issue 18// vol 47 The new war on terror » What more could power need? Matthew Fraser Opinions Editor F2 has begun to dominate the political realm. Politics are no longer seen as awrestling match between ideas and compromises. Instead, politics are seen as a battlefield wherein sides must fight mercilessly for what they believe to be the only right answer. As fear rallies the troops around a common cause, it makes the other side look all the eviler, all the more deadly, all the more detestable. Politicians now frame their speeches in the ways that best tickles the fear receptors of those who follow them; one side will be told to fight to take the country back, while the other is told these images are not America. But both sides agree to add more to the state’s power while sharpening the blades of oppression, to be used (they hope) against the other. With that, America crawls slowly but seemingly surely towards its second War on Terror. After the tragedy of 9/1, Americans were gripped by a terror that hitherto was unfathomable save for movies. Suddenly, the everyday citizen could not be less sure of their safety; be it the unpredictability of the attack or the horrifying destruction that it wrought, the very fibres that bound people together where shaken. When the government commissions recommended the Patriot Act it was met by resounding applause despite the trepidation of the ACLU Russell Feingold. Why? Because when fear is plenty, the loss of any freedom seems a fair cost for safety. Despite the warnings of the liberty minded, the Patriot Act was adopted, and the civil liberties long treasured in word by the American patriot were flushed away. Now, almost 20 years later, America creeps towards a new concession of freedom. Soon after the January 6 insurrection, security advisors like John Brennan began to announce the “laser like fashion” with which the incoming Biden administration would be focusing on Trump’s insurrectionists. And what a prime time to act, with roughly 54 percent of Americans thinking the biggest threat to their way of life is other people in America, the price tag on state security is only a freedom or two. When the promise is to infiltrate and disrupt white supremacist groups, surely, we have nothing to fear. At least that’s what’s said by all who forgot that COINTELPRO was founded to stop the Black Panther party and that the FBI once desperately tried to encourage Martin Luther King’s suicide. Some would have you believe that the state would never use its powers to oppress anyone but the few that they hate, yet are completely unaware of how thoroughly the Patriot Act has been used to survey for drugs over terrorists. Even more have forgotten that in 2017, numerous Republicans sought laws to ban Black Lives Matter protests from occurring. Somehow people have forgotten that the government— and those who ogle its might—will always use new powers to crush its favorite targets, regardless of its original promise. Luckily, as the ACLU once did when it stood against the Patriot Act, a small, vocal group of politicians have stood up to protest these proposed expansions to the security state. Rashida Tlaib authored and signed a letter (with support from other progressives) outlining many of the egregious misuses of power that have been propagated by the American government while denouncing calls for more power. A short time thereafter, former Democratic congressperson and Presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard spoke out against these surveillance increases. Yet, despite the name recognition and followings of those who signed on, the fear that has propelled the American people through the rictuses of last year may be too powerful for the cautions of history to correct. Political commentator Krystal Ball recently opined opinions // no. 19 Illustration by Udeshi Seneviratne that when the state of fear is so high, the only place to go is towards authoritarianism. As the mainstream media agrees with these censorships, I for one believe she is correct. It seems that far too many people believe that the powers of government given today will evaporate or be put away tomorrow. It seems the lesson of Trump (that leadership you like is not predictable and certainly not guaranteed) has fled the minds of liberals just as fast Biden walked through the White House doors. It should be stranger to see how history will soon repeat itself. This should come as more of a surprise and the masses should be more upset, but then again as many a radical feared, the liberals who once cursed state power went back to brunch the second that Trump walked away. Should action movies like ‘Run Hide Fight’ tackle social issues 1n a specific way? > It’s hard to understand the criticisms when similar movies like ‘Die Hard’ are still legendary Luana Ross Contributor Ihe term most commonly used by critics to describe the film Run Hide Fight is “tasteless.” Examples include “poor-taste experiment,” “fundamentally tasteless,” and finally, “grotesque tastelessness.” There is a stark difference in the opinions of the critics and the opinions of the audience on this film, however; on metacritic, the film received exclusively negative reviews from the six professional critics while the cumulative review of 440 users was overwhelmingly positive. The same trend between the critics and the audience can be seen on Rotten Tomatoes; the 12 professional critics gave the movie 25 percent while the 2,361 user ratings awarded the film 93 percent. IMDb user Matthew Brink, in his review named “Metacritic LOL,” states this: “When critics try to flush it and it makes you want to see it even more. attempted social censorship by cool shaming is so passé. total green light.” Clearly there is some controversy surrounding this film, as the subject matter is school shootings. The IMDb description of the movie is “17-year-old Zoe Hull uses her wits, survival skills, and compassion to fight for her life, and those of her fellow classmates, against a group of live-streaming school shooters.” The film is often described as Die Hard in a school—and this description has been used as both a positive and a negative for the movie. Run Hide Fight is the center for much controversy—especially from critics—but why? Comparing the film to Die Hard for example, a film that has easily reached the status of cultural icon, the movies both similarly deal with real- life issues that are associated to a lot of heartbreak. Die Hard deals with terrorists holding hostages in an office building; Run Hide Fight deals with school shooters (terrorists) holding hostages in a school. Both films are celebrated for being great thrillers that take the viewer through a rollercoaster of emotions. So, why does Die Hard have 94 percent from 77 critics on Rotten Tomatoes? The common gripes critics have against Run Hide include that it is shallow and it “makes no attempt to grapple” school shootings smartly—but I see no similar issue with Die Hard despite the fact that same criticism could easily be made. Die Hard kills terrorists in a comical fashion all the way throughout the movie, but there are no criticisms that Die Hard should have grappled the complex ethical and moral questions that come with killing people in a better way. I don’t Promotional image for 'Run Hide Fight' think it is a movie's obligation to tackle topics in a specific way. Movies, and all art, should be created for whatever reason the creator wants—whether it be to excite the audience, to make the audience laugh, or to make the audience think. Movies—and all art—have no obligation to approach topics as others believe they should. Many also criticize the film for having an agenda—but don’t most action movies have the same “save the day and be an American hero” agenda? Why is Run Hide Fight being singled out? I completely understand that many don’t like the action genre but Run Hide Fight is simply a part of an old and classic genre that is already established in its tropes. Even Taken, which deals with child sex trafficking, has not met such harsh criticisms. Culture and movie critics seem to understand the cheesy (and sometimes insensitive) tropes that come with action movies and should extend the same understanding to Run Hide Fight. Films are often made with the main intention of entertaining the audience in mind; Run Hide Fight should not be obligated to “grapple” with the issues brought up in the film. Since we don't intend to hold the millions of actions movies we already idolize in culture to the same standard, why should Run Hide Fight be judged differently?