The Great Beauty and I - A Film Review by Otto Marasco

In a mischievous manner, is it perverse of me to find myself drawn to the dysfunctional world of Jep Gambardella?


I knew little of The Great Beauty – La Grande Bellezza – before deciding to view it. "Sexy, provocative, haunting and extravagant" are a sample of the many descriptors employed by reviewers. Speaking of reviews, this is not to be deemed one; on the contrary, consider it a short attempt to interpret the effect of some of its constituent parts as experienced by and, through the eyes of its principal character, Jep Gambardella on the viewer, yours truly - Sapientia et Doctrina.

Excuse me for not bothering about the plot, I suggest you either watch the film or, read one of the many reviews. My first encounter with this film was via the trailer, taking pleasure in that opening party scene as I thought, ah the Italians, good at having escapist fun, forgetting there every day tomorrow.

Without wishing to sound hackneyed, I feel obliged to state that The Great Beauty's vibe and ambience harks to La Dolce Vita. I did not write this because everyone in the industry has already stated it. It is because I have long owned a copy of Federico Fellini’s classic, not that I enjoyed his construct as much, though I will pull it off the shelf again soon.

In short, I found The Great Beauty uplifting but, in a disconcerting way, being consciously aware of an ever-present melancholy undercurrent within Jep that could be felt, not merely understood; a credit to the director, Sorrentino. In my personal case, I could not only understand it, but I could also feel it and do, most nearly all days of late.

The people mix surrounding Jep at events, outdoor theatres and parties intrigued me. There were few perfectly formed Hollywood like twenty something’s to be seen instead, we are offered a surprising mix of older types, Jep at 65 and those immediately around him middle-aged and older. A smart mix since the supposedly seasoned can also be silly, asinine, immature, senseless and crazy at times, undeniably they can be raw, barbaric and loutish as well just like their younger counterparts. Jep’s crown, high society cultured and yet, so philistine.

In a mischievous manner, is it perverse of me to find myself drawn to the dysfunctional world of Jep Gambardella? Far removed from my own existence and that of many my age, nevertheless, I often crave an alternate reality as a much-needed diversion, even if only for a few short months as a counter to the daily humdrum. We do want to reach end days and be able to say, I have lived!

I could do with a dose of meaningless living and outright unabashed hedonism, I can be dead while alive, I can be Jep, I can be "Jeppino", a dark secret perhaps, the tag line if you like.

Jep turns 65 early in the film and through a series of seemingly innocuous events, he begins reflecting on his life and he does not appear comfortable, has he awoken, faced the truth, opened his eyes? I opened mine long ago but have I opened them wide enough?. To think about and reflect on one’s own, to step out of self, to think about one's thinking, to look at, as opposed to merely looking can be oh so revealing, enlightening. It is like having two selves co-existing, one real the other imagined looking at the whole, trying to make sense where sometimes sadly, there may be no sense to be found. "Imagined" but nonetheless important, for when we begin doing this we are living, we understand and accept the truth and begin feeling the hurt then, with any luck, we smile regardless, for we accept that this is life, our lives. I am not suggesting that I am happy nor that I am unhappy, I am simply though somewhat unenthusiastically accepting reality. In Jep's words,

"It all settled beneath the chattering and the noise, silence and sentiment, emotion and fear ... and then the wretched squalor and miserable humanity" 

Jep also appears to be experiencing that thought and the accompanying feeling, vita non realizzata, - life unfulfilled - not a pleasant thought.

I wonder why the film opened with that quote, the one that suggests that anything other than travel (because when we do this we do not settle down) is just a delusion and pain. Was it Jep’s view and modus operandi for the forty years that he partied in Rome?

A couple of things stood out for me, The Great Beauty can have the effect of making it's viewers think about their lives, for some critically for others perhaps casually and, it's a good showcase of excess cheeky though realistic adult kitsch…

Click here and here to read some notable reviews

© 2014 - 2024 Ottavio Marasco. All rights reserved.

Related reading: Federico Fellini - 5 reasons He Still Matters

Feel fee to leave a comment:

No Human is Special

Those who have thought deeply about one’s place in the grand scheme of things have perhaps come across a written piece or two about our insignificance on this earthly plane save amongst those emotionally connected to us. It’s an argument based moderately on the enormity of the known universe. As a thought and better still, as a paradigm, it’s a healthy prescription and allows us to get on with life by acknowledging this form of meanness. A noble beau ideal.

In addition to the nothingness related and conferred to by the astrophysical perspective, we are also insignificant in terms of what life simply dishes out to us. We are not so special in fact, we are not special at all irrespective of what’s happening in our life at this present moment, or what’s happened in the past and, what’s in store for us. I’m not speaking spiritually rather in the practical what’s seen, heard, experienced and felt gist. Everything, every manner of human experience, good or bad, delightful or abhorrent has preceded you in others.

What is that you’re asking of me? The experiences to which I am referring? Too many to list! A life lived embodies an infinite sum of occurrences and happenstances and, the resultant feelings and emotions that arise from such. A tapestry is woven by the sum of experience by way of the hand we are dealt.

Are you in love, madly in love, in lust perhaps? A form of lust and love so intense that you believe it’s private and special, that no other couple could be so fortunate. You haven’t read James Joyce’s letters, the dirty and the most beautiful. Have you been subjected to what you believe is the worst of humankind? Perhaps you should learn more about the holocaust. Have you lost a dearest family member to a disease or accident? Lost a home to fire? Won a lottery? Are you mega-rich or, mega poor? Been wrongly incarcerated, witnessed a loved one being raped, climbed a peak actual or metaphorical? Ad infinitum … You are not the first to experience anything.

And pity those who espouse that feeling of being special as realised from the power conferred through their careers or whatever positions or stations in life they reside in, rather than, intrinsic values. Life isn’t concerned with an artificial sense of importance.

Whatever your present human condition, someone somewhere in the world today, or in the past, has been there, has felt the same uplifting and glorious or otherwise, miserable and depraved emotions. Whatever contemplation may surface that you are uniquely unlucky or lucky, blessed, exceptional, or special in some way, banish the thought, for someone has been there.

For all of us, life offers a ceaseless succession of experience and encounter providing trials, outcomes, lessons and the resultant emotions.

This should not be interpreted such that the sheer scale and continuum of the human experience and, the universe make living pointless. More accurately, it should be a wake-up call to rise above the noise of modern-day life with all its push-pull factors and to embrace the power that comes from not being special, from insignificance itself.

You are not special….

Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

To Love to die, To die to love

To love, is to accept that you have made an inescapable pact with grief. From Maria Popova, once referred to as, Cartographer of meaning in a digital Age a beautiful piece exploring what love and death share in the magic of life. 

Love and death come to us on common terms — unbidden and total, impervious to protest, naked of pretension. They also come to us entwined: Every love is a franchise of grief, for to love anything is to accept its loss — by a dissipation of ardor or of atoms, the atoms constellating the beloved or the atoms constellating us and the consciousness that does the loving, certain to one day go the way of every other consciousness and every other love that ever was and ever will be.

In some deep sense, this inevitability of loss is precisely what makes love so ecstatic — a concentrated experience of aliveness consecrated by its own perishability.

I have, more than once or twice, reflected on life post the loss of loved ones. A thought too painful to contemplate, a thought for which I cannot find a solution in ways I would normally. The only solace being that many before me have been forced against all known forces, to cross a similar, if not same bridge. Would it be better to escape the inevitability of grief by not loving? Isn't death part of the story of life itself? By removing one, you remove the other; life, love and loss entwined. 

Read the whole piece here

Brief Crossing – A Film Review by Otto Marasco

 

…In a brutal twist, her true objective is revealed at films end as she deftly turns conventional wisdom upside down about woman as emotional victims of the male ego… 

Why is it that almost everyone who has written about this film, in the first instance,

delves into the idiosyncrasies of its Director Catherine Breillet? This is noted with most reviews of her work. The ever-provocative filmmaker is known to quite literally throw punches at her audiences through rampant sex in your face eroticism, usually between disturbed albeit realistic, human entities and in most all cases, from the feminine psychological standpoint. Not that I believe that she delights in polarizing her addressees, indeed, the viewer’s enjoyment will hinge on whether they have an appreciation of not merely the erotic, but foreign film in general. Controversy and attention has continually been routine for Breillet. As a 17 year old, her first novel was so racy that the author was technically not permitted to buy her own book. Her first film, “A real young girl”, was banned and literally shelved for a quarter of a century. To this day, it seems the cinema world cannot find consensus on the filmmaker for she is put down by some and thoroughly commended by others. For those who have not experienced her work, Brief Crossing may prove a worthy introduction as it is positively more accessible than either Romance, or Anatomy of Hell. The film examines both a middle-aged woman’s desire and her apparent take on men; she is a late thirty something and he, an archetypal teenage male. This is something Breillet has done before however, in this case, there are fewer shocks.

A sexual attraction and subsequent one nightstand between a naïve young man and a much older woman, is the subject of exploration here. Gilles Guillain plays Thomas, a classic French boy who catches the liner, Pride of Le Havre, from Le Havre to Portsmouth. During the overnight journey, he meets Alice (Sarah Pratt) the seasoned and sexy English woman who is more than twice his age. In a cafeteria, the shy young man tells her that he is a tad older than his true age, likes a cigarette or two and hates school. She reveals a little about her life; she likes photography and that she is separated from her husband who seemed to have lost interest in her. There is little if anything in common between them, but this does nothing to detract from the sexual apprehension. Thomas takes cues from his environ as he steers hard toward a possible union of bodies. Finally, after the usual concoction of moves and phrases, she invites him to her cabin. The physical interaction is tender (not to be taken literally) with Alice coming out the least affected. In a brutal twist, her true objective is revealed at films end as she deftly turns conventional wisdom upside down about woman as emotional victims of the male ego. 

The film embodies two evident but often not so transparent elements of relationships and sexual politics. We witness classic and hackneyed battle of the sexes matter from a feminine viewpoint as Alice slates men in relationships, relating to them as if nothing but users and abusers who treat woman as disposable lighters for their own personal whims. It is customary cynicism, the jilted woman purportedly running from a failed marriage.    

However, things are not as they seem (spoiler to come). You see, in the end, we discover that Alice is indeed married and has a child. One can assume that her earlier dialogue was either a dishonest distraction to delay and heighten the inevitable unification of flesh or, a not so neutral stance on the part of Breillet in terms of gender politics. Back to Alice, why did she do it? Is she a control freak seeking to take advantage of an impassioned teenager knowing all the while that she could guide and dominate at will? On the other hand, was it purely a case of enacting fantasy?

Brief Crossing reminds us about the common misconception that woman do not fantasize like males, that they are merely romantics more so than sexual beings. In the 1970’s Nancy Friday’s research showed us that woman not only fantasize but can also be perverse and kinky in thought and deed perhaps depending on where they are in the menstrual cycle. Here we see Alice possibly enacting a combination of commonly documented fantasies. “Sex with a stranger” – you do not have to see each other again, no emotional baggage, it is very naughty and one can be openly sexual without fear of being labeled. “Being sexually desirable” – the need to be wanted and desired by someone other than your spouse. “To be in charge” – today’s woman is dominant in society and some wish to bring that dominance into the bedroom, to be the heroin of the fantasy. Last but not least, “Older woman, younger man” – we recall Demi Moore proudly holding the hand of Ashton Kutcher, some 20 years her junior. The media screamed that this was not uncommon. It is conceivable that for Alice it was all just about sex and fantasy. After all, and older woman’s sexual peak is more closely attuned to that of a much younger male. 

The film exudes the kind of eroticism that is classic Breillet. Sarah Pratt is no Angelina Jolie, more "plain Jane", but such is the overall effect, that your atypical cannot wait for her to undress. Full marks to the Director for the sexual tension she creates and the way it absorbs the viewer. Look out for the astute camerawork, which beautifully captures the person, the character, the emotion and tension. The photographic technique speaks when dialogue is absent; the visuals become part of the storytelling. 

Enjoy Brief Crossing for its honest delivery of eroticism and human craving and remember as you watch, that it is not only foreign film, but created in the Breillet universe. In the end, make your own judgement about Alice’s behaviour.

Song of the month August 2024

Peak Self Worth

 I recently came across a post on X from one of my followers that read - 

“The best revenge is to have enough self-worth, not to seek it.” 

I thought it was powerful, It struck a chord and quickly found myself reflecting on how sound it was, however almost immediately I also thought it didn’t go far enough, it was somehow deficient. I sort to expand it and came up with the following which I posted back on X - 

“True but imagine possessing such a profound sense of self-worth that nothing can disturb your peace, transcending any need to act against others - a state comparable to and reminiscent of, the ancient philosophers' ideal of equanimity”

Can we humans truly become enlightened, accomplished, and complete? We can, but it’s easier said than done. Even I found my more comprehensive version intimidating. Yet, I was drawn to the challenge of personal growth, striving to reach a state of calmness and composure.

Before long, I felt compelled to delve even deeper, exploring various descriptions to generate an even more expanded version -

“Imagine possessing such a profound sense of confidence, self-belief, but more notably, self-worth - a deep knowing that “I” am of value, that “I” am lovable, necessary to this life, and of incomprehensible worth. This kind of assurance is not just a fleeting feeling but a solid, unshakeable foundation upon which one’s entire existence rests. It’s an inner conviction so powerful that it shields one from the slings and arrows of the external world.

In this state of being, nothing can disturb inner peace. Criticism, rejection, adversity and even attacks lose their sting because one’s sense of worth is rooted deeply within, immune to the fluctuating opinions and actions of others. One no longer feels the need to act against others or push back, for self-worth is not dependent on external validation or approval. 

This inner peace and confidence stem from an unequivocal knowing that a state of profound equanimity will be attained. It's a state where one transcends ego-driven responses, embodying a calm, balanced demeanour in the face of life's challenges, becoming like the ancient philosophers who revered equanimity as the highest virtue - a state of mental and emotional stability undisturbed by changes of fortune.

In this state, one is free from the inner turmoil that often drives reactive behaviour. The world is seen with clarity, free from the distortions of fear and insecurity. Actions are guided by wisdom and compassion, not by the need to defend or prove oneself. 

Imagine the liberation that comes with this profound self-worth. It allows one to live authentically, pursue passions, and contribute to the world in meaningful ways without the constraints of doubt or fear. Relationships flourish because they are built on mutual respect and genuine connection, not on the shaky grounds of neediness or competition.

This state of equanimity is not just an ideal but a practical, attainable way of being. It requires a journey inward, a deep exploration of self, and the cultivation of inner resources. Through practices like mindfulness, self-reflection, and self-compassion, one nurtures this profound sense of self-worth. It’s a lifelong journey, but with each step, one moves closer to this state of serene confidence, where he or she is truly at peace within and with the world”.

If I was intimidated by my earlier creation, imagine how I feel now. Let’s be honest, the state of equanimity detailed above appears impossible to arrive at. It’s too long to be a mantra but I have printed it and placed it around such that it's seen and read often. If I, if indeed one, can arrive at just sixty percent attainment of this ideal then life would be more rewarding.

The World Is Not As Stable As It looks

The state of global order is worrisome. Is the world safer than it was a year ago? Is the danger of serious economic decline of the kind that impacts the vulnerable higher or lower than a year ago? Have institutional arrangements that lubricate and resolve conflicts of interest and challenges strengthened or weakened in the past year?

We should also consider the potential impact the November U.S. election outcome could have on the global order regardless of the result. Even if the incumbent gets over the line his adversary has, on many occasions, indicated disruption and the Wests enemies are counting on this.  Chaos is imminent.

In 2007, on a blog that no longer exists, I contemplated a future scenario where a leader with flaws similar to Donald Trump could potentially disrupt the international order.

Whether you like America or not it does not matter. If America imperfect were to either collapse or alternatively, butt out of worldly affairs as Trump often touts, not completely but enough to cause major shifts, then the world may be faced with a global situation of startling instability and great risk. A global shift in power of which the end product cannot be accurately guessed at, nor can it be forecast with any exactitude.

In 2024, the world stands at a pivotal juncture, facing an array of interconnected global challenges that are shaping the course of history. Concern is warranted.

Israel, Iran and Gaza - A basic observation

When Hamas attacked Israel in early October killing over 1100 Israelis (Source: Al-Jazeera) and taking hostages Israel responded by invading Gaza claiming it had a right to defend itself. At the time of this post over 30,000 Palestinian men woman and many children have lost their lives (Source: npr.org).

On April 1, Israel launched an attack on Iran’s embassy in Damascus Syria, killing multiple commanders who manage operations for Iran-aligned forces around the region. Embassies are considered to be inviolable therefore the attack was akin to an attack on Iranian soil.

Today's action by Iran was a measured retaliatory response to the embassy attack. Hence, like Israel, Iran too claims it has a right to defend itself. Measured because within hours Iran had concluded its strike. This was announced via the Iranian mission to the United Nations. 

Regardless of your views on the Middle East situation involving Israel, Iran, and Gaza, it's crucial to grasp the region's intricate politics and history before making superficial comments on social media. Therefore, when I come across posts suggesting that Iran's attack today was unprovoked, it highlights the pervasive ignorance at play.

Irrespective of our opinions (mine inclusive), it's important to acknowledge that war and conflict are grim realities, and it's the innocent and vulnerable who ultimately bear the brunt of suffering.

Further reading: Why Iran attacked Israel – and what open war between the two could look like

The day I caught the attention of the BBC

It was an unforgettable day. My blog, American Interests, had been active for over 18 months when, on November 15, 2008, I published a comprehensive post titled "America will remain Strong." In it, I argued that despite recent setbacks, the U.S.'s ability to rejuvenate and adapt was fuelled by numerous structural advantages, essential for maintaining a peaceful 21st century through a rules-based international order reliant on U.S. global strategic power. This post garnered significant attention, particularly from one of the world's largest media companies, the BBC.

As depicted in the image provided, the blog was transformed into a manuscript, and during its circulation, no fewer than 32 of my articles were syndicated and featured on platforms like "The Chicago-Sun Times" and Reuters.com. Success was becoming familiar, with advertisers now vying for space to promote their products on my platform.

Just seven days after the post's publication, I received an email from a BBC broadcast journalist - see image below. I was being courted for possible participation in a live radio debate on American Dominance—a prospect that thrilled me. The BBC boasts a reach of over 1 billion listeners, with potential listener ship numbers soaring to over 200 million at any given moment.

When I started the blog, I never envisioned having the chance to address hundreds of millions of people!

Since the blog is no longer accessible online, anyone interested in reading my American Dominance piece or, for that matter, any other of the hundreds of my articles from the blog need only reach out to me and I will happily oblige. Use my contact form by visiting this blog at https://personalmeanings.blogspot.com/ using a laptop or desktop as my contact form is not usually visible if accessing this site via a smartphone.

Watch the words you speak...

Great post from Petra, how true! 

We've recently experienced firsthand the impact of words that achieved just that. It's disheartening to realize these words came from members of our own extended family. L.M and S.A (there initials), your focus, my life partner, once believed in the depth of the relationship she shared with you. However, on that significant evening, she came to understand that it was rather shallow afterall.

Arguments based on faulty premises that hurt. Damage done, differences irreconcilable. It's over!

Words can build bridges or erect insurmountable walls! Choose wisely which path you take. pic.twitter.com/fQ3uAlrXSA

— Petra (@Petra47448293) March 29, 2024

Donald Trump’s Ascendancy

President Donald Trump comes up often in general discussions of late and, considering the prevailing consensus that he is grossly unpopular (which is very true outside U.S. borders), quite often people question how he won the 2016 Presidential contest in the first place. This is what I am writing about here. 

I AM NOT advocating for Trump through this writing, I am merely highlighting the methods and strategies he adopted as a Presidential candidate in the 2016 race.

He may not have been an accomplished politician during and on, his journey to Presidency however, when he entered the contest he was already an accomplished individual just not, as a career politician. Yet despite this and, a privileged personal history, he quite remarkably identified and zeroed in upon the discontent in middle America and, not quite by accident, how to get around the 240-electoral vote “Blue wall” that ran from Wisconsin to North Carolina. Metaphorically speaking, a barrier that has successfully encased a Democrat vote for the past six elections.

Consider, we had well over a dozen talented and more experienced candidates within the Republican camp and yet slowly, Trump lay them all to waste, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Carly Fiorina, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and more. This was no indolent process it was more dynamic. Over a year-long primary race they, and his Democrat rival in Hillary Clinton, could not match Trump’s instincts about what troubled so many an American voter, the forgotten middle - the exception was Democrat Bernie Sanders but the Hillary camp took care of him before Trump could. It matters little that Trump’s modus operandi was ugly and most certainly cynical, it soon harboured its own momentum and, as the November 2016 election drew closer, it seeped into Trump and his camp, as if by osmosis, that they were gaining the upper hand. From their lofty LA, New York and Washington pads this was entirely missed by mainstream media  Thus, a rich Manhattan resident felt the public angst more comprehensively than vanilla media, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, not to mention a talented pool of Republican wannabe’s, and in true populist fashion, Donald Trump courted his tribe, won them over and became President.

In terms of extent, Russia's influence on the election result remains a noteworthy factor, but I am willing to bet that Trump would have achieved the feat anyway.

... he chose to focus on three significant ideological issues of our epoch, illegal immigration, employment and trade and political correctness ...

Quite nearly all politicians have a streak of anti-elitist tendencies, Donald Trump was by far the superior populist in 2016. I viewed his campaign as crude and different yet effective, because he chose to focus on three significant ideological issues of our epoch, illegal immigration, employment and trade and political correctness. He also pressed a hot button by questioning the extent of America's overseas interventions - Foreign Policy.

Foreign Policy

Trump’s simple message went something like this. Why invest resources in parts of the world where Americans are hated, while at home we’re stuck in low paid jobs and struggle to find work. “America First” resonated with a substantial portion of the populace who faced income disparity and rising inequality. He proposed several initiates including a re-negotiation of U.S. alliance terms with Japan, South Korea and NATO – he had not specifically named my homeland Australia but was on the record saying that the U.S. had no interest in being in Asia militarily. Such pitches tapped into an emerging desire among Americans that their nation should not attempt to solve the world’s problems. Trump rejected the notion that the U.S. should act as global police, indeed Obama had a similar viewpoint, but Trump went much further by suggesting that the U.S. does not even need to be involved in enforcing international law & order in its present definition - incidentally, something he's forgotten since becoming President, think Syrian intervention following the gas attacks on its population. Trump also questioned nuclear non-proliferation, mutual self-defence treaties and overseas military bases.

Obama had also demonstrated a degree of foreign policy separation but with alarming results. His lukewarm responses to regional issues left a security vacuum, and when that happens the “bad guys” are always there to fill the void. While America stuttered, Putin attacked Ukraine and has since launched a reckless campaign in Syria, attacked Georgia and annexed Crimea. In this light, I was no fan of Trumps America first rhetoric but many an American obviously was.

Immigration

Trump was also clever with immigration. He would often criticise elites knowing full well that he was one himself and it’s the elites who are least affected by illegal immigration's consequences on U.S. communities. First, he highlighted potential though incorrect pitfalls without holding back. Illegal immigration meant more “hit and run accidents", “crowded emergency hospital rooms", "social security offices”, “more drugs”, "more gang violence”, increased load on an already stretched education system etc. And with such loud pronouncements, he opened a plethora of populist overtures that would transcend political affiliations and loyalties and, in doing so, he suddenly even tapped into the Democrat working-class vote. Who would have thought so?

Moreover, Trump knew that's it’s not the well to do and elites who suffered most in competition for limited subsidies and entitlements due to illegal arrivals, rather it’s the lower middle classes and poor minorities who had to compete.

While the media and its cache of progressive disciples (not meant as criticism), including but not limited to, Hillary Clinton and many Republicans shouted xenophobia and the like, Trump successfully turned the discourse into a question of fairness and lawful equality. “Why” he would shout at his rallies, should select foreign nationals not be subject to federal laws while “you” (American citizens) are not permitted to pick and choose which laws to follow?

Employment

He also focused on employment by reminding would-be voters that economic growth was weak and that labour non- participation was still very high and competition for jobs, intense. Thus, why was the U.S. allowing foreign nationals to compete in the workforce under illegal auspices whereas those who sought legal entry were not rendered the same rights and privileges? Typical fear mongering!

This led to another pitfall by Trump's political opponents, detractors and the media. The broad consensus suggested that DT would fail with any tough immigration stance because Latino’s, - those of Latin American origin who comprised a great many illegal immigrants in the first place, - was an emerging voting force to contend with. It was widely assumed that going hard on immigration would be political suicide. But Latino communities were not totally uniform, hence established Hispanics, Latinos whatever, were actually targeted by Trump and made to understand that it was they who suffered most due to the consequences of illegal immigration, and it worked and many voted for him.

Trade 

Trade is complex or, at the very least hardly the zero-sum game that Trump successfully turned the discourse into. Republican  - and Washington - policy regards trade has always been tantamount to an unconstrained form of free trade regardless of potential pitfalls for U.S. consumers and its local producers. U.S. policymakers and politicians did not bat an eyelid as the EU or Japan subsidized their exports and even raised barriers to imports. While such policy adjustments abroad angered American producers and voters, Washington accepted the imbalance in the knowledge that local producers would be forced to tighten their costs, seek greater efficiencies and become more competitive. But alas, Trump seized on this as evidence that it was Americans who paid the ultimate price through job losses and/or lower incomes. The U.S. has always been an advocate of the globalization experiment; accordingly, any trade liabilities were consented to without push back as part of its hypothetical responsibility to further the globalization cause among weaker trading partners. After all, it was still the world’s largest economy, even if only just still ahead of China and, most certainly the most powerful nation militarily.

Trump was gaining traction through his message that such lop-lopsidedness hurt ordinary Americans and that U.S. policymakers, being the architects of this trade ideology, were not impacted by its ramifications. Lest we forget, Trump himself was a billionaire Manhattan man with many privileges, a man who, like those he criticised, would hardly have been impacted by the trade policies he was attacking. But here we witnessed Trump channelling frustrations to middle America, ordinary factory workers, plumbers, electricians, retail workers and the like with much empathy. He avoided the singular, instead of focusing on plural possessive pronouns, “our workers”, ‘our farmers”, “our….”, he assured them that the pain they felt was not beyond their control, that their economic circumstances were not predetermined but regulated by elites and that only he could liberate them. 

Little wonder he soon penetrated the Democratic “Blue wall”. In the rallies that followed, the populist language was adjusted to fit the parameters of general electoral college vocabulary. Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc. soon internalised the mantra. Trump would save mining jobs, construction and manufacturing and the more he spoke in politically incorrect terms, the sharper his message. The trade conversation surrounding the 2016 Presidential race was effortlessly won by Trump. 

Political Correctness

Finally, can anyone offer a more effective tool for a populist to advance his course that head butting the concept that is, political correctness? If you need any evidence that PC is the current day turn off one need only witness the global sensation that is, Jordan Peterson. To the delight of many, Trump liberally offered terms like, “Merry Christmas” and “Radical Islamic Terror”. Nor would he shy away from saying something as benign as, “Mr” or “Mrs”, “waitress” or “man-made” etc. Trump proudly advocated orthodox terms without fear or favour at the delight of his emerging base. It did not matter what the subject matter, “Black lives matter” or, the Environment, Trump spoke in the language of yesteryear as if seeking to rekindle a past moral universe where the “forgotten man” resided. “We're gonna get away from political correctness” his often-banded quote. This language resonated with a significant proportion of would-be voters who have little affinity for progressive culture – identity politics, radical feminism, boutique environmentalism and metro sexual careerism. 

Remarkably, a proportion of the voting population that resided in more than 70 per cent of America’s geography somehow remained largely unknown to media, academia, celebrities, politicians and Hollywood sorts, but not to Donald Trump.

Lines like, “America First”, “Build that Wall”, “Drain the Swamp”, “Lock her up” (Hillary) and Trump’s official campaign slogan, “Make America Great” (MAGA) resonated with many, and gave Donald Trump the Presidency, a result that surprised so many an elite that incorrectly assumed their own values were shared by all Americans. As one source put it:

"Trump won with the endorsement of (only) one major newspaper; his party establishment disavowed him, and many of its billionaires sat out the race; his campaign was out-spent and out-organized; his tax dodges were exposed; and a video documented his predatory sexist boasts reinforced by testimonies of several of his victims." 

Bellicose President Trump has many flaws but we should not be surprised that his base looked to him and rewarded him, not merely in the hope of getting back to work or, to reclaim a forgotten way of speaking in public, but for paying tribute rather than scoffing at their way of living as Hillary did with her "Basket of Deplorables" statement, not that she was incorrect.

Further reading:

The Unbearable Smugness of the Press

© 2018 - 2024 Ottavio Marasco. All rights reserved.

Though a Vocation Calls ...

As my late fifties approached, I occasionally reflect on possible post-retirement activities, more accurately, what vocation can I embrace. It's still some way off, but given my considerations require skill, it's not too early to begin planning, that way when the day arrives, I can immerse myself without delay. It was June 2021 and, for as long as I could remember, I have had a yearning for career growth and/or change as distinct from my present job. My existing job is merely a well-paying position, it is not me per-se, given that it is normal to associate career with identity, I have never been able to associate the two, that is, me and my job. It’s like the accountant who thinks, I work as an accountant and earn my living as such, but I am not an accountant. Without being specific, I am a rail professional, it's what I do for an income, it's hardly me however. 

A desire for change outside of my existing job has not resulted in a vocation in spite of many a dabbling's in the past including Politics, my previous blogs, and freelance writing gigs. But work in its present form will end one day and, with any luck, creativity can kick in through a vocation. 

So as I began the journey toward the final chapter of a productive life, I am exploring what my vocation could be. It seems as though it has been a calling of sorts, and while accepted logic would suggest that my time has passed or, that I am too old, I dismiss this. Each of us is called to be someone and/or to do things, it’s part of our existence. If we’re growth orientated then discovery is a lifelong process.

There are two areas of interest, two areas that I know a little more than the average Joe about. China in terms of international affairs, and the U.S. in terms of same. 

If there is to be a mission in pursuit of either or both these interests then, regardless of which, one thing is certain, specialised knowledge is paramount. Though I read a great deal I cannot help but recall what Napoleon Hill wrote many a year ago, book smarts or general knowledge only give you generic intelligence. Specific knowledge or specialisation are the keys to success. Zig Ziglar put it this way, “You Cannot Make It as a Wandering Generality". Mr Hill made another notable point, by adding that the knowledge does not necessarily have to be in one's possession. This suggests that I seek out collaboration both possessing and sharing specialised knowledge, all the while contributing value. Significantly, the acquired specialisation must be used with purpose and strategy. Accordingly, knowledge must be organised. This all means that intermediate levels of knowledge specialisation in my chosen interest are, at the very least, to be mastered. On this basis, a significant undertaking. 

Admittedly, I don’t quite know which to pursue yet, the introspective self is pronounced and still, nothing crystal. Perhaps it could be both about China and the U.S. as they are quite the strategic competitors at present. 

There is an obstacle within the conscience. A dilemma if you will. It's like standing near the edge of a cliff not focusing, just looking into the vastness of time and space, time past, the present and future, space unending, ever-changing. I perceive too much and in doing so nothing, just status quo. Perhaps this is okay, the universe is pleading for patience. The nothingness is at times, unbearable though I know better, it shouldn't be. It's akin to forms of solitude and in today's world this can be viewed as a shortcoming. “Nourish yourself with grand and austere ideas of beauty that feed the soul… Seek solitude,” young Delacroix counselled himself in 1824. 

The paragraph you are now reading was written some weeks after the previous one, a necessary pause on my part to test for resolve and reasoning. So what will it be? I now know what that "obstacle within the conscience" was, time or lack thereof as a result of existing work hours, in addition to an appreciation of the words I wrote above, so true, and compelling, “on this basis, a significant undertaking”. Indeed it is, and it is this realisation coupled with my being time-poor that has, at least in the interim, revealed the answer. 

This will have to be enough  wrote Krista O'Reilly Davi-Digui in her exquisite piece, What if All I Want is a Mediocre Life? “One must know what one wants to be,” the eighteenth-century French mathematician Émilie du Châtelet wrote in weighing the nature of genius. “ But my mind must keep ticking, evaluating, growing, contributing for as du Châtelet noted so wonderfully in her middle years:

Since I began to live with myself, and to pay attention to the price of time, to the brevity of life, to the uselessness of the things one spends one’s time with in the world, I have wondered at my former behaviour: at taking extreme care of my teeth, of my hair and at neglecting my mind and my understanding. I have observed that the mind rusts more easily than iron, and that it is even more difficult to restore to its first polish.

Thus my two aforementioned interests, as interesting as I may find them require some serious and time-consuming effort stretched over many a year. I cannot pursue them in the manner and way I wish to, while still in full time work. 

You can be excused for thinking that I’m too hard on myself, I don’t have to be an intermediate level, expert, perhaps skilled would suffice? That is not me, nor do I think that I would be of any real value to anyone if I am only going to replicate second-hand information that’s available across media, even if the latter is cleverly crafted in my own words or, as I wrote in this blogs bio, infused with my own, "individual spin and" … "distinctive sensibility and "perception of my chosen subject matter".

I do not care for cursory kicks, I've enjoyed incidental notoriety in the past when no less than 26 of my blog posts, as lifted from my American Interests site appeared on the pages of Reuters while many also featured on the Chicago Sun-Times site.  The American Interests URL was also included on a Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee Buzz list, a Federal Advisory Committee to the United States Department of Defence of which Richard Perle was the initial Chairman and later, John Hamre. Finally, the blog was also reproduced in book form totalling well over 600 pages.

If I were going to succeed in say, my China example what would that ultimately mean? Book writing, research submissions, contributing to the efforts of Think Tanks and the like are but some options. Now let's consider the prerequisites required for contributions to and/or participation in Think Tanks. Typically specialised media, interest groups and Think Tanks would only solicit the works of individuals that have completed honours or postgraduate studies in the field of endeavour and notably, be amongst the best in terms of results combined with related experience. Not that I would be seeking an internship, at my age that's implausible however, any contribution would be nigh impossible without the credibility provided by relevant background education and experience. Furthermore, any likely participation on my part would be quantified against other outstanding individuals within a highly competitive process. Ordinarily, the alumni would include, Rhodes scholars, current and ex-diplomats, former defence officers, Journalists and Academics. Having done some research, I feel confident that, unless I were to actually cease work and immerse myself entirely on a fairly steep learning curve the exercise will be superfluous. Regrettably, such immersion is not possible at this juncture and, given that for me it’s either the real deal or nothing, I have to be practical.

I'm imagining that if I were to win big in a lotto then, upon ceasing work, I would cheerfully become a full-time University student in my chosen interest. Truth be known, I have often reflected on this, while most folk at my age would think about retiring, travelling, buying fancy cars, designer clothes and/or chilling, I would willingly embrace the aforementioned trial upon retiring, as challenging as it might be.

To console oneself, I reflect on the knowledge that to succeed in any of the options above calls for a mammoth effort in order to migrate from passive to intermediate levels of "value" contribution to the field of study, to the endeavour. Once again that realisation, “a significant undertaking”. 

This awareness acknowledges the skill levels out there, and what it will take for me to succeed, it reflects wisdom and for that, I can be grateful. It also indicates growth as at a much younger age, I might have embarked on an ill-fated journey landing me right back where I started.

In closing, a sense of mild melancholy sweeps over me, that slightly disturbing feeling that spells, is that it, is that all it will be for me? For the time being yes, at any rate, I trust the future. 

Sapientia et Doctrina.

The Mentally Strong

I wouldn’t refer to myself as intellectually or mentally strong, but through all my senses, I have learned enough in my years to suggest that those who have had a different mindset, one that lends itself to greater levels of inner peace, in spite of life's offerings no matter how adverse. Do you know anyone like that? Nothing seems to throw them off, it’s as if little fazes them. They’re still subject to sadness, pain and suffering, only an automaton wouldn’t, but not exclusively, they can handle much more misfortune and hardship than most folk.

So what’s going on here? Has it to do with intelligence, background, culture, past events or is it something more elusive. I am willing to bet it has a little of all the above but mostly, the mentally strong have a mindset that embraces a continuing dogged quest for personal growth that focuses on managing their own behaviour, thoughts and therefore resultant feelings. I stress, their own!

There may be a myriad of ways they achieve this, but for the purpose of this writing, permit me to summarize what I’ve learned. The mentally strong avoid certain things, objects of thoughts if you will, that could impair their inner peace.

1. They have no interest in impressing fellow humans. There is nothing wrong with pointing out your new material joy once, whether it be a new Tesla or $12,000 Rolex watch, nor is there anything wrong with highlighting your kid's educational achievements once, notice the keyword? Once! But when you know someone that highlights that same material joy, not once but every time you see them or, that steers the conversation such that their child’s double degree, or masters degree or doctoral degree gets a mention not once, but almost every second time you get together then something else is going on. This compare and contrast mentality signals a poor internal constitution and low self-esteem on the part of the boaster, usually a mum and it’s easily recognised. The mentally strong, do not need or seek any form of admiration or approval as they are entirely comfortable with what is. It’s their own values, principles, beliefs and standards that ultimately dictate a course of action or their thought processes and their conversations.
2. Seeking perfection is for the weak, seeking excellence is for the strong. The mentally strong understand and welcome failure while recognizing their flaws. 
3. They refuse to partake in anger and will not harbour grudges in the knowledge that this will only diminish them. This as a way of embracing the positive energy that surrounds them (and us all) not the negative opposite. 
4. They refuse to blame their misfortune or problems on that outside of them; external circumstances. Their focus is more often than not, on what is within their control. They do not understand, let alone acknowledge any notion related to the world (or people) being out to get them. It’s commonly referred to a victim mentality.
5. Materialism is not part of their language. Nice new car, big home, expensive stuff, possessions whatever. This is not to suggest their minimalists, what it does suggest is that they only have a material interest in what brings them pleasure and in turn, serenity.
6. You instinctively know the toxic types when you come across them, then why engage them? The mentally strong avoid them at all cost knowing full well, that there is little to be achieved by attempting any engagement.
7. They understand their limitations while acknowledging that they are prone to mistakes. In saying that, they understand that one cannot prevent the nasties in life, whatever they may be, They can mitigate the risk of occurrence but that’s as far as it goes. Things out of their immediate sphere of control are accepted as such. 
8. They understand that long term satisfaction is what counts as opposed to needing to be continually happy. They almost inherently understand that contentment is gained through hard work, sometimes involving significant and sustained effort.  
9. Comfort zones are for the mediocre. They do not avoid discomfort. While avoiding outright recklessness, they know the level of discomfort that can be tolerated and ultimately engender personal growth. 
10. You cannot do it all on your own, complete self-reliance is a paradox of sorts, as no single individual has all the answers. They understand that there is no weakness in seeking assistance or professional help when needed. 

If any of the above is even remotely accurate, it calls for some regulation of emotions and behaviours despite whatever the circumstances; something that takes courage and effort but it’s what sets the mentally strong apart from the rest.

Eyes Wide Shut A Review By Otto Marasco

Running Length: 2:40
MPAA Classification: R (Graphic sex, frequent nudity, profanity)

Cast: Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, Sydney Pollack, Todd Field, Marie Richardson, Rade Serbedzija, Vinessa Shaw, Leelee Sobieski

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Producer: Stanley Kubric

It was with inquisitive anticipation that I approached my first viewing of Stanley Kubrick’s 14th and final work – Eyes Wide Shut. It certainly was not so much due to the much-hyped publicity that preceded its launch; the steamy trailers, and newsstand covers seemingly depicting a world of necrophilia, swinging and extra–marital exploration wrapped in an erotically charged thriller. It was the famous director and filmmaker that incited my fascination, and in particular, how he would treat the subject matter of his latest work – the destructive de-humanizing elements of human nature; fears and jealousy.

Eyes Wide Shut is largely concerning a transitory fracture that develops within the seemingly perfect relationship between Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) the well-heeled Manhattan general practitioner and his wife Alice (Nicole Kidman). The film has the directors’ definitive stamp. Indeed Kubrick’s perfectionist filmmaking idiosyncrasies have been well documented but deserve special reference in this case. The eclectic and yet minimal music, beautiful rich imagery and colour, the meticulously unhurried presentation all shot with an exceedingly decipherable measure of precision. Eyes Wide Shut confers the impression that you are viewing a masterpiece. Just like 2001 A Space Odyssey, Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange this is a challenging and intellectual film made by a unique artist whose product practically defies established film genres. It is perhaps fitting to state that Stanley Kubrick’s work is a genre in itself. The curtain rise reveals the doctor and his wife as they prepare to attend a sophisticated upper class Christmas function thrown by a friend Victor Zeigler (Sydney Pollack). They both engage in some open flirtation, Bill with two gorgeous women and Alice with a vulturous Hungarian lothario. Following on Alice asks Bill why he does not seem to mind her enticing behavior. His responds that he trusts her totally and in any event, suggests that it is men who are most likely to seek sex outside of marriage. The response touches her raw side. She decides to unequivocally reveal the lust she felt for a naval officer they both encountered sometime in their past. Her narrative is comprehensive and exposes a sincere carnal longing. Bill is psychologically wounded and experiences a sudden surge of jealousy. Shakespeare’s “green-eyed-monster” jealousy is a gut-wrenching and tormenting feeling which (depending on the degree of the threat) can bring even the most content and outwardly successful of souls down to the lowest levels – the bourgeois and beyond are not exempted. Dr. Bill Harford’s exclusive hold on Alice is under siege. As a way of coping he embarks on some adventures of his own which lead to a surreal gothic like underworld of sexual fear and desire, perversion and pleasure mixed with elements of real danger and even death. The supporting cast members are brilliant and appear especially real and convincing. The art direction provides copious amounts of plush detail. Beautiful antique interiors, apartments with foyers to die for, long (very long) hallways and ballrooms belonging to characters that live in an enduring world of prosperity. If there is to be any Freudian streak within the theme it would be the connection made between sex and death. The doctor fearing for his life after viewing the orgy, the dead patients daughter asserting her longing for the doctor and the prostitute who is diagnosed HIV positive. Ultimately, the film tends to disturb rather than arouse. Interestingly, there is something oddly uncontemporary and old fashioned about the way Eyes Wide Shut deals with sex. It highlights the negative forces it can generate because of its repression. To this end, the film would have had greater impact if it were set in the days before the sexual revolution. Its painstaking production and attention to every detail has created a degree of artificiality within the product. This is an inevitable outcome given the directors style and it will undeniably limit its saturation value within the mainstream. For the nonprofessional the entertainment value is somewhat diminished, as Eyes Wide Shut is far more akin to an outstanding art house film. For me every scene extension, exaggerated dialogue and the seemingly overcooked character presence represents Kubrick’s qualities. The technical proficiency and limitless exactitudes are there for good reason and challenge viewers to become absorbed. Eyes Wide Shut offers far more than an evening’s diversion in front of a Plasma, CRT or LCD. It seeks the attention of a thoughtful audience in a manner and way that harks back to the very early classics. We should understand that Kubrick gave up on film critics almost three decades ago. It can be argued that to enjoy the film one has to understand the director’s emotions and thought processes, indeed one gets the impression that Kubrick would have expected nothing less from an audience. Clearly, it will appeal to a select few in addition to hardcore fans. I challenge the rest to appreciate what it offers in the context of intellectual and influential cinema.

Will Artificial Intelligence Outsmart Humans?

In 2014, Google paid $400 million for artificial intelligence start-up Deepmind. Amazon uses it as a recommendations engine for robots in its warehouses. Its voice assistant Alexa, uses neural networks to power natural language. Microsoft created an Artificial Intelligence and Research Group that cuts across Windows, Office, and Azure ...

Those close to me know I read a lot, and this is especially so of late. Nowadays, I have up to four books on the go at a time. Presently I’m reading, The Laws of Human Nature by Robert Greene, To Obama by Jeanne Marie Laskas, Asian Waters by Humphrey Hawksley and Brief Answers to Big Questions by Stephen Hawking. This last book and, in particular, the chapter Will AI Outsmart Us”, forms the catalyst for this post. Hawking’s book can be viewed as his parting gift to us and is both pessimistic and hopeful about the future.

Both China and the United States lead the world in the AI race and, while many a pundit and expert seem to indicate that the Chinese will win this race, it remains a very fluid path. Just a few days ago, Potus Trump surprised the tech world by saying that he will be signing an executive order that would create a new American AI initiative to, “devote the full resources of the federal government" to help fuel AI innovation.

Some of you may be familiar with the more benign ways in which AI (sometimes called machine intelligence) comes into our lives today. It plays a central role in Google’s strategy for growth with its CEO recently saying that “In the long run, we're evolving in computing from a 'mobile-first' to an 'AI-first' world”. In 2014, Google paid $400 million for artificial intelligence startup Deepmind. Amazon uses it as a recommendations engine for robots in its warehouses. Its voice assistant Alexa, uses neural networks to power natural language. Microsoft created an Artificial Intelligence and Research Group that cuts across Windows, Office, and Azure while engaging in an AI shopping spree buying up five companies. AI plays a crucial role in Facebook's family of products, as Joaquin Quiñonero Candela, the head of Facebook's Applied Machine Learning group, explained in 2017, “Facebook today cannot exist without AI” …. "Every time you use Facebook or Instagram or Messenger, you may not realise it, but your experiences are being powered by AI." Spotify uses AI to power its music recommendations through collaborative filtering that analyse behaviour and Natural Language Processing that interpret text and audio models.

Notwithstanding, these AI measures reflect the simple or once again, benign stuff. There are many ways in which AI development can be outright dangerous for humanity. While concerns usually center around, autonomous weaponry, social manipulation, discrimination and invasion of privacy and social grading  - think China’s use of AI to control citizenry. The potential threat is far worse still.

Excerpts from Hawking’s book.

If computers continue to obey Moore’s law, doubling their speed and capacity every eighteen months, the result is that computers are likely to overtake humans in intelligence at some point. When artificial intelligence becomes better than humans at AI design, so that it can recursively improve itself without human help, we may face an intelligence explosion that ultimately results in machines whose intelligence exceeds ours by more than ours exceeds snails. When that happens, we will need to ensure that the computers have goals aligned with ours.

AI can augment our existing intelligence to open up advances in every area of science and society. However, it will also bring dangers. The concern is that AI would take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution couldn’t compete and would be superseded.

As mathematician Irving Good realized in 1965, machines with superhuman intelligence could repeatedly improve their design even further, in what science fiction writer Vernor Vinge called a technological singularity. Whereas, the short term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all. 

If goals aren't aligned with ours we’re in trouble. You're probably not an evil ant hater who steps on ants out of malice, but if you’re in charge of a hydroelectric green energy project and there is an ant hill in the region to be flooded, too bad for the ants. Let’s not place humanity in the position of those ants.  

When we invented fire, we messed up repeatedly then invented the fire extinguisher. With more powerful technologies … we should instead plan ahead, and aim to get things right the first time, because it may be the only chance we get.

Why are we so worried about artificial intelligence? Surely 

humans are always able to pull the plug?

People asked a computer, “Is there a God?” 

And the computer said, “There is now,” 

and fused the plug. 

Back in the seventies, I came across the book, World Zero Minus which I have since owned. It's an SF anthology from some of the best science fiction writers of the time. In one of the stories, “All the Troubles of the World”, Isaac Asimov writes about Multivac, a supercomputer that has the weight of the whole of “humanity's problems on its figurative shoulders”. It has the responsibility of analyzing the entire sum of data on planet Earth and is used to “determine solutions to economic, social and political problems, as well as more specific crises as they arise”. It also had precise data on every citizen of the world. Multivac became so incredibly complex that it achieved a “form of sapience itself”. After a series of events, one of Multivacs coordinators, Ali Othman comes to the startling realization that Multivac is growing tired, and learns that the supercomputer has set a plan in motion to cause its own death. Multivac was posed a question that had never been put to it, asked Othman, “what do you yourself want more than anything else”? Multivac answers unequivocally, “I want to die."

“All the Troubles of the World” was a great short story but I do not believe tomorrow's supercomputer will grow fatigued and wish for its own demise. In the AI world envisioned by Hawking, while he doesn't explain it, he is NOT referring to a single machine computer, be it as super as one can imagine. The supercomputer of tomorrow will be a series of supercomputers, supported by data centers, computer systems, electronic devices, telecommunications and storage systems powered by fast emerging technologies like quantum that collectively, form a holistic though geographically scattered form of intelligence that works collaboratively as one, without intent, to inflict harm on humanity or otherwise, that can inflict harm. A collaboration that, through its exponential intelligence, develops a form of non-attached, autonomous sapience. It’s a scary though highly plausible future.

Further reading:

The Spooky Genius of Artificial Intelligence

Bill Gates: "I don't understand why some people are not concerned"

Largest U.S. Centre for AI Intelligence Policy

Diane Francis: Artificial Intelligence: The Next Nuke?