Russia: Twelve Angry Men

  

                                

 

As President Trump attempts to negotiate an end to war between Russia and Ukraine, politicians and pundits are flooding him with advice as if he had no competent advisors on his team. It is interesting to note that Trump has set a priority on ending the killing, while former President Biden did little to bring the fighting to an end. 

To my mind Biden's greatest failure as President was his inability or unwillingness to act as an agent of peace. Indeed, in his interview with Tucker Carlsen last year, Vladimir Putin claimed that then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had quashed a peace settlement hammered out between Russia and Ukraine at a meeting in Turkey. It is hard to believe that the British P.M. would have acted without the support of the Biden administration.

In any event, I suspect that many people offering unsolicited advice to President Trump are not really aware of the situation in Russia today. Their repeated references to Hitler and Stalin indicate that they are living in the past. They do not understand that a second Russian revolution occurred after the break up of the Soviet Empire. The ineptness of our media makes it difficult for Americans to understand what is going on in Russia.

I have had an almost lifelong fascination with Russia. I suppose it started with literature during my high school and college years. I never took a formal course on Russian literature, but I read War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, the Brothers Karamazov and others with fascination although perhaps little understanding. A few years later I discovered the novels and histories of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, one of the greatest and most influential authors of the twentieth century. No one ever explained the nature of Communism in Russia netter than he did. Just a couple of years ago I waded through The Icon and the Axe, James Billington’s magisterial study of Russian history and culture.

Today, I doubt if any of my college educated grandchildren have ever read or will read any of these great authors. I doubt that they have even heard their names. I suppose that their knowledge of Russia, like that of our own politicians, is likely superficial and unhistorical. Since books are too time consuming, and seemingly irrelevant in our age, film may be the only way to provide insights into a country like Russia, especially after the revolutionary events that followed upon the collapse of the Soviet empire. Here is a brief review of a film that sheds much light on this extremely diverse country that extends over nine time zones. 

In 2007 Russian filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov produced, directed, wrote, and acted in “12”, a film based on the American drama and film “Twelve Angry Men.” Mikhalkov won a special award at the Venice film festival that year, and his film also received an Academy Award nomination for best foreign film. The film is a masterpiece that far exceeds the earlier American version in power and intensity. 

The film also opens a window, actually twelve windows, into post-Soviet Russia. "12" refers to the twelve jurors who are hearing a case involving a young man accused of murdering his stepfather. Complicating matters is the fact that the young man is a Chechen, a member of that ethnic group that has never been fully assimilated into Russian society. Chechens are, at the same time, hated and feared by most Russians. Alexander Solzhenitsyn claimed that even Gulag prison guards feared the Chechen prisoners who often terrorized the other prisoners.

The film, however, is not about the prisoner but about the jurors. These twelve men, each represents an aspect of Russian life after the fall of Communism. They are a diverse group that includes, among others, a successful post-communist businessman, a doctor educated in Moscow but originally from the provinces, a Russian TV executive with a degree from Harvard, a former Soviet bureaucrat who fondly remembers the good old days of Communism, and even a bigoted cab driver.

The case against the young man seems open and shut but doubts arise. Inevitably, each juror reveals himself in dealing with what turns out to be a very complicated case. In revealing their own stories, they tell us more about modern Russia than we will ever find in our own media.

As mentioned above the film is powerful and intense, and filled with often mysterious flashbacks that eventually come together like pieces in a puzzle. But most of the power and intensity takes place in the makeshift jury room where twelve fine actors strut their stuff.

###

Ukraine Settlement

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated this week that the way to a settlement of the war in Ukraine would be to give up the idea of Ukraine ever entering the NATO alliance. In other words, Ukraine would be independent of both East and West with no foreign troops on its soil. There is no doubt in my mind that when former President Biden opened the door to NATO membership for Ukraine, Vladimir Putin regarded it as a provocation. A few months later Russian troops invaded Ukraine. 

I have put up a number of posts on Ukraine in the past and readers who think I am too old or ill-informed, might be surprised to find that I anticipated the Trump administration position ten years ago. See the following post that originally appeared on February 13, 2015, seven years before the war began.

*****************

In an interview in last Saturday's Wall Street Journal, General Frederick B. Hodges, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, made the case for military aid to the Ukraine and for an increased NATO involvement. Nevertheless, the General made some admissions that make one wonder if there might be another alternative. 

The General argued that Russia is preparing for war some five or six years in the future with some unspecified enemy. He believed that the Russians regard China as their greatest threat but that at the same time noted that they were conducting simulations of a nuclear attack on the United States. He did not mention that they might be concerned with the threat of Islamic fundamentalism all along their southern borderlands.

To counter the Russian threat the General pointed out that our own resources are stretched thin. Nine out of ten of our divisions are currently engaged in missions all over the world. The General insisted that we cannot act on our own anymore and must rely increasingly on our allies. However, our NATO allies have not and will not live up to their treaty commitments. Only four of them dedicate more than the required 2% of GDP to defense spending.

Finally, the General admitted that we need a strategy, and that military aid to the Ukraine or any other country does not by itself constitute a strategy. He asks that we consider the outcome we want to achieve in the Ukraine.  Do we really want the Ukraine to become a battlefield where millions might die? Do we want a city like Mariupol on the Black Sea to become a desert like Mosul?

Why can't we consider Russia as an ally and not an enemy? Instead of confronting Russia with NATO, why not guarantee that an independent Ukraine will never be part of NATO. The Ukraine provides Russia with millions of customers for its vast energy reserves. After all, both the US and Russia will more and more have to deal with the growing power of China, as well as with radical Islam. 

The Journal has launched a barrage of editorial comment against Russia in the past week. One op-ed suggested that a military buildup is not necessary because we could crush the Russians economically with increased sanctions and low oil and gas prices. This is another dangerous suggestion since if we drive the Russians to the wall, they might become desperate. Why isn't a strong Russia to our advantage? If we think economic sanctions hurt the Russian oligarchs, what do we think they will do to the ordinary Russian citizen.

Journal columnist Bret Stephens, a longtime proponent of arming the Ukrainians, even quoted and praised a practically insane statement by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham who claimed that he did not know what the outcome of military intervention would be, and did not care how many Ukrainians or Russians might die, or even if we lost. All that mattered was that the US not back down and appease Putin.

It would be so much less costly in terms of men and money to bring the Russians into NATO than to confront them with a flaming sword on their historical Western front. It would be better to have a strong, economically viable Russia as an ally rather than an enemy in the ongoing war against radical Islam.

###

Note: The flaming sword is the insignia of the U.S. Army in Europe.

Mickey Rooney and The Human Comedy

 

    

                  

 

During the late 1930s and early 1940s, the diminutive Mickey Rooney was one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. He is best remembered for playing teenager Andy Hardy in an extremely popular series of films, and for the MGM musicals where he was paired with MGM’s other great teen star, Judy Garland. In these light comedies and musicals Rooney, who had been in show business since early childhood, demonstrated that he was an extremely talented performer and musician. A good example can be seen in Strike Up the Bandwhere Rooney appeared as a leader of a teen age band hoping to make it big. His “Drummer Boy” number where he plays both the drums, and a xylophone is truly iconic. Click on this link or see the video below. 

Perhaps his greatest role came in 1943 when he starred in a film adaptation of William Saroyan’s The Human Comedy, a wartime drama that depicted life on the home front in a small California town. Saroyan had originally written a screenplay for a film that he planned to direct himself, but when the studio complained that the film would be way too long, Saroyan walked out and published his work as a novel which became hugely successful right before the studio completed its version. It is a great and moving read.

The film version based on Saroyan’s script and directed by veteran director Clarence Brown was also a huge hit in wartime USA. The story revolves around a family headed by a recently widowed mother played by Fay Bainter, one of Hollywood’s standard mothers, who has four children. The eldest son, played by Van Johnson, has been drafted into the army and awaits assignment overseas. Donna Reed, a budding young star, plays the daughter on the verge of womanhood. There is even a four-year-old son, what used to be known as a caboose baby, who gets some good scenes. Although Mickey Rooney was 22 years old at the time, his looks and small stature allowed him to play the fourteen-year-old son.

Although everyone in the fine cast is featured in various vignettes, Rooney is the star, and he gives a magnificent performance. He plays Homer Macaulay, a teenager whose father has recently died, and whose elder brother is in the army. At 14 he must somehow become the man in the family. He takes a part-time job as a messenger for a local telegraph company to help his mother with the bills. It turns out to be a life changing experience.  The office manager, played by James Craig, becomes a mentor, as does the elderly, alcoholic telegraph operator played by Frank Morgan, a veteran character actor who had played the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz.

Telegrams are largely a thing of the past but delivering them during the war could be difficult. Apparently, the War Department used telegrams to notify families of the death of their sons. In one memorable scene, Homer has to deliver such a message to an illiterate Mexican mother who asks him to read the dreaded message. It is an extremely moving scene, and Rooney does a great job. It’s no wonder that he received a nomination for Best Actor.

Although largely forgotten today, The Human Comedy is one of the great films of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Like the book, it is a beautiful and moving story with a memorable if idealized depiction of small-town life during the war years. 

By the end of the war, Rooney was too old to play teenagers and had to make the transition to grown up roles. His looks and stature made it impossible to play traditional leading men, but he still possessed great dramatic ability.  Two of my favorites from the post-war era are the 1949 Quicksand, and the 1953 Drive a Crooked Road.

In Quicksand Rooney plays an automobile mechanic working in a large garage who falls for a sexy cashier in a nearby diner. He asks her for a date and when she accepts, he has to come up with some dough since he is broke until payday. He decides to borrow some from the garage cash register and replace it on payday. Unfortunately, he is found out and must struggle to replace the money. His attempts only get him deeper and deeper into trouble. The film’s title is appropriate. The film also features Jeanne Cagney, James Cagney’s sister, and Peter Lorre.

Drive a Crooked Road, follows a similar pattern. Once again Rooney is a garage mechanic but, in this film, he also drives race cars in local races. He plays a lonely young man who can only dream of driving at Indianapolis or Le Mans. One day a beautiful young woman walks into the garage and singles out the unlikely Rooney to work on her car. It turns out that she is part of a gang of bank robbers who need a skilled driver to drive the getaway car for their next job. Sure enough, he falls for her and the dream of big money with tragic results. 

Quicksand and Drive a Crooked Road are low budget “B” movies, but Rooney gave “A” performances in both. Although he would never again reach the fame and fortune of his Hollywood heyday, he continued to work in movies, TV, Broadway, and touring companies almost until his death in 2014 at the age of 94. 

 

### 

Pardon Me

A recent headline in my local newspaper exclaimed in large bold letters, ‘A terrible mistake’. The quote was from Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal concerning the pardon granted by former President Biden to a Connecticut man convicted of conspiracy to commit the murders of a woman and her young son who were scheduled to appear as witnesses in a murder trial back in 1999. 

Blumenthal attributed Biden’s mistake to an “oversight” but did not explain how such an oversight could have occurred? How could the name of this convicted criminal, as well as the names of a dozen other convicted Connecticut drug dealers mentioned in a related article, have come to Biden’s attention in the first place?  Who pleaded their cause? Who wanted them pardoned? Most of them had long criminal histories that included illegal firearm possession.

What reason could President Biden have had for pardoning these criminals? Perhaps he did not even know who he was pardoning and just signed the document placed before him. But in that case, who was responsible for the terrible mistake?  I suppose we will never know.

It is different in the case of the pardons meted out to Biden’s own family in the last minutes of his Presidency. Actually, these family members have so far never been accused or convicted of anything. The President took the unprecedented step of pardoning them for anything they may have done wrong since 2014.

The start date of this immunity, 2014, is very important. It was in that year that then Vice-President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, became involved in the affairs of Ukraine. At that time Biden openly bragged that he had forced the government of Ukraine to fire a prosecutor investigating corruption. At the same time, Biden’s son Hunter enjoyed a lucrative position of the board of a Ukrainian energy company that was the focus of the corruption investigation. In pardoning his family and his son, Biden effectively pardoned himself for any wrongdoing over the past ten years.

The pardon given to Hunter Biden late last year is somewhat different. Hunter had actually been convicted of tax evasion and a violation of Federal gun control laws. While he was still running for re-election, Joe Biden said that he would not pardon his son, but when a plea deal fell through, he had no choice. At the time progressive commentators gushed that even though the President lied, he was motivated by love of his son. Who can blame such a loving father? Who would not do the same? 

Nevertheless, it appears to me that the pardon had more to do with fear than with love. I suspect that ever since their meddling in the Ukraine back in 2014, the son had something potentially damaging on his father. Hunter’s pardon was not just for his recent convictions but went all the way back to 2014.

 I have been poring through Miranda Devine’s recent book, “The Big Guy,” about Joe Biden and his son Hunter. On many occasions Hunter claimed that over the past ten years he had worked very hard for his family. He was not going to take the fall. 

Reading Miranda Devine’s book, it is not hard to imagine that the relationships in the Biden family were not always loving especially when Hunter was addicted to crack, sex, and porn. Devine writes that at the time Hunter dropped the now famous lap-top off at the repair shop, his “life was at rock bottom. His crack addiction was out of control, and he had been bouncing between cheap motels filming himself having threesomes with hookers.”

“He was in a rage with his family. His relationship with his widowed sister-in-law Hallie had grown toxic. He accused her of cheating, and she had banned him from seeing her children until he sought rehab. He accused his father of siding with her and was on the outs even with Uncle Jim. [98]…”

He seemed to have little regard for his father and stepmom Jill. Perhaps it was the crack addiction, but Miranda Devine quotes the following words from Hunter about Jill and Joe.

“And you do know the drunkest I’ve ever been is still smarter than you could ever even comprehend and you’re a shit grammar teacher that wouldn’t survive one class in a ivy graduate program.

“So go fuck yourself Jill let’s all agree I don’t like you anymore than you like me.”

He also complained to his uncle that he had been to drug rehab seven times, but his father “literally has never come to one never actually called me while in rehab.” [109].

 

In his famous little political treatise, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, an Italian Renaissance diplomat and political observer, devoted a whole section to whether it is better to be loved or feared. For a number of reasons he concluded that for anyone in power it was better to be feared than to be loved. Hunter was a loose cannon to be feared and had to be pardoned.

 

###