Persistence of Vision

A great review of The Singing Revolution from Brent Bozell:

One of the most fascinating documentaries you will ever watch is about to make its debut around the country. Make a note of it: "The Singing Revolution." Go to the Website singingrevolution.com to learn when and where in your city it will air. Should you miss that opportunity, make it a point to rent the DVD the moment it hits the stores.

Some documentaries entertain. Some educate. "The Singing Revolution" will bring you to your feet, cheering. It is the quintessential celebration of the human spirit.

But it is also a story of national sadness. Indeed, few nations suffered as did Estonia during the 20th century. After surviving hundreds of years of occupation from foreign powers, Estonia finally established herself as a European state in 1918. Independence was fleeting, however. The secret Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin in 1939 granted Estonia to the communists. Within a year, Stalin had tens of thousands of Estonians murdered. There was one Soviet stationed in the country for every 12 Estonians.

Just two years later, Hitler betrayed Stalin, and Nazi armies marched into Estonia. Thousands more perished. In 1944, Stalin re-entered Estonia, ostensibly to "free" the country from the Nazis, promising free elections. The darkness of the Iron Curtain descended instead, and with it came Stalin's purges. Once a nation of 1 million, Estonia would see roughly 300,000 of her own slaughtered in a national and cultural genocide; 70,000 would flee the country. Another 30,000 Estonians, the "Forest Brothers," would take to the woods to hide, some as long as several decades. Most would be captured and killed.

In 1991, Estonia rejected the Soviets and brought the Evil Empire to its knees by rising to its feet -- in song. Filmmakers James Tusty and Maureen Castle Tusty have uncovered a true story that would escape the clutches of even the most imaginative in Hollywood. "To be an Estonian today," they explain, "is to have been a member of the Singing Revolution yesterday."

Estonia loves to sing. The "Laulupidu," or the Estonian Song Festival, was established in 1869 and served as a rallying point for national pride throughout all the awful years that followed.

In 1947, the Soviets took control of the festival, replacing the traditional music with Soviet propaganda films honoring Vladimir Lenin and Stalin. But composer Gustav Ernesaks pulled a fast one on the communists. He inserted "Land of My Fathers, Land that I Love" into the program. Unbeknownst to the Soviets, it was actually a protest against them. Immediately it became the unofficial Estonian national anthem.

It was through the singing of this anthem, by tens of thousands of Estonians at a time, that national defiance was born and nurtured. From this defiance a cluster of protest groups emerged. And from these organizations came a movement demanding and finally, against all odds -- the Soviet empire! -- achieving glorious independence.

History will chronicle that the Soviet Union was defeated by the vision and perseverance of three world leaders, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. But every nation in Eastern Europe that freed itself from the yoke of Soviet occupation also has its own story to tell. Many were chronicled by the Western press as they occurred. We followed the heroics of Lech Walesa and Solidarity in Poland; the weekly Leipzig demonstrations in East Germany; Vaclev Havel's Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia.

But history overlooked little Estonia -- until now. What the Tustys have delivered, after exhaustive research, with spellbinding first-person interviews and heretofore unknown footage of the events as they occurred, is breathtaking.

"The Singing Revolution" is essential viewing for every child whose parents cherish this thing we call freedom. It is essential viewing for every adult wishing to see and hear a national miracle in the making.

And if you live in Beverly Hills or Manhattan, keep an eye out--the film will be coming your way next month.

SCSU Scholars' King Banaian reviews Indoctrinate U, which he saw in Minneapolis last month:

One thing about missing the ‘gala’ opening of Indoctrinate U Friday night at the Oak Street Cinema was that I got instead to sit the following night with a regular crowd. Some families came, some couples, and thanks to its location across from the University of Minnesota campus, many students. The students seemed to enjoy the movie best.

[...]

Maloney does not offer any specific solutions to this, but encourages people to see the movie. As he points out, conservatives have long believed this monopoly exists, but he believes that many Democrats and liberals do not know and would want to change what is happening if they did know. So perhaps the best thing for me to recommend about Indoctrinate U is to take a liberal friend to see it. Tell them they should get out more.

Conservatives are going to love Evan Coyne Maloney's documentary "Indoctrinate U.," an insightful, often outrageously funny and sometimes downright frightening portrait of the liberal monopoly of thought on America's college campuses.

However, "Indoctrinate U." is more than a conservative propaganda piece. It's a wake-up call for liberals: The ideological monopoly in American higher education just might be producing students poorly prepared to defend their liberalism in the real world.

[...]

Maloney's style follows the Michael Moore model: "Everyman" with a camera goes in search of the truth and discovers what lots of people already suspect - there is a liberal bias on American college campuses. Maloney, however, doesn't limit himself to reinforcing a predetermined premise. Where Moore uses the documentary genre in service of ideology and politics, Maloney, a self-described libertarian, uses it in service of an idea.

"Indoctrinate U." is not so much about "liberalism" vs. "conservatism," whatever those terms might mean in the higher education context; it is more about the consequences of corrupting the ideal of American higher education as a marketplace of ideas into a single worldview monopoly.

[...]

In the end, Maloney resists the temptation to devolve into a conservative Michael Moore. He doesn't trot out the knee-jerk conservative responses to academic liberal bias. There's no plug for a Student Bill of Rights or a cry to coerce "balance" in the classroom - actions as potentially damaging to a free exchange of ideas as the liberal academic monopoly. "Indoctrinate U." ends on a positive, freedom-loving note:

"It's time for a new movement on campus - a movement to support intellectual diversity and genuine tolerance."

Amen.

The Singing Revolution had a great run at the Savannah Film Festival last month. Here's an interview director Jim Tusty did with Connect Savannah:

You make the point that Estonia had the remarkably bad fortune to be conquered by two of the most heinous dictators in history: Stalin twice, with Hitler in between.

Jim Tusty: Yes, most Estonians in North America came here because they fled Stalin in 1944 when he came in the second time near the end of World War II. Stalin first came in in 1939, and destroyed a huge percentage of the population. Then Hitler came in when he betrayed Stalin in 1942-44. In that six years the country lost a quarter to a third of its population.

Most left in 1944 because they knew what living under Stalin meant. They literally fled in rowboats, at least 70,000 of them. When they got here the theory was that under the Atlantic Charter, all European borders were supposed to go back to pre-World War II borders. So everybody was thinking, great, because before World War II we had a country. So we’re all going back to Estonia in a couple of years. Well, as it turned out the end result was they had to wait literally three or four generations.

But the Estonians have never really forgotten that original intention to go home. Estoniansin the U.S. send their kids to Estonian language schools even now. They hold council meetings in the Estonian language, publish Estonian language newspapers. Their tradition has stayed extremely tight for all those years.

Describe your relationship to Estonia.

Jim Tusty: My situation is different, because my father didn’t marry an Estonian woman. He came over during the independence years.

was raised with English as a primary language. As a kid I knew where Estonia was, and I understood something about the occupation. So I was close, yet not close.

In 2001 when I was teaching filmmaking there, I first heard about “The Singing Revolution,” and I remember thinking as far as we can tell no one else knows about this. And while we all like to make fun of the American media and how poorly informed Americans are, I can tell you for a fact that no one in Western Europe has heard of the Singing Revolution either.

How were you received by the Estonians, being sort of an outsider in a way?

Jim Tusty: At first we were afraid the Estonian community would be like, “Who are you to come from 5000 miles away and try to tell us our history?” But luckily our fears were not well-founded. Estonians have pretty much told us to a person that for them it’s current events. “It’s too close to us,” they’d tell me.

See, it’s complicated because we discovered there were serious tensions among the different independence movements. It all came down to the simple question: Do you feel the Soviet Union will ever leave Estonia?

One side said, no, and there’s no way we can fight them. The Soviets had one soldier for every 12 citizens in Estonia. Therefore the best thing to do, one side said, is to work out the best deal we can. They were not communists by any means, but felt it was the practical thing to do. And they accomplished a lot, including making Estonian the official language and changing the flag. So that faction did have their victories.

But in contrast there was a radical independence movement, that would openly, verbally say the Soviet occupation is illegal. They’d say to fellow Estonians, “You’re cooperating with the people whose grandfathers killed our grandfathers.”

We showed our work edit three times privately to leaders of each of the three movements. The first two times they had lots of comments. But the third time all three said it’s fair, we can live with this.

But you say the radical movement won out despite their smaller numbers.

Jim Tusty: Yes, they only had about 1000 members at the most. One thing on their side was they had enormous connections in the United States and could raise funds there.

As we started analyzing the situation there were actually 7, 8, 9 forces for independence, but we ended up focusing on three. For example, there was a huge green movement that did a lot of environmental protesting. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but under the Soviet Union you couldn’t have any protests against anything.

Here’s the tough question: You say in the movie that Estonian independence came about through Gorbachev’s perestroika reforms. But didn’t he sort of get a raw deal? He was trying to do the right thing and the Estonians made him the bad guy.

Jim Tusty: The Gorbachev question is a profound question for me. The American perception is a little bit incomplete. The Soviet Union didn’t collapse because of Gorbachev, but despite his intentions.

You’ve got to understand his entire education was under a Stalinist system. He was a firm believer in communism. He just believed that if a human being was smart enough and given enough freedom, they couldn’t possibly adhere to anything else but communism. That’s why he was so thrown by the nationalist movements in the Baltics. He just couldn’t fathom it.

You could say he got unfairly beat up in a sense. Estonians certainly pushed the envelope for 50 years exactly as far as they could.

How would they do that?

Jim Tusty: Well, the Estonian flag is black, blue and white, and at one time you could be thrown in jail for waving it. So for example during one gathering in a square, Estonians brought out three separate flags — one black, one blue and one white. Then they slowly started moving them next to each other. It’s not exactly the flag, but it’s definitely the national colors. So everybody looked around to see if they’d get arrested for that. And they didn’t, so next time maybe they’d wave the actual flag. They kept pushing Gorbachev as far as he’d allow it.

But don’t be deceived by Gorbachev’s image. There was a massacre in Vilnius in 1991, when Russian tanks actually ran over people. But it happened on the exact day Desert Storm, so the world barely noticed. We constantly saw this pattern in Soviet history, where they’d do their bloodiest acts of state terror when the world’s attention was turned another way. They crushed the Hungarian uprising during the Suez Canal crisis, for example.

But I’m in no way comparing Gorbachev to Stalin. Gorbachev was much softer and cared more about humans. I’m just arguing against the American perception of Gorbachev as a nice guy.

Judging from the trailer the movie almost has an epic feel.

Jim Tusty: Epic is a word I’ve used. It’s the epic story of the Soviet occupation in Estonia. We cover 1939-1986 in about 25 minutes, and you absolutely need that. Then we spend the rest of the film, about 65 minutes, on the Singing Revolution itself and these amazing events. The challenge was that there’s no one Estonian leader to point to, so we couldn’t do your standard personality film. In fact the film consists of about 30 people we interviewed, but none are up there predominantly.

I’ve never seen a film where the hero is an entire country. It’s a testament to the Estonian people and how they handled themselves. Under the most dire confrontations they would remain nonviolent.

The Estonians like to say “patience is a weapon.” And I see it all the time not only in the Singing Revolution, but in business relations. They’ll wait as long as it takes to get an advantageous situation, a month, a year, ten years, whatever. They certainly have a knack for pushing the envelope as far as they can.

When all was said and done, The Singing Revolution shared the prize for Best Documentary with Josh and Brad Hennegan's The First Saturday in May--and it also won the Diane Passage Jury Award.

Well done!

The Singing Revolution just premiered in Canada--and Estonian president Mart Laar was there for the event. He summarizes the film's reception thus:

Yesterday the documentary from Jim and Maureen Tusty was presented first time in Canada, Toronto on Estdoc Festival. The audience received the movie with standing ovations. This is actually not a suprise. Tusty’s documentary describes very well the fate of Estonia between nazi ja communist dictatorships, the fight against the tyranny and victory, achieved during the “singing revolution”. This is extraordinary and true story, which is at the same time very moving. In some weeks “Singing revolution” will arrive cinemas across the United States. When You want to see this extraordinary movie in Your cinemas, please register in the homepage of the documentary. It is really worth to see it.

Mart Laar ormer Prime Minister of Estonia, also spoke. He explained that the Revolution had no "leaders" or plan. He is pretty young for a former prime minister. It was impressive to hear from such an historical figure.

The movie was fantastic and I have to admit that my eyes welled up many times. From the end of WWII to the end of the Soviet Union, about 1 million Estonian people maintained a culture and nation despite repressive Communist occupation and the importation of hundreds of thousands Russians. Much of their spirit lived on through song and it was a regular act of resistance to gather together for a folk festival.

[...]

Without a doubt, this documentary deserves a glowing review as an emotional roller coaster that relies on nothing but the real life events of real people with dreams of freedom ... any person who wants to really understand the fall of communism and how regular people risked everything they had for freedom should watch this documentary. If you go to http://thesingingrevolution.com/, you can request a viewing. If there is enough interest in any location, it will be organized. The Singing Revolution is not just about Estonia; it is about survival of the human spirit.

Last night I attended the Canadian premier of The Signing Revolution film at the Ontario Science Centre. The movie was part of the EstDocs film festival, a Estonian documentary film festival that is in it's 3rd year here in Toronto. The event was sold out, with an about 500 guests in attendance including 2 member's of Canada's parliament and Mart Laar who spoke about the film. One of the film's creators, Maureen Castle Tusty, was also in attendance and introduced the film. (You can see a video of the intro at Eesti.ca)

I had seen the movie earlier and wrote a bit about it but this was the first time seeing it on a big screen with a crowd. Most of those in attendance either fled Estonia during the war or were born to parents who fled so there was a personal connection for most people there. The film received a very warm reception, including a 5 minute standing ovation at the end. It was followed by a nice Q&A with Mart and Maureen where they explained a bit of the background of the movie, how footage was collected, how the inspiration for the film came and some of the challenges of making it.

The film is opening in Los Angeles and New York in December (I believe the weeks of Dec 7th and 14th respectively) and I urge you to go to SingingRevolution.com and register for a screening in your area if you're interested. If you are familiar or interested in eastern european history or have a connection with Estonia, chances are you are going to enjoy this movie. Documentaries are difficult sells, especially ones about small northern countries most people haven't heard of, so supporting this movie is important.

When Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld published Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed—and How to Stop It, a book documenting the clandestine networks through which terrorist groups obtain their funding, her work quickly drew the litigious ire of a billionaire Saudi businessman whose ties to terror she documents. Although Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz is neither a citizen nor resident of the United Kingdom, he has a long track record as a "libel tourist," meaning that he uses that country's plaintiff-friendly libel laws to silence authors, journalists, scholars, and publishers who allege that he has covertly channeled funds from his family's vast banking fortune to organizations such as al-Qaeda. Earlier this year Mahfouz forced Cambridge University Press to withdraw and pulp Alms for Jihad, a book by two American authors that contained similar allegations to Ehrenfeld's. Numerous newspapers and magazines have been forced to make similar retractions and concessions, details of which Mahfouz then publishes on his website. The sheikh is so litigious and so wealthy that many publishers simply aren't willing to risk offending him: The New York Times cites the Saudi billionaire as the major reason why Craig Unger's publisher refuses to issue a British edition of the American bestseller House of Bush, House of Saud.

When Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld in the UK, where her book had not even been published (twenty-three copies had been imported from online booksellers, possibly by associates of Mahfouz), the American author defiantly refused to acknowledge a foreign court's jurisdiction over her freedom of speech. She did not appear to defend herself in the London court, so the English judge awarded the suit by default to Mahfouz, fining Ehrenfeld over $200,000 in damages and legal costs and ordering that all copies of her book in the UK be destroyed. Ehrenfeld then decided to fight back in the U.S. courts. Her countersuit, which prominent Boston civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls "one of the most important First Amendment cases of the past 25 years," aims to render foreign courts' libel rulings unenforceable in the United States. It is currently pending in the New York Court of Appeals.

Last week, MPI fellow Jared Lapidus completed an eight-minute short film that documents Ehrenfeld's efforts to safeguard American civil liberties from the menace of libel tourism. He chose to premiere The Libel Tourist on the Internet to highlight the threats posed to American freedom when wealthy Saudis can use British libel law to deny U.S. citizens their constitutional right to free speech.

Today, Reason's Jacob Sullum makes note of Lapidus's film, which has been viewed an average of a thousand times a day on YouTube since its release. The film is also available in both English and Arabic versions at its official website, www.TheLibelTourist.com.

Have we lost our ability to grasp fundamental myths about human nature? Has Hollywood collaborated with the kinder, gentler ideological establishment to gut not only our best stories, but our best efforts to capture essential truths about who we are?

Stephen Asma thinks so. Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Asma charts how the classic tale of Beowulf has been softened and distorted by a politically correct rendering that sees heroism as suspect and that renders monstrosity as synonymous with being misunderstood.

At first Beowulf seems to join the ranks of other recent films that champion pre-Christian masculine virtues. History-based blockbuster hits like Zach Snyder and Frank Miller's film 300 (about the battle of Thermopylae) or HBO's series Rome, are unapologetic celebrations of macho competence. The popularity of these pseudohistorical films took many media pundits by surprise, but the audiences who felt the testosterone buzz from the hero stories (myself included) were not surprised in the least. And the experience is not just the visceral Freudian holiday of aggression that one finds in inferior action and slasher pictures. Rather, there is a distinct sympathy for honor culture in these films — brute strength, tribal loyalty, and stoic courage actually get things done.

Academe finds all this loathsome and backward, and, of course, our liberal culture is ostensibly opposed to the social hierarchies, patriarchy, and chauvinism of older honor cultures. But narratives and representations about heroic strength (even flawed and misdirected) remain deeply satisfying for many people.

[...]

The monsters of the original story were portrayed as odious and evil to the core — triumphed over by manly courage and strength. A truly Christian monster, however, will not really be a monster at all, but only a confused soul who needs a hug rather than a sword thrust. Christianity seeks to embrace the outcast, not fight him. Christianity celebrates the downtrodden, the loser, the misshapen.

Zemeckis's more tender-minded film version suggests that the people who cast out Grendel are the real monsters. The monster, according to this charity paradigm, is just misunderstood rather than evil. The blame for Grendel's violence is shifted to the humans, who sinned against him earlier and brought the vengeance upon themselves. The only real monsters, in this tradition, are pride and prejudice.

[...]

But more interesting than these plot changes is the character adjustment. In the original, Beowulf is a hero. In the new film, he's basically a jerk, whose most sympathetic moment is when he finally realizes that he's a jerk. It's hard to imagine a more complete reversal of values from the original Beowulf story.

[...]

Contrary to the original Beowulf, the new film wants us to understand and humanize our "monsters." Moreover, the film seems to follow Tolkien's view that proud "heroes" should see themselves as part of the problem rather than the solution. Zemeckis's Beowulf repeatedly indicts himself, telling his long-suffering wife, "I'm sorry, I was weak."

Many academics will probably appreciate the new emasculated Beowulf (thinking it more psychologically sophisticated and more appropriately critical of machismo), but I'm not convinced this new version transcends and nullifies the heroic original. ... Beowulf might survive Grendel. But in going up against the 21st-century guilt trip, he may have met his match.