newyorker--2020-08-14--As Newsrooms Close Across the Country, Remembering Why They Matter

Mortimer Matz , a New York press agent who turned ninety-six this summer , is one of the few people who remember what it was like to work at the Daily News in its glory days .
Matz started at the News as a copyboy in 1949 .
When the photo assignment editor was called up to fight in Korea , Matz was promoted to take his place .
Back then , the newspaper occupied several floors in an Art Deco skyscraper on East Forty-second Street .
A bas-relief carving in the building ’ s granite street wall depicts a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ He Made So Many of Them.
” The quote is attributed to Lincoln , who allegedly said , “ God must love common people—he made so many of them , ” although , like not a few stories in the paper , the sentiment was more important than the facts .
In 1950 , the paper ’ s circulation was more than two million on weekdays and more than four million on Sundays .
The News had two airplanes and a fleet of “ radio cars ” that were constantly roaming the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reporters .
Matz sat beside other editors at the city desk , a long table lined with telephones and cluttered with papers .
Behind them were clattering ticker machines for the wire services—the Associated Press and United Press—which churned out a steady ribbon of news copy .
Matz ’ s job was to dispatch photographers to scenes of crime , disaster , and sporting events .
In July , 1956 , when the Italian ocean liner S.S. Andrea Doria sank , off the coast of Nantucket , taking fifty-one lives with it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forty-eight hours , directing a score of photographers who flew to the island in one of the newspaper ’ s airplanes .
“ We would ’ ve sent both planes , but one of the pilots was sick , ” he said .
Even on a normal day , with no big stories breaking , the room filled with a haze of cigarette smoke and the sounds of people punching typewriter keys and shouting into telephones .
“ The place crackled , ” Matz said .
“ The whole atmosphere—it was crowded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quieter these days , thanks to computers and vastly shrunken staffs .
When I went to work at the News in 1988 , the only evidence of the planes was a nice watercolor of one aircraft that hung on the newsroom wall , along with other mementos from the old days .
The only people using typewriters were the “ inquiring photographer , ” who turned out a daily column of person-in-the-street interviews and photos , and the librarians , who typed names and headlines on thick manila sleeves that held the clippings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” a vast forest of file cabinets holding the paper ’ s archives .
The News has moved twice since then , first to a cavernous and soulless office building on West Thirty-third Street and Tenth Avenue , and then , in 2010 , to Four New York Plaza , in lower Manhattan near the Battery .
When COVID-19 struck this spring , the News , like so many businesses , allowed its staff to work remotely .
This week , the News ’ owner , Tribune Publishing , announced that , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years to come , ” it has decided to close the News office permanently , “ as we evaluate our space needs.
” The announcement that the Daily News will no longer have a newsroom came as a double whammy for many veterans of the paper , who are still mourning the death of Pete Hamill , the legendary writer and columnist who was briefly the editor of the paper , in 1997 , and who died on August 5th .
Newsrooms , of course , are at bottom a workplace , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are organized and carried out .
But at the Daily News and many other publications , “ the newsroom was really this sort of joyous place , filled with oddballs and brilliant people , ” said JoAnne Wasserman , who joined the staff as a reporter in 1986 and was laid off in 2013 , amid one of many rounds of staff reductions .
“ You ’ d have these conversations on the fly with colleagues about an idea , ” she said , “ and the idea would grow into a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the expressions on people ’ s faces.
” Eavesdropping on conversations and interviews also aided the learning curve .
“ You ’ d listen to people talking to cops and sources ; it was how you learned , ” she said .
“ I feel bad for young reporters who have to work solitary .
I learned so much from watching and listening.
” There is much concern that closing the newsroom is a preliminary step in shutting the paper itself .
But the News has survived tough scrapes before .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the death of then owner Robert Maxwell , a British publishing magnate ( and the father of Ghislaine Maxwell ) , who either jumped or fell from his yacht off the coast of the Canary Islands , leaving behind a mountain of debt .
At the News , a few of us , led by the veteran political reporter Frank Lombardi , paid to produce hundreds of campaign-style buttons reading “ Daily News : Too Tough to Die.
” When Bill Clinton , then running for President , came by the newsroom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Lombardi pinned one on the delighted candidate ’ s lapel .
The Cardinal John O ’ Connor got one as well when he visited .
When John Gotti was on trial in a Brooklyn federal court , the crime reporters Gene Mustain and Jerry Capeci offered one to Gotti ’ s brother , Peter .
He promptly pinned it to his shirt .
“ Too tough to die , ” Peter said .
“ I like that .
”

Mortimer Matz, a New York press agent who turned ninety-six this summer, is one of the few people who remember what it was like to work at the Daily News in its glory days. Matz started at the News as a copyboy in 1949. When the photo assignment editor was called up to fight in Korea, Matz was promoted to take his place. Back then, the newspaper occupied several floors in an Art Deco skyscraper on East Forty-second Street. A bas-relief carving in the building’s granite street wall depicts a crowd of New Yorkers beneath the words “He Made So Many of Them.” The quote is attributed to Lincoln, who allegedly said, “God must love common people—he made so many of them,” although, like not a few stories in the paper, the sentiment was more important than the facts.
In 1950, the paper’s circulation was more than two million on weekdays and more than four million on Sundays. The News had two airplanes and a fleet of “radio cars” that were constantly roaming the streets of the city, ferrying photographers and reporters. Matz sat beside other editors at the city desk, a long table lined with telephones and cluttered with papers. Behind them were clattering ticker machines for the wire services—the Associated Press and United Press—which churned out a steady ribbon of news copy. Matz’s job was to dispatch photographers to scenes of crime, disaster, and sporting events. In July, 1956, when the Italian ocean liner S.S. Andrea Doria sank, off the coast of Nantucket, taking fifty-one lives with it, Matz stayed at his slot for forty-eight hours, directing a score of photographers who flew to the island in one of the newspaper’s airplanes. “We would’ve sent both planes, but one of the pilots was sick,” he said.
Even on a normal day, with no big stories breaking, the room filled with a haze of cigarette smoke and the sounds of people punching typewriter keys and shouting into telephones. “The place crackled,” Matz said. “The whole atmosphere—it was crowded, excited, and noisy.”
Newsrooms are quieter these days, thanks to computers and vastly shrunken staffs. When I went to work at the News in 1988, the only evidence of the planes was a nice watercolor of one aircraft that hung on the newsroom wall, along with other mementos from the old days. The only people using typewriters were the “inquiring photographer,” who turned out a daily column of person-in-the-street interviews and photos, and the librarians, who typed names and headlines on thick manila sleeves that held the clippings filed away in the “morgue,” a vast forest of file cabinets holding the paper’s archives.
The News has moved twice since then, first to a cavernous and soulless office building on West Thirty-third Street and Tenth Avenue, and then, in 2010, to Four New York Plaza, in lower Manhattan near the Battery. When COVID-19 struck this spring, the News, like so many businesses, allowed its staff to work remotely. This week, the News’ owner, Tribune Publishing, announced that, although it intends to continue publishing “for years to come,” it has decided to close the News office permanently, “as we evaluate our space needs.” The announcement that the Daily News will no longer have a newsroom came as a double whammy for many veterans of the paper, who are still mourning the death of Pete Hamill, the legendary writer and columnist who was briefly the editor of the paper, in 1997, and who died on August 5th.
Newsrooms, of course, are at bottom a workplace, a central location where tasks of the day are organized and carried out. But at the Daily News and many other publications, “the newsroom was really this sort of joyous place, filled with oddballs and brilliant people,” said JoAnne Wasserman, who joined the staff as a reporter in 1986 and was laid off in 2013, amid one of many rounds of staff reductions. “You’d have these conversations on the fly with colleagues about an idea,” she said, “and the idea would grow into a great story. You’d get to see the expressions on people’s faces.”
Eavesdropping on conversations and interviews also aided the learning curve. “You’d listen to people talking to cops and sources; it was how you learned,” she said. “I feel bad for young reporters who have to work solitary. I learned so much from watching and listening.”
There is much concern that closing the newsroom is a preliminary step in shutting the paper itself. But the News has survived tough scrapes before. In 1992, the paper filed for bankruptcy after the death of then owner Robert Maxwell, a British publishing magnate (and the father of Ghislaine Maxwell), who either jumped or fell from his yacht off the coast of the Canary Islands, leaving behind a mountain of debt. At the News, a few of us, led by the veteran political reporter Frank Lombardi, paid to produce hundreds of campaign-style buttons reading “Daily News: Too Tough to Die.” When Bill Clinton, then running for President, came by the newsroom for an interview with the editorial board, Lombardi pinned one on the delighted candidate’s lapel. The Cardinal John O’Connor got one as well when he visited. When John Gotti was on trial in a Brooklyn federal court, the crime reporters Gene Mustain and Jerry Capeci offered one to Gotti’s brother, Peter. He promptly pinned it to his shirt. “Too tough to die,” Peter said. “I like that.”


newyorker--2020-08-14--A Former White Nationalist Goes on the Record, and a Classic Villain Gets an Origin Story

How does a progressive young person go down the rabbit hole of the alt-right to embrace an ideology of hate @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t a racist—she had once canvassed for Barack Obama , after all—but soon @ @ @ @ @ Evropa she found herself rubbing shoulders with the neo-Nazi organizer Richard Spencer and chanting “ @ @ @ @ @ left the group , she contacted the reporter Andrew Marantz to tell her story .
@ @ @ @ @ about her role as star of the new Netflix series “ Ratched , ” which @ @ @ @ @ the great antihero Nurse Ratched , from Ken Kesey ’ s “ One Flew Over @ @ @ @ @ ” The actor takes on the origin story of Nurse Ratched , from “ One @ @ @ @ @ s Nest.
” Samantha ’ s Journey into the Alt-Right , and Back How did @ @ @ @ @ for Obama to carrying a tiki torch in Charlottesville ?
A former white nationalist explains @ @ @ @ @ and out , of the movement .

Illustration by Golden Cosmos
How does a progressive young person go down the rabbit hole of the alt-right to embrace an ideology of hate? Samantha insists that she wasn’t a racist—she had once canvassed for Barack Obama, after all—but soon after joining the organization Identity Evropa she found herself rubbing shoulders with the neo-Nazi organizer Richard Spencer and chanting “Sieg heil.” When she left the group, she contacted the reporter Andrew Marantz to tell her story. Plus, Sarah Paulson talks about her role as star of the new Netflix series “Ratched,” which imagines the origin story of the great antihero Nurse Ratched, from Ken Kesey’s “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”
Sarah Paulson, the Star of Netflix’s “Ratched”
The actor takes on the origin story of Nurse Ratched, from “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”
Samantha’s Journey into the Alt-Right, and Back
How did one woman go from canvassing for Obama to carrying a tiki torch in Charlottesville? A former white nationalist explains how she got in, and out, of the movement.


newyorker--2020-08-14--Kamala Harris and the Future of the Democratic Party

On Tuesday , Joe Biden announced his running mate : the senator from California and former Presidential candidate Kamala Harris @ @ @ @ @ of a potential Biden-Harris ticket going back to the spring .
But the choice cemented @ @ @ @ @ an architect of the future of the Democratic Party .
Dana Goodyear joins Eric Lach @ @ @ @ @ s political past and what she ’ ll bring to the Presidential ticket .

Download a transcript.
Photograph by Demetrius Freeman / NYT / Redux
On Tuesday, Joe Biden announced his running mate: the senator from California and former Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. There had been talk of a potential Biden-Harris ticket going back to the spring. But the choice cemented Harris’s place as an architect of the future of the Democratic Party. Dana Goodyear joins Eric Lach to discuss Kamala Harris’s political past and what she’ll bring to the Presidential ticket.


newyorker--2020-08-14--What’s Happening to All the CARES Act Money?

On Friday , August 7th , the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission , which monitors the use of the Coronavirus Aid , Relief , and Economic Security ( CARES ) Act bailout funds , held its first public hearing .
The meeting was intended to help answer a pressing question that has emerged during the months since the act was passed : amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression , why is so much of the money that Congress has allocated to rescue the economy going unused ?
The two-trillion-dollar CARES Act , which was passed by Congress in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended to help companies survive the shutdowns that were implemented in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
The programs were broken down by company size : the Paycheck Protection Program makes loans available to the smallest businesses , and a set of corporate lending programs is aimed at the biggest companies .
In addition , an initiative called the Main Street Lending Program targets companies in between : ones that have between five hundred and ten thousand employees , and thus aren ’ t so large that they can issue bonds or otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
These programs also come with different conditions attached .
Companies taking P.P.P .
money are strongly incentivized to use the funds to pay their employees , while midsize companies must agree not to engage in stock buybacks or use government funds to increase executive compensation .
In the case of large corporations , though , Congress and the Trump Administration did not obligate the companies to use the money to retain workers and placed almost no restrictions on what they do with it .
One of the most vocal members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser to Senator Elizabeth Warren named Bharat Ramamurti , believes that this is granting big companies far more trust than they deserve .
The Main Street Lending Program remains one of the least-discussed programs in the bailout , yet it is aimed at an important sector of the economy that represents millions of jobs .
Congress and the Treasury Department pledged seventy-five billion dollars to the Federal Reserve to administer it ; the Fed , by borrowing or creating more money , could potentially use that sum to give out six hundred billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies are a significant source of jobs , employing an estimated forty-five million people around the U.S .
Yet , four months after it was created , the fund of the Main Street Lending Program has barely been touched , even as tens of thousands of businesses have closed and millions of workers have been let go .
“ Even if things pick up a little bit , it seems very unlikely that we are going to get close to the capacity of this funding facility , ” Ramamurti told me .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be used , it seems to me that Congress could repurpose it for some other better use.
” The Main Street program was the focus of the hearing on August 7th .
It included Ramamurti and the three other members of the Oversight Commission who have been appointed : two Republicans , the Pennsylvania senator Pat Toomey and the Arkansas representative French Hill ; and another Democrat , the Florida congresswoman Donna Shalala .
( The House Speaker , House Minority Leader , Senate Majority Leader , and Senate Minority Leader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commission still lacks a chairperson , who must be jointly chosen by Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell . )
Some of the members came to the Capitol Building , in Washington , while others beamed in from their homes .
Ramamurti ’ s goal for the hearing seemed to be to convey a sense that the Main Street Lending Program is failing , and that those billions of dollars should be deployed in some other way that directly benefits the people who are suffering the most .
During his opening statement , Ramamurti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today is to figure out why the program has failed and how to fix it quickly , ” he said .
“ Before more Americans lose their jobs and more good businesses have to shut their doors.
” Ramamurti believes that part of the reason midsize companies are going out of business while there are vast reserves of untapped government money available is because the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve have made it unappealing for many companies in financial distress to take the aid .
“ In my view , they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is eligible to get money , and on what terms , but more restrictive on what the companies can do with the money afterward , ” he told me .
One of the witnesses at the hearing was Gwen Mills , the secretary-treasurer of Unite Here , a union representing more than three hundred thousand workers , including bellhops , casino workers , waiters , and cooks .
She said that the majority of the union ’ s members are Black and Latino , that a majority are women , and that eighty-five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
She felt that , even if low-interest loans were offered to casino and hotel companies , her members wouldn ’ t benefit ; instead , they need access to health insurance and “ direct support , ” or money to pay their bills until their jobs return .
When Ramamurti asked her if she was aware of a single job that the Main Street program had saved , she said no .
Meanwhile , talks between Republicans and Democrats in Congress over a follow-up to the CARES Act have completely fallen apart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis , Democrats are advocating sending money directly to people who need it , trusting that they know how best to spend it ; Republicans , in contrast , are trying to minimize the government ’ s role and are hoping to encourage markets to take on the work instead .
Under the extreme circumstances created by the pandemic , though , the challenges that the economy faces seem well beyond what even a well-functioning market could rectify .
Approximately 1.8 million jobs were added to the economy in July , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the number of people who have been out of work for an extended period has risen to 6.5 million , the highest number recorded .
One of the major sticking points between the two parties over a new rescue bill centers on how much , if any , extra unemployment insurance should be offered to out-of-work Americans .
Democrats argue that the government should continue sending weekly federal payments of six hundred dollars to those without jobs .
Republicans argue that the payments are discouraging people from going back to work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits people are receiving are more than what they were previously earning .
( President Trump announced an executive order to extend unemployment benefits , though Democrats and others have called it inadequate . )
“ If you asked different members of Congress what the goal of these economic-relief efforts was , you ’ d hear twenty different answers , ” Ramamurti told me .
“ Was it to keep people employed ?
Was it to make sure good businesses didn ’ t go under ?
Was it to sustain people if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have is sort of a mishmash of all of those .
And I think it has led in part to an awkward , and in many cases ineffective , response.
” As the picture has worsened , the stock market has continued to rise , which seems to have given some in Congress a false sense of comfort .
It ’ s another reminder that , even as President Trump and others in Washington like to cite the stock market as a sign of economic strength , it does not reflect the economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that when the initial CARES Act was passed , in March , the stock market was crashing , which created a sense of urgency .
“ I think that sharpens the minds of Republicans in a way that even thirty million unemployed people seeing their incomes go down six hundred dollars a week doesn ’ t , ” he said .
“ The only reason the economy hasn ’ t totally fallen off a cliff is because of the fiscal support in the CARES Act for unemployed people and for lower-income folks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this next package , it ’ s going to be a total nightmare , ” Ramamurti said .
“ Millions of people are going to be evicted or lose their homes , there ’ ll be millions of job losses , and that ’ s the sort of economic downturn that will take a very long time to recover from .
And I think , at a certain point , the stock market is going to catch on to that and that ’ s going to go down , too.
“

On Friday, August 7th, the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission, which monitors the use of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act bailout funds, held its first public hearing. The meeting was intended to help answer a pressing question that has emerged during the months since the act was passed: amid the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, why is so much of the money that Congress has allocated to rescue the economy going unused?
The two-trillion-dollar CARES Act, which was passed by Congress in March, contained a number of programs intended to help companies survive the shutdowns that were implemented in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The programs were broken down by company size: the Paycheck Protection Program makes loans available to the smallest businesses, and a set of corporate lending programs is aimed at the biggest companies. In addition, an initiative called the Main Street Lending Program targets companies in between: ones that have between five hundred and ten thousand employees, and thus aren’t so large that they can issue bonds or otherwise access capital to carry them through the pandemic. These programs also come with different conditions attached. Companies taking P.P.P. money are strongly incentivized to use the funds to pay their employees, while midsize companies must agree not to engage in stock buybacks or use government funds to increase executive compensation. In the case of large corporations, though, Congress and the Trump Administration did not obligate the companies to use the money to retain workers and placed almost no restrictions on what they do with it. One of the most vocal members of the Oversight Commission, a former economic adviser to Senator Elizabeth Warren named Bharat Ramamurti, believes that this is granting big companies far more trust than they deserve.
The Main Street Lending Program remains one of the least-discussed programs in the bailout, yet it is aimed at an important sector of the economy that represents millions of jobs. Congress and the Treasury Department pledged seventy-five billion dollars to the Federal Reserve to administer it; the Fed, by borrowing or creating more money, could potentially use that sum to give out six hundred billion dollars’ worth of loans. Midsize companies are a significant source of jobs, employing an estimated forty-five million people around the U.S. Yet, four months after it was created, the fund of the Main Street Lending Program has barely been touched, even as tens of thousands of businesses have closed and millions of workers have been let go. “Even if things pick up a little bit, it seems very unlikely that we are going to get close to the capacity of this funding facility,” Ramamurti told me. “And if that money isn’t going to be used, it seems to me that Congress could repurpose it for some other better use.”
The Main Street program was the focus of the hearing on August 7th. It included Ramamurti and the three other members of the Oversight Commission who have been appointed: two Republicans, the Pennsylvania senator Pat Toomey and the Arkansas representative French Hill; and another Democrat, the Florida congresswoman Donna Shalala. (The House Speaker, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader each selected one member, but the commission still lacks a chairperson, who must be jointly chosen by Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell.) Some of the members came to the Capitol Building, in Washington, while others beamed in from their homes. Ramamurti’s goal for the hearing seemed to be to convey a sense that the Main Street Lending Program is failing, and that those billions of dollars should be deployed in some other way that directly benefits the people who are suffering the most. During his opening statement, Ramamurti put it directly. “My goal today is to figure out why the program has failed and how to fix it quickly,” he said. “Before more Americans lose their jobs and more good businesses have to shut their doors.”
Ramamurti believes that part of the reason midsize companies are going out of business while there are vast reserves of untapped government money available is because the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve have made it unappealing for many companies in financial distress to take the aid. “In my view, they should be more generous in terms of who is eligible to get money, and on what terms, but more restrictive on what the companies can do with the money afterward,” he told me.
One of the witnesses at the hearing was Gwen Mills, the secretary-treasurer of Unite Here, a union representing more than three hundred thousand workers, including bellhops, casino workers, waiters, and cooks. She said that the majority of the union’s members are Black and Latino, that a majority are women, and that eighty-five per cent are now out of work. She felt that, even if low-interest loans were offered to casino and hotel companies, her members wouldn’t benefit; instead, they need access to health insurance and “direct support,” or money to pay their bills until their jobs return. When Ramamurti asked her if she was aware of a single job that the Main Street program had saved, she said no.
Meanwhile, talks between Republicans and Democrats in Congress over a follow-up to the CARES Act have completely fallen apart. In the midst of an unprecedented crisis, Democrats are advocating sending money directly to people who need it, trusting that they know how best to spend it; Republicans, in contrast, are trying to minimize the government’s role and are hoping to encourage markets to take on the work instead. Under the extreme circumstances created by the pandemic, though, the challenges that the economy faces seem well beyond what even a well-functioning market could rectify. Approximately 1.8 million jobs were added to the economy in July, but the longer-term picture of American unemployment is dire: the number of people who have been out of work for an extended period has risen to 6.5 million, the highest number recorded. One of the major sticking points between the two parties over a new rescue bill centers on how much, if any, extra unemployment insurance should be offered to out-of-work Americans. Democrats argue that the government should continue sending weekly federal payments of six hundred dollars to those without jobs. Republicans argue that the payments are discouraging people from going back to work, because in many cases the total unemployment benefits people are receiving are more than what they were previously earning. (President Trump announced an executive order to extend unemployment benefits, though Democrats and others have called it inadequate.) “If you asked different members of Congress what the goal of these economic-relief efforts was, you’d hear twenty different answers,” Ramamurti told me. “Was it to keep people employed? Was it to make sure good businesses didn’t go under? Was it to sustain people if they did get fired? And what we have is sort of a mishmash of all of those. And I think it has led in part to an awkward, and in many cases ineffective, response.”


newyorker--2020-08-14--Sojourner Truth and the Unfinished Fight for Equality

This month marks the hundredth anniversary of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment , the addition to the Constitution that grants American women the right to vote .
After decades of activism and civil disobedience , including marches on Washington , D.C. , and hunger strikes in prison , suffragists upended the nation ’ s electoral process with this crowning legal victory .
But the step toward equality was partial : though the amendment ’ s text affirmed that the right to vote would not be “ denied or abridged by the United States or by a state on account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include protections for nonwhite women , who continued to face legal disenfranchisement until the passage of the Voting Rights Act , in 1965 .
So , when the New Jersey-based artist Grace Lynne Haynes set out to commemorate the centennial on a recent cover of The New Yorker , she chose to represent this discriminatory history with a portrait of Sojourner Truth , a Black woman who worked alongside white suffragettes to advocate for the rights of all women .
In her vivid rendering of Truth—composed with a mix of paint and collage—Haynes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ femininity and force .
“ I wanted to show that , yes , this is a strong woman , ” she says .
“ She ’ s been through hell and back , but she also has a humanness to her and a soft side to her that deserves to be protected and recognized.
” Truth was born into slavery , with the name Isabella , in 1797 ; she escaped in 1827 and won her son ’ s freedom in 1828 .
She diverged from some of her male counterparts in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Black men and all women should occur simultaneously .
In 1851 , she reminded those in attendance at the Women ’ s Rights Convention , in Akron , Ohio , of the seemingly radical concept that Black women were women , too .
“ I am a woman ’ s rights , ” she reportedly said .
Years later , as debate ensued over Black men ’ s right to vote , she urged the Equal Rights Association to include Black women in their activism .
“ There is a great stir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a word about the colored women , ” she said .
“ And if colored men get their rights , and not colored women theirs , you see the colored men will be masters over the women , and it will be just as bad as it was before .
So I am for keeping the thing going while things are stirring.
” By the time she spoke to the association , Truth had become a nationally recognized abolitionist and women ’ s-rights advocate , and had published her autobiography , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Olive Gilbert .
To fund her activism , Truth sold cards on which her photograph was printed above the phrase “ I sell the shadow to support the substance.
” One of these photographs inspired Haynes ’ s portrait for her New Yorker cover .
Haynes painted Truth ’ s skin pitch-black , using a signature technique that she developed during her undergraduate studies , when she realized that her art classes had never included techniques for portraying darker skin tones .
In the dimly lit original image , Truth ’ s skin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photograph .
But , in Haynes ’ s work , Truth ’ s Blackness is striking—underscored in the stark contrast between her skin and her bright pink and green clothing , against a vibrant yellow background .
“ A lot of the times , in Western society , dark and light are at odds , ” Haynes says .
She could be describing aesthetics , but when , a hundred years after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment , the U.S. is still plagued by racist violence and voter suppression , her observation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So I really liked incorporating both dark and light harmoniously in one image together .
And kind of show that that dark can be beautiful , it can be sublime .
”

This month marks the hundredth anniversary of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, the addition to the Constitution that grants American women the right to vote. After decades of activism and civil disobedience, including marches on Washington, D.C., and hunger strikes in prison, suffragists upended the nation’s electoral process with this crowning legal victory. But the step toward equality was partial: though the amendment’s text affirmed that the right to vote would not be “denied or abridged by the United States or by a state on account of sex,” it did not include protections for nonwhite women, who continued to face legal disenfranchisement until the passage of the Voting Rights Act, in 1965.
So, when the New Jersey-based artist Grace Lynne Haynes set out to commemorate the centennial on a recent cover of The New Yorker, she chose to represent this discriminatory history with a portrait of Sojourner Truth, a Black woman who worked alongside white suffragettes to advocate for the rights of all women.
In her vivid rendering of Truth—composed with a mix of paint and collage—Haynes was determined to capture Truth’s femininity and force. “I wanted to show that, yes, this is a strong woman,” she says. “She’s been through hell and back, but she also has a humanness to her and a soft side to her that deserves to be protected and recognized.”
Truth was born into slavery, with the name Isabella, in 1797; she escaped in 1827 and won her son’s freedom in 1828. She diverged from some of her male counterparts in the abolitionist movement in her belief that suffrage for Black men and all women should occur simultaneously. In 1851, she reminded those in attendance at the Women’s Rights Convention, in Akron, Ohio, of the seemingly radical concept that Black women were women, too. “I am a woman’s rights,” she reportedly said. Years later, as debate ensued over Black men’s right to vote, she urged the Equal Rights Association to include Black women in their activism. “There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights but not a word about the colored women,” she said. “And if colored men get their rights, and not colored women theirs, you see the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before. So I am for keeping the thing going while things are stirring.”
By the time she spoke to the association, Truth had become a nationally recognized abolitionist and women’s-rights advocate, and had published her autobiography, which she had dictated to a woman named Olive Gilbert. To fund her activism, Truth sold cards on which her photograph was printed above the phrase “I sell the shadow to support the substance.” One of these photographs inspired Haynes’s portrait for her New Yorker cover. Haynes painted Truth’s skin pitch-black, using a signature technique that she developed during her undergraduate studies, when she realized that her art classes had never included techniques for portraying darker skin tones. In the dimly lit original image, Truth’s skin nearly disappears into the background of the photograph. But, in Haynes’s work, Truth’s Blackness is striking—underscored in the stark contrast between her skin and her bright pink and green clothing, against a vibrant yellow background.
“A lot of the times, in Western society, dark and light are at odds,” Haynes says. She could be describing aesthetics, but when, a hundred years after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, the U.S. is still plagued by racist violence and voter suppression, her observation strikes a deeper chord as well. “So I really liked incorporating both dark and light harmoniously in one image together. And kind of show that that dark can be beautiful, it can be sublime.”


newyorker--2020-08-14--Obama Hurt By Trump’s Reuse of Birther Strategy: “I Thought It Was a Special Thing Between Him and M

Obama Hurt By Trump’s Reuse of Birther Strategy: “I Thought It Was a Special Thing Between Him and Me”

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Former President Barack Obama said on Friday that he was “ deeply saddened ” to hear Donald J. Trump reuse his racist birther strategy this week , stating , “ I thought that it was a special thing between him and me.
” His voice cracking with emotion , Obama said that , during all the years Trump launched birther attacks against him , “ I was under the impression that he was crafting those lies for me and me alone.
” “ I guess I was wrong , ” he said wistfully .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ new “ cheapened the memory of our years together , ” Obama said .
“ I ’ d be lying if I said it didn ’ t hurt , ” he added .
Obama also had words of warning for Senator Kamala Harris .
“ Don ’ t make the mistake I made and think that he really cares about where you were born , ” he said .
“ Eventually , he ’ ll just move on and question the birthplace of someone else .
I found out the hard way .
@

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Former President Barack Obama said on Friday that he was “deeply saddened” to hear Donald J. Trump reuse his racist birther strategy this week, stating, “I thought that it was a special thing between him and me.”
His voice cracking with emotion, Obama said that, during all the years Trump launched birther attacks against him, “I was under the impression that he was crafting those lies for me and me alone.”
“I guess I was wrong,” he said wistfully.
Hearing Trump employ identical slurs against someone new “cheapened the memory of our years together,” Obama said.
“I’d be lying if I said it didn’t hurt,” he added.
Obama also had words of warning for Senator Kamala Harris. “Don’t make the mistake I made and think that he really cares about where you were born,” he said. “Eventually, he’ll just move on and question the birthplace of someone else. I found out the hard way.”
Read More Satire from the Borowitz Report


newyorker--2020-08-14--We Should Still Defund the Police

We Should Still Defund the Police

By the end of the sixties , the Johnson Administration and the incoming Nixon Administration had converged on a depiction of the Black , urban rebellions as Black lawlessness that would require more professionalized police and intense law enforcement .
As the historian Elizabeth Hinton pointed out in her 2016 book , “ From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime , ” even as liberal local and national leaders decried the root causes of crime , they also relied on the expanding powers of law enforcement to quell the protests that erupted in response to the lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Kerner Commission—which advocated for a vast expansion of government programs in order to remedy the racial inequality that was fuelling the uprisings , in a report that was the quintessence of big-government liberalism—called for the exponential growth of police forces in urban areas , warned that Black youth were the source of a pending crime wave , and advised methods of riot control .
Declarations of “ Law and Order , ” which had been the white South ’ s bellicose response to “ Freedom Now , ” became the establishment ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , more importantly , Nixon bemoaned the riots as the spawn of the Great Society and the root of a disintegrating social order .
His 1968 speech accepting the Republican Party ’ s Presidential nomination pulled these different strands together .
“ Tonight , it is time for some honest talk about the problem of order in the United States , ” he said .
“ Let those who have the responsibility to enforce our laws , and our judges who have the responsibility to interpret them , be dedicated to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let them also recognize that the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence , and that right must be guaranteed in this country.
” He continued , “ We have been deluged by government programs for the unemployed , programs for the cities , programs for the poor .
And we have reaped from these programs an ugly harvest of frustration , violence , and failure across the land.
” Johnson ’ s , and then Nixon ’ s , descriptions of the Black insurgency as lawless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic racism and toward crime .
As the political scientist Naomi Murakawa has pointed out , “ the United States did not face a crime problem that was racialized ; it faced a race problem that was criminalized.
” Crime was used as a political tool to deflect attention away from the causes of the riots ; at the same time , it was also a reality in the lives of the Black working class .
In the early seventies , the long postwar economic boom gave way to an economic downturn , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1972 to 1975 , Black unemployment rose from ten per cent to nearly fifteen per cent .
During that same brief period , federal statistics suggest that there were nearly four million more violent crimes committed , which led to a palpable desire in Black communities for more to be done—including , as the legal scholar James Forman , Jr. , has explained , more policing .
Funds that were siphoned from the dwindling Great Society could have mitigated the worst aspects of the recession that lasted from 1973 to 1975 , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken in the aftermath of riots indicated that a majority believed that better jobs , housing , and opportunities were a remedy to inequality—and that crime was one of its key expressions .
However , as the affluence of the sixties turned into recession and stagnation in the seventies , the politics of racial resentment gained new traction and defined solutions to ongoing social crisis .
The turn to the politics of punishment was not a political gimmick that would change from one Administration to the next .
It marked a transition in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be measured in the growing reluctance of Democrats to embrace social welfare and the “ root causes ” explanation for crime .
It could also be gauged by changing spending patterns across the entire criminal-justice system .
From 1977 to 2017 , state and local spending on police increased from forty-two billion dollars to a hundred and fifteen billion dollars , adjusted for inflation .
This skyrocketing increase continued even after crime rates began to fall in the early nineties .
Today , the Center for Popular Democracy found , Chicago , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Detroit each spend at least thirty per cent of their general , or discretionary , fund on their police departments .
Police-spending figures do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars paid by municipalities across the country to settle lawsuits connected to police violence .
ABC News reported that , in the last year alone , lawsuits against police cost the public more than three hundred million dollars .
For many city leaders , it has sadly become the cost of doing business .
The Democratic Party has spent forty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is “ soft ” on crime .
As a result , in both national and local politics , the Party has championed “ tough on crime ” policies that prioritize police budgets over other programs that are essential to the fulfillment of racial justice .
It is no coincidence that Philadelphia , which has the highest poverty rate of any major U.S. city , has had no public hospital since 1977 .
Meanwhile , the city spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on its police force , even as crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days after the uprising boiled over into the streets of Philadelphia , Mayor Jim Kenney had planned to go ahead with a nineteen-million-dollar increase in funding to the police department , despite the fact that he also planned to make three hundred and seventy million dollars ’ worth of cuts to the city ’ s budget .
Kenney ’ s proposed cuts included a twenty-one-per-cent reduction in anti-violence initiatives and an eighteen-per-cent cut to the Police Advisory Committee , which oversees complaints about police brutality .
He also planned to axe millions more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has created enormous housing precariousness for poor and working-class Black renters and owners .
But the uprising in Philadelphia stopped the Kenney administration in its tracks .
On June 6th , tens of thousands of people jammed the Benjamin Franklin Parkway , in Center City , for a hastily organized demonstration against the budget under the banner of Black Lives Matter .
The largest protest in Philadelphia in years , it forced the mayor to rescind the police-budget increase and to restore some cuts to youth programs .
But even with these changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven hundred and twenty-seven million dollars , the largest chunk of money in the municipal budget , and no layoffs , even as hundreds of city staffers lost their jobs because of the pandemic .
Kenney claimed to be in solidarity and sympathy with the demonstrators , but it is in city budgets that you can really see if “ Black Lives Matter ” to the people who govern them .
The Floyd uprisings have created new urgency in the struggle for genuine safety in working-class Black communities , highlighting the need for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs , and secure and beautiful housing without the menacing presence of the police .
But creating this other world is complicated by the reality of crime and violence in the existing one .
As the uprising erupted , so did a dramatic rise in gun violence in Black communities across the country .
In Philadelphia , shootings are up nearly thirty per cent from a year ago ; twenty-three people were shot over the course of twenty-four hours during the Fourth of July weekend .
In Atlanta that weekend , thirty-one people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving five dead .
In New York City , there were sixty-four shootings during the Independence Day holiday , and ten deaths .
In Chicago , the shootings began almost simultaneously with the anti-brutality rebellion in the streets .
Six days after the murder of George Floyd , on May 31st , eighteen people were murdered in Chicago , most of them Black .
Never before in the sixty years during which such statistics have been kept had that number of people been killed by gun violence in a single twenty-four-hour period .

This summer’s uprising has forced a reckoning within the United States about the deep imprint of racism on our society. The public lynching of George Floyd pierced the veil of segregation that typically shrouds the realities in which millions of African-Americans live—straining under the mounting weight of Black death. Tens of thousands of African-Americans killed by the rapid spread of COVID-19, the taped execution of Ahmaud Arbery by two white men in Georgia, the reports of Breonna Taylor’s brutal killing by Louisville police, and then Floyd’s horrifying murder in Minneapolis brought home for a broader public the police state that exists in Black America.
By June, the persistence and duration of the protests had produced historic changes in white people’s perceptions. A national poll recorded an unprecedented shift in opinion: seventy-one per cent of whites said that they think racism and discrimination are a “big problem” in the United States, and fifty-five per cent said that the anger of the protests was fully justified. In a different poll, sixty per cent expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement. This sea change in opinion was mirrored by a wave of public gestures of racial reconciliation, as a host of corporate executives acknowledged—if not accepted genuine responsibility for—their roles in sustaining regimes of racial inequality.
Nascar renounced the flying of the Confederate flag at its events. Juneteenth, long an informal day of celebrations among some African-Americans, was suddenly institutionalized as a paid holiday. Former President George W. Bush condemned “systemic racism.” At one level, the rapid, reflexive default to offering symbolic recognition of racism was quite typical. No other country engages in the cavernous nothingness of the fake apology as frequently as the United States. In the case of Black Americans, it is most recognizable in the form of big-sounding civil-rights legislation that is eventually, as the historian Leon Litwack has written, “compromised, deferred and undone.”
It is clearly a craven gesture when multibillion-dollar corporations claim that “Black lives matter,” even as they refuse their Black workers hazard pay, paid time off, or a living wage. Nevertheless, these élite searches for absolution from the sin of “systemic racism” have reaffirmed that racism is not only about burning crosses and the N-word: it is also present in the housing market, in institutions of higher education, in the job market, and most certainly in policing and the criminal-justice system. In this moment, when both the coronavirus pandemic and the uprising are laying bare structural flaws in U.S. society, there has been a renewed discussion of structural remedies. This is why “defund the police”—a demand that only a marginal handful dared to put forward just months ago—has become a central slogan of the reëmergent B.L.M. movement.
The echoes of the nineteen-sixties’ freedom struggles are easy to find. Then, as now, Black revolutionaries, including Martin Luther King, Jr., countered racist claims that poverty and social marginalization were the products of domestic dysfunction specific to Black families. In doing so, they made room for a deeper interrogation of the Black condition in the United States. Then as now, radicals stepped into that space and linked Black poverty to pervasive racial discrimination from public schools to employment opportunities to the availability of good housing. They also showed that there were financial interests that benefitted from maintaining Black inequality. Black radicals described the financial plight of ordinary Black people as evidence that their segregated communities were “colonies” within the U.S. “Internal colonialism,” as some referred to the particular oppressive conditions faced by Black people, could be found in white landlords charging exorbitant rents for rat-infested apartments and in rent-to-own stores demanding unconscionable interest rates, all because African-Americans were a captured market, isolated by relentless residential segregation.
In response to this organized theft, the Black radicals Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton coined the term “institutional racism” in their seminal book “Black Power,” published in 1967. Carmichael and Hamilton distinguished between “individual” acts of racism and the dispassionate “institutional” variety, in which the attitudes of the perpetrators were less important than the outcomes in the lives of ordinary Black people. They describe institutional racism as “less overt, far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life.” Carmichael and Hamilton went on to describe how institutional racism kept “black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative landlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it.”
The recognition of institutional racism as the controlling factor in Black inequality, rather than some pernicious “culture of poverty,” pointed to the need for institutional solutions. This was the backdrop to the Johnson Administration’s vast expansion of the federal government. From 1963 through 1968, Congress, at the President’s urging, passed nearly two hundred pieces of legislation as part of the War on Poverty and the Great Society. From the Department of Housing and Urban Development to Head Start to food stamps and Medicare, these programs created a bottom through which average citizens could not fall. Spending on anti-poverty programs grew by tens of billions of dollars during the nineteen-sixties, producing dramatic declines in the number of people living in poverty across the country. By the early seventies, the poverty rate had dropped to eleven per cent, from a high of twenty-two per cent in 1959, when the federal government began keeping track.
The big spending of the era was not limited to eradicating poverty. By the mid-sixties, crime rates had begun to tick upward for a variety of reasons, including how crime was counted and reported. Black uprisings against racism and police brutality contributed to the rising rates, as did the continuing Black migration into cities that offered no meaningful employment opportunities. The rising rate of crime also meant a greater police presence, creating a greater likelihood for police abuse and violence. By 1964, even as Democrats were celebrating the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the legal end to Jim Crow in the South, frustrations in the epicenters of northern Black life began to boil over. That summer, Harlem and Philadelphia exploded in revolt against unemployment, low-paying jobs, poor housing, and ever-present police brutality. There were hundreds of arrests and millions of dollars in property damage, announcing a new stage in the movement for Black rights inside and outside of the South. As the rebellions against urban conditions accelerated, President Johnson turned to law enforcement to regain control of imploding cities. More and better trained police, both Democrats and Republicans believed, was a solution.
On March 8, 1965, the day after the historic “Bloody Sunday” march on Selma, Alabama, led by the late John Lewis, Johnson introduced new legislation that was aimed at using federal dollars to beef up law enforcement across the country. Despite the nationally televised brutal beating of civil-rights activists by Alabama state troopers a day earlier, on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Johnson focussed his comments on crime in cities. “No right is more elemental to our society than the right to personal security, and no right needs more urgent protection,” he said.
By the end of the sixties, the Johnson Administration and the incoming Nixon Administration had converged on a depiction of the Black, urban rebellions as Black lawlessness that would require more professionalized police and intense law enforcement. As the historian Elizabeth Hinton pointed out in her 2016 book, “From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime,” even as liberal local and national leaders decried the root causes of crime, they also relied on the expanding powers of law enforcement to quell the protests that erupted in response to the lack of meaningful opportunities in cities. Even the Kerner Commission—which advocated for a vast expansion of government programs in order to remedy the racial inequality that was fuelling the uprisings, in a report that was the quintessence of big-government liberalism—called for the exponential growth of police forces in urban areas, warned that Black youth were the source of a pending crime wave, and advised methods of riot control. Declarations of “Law and Order,” which had been the white South’s bellicose response to “Freedom Now,” became the establishment’s rejoinder to “Black Power.” But, more importantly, Nixon bemoaned the riots as the spawn of the Great Society and the root of a disintegrating social order. His 1968 speech accepting the Republican Party’s Presidential nomination pulled these different strands together. “Tonight, it is time for some honest talk about the problem of order in the United States,” he said. “Let those who have the responsibility to enforce our laws, and our judges who have the responsibility to interpret them, be dedicated to the great principles of civil rights. But let them also recognize that the first civil right of every American is to be free from domestic violence, and that right must be guaranteed in this country.” He continued, “We have been deluged by government programs for the unemployed, programs for the cities, programs for the poor. And we have reaped from these programs an ugly harvest of frustration, violence, and failure across the land.”
Johnson’s, and then Nixon’s, descriptions of the Black insurgency as lawless disorder pivoted the national focus away from systemic racism and toward crime. As the political scientist Naomi Murakawa has pointed out, “the United States did not face a crime problem that was racialized; it faced a race problem that was criminalized.”
Crime was used as a political tool to deflect attention away from the causes of the riots; at the same time, it was also a reality in the lives of the Black working class. In the early seventies, the long postwar economic boom gave way to an economic downturn, causing more suffering and desperation. From 1972 to 1975, Black unemployment rose from ten per cent to nearly fifteen per cent. During that same brief period, federal statistics suggest that there were nearly four million more violent crimes committed, which led to a palpable desire in Black communities for more to be done—including, as the legal scholar James Forman, Jr., has explained, more policing. Funds that were siphoned from the dwindling Great Society could have mitigated the worst aspects of the recession that lasted from 1973 to 1975, including rising rates of crime. Numerous polls taken in the aftermath of riots indicated that a majority believed that better jobs, housing, and opportunities were a remedy to inequality—and that crime was one of its key expressions. However, as the affluence of the sixties turned into recession and stagnation in the seventies, the politics of racial resentment gained new traction and defined solutions to ongoing social crisis.
The turn to the politics of punishment was not a political gimmick that would change from one Administration to the next. It marked a transition in all of U.S. politics. This turn could be measured in the growing reluctance of Democrats to embrace social welfare and the “root causes” explanation for crime. It could also be gauged by changing spending patterns across the entire criminal-justice system.
From 1977 to 2017, state and local spending on police increased from forty-two billion dollars to a hundred and fifteen billion dollars, adjusted for inflation. This skyrocketing increase continued even after crime rates began to fall in the early nineties. Today, the Center for Popular Democracy found, Chicago, Oakland, Houston, Minneapolis, Orlando, and Detroit each spend at least thirty per cent of their general, or discretionary, fund on their police departments. Police-spending figures do not include the hundreds of millions of dollars paid by municipalities across the country to settle lawsuits connected to police violence. ABC News reported that, in the last year alone, lawsuits against police cost the public more than three hundred million dollars. For many city leaders, it has sadly become the cost of doing business.


newyorker--2020-08-14--Israel’s New Peace Deal with the United Arab Emirates Transforms the Middle East

In 1982 , a Palestinian fighter told me a dark joke on the day that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon forced six thousand P.L.O .
guerrillas to retreat on ships for distant lands .
The story began with God telling President Ronald Reagan , the Soviet leader , Leonid Brezhnev , and the P.L.O .
chief , Yasir Arafat , that he would answer one question from each of them .
Reagan went first .
“ How long will it be before capitalism rules the world ?
” he asked .
God replied , “ A hundred years.
” Reagan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” God said .
“ Because it won ’ t happen in my lifetime , ” the President responded .
Brezhnev then asked , “ How long will it be before the whole world is Communist ?
” God replied , “ Two hundred years.
” Brezhnev began to cry because that , too , wouldn ’ t happen in his lifetime .
Then Arafat asked , “ God , how long will it be before there is a state for my people in Palestine ?
” And God cried .
On Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates , an oil-rich sheikhdom and long-time ally of the Palestinians , to normalize diplomatic relations .
The surprise deal—expected to be signed at a White House ceremony in the coming weeks—will include opening embassies , trade and technology exchanges , direct flights and tourism , and coöperation on energy , security , and intelligence .
In Tel Aviv , the city hall lit up with side-by-side flags of Israel and the U.A.E .
The Israeli President , Reuven Rivlin , invited the Crown Prince of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to visit .
Many of the details are still to come .
In what may prove to be premature conjecture , the White House described the deal as “ a major breakthrough for Muslims throughout the world who wish to come in peace to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque , ” in Jerusalem , because they will be able to fly directly from Abu Dhabi to Tel Aviv and “ be welcomed.
” The idea that Israel will issue large numbers of visas to Muslims from countries long considered hostile to pray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Judaism ’ s holiest site , may be wishful thinking .
In a briefing for reporters , Jared Kushner also predicted that the agreement will undermine jihadi extremism .
Again , not likely .
Dubbed the Abraham Accords , the agreement is only the third time Israel has won recognition from one of the twenty-two Arab states .
The first was the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt .
The second was with Jordan , in 1994 .
The new accord represents a diplomatic breakthrough for President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home .
In the U.S. , it has bipartisan support .
Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee , welcomed the deal as “ a historic step to bridge the deep divides of the Middle East.
” He praised the U.A.E .
for a “ brave and badly needed act of statesmanship.
” Yet the deal also underscores how , for Palestinians , a state—and a broader peace—is still hauntingly elusive more than a quarter century after the Oslo Accords outlined principles for the creation of their own country .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Middle East , the Palestinians are no longer a pressing priority ; they also seem increasingly irrelevant to the region ’ s trendlines .
Their brethren are abandoning them .
“ The conflict is decidedly less important to leaders in the region , ” Natan Sachs , the director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution , told me .
The agreement is “ a visible demonstration of the fatigue of some Arab leaders , in the U.A.E .
and Saudi Arabia in particular , with the Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer want to be held back by what they see as Palestinian rejectionism.
” The main fault line in the Middle East has also shifted away from the Arab-Israeli conflict to tensions between the Arabs and predominantly Persian Iran .
As enmities have shifted , so has the diplomatic energy .
And , in an example of the old adage about the enemy of your enemy being your friend , the conservative Muslim kingdoms in the Gulf have increasingly found common cause with the Jewish leadership in Israel .
The deal may signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has been quietly building for years , possibly with more states to join .
“ This deal is a significant step toward building a more peaceful , secure , and prosperous Middle East , ” Trump told reporters , after a three-way call with Netanyahu and bin Zayed .
He claimed that the relationship between the two leaders during secret negotiations , which have played out over the past six weeks , “ was like love.
” He predicted , “ Now that the ice has been broken , I expect more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Arab Emirates ’ s lead.
” Kushner , who oversaw the Trump Middle East peace plan , said that a couple other nations were “ upset that they weren ’ t first.
” Bahrain , another Gulf sheikhdom , immediately congratulated the U.A.E .
for “ taking steps to enhance the chances for Middle East peace.
” There has long been speculation about potential ties between Israel and Morocco .
In 2018 , the former Sultan of Oman hosted Netanyahu .
Qatar allowed Israel to open a short-lived trade office there in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at conferences since then , even as it supports the Palestinians financially .
In exchange for formal recognition , Netanyahu agreed to “ suspend ” his plan—a central plank in his reëlection bid this year—to annex parts of the West Bank .
Israel will instead focus on “ expanding ties with other countries in the Arab and Muslim world , ” the White House said .
The U.A.E.
’ s motive was to prevent the annexation and a “ death blow ” to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process , according to Anwar Gargash , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The U.A.E .
is using its gravitas , its promise of a relationship , to try to really unscrew a time bomb that is threatening the two state-solution , ” he said .
But the hard-line Israeli leader said that he has not abandoned annexation .
“ I am committed to sovereignty , ” Netanyahu said , after the deal was announced .
There is “ no change ” to his pledge to annex parts of the West Bank .
“ I did not give up on the settlements.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Authority condemned the Israel-U.A.E .
deal as an “ aggression against the Palestinian people , ” recalled its Ambassador from the U.A.E.
, and demanded an urgent Arab League summit .
“ The leadership affirms that the UAE , or any other party , has no right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people , ” it said , in a statement .
In a tweet , the veteran Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi commented bitterly , “ May you never be sold out by your ‘ friends.
’ ” The Gulf emirate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Daniel Kurtzer , the former U.S .
Ambassador to Israel and Egypt , told me .
It instead “ gave up hope the Palestinian leadership can be salvaged.
” The two Palestinian territories—the West Bank and Gaza—have been ruled by rival factions since 2007 , when their militias fought for control .
Hamas , an Islamist party , seized power in Gaza , while the Fatah wing of the P.L.O .
under President Mahmoud Abbas has governed the West Bank .
Repeated attempts to reconcile them have failed , making negotiations for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible .
Abbas , who is eighty-four , was elected to a four-year term in 2005 , and new elections have repeatedly been postponed since then .
“ The leadership is now sclerotic and devoid of creative diplomacy or politics , ” Kurtzer said .
“ If I were a Palestinian , I would be extraordinarily frustrated with my leadership.They ’ ve done such a poor job of translating victimization into a positive policy.
” The Palestinians have to sort out their own political mess before the Arab world will again expend much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unlike Israel ’ s accords with Egypt and Jordan , its deal with the U.A.E .
alters a fundamental premise of peace , Sachs noted .
For decades , the framework of international diplomacy was based on “ land for peace ” —Israel giving up land it conquered in wars with the Arabs in exchange for the Arabs promising no future aggression .
The new premise is “ peace for peace , ” a popular refrain among right-wing Israelis , Sachs said .
It is based on no exchange of land—and only the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sovereignty over more Arab land , in exchange for a non-aggression pact and formal relations .
The looming question is how the formal alliance between Israel and a small but influential nation in the Gulf will affect growing tensions with Iran .
“ If you ’ re looking for an organizing idea that has moved the needle as much as it has in the Middle East over the past six or seven years , Iran is the place to start , ” Kurtzer told me .
“ That is what brought the Gulf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Israel now has an ally on the front line with the Islamic Republic—which lies just thirty-three miles away from the U.A.E .

In 1982, a Palestinian fighter told me a dark joke on the day that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon forced six thousand P.L.O. guerrillas to retreat on ships for distant lands. The story began with God telling President Ronald Reagan, the Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev, and the P.L.O. chief, Yasir Arafat, that he would answer one question from each of them. Reagan went first. “How long will it be before capitalism rules the world?” he asked. God replied, “A hundred years.” Reagan began to cry. “Why?” God said. “Because it won’t happen in my lifetime,” the President responded. Brezhnev then asked, “How long will it be before the whole world is Communist?” God replied, “Two hundred years.” Brezhnev began to cry because that, too, wouldn’t happen in his lifetime. Then Arafat asked, “God, how long will it be before there is a state for my people in Palestine?” And God cried.
On Thursday, the White House announced a historic agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, an oil-rich sheikhdom and long-time ally of the Palestinians, to normalize diplomatic relations. The surprise deal—expected to be signed at a White House ceremony in the coming weeks—will include opening embassies, trade and technology exchanges, direct flights and tourism, and coöperation on energy, security, and intelligence. In Tel Aviv, the city hall lit up with side-by-side flags of Israel and the U.A.E. The Israeli President, Reuven Rivlin, invited the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed, to visit.
Many of the details are still to come. In what may prove to be premature conjecture, the White House described the deal as “a major breakthrough for Muslims throughout the world who wish to come in peace to pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque,” in Jerusalem, because they will be able to fly directly from Abu Dhabi to Tel Aviv and “be welcomed.” The idea that Israel will issue large numbers of visas to Muslims from countries long considered hostile to pray at a mosque on the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, may be wishful thinking. In a briefing for reporters, Jared Kushner also predicted that the agreement will undermine jihadi extremism. Again, not likely.
Dubbed the Abraham Accords, the agreement is only the third time Israel has won recognition from one of the twenty-two Arab states. The first was the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt. The second was with Jordan, in 1994. The new accord represents a diplomatic breakthrough for President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as both face mounting political hurdles at home. In the U.S., it has bipartisan support. Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, welcomed the deal as “a historic step to bridge the deep divides of the Middle East.” He praised the U.A.E. for a “brave and badly needed act of statesmanship.”
Yet the deal also underscores how, for Palestinians, a state—and a broader peace—is still hauntingly elusive more than a quarter century after the Oslo Accords outlined principles for the creation of their own country. After decades of dominating and defining tensions across the Middle East, the Palestinians are no longer a pressing priority; they also seem increasingly irrelevant to the region’s trendlines. Their brethren are abandoning them. “The conflict is decidedly less important to leaders in the region,” Natan Sachs, the director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, told me. The agreement is “a visible demonstration of the fatigue of some Arab leaders, in the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia in particular, with the Palestinian leadership and their cause. They no longer want to be held back by what they see as Palestinian rejectionism.”
The main fault line in the Middle East has also shifted away from the Arab-Israeli conflict to tensions between the Arabs and predominantly Persian Iran. As enmities have shifted, so has the diplomatic energy. And, in an example of the old adage about the enemy of your enemy being your friend, the conservative Muslim kingdoms in the Gulf have increasingly found common cause with the Jewish leadership in Israel. The deal may signal the formal creation of an anti-Iran bloc that has been quietly building for years, possibly with more states to join.
“This deal is a significant step toward building a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous Middle East,” Trump told reporters, after a three-way call with Netanyahu and bin Zayed. He claimed that the relationship between the two leaders during secret negotiations, which have played out over the past six weeks, “was like love.” He predicted, “Now that the ice has been broken, I expect more Arab and Muslim countries will follow the United Arab Emirates’s lead.” Kushner, who oversaw the Trump Middle East peace plan, said that a couple other nations were “upset that they weren’t first.” Bahrain, another Gulf sheikhdom, immediately congratulated the U.A.E. for “taking steps to enhance the chances for Middle East peace.” There has long been speculation about potential ties between Israel and Morocco. In 2018, the former Sultan of Oman hosted Netanyahu. Qatar allowed Israel to open a short-lived trade office there in the nineteen-nineties, and has hosted Israelis at conferences since then, even as it supports the Palestinians financially.
In exchange for formal recognition, Netanyahu agreed to “suspend” his plan—a central plank in his reëlection bid this year—to annex parts of the West Bank. Israel will instead focus on “expanding ties with other countries in the Arab and Muslim world,” the White House said. The U.A.E.’s motive was to prevent the annexation and a “death blow” to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, according to Anwar Gargash, its minister of state for foreign affairs. “The U.A.E. is using its gravitas, its promise of a relationship, to try to really unscrew a time bomb that is threatening the two state-solution,” he said. But the hard-line Israeli leader said that he has not abandoned annexation. “I am committed to sovereignty,” Netanyahu said, after the deal was announced. There is “no change” to his pledge to annex parts of the West Bank. “I did not give up on the settlements.”
The Palestinians feel deeply betrayed. The Palestinian Authority condemned the Israel-U.A.E. deal as an “aggression against the Palestinian people,” recalled its Ambassador from the U.A.E., and demanded an urgent Arab League summit. “The leadership affirms that the UAE, or any other party, has no right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people,” it said, in a statement. In a tweet, the veteran Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi commented bitterly, “May you never be sold out by your ‘friends.’ ”
The Gulf emirate has not totally abandoned the Palestinians, Daniel Kurtzer, the former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Egypt, told me. It instead “gave up hope the Palestinian leadership can be salvaged.” The two Palestinian territories—the West Bank and Gaza—have been ruled by rival factions since 2007, when their militias fought for control. Hamas, an Islamist party, seized power in Gaza, while the Fatah wing of the P.L.O. under President Mahmoud Abbas has governed the West Bank. Repeated attempts to reconcile them have failed, making negotiations for a credible or enduring peace with Israel nearly impossible. Abbas, who is eighty-four, was elected to a four-year term in 2005, and new elections have repeatedly been postponed since then. “The leadership is now sclerotic and devoid of creative diplomacy or politics,” Kurtzer said. “If I were a Palestinian, I would be extraordinarily frustrated with my leadership.They’ve done such a poor job of translating victimization into a positive policy.” The Palestinians have to sort out their own political mess before the Arab world will again expend much political clout to help their cause.
Unlike Israel’s accords with Egypt and Jordan, its deal with the U.A.E. alters a fundamental premise of peace, Sachs noted. For decades, the framework of international diplomacy was based on “land for peace”—Israel giving up land it conquered in wars with the Arabs in exchange for the Arabs promising no future aggression. The new premise is “peace for peace,” a popular refrain among right-wing Israelis, Sachs said. It is based on no exchange of land—and only the temporary suspension of a promise to proclaim sovereignty over more Arab land, in exchange for a non-aggression pact and formal relations. The looming question is how the formal alliance between Israel and a small but influential nation in the Gulf will affect growing tensions with Iran. “If you’re looking for an organizing idea that has moved the needle as much as it has in the Middle East over the past six or seven years, Iran is the place to start,” Kurtzer told me. “That is what brought the Gulf states and Israel to the same place.” Israel now has an ally on the front line with the Islamic Republic—which lies just thirty-three miles away from the U.A.E.


newyorker--2020-08-13--“An Easy Girl,” Reviewed: Rebecca Zlotowski’s Brilliant Portrayal of a Teen-Ager’s Brush with Glitz

“ An Easy Girl ” ( “ Une Fille Facile ” ) , the new film by the French director Rebecca Zlotowski , borrows tropes , tones , and even a lead actress from reality TV .
But it also looks behind the genre ’ s vulgar appeal—and the appeal of vulgarity—to locate the authentic substance that such spectacles demand and conceal .
The film , which comes to Netflix on Thursday , reimagines the genre of a teen-age girl ’ s coming of age in the form of a tightly framed social experiment : she follows her much worldlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rich older man and his yacht , and then she returns to her regular life .
Moreover , Zlotowski crafts a distinctive style to distill and heighten the drama ’ s psychological complexities and societal analyses .
No less than its young protagonists , the film dangerously brushes against the edge of modernity ’ s enticingly destructive glitz .
The film ’ s protagonist , Naïma ( Mina Farid ) , is a high-school student , in Cannes , who lives with her mother ( Loubna Abidar ) , a chambermaid at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modest apartment complex not far from the waterfront .
She turns sixteen on the last day of school .
When she gets home , she has a surprise : a visit from her twenty-two-year-old cousin , Sofia ( Zahia Dehar ) , who has been living in Paris .
Sofia is sexually candid and dripping with bling : she has jewelry , fancy clothing , and a Chanel handbag—and brings one for Naïma , too .
In the evening , on the waterfront , Sofia and Naïma walk by a yacht that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two middle-aged yachtsmen follow them to a nearby night club and invite them on board the boat .
Naïma is scheduled for a summer internship , in the kitchen of the hotel where her mother works ; she also has plans , with her best friend , Dodo ( “ Riley ” Lakdhar Dridi ) , a classmate , to audition for acting school .
Yet her pursuit of glamorous adventure threatens all of those plans .
Over the next ten days , Naïma both consciously and naïvely follows Sofia into the high-finance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power and gets a heady apprenticeship in the ways of that cozy and cruel world—one that , for all its dangers , helps Naïma to see where she stands in relation to it , to see her path in life .
Dehar is one of France ’ s most prominent celebrities .
She first came to public view in notoriety , in 2010—with a sex scandal involving some of France ’ s leading soccer players , who were accused of paying her for sex when she was seventeen .
( The age of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is fluid—but prostitution is legal only at eighteen ; the players were acquitted on the grounds that Dehar had claimed to be eighteen . )
She then appeared on TV , became a model , and—with the help of Karl Lagerfeld and other fashion notables—launched , at the age of twenty , a line of designer lingerie .
The casting of Dehar , in her first major acting role , is a coup de cinéma .
Zlotowski grafts Dehar ’ s real-life energy , knowledge , and power into the film—and they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her limpid , frank , and graceful performance .
With her blend of worldliness and otherworldliness , bluntly practical candor and ethereal majesty , Dehar pairs tensely with the rough-edged modesty and shy sincerity of Farid , a nonprofessional actress , who plays Naïma pensively and brusquely , with an inescapable adolescent awkwardness , carrying the film ahead on a rush of newly concentrated and unleashed energy .
Zlotowski , who wrote the script with Teddy Lussi-Modeste , presents the story from the perspective of Naïma ( she ’ s onscreen most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lucidly punctuates the story with her insights and recollections .
“ An Easy Girl ” is a tale of observation giving rise to action , of the spectator becoming a participant , which , in Zlotowski ’ s view , is the definition of a coming of age .
What Naïma participates in—the workings of the world of business and money—is sketched with a scathing clarity .
The yachtsmen whom the young women join are Andres ( Nuno Lopes ) , a suavely bearded , guitar-playing , mightily wealthy Brazilian stock-market investor and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Magimel ) , his art adviser , a sort of freelance cultural counsel who also functions as Andres ’ s paid companion and unofficial factotum ( and whom Andres calls by the part-admiring , part-demeaning nickname of Socrates ) .
Their yacht , when it ’ s docked , becomes a sort of theatre of luxury that local passersby watch , to Philippe ’ s embarrassment and Andres ’ s haughty contentment .
When the two men meet up with Sofia and Naïma , the pairing off is obvious and automatic : Andres @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whereas Philippe becomes Naïma ’ s sort-of friend and sort-of mentor , even as more intimate possibilities loom .
Sofia has schooled Naïma to dismiss the idea of love in favor of “ sensations , adventure , ” and advises her to take the initiative in pursuit of them .
After Naïma sees Sofia having sex with Andres—and Sofia , noticing her , keeps Naïma locked in her gaze , not erotically but didactically—Sofia tells her , “ For me , nothing happened last night.
” What Sofia expects , instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her wallet , expecting that men will pay for everything , and she schools Naïma in the art of cashing in .
Yet there ’ s far more to Sofia ’ s methods than the mere transaction ; she ’ s a personality , a sharply expressive and insightful conversationalist , who carefully calibrates her remarks and her behavior in keeping with her keen awareness of the company she keeps .
In a brief , remarkable scene , she explains to Naïma that she eats at home before going to dinner in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there isn ’ t to eat but to “ pay attention to the people around you.
” Naïma takes her advice .
In observing the relationship between Andres and Philippe , she learns that , for all of Philippe ’ s knowledge , he remains an employee in a constantly subordinate and occasionally humiliating position .
Naïma also observes , in the reflection of other gazes , the strangeness of her own position : at a lavish dinner with Sofia , the two men , and their friends , at the hotel where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees the staff , her friends , looking with wonder at her presence in that company and notices their stoic and silently judgmental immobility , at the sidelines , as the frivolous party stretches deep into the night and keeps them on duty , waiting to clean up .
( She also gleans much from the silent gazes of the yacht ’ s uniformed waitstaff—and from the drama that ensues when that silence is broken . )
These scenes depict extraordinary moments of which-side-are-you-on , with characters ’ gazes conveying distance or solidarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with high stakes in the balance , sharp perceptions , and enduring bewilderments .
Naïma ’ s carefully parsed perspective reflects her strange new world back onto the mental landscape of her regular life .
With cinematography by Georges Lechaptois , “ An Easy Girl ” is filled with calm , luminous , dynamic images ; it ’ s a wonderful film for watching people walk , for observing casual gestures and fleeting exchanges through seaside cityscapes and domestic spaces .
The movie captures the passing of time both in the potentially terrifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weight of recollection , weighty calculation , and tremulous anticipation—and its contemplative moments move just as fast , filled as they are with physical detail and mental energy , all conveyed in the reserved intricacy of the onscreen compositions .

“An Easy Girl” (“Une Fille Facile”), the new film by the French director Rebecca Zlotowski, borrows tropes, tones, and even a lead actress from reality TV. But it also looks behind the genre’s vulgar appeal—and the appeal of vulgarity—to locate the authentic substance that such spectacles demand and conceal. The film, which comes to Netflix on Thursday, reimagines the genre of a teen-age girl’s coming of age in the form of a tightly framed social experiment: she follows her much worldlier adult cousin into the social orbit of a rich older man and his yacht, and then she returns to her regular life. Moreover, Zlotowski crafts a distinctive style to distill and heighten the drama’s psychological complexities and societal analyses. No less than its young protagonists, the film dangerously brushes against the edge of modernity’s enticingly destructive glitz.
The film’s protagonist, Naïma (Mina Farid), is a high-school student, in Cannes, who lives with her mother (Loubna Abidar), a chambermaid at a nearby luxury hotel, in a modest apartment complex not far from the waterfront. She turns sixteen on the last day of school. When she gets home, she has a surprise: a visit from her twenty-two-year-old cousin, Sofia (Zahia Dehar), who has been living in Paris. Sofia is sexually candid and dripping with bling: she has jewelry, fancy clothing, and a Chanel handbag—and brings one for Naïma, too. In the evening, on the waterfront, Sofia and Naïma walk by a yacht that’s docked at the marina, and two middle-aged yachtsmen follow them to a nearby night club and invite them on board the boat. Naïma is scheduled for a summer internship, in the kitchen of the hotel where her mother works; she also has plans, with her best friend, Dodo (“Riley” Lakdhar Dridi), a classmate, to audition for acting school. Yet her pursuit of glamorous adventure threatens all of those plans. Over the next ten days, Naïma both consciously and naïvely follows Sofia into the high-finance, high-society whirl of brazen wealth and power and gets a heady apprenticeship in the ways of that cozy and cruel world—one that, for all its dangers, helps Naïma to see where she stands in relation to it, to see her path in life.
Dehar is one of France’s most prominent celebrities. She first came to public view in notoriety, in 2010—with a sex scandal involving some of France’s leading soccer players, who were accused of paying her for sex when she was seventeen. (The age of consent in France is fifteen—and even that is fluid—but prostitution is legal only at eighteen; the players were acquitted on the grounds that Dehar had claimed to be eighteen.) She then appeared on TV, became a model, and—with the help of Karl Lagerfeld and other fashion notables—launched, at the age of twenty, a line of designer lingerie. The casting of Dehar, in her first major acting role, is a coup de cinéma. Zlotowski grafts Dehar’s real-life energy, knowledge, and power into the film—and they’re embodied all the more movingly in her limpid, frank, and graceful performance. With her blend of worldliness and otherworldliness, bluntly practical candor and ethereal majesty, Dehar pairs tensely with the rough-edged modesty and shy sincerity of Farid, a nonprofessional actress, who plays Naïma pensively and brusquely, with an inescapable adolescent awkwardness, carrying the film ahead on a rush of newly concentrated and unleashed energy.
Zlotowski, who wrote the script with Teddy Lussi-Modeste, presents the story from the perspective of Naïma (she’s onscreen most of the time), whose voice-over narration lucidly punctuates the story with her insights and recollections. “An Easy Girl” is a tale of observation giving rise to action, of the spectator becoming a participant, which, in Zlotowski’s view, is the definition of a coming of age. What Naïma participates in—the workings of the world of business and money—is sketched with a scathing clarity. The yachtsmen whom the young women join are Andres (Nuno Lopes), a suavely bearded, guitar-playing, mightily wealthy Brazilian stock-market investor and art collector, and Philippe (Benoît Magimel), his art adviser, a sort of freelance cultural counsel who also functions as Andres’s paid companion and unofficial factotum (and whom Andres calls by the part-admiring, part-demeaning nickname of Socrates). Their yacht, when it’s docked, becomes a sort of theatre of luxury that local passersby watch, to Philippe’s embarrassment and Andres’s haughty contentment. When the two men meet up with Sofia and Naïma, the pairing off is obvious and automatic: Andres is pursuing Sofia for a sexual relationship, whereas Philippe becomes Naïma’s sort-of friend and sort-of mentor, even as more intimate possibilities loom.
Sofia has schooled Naïma to dismiss the idea of love in favor of “sensations, adventure,” and advises her to take the initiative in pursuit of them. After Naïma sees Sofia having sex with Andres—and Sofia, noticing her, keeps Naïma locked in her gaze, not erotically but didactically—Sofia tells her, “For me, nothing happened last night.” What Sofia expects, instead, is money; she keeps literally none in her wallet, expecting that men will pay for everything, and she schools Naïma in the art of cashing in. Yet there’s far more to Sofia’s methods than the mere transaction; she’s a personality, a sharply expressive and insightful conversationalist, who carefully calibrates her remarks and her behavior in keeping with her keen awareness of the company she keeps. In a brief, remarkable scene, she explains to Naïma that she eats at home before going to dinner in society, because the point of being there isn’t to eat but to “pay attention to the people around you.”
Naïma takes her advice. In observing the relationship between Andres and Philippe, she learns that, for all of Philippe’s knowledge, he remains an employee in a constantly subordinate and occasionally humiliating position. Naïma also observes, in the reflection of other gazes, the strangeness of her own position: at a lavish dinner with Sofia, the two men, and their friends, at the hotel where Naïma’s mother works, she sees the staff, her friends, looking with wonder at her presence in that company and notices their stoic and silently judgmental immobility, at the sidelines, as the frivolous party stretches deep into the night and keeps them on duty, waiting to clean up. (She also gleans much from the silent gazes of the yacht’s uniformed waitstaff—and from the drama that ensues when that silence is broken.)
These scenes depict extraordinary moments of which-side-are-you-on, with characters’ gazes conveying distance or solidarity, incipient stock-taking or bold decision-making, with high stakes in the balance, sharp perceptions, and enduring bewilderments. Naïma’s carefully parsed perspective reflects her strange new world back onto the mental landscape of her regular life. With cinematography by Georges Lechaptois, “An Easy Girl” is filled with calm, luminous, dynamic images; it’s a wonderful film for watching people walk, for observing casual gestures and fleeting exchanges through seaside cityscapes and domestic spaces. The movie captures the passing of time both in the potentially terrifying rapidity of impulsive decisions and the stretched-out weight of recollection, weighty calculation, and tremulous anticipation—and its contemplative moments move just as fast, filled as they are with physical detail and mental energy, all conveyed in the reserved intricacy of the onscreen compositions.
The spirit of two movies looms over “An Easy Girl.” The first is “La Collectionneuse,” Éric Rohmer’s second feature, from 1967. Its first scene is virtually quoted here, in a sequence showing Sofia, in a bathing suit, on the beach, and zeroing in on parts of her body, in closeup, as Rohmer does with Haydée Politoff, an actress in his film. That movie tells the story of two men who, during a seaside summer vacation, find their romantic and erotic destinies tangled up with that of a young woman of seventeen, whose overt sexual freedom both shocks and entices them. Zlotowski offers a potent corrective to Rohmer’s film, which leaves the woman a cipher. The other film is “Blue Jeans,” a short from 1958, directed by Jacques Rozier, who’s now ninety-three. Rozier is perhaps the most secretly influential (and secretly great) director in the modern French cinema; the short, filmed in Cannes, is the story of two young men, pickup artists who cruise the seaside and the town, on their motor scooters and on foot, in the hope of meeting young women. (Money plays a role there, too.) Zlotowski alludes to it in a scene in which both Sofia and Naïma wear striped shirts akin to the one that Rozier’s film rendered iconic, even before Jean Seberg’s in “Breathless.” Here, too, though, Zlotowski depicts women’s power alongside that of men, while ultimately defining power itself in terms that aren’t solely or strictly gendered.
Power is the very subject of “An Easy Girl,” and Naïma’s first conscious encounter with it in its varied forms—sexual, economic, cultural, and sheerly, mysteriously interpersonal, starting with Sofia’s own hypnotic, seemingly telepathic ability to find and lure a likely man. Yet another aspect of power is sublimated: Naïma and Sofia are people of color, likely of North African descent (Dehar was born in Algeria), and the film converts matters of ethnicity and culture, which aren’t directly addressed, into terms of class and economics, access (or lack of it) to power and presence (or absence) of privilege. Looking from a lofty height and a stringent proximity at the ways of the world, Zlotowski offers a story of personality and allure, of the endowment of natural authority and what people who don’t have it must do to make their way through life.