My interests: Journalism, Politics, International Relations, Urbanism
1 - The New Yorker is the best magazine in the English-speaking world. They employ incredibly good writers.
2 - Without The Guardian, British democracy is utterly fucked. The Brits just don’t know it. Most UK papers are owned by shady characters such as Jonathan Harmsworth. The Brits even have a paper (The Independent) owned by a politically-connected Russian mobster (Evgueni Lebedev).
The Guardian’s non-profit structure gives it more freedom that most UK papers. They often investigate stories the rest of the UK press just won’t touch: Paradise Papers, Panama Papers, Cameron’s tax evasion, etc…
3 - The two best newspapers in France are Le Monde and Mediapart, hands down. Mediapart is a non-profit. Le Monde journalists have special rights and can’t be removed by shareholders. These 2 newspapers are more independent than the rest of the french press.
4 - The Financial Times is the favorite newspaper of elites worldwide. CEOs. Billionaires. Millionaires. Presidents. Prime Ministers. Everyone reads it. And honestly, it’s very solid. The information is always extremely reliable. The FT is also the most expensive newspaper on the planet. But they sometimes publish free stories.
5 - The editorial section of the Wall Street Journal is directly controlled by Billionaire Rupert Murdoch. The WSJ is the jewel of his global media empire. Fox News and the New York Post are for influencing the masses. WSJ editorials actually allow him to have influence over US high income readers.
6 - If you read WSJ editorials, Rupert Murdoch’s ideas are very simple. Labor unions must be crushed. Corporate concentration is good. Netanyahu is a brave man. US military spending is good. Unions should be restricted by tough laws. Environmental rules are bad. Slash taxes on large corporations. Of course, he doesn’t write it openly. But this what virtually most of the WSJ editorial content boils down to.
7 - Many talented reporters work for the Wall Street Journal and end up deeply ashamed of it. It feels like prostitution. Many would much rather work for The Financial Times, New York Times or ProPublica.
Rupert Murdoch employs great reporters at the Wall Street Journal simply because he needs them to acquire credibility in order to influence readers through his WSJ editorials. If the WSJ was 100% full of trash, american high income readers wouldn’t purchase it.
8 - The best coverage of Silicon Valley is an online newspaper called The Information. If you truly want to know what Meta/Adobe/Microsoft executives are up to, read The Information. Most of their readers are very wealthy investors and rival tech executives.
9 - 90% of leftists who attack the New York Times are wrong.
"The New York Times doesn’t go after powerful people"
They literally took down Harvey Weinstein.
They literally went after Rupert Murdoch
“The New York Times is very pro-israel”
They exposed Israeli war crimes.
The Israeli Prime Minister says he hates them.
“The New York Times didn’t warn americans against Trump”
They did. They really did.
“The New York Times doesn’t cover labor rights”
They exposed how the biggest US Corporations illegally use child labor
They exposed Starbucks vicious war against unions
I’m not saying it’s a perfect news organization. A perfect news organization does not exist. But it’s a very solid one. 90% of leftists who attack it are using bad faith arguments.
10 - When it comes to television and radio, public media (PBS, BBC, NPR, CBC) is often more professional, more serious, than corporate media. PBS or CBC make outstanding documentaries. Stuff US/Canadian private networks just wouldn’t make.
11 - Generally speaking, journalism that you pay for is far better than journalism you don’t pay for. This is a general rule, not a law of physics. There are exceptions. The Daily Mail has subscribers. It’s largely non-sense. ProPublica is free. They do stunning investigations.
12 - AIPAC is a powerful lobbying organization. But there is limit to their power. There was an intense AIPAC campaign to stop the President Obama from signing a nuclear agreement with Iran. And he defeated them .
13 - Most Trump tweets aren’t written by Donald Trump. They are written by a dude named Dan Scavino. Most americans have no clue who Dan Scavino is. They wouldn’t know him if they met him in the supermarket.
14 - Having a lot of resources is a curse. Countries that have natural ressources (Iran, Algeria, Nigeria, Russia) tend to be highly corrupt and exploited by a small elite. It’s simple. The elite can take control of the oil fields, the gas fields, the mines. Just sell ressources. Shoot protesters. No need to invest in anything else. It’s much better to live a country with limited resources (Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland). Lack of resources force the elites to invest in science and education. The most unlucky country in Africa is Congo. It’s full of diamonds, forests, oil, gas, lithium, cobalt, rare earth. So Congo has suffered horribly because of that. In fact, it’s still being looted.
15 - If you want to transform an authoritarian regime into a democracy from within, the number 1 tool you need are powerful labor unions. Powerful unions can basically go on a general solidarity strike and shut down an entire economy.
16 - Everything Barack Obama predicted would happen if the US didn’t sign the nuclear agreement with Iran actually happened. Trump left the agreement. Iran started enriching nuclear fuel. Then a major war happened.
17 - Many Middle Easterners are very tribal. Most Israelis see themselves as Jewish first, Israeli second. Syrian druzes think of themselves as Druze first, Syrian second. Many lebanese Shias see themselves as Shia first, Lebanese a distant second. And so on. Their loyalty often lies more to their tribe than to the State they actually live in.
18 - Imperialism was bad. But imperialism didn’t actually cause instability in the Middle East. The most stable period was actually Ottoman Imperialism. For 5 centuries there was commerce and peace. Then, there was the British/French empire. Apart from some episodes of violence, it was stable. But when imperialism ended, it was basically a mess. Jews vs Arabs. Christians vs Sunnis. Arabs vs Persians. Jews vs Shias. Arabs vs Kurds. Alawis vs Sunnis. To this day, many of them have this tribal mindset.
19 - Saying “we don’t speak with terrorists” is completely dumb. Many terrorist organizations later became peaceful. Many terrorist leaders later became statesmen. It’s wrong to say “We can’t make any peace with those who hands are stained with blood”. Get out of here with that non-sense. If you truly want peace, seeking only decent leaders means you aren’t going to find anyone at all. Criminals make peace. This isn’t Scandinavia.
20 - The most ugly, polluted and noisy cities in the world have one thing in common. They have cars everywhere. The best cities in the world (Singapore, Geneva, Copenhaguen) all have one thing in common. They try to aggressively reduce car ownership. If you want to improve the cities, you need to increase parking costs. Pedestrianize streets. Build bike lanes. The hard part is the politics. Car owners see the short term pain. They never see the long term gains.
What are things you know because of your personal interests that most people have no idea about ?
Fuck it. Believe me or don’t.
I made a documentary that got C&Dd by Netflix. It was about Orson Welles and the final movie he made in '71 that didn’t get finished until 2021 (by Netflix).
In researching Welles, I discovered a rediculous amount of information about him that is not at all publically known.
His children?
One daughter lives in New York. Another in Sedona.
But there’s also the two he had out of wedlock in secret. (Both of which have documentaries about them)
And then I discovered his fifth child.
Sasha Welles. Who he had with his mistress Oja Kodar during the making of his last film. The kid is almost 100% his, but might not be Kodar’s as he basically had sex with her whole family.
But that’s not what this comment is about.
It’s about the movie he filmed but never finished editing, “The Otherside of the Wind” and starred Oja Kodar.
It’s now on Netflix, and while it did receive some nice critical reviews. Very few people came to look at it as close as I have. (And the others that have kinda sorta agree with what I’m about to say).
The closest (for the most part) was Peter Bogdonavich, who said the movie was a perfect book end for Welles career - a movie that matched his creativity with Citizen Kane.
But, the movie was actually much more than that. Much much more. (At least imo.)
Orson wanted this film to be finished more than anything. He even begged Peter Bognonovich to finish it in case he died. Something Bogdonavich actually tried to do well into the 2000’s!
The reason he wanted it finished? No one knows. But I have a theory, and that’s what my doc was about.
The theory:
Orson Welles created The Otherside of the Wind as a sequel / spiritual successor to Citizen Kane. Except instead of a story about a media magnate based off William Randolph Hearst, The Otherside of the Wind is about a filmmaker based off of Orson Welles.
Basically, Orson Welles made an autobiography of himself and his struggles to be the first Independant filmmaker in the style of his masterpiece Citizen Kane, and then died before telling anyone.
You can watch it on Netflix right now too. The Otherside of the Wind.
So. Every interview he gives about the movie. Literally every single one (I’ve seen 13 or so) he lies about the meaning of what the “Wind” in the title of the film means. In one interview, it’s about the duality of Men and Women. In another, it’s about art and commerce. In another, it just sounds good.
He was an artistic guy. And was known to tell lies and grandiose stories for attention. But at the end of his career, Orson was literally operating on another level. Want to know who coined the term “visual essay?” It was Orson Welles in his documentary F is for Fake. Where he basically makes the first YouTube video (in 1974) about art forgery and art. Which is what F is for Fake is about: faking art.
He has a monologue in that movie. One about a beautiful Church in England built in the old eclesiastic style. And one built by an anonymous architect over 20 years. He wonders at the thought of making something so grand, and never putting your name on it. Something those who appreciate architecture would love, even if they’re biased against the architect.
At this point in his career, Orson was making commercials and getting drunk while doing it. All to raise funds to finish his films. But despite being THE GUY who made Citizen Kane, Othello, Chimes at Midnight, etc, he just got an endless raft of shit from Hollywood for being in these commercials. In one of his many lunches with Bogdanovich, he muses about removing his name from his next movie, so Hollywood might appreciate it as a film instead of crapping on it because of his name.
So he makes Wind. People point out the story of the filmmaker in it kinda resembles him. He denies it. Eventually saying it’s inspired by him. And being a Welles movie, it also has a unique meta narrative. A movie within a movie. As it’s literally about a filmmaker trying to finish his last film, but he tragically passes before it’s completed. Which is what ended up literally happening to Welles and this movie. He died before he could make it. So his unfinished film due to his passing was about a filmmaker having an unfinished film due to his passing.
Great coincidence. And one that attracted me to this story. But it COULD just be a coincidence right? Maybe Otherside just HAPPENS to parralel Welles life through Kanes narrative structure.
Except what I discovered about the title of the film. He never gave a straight answer about it. And that bothered me. Anytime he played coy, it was for a reason.
And it got me looking at the name “The Otherside of the Wind” in a new way. What if the name wasn’t a metaphor at all? He was certainly known for them. (Cough Chimes at Midnight) But, what if this name that really sounded like a metaphor was just a literal, practical name?
The Otherside of the Wind has a movie within a movie. As you watch the film, the filmmaker in it screens his new movie to friends and execs to different results. Eventually you see parts of that movie. The ending to The Otherside of the Wind is also the ending of that movie.
It ends with a woman walking onto a dusty Hollywood set built in the desert. Props of flimsy buildings sway in the wind, as she wanders through them. Eventually the wind picks up and knocks over all the props.
“The Otherside of the Wind” ENDS with a strong WIND blowing down props in a dusty storm.
So if that’s the WIND part of the title, what would the OTHERSIDE of that BE?
Well, the very FIRST shot of Citizen Kane has a cold wind in a snow storm opening up the gates to Kanes mansion.
The otherside of that wind, is the wind in the final shot of “The Otherside of the Wind.”
The movie is named after the first shot in Citizen Kane. And is about literally being the final shot of Welles career.
One that will likely never be noticed, as he made sure to tell no one. Just to make sure they would watch that movie without a bias towards him. Instead the whole point of the movie basically got lost. Because by the time it was finished 50 years later, not many were left who could fit the pieces together.
In the interviews I did, I talked with many people who worked with him as part of VISTOW. A group that thanklessly helped Orson make his movies. Many who went on to have large careers in Hollywood or Academia.
VISTOW stands for “Volunteers in Service to Orson Welles.”
And I’ll be damned if I didn’t say I’m envious of those in that group. Despite the horror stories.
Consider this very condensed rant about this topic that probably only 5 other people on the planet know my service to Orson Welles.
The Otherside of the Wind needs to be looked at as follow up to Citizen Kane, not as the final movie in Welles career.
If you watch the movie on Netflix, I encourage you to do so through this lense. (But be warned, the first 10 minutes are rough, as intended).