Sunday, May 18, 2008

Book Review: Terror Incorporated

In the never-ending quest to push myself to write, here is another entry in the book review category. As I told a friend recently, I use the reviews to hide behind, until I find the voice or courage to come out and say what I think. Maybe later...

Loretta Napoleoni, Terror Incorporated: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks (2005).

Simply put, what I like about this book is that it insists on following the money, rather than get distracted by ideologies, religions, or marketing.

First hint: read the 3-page Conclusion at the end of the book first. It presents her thesis wonderfully (and SHOULD have been at the front; it would have saved me a lot of time and energy). In the book, she analyzes the evolutionary growth of what she calls the 'New Economy of Terror.' "The principal stages have been the wars by proxy of the Cold War era, the foreign sponsorship of armed groups, the privatization of terror, the birth of state-shells, and the Modern Jihad" (225). Napoleoni, an economist first and journalist second, revels in the numeric details as only an economist can. She counts the dollars as they flow from one group to another, in one form and another (particularly arms, drugs, and dollars).

Things I did NOT know: Hey, it turns out that terror groups (Napoleoni shuns 'terrorist' because of the excess baggage the term has acquired) don't like to be beholden to sponsors. Who knew? One of the most interesting things I learned was that groups explicitly work to create stable, independent finances (by investing in legitimate companies, stock markets, and real estate) in order to wean themselves off of the often fickle sponsors. Freedom-fighter today can become terrorist tomorrow, depending on the politics and the narrative wrapper. So, groups evolved into investors with independent wealth and freedom to act. Naploeoni sees the power vacuum caused by the fall of the Soviet Union as one of the major opportunities for this shattering of sponsorship and flourishing of independent groups/organizations (since they have become full-fledged organizations IMHO). I was unexpectedly amused (by the image, not the fact) of collections of small terror groups working up presentations and proposals for Al-Qaeda, hoping for a grant of funding. [Dude, I see you brought your AK-47, but did you remember the projector and the PowerPoint presentation?]

While the detail in the book can become dizzying, Napoleoni does have something interesting to say about the nature of Capitalism and Terror. The fact that the Terror Economy is now woven into Western Capitalism in such a way as to be difficult (if not impossible) to remove safely makes me wonder about the 'morality' of Western Capitalism. We don't seem to care where the oil or money or products or labor comes from (as Western Consumers) as long as those things are abundant and within reach. We get hints of how global consumerism not only leads to the consumption of goods and services, but also the consumption of peoples and ecosystems. I am unpleasantly NOT surprised that terror groups have individuals intelligent enough to mimic or plug into the Western Capitalist model and use it to launder billions of dollars.

I was trained as a historian, and in Napoleoni's description of 'state-shells' (regions and areas that terror groups isolate, ravage and control), I was reminded of 'feudalism.' A lot of the actions and interactions of terror groups, local populations, and national and regional governments recalls Medieval Europe for me. Local armies/groups can provide security and infrastructure in ways that the distant government either cannot or will not. These local warlords (or simply 'lords' in European history) establish security, collect taxes, negotiate with other nearby warlords, and exert absolute control over their lands. I wonder if this economic model has, as Napoleoni implies, been overcome in the modern era by national governments only to resurface when those national governments weaken and contract. Or has the 'victory' of national governments, super-powers and modernism really only pushed 'feudalism' slightly under the surface of society? Aren't we local, even if we are told that we are 'national' or 'international'? I wonder.

Finally, it is interesting to see how the story needs to be controlled. Napoleoni says that she had to try to focus on economics in order to avoid terms with baggage. I think that might indicate a deeper dissatisfaction with the use of the terms in the media and in the rhetorical machine we call 'spin.' Who is a terrorist? Who is a freedom-fighter? Revolutionaries are good if they are led by George Washington, but not necessarily in other situations. Radical reform can get to the root of a problem, but being a radical is problematic. If a militia supported by a government murders villages full of locals, aren't the funders responsible on some level? Who is a white-hat? Who is a black-hat? Who is responsible?

I can see why Napoleoni tries so hard to stick to economics. Math often has answers.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Theatre Review: Armadale

Theatre Review: Armadale, by Jeffrey Archer (World Premier at Milwaukee Repertory Theatre) Adaptation of Wilkie Collins’s 1862 Novel by the same name.

First, the play. Collins originally released the novel in serial form, as was common for the day (see Dickens), so the 752 page Penguin Classic has innumerable twists, turns and cliffhangers. As might be expected, Archer’ adaptation of such a work into even the lengthy 2 and a half hour production results in a sometimes campy, sometimes dark, always meandering, scattering of a play.

Structure: The mechanics are the play of binary pairs. There are 2 Allen Armadales (the biological and the adopted); there are two more Allen Armadales, (the sons); there is the good fiancé and the evil temptress; the clergyman and the Renfield; Victorian parents and the Victorian snake-oil doctor and fishwife.

Plot: The story starts as a comedy of errors-type play of multiple Allens, and quickly darkens into a Victorian Gothic of murder and revenge. The adopted Allen murders the biological Allen at sea, and then writes his son a letter. The son Allen of adopted Allen (impoverished and haunted) then seeks out the son Allen of biological Allen (wealthy and happy-go-lucky). But here the plot twists. Biological Allen and his wife had employed the forgery skills of a servant girl to enable their marriage. However, the honeymoon murder of the groom caused the wife to sell the servant girl into slavery rather than pay her for the forgery. This wronged servant girl, returned as the heartless governess, Lydia Gwilt, is the eventual protagonist of the play. Lydia, still young because of surgery and snake-oil, seduces the betrothed son of biological Allen as well as son of adopted Allen (called Ozias and turned protector) and Renfield. Lydia’s revenge arc is interrupted by her falling in love with Ozias, and she attempts to call off the trap she has set for son of biological Allen and his fiancé (her ward, Neelie). Lawyers, private investigators, and self-righteous clergymen conspire to force Lydia back into her revenge plot with threats of revelation. In the end, Lydia murders the clergyman, but finally commits suicide beside the body of Ozias, whom she thinks she has inadvertently killed. A la Romeo and Juliet, Ozias is not dead, and wakes to find the lifeless body of his love, Lydia, who, in the end, sacrificed herself to love rather than finish her story of revenge. Ozias leaves England to become a journalist. Fin.

Follow all of that? Realize, I left a lot of the sub-plots out.

Anyway, the actors were superb. Even the sometimes-strained British accents did not take away from the fun they must have had with all of the twists and turns. Deborah Staples was the (eventual) main character, Lydia Gwilt, and the standout of the play. Her transitions from exposition to interaction, from evil to benign, were light, smooth and often hilarious. Emily Trask, who played the virginal Neelie Milroy, offered an excellent foil for Staples’s Gwilt. Neelie began the play young and naïve, but matured through the action and came to understand the other forces at play. The two female leads really held the piece together for me.

Problems: My main problem is that I can’t decide if the play was flawed, or it the choice of books to try to adapt was flawed. It’s all just too much. There is too much murder for camp, too much camp for gothic, too much exposition for character development, and too many characters for the time allotted. There is the theme of mistaken identity, the theme of revenge, the theme of fate versus choice, the theme of poverty versus wealth, the theme of love versus history. Too much. Perhaps that is the final evaluation of the play. Too much everything. You need a double-shot of espresso and a notepad just to keep up.

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Returned from California...

Tired and happy.

B and M hosted us for a wonderful week in Santa Cruz and Monterey/Carmel.

Among the highlights, we stood in the dark (with knitter LED ear-lamps), listening as Bob played Owl calls. Saw-Whet, Screech, and Pigmy responded. Strange to stand in a vast darkness and hear this intelligent life calling out. There were far too many species to list the event of seeing each (139 in total, I believe). In Monterey, S bonded with the Octopus at the Aquarium. We also learned that they are called 'jellies' now, not 'jellyfish.'  Carmel was half resort town and half Pacific natural wonder. Carmel Country Inn was a really nice B & B, especially with the fresh-baked cookies, the snacks we were encouraged to take back to the rooms, and Michelle's constant help. From Moss Landing, we took a boat trip into the bay and saw Hump-Backed Whales as well as Orcas (circling a buoy full of Sea Lions). Some good photos (yet to be processed). Point Lobos afforded some opportunities to photograph ocean/rocks/more rocks/Cormorants and the occasional Crab. Gorgeous.

After all of that, we needed some down-time, so we saw 'Iron Man.'

Movie review: Iron Man
Perhaps taking a cue from the Onion's hilarious video about the danger of lengthening a successful trailer into a full-length film, Iron Man begins by breaking the linear narrative with a jolting "grab you" beginning and then a "let's jump back" non-segue. After this intro, the film falls back into the classic time sequence of things.
There are plenty of reviews that will give you the narrative. I would rather jump right to some things I found interesting. 
Characters:
First, Gwyneth Paltrow gets many of the best lines and delivers them with understated but intelligent sarcasm. I liked how they drew this character, though perhaps she is the real super-hero in this film for being able to run in 4-inch heals over metal grating without getting stuck. But I digress.
Second, Jeff Bridges is a great nemesis, though I must admit that I was waiting for him to tell Robert Downey, Jr. "Hey, just call me The Dude, or just Dude."
Third, Terrence Howard played it too soft. I expected Jim Rhodes to be a bit louder and more... military. Perhaps he will come out of his shell once he is allowed to get into one.
Fourth, Robert Downey, Jr. was certainly a nifty bit of casting. I found many of his interactions with Paltrow to be strained, like they were ad-libbing and waiting for each other to say something. The ending, which I will not give away, set up (for me) the narcissistic self-destructive tendencies in Tony Stark that Downey, Jr. was in danger of giving away with his post-conversion niceness. Stark is, on some level, just a billionaire playboy with a new, cool sports car that he can wear. He's not a role model. That's what makes him real. 

Suit, cool. Trashed cars, cringe-inducing. Robot humor, funny. Villain, how many bad guys have missed The Incredibles and the dangers of monologuing? Setup for sequels, stay for all of the credits, and then your comic-geek-filled audience will raise a shout of joy as they did when I was there.

Rating? My rating system is Blue Thunder (BT) and AirWolf (\A/). Scale: Blue Thunder = bad and AirWolf = good. 2 BT is worse than 1BT. 2 \A/ is better than 1 \A/. Maximum is 5 on either end.

Iron Man = 3 \A/. 

That's enough for now. More on my recent church class and the nature of the Genesis narratives, Creationism, and the Theory of Evolution. Perhaps.