Idealismo y ambición

“Tengamos siempre presente el caso de Stalin. A veces los que ganan no son los mejores sino los peores, los más viles, los más crueles. En el carro de la historia solo hay muchos que empujan y solo dos que dirigen: los idealistas que están dispuestos a morir y a matar por sus ideales y los ambiciosos que están dispuestos a matar y a morir por su ambición. Normalmente, en algún momento dado, los idealistas son arrojados a la cuneta.”

Alfonso Vila Francés, La historia que no nos contaron (I): idealismo y ambición, Revista JotDown, 2012

El formato

Yo quiero estar contigo,                                                                                                                                                                    vivir contigo,

Bailar contigo,                                                                                                                                                                                      tener contigo

Una noche loca

Enrique Iglesias,  Bailando (2014)

Lumumba and other leaders that couldn’t be

“The new Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, whom U.S. officials already believed was a dangerous, pro-Communist radical, turned to the Soviet Union for political support and military assistance, confirming the worst fears of U.S. policymakers. In August 1960, the U.S. Government launched a covert political program in the Congo lasting almost 7 years, initially aimed at eliminating Lumumba from power and replacing him with a more moderate, pro-Western leader”

Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, VOLUME XXIII, CONGO, 1960–1968, Editorial note 2

This quote belongs to an official document released by the US Department of State, which recognizes that the US government launched an operation to replace Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected president of Congo, just because he had different ideas and was not supportive of the West. There are two ideas that I extract from this document: First, this is the proof that the United States has run operations to replace leaders ― sometimes through assassination ― just because they defended different ideas. Patrice Lumumba in Congo and Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran are just two examples. But what is shocking is to see that these operations were done at the same time that ideas of freedom were preached. The Cold War is gone, but still the US has intervened in some countries, such as Irak, claiming that their purpose was to free their population. I’m not saying that this is exactly the case of Congo, but I think that in the light of these operations that occurred in the past, maybe we should think again what is the real objective of the interventions that occur in the present. What are the real causes why United States and other nations want to intervene in certain countries? And more importantly, why these and not others?

The second one, and maybe more interesting, is that these documents help explain part of the current situation of Africa today. Lumumba was in office for 60 days. What would have happened if that period was longer? What would have happened if the United Nations had sent more help to control the unstable situation and prevented the coup? What would have happened if Belgium and the US were not supporting the rebels that performed this coup? The answers to these questions are not certain, but the fact is that a democratically elected leader was killed and substituted by a military that imposed an authoritarian regime with the support of western powers.  Many experts agree that many African countries haven’t escaped poverty because of corruption, mistaken policies and a great number of civil wars. However, we should think again who should be blamed for them. Maybe the characteristics of this continent make development more difficult, but it is also true that the role of other nations has been underestimated. These nations, in my opinion, have acted like the bully that keeps the other kid’s head under water, preventing him to breath. The one struggling could be stronger, fight back and get out of the water but, who is to blame for the kid not breathing? The one who is pushing down, or the one who cannot escape?

But Congo is not the only country in which we will always wonder what would have happened if there hadn’t been a coup supported by western powers. The case of Allende in Chile, the whole Condor Operation or even the Cuban blockage are examples of projects that were dismantled because it was not in the interest of other nations.

Apocalypse Now

— You smell that? Do you smell that,son?

— What is it?

— Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn’t find one of ‘em, not one stinkin’ dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like . . . victory.

Political Illiteracy

“The worst illiterate is the political illiterate, he doesn’t hear, doesn’t speak, nor participates in the political events. He doesn’t know the cost of life, the price of the bean, of the fish, of the flour, of the rent, of the shoes and of the medicine, all depends on political decisions. The political illiterate is so stupid that he is proud and swells his chest saying that he hates politics.  The imbecile doesn’t know that, from his political ignorance is born the prostitute, the abandoned child, and the worst thieves of all, the bad politician, corrupted and flunky of the national and multinational companies.”

Bertolt Brecht

Utopía

—¿Para qué sirve la utopía?

—La utopía está en el horizonte. Camino dos pasos, ella se aleja dos pasos y el horizonte se corre diez pasos más allá. ¿Entonces para que sirve la utopía? Para eso, sirve para caminar.

Eva (2011), de Kike Maíllo

“Eva” es una película española. Si sólo dijera esto y teniendo en cuenta su título es posible que os imaginarais el retrato de una madre coraje, la historia de una violación o tal vez una trama romántica, pero nada más lejos de la realidad. “Eva” es una película de ciencia ficción (aunque también incluye un tintes románticos) con unos envolventes efectos especiales que recrean un futuro basado en la robótica. Poco que ver con el típico cine español.

El protagonista (o co-protagonista, según se mire) es Alex, un experto en robótica, al que se le encarga la creación de un niño robot. Para ello debe encontrar un modelo, un patrón, que encuentra casi de casualidad: la pequeña Eva. Fresca, original, divertida. Paralelo a esta trama encontramos el típico triángulo amoroso (Grupo de dos chicos y una chica, chico A sale con chica, abandona el pueblo, chico B sale con chica, chico A vuelve al pueblo, chica no sabe qué hacer) que, a mi entender, resulta poco original con respecto al resto del film , que destaca por su ambientación. En este apartado uno de los mayores aciertos de la película es, desde mi punto de vista, el personaje interpretado por Lluís Homar, un robot-mayordomo que, aún siendo un simple secundario sin demasiada importancia, nos ayuda a entender mejor cómo funciona esta fantasía futurista, ademas de darle el toque cómico a la película.

¿Pero quién es esa niña que da título a la cinta? Pues bien, Eva es esa típica, o no tan típica, niña adelantada a su edad, que tiene respuestas originales para todo y no se arruga ante nada. Alex la escoge como modelo, porque sabe que lo que buscan los compradores es algo distinto, y lo encuentra en ella, que (oh, Dios mío, que casualidad) es la hija de su ex-pareja (la chica del triángulo amoroso, como os podréis imaginar)

Tal vez no sea una gran película y no merezca ser la primera crítica de cine de este humilde blog, pero me pareció bien dedicárselo a una película española que rompe moldes en nuestro cine. Y como esto es mío hago lo que quiero. ¡Hasta otra corazones!