
The Weekly Vine Edition 53: Whining in Manchester, Sydney Sweeney the ‘fascist', and a boring new Marvel movie
Hello and welcome to another edition of the Weekly Vine. This week, we take a look at English whining in Manchester after drawing the fourth Test; Sydney Sweeney being labelled a 'fascist' for her 'good jeans' ad; the late-night comedy problem in America; the 'boring' new Fantastic Four movie; and a field guide to late-stage everything.
Whining in Manchester The English used to be good at many, many things.
Selling opium and slaves and trying to pass it off as a move for some greater good instead of just greed.
Writing comedies that stand the test of time.
Calibrating their politics and monarchy to avoid any wholesale revolution that can lead to heads rolling.
Scripting thriller novels in which the Albion propaganda flies so high that one wonders if being boring an Englishman isn't the greatest privilege a person can have.
But those days are long gone.Long gone.
The sun – metaphorical, economical, and ecumenical – set on the British Empire a long time ago, but the denizens of the Albion remain particularly skilled in one art: whining.
And we saw it on full display in the recent England vs India Test match where the English cricket team brought out its full bag of shithousery that makes you understand why the English remain one of the most despised people across the globe.
As one popular Indian political Twitter handle put it in dulcet tones:
'Cricket dekhte hue samjh aata hai ki angrez kitne h***** rahe honge Raj era mein.'*
For those who don't understand Hindi, a rough translation goes: 'Watching cricket, one can comprehend how a***** the English used to be in the Raj era.'
Because deep down, despite all their pretence of becoming a civilised nation, every English cricketer has an inner Captain Russell—the antagonist from Lagaan—who believed that all Indians deserved to be kept in place using a particular shoe-related idiom: Tum jooti ke neeche rahoge.
While the whining is never far from the surface, it bubbled over on the last day of the Test in Old Trafford—a venue well-known for frustrating football fans for the last decade. With two heads down, England wrapping up the Test and the series seemed almost inevitable.
The Gautam Gambhir era so far has been the anti-thesis of the Laughing Buddha for Indian cricket fans. India faced a sui generis whitewash against New Zealand at home, a 1-3 reversal in Australia, and looked set to lose the series in England when India were two wickets down in the second innings without bothering the record keepers.
Except, Messrs Gill, Rahul, Jadeja, and Sundar had different ideas. They dug deep and gave a comeback for the ages which left the English begging to end proceedings with an hour left. When Jadeja and Sundar—who had spent hours saving the Indian innings and were well within their rights to savour seeing their names on the honours board—refused, Ben Stokes turned into Sir Sulk-a-Lot, giving the ball to Harry Brook, who bowled with the alacrity, acuity, and assiduousness of an employee given a task during his leave period.
And then, after the shenanigans got over, Sir Sulk-a-Lot sulked even more when refused a handshake. What was rather odd, as Aussie legend Nathan Lyon pointed out—a man who knows a thing or two about perseverance—is that the English should have tried to get them out, not let them get a hundred. After all, Jadeja and Sundar were the last recognised batters before an injured Rishabh Pant and the bowlers were expected to save India's innings.
It was one of those rare moments where Australians and Indians were on the same page: enjoying the taste of British tears.
But whinging aside, at the heart of it is the Englishman's deep Higgins-like belief that they are the greatest race on earth—the one that invented cricket—which means that whatever they dream up is the correct way to play the sport.
All this makes the final Test even more interesting, with a little more spice thanks to Gautam Gambhir's clash (kalesh) with the chief curator, proving that you can take the man out of Delhi but you cannot take the Delhi out of the man.
Bring on The Oval.
Sydney Sweeney the Fascist
Godwin's Law is an adage from internet culture that states any discussion will eventually veer towards the participants calling each other Nazis. Now, the Godwin's Law virus seems to have escaped the confines of 4chan and Reddit threads and broken the offline-online barrier.
Sydney Sweeney's new American Eagle ad was deemed Nazi propaganda by perennially outraged leftists simply because it featured a blonde woman saying she got her good genes (or jeans) from her parents. It immediately featured a backlash because if we know one thing about the Fuhrer, it was that he loved a good pair of American denims.
In its own way, it was the opposite of the Bud Light backlash, where conservative Americans boycotted their favourite beer because its ad featured a trans influencer.
Yet, despite the online outrage, the ad appears to have helped the parent company, whose stock soared like an eagle, suggesting that we might be at the fag end of woke culture and the last vestiges are only found in people with severe Trump-Derangement Syndrome.
Late-Night Mediocrity
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away—roughly around the Bush administration—late-night comedy was funny.
But then something terrible happened: Donald Trump. Or more accurately, Trump Derangement Syndrome. And with it came the fall of American humour, sacrificed at the altar of sanctimony and soft lighting.
The latest casualty? The Late Show with Stephen Colbert—a show last funny when Caesar was still crossing the Rubicon. Paramount finally pulled the plug after realising that shelling out $40 million a year for a therapy session disguised as comedy might not be sound fiscal policy. Who knew?
Cue the wailing wall of late-night has-beens. Jon Stewart, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon, John Oliver—like the Avengers but if all of them had only one superpower: smugness.
They gathered in solidarity, not with the working class, not with striking truckers or laid-off auto workers, but with a millionaire Harvard graduate whose punchlines haven't changed since 2016. Inspiring.
Colbert's defenders say this is a suppression of free speech. No, it's just the free market finally turning off the laugh track. The show employed over 200 people and lost more money than a Netflix rom-com launch. Twenty people protested its cancellation—roughly the same number that still watch The Daily Show without being legally required to.
The deeper crisis isn't comedy. It's that these shows morphed into unofficial DNC broadcasts somewhere around Trump's third cheeseburger. They weren't writing jokes—they were filing amicus briefs in prime time. It was less Letterman, more Lenin.
And here's the kicker: Donald Trump remains funnier than all of them combined. Not intentionally, of course. But try topping a man who congratulates Hannibal Lecter for 'doing a great job.' Or spends time talking about a dead golfer's junk. Or keeps taking credit for a ceasefire that never was.
And perhaps the real joke—no laugh track needed—is that for the first time in American history, there are now more young Republicans than Democrats. The resistance has become cringe. The revolution will not be televised. Because no one watches television anymore.
Un-marvellous Marvel
Every time one watches a Marvel movie, one has to answer the eternal question: is Marvel back, or did it die with Tony Stark saying 'I am Iron Man' in Endgame?
There have been decent films post-Endgame, but all in all, watching MCU movies feels like being in a loveless relationship where the spark went out years ago. Every time you go to watch a new Marvel film, you wonder if you'll ever see the magic that made you fall in love in the first place.
Like the moment Thor arrives to join the Battle of Wakanda. Or the first time the Guardians of the Galaxy teamed up. Or when Iron Man took over a SHIELD aircraft just to blast Shoot to Thrill—because of course, you need to play your bangers in style. Or the pinnacle of cinema, when Captain America waited 18 films to utter the most glorious words ever said on a screen: 'Avengers, assemble.'
But honestly, there was nothing in the new Fantastic Four movie that made you go wow—not even Galactus. In fact, the most interesting thing about it was the Pedro Pascal Anxiety Memes. And you know it's a bad sign when the marketing tour is more interesting than the actual movie.
There comes a time in a relationship when one has to say: it's done. This was never meant to be, and we cannot keep trying, hoping to capture a spark that disappeared a long time ago.
Perhaps it's time to say goodbye to Marvel. Even if the end credits hinted at the arrival of Robert Downey Jr's Doctor Doom.
Post-Script: A field guide to late-stage everything
There's a special place in history for the people who made something out of nothing. The survivors. The jugaadu. The overextended. The under-resourced. The backbone of every godforsaken institution held together with duct tape, broken promises, and one HR motivational email per quarter.
Konstantin Jireček, the 19th-century Czech historian who is better remembered in Bulgaria, never worked in a startup. Or a government department. Or a late-stage unicorn chasing profitability like a drunk chasing the last auto-rickshaw at 3 AM. But somehow, he clearly time-travelled to a post-pandemic boardroom, and nailed it:
'We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.' Read more.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
10 minutes ago
- India.com
PM Modi, HM Shah Meet President Murmu At Rashtrapati Bhavan
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah on Sunday separately called on President Droupadi Murmu at the Rashtrapati Bhavan here. The meetings came just a day before the ongoing Monsoon Session of the Parliament resumes on Monday. Taking to X, the Rashtrapati Bhavan posted: "Prime Minister Shri @narendramodi called on President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan." It shared pictures of PM Modi and President Murmu. Another post read: "Union Minister for Home Affairs and Cooperation, Shri Amit Shah called on President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan." Details related to either of the meetings were not immediately available. The meetings came against the backdrop of heated exchanges witnessed in the Parliament over the Special Intensive Revision process in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections in the eastern state. PM Modi met President Murmu just a day after he said that the welfare of farmers, small industries, and youth remains the government's 'top priority' as the country stays on track to become the world's third-largest economy, even as US President Donald Trump announced that 25 per cent tariffs would be imposed on India from August 7. PM Modi reaffirmed the resilience of the Indian economy amid turbulence triggered by US tariff hikes, saying that the country must remain vigilant about its economic interests and adopt 'swadeshi' products. 'There is an atmosphere of global instability. All countries are focusing on their individual interests. India is going to become the third biggest economy in the world, and this is why India will have to stay alert as far as its economic interests are concerned,' the Prime Minister said during a rally in Varanasi on Saturday. Earlier this week, Trump announced 25 per cent reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods. He said India would also face an additional tariff penalty for buying Russian oil. The Parliament has seen little business since the Monsoon Session commenced on July 21.


Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Virat, the nation needs you': Shashi Tharoor ‘misses' Kohli more than ever amid Ind vs Eng 5th Test
Senior Congress leader shared that he has been 'missing' cricketer Virat Kohli during the ongoing India-England test series at the Oval but never as much as the Sunday match, the fifth and final one. New Delhi: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor during the Monsoon session of Parliament, in New Delhi, Thursday, July 31, 2025. (PTI Photo/Ravi Choudhary)(PTI07_31_2025_000220A)(PTI) Wondering if it is too late to urge Virat Kohli to return, Shashi Tharoor said the cricketer's 'grit and intensity, his inspirational presence in the field, not to mention his abundant batting skills, might have led to a different outcome.' 'I've been missing @imVkohli a few times during this series, but never as much as in this Test match. His grit and intensity, his inspirational presence in the field, not to mention his abundant batting skills, might have led to a different outcome. Is it too late to call him out if retirement? Virat, the nation needs you!' Shashi Tharoor's post read.


Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Misunderstanding India's advocacy for multipolarity
A growing number of liberal American geopolitical analysts and Donald Trump, whom they despise, have a few things in common — they are opposed to India's relationship with Russia, its association with Brics, and advocacy for multipolarity. Trump's criticism of India is sharp and direct, of course. The Trump presidency will end in another three-and-a-half years, but this rare consensus in Washington DC, on India's search for multipolarity will remain. This is something, therefore, Indian strategic thinkers must reflect on. Put differently, with or without Trump around, India's advocacy for multipolarity will continue to haunt New Delhi, particularly given the structural transformations underway in the international system today. India's foreign policy is not about indecision. It is a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. (AFP) Let's begin by unpacking some important aspects of multipolarity, given its many layers of complexity and ambiguity. First, notwithstanding the general perception about the virtues of multipolarity, it is becoming somewhat clear that a multipolar world is not as pretty as we had imagined it to be. Even the imperfect multipolarity that we have today — with poles of various sizes and influence competing for power — seems messy, incoherent, confusing and hard to navigate. If this is what a system that is not even really multipolar looks like, what will a true multipolar system look like? Second, notwithstanding the messy nature of the quasi-multipolar order today, New Delhi remains committed to a multipolar world. The desire for multipolarity is deeply entrenched in India's tradition of non-alignment, which is one of the first principles of Indian foreign policy. When faced with a difficult choice, the first strategic instinct of political New Delhi is to be non-aligned, neutral, and multi-aligned. Mostly in that order. I would not view that as strategic escapism. It is very much part of the DNA of Indian foreign policy. It would also be wrong to mistake non-alignment (or a variation thereof) as not valuing friendships, loyalty or solidarity: In fact, India's foreign policy history is rich with examples of friendships, loyalty and solidarity. In that sense, India's foreign policy is not about indecision; it's a constant search for autonomy, balance and agency. This is where the country's fascination with a multipolar world becomes crucial, for there is no genuine autonomy, balance and agency in world affairs without true multipolarity. Third, India's complaints about American unipolarity are on a steady decline, even as the rhetoric remains. It would be a mistake, however, to view New Delhi's rhetoric against unipolarity as merely, or primarily, directed against the US because today, New Delhi is less anxious about America's global unipolarity than a potential Chinese unipolarity in Asia. While America's declining global unipolarity is mostly a theoretical concern for New Delhi, the prospect of a China-led unipolar Asia is the true source of anxiety. In that sense, New Delhi's desire for multipolarity is also an attempt at ensuring the absence of a unipolar (China-dominated) Asia. Therefore, even if New Delhi is more focused on countering Chinese unipolarity in Asia rather than US unipolarity globally, opposing regional unipolarity without opposing global unipolarity will ring hollow. There are two reasons why New Delhi would be concerned about China's unipolarity in Asia. One, this could mean that China might set the rules of geopolitical engagement in Asia. Once much of Asia falls under China's influence, it will be harder for New Delhi to push back Chinese hegemony. Two, a rise of Chinese unipolarity in Asia might prompt the US to think of accommodating China in a G2 format, especially if the American nativist and isolationist tendencies persist. In an ideal world, New Delhi's articulations must make a clear distinction between American unipolarity and Chinese attempts at unipolarity in Asia, but doing so is not easy for a variety of reasons, including that New Delhi continues to resist aspects of American unipolarity and is not yet willing to acknowledge the possibility of Chinese unipolarity in Asia. But New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony, without openly resisting the growing Chinese regional hegemony or a potentially unipolar Asia, could have unintended consequences. Some US administrations, especially the current one, might interpret India's rhetoric against American unipolarity as personal rather than an academic exercise, for the most part. This could prompt an unhappy Washington to undercut India's geopolitical standing in the region, thereby indirectly aiding China's attempts at regional hegemony. This creates a paradox: India aims to counter Chinese unipolarity in Asia by promoting global multipolarity, which annoys the US, prompting it to marginalise India in the region, thereby ultimately aiding Beijing's efforts to establish hegemony in Asia. New Delhi's rhetoric against American unipolarity and hegemony could also prompt the US, which is losing influence in various parts of the world, to seek ways of strengthening its influence in spaces where it can — this could lead to accepting Chinese unipolarity in Asia. More so, if the US reacts negatively towards India, as it is doing now, it could create a fertile ground for China and Russia to fan the Indian rhetoric against the US, encourage India to proactively participate in forums and arrangements aimed at undermining US unipolarity, and generate confusion within India's strategic community about the true motives behind India's multipolarity rhetoric. All of this will further drive the geopolitical wedge between New Delhi and Washington DC. There is no easy way out. New Delhi will need to have a lot more conversations and build trust with the US. That is not easy when a president like Trump occupies the White House. Happymon Jacob is the founder and director of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research and the editor of INDIA'S WORLD magazine. The views expressed are personal.