Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts

The Mask of Dimitrios: Mark Mazower on Eric Ambler and the decay of European civilisation

 
Eric Ambler’s brilliant noir novel The Mask of Dimitrios (1939), peopled by the flotsam and jetsam of the inter-war and post-Ottoman period, relates the obsessive quest by an English writer to trace the career of the Smyrniot Dimitrios Makropoulos, who is a thief, killer, spy, assassin, drug dealer, drug addict, white slave trader and successful businessman, a quest that takes him on a journey through Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Switzerland and France. The book was made into a classic film noir of the same name in 1944, directed by the Romanian Jean Negulesco and starring Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet – both the novel and film are resonant of The Maltese Falcon, the film of which in 1941 debuted the enduring Lorre and Greenstreet partnership.

The film can be seen in its entirety here. Above is a trailer for the film. Below, historian of modern Greece and the Balkans Mark Mazower provides an introduction to Ambler’s novel.

The Mask of Dimitrios, by Eric Ambler. Introduction, by Mark Mazower
 
The Mask of Dimitrios is the work of a writer at the height of his powers. Saturated with the despairing mood of a world in rapid decay, it is also a manifesto for a new kind of crime novel, a bomb intended to blow up the vicarage whodunnit as decisively as the fifty tons of TNT that the eight-year-old Eric Ambler had watched devastate the Silvertown storage depot in 1917 in London’s biggest-ever explosion. One might think it was written yesterday with its Balkan drug dealers, unscrupulous Eurasian businessmen and bedraggled refugees drifting across the continent. In fact, moving between London, Paris and New York, Ambler finished it as the Nazis marched into Prague in the spring of 1939. But although the war’s threat lurks in the background, and international machinations impart a sweaty tension to the fast-paced story, the real action occurs elsewhere, in a naive Englishman’s efforts to set aside the comfortably parochial values of his homeland and come to terms with the harsher realities of the world across the Channel. Back home they are playing cricket on the sundappled sward; but meantime the action is in cheap hotels and sleazy bars with names like La Vièrge St Marie and Le Kasbah, figuring out Grodek and Marukakis, Madame Preveza and the sinister Mr Peters. They are the real diagnostians of the ‘disappearing civilization’ that is Europe.

Charles Latimer, the hero, is sketched with Ambler’s characteristically ironic economy: former lecturer at some minor university, he earns a living from writing old-fashioned detective stories. But like Ambler himself, he is curious about the world and again like Ambler, he needs the sun and the Mediterranean, and the unknown pulls him in. Is it coincidence that the catalyst for his enquiry, the urbane Turkish Colonel Haki, should evoke by his very name the word for Truth (Hakk)? The world-weary Kemalist police officer seeks Latimer’s advice about his own unpublished foray into murder mystery. What he offers in return triggers Latimer’s journey into the heart of Europe’s darkness – reality in the shape of the bloated corpse of a man called Dimitrios laid out on a slab in a stinking Istanbul mortuary. As a curious Latimer retraces Dimitrios’s crime-laden peregrinations, the doubts begin, the interrogations and questions pile up, and soon it is Latimer himself who is being tracked down.

Ambler had not been to the Balkans when he wrote this book, although you would never guess it from the sureness of the writing. Instead, he had hung out in seedy Turkish cafes in the backstreets of Nice, where refugees had told him their stories in bad French. He must have listened carefully. This book’s émigrés have seen things and have little time for words: they list their stations of the cross, scarcely bothering to fill in the gaps. ‘Odessa, 1918. Stambul 1919. Smyrna 1921. Bolsheviks. Wrangel’s army. Kiev. A woman they called The Butcher.’ This is a world where London is a distant haven across the water, as the dust settles on the collapse of “the Ottoman empire and the Russian civil war. Refugees and conmen teach the former professor their hard truths of deception and violence. The police file away their details in the archives, all too aware of the falsehoods they contain. The civil servant’s card index is a fiction: names and dates change for a few small banknotes. International bureaucrats pontificate about stopping drugs and preventing trafficking in women. But the real power is elsewhere and the hope of a rational and benign world is an illusion. Violence – assassination, ethnic cleansing, military coups, war – courses through the book but it is not the ultimate problem. That problem is money, and what men will do for it.

Soon Latimer finds that behind the gunmen and the spies lies the mysterious Eurasian Credit Trust which bets on currency markets and makes huge profits from the heroin trade. Standing above Left and Right, international finance pulls the strings and makes the puppets dance. A stranger tells Latimer to accept the will of the Great One: chance rules men’s affairs, unpleasant deeds are sometimes inevitable and stoical acceptance is best. Latimer objects. His impulse is still to rationalize: he wants to see the criminal not as a man but as ‘a unit in a disintegrating social system’. Yet the people he meets, those who know much more about the mysterious Dimitrios than he does, find this superficial: an engaging blackmailer tells him men are like rats – everyone has one impulse which masters all others. Meanwhile, the malevolent Peters tells Latimer that having read one of his books he found it terrifying for its ‘ferocious moral rectitude’.

And lurking in the background, the instability of identity and the question of who Dimitrios really was. Greek, Muslim, Jew? He had been born in the Ottoman Balkans, in Salonika in 1889, a time and place of labile ethnicities, and had exploited the chaos of war, the mindless nationalist passions of more stupid men around him, to carve out a small fortune. ‘The drug pedlar, the pimp, the thief, the spy, the white slaver, the bully, the financier’: all of these at one time or another. One is reminded of the arch-villain of interwar pacifists, the arms-dealer Basil Zaharoff, whose rapid rise to power disguised his murky origins. In Paris, at the book’s climax, a shaken Latimer confronts the reality of his amoral times. Beyond Good and Evil, there is nothing more than logic and consistency; beyond Beethoven quartets and Michelangelo’s David lies poison gas and ‘the shattered bodies of children killed in the bombardment of an open town’. Europe was a jungle and its rules were set by the Stock Exchange Year Book and Mein Kampf.

Ambler’s prose, taut and fiercely etched, still has the power to shock. His style combines the precision of the chemist and engineer – two skills he deeply admired – with the thespian flair he inherited from his parents, eking out a living as music-hall artistes on the southeastern fringe of Edwardian London. There had been nothing romantic about his lower-middle-class upbringing but nothing either to constrain an imagination fuelled by the attractively disturbing stories of violence, war and foreign lands his returning uncles brought home with them in 1918. As Ambler’s talent propelled him upwards between the wars, his level gaze skewered the hypocrisies of a continent on the way down. Courteous yet unillusioned, Ambler remains one of the best guides to that low, dishonest decade. He is without doubt the most entertaining.



The Philosophers' Football Match



Above is the Monty Python sketch
The Philosophers' Football Match, featuring teams from Greece and Germany. The sketch was originally part of two shows Monty Python made for German television in 1972 – Monty Python's Fliegender Zirkus – and was also included in the film Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl.

You will notice in the sketch that Socrates scores the winning goal for the Greek philosophers. This is deeply ironic (and prophetic) since 10 years later,
Sócrates – or Sócrates Brasileiro Sampaio de Souza Vieira de Oliveira, to give him his full name – was captain and one of the star players of the Brazilian national team in the World Cup finals held in Spain; a team which, as well as Sócrates, included Zico, Falcao, Junior, Eder, Leandro and Cerezzo, and is regarded as the most thrilling and aesthetically satisfying footballing side of all time – even more so than the Brazil team that won the World Cup in Mexico in 1970. The 1982 Brazil side did not win that year's World Cup, getting knocked out by the eventual winners Italy 3-2, in one of the greatest upsets (and disappointments) in football.

As a player, Sócrates was renowned for his grace and guile, while off the field he is regarded as the most intelligent Brazilian ever to put on the famous yellow shirt, with doctorates in medicine and, of course, philosophy. Below is the magnificent goal he scored against the USSR in the group stages of the 1982 World Cup.



The Beatles sing Theodorakis



In 1958, Mikis Theodorakis recorded a song for Michael Powell’s Spanish/flamenco dance film Honeymoon – Theodorakis had worked with Powell on Ill Met By Moonlight in 1957. The song was sung by Gloria Lasso and set to the poetry of Rafael de Penagos and was called Luna de Miel. In 1963, the Beatles recorded the song as the Honeymoon Song. In the meantime, a Greek version was made with lyrics by Nikos Gatsos, Αν θυμηθείς τ' όνειρό μου (If you remember my dream), sung, first, by Giovanna and then by Mary Linda. Linda’s is the most famous version, though it has been sung and recorded by many, many Greek singers since – everyone from Marios Frangoulis to Anna Vissi. Above is the Beatles’ version, below is the Mary Linda version, followed by the Spanish version, a video with an excellent version by Photini Darra and Gatsos’ lyrics for the Greek song.





Αν θυμηθείς τ' όνειρό μου
Στην αγκαλιά μου κι απόψε σαν άστρο κοιμήσου
δεν απομένει στον κόσμο ελπίδα καμιά
τώρα που η νύχτα κεντά με φιλιά το κορμί σου
μέτρα τον πόνο κι άσε με μόνο στην ερημιά

Αν θυμηθείς τ' όνειρό μου
σε περιμένω να 'ρθεις
μ' ένα τραγούδι του δρόμου να ρθεις όνειρό μου
το καλοκαίρι που λάμπει τ' αστέρι με φως να ντυθείς

In my arms tonight once more sleep like a star
There’s no hope left in the world
Now that the night is knitting your body with kisses
Measure the pain and leave me alone in the wilderness.

If you my remember my dream
I’ll wait for your return
With a song from the street, come, my dream
In summer, as a shining star clothes you in light.

Antigone: heroine or death-obsessed zealot?


Watch Antigone in Entertainment  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

With the backing of the king of Argos, Polynices attacks Thebes and attempts to seize the throne from his brother, Eteocles. Thebes repels the invasion, but in the process Polynices and his brother are killed. Their uncle Creon ascends to the throne and proclaims that Eteocles is to be buried with full honours deserving of a patriot and a hero; while Polynices will remain unmourned and unburied, exposed to the birds and dogs, a fitting punishment for a traitor. Defiance of Creon’s order will be judged an act of treason punishable by death. Antigone cannot accept Creon’s decree and secretly performs burial and mourning rituals over her beloved brother’s corpse. The devoted sister is caught, brought before Creon and makes no effort to disguise her guilt or contempt for the king and his ‘laws’, claiming she acted according to ‘higher’ laws, on the correct treatment of family dead as defined by Hades and Zeus…

Sophocles’ Antigone is probably the most popular Greek tragedy in contemporary times. Moderns have liked to interpret Antigone as a rebel who defies a tyrant and the state; a proto-feminist protesting patriarchy; or a dissident youth who refuses to accept the strictures of her elders. This famous BBC version of the play, with Juliet Stevenson as Antigone, depicts Creon as a cruel dictator, who has usurped the law in the service of his rule and deploys it as part of a cult of the ‘state’. (Throughout Don Taylor’s otherwise powerful translation, polis is translated not as ‘city’ but as ‘state’ – to emphasise, for Taylor, Creon’s totalitarian disposition).

However, this insistence on interpreting Antigone as a drama of the individual against the state is facile. A Greek-filmed version of Antigone (above), with Irene Papas in the lead role, has a more complex portrayal of Creon who, rather than an implacable tyrant, is shown to be a weak and vacillating ruler. Having made his decree against Polynices’ burial and stipulated the death penalty for anyone who should defy it, Creon is inclined not to invoke the law now that Antigone – his niece, member of the Theban royal family and betrothed to his son, Haemon – and not Argive sympathisers or traitors, has been revealed as the party guilty of tending Polynices’ corpse. However, it is the gloomy, death-obsessed Antigone’s almost deranged defiance of her uncle and king that force Creon into a corner, and compel him to assert his authority and insist on the defence of the polis and its laws.

I’ve been reading Alberto Moravia…

I’ve been reading a few of the novels of the Italian writer Alberto Moravia – Conjugal Love, Boredom, Contempt and The Voyeur. They’re all good and share themes of intellectual, creative and male impotence. Boredom – about the obsession an artist develops against his instincts for a teenage girl – is the best of the novels; The Voyeur – about the intellectual, political and sexual antagonisms between a French literature professor and his father – is the least interesting.

Contempt is the novel Jean-Luc Godard filmed in 1963. I've previously written about Le Mépris here. The film is fairly faithful to the book and where it deviates from it, it enhances it. Le Mépris is, in fact, a sensational work of art. Both the film and the book, as I said in my previous post, are ‘among other things, a meditation on Homer’s Odyssey, [and] a celebration of Mediterranean landscape’. The story involves a struggling writer employed to write a screenplay of The Odyssey. He is unenthusiastic about the project, but takes it to earn money to impress his beautiful wife.

In the novel, the German film director Rheingold, explaining why he's interested in making a film of The Odyssey, says that ‘the Anglo-Saxon races have the Bible and you Mediterranean peoples, on the other hand, have Homer… To the Mediterranean peoples, Homer is what the Bible is to the Anglo-Saxons.’

Elsewhere in the novel, the writer Molteni objecting to the German director’s modern, psychological interpretation of The Odyssey says that the northern European wants to change Homer's ‘bright and luminous world, enlivened by the winds, glowing with sunshine, populated by quick-witted lively beings, into a kind of dark, visceral recess, bereft of colour and form, sunless, airless.’

Indeed, the ascendancy of the Bible over Homer is the greatest catastrophe to have befallen Greek civilisation. ‘Bright and luminous’ Greek culture was superseded by a culture formed in deserts and caves. In fact, if anyone wants to appreciate how repellent and un-Greek Biblical culture is, then one only has to read – as I have recently read – the climax of the Bible, Revelations, and compare the personality of John the Theologian and his nauseating, emetic ravings, with that of Odysseus, ‘a man’, as Moravia says, ‘without prejudices and, if necessary, without scruples, subtle, reasonable, intelligent, irreligious, skeptical, sometimes even cynical.’

Soul Kicking



‘The water calls. It's a long time since anyone drowned.’
(Woyzeck)

In January, I wrote about Spirtokouto (Matchbox), an impressive first film from Yiannis Economides. Now, here, at Greek-Movies.com, it’s possible to watch the Cypriot filmmaker's second film, made in 2005, Η Ψυχή στο Στόμα (I Psychi sto Stoma – known in English as Soul Kicking).

Soul Kicking is even bleaker than Spirtokouto, depicting a world in which human relations have broken down and all that's left is violence, brutality, selfishness and loathing.

The film opens with a line from Georg Büchner’s Woyzeck (1836) – 'The water calls. It's a long time since anyone drowned' – and indeed Economides' film is a reworking of the play, which follows the tragic demise of an abused and harried man made insane by the obscene society in which he lives and is driven towards a sacrificial murder.

The very talented Erikkos Litsis, who had the lead role in Spirtokouto, stars again in Soul Kicking. In the clip from Soul Kicking above, Takis (Litsis) is called round to deal with a family dispute, but it's too much for him.

Also, here’s an article (in English) from 18 months ago about the new wave of Greek filmmakers.

This blog, in Greek, has more information on Yiannis Economides' films.

I should also mention that Spirtokouto can now be seen here, with English subtitles.

Heroes and villains: comparing the Greek sacking of Troy to the Turkish conquest of Constantinople



I had the misfortune to watch the dreadful, contemptible blockbuster Troy, which purports to bring to the screen Homer’s Iliad. I’d seen the film a few years ago and remember disliking it then, but had forgotten how bad it was and decided to watch it again.

Everything about the film is awful and wrong. The worst butchery in the film is not that which we see on screen in the fight scenes but that inflicted on Homer, whose narrative is mutilated not to bring out any new or interesting points about the Iliad, but to pander to the most facile Hollywood clichés. (In this travesty, Hector kills not only Menelaos and Ajax but Briseis slays Agamemnon. Can you believe it?).

Anyway, the film isn’t the point of this post. The point is how the Iliad is not some patriotic diatribe – like Virgil’s dreadful Aeneid – aimed at extolling the virtues of the Greeks and denigrating the enemy Trojans. Indeed, as we all know, in the Iliad, the Trojans are, generally, more sympathetic and sophisticated than the Greeks. Priam is a much more noble king than the odious Agamemnon; Hector is more honourable than Achilles and when Troy is sacked (this is not in the Iliad but is recorded elsewhere in the Epic Cycle), the Greeks admit that this was accompanied by slaughter, rape and looting, crimes of hubris that will be paid for.

What we have in Homer, then, is a very early example of how in Greek culture it was imperative to admit your own shortcomings, examine your own motivations and to look to the ‘other’ for your better self. Indeed, this impulse towards self-criticism and self-loathing reflects that part of Greco-Western civilisation which is prone to self-destruction. This isn’t to say that the Greco-West always and necessarily sympathises with the other – often, it doesn’t and hasn’t – but the point is that it’s an essential component of our Greco-Western culture.

But, again, this isn’t really the point of my post, or it is but it’s not an original point. It’s been made a million times before. My point is to compare how Homer – 2700 years ago – dealt with the Greek siege of Troy and how Turkish culture has recently dealt with the siege and fall of Constantinople in the film Conquest 1453, which has been packing them in in Anatolia. According to this review, we have pious, heroic, fair-minded Turks against debauched Greeks:
‘The Ottomans are devout and resolute; the Byzantine emperor, Constantine, and his aides drink and lounge with women in wispy outfits. When Mehmet finally enters the gates, he tells cowering Orthodox Christians that they are free to worship. They smile in wide-eyed, wondrous gratitude.’
What nonsense, and what a disturbing inability to look at history critically or intelligently; and what fascist propaganda, showing how retarded and dangerous Turkish national ideology remains. We will know when Turkey has grown up – and ceased to pose a threat to Greece – when a film is made in Turkey about the Fall of Constantinople that reveals the Turks as villains and the Greeks as heroes.

(The clip above is the fight scene in Troy between Achilles and Hector, which I quite liked).

On Russia, Greeks and the Byzantine Empire



Below is an article by Dmitry Shlapentokh on how some recent Russian films are reflecting that country’s ideological and foreign policy preoccupations, its relations with Asia and the West. One of the films mentioned is The Fall of an Empire – the Lessons of Byzantium, which was written and presented by the prominent Russian cleric Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov who, apparently, is Vladimir Putin’s spiritual father. (The film is widely available on youtube, and above is the first part).

The film purports to explain why the Byzantine Empire collapsed, and it does this, largely, by pinning the blame on the West, which was not only perfidious and avaricious but also espoused decadent political and philosophical ideas that were exported to the Byzantines, who stupidly consumed them. Tikhon implicitly refutes any notion that Byzantium was an expression of Hellenism and, indeed, points to the re-emergence of Hellenism and Greek national consciousness as critical factors undermining the Orthodox Christian and multi-ethnic nature of the Empire. The Russian priest bemoans ‘Greek arrogance’ and its dalliance with the paganism of the classical past, which Tikhon says alienated Byzantine Slavs.

As Shlapentokh’s piece indicates, Tikhon’s film is less a serious attempt to understand Byzantine collapse and more an effort to draw a crude parallel between the malaise of contemporary Russia and that of Byzantium in decline and to warn Russian viewers that unless they confront their own social and moral turpitude and resist the influence of the decadent West, then Russia will go the same way as Byzantium.

Among other things, the film is an interesting insight into anti-Greek Slav prejudices and a warning to many Greeks (including me) who are susceptible to Russophilia.


A projection of Moscow’s mindset, by Dmitry Shlapentokh
Russia’s relations with the Asian people, as projected in recent movies, provides important insight not just about Russian domestic but also foreign policy, including Moscow’s view of the current conflicts in the Middle East.

Since the end of Vladimir Putin’s first term as president, the Russian movie industry has produced several historical movies on Asia and Russia’s relations with the Asian people. Most have had broad public responses, indicated by heated debates in cyberspace.

A movie about Genghis Khan, Mongol, created in 2007 and directed by Sergei Bodrov, was one of the most prominent. It dwelt on Khan’s extraordinary life, rising from an unknown man, even a slave at certain times of his early life, to became the creator of a huge empire.

His extraordinary brutality, even by the criteria of his time, was overlooked, as well as Khan’s descendents’ conquest of Russia. The emphasis was on Khan’s vitality, energy, talent and extraordinary will. In the movie, the East has positive implications whereas the West has a negative image.

In 2008, on the eve of Putin’s passing his presidential scepter to Dmitry Medvedev (at least formally), a new movie, The Fall of an Empire – the Lesson of Byzantium, created by Archimandrite Tikhon, allegedly Putin’s confessor, was shown on the official government TV channel, indicating its paramount ideological importance.

The movie dealt with history and the end of the Byzantine Empire, clearly identified here with Russia. While having a lot of similarities in its overall ideological framework with that of Mongol, Tikhon’s movie has much less pleasing images of the East than Bogrov’s work. The movie has decidedly anti-Western overtones.

According to this movie, the West is sly and deceptive; and one should not trust Western smiles and handshakes. Still, the most dangerous factor is not Western duplicity or even the fact that Western crusaders devastated Constantinople in 1204, but the corrosive influence of Western culture, which weakened the Byzantium Empire.

Still, there was not much hope in the East, and it was the Ottoman Turks who finally overtook Byzantium in 1453, leading to the disappearance of the indigenous Orthodox population.

Finally, last year, the movie The Horde, sponsored and funded by the Russian Orthodox Church, was brought to the screen with an entirely new image of the West. The movie dealt with the Golden Horde, created after Batu (Batyi), Genghis Khan’s grandson conquered Russian lands in the early 13th century. The rule of Batu and his descendants is usually called in Russian historiography the ‘Mongol/Tatar Yoke’, and the movie’s producer followed this traditional line.

The image of Tatars here is extremely negative: they were identified as brutal, sadistic, dirty, and with no moral restraints. One Tatar Khan, the protagonist of the movie, even contemplated an incestuous relationship with his mother.

Westerners emerge here as implicit allies of Russia, plainly because they were treated as badly as Russians; and, with all of their cultural/religious differences from Russians, they are closer to Russians by culture and habits. What is the broad implication of these movies and the evolution of the image of the West and East?

And why should anyone outside of Russia give any significance to these movies? This is quite important for understanding the nature of not just the internal evolution of Russian society.

Throughout most of Putin’s tenure, Moscow’s relationship with Washington was tense; and recently Moscow became at odds not just with the US, but also with most Europeans over the conflict in Syria. Still, despite the deterioration of Moscow’s relationship with both Washington and Brussels, the opposite process took place among the Russian public.

It’s true that the rest of Russians’ lost their excitement about the US – quite strong in the beginning of Gorbachev’s era – a long time ago. Yet, their interest in West and Central Europe and the desire to follow European footsteps grew as time progressed.

This process also corresponded with the increasing hostility between ethnic Russians and Muslims of various ethnic origins, including those who are citizens of the Russian Federation. As a result, the West, especially Europe, emerges in the mind of most ethnic Russians if not as friendly but at least a neutral force. In any case, the West is seen as much less of a threat than the Asians, mostly Muslim Asians. This view has a direct implication for Moscow’s foreign policy.

The mainstream media usually points to Moscow’s support of Damascus, ignoring the fact that Moscow’s relationship with Teheran actually worsens as the Syrian Civil War rages. Moscow continues to deny Tehran’s request to send S-300 missiles despite the 2007 contract and a recent Tehran law suit in an international court.

The Bushehr nuclear plant – still operated mostly by Russian personnel – has stopped working, and Iranian questions about nature of the problems were left without a response. Nor has Moscow responded to Israel’s tough statement that S-300 missiles would be immediately attacked by Israel if they are, indeed, delivered to Syria.

All of this indicates that, while defending its national interests, neither the Kremlin nor the majority of ethnic Russians – similar to the protagonists of The Horde – are anxious to join the East in a full-fledged alliance to confront the West, including the US. And these views should be taken into account both in Washington and Brussels, especially at a time when Western military power is clearly showing its limits.

Dmitry Shlapentokh’s article originally published here.

Plato's Stepchildren



I've been watching series six of the original Star Trek and as well as being very good entertainment it is also as clear cut an exposition of American ideology as you are likely to get, as the multiracial, multinational Starship Enterprise under the leadership of Captain James T. Kirk, modelled on President John F. Kennedy of course, traverses the universe representing the post-ethnic, post-national United Federation of Planets spreading the virtues of equality, compassion, fairness, multiculturalism, tolerance, human rights and individual liberty – through example if possible, but through brute force where necessary.

Star Trek also displays an interest in the culture of ancient Greece, and, indeed, the adventures of the Enterprise are in the tradition of The Odyssey, The Voyage of the Argo and even Herodotus' Histories, its fascination for other civilisations, not so much for their intrinsic merits but for their ability through their otherness to expedite self-definition.

Of the 12 episodes in series six of Star Trek, three have explicitly Greek titles or themes: Whom Gods Destroy, about a revolt on a prison planet holding the criminally insane; Elaan of Troyius; about a beautiful princess from the planet Elas – who bears a striking resemblance to Queen Cleopatra – who refuses to marry the ruler of Troyius to seal a peace pact between Troyius and Elas; and Plato's Stepchildren, the episode above (also watch it here), which is about the philosopher kings and queens of the planet Platonius, who have established a Republic after Plato, and through meditation and study developed extraordinary mental powers but at the cost of having become lethargic, indolent, vain, cruel, selfish and arrogant, neglecting feeling and emotion, which are far more important to American ideology, better ways to access truth in American culture, than intellect and intellectual endeavour, and whose way of life the democratic, egalitarian Captain Kirk finds obnoxious, contemptible and wishes to dismantle.

Hail, Hail Freedonia



The Mickey Mouse country of Freedonia has financially collapsed and is begging benefactors to lend it money to stave off bankruptcy. To pull it out of this terrible crisis, Freedonia appoints as its leader the 'progressive, fearless fighter' Rufus T. Firefly, a man with a thick moustache and bushy eyebrows, who declares:

The last man nearly ruined this place

He didn't know what to do with it
If you think this country's bad off now
Just wait till I get through with it

The country's taxes must be fixed

And I know what to do with it
If you think you're paying too much now
Just wait till I get through with it.