Latest news with #TheWizardofOz
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
The Trump administration's rebellion against history and common sense
The idea that America faces an inexorable, irreversible decline has become a form of conventional wisdom. Is this really true — or is it becoming so because of poor policy choices being made by its leadership? The woods are filling up with descriptions in sombre periodicals like The Economist, Foreign Affairs, and Foreign Policy on the inexorable decline of America and what the implications of such a decline will be for the global power dynamic. In essence, one way to see the question being framed is whether we will, soon enough, have a Hobbesian universe or a world according to Jacques Rousseau in our future. Or, put another way, will life in the world, soon enough, be one that is nasty, brutish, and short, or one where the nations will sing Kumbaya in 195-part harmony — one where all those metaphorical lions will be lying down peaceably with those metaphorical lambs? In fact, in most of the articles that are looking forward to that wondrous, brave new world, the assumption is that America's decline has become an axiomatic inevitability. Moreover, for some writing about such a future tantalisingly just beyond the horizon, such an eventuality is to be eagerly anticipated, in contrast to that American-led, rules-based order (albeit unevenly exercised) that exists now. One can almost feel the schadenfreude emanating from this geopolitical version of 'The Wizard of Oz' chant, 'Hail, hail the witch is dead; the wicked witch is dead.' Beyond articles, there is even a cottage industry of books on this subject, such as Amitav Acharya's recently published, The Once and Future World Order. Post-Vietnam But it should also be recalled that this discussion is something of a reprise of the conversation that became the authorised version of things in the aftermath of the Vietnam conflict. Back in the mid-1970s, it was confidently assumed — even predicted as inevitable — that America's best days could only be seen via a rear view mirror rather than looking forward. Henry Luce's 'American century' was already en route to the rubbish tip. But were there really strong reasons to assume the decline of America in the future was axiomatic and inevitable — and that renewal was impossible? (In fact, the decline of nations and civilisations has been the subject of debate by philosophers and historians for millennia. The ancient Greeks had divided history into gold, silver, and bronze ages as the greatness of the past inevitably declined to the less valuable alloy of the present. St Augustine, in his volume, The City of God, had argued that the decline of Rome in his time was not, despite pagan critics, the fault of the spread of Christianity. Instead, that faith had helped preserve the Empire, even in its weakened state. More recent writers like Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire had insisted that its internal contradictions and religious and cultural divisions had inevitably led to its downfall. And after the destruction of World War 1, Oswald Spengler had insisted in The Decline of the West that the civilisation comprising that collection of nations was inevitably heading towards its collapse.) In the immediate post-1975 years, the conventional wisdom was that, for America, there was nothing ahead but a long but inevitable, slow slide into global second or even third place. And especially given the disastrous effects on the country from its excruciating experience in Vietnam, that decline was something approaching faster still. Evolving from that view, the future most probably belonged to the Soviet Union, along with its (sometimes reluctant) allies, which was poised to be the wave of the future, per that implacable Marxist logic. And the momentum was growing. But that was then. Just a decade and a half after such a view, by 1990, the Soviet Union was no more. It had disintegrated due to its inability to address successfully the defence budget challenge posed by the US, multiplied by the Soviet Union's creakily inefficient — even sclerotic — economic system. And, surprisingly to many, it was unable to address internal pressures from ethnicities inside the borders of the old USSR, plus the resurgent nationalisms and desires for greater individual liberties in the countries dominated by the USSR in Eastern Europe since the end of World War 2. China and the USSR/Russia One important footnote was that the idea of an existential challenge posed by China to the US was barely envisioned back then. Throughout the 1970s and 80s — and even on into the 1990s — China was not seen as a truly serious challenger for the top spot, given that it was still rebuilding from the excesses and depredations of its Cultural Revolution. It was only when China entered into the regulatory framework of the WTO — the World Trade Organisation — and had enacted a wide range of economic reforms that its export-oriented industries really took off, turning the country into the global manufacturing powerhouse it has since become. Think back to the early-to-mid-1970s. Seeking a counterbalance to the manifold military and political challenges coming from the then Soviet Union, even as the US was still in the last tormented years of the tragic entanglement of its Vietnam misadventure, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger drew on the lessons of 19th-century realpolitik thinking and the 'Concert of Europe.' The key was to carry out a triangulation of relationships, balancing America between the then Soviet Union and China and using a new Chinese relationship to balance the energies of the Soviet Union. Particularly for China, it dangled the possibilities of greater access to the American economy and the larger international order against its continuing economic isolation. For the Soviet Union, it offered both the possibilities of finding a way out of its costly military (and nuclear) standoff and dangled possibilities for greater international investment in the USSR. For decades, this triangular balance held, until the three parties' divergent intentions for the global future became manifest. By the time of the Trump administration 2.0, the fracturing of this triangular balance has now become the reality with the increasing coming together of Russia and China. Perhaps that was to be expected for many reasons, not least because of the way the two economies dovetail tightly. But it has also been significantly abetted by the mercurial nature of Donald Trump's approach to foreign and economic relations, including his constantly changing positions on tariffs. Vladimir Putin's Russia has been determined to reassert its control over czarist Russia's possessions — and especially Ukraine — as well as its broader sphere of influence. This parallels a belief in the importance of an older Russian value system that eschews the perceived moral slackness of Western nations that could infect Russia as well, if unchecked. Such attitudes and ideas are driving forces in Russia's onslaught on Ukraine (and parts of Georgia), along with its not particularly subtle threats towards the Baltic nations (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), once part of the Russian empire — and even underpins suspicious-sounding hints directed at other eastern members of Nato. Meanwhile, Xi Jinping's China is determined to create its own primacy in the international economy, something being built largely upon its massive capabilities as a manufacturer/exporter, as well as its increasingly imposing position in developing and putting to use new and emergent technologies. This stands in stark contrast to the US which, under Trump, is busy ramping down R&D support by the government in those very same technologies of the future. Running in the background, of course, for China's leaders (and many of its people) is a realisation that half a millennium ago, its economy was the largest and most productive on the planet. That history also contributes to the country's leadership cadre's real desire to regain the high ground heading into the rest of the 21st century. The US As for the Americans, after decades of being positioned as the global primus inter pares nation, and having imbibed the idea that it was the essential nation, under its incumbent president, the decision has been made to pull back from international engagement and long-established relationships. Instead, rather than seeking to engage energetically with either Russia or China to reach a newer version of a modus vivendi that might echo what Kissinger had achieved in his time, after first cozying up to Russia largely on Putin's terms, the Trump administration now seems intent on finding disagreements with both China and Russia — and with Western Europe's EU as well. In the latter case, this is despite the largely overlapping membership of those nations in the Nato alliance with America. Resolute positions that are made in conjunction with heretofore longstanding allies is not a strong suit for the Trump administration as it meanders directionless through the landscape of global issues — in addressing Russian actions in Ukraine, the continuing conflicts of the Middle East, or the collapsing structure of the global trading regimen. Under Donald Trump's deeply uneven, mercurial leadership, the US has managed to position itself against its three other major global economic or security competitors, as well as with the BRICS formation, for whatever that grouping really matters, thrown in for good measure. Effectively, the Trump administration is busy running the table in a hunt for potential or real antagonists. Even further, it has now tossed overboard efforts to find areas where cooperation could be found with this collection of forces. This could have included the threats of environmental degradation and climate change; instead, it has labelled all of that as a hoax designed to suck out the wealth of the US for the benefit of undeserving others. Historical examples But history says multi-directional competitions waged against a full sweep of potential partners turned enemies cannot be a successful plan for the longer strategic interest of the US, even as it offers some possibilities for individual tactical (and temporary) gains. Consider the following examples drawn from history, showing the failure of such omnidirectional antagonisms, even from an ostensible position of great strength. For example, by the early part of the 19th century, Napoleon had established a European system that drew in virtually all the nations of Europe, save for the United Kingdom. But that hierarchical system with France at the peak broke apart in the wake of Napoleon's failed Russian campaign. As a result, by 1814, his military was confronting an alliance that overwhelmed any chances for a continuation of a European system captained by an imperial France. The alternative, hammered out in the Treaty of Vienna after Napoleon's downfall — the 'Concert of Europe' — largely managed continental issues until the tensions between two groups of nations overwhelmed the continent with the outbreak of World War 1. Similarly, in 1940, Germany was ascendant over most of Europe, save for Britain. For many observers, including the American Ambassador to the UK, Joseph P Kennedy, it seemed the Germans would, even if they did not actually invade the British Isles, eventually be able to wear down the British into a kind of sullen submission. But the delusion and enticement of still greater victories led to the disastrous invasion of the Soviet Union. And if that was not sufficient, just days after Japan's own effort to gain control over the Pacific Ocean through its attack at Pearl Harbor, Germany declared war on America as well. Facing three determined, powerful enemies simultaneously led to Germany's total and complete destruction by those three allied nations, despite their very different goals for what would come after the defeat of the Third Reich. Or look further afield for an example of how overweening hubris can deliver national disaster. Consider the fate of Paraguay in its war with three neighbours during the years 1865-70. Its ruler, Francisco Lopez, had built a formidable military (at least in Latin American terms) and Lopez decided for some reason that it would intercede on Uruguay's side in Uruguay's dispute with Brazil. Things soon turned into a war that pitted Paraguay against an alliance comprising the combined might of Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. The inevitable result was its utter defeat. By the end of hostilities, the population of Paraguay fell to around 250,000 people, with only 25,000 men remaining in the country, and with big chunks of territory ceded to its neighbours. Things were so dire, Paraguay received a unique papal dispensation to allow polygamy to restock the country's population. While virtually nobody believes the fatal outcomes for Napoleonic France, Hitler's Germany or Lopez's Paraguay awaits America despite ill-fated decisions by its president effectively to confront all of its international competitors or frenemies pretty much simultaneously, the facts remain what they are — the road ahead will be increasingly fraught for an America without friends or even negotiating partners in a complicated world. Such a stance is in opposition to its own larger, longer-term interests. DM
Economic Times
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Economic Times
Wicked 2 just made a massive change to this character, and fans might actually love it
Wicked: For Good, the sequel to the huge hit Wicked from 2024, is about to go through some big changes. Even though the next sequel will stay amazingly true to the first Wicked, which was a very accurate rendition of the well-known Broadway musical, at least one character will undergo significant first movie stayed true to the Broadway musical; now the sequel movie changes one important character, Nessarose. And, to be honest, it might be just what the story needs. As a precursor to The Wizard of Oz series, The First Wicked focused on Elphaba, the enchanted college student who later becomes the Wicked Witch of the West. It was one of the most popular movies of 2024. Given the success of the original work, it is hardly surprising that Wicked was a box office hit and garnered favorable reviews from criticsm, as per a report by ScreenRant. ALSO READ: Astronomer CEO scandal fallout hits Dublin man with same name - Wife demands flowers after husband mistaken for Andy Byron However, the Wicked narrative was not finished. Only the first act of the Broadway musical was filmed, leaving the second half for a sequel. Wicked: For Good will cover the second act of Wicked, which begins with the middle of Elphaba's song "Defying Gravity" and concludes with the conclusion of the Wizard of Oz tale. It's interesting to note that, in contrast to the original Broadway production, Elphaba's sister Nessarose will undergo some intriguing changes. Nessarose becomes the Eminent Thropp of Munchkinland after her father passes away at the conclusion of the first Wicked. But the longer she rules, the more totalitarian she becomes. Elphaba finally pays Nessarose a visit in the Broadway production. In fact, Nessarose gains the ability to walk when she fixes her shoes with her magic. Because of its practical ramifications, Nessarose's employment of a wheelchair up until this point in the story has generated controversy, reported ScreenRant. Fortunately, Wicked: For Good has already revealed that this plot will be altered. This adjustment was made to avoid giving the idea to viewers that the lives of persons with disabilities would be "solved" if their disability disappeared, according to lyricist Stephen Schwartz. In this approach, Wicked: For Good is able "to be respectful and still find a way to tell our story."But Nessarose is experiencing more than just this transformation. Additionally, Schwartz said that the movie will have a character who harbors loving feelings for Nessarose. But Nessarose ignores him entirely, demonstrating how her fixation on Boq will ultimately cause things to worsen throughout Wicked: For is different about Nessarose in Wicked 2?She is no longer magically "cured" of her disability, and a new love interest appears. Why were changes made to her storyline? To avoid outdated tropes and portray her experience in a more respectful and realistic manner.
Perth Now
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Perth Now
Cracking sale: Iconic Indiana Jones prop sells for $800k
One of the most famous props in cinema history that was previously owned by Princess Diana sold at auction yesterday during a week of fat cats splashing ridiculous cash on nostalgic items. The headline sale was the iconic bullwhip that was strapped to Harrison Ford's waist in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, with one bidder snapping it up for a staggering $809,000. A hefty price tag to become the newest owner of the whip, which was used during the Holy Grail trials that Ford's character goes through at the climax of 1989's Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The whip has a royal background, with Ford giving it to Prince Charles, who then gifted it to Princess Diana. The princess passed it over it to the current anonymous owner, who is now much richer after selling it at the Summer Entertainment Auction being held all week by Heritage Auctions. Ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland in The Wizard of Oz. Credit: TheWest 'The bull whip is the iconic symbol of an iconic character of cinema history, Indiana Jones, and has been a highlight of this auction,' Heritage executive vice-president Joe Maddalena said. The auction of famous movie props have been going for the past week, with the biggest sale coming on Wednesday after the Rosebud sled from Citizen Kane went for a staggering $22.6 million, making it one of the priciest props in movie history. Heritage said the nearly $US15 million bid for the Rosebud sled puts it second only to the near $50 million that Judy Garland's ruby slippers from The Wizard of Oz fetched in December. If your pockets are feeling heavy, there are still plenty of items up for sale including Macaulay Culkin's knit snow cap from Home Alone, a Kurt Russell revolver from Wyatt Earp, a pair of Hattori Hanzo prop swords from Kill Bill Vol. 1 and a first edition set of Harry Potter novels signed by JK Rowling. -with AP
Euronews
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Euronews
Indiana Jones whip once owned by Princess Diana sells at auction
The whip wielded by Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade that once belonged to Princess Diana has sold at auction for $525,000 (€452,000). Once filming was completed, Ford gave the whip to then-Prince Charles at the film's UK premiere in 1989. It was given as a gift to Princess Diana, who gave it to the current owner, who was not identified. 'The bullwhip is the iconic symbol of an iconic character of cinema history, Indiana Jones, and has been a highlight of this auction," said Joe Maddalena, Heritage's executive vice president. Thursday's sale came a day after the Rosebud sled from 1941's Citizen Kane went for an eye-watering $14.75 million (€12.7m), making it one of the priciest props in movie history - second only to the $32.5 million that Judy Garland's ruby slippers from The Wizard of Oz fetched in December. The sled was sold by longtime owner Gremlins director Joe Dante. 'Rosebud' is the last word spoken by the title character in director Orson Welles' 1941 film Citizen Kane, and the hunt for its meaning provides the film's plot. Many critics have regarded it as the best film ever made. Long thought lost, the sled is one of three of the prop known to have survived. Dante stumbled on it when he was filming on the former RKO Pictures lot in 1984. He wasn't a collector, but knew the value of the sled and quietly preserved it for decades, putting it as an Easter egg into four of his own films. Dante's friend and mentor Steven Spielberg paid $60,500 for another of the sleds in 1982, and an anonymous buyer paid $233,000 for the third in 1996. Both these items were part of the Summer Entertainment Auction being held all week by Heritage Auctions. Heritage says the overall take has made it the second-highest grossing entertainment auction of all time, and there's still a day to go. Yet to be up for bids are Macaulay Culkin's knit snow cap from Home Alone, a pair of 'Hattori Hanzo' prop swords from Kill Bill Vol. 1 and a first edition set of Harry Potter novels signed by J.K. Rowling.
Hamilton Spectator
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Hamilton Spectator
Jane Birkin's original Hermès bag sells at auction for whopping 8.6 million euros
PARIS (AP) — Sketched out on an air sickness bag, the first Birkin handbag — the prototype for fashion's must-have accessory — sold for a staggering 8.6 million euros ($10.1 million), including fees, on Thursday in Paris to become the second most valuable fashion item ever sold at auction. The winning bid of 7 million euros drew gasps and applause from the audience. The price crushed the previous auction record for a handbag — $513,040 paid in 2021 for a Hermès White Himalaya Niloticus Crocodile Diamond Retourne Kelly 28. Now, the original Birkin bag, named after the actor, singer and fashion icon that Hermès created it for — the late Jane Birkin — is in a new league of its own. Only one fashion item has sold at auction for more: a pair of ruby red slippers from 'The Wizard of Oz', which sold for $32.5 million in 2024, Sotheby's said. Whistles in the auction room The Paris auction room buzzed with anticipation as the sale got underway, with the auctioneer reminding the crowd that the bag was 'totally unique' and 'the most famous bag of all time.' The bidding started at 1 million euros but quickly increased, with telephone bidders fighting it out at the end. With Sotheby's fees included, the total price for the winning bidder from Japan was a cool 8.6 million euros, the auction house said. From the starting price, bids rocketed past 2 million euros, then 3 million, 4 million and 5 million, to astonished gasps. When the price jumped from 5.5 million to 6 million euros in one swoop, there were whistles and applause. The final bids were 6.2 million euros, then 6.5 million, then 6.8 million before the Japanese buyer's last winning bid: 7 million euros. Sotheby's didn't identify the buyer. Nine collectors bidding by telephone, online, and in the room competed in the 10-minute auction battle, with the private collector from Japan beating a last remaining other bidder at the end. 'One of a kind' Paris fashion house Hermès exclusively commissioned the bag for the London-born Birkin in 1984 — branding it with her initials J.B. on the front flap, below the lock — and delivered the finished one-of-a-kind bag to her the following year, Sotheby's said. The subsequent commercialized version of Birkin's bag went on to become one of the world's most exclusive luxury items , extravagantly priced and with a yearslong waiting list. The bag was born of a fortuitous encounter on a London-bound flight in the 1980s with the then-head of Hermès, Jean-Louis Dumas. Birkin recounted in subsequent interviews that the pair got talking after she spilled some of her things on the cabin floor. Birkin asked Dumas why Hermès didn't make a bigger handbag and sketched out on an airplane vomit bag the sort of hold-all that she would like. He then had an example made for her and, flattered, she agreed when Hermès asked whether it could commercialize the bag in her name. 'There is no doubt that the Original Birkin bag is a true one-of-a-kind — a singular piece of fashion history that has grown into a pop culture phenomenon that signals luxury in the most refined way possible. It is incredible to think that a bag initially designed by Hermès as a practical accessory for Jane Birkin has become the most desirable bag in history,' said Morgane Halimi, Sotheby's head of handbags and fashion. The bag became so famous that Birkin once mused before her death in 2023 at age 76 that her obituaries would likely 'say, 'Like the bag' or something.' 'Well, it could be worse,' she added. Height of French chic Sotheby's said that seven design elements on the handcrafted all-black leather prototype set it apart from Birkins that followed. It's the only Birkin with a nonremovable shoulder strap — fitting for the busy life and practicality of the singer, actor, social activist and mother who was also known for her romantic relationship with French singer Serge Gainsbourg and their duets that included the steamy 1969 song 'Je t'aime moi non plus' ('I Love You, Me Neither'). Her bag also had a nail clipper attached, because Birkin 'was never one for long painted nails,' Sotheby's said. The bag that Hermès handmade for her, developed off its existing Haut A Courroies model, also has gilded brass hardware, bottom studs and other features that differ from commercial Birkins. Birkin's casual, breezy style in the 1960s and early 1970s — long hair with bangs, jeans paired with white tops, knit minidresses and basket bags — still epitomizes the height of French chic for many women around the world. 'More than just a bag' When Birkin chatted to Hermès' Dumas on the Paris-to-London flight about what her ideal handbag would be, she'd been in the habit of carrying her things around in a wicker basket, because she felt handbags in the 1980s were too small, Sotheby's said. She was traveling with her young daughter, Charlotte, and complained that she couldn't find a bag suitable for her needs as a mother, Hermès says. Hermès later gifted her four other Birkin bags. She kept the prototype for nearly a decade, before auctioning it for an AIDS charity in 1994. It was auctioned again in 2000 and had since been in private hands. The previous owner, who identified herself only as Catherine B., told journalists at the auction that the bag 'has all the attributes of a star.' 'The price is the price of the Hermès story,' she said. Sotheby's called it 'more than just a bag.' 'The Birkin has evolved from a practical accessory to become a timeless cultural icon,' it said. 'Its presence spans the worlds of music, film, television and the arts,' it added. 'It is a red-carpet staple, a fashion magazine mainstay, and a coveted piece in the wardrobes of celebrities, artists and stylists.' ___ John Leicester reported from Le Pecq.
