Saturday, June 21, 2014

Analyzing Poignant Moments in Videogames

As someone who enjoys writing short fiction, I took a couple classes in college to help improve my writing.  Now, as any professional writer will tell you, there is no universal set of rules that can teach you how to "properly" write.  Some of the people we regard as the greatest writers of all time have defied traditional grammar and sentence structure in their writing.  A significant portion of Shakespeare's works had words he made up on the fly.

Writing classes can still be a lot of value to a developing writer, though.  They offer consistent practice in reading and writing, which is obviously the most crucial part in becoming a writer.  They can also give you techniques to assist you in your reading and writing.  One class I took was about short stories specifically, and our teacher had us read a couple short stories each night.  We were then supposed to analyze the stories from a writer's perspective- to think about choices the writer made, both narrative and structure wise, and think about how those choices helped form the stories.  That is what I plan to do today.

When it comes to video games, I tend to value an engaging narrative more than anything else.  There are exceptions, of course.  I enjoy the shit out of the Halo series and arcade style racing games, and if the government could track what I do to innocent bystanders in Grand Theft Auto I would be placed on every government watch list imaginable.  Still, overall, I usually prefer games that take me to an interesting world where I care about the characters in them or am challenged to think and feel by the way they explore certain themes.

When it comes to games that were able to elicit genuine emotion from me, three stand out in particular.

3. The Walking Dead



I was one of those people who felt over saturated with zombies in popular culture by the time the TV series The Walking Dead came out.  I eventually watched it reluctantly thanks to my sister insisting I'd enjoy it, and I do like it.  While there are quite a few moments of bad writing- characters doing something mindbogglingly stupid to push along the plot, characters doing something out of character to push along the plot, characters doing literally nothing to contribute to the plot, plots being stretched thin without meaningful character development to fill those spaces- I grew to like enough of the characters (especially Daryl and Tyreese) and find enough interest in the plot to stick with it.

Recently, I decided to check out the video game.  The one that everyone said was good, that is, as there is one based on the TV series that is a terribly made cash grab (which is a shame, because it apparently follows Daryl and his brother Merle immediately after the outbreak hits, which sounds like an awesome concept).  The game that I played instead follows a band of survivors different than that of the TV series, though a couple characters from the show do make an appearance.

The protagonist is Lee Everett, a former professor of history at the University of Georgia, who is on the way to prison for the murder of a state senator who he caught having sex with his wife.  On his way to jail, the outbreak happens and the police car he is in crashes.  Soon after, he meets a young girl named Clementine who is stuck in her home by herself, her baby sitter having turned into a "walker" after everything went down.  Knowing she'd be in danger if left alone, he lets her come with him to protect her from any harm.  Along the way they meet many people, some of which join their group, and try to find ways to survive and keep pushing forward.

All the characters who join your group

This story does two things well: create distinct characters (a recurring theme in this piece) and avoid the lazy writing pitfalls I mentioned above that tends to plague horror fiction.  Lee Everett is a pragmatic, soft spoken man who has come to regret what he did and wants to focus on keeping Clementine safe.  Clementine is a very sweet little girl who is pretty sharp for her age and surprisingly helpful.  Kenny is fisherman who is fiercely loyal and always tries to keep hope alive.  His son Duck is a hyperactive but good-natured kid who helps relieve tension in a lot of the darker times.  Lilly is someone who values survival above all else and isn't afraid to make tough decisions.  Carley is a down to earth person who wants to keep everyone from fighting.  I could go on, but the point is each character has a clearly established personality and set of motives.

The writing also avoids taking lazy shortcuts, too.  In the TV series, as mentioned above, otherwise intelligent characters will make a mindbogglingly stupid decision and either wind up being killed or putting the rest of the group in danger.  Conflicts also arise that could have been avoided if the characters had the basic interpersonal communication skills that everyone in the real world possess.  Here, conflicts arise from truly dangerous circumstance, and if a character does take a risk, it is because they have a clear reason to take a risk and have no safer way to do it.  You'll never find yourself thinking "they deserved it for being so stupid" when someone dies in the game.
Unlike people from the show whom you wished would die.

Feeling like you're watching actual human beings with a sense of self-preservation goes a long way in making you care about characters in any sort of horror fiction.  Of course, even then, you still have to be given a reason to care about them.  With Lee, it's simple.  He is easy to relate to because we see him struggle from the very beginning with both survival and holding onto his principles.  He also has done something bad in the past that he deeply regrets, something we all can relate to even if it wasn't as drastic as what he did (most of us have barely killed any state senators at all!).  Finally, his desire to keep Clementine safe gives you reason to root for him so that he can continue to keep her safe.

Your decisions affecting the game also make you feel closer to Lee, not to mention other characters you interact with.  The decisions themselves are also often heart-breaking, too- often it's a lose-lose situation.  For instance, at one point you are raiding a store with Kenny and see a girl getting attacked in the distance.  She has already been bitten, so you can't save her.  You can choose between letting her get eaten to buy you some time or shoot her so that she doesn't have to suffer such a gruesome death- but then your gunshot would attract the walkers over to you.  I chose to let her get eaten, and I genuinely felt terrible about it for a little while afterward.  Lee also feels bad about it in the story, and it causes you to bond with the character.  When something rough happens, especially as a result of your decisions, it makes it feel like the two of you are in it together.

When it comes to Clementine, she is the perfect example of a child character done right.  So many children characters in fiction are presented as insufferable, until eventually you grow to peel away the layers of their character and find out the real good that's been in there the whole time!  Handled well, these types of characters can be interesting, but more often than not are just obnoxious.  Clementine, on the other hand, is a kind girl who is immediately likable.  She is also as helpful and intelligent as an eight year old can realistically be expected to be.  She uses her small size to get in hard to reach places to help the group out and is usually good at avoiding danger when sticky situations arise.

[[SPOILERS]]

There are so many other examples of characters who you grow to care about, so when something bad happens it really punches you in the gut.  Kenny will always look out for his family and, if you stick up for his family, will always stick up for you no matter what.  When his son Duck is bitten, you not only lose one of the most upbeat members of the group in Duck, but you also watch Kenny and his wife Katjaa try to cope with the situation.  When it finally becomes clear that Duck isn't going to make it, Katjaa commits suicide.  This obviously devastates Kenny, who up to that point had always made a point to keep pushing forward and hold onto hope.  When the time comes, you can elect to have Kenny finish the Duck off or do it yourself so he doesn't have to go through it.

Later on, when searching a house to use as temporary shelter, you and Kenny come across the walker of a young boy who is all skin and bones.  The child was so emaciated by the time he turned into a walker he can barely move when you encounter him.  The two of you surmise that this kid hid up in the attic and eventually starved to death.  Aside from being tragic on its own, the kid is also around Duck's age, and a lot of the emotions Kenny had been bottling up begin to show themselves.  Once again, you have the option of ending the kid so that Kenny doesn't have to.

Towards the end of the game, Clementine goes missing and Lee gets bit.  After a lot of searching and a lot of people dying, Lee eventually gets separated from the scant few remaining survivors, but powers through to the hotel where Clementine was kidnapped.  This sequence is literally the only one in the game where you charge through a horde of zombies and fight your way through, a narrative choice to show that Lee isn't fucking around and at this point would truly do anything to rescue Clementine (had you been charging through hordes of zombies comic book style throughout the game, this scene wouldn't have nearly the same impact, if any at all).  Eventually, you rescue her from the crazed (yet sympathetic) kidnapper and leave.  However, your bite catches up with Lee and he faints mid-escape.

You wake up in a garage Clementine somehow managed to drag you into.  You find yourself unable to stand up, so you have to instruct her on how to break into an office, take the keys and gun from a walker, and inevitably kill the walker when it tries to attack her.  Afterward she is distraught, especially when you have her handcuff you to the radiator in case you turn soon.  You have the option of having her leave you there or shoot you, and either option is tragic.  What really adds to this scene is that decisions you've made throughout the game catch up.  There are many ways you can treat Clementine throughout the game- shielding her from the bad, being honest in a gentle way, being brutally honest- and it affects how your final interactions with her go.

What makes the emotional moments in this game work, then, are surprisingly basic- distinct characters, consistent writing, and a choice system that is more about how you cope with everything going on around you instead of the morality system in most video games, which often comes down to you being a saint or a sadist.  This game is an example of what good fundamental writing and a well thought out, morally ambiguous choice system can do for a game.

2. Lost Odyssey



Lost Odyssey was produced by Hironobu Sakaguchi, the original creator of the Final Fantasy series that I am a huge fan of.  The story takes place during the "Magic Industrial Revolution", which is exactly what it sounds like: a world going through an industrial revolution, but with magic involved.  The protagonist is Kaim Argonar, an immortal man who has no memory of his past.  The main plot follows Kaim and his crew (which includes both fellow immortals and mortals) as they try to both get to the bottom of their immortality and stop various nations from going to war.

Anyone who has ever played the game probably knows what I mean when I say the main plot is not at all the what makes this game so special.  While the overarching story is a solid one, what really makes this game stand out are the "A Thousand Years of Dreams" short story sequences the player unlocks throughout the game.  These are flashbacks to different points in Kaim's long, often lonely years wandering through existence as a man who cannot die.  The sequences are unrelated to the main plot, and in fact you don't even have to be into video games at all to appreciate them.  They were penned by an award winning Japanese short story writer, Kiyoshi Shigematsu, and it shows.

Every single flashback is worth watching and analyzing.  Not only are they all fantastically written, but they deal with a variety of themes and ideas, as well as create compelling characters in a surprisingly short amount of time.  For time's sake, I will analyze only the first one you unlock: Hanna's Departure.

Tip: when looking them up on the internet, try to watch the longest version you can find.
Some people scroll through the stories too quickly, making it hard to read them at a comfortable pace.

This sequence follows Kaim as he goes to meet a little girl on her death bed.  She was born extremely sick and was unable to travel in her short life, but as the daughter of two inn keepers she was at least able to hear stories about travels from their guests.  At one point during his travels, Kaim stayed at the inn and told her stories about his life on the road.  After that the two formed a bond and he would make a point to periodically return to the inn to tell her all about his travels.

This story does so many things right.  One is the incredible balance between making the tragedy about both Hanna and Kaim.  When Kaim visits her for this final time, he spends one last evening telling her about all of his travels.  As the story says, he "never told her anything sad. He kept his mouth shut about the human ugliness and stupidity he witnessed endlessly on the battlefield."  As she dies, it becomes clear that he told her these stories for his sake as much as hers.  As a way to hold on to the beautiful parts of life and to find meaning in helping give a young child grand stories about adventures she could never have herself.  With her death, a part of Kaim dies as well.

However, if the story only focused on Kaim in this situation, Hanna would be reduced to nothing more than a plot device and the emotional weight of her death would be lessened (not to mention contributing to an overarching problem of using female characters as plot devices in entertainment).  Here, they are able to establish her as a distinct character in a very short amount of time.  She is a curious girl with a sense of adventure, cruelly bound by fate to be unable to travel much further than the inn.  She is extremely outgoing and asks every guest about their travels, and often asks prying questions that might be crossing the line.  By the end of the story you have a clear idea of what type of child she is.

Another good choice is the lack of melodrama in her departure.  I am a huge fan of role playing games (RPGs), but a lot of otherwise emotionally impactful moments can often be ruined by exaggerated reactions from characters that try too hard to illicit emotion.  Here, after he finishes telling her about his travels for the last time, he comforts her while she draws her last breaths by telling her she will be departing on her own journey.  One that no one in the living world has ever experienced.  The story ends as she dies, leaving us without any dramatic outbursts, only Hanna departing with a traquil smile on her face "as if she had just said 'see you soon.'."

While the writing can be a little explicit instead of implicit, and be a little weird in a couple of places (for instance, the above story calling her fragility "beautiful", which is kinda creepy), the stories are written incredibly, and backed up with understated background visuals and easily one of the best scores Nobuo Uematsu has ever put together- which is saying a lot, as Uematsu has been around for a while and has created some of the best video game music numbers out there.


One of my favorite tracks.
My absolute favorite track is here, but for some reason it doesn't come up in the Youtube search
for it (there are other versions with vocals that are easier to find, but I personally prefer it without).


The game also does a great job of explaining why Kaim is the typical silent, brooding Japanese RPG protagonist.  When you're an immortal man who has watched countless people die over the course of a thousand years, including people you have spent a full human lifetime growing to care about, you're probably not going to be the most affectionate or outgoing person.

Despite this pain, the stories make it clear that on the inside, Kaim still tries to retain his humanity.  These flashbacks show him trying not only to protect the lives of people he encounters, but also respecting what they value in their lives.  As someone who lives forever, he understands that he can never know the feeling of truly being willing to sacrifice his life for something or finding a purpose to dedicate a finite lifespan to.  Instead of thinking himself above people for being mortal, he believes that their mortality gives them certain types of strength he can never completely understand.  This makes him a character that is easy to like.

The stories also give you an outsider's perspective on mortal life that can be endlessly thought provoking.  In some cases, this device can also be very gripping on the emotions as well. After all, he sees what generations of hatred and love, what centuries of competition and cooperation, what lifetimes of open mindedness and close mindedness are capable of.  In some stories, he will visit one place, only to come back decades or even centuries later.

For instance, there is one story where he is hired as a guard for a prison in a very authoritarian, "tough on crime" society.  A fire happens during a rebellion, and the guard won't let the prisoners free.  Kaim knocks out the guard and sets the prisoners free, but tells them to save people instead of flee.  Fast forward decades years later, and Kaim finds out they did exactly that- this added to people's already intense questioning of the social order (a bunch of criminals saved us? maybe they're not as bad as we thought...) and it led to a revolution.  Now one of the prisoners Kaim helped that night is the new leader.

Throughout these stories, we see Kaim interact with all sorts of people, including some very admirable characters.  Some are admirable because they are selfless- there are a couple instances of bitter irony where a stranger will sacrifice themselves for Kaim, or put themselves in danger to help someone before Kaim has a chance to help that person, such as the owner of a tea shop jumping into raging waters to save a drowning young man.  Others have an intense dedication to their purpose in life, which makes the world better in its only small way, like an old shoe maker who spends his life crafting high quality shoes for people at low prices.  A few of them are admirable because they are willing to give up things that conflict with their principles, like when a former war hero gives up his life as a soldier to tend to sheep (much to the scorn of his fellow villagers who idolized him when he was a soldier).

What makes Lost Odyssey special is a very unique concept that gives us an outsider's perspective on human nature and mortality, while making sure this outsider is one we empathize with because he empathizes with us.  Kaim truly feels like a human being made immortal, struggling with the weight of immortality the way we would expect someone to.  The people he encounters are all noteworthy in their own ways, and like with the example of Hanna's Departure, the tragic moments are both Kaim's and the character's tragedy.  This game has affected my own writing in a lot of ways.  I would recommend anyone who is a fan of compelling fiction to check these A Thousand Years of Dreams segments out, whether you're a gamer or not (and no, you don't have to have played the game to appreciate these short stories).

1. Final Fantasy 7 Crisis Core



This game is the first video game I ever played that was able to elicit a strong emotional response from me.  It is a prequel to my favorite game of all time, Final Fantasy 7.  It was the third Final Fantasy title I had ever played, after 10 and 8 (yes, hardcore Final Fantasy fans, I have since played older titles and enjoyed them as well).  What I loved about these games was that everything was on point.  We were given interesting worlds, distinct characters, grand plots, quality visuals and music, and creative art work.  In short, there was both style and substance.

This particular game follows the fate of Zack Fair, a 1st class SOLDIER (the very creative name given to elite super-soldiers) who ends up befriending a lowly infantryman Cloud Strife, the protagonist of Final Fantasy 7.  In the original game, Zack was more of a plot device, significant only for being Aerith's first boyfriend and not giving up on Cloud when he was comatose from a certain type of poisoning.  Here, we follow him in all the events leading up to the original game.

When you have a prequel, there is a certain restriction involved.  You can't be very plot driven, because the audience knows what will happen to a certain extent.  They might not know the specifics, but they know how things will end up.  Because of that, you have to focus on characterization, theme exploration, and/or something else not related to the overarching plot to make people dig it.  In this case, the game focuses on making Zack a likable character.  For me, they absolutely hit it out of the park.  He is not only my favorite Final Fantasy character, but probably my favorite fictional character of all time.

What the writers do so well here is character development.  In the beginning, Zack is an energetic and optimistic 2nd class SOLDIER who wants nothing more than to be a hero, and believes working toward becoming a 1st class SOLDIER is the ideal way to achieve that.  By the end of the game, he has made his goal and has changed into a calmer, more mature warrior, but without losing that good natured spark that kept him going in the first place.  This is despite him becoming disillusion about the system he serves as a 1st class SOLDIER, and not always able to discern right from wrong.

A big strength of the writing team here is how gradually they make this change happen.  Often, a video game writer's idea of character development means a big pivotal moment or two for the main character who had remained the same in the moments between these big pivotal moments.  Here, we instead see a steady accumulation of moments that gradually change Zack.  While there are indeed a few big pivotal moments, in between them Zack's experiences make him gradually become more grounded, not to mention doubtful of the system he works for.

Luckily, questioning your role in a militaristic war machine totally isn't something anyone today could related to!

All of this is helped by a quality cast of characters.  Most of them appear in the main game, and pretty much all of them appear at some point in the FF7 universe.  Each have personalities that are somewhat different from the main game, but in a way that makes sense to both the events of the plot and them as characters.  Cloud is shy and pretty weak, a serious contrast from his personality in the original game, but that's because of the events in the plot that push him towards who he is in the original.  Tseng, the leader of the Turks, is far more idealistic here than he is in the main game, because his conscience hasn't been worn down by leading what is essentially Midgar's version of the CIA.

New character are also (mostly) interesting and well written.  Angeal is Zack's moral compass and mentor who has a traumatic past that causes him to question who he is.  Cissnei is a Turk and she is one of the sharpest characters in the game.  She also helps you out in a couple very critical situations.  The only new character I didn't care for was Genesis.  His motivations were consistent enough, but he was basically a red knockoff of Sephiroth and spent all of his time quoting passages from a book called Loveless, which is about as shitty as it sounds.

The moment here I will analyze in depth is the end of the game.  If you've played the original game, then you know what happens.  Hell, if you have been around gaming culture, you probably know what happens.  If you don't, however, and you don't want to know what happens, you shouldn't read on.

[[SPOILERS]]

There is quite a lot that goes into making Zack's death scene tragic.  Unlike the previously mentioned games, which do so almost entirely on the strength of their writing, this scene uses more elements unique to a video game to help out.  A good fighting metaphor would be that the above video games are MMA fighters who continue to win because their boxing is so exceptional it's as good as a professional boxer's.  This game, on the other hand, is an MMA fighter where all of its areas are strong.

First, the writing.  One of the reasons you've come to root for Zack throughout the game is that he tries to do good, even when he doesn't know what good is.  At this point of the game, Shinra has turned on him and he is on the run.  Despite this, he doesn't lose sight of who he is, and he drags Cloud along who is a comatose state.  He takes care of Cloud, even though he could easily ditch him and make his survival much easier.

When the soldiers finally catch up to and corner them, Zack goes to put Cloud in a safe spot.  This shows not only a dedication on Zack's part to keeping Cloud safe, but also a consistency on the part of the writers- had Zack not been slowed down by carrying Cloud, there is no way the Shinra army would have been able to take him out, and even if he were trapped he could've conceivably found a way to escape.  Here, his principles make it a sound choice for him to stay and fight to the bitter end.

There are also plenty of elements that add to the tragedy.  Aerith was never informed of what happened to Zack, and assumed he had simply left her; at the end of the game Zack is on his way back so he can see her, and hopefully start a new life.  A lot of other characters have also grown close to Zack, and their concern for him is heartbreaking.

For instance, a series of messages arrive from his friend Kunsel, who earlier in the game had shown you the ropes of being a SOLDIER and often gave the player valuable information.  In these messages he desperately tries to find where Zack is so he can come help, even if it means becoming a fugitive of Shinra.  Zack's friends in the Turks, meanwhile, are combing the area for him- he'd still be captured, but at least he'd be alive.  All this makes it so that the tragedy isn't just Zack's, but also a tragedy for all the characters he has come to know and build bonds with, characters you have presumably come to like throughout the game.

But of course, you don't get found by the Turks, you get found by the army.  Zack makes his last stand and fights until he is eventually overcome by the endless horde of infantry that he just can't beat single-handedly.  He is left to die, covered in bullet and stab wounds.  Just before he goes, Cloud crawls up, having been snapped out of his comatose state, and is lucky enough to talk to Zack before he passes.  Zack reminds him to hold onto his dreams and lets Cloud know he is his living legacy.  He then dies in a way that is simultaneously sad and uplifting.

The full ending, including the part where you fight to the death.


Now, that's where the narrative does a good job of making the death sad.  However, this is a video game, and here they use every element of that to add to the experience.  Any game developers looking to make truly emotionally impactful moments should study this as an example of using every tool available.

The final fight has you actually controlling Zack while fighting your last fight.  This further strengthens the bond between player and character, as it adds to feelings that you are truly in this together.  You fight the endless stream of soldiers and helicopters, who keep coming at you no matter how many you take out.  Eventually, after a brief cut, you are left facing only a few soldiers, but you are so badly injured that you can barely lift your sword.  The game still has you play, and you sluggishly slash at the remaining soldiers while you can barely stand.  Soon they take you out, and it is all over.

What was especially well done about this sequence is the fact they used the combat system specific to this game.  Throughout the entirety of the game, there is a roulette in the corner that continually spins.  If all three reels line up with the same face of a character Zack has encountered, Zack recalls a memory with that character and does a special move.

Here, during your last battle, the same thing happens, but each time you line up a character's face on the roulette, you recall a couple fragmented memories of them before their faces fade away from the roulette.  Everyone that you've encountered throughout the game begins to fade as your own life does.  When the three remaining soldiers mentioned above finally take you out, you have one last memory before it switches to Cloud's perspective- a scratchy montage of your time with Aerith, ending with the screen fading to white and hearing the final words Aerith had spoken to you: "I'll be here."

Therefore, Crisis Core not only makes poignant narrative choices, but unlike the above two games, it makes superb use of the technical mechanics specific to that game to add to the narrative.  The previous two choices could be made into a book, and not much would be lost other than the immediate audiovisual aspect.  Crisis Core, on the other hand, would lose the game mechanics that help add to the experience.



Video games still have a long way to go when it comes to telling stories.  Many are written with big set pieces in mind, and the narrative is mostly focused on trying to get someone from set piece A to B to C to D.  There are also plenty of other issues when it comes to narratives in video games, too- lack of diversity and not hiring decent writers, for instance.  However, there are exceptions, as this article demonstrates.  When done right, games have the power to be truly immersive works of art that can make you both think and feel.  Hopefully gaming narratives will keep getting better and game designers will keep pushing these boundaries.

Monday, June 16, 2014

The Three Amigos of Cinema

As any of you who know me in real life are aware of, I am half Mexican.  As you also know, my appearance and last name do little to differentiate me from any other white dude.  Growing up, I was raised more by my mom than my dad, and my mom was my Latin@* parent, so that created an interesting dynamic.  We had a comal in the house, we enjoyed tons of Mexican food (chorizo, mole, pan dulce, etc), some of our nicknames were in Spanish, and I grew up with a sense of community generally more common amongst Latin@ folks.

However, my sister and I grew up in Virginia for seven years, where we were very disconnected from our Mexican heritage.  It wasn't a choice by our mom not to teach us, but rather because there was no Mexican community there for us to join.  We didn't learn Spanish, didn't grow up with any sort of Mexican popular culture, and didn't know anything about Mexican holidays.  When we moved back to California, the Mexican population of Virginia dropped exponentially.

We have been back here for well over a decade now and I have become conversationally fluent in Spanish, but the disconnect from Mexican culture has been harder to repair.

I have been successful to a small degree, though, by doing what works for me.  Instead of celebrating el Dia de los Santos Reyes or dancing corridos, I've reconnected in ways that make more sense to who I am as a person.  One is by studying Latin American history.  Another has been through Mexican film.  In modern Mexican cinema, three names stand out above the rest.
 

They are often called the "Three Amigos of Mexican cinema": Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alfonso Cuarón, and Guillermo del Toro.  These three directors have been responsible for some of the best films to come out of Mexico since the new millennium, and indeed some of the best films the entire world has seen since then.  The three of them are good friends in real life and help each other out with their projects from time to time.  Here I will name my favorite film from each of them, and more importantly explain why I chose each of these films.

*for anyone who hasn't seen the term "Latin@" before, the "@" is there instead of an "o" or "a" so as to be more gender inclusive


Alejandro González Iñárritu: Biutiful



This film follows Javier Bardem as Uxbal, a divorced father in Spain who manages both a group of undocumented Chinese workers who manufacture knock-off designer products and undocumented African street vendors who sell these items. Near the beginning of the movie, he is diagnosed with prostate cancer and has to figure out what to do with his kids before he passes, while also trying to keep his affairs in order for as long as he can despite all the stress and chaos.  When this movie was first released, a lot of critics praised Bardem's performance but didn't care for the film overall.  They felt it was too dismal, not much more than a nihilist portrait of suffering.

González Iñárritu took issue with that.  He pointed out that, while it follows a person at the end of their life, "it's an homage to life. It's a life that you care about. It's an expression of a simple man in a very complex situation, where a man under the toughest circumstances ever is able to find love, to find forgiveness, to find compassion, to understand the meaning of his own life, and how people feel about him. And that's what I consider to be uplifting, it's an homage to a life that was lived with dignity."  This vision of what he was going for matches up with how I observed the film when I saw it.

Uxbal goes through a lot in the movie and it certainly is an emotionally draining experience, but part of what makes it emotionally draining is the fact you grow to care about him and his kids.  This is done through scenes of joy that are incredibly sparse throughout the movie, but incredibly rewarding.  These few happy scenes feel like a well-earned breath of fresh air that make the despair worth it.  They give life to the characters, especially Xubal and his older child Ana.  Ana is a kind hearted girl who smiles as much as she can given the bitter circumstances handed to her by life, and she tries to hold onto this warmth even when things are crumbling right in front of her. If you don't grow attached to her and find yourself genuinely concerned about what will happen to her by the end of the movie, you are dead inside.

The other aspect of this movie that blew me away was how human and complex all of the others involved in the tragic counterfeit operation web were.  Usually in a movie about a person trying to make the best of a bad situation in life, everyone else in the movie is a caricature of greed, apathy, foolishness, or straight up malice.  Here, everyone else clearly seemed similar to Uxbal- real human beings caught in fucked up circumstances.

One great segment that illustrates this involves the undocumented African immigrants selling the phony products.  In the beginning Uxbal goes off on them for selling the goods in the public squares with lots of foot traffic, since there is an abundance of cops in the area.  He tells them they should be selling them in the lower sections of town, in more secluded spots.  Later on, they end up going back to some of the large public squares to sell the merchandise again.  The cops spot them and a huge raid ensues.

Afterward, Uxbal confronts one of them about it.  Normally, this is the part where the group would be portrayed as reckless idiots who should've just listened to directions.  Not here, though.  The person instead responds by telling Uxbal that they never make enough money when they sell in the areas that are less crowded and lower income.  Sure, they may get caught when they go to the more crowded, upscale places- but if they sell away from there, they are guaranteed to not make enough money to feed their families.  What would you do in that situation?

Having watched some of his other movies, like Amores Perros and Babel, I can tell González Iñárritu and I have one thing in common: we both think Gael García Bernal is a pretty cool guy and we'd like to hangout with him or whatever.  But also, we both clearly think about death a lot.  Not in the sense that we hate life or like the idea of death, but in the sense that the idea we will die someday is something that is constantly at the back of our minds.  González Iñárritu responded to that by making a movie that, while often full of despair, offers the portrait of a person who spends their last days with as much dignity and good intentions as possible given his situation.


Alfonso Cuarón: Gravity



When this first movie was announced, I had zero interest in seeing it.  And I don't mean zero degrees Fahrenheit disinterest- I mean zero degrees Kelvin disinterest.  Another disaster movie about things going wrong, but this time in space?  I'm pretty sure if you assembled a team of linguists and translators, they'd tell you that this movie premise is a culturally universal way to tell people around the world to go fuck themselves.

When the movie started getting positive buzz from the film community and good reviews from critics, my interest was piqued.  Eventually, after a couple weeks and enough good reviews from friends whose opinions on movies tend to sync up with mine, I went to go see it and was glad I did.  I was blown away in a way I hadn't been in a long time at the movies: I was actually in awe.

The movie did a good job of making me feel the scope and immensity of space.  The cinematography and editing are top notch, done in a way that make you feel the quiet majesty of the cosmos.  Normally in movies set in space, there is a fast paced approach to the presentation, designed to make it feel exciting.  It is a fun approach and there is nothing wrong with it, but I personally like the way it was presented here better.  The shots are wide, slow, and panning.  Even when the plot would get tense, the cinematography occasionally calmly pans out to remind us how insignificant the protagonist is in the grand scheme of things.

Aside from the technical aspects, the way this movie plays helped push this cosmic grandeur along, too.  This wasn't a universe bent on the destruction of Sandra Bullock's character, Doctor Ryan Stone.  Rather, it is a vast universe that doesn't care about her one way or the other.  This is also illustrated when the doctor tells the story of how her child died.  It wasn't some brutal murder or tragic suicide; her young daughter simply slipped, fell on the playground, and died.  That's all there was to it.

Of course, if this movie were only about how insignificant we are in the universe, then we wouldn't get much out of it we couldn't already get in those thoughtful nights staring up at the ceiling before falling asleep.  Grounding this movie is Dr Stone's own personal story.  This film is as intimate as it is vast; that's what helps make it great.  At the center of everything, the main character has to deal with her own struggle for survival in a harsh, cold universe.  She also has to find the drive to keep pushing through it- there is a scene where she almost gives up on her mission to come out of the disaster alive that is quite emotionally disarming.  The way she finds her way back leaves a bit to be desired in my opinion, but everything up to that point is very poignant and fantastically executed.

The film also does a good job of making a statement about the human condition by making parallels between the space stations.  For instance, each space station has a little miniature religious figure or symbol on their dashboards.  To me, these represent the idea that all people around the world try both to assign a grand meaning to their lives and find answers to life's biggest questions.  Its one of the crucial ways we cope with our existence.  The specifics in how we search and what answers we come up with may be different, but our quest for meaning and answers is universal.  This movie, then, doesn't just make you feel for Dr Stone's quest for survival and meaning, but does so in a way that can make you think about your own as well.  That's what a great movie has the power to do.


Guillermo del Toro: Pan's Labyrinth



While each of these directors have multiple movies I am a fan of, del Toro gave me the biggest trouble in trying to choose my favorite.  It took me a while to choose between Pacific Rim and this movie because I enjoyed them in very different ways.  The former was a critically underrated movie that had quality characterization, an intricately crafted world, and a lot of heart.  The film also had a woman of color in a leading role (how sad is it that this is so rare it warrants being mentioned?).  I think that if the movie had just given proper emotional weight to the deaths that occurred, it might have been on here instead.

Pan's Labyrinth is a very different film from Pacific Rim in almost every way, except for the fact they both use fictional fantasy creatures of del Toro's own design (with plenty of outside inspiration, of course).  In this movie, they are used ambiguously.  You never quite know if they are really there, or if the child is using her imagination as a coping mechanism to help deal with all the horrors she is experiencing.  In Pacific Rim, on the other hand, the fictional monsters represented, uhh... global warming?  And how we can solve it with giant robot punches?  Aw yeah.

The film takes place in Spain after the Spanish Civil War that lasted from 1936 to 1939.  It follows the young girl Ofelia, whose pregnant mother Carmen has recently married a captain in the fascist Franco military.  The movie has three different wavelengths, if you will: Ofelia struggling against her awful new stepfather, Ofelia going on a series of adventures given to her by a faun that she was led to by a fairy, and a bigger plot about political resistance against the fascist Franco government by their housekeeper Mercedes and several other characters.  This is a lot to balance and one movie, but del Toro manages to pull it off.

What is remarkable is that del Toro not only pulls off this ambitious balance, but he synthesizes them together well, too.  These three different aspects of the movie are interconnected, and that's what makes them work so well.  As mentioned above, you are never completely sure if the mythical creatures are real or a product of Ofelia's imagination.  No one other than Ofelia sees the creatures or any of the magic that is supposedly going on.  There is a confrontation between her and her stepfather involving her pregnant mom and a mandrake root that makes you wonder if the creatures and their magic are real, but there is no way to be certain.

Those two elements are also woven into the greater story about resistance against Franco fascism as well.  Certain plot events push forward events in Ofelia's own personal life, and vice versa.  This especially becomes true towards the end of the movie, though I won't spoil anything.  Suffice it to say, things escalate severely and, as you can probably imagine, not everyone makes it out alive.

This movie has often been called an adult fairy tale, and I can't think of a better way to describe it.  While this film might not try to tackle themes as ambitious as dignity in the face of death or trying to find meaning despite our insignificance in the cosmic sense, it creates an intricate, skillfully woven plot, immersive world, great use of tension, and contains quite a few heart felt moments.  In his Great Movies review for the film Spirited Away, Roger Ebert said that "movies made for everybody are really made for nobody in particular", and that "movies about specific characters in a detailed world are spellbinding because they make no attempt to cater to us; they are defiantly, triumphantly, themselves."  There are few films that are as spell-binding and uniquely itself as Pan's Labyrinth.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Scientists and Social Progress


We’re in a time where everyone loves science- or at least the idea of science.  You see it in the high ratings of Cosmos, hosted by someone who has been catapulted to fame thanks to his work in the realm of popular science, Neil deGrasse Tyson.  The I Fucking Love Science page on Facebook has over 16 million fans.  Even people who believe in pseudo-science, such as creationists and climate change deniers, try to argue their perspectives from a [mangled and inaccurate] scientific standpoint to try to claim their stance is scientifically valid.  Hell, theres no shortage of people on the internet whose entire debate strategy revolves around talking about how “logical” and "scientific-minded" they are, and how "illogical" and "ignorant" their opponents are.

Clearly, we are in love with the idea of science.  But  what about the scientists themselves?  The people who do the research and make the discoveries, the innovators and geniuses who push scientific progress along?  We claim to look up to these people, but in a very decontextualized way.  We admire them for their scientific achievements and like to post inspiring quotes from them on Facebook, and there is nothing wrong with that.  The scientific achievements from these people, however, didn’t happen to just pop into their heads one day.  They came from people who dedicated their lives to questioning the world around them.

Of course, scientists are dynamic human beings who don’t exist in a vacuum.  In other words, they exist in the context of their societies and are therefore more than just scientists.  In the realm of socio-political issues, many famous scientists have a history of standing for justice, equality, and peace that gets left out of our textbooks. 

 We’ll begin with perhaps the most famous scientist of all time.

 

Albert Einstein was a theoretical physicist born in Germany in 1879.  Unfortunately, while brilliant, he was of Jewish descent, which wasn’t good news when Hitler was elected.  While in the United State in 1933, the Nazis came to power and Einstein decided not to go back.  He became a citizen of the US in 1940.

He was also a staunch supporter of civil rights.  When it came to racism in the US, Einstein drew a lot of parallels with his own experiences as someone of Jewish descent living in Germany.  In 1946, at a lecture at Lincoln University (the first university to give degrees to black folks) he said “there is a separation of colored people from white people in the United States. That separation is not a disease of colored people. It is a disease of white people. I do not intend to be quiet about it.”  And indeed, quiet he wasn’t.

Einstein joined the NAACP and tried to use his fame to support civil rights causes.  Unfortunately, as alluded to above, those in power are quite skilled at talking about only the “good” of a celebrated cultural figure and leaving out the parts that critique them.  Einstein’s support of civil rights was rarely given any press, other than by the black press, so most of America never knew about his views at the time.

This didn’t stop him from still taking action, however.  He was friends with W.E.B. Du Bois and was prepared to testify for him in a 1951 trial as a character witness; the judge overseeing the case dropped the case when he found out Einstein backed Du Bois.  He was also a friend with singer and activist Paul Robeson, and the two worked together on the American Crusade to End Lynching.  When two black couples were murdered in Georgia one year and justice wasn’t served, he wrote a letter to the president demanding justice and that strict federal anti-lynching bills be passed.  There were many more actions he took, including small ones like paying a black student’s college tuition and letting a famous black opera singer stay at his place when an inn wouldn’t let her stay there.

Einstein is hardly an anomaly, however.  In fact, a larger example can be seen in the Manhattan Project, which Einstein himself helped create by co-signing a letter to president FDR urging for the project’s creation.

 
Not to be confused with the Dr Manhattan Project

The Manhattan Project was undertaken to try to beat Nazi scientists to the development of nuclear arms.  There were tons of scientists employed by the project, not to mention military personnel and construction workers.  They all worked tireless until finally, in 1945, knowing how catastrophic and dangerous the bomb was, there was a petition signed by 155 scientists involved with the project that urged Truman to warn the Japanese about the bombs and have a demonstration to show them how powerful it was.  Scientist Leo Szilard led the efforts for this petition; unfortunately, J Robert Oppenheimer forbade the petition from being widely circulated among the rest of the people involved in the project and snitched to General Leslie Groves, the military head of the project.  Apparently the phrase “snitches get stitches” doesn’t apply in the scientific community the way it does in the political realm. 

The petition was quelled, and Gen. Groves tried to counter it by polling his scientists about how many of them supported a display of the bomb before dropping it.  To his dismay, it was 83%.  He of course swept this under the rug, and what actually ended up happening in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is history.

After the war, many went on to form the Bulletin of the Atomic Sciences, which was a group aimed at educating people about the nuclear weapons and advocating international cooperation instead of an out of control arms race.  Even Robert Oppenheimer went on to show ambivalence towards nuclear proliferation, though he was stripped of his scientific clearance after a McCarthy hearing in 1954 and stayed largely out of the public eye after that.

Essentially, a large amount of those who created the most devastating weapon in human history believed in peaceful resolution and working together instead of international dick measuring contests.  Unfortunately, once it is out of their hands, the decisions tend to be made (once again) by people in power.

A little before their time, someone who researched the field of radioactivity was chemist and physicist Marie Curie.


Curie discovered radium and was one of the first people to realize that radioactivity isn’t some chemical process, but an innate part of atoms themselves.  She was not only the first woman to win a Nobel Prize, but the first person to win the prize in two different fields (physics and chemistry).  There is the distinct possibility that without her work, the people mentioned above would not have been able to do what they did.

As mentioned above, scientists don't exist in a vacuum, even if they wish they did so that they could measure what happens when you light a fart on fire in the vacuum of space.  No, scientists exist in the context of their societies.  And Marie Curie was a scientist a hundred years ago, during a time where women didn't even have suffrage in the majority of the world.

What was important was that she not only pushed past the sexism, but she was very adamant about combating it.  In 1911, she was denied election to the French Academy of Sciences by one vote.  She decided to refuse letting her name be submitted for reconsideration and didn’t let them publish any of her papers for the next ten years (considering all of her scientific innovations, that is a heftier toll than it sounds like).  While she didn’t join any larger socio-political movement, she made it a point to not only navigate sexist institutions, but challenge them.

 In the beginning of this segment, I mentioned the popularity of the new Cosmos series.  Lets turn to the host of the original series, Carl Sagan.

Carl Sagan Planetary Society.JPG 

Carl Sagan was the original scientist (more specifically, astrophysicist and cosmologist) who brought science and its concepts to popular culture.  In his words, both verbal and written, there was a tangible passion for science that was contagious.  He was able to make complex concepts understandable and interesting for the average person, and he never came off as condescending.

He was also an anti-war activist.  He opposed the Vietnam War at a time when it was seen as blasphemy to do so.  He even voluntarily surrendered his top security clearance given the the US government in opposition, and there is a good chance his position on the war is what didn't get him tenure as a professor.  As he once said: “For me, the most ironic token of [the first human moon landing] is the plaque signed by President Richard M. Nixon that Apollo 11 took to the moon. It reads, ‘We came in peace for all Mankind.’ As the United States was dropping seven and a half megatons of conventional explosives on small nations in Southeast Asia, we congratulated ourselves on our humanity. We would harm no one on a lifeless rock."

His opposition to war continued with the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  Reagan's "fuck diplomacy, lets keep this dick measurin' contest going!" approach was in severe opposition to Sagan's "hey, lets try and understand each other instead of act like shit heads!" approach.  Carl Sagan not only opposed Reagan's attitude on paper, but was arrested for multiple demonstrations against nuclear proliferation.

There are so many more well known scientists that have been supportive of human rights issues.  For instance, Stephen Hawking supports Palestinian rights and last year decided to support a boycott against Israel by not attending a high profile conference there.  Neil deGrasse Tyson himself has spoken up about the barriers faced by black folks and women and in one episode of Cosmos he "wonders" why some women who were central to astronomy as a field have been left out of our textbooks.

Trust me, I science preeeeetty often, bro.

Going off of that last thought, there are tons of scientists who have been kept out of the history books or had their roles downplayed because of their backgrounds.  There have also been plenty of scientists who weren't big innovators, but still made important contributions and had empathy for their fellow human beings.

So when you think of scientists, remember that they aren't just brains in lab coats.  They are human beings, and often their perspective of questioning things overlaps into questioning why society is structured the way it is.  This isn't true of all scientists, of course, as there have been many- to use the scientifically appropriate term- complete fuckers in the history of science.  The point here is that scientists can, have, and should be there for the betterment of society, rather than being complicit in injustices.

To me, scientific and social progress must go hand in hand if we are to truly advance as a species.  Scientific progress without our humanity means more climate disasters, more wars, and more innovations in technology used to oppress people.  Challenging power structures is just as important as challenging technological limits.

I'll leave you with this excerpt from Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot", which gives me goosebumps no matter how many times I watch it.


Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Immortal Technique and Latin American History




Some things in life come full circle.

I first heard Immortal Technique when I was in high school.  His message was radical and his style was confrontational, but his lyrics had a lot of interesting insights.  You could tell from his songs he had a clear grasp of what he was talking about.  When I first listened to his music, I started to question a lot about society in a way that normal sources about politics don't give you the chance to.  Before I had only thought about individual political issues in a very Democrat vs Republican sort of way.  After listening to Tech, thoughts about how society is structured, why we have the policies we do, and who benefits from said structures and policies began to influence the way I analyzed the world.  Peppered throughout these songs are references to historical events, about which I wasn’t educated at the time.

Now, in just under two weeks, I’ll be graduating with a bachelor’s degree in International Studies from UC Irvine.  In our major you have to choose a particular region to specialize in and I chose The Americas, which is essentially Latin America and the Caribbean (as well as Canada).  During my time I’ve learned a lot about Latin American history, particularly during the 20th Century; to a less comprehensive extent, I’ve learned about other places, as well.

Now when I listen to Immortal Technique, I nod along just like before, but also with a decent understanding of many of the references he makes in his music.  Because I strongly believe education should be free and knowledge should be shared, I want to take a moment to explain some of the historical allusions Immortal Technique makes in the opening lines of the song “Death March” from his album The Third World.



The lines:
Invasion and rampant monetary inflation
That brought us all to the footsteps of this nation
Peruvians, Haitians, Ecuadorians
Nicaraguans, Colombians, Salvadorians
They call us “terrorists” after they ruined our countries
Funding right wing paramilitary monkeys
Tortured the populace, then blamed the communists
Your lies are too obvious, propaganda monotonous

How is that for a bold opening to a song?  Obviously, there is quite a lot to break down in just these eight lines alone.  Essentially what these lines reference is the role of the United States in Latin America during the Cold War.  Here I will give an overview of that time period, and then give a specific example in the geopolitical history of Nicaragua during the 20th Century.

Latin America

Before we get into Latin America during the Cold War, it’s important to give it at least some historical context.  Hopefully, y’all know that the Spanish and Portuguese colonized most of what we now call Latin America, hence all that Spanish and Portuguese speaking.  If not, holy shit!  Please go to wherever you went to high school and demand an apology from your history teachers.

Most countries in Latin America gained independence during 1800s, but it’s important to note what kind of independence they received.  The independence movements during this time were led predominantly by wealthy people of European descent born on Latin American soil, who felt they deserved to be running their own countries instead of being bossed around by the Spanish and Portuguese in Europe.  These independence movements tended either to not reach out to poor and indigenous communities or, if they did, tended to offer a lot of false promises.  Many of these communities didn’t see too many gains during these times of new found independence, if any, and there was plenty of brutal, authoritative rule to go around while leaders tried to consolidate power.

Through the late 1800s and early 1900s, the United States moved into a lot of these countries and set up shop.  They used cheap labor (often coerced through labor drafts by the government of the host country, who felt they’d also benefit from this labor exploitation) for farming and natural resources, such as bananas in Guatemala with the United Fruit Company and the copper mines in Chile with Anaconda and Kennecott.  Meanwhile, policies displaced poor and indigenous communities so that, even if they weren’t “technically” forced to work due to labor drafts, they would still have little options left but to work in poor conditions for poor pay.

To put it mildly, this created a lot of unrest.

Here at United Fruit Company, we grow our bananas with only the freshest of human tears!

During this time, the United States fought in the World Wars and emerged a world superpower.  Shortly thereafter the Cold War swung into effect and “communist” was the worst thing you could be labeled.  This was true not only for those in the United States, but for people, groups, movements, and regimes in Latin America, too, as well as other places around the world.  And oooooh boy, the label communist was thrown around like self-pity and misogyny on an MRA forum.

Marxism had substantial appeal to a lot of populations in Latin America, from peasants to urban workers to students.  In addition, there were a lot of people, groups, movements, and regimes that weren't communists, but advocated/passed leftist policies and were therefore assumed to be communist by the United States.  During this time, the United States CIA was responsible for various actions in the name of stopping communism.

The most notorious among these actions was the funding, arming, and training of right wing militias to either (1)initiate military coups to replace popular governments with military juntas or (2)prevent groups perceived as communist from coming to power.  These plans had varying levels of success, but each managed to wreck lives, communities, and economies.  Other measures taken by the CIA included propaganda campaigns, funding candidates viewed as "favorable", assassination plots (some of which read like hilarious Wile E Coyote plots), and even supporting mildly progressive reforms to appease people.

It's important to note that in addition to the anti-communist fervor, these actions were also taken to protect US fiscal interests.  For instance, the 1954 Operation PBSUCCESS coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatelama was initiated after Ley 900, a bill in 1952 that appropriated unused land from large estates (fun fact: they gave compensation based on claimed values the companies put on their taxes, which many had purposefully undervalued to lower their tax rates) and gave it to peasants.

The United Fruit Company was hit hard by this, and the United States went scorched earth on the Arbenz government.  This ended what is now called the Ten Years of Spring in Guatemala.  This period started with a popular, mostly non-violent revolution in 1944, and ended with the 1954 coup.  This initiated a series of unstable military governments that spiraled into a civil war, which lasted from 1960 all the way until 1996, also known as the year Space Jam was released. 

File:Space jam.jpg 
Arguably our nation's most significant cultural milestone.

Now that we've established the over-arching time period Immortal Technique was discussing, lets gets specific here.  Lets talk about Nicaragua.

 
Nicaragua

Nicaragua gained its independence in 1821, but instability and harsh leadership were there in abundance.  Starting in 1909, the United States occupied Nicaragua, including stationing marines there in 1912 to protect US interests.  There was a lot of resentment and resistance from the majority of the Nicaraguan population during this occupation.  This included an armed resistance led by Augusto Cesar Sandino, who became a national hero of Nicaragua (and is still considered one to this day).

The occupation lasted until 1933.  At that point the United States withdrew, but established the National Guard, led by Anastasio Somoza Sr and trained by the US so that they would be loyal to US interests.  Soon after, Somoza ordered the assassination of Sandino in 1934 and came to power in a rigged election in 1937.  This launched the beginning of the Somoza Dynasty, which included Anastasio Somoza Sr and his two sons Luis and Anastasio Jr.

Their reign was of a right wing military dictatorship that were responsible for numerous human rights violations.  However, that didn't stop the United States from being extremely close to the Somozas.  In fact, when Anastasio Somoza Sr was shot in 1956, Eisenhower had his own medical staff flown out to treat Somoza.  Aww, besties!

Resistance against the Somoza Dynasty came in many forms, but one particular group was the Frente Sandinista Liberacion Nacional (National Sandinista Liberation Front), also known simply as the Sandinistas.  They were a leftist guerilla group that rebelled against the Somozas, taking inspiration from the name and cause of Augusto Sandino.  Not completely united by ideology (many had different visions for what idea change looked like, as well as how drastic steps toward that vision had to be), they nevertheless agreed the Somozas had to go and a new socialist democracy had to be put in its place.

During the time of the Somoza Dynasty, there were two major events where shit got real, and it drew quite a bit of negative opinion towards Nicaragua's government while gaining sympathy for the Sandinistas.  The first was an earthquake that absolutely devastated the capital, Managua, in 1972.  In the aftermath, Anastacio Jr (who was now in charge) and his peeps siphoned international aide meant for the victims, either keeping it for themselves or selling it to the citizens of Managua at incredibly high prices.

 
Ain't I a scamp? (that was responsible for the entirely preventable pain, health complications, homelessness and even deaths of thousands upon thousands of people whose aide from the international community I stole)

The second event happened in 1978 with the assassination of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro (while newer investigations cast doubt as to whether or not Somoza was actually responsible, at the time Somoza had already been responsible for enough kidnappings and assassinations that most people assumed by default he was responsible). Chamorro was the editor of the Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa, by far the biggest news source in the country that wasn't afraid to be critical of the Somozas.  Whats important to note about this is that Chamorro wasn't a Sandinista and didn't advocate armed struggle- his resistance was strictly limited to non-violent activism and his newspaper.  When he was killed, it became a tipping point where many Nicaraguans felt that non-violent opposition was no long an option.

The Sandinistas were formed in the 60s, but really began to take off during the 70s, thanks in large part to the above mentioned debacles.  After almost two decades of struggle, the Sandinistas took power in 1979.  Immediately they began healthcare campaigns, literacy campaigns, setting up a democratic electoral system, and other such progressive reforms.  In 1984, elections were had and judged by international observers to be free and fair.  While the Sandinistas weren't perfect, they initiated a democratic system, were bringing much needed reforms, and enjoyed popular support for overthrowing the Somoza Dynasty.  Unfortunately, this wouldn't last.

When the Sandinistas took power, the Carter administrations goal was to at least have a working relationship with Nicaragua.  However, when Reagan came, everything changed.  His hardline anti-communist stance caused him to support the counterrevolutionary forces (Contras) in Nicaragua.  These were right wing terrorists made up mostly of former Somoza folks that were trained and armed by the US CIA, most of which happened in neighboring Honduras.  When Congress banned US support of the Contras in 1983, Reagan obviously decided to heed this ruling and respect the balance of powers- haha, sike!  He sold weapons to Iran and used the profits to continue supporting the Contras (this was known as the Iran-Contra Affair when it was discovered in 1986).

Hi, I'm Ronald Reagan.  Many people inexplicably remember me as being a champion of small government, despite the fact that I blatantly ignored Congressional orders and funded an illegal war.  But hey, I was pretty charming!

As you can imagine, the Contra Wars devastated Nicaragua.  Schools, hospitals, agricultural land, and more were wrecked during the fighting.  Meanwhile, funds that could have gone towards fixing these areas were instead spent on fighting the Contras.  The infrastructure that the Sandinistas had begun to build was crumbling before it even had the chance to prove itself and the government had to enact austerity measures.  Because the United States also tried its best to isolate Nicaragua from the international economy as an addition opposition tactic, mixed with all the aforementioned hardships they were also facing, Nicaragua faced severe economic troubles that included an alarming rate of inflation.

When the elections of 1990 hit, Violetta Chamorro (widow of Pedro Chamorro) won the national election.  Many Nicaraguans believed that the fighting would stop if the Sandinistas were no longer in power, and international observers view this as the primary reason the Sandinistas didn't win reelection.  The United States stepped down support of the Contras, and soon after the Cold War was over.  Of course, the devastating violence and poverty brought on by US intervention didn't disappear along with the Cold War, and many countries are still struggling with these problems today (which have of course been exacerbated by the drug cartels/war on drugs, but that is a topic for another day).

So there you have it.  Regardless of your opinion of Immortal Technique, the man has quite the understanding of history and makes it known through many of his verses.  One could write an entire textbook about all the references he makes in his music.  In the meantime, I hope this starting point gives both an insight into Immortal Technique's historical credentials and insight about Latin America during the Cold War.