Throughout “The Monk and the Gun,” there are many references to Western culture, specifically emphasizing its insertion into a country that, for many years, remained relatively isolated from the influences of Western traditions due to their geography, making foreign visitors difficult, and less of a presence of modern technology as a result. This commentary is most prevalent in the movie through the gun motif. When Tashi is asked to acquire a gun by his lama, the movie suggests that it will be used for a violent purpose. However, later in the film, Director Dorji contrasts the audience’s expectations, as the gun is used in the film’s climax during a ceremony of peace and embracing change. The weapon is buried deep into the ground. In several instances, the film emphasizes the monk’s innocence toward the capacity for violence of the weapon he is holding. Being unexposed to the impacts of mass weaponry, such as the assault weapon he acquires, the monk serves as commentary for what Bhutan once was before Western influences started to become more widely circulated. 

This theme of isolation is present in much of the film. The Bhutanese people are portrayed as an isolated nation where even the presence of a television is seen as a symbol of wealth. As the director points out during an interview, at the time that the film is set in, Bhutan was “the last country in the world to allow television, the last country in the world to allow internet.” Therefore, the film emphasizes a transitional period where Bhutan was becoming more open and interactive with the broader international community. This evolution is emphasized in several aspects of the movie’s mise-en-scene, such as a scene depicting an action movie playing in a convenience store. The movie introduces how Western influences began integrating into the nation. 

While “The Monk and the Gun” tells a simpler narrative, the film’s rich historical context speaks of Bhutan’s democratization. Dorji notes that this is a film about a loss of innocence, with Bhutanese audiences “crying because they related to that period in [their]history when [they]tried to become modern and [they]were losing their innocence.” 

The story of how Bhutan transitioned to democracy is incredibly unique, demonstrated in “The Monk and the Gun” through the mock election plot, which serves as a backdrop to the film’s events. The king who ruled during the early 2000s in Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, was very popular. When he decided to abdicate the throne shortly before Bhutan’s first democratic election for prime minister, citizens were devastated. In interviews, one citizen described being “shell-shocked and cry[ing]when [they]heard the news of [their]king deciding to step down.” Others, “unable to come to terms with the news, joined hundreds of Buddhist monks to hold prayers.” However, the King insisted that the world was changing, arguing that “the king becomes the leader only by accident of birth and not by merit or virtue, and that the future of a country in the hands of such a person is not in the long-term interest of the country.” Unlike many other nations, there was no revolution in hopes of establishing a democracy, instead, the monarchy decided on its own to transition the nation into a Constitutional democracy. 

This shocking transition is reflected in “The Monk and the Gun” in several scenes, including a moment near the beginning of the film in which it is noted that voting registration rates for the mock election are very low. However, as the film progresses, registration rates sharply rise as the country acclimates to its new system of government. The mock election specifically references a true mock election that the country of Bhutan held in which over 125,000 citizens showed up to vote. At the time of Bhutan’s democratization, other South Asian countries trying to transition to a democratic system were facing government destabilization with coup-d’etats taking place throughout the early 2000s, such as Thailand in 2006. Because of this, many Bhutanese were content to keep the stable monarchy they already had. 

The unique circumstances in Bhutan involved a monarch voluntarily relinquishing control against the people’s wishes. The king decided to establish a new system based on what he saw as the newfound culture of the 21st century. Because of this decision, Western culture started flowing into a previously unintroduced country to outside influences. Since democratization, several reforms were made, such as decreasing the rate of extreme poverty and increasing focus on healthcare, education and infrastructure within the country. However, “The Monk and the Gun” reminds the public that this came at the expense of a loss of isolated culture as Western democratic traditions and technologies are now largely incorporated in the country. Today, Bhutan is proportionally one of the most technologically connected nations which has perpetuated systematic disadvantages to some groups. For example, the new age of internet in Bhutan has disadvantaged women who often left school earlier on than boys and thus have less of a technological education. 

Given the reactions of Bhutanese audiences to “The Monk and the Gun,” it is clear that while the country looks different today as more power is given to the citizens, nostalgia for the past remains.

The post The Negative Side of Western Exposure: The Democratization of Bhutan appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The Hong Kong film industry has changed. In its golden age, the region was synonymous with diverse, unique filmmaking and marked the rise of numerous auteurs. But how does Hong Kong film look today after years of shifting markets, competition, and even culture? Here podcast host, Ethan Huang, discusses these topics. Listen to learn more.

The post The State of the Modern Hong Kong Film Industry appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

With little to no films produced or translated into languages beyond those with economic dominance, minority and indigenous languages have minimal presence in modern domains of entertainment and/or communication. This dynamic only further accelerates language loss and linguistic supremacy; however, a recent production of The Lion King offers hope for the future of minority languages in modern media.

Since its premiere in June 1994, The Lion King has become the highest-grossing animated film, the best-selling movie on DVD and has been translated into over 45 languages. The newest of which is te reo Māori — the indigenous language of Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Throughout the 1980s, usage of te reo was almost exclusively limited to toponyms, and it remained very contentious throughout society as highlighted by the “Kia Ora” Controversy. During this infamous interaction, telephone operator Naida Glavish greeted callers with “kia ora” instead of “hello” only to subsequently be demoted. In response, and in fear of the language’s disappearance, the Māori community mobilized and advocated for the implementation of the 1987 Māori Language Act.

This legislation and subsequent community efforts reversed the trajectory of te reo. In under 50 years since obtaining its official status, Māori has transitioned from near extinction to the big screen, making the release of The Lion King an indicator of a drastic societal shift. It symbolizes not only the astronomical progress made in terms of language equality but also the advancements achieved in creating a more equitable society for all. 

Recently, te reo Māori has gained a growing presence in TV, radio and social media, but its implementation into films remains extremely limited. Driving this exclusion, is the fact that “[t]he global motion picture industry is dominated by seven companies that account for about 90 percent of box office receipts.” 

With limited industry diversity, and minority language speakers being “by their very nature unrewarding audiences for the media,” there exists little to no incentive for large companies to produce films in a wide range of languages. Therefore, the translation of a world-renowned Disney film into an indigenous language spoken by less than 200,000 is both groundbreaking and may suggest that a new era of inclusivity in terms of representation and accessibility is approaching. 

Working in tandem with Māori-owned Matewa Media, The Lion King remake centered indigenous voices. Disney Senior Vice President Kylie Watson-Wheeler noted: “The Lion King Reo Māori helps to broaden the accessibility, inclusiveness and diversity of The Walt Disney Company’s storytelling for a new generation.” Beyond adding to the films created in te reo, the film’s production demonstrates to people of all linguistic, ethnic, and economic backgrounds that they have a place in society.

Producing and releasing this movie in Aotearoa was not met without contempt, in part due to the fact that over 90% of the population speaks English, and the Pākehā (European) population dominates both political and professional spheres. Despite the opposition, the film premiered in June and was released in both Aotearoa and Australia. It continues to be shown in theaters, and its success was followed by the release of Frozen Reo Māori in late October of 2022. 

With growing numbers of indigenous-language films released, a cultural revolution is underway, as “minority language media serve[s]as a defensive tool, balancing the impact of the language(s) that dominate the media landscape.” Across the world, translators and filmmakers have slowly begun to take on the challenge of producing films in indigenous and endangered languages. 

In 2013, the 90-minute film Sooyii was filmed entirely in Blackfoot, a language with less than 50 fluent speakers. Similarly, in 2018, SGaaqaay K’uuna or Edge of the Knife, was produced in Haida, an indigenous Canadian language spoken by less than 20 fluently. Both of these films have subsequently inspired community members to invest in their own language-learning process, helping to preserve the language. 

Scenes and full-length versions of Star Wars: A New Hope have also been produced into languages including Quechua and Navajo to add to the media available for youth in the respective tongues, as well as promote reconciliation for the impact of past exploitation. 

The oppression of Indigenous and minority populations and their languages has long been upheld through the powerful media industry which perpetuates dangerous imperialistic dynamics. As of late, slow efforts at diversifying the content produced have begun. By responding to the inequalities faced by these communities, the media industry has started to positively contribute to the revitalization of te reo and other languages. 

Moreover, as a smashing success, The Lion King in Māori shows that the inclusion of diverse minority languages in media is no longer an ideal, but a plausible reality for the near future. It is important to remember, however, that this progress is only possible with the continued support from language media corporations such as Disney, as well as the continued engagement by the public at large. 

The post “The Lion King” in Te Reo Māori: A New Era of Minority Languages in Media appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Prime Minister: “Humphrey, are you saying that Britain should not support law and justice?”

Cabinet Secretary: “No, of course we should, Prime Minister. We just shouldn’t let it affect our foreign policy.”

Prime Minister: “We should always fight for the weak against the strong!”

Cabinet Secretary: “Well, then why don’t we send troops to Afghanistan to fight the Russians?”

The Prime Minister paused, trying to make a rebuttal. A mixture of fear and worry flashed across his face. Then he gave up. 

Prime Minister: “The Russians are too strong.”

If you haven’t heard of this exchange in history, that’s because it never happened. This scene is from the long-time celebrated British political sitcom, “Yes, Prime Minister,” which aired in 1986 and became one of the UK’s most popular shows at the time. 

Although it has been almost 40 years since it first aired, many of the ideas in “Yes, Prime Minister” remain relevant to contemporary political challenges. For instance, the preceding scene about the UK’s concern about Russia’s power illustrates the UK and Europe’s attitude toward the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict. In fact, the Ukrainian president accused NATO countries of being too afraid of the Russians to directly intervene in the war. 

The similarity between the show and real-life illustrates the unchanging core — and drama — of international politics. Noticing these reflections, the public has started to rehash interest in the show and wonder what makes Yes, Prime Minister” so timely and accurate today.

“Yes, Prime Minister” tells the story of Jim Hacker, the minister of the fictitious Ministry of Administrative Affairs who later becomes the Prime Minister of Britain. Like many politicians, Jim Hacker cares deeply about the longevity of his political life, his party’s approval ratings and his chances of reelection. Hacker also makes an effort to push forward a series of social and governmental reforms such as tax cuts and reduced military spending to increase his approval ratings. Even though some of these measures would benefit the public, Hacker always finds himself obstructed by Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Cabinet Secretary of the British government. 

Cabinet Secretary is the most senior role for a civil servant and serves as an advisor to the Prime Minister. Sir Humphrey represents long-standing British political traditions. Parties come and go, and governments get elected and voted out but only the civil service remains the same, ensuring that the country has persistent and stable policies. Although the civil service intends to keep the steering wheel in their hands, Hacker wants to introduce new, innovative policies. The show highlights the clashes of perspectives and values between Hacker and Sir Humphrey, reflecting the conflicting reality of changing British politics and traditional British political values. 

For example, Hacker and Sir Humprehy had different perspectives when discussing Britain’s role in Europe:

Hacker: Does the Foreign Office realize what damage this will do to the European ideal? Surely, the Foreign Office is pro-Europe, isn’t it?

Sir Humphrey: Yes and no, if you forgive the expression. The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it is really anti-Europe… Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that case, we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well?

Though this episode aired in the 1980s, these ideas remain evergreen..  Audiences of the show today have recognized that this exchange highlights existing tension between Britain and the EU, especially in light of Brexit.  The EU is the world’s largest attempt at shared sovereignty, transnational cooperation and multilateralism, but Britain pursued its divergent economic, political and values-based interests when it broke the EU’s shared bond and exited in 2020. 

Sir Humphrey can be seen as a fictitious model of the ideal British civil servant. As he once said, “I have served eleven governments in the past thirty years.” In contrast, Hacker’s character is portrayed as rather crude, inexperienced and one that fumbles the ball at every political turn. While Hacker believes his position as Prime Minister gives him the right to reshape the country. Yet, Sir Humphrey has his own understanding of how to run the government and is reluctant to accept Hacker’s idealism. 

The show is especially notable because throughout its run, the plot continued to originate from real political events. Screenwriters Johnathan Lynn and Sir Anthony Jay used government officials as show advisors and interviewed them for plot ideas. According to the Irish Times, though some of the scenes seem exaggerated, they are more authentic than the public may realize.

Through sharp observations and thorough analysis, Lynn and Jay made “Yes, Prime Minister” a classic for anyone who wants a casual and entertaining glimpse into British politics. The Kafkaesque bureaucracy portrayed by the show demonstrates the complex, disorienting and oft-ironic of nature of UK politics. 

For example, the shows use often demonstrates the messy nature of how politicians often deal with the press:

Hacker: If you have nothing to say, say nothing. Better still have something to say, and say it no matter what they ask. Pay no attention to the question, just make your own statement. Then, if they ask the question again, what you say is that’s not the question or I think the real question is… and you make another statement of your own.

Though laughable, Hacker’s description truthfully reflected the at-times dodgy nature of political statements. And it’s not far off from what the public may hear politicians say today. 

The show was undoubtedly controversial, but it certainly had many positive effects on British society. The show uncovered the mysterious veil of the British Civil Service and helped the public better understand how this massive “national machine” works to maintain the daily functions of the country. Essentially, the show was used as a tool of education, in addition to entertainment. 

Moreover, the show revealed how bureaucrats and experienced politicians tend to resist policy changes that threaten the status quo. However, as Jay mentioned in an interview with CNN, he believed that the show’s highlighting on the Civil Service’s power demonstrates how politicians continue to give excuses when they fail to carry out their promises. 

Today, 40 years since it first aired, Yes, Prime Minister continues to amaze audiences new and old. In recent years, the show regained public attention by foreshadowing Brexit, as well as the British government’s criticized response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In an episode,  Sir Humphrey and his colleague, Sir Richard Wharton, provided a “4-stages response” to  political crises:

Sir Richard: “In stage one, we say nothing is going to happen.”

Sir Humphrey: “Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.”

Sir Richard: “In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.”

Sir Humphrey: “Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it’s too late now.”

When people on Twitter pointed out the similarity between the 4-stage response and Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s COVID-19 response, the show became a talking point once more.

From 1980 to 2022, “Yes, Prime Minister” has endured the test of time and proved its accurate portrayal of British politics. Without a doubt, it will continue to remain a hallmark in British entertainment. Beyond remaining a well-liked political satire, the show will continue to educate, inform and delight audiences for years to come.

The post “Yes, Prime Minister” Stays Relevant in 2022 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.