Constantine and the Cross 1961

 

Constantine and the Cross is a decent movie. If you are a Christian or a history buff you might enjoy it. It is not as exciting as my favourite sword and sandal film Oliver Stone's Alexander, but it is not too bad. It was made back in the day in 1961 when movie making was a serious business. A time before CGI and special effects. The movie doesnt spare a dime when it comes to set design and costumes. The actors look like Romans, dressed in colourful clothes and the battles seem authentic with hundreds of actors on the ground. 

Constantine and the Cross is of course about the famous Roman emperor Constantine the Great. It does not look at his early life but dives right into his conflict with Maxentius and Maximian. The film clearly has a pro-Christian feel to it. The humble Christians are noble and righteous whilst the pagan elite are arrogant and cruel. The movie's version of Constantine is the virtuous and honourable Constantine of Eusebius book The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine and not the scheming murderer depicted by historians like Zosimus. The movie does not seek to resemble actual history. There are twists and turns in regards to Constantine's mother Helena. And there are few extra characters thrown in there to make the story more entertaining and less like a documentary. And of course the movie has the famous scene where Constantine sees a vision in the sky and hears the words, 'In this sign conquer.' The great battle of the Milvian bridge is the fitting climax to a somewhat entertaining film. All in all it wasnt a bad movie and the best thing about it is that is free on Youtube.

Like I mentioned before the Constantine depicted in Constantine and the Cross is the righteous Constantine. The Constantine who defended the helpless Christians. The Constantine who only fought as a last resort. The Constantine of Eusebius' book The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine. I read The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine and it is a one sided propaganda piece that makes Constantine seem like a saint. In the book the emperor is compared to Moses and is esteemed higher than Alexander, Cyrus and all the Roman emperors before him. To Eusebius Constantine is the second coming of Christ who establishes the kingdom of God and builds a new Jerusalem. The book exaggerates Constantine's virtues and omits his crimes and vices. This book is fake news.

Fake news.

If you want a more balanced view of Constantine with all his vices and virtues it is better to read T.D Barnes' book Eusebius and Constantine. It does not omit, lie or exaggerate. It displays all the historical facts and leaves the reader to decide.

Another neutral and balanced book is Eusebius Life of Constantine but with commentary by Stuart G Hall and Averil Cameron. It explains Euebius' motivations and biases and corrects the errors and ommissions found in the original text. 

On the other side of the spectrum you have ancient writers like Zosimus and Eunapius who shed light on Constantine's flaws. In their works Constantine is depicted as a treacherous murderer who only founded Constantinople because he was hated in Rome and who only converted to Christianity because Jesus would wash away his numerous sins.

But by far my favourite criticism of Constantine is by his own nephew Julian the apostate. Julian's Symposium also known as The Caesars also known as Saturnalia is a satirical look at the Roman Caesars as they stand before the Olympian gods and explain why they are the greatest of all emperors. The Symposium is light hearted and funny. I really enjoyed it and I wished it could be performed on stage or on TV show. Any review I would write would not do it justice. It is beyond hilarious. A review I saw on Goodreads by a man known as Eric sums it up the best.

And the Winner is...(drum roll please)....Marcus Aurelius!

Julian the Apostate, a celebrated and reviled Roman Imperator noted for his rejection of Christianity during its ascendancy in the 4th Century AD, composed this humorous yet biting essay to pass judgement upon previous Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to Constantine.

Setting the stage for this momentous victory are the ever so righteous Greek Gods on High Olympus, to celebrate the annual Saturnalia festival (later usurped by christian clergy and re-badged Christmas!)

Zeus and his compadres make short work of the typical Roman villains. Caligula and Commodus are quickly shown the door, without a chance to elocute Cicero-style. Caesar makes a fight of it but comes off as a boastful Trumpian blowhard and a guest appearance from Alexander the Great merely enrages him the more. Trajan and Augustus acquit themselves well, but Marcus Aurelius the Philosopher Imperator demonstrates reserve and humility enough to win over the Gods. Constantine takes a spanking for his self-serving, gluttonous ways. Julian takes a parting shot at Jesus, who is cast as Constantine's apologist, explaining that he may continue to sin without fear of retribution, "He that is a seducer, he that is a murderer, he that is sacrilegious and infamous, let him approach without fear! For with this water will I wash him and will straightway make him clean. And though he should be guilty of those same sins a second time, let him but smite his breast and beat his head and I will make him clean again."

It's a miracle that this essay survived later Christian purges of classical literature...truly a rare gem. Julian had a ready wit and it's a shame that his reign was ended prematurely by a vengeful Christian soldier.

You can read it for free here https://www.attalus.org/translate/caesars.html

The funny thing about Julian the Apostate is that he died young and did not rule for a very long time. He was killed while fighting the Persians. So maybe his uncle was right and those who were against Christians found misfortune and had tragic ends.

Moral of the story

The first lesson is that ideas are mightier than spears, words are stronger than swords and pens are more powerful than guns. When the Romans crucified Jesus and then destroyed the Temple no one could have imagined that a few centuries later Romans would be worshipping a Jew as a god. It just shows that the pen is mightier than the sword. No matter how much the Romans persecuted the Christians they could not destroy the idea. Ideas are mightier than spears. Jesus turned the entire system on its head and the first became last and the last became first, the mighty Romans worshipped a crucified Jew. Perhaps if the pagans like the Druids had sacred written texts they would have resisted Christianity like the Jews did. Likewise Hinduism stayed alive despite being confronted by Islam and Christianity because they wrote their ideas down. Today there is a pagan revival in the Europe and America. Perhaps they must write down their beliefs in sacred texts. 

The second lesson is that you should stick to your principles. Be willing to die for what you believe in. No matter how much the Christians were persecuted they would not recant and forsake their religion. They were burnt, cut in half, fed to the lions and drowned but they would not give up their beliefs. In the end the Christians overcame their persecutors. Likewise the Jews never gave up their religion. No matter how much they were oppressed by Christians they stuck to the culture and traditions of their ancestors. And in the end the Jews prevailed and today they have a state in Israel. On the other hand, the pagans did not fight for their beliefs. Their temples and idols were torn down and the pagans gave up and left the ways of their ancestors. The pagans did not fight for their beliefs and their traditions were destroyed. Today we see the same thing with western civilisation. The whites will not stand up for the beliefs. They have no principles and go where the wind takes them. At first Europeans were pagans. Then they converted and became Catholics. Then they switched and became Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, Methodists, Mormons and a thousand different Christian denominations. Then they changed and became liberal humanists, atheists, democrats, fascists, capitalists and communists. Now they will be persecuted by Muslims and will become Muslims. A people must have principles and a code of honor. It reminds me of the Aesop fable about the grandfather, the boy and the donkey.

If a people have no rooted culture and principles they will go nowhere in life. Now today western civilisation has turned into a dystopian, Kafkaesque nightmare with trannies in women's sports, gay parades in front of little children, drug addicts defecating in the street and criminals running amok. Look at the Gulf Arabs who will not compromise their culture and religion. Look at how they have turned a desert into a paradise. Have principles and set beliefs that you never compromise on and you will prosper.

The third lesson is that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes true. The story of Jesus is clearly a case of Chinese telephone. Christians kept repeating the lies until it became a religion and the emperor Constantine believed the lie. 

The fourth lesson is that turning the other cheek and loving your enemies does not work. Constantine did not turn the other cheek. No. He fought the pagans on the battlefield and later Christian emperors actively destroyed pagan temples. Emperors like Charlemagne did not try to persuade pagans to convert, they beheaded and massacred the heathens. Constantine was really the founder of militant Christianity. It is militant Christianity that saved Europe from the Muslims at Vienna in 1683, at the Battle of Tours in 732 and at the Siege of Malta in 1565. It is militant Christianity that reclaimed Spain and Sicily.  It is militant Christianity that retook the Holy Land from the Muslims during the first Crusade. It is militant Christianity that spread the faith of Christ to South America and Africa. 

I am not sure why the victories at Vienna, Granada and Tours are not public holidays in Europe but they should be. It is amazing to me that there are not many cities around the world named Constantinople after the great city. If you wont retake Constantinople the least Christians could do is name cities and streets after the greatest city in Christendom. Or better yet someone should rebuild a brand new Constantinople and a new Hagia Sophia somewhere in honour of the lost city. Moreover there should be more movies about the Spanish Reconquesta, the fall of Constantinople, the siege of Vienna and the Battle of Tours. Songs should written and sung about Charles Martel, King Ferdinand, Queen Isabel, John Sobieski etc.

The Reconquesta should be a public holiday in Europe.

The Siege of Vienna should be remembered and commemorated.

Why isnt the Battle of Tours celebrated in Europe today?

Today Christianity is on the ropes. All over the world Christians are persecuted, killed and abused. Europe is under siege once again and mosques are all over western Europe. It is time Christians put aside their apathy and remember the words at Milvian bridge, 'In this sign conquer!'

                                      

Final Thoughts

Hundreds of books have been written about Constantine the Great and hundreds more will be written. Love him or hate him he was an icon and as Bart D. Ehrman said, Constantine was the second most important Christian convert after Paul. He is the reason why Sunday is a day of rest. He is the reason why Easter follows the solar calendar not the lunar calendar. Constantine is the reason why Christmas is on 25 December. He built the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the St Peter's Basilica and the great city of Constantinople. 

A paragon of virtue or the embodiment of evil?

To his enemies Constantine was an apostate to the religion of his ancestors. To some he made the western part of the empire weaker. To people like Edward Gibbon Constantine supported a religion that made Romans weaker and led Rome down the path of self destruction and ultimately a dark age. 

To his critics he was a scheming and treacherous murderer who played the Game of Thrones and won. To cynics he was an opportunist who used Christianity as a tool to gain power and unite a divided empire. To others he was a syncretic who infused paganism into Christianity and duped the world into worshiping the sun. In the end Constantine's city of Constantinople was overrun by Turks and today is known as Istanbul. Constantine's body has been destroyed and nothing is left of his remains of burial place. 

There have been several movies that depict Constantine as a sincere Christian whose intentions were good. I would pay money to watch a film about an evil Constantine. An ambitious Constantine who sacrificed Roman soldiers for glory. An Machiavellian Constantine who pretended to convert to Christianity to unite the empire under his power. A greedy Constantine who looted the temples of the pagan gods to live a life of luxury in Constantinople. A treacherous Constantine who back stabbed his friend Licinus. A murderous Constantine who killed his father in law, brother in law, wife and son. A foolish Constantine who divided his empire among his three sons and thus doomed the empire to the inevitable civil war. A movie about a wicked Constantine would be more interesting then Constantine and the Cross in my opinion.

                                     

Whether Constantine was a paragon of virtue or the embodiment of evil is a debate that will continue until the end of time.

Buy my book

With that said, I actually wrote a book about Christians who are persecuted by Muslims but rally together under the sign of the chi-rho and uses militant Christianity to remove the yoke of bondage. The book is called The Milvians and you can get it on Amazon. Link below.

https://www.amazon.com/Milvians-Mark-Anderson/dp/B0CRLD7YS9

They Live

 

I recently watched the cult classic film from 1988 They Live. It is a deep movie that is still entertaining more than 30 years later. It is similar to Fight Club and The Matrix and is a criticism of the western world that is consumed by greed and materialism. After watching it again I started wondering about what the movie was really trying to say. 

If They Live movie is an indictment of capitalism and consumerism then what is the solution? The main characters use guns to kill the aliens so is the movie advocating killing the rich capitalists. Is it a movie that supports communism? As history shows us, killing the elite only works in the short term. Soon enough the new elite will just become as corrupt and as cruel as the old elite. It happened after the Russian revolution and it happened in post colonial Africa. The book Animal Farm comes to mind. The problem of western society is not capitalism, consumerism or which ever political and economic system is in place. Perhaps the problem of western civilisation is a spiritual one.

Which brings me to the second point. They Live makes it a point to start with a man preaching from the Bible. The shades that show the real world are found in a church. Is the movie trying to say that religion and Christianity will save the west from decadence. Is the belief in God the shades that illuminate and show the reality of the world. Are the aliens really the demons that control the world? The problems is that even Christianity has been commercialised. In fact Christianity has been materialistic for millennia. Even though Jesus taught his followers to give up their possessions the Catholic church was concerned with hording wealth. Even though Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and taught the body is the Temple, early Christians built magnificent cathedrals because of their vanity. Historically, the Bible and religion have been used as tools to justify slavery, conquest and colonialism. Religion is part of the matrix. So no, religious belief is not the solution to the consumerism in the world.

In conclusion, there is no solution to the problem of greed and elitism. But like Tupac's song Changes states, that is just the way it is, some things will never change. Like the Bible said in Ecclesiastes 1:9 there is nothing new under the sun. They Live is a polemic work that is critical of President Reagan and Reagonomics but America had already been ultra capitalist in the days of the Robber Barons, Rockefeller, Carnegie and company. In USA the 80s were a communist paradise compared to the hyper-capitalist 1870s. The upper class exploiting the lower classes is a tale as old as the hills. In fact, sometimes I wonder why some people in the west bemoan and complain about consumerism. At least they have prosperity and more than the rest of the world. Movies like Fight Club and They Live remind me of spoilt rich kids crying about not being loved by their parents. They believe their lives are unbearably difficult when in reality they live in the lap of luxury. If you think living in a capitalist country is so hard trying staying alive in a Third World shit hole. It is funny how Americans complained about their country in the 80s and 90s but today in 2025 America is in a far worse situation. Americans now look at the 80s with nostalgia. 

 The elite in the western civilisation use bread and circus to control their people. Whilst other rulers in the world use the gun to keep their people in line, the upper class in the First World gives people sports, fast food, gambling, porn, video games, TV shows, movies, drugs etc to distract them whilst they horde the wealth. Similar to the Roman emperors giving chariot races and bread to the masses, the upper class in USA and Europe give their people entertainment as a means to control. And by and large it works well. To control the blacks in America the establishment gave them drugs, hip hop, sports and other distractions to keep them away from the black power movement. Thus the only solution to consumerism and capitalism is to head off into the mountains and live like the Amish. But the reality is most people dont want to live in a rural small town without the big city lights.

The fact of life is that there will always be poor people in the world. Even Jesus said in Matthew 26: 11 that the poor will always be with you. There can never be equality. Social Darwinism is the reality. Only the strong survive life isnt fair. Some people are just too stupid, unlucky or lazy to ever be rich.  There will never be a utopia. The communists and fascists tried to create a utopia and failed. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and sometimes the devil you know (capitalism) is better than the devil you don't know. The grass looks greener on the other side and half a loaf is better than nothing. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I could go on and on with aphorisms and proverbs about being gratitude but you get my point. The best thing you can do is to be grateful for what you have. Like the Bible says, eat and drink for tomorrow we are to die. And western civilisation has a lot to be grateful for when compared to the rest of the world. Instead of complaining about materialism they should be thanking their lucky stars they get to live in USA, a and of opportunity and a world of abundance. A world that may not be perfect but is pretty damn close. 

Oliver Stone's W. A glorified SNL skit.

 

I am a big fan of Oliver Stone's work. I enjoyed Alexander, JFK and Scarface. So when I decided to watch W. which is a stupid name for a movie anyway. I would have called a movie about George Bush Bushism and make it a comedy about Bush's incompetence and foibles. Anyways I love Oliver Stone so I was expecting fire works. But boy oh boy, was I disappointed. The movie is way too long for my liking. And I dont know why they had to Josh Brolin play a young Bush at college. Couldnt they find a younger man to play George Bush? It was so ridiculous to see a middle aged man act like an adolescent.  The entire movie seemed like a Saturday Night Live skit. With that said Dennis Quaid played a better George Bush than Josh Brolin in American Dreamz and Truth.

Secondly, the movie does not try to entertain. It is there to merely tick the important parts of George Bush's life. His drinking and driving, his time at Yale, his failed attempt at the oil business and there his disastrous presidency. Movies are there to entertain and it is okay to embellish and bend the truth so as to tell an exciting story. Another movie that failed to entertain and felt like a history lesson was 2012 Lincoln. Biopics that succeeded in telling a great story are ones like Apprentice. The Apprentice is there to entertain and it does so. Not by telling a dry story about Donald Trump but by being creative with the truth. Facts are not fun and giving us a detailed movie about George Bush is not fun. Oliver Stone should have made a documentary if his goal was to tell us a Wikipedia like movie about George Bush.

Thirdly, the movie makes George Bush seem like a good man who made mistakes. No! George Bush is a mass murderer no different from Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. He is the worst president in American history and he is the reason why Europe is now saddled with migrants and refugees. His unnecessary wars have left an indelible mark on the world that will haunt Europe for decades. Bush and Obama and their wars to topple Saddam and Gaddafi will ensure that migrants will continue to flood into Europe. But perhaps that was the plan. I refuse to believe that Bush was just a halfwit who was way over his head. He was a calculating and Machiavellian. And I am sure he was aware of 911 before it happened. If Oliver Stone was bold enough, he should have made a movie depicting Bush as the devil he really is.

If you are looking for a great biopic film dont watch W. Watch The Apprentice instead.

The Apprentice > W

The moral of the story.

There is a Turkish proverb that states, 'When a clown moves into a palace, he does not become a king. The palace becomes a circus.' 

President Bill Clinton turned the president's palace into a whorehouse. George Bush turned the White House into a circus with his malapropisms and media gaffes. And today it has even gotten worse with Donald Trump at the helm. But I guess the real moral of the story is that only in a democracy can a clown become the head of state. In a monarchy, a clown remains a clown. And perhaps that means that monarchies despite their failings are superior to democracies. Today, western democracies have turned into crime infested hell holes without borders. Whilst absolute monarchies like UAE, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states are safe, clean and prosperous. Kings rule thinking about the next generations whilst politicians rule whilst thinking about the next election. Kings want to pass on a stable realm to their kids whilst politicians steal as much as they can. Some of the most successful and longest running institutions in the world are monarchies like the Windsors and the Japanese imperial family. Maybe monarchies are the natural government for people. And the election of George Bush the son of a former president shows a subconscious desire for hereditary kings. If one is to have an efficient democracy one must limit the number of voters. Voters must be educated and productive citizens. Universal suffrage and allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to vote is a recipe for disaster. How can you have a prosperous state when even miscreants and reprobates have the same vote as upstanding citizens who pay their taxes? In the wrong hands the election voting box is like Pandora's box, it unleashes all manner of evil into the world while simultaneously being a vessel that contains hope for the masses.

The debate between republicans and royalists is as old as the hills. The Greeks and Romans debated and thought deeply about the issue. The British parliamentary system with a ceremonial monarch attempted to mix the two systems. In the end there is no perfect political system because man is an imperfect creature. Human folly and greed will upend even the most honourable systems. A good king can give his kingdom to a foolish prince. And an honest politician may become corrupt. In the end power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

Polybius cycle of governments known as anacyclosis illustrates how no political system is stable. A monarchy can become a tyranny, an aristocracy can devolve into an oligarchy and a democracy can turn into an anarchy. 

                                                     

 

I wrote a short story about the pitfalls of power. It is a tale like the story of George Bush, where a young and foolish man gains power and destroys his country and himself in the end. The book is called A Fool and his Crown, you can purchase it on Amazon if you want. Link is below.

https://www.amazon.com/Fool-his-Crown-Mark-Anderson-ebook/dp/B0CZ51CMS3

Mob Cops and Alto Knights : Is the Mafia genre dead?

 

It is 2025 and the latest offerings in the Mafia genre are Alto Knights and Mob Cops. The only thing the two movies have in common is that they are historical movies about the Italian mafia. Oh, and another thing they have in common is that they are both boring movies. Other than that, the two movies are in stark contrast of each other. They are polar opposites and on either side of the spectrum. Alto Knights is well funded and took 45 million dollars to make. Whilst Mob Cops is independently made and had to scramble and scrape for dimes to make the movie. You can tell Alto Knights is big budget whilst it is patently obvious Mob Cops had a shoestring budget. Secondly, Alto Knights had famous actors like De Niro and Debra Messing whilst Mob Cops had a cast of B list actors. Alto Knights was a long 2 hours long whilst Mob Cops was a short 90 minutes. But despite the differences, both movies were stale. The dialogue was perfunctory. The acting was mediocre. The pacing was snail like. The cinematography was bland. There were no unexpected plot twists and surprises. There were no characters you felt connected too and empathised with. Both movies were garbage. 

If you are looking for a great movie about corrupt cops dont watch Mob Cops. Watch Gang Related instead. It is a far better film.

Gang Related > Mob Cops

So if a mob movie nowadays is terrible whether it is big budget or independent, what is the problem with the mafia genre? Whether a mafia movie has De Niro or some random C list actor makes no difference. Has the mafia genre reached the end of its road? Are there no more cool Mafia stories to tell? Has the public grown tired of tales of the Italian mobster? Let's discuss.

For the last few years mafia genre fans have had a serving of dog shit. We had to endure Travolta's Gotti which made the HBO Gotti seem like the Godfather. Then we were tortured by the Many Saints of Newark which proved David Chase never had the makings of a Hollywood director. Then we had The Irishman which was overrated in my opinion. It was too long. How the mighty have fallen! Gone are the days when we could watch the Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, The Sopranos etc. Even the poorly funded moviews were great. I enjoyed HBO's Gotti, and Witness to the Mob, This Thing of Ours, Chicago Overcoat, Wise Guys with Danny Devito. So what went wrong?

In many ways the mafia genre mirrors the real American Mafia. American Cosa Nostra is no longer the powerful organisation that ran unions, the docks and put presidents in the White House. Today the mafia is a shadow of its former self. They dont shoot their rivals brazenly in the street. Instead they get arrested for loan sharking and illegal gambling. The great George Anastasia said it best, 'The brightest Italians are no longer joining the mafia, they are becoming educators, doctors and lawyers. The Mafia is scraping the bottom of the barrel and the shallow end of the gene pool.' Nowadays the mafia is consigned to Youtube where you see former capos, bosses and soldiers tell their stories on Youtube. The mafia in real life is dead and perhaps that means the mafia in Hollywood is dead too. There are no more stories to tell.

How many times can you make movies about the mafia from the 70s and 80s? We all know the rise and fall of Gotti. We have all read about Capone, Luciano, Gambino etc. People are tired of the same stories. The problem with mafia movies these days is that there are not made to entertain. The movies are all about ticking the boxes on Wikipedia. Instead of trying to entertain movies like Alto Knights are just trying to give a factual account of historical events. The point of a movie is firstly to entertain and then to educate. But mob movies today seem to want to educate first. If you want to reenact history then make documentaries not movies. A movie does not have to go point for point with historical events. It is okay to take creative licence and embellish a bit. The reason why Goodfellas and Donnie Brasco were good is because they weren't trying to tell history word for word. We all know Lefty Guns wasnt killed in the end but the movie portrays it so it is entertaining. We all know Henry Hill wasnt involved in the murder of Billy Batts but it makes for better entertainment. The truth is not always stranger than fiction. Sometimes the truth is more boring than fiction.

So what is the way forward for the mafia genre? Clearly there is an audience for it when you look at former mafia members on social media raking that Youtube cash. There are still great mafia stories to tell. For example Mafia Prince by Scott Burnstein could make a good movie. There could also be a good film to make about the infamous Toto Riina. I would also pay money to see the life of Sammy the Bull after he left the witness protection and began selling drugs in Arizona whilst the mafia hunted him down. Hollywood could also make a movie about the Rizzutos in Canada or the Ndrangheta in Australia. There are still many mafia stories to make. The key is to make the films entertaining first and foremost. A movie does not have to be like a Wikipedia article.

So is the mafia genre dead? No. But it is riddled with bullets and is dying in the sidewalk gutter. Perhaps it can be resuscitated by fresh ideas from talented actors, directors and screenwriters. What about the mafia genre fans who desperately want their mafia fix? They can watch old mafia movies like The Godfather and Goodfellas or go to Youtube to watch former mafiosi like Sammy the Bull, Michael Franzese and Mikey Scars talk about their former lives in the mafia.

Buy my book

I am a writer. I wrote a crime novel entitled Fishers of Men. If you are a reader and have money to spare, check out my book on Amazon. Link below.

https://www.amazon.com/Fishers-Men-Street-Secret-Societies/dp/B0CRQBNBQR

The Shield, an underrated masterpiece

 

When you talk about great crime TV shows names like The Sopranos, the Wire, Breaking Bad get brought up but you hardly hear people mention The Shield. To neglect to mention The Shield from the greatest TV shows of all time should be a punishable offence. The Shield goes on my Mount Rushmore of great TV shows along with The Sopranos, The Wire and Breaking Bad. It is by far the greatest cop show of all time. (On a side note I watched The Oz and Peakey Blinders and I thought they were overrated and not worth my time.)

The Shield like the Sopranos has the anti-hero main character, Vic Mackey, the corrupt cop who leads the Strike Team as they use coercion to solve crimes and take a share of the drugs in drug busts. The series runs for seven seasons where the Strike Team solve crimes whilst simultaneously committing crimes. The corrupt cops get themselves deeper into trouble until all hell breaks loose, the plot unravels and chaos ensues. 

Yes, the show was nominated for many awards and won a few but in my opinion the show deserves more. It was exciting from the first episode until the last. There were plenty of twists and turns and as a viewer you are perpetually at the edge of your seat, biting your fingernails in anticipation. The characters are flawed yet relatable. The dialogue is crisp, witty and humorous. The plots delve into all manner of social issues from homophobia, sexism, racism, poverty and everything else under the sun. It really is a masterful tale. My only criticism is that there was no movie after the finale. The final scene was open ended and not very conclusive. We are left wondering where did Vic Mackey head to as he left the office. 

Moral of the story

There are many lessons to be learned from The Shield. One of the first lessons is that sometimes to catch the wolf you must be the wolf. For the police to catch criminals sometimes they must employ underhanded tactics. If the cops try to be holier than thou they make their jobs much tougher. Take RICO for example. The FBI had to bend the rules to destroy the mafia and in the end it worked. Criminals should not expect to be treated with kid gloves and the full weight of the law must descend on them. Like Machiavelli wrote, it is better to be feared than loved. The police should be feared first and loved later. Thus, the Shield shows that bending the rules sometimes works magic in solving crimes. 

It is all well and good to turn a blind eye when police rough up criminals. The problem lies in who will police the police when they break the law. Can society trust that police will hold each other to account. Another lesson from The Shield is that society should be armed. A community that can protect itself from criminals is a safe community. We should not just rely on the police but the community must have neighbourhood watches and weapons to keep the bad guys on their toes. Police are humans and humans can be corrupted. A the the end of the day, society must police itself.

I admired The Shield so much I attempted to write a book that delved into social issues such as crime, poverty and police corruption. Obviously I did not do as well as The Shield but I tried my best. My book is entitled Fishers of Men : Street Gangs and Secret Societies. I attempted to created complex plotlines involving multiple characters. It is a love story between racial lines. You can check it out on Amazon if you are interested. Link below.

https://www.amazon.com/Fishers-Men-Street-Secret-Societies/dp/B0CRQBNBQR

Dial M for Murder vs A Perfect Murder

 

1952

1998

Dial M for Murder came out in 1954 and is based on the 1952 stage play by the same name written by Frederick Knott. It is about a wife who cheats on her husband and then the husband decides to have her killed by an assassin. Unfortunately for the husband but fortunately for the wife she survives the murder attempt and kills the assassin. The husband manipulates the evidence and the wife is arrested and convicted for the murder because it is believed the assassin was blackmailing her and she killed him to cover up her adultery. Just before the wife is to be executed for the murder, a detective lays a trap for the husband and it is revealed that the husband had planted the key that allowed the assassin to gain entry into the house. In the end the husband is arrested for the murder.

In 1998 A Perfect Murder was produced. It is based on Dial M for Murder. In fact there is a line in Dial M for Murder where the characters discuss whether it is possible to commit a perfect murder and to get away with it. A Perfect Murder broadens the universe of Dial M for Murder. A Perfect Murder makes the plot more complex and includes more twists and more characters. Whereas Dial M had two or three locations, A Perfect Murder has the whole of New York City as a stage. A Perfect Murder follows the same story line. A husband tries to have his cheating wife killed but the plot is foiled when the assassin is killed by the wife. The difference in A Perfect Murder is that the assassin is supposed to be the man who the wife is cheating with. But the plot twist is that the assassin is not the man who is sleeping with the wife but another man. Long story short, the husband is blackmailed but then the husband kills the man blackmailing him. In the end the wife finds out the husband tried to kill her then she kills him. 

My thoughts

My thoughts are that A Perfect Murder is a far superior story to Dial M for Murder. In my opinion A Perfect Murder is a perfect movie. However, I am in the minority. Critics and viewers adore Dial M and pour scorn on A Perfect Murder. Why? I dont know. A Perfect Murder is far more thrilling, has more twists and turns and you never know what to expect. Dial M for Murder seems very much like a play because it is based on one. And I could not understand why in Dial M for Murder the husband was carrying around a cane for. In Dial M for Murder the cheating wife's lover does not suffer the consequences of his actions but in A Perfect Murder at least the lover is killed and pays for sleeping with another man's wife. 

Who are the protagonists and antagonists in both movies? I dont think the wives can be the protagonists when they are adulterous. I dont know why but I was secretly rooting for the husbands. The cheating wives are immoral so how can they be the protagonists?

Dial M and A Perfect Murder perpetuate the idea that when a wife cheats it is never her fault. It is the fault of the husband that a wife commits adultery. It is because she was bored or unhappy, as if that is a good excuse. Sadly, the western world is in disarray because the world conforms to the whims of women. Divorce rates are sky high because of bored wives. Divorces leads to broken families which leads to dysfunctional children. The nuclear family is the foundation of civilisation. Without strong families there is no future. In a sane society, adultery would be a punishable offence. Perhaps the Muslims are right to stone adulterers. But I digress.

Lessons

The lesson of the two movies is obviously that adultery is wrong. Sleeping with a married person is wrong and there are sometimes deadly consequences for it. And if you are unhappy in a marriage, the best thing is to leave, cheating just complicates things. There is no excuse for adultery. There is no protagonist in both movies because the cheating wives are just as immoral as the murderous husbands. Hell hath no fury like a husband who has been cheated on. I totally understand why the husband wanted to kill his wife. Even though it is illegal it is completely natural for him to seek vengeance for the betrayal.

The second lesson is that secrets and lies never stay hidden. Whatever is concealed will come to light. What a tangled web we weave when we conspire to deceive. In both movies, the characters thought their sins were hidden but in the end their actions came to light. No matter how hard we try to hide our sins, lies and secrets some how some way the truth will be revealed.

The third lesson is that if you want something done, do it yourself. Perhaps if the husband had tried to kill his wife himself he would have gotten away with it. 

         

 

         

               

The Omen 1976 vs 2006

1976

2006

                                                               

One of my all time favourite horror films is The Omen 1976 together with The Others. I thought The Omen was masterfully written, well acted and didnt waste time. I watched the Exorcist and Nightmare of Elm Street and  I was bored out of my mind. Unlike The Omen, The Exorcist relies on shock, awe and disgusting vomit inducing scenes. The Omen does not need spinning heads and vomiting demon possessed kids to arouse fear. It just relies on the telling a narrative in such a way that the viewer feels terrified. The black dog in The Omen gave me chills.

30 years after the iconic movie came out they did a remake. To compare The Omen 1976 to the The Omen 2006 is like comparing a cat to a lion. One is ferocious, roars and makes you tremble. The other is a pussy cat. Both are felines but one is far superior to the other. The Omen 2006 copies everything from 1976 but somehow it misses a step. The quality of the camera in 1976 does not help matters because that grainy feel of 1976 adds to the fear inducing element of the film. The actors of 2006 werent that great except for the nanny who nails her part. You have to wonder what was the point of remaking a movie and then creating a far inferior product. Some things should just be left alone. Classics like The Omen should remain untouched. 

Further thoughts on The Anti-Christ

We first hear of an Anti-Christ figure in the book of Daniel which makes reference to Antiochus Epiphanes IV as the 'little horn' who causes "an abomination of desolation". Films like The Omen illustrate how influential the Bible is. The genius of the Bible is that is has so many layers and multiple meanings. It really is a timeless classic and as a writer I am in awe of the authors of the Bible. The ambiguous nature of apocalyptic books like Daniel and the Book of Revelation makes it resonate with the reader. The verses can mean whatever you what it to mean. Thousands of years after the verses were written, people still draw meaning from the Holy Book. Generations continue to interpret and misinterpret Bible verses as they try to predict the future and the "end of days".

The Bible really shows how the adage the pen is mightier than the sword is. The authors of the Bible were very aware of how powerful the written word is. Ideas are mightier than spears. You can kill a man but you cannot kill an idea. Take the Jewish nation of Israel as an example. The Hellenists fought tooth and nail to destroy Judaism and failed. Why? Because they were fighting an idea with the spear. The Maccabees were inspired by their Holy Texts and would not give up fighting even on pain of death. And in the end the pen of the Bible authors triumphed over the Greek spear. Then we move onto the Romans and the Jews who battled for decades until the second Temple was destroyed. But still the Jews persisted in their belief because you cannot kill an idea. Judaism continued to be practiced even without the temple and even after the Jews did not have a homeland. For 2000 years the idea of Zionism persisted because it had been written down and spoken. Speaking words will manifest destiny. And in 1948 the idea of Zionism triumphed.

The Omen is a movie about the Anti-Christ and that got me thinking again about the battle between the pen and the sword. The first so called Anti-Christ was Nero. He burnt Christians alive and fed them to lions but that was fruitless because you cannot kill an idea. Persecution only made the Christians stronger in their beliefs. Many Anti-Christs came after Nero. Domitian, Decius, Valerian and finally Diocletian tried in vain to stamp out Christianity but they all failed because they relied on force to neutralise Christianity. Finally, when Constantine converted, Christianity prevailed. The conquered conquered the conqueror and Rome fell to the pen of the New Testament authors. The pen of Christianity was mightier than all the swords in Rome. And the pen proved mightier than the sword in keeping Rome a powerful city and the centre of western Europe. Centuries after Rome had fallen in 476 Rome continued to cast its shadow over western Europe. Kings and armies trembled at the feet of Catholic Popes. Truly George RR Martin was right to have Varys say that power lies where men believe it lies. 

In the east Christianity was the glue that held the Byzantine Eastern Roman empire together for 1000 years. However, one more Anti-Christ came and was more successful in destroying Christianity. The most dangerous anti-Christ of all time was Mohammed. Not because he came with a sword but because he also came with a book. You cannot kill an idea with a sword but you can neutralise an idea with another idea. And so Mohammed came with Islam and the Koran. Armed with his pen and sacred book he eradicated Christianity and Zoroastrianism from the Middle East and North Africa. Islam spread like wild fire from Europe to Indonesia and held the Ottoman empire together for centuries. And finally Islam was triumphant over Constantinople, the greatest city in Christendom. The pen of the Koran was mightier than the pen of Christianity. 

However, Islam did not completely destroy Christianity and Hinduism precisely because an idea cannot be killed. It makes me think what would have happened in the pagans, Druids, Vikings etc had written down their ideas with Runes and created their own sacred texts. Would paganism have persisted? Today we see a resurgence in pagan belief because ideas are eternal.

Back to the battle between Christianity and Islam. Islam has not given up its 1400 war against Christendom. Mohammed is still the most dangerous Anti-Christ off all time. Today many capitals of the Christian world have thousands of mosques and the Islamic call to prayer shrieks out over Europe. Christians all over the world are being persecuted by Muslims. The problem with Christianity today is that it has splintered into numerous factions and denominations. You have Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists etc. During the middle ages most Europeans were all Catholics and were united in their fight against Islam. Moreover today Christianity is a dying religion in the west. Christianity has now become commercialised. It was destroyed by atheism, science, feminism, liberalism and humanism. The question is will liberalism be able to stop the march of Islam? For now it seems like liberalism is assisting Islam in its conquest of the West. If western civilisation does not wake up soon the Anti-Christ will not be a white man with blue eyes and a black suit. The Anti-Christ will be an Arabic man with a beard and a kufi.

Othello 1995 vs 2001

                        1995                                                                                             2001

                                                                       

           

Othello is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. I remember fondly memorising the lines "making the beast with two backs" and "circumcised dog". Iago was and still is one of the worst villains to ever be written down and Othello is the noble savage undone by his passions. I had never had the chance to watch Shakespeare on a stage so I had to make do with watching Othello on tv so I did. 

I first watched the 1995 adaptation of the play with Lawrence Fishbourne. It is very faithful to the source material and does not stray too much from the play. I thought it was okay although hearing medieval English is not as enjoyable as reading it for some reason.  The movie was okay. 

However the 2001 version starring Eammon Walker was far superior in my opinion. The writers of the latter version did a very good job of inserting the story of Othello into a modern setting. The Iago of the 2001 version is way more cunning and devious. He is almost likeable. The villain of the modern version has a more logical reason for plotting Othello's downfall. The Iago of Shakespeare's play hates Othello because either because he is simply evil, racism or latent homosexuality. The Othello of the play seems too gullible it is almost unrealistic whilst the modern version is a more complex character. And the ending of the modern version is bittersweet and unexpected. I wish they would have continued with the story and made a sequel to the 2001 Othello. 

The great thing about the 2001 Othello is that it is free to watch on Youtube.

Final verdict. The Othello 2001 is way better than the 1995 adaptation in my opinion. And I know it is an unpopular opinion. Maybe I am too much of a Philistine to appreciate Shakespeare's Othello in its purest form. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. I enjoyed the 2001 version much more and will watch it over and over again. 

Further thoughts.

The black male white female pairing has always been controversial. It seems even during Shakespeare's time the idea of a black male being romantic with a white female was tendentious. Since the days of Othello there have been numerous incidents of black males murdering their white girlfriends and wives. The story of OJ Simpson and Nicole comes to mind.

OJ and Nicole the modern Othello and Desdemona 

The black man's lust for white women, the white woman's curiosity of the black man's sexual prowess and the white man's fear of the black man's violent sexual urges are issues as old as the hills. The Bible talks about Aaron and Miriam's displeasure of Moses marrying a black woman. There is truly nothing new under the sun. In my opinion every race has the right to protect their women from foreigners. It is perfectly natural to want to keep "your" women within the confines of the tribe and nation. To approve of foreigners taking your women is the height of cuckoldry. And Muslim men making it unlawful for non-Muslims to wed Muslim women is the right thing to do. 

Today white women who "betray their race" and date blacks and browns are called mud sharks or coal burners and when they are raped and killed they are said to have paid the toll. Memes like this are abound on social media.

On the other hand television shows and adverts bombard white women with race mixing images designed to lead them astray. Who is behind the push for race-mixing? Is it a plot to destroy the white race?

So what is the lesson behind the play Othello? Is it a warning against race mixing? Yes. There is no other way to decipher the play. It is a cautionary tale about the perils of dating the outsider. A caveat that many white women like Nicole Brown ignore and pay the ultimate price for their lust.

The Girl with the Dragon tattoo 2009 vs 2011

 

2009                                                    2011

I had heard about the movie The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and had never bothered to watch it. Back in the 2000s I was a good for nothing drunk who had no time for movies. Now that I have more time on my hands I took time to watch it to see what was all the fuss about. I first watched the 2011 film with Daniel Craig. The film drags for almost an hour without anything interesting happening. There is no hook that gets you into the film. Only when the girl with dragon tattoo gets sodomised then gets her revenge did the movie begin to interest me. From that moment the story becomes exciting and there are many twists until the duo find out what happened to the missing girl. It was a good movie, a bit long but not too bad. My favourite line from the movie is, 'People should trust their instincts....people fear offending more than they fear pain.' That line is so true and explains the dire straights that the West finds itself in. Whites fear offending people and being called racist rather than having hostile migrants in their country.

Then I watched the first movie from 2009 and it is exactly the same as the 2011 one. There are minor differences like the missing girl was a baby sitter for Mikhail and the girl with the dragon tattoo visiting her mother and it justifies why she burnt the father. The two movies are almost identical and I wonder what was the point of remaking the movie.

My verdict is a draw. The two adaptations of the book are equally good and equal.

Further thoughts.

After watching the films I thought they were okay but a bit overrated. On further reflection it is self-evident that the movies were made to besmirch the white male. Like most movies and books made today, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo seeks to demonise white men and also throw Nazis under the bus for good measure. The book the movies is based on was also title Men Who Hate Women. Almost every white man in the film is depicted as a rapist, a thief, an adulterer, a Nazi, a money launderer, incestuous, a murderer etc. Was the movie a psyop to program anti-white hate? Was it the Jews promoting hatred for white men? I looked a bit into the author's background and it does not appear he was Jewish. Perhaps he was a self-hating European. Either way, the books and the movies are politically motivated to instill self hatred in white men. To enjoy the movies and books is to drink from a poisoned chalice.