The American Occupation of Iran 1941 – 1978: how being a US colony led to the suppression of democracy in Iran

Carlton Meyer, “The American Occupation of Iran 1941 – 1978” (Tales of the American Empire, 13 March 2020)

In 2013 the CIA finally owned up to what was probably the most open secret in the global intelligence community: that the organisation had masterminded the overthrow of the popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and helped make Mohammed Reza Pahlavi absolute monarch of the country, with all the consequences of political corruption and severe repression that followed for the next 25 years. But even before 1953, as Carlton Meyer reveals in this 9-minute video, Iran had been a puppet state colony of the United States as far back as 1941. For much of the first half of the 20th century, Iran had been afflicted by British meddling in its politics through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which Meyer mistakenly calls the Anglo-American Oil Company) which had claimed first dibs on the country’s oil since Winston Churchill, as head of the Admiralty, decided to make oil the main fuel for British naval ships. This decision enabled to British to build larger, faster and more fuel-efficient sea-going vessels but it also meant that Iran’s oil became a precious commodity and the British were determined to keep that commodity for themselves.

When the British decided to steal Iranian oil outright in the early 1940s due to London’s inability to pay for the royalties, they enlisted the help of the Americans in taking over Iran’s oil. Thousands of Americans poured into the country as advisors to the then newly installed Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, as his father (who had been a little too partial towards Germany) was whisked away into exile. Even after the war ended and US soldiers began leaving Iran, the country was still under neo-colonial US control. The Western advisors ignored the plight of ordinary Iranians who in the early 1950s brought to power Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister. When Mossadegh nationalised the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the British and the Americans under President Eisenhower conspired to overthrow Mossadegh in an early Color Revolution.

The video sweeps over this early history efficiently with Meyer’s even-toned narration though some pictures are not very relevant to the narration. Poor old Mossadegh is completely missing from photographs, film and narration. Meyer goes very quickly over the Shah’s legacy of repressing Iranians through his secret police (SAVAK) and his family’s corruption and lavish lifestyles while ordinary Iranians lived in poverty and were subjected to forced modernisation. Eventually all classes revolted against the Shah in 1978 and the revolution was very quickly taken over by religious leaders such as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who returned to Iran in triumph in early 1979. The Americans in Iran were expelled.

While some details of the video can be disputed – Khomeini and other religious leaders did not enjoy universal popularity among all classes that were against the Shah, and the country did have a secular government for a while before Khomeini installed an Islamic government – on the whole the video presents a good general survey of American domination of Iran during puppet ruler Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi’s reign. Once again this shameful example highlights US imperial hypocrisy and indifference where the resources of poor countries needed by the US (and the British before them) are stolen to the detriment and impoverishment of their rightful owners. At least the video ends on an upbeat note: the Iranians now have a democracy (where presidential candidates are vetted by government and religious authorities before they are allowed to campaign: this is no more and no less what happens in most Western countries) and the lives of most Iranians have improved since the late 1980s at least.

Football Star Murdered in Afghanistan: how the US government exploited the life and death of Pat Tillman

Carlton Meyer, “Football Star Murdered in Afghanistan” (Tales of the American Empire, 9 April 2020)

With the passage of time, former NRL football player turned soldier Pat Tillman (1976 – 2004) may well turn out to be an all-American hero – just not in the way assumed by most Americans brought up on US news media and Hollywood propaganda. After completing college on a football scholarship, Tillman began an illustrious sports career as linebacker for the Arizona Cardinals in the late 1990s. Eight months after the plane attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York in September 2001, Tillman turned down a US$3.6 million contract with the Arizona Cardinals and enlisted in the US Army with his brother Kevin. After completing training, Tillman participated in the US invasion in Iraq in 2003 and then returned to the US to complete other military training. In October, he was sent to Afghanistan. On 22 April 2004, Tillman was killed, supposedly by Afghan enemy combatants.

Meyer’s short 9-minute video shows that, rather than being killed by enemy Afghans in the heat of battle, Tillman was killed in cold blood by someone on his own side in a scenario that suspiciously looks like a trap aimed at getting rid of him. During his deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tillman became disillusioned with the US conduct of the war in those two nations. He voiced his disapproval to other soldiers. The video mentions that he exchanged correspondence with leading US dissident of the time, Noam Chomsky, and planned to meet with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor after returning to the US. It seems very likely that the Pentagon realised how embarrassing Tillman’s meeting with Chomsky and opinions might be to it, and how his actions and opinions might affect the US public’s attitude to the military. That might affect the all-important military recruitment drive among high school students and other young people to get more cannon fodder to throw at harmless people of colour in dirt-poor countries holding resources dear to wealthy elites in the US and other parts of the Western world. Therefore Tillman had to go.

The video does a good job of delineating Tillman’s career in the last few years of his life. Viewers wanting more information will need to make their investigations but the video provides enough detail to be a foundation for those enquiries. Special mention must be made of Tillman’s family members, particularly his mother, who became suspicious when Tillman’s personal belongings including his private diary were burned by the Army rather than returned to his immediate relatives. The family later discovered that Tillman had been killed by friendly fire. The video also mentions that Army doctors disagreed with the official narrative on the cause of Tillman’s death and pointed out that Tillman was shot three times in forehead at near point-blank range.

A major source of information relied on by the video is a “60 Minutes” (US version) interview with Pat Tillman’s mother Mary about her son and the despicable and cowardly way in which the US Army and the US government handled the news and information about the circumstances of Tillman’s death. As with other videos in the Tales of the American Empire series, this major source comes near the end of the video.

It seems that justice for Pat Tillman, bringing his killers and those who plotted his death into a court of law to be charged with premeditated murder, is still some way off. His brave family continues to meet with obfuscations from the authorities. The video ends quite awkwardly and abruptly. Tillman’s horrific death serves to show that even in the case of one very high-profile and popular individual, the US government and the powers behind it are prepared to exploit that person’s popularity and reputation for their own ends and to throw the individual under the proverbial bus when it suits them – let alone other lesser-known people and even entire nations. This is the way of the political culture of the US and its allies.

American Bungling Destroyed Pan Am 103: a tale of aggression, incompetence and enduring injustice

Carlton Meyer, “American Bungling Destroyed Pan Am 103” (Tales of the American Empire, May 2020)

To understand the rush of information in this short video about the role of the incident in which the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, a civilian passenger jet, setting in train moves by the Iranian government to seek vengeance on the Americans, leading to the bomb explosion that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland in December 1988 for which Libya was made to endure unending global opprobrium and an economic blockade, and see one of its citizens convicted and imprisoned for the crime, viewers need to have an open mind to accept the possibility that the US government bears ultimate responsibility for the terrorist attack on the ill-fated American passenger jet – not least because the captain of the USS Vincennes at the time it shot down the Iranian passenger jet was a man known by his peers as overly aggressive towards to the Iranian military while the USS Vincennes was stationed in the Persian Gulf. This means considering the very real possibility that Libya never had anything to do with a crime for which the country has endured decades of opprobrium and economic blockade, and for which one of its citizens was wrongly convicted and imprisoned for several years. The video probably needs repeated viewing at least a couple of times for the details about how the Iranian government conspired with a radical Palestinian group to plant the bomb on board, perhaps with the connivance of the CIA and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), to sink in. Once the viewer is familiar with these details, the film’s central premise – that a captain responsible for combined deaths of over 530 people ends up receiving an award instead of being court-martialled for reckless behaviour, and that the US covered up for the Iranians to preserve its reputation as a superpower and an exceptional nation that cannot be brought down by a lesser power – eventually sinks in.

Perhaps a slower pace would have been more ideal for the voice-over narration: the video quickly sweeps through Lester Coleman and Donald Goddard’s book “Trail of the Octopus: From Beirut to Lockerbie – Inside the DIA” which posits that terrorists had infiltrated a DEA drug operation outside the US and the DEA’s own incompetence allowed these terrorists to smuggle a bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103. Scant attention is given to a possibility that the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) themselves were fighting a turf war: the scenario is that the CIA was running a heroin ring in the Middle East which had been busted by the DIA; DIA agents boarded Pan Am Flight 103 in London with evidence of this ring; the CIA colluded with its Middle Eastern partners (who themselves had indirect links to the Iranian government) to replace the DIA suitcase containing incriminating evidence with one containing the bomb. Even less attention (that is, zero) is given to the possibility of South African involvement in the bomb plot.

The video expounds at some length on why Libya was picked as the scapegoat for the Lockerbie disaster: the US had long detested Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi for overthrowing Libya’s monarchy in 1969, shutting down a US base on Libyan soil and establishing a society on socialistic lines. Blaming Libya for the bombing rather than Iran conveniently killed three birds with one stone, leaving Libya further out in the cold from the international community, preserving US superpower status, one supposedly impenetrable from challenges by dirt-poor Middle Eastern states, and diverting public attention away from asking hard questions about the actions of the USS Vincennes in shooting down a civilian airliner. By doing this, the US revealed itself as much a coward as it was a liar.

In all of this, the role of other nations, especially Britain, in aiding and abetting an injustice against Libya and Abdelbaset el-Megrahi is unfortunately ignored – but then this video is part of a series of works on US military and political interference around the globe. What other countries, especially European countries like France and Italy, hoped to get out of ganging up on Libya remains unknown. The cynicism and hypocrisy involved in blaming Libya for a heinous crime carried out by other parties with the connivance of their allies in the West are breath-taking.

The Destruction of Libya in 2011: a good general survey of events surrounding the downfall of Colonel Ghaddafi

Carlton Meyer, “The Destruction of Libya in 2011” (Tales of the American Empire, May 2020)

A very good general survey of how the US overthrew Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi’s government in 2011 after 42 years of rule and turned what had been Africa’s most prosperous and stable nation into one of the continent’s poorest and most volatile flash-points, this short film does rely on other sources to flesh out its narrative but it is straightforward, unflinching and easy to follow. After pushing for a no-fly zone at the United Nations and getting it, the US and its allies invaded Libya, bombed its major cities and infrastructure (including the Great Man-made River Project, the world’s largest irrigation scheme, bringing water from beneath the Sahara to Libya’s coastal cities) and allowed Islamic jihadists, many of them foreign, to brutalise, sodomise and kill Ghaddafi. The country’s gold wealth was stolen by Western banks and thousands of Libyan refugees, along with hundreds of thousands of refugees from other parts of Africa, wracked by wars stemming in part from foreign (especially US) meddling, fled Libya by attempting dangerous sea voyages across the Mediterranean Sea to Malta and Italy, and then beyond. Thousands drowned in the Mediterranean and even those who made landfall in the EU faced uncertain and often dangerous futures.

Through maps, archived newsreels and John Pilger’s interview of Julian Assange on the then US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s role in pushing an invasion of Libya, narrator Meyer lays out how the US has plotted to bring down Ghaddafi’s government since he deposed the country’s former king in 1969 and set about reconstructing Libyan society along socialistic lines. Ghaddafi introduced free education and healthcare to Libyans and many other services were subsidised by the government. The Great Man-Made River Project was financed entirely by Libyan banks operating on what Westerners would regard as unorthodox financial and banking principles. Throughout Ghaddafi’s long reign as the country’s figurehead – he relinquished the role of Prime Minister in the late 1970s – the US consistently painted him as a quixotic dictator and blamed him or his country’s agents for various terrorist incidents including the Pan Am passenger jet bombing at Lockerbie in December 1988. The no-fly zone declared in late 2011 allowed a US-led coalition that included France and Italy to initiate a bombing campaign of Libya in which thousands were killed or injured. Since then, Islamic jihadist groups such as ISIS and al Qa’eda, financed or supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US and EU nations, have been fighting the Libyan National Army commanded by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, formerly on the CIA payroll.

The most jaw-dropping part of the video is John Pilger’s interview of Julian Assange in which Assange states that Hillary Rodham Clinton (hereafter HRC) pressured US President Barack Obama to attack Libya and depose Ghaddafi, with the intention of using a successful attack and overthrow of the Libyan government as a core feature of her Presidential election campaign in 2016. The evil cynicism behind this behaviour on HRC’s part is mind-boggling: thousands of people had to die, and floods of people had to pour out of Libya (which had hitherto provided them with jobs on the GMMR Project) and into Europe, destabilising that continent, just so this wretched woman could use the invasion to flaunt herself as a Presidential candidate in 2016. With Donald Trump’s success in the US Presidential elections in 2016, HRC’s ambitions came to naught.

At every step along the way to Ghaddafi and Libya’s downfall, the US government or its agencies (particularly the CIA and maybe the National Endowment for Democracy) are in the thick of the plotting and grooming of alternative leaders who nearly always have been educated in the US from childhood on and who know very little of their original countries’ histories, in part because their families left and joined the global diaspora of migrants, refugees and other displaced individuals and family groups.

The film does have an abrupt open-ended conclusion though the message is very clear that US political / economic / military interference in another nation’s affairs nearly always leads to impoverishment, instability and degeneration manifested as political corruption. Neoliberal economic policies and programs are pursued that enrich a very small elite and force the rest of the population to live close to the breadline. Punishment can’t come soon enough for HRC, Barack Obama and others (in France, Italy and the UK at least) who stood to benefit from the US destruction of Libya in 2011.

The Conquest of the Republic of Georgia in 2003: how Georgia gave up independence and became a US vassal state

Carlton Meyer, “The Conquest of the Republic of Georgia in 2003” (Tales of the American Empire, May 2020)

One of a series of films by former US Marine Corps member Carlton Meyer on US political and military interference and intervention in various nations around the world over the past 100 years or so, this short piece is a timely survey of the history of the Republic of Georgia in the Caucasus region between Europe and Asia since the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. Georgia had been part of the Soviet Union since the early 1920s at least – Soviet leader Josef Stalin had been part-Georgian, part-Ossetian, a fact that will become important later – and even before then, had been part of the Russian empire from 1801 to 1917. After the Soviet Union dissolved, Georgia became an independent republic and at this point the United States became interested in drawing the country away from the Russian orbit into its sphere of influence, mainly through the use of soft power in the form of non-government organisations (NGOs) masquerading as charities and humanitarian groups. The US State Department groomed one Mikheil Saakashvili as a future leader, enrolling him at Columbia Law School and then at The George Washington University, later sending him back to Georgia with a huge pot of money. Saakashvili later entered parliament in the late 1990s. After serving as Justice Minister under President Eduard Shevardnadze, Saakashvili quit the government and Shevardnadze’s party, formed his own party and campaigned in the country’s parliamentary elections in November 2003. Saakashvili claimed his party had won the elections and led mass protests and demonstrations that culminated in the resignation of Shevardnadze as President. The coup came to be known as the Rose Revolution, and is the US conquest of Georgia as described in the title of the video.

Through maps and archival news reels, a hilarious FOX television news interview with two Ossetian-American citizens, and with voice-over narration by Meyer himself, the video covers not only Saakashvili’s rise to power (in the process exposing him as a US-groomed stooge) but also US military infiltration of Georgia’s armed forces and police, paving the way for Saakashvili’s invasion of South Ossetia in August 2008. Russian forces assisted South Ossetian forces in throwing back the invading Georgians in a 5-day war but not before about 350 people were killed and over 1,500 injured. Civilians in the contested territory clearly knew who was to blame, as demonstrated in the FOX television news interview with a teenage girl and her aunt, in which both blamed President Saakashvili for starting the war and praised Russia’s role in ending it, causing their host to hastily end the interview and cut to an ad break. The war and a number of political scandals, including the mysterious death of Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania in 2005 and a prison scandal in which prisoners were beaten and sodomised in 2012, dented Saakashvili’s reputation and the President left Georgia in 2013. Criminal charges were filed against him by the Georgian Prosecutor in 2014.

Despite Saakashvili having left Georgia (to resurface in Ukraine in 2014, taking up, then losing, then regaining Ukrainian citizenship in the years following), the video states the country is still very much under the thumb of its US masters. Georgia continues to supply cannon fodder to assist the US in invading foreign countries and subjugating local populations in countries as far apart as Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. The US and Israel continue to supply training to Georgia’s military and security forces. A biological warfare research facility operates in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, often to the detriment of the health of communities in the facility’s immediate vicinity. The US continues to dangle the prospect of NATO membership in front of Georgians even though the country does not fulfill the requirements of NATO membership or those for EU membership. Significant border issues exist between Georgia and its neighbours including Russia.

Far from gaining true independence and security in its neighbourhood, Georgia has given away both to pursue dreams and promises that the US and the EU have no intention of fulfilling.

The American Empire Invades Africa: an overview of US military influence and domination over an entire continent

Carlton Meyer, “The American Empire Invades Africa” (Tales of the American Empire, 11 June 2020)

Former US Marine Corps member Carlton Meyer recently created a series of several short videos, uploaded to Youtube.com, telling the history of US political, economic and military interference in the affairs of nations and continents around the world. In this 11-minute video, Meyer as narrator introduces viewers to a brief and occasionally quite detailed survey of US military activity in the African continent since the end of the Cold War in 1989 through US Africa Command (usually abbreviated to US Africom or just Africom), one of several regional command organisations of the US military. Starting with US general Wesley Clark’s list of seven countries whose governments had to be overthrown in the space of five years (after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001) as home base, Meyer traces the downfall of governments in Somalia, Libya and Sudan (three nations on the list) over a 20-year period. During the 1990s, US activity in Somalia (with Ethiopian assistance) removed a legitimate government in the form of the Union of Islamic Courts and prolonged an ongoing civil war among various clan-based groups in that country, with the result that Somalia became impoverished, huge numbers of refugees fled the country over the years, and political and economic instability still plague that part of Africa to this day. In 2011, NATO overthrew Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi’s government in Libya and likewise that nation, once Africa’s wealthiest country and formerly one of its most stable, is now poor and unstable, with the western and eastern parts of the country opposed to each other and fighting an ongoing civil war. Sudan was subjected to a forced separation of South Sudan from its territory in 2011 in order to weaken the Sudanese President Omar al Bashir; the President was finally ousted after nearly 30 years of rule in 2019. Since its creation from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan has endured several years of civil war, human rights violations, political instability, poverty and the degradation of the cultures of the various Nilotic peoples living within its borders as people flee overseas from continuous war.

Photographs, maps, news reels and even archived news reels, combined with Meyer’s even-toned voiceover, create a straightforward factual narrative detailing overwhelming American imperialism and violence in destabilising African nations. The influence of Africom throughout the continent and the extent of its activities, involving the US National Guard from all 50 states in the Union, are demonstrated in the video’s ultimate centrepiece: a visual advertisement created by Africom itself detailing its activities and the colossal scale of these activities, employing at least a thousand US troops and others, in nearly all African countries except Egypt (part of US Centcom, centred in the Middle East). There is no need for Meyer to say anything about Africom at this point: the marketing is blunt and says all that is needed to say.

Wisely Meyer does not go into too much detail in this video as the target audience (the US general public) is not likely to know very much about US military activity in Africa generally and needs a general overview of the history of such interference. There are online resources for those viewers who want more information and information in depth on particular topics covered in the video. Being a military man, Meyer passes over other forms of US domination (financial, cultural, political, economic) over African countries. He says nothing about how the US became involved in African affairs, how it might have originally supported French and British colonial ambitions in the continent and then taken over once France and Britain left the continent in the 1960s. The video best serves as an introduction to a topic that rarely gets any mention in mainstream news media outlets.

No Justice, No Peace: no justice done to Black Lives Matter and George Floyd by shallow news program

“No Justice, No Peace” (Foreign Correspondent, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 16 June 2020)

Remarkable for what it fails to say and do, this episode purports to investigate how the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has galvanised people across the United States to protest institutional police violence across the nation in the wake of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd on 25 May 2020. With voice-over narration by Sally Sara, the program flits across scenes of demonstrations, aided and abetted by a music soundtrack consisting mostly of soul music, and of interviews with black activists of whom only one, Tamika Mallory, is a BLM leader. All scenes make for good viewing, the music is fine (though hiphop and reggae are conspicuously lacking, even though George Floyd himself was once a rapper known as Big Floyd back in the late 1990s), and the interviewees are angry and passionate, but after all is said and done, and the credits start to roll, the viewer realises how very little new information the program relays that the viewer doesn’t already know.

Very little is said about how far BLM has grown and developed since Foreign Correspondent last covered the movement a few years ago, how many followers it now counts, what its current agenda is and what program for social, economic and political reform and for educating people on racism and the history of racism in the US it may have. There is nothing about Mallory herself, what her stance on various issues affecting black people in the US is and what controversies (such as her past association with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan) she has been embroiled in. One thing Mallory could have told Foreign Correspondent is the extent to which police violence in the US is encouraged by both the US and Israeli governments through police training programs conducted by Israeli security organisations of US police officers in Israel itself and in the US. A recent report by UK online newspaper Morning Star found that back in 2012, 100 police officers from Minnesota state attended a police training workshop in Chicago that was sponsored by the Israeli consulate there. The chokehold that Chauvin used on Floyd (and which suffocated Floyd) is one used by Israeli soldiers and paramilitary on Palestinian people.

That Foreign Correspondent omits to say anything about how police violence might be more than just a reflection of historical racism and a legacy of slavery in the US, and how a culture of police violence has grown and spread throughout the country as (among other things) a result of numerous wars the US has waged against countless other nations over the last one hundred years and more to seize their land and natural wealth, in the process exposing generations of US youth to violence, brutality and trauma, and turning some of those youth into traumatised people or sociopaths who either stress easily and resort to violence too quickly or are so inured to committing brutal and sadistic acts that sadism becomes part of their identity as human beings. The Israeli government and its agencies find profit in offering training on humiliating, torturing and even killing people to US police officers, teaching those officers to view people on the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder as sub-human and worthless. All too often, those people on those bottom rungs tend to be black Americans or people from poor Latin American countries – and often those Latin American countries that have suffered instability and high levels of drug-related crime as a result of continuous US interference in their politics and economies.

Neither does Foreign Correspondent ask why the murder of George Floyd should have suddenly inflamed and motivated people across the US and other parts of the world to demonstrate against their governments and to pull down statues of past historical figures known to have benefited from the exploitation of Third World nations and peoples as slave traders or colonial administrators. The impoverishment of people across First World nations, and the speed with which that impoverishment has increased since the First World entered lock-down after the appearance of COVID-19 and the panic and hysteria the disease generated, apparently was missed by the program producers and reporters. For many years since neoliberal economics became the dominant political, social and economic ideology under Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher’s leadership of the Anglosphere in the 1980s, people’s living standards and quality of life have steadily eroded, social inequalities have increased, the forces of law and order have become more militarised and antagonistic towards the general public, news and information have turned into propaganda, and old problems once thought to be dying out, such as bigotry and racism, are rearing their heads again.

Identity politics, dividing people on the basis of what identifies them instead of uniting them, is used by elites to weaken popular movements by setting people against one another. By presenting George Floyd’s murder as yet one more example of police racism and violence, and not considering the wider context in which US police violence against black Americans (and other underprivileged folk) occurs, Foreign Correspondent shows itself as a propaganda mouthpiece for the elites controlling governments in the Anglosphere and beyond.

The Doctor vs the President: sordid Russia-bashing using COVID-19 pandemic crisis

“The Doctor vs the President” (Foreign Correspondent, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2 June 2020)

Even during the COVID-19 global pandemic, Western mainstream news media outlets can never resist the opportunity to bash countries they are ordered by governments, defence establishments and intel agencies not to like – countries such as Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela – when they should be highlighting, comparing and analysing different approaches adopted by nations around the world to combating the disease and developing ways of eradicating or controlling it. A prime example of the never-ending propaganda is this episode from Australian television current affairs program “Foreign Correspondent” in which home-bound Russia correspondent Eric Campbell follows the adventures through his laptop of supposed renegade ophthalmologist Anastasia Vasilyeva in her stunt to deliver boxes of masks, gloves and other PPE to hospitals battling the SARS-COV-2 virus in the Novgorod oblast (an administrative region between Moscow and St Petersburg). Along the way, Vasilyeva and her convoy of four cars (with three people in each car – what happened to social distancing?) are stopped and questioned by police who then detain her for breaking lock-down rules (she was supposed to stay in Moscow) and for having no registration in Novgorod oblast (the region having closed its borders to outsiders). Since the convoy included a lawyer, a foreign reporters and three camera crew, instead of a full complement of medical staff and nurses from her trade union (Alliance of Doctors), Dr Vasilyeva obviously knew she was going to be arrested. In addition to breaking lock-down rules, the good doctor also disobeyed police instructions so she was further detained – in full view of the camera crew.

It probably does not need to be said that had Dr Vasilyeva been genuinely concerned about the needs of hospitals in Novgorod oblast, she could have organised a fund-raising effort among Muscovites and sent money electronically to the hospitals or the PPE in the post or by courier to the same, at much less cost to herself and her petrol bill – but of course this would not have made for confrontational TV titillation. Incidentally, the two head physicians of the target hospitals in Novgorod oblast expressed surprise at Dr Vasilyeva’s stunt and concern that the equipment had no certification or registrations, and that the stunt was intended to be provocative. All of this went unreported on the “Foreign Correspondent” report.

The program says very little about Dr Vasilyeva’s Alliance of Doctors, how large it is (or not), and does not interview any other members of that trade union. One would think it should be a very large union with branches right across Russia. There is nothing about where it is headquartered or how much influence it has among the medical profession in Russia. Viewers of the program will come away with no idea of where the trade union’s income comes from. Oddly enough, the program emphasises Dr Vasilyeva’s personal connection with the charlatan “opposition figure” Alexei Navalny, who enjoys very little support among the Russian voting public, who is supposed to be under house arrest for his role in embezzling funds from a state timber company in Kirov oblast, and whose lavish life-style is far beyond the amount of money he earns from his activities and fund-raising. Anyone even mildly au fait with Russian politics will know straight away that people with personal associations with Navalny are likely not only to be feted by Western governments and media organisations, they are likely to be shady characters themselves receiving funding from foreign organisations with an interest in deposing the current Russian government and targeting President Putin in particular.

Ah, yes, no program criticising Russia can resist mocking Putin as a would-be Stalinist dictator intent on prolonging his grip on the country to 2036 through a referendum that would give him an extra two terms as President: a referendum inspired by a proposal from none other than State Duma representative Valentina Tereshkova, who in a former life was the world’s first female space traveller. Funnily, “Foreign Correspondent” does not notice that Putin doesn’t straight away sign a decree making himself President for life – no, he actually decides to put the idea to a public referendum. Elsewhere in the program, Putin is portrayed as something of a weakling in retreating from the public at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic lock-down in Moscow (instigated by Mayor Sergei Sobyanin: it was his job after all, not Putin’s) and then somehow re-emerging as the leader in tamping down the infection’s spread and halting its progress. The fact that it is other people’s jobs and the function of health ministries at the national and regional levels to control and if possible eradicate COVID-19 in Russia, with the President watching their progress as any political leader would and should, giving them encouragement and admonishing them for failures, seems to have escaped “Foreign Correspondent”. But when opportunity arises to perpetuate a stereotype of Russia as a tired, clapped-out has-been empire lost in nostalgic fantasy, and its government and leader as despotic and out of touch with reality, “Foreign Correspondent” like every other mainstream Western media outlet seizes it and flogs it at the expense of its credibility with an increasingly sceptical Australian audience.

An opportunity to critically view and report on how successfully or unsuccessfully Russia is dealing with COVID-19 – despite the huge numbers being infected, the actual death toll is very low – and the reason for the huge disparity in the statistics compared to equivalent figures in other countries, adjusted for population size, was missed.

Men in Black II: some good ideas go to waste in a cheap sequel

Barry Sonnenfeld, “Men in Black II” (2002)

Five years after the events of the original “Men in Black”, at the end of which Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) retired from the Men in Black agency – the secret intelligence unit that monitors the activities of exterrestrial beings living and working on Planet Earth – his former MiB protege Agent J (Will Smith) is called upon to investigate the mysterious death of an alien at his (the alien’s, that is) pizza restaurant. There, Agent J interviews Laura (Rosario Dawson) who tells him her employer was killed by two aliens, Serleena (Lara Flynn Boyle), a shape-shifting monster in the form of a lingerie model, and Charlie and Scrad, Serleena’s two-headed assistant (Johnny Knoxville), who are hunting for the Light of Zartha which Serleena needs for her own nefarious purposes. Agent J is attracted to Laura and decides not to neuralyse her.

As he investigates the crime, Agent J discovers nearly all leads go back to his mentor so he brings the former Agent K back to MiB headquarters for re-neuralysation. Before Agent K’s neuralysation is completed, Serleena and her minions attack the building and seriously trash it so Agent K’s memories must be restored clandestinely. Having regained his identity and memories, Agent K remembers that he partially neuralysed himself to erase what he knows of the Light of Zartha but left some clues to follow in case he needed to find out again.

Putting Laura under protection with various aliens, Agents J and K recover a video containing a fictional dramatisation of how, long ago, Queen Lauranna of Zartha entrusted the MiB agency to guard the Light from her enemy Serleena. Agent K could not save the Queen from the murderous Serleena so he neuralysed himself in order to forget his grief and at the same time forget what the Light of Zartha was and where it was held. The agents return to the place where they placed Laura but discover she has been abducted by Serleena.

While Smith and Jones work very well together – indeed, the movie limps along until Agent K recovers his memories (although the speed at which they come back is unconvincing and much potential fun is lost along the way) – and do what they can to maintain the old zing and energy from the previous film, the plot is flat and the entire film has a cheap and cheesy tone. Gags such as the talking-dog gag quickly wear thin and even scenes featuring Jeff the giant monster living in the NYC subway are not very scary. While Laura plays a significant part in the film, the romance angle between her and Agent J is very brief and superficial, and the heartbreak climax in which Laura discovers her true heritage and must go to Zartha does not give the film the emotional edge it could have had.

The message that once someone becomes an MiB agent, s/he is always an MiB agent, and the corollary that MiB agents can never be normal people with normal lives and normal relationships, but are permanently wedded to their employer, is present but unfortunately the script does not make more of it than it does. Similar could be said for characters like Laura, Serleena and Charlie and Scrad: what are their motivations, why exactly is Serleena interested in the Light of Zartha, and what do Charlie and Scrad hope to get out of working with Serleena? There are many interesting ideas in this film that could have made it much more entertaining, a little bit on the scary side, and perhaps even a bit thoughtful. What a pity that these ideas were not allowed to help write what could have been a good script.

Batman & Robin: so one-dimensional, it should be called “Flatman & Ribbon”

Joel Schumacher, “Batman & Robin” (1997)

Some folks probably call this film “Flatman & Ribbon” for the fact that the Dynamic Duo (played respectively by George Clooney and Chris O’Donnell) get well and truly steamrolled by a lousy stereotypical script in which two villains become a megalomaniacal tag-team with no motive other than to literally remake the world to their desires and hog screen time with their over-acting, silly puns and outlandish costumes. A big part of the blame must go to director Schumacher for steering the Good Ship Gotham Universe too close to the camp live-action television show that starred Adam West as the Dark Knight. The cast of actors which include Arnold Schwarzenegger as chief villain Mr Freeze, Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy and Alicia Silverstone as Barbara Wilson / Batgirl does what it can but the movie is far too crowded with them all and most of their characters end up so one-dimensional they may as well be paper cut-outs. “Flatman and Ribbon” indeed.

At least the script tries to inject an emotional element in a sub-plot about the importance of family and family loyalties by having Bruce Wayne’s faithful butler Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Gough) fall ill with the same mysterious ailment that befell the wife of Mr Freeze who desperately needs money for research on a cure for the illness which puts her in a permanent coma. Mr Freeze embarks on a life of crime stealing diamonds that power his suit to keep his metabolism at subzero temperatures due to a laboratory accident. With Schwarzenegger as Mr Freeze, the villain’s desperate quest to revive his wife takes centre stage but Alfred’s illness is always in the background to remind Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson of the importance of being partners and working together, and to rope in Alfred’s niece Barbara Wilson who comes to Wayne Manor to look after her uncle. The scenes with Alfred are very touching and feature some good acting from Clooney who otherwise provides a sunny and not so tortured interpretation of Bruce Wayne / Batman throughout the film.

While on his mission to steal more diamonds including one from an observatory that Wayne Enterprises sponsors, Mr Freeze meets Poison Ivy, herself created from a chemical laboratory mash-up, who gets him out of jail and tries to wangle her way into his cold-hearted affections by pulling the plug on his wife. Together the two plot to freeze Gotham City and then the entire world with the assistance of Poison Ivy’s subordinate Bane, a huge monstrosity created with a drug called Venom. Fortunately the Dynamic Duo and Batgirl foil the Dastardly Duo’s plans and put them back into prison, but not before an endless and tiresome series of explosions, enough car crashes to turn all of Gotham City’s scrapyard merchants into millionaires, lots of dead bodies and other collateral damage, and too many implausible dramatic situations that would be impossible for even the most well-prepared superheroes to survive – or at least not risk shoulder dislocations or arms ripping off – all culminating in very sudden climatic change in negative Centigrade temperatures for Gotham City.

Little touches such as a conversation between Bruce Wayne and Alfred about being able to control the chaos around oneself – always an ongoing issue with Batman and those like him who view the world as essentially needing constant repair lest it fall back into even more evil and corruption – and Batman himself offering Mr Freeze a chance to redeem himself at least make some parts of an otherwise tired and bloated film franchise in need of new ideas bearable. Little surprise then that this flatlining film did not do so well at the box office and the film franchise ended with it.