Submerging Markets™ - Recent Posts

MCCAIN's MIGRAINEIs His VP Choice a "Natural," Or An Eagleton/Quayle Combo?James S. Henry and Matthew Maly

By law the US is required to have a Vice President. Do we really want it to be this one?  

Many serious countries with Presidential systems -- like Finland, Germany, France, Ireland,  and South Korea -- have long since dispensed with the role of Vice President completely.

In the wake of the uproar -- indeed, shock and awe -- provoked by John McCain's  surprising selection of 44-year old Gov. Sara Palin of Wasilla, Alaska, on top of all the hoopla over Barack Obama's dissing of Hillary Clinton and our collective nightmare with "Darth" Cheney, some pundits have  suggested that it may be time for the US to follow the Finnish model and have no US Vice President at all.

With each day's new revelations about Gov. Palin's complex personal life and rather extreme views, some pundits have also suggested that she may quickly go the way of former Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton, who lasted just two weeks as George McGovern's VP pick in 1972 -- or perhaps worse yet for the Republicans, a reprise of the legendary Indiana lightweight, Dan Quayle.

They are wrong.

Ms. Palin's nomination is a perfect demonstration of the incredible entertainment value that only the VP role can provide.

At a time when our economy is in serious trouble, state and federal budget deficits are out of control,  energy costs are unaffordable, the US Constitution is under attack, tax evasion is at a record level, we're still tied down in two major wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tensions are mounting with Russia, social inequality is soaring, environmental calamities abound, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are about to fail, our education system is broken, the drug wars continue unabated, and millions of Americans lack jobs, decent housing and health care,  filling the VP slot with this more-or-less unknown quantity adds a nice soupçon of uncertainty to the entire situation.

It permits the whole nation to "double down" at once,  experiencing a kind of risk-taking that none of us would ever be able to achieve on our own.

This is precisely the kind of entertainment that government, at its best, is supposed to offer.

Indeed, Sara's selection is bound to make our peculiar "imperial electocracy"  the envy of the world -- once again!  

I. FINALLY A BABE!

Ms. Palin may not yet be a household name, but upon closer examination, her qualifications for the Vice Presidency --  just one bad biopsy away from the world's most powerful office -- are overwhelming.

First and foremost, just take a look -- this woman is a looker, a true MILF!

Carla Bruni, where is thy sting?  Angela Merkel, bite your knuckles!  

To paraphrase Joe Biden, Ms. Palin is an "articulate, bright, clean, good-looking" white woman.

And young! Why she was only 4 years old when 72-year old John McCain was bombing peasants from 30,000 feet, and 9 years old when he was released from the POW camp in 1973.

Indeed, Sara was first runner-up in the 1984 Miss Alaska beauty pageant, after being voted Wasilla Alaska's "Miss Congeniality."

True, back then,  Wasilla only had about 5000 residents. But so long as you were not a moose or an environmentalist,  Wasillans were the most congenial people on the planet. And Ms. Sara was the most "congenial" of them all.

Anyone who has ever attended public high school knows what that means - religion or no.

We think we can all trust "Bomber" McCain's judgment on this one.  John may have only met his VP choice two or three times,  but he is an expert on beauty queens.

His first wife Carol was a model  and  his second wife Cindy was Junior Rodeo Queen of Arizona in 1968. 

(Just in -- McCain has also  reportedly expressed interest in naming Sherri McNealley, the real winner of the 1984 Miss Alaska contest, as his future Secretary of State, but so far she's still MIA.

He's also expressed interest in appointing Wasilla's current mayor, Dianne M. Keller, to be his Attorney General, once she completes her law degree.)

In any case, unfortunately, this VP choice will probably not swing Hillary's disaffected female supporters to the McCain camp. Most of them are die-hard feminists who have serious issues with Palin's political views -- for example,  her opposition to abortion even in the case of rape or incest, and her unsympathetic description of Hillary Clinton as a "whiner."   (Where on earth would she get such an idea?)   

From a strictly male hormonal perspective, however, this may be the best VP selection in history -- precisely the kind of candidate we need to arouse our interest and get us up off the couch. After years of enduring so many talented but extraordinarily plain women in national politics (viz Senators Clinton, Hutchinson,  Mikulski, Boxer, and Feinstein, for example), -  finally the US Senate will be presided over by someone who still leaves something to the imagination.

II. SHE'S HYPER-PRODUCTIVE!

Sara Palin is a doer, not a talker.  Not only is she the Governor of Alaska, but she is a "hockey mom" with five children by birth (but no adopted ones, unlike the 72-year old McCain). These include an unmarried pregnant 17-year old, a son on the way to Iraq, and a 5-month old infant with Downs Syndrome. She hunts and fishes. She runs 5-10 miles a day.  She's under investigation by Alaska's State Ethics Commission for "using her public office to settle a private score." (Who could resist doing that?) 

When Sara was pregnant with her fifth child, her water broke while she was attending a Republican Governors' conference in Dallas, and she flew all the way back to a Wasilla Alaska hospital to have the child delivered at home.

That's precisely the kind of crazy, life-threatening behavior that we need much more of in the highest echelons of the US Government! Shock-Treatment Tom (Eagleton), we hardly knew ye!!!

Adding the burden of the US Vice Presidency to this full plate will no doubt give us a shining example of just how to precisely strike that delicate balance between family life, work life, and blind ambition -- as well as the many benefits of the "Just Say No" approach to birth control!

(c) Submerging Markets, 2008 

 

TIME'S ARROWA Media Conglomerate's Fateful Decision to Undermine Investigative JournalismJames S. Henry

It was disappointing, but not really surprising,  that Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s Editor-in-Chief since 1995, decided last week to comply with a federal subpoena and turn over documents to the federal government that will probably burn one of his own leading journalist's sources.

As discussed below, this spineless decision was a cardinal sin against investigative journalism and the First Amendment. 

But it was entirely in keeping with Time Warner's long-standing passivity and obsequiousness toward the powers-that-be. 

It also reflects this media conglomerate's increasingly entangled interests with governments and corporations around the world.  Thank goodness that Matt Cooper wasn't working for Time's China subsidiary!

Our condolences go out to the dwindling crop of serious investigative journalists at Time, People, Sports Illustrated, and TWX's other 130 publications, as well as CNN and HBO. 

There is, however, one ray of light in Pearlstine's otherwise cowardly, inexcusable decision. We may finally get to learn the identity of the White House felon who leaked Valerie Plame's CIA relationship to the press. Already there's been some very interesting speculation....!

MOTH MADNESS!The Latest Crazy Scheme in the Hapless "War on Drugs"James S. Henry and Jeremy Bigwood

In the midst of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and the Bush Adminstration’s war on Social Security, Americans may perhaps be forgiven for having forgotten that their government is still waging a "global war on drugs" that costs at least $30-$40 billion per year, and also causes a great deal of other political, social, and environmental damage at home and abroad.

_____________________________________________

As indicated in the adjacent chart, after more than three decades of this hallowed effort, drug enforcers have failed to produce any increase whatsoever in the real retail street price of illegal drugs.

Retail cocaine prices, for example, are much lower than when the drug war started. Similar charts could be also drawn for opium, marijuana, and the bevy of other new "designer drugs" that have been introduced in the last decades – a rational economic response to prohibition.

Of course, hard-core defenders of the anti-drug campaign may argue - just as Prohibitionist moralizers did about booze prices in the 1920s - that retail drug prices would be even lower, except for the war on drugs.

But it seems more likely that supply-side interdiction has failed to have any consistent impact, partly because improvements in drug dealer productivity – as many economists on all sides of the political specrum have predicted.

The collapse in retail drug prices is also consistent with the embarrassing fact that opium production has recently exploded in US-occupied Afghanistan.

The decrease in prices is also exactly what one would expect from a successful "decartelization" program, like the one that the US Government pursued with such fervor against Pablo Escobar, "Gacha" Orejuela-Rodriguez, and Manuel Noriega.

In the 1980s and 1990s that effort employed quite a few "drug busters," and provided endless material for TV and film scripts. But at the end of the day, it basically just helped to increase supply.

Now, after five years of saturating Colombia with chemical herbicides, the US government and their allies in Colombia have also failed to reduce the number of hectares under coca cultivation.

Indeed, the total area under cultivation in Colombia at the end of 2004 was slightly greater than at yearend 2003. Coca cultivation in Peru and Bolivia, have also recently been expanding. All this is consistent with a the "balloon" model, in which destroying coca in one place only increases the incentives to plant elsewhere.

It also appears likely that – like every other profit-motivated farmer on the planet – coca farmers, as well as cocaine laboratories and distributors, are not sitting still, but are working hard to improve per-hectare productivity.

This means they don’t require nearly as many hectares to produce a given amount of coca, as they used to. In calculating its estimates of "potential output," the US DEA assumes a constant 4.26 kilos of potential cocaine output per hectare of coca cultivation; UN "drug experts" assume a constant 3.56.

Even if we give the DEA the benefit of the doubt, however, it estimates that in 2004, Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia produced enough coca to make more than 640,000 kilos of pure cocaine. While this is 28 percent lower than the average potential output in 1996-2001, it is still enough coca to produce more than 2.5 billion grams per year of retail street-cut cocaine.

At today’s New York City street price for an "eight-ball" – $150 for an eighth of an ounce, or $43 a gram – even if just 20 percent of this potential output made it through, that’s a $22 billion annual market. Those who are waiting for supply-side interdiction to "win the war on drugs" will have to wait a long time.

Indeed, if one operative definition of insanity is to "do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result," by this definition, US drug enforcement policy is bouncing off the walls.

Download PDF Version

Maximizing Gross National Happiness Rethinking the Economics of Growth and InequalityJames S. Henry

Each year, by the terms of Jeremy Bentham's 1832 will, his mummified corpse is wheeled out to sit with faculty and students at the University of London.  Apart from this peculiar celebration, however, few people today remember the 18th-century economist and social critic whose life's work consisted of trying to make the British legal system serve "the greatest happiness of the greatest number."

Indeed, most modern economists, under the influence of the Chicago School's homespun version of behaviorism and positivism, have long since abandoned the direct study of "human happiness."

In the economic development arena, this has led many economists to focus on technical policies that are supposed to increase overall efficiency, output, and measured growth, without regard to the distributional consequences.

In this "neoliberal" view, one person's subjective pleasure is another's pain, utility functions are unobservable, so interpersonal comparisons of utility are impossible. Distributional questions are therefore purely matters of "personal preference," to which "positivist economics" has nothing to add.

One suspects that this stance causes poor old Jeremy Benthem, who dedicated his life to identifying social polices that would increase human happiness, to turn somersaults  in his Auto-Icon.

Fortunately, modern psychologists, anthropologists, and public opinion pollsters have recently stepped in where most economists have feared to tread. 

NEO-BENTHAMITE PSYCHOLOGY AND ECONOMICS

Using a combination of survey research techniques and objective measures of individual economic and social status, these social scientists have begun to study the determinants of subjective happiness levels directly -- both within and across countries. 

Among their most important findings:

• Beyond a certain level of per capita measured income -- about $15,000 per year -- reported happiness levels don't improve very much across countries. There is also a great deal of variation in reported subjective happiness levels poorer countries at similar income levels. In other words, making "measured growth" the sine qua non of economic policy makes little sense.
  

• High-income groups report somewhat higher "very happy" levels within countries at any given point in time. But among First World countries,  increases in average real per capita income have not led to increased happiness levels over time.

• Indeed, since the late 1940s, increased real income levels among First World countries have been accompanied by rising levels of alcoholism and drug addiction, depression, and crime  -- an indication of a growing gap between trends in income and happiness.

• Changes in real income may lead to short-time increases in subjective happiness at the individual level.  But people become "habituated" to new levels of material income quickly -- in less than a year. Since they also tend to underestimate such "habituation" effects, they probably also spend too much time on the job, and too little time with their families.
  

• Measured income has much less impact on subjective happiness than many other determinants of happiness --  especially employment, job security, family status,  and health. The country of Bhutan has reportedly already recognized this fact by declaring that its national goal is to maximize "Gross National Happiness" rather than GDP per capita.
  

• Relative incomes and "rivalry" are other important determinants of subjective happiness. This depends on one's reference group. For example, reported happiness levels among residents of East Germany plummeted after 1990, when they went from having the highest incomes among Soviet-type economies to the lowest incomes in Germany.

• While genetic factors may help to explain differences among individuals in subjective happiness within any country, differences among neighboring countries -- say, within Europe -- are far too substantial and persistent to account for on the basis of such factors.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

From the standpoint of Bentham's original goal of designing social institutions to maximize human happiness, the implications are many.

They include new justifications for: 

(1) Progressive income and wealth taxation;

(2) Polices that help to provide job security, social security, and health insurance;

(3) Using non-material incentives to reward people for doing a good job;

(4) Encouraging people to spend more time with their families; and

(5) Paying more attention to "non-material" development goals like democracy, family values, work force participation, and human rights -- in striking contrast to the materialist path that now seems to unite both China and the World Bank/IMF on the goal of blindly maximizing measured GDP per capita.

In other words, all this adds up to a pretty interesting justification for -- in effect -- Europe's "high tax/social insurance/long vacation" welfare state version of capitalism. 

From a competitive standpoint, however, since the US, China, and other ruthless global competitors are unlikely to adopt such a model any time soon -- and, indeed, moving in precisely the opposite direction, the question is whether any of these Neo-Benthamite policy implications stand a snowball's chance in hell. They may, but only if those of us who are located in neoliberal vanguard countries are able to push social policies in a more progressive -- and happier! -- direction.

(For a concise summary of the literature, see the following three lectures by LSE's Professor Richard Layard:) 

• Download  Lectur 1

• Download Lecture 2

• Download Lecture 3

***

© James S. Henry, SubmergingMarkets™, 2005

 

South Asia - The Mystery of the "Missing Women," High Population Growth Rates, and The Limits of ChoiceJames S. Henry

In the 1990s, India and its non-Communist neighbors on the Asian subcontinent -- Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal --  followed the advice of UN experts and "pro-maternal choice" advocates,  and bet heavily on a laissez faire approach to population control.  This approach, which emphasizes education,  family planning, maternal control,  and the voluntary use of contraceptive devices, was supposed to be more humanitarian than the coercive approach that had been adopted by China,  and briefly by India itself,  in the 1970s. That approach had relied heavily on forced sterilzations, IUDs, and abortions,  and heavy-handed ceilings on the number of children per family.    

A decade later, as recent research on this region's demographics makes clear,  both these approaches turn out to have serious limitations. For different reasons, they have both facilitated very high levels of infanticide against infant girls. And the laissez-faire approach has also utterly failed to restrain South Asia's population growth rate, which remains among the highest in the developing world. To transcend these problems will require the state to intervene, but in a much more intelligent way, by providing positive incentives to parents to "do the right thing."     

THE HORROR OF CHRISTMAS II The Social Pathologies of Our Grandest "Holiday"James S. Henry**

"Christmas has us all by the throats..." -- Noel Coward

Download Pdf

When I was a kid in Minnesota, my family had a huge Scandinavian feast every Christmas Eve, complete with more than two dozen relatives, three feet of snow, a mountainous evergreen that was trimmed to the top with popcorn balls, candy canes, tinsel, and hundreds of precious once-a-year decorations, a six-course dinner with lutefisk, ham, turkey and eight or ten pies, long-winded after-dinner stories about baseball, the space race, and World War II, and, of course, lots of brightly-wrapped presents.

It has taken more than three decades of rigorous training in economics and law and life on the East Coast for me to shake off the nostalgia of those warm, festive occasions.  But I am now willing to say out loud what I expect many Americans are muttering all across the country at this time of year: Christmas is a real net loser as a socio-economic institution.

Although for decades the observance of Christmas has been justified on the grounds that it is “merry,” rigorous quantitative analysis proves that precisely the opposite is the case. Despite numerous claims by its proponents that this holiday promotes a desirable “spirit,” and makes people “jolly,” the hard data clearly demonstrate that the yuletide period is marked by environmental degradation, a sharp increase in unfortunate encounters with hazardous products, massive congestion,  tedious, time-consuming travel,  and the abuse and inefficient use of vast numbers of animals, birds, trees, and many other valuable resources.

Moreover, the number of people who are rendered truly “joyous” by Christmas is almost certainly exceeded by the number who are made to feel rather blue. Nor does Christmas truly fulfill its purported distributional objective: the transfer of gifts to those who really need them.

Finally, it turns out that this so-called “holiday” may make a significant contribution to America’s dwindling savings rate, unsustainable trade deficit,  declining competitiveness, and the movitation for a great many property crimes – not to mention our appalling appetite for elevator music from the likes of Bing Crosby, Michael Bolton, and Kathy Lee.

In short, although Christmas may be an important source of religious inspiration for some, and a genuine source of wintertime fun for others -- mainly children, who would probably be having fun anyway -- it fails the test of social cost effectiveness.  It is high time for those of us who are serious adults to take a good long holiday from this overblown annual ritual.

061104.A Truly Great American Died This Week

Printable PDF Version. A truly great American died this week. He was Ray Charles, aged 73. Throughout his life, his unique blend of popular, sacred, and soul music transcended the social apartheid of color, class, age, religion, sex, and politics to bring incredible moments of joy, laughter, and delight to hundreds of millions of people all over the world. He was an authentic musical genius, with ability to create amazing new songs in a style all his own – like “I’ve Got a Woman,” “What I’d Say,” and “A Fool for You,” to name a few. But he could also take another writer's songs of almost any genre and improve them simply by deciding to perform them himself - like “I Can’t Stop Loving You,” “Georgia on My Mind,”and “I’ll Be Good to You.”

Like Ellington, Basie, Armstrong, and Miles Davis, Ray's first and last love was his art. From age 3 right up to the end, he continued to perform and tour even when his body, racked by a plethora of ailments, wanted to quit. Without any apparent effort, he was an authentic optimist, an embodiment of hope and courage for all young people who begin life with seemingly insurmountable difficulties. He was not just a hero to Americans, but was revered in many other countries where jazz is popular, from Russia and France to Japan and Brazil.

From one standpoint Ray was “blind.” But he taught us the difference between being able to look and being able to see. Ray was the real thing. On this national day of mourning, we truly mourn his loss.

***

(c) James S. Henry, SubmergingMarkets.com, 2003. Not for reproduction or other use without express consent from the author. All rights reserved.

060204."Letters from the New World" (Ukraine):#1.""Schwartzennation" - Microwave Democracy"

Printable PDF Version About Matthew Maly

(Editor's Note: The following is the first in a series of essays by Matthew Maly, a leading Russian-born American free-lance journalist and business consultant who is based in Kiev, Ukraine. He is the latest addition to Submerging Markets' growing list of Contributing Editors. In this essay, Matthew provides an interesting non-US perspective on the limits of America's technocratic approach to exerting influence on other countries around the world. Matthew's latest book is the highly-acclaimed How to Make Russia a Normal Country. (St Petersburg: Bulanin, 2002). An English language version, Russia As It Is: Transformation of a Lose-Lose Society, is available in the US from Booklocker.Com.)

"SCHWARTZZENATION" - MICROWAVE DEMOCRACY

From where I sit, here in Kiev, it seems that the United States of America has become a nation of super-people. At the cost of a very few lives it has defeated an army of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, and occupied a country of 25 million. Like the Spanish conquistadors facing the Incas, America appears to be an era ahead of the rest of the world. And just like the Incas facing the conquistadors, the world is ambiguous towards America, fascinated yet fearful, trying democracy and Wrigley's Spearmint Gum for the first time.

If an American soldier dies in Iraq, every inhabitant of our planet learns about his death almost instantly: a giant falls with a thud. When a crowd of Iraqis carried the helmet of a dead American soldier it seemed like it took fifty of them to carry it. Yet like every giant from a fairy tale, the American giant has a vulnerability that may prove its undoing.

Historical eras are often distinguished from one another by technology, both industrial (how things are made) and social (how people interact). A key secret of America's economic and political advantages lies in its use of pioneering social technology, especially the concept of “win/win.”

There are countries where for every ten people who enable there are eight, ten, or twenty of those who destroy or impede. Per capita productivity in Russia is one tenth that of the US. Does this mean that a Russian can’t lift a five-pound sack of potatoes? No, it means that if a Russian wants to open a hot dog stand, a bandit and a tax collector immediately visit him. In America, one of your neighbors works to feed you and another to educate you. In Iraq, one neighbor spies on you and another teaches you hatred instead of arithmetic.

It is “win/win” social cooperation, supported by social values and a legal system that Americans often take for granted that opens the way for the introduction of new technology, not the reverse: industrial technology can be used only if your neighbors realize that your personal success will in turn help them advance their goals. America has long since accepted the basic premises of “win/win,” and this is what helps to make the American soldier grow a hundred feet tall.

But technology is a human attribute, not the essence of what a human being is all about. Technology, both social and scientific, has helped to make America successful, but America is in danger of neglecting human character, proposing solutions that are purely technical, and thus may well be inadequate.

This danger is nothing new. Paganism was a fascination with the technologies of nature: to be strong, people wore wolf's teeth or feather head-dresses. The Industrial Age worshiped the Machine Tool, a new God that produced everything, and people wanted to be like the Machine Tool's products: unanimous, marching in step, and wearing steel helmets. The Information Age proclaims: you are what you appear to be; ultimately it is all “bits and bytes.” If the celluloid Terminator can save the world, it follows that a human Arnold Schwarzenegger can save California. But is it really just a matter of technique and force?

If we compare a McDonald's to a French restaurant, we are likely to conclude that the McDonald's is cheaper, cleaner, faster, and friendlier. It is a triumph of technology, research, and training. The French restaurant has only two things going for it: you will not remember a McDonald's meal for the rest of your life, and you cannot propose at McDonald's. McDonald's stands for a satisfying technologically-assured result, but the French restaurant stands for life, whatever it is. McDonald's has a very useful role to play, but when it proposes itself as a substitute for a sit-down meal, there is a problem.

Too often, America says to the world, "Accept our technology because it is really works." And indeed it does usually “work”, but the world does not want to accept it - it prefers to keep its old ways of life. People want to be, not just to appear. America wants the world to wear a mask of "nice" and “new,” but the world wants to keep its tastes and traditions, its blemishes, its uncertainties, and even its vices. It is not that the world wants to remain "bad": the world simply resists the notion that every problem has a technological solution. The world may not be ready for such “solutions,” or it may believe that there are problems that await spiritual rather than technological solutions. The technocratic side of America seems to be saying, "If your marriage is unhappy it could only mean that your marriage contract was not elaborate enough," but the world sees this as technocratic madness, the worship of a new false pagan god, even in the midst of America’s purported “spiritual revival.”

Of course democracy can be a reasonable goal, be it for Canadians or for Afghans or Iraqis. But when democracy is presented as a ready-made technological solution – three minutes in the microwave, with a pickle and a smile - then people will refuse to swallow this prepackaged sandwich. The world wants to slaughter the lamb, skin it, and eat it with their hands.

The world resists American idea that politics (and art) are no longer about people, but about the application of various technologies – a democratic system of government being one of them. The Terminator saves the world not because he has the largest heart, but because, at the right moment, his guns make the greatest holes. The world sees this exclusion of people, with their hot beating hearts and their imperfect histories, as a serious threat.

India invented quiet contemplation and has congested, noisy streets; Britain invented good manners and reads the stolen letters of royalty; Russia stood for the soul elevated by beautiful literature, and so Russian prostitutes are the best-read in the world. The world abandons its values, and American culture pours in and rules. But the world understands that the American version of good is not good, and the stronger America becomes, the more it tries to impose its will, the more it will be resisted.

America should be extending its "win/win" spirit, which has been so successful at home, to its (belated) efforts to spread democracy abroad. It should not be turning itself into a fearsome giant that pretends that technology has made love, identity, and history obsolete. Just like in every fairy tale, at the end a single human child will defeat it.

*** © Matthew Maly, SubmergingMarkets™, 2004

060104."Letters from the New World (South Africa)."Denis Beckett #5:"Che Guevara vs. Paul Theroux on Africa"

Printable PDF Version. About Denis Beckett

(Note: The following is the fifth in a series of essays by Denis Beckett, one of South Africa's best-known journalists, and a Submerging Markets Contributing Editor. Here, Denis offers his reactions to Paul Theroux's latest "travelogue" on Africa, and compares that with a little-known new release of Che Guevara's African diaries, recounting his experiences forty years ago in Guinea Bissau and the Congo. Denis' latest book is the highly-acclaimed Redeeming Features. (London: Penguin Books, 2004.))

053104."Letters from the New World (South Africa)."Denis Beckett #4:""Kill Bill" Comes to Joburg"

Printable PDF Version About Denis Beckett

(Note: The following is fourth in a series of essays by Denis Beckett, one of South Africa's best-known journalists, and a Submerging Markets Contributing Editor. Here, Denis takes aim at one of the US' more unsavory exports, its hyper-violent films, as exemplified by "Kill Bill V. 1." This is not exclusively a US problem-- KB's highly-overrated blood-spattered director, Quentin Tarantino, was one of five judges for the Palm d'Or at Cannes this year. Denis' latest book is the highly-acclaimed Redeeming Features. (London: Penguin Books, 2004.))

KILL BILL COMES TO JOBURG

You’ve seen Kill Bill on the bus shelters – the blonde star in a grand prix tracksuit with a samurai sword. It’s all over the press, in phrases like “TARANTINO’S TRIUMPH -- PAGES 2, 3, 6 – 7, 10 & 12.” The word “brilliant” appears repeatedly, with superlatives, as in absolutely brilliant, amazingly brilliant, astoundingly brilliant.

The impression I got was of a violent movie, brilliantly handled so as to make the violence a light-hearted, merry kind of violence. Additional brilliance apparently lay in the “referencing” by which the film borrows techniques from prior films so filmgoers can have detective fun whispering “Look, Mabel! That’s from Slicing Off Noses, 1989.”

This was intriguing. If we in the print world “borrow”, we are called plagiarists and sent to the back doors of restaurants. The notion of cute violence left me a bit at sea. And I felt a pique on behalf of local films, to whom local ink is the difference between life and bankruptcy and who beg for attention. Was this Kill Bill that much better? I bought a movie ticket.

I lasted half an hour. I might have managed more if they provided sick-bags like on an airplane, but I’m not sure: I also had a pressing urge to shower, with lots of soap.

There were brilliant bits, I suppose. The gentle way a female voice sings the violent opening song is creepily brilliant. And the blood-splattering seemed sort of brilliantly done, the first dozen or so times. It splattered vividly, anyhow.

But I couldn’t see a basic, special brilliance, or what is brilliant in a mother being blood-splatteringly killed in front of her 4-year-old, or another mother being killed (with splatter) on the bed under which her daughter is hiding. Or in the daughter getting a turn to splat after “luckily”, I quote, discovering that her mother’s murderer is a pederast.

One scene imprinted itself: a male nurse hiring out the body of a comatose female patient, Vaseline thrown in leeringly. It’s effective, I grant, wedging like a gallstone in my memory lobe, but “brilliant”? I see sordid. I see sickening. I can’t see brilliant.

The world takes all kinds. Some people need brutality; it speeds their adrenalin. Fine, they’re welcome; rather have it on the screen than in the street (where if they saw a fraction of Kill Bill they’d be in trauma counselling for ten years.)

But these aren’t the only people. I might be a drip, a sissy and chicken, but I’m not unique. If I feel dirty watching this, so do other people, some of whom have been led to see this film as compulsory viewing, advancing mankind’s frontiers. Some are revolted but embarrassed to be revolted, and scared to admit they’re revolted. I think it’s they who laugh at the foulest scenes. Their heads say that what they’re watching is disgusting, but society says that what they’re watching is brilliant. They feel they must be inferior people, gutless or dull. So they don disguises, outdoing each other’s enthusiasm.

Why does society give them so one-way a message? Could some critics be caught in the same syndrome: “if I don’t enthuse over this film I’ll be derided as an inferior person, gutless or dull”? Even the few who denounce, denounce with escape hatches: it’s racist, because the white chick chops non-white heads off; or it’s boring, because its plot plods. Is there a taboo against saying what many viewers surely want to say, that the film is demeaning and psychopathic, and to wish to puke in your shoe is a healthy response?

I think something pathetic is on the go. Once, reviews had to uphold motherhood and apple pie. You couldn’t break out. When breaking out first became permissible, it was called freedom. Now the breaking out has become its own new prison. You don’t dare be seen to not push limits. People will think you’re off the pace.

It’s okay that weird tastes are in the world. There always have been. But that the taste for beauty, for honesty, for integrity, for humanity, for the things we inwardly want… that that taste is now a furtive thing and hidden, is wrong.

***

© Denis Beckett, SubmergingMarkets™, 2004