The Cold War spurred two parallel contests: the arms race and the space race. These stand-offs raised tensions worldwide and gave rise to a sense of anxiety that permeated all aspects of daily life. In the West, even fashion reflected an on-going fear of communist infiltration, alien invasion, spies, and the Space Age. From the bikini to the spacesuit, designers integrated the themes of the day into their couture attire.

The Bikini

On July 5, 1946, the atomic bomb was introduced to the Paris fashion world in the form of the bikini. The new fashion was almost as shocking as the public’s persistent fear of global annihilation. You can read all about the introduction of the Bikini in our post titled It’s July: Bikini Days Are Here.

Space Suits 

The protective clothing of cosmonauts and astronauts inspired fashion designers of the 1960s who were fascinated by the idea of the spacesuit as life-sustaining and protective. They thought that the dangers of modern life could be countered by high-performance clothing that was self-supporting. Also known as astronaut fashion, the success of the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 encouraged couture designers like Paco Rabanne, Pierre Cardin and Thierry Mugler to center entire collections around an intergalactic vision of the future.

If you want to dig deeper into Space Suit Fashion, do a search online for Fashioning Apollo. You’ll find multiple PDFs. Click here for a sample. 

You can also find the book, Fashioning Apollo, published in 2011, on Amazon. Adam Gopnik says it’s “The most delightful and memorable new book I read last year…”

(Photo:Jean Shrimpton Space Suit Chic – Harpers Bazaar 1956. Photo by Richard Avedon. Thanks much to Glamour Daze.)

 Future Fashion

Driving the idea of ‘future fashion’ were concerns like conflict, nuclear fall-out, pollution, the need for communication, and the threat of surveillance. The idea was to insulate the wearer from the threat of the new. Such clothing included sci-fi mini dresses and knee boots, tunics and jumpsuits, accessorized with helmets and visors, balaclavas and armor-plating. The look was led by the London designer Mary Quant and was topped off by the helmet like hairstyles of Vidal Sassoon. Want to see more? Click here.

Wearable Technology

To some designers, Cold War science, especially the discipline of cybernetics, provided a way to meld the body with technology. Some thought that the human body would be invaded by mechanical and media technologies grounded in dystopian fantasy. Take a look at Rudi Gernreich’s plastic armor or Diana Dew’s electroluminescent dresses. (Photo courtesy of Pinterest.)

•  Paper Dresses: Fashion in the later 1960s focused on the idea of disposability, leading trend setting throwaway dresses. The military had been toying with the concept of paper clothes for quite awhile as evidenced by this quote in the Chicago Tribune from 1959:

“Much of tomorrow’s wearing apparel may be made out of treated paper, intended for  use a few times, then for discard. The Quartermaster Corps is already investigating the use of such processed paper for parachutes, disposable uniforms, pup tents, and other shelters. It wears well, and its insulating qualities make it usable in all kinds of weather.”

For more on paper fashions, click here.

Synthetic Clothing 

Synthetics became synonymous with affordable clothing, and were associated with modernity and youth. The new materials were crease-resistant, machine-washable, and quick drying. Referred to as “wonder fabrics,” they were most often by-products of chemical research undertaken for military, aeronautical, and space purposes. The new synthetics were also thought to be disposable. Rapid obsolescence was a fundamental characteristic of product design in the US in the 1950s, and clothing was no exception. This phenomenon attracted critics like the author Vance Packer, whose book The Waste Makers was published in 1961. These fabrics were also quite popular in socialist countries.

Jumpsuits: Stretch nylon jumpsuits, PVC boots, and uniform insignia were made popular by television shows like Star Trek (from 1966) and The Avengers (1961-1969). The jumpsuit was unisex, usually made from synthetic materials, and thought to be highly utilitarian. It permitted the body to move freely, so it was perfect for the high kicks and karate moves characteristic of the Emma  Peel character in The Avengers. The body stocking and cat suit were closely related. (The Avengers is available for streaming on Amazon Prime. Here’s a clip from Emma Peel’s first appearance on the show.)

Future Shocked 

By the end of the 1960s concerns about over-consumption, militarism, and the environment were front and center. Gone was the space age optimism of the mid-1960s. This was now replaced in fashion by references to hippie and protest culture, flower power, and the dress codes of marches and ‘sit-ins.’ Reflecting the new reality, in 1970, Alvin Toffler’s book Future Shock hit the bookstores, with its fear of rapid technological change, the breakdown of the family, and the loss of social cohesion. He used some of the fashions of the decade – miniskirts, PVC boots, paper dresses – as signifiers of social decline. Along with other contributors, futuristic fashion lost its sheen.  (Photo by Duchess Flux on Flickr.)

What about fashion in the Soviet Union? Did it reflect the same trends?

In the end, fashion was a trait that was shared by the two superpowers. Russian ethnic prints, pushed in propaganda by the Soviet Union, managed to become popular in the West, and a strong black market was successful in the East. Levi jeans were especially in demand.

After 1956, Soviet magazines could report on Western fashions, new fashion stores opened, and regular fashion and trade shows were held, all in an attempt to create a Socialist counterpart to Western consumer capitalism. Although this is interesting, it’s a story for another day.

______________________________________________________

Featured photograph by Nick Maroulis on Flickr.

10 Things You’ll Want to Know About the Evergleam Christmas Tree

One: The Evergleam aluminum tree gained in popularity right in the middle of the Space Age craze which began on October 4, 1957. This was the day that the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the world’s first artificial satellite, which, coincidentally, was made of aluminum.

Two: This artificial tree is considered by some to be a work of Space Age art. It’s multihued, so you can choose your favorite color: green, silver, pink, gold. The trees also had names describing their styles – pompom, frosty fountain, true taper, slim line, peacock, and straight needle.

Three: The Evergleam was created and manufactured in 1959 by the Aluminum Speciality Company, located in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, and it became a Christmas sensation when it hit the stores. While some people laughed at the idea of a tree made of aluminum, a former sales manager with the company said the design was sheer genius. 

You didn’t need to struggle with lights, you didn’t have to have a college degree to put it together.

Four: The Evergleam was produced for 12 years before it ended up in basements and attics everywhere. In the past 15 years, though, it’s become a highly desired collectible. I recently saw one on e-Bay for $700.

Five: The tree consisted of a simple stand and a central trunk pole with holes drilled in it to hold the removable branches which were covered in sparkly aluminum needles. It sold for $5 to $25. Accessories included color wheels that shined different tones on the branches. 

Seven: In 1965, the movie A Charlie Brown Christmas is said to have ended the trees popularity. In the movie Lucy says:

 Get the biggest aluminum tree you can find Charlie Brown – maybe painted pink!

But – as we know Charlie Brown opted for the scrappiest of fresh green trees instead. In the mid- to late 60s, sales of the Evergleam declined and in 1971 production stopped. You can get a taste of the conflict below.

A

Eight: In 2004, there was a resurgence of the tree’s popularity, thanks to a book titled Seasons Gleamings: The Art of the Aluminum Christmas Tree. You can buy the book on Amazon here.

Nine: In 2019, a man named Theron Georges, a collector of Evergleam trees, showcased his collection in Houston’s 1940 Air Terminal Museum.  Describing the trees he says:

These aluminum Christmas trees are so much more than inanimate objects made of steel and aluminum winding. They’re like people. They have their own personalities, their own quirks, their own looks, their own stories. One of the things I love so much about collecting them and setting them up is I always wonder about what people originally owned them, and how many joyous and happy Decembers were spent with this tree in a picture window, at the center of a family gathering.

Georges has also published several more books on the tree: The Wonderful World of Evergleam and a 60th anniversary book titled The Evergleam Book.

Ten: The needles were inspired by the “chaff” the aluminum industry produced in World War II. Chaff consisted of strands of aluminum dropped from planes to create a smokescreen against radar in enemy territory. The strands inspired the design of the aluminum needles on the Evergleam.

PS:  Another coincidence: According to the Washington Post (December 13, 2019), Manitowoc’s Space Age link was reinforced when a chunk of Sputnik IV crashed right into the streets of downtown. The city commemorates this each year with Sputnikfest. You can read about it here.

___________________________________________________________

Featured photograph by April Palmieri on Flicker

What happens to a Communist leader when they die? They’re mummified of course. What does that entail? Well, it’s been the stuff of Halloween Stories for hundreds of years.

According to Wikipedia, a mummy is a deceased human or an animal whose skin and organs have been preserved by either intentional or accidental exposure to chemicals, extreme cold, very low humidity, or lack of air, so that the recovered body does not decay further if kept in cool and dry conditions. Some authorities restrict the use of the term to bodies deliberately embalmed with chemicals, but the use of the word to cover accidentally desiccated bodies goes back to at least 1615 AD.

Here are the stories of the most famous commie ones in the order of their demise. Thanks to Atlas Observer for pointing them out.

Vladimir Ilych Lenin: Russia (1870-1924)

Lenin’s resting place can be found on the perimeter of Moscow’s Red Square in a pyramid made of polished red and black stones.

Although Lenin formally requested that he be interred, the Russian government supposedly received over 10,000 telegrams from the saddened public asking that he be preserved. Consequently, it was decided that Lenin’s body would be embalmed and put on display in a glass sarcophagus in a mausoleum. His corpse has been there ever since.

The task of embalming Lenin was originally the responsibility of a team of Jewish embalmers. Today a team of embalmers still tend to him, buffing his waxy skin, bathing his body, bleaching him, and changing his silk suits at regular intervals.

Georgi Dimitrov (1882-1949): Bulgaria

Was he irradiated or poisoned? We’re still not sure. At any rate, his body was promptly put on display in his own mausoleum in Sofia, constructed in only six days.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bulgaria’s new leaders decided that it wasn’t right to honor their Communist predecessors. Dimitrov was removed from his mausoleum and buried in Sofia’s Central Cemetery. In 1999 the mausoleum was demolished — after an embarrassing four tries. Dimitrov’s body was exhumed, cremated, and buried again.

Klement Gottwald (1929-1953): Czech Republic

Five days after attending Stalin’s funeral, Gottwald met his end. His constituents from the Czech Republic insisted that his body be preserved. However something went wrong and the whole thing was botched. He wasn’t preserved properly and had to be re-embalmed every eighteen months.

Gruesome right? It gets worse. This was the standard procedure until the early 1960s when Gottwald started leaking black formaldehyde. He was finally cremated in 1962, but you can still pay homage at the site of his former mausoleum at the Zizka Monument in the Czech capital.

Stalin: Russia (1878-1953)

After the death of Lenin, Stalin accumulated nearly all of the power in the USSR and was the primary architect of the Eastern Bloc. Remembered as one of the worst dictators in history, his body was embalmed and placed alongside Lenin’s mummy right after his death.

On Halloween, 1961, Stalin sort of rose from the dead. He was buried next to the Kremlin as part of the process of de-Stalinization. Rumor goes that, even in death, Lenin let it be known that he didn’t want Stalin lying next to him.

Ho Chi Minh: North Vietnam (1890-1969)

Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the Republic of Vietnam, wanted to be cremated. Instead, his home is the Ho Chi Minh Mausolem, containing a glass casket containing his remains.

His body now looks to good to be true. In fact, some say he no longer appears believable. Madame Tussaud’s anyone?

Chairman Mao Zedong: China (1893-1976)

As the mastermind of “Red” China, Mao Zedong developed a cult-like following. He was one of the first to sign the Proposal that All Cultural Leaders be Cremated After Death, but his wish was not respected. Mao’s body was first placed on display in the Great Hall of the People. After a memorial in Tiananmen square, his embalmed figure was placed in the Mausoleum of Mao Zedong.

A crystal coffin was a necessity, but the manufacturing technique was a closely guarded secret held by the Soviets. A competition to build the enclosure was held with each competitor forced to place its entry through a series of environmental stress tests, including earthquake proofing.

Unfortunately, the embalming was not quite as professionally done: his ears stuck out and his belly swelled so much that he had to be cut out of his suit. Still, his remains are a popular tourist attraction.

Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975) and Chiang Ching-kuo (1910-1988): Taiwan

Both the former President of Taiwan and his son have been embalmed even though their final resting place has not been determined. Most of you can guess why.

As leader of China’s Nationalist Party, Chiang spent much of his life embroiled in a civil war against the Communist political movement led by Mao Zedong. Ultimately, Chiang lost control of Mainland China and was forced to flee to Taiwan. As the island’s president, he was determined to retake the Mainland. When he died in 1978, his son continued that mission.

Both Chiangs’ bodies remain undeterred because they both requested that they be buried on the Mainland. The makeshift solution has been to embalm both men and place them on display in Taiwan. It’s doubtful that their wishes will be fulfilled.

Kim Il Sung: North Korea (1912-1994)

The North Koreans loved Kim Il Sung so much that his body is now displayed in the Kumsusan Memorial Palace at the edge of Pyongyang in a “megalomania Communist-fascist” building.

Want to view Kim Il Sung? You’ll need to make special arrangements very far in advance.

Kim Jong-Il (1941-2011): North Korea

Originally, reports out of North Korea said that Kim Jong-Il would be buried. Supposedly it had cost the North Koreans a million dollars to preserve his father and some thought it was just too expensive.

Nevertheless, a year after his death, Kim’s mummified body was revealed, accompanied by items from his life:  his armored train carriage, yacht, parka, sunglasses, and platform shoes. And you know what? He was still dressed in his legendary jumpsuit.

I recently watched Oslo, a made for TV drama about the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, now showing on HBO MAX.  The film, based on the 2017 Tony Award-winning play by J.T. Rogers (who adapted his script), tells the story of a  Norwegian couple who bypass the traditional diplomatic process and open up secret backchannels for discussions between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (then exiled in Tunis). The talks, carried out without government approval, result in the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords. 

If you’re into diplomatic intrigue, Oslo is gripping TV, but the drama lacks context.  But really, how much do we expect from our entertainment in terms of authenticity, factualness, nuances, and implications?

You can watch the trailer below.

Then fit the story into our timeline for context.

PALESTINE-ISRAEL TIMELINE: 1990 – 1996

Early 1990s: Hamas emerges as a viable political alternative to the local Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

1990: When a splinter group within the PLO tries to mount a raid into Israel in summer 1990, the US breaks off negotiations with the PLO.

Having recognized Israel’s right to exist without receiving any concessions in return, Yasir Arafat decides to associate the PLO with the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein soon states that Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories is a necessary precondition for Iraq’s evacuation of Kuwait.

October 8, 1990: In the bloodiest day of the intifada, Israeli police respond to a Palestinian demonstration by killing 20 people and wounding many others.  Called the incident of the Temple Mount, the Palestinians were protesting plans by an Israeli fringe group to construct a Jewish temple on the site of Jerusalem’s holiest Islamic shrines.

April 6, 1991: Iraq officially accepts Desert Shield cease-fire terms. The invasion of Kuwait and the war that follows create a refugee problem of tragic proportions. Prior to the Iraqi invasion, Kuwait is home to a relatively prosperous Palestinian community numbering around 400,000. By war’s end, 350,000 Palestinians have fled Kuwait. Some refugees return to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but the majority remain in Jordan. Several thousand are once again forced into UN-sponsored refugee camps. Jordanians fear that their country is becoming a surrogate Palestinian homeland.

1991: Following the Gulf War, the PLO enters a period of political and economic disarray. In the Gaza Strip, the PLO claim to political primacy comes under renewed challenge from Hamas. PLO leaders look to negotiations with Israel as a way of retaining their dominance.

October 30, 1991: An international peace conference jointly sponsored by the US and the Soviet Union opens in Madrid bringing Israelis and Palestinians to a new level of contact. Neighboring Arab states that have not yet recognized Israel’s right to exist – Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria – are also included. The Madrid Conference focuses attention on Palestinians who live and work in the occupied territories. The aging PLO leadership appears politically stale and out of touch with the realities of life in the territories.

December 1991-Spring 1993: Arab and Israeli delegations meet several times in Moscow and Washington. The sticking point concerns Israeli settlement policy in the occupied territories. Now the US administration adopts a firm stance against continued settlement activity. President Bush links US financial aid to Israel to Israel’s willingness to curb settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

February 1992: The US announces that it won’t approve a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel unless Israel agrees to a freeze on the construction of all settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Prime Minister Shamir is defiant, but Israel badly needs the US loan guarantee.

June 1992: In elections, the Israeli public rejects Shamir’s ideological  hard line and gives Yitzhak Rabin’s Labor Party an overwhelming victory. Rabin is willing to support measures designed to restore good relations with the US. He announces a partial freeze on settlement construction.

1992: Rabin makes his first state visit to the US and President Bush announces the authorization of a $10 billion loan guarantee without Israel supporting a complete freeze on settlements.

1993-1995: Rabin ends the freeze on settlement construction and Israel confiscates 20,000 acres of Palestinian owned land on the West Bank.

1993: Concern for Hamas’ militancy prompts Rabin to consider negotiations with Yasir Arafat (and vice versa).

Winter and Spring 1993: Israeli and PLO officials meet in a series of clandestine meetings near Oslo, Norway. The meetings are outside of normal diplomatic channels.

Late summer 1993: Arab and Israeli delegates meet in Washington for the eleventh round of the peace talks begun in Madrid two years earlier. Disclosure of a secret agreement between representatives of the Israeli government and the PLO takes the world by surprise.

The two part agreement (Oslo I) provides for mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO and lays the foundation for Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Neither of the two 1993 documents makes explicit mention of a Palestinian state — Israel simply agrees to negotiate.

According to a schedule set forth at the time, the interim negotiations will conclude in 1998 with a permanent agreement based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. (The schedule will not be met.  Discussion on a number of crucial issues will also be postponed.)

Arab leaders cautiously endorse the proposal. The US President Clinton agrees to reestablish formal contacts with the PLO.

September 13, 1993: Israeli and PLO leaders assemble at the White House for the signing of the autonomy agreement. Overall momentum toward a negotiated settlement is maintained for two years following the signing ceremony.

After 1993: The economic situation in the occupied territories deteriorates, further alienating the Palestinian community from the peace accords.

1994: Israel and the PLO sign two agreements dealing with economic relations and the transfer of administrative authority from Israel to the Palestinians in Gaza and Jericho. The establishment of a self-governing Palestinian authority is crucial. Both sides understand that Arafat and the PLO will constitute the leadership. This means allowing the PLO and Arafat to return to Palestine.

July 1994: Yasir Arafat establishes residence in Gaza and begins to put in place the rudiments of an administrative and security structure.

1994-1995: A series of Hamas supported suicide bombings are directed at Israeli civilians in the larger cities. Dozens of Israelis are killed. The objective of the bombings is to sabotage the peace negotiations by turning the Israeli public against Rabin and the Labor government. The Israeli response to the bombings is to pressure Arafat to undertake more rigorous security measures in the areas under Palestinian Authority (PA) control. In complying with Israeli demands and conducting raids against Hamas organizations, Arafat undermines his credibility and turns Palestinians against his administration.

February 1994: Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli settler activist, turns an automatic weapon on a large gathering of Palestinians praying in the Mosque of Abraham near the West Bank city of Hebron, killing 29 before he himself is killed.

July 1994: Yasir Arafat establishes residence in Gaza and begins to put in place the rudiments of an administrative and security structure. He endeavors to monopolize the decision-making process in the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Fall 1994: Israel and Jordan sign a treaty of peace and mutual recognition.

1995: Israeli opposition to the Oslo process is increasingly framed in religious terms. A group of rabbis issues a decree instructing soldiers to resist orders to evacuate army bases in the West Bank. Orthodox and nationalist organizations vilify Prime Minister Rabin.

September 1995: The Interim Agreement (Oslo II) is signed. It spells out in detail the stages of Israeli military redeployment in the West Bank, the process by which power will be transferred to the Palestinian civil authority and several other matters. Clauses on redeployments and the limitations imposed on Palestinian authority draw substantial criticism. The West Bank is divided into three zones and it is clear that the Palestinian Authority will have very limited power.

November 4, 1995: Prime Minister Rabin is assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli student, as he leaves a large peace rally in Tel Aviv. The assassination of Rabin leads to the suspension of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

November 1995-May 1996: Hamas carries out another round of suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Israeli public opinion shifts away from support for the peace process. The Israeli government seals off the occupied territories, placing many West Bank towns under curfew and causing increased economic distress within the Palestinian community. More and more Palestinians turn away from Arafat.

1996: A Palestinian Council, comprised of 88 representatives, is elected. Arafat’s supporters win a comfortable majority. Arafat is elected head of the PA and proceeds to ignore the new council and set up an authoritarian regime with an elaborate hierarchy of security forces. As many as 7 different security services, numbering upwards of 40,000 men, are deployed on behalf of the regime.

May 1996: Israelis go to the polls and choose Benjamin Netanyahu as their new prime minister. Netanyahu has campaigned on a pledge to “slow down” the peace process. What he wants to do is end the process as defined by the Oslo Accords. He adopts hardline policies toward the occupied territories, refuses to acknowledge any connection between land and peace, assures Israelis that they can have security and settlements at the same time that they have peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians. He inaugurates a new round of provocative settlement activities that seem to invite Palestinian retaliation.

Late 1990s: Israeli Arabs number nearly 1 million, roughly 20% of Israel’s population.

PALESTINE-ISRAEL TIMELINE: 1997 – 2012

Early 1990s: Hamas emerges as a viable political alternative to the local Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Late 1990s: Palestinian economic conditions are worse than at any time during the Israeli occupation. By 1997, as many as 5,000 Israeli housing units are under construction in the West Bank. Increasing numbers of Palestinians become disillusioned with the peace process and with Arafat’s one-man rule. Hamas is the main beneficiary. Hamas rejects the entire Oslo peace process.

Summer 1997: Hamas sponsors another suicide bombing. Israel seals off the occupied territories more tightly and demands that Arafat and the Palestinian Authority (PA) increase their efforts to arrest Hamas activists. The continued deterioration of Palestinian-Israeli relations raises the possibility of a major armed confrontation.

1998: Some 350,000 Israelis reside in areas taken in the June War: 180,000 in annexed East Jerusalem, 164,000 in the West Bank, and 5,500 in the Gaza Strip. A large settlement on confiscated Arab land in East Jerusalem is projected to eventually house 30,000 Israelis in violation of the Oslo Accords.

Autumn 1998: Netanyahu and Arafat meet at the Wye River estate in Maryland. They sign a set of agreements known as the Wye Accords, elaborating on the original Oslo agreement in which Israel had accepted the principle of exchanging land for peace; the PLO renounces the use of terrorism.

In violation of the Wye Accords signed just a month before, Netanyahu seeks to appease his critics on the Religious Right by announcing that Israel will suspend its scheduled withdrawal from an additional 13% of the West Bank.

May 17, 1999: Israel holds elections pitting Netanyahu and his Likud bloc against Labor’s Ehud Barak, a former army chief of staff.  Barak wins in a landslide and endorses the resumption of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

May 2000: The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon turns into a hasty retreat in the face of Hizbollah attacks.

July 2000: A 2 week summit conference, Camp David II, is convened by US President Bill Clinton. The summit ends in an impasse but, for the first time,  final status issues are subject to negotiation. These include sovereignty over East Jerusalem, the future of Jewish settlements, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. The deadlock over how to share or divide Jerusalem is especially troublesome. No written offers are put on the table.

December 2000: Barak resigns and calls for a special election, hoping to receive a popular mandate for pressing forward with peace initiatives.  The election campaign takes place against the backdrop of  a new Palestinian uprising and harsh Israeli reprisals. The uprisings are firmly rooted in the failures of the Oslo peace process, and the violence, known as the second intifada,  places the issue of security at the top of the electoral agenda. Popular participation is not as widespread as in the first intifada and there is no coordinated leadership. The driving force of the second intifada  consists of loosely organized groups of young men affiliated with either one of the militant Islamic groups (Hamas and Islamic Jihad) or with Yasir Arafat’s al-Fatah. The second intifada is also much more militarized than the first.

December 2000: President Clinton tries to salvage the peace process. He proposes a peace plan that envisions the Palestinians getting between 94% and 96% of the West Bank for a future Palestinian state.

January 2001: In meetings held in the Egyptian resort town of Taba, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators tentatively agree on a more detailed peace framework based on the Clinton parameters. The Taba talks are too late, though, and effectively mark the end of the Oslo peace process.

February 2001: Ariel Sharon wins election as Israel’s fifth prime minister in 6 years.

Early 2002: An attempt by Saudi Arabia to rescue the peace process receives the unanimous support of the Arab League meeting in Beirut.

2002: As the second intifada continues, Israel escalates its military operations and forcibly reoccupies all the territory in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that it had earlier turned over to the Palestinian Authority. Also, Israel imposes an internal closure of the West Bank, prohibiting Palestinians from leaving their communities and effectively shutting down all forms of internal commerce. The result is economic disaster for the occupied territories. The massive Israeli military intervention leads to new waves of suicide bombings.

2002: Arafat is confined to his shattered Ramallah compound by Israeli forces. It becomes clear that no one else has the authority to negotiate in his place.

2000-2003: The second intifada claims the lives of 2,400 Palestinians and 780 Israelis.

April 2003: The US, the European Union, Russia, and the UN lay out a road map for ending the conflict.

December 2003: Seeking a comprehensive agreement, Israeli and Palestinian politicians launch their own peace effort, the Geneva Accord.

2004: Sharon announces that Israelis will unilaterally separate from Palestinians. The policy comes to be known as “disengagement.” Sharon pushes the plan through the Knesset.

2004: The International Court of Justice rules the West Bank physical barrier  built by Israel a grave violation of international law.

2004: Arafat suffers from a mysterious illness that causes his death. Mahmoud Abbas (Arafat’s successor as leader of the secular al-Fatah party) becomes president of the PA. An opponent of the second intifada, he calls for a return to negotiations. Seeking to steady the Palestinian political situation, he initiates discussion on integrating Hamas into the constitutional structures developed under the Oslo accords.

August 2005: Sharon successfully completes the planned evacuation of settlers from Gaza. He is willing to uproot 8,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza because a Jewish state in all of mandate Palestine can’t be reconciled with demographic projections of an approaching Arab majority in that area. Acting alone, Sharon can arrange for the removal of fewer settlements than would be required in a negotiated settlement.

By supporting Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan, US President Bush is widely seen to be accepting Israel’s right to impose a solution. Thus, the pulling of settlements out of Gaza provides political cover for securing Israeli control over West Bank settlements.

August 2005-December 2006: Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank increase from 376 to 534.

November 2005: Sharon quits the Likud Party in frustration and transforms Israeli politics by forming a new party, called Kadima or “Forward.” Netanyahu succeeds Sharon as head of Likud.

January 2006: Hamas establishes itself as a strong political force, winning 76 seats to al-Fatah’s 43 in the 132-seat legislative chamber. The US and Israel refuse to recognize or deal with the  new government.

January 2006: Sharon suffers a stroke ending his political career. Ehud Olmert steps in as acting prime minister.

March 2006: Elections confirm Olmert as prime minister after Kadima campaigns on a platform of fulfilling Sharon’s disengagement plan.

March 2006: Hamas assumes power with Abbas retaining the presidency. The US (along with the European Union and other Western countries) leads an international boycott against the new government. Israel withholds transfer of millions of dollars in taxation revenues collected on behalf of the PA, further undermining Hamas’ ability to govern. The aim is to force Hamas to honor previous Palestinian peace commitments, recognize Israel’s right of existence, and renounce violence. Al-Fatah and Hamas fail to reach consensus on how to build power-sharing institutions or political platforms to relieve international pressure. Instead, they continue to fight over power. Hamas expands the strength of its own military units, better known as its executive force. The Hamas/al-Fatah confrontation is most pronounced in Gaza.

2006: Growing lawlessness in Gaza results in dozens of deaths and prompts the UN to withdraw its aid workers.

June 2006: A militant group of Gazans tunnels under the border with Israel and captures an Israeli soldier. Israel responds to the abduction with armed incursions into Gaza that leave hundreds dead. Israel also embarks on the arrest of dozens of Hamas officials, including government ministers.

July 2006: Thousands of rocket attacks are launched by Hizbollah from territory that Israel unilaterally withdrew from in 2000. Rockets are also fired from across the border in Gaza which had been evacuated in 2005. The July war shakes Olmert’s credibility.

June 2007: Concerned that forces loyal to President Abbas are preparing to overthrow it, Hamas swiftly and brutally seizes all the main al-Fatah bases in Gaza. Abbas accuses Hamas of staging a coup, dismisses the Hamas led government, and creates an emergency government to rule the West Bank separately. Abbas weakens his own position in the process.

Second half of 2007: The Israeli blockade on Gaza tightens, dramatically increasing the stark poverty and unemployment rates there. Israel’s goal is still to weaken Hamas credibility among Palestinians and force it from power. But sanctions hurt ordinary Gazans the most. Hamas continues to improve its military position in Gaza, establishing control over rival clans and militias. Tunnels under the border with Egypt are improved. A semiofficial smuggling system emerges and contributes to the manufacturing of rockets. Israel buttresses its economic blockade.

End of 2007: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert issues a warning to Israelis that unless the opportunity of a 2-state solution is grasped soon, changing demographics could force Israel to become an apartheid-like state.

2008: Prospects for a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians look bleak. There is increasing worry that a 2-state solution to the Palestinian-Israel conflict is vanishing.

January 2008: Hamas moves to relieve the pressure of the blockade by knocking down the barriers at the Rafah border crossing with Egypt. For 11 days, hundreds of thousands of Gazans pour through the breached walls to go shopping. The Egyptian government permits the short-term movement of people and goods across the border. Once the border is resealed with Hamas’ help, President Mubarak reinvigorates his efforts as an intermediary with Israel. The breaching of the barrier bolsters Hamas’ legitimacy and its ability to act in the immediate term.

June 2008: Egypt successfully helps negotiate a ceasefire beween Israel and Hamas. Hamas accepts responsibility for preventing militant groups from launching rockets into Israel. In return, Israel pledges to allow increased imports into Gaza.

September 2008: A scandal-ridden Olmert steps down as prime minister.

November 26, 2012: The remains of Yasir Arafat, the longtime Palestinian  leader, are exhumed as part of an inquiry into whether he was poisoned; results could come within three months.

November 29, 2012: The United Nations General Assembly votes by a more than two-thirds majority to recognize the state of Palestine.

What’s Happening Now?

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict made headlines again in May 2021, as Israel and Hamas engaged in a bloody 11-day war. Following a tense confrontation between Israeli police and Palestinian protestors at the Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound, Hamas militants in Gaza fired long-range rockets toward Jerusalem. Over the next 11 days, Israel carried out air strikes aimed at Hamas military infrastructure and Hamas fired rockets into Israel – at least 230 Palestinians and 12 Israelis were killed.

On May 21, the fighting stopped when a ceasefire mediated by the Egyptian government took effect.

Those of you who like visuals will want to take a look at a recent New York Times piece titled Gaza’s Deadly Night: How Israeli Airstrikes Killed 44 People (June 24, 2021). You can watch the video here.

Recently I came across the details of an art installation inspired by nuclear weapon control centers. Pioneer Works, a gallery in Red Hook (Brooklyn), is presenting a documentary on “the bomb” which begins with the first atom bomb tests and traces the story to the present day. The film, directed by Kevin Ford, Smriti Keshari, and Eric Schlosser, sketches out the full history of atomic weaponry and international brinksmanship, from the first atom bomb tests in the Nevada desert in the 1940s through the Cold War into the modern day. Click here to access the Pioneer Works website.  Viewing of the documentary is by appointment only.

Other ways popular culture has addressed “the bomb” popped up on the independent arts site Hyperallergic.com. Three of them are mentioned below.

Atomic Cafe

The first of the three was the film Atomic Cafe from 1982.

                                           Poster for the re-release of The Atomic Cafe (courtesy Kino Lorber)

An article on the film in Hyperallgic notes that

the film combined newsreel footage, propaganda films, candid and news photos, cartoons, public service announcements, songs, and other materials from the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s, all dealing with nuclear weapons and their looming threat to human civilization. . . . Many selections showcase the flippancy with which popular culture approached the bomb.

You can read the article here or watch the movie on YouTube.

Invisible Colors: The Arts of the Atomic Age

Hyperallergic also published a book review of Invisible Colors: The Arts of the Atomic Age by Gabrielle Decamous (MIT Press). The book has five stars and is almost out of stock on Amazon.

An abstract of the book from a Japanese source notes: “The effects of radiation are invisible, but art can make it and its effects visible. Artwork created in response to the events of the nuclear era allow us to see them in a different way. Invisible Colors explores the atomic age from the perspective of the arts, investigating atomic-related art inspired by the work of Marie Curie, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the disaster at Fukushima, and other episodes in nuclear history.”

The Hyperallergic review says:

The book is organized geographically, coursing around the globe from well-known “nuclear events” like Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and, of course, Chernobyl) to the plights of subalterned peoples in New Jersey and uranium mines in Saskatchewan, Czechoslovakia, Niger, and elsewhere. Unlike the tourists visiting Chernobyl today, nearly everyone Decamous addresses was exposed to radiation over days, weeks, and even decades — and typically without informed consent.

Read more from the review here  or check it out on Amazon.

Chernobyl: HBO Miniseries

Interested in radioactive landscapes? Then you might also be interested in the 2019 HBO miniseries on Chernobyl. You can watch it on HBO Max or obtain it from Amazon Prime. The trailer is below.

Hot Spots: Radioactivity and the Landscape

Lastly from Hyperallergic is an article titled “Hot Spots: Radioactivity and the Landscape” at UB Art Galleries in Buffalo. This 2018 exhibit examines the nuclear past and future of the United States as portrayed by in diverse media by various artists. Below is one example.

                    Naomi Bebo’s “Woodland Child in Gas Mask” (2015).

Want to see more? Access the full article here. And be sure to enjoy the images.

The Photographer Who X-Rayed Chernobyl – How to Make the Invisible Visible

Chernobyl Exclusion Zone – Highly Contaminated Ground

A final take on contamination and radioactivity comes from Atlas Obscura and their article titled “The Photographer Who X-Rayed Chernobyl – How to Make the Invisible Visible.”

While living in Berlin in 2007, Brazilian artist Alice Miceli took long train rides—18 hours or more—to Belarus, then another leg, by car or train, to Chernobyl. She made this journey more than 20 times. With permission to be in Chernobyl’s Exclusion Zone before tours were available, she photographed the site using a regular camera, but also documented the area—and the legacy of the 1986 nuclear disaster there—in a different, more extraordinary way. Miceli placed radiographic film plates used for chest X-rays—specifically sensitive to radiation—wrapped in layers of industrial plastic on the ground, on windows, on trees. She wanted to make visual records of something invisible to the naked eye, namely the area’s radioactive contamination, particularly the isotope cesium 137.

Want to learn more details about her method and see some of her many photographs. You can read the article here.

Dr. Strangelove

To end — and to save myself tons of grief from disappointed readers — the trailer to Dr. Strangelove is below.

As you’ve no doubt heard, Myanmar’s military launched a coup to start the month of February 2021, unseating the country’s popularly elected government. The country’s top civilian leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (known as “The Lady,”) is now under house arrest along with other leaders from her party, the National League for Democracy. A one year state of emergency has been announced with ultimate authority transferred to the army chief, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. According to the New York Times:

State television broadcast a statement from the military . . . that said extreme steps were necessary because of what it labeled voter fraud in elections last November . . . .  In its statement, the military said that it will oversee free and fair multiparty elections after the end of a state of emergency.

Before the coup, Myanmar was celebrated as a country moving toward democracy. In a region where authoritarian governments were the norm, its generals honored 2015 election results that brought the National League for Democracy into power. But according to The Times:

the political transition of the Southeast Asian nation was never quite as smooth or as significant as the political fairy tale made it out to be.

Now the country’s future is uncertain. After achieving independence from British rule on January 4, 1948, and inching toward democracy in 2015, Burma — now Myanmar — was beginning to open up to tourism and other development. Observers now wonder what will happen to those efforts. How will the coup affect the country’s tourist industry? Will foreigners still want to visit given the nation’s dismal record on human rights?

What’s In A Name?

Before we go any farther, though, just a word about names. For now, I’m using Burma and Myanmar interchangeably. The ruling military junta changed the country’s name from Burma to Myanmar in 1989, a year after thousands were killed in the suppression of a popular uprising. Rangoon also became Yangon. The change was recognized by the United Nations, and by countries such as France and Japan, but not by the United States or the UK.

A statement by the British Foreign Office says:

Burma’s democracy movement prefers the form ‘Burma’  because they do not accept the legitimacy of the unelected military regime to change the official name of the country. Internationally, both names are recognized.

Myanmar’s Literary Tradition

Myanmar’s literary tradition has been a key element of the country’s push to attract foreign visitors. The Irrawaddy Literature Festival, an annual not-for-profit event under the patronage of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has been a particular draw.

Assuredly, Suu Kyi’s support for the festival has ensured its success. Myanmar’s literary tradition goes back thousands of years and encompasses multiple genres including Buddhist literature, folklore and culture, scripts for pwe marionette theater, British fiction from the colonial period, post colonial literature, and today’s modern writing.

George Orwell and Colonialism

If you’re a political observer, especially if you’re interested in colonialism and its lasting impact, George Orwell’s first novel, Burmese Days, will immediately grab your fancy. Best known for his Cold War works 1984 and Animal Farm, Burmese Days was published in 1934 and draws heavily on Orwell’s experience as a colonial police officer in what was then a province of British India. His experiences there provided him with first hand knowledge of Burmese life — its people, and its culture.

Orwell’s first book gives us an account of colonial life in the British Empire, a world where the ‘club’ was everything, and bureaucracies were staffed by loyal subjects tasked with maintaining the peace and indoctrinating locals into the ethos of the Empire.  But I don’t want to give too much away. The book is available for just 99 cents on Kindle, so you can read it for yourself if you haven’t already done so. Suffice it to say that when Orwell lived in Burma, the country was one of the most violent parts of the British Raj, terrorized by armed gangs known as Dacoits.

Over time, Orwell’s Burma has been isolated and considered a pariah nation. As previously mentioned, the country was ruled for decades by a repressive military junta, but more recently it’s been opening up to the outside world. And even as ethnic and religious tensions continue to smolder in its hinterlands, especially focused on the Rohingya Muslims, the country’s hospitality industry has been scrambling to meet rising demand for hotels and services. Until the coup, tourists were flocking to Myanmar to see romantic echoes of Orwell’s former British colony before its remnants were destroyed by development.

But today I’m wondering. Is it possible to find traces of Orwell’s Burma in the cities of Yangon, Bagan, and Mandalay or has the nation been overrun by a strong military presence? Will tourists still come when the country is under military rule? 

Geography

For those of you unfamiliar with the geography of Myanmar, the nation is the northwestern-most country on the mainland of Southeast Asia, strategically located near major Indian Ocean shipping lanes. Characterized by central lowlands, the Central Valley Region is ringed by steep, rugged highlands.

Hkakabo Razi, Burma’s highest mountain (and the highest mountain in Southeast Asia at 19,295 feet) is  located in the northern end of the country. It’s part of a series of parallel ranges that run from the foothills of the Himalayas.

The climate varies in the highlands from subtropical to cool alpine, depending on elevation.  Above the alpine zone, it’s cold with harsh tundra and an Arctic climate. The higher elevations are subject to heavy snowfall and bad weather. Summers in the lowlands tend to be cloudy, rainy, hot, and humid. Tropical monsoons are common. Winters are less cloudy with scant rainfall, mild temperatures, and lower humidity.

Let’s Explore

Most tourists start their exploration of Burma in Yangon.  Previously known as Rangoon, the city is a former royal capital known as the “Garden City of the East” for its lush tropical setting.  Built in 1901, the five star Strand Hotel in Yangon remains one of Southeast Asia’s few grand colonial hotels, and one of its most inspiring. It is one of only two hotels in Burma that meet international luxury standards.

While you’re in Yangon, you’ll want to be sure to see the Shwedagon Paya, one of Myanmar’s top religious sites and a true wonder of the religious world. The pagoda complex contains hundreds of stupas, statues, and temples spanning more than 2,000 years of religious art and architecture. The central tower is covered with hundreds of solid gold plates, while the top is adorned with thousands of diamonds. Relatively few tourists visit here and it is primarily a gathering place for monks, worshippers, and local families.

During the Myanmar independence movement, Shwedagon Paya was the scene for much political activity. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi spoke to massive crowds here in 1988, and the temple was also at the center of the monks’ protests in 2007.

During an earlier detainment under house arrest (1989-2010),  Suu Kyi was one of the world’s most prominent political prisoners and she was honored with many awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2008. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited her in 2011, a symbolic diplomatic gesture that paved the way for President Obama’s official trip the following year.

The Road to Mandalay

If you are going to travel from Yangon to Orwell’s home in Mandalay, you have a choice to make. Will you go by boat or by car?

The Irrawaddy or Ayeyarwady River, a river that flows through Myanmar from north to south, is the country’s largest river and most important commercial waterway.  George Orwell was posted to the Irrawaddy Delta in 1924. In his time (and Rudyard Kipling’s), one traveled from Rangoon to Mandalay by paddle steamer, a journey of several days.

Now many travel from Yangon to Mandalay by car, stopping at Burma’s new city, Nay Pyi Taw along the way.The city was created in 2004 to replace Yangon as capital.  The name means “Abode of Kings,” signifying an attempt to start a new history. According to the Indian journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, Nay Pyi Taw is  

the ultimate insurance against regime change, a masterpiece of urban planning designed to defeat any putative ‘colour revolution’ — not by tanks or water cannons, but by geography and cartography.

The recent coup proved Varadarajan wrong however.  Soldiers blocked roads in the capital and in Myanmar’s main city, Yangon. Regime change was evident when the military announced that 24 ministers and deputies had been removed, and 11 replacements had been named, including in finance, health, the interior and foreign affairs.

Several temples represent the early Bagan period. First, the Temple of Gubyaukgyi of Myinkaba Village, with its well preserved colored paintings inside that date back to its construction in 1113. The temple is typical of the Mon style in that the interior is dimly lit by perforated rather than open windows. Manuha Paya, known as the Mon King Temple and built by the captive Mon King Manuha in 1067, is said to represent his view of being imprisoned. Lastly, visit Nan Paya, a rare early period Sandstone temple with the best examples of the early Bagan carvings.

You might want to take a break before you continue your exploration of the temples of the Early Period at the Shwezigon Pagoda. Shwezigon was completed in 1058 C.E. as the most important reliquary shrine in Bagan, a center of prayer and reflection for King Anawratha of the new Theravada faith. Take some time to learn about the Burmese belief in “nats” (spirits), officially replaced by Buddhism, though the belief continues among many people today.

Mandalay

From Bagan, proceed on to Mandalay where “the flyin’-fishes play.” I’ve always loved the Frank Sinatra version of the song, but never had a clue that the lyrics were actually selected verses from a poem by Rudyard Kipling. Listen to the Frank Sinatra version on YouTube below. This particular version of the song is interesting because it’s so clearly dated and incorporates some images of the British colonial presence.

Orwell’s Mandalay

Orwell’s Mandalay has been long regarded as the cultural and spiritual heart of Myanmar. Mandalay, its second largest city, is located within easy walking distance of colonial hill stations, ancient cities, and other cultural attractions.  Orwell says:

Mandalay is rather a disagreeable town . . . it is dusty and intolerably hot, and it is said to have five main products all beginning with a P, namely, pagodas, pariahs, pigs, priests, and prostitutes.

The pagodas are still here (and probably the prostitutes), but I’m not so sure about the other three.

Clearly things have changed since Orwell’s time. There’s now a five star hotel, the Sedona Hotel Mandalay, nestled on four acres of beautifully landscaped gardens, and located on the edge of the large moat that surrounds the Mandalay Palace, the last royal palace of the Burmese monarchy. 

Orwell did his police training less than a mile from the Mandalay Palace. And, like the palace , Orwell’s great trilogy of novels tracks the development of Burma. As Emma Larkin argues in her book Finding George Orwell in Burma, Burma’s colonial society was transformed through independence and the socialist coup in 1962 into a version of Animal Farm and then Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Banned for many years, Burmese Days is now celebrated. In 2012, eight decades after its initial publication, the novel won the highest literary award in Burma.

Maung Myint Kywe, the book’s translator, sees the work as “a scathing portrait of the imperious attitudes of both the British and Burmese.”  He also feels the book is a way for young people to learn the history of discrimination against the Burmese during British rule.

He says

Orwell is unbiased, even though he himself is British. He has fairly portrayed how bad the British were, as well as we Burmese too.

According to Emma Larkin, the author of Finding George Orwell in Burma, there’s a joke ‘in country’ that Orwell wrote not just one novel about the country, but three: a trilogy comprised of Burmese Days, Animal Farm, and Nineteen Eighty Four. She says: 

It is a particularly uncanny twist of fate that these three novels effectively tell the story of Burma’s recent history. The link begins with Burmese Days, which chronicles the country’s period under British colonialism. Not long after Burma became independent from Britain in 1948, a military dictator sealed off the country  from the outside world, launched ‘The Burmese Way to Socialism’, and turned Burma into one of the poorest countries in Asia. The same story is told in Orwell’s Animal Farm, an allegorical tale of a socialist revolution gone wrong in which a group of pigs overthrow the human farmers and run the farm into ruin. Finally, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell’s description of a horrifying and soulless dystopia paints a chillingly accurate picture of Burma today, a country ruled by one of the world’s most brutal and tenacious dictatorships.

It’s interesting that Nineteen Eighty-Four has long been admired by Burmese readers who are drawn to its descriptions of “official deception, secret surveillance and the manipulations of the authoritarian state.” These activities are all familiar to those who lived under Burma’s military dictatorship. In fact, Than Shwe, Burma’s former dictator was often referred to as “Big Brother,” the name given to the party leader in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Since 2011, the regime has engaged in political and economic liberalization. The government released most political prisoners and dropped the censorship laws that were reminiscent of Orwellian totalitarianism. Nevertheless, In 2014, Myanmar was still ranked as one of the 25 most corrupt countries in the world according to Transparency International. Religious violence was mounting, peace talks with ethnic armed groups were unsuccessful, and the military continued its hold on parliament. 

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi’s support of the military in their efforts against the Rohingya led many to say that she had “lost her halo.” Even before the coup, the fate of democracy in Myanmar was yet to be determined.

I’m willing to gamble that Orwell’s old residence, recently identified, will be restored. A group of artists — led by local historian (and Orwell fanatic) Nyo Ko Kaing — has launched a campaign to protect and restore Katha, the town that was the basis for the fictional Kyauktada in Burmese Days. The group wants Orwell’s home in Katha as well as the nearby European Country Club turned into tourist attractions. And the government has said that it will give the group money to convert a red-brick colonial mansion, formerly the district commissioner’s house, into a museum celebrating the author. Tourism is now a government imperative, so momentum is growing.

When Orwell made Kautha his home, he said it had “not changed greatly between the days of Marco Polo and 1910” when the British established a railway terminus. A century later, the town remains relatively isolated and hard to reach. 

Al Jazeera writes that “horse drawn Hackney carriages can still be seen whisking people past the colonial prison, school, hospital, tin-roofed church and pagoda, which (according to Orwell) “rose from the trees like a slender spear tipped with gold.” A two-story teak house  — long thought to be the  novelist’s old residence — sits on raised brick stilts across a dirt track from the tin-roofed church.  And the house has come full circle since Orwell lived there. It now belongs to a police major. I wonder if he is a writer . . . .

Note: You can read the Rudyard Kipling poem here. http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/mandalay.html

Photos:

Featured photo of Sule Pagoda by William (Flickr.com/photos/heyitschili)

Swedagon Paya in Yangon by Jose Javier Martin Esparto (Flickr.com/photos/druidabruxux/)

Irrawaddy River by Stephane DAMOUR

Bagan by KX Studio (Flickr.com/photos/104284854@N07/)

1984 by Christopher Dombres (Flickr.com/photos/christopherdombres/)

Orwell’s Home in Katha by podia.smith (Flickr.com/photos/36464510@N03/)

Carriage by Paul Arps (Flickr.com/photos/slapers/)

How many of you play chess or at least watched The Queen’s Gambit on Netflix?

Do you wonder if chess actually played an important role in the Cold War or do you think it’s just suggestive of the American-Russian rivalry?

Well, if you’re sick of being mired in bad news and want a little entertainment, here are two fairly recent movies and a Netflix series that can provide some insight.

The Coldest Game

The first movie, The Coldest Game, is available on Netflix. It’s a Polish Production set in Poland, but the dialogue is primarily in English. I think it’s the weakest of the offerings even though it includes lots of original footage of events surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The story revolves around an alcoholic math genius who is abducted by US officials and convinced to play in a US-Soviet chess match in 1962.

Bill Pullman does a great job in his role as Professor Manksy, and some of you may find it really enjoyable. Audiences seem to be split.

The blog decider.com says:

This is Thirteen Days crossed with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy crossed with Searching for Bobby Fischer crossed with, um, Barfly. Or Arthur. Take your pick.

Need help deciding?

Here’s a trailer that makes it look more coherent than it is.

Pawn Sacrifice

I really enjoyed this next movie, Pawn Sacrifice, a film by Edward Zwick about Fischer’s chess match against the Soviet grandmaster Boris Spassky. You can watch the whole thing for free on YouTube.

The Fischer-Spassky match was played in Iceland in the summer of 1972 with the title of world champion at stake.

A New York Times review by Neil Genzlinger in 2015 argues that the film is only partly about Bobby Fischer.

It is equally about us — Americans or any other nationality inclined to put too much importance on chess matches, soccer matches, space races, whatever. It’s about how we manufacture celebrities on scant pretext and then destroy them, or allow them to destroy themselves while we watch.

Like The Coldest Game, the film includes original footage, illustrating that the match was treated not just as a sports event but as a symbolic showdown between the ideologies represented by the US and the Soviet Union.

Watch the trailer here.

The Queen’s Gambit

And then there’s The Queen’s Gambit – a Netflix miniseries with a 4.9 star rating out of 23,611 reviews on ‘google’.

Set during the Cold War era, orphaned chess prodigy Beth Harmon struggles with addiction in her quest to become the greatest chess player in the world.

In its review, The New Yorker Magazine calls it “the most satisfying show on television.”

I don’t play chess, so I can’t comment on the accuracy of the actual chess scenes. But I am awfully competitive, so I got too hyped up to binge watch.

The Cold War isn’t quite as overpowering here as in the other two films, but I think it gives you more of the actual atmosphere of the era.

Here’s the trailer.

All three are highly recommended for anyone who wants to turn off cable TV. How much bad news can you watch?

____________________________

Photograph by Matt on Flickr.