I have been inspired these last few days by the resolve of the Ukrainian people and the courage it takes to defy the advance of Vladimir Putin’s war machine. It also terrifies me to contemplate the horror awaiting them. Putin has made them heroes. That should never have been their fate.
War is hell. It will be hell for the Ukrainian people. It will be hell for the Russians who wage it. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin will orchestrate this hell while ensconced within the walls of the Kremlin. While I’m going to spend this article writing about the potential geopolitical implications of this conflict, please remember in war it is individuals who die and suffer and bear the trauma of so much suffering and death for years afterwards. That makes this war not a tragedy but rather a deluge of tragedies that should only be measured and remembered drop by drop.
I must say I am surprised Putin invaded Ukraine. I’m not surprised in the sense that I somehow missed him telegraphing his intentions to do so—when you surround a country with a massive invasion force, there’s a real possibility that country’s going to get invaded—but I had assumed Putin preferred more…oh, how do I put this…nuanced ways to project power beyond Russia’s borders. Maybe his interventions in Syria (which turned the tide of that civil war in favor of Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad) and more recently in Kazakhstan don’t exactly fit that pattern, but in both of those cases he had the opportunity geopolitically to act boldly. When more constrained by Russia’s ties to the broader international community, he seemed to prefer attempts at destabilization and meddling, as evident in Georgia, previously in Ukraine when he annexed Crimea and lent military support to separatists in the eastern Ukrainian region of the Donbas, and in western Europe and the United States during those nations’ elections. The point it seemed for Putin was either to assert his relevance in the affairs of these states so that they knew they would need to account for his preferences or to sow enough discord within Russia’s geopolitical adversaries that they would be weakened by internal strife. For that reason, I assumed Putin would have chosen to maybe occupy the Donbas, jab into the borderlands of Ukraine, or wipe out Ukrainian military installations, something that would have effectively made Ukraine kneel before Vlad. That’s not what’s happening, though; Putin is going for all of Ukraine.
There are many who will argue the United States and NATO triggered Russia by expanding eastward after the fall of the Soviet Union and encroaching on Russia’s borders, making conflict inevitable. Others will blame Ukraine for seeking to align itself with the West rather than pursuing a sort of Finland-style neutrality. Regardless, it is exceedingly difficult in my mind for the world’s largest nation, sixth-largest military (with the world’s largest nuclear deterrent), ninth-most populous country, and eleventh-largest national economy to justify a full-on military assault against a neighboring nation open to diplomatic negotiations over matters of security. Beyond the ridiculous pretenses Putin has put forth for this war, I understand Russia’s anxiety surrounding Ukraine, but the response is abominable.
I don’t know how this crisis is going to end and I worry I’d look like a fool trying to predict from within the fog of war what will happen in the next month or year or decade or more. Maybe the Ukrainian resistance will prove more formidable than expected and this will all blow up in Putin’s face, pushing him from power and initiating an era of reform in Russia. Maybe this is the beginning of Cold War II and a new era of tension between nuclear-armed powers. Or maybe we’re witnessing the dawn of an autocratic age and the demise of the liberal world order. Hope and/or doom, right? But let’s explore some possibilities, beginning in Ukraine and moving on to Russia, Europe, and the United States.
What will happen in Ukraine after Russia conquers it? Ukraine’s military is formidable but it is no match for the Russian army. Even if Ukraine puts up a good fight, it is likely Russia will ultimately overwhelm them. But then what? At least at the outset, Russia will need to occupy the country. If a Ukrainian resistance is not cowed or snuffed out (it’s likely Russia has already infiltrated prospective resistance networks) an occupation could prove costly in terms of Russian casualties. Some pundits are already saying Putin is getting himself bogged down in Ukraine the same way the Soviets got bogged down in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
My guess is Russia would prefer to establish a puppet government in Kyiv drawn from the separatists in eastern Ukraine and then turn domestic security over to separatist forces to minimize Russian losses. I have no idea, though, if the separatists will have the manpower necessary to subjugate the whole of Ukraine, a nation that has undertaken two democratic revolutions over the past twenty years and seems to have the resolve to mount a third. Maybe anti-Russian sentiment is so strong right now in Ukraine that Putin will find himself in a conflagration he can’t control. But I also have no idea if a prospective resistance would have the resources necessary to sustain itself or the means to acquire additional weaponry. (If those weapons entered by land, they would need to be smuggled across borders Ukraine shares with countries affiliated with NATO. Russia would undoubtedly want those trafficking routes closed, which risks escalating the conflict far beyond Ukraine’s borders.) If a formidable resistance emerged, however, I wouldn’t put it past Putin at all to quash any uprisings or resistance cells a la Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 and establish a Stasi-like police state in Ukraine. Given the choice between allowing a resistance to fester in Ukraine that hampers his rule at home or crushing it, I’m guessing Putin picks the latter. The outcome would be awful.
How will all this play back in Russia? This is the wild card. Numerous reports indicate Russians are shocked Putin actually followed through on his threats and unleashed this level of violence on Ukraine, a neighbor with many ties to Russia that Russians regard as a sister nation. A lot of Russians—particularly those who believe maintaining good relations with the West is crucial to Russia’s future prosperity—are likely wondering if invading a country that was not going to be joining NATO in the foreseeable future to keep it from joining NATO is worth becoming a pariah to the West, the economic stress Russians are likely to experience, and the loss of life. I wonder, too, if ordinary Russians--whatever their views on the conflict in the Donbas, the Ukrainian government’s increasingly westward orientation, NATO’s creep eastward, and America’s global ambitions—believe it is prudent to invade a sovereign neighbor when Russia already possesses a mighty deterrent that allows them to defend themselves against and coexist with NATO.
It’s possible Russians will rally around the war effort and boost Putin’s popularity, but it’s hard to get a read on just how popular the leader is in Russia. When Putin goes on state television throwing patently false justifications for an ill-advised war at the wall to see what sticks (Putin has claimed he wants to “de-Nazify” Ukraine, end the reign of Ukrainian “drug addicts,” and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons) it becomes that much harder for Russians to regard him as a trusted leader. His recent appearances have not revealed the calm and collected leader Russians are accustomed to seeing. Additionally, while Russia has a powerful domestic propaganda system, it isn’t as though Russians are cut off from reports originating in Ukraine. Against the backdrop of a slaughter in Ukraine, Putin may end up revealing his true colors to the Russian people, and the image he’s crafted for himself as a stable and strategic modern-day czar could crumble.
Of course, Western media is going to highlight dissent, and it is hard to gauge where public opinion stands at the moment, but hundreds (maybe thousands) of Russians have been arrested in the past few days for participating in protests, some prominent media figures have voiced their opposition to the war, and the tone of Russian social media appears to be one of dismay. Over the past decade, Putin has clamped down on dissent and detained and even assassinated political opponents, so these public expressions of disapproval are somewhat extraordinary. Additionally, it isn’t clear how much support there is within the Kremlin for this invasion. What if anti-war sentiment within Russia grows and Putin is forced to deal with political unrest at home? It may turn out the most important opposition to the war will emerge on Russian soil.
What’s going to happen to NATO? There’s a bit of a paradox here: Putin felt threatened by NATO but also felt NATO had grown weak enough over the past 5-10 years that he could get away with invading Ukraine. Actually, he probably did the geopolitical calculations and concluded NATO was about as weak as it was going to get so he seized the opportunity to claim dominion over Ukraine before NATO felt emboldened to do so itself in the future.
If Putin had hoped an invasion of Ukraine would weaken NATO, though, that hasn’t happened, at least in the early days of this crisis. If anything, NATO (and the EU for that matter) seems strengthened and unified. While Ukraine is a member of neither, Russia’s invasion has appeared to reinforce the significance of the European project and its commitment to peace and cooperation on the continent. Russia’s actions have both shaken Europe and highlighted its achievements. As for a coordinated response, nations now seem to be racing one another to punish Russia, from imposing sanctions to restricting airspace for Russian flights. It’s even looking more and more likely that Russia will get kicked out of the SWIFT banking system. The biggest question mark as far as European unity was concerned had been Germany, which is heavily reliant on Russian natural gas, but it responded to Russia’s attack by stopping the certification process for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would transport directly from Russia over 50% of the natural gas Germany consumes each year. (Germany has also now lifted its prohibition on the shipment of weapons to Ukraine.) Russia still supplies Europe with a lot of fossil fuel so there remains a lot of energy politics to play itself out here over the coming months, but at least in the short term, Europe seems prepared to shoulder some economic pain and hardship as a way to punish Russia.
Another thing you’ll see discussed over the coming months (and years) is the wisdom of NATO expansion. It’s basically a chicken-and-egg question: Did Russia invade Ukraine because it felt threatened by an expanding NATO? Or did NATO expand because it felt threatened by Russia? Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the mutual defense alliance has expanded eastward, beginning with three former Warsaw Pact countries in 1999 and eventually admitting a trio of former Soviet Baltic republics (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) in 2004. This has understandably unnerved Russia, which now borders NATO and likely wonders why an organization designed to counter a now non-existent nation keeps creeping closer and closer to Moscow. After this week, the Baltics and the old Warsaw Pact countries likely feel vindicated and relieved to know the militaries of western Europe have their back should their former overlords in Russia try to reclaim them, as they feared Russia someday would.
And while some in the West are relieved to know there is a clear tripwire running through Europe that a rationally-minded Putin wouldn’t dare to cross, there are others in the West who are terrified to know there is a clear tripwire running through Europe that an emboldened Putin might dare to cross. If Putin’s armies did cross that line—maybe to reclaim lost territory in the Baltics or to create a land corridor to the oblast of Kaliningrad or to cut off weapons being funneled to Ukrainian resistance fighters through Romania or Poland—there may be a question about how eager the United States would be to come to their rescue. Is the United States willing to start World War III for the sake of Lithuania or Romania? If it isn’t, which countries in NATO is it willing to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over, and how would Russia know which countries those are? Are these questions Vladimir Putin or the leaders of NATO’s member states really want asked and answered?
I suspect NATO’s kneejerk reaction will be to move troops to its eastern nations while screaming at the top of its lungs “WE ARE STOPPING AT THE BORDER VLAD!” (I’ve got bets on bad Churchill cosplayer Boris Johnson uttering the words “iron curtain” sometime before Biden’s upcoming State of the Union address.) But I’m also guessing the U.S. would really prefer not to have American troops patrolling NATO’s border with Russia, which would likely coincide with an eastern European desire to boost their own homegrown defenses, leading to military buildups in any country (including Germany) that used to be a member of the Warsaw Pact. They may not even need to pay for their tanks and planes and missiles; we may just give it to them so long as we don’t have to man the front lines. Might be time to buy some Lockheed Martin and Raytheon stock…
What sort of effect will this have on domestic politics? I’m keeping an eye on a handful of countries in Europe. In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz has been on the job for less than three months after taking over for Angela Merkel, who had served as the German head of government for sixteen years. That means at the moment the continent’s center of power is being led by an administration that is still learning where the light switches are. Finland and Sweden are members of the EU but not of NATO. There are rumblings they want in now; Russia made it a point this week to warn them not to apply. The Czech Republic and Hungary are ruled by pro-Russian governments with anti-democratic inclinations, but both have condemned Putin in strong terms. It will be interesting to see if those nation’s citizens (and Poland’s as well) demand a reversal of their nations’ slide toward Putin-style autocracy.
In the United Kingdom (whose lax financial regulations have made it a haven for Russian oligarchs) Prime Minister Boris Johnson has spent most of the new year embroiled in a scandal involving his office’s repeated violations of COVID protocols. His own Conservative Party appeared close to ditching him. That’s somewhat on the backburner, now, and Johnson may use the current crisis to regain his standing with British voters. Johnson is also the face of Brexit, however, which may be a problem for him since a.) Unverified sources claim Russian agents promoted Brexit through social media posts in order to sow discord in the U.K. and weaken the EU, and b.) Distancing Britain further from the EU at a time when many on the continent are calling for greater unity may end up being out of step with public sentiment. Finally, French President Emmanuel Macron will face voters again in roughly two months’ time with polls indicating his likely challenger will come from a far-right party. With Putin emerging as a major threat to European security, will support in France for right-wing candidates with autocratic tendencies collapse? The election will be an interesting test.
In fact, one of the major developments to follow in this crisis is how the far-right politicians and parties that have emerged in the West over the past couple decades fare now that the autocratic, anti-democratic Vladimir Putin is flexing his might in Europe. One might guess voters would prefer empowering saber-rattling right-wing strongmen to counter Putin, but I’m not so sure, particularly since so many of those strongmen are either on the record as sympathetic to Putin or associated in some way with Putin’s political preferences. That may not have mattered much to voters in the past, but now it may be a political liability.
Which brings us to the United States, where one very prominent national politician has been playing footsie with the Russian autocrat for quite a few years now. Trump was the intended beneficiary of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election (his campaign welcomed the hacking, and at one point Trump himself even encouraged Russia to interfere more in the election) and while the Mueller investigation did not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump’s campaign at least entertained the prospect of working together. At a summit with Putin in Helsinki in 2018, Trump publicly rejected U.S. intelligence reports that had concluded Russia had meddled in the election and instead said he took Putin at his word when he said Russia did not interfere. During an Oval Office meeting in 2017, Trump shared highly classified intelligence about ISIS with Russian officials. That same year, he broached the idea of creating a cyber security unit with Russia to counter election hacking. Trump never hid his disdain for NATO and appeared ready to withdraw from the alliance if he had won a second term. After news outlets reported Russia had offered the Taliban bounties for killing American soldiers in Afghanistan, Trump called the story a hoax (despite having received intelligence briefings about it) and never confronted Putin about it during conversations with him. Trump has never concealed his admiration of Putin as a “strong leader,” a better leader for his country than past American leaders were for the U.S. despite Putin’s poor human rights record, and at one time even praised Putin for “outsmarting” America. Finally, after Putin invaded Ukraine this past week, Trump described him as a “genius,” a “peacemaker,” and “smart” for invading “a great piece of land with a lot of people” for no more than “two dollars’ worth of sanctions.”
There are some who will argue Trump’s cordial relationship with Putin is really an attempt to ease tensions between Russia and the West by acknowledging and accommodating Russia’s grievances. And it can be argued the West does indeed shoulder some responsibility for the current crisis by poking the Russian bear a few too many times. Fair enough. But I don’t believe Trump’s intellect operates at that level of sophistication. In Trump’s mind, someone is either strong or weak, and I think Trump admires Putin because Putin is a strongman who shares his contempt for democracy’s checks and balances as well as his preference for power politics. Whereas Putin sees the EU and NATO as geopolitical rivals that need to be weakened through division, Trump regards the United States’ alliance with Europe as a hindrance that keeps the U.S. from flexing its own might on the world stage. (Trump also has a weird financial and cultural fascination with Russia, which may stem from his longing as a real estate developer for easy cash with few strings attached.)
So maybe put it this way: It’s one thing to argue nations should step gingerly around a dictator, but it’s a whole other thing to sympathize with, express admiration for, and long to emulate a dictator, particularly after that dictator has decided to use military power to subjugate a neighbor’s fledgling democracy. (That goes for you, too, Tucker Carlson.)
Democrats need to make Trump own his infatuation with Vladimir Putin. Connecting Trump to Putin’s actions in Ukraine may finally wake Americans up to the threat Trump poses to democracy here at home. In particular, Democrats need to encourage Americans to reject the sort of strongman politics Trump promotes as a replacement for democracy. Hopefully, Republicans will…oh what am I thinking, they’ll just pretend there’s nothing to see here and continue their own dangerous flirtation with the former president.
How will the American people respond? Given our current levels of polarization, Biden won’t benefit from a rally around the flag moment, but the crisis may lift his approval ratings slightly (and maybe take the heat off him a bit when it comes to inflation as Putin is assigned responsibility for rising gas prices.) While I would hope the events in Ukraine would prompt Americans to reflect on the dangers posed by autocrats, a recent poll indicated most Americans think Trump would have kept Putin from invading Russia. That claim seems like a delusion to me. Had Trump been “strong” enough to send troops to defend Ukraine, we could very well be at war with Russia right now; meanwhile if Putin had not invaded, it would have been because Putin felt he had Trump in his pocket, and even then Putin may have decided to gobble up Ukraine because Trump (with his disdain for NATO) wouldn’t have cared. Anyway, maybe it’s too soon for Americans to really know what they think about Ukraine. I would hope as this episode unfolds that it becomes a clarifying moment domestically for American politics and that Trump’s cozy relationship with Putin becomes a political liability for the former president.
These are dangerous times. Countries are rushing weapons that can be used to kill Russians into Ukraine. Turkey is considering closing down the Bosporus to Russian warships. Every day a new set of economic sanctions is imposed on Russia; inevitably that’s going to squeeze both the Russian people and western economies. Hackers are launching attacks against Russian information systems, and Biden is considering his cyber warfare options. Any of those actions could prompt Russia to lash out beyond its borders with devastating consequences. (The world has no idea just how damaging a full-on cyberwar with Russia could be. It would be as revolutionary as the introduction of automatic weapons or aircraft to warfare.)
And meanwhile, China is watching three geopolitical rivals—the US, the EU, and Russia—moving ever closer to initiating a new cold war with one another. That means those countries will be expending a lot of resources in Europe rather than East Asia. China may be the lone superpower standing by the time this is all over. And they have to be thinking about what all this means for their plan to reclaim Taiwan.
Events are unfolding quickly in the world today. Leaders may be trying to follow crisis scripts, but they’re going to need to make many decisions on the fly. A split-second decision could reverberate for decades. Let’s pray wise people are at the helm.
Signals and Noise
How can you not read Thomas Friedman this week? Check out “This is Putin’s War. But America and NATO are Not Innocent Bystanders” and “We Have Never Been Here Before”. From that last article: “Russia is in the process of forcibly taking over a free country with a population of 44 million people, which is a little less than one-third the size of Russia’s population. And the majority of these Ukrainians have been struggling to be part of the democratic, free-market West for 30 years and have already forged myriad trade, cultural and internet ties to European Union companies, institutions and media.
We know that Putin has vastly improved Russia’s armed forces, adding everything from hypersonic missile capabilities to advanced cyberwarfare tools. He has the firepower to bring Ukraine to heel. But in this modern era we have never seen an unfree country, Russia, try to rewrite the rules of the international system and take over a free country that is as big as Ukraine — especially when the unfree country, Russia, has an economy that is smaller than that of Texas.
Then think about this: Thanks to rapid globalization, the E.U. is already Ukraine’s biggest trading partner — not Russia. In 2012, Russia was the destination for 25.7 percent of Ukrainian exports, compared with 24.9 percent going to the E.U. Just six years later, after Russia’s brutal seizure of Crimea and support of separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine and Ukraine’s forging of closer ties with the E.U. economically and politically, “Russia’s share of Ukrainian exports had fallen to only 7.7 percent, while the E.U.’s share shot up to 42.6 percent,” according to a recent analysis published by Bruegel.org.
If Putin doesn’t untangle those ties, Ukraine will continue drifting into the arms of the West — and if he does untangle them, he will strangle Ukraine’s economy. And if the E.U. boycotts a Russia-controlled Ukraine, Putin will have to use Russia’s money to keep Ukraine’s economy afloat….
And who knows how [Poland will react], particularly as it gets overrun by Ukrainian refugees. I particularly mention Poland because it is Russia’s key land bridge to Germany and the rest of Western Europe. As strategist Edward Luttwak pointed out on Twitter, if Poland just halts truck and rail traffic from Russia to Germany, “as it should,” it would create immediate havoc for Russia’s economy, because the alternative routes are complicated and need to go through a now very dangerous Ukraine.
Anyone up for an anti-Putin trucker strike to prevent Russian goods going to and through Western Europe by way of Poland? Watch that space. Some super-empowered Polish citizens with a few roadblocks, pickups and smartphones could choke Russia’s whole economy in this wired world.”
For perspective: “Russia Speaks Total Lies. That Doesn’t Diminish America’s Half-Truths” by Peter Beinart.
You want to know what the problem is? This is what the problem is. Republican Arizona Governor Doug Ducey told reporters this week he does not regret spending $500,000 to help elect a Republican with ties to white supremacists to the Arizona legislature because “she’s still better than her [Democratic] opponent.” Here’s your headline, folks: DUCEY FORMS ALLIANCE WITH WHITE SUPREMACIST. Here’s another one: DUCEY GIVES $500,000 TO WHITE SUPREMACIST.
In more news about Republicans getting cozy with white supremacists, here’s a story about how Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke this week at a white nationalist conference organized by a loser who attended both the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville and the Capitol riot. FYI: Greene’s endorsement is the most sought-after endorsement after Trump’s by House Republicans running in competitive primaries. Here’s your headline: MOST POPULAR HOUSE REPUBLICAN IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST. Byline: HOUSE GOP REFUSES TO KICK HER OUT OF CONFERENCE BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF LOSING THE NEO-NAZI VOTE.
Impact Research did some polling and have some advice for Democrats: Because the country is tired of the pandemic, Democrats should declare victory over COVID. Wait! I have a template for Biden to follow. The announcement should look something like this:
I don’t know, do you think the banner’s too much?
Remember last week when I wondered how much it would hurt if Mike Lindell dropped one of his pillows on you from 1,000 feet in the air? We apparently have the answer for that. It would be like getting run over by Usain Bolt jogging at half-speed, so, maybe like getting run over by me ten years ago? I think I was still pretty fast ten years ago.
Vincent’s Picks: Nightmare Alley
Circuses and carnivals are not unique to the United States but they seem to resonate with many aspects of American culture. There’s a democratic spirit to them, both in how they are an affordable entertainment for the masses and a home for weirdos, outcasts, and uniquely talented individuals. At the same time, there’s often a current of cruelty running through them, as patrons are encouraged to gawk, laugh, or scream at the freaks on display. That cruelty is sometimes reflected in the way the circus’s performers are treated by the show’s manager, who may have a sense their employees don’t have better career opportunities beyond the ones offered within the circus’s gates. The circus is also a spectacle full of oddities and tricks. A visitor is just as likely to be awestruck by a performance as they are to be disappointed, but if they are let down, they’re often reminded it’s their fault for expecting more. As the greatest showman P.T. Barnum once reportedly said, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” by which I suspect he meant a circus will either fool someone into believing what the circus is selling is either real or worth their money or that a ringmaster can make a small fortune by tricking people into wanting to visit the circus in the first place.
Mexican director Guillermo del Toro’s latest film Nightmare Alley, currently streaming on Hulu and nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, is a neo-noir set for much of its first half at a carnival. That is where Stan Carlisle (Bradley Cooper) ends up working after we first meet him dumping a body beneath the floorboards of a house that he then sets on fire. It kind of suggests Stan may not be the most morally scrupulous of men.
Stan soon begins to learn the ways of the carnival. Clem (Willem Dafoe) runs a “geek show” in which a caged man bites the head off a live chicken and drinks its blood. Clem explains to Stan that he recruits his geeks from homeless alcoholics by offering them opium-laced whiskey. After the man performs the act a few times by decapitating the bird with a razor, Clem then threatens to take their supply of the drug away from them unless they actually bite into the chicken’s neck with their teeth. It’s exploitative, but to Clem it’s just an example of how little it takes to convince someone to debase themselves in order to win the adulation of others. Stan also learns the methods of the clairvoyant Madame Zeena (Toni Collette) and her husband Pete (David Strathairn) who use codes and cold reading to read the minds of carnival-goers. It’s a powerful trick, as their marks are often astonished by their ability to discover personal details of their lives (although they warn Stan never to lead a mark to believe he can speak to the dead.)
Eventually Stan and fellow performer Molly (Rooney Mara) decide to strike out on their own. They soon end up performing as mentalists in Buffalo for the city’s wealthy inhabitants. At one show, Stan is challenged by Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett, in full femme fatale mode) a psychologist who sees through his act. When Stan proves his skills to her, she invites him to meet with her. She recognizes both his scam and his talent and proposes they work together to defraud her wealthy clients (she knows all their deepest, darkest secrets, after all.) It’s an offer too good for Stan to pass up. The only problem is Dr. Ritter may know even more about the way the human mind works than Stan does.
Nightmare Alley is based on a 1946 novel by William Lindsay Gresham that was then adapted for the screen in 1947 for a film starring Tyrone Powell. (You can watch it here on YouTube.) Both are regarded as lost classics. I have neither read nor seen the originals, but del Toro’s movie effectively channels the spirit of 1940s noir films. Del Toro’s love of classic horror films makes its presence felt here not in the way he goes for scares (although there are a couple of those) but in the way he lets the movie’s mood, cinematography, and production design get under the viewer’s skin. The result isn’t simply a modern-day homage to classic film noir but instead a film that taps into the psychological dread pulsating through the genre’s most memorable works. (It’s also a beautiful film to watch. As an admirer of horror films, del Toro would rather give the viewer the time to look at the scary things on screen than quick-cut to and away from them. He has the same patience here when it comes to establishing the film’s noir-ish atmosphere.)
A major theme of Nightmare Alley is that of manipulation. That’s essentially the skill Stan learns at the carnival and the skill he puts to use during dinner performances for the industrial titans of Buffalo. It’s how he runs his scams and makes a living. We learn what year the film is set when a character reports a master manipulator has invaded Poland. It’s asides like that that lead us to connect the film’s themes to political con artists and media celebrities.
We also worry, though, that del Toro is manipulating us, that there are secrets to the film that are unknown to both the main characters and ourselves as viewers. A film this moody about con artists must come with twists, right? Or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe we know full well what we’re getting into. As one character says, “You don’t fool people. They fool themselves.” Do we really go to the circus to be surprised, to learn that someone really can read our mind, or to confirm the existence of the geek with our own two eyes? Or do we actually want to share our deepest secrets with the world and watch someone savagely bite the head off a chicken? If that’s the case, aren’t we just manipulating ourselves? We know the circus is a scam, but we go anyway. Stan, as someone who works in the circus, should know that better than anyone. Yet he can’t help himself.
Released theatrically on the same day and subsequently overshadowed by the most-recent Spider-Man movie, Nightmare Alley could have easily passed unnoticed by most people had it not received a nomination for Best Picture for this year’s upcoming Academy Awards. Del Toro (whose directorial credits include Hellboy, Oscar winner Pan’s Labyrinth, and Best Picture winner The Shape of Water) helped his film’s case by releasing a black-and-white version of the film to theaters a few weeks after its debut. Given its debt to film noir, that may be the best way to view this movie. In the meantime, if you have Hulu, make sure you take the opportunity to watch the full-color version from the comfort of your living room.
Exit music: “High Fidelity” by Elvis Costello and the Attractions (1980, Get Happy!!)