Totalitarian democracy is a term used by several modern political theorists, commentators and scholars, to describe systems upon which the populace has the right to vote, but the citizens are, in practice, completely destitute of consistent and participative political power. While this term is subject to debate – and there is not a political consensus nor an exact definition concerning its precision or application –, we do have some interesting appointments upon which we can analyze the question. 

A totalitarian democracy – although it would make extensive use of coercion to achieve the goals proposed on its political agenda – would try to capture, or, at least, to give the false impression of a widespread popular approval, for the government to acquire the appearance of legitimate ruler of the people. Currently, the Bolivarian government of Venezuela could be properly classified as a good example. Dissidents are never tolerated: they are persecuted, imprisoned, tortured and unilaterally categorized as fascists. Only what the government approves is considered correct and appropriate. The government desperately tries to assure to everyone, but especially to the outside world, that it represents the people, and the ones who oppose the government oppose the revolution; so, if they are, by association, enemies of the state, they are enemies of the people. This is pure populist rhetoric and platform, that enables the government to persecute each and every dissident that disagrees with the instituted policies. So, basically, the government doesn’t tolerate any defiance to its absolute power. But its constant prerogative would reside in the false proclamation that they represent the people in power. So their actions are always carried out on behalf of the people, and they represent the will of the people.    

It is not that hard to insert or to give a democratic appearance to an otherwise totalitarian government, and this is done mainly by the perception of two major components: the “right to vote” – that serves to legitimize the dictator in power, that always “wins” the elections, and is persistently described as president – and by exercising the total monopoly of culture and information. Whoever manipulates information, has the monopoly of "truth".

Another good example that could be perfectly inserted into this category is Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus since 1994. Technically a dictator, he always wins the periodical elections, and has a system upon which he can maintain absolute power, although the entire political anatomy of the country is disguised as a functional democracy. The total control of government information, however, is guaranteed by brutal repressive agencies, known to kidnap and kill journalists that publish content that are incompatible with the political agenda of the regime, or that publish material considered offensive to Lukashenko, or to the government in general.

Although labeled as a guided democracy, Russia functions by a similar system. A lot of people that antagonized president Vladimir Putin – which is in power since 1999, first acting as Prime Minister, then as president from 2000 onwards, then as Prime Minister again from 2008 to 2012, then as president ever since – were mysteriously assassinated. Journalist Anna Politkovskaya, secret service officer turned defector Alexander Litvinenko, business magnate Boris Berezovsky and political dissident Boris Nemtsov are just the most prominent examples. Vladimir Putin is a member of the oligarch mafia, a criminal organization that exerts complete control over all the political and economic affairs in Russia. They don’t tolerate anyone who interferes with their businesses.   

That being said, a lot of other former soviet countries follows the same political pattern. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan are interesting examples of nations that could be categorized as totalitarian democracies.    

The culture is an important aspect for a totalitarian regime. As the freedom of artists, journalists and intellectuals is curtailed, they are hunted down by the regime, or coopted to work for the regime, in exchange for money and safety. With support from the cultural elite, it is easier for the government to acquire easily and voluntarily the general support from the population. 

As most totalitarian states try to acquire a consistent appearance of democracy, they will manipulate each and every aspect of social interactions, to achieve the results they find would be the more plausible and attractive ones, to elaborate on the appearances they find the more attractive for the regime. 

As their efforts go towards the expansion of their basis of popularity, the government will be active in political propaganda. Given the fact that they have to be in a very vigilante state, populism will also help the government to acquire an appearance of massive approval from the society, in general.  

But, as I wrote above, totalitarian democracy is a controversial term, that is subject to ongoing debate among political scholars. What defines an autocracy, a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime, or an illiberal democracy are – basically – different perceptions of authoritarianism, and how they interact with the population, and how much of their freedom is actually dissipated.  


Wagner

What would have happened if the Chilean military had not overthrown the socialist president Salvador Allende in a coup d'état that occurred on September 11, 1973? The result would be – certainly – exceedingly disastrous, to say the least. 

Salvador Allende – who was an intimate political associate of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro – evidently would remain in power. Contrary to what happened in Cuba, where Communists seized power in a violent revolution that overthrew the pro-American dictator Fulgencio Batista, in the Republic of Chile, for the regime change, the gradualist approach was adopted, which is more efficient because it’s basically imperceptible. So, the population is incapable to offer any kind of resistance to its implementation. The same technique was applied several decades later to implement socialism in Venezuela, with a great degree of success. As a result, Venezuela became a totalitarian state. 

Salvador Allende was the first Marxist president to reach power in a Latin American country through popular election. After he took office, Fidel sent him a gift, along with a card, where the Cuban dictator greeted him. There, Fidel expressed his loyalty to the revolution; the Cuban dictator asserted to the Chilean president that – although Allende had chosen a different path, a non-aggressive one – they were trying, by distinct forms, to achieve the same political objectives.

Therefore, the two Latin American leaders became political allies. Fidel – an opportunistic psychopath – saw in Chile the perfect opportunity to expand his sphere of political influence on the continent, so he was aiming to introduce the Soviet formula of central government planning of the economy, and sovereign authority of the state over society, into the Andean country. 

Realizing the subtle threat, the US government pressed the Chilean military to take control of the situation, and seize power as soon as possible. A threat of a similar nature posed over Brazil almost a decade earlier, with João Goulart as president of the republic, but he was deposed when the military took power, in 1964. If the biggest country of the region would become communist, the balance of power in the American continent could revert abruptly towards a Soviet Union influenced political arena. With Salvador Allende as head of state, Chile would become a communist totalitarian regime through the implementation of a series of gradualist policies; a path that would eventually convert the nation into a radical leftist democracy. Or, as most people categorize, a dictatorship of the proletariat, better described as a communist tyranny. 

Through Salvador Allende's elusive association with Fidel Castro, Chile would inadvertently become a socialist dictatorship. If the military had not interfered – and preserved the nation from the great invisible threat that was surrounding them – Chile would eventually be converted into a South American version of Cuba.

After a failed coup – known as Tanquetazo, which occurred on June 29, 1973 – the military carried out, a little over two months later, a new attack against the socialist government, and this time they effectively seized power to free the country of the political turmoil in which it would be shattered, if Allende continued in the presidency of the nation. Certainly, the Chileans would fall prisoners of a terrible, catastrophic, aggressive, permissive and cruel totalitarian dictatorship. 

When the military seized power by attacking the presidential palace of La Moneda, Fidel Castro had already positioned approximately several thousand Cuban militiamen in strategic points in Chile, who were ready to launch a violent socialist revolution in the country, which would be catastrophic and would bury any promising future prospects for the nation. Nevertheless, with the possibility of a real war against the Chilean military – and also fearing an unwanted, but probable interference by the US armed forces – Fidel Castro decided to renounce his plan of a direct belligerent offensive.  

It is true that the Chilean military established a dictatorship, that could be described as violent and oppressive, as they suppressed civil liberties, and practically persecuted each and every individual that had ties with Marxism, or the communists. But they did so to prevent the country of becoming a communist dictatorship, which would be a lot worse. If there is something that could redeem them, is the fact that the Chilean army established a free market dictatorship, upon which people enjoyed complete freedom to be productive, to buy, to sell, to start private companies and to fully develop the economy, as they wish. Something that would be impossible in a communist dictatorship, that doesn’t allow the slightest degree of economic freedom to its citizens, and the only choice people have is to be miserable, and to starve to death.

With the continual implementation of economic liberalization policies, Chile evolved to be the most prosperous and developed country of Latin America, the only one that is truly capitalist, and that has a real free market system. This would not be the case, had the country continued under the leadership of president Salvador Allende, that would gradually had transformed Chile into a communist dictatorship. 



​Wagner

Vakhtang VI of Georgia was a king of the Bagrationi dynasty, that ruled the medieval Georgian Kingdom of Kartli, from 1716 to 1724. A monarch that was also a prominent intellectual – a poet, an erudite and a notable scholar, besides other attributions – Vakhtang is considered a historic icon and a national hero within his home country. 

Born in September 1675, Vakhtang begun his rule as a regent, first for his uncle, and then for his brother. Precociously exhibiting features of a real statesman, the monarch conjured major reforms in several aspects of Georgian society, to showcase his fondness for improvement. Culture, economy, legislation, politics and government administration were the most benefited areas – some of them directly executed and monitored by his initiative, upon which he demonstrated his versatile abilities –, although Vakhtang also worked heavily to consolidate his leadership. Unfortunately, early in his reign, he was subject to disgrace. As the Georgian Kingdom of Kartli was a vassal state of the Iranian Safavid dynasty, he needed recognition from the central authorities of the empire to rule; something that Sultan Husayn was eager to grant, but only if Vakhtang embraced Islam, something the monarch refused to do. Vakhtang was then imprisoned. 

Vakhtang then tried to reverse his fortunes, by writing letters to catholic monarchs, archbishops and church authorities all over Europe, requesting their help. He appealed to several eminent people, even writing that he was secretly a catholic, but could not be explicit about his beliefs in the territory of the Safavid empire, by virtue of Islamic predominance. Vakhtang even wrote a letter to the Pope, but, in general, the monarch was ostensibly ignored. All his efforts proved to be pointless. With increasing pressure from the central authorities, Vakhtang became severely distressed; so much so, that, in the end, he succumbed to the overwhelming pressure, and converted to Islam.  

Adopting the legal name of Husayn-Qoli Khan, Vakhtang found himself forced to absorb several religious, cultural and social aspects of Islam, and temporarily lost control of his kingdom, being obliged to name a regent on his behalf, although he gained political control of another provinces and vassal states of the Savafid empire.

After an absence of about seven years, Vakhtang was requested to return, to put an end to the unrest caused by Dagestani tribes invading the region, something he had successfully executed, although with the help of military leaders of neighboring provinces. 

Nevertheless, as political grievances with the Savafid authorities grew severely, Vakhtang became increasingly distressed and disturbed. Secretly, he arranged a political treatise with the Russians, and changed alliances, fomenting the war that would soon disrupt between the two great regional powers, as a means to possibly scape the Safavid despotic rule. By this time, the Ottoman Empire also offered Vakhtang the possibility of an alliance, which he refused, believing the Russians would be more effective.

Fortunately, for Vakhtang, the Safavid dynasty was in a period of great political turmoil. Constant invasions, belligerent altercations and violent rebellions broke out in several regions of the empire, practically dismantling the country. Despite the fact that Vakhtang had family members in important leadership positions of the Persian army, the monarch was – by this time – exceedingly distressed in his efforts to free his kingdom from the oppressive Safavid rule. 

Unfortunately, Vakhtang was betrayed by his Russian allies, that preferred not to confront the Ottoman military, that was anxious to reclaim Persian territory. Completely abandoned and without any help, Vakhtang was stripped of his kingdom and his authority. Desperate, he tried to exchange alliances with the ottomans, but it was too late. They already had expressed preference for his brother, putting him as a puppet monarch, head of the Kingdom of Kartli. Disgraced, Vakhtang was granted political asylum by the Russians, who silently loathed him as a shameful, scorned and weak national leader. 

Never admitting real defeat, Vakhtang – after some years –, elaborated a plan to return to Georgia, and persuade his comrades to change sides, swear loyalty to the Tzar, and become a vassal state of the Russian empire. Nevertheless, he died on his journey, in March, 1737, never having the chance to fulfil the task. 


Wagner

Dit stukje schreef ik op 16 augustus, na het zien van live beelden op facebook. Pukkelpop was weer volop op dreef om de krantenkoppen te halen, niet met een dodelijk onweer maar met een ongeziene reeks polonaises, knoppendraaiers en - godbetert- Willy Sommers. Mauro had de gekooide leeuw losgelaten en plots smolten Pukkelpop en Rimpelrock samen tot één gigantisch volksfeest. Allemaal goed en wel, ware het niet dat oude Pukkelrotten hun schoenzolen stonden op te vreten omdat de hele boel nu meer op een platte kermisfuif leek dan op een alternatief rock festival.

Volgens de commentaren leek Pukkelpop ineens veel meer op een live versie van de hele Soundcloud rap scene waar volgekribbelde schoolbankkoppen kwamen zaniken over drugs, bitches en kontgaatjes. Nu ja, die trend is al jaren bezig. Ooit voorspelde Jim Morrison dat mensen meer zullen gaan geven om DJ's dan om bands, en kijk, voor een doorgesnoven junk had Jim wel Nostradamische eigenschappen. Duizenden mensen in Kiewit wierpen zichzelf in de polonaise, ongetwijfeld aangestuurd door dé tophit van het jaar, 'Kind Van De Duivel'. 

Dat ik dat een meedogenloos zeiknummer vind, weet iedereen al. En dat ik heel het DJ gebeuren op festivals jammer vind, weten de meesten ook al. Allee ja, zelfs in de metal scene is het zover. Goe Vur In Den Otto headlinet meer festivals dan de gemiddelde metalband tegenwoordig, en waarom ook niet? Zo heb je lekker alle goede nummers en hoef je niet een half uur naar album-only rommel te luisteren. Je weet wel, die tussendoortjes tussen 'Enter Sandman' en 'Nothing Else Matters'. 

Wat ik vooral jammer vond was het feit dat een 100% Belgisch exportproduct als AmenRa het moest doen met een halfvolle marquee en met mensen die zichzelf interessant stonden te maken tijdens de rustige passages. "Kan de muziek wat stiller? Wij proberen hier een gesprek te voeren", dat soort slachtafval. Ik heb die ook gezien tijdens Massive Attack op Cactus festival, luid tetterend over de reis naar Mallorca en de strenge veiligheidsnormen die op vliegvelden gelden. Het respect is weg, zo simpel is het. Ooit stonden mensen vooraan het speeksel van Dave Grohl op te vangen, nu staan ze liedjes over Congo te zingen. 

Daarnet kreeg ik een vriendelijk mailtje van DJ Zinobe, een house DJ die me een beetje enerveerde op de meest recente editie van Willrock. Ik had er een stevige facebook-post aan gespendeerd waarna de DJ vroeg wat er mis was aan zijn set. Al snel drong het tot me door dat ik hier door mijn eigen mand aan het vallen was. Ik vertelde hem dat hij teveel intros gebruikte en dat hij best een nummer enkele minuten kon laten knallen. Een DJ moet het publiek uit de bol laten gaan en pas dan zijn technische kunsten tonen, net zoals een rockband best enkele snedige riffs uit hun mouw kan toveren en pas dan progressive begint te Dream Theater pingelen.

Maar plots besefte ik dat DJ Zinobe eigenlijk zowat hetzelfde deed als ik enkele tientallen jaren geleden. Hij probeerde. Hij wil DJ worden, net zoals ik een bekende gitarist wilde worden. En kijk, Zino speelt festivals en dancings plat en ik zit in mijn zetel commentaar te geven op zijn kunsten. Ik las mijn comment opnieuw. Eigenlijk was het een soort chauvinistisch verdedigen van mijn eigen winkel, eentje die gespecialiseerd is in alles wat Zino niet doet: rock, metal, ambient, jazz... 

Ik dacht, "ik ben een vakidioot" en "ik heb geen idee waar de hedendaagse muziekbeleving eigenlijk om draait". Maar de reactie van Zino op mijn bericht verbaasde mij nog meer. In een wereld vol haat, wantrouwen en galspuwerij koos Zino ervoor om eerlijke feedback te vragen, zichzelf vriendelijk voor te stellen en mijn tip mee te nemen naar volgende optredens. Daar zat ik dan, de eeuwig positieve muziekreviewer, verbijsterd door een jonge gast die eigenlijk gewoon liefst zijn eigen pad wil bewandelen.

Ben ik jaloers? Zijn alle analoge muzikanten jaloers op het succes van DJ's? Misschien wel. Anderzijds ben ik iemand die liever met zijn eigen werk op het podium staat dan dat van andere mensen, maar ook dat blijkt gewoon de mening van een enkeling. Er zijn tegenwoordig zelfs coverbandfestivals, waar je naar imitaties van Guns 'N Roses, Queen or Pink Floyd kan gaan kijken. Het origineel doet er steeds minder toe. Dus neen, ik ben niet jaloers, alleen een beetje melancholisch.

En hoe kan het eigenlijk ook anders? Wij, oude rotten in het vak, weten dat muziek alles kan overstijgen, zèlfs de mensen die de muziek maken. De technologie staat bijna ver genoeg om de mens uit de muziek te halen. Er bestaan schijnbaar al 100% door artificiële intelligentie gemaakte tracks, gebaseerd op de maat, tonen en timbre van wereldberoemde tophits. Muziek heeft ons niet nodig, andersom wel. Dio is dood maar tourt nog steeds, leg dat maar eens uit aan de gemiddelde festivalneanderthaler. Nu goed, wellicht zal die neanderthaler er gewoon doorheen lullen, zijn bakkes enkel dichthoudend tijdens het nemen ener selfie.

Ik denk dat we het best gewoon kunnen aanvaarden. Zoals ik ooit droomde op om het podium van Rock Werchter te staan, zo droomt Zino over Tomorrowland. Eerlijk? Ik gun het hem. Ik ga niet kijken want het geheel zal mijn rockhart genadeloos irriteren maar ik zal hem wel horen vanop mijn terras. Hopelijk stuurt hij me dan nog een bericht met een foto van duizenden uitzinnige fans, wild dansend op zijn intros en op die paar knallende minuten die ik hem heb aangeraden. Ook dan zal ik niet jaloers zijn, ook niet als hij plots een megahit scoort. Zino is een toffe pee, een hard werkende muzikale technicus en een mens met dromen, meer moet dat eigenlijk niet zijn.


​Serge

Craig Sheffer is a formidable example of a terrific and exceedingly talented actor, that never had his breakthrough in the movie industry, although he has somewhat managed to have a stable career, which is something that – especially in the extremely competitive field of work that is the motion picture industry – definitely is quite an achievement. Sheffer has had major roles in movies, being the lead in some very interesting and peculiar films, but he was never able to become the star that, given his amazing talent, credibility and superb dedication to the profession, he certainly deserved to be. 

Well, first of all, life is not always fair. We all – or, at least, most of us – have a great amount of talents, but this fact doesn’t mean people will recognize our potentialities or even the amazing results we are able to achieve. Everybody are busy with their own lives, and people doesn’t have the obligation of recognizing our capabilities. Unfortunately, this was the case for Craig Sheffer, that never managed to capture the attention of great studio executives, nor had someone willing to give him a major opportunity.    

Craig Sheffer, unfortunately, from the beginning of his career, has fallen into a sordid loophole of very low budget movies, and was never able to break into the mainstream. He was buried into the blank space of B-movies, made for television films, and independent low budget flicks that nobody ever saw, and never managed to get out of this sordid limbo, like the vast majority of his work colleagues in the American movie industry.  

In 1984, he starred in Voyage of the Rock Aliens, a rock musical movie, that Sheffer himself probably is willing to forget. In 1990, he achieved a moderate degree of notoriety after starring as the main character in the movie Nightbreed, an adaption of a literary work by British author Clive Barker, that also directed the film. 

The only great big budget production of Sheffer’s career – on which he had a relevant role – was the 1992 movie A River Runs Through It, directed by Robert Redford. On this movie, Sheffer played real life character Norman Maclean, a celebrated American writer, whose eponymous literary narrative – published in the book A River Runs Through It and Other Stories – was the inspiration for the movie. On this film, Sheffer has worked with a then yet to become famous Brad Pitt, whose character was Paul Maclean, Norman Maclean’s brother. A then unknown Joseph Gordon-Levitt – which was also destined to become a notable actor – also appears, as a younger version of Norman Maclean.

A River Runs Through It was the only performance of Sheffer in a major motion picture. In 1993, Sheffer starred in the B-movie Fire on the Amazon, on which he divided the screen with Sandra Bullock, that also would become a celebrated and notorious actress. 

My favorite Craig Sheffer movie was, undoubtedly, Hellraiser: Inferno, released in 2000. On it, Sheffer plays a bright, methodic and highly intelligent, but also deceitful, corrupt and immoral Denver police detective named Joseph Thorne. Another adaptation of a work by Clive Barker, I saw this movie several times – and in my opinion –, this was one of the most incredible films that I ever saw. 

The plot concerns the discovery of a bizarre puzzle box by the main character, in a ritualistic crime scene investigation. After also discovering a finger, the detective finds himself on the trail of a deranged criminal mastermind, known only as the Engineer. Thorne then undertakes a massive investigation into the underworld, in an obsessed pursue to capture the Engineer, to stop his depraved, hostile and sadistic crime spree, but also seeking to do something good, in a desperate attempt to redeem himself for his evil deeds, as his troubled conscience begins to be a significant burden on him, a natural consequence for all his past malevolent deeds, contraventions and wrongdoings, like being a bad husband, an absent father for his little daughter, and an immorally indulgent police officer.  

As he succeeds in his journey, he begins to find more and more fingers, only to suffer from macabre hallucinatory delusions, and then being forced to confront the fact that he is being tormented by an extraordinary and exceedingly hostile supernatural entity, which is later revealed to be Pinhead, played by actor Doug Bradley. The movie also stars Nicholas Turturro as Tony Nenonen, the police partner of Joseph Thorne, and James Remar as a psychiatrist who at first seems willing to help Thorne, but then reveals himself an ambiguous and dual character. For me, this was definitely the most intriguing and pervasive character Sheffer has ever played, and the most amazing film of his career.

Nevertheless, Sheffer is undoubtedly best remembered today as Keith Scott, the cool and light-hearted uncle of Lucas – Chad Michael Murray’s character –, on The WB hit show One Three Hill. On this series, Sheffer played a very serene, comprehensive and sensible individual, who constantly antagonizes with his brother Dan, Lucas biological father, played by Paul Johansson. 

Lucas is constantly rejected and humiliated by his father, who shows unconditional preference for his other son, Nathan, played by James Lafferty. Nathan is Lucas’ half-brother, but he also displays towards Lucas the same amount of despise his father does. By virtue of this troubled familial relationships, Keith always tries to support Lucas, offering him the kind and gentle support his father never wanted to show him. Keith also had a crush on Karen, Lucas’ mother, played by Moira Kelly, but his love was never reciprocated.

Throughout the years, the relationships of the characters severely changed. Lucas and Nathan eventually became best friends – bonded not only by their consanguineous connection, by also by their mutual love of college basketball – and Nathan eventually married Hailey, Lucas’ best friend, played by actress Bethany Joy Lenz. Eventually, Lucas also reconciled with his father, and the two became close.

The series was a very emotional and beautiful one. Although I was never an ardent enthusiast, it was a very good show, and I watched several episodes along the years, when was broadcast by Fox Television Network, here in my country.  

Sheffer was a regular on the series throughout the seasons from 2003 to 2007, and then was removed from the show, when his character was killed. He made special guest appearances in the 2012 season.  

Another films of his career that may be interesting to mention was 1999 Turbulence 2: Fear of Flying, 2000 Without Malice, on which he co-starred with the late Corey Haim, and 2004 Berseker, on which he co-starred with his One Three Hill colleague Paul Johansson. In 2008, he had a very small role as Kenneth, the cruel and abusive husband of Della Myers – Kim Basinger’s character – in the thriller While She Was Out. 

In 2012, he starred in the movie The Mark, alongside Eric Roberts. He reprised the role in a sequel, 2013 The Mark 2: Redemption. His last work to date was 2016 Code of Honor, on which he shared the screen with action film star Steven Segal. 

Throughout his career, Sheffer has worked with several notable actors and actresses that already were – or would become later – famous, while his talent, on the contrary, was never properly appreciated nor recognized in the movie and television industries. Like I wrote above, he managed to have a stable career, but he never achieved the level of fame and recognition he certainly deserved, that would be satisfactorily proportional to his talent, dedication and creativity. 

The main reason behind this problem was the fact that rarely he was offered something relevant outside the zone of low budget B-movies or television films. When this was the case, it was usually small roles. Never able to break outside the marginal niche of work upon which he became confined, Sheffer remained doomed to take whatever roles were offered to him, never having the opportunity to display his marvelous acting skills in a wide, more elegant, sophisticated and consistent scale. Unfortunately, he remained relegated to works situated in the sidewalk corners of the industry, and thus, became permanently ignored by major studios executives. ​


​Wagner

Raizō Ichikawa was one of the most famous and talented Japanese actors of all time. Despite having died very young – at 37 years old –,  he was an exceedingly prolific actor. In a career that has spanned only fifteen years, beginning in 1954 and lasting until his death, in 1969, Ichikawa appeared in 158 films. A versatile and amazingly profound actor, Ichikawa left an enormous legacy, that can also be noted in the perception and tenderness of the Japanese audiences towards him. 

Born in 1931, Ichikawa had a somewhat turbulent youth, that drove him distant of his biological family. He was first adopted by a distant relative, and then by an aristocratic theater enthusiast, with connections that would help Ichikawa to launch his career, after he was already drove to theater acting. For this reason, his legal name changed several times during the course of his youth.  

From a young age determined to become an actor, in late 1946, only fifteen years old, Raizō Ichikawa made his debut in kabuki theatre. Learning and perfecting his acting skills with easiness – despite his young age – he rapidly became a consecrated actor, recognized by the vividness, grace and intensity of his style, impressing everyone who went to see his performances. Thus, in the beginning of the fifties, he endured a successful transition to film, that would definitely establish his reputation across Japan as one of the most talented actors of his generation.  In 1954, Ichikawa made his film debut. 

Like everything in his life – especially related to his acting career – Ichikawa rapidly became an established icon in the Japanese motion picture industry, making one film after another.  By the end of the decade, he was practically a national celebrity. He could do as much as fourteen movies in a single year, and in his brief life, participated in a total of 158 films. He remained working in a very constant and rigid schedule, until cancer would provoke his untimely demise, at the age of thirty-seven years old.

In 1968, Ichikawa begin suffering severe health problems, and then consulted a doctor. The exams soon demonstrated that he had rectal cancer, but the doctor, his friends, family and closest associates decided not to tell him about the disease. He had to perform surgery, but apparently, it was too late for him to be cured. Doctors advised his family members that the cancer would eventually return. Having always suffered from precarious health, the disease could have been properly treated when Ichikawa consulted a doctor for the same problem several years earlier, but was misdiagnosed. 

As his physical condition deteriorated, soon he wasn’t able to do films properly, and in the movies he was still cast, doubles had to be used for elaborate or more intricate scenes. In the beginning of 1969, after a second surgery, he was too weak and excessively debilitated to do anything. His health had practically vanished. After learning that a substitute actor was cast in a movie for a role he desperately wanted to portray, he became too disappointed, and apparently became apathetic towards work prospects. He died some months later. A promising and brilliant career – that was, indeed, very fruitful and prolific – was cut short at the dawn of its rise.   

 Nonetheless, Ichikawa managed to leave behind a wonderful legacy, that consolidated his reputation as one of the most formidable, versatile and significant actors of his generation. He made the skill of acting to appear spontaneous – somewhat easy to execute –, because it was natural for him, despite the fact that all of his characters were profound and intense. 

On Young Boy Takechi, Ichikawa plays a young naval officer that abandons his position, to assume the leadership of a Yakuza ring after his father – the actual leader –, dies. On a lustful man, Ichikawa plays a very eccentric womanizer, that thinks that his “mission” in the world is to make women happy. 

A splendid talent that was lost too soon, fortunately, the actor had enough time to consolidate and leave behind a consistent and robust legacy, that not only is filled with some marvelous movies, but also have his deeply graceful and vivacious interpretations of exceedingly peculiar and dense characters, that engraves in a very colorful scenario the poetic beauty of Japanese cinema.   

 
Wagner

Siberia is a drama film, starring Keanu Reeves, released in mid-July. On this movie, Reeves plays Lucas Hill, an illegal dealer of diamonds, that goes to Russia, to make business with a dangerous, sinister and very unscrupulous mobster – named Boris Volkov – played by Pavel Lychnikov. On the small community of Mirny, where he first goes, Lucas falls in love with a bar owner, Katya, played by Ana Ularu. They begin an illicit affair, and soon Lucas is entangled in a very complicated dilemma, upon which he has to choose between the white-collar life he is living, and the sincerity of his love for Katya. But things goes terribly wrong – as his situation runs an unexpected turn for the worst – and Lucas learns in the hardest way possible that the Russian mob is a very treacherous, aggressive, cruel and hostile organization. 

Although the premise seems nice at first, the movie is viciously suffocated at the vicinities of its own predictabilities. Despite the fatalist ending, that is surprising – but somewhat faltered and empty – the movie can be considered good entertainment, but does not go too much beyond this evaluation. At the end of it all, the movie becomes more worthy by its unusual, but conspicuous, singularities: there are several very ardent, passionate and hot sex scenes in the movie, between Lucas and Katya, the two main characters, which is uncommon for a Keanu Reeves movie. Here we also have the opportunity of seeing Reeves playing a criminal – a more subtle category of criminal, its true – which is also very unusual for the Canadian actor. He normally plays the hero, the good guy or the virtuous cop, and is rare seeing him going out of his comfort zone.    

Like I wrote above, the movie is valid as a piece of entertainment. It’s not a bad movie, but you will not get too much from it either. Lucas Hill is an ordinary character – an illegal diamond dealer –, that goes to Russia to do business. But on his way through it, he has to deal with some unexpected obstacles. As he underestimates the fury and the atrocities that the Russian mob is willing to commit to anyone that doesn’t do business in their way, he is destined to suffer the consequences of his relapse behavior, misdemeanor and wrongdoings. 

You can see where these situations will lead the main character. He enters into a spiral of problems, and doesn’t manage to get out of it. And the movie gets stuck on it. Really, there is not too much to analyze here. If you like a reasonable movie that is mere entertainment, maybe Siberia will satisfy you. Your expectations cannot be high, as there is absolutely nothing in this movie that is extravagant or extraordinary. But you will, somewhat, have a good time. To see Keanu Reeves play a morally obtuse character – that has a very questionable occupation for a living, and even being married, has an extramarital affair – it is, to a certain extent, an interesting experience. If you like Keanu Reeves, of course.   

The period of biggest stardom and blockbusters for Reeves is long past, but he has somewhat managed to stay relevant in Hollywood, which is quite an achievement, being able to appear viable as a lead for the motion picture industry. He has done some reasonably decent movies lately, but nothing that could be labeled as excellent or fantastic – his last great movie was 2008 Street Kings, exactly ten years ago. His last blockbuster was the critically deceitful 2013 movie 47 Ronin, that had a monumental budget of U$D 175 million, and was a box office disaster, that incurred in a financial loss of 152 million U$D. 

Siberia is a good drama. On an overall analysis, it’s a waste of time, but has some frivolous, ordinary qualities. Since there are a lot of movies severely worst, the option is not entirely bad. But don’t expect too much from it. In the end, it is just another flick to be added to the ever-increasing insipid Keanu Reeves filmography – that is filled with good and even great movies, but this is not the case here. Reasonably decent at best, Siberia is definitely watchable, but you will probably forget about this movie five minutes after it is finished.           


Wagner

Asian Boss is a YouTube Channel, whose main goal is to bring about some curiosities related to the Asian continent. Despite their relatively limited geographical area of activity – they do their research mostly in Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea and the Philippines –, you can say they represent and cover a great deal of Asian-related topics, subject matter, and points of view. Their method of approaching people on the streets and asking directly what they think about certain issues is simple, but quite interesting, since you obtain first-hand knowledge. 

Since there is a lot of difference between Eastern and Western cultures, it is interesting to acquire objective knowledge about Asia, and also to absorb a considerable multitude on perspectives of opinion concerning westerners that live in Asian countries. The cultural impact one exercises upon another – the cultural habits and trends of the east over western people, and how easterners perceive foreigners from the west, as well as from another eastern countries – is very interesting to analyze, and the different elements and discrepancies we can observe can tell a lot about the general human behavior, and mostly, the necessary perception of individuality.      

The channel is really amazing, since frankly exposes, debates and highlights very interesting aspects about life in the Asian countries they cover, that you probably never knew. For example, did you know that porn is completely forbidden in South Korea? Well, they asked personally to Koreans what they feel about the subject. 

Okay, so you must now think that this probably haven’t been the smartest government idea on earth, since people – like the Koreans themselves featured in the interview spoke – eventually will find a way in breaking the law, if they want to see explicit content videos on the internet. Probably the best question that must be evaluated here, and unfortunately they only scratched the surface on this regard, is why the government interferes on matters that would be primarily a question of personal choice? This would normally fall out of a state related issue. So why take over legislation to regulate the matter?   

This video I also found quite interesting. I already knew that Singapore has a lot of laws – 
in fact, in great excess –,  and the reporter asked Singaporeans what they think about their own laws, and if they knew all of them. For example, it is forbidden to bring, sell and chew gums in the country.

The following video is about the nature and the perception of Japanese men over Japanese woman being “dumb” and subservient, and the apparent preference they have over this kind of women. The question relies on a male insistence and failure to capture and to understand more deeply the nature and abilities of human females, and the fact that – living in the 21st century –, men are being generally obtuse and incapable in adapting to modern times, and acknowledging the fact that woman have the right to study, to acquire knowledge, to have a profession, to be the smartest person in the couple, and to fight for their space in society, being entitled to think what they think and to be who they are. 

This video is amazingly interesting. North Korea is a brutal, severe and aggressive dictatorship, and several north Koreans try to escape their country every year, undergoing a dangerous and hazardous journey throughout China and another Asian countries, to seek refuge and a better life in South Korea. This video about north Koreans that managed to successfully escape – and now live in freedom in the southern part of the Korean peninsula – is quite revealing and humane, and expands a lot our knowledge about how terrible, fearful and afflictive life can be in a totalitarian regime, and its most devastating implications and consequences on its people. The hunger, general famine, the precariousness, the desolation and the destitution experienced by north Koreans is exceedingly shocking, revealing and profoundly sad, and here you find crucial information from people that lived in their own flesh this horrible, traumatic moments. 

The next video I would like to highlight is the continuation of the previous, upon which north Koreans talk about their experiences and their life in South Korea, and how they perceive to be south Korean society in general. Since there are a lot of differences in customs, tradition and even in language and accent itself, on this video, north Koreans talk about the differences they felt were the most relevant between the northern and southern cultures, and how they managed to integrate into south Korean society. 

Of course, here I’ve selected just a few, but there are a lot of other interesting, fantastic and fascinating videos on the channel, upon a great deal of topics and subjects. Mostly, Asian Boss teaches the audience a lot of things about Asia – directly from the people who live there –, so we get to known first hand accounts about Asian countries, their respective societies as a whole, individually as persons, their perceptions about the country on which they live, as well as their societies and customs, impressions about foreigners and outsiders, the habits they bring along with them and the main differences when compared to their respective Asian culture.  


​Wagner

Phillip Roth, the famous and celebrated American novelist, died more than a month ago, in Manhattan, on May 22, 85 years old. Literature loses one of its greatest exponents, but certainly, his work is more than enough to certify his ubiquitous grandiosity, that manages to be concomitantly solemn and disillusioned, as Roth dives profoundly into the most depressive and collateral elements of human nature, exposing reality for what it really is, with all of its difficulties, voracious disappointments and sordid emptiness.  

One of the most revered, talented and awarded writers of his generation, Roth leaves a legacy of approximately thirty-five books, mostly novels, that reveals the arbitrary sidelines of American society by the eyes of peculiar, but inherently pessimistic characters; usually, very cynic men, that doesn’t hold any type of morality, religious beliefs or faith in life. On the contrary, his characters – upon which the more well-known certainly would be Nathan Zuckerman and David Kepesh, the first, usually considered an alter ego for Roth –, had lost completely their grip on life, and deal with a lot of sentimental affliction, emotional pain and solitary isolation, as well as the consequences of life-long sufferings. 

I have read only three Phillip Roth’s books, but they were enough for me to consider him one of my favorite writers: Goodbye, Columbus, his first, published in 1959, Exit Ghost, published in 2007, which has Nathan Zuckerman as a central character, and more recently, The Dying Animal, originally published in 2001, which has literature professor David Kepesh as the protagonist. Undoubtedly, the one that I liked the most was Exit Ghost, although I have read this book several years ago. The Dying Animal, on the other hand, I have read recently, just about a few months ago. 

Roth’s work is full of delicate nuances, although at the same time his work can be direct, incisive, explicit, arbitrarily afflictive and discreetly dilacerating on its sincere exposition of the painful hostilities of human existence.  

Sexual desire is prominent in Roth’s fiction, and the fact that sexual lust doesn’t decrease – on the contrary, it’s always latent as an individual gets old –, is one of the many literary predicaments that his characters face and are obliged to endure. Being forced to deal with all the difficulties inherent to old age, like health issues and physical precariousness and deterioration, as well as the inability to have a sex life, nor to execute satisfactorily sexual fantasies with a woman, and how people are generally obtuse to these facts about old people, are some of the personal challenges that fluctuates at the epicenter of the universe of Roth’s characters. 

Roth was a chronic cynic, derided religion, and was at least partially hateful of his Jewish upbringing – he expressively prohibited Jewish rites to be performed at his funeral – something that is reflected throughout his work, which is mostly autobiographical. His characters dive further into an inherent existential bitterness, that discreetly reflects at least a little some of his personal life experiences. Nevertheless, Roth was an exceptionally creative writer, and not everything found in his literary works must be directly related to him. On this regard, it is crucial to separate the writer and the individual from his fictional personae and situations described. The writer himself clearly has stressed the importance of this in many occasions, in several interviews he conceded to television, journalists and literature broadcasts across America.

The pain in his work is very latent, although manages to be mostly discreet, homogenously diffuse, throughout the narratives. The reading of his books are pleasurable experiences, and a great intellectual exercise. The characters are generally fascinating, but sad at the same time, as they deal with generally arbitrary circumstances, that display personal grievances upon which a darkness within the conscious personality subtlety emerges. Roth has explored in his fiction several moments crucial to United States history – like the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the communist paranoia – and how he dealt with it personally, how directly and indirectly this affected him as an individual, and how it held accountable for the ones around him concerning these situations, everything filtered by the sensible realities of his complex and tormented characters.     

Roth ceased writing and retired in 2010. I will probably never forget how I came to know about his retirement. I was ready to embark in a plane in Europe, and I had bought an exemplar of the International Herald Tribune, to read while on the flight. On the front page of the newspaper – which I have to this day –, there was this article, titled “Why Phillip Roth decided to retire his pen (in 2010)”, which continued on page 8. The article said that “To his friends, the notion of Mr. Roth not writing is like Mr. Roth not breathing”. But the article states that the motives to quit were quite clear. The beginning of the article read: ‘On the computer in Phillip Roth’s Manhattan apartment these days is a Post-it note that reads, “The struggle with writing is over.” (…) “I look at that note every morning”, he said the other day, “and it gives me such strength”’. On it, Roth confesses how difficult writing could be, since competent writing requires to completely undress the soul to the reader. Remarkably, as the article also mentions, Roth’s output increased significantly in the last decade of his writing career, and in this period he produced some of his finest works, which is uncommon among the vast majority of novelists, who usually slow down their pace. The writer was well-known as a reclusive person, was reserved towards the media and rarely was seen outside his cottage in Connecticut. He was a native of Newark, New Jersey, but also spent time in New York. Unfortunately, the individual is gone, but his legacy remains more alive than ever. 


Wagner

Tad Hilgenbrink is an American former actor, that became famous after starring as Matt Stifler in the 2005 movie American Pie Presents Band Camp. Nevertheless, despite being this movie that threw him into the spotlight, the actor originally from Quincy, Illinois, engraved his presence on the screen for starring in two horror films, 2008 Lost Boys: The Tribe and 2009 The Hills Run Red. 

Although I have seen these three movies, it’s the last – The Hills Run Red – that I remember the best, especially for the fact that I have the DVD, and I have seen this movie a dozen times, because I really appreciate it. It’s not a fantastic movie, however, but it’s definitely my type of horror.   

In The Hills Run Red, Hilgenbrink plays Tyler, a young student that is undergoing a personal project. He wants to do a documentary about an obscure horror movie, titled The Hills Run Red, and the director, Wilson Wyler Concannon (played by William Sadler). The film is considered lost, no copies are known to exist and the director apparently disappeared in mysterious circumstances after the movie was released. Tyler is passionate and enthusiastic about his project, and has located Alexa (played by Sophie Monk), the daughter of Concannon, to dive further into a deep investigation. She is a stripper in a club, and he wants to find her, to discover everything he can about the movie and the director, and why both mysteriously vanished. His girlfriend, Serena (played by the gorgeous and fabulous Janet Montgomery) and his friend Lalo (played by Alex Wyndham) join him in the adventure. 

Tyler locates Alexa, and she strips for him. He lets her know that he doesn’t want her services, he just want to ask her some questions, but she tells him that they better pretend, because they are being watched, and she stares at a discreet camera on the ceiling. She whispers to him, to wait for her outside. Upon finishing her shift, both drive to her place. After acknowledging that she is a drug addict, he locks her and forces her to undergo a hazardous, deliberate and stressful period of abstinence, to fully recover from the drugs and its pernicious effects. At first, she goes furious and insane, but after detoxifying, she became more healthy and reasonable. 

By neglecting his girlfriend, Serena becomes lonely. Perceiving her neediness, Lalo advances towards her, and she accepts his advances. They sleep together, and blame Tyler for his omission, as well as his obsession on the documentary. Regardless, both soon join Tyler and Alexa, and the shooting of the documentary begins. Then the group goes towards the small town where the movie was originally filmed.  





​The premise of the movie basically revolves around a dark character called Babyface, a vicious and sadistic killer. After interviewing local hillbillies – that saw some of the original shooting, as well as the movie when it premiered on a local theater –, that seems friendly at first, but afterwards attack them in their bonfire encampment, threatening to sexually violate the girls, Babyface comes from the darkness, and kills the aggressive hillbillies. The four, feeling threatened, untie and escape from Babyface, seeking refugee towards a cabin in the secluded forest.

Eventually, while running away from Babyface, the group split, but all of them become trapped in different places and situations. After Alexa disappears, Tyler enters the cabin to search for her, and finds her almost naked tied up to a bed. But then Babyface attacks again. Alexa then orders Babyface to go after them.
 
Tyler eventually finds a dark room full of film reels, and he recognizes himself in some of them. After being assaulted and beaten, Tyler loses his conscience, and wakes up tied to a chair, just to see Concannon suddenly joining him, after being misinformed by Alexa that her father had been dead for years. Concannon reveals to Tyler that the movie is still being shot to this day, and that all of the original cast were amateur actors. After seeing some footage, Tyler realizes, to his distress, that all the killing done in the movie was real.

Concannon also shows Tyler footage of himself touching Alexa’s breasts, when the two were confined all alone, during the abstinence crisis that Tyler forced Alexa to undergo. It is then implied that – when Tyler first contacted Alexa – she probably told everything to her father, that managed to plant cameras on Alexa’s nightclub and flat, to continue the shooting of his movie with new victims. Alexa acted as a voluntary bait, to attract them to a trap.   

Concannon wants to do some shooting, with the group being a part of his movie. Lalo is also held imprisoned, but is savagely tortured by Alexa – who has revealed herself to be on her father’s side. Nevertheless, Concannon and Alexa never agree upon anything, argue all the time, and he acts increasingly aggressive towards her, which enrages Babyface. Serena manages to run away for a brief period, hiding in a cellar, and submerging into a barrel of blood. Nevertheless, Babyface, suspecting that she was there, hides in the rooftop, and waits for her to leave. When Babyface eventually locates and captures her, Serena, thinking that Babyface – which has a terribly disfigured face, covered with an equally disturbing and abominable baby mask – is mentally handicapped, sings a lullaby for him. He apparently feels calm at first, but then, with an adult voice, coldly tells her that this won’t do to her any good. She eventually realizes that Babyface’s mental condition is normal, that he is a psychopath, and that she can’t persuade him to let her go unharmed, which makes her go hysteric. 

Meanwhile, Alexa proceeds to torture Lalo, and manages to kill him. Concannon and Alexa then argue about the direction the movie should go, and after feeling jealous about her cinematic virtues, Concannon tells Alexa that he is the only talent in the family, and kills her. Babyface becomes enraged, intervenes, and kills Concannon, with Tyler’s encouragement, Before his execution, Concannon reveals a secret, upon which becomes implicit that Babyface may be the offspring of an incestuous relationship between Concannon and his daughter Alexa. 

Babyface and Tyler then starts to fight. Serena tries to intervene, and manages to subdue Babyface, but Alexa – which was only harmed by her father, and not killed – arranges to subjugate both Serena and Tyler. Alexa ties Tyler to a chair in a room full of dead people, leaving him alone to see her version of the movie. Tyler goes insane. Afterwards, it is revealed that Serena is pregnant, and is being held hostage by Alexa. Only recently I saw the DVD extras, and acknowledged that the movie was shot in Bulgaria. 
  

​
For me, this is the movie that is the pearl on Tad Hilgenbrink’s career. Another movie that highlighted him in a lead role was 2006 The Curiosity of Chance (but I haven’t seen this one). Apparently, the actor was active in the film industry for about five years only, from 2004 to 2009, participating in thirteen movies in this short period. He was never seen again in any other movies, nor TV shows. He is absent from the screen for almost ten years now. What has happened to him?  

He simply disappeared, like the director Wilson Wyler Concannon, from The Hills Run Red. Having become exasperated with acting, he retired from the spotlight and probably just changed occupations. Why not? This would not have been the first time, many other people have done that. Famous actress Kay Panabaker ended her career in 2012, after eleven years in the industry, to work in zoology. Another notorious actress, the beautiful and talented Leelee Sobieski, ended her career in the same year, 2012, after successful seventeen years in the movie industry. Or he may just be taking a break. Actress Alison Lohman stopped acting in 2009, the same year as Hilgenbrink, but returned briefly in 2015, to stop acting again, in the next year. 

Or – who knows – he could have died, and no one noticed. Who really knows, besides people on his personal circle? It would be good to know, out of curiosity. Nevertheless, his brief career was a highlight for horror movies enthusiasts, and although his legacy is modest in quantity, certainly he compensates on the great dramatic quality of his memorable performances.   



Wagner