Arts, Films, Society, United States

Film Review: ‘Loving’

THE POWER OF LOVE

Inspiring: Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as Richard and Mildred Loving.

Inspiring: Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as Richard and Mildred Loving.

Synopsis: The gripping true story of a mixed-race couple who stood against the bigots to become American heroes.

WHEN Richard Loving, a white bricklayer from Virginia, married his black girlfriend, Mildred Jeter, in 1958, a firestorm of publicity and a prominent footnote in the Constitution of the United States were the last things either of them expected. Or wanted.

Richard, as depicted and choreographed by Joel Edgerton in writer-director Jeff Nichols’s wonderful film, was a simple soul, who with his crewcut and slow drawl might have seemed like the prototype of a Southern redneck, but clearly didn’t have a bigoted bone in his body.

He was joined in matrimony by Mildred (Irish actress Ruth Negga) for uncomplicated and old-fashioned reasons. They loved each other, and she was pregnant.

However, interracial marriage was prohibited by Virginia’s miscegenation laws. They sidestepped that by tying the knot in Washington DC, only to find themselves arrested and jailed on their return home.

The judge deemed that ‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents . . . The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.’

He gave the Lovings a stark choice; either annul the marriage or leave the state for 25 years. They left, but secretly returned for Mildred to give birth, and were arrested again.

Their lawyer used his friendship with the judge to keep them out of jail, but told them there would be no further leniency.

Although they were country folk who yearned to go back to their roots, the Lovings were compelled to raise their growing family in the city.

A few years later, stirred by the spirit of the burgeoning civil rights movement, Mildred wrote to the attorney-general, Robert Kennedy, who referred their case to the American Civil Liberties Union.

An ACLU lawyer, Bernard Cohen (Nick Kroll), saw their predicament as perfect leverage for an appeal to the Supreme Court, and although Richard in particular recoiled from being leverage for anything, they duly became a legal precedent, a cause celebre.

Journalists descended on them. Life magazine sent a photographer (played here by the ever-splendid Michael Shannon).

 

AND inevitably, the grotesque notion, long enshrined in Virginia’s law, that interracial marriage was ‘against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth’, was overturned.

Loving vs. Virginia remains a landmark civil rights case.

It is a poignant tale, but then civil rights stories always are. Nichols’s great skill is in maintaining its integrity. There are no eloquent, barnstorming speeches about injustice, least of all by the Lovings themselves.

This is not the America of Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner? Stanley Kramer’s 1967 film in which Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn played the gnarled old white liberals grappling with their daughter Joanna’s decision to marry Sidney Poitier’s urbane black doctor.

This is an America in which you can practically hear the cogs turn when people think.

Edgerton and in particular the Oscar-nominated Negga are both superb, giving heartrendingly sensitive performances as two people bewildered by the events that have engulfed them. When their lawyer asks Richard if he has a message for the Supreme Court justices, it is a plain one: ‘Tell them that I love my wife.’

His surname gave Nichols a conveniently plain title, too, and the narrative doesn’t need much adornment either.

Maybe that’s why the picture itself is not in the frame for an Academy Award, but Nichols’s achievement should not be overlooked. He has made a very fine film.

 

Loving (12A)

Verdict: Rousing true story ★★★★

 

Standard
Arts, Government, Politics, Russia, Society, Technology, United States

The terrifying era of internet warfare

CYBER WARS

russian-hackers

America’s CIA says Vladimir Putin was behind Russian hackers’ bid to swing the U.S. presidential election. As the fallout continues, cyber wars are only at the infancy stage of the internet-war era.

SINCE the presidential election result was announced in November, America has become an embittered battlefield. The role of Russia in securing Donald Trump’s victory has caused fierce controversy.

The CIA, America’s intelligence agency, has asserted with “high confidence” that Kremlin-directed hackers were responsible for the revelation through Wikileaks of thousands of Democratic Party emails, derailing the Hillary Clinton campaign wagon just at a crucial moment during the election when Trump was in trouble over his misogynistic attitudes and appalling treatment of women.

In sensational developments last month, intelligence officials said that Russia’s President Putin was personally involved in the hacking campaign.

If that was not enough to spark intense unease in Western capitals, a spokesperson for President Obama launched an extraordinary attack on Mr Trump, saying that it was “obvious” he knew about the Russian interference in the election.

The President-elect dismisses as “ridiculous” the charges that the Russians helped to place him, their avowed friend, in the White House. Few even among his foes suggest that he won solely thanks to the hackers. But the 2016 U.S. election has highlighted the extraordinary influence now wielded by the internet upon every aspect of our world.

The former U.S. Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger, wrote presciently in his 2014 book World Order: ‘Presidential elections are on the verge of turning into media contests between master operators of the internet . . . whose intrusiveness would have been considered only a generation ago the stuff of science fiction.’

What is most chilling, however, is the speed with which cyber conflict is now evolving.

America’s Information Operational Technology Centre was created in 1998 to spy on actual and potential enemies, corrupt their digital networks, and even by controlling their computers. Its early operations were unimpressive. During the 1999 bombing of Kosovo, its geeks made Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic’s telephone ring incessantly, which seems merely to have annoyed him.

Before one anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the Americans took down an Al Qaeda website, blocking the planned release of a propaganda broadcast by Osama bin Laden. Afterwards, however, counter-terrorist officers bitterly protested that all that had been achieved was to alert Al Qaeda to the vulnerability of its communications.

Continue reading

Standard
Arts

2017: ‘A New Dawn’…

Seek a fresh goal every day, Look on all things new.

Seek a fresh goal every day, Look on all things new.

EVERY first of January, so it says in the 1862 Book of Days, is at once a resting place for thought and meditations, and a starting point for fresh exertion in the performance of our journey.

The Book of Days then goes on, rather cheekily, to suggest that, “The man who does not at least propose to himself to be better this year than he was last, must either be very good or very bad indeed.”

Well, I think most of us probably fall somewhere in the middle of that assessment; not too bad – but not as good as we might be.

Resolutions are all very well – and often all very temporary – but if we try to be better this year than we were last year, and then do the same next year, then step by step, year by year, we shall edge ever closer to being “very good indeed”.

As we commit to such improvements, we become very aware of the limitations of our will-power. But there is always help on hand.

Drawing on the Good Lord’s strength and support, may we all be new and better creations in His service, in this year of 2017 and beyond.

 

Standard