Where do we look for solace in these dark, anxious times? Sometimes, the answer is at the cinema
Dispatches from Dystopia is a monthly column by Peter Knegt that engages with culture and community even as the world appears to be crumbling around us. This is its first edition.
It has never felt like a more imperative time to take extra care of our poor brains. For me, just checking the news can feel like being pelted with grenades of anxiety-inducing information. Whenever I've picked my phone up over the past few weeks, it's felt like I'm handing my neurotransmitters a very legitimate reason to panic, and personally I'm finding it a bit of a challenge to keep myself from spiralling.
My mental-health game plan through last year's U.S. election cycle had originally been to moderate my news intake as much as possible. But in the weeks leading up to the election, I became a full-on junkie. I watched The View every day and MSNBC until 2 a.m. every night. I'd devour the seemingly hundreds of hours that Pod Save America released every week. I'd check for new polls every other minute, treating the information like gospel. And for a moment, I even let my coconut-pilled self indulge in a kind of precarious hope that is very dangerous for a nervous boy like me (or for any of us, really): that through "the system" things might just be OK after all.
Well, it's now extremely clear that things will not be OK after all, and I know I'm not alone when I say that I have not been taking it well. Being in a state of perpetual existential dread is certainly nothing new for most of us, but these last few months have felt pretty unprecedented. It doesn't just feel like the bad guys are winning; it feels like they've won. And considering everything from their dismantling of LGBTQ rights to their denial of climate change to whatever chaos their mishandlings of international politics and A.I. will bring, it is getting real hard not to succumb to the full-fledged dystopian pessimism of it all. I don't know about you, but this has really forced me to overhaul my strategy for (barely) getting through the day-to-day.
I am not a religious man. But in these dark times, it seems I have turned to the closest thing I have to a place of worship: the movie theatre. The night after the election last fall, I decided to resist the urge to down a magnum of wine at home while staying up watching unhinged panels debate how this all happened (and believe me, the urge was there). Instead, I found my way to an advance screening of the film Nickel Boys. Sitting still in the dark with my phone off while engaging with a challenging piece of cinema felt like the opposite of what my impulses desired (sending manic texts of doom while watching Rachel Maddow lose her mind), but I knew it was exactly the nourishment my rattled soul needed.
An adaptation of Colson Whitehead's Pulitzer Prize–winning novel, Nickel Boys follows two Black teenagers who are sent to a malevolent reform school in 1960s Florida. Director RaMell Ross has been rightfully lauded for the film's unique use of first-person point of view, which literally puts audiences in the perspective of the protagonist as he suffers through horrifying abuse. As one can imagine, this does not make for easy viewing. But it does embolden the viewer with some pretty profound empathy, particularly as a collective experience with a few hundred other people in a movie theatre. And collective empathy is perhaps the thing this world needs more of above all else.
Walking home from Nickel Boys that night, tears still streaming down my face from the film's harrowing final act, I committed myself to taking a path through the chaos ahead that was uncharacteristic of my past behaviour. After the 2016 U.S. election or at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, my tactics could generally be classified as either self-destruction or numbing out (or both at the same time), and I knew my aging brain and body simply weren't up for another round of that. What I needed instead was strength and renewal, and reminders that there still is good in this world. And while I certainly didn't think going to the movies was some overarching solution to all this, I did know it was going to be a part of it.
November is a horrible time for almost everything, but it's a great time to go to the movies. It's basically the beginning of a three-month period where 90 per cent of the films actually worth seeing get released, primarily because it's when they can capitalize on awards season. (Nickel Boys, for example, was just very deservedly nominated for an Oscar for best picture … and it's still in some theatres now, so do go see it if you can!) So instead of spending my nights spinning out to the dread of the news, I spent them at the movies — a place where, if you are behaving (which you should be), your phones are tucked away on "do not disturb" mode, unable to do any harm.
According to my Letterboxd (the only sane form of social media left!), I saw exactly 50 movies between election night and last week's inauguration, including some exceptional offerings of understanding and perspective: Mike Leigh's Hard Truths, a lacerating portrait of a deeply damaged woman struggling to simply exist; Pedro Almodóvar's The Room Next Door, a beautiful celebration of life despite being a story of a woman facing death; Walter Salles's I'm Still Here, which offers chilling insight into one woman's heroism during the military dictatorship of 1970s Brazil; Mohammad Rasoulof's The Seed of the Sacred Fig, a truly revolutionary rallying cry against the current Iranian regime that literally had to be made in secret.
There were also older movies. One of the many wonderful things about movies is that it is essentially impossible to run out of worthwhile viewing options, and one of the few wonderful things about living in the city of Toronto is that it has an incredible repertory cinema scene. I was very grateful to the TIFF Lightbox for closing out the last two months of 2024 with a retrospective of every single Pedro Almodóvar feature, allowing me to be transported to the warmth of a hyper-saturated Spain for several of early winter's darkest nights. And on the particularly grim night that followed the inauguration, I was gifted a reminder that America was, in many ways, as full of despair and hopelessness and horrible men 20 years ago as it is now when I took in the three-hour-plus extended cut of Kenneth Lonergan's staggering Margaret at the Paradise Theatre (be careful trying this at home though, because it truly is as bleak as they say).
But the most viscerally human experience I had in any cinema during these past few horrible months was a little unexpected. That's because it came via Flow: a dialogueless film about a cat. A riveting work of animation (which just became the first Latvian film to be nominated for an Academy Award) from director Gints Zilbalodis, Flow follows said cat as it assembles a chosen family of other animals so they can try and survive a giant flood together. And somehow, the wordless journey of these animals feels like it has more to say about what it means to be alive during these catastrophic times than anything I've seen recently starring actual humans.
Essentially, Flow is telling us something that I think we all need to make our guiding principle going forward: if we want to make it through all this, we must build community and we must take care of one another. And this is maybe the best thing movies can offer us. At times when things feel impossible, movies don't just comfort us with the reminder that we're not alone, but can reorient us to what really matters, recharge our belief in what's possible, inspire us to persevere. The heartbreak we feel for the world might not quite feel good in a place like this. But a few hours in a movie theatre can send us back out into the world a little less heartbroken and a little more ready to make it a better place.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump officials are vowing to end school desegregation orders. Some parents say they're still needed
FERRIDAY, La. (AP) — Even at a glance, the differences are obvious. The walls of Ferriday High School are old and worn, surrounded by barbed wire. Just a few miles away, Vidalia High School is clean and bright, with a new library and a crisp blue 'V' painted on orange brick. Ferriday High is 90% Black. Vidalia High is 62% white. For Black families, the contrast between the schools suggests 'we're not supposed to have the finer things,' said Brian Davis, a father in Ferriday. 'It's almost like our kids don't deserve it,' he said. The schools are part of Concordia Parish, which was ordered to desegregate 60 years ago and remains under a court-ordered plan to this day. Yet there's growing momentum to release the district — and dozens of others — from decades-old orders that some call obsolete. In a remarkable reversal, the Justice Department said it plans to start unwinding court-ordered desegregation plans dating to the Civil Rights Movement. Officials started in April, when they lifted a 1960s order in Louisiana's Plaquemines Parish. Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the department's civil rights division, has said others will 'bite the dust.' It comes amid pressure from Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and his attorney general, who have called for all the state's remaining orders to be lifted. They describe the orders as burdens on districts and relics of a time when Black students were still forbidden from some schools. The orders were always meant to be temporary — school systems can be released if they demonstrate they fully eradicated segregation. Decades later, that goal remains elusive, with stark racial imbalances persisting in many districts. Civil rights groups say the orders are important to keep as tools to address the legacy of forced segregation — including disparities in student discipline, academic programs and teacher hiring. They point to cases like Concordia, where the decades-old order was used to stop a charter school from favoring white students in admissions. 'Concordia is one where it's old, but a lot is happening there,' said Deuel Ross, deputy director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. 'That's true for a lot of these cases. They're not just sitting silently.' Debates over integration are far from settled Last year, before President Donald Trump took office, Concordia Parish rejected a Justice Department plan that would have ended its case if the district combined several majority white and majority Blac k elementary and middle schools. At a town hall meeting, Vidalia residents vigorously opposed the plan, saying it would disrupt students' lives and expose their children to drugs and violence. An official from the Louisiana attorney general's office spoke against the proposal and said the Trump administration likely would change course on older orders. Accepting the plan would have been a 'death sentence' for the district, said Paul Nelson, a former Concordia superintendent. White families would have fled to private schools or other districts, said Nelson, who wants the court order removed. 'It's time to move on,' said Nelson, who left the district in 2016. 'Let's start looking to build for the future, not looking back to what our grandparents may have gone through.' At Ferriday High, athletic coach Derrick Davis supported combining schools in Ferriday and Vidalia. He said the district's disparities come into focus whenever his teams visit schools with newer sports facilities. 'It seems to me, if we'd all combine, we can all get what we need,' he said. Others oppose merging schools if it's done solely for the sake of achieving racial balance. 'Redistricting and going to different places they're not used to … it would be a culture shock to some people,' said Ferriday's school resource officer, Marcus Martin, who, like Derrick Davis, is Black. The district's current superintendent and school board did not respond to requests for comment. Federal orders offer leverage for racial discrimination cases Concordia is among more than 120 districts across the South that remain under desegregation orders from the 1960s and '70s, including about a dozen in Louisiana. Calling the orders historical relics is 'unequivocally false,' said Shaheena Simons, who until April led the Justice Department section that oversees school desegregation cases. 'Segregation and inequality persist in our schools, and they persist in districts that are still under desegregation orders,' she said. With court orders in place, families facing discrimination can reach out directly to the Justice Department or seek relief from the court. Otherwise, the only recourse is a lawsuit, which many families can't afford, Simons said. In Concordia, the order played into a battle over a charter school that opened in 2013 on the former campus of an all-white private school. To protect the area's progress on racial integration, a judge ordered Delta Charter School to build a student body that reflected the district's racial demographics. But in its first year, the school was just 15% Black. After a court challenge, Delta was ordered to give priority to Black students. Today, about 40% of its students are Black. Desegregation orders have been invoked recently in other cases around the state. One led to an order to address disproportionately high rates of discipline for Black students, and in another a predominantly Black elementary school was relocated from a site close to a chemical plant. The Justice Department could easily end some desegregation orders The Trump administration was able to close the Plaquemines case with little resistance because the original plaintiffs were no longer involved — the Justice Department was litigating the case alone. Concordia and an unknown number of other districts are in the same situation, making them vulnerable to quick dismissals. Concordia's case dates to 1965, when the area was strictly segregated and home to a violent offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan. When Black families in Ferriday sued for access to all-white schools, the federal government intervened. As the district integrated its schools, white families fled Ferriday. The district's schools came to reflect the demographics of their surrounding areas. Ferriday is mostly Black and low-income, while Vidalia is mostly white and takes in tax revenue from a hydroelectric plant. A third town in the district, Monterey, has a high school that's 95% white. At the December town hall, Vidalia resident Ronnie Blackwell said the area 'feels like a Mayberry, which is great,' referring to the fictional Southern town from 'The Andy Griffith Show.' The federal government, he said, has 'probably destroyed more communities and school systems than it ever helped.' Under its court order, Concordia must allow students in majority Black schools to transfer to majority white schools. It also files reports on teacher demographics and student discipline. After failing to negotiate a resolution with the Justice Department, Concordia is scheduled to make its case that the judge should dismiss the order, according to court documents. Meanwhile, amid a wave of resignations in the federal government, all but two of the Justice Department lawyers assigned to the case have left. Without court supervision, Brian Davis sees little hope for improvement. 'A lot of parents over here in Ferriday, they're stuck here because here they don't have the resources to move their kids from A to B,' he said. 'You'll find schools like Ferriday — the term is, to me, slipping into darkness.' ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Former DC police officer sentenced to 18 months for lying about leaking info to Proud Boys leader
WASHINGTON (AP) — A retired police officer was sentenced on Friday to serve 18 months behind bars for lying to authorities about leaking confidential information to the Proud Boys extremist group's former top leader, who was under investigation for burning a Black Lives Matter banner in the nation's capital. Shane Lamond was a lieutenant for the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., when he fed information about its banner burning investigation to then-Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio. Last December, after a trial without a jury, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C., convicted Lamond of one count of obstructing justice and three counts of making false statements. Tarrio attended Lamond's sentencing and later called for Trump to pardon Lamond. 'I ask that the Justice Department and the President of the United States step in and correct the injustice that I just witnessed inside this courtroom,' Tarrio said outside the courthouse after the sentencing. Prosecutors recommended a four-year prison sentence for Lamond. 'Because Lamond knew what he did was wrong, he lied to cover it up — not just to the Federal Agents who questioned his actions, but to this Court,' they wrote. 'This is an egregious obstruction of justice and a betrayal of the work of his colleagues at MPD.' Lamond's lawyers argued that a prison sentence isn't warranted. 'Mr. Lamond gained nothing from his communications with Mr. Tarrio and only sought, albeit in a sloppy and ineffective way, to gain information and intelligence that would help stop the violent protesters coming to D.C. in late 2020, early 2021,' they wrote. Tarrio pleaded guilty to burning the banner stolen from a historic Black church in downtown Washington in December 2020. He was arrested two days before dozens of Proud Boys members stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Tarrio wasn't at the Capitol that day, but a jury convicted him of orchestrating a violent plot to keep President Donald Trump in the White House after he lost the 2020 election. Lamond testified at his bench trial that he never provided Tarrio with sensitive police information. Tarrio, who testified as a witness for Lamond's defense, said he did not confess to Lamond about burning the banner and did not receive any confidential information from him. But the judge did not find either man's testimony to be credible. Jackson said the evidence indicated that Lamond was not using Tarrio as a source after the Dec. 12, 2020, banner burning. 'It was the other way around,' she said. Lamond, of Colonial Beach, Virginia, retired in May 2023 after 23 years of service to the police department. Lamond, who met Tarrio in 2019, had supervised the intelligence branch of the police department's Homeland Security Bureau. He was responsible for monitoring groups like the Proud Boys when they came to Washington. Prosecutors said Lamond tipped off Tarrio that a warrant for his arrest had been signed. They pointed to messages that suggest Lamond provided Tarrio with real-time updates on the police investigation. Lamond's indictment says he and Tarrio exchanged messages about the Jan. 6 riot and discussed whether Proud Boys members were in danger of being charged in the attack. 'Of course I can't say it officially, but personally I support you all and don't want to see your group's name and reputation dragged through the mud,' Lamond wrote. Lamond said he was upset that a prosecutor labeled him as a Proud Boys 'sympathizer' who acted as a 'double agent' for the group after Tarrio burned a stolen Black Lives Matter banner in December 2020. 'I don't support the Proud Boys, and I'm not a Proud Boys sympathizer,' Lamond testified. Lamond said he considered Tarrio to be a source, not a friend. But he said he tried to build a friendly rapport with the group leader to gain his trust. ___
Winnipeg Free Press
3 days ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Government moves to drop Sheetz discrimination case as Trump targets key civil rights tool
Federal authorities are moving to drop a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Sheetz convenience store chain, part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump's administration to halt the use of a key tool for enforcing the country's civil rights laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace anti-discrimination laws, confirmed it has begun notifying potential claimants of its intention to drop the Sheetz lawsuit, citing Trump's executive order directing federal agencies to deprioritize the use of 'disparate impact liability' in civil rights enforcement. Disparate impact liability holds that policies that are neutral on their face can violate civil rights laws if they impose artificial barriers that disadvantage different demographic groups. The concept has been used to root out practices that close off minorities, women, people with disabilities, older adults or other groups from certain jobs, or keep them from accessing credit or equal pay. Trump's executive order is part of his campaign to upend civil rights enforcement through firings and other steps that have consolidated his power over quasi-independent agencies like the EEOC, redirecting them to implement his priorities, including stamping out diversity and inclusion practices and eroding the rights of transgender people. In the Sheetz case, filed in April 2024 under the Biden administration, the EEOC had claimed that the company's policy of refusing to hire anyone who failed its criminal background checks discriminated against Black, Native American and multiracial job applicants. The lawsuit could survive even if the EEOC drops it: The law firm Outten & Golden, which represents workers in employment disputes, and the Public Interest Law Center, filed a motion Thursday to intervene and pursue its own class action lawsuit on behalf of one of the potential claimants. What is disparate impact? The Supreme Court recognized the concept of disparate impact in a landmark 1971 case, which held that a North Carolina power plant discriminated against Black employees by requiring high school diplomas and an intelligence test for certain higher paying roles, even though the requirements were irrelevant to the jobs. In 1991, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to codify disparate impact in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The concept holds that it is illegal to impose barriers to employment if such practices have a discriminatory effect and have no relevance to the requirements of the job. What does Trump's executive order say? The April 23 order declared that it is 'the policy of the United States to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.' The order argued that disparate impact has become a 'key tool' of a 'pernicious movement' that threatens meritocracy in favor of 'racial balancing' in the workforce. Craig Leen, a former top official at the Labor Department under the first Trump administration, said while the executive order take a more aggressive approach, it reflects longstanding conservative concerns that disparate impact liability encourages the assumption that any racial imbalance in the workforce is a result of discrimination. Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, said the order reverses 'a trend of bad law and bad policy in prior administrations.' She said the Trump administration would rightfully 'focus on individual discrimination cases,' which she said are 'more factually sound, less susceptible to manipulation, and more closely hews to the original intent' of civil rights law. What is happening with the Sheetz case? The EEOC filed the original Sheetz lawsuit after an eight-year investigation that arose from complaints filed by two job applicants. Both Republican EEOC commissioners at the time voted against bringing the lawsuit, while the three Democrats voted in favor. In an email to The Associated Press, an EEOC spokesperson confirmed the agency has began notifying potential claimants that it would file a motion to dismiss the case but declined to comment further. One of the potential claimants, Kenni Miller, filed a motion to intervene Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. U.S. workers can pursue federal discrimination lawsuits on their own if the EEOC declines to take up their complaints but often don't because of the resources required. Miller, a Black man, was hired as a shift supervisor at a Sheetz in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in 2020. After working there for a month, Miller was told he failed the background check because of a felony drug conviction and was let go, according to the motion. According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Sheetz' policy of denying jobs who anyone who failed a background check resulted in 14.5% Black job applicants being denied employment, compared to 8% of white applicants. For Native American applicants, the rate was 13%, and for multiracial applicants, it was 13.5%. In court filings, Sheetz denied the allegations. Attorneys for the company, which is being represented by the law firm Littler, declined to comment further. The EEOC has not said how many potential claimants have been identified. Christopher McNerney, an Outten & Golden attorney who is representing Miller, said the number is likely in the thousands. Sheetz has more than 20,000 employees and operate at least 700 brand-store locations in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, according to court documents. What other cases have leveraged disparate impact liability? The Sheetz case echoes a 2018 lawsuit against Target claiming that the retailer's hiring process, which automatically rejected people with criminal backgrounds, disproportionately kept Black and Hispanic applicants from getting entry level jobs. Target agreed to pay more than $3.7 million to settle the lawsuit, and revised its policy so fewer applicants with criminal records would be disqualified. In 2020, Walmart agreed to pay $20 million and discontinue a pre-employment strength test that the EEOC had claimed in a lawsuit unfairly excluded women from jobs at grocery distribution centers. And in one of the biggest sex discrimination cases in recent years, Sterling Jewelers, the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers, agreed in 2022 to pay $175 million to settle a long-fought lawsuit alleging that some 68,000 women had been subjected for years to unfair pay and promotion practices. What's the potential fallout of scrapping disparate impact? The Justice Department, EEOC and other federal agencies have moved quickly to quash the use of disparate impact liability. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, for example, has moved to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits against police departments in Kentucky and Minnesota, saying the cases claimed patterns of unconstitutional policing practices 'by wrongly equating statistical disparities with intentional discrimination.' In a May memo to employers, EEOC Acting Chief Andrea Lucas said the agency would deprioritize disparate impact cases, meaning that worker complaints such as the original two that triggered the Sheetz lawsuit are unlikely to be investigated. She also warned companies against using demographic data, which large companies are required gather and submit annually to the EEOC, to justify policies that favor any employees based on race or sex, something Lucas has long argued many well-intentioned DEI policies do in violation of Title VII. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair now with Outten & Golden, said the pullback on federal enforcement of disparate impact risks dissuading companies from proactively examining hiring and other practices to ensure they do not discriminate. At the same time, Yang and nine other former Democratic EEOC commissioners and counsels have released a letter to employers emphasizing that the Trump's order does not change the law, and to expect private practices to redouble efforts to bring disparate impact claims. 'Employers should not expect that they will have a free pass on disparate impact liability simply because the President has instructed federal agencies not to pursue enforcement of the law,' wrote the former EEOC officials. ________ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
