‘Apocalypse in the Tropics' is the democracy documentary Trump doesn't want you to see
On Monday, July 7, United States President Donald Trump, who disputed the results of the 2020 election that temporarily removed him from power, came to his defense.
'Brazil is doing a terrible thing on their treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'He is not guilty of anything, except having fought for THE PEOPLE. … LEAVE BOLSONARO ALONE!'
So yeah, Petra Costa's documentary ' Apocalypse in the Tropics ' — which not only details Bolsonaro's rise and fall but how democracies can be subverted and dismantled — is pretty timely.
It also provides a blueprint for reclaiming and strengthening democratic systems, which might be the main value for Americans viewers of the film, which opens Friday, July 11, at Landmark's Opera Plaza Cinema in San Francisco and streams on Netflix beginning Monday, July 14.
Costa, who explored the threat to democracy in Brazil in her 2019 documentary 'The Edge of Democracy,' also on Netflix, doesn't shy away from drawing parallels between Bolsonaroism and Trumpism.
Bolsonaro moved hard to the right and was embraced by Brazil's Evangelical Christian movement on his way to ascending to the presidency in 2018. When he got to power, he set about remaking the government by weakening its institutions, including Brazil's Supreme Court.
Costa also accuses the president of bungling the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a contentious re-election campaign in 2022 in which he squared off against rival and former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
But Costa also delves into the history of democratic and socialist movements in Latin and South America that hoped to narrow socio-economic gaps. Key players include former U.S. President Richard Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, as well as none other than Evangelical Christian leader Billy Graham, who spoke at a massive rally in Brazil in 1974 while the country was under a military dictatorship.
'What is certain is that Brazil became a laboratory for a brutal form of capitalism and vertiginous social inequality where millions of people began to seek the hope they needed in the Evangelical faith,' Costa narrates in the film.
In the last four decades, Costa reports, the percentage of Brazilians who identify as Evangelical Christian has risen from 5% to 30%, significantly boosting Bolsonaro's political appeal. In his 2022 campaign against Bolsonaro, da Silva embraced Evangelical social issues, noting in one campaign speech that abortion and all-gender restrooms 'came straight out of Satan's mind.'
At the heart of 'Apocalypse in the Tropics,' though, isn't so much current events but a longing to return to old ideals. A consistent thread is the conception of Brazil's capital of Brasilia as a utopian seat of government, architecturally embracing the three branches of government — executive, legislative and judicial — as separate but equal checks and balances.
There's a lot of old footage from the 1950s of Brasilia being designed and built, which reveal this detail: Original plans had a church at the center of the design, as nearly all Brazilian cities and towns have. But it was removed to establish the idea of a separation of church and state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
24 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Two-Word Phrase Unleashing Chaos at the NIH
Since January, President Donald Trump's administration has been clear about its stance on systemic racism and gender identity: Those concepts—championed by a 'woke' mob, backed by Biden cronies—are made-up, irrelevant to the health of Americans, and unworthy of inclusion in research. At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of research studies on health disparities and transgender health have been abruptly defunded; clinical trials focused on improving women's health have been forced to halt. Online data repositories that contain gender data have been placed under review. And top agency officials who vocally supported minority representation in research have been ousted from their jobs. These attacks have often seemed at odds with the administration's stated goals of fighting censorship in science at the NIH and liberating public health from ideology. But its members behave as though they have no dogma of their own —just a wholehearted devotion to scientific rigor, in the form of what the nation's leaders have repeatedly called 'gold-standard science.' This pretense—that the government can obliterate entire fields of study while standing up for free inquiry—is encapsulated by what's become a favored bit of MAHA rhetoric: All research is allowed, the administration likes to say, so long as it's 'scientifically justifiable.' On Friday, the phrase scientifically justified appeared several times in a statement by the NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that set the agenda for his agency and ordered a review of all research to make sure that it fits with the agency's priorities. 'I have advocated for academic freedom throughout my career,' he wrote in a letter to his staff that accompanied the statement. 'Scientists must be allowed to pursue their ideas free of censorship or control by others.' But his announcement went on to warn that certain kinds of data, including records of people's race or ethnicity, may not always be worthy of inclusion in research. Only when its consideration of those factors has been 'scientifically justified,' he wrote, would a project qualify for NIH support. That message may seem unimpeachable—in keeping, even, with the priorities of the world's largest public funder of biomedical research: NIH-backed studies should be justified in scientific terms. But the demand that Bhattacharya lays out has no formal criteria attached to it. Scientific justifiability is, to borrow Bhattacharya's description of systemic racism, a 'poorly-measured factor.' It's imprecise at best and, at worst, a subjective appraisal of research that invites political meddling. (Neither the NIH nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees it, responded to my questions about the meaning and usage of this phrase.) Judging scientific merit has always been one of the NIH's most essential tasks. Tens of thousands of scientists serve on panels for the agency each year, scouring applications for funding; only the most rigorous projects are selected to receive portions of the agency's $47 billion budget—most of which goes to research outside the agency itself. All of the thousands of grants the agency has terminated this year under the Trump administration were originally vetted in this way, by subject-matter experts with deep knowledge of the underlying science. Many of the studies have been recast, in letters from the agency, as being 'antithetical to the scientific inquiry,' indifferent to 'biological realities,' or otherwise scientifically unjustified. The same language from Bhattacharya's email appears in other recent NIH documents. Last week, an official at the agency sent me a copy of a draft policy that, if published, would prohibit the collection of all data on people's gender (as opposed to their sex) by any of the agency's researchers and grantees, regardless of their field of study. It allows for an exception only when the consideration of gender is 'scientifically justified.' The gender-data policy was uploaded to an internal portal typically reserved for agency guidance that is about to be published, but has since been removed. (Its existence was first reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.) When reached for comment, an HHS official told The Atlantic that the policy had been shot down by NIH leadership, but declined to provide any further details on the timing of that shift, or who, exactly, had been involved in the policy's drafting or dismissal. Still, if any version of this policy remains under consideration at the agency, its aims would be in keeping with others that are already in place. One NIH official told me that one of the agency's 27 institutes and centers, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences, has, since April, sent out hundreds of letters to grantees noting, 'If this award involves human subjects research, information regarding study participant 'gender' should not be collected. Rather, 'sex' should be used for data collection and reporting purposes.' Payments to those researchers, the official said, have been made contingent on the scientists agreeing to those terms within two business days. 'Most have accepted,' the official told me, 'because they're desperate.' (The current and former NIH officials who spoke with me for this article did so under the condition of anonymity, to be able to speak freely about how both Trump administrations have affected their work.) Collecting data on study participants' gender has been and remains, in many contexts, scientifically justified—at least, if one takes that to mean supported by the existing literature on the topic, Arrianna Planey, a medical geographer at the University of North Carolina, told me. Evidence shows that sex is not binary, that gender is distinct from it, and that acknowledging the distinction improves health research. In its own right, gender can influence—via a mix of physiological, behavioral, and social factors—a person's vulnerability to conditions and situations as diverse as mental-health issues, sexual violence, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. The Trump administration has expressed some interest in gender-focused research—but in a way that isn't justified by the existing science in the field. In March, NIH officials received a memo noting that HHS had been directed to fund research into 'regret and detransition following social transition as well as chemical and surgical mutilation of children and adults.' That framing presupposes the conclusions of such studies and ignores the most pressing knowledge gaps in the field: understanding the long-term outcomes of transition on mental and physical health, and how best to tailor interventions to patients. (Bhattacharya's Friday statement echoed this stance, specifically encouraging 'research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused to minors.') According to the draft prohibition on collecting gender data, NIH-employed scientists would be eligible for an exception only when the scientific justification for their work is approved by Matthew Memoli, the agency's principal deputy director. Memoli has played this role before. After Trump put out his executive order seeking to abolish government spending on DEI, Memoli— then the NIH's acting director —told his colleagues that the agency's research into health disparities could continue as long as it was 'scientifically justifiable,' two NIH officials told me. Those officials I spoke with could not recall any instances in which NIH staff successfully lobbied for such studies to continue, and within weeks, the agency was cutting off funding from hundreds of research projects, many of them working to understand how and why different populations experience different health outcomes. (Some of those grants have since been reinstated after a federal judge ruled in June that they had been illegally canceled.) The mixing of politics and scientific justifiability goes back even to Trump's first term. In 2019, apparently in deference to lobbying from anti-abortion groups, the White House pressured the NIH to restrict research using human fetal tissue—prompting the agency to notify researchers that securing new funds for any projects involving the material would be much more difficult. Human fetal tissue could be used in some cases, 'when scientifically justifiable.' But to meet that bar, researchers needed to argue their case in their proposals, then hope their projects passed muster with an ethics advisory board. In the end, that board rejected 13 of the 14 projects it reviewed. 'They assembled a committee of people for whom nothing could be scientifically justified,' a former NIH official, who worked in grants at the time of the policy change, told me. 'I remember saying at the time, 'Why can't they just tell us they want to ban fetal-tissue research? It would be a lot less work.'' The NIH's 2019 restriction on human-fetal-tissue research felt calamitous at the time, one NIH official told me. Six years later, it seems rather benign. Even prior to the change in policy, human fetal tissue was used in only a very small proportion of NIH-funded research. But broad restrictions on gathering gender data, or conducting studies that take race or ethnicity into account, could upend most research that collects information on people—amounting to a kind of health censorship of the sort that Bhattacharya has promised to purge. The insistence that 'scientifically justifiable' research will be allowed to continue feels especially unconvincing in 2025, coming from an administration that has so often and aggressively been at odds with conventional appraisals of scientific merit. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of HHS, has been particularly prone to leaning on controversial, biased, and poorly conducted studies, highlighting only the results that support his notions of the truth, while ignoring or distorting others. During his confirmation hearing, he cited a deeply flawed study from a journal at the margins of the scientific literature as proof that vaccines cause autism (they don't); in June, he called Alzheimer's a kind of diabetes (it's not); this month, he and his team justified cutting half a billion dollars from mRNA-vaccine research by insisting that the shots are more harmful than helpful (they're not), even though many of the studies they cited to back their claims directly contradicted them. Kennedy, it seems, 'can't scientifically justify any of his positions,' Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, who has analyzed Kennedy's references to studies, told me. Bhattacharya's call for a full review of NIH research and training is predicated on an impossible, and ironic, standard. Scientists are being asked to prove the need for demographic variables that long ago justified their place in research—by an administration that has yet to show it could ever do the same.
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge issues injunction preventing FTC from investigating watchdog Media Matters
A federal judge has issued an injunction preventing the Trump administration's Federal Trade Commission from investigating Media Matters for America, the liberal media watchdog group that had alleged the spread of hate speech on X since Elon Musk acquired the social media platform. U.S. District Court Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan ruled Friday that the FTC's probe of Media Matters, 'purportedly to investigate an advertiser boycott concerning social media platforms,' represents a clear violation of the group's freedom of speech. 'It should alarm all Americans when the government retaliates against individuals or organizations for engaging in constitutionally protected public debate,' Sooknanan wrote. Even before the FTC got involved, Media Matters has been defending itself against a lawsuit by Musk following the organization's November 2023 story that, following Musk's purchase of the social media site once known as Twitter, antisemitic posts and other offensive content were appearing next to advertisements there. Sooknanan said the injunction halting any FTC probe was merited because Media Matters is likely to succeed on its claim that the FTC is being used to retaliate against it for a critical article on a Trump supporter. 'The court's ruling demonstrates the importance of fighting over folding, which far too many are doing when confronted with intimidation from the Trump administration,' said Angelo Carusone, chairman and president of Media Matters. There was no immediate comment from an FTC spokesman.
Boston Globe
25 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Put a fork in it: America First as a foreign policy doctrine is dead
Advertisement Getting involved in that war — or even caring about it — seemed to ran counter to the 'America First' foreign policy Trump had long espoused. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Until recently, American interest in that war was mostly indirect, shaped by higher global energy prices and the possibility that if Russia swallowed Ukraine, Putin would soon be at the doorstep of a NATO ally that the United States is obligated to defend. Beyond that, most Americans were insulated from the consequences. Yet Trump's foreign policy involvement has gone far beyond Ukraine. He has personally stepped in to de-escalate tensions between Israel and Hamas, Syria, and Iran. He helped broker cease-fires between India and Pakistan, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Armenia and Azerbaijan. Through it all, Trump has been clear about what motivates him: he wants a Nobel Peace Prize. He has not only said as much publicly but reportedly Advertisement The problem, of course, is that none of those conflicts were inherently about America or American interests. Which begs the question: what happened to being 'America First'? The answer is that it is essentially dead. The doctrine has become yet another casualty of Trump's ever-shifting impulses, often changing with the last conversation he had or the latest shiny object to catch his attention. The real break may have come when Trump decided to For Trump, defending Israel has long been a priority. But if recent negotiations are any guide, he may now be prepared to extend a similar security umbrella to Ukraine as part of a larger peace deal. This is the precise kind of global policeman role Trump had once promised to reject. The original appeal of 'America First' was that it provided a blueprint for a nation exhausted by decades of costly foreign wars. It was a slogan meant to reassure voters that US soldiers would no longer be sent into conflicts with little direct bearing on their lives. Advertisement When Trump entered his second term, America First was very much alive. USAID was gutted as was Voice of America. The integrated free trade status quo was out, and tariffs were in. Trump would no longer defer to other nations' self-determination automatically, but famously But now, Trump has now positioned himself as the indispensable dealmaker for conflicts spanning multiple continents. His interventions may generate headlines and even, at times, reduce immediate bloodshed. But they also underscore the collapse of a once-defining principle of his political identity. In the end, America First is not so much a foreign policy doctrine as it is a rhetorical relic, one that Trump has discarded when it no longer suited his ambitions. What remains is not a coherent worldview but a collection of improvisations driven by ego, optics, and the pursuit of personal glory. What this means for the future of MAGA after Trump is very uncertain. There is an element of the base that certainly was drawn to this idea. But if there are Republicans who want to run for president in 2028 with more of an establishment view on foreign policy, they may no longer be perceived as out of touch. The loss of America First may also may help explain why foreign leaders are so eager to flock to the White House these days. They know that, for all his bluster about putting America first, Trump is now putting himself at the center of the world stage. And he is ready to change his mind again. James Pindell is a Globe political reporter who reports and analyzes American politics, especially in New England.
