civil Defense, described the assault as “a night of the horrors of the Day of Judgment.” He described Israeli forces intensifying indiscriminate bombings, striking inhabited homes without warning and targeting ambulance crews attempting to reach survivors.

Mass displacement from Beit Lahia following intensified Israeli military attacks in Gaza on May 16, 2025. Photo by Khames Alrefi/Anadolu via Getty Images.

Hamas Says “Zero” Progress on Ceasefire

While Witkoff, according to Hamas, had promised the U.S. would facilitate the lifting of Israel’s blockade on Gaza two days after Alexander’s release, the U.S. appeared to completely abandon the agreement. On May 13, the day after Hamas freed Alexander, Israel launched a massive series of air strikes on the European Hospital in Khan Younis, killing 28 Palestinians and wounding dozens of others. Israel claimed the target of the strike was Mohammed Sinwar, the brother of the late political leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar. Mohammed Sinwar assumed command of Al Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s armed wing, after Israel assassinated its previous commanders Mohammed Deif and Marwan Issa.

Israeli officials have suggested that targeting Sinwar would soften Hamas’s stance in negotiations, claiming the Qassam commander was enforcing a hard line. Hamas has not confirmed Sinwar’s death, and Naim dismissed the idea that killing him would have any impact. “I think this is part of the Israeli strategy, but it has proven that this strategy is failing for 17 months. They have killed Yahya Sinwar, they have killed Deif, they have killed Marwan Issa. They have killed a lot of leaders and no one has witnessed a clear breakdown, not only in the negotiation, but also in the whole battle, the whole fighters, tactics and strategies,” Naim said. “The decision of the negotiations is not a one man show decision. This is decided by a lot of people inside Gaza and outside Gaza.”

Witkoff and Adam Boehler, the White House special envoy on hostages, held several meetings in Doha this week with Israeli negotiators, as well as with regional mediators from Qatar and Egypt. While both U.S. officials publicly expressed optimism this week that a deal could be on the horizon, Naim said there has been no progress. “Zero,” he said. “Big zero.”

“They returned back to talking about the Israeli proposal or the Israeli-Witkoff proposal, as if nothing happened during the last one or two weeks, including the release of Alexander, who was released within the context of direct talks with the Americans,” Naim said. “They are insisting on gradual or partial deals. They are talking about partial deals to release some of the prisoners for a temporary ceasefire, and then to go for open negotiations without any commitment to end the war.”

Israeli news outlets reported Friday that no breakthroughs had occurred in Doha this week. YNet reported that after two days of meetings, Witkoff “has given up and is letting Israel make the decisions.” The Times of Israel reported that in the face of Netanyhau’s refusal to make any concessions, “Witkoff has told other mediators that Washington doesn’t plan to force Israel to end the war in Gaza.”

In the talks this week, Naim said that mediators have not presented any substantial changes to the so-called “Witkoff draft” circulated by Egyptian mediators in April and obtained by Drop Site. The short-term Witkoff proposal scrapped crucial elements of the framework from the original 3-phase deal signed by Hamas and Israel in January, which would have brought a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the declaration of a “permanent ceasefire.” The Witkoff draft included significant changes that Hamas has said it would not accept, including the total demilitarization of the Gaza Strip.

Under the original deal, Israel was to begin a full withdrawal of its forces at the end of phase one. Under the Witkoff plan, however, Israel would only reposition its forces to where they stood on March 2, leaving them entrenched in various positions in Gaza with no clearly defined timeline for a total withdrawal.

The regional mediators have told Hamas that Israel remains entrenched in its position that it will only engage in short-term agreements that free Israeli captives from Gaza without making any clear commitments to withdraw its forces or to end the war. Hamas has maintained it will not release any more captives unless a deal framework includes a clearly defined path to Israeli withdrawal and a permanent ceasefire consistent with the terms of the original agreement signed in January. “Handing over the [Israeli] prisoners will happen only after we have seen the total withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and a clear declaration of end of the war,” Naim said.

Naim, who was one of two senior Hamas officials that met directly with Boehler in February and has been a central figure in the ongoing direct and indirect communications with U.S. officials, said the Trump administration has often sent contradictory messages. “Sometimes we hear a positive reply or something indicating forward progress in their vision, but suddenly they go back to the same Israeli narrative, to the Israeli conditions,” Naim said. He described the process of trying to discern the Trump’s administration’s positions as less about assessing diplomatic strategy and more like monitoring a financial portfolio. “Like the stock markets, you have to keep watching minute for minute to be sure that you are going to win something at the end. As you know, the stock market in the morning is in one mood, and in the middle of the day in another mood, and the end of the day in a third mood. I think this is one of the biggest challenges.”

The mediators, Naim said, suggested that if no long-term deal was reached by the end of the short-term truce, it could be extended for another period during which more captives would be released.

“This means that you can be 100% sure: we will not succeed to reach a final agreement. At the end of the 45 days [Israel] will say, ‘We have failed,’ as Netanyahu has already done in the original deal, and say after 45 days, ‘In order to extend the negotiations, we want to get more prisoners, otherwise we go back to war and starvation,’” Naim asserted. “We will be in the same position as today, which means that in one session or at maximum two sessions, you have handed over all the prisoners.” He added: “I don't think that any rational or wise negotiator would accept such a deal.”

Netanyahu has made no secret of the fact that he intends to do precisely what Hamas suspects. “Maybe Hamas will say, ‘Wait, we want to release 10 more [captives].’ Fine, bring them. We’ll take them. And then we’ll go in. But there will be no situation where we stop the war,” Netanyahu said at a gathering of wounded Israeli soldiers on Monday.

Naim said he is not optimistic a deal will be reached unless Trump forces Israel’s hand “If [Netanyahu] still enjoys impunity from the Americans and the Western countries, and the feeling in the international community is that he can” violate agreements, Naim said, then negotiations are pointless. “As long as Israel has a free hand and behaves as a spoiled boy, as a rogue state, they can do it again and again.”

Drop Site News Middle East Research Fellow Jawa Ahmad contributed to this report.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Read the whole story
mikemariano
1 day ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Nayib Bukele’s El Salvador Dictatorship: Made in Israel

1 Share
Feature photo | Illustration by MintPress News

By Alan MacLeod / MintPress News

Nayib Bukele may be Palestinian, but the dictatorship he has built in El Salvador is very much made in Israel. From arming his security forces to supplying him with weapons and high-tech surveillance tools, MintPress explores the Israeli influence helping to prop up the man who calls himself “the world’s coolest dictator.”

Arming a Dictatorship

Since Bukele’s ascension to the presidency in 2019, Israeli exports to El Salvador have been rapidly advancing, growing at an annual rate of more than 21%. This increase consists primarily of weapons. Salvadoran forces are well supplied with Israeli hardware. The military and police use the Israeli-made Galil and ARAD 5 rifles, the Uzi submachine gun, numerous Israeli pistols, and ride in AIL Storm and Plasan Yagu armored vehicles.

Some equipment Salvadoran forces use comes free, courtesy of Israeli sources. In 2019, an Israeli NGO, the Jerusalem Foundation (a group that builds illegal settlements on Palestinian land), announced that it would donate $3 million worth of supplies to the Salvadoran police and military.

For others, however, the Bukele administration is paying top dollar, meaning that this relationship is extremely profitable for the high-tech Israeli defense sector.

In 2020, the Salvadoran police paid around $3.4 million for one year’s use of three Israeli spyware products. These tools include GEOLOC, a program that intercepts calls and texts from targeted phones, and Web Tangles, which uses individuals’ social media accounts to build up files on people, including using their photos for facial recognition. A third, Wave Guard Tracer (marketed in some regions as Guardian), tracks users’ movements through the GPS on their phone.

Perhaps the most notorious piece of spyware used, however, is Pegasus, developed by the NSO Group, an outgrowth of the Israeli Defense Forces’ Unit 8200. The app hit the headlines in 2022, when it was revealed that repressive governments the world over had used it to surveil thousands of public figures, including kings, presidents, politicians, activists, and reporters. El Salvador was one of the most heavily penetrated nations.  A report from Citizen Lab found that the Bukele administration was using it to secretly monitor dozens of public figures critical of the president, including 22 journalists from the independent outlet El Faro.

Incarceration Nation

Bukele has used these Israeli tools and weapons to crack down on dissent and opposition to his rule. Since 2022, when he declared a State of Exception, suspending rights and civil liberties, he has imprisoned at least 85,000 people, a staggering figure for such a small country. Today, around 2% of the adult population — along with over 3,000 children — languish behind bars in dangerously overcrowded jails.

The most well-known of these is the Terrorism Confinement Center (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT), which is by far and away the largest prison in world history. Built to incarcerate over 40,000 people, it is to this center that the Trump administration has been sending migrants rounded up by ICE. In a meeting with Bukele in the Oval Office, President Trump stated that U.S. nationals would be sent there next.

El Salvador holds vastly more people in prisons per capita than any other country, and conditions are among the worst in the world. Food is sparse, lights are kept on 24 hours a day, and cells are frequently packed with more than 100 occupants. Those incarcerated at CECOT are allowed no contact with the outside world, not even with their families or lawyers.

Often, the first thing a Salvadoran family hears about their disappeared relative is news that he died while incarcerated. Torture is commonplace. Osiris Luna, the director of El Salvador’s prison system, has even been sanctioned by the U.S. government for his role in “gross human rights abuses.”

Bukele has justified the mass imprisonment of his countrymen as a necessary step to break the power of organized gangs and drug cartels. Yet a significant portion of those held are his political opponents. Among those detained are union leaders, politicians, and human rights defenders.

Facing the threat of imprisonment or other punishment, El Faro has moved its operations to neighboring Costa Rica.

A Palestinian Who Loves Israel

Amid the chaos, Bukele has fired tens of thousands of public service workers and reduced taxes on the business community. He has also reoriented El Salvador’s foreign policy from a progressive, anti-imperialist stance to allying itself with right-wing governments around the world, including Israel.

Despite coming from a prominent Palestinian family that emigrated from Jerusalem in the early 20th century, throughout his political career, he has made a point of vocally supporting Israel, its culture, and its foreign policy. As far back as 2015, when he was Mayor of San Salvador, the Israeli Embassy had identified him as a “partner for cooperation.”

Three years later, in February 2018, he visited Israel on a trip organized by Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tzipi Hotovely, and American Jewish Congress President, Jack Rosen. There, he participated in a security conference attended by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin, and made a public appearance at the Western Wall.

In the wake of the October 7 assault, Bukele voiced his support for Israel and condemnation of Hamas. “As a Salvadoran of Palestinian ancestry, I’m sure the best thing that could happen to the Palestinian people is for Hamas to completely disappear,” he wrote, describing Hamas as “savage beasts” and comparing them to MS-13, one of El Salvador’s most violent gangs.

El Salvador is home to a large Palestinian population; some 100,000 live in the small country. And yet, the Central American nation is far from a stronghold of support for anti-colonial struggles. Palestinians in El Salvador have generally done very well and entered society’s upper echelons. Bukele is actually the third Palestinian to become president.

Historically, the Latin American business community has sided with conservative or reactionary forces, and the Palestinian diaspora has shied away from supporting resistance movements in the Middle East.

“Bukele’s culture is not so much Palestinian as it is neo-fascist. That’s his culture. So he is going to identify with repressive governments around the world,” Roberto Lovato, a Salvadoran-American writer and professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, told MintPress News.

The country is also home to a large and active evangelical Christian community, for whom Israel’s rise is a key issue. Despite being the son of the country’s most notable imam — one who claimed his son is a practicing Muslim — Bukele has positioned himself as a Christian conservative, and his evangelical supporters say he was chosen by God to rid the nation of gang violence. “I believe in God, in Jesus Christ. I believe in His word, I believe in His word revealed in the Holy Bible,” he said.

Dirty Wars and Dirty Politics

The connections between Israel and El Salvador, however, predate Bukele by decades. During the 1970s and 1980s, the country was a hotspot in the Cold War, and U.S.-backed death squads battled the leftist FMLN rebels. The military regime killed around 75,000 civilians in a dirty war that scars the region to this day. The violence was so extreme and so well-publicized that even the United States sought to distance itself from it. Into that void stepped Israel, providing 83% of El Salvador’s military needs from 1975 to 1979, including napalm. In return, El Salvador moved its embassy to Jerusalem, legitimizing Israel’s claim to the city.

Lovato, a former member of the FMLN, told MintPress that the country was turned into a “laboratory for repression.”

During the Civil War, the U.S. government aligned a whole panoply of different practitioners of torture and mass murder. You had trainers from Taiwan, Israel, and other countries going to El Salvador to train the Salvadoran government to do what they had learned how to do.”

Timeline infographic showing Israel’s military and intelligence support to Latin American regimes from the 1970s to the 1990s, including Guatemala, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, and El Salvador.

One of the most notable individuals who received Israeli training was Major Roberto D’Aubuisson, leader of a far-right death squad. D’Aubuisson is known to have ordered the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. Nicknamed “Blowtorch Bob” for his penchant for using the tool on his opponents’ genitals, his death squad is thought to have killed some 30,000 people, many of whom were tortured to death. Thus, it is no stretch to say that El Salvador’s repressive state apparatus has long been sustained by Israeli money, tech, and know-how.

But this is far from an isolated example. Indeed, Israel has supplied weapons and training to repressive governments around the world, honing the skills acquired suppressing the Palestinian population and taking them global.

In Guatemala, Israel sold planes, armored personnel carriers and rifles to the military, and even built them a domestic ammunition factory. General Efraín Ríos Montt thanked Israel for its participation in a coup that brought him to power in 1982, stating that it went so smoothly “because many of our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” Around 300 Israeli advisors worked to train Ríos Montt’s forces into genocidal death squads who systematically killed over 200,000 Mayans. A sign of the deep connections between the two groups is that Ríos Montt’s men began referring to the indigenous Mayans as “Palestinians” during their attacks.

It is a similar story in Colombia, where the country’s most notorious death squads were trained by Israeli operatives, such as General Rafael Eitan. To this day, Colombian police and military make extensive use of Israeli weaponry. So normalized has the Israeli influence become in Colombian society that, in 2011, sitting President Juan Manuel Santos appeared in an advertisement for Israeli mercenary firm Global CST. “They are people with a lot of experience. They have been helping us to work better,” he stated.

Israel also armed and supported the military dictatorships of Chile and Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s, even as the latter explicitly targeted over 1,000 Jews in the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

In Nicaragua, Israel supplied the Somoza dictatorship, helping it carry out a dirty war. In Rwanda, it sold weapons to the Hutu government as it was carrying out a genocide against the Tutsi population. Israeli weapons were used by Serbia during the Yugoslav civil war in the 1990s. And successive administrations in Tel Aviv also helped sustain the Apartheid government of South Africa, sending it weapons and sharing intelligence with it.

Therefore, it should come as little surprise that Bukele’s administration has sought and established such close ties to the Israeli government. These weapons and techniques, honed on the Palestinian population, are going global, helping a government thousands of miles away crack down on civil liberties. While Bukele — a Palestinian — is very much in charge of El Salvador, it is clear that his dictatorship has a distinct Israeli flavor.

Please share this story and help us grow our network!

Alan MacLeod

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.

Read the whole story
mikemariano
2 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

One Thing I Like About Asteroid City

1 Share

Several years ago, I went with my family on a rare trip for us all to see a movie together. I don’t remember what we went to see, probably whatever was the blockbuster out in December 2004 that seemed like it would appeal to everyone. What I do vividly remember is that when we got to the theater, my family surprised me by telling me that they’d gotten us all tickets for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, simply because I’d said I was looking forward to seeing it.

During the scene where the crew finds the jaguar shark, and Bill Murray delivers the line, “I wonder if it remembers me,” I burst into tears. Afterwards on the drive home, I said that I’d loved it. The rest of my family said some variation on “I’m glad you liked it. I didn’t get it.”

I mention that mostly to illustrate how awesome and generous and kind my family is. But also to say that I now understand exactly how they felt. I watched Asteroid City, and I had the clear impression that it was trying very hard to say something profound, and I just plain didn’t get it.

When I finished it last night, I was content to say that it was very pretty, and I appreciated that it went so hard on its 50s aesthetic, and it did actually make me laugh a few times. (The only one I remember is when the stop-motion alien realizes he’s being photographed, and he poses with the meteor). And I thought it was interesting to switch between the movie and the movie as a play about the development and production of the play that is the movie.

But when I woke up this morning, I was bizarrely, irrationally, irritated by it. What was the point of all that?!

I guess I can appreciate the notion of Wes Anderson attempting to take the twee artifice of his movies as far as it can possibly go. Asteroid City makes the deliberate, tightly-controlled artificiality not just a stylistic choice, but an idea. An insistence that the style of unnatural compositions; stilted delivery of overly-wordy, mannered dialogue; and scene structure that leaves the purpose of each scene enigmatic; is all just presentation, but it’s not the point. That all of it is artificial, down to its core, but the point isn’t to make people believe the artifice, but to understand and feel the universal ideas floating underneath in a way that’s emotional instead of intellectual.

So, for instance, you can be looking at too many recognizable actors crammed into a fake submarine looking at a clearly fake fish and still be suddenly moved to tears. I got the sense that the equivalent scene in Asteroid City was supposed to be the one in which Jason Schwartzman’s character steps out of both the movie and the play-that-is-the-movie, and he listens as Margot Robbie’s character describes her scene that was cut from the production. But if there was something there that was intended to hit me like an emotional ton of bricks, I deftly avoided it, somehow.

I saw a blurb from a review where the reviewer confidently and simply summed it up as being “about grief.” But that’s a topic that seems to run through all of Anderson’s movies; it’s kind of like patting yourself on the back for saying a Martin Scorsese movie is “about Italians.”

Maybe it’s an extension of the idea of mannerisms piled on mannerisms, to the point that we’re completely out of touch with how we feel and why we do things. Like the conversations with Scarlett Johansson’s character, where she reveals that she’s been acting so long that she’s aware of how she’s supposed to feel, and she can perform emotions, but doesn’t actually feel them. Or the repeated scenes where the moments of genuine emotional connection in Asteroid City are described instead of performed. Or for that matter, the whole format of plays within movies within plays. (Which they completely undermine by having Bryan Cranston appear in the color segments, just for what felt like a gag that didn’t land, which annoyed the hell out of me).

Anyway, the whole point of “One Thing I Like” was to keep myself from rambling on trying to interpret everything about a movie, so I’ll just name one thing I like: Tilda Swinton’s performance as Dr Hickenlooper. There wasn’t a bad performance in the movie; everybody was doing exactly what was required by the handbook of How To Act In A Wes Anderson Film. But Swinton somehow seemed to be so thoroughly present. (I thought the same about Cate Blanchett’s performance in The Life Aquatic).

Not really naturalistic — because a naturalistic performance in this kind of movie would feel tone-deaf — but simply like she actually existed in this universe, instead of being an actor playing a character who exists in this universe. I realize I’m not breaking new ground by pointing out that Tilda Swinton is an astonishingly good actor, but this relatively small part made me think that I would believe her in anything.

Oh, I also liked that in the scene where Jason Schwartzman’s character is auditioning for the part in front of the playwright (played by Edward Norton), we get increasingly clear shots of the homoerotic art hanging on the playwright’s walls. The focus is on the performance, while a painting of a bare ass is clearly visible in the background, in spotlight. It’s never addressed or explained. (But I would’ve greatly preferred it if it had been left completely unaddressed, and hadn’t ended with a kiss that makes it feel like a cheap gag).

Read the whole story
mikemariano
4 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

It Doesn't Know The Words

1 Share
There are times when nothing is as important in a film as the person in the frame. Some might disagree. Some might say that a film needs epic scale, giant action scenes or big special effects. But sometimes all that matters can be a scene about two people facing off against each other, every shot of someone’s face giving us another chance to study what is going on inside of them, revealing something unknown about who they are and what they want. The chance to study a face can result in imagery that feels more purely cinematic than anything else imaginable. Some directors, maybe the very best directors, understand this. To use a non-film example, it isn’t a stretch to call THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW, now and forever a blisteringly funny look behind the scenes of a late-night talk show, one of the best TV shows of all time while also being one of the most no frills. The sets are simple, the way scenes are shot is simple as it moves between the film look for the office scenes and video for the show, even the credits are simple. All that matters is the continued desperation of the people in the frame with star Garry Shandling and the other regulars continually doing brilliant, fearless work delving further into the depths of their character’s bitter neuroses even as the plastic smile remains frozen on Larry’s face whenever the camera is on. Running for six seasons on HBO in the ‘90s, the show even looks borderline cheap much of the time, but it was so consistently good that this never mattered and my complete DVD box set will always be close by. SANDERS is mostly remembered now by people who were there back then, fully attuned to the look at the showbiz world it was displaying with the bitterness and insecurity found in the characterizations that remain completely authentic even as the world it’s set in now feels mostly archaic, a memory of a Hollywood that doesn’t quite exist in this way anymore. In comparison, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?, the one Garry Shandling movie vehicle ever made, directed by Mike Nichols and released in March 2000 less than two years after the finale of LARRY SANDERS, is totally forgotten now. The only way it seems to be remembered is through the pages that cover it in the extraordinary biography of Nichols written by Mark Harris which describe in detail what a disaster the production was, how much the director and star clashed and that there was nothing to do about this once filming was underway.
For Mike Nichols, this film came off a run of big movie star vehicles in the ‘90s which included the well-regarded POSTCARDS FROM THE EDGE, the not as well-regarded REGARDING HENRY, the very expensive WOLF, the smash hit THE BIRDCAGE plus the somewhat forgotten film version of PRIMARY COLORS, a run that is of varying quality but the films all have an air of respectability. In this context, everything about WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? feels like it’s intentionally disreputable in comparison, a silly sex comedy focused on the eternal conflict between men and women so you wonder just what attracted him to the material beyond an initial interest in Shandling, although it does mark the second time he directed a film with a question mark in the title in case you ever want to play this on a double bill with WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? Which doesn’t sound like a bad idea, come to think of it. The film also cost much more than THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW ever did and it feels like more of an oddity now than the trainwreck its reputation indicates but it also feels like a very expensive oddity, much more than it needs to be. In truth, the film actually does make me laugh enough that it’s the sort which makes me look around carefully before whispering, “I actually kind of like that movie,” even as I know that it doesn’t quite gel, a film with a sense that it has something to say but never finds a consistent tone that a film, any film, should have. There are laughs and it also contains a degree of intelligence, along with the growing awareness that it's trying to explore a particular aspect of what develops in a relationship between a man and a woman but this is mixed in with humor that seems to go all over the place. The result can’t be called uninteresting but it’s possible the things about it which seem the most intriguing weren’t what the makers hoped anyone would focus on, even if it does possess a certain unique comic tone. In one SANDERS episode, Larry waves at an offscreen Mike Ovitz in a restaurant while saying, “He could get me a movie.” “Do you want a movie?” his companion wonders. “No, but it would be nice to be asked,” he replies. Anyway, this is the movie.
On a distant planet populated solely by genetically created men, one of them is assigned by the planet’s leader Graydon (Ben Kingsley) to travel to earth with the intent to impregnate a woman then bring the baby back to the planet to begin repopulation and eventually take over the universe. In the guise of an earthling named Harold Anderson (Garry Shandling) he arrives in Phoenix to take a job in charge of commercial and home loans at a bank to find a woman although the loud humming noise the penis that was attached to him makes when aroused proves to make this difficult. After being shown around town by co-worker Perry (Greg Kinnear) who is always looking to cheat on his wife Helen Linday Fiorentino), Harold soon meets recovering alcoholic Susan Hart (Annette Bening) who shows an interest but insists that she won’t sleep with anyone until she gets married which Harold quickly agrees to and quickly starts working to get her pregnant as fast as possible. Meanwhile, FAA investigator Roland Jones (John Goodman) is looking into the strange occurrence on the plane when Harold first arrived and begins closing in on him.
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? is basically a dick joke, but one that’s in the guise of being a more introspective, satirical look at how men see themselves in the world and what can get them to finally settle down and try to understand women, who don’t always have the best answers either. But it’s still a dick joke, specifically a running dick joke involving the loud humming noise made by Harold’s penis that has been installed on his alien body and for a conceit that so much of the film is based around the joke never becomes as funny as the movie wants it to be, not at first and not every other time it happens. The very idea of the R-rated comedy aimed at adults is not a new concept for Mike Nichols but this never seems like enough of an idea to base so much it around, as if the concept of the film came out of awareness of the 90s bestseller “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus”, then asking what if the two sexes really were from different planets and how that would affect things, figuring out a way to fit all this around the basic Shandling character in a way that Albert Brooks did with his films. It’s not a bad idea plus the character he created and played on THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW certainly made it seem like he could carry a film but the problem is that that it never feels clear if this is meant to be a goof or a real movie, an actual performance or a stand-up routine, maybe a reminder of what Jerry Seinfeld, knowing what he was good at, never tried doing when his own show ended.
There is a definite intelligence to the humor in the script (story by Garry Shandling & Michael Leeson, screenplay by Shandling & Leeson and Ed Solomon and Peter Tolan) particularly in the specifics of tiny interactions like the way Harold has been instructed to always reply “Uh huh” when a woman is talking so there are comic moments that connect but the tone never seems fully decided on, just that it wants to get some serious ideas across in the silliest way possible. No married couple in the film is happy, practically the first person who Harold meets when he arrives is a woman who just had a fight with her husband and even the couples being shown houses by real estate agent Susan are always seen fighting. It’s always about conflict and deception when men and women are involved, like one scene involving four people where three of them know all too well that the fourth is lying to his wife and it feels like there’s a concept somewhere in all this but it never quite balances the two halves, the ideas haven’t all been correctly organized for the points to be made.
Part of this has to do with approach and if the film had been designed with a more stylized low-budget look along the lines of BEING JOHN MALKOVICH or even the somewhat grounded afterlife of Albert Brooks’ DEFENDING YOUR LIFE that might have helped but the film never feels like it’s being made by someone who has interesting ideas for shooting any of this this outside of a focus on the giant special effects throughout when he feels the scene calls for it. The effects aren’t badly done at all, they just don’t matter and there’s still plenty of them throughout involving the distant planet and arriving on earth via transporting to an airplane but that’s not what the movie’s about, or at least it’s not what it should be about, and the humor of the script makes it all feel unnecessary. There’s a fair amount of effects work in some of Nichols’ other ‘90s films particularly WOLF as well as the opening shot of THE BIRDCAGE which began with an extensive helicopter shot that eventually went right into the nightclub of the title so it almost feels like he’d gotten so used to making films that were this expensive he never stopped to think if making it so elaborate was absolutely necessary to what the film needed to be instead of paying attention to the words. It’s a film that would have been helped by being smaller and quirkier so the ideas that feel important get overwhelmed by the scale, as if simply there to give Columbia Pictures another big budget MEN IN BLACK-type sci-fi comedy and the emphasis on the wrong things feels like a misunderstanding of the material.
The approach to the comedy wants to be more hopeful than the outright misanthropic feel of LARRY SANDERS while still at least attempting to be about character much of the time and, leaving out that he’s an alien, showing a man who has nothing to worry about but his overly active penis, meeting a woman desperately looking for stability in her life who grabs onto the most unstable relationship imaginable. And even without trying, he helps her see what’s out there and brings instant clarity to things more than any other way she’s tried to do it while she gets him to find a level of humanity that he never even considered might be there. All of this is fine and breaking down the plot helps to see it as a satirical look at a man understanding what he should be in the world and what he should care about. In some ways, the premise could even be the idea for an extended Nichols-May sketch but that’s not the personality of the writing so since the project originated with Shandling and writers connected to him, bringing in Elaine May for a polish likely wasn’t going to happen but it wouldn’t have been a bad idea.
Either way, it’s about a man and a woman getting to know each other but needing to get past whatever the sex is to that relationship at first and maybe I’m really digging to find stuff in here but the arguments they have are at least more interesting than the film playing Lionel Richie’s “All Night Long” over shots of the Bellagio Fountain in Vegas during the honeymoon sex marathon. The sequence does give us Susan saying, “We even did it while we ate. If I’d known we were going to do that, I wouldn’t have ordered the soup” which is one of the better lines and the script does find some truth in the sort of arguments that happen when you’re starting to wonder just who the person you’re suddenly in a relationship with really is. The ideas are in there but too many of them are muddled and at times there’s the feeling that Nichols is more interested in finding those performances than where the laughs are going to come from which means that some of the humor, like Harold getting more consumed by his job than he expected and the head of the planet getting more exasperated when he complains about all his marriage issues, doesn’t feel fully developed so it simply comes off as random. And there’s still the issue of how much of all this should be a joke, how much of it should be taken seriously as a movie plot. Even the most visually interesting element of the film, the mid-century modernistic vibe of the Phoenix Financial Center location where the bank is set, feels incidental but it does give the movie a certain retro feel so it seems like the version of this that might have been made in the sixties when they might have set it in Phoenix because the production didn’t want to go too far from L.A. Along with the location work and interiors set in Phoenix that emphasize the ‘southwest’ aspect there’s also the sets on the alien homeworld which are stark but not particularly memorable and also seem more elaborate than the film ever needs.
It's been twenty-five years since this film was released and one unexpected thing that jumps out about it now is how it’s about a planet of sexless men—incels, to use the current parlance of our time—with a main character forced to interact with women and is totally baffled by them, no idea what the relationship is supposed to be once the sex is taken care of so he resorts to watching whatever game is on and telling her, “Maybe I haven’t touched you as much as I used to but that’s no reason to destroy the remote” is the natural endpoint to that. A version made in 2025 exploring the same basic idea would probably be much darker, more hostile and maybe not much of a romantic comedy but in this film the problem isn’t anger, it’s not having the slightest idea how the communication is supposed to work, just interested in sex or something else entirely and the main character has no idea how to take any responsibility with the baby he’s been so insistent on having. The best moments bring out the laughs in this, but too much doesn’t seem fully thought out and too much effort seems put into the mechanics of the third act return to the alien planet for plot and chases along with a Carter Burwell score that works harder than it should need to. When things are resolved it’s quick and almost absurdist, which in a smaller film would get the right sort of laughs but here it winds up feeling like it’s not always clear if the serious moments matter as much as the comic ones or if it’s all just meant to be a big goof.
There’s still enough cleverness to the dialogue and interactions along with how Mike Nichols knows that the scenes which really matter are the ones with the two lead characters trying to understand each other, in a film about how the goal is not so much to understand each other but to come to the realization that you’re both confused about it all and some kind of genuine understanding can come out of that almost without even realizing it. When Bening emerges to sing “High Hopes” to Shandling before breaking the big news of her pregnancy it’s an amazing moment and maybe the best in the entire film, all the happiness and terror and desperation felt in this woman, hoping that all will be right in this very strange relationship she’s suddenly found herself in and all of this has nothing to do with aliens or special effects or even at attempt at making a joke. Just the sort of character interaction that the people involved could excel in at their very best. In that moment is an idea for a movie. And it’s at least something.
The thing is that it’s like Garry Shandling and the film itself doesn’t seem to know if he should play this as an actual performance or as a Jack Benny-type (or, more specifically, Shandling himself on his earlier IT’S GARRY SHANDLING’S SHOW) starring in his own film as his own basic character and it never becomes either. The emotional moments he needs to play in close-up don’t feel earned and a few comical asides wind up feeling like they come from a Shandling adlib more than the character so it doesn’t connect, no matter how much his very presence can easily get a smile out of me. On THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW he was a person with no idea how to connect with someone when he wasn’t on television and here he’s a person (or alien) trying to do figure out how to do the opposite but he doesn’t have the acting muscles for that. Just about his best moment comes at the very end when he says something dismissive about Susan’s friends and the bickering between the two of them comes off as totally natural, unlike all the moments searching for emotion when you can feel the effort. The issue with Shandling onscreen makes me wonder who else was around in those days that might have been a better fit even if it was designed as a vehicle for him but considering who the female lead is it suddenly makes me think of Warren Beatty in the role saying these lines and nailing the jokes so now that’s the version I want to see—he was doing TOWN & COUNTRY, also with Shandling, around this time instead. But the grounded nature that Annette Bening brings to her character here helps the film more than it almost seems possible and it’s not at all an exaggeration to say that she gives a legitimately great performance in this film. Even if some of what’s here recalls parts Bening had already played—a real estate agent like in AMERICAN BEAUTY, addressing an AA meeting like in MARS ATTACKS!—what she does brings such a degree of genuine humanity that it becomes a better film more able to focus on the satirical goal and when her character first appears it feels totally genuine almost as if she’s a person I’ve known. I won’t go as far as to say that this is one of Annette Bening’s best films and based on her quotes in the Nichols bio it doesn’t seem like a subject she would want to talk about for very long but I will say that her performance here is one that reminds me how good she really is, how much she holds the drama here together as well as the comedy almost solely by the weight she brings to even the most unexpected moments.
There’s also strong work by the entire supporting cast, sometimes from people who are only in one scene. John Goodman finds the right sort of humor in getting obsessed with this case more than his wife can ever understand and Greg Kinnear brings the needed clean-cut smarm to Perry, Harold’s rival at the bank, playing a man who always looks for every possible way to get out of admitting what he’s really doing. Ben Kingsley earns his paycheck as the leader of the planet, saying ‘penis’ more than a few times and expressing just the right amount of annoyance. Linda Fiorentino, close to her last film to open in theaters (the forgotten WHERE THE MONEY IS, which she stars in with Paul Newman, came out about a month after this) and it still makes me sad how she vanished, nails every broodingly sexy line she has in her few scenes as Perry’s wife Helen. Judy Greer gets several memorable moments as a flight attendant who meets Harold again later on, Richard Jenkins is his boss at the bank, Caroline Aaron (one of the secretaries in WORKING GIRL, along with multiple Woody Allen/Nora Ephron appearances) is also borderline great as Goodman’s wife, an uncredited Jeaneane Garafolo is on the plane when Harold arrives, Stacey Travis is a woman he approaches at the Phoenix airport, Octavia Spencer has a bit part as a nurse and Nora Dunn as one of Susan’s best friends gets what is probably the best line in the film during a restaurant scene, which is something that could easily have been cut but turns out to be just the sort of random laugh the film is looking for in its nitpicky humor but doesn’t always find.
Even if WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? is sometimes called the worst film Mike Nichols ever made, I’ve already expressed some fondness for it so this means I can’t go that far. To mention a few others, the oddball comedy THE FORTUNE feels even more paper thin, THE DAY OF THE DOLPHIN is just perplexing and even BILOXI BLUES, the only Neil Simon adaptation he ever directed and a sizable hit at the time, feels like just a basic filming of that play and not very interesting. More than those films, at least WHAT PLANET offers a deadpan fun to its satire even if it doesn’t always come through. With a reported budget of over $50 million, the film made only $6.2 million in total, possibly less than anything in the year 2000 which opened in as many theaters as this one did. The immediate fallout of the film’s release included Columbia Pictures pulling the plug on OTTOMAN EMPIRE, already announced to be directed by Andrew Bergman and star Keanu Reeves playing a furniture salesman revealed to be a former porn star who catches the attention of the first lady which was set to start shooting soon with Variety speculating that the studio was balking at “another pricey sex comedy”. I still want to see that film. And, of course, WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? did not make its lead actor/co-writer a movie star. But I still love Garry Shandling and miss him. In the very best episodes of THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW, he somehow made the desperation, the insecurity, the self-loathing you feel, whether in Hollywood or not, always relatable. And in those years after this film when he didn’t seem to be doing much of anything at all, it was just nice to know that he was out there. It was a very sad day when news of his passing hit, already nine years ago now, but remembering him helps. Even this film helps me remember and at least this film attempted to say something about the desperation which you can never totally leave behind, no matter what planet you're on.
Read the whole story
mikemariano
6 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

RetroGrade: Doom II — Hell on Earth (1994)

1 Share

It’s bigger and badder than Doom, but is it actually any better?

By: Toxicka Shock | ToxickaShock@gmail.com

Platform: MS-DOS

Developer: id Software

Publisher: GT Interactive

Genre: First Person Shooter

Release Date: Oct. 10, 1994

You don’t need me to remind you just how revolutionary Doom is. It’s the game that made first-person-shooters a part of the gaming vernacular, and its profound influence can still be felt today. If you made a list of the most important video games of the 1990s — and the absolute best — Doom would have to rank really, really fucking high on both of them. 

So considering how incredible the original game was, you have to wonder how anybody could top it. Well, we’ve had a good 31 years now to chew it over, and I think the case with Doom II: Hell on Earth is pretty apparent: it doesn’t.

Now, don’t get me wrong here. I still think Doom II is an outstanding game in its own right, and in many ways it definitely outdoes and improves upon its predecessor. But the overall impact just isn’t the same. It’s definitely much, much more than a standard mission pack sequel, but at the end of the day, it’s still just a churched-up recycling. 

But goddamn, what a recycling it is.

Now, the graphics may not look that different from the first game, but seeing it in motion is a totally different experience. Doom II does a lot of stuff Doom simply couldn’t, from dynamic real time lighting effects (which were downright extraordinary for the time) to a goddamn astonishing number of enemies onscreen at once. You weren’t just shuffling down tight, cramped, outer space corridors anymore — now, you were out there in the open, in these downright massive maps, with hundreds … literally hundreds … of enemies waiting to tear you asunder. The sheer volume and scope of Doom II alone makes it a must-play. And in terms of core gameplay and demon-obliterating action, it’s more than a worthy successor to the first Doom.

The problem — and this is hardly a newfound criticism — with Doom II can be boiled down to two words: level design. The original Doom had some of the best level design in video game history, to the point its structure and style is still being imitated and copied 32 years later. Here, however, there’s WAY too much reliance on gimmicks and downright preposterous puzzle mechanics. Like, there are two or three maps in Doom II that are among the most frustrating stages I’ve ever experienced in a FPS. They’re not challenging, they’re not clever, they’re just irritating as all fuck for no discernible reason whatsoever. Like, those parts where you have to hit a switch in one room, turn a full 180 degrees run and then haul ass to access a “hidden” sliding door in a totally different room before it closes shut again. These sections are just inexcusably maddening, to the point it seems like your success is determined by blind luck instead of rote reflex. 

Yeah, the onscreen map helps you a little in solving hidden doorways and shit, but other times, the game is so insoluble that it borders on sadism. Like, there’s one stage where the only way to escape from a courtyard is to shoot a random window on a tower in the background. How in the fuck is anybody supposed to know that? Even worse is that one stage where you can’t exit the map until you punch a pair of paintings on the wall. Shooting them doesn’t work, hitting the all-purpose “open” button doesn’t work, running into them at full speed doesn’t work but shooting them with your pitiful little pistol does. Like, come the fuck on, guys.

The stages in Doom II positively dwarf those in Doom, but that doesn’t exactly make them superior. In the notorious “cityscape” levels, for example, there are huge, wide open outdoor spaces to explore, but there’s really not a whole lot in them. What ends up happening is you have to sprint absurdly long distances from point A to point B to hit switches and find key cards and open locked doors, and if there’s one thing I never thought Doom would turn into, it’s an exercise in backtracking. I mean, isn’t the whole tao of the first Doom game to blow the shit out of everything in front of you and never look back? 

So yeah, those are the obvious shortcomings of the experience. Now let’s talk about the things Doom II gets right, and rest assured, there’s a whole fuckin’ lot of it.

It’s really hard to express just how much Doom II ups the ante compared to Doom for people who didn’t grow up during the transitional period in real time. There are spots in Doom II that aren’t just mind-blowing, but breath-taking. Hitting a switch and seeing dozens of demonic troopers materialize out of thin air and make a bee line straight for your ass? That’s a core memory every PC gamer of the mid-‘90s will never, ever forget. You turn a corner in Doom II and a MASSIVE enemy that would’ve been a final boss in the first game just shows up out of nowhere and you just have to fuckin’ deal with it, man. It’s like Aliens, in that respect: it may have sacrificed some of the atmosphere and aura, but like fuck you’re gonna’ complain when the end result is outer space Vietnam War massacre: the video game.

You can forget calling Doom II a pressure cooker, it’s pretty much a raging inferno before you even get a third of the way through the game itself. Yes, it has some doldrums and slowdowns here and there, but by and large, once it hits its stride it doesn’t let go. In a game with 30 official levels (plus some hidden stages and a supplemental “Master Levels” expansion that plugs in dozens more map), you might have three or four stages that are genuine disappointments. Everything else in the game, though, is gonna’ kick your ass real good.

Yeah, we can bitch and moan about the “Icon of Sin” being an underwhelming final boss and how long it takes to churn through some of the more spacious maps in the game, but on the whole Doom II is pretty goddamn awesome. It’s a step down from Doom, I think we can all agree, but it’s not like it’s a total free fall from grace here. There was never really an attempt to make this one as radical and revolutionary as its precursor, and for the most part, I think that’s a good thing. At the absolute worst, you’d merely have to describe Hell on Earth as “more of the same.”

But when that “same” is fuckin’ Doom, what’s the problem? 

Rating: 9.0 out of 10.0

MY FIVE FAVORITE THINGS ABOUT THIS GAME:

— Dropping Arch-Viles like mosquitoes with the absurdly over-powered super shotgun.

— Chainsawing a Cacodemon while Alice In Chains ripoff music plays in the background.

— Making the Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind fight each other in the infamous “Gotcha!” stage.

— Darting across the narrow ledges in the notorious “Chasm” map at full speed and not falling into the toxic sludge once (you know, just to show off and shit.)

— Sneaking a BFG 9000 into Castle Wolfenstein and making some two-dimensional Jerries taste some futuristic bioforce fury. 

Toxicka Shock, 2025


Read the whole story
mikemariano
7 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories