NJ's Page

17/12/2021

Dune - Movie Review by NJ

Dune is a 2021 adaption of the highly successful landmark science fiction book of the same name. As an avid fan of the literary series and the universe it builds, I am happy to say that it does the book justice and portrays the stunning universe of Dune flawlessly.

Directed by the talented Denis Villeneuve, this movie stars A-list actors such as Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Josh Brolin, Jason Momoa, Stephen McKinley Henderson, Chang Chen, Sharon Duncan-Brewster, Stellan Skarsgård, David Dastmalchian, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Ramping and Javier Bardem. Each one of these actors deliver stellar performances and bring their book counterparts to life.

Dune is an audio-visual experience that will take your breath away. The score, composed by the famous Hans Zimmer, is exceptional and especially does well in that it combines various modern-day music such as Scottish bagpipes, Arabic chanting and Mongolian throat singing, and makes them work in a futuristic setting. The visual effects are striking and magnificent and portray the world of Dune brilliantly. Every single component of the film, from the acting to the writing to the technical aspects, all come together in such a way to create a film that is the closest thing to perfection that I can imagine. It is evident that every single member of the cast and crew gave it their all to produce a masterwork that is highly worthy of your time and money.

I would definitely recommend that you watch Dune in cinemas because it is an exceptional audio-visual experience that cannot be replicated at home.

NJ's Page

06/11/2021

Jai Bhim - Movie Review by NJ

Jai Bhim is a 2021 courtroom drama film, starring Suriya and Lijomol Jose, about a lawyer standing up for the rights of the downtrodden Irula community. The film deals with very
relevant and important subject matter, that being police brutality, but the script also discusses various topics such as social class, caste, and justice. The film is very emotionally gripping and extremely suspenseful to watch, as the twisted web of the overarching mystery gets slowly untangled by our protagonist, advocate Chandru (Suriya). In essence, the film is a criticism of the discrimination based on wealth and caste that is so prevalent in contemporary Indian society.

The film opens with a hard-hitting scene where a police officer separates newly released prisoners based on caste and foists unsolved cases on the lower. It sets the tone and message for the rest of the movie and gives us a taste of what to expect. After the title, the film cuts to Rajakannu (Manikandan) and Sengani (Lijomol Jose), a loving Irula couple.

However, caste and discrimination play a major role in their lives, as even though they are native people of the land, they have no land of their own, no voting rights, and virtually do not exist. A series of unfortunate events lead to Rajakannu being falsely accused of a jewel robbery from a village leader. The police brutally torture both him and his family, and it is extremely difficult to watch as they endure unbearable pain by the sadistic police officers.
After Sengani is told that Rajakannu and two others escaped the police station, she visits advocate Chandru (Suriya), a social activist/lawyer who protests against police abuse of
power and brutality. As soon as he enters the film, the pace quickens, and the film becomes a courtroom drama. What unfolds next in the investigation of the whereabouts of the three
makes up the bulk of the rest of the film. The investigation is extremely gripping, and the courtroom scenes are the highlight of the film, with snappy dialogue and excellent tension. There are countless twists and turns that make this film brilliant in terms of writing. The major plus that this movie has is the absence of a Saviour Complex that most Tamil films have. Suriya, rather than being a flawless hero, is a complex man. He gets angry, he experiences shame, he has emotions. He is portrayed as an ally to Sengani rather than a hero.

Both Suriya and Lijomol Jose deliver amazing performances, especially the latter, who perfectly portrays someone going through a crisis. Suriya lets his co-star take centre stage, allowing her to fully flesh out her character. The technical aspects of this film are all good,with a great soundtrack and nice editing and cinematography. The soundtrack enhances all key emotions in scenes and adds a lot to the film.

The key messages in this film are extremely inspiring to the younger generations, my personal favourite being a line delivered by Suriya: “The respect someone has for you doesn’t come from your skill, it comes from how you use it”. This, I believe, can apply to
anyone of any age. This film teaches the viewer to be humanitarian and not to look at everything through the lens of social class, wealth and caste.
In conclusion, this film is extremely emotionally gripping and well wroth the watch! For my final verdict, I give this a 4/5.

12/11/2020

MOVIE REVIEW: PAPER PLANES - By NJ
The hit 2015 family movie Paper Planes, directed by Robert Connolly, is the quintessential example of the modern-day family flick, as it successfully ticks a number of boxes to appeal to a wider demographic. The movie is a disjointed mismash of sports movie clichés and awkward subplots that I will discuss in the following paragraphs. The movie stars Ed Oxenbould as Dylan Webber, a twelve year-old boy who finds a strange interest in throwing paper planes. The movie attempts unsuccessfully to say some sort of message about perseverance, though it falls flat on its back through a confused idea of perseverance and a clichéd screenplay. It is apparently inspired by the inspirational story of Dylan Parker, though all but the main character’s name stays the same. Obnoxious foes, dead mothers and one-dimensional love interests are created to spice up the story (obviously, who would want to watch a movie about a real inspirational story?). Set in NSW, it is definitely not a movie that I would recommend to viewers. It saddens me that clichéd movies like this make millions of dollars at the box office (9.61 million to be exact!) while true films with artistic merit fail miserably. Going in, I really wanted to enjoy and love this movie, however, no matter how much I focus on the positive aspects, the negative aspects continue to emerge. How many times will the typical sports movie formula be used over and over again?
The protagonist of the movie is Dylan Webber (Ed Oxenbould), a one-dimensional twelve year-old boy living in New South Wales, who supposedly displays “perseverance”. After he realises his prodigious talent for paper-plane throwing, he decides to become a champion and “perseveres” to attain his goal – at least, the movie tries to make you think he is, when from the beginning he can simply throw a paper-plane fifty metres! That’s luck, not perseverance! Perseverance is when someone works endlessly, from the bottom-up, to achieve their singular vision even when times are tough. Perseverance is not when you can just effortlessly throw a paper-plane fifty metres! In the real world, people have to work extremely hard to achieve their vision. Not instantly having talent! This is a major problem in Hollywood blockbusters today; many have used the term Mary Sue/Marty Stu. In essence, a Mary Sue/Marty Stu is a one-dimensional protagonist with skill not earned through hard work, but by natural talent! Various examples include Rey, the new 2020 Mulan, and now Dylan Webber! Other characters include Dylan’s father (Sam Worthington) is a depressed father who is mourning the recent loss of his wife. His lack of perseverance through tough times is irritating; as he lies motionless on the couch for hours a day, instead of going to work and supporting his son. The boring love interest (slight pause so I can look up her name, as her character was so forgettable) named Kimi has no character other than being the love interest and saying strange lines of supposed “wisdom”. Jason, the obnoxious arch-nemisis of Dylan, is the basic example of the rich bully archetype, and does a complete one-eighty in the span of two seconds without any reasonable explanation. Same with school bully Kevin, whom at first I thought was going to be the main antagonist! Many have pointed out Jason’s questionable acts of perseverance, however I strongly disagree. Perseverance, as mentioned before, is when you strive to better yourself in tough times. Perseverance is not when you simply crush the opposition instead of making yourself better. Of course, I cannot discuss characters without mentioning the standout, the grandpa, played masterfully by Terry Norris. He is this film’s saviour, the one reason why I give it three stars out of ten! The problem with all of these characters (with the exception of the grandpa) is that they lack dimension. What do I know about Dylan Webber, other than the fact that he’s twelve years old and nice! Why should I be invested in the character of Dylan Webber when he doesn’t show any emotion? Jason is obnoxious and rich – that’s it! And don’t even get started on Kimi (Ena Imai), the one-dimensional love interest of Dylan! Of course, I cannot discuss characters without shortly discussing the acting. Sometimes horrible, sometimes amazing. The standout in terms of acting is Sam Worthington, notably in a key scene in which Dylan leaves a heartfelt message. However, there is some terrible too. Ed Oxenbould is stoic and blunt as Dylan Webber and turns Dylan into a simply “nice” twelve year-old, without any subtlety or real human emotion. I don’t even know if that’s the screenplay’s fault or his! The same cannot be said about Ena Imai, playing Kimi Muroyama, who is – to put it bluntly – absolutely horrible in her role! However, readers of this humble review must remember that I am not criticising the actors themselves, rather the performances they gave. These terrible characters are supposedly variations on the “theme” of the movie – perseverance – however they are boring, clichéd and one-dimensional.
The story beats of Paper Planes are frustratingly predictable. This movie’s story can be concisely summarised as a disjointed mismatch of every single sports movie cliché. The movie opens as Dylan Webber travels to school, greeting a blatantly obvious Chekhov’s Gun in the form of an eagle named Clive. A rowdy school incursion results in him realising his prodigious talent for paper-plane throwing, and so, he suddenly decides to enter a state competition. An unusual plot point is introduced: the boy who created the brilliant paper plane that flew over fifty metres suddenly can only make ones that fly a couple! The movie attempts to use this as a way to say that Dylan perseveres, but this is too unrealistic! Why? Why does he want to win so badly? Does paper-plane throwing have any emotional significance to him? Dylan just doesn’t have any motivation to continue to try! And yes, I do realize the crammed-in throwaway line about “forgetting” in the third act, however the audience doesn not know anything about Dylan’s late mother to have any actual feeling about it! The story continues from there, as Dylan effortlessly continues to win against faceless opponents who instantaneously lose! A better story about perseverance would have focused on these losers, as they questioned their talents, however eventually rose again to take the challenge! Instead, we are stuck with a predictable storyline and a jumble of clichés! Sports Movie Cliché No. 394: The antagonist is a wealthy male who only cares about winning the game, however by the end he will do a complete 180 without any reasonable explanation. Sports Movie Cliché No. 567: The protagonist, a one-dimensional underdog, will gain an injury to his playing limb a few days before the final match. And this won the AACTA Best Original Screenplay Award? They say in the film industry that the screenplay is the base for your movie. If it’s rotten, the entire film will crumble to the ground, no matter whatever Oscar-worthy acting or visionary directing. In the end, Paper Planes attempts to soar into the skies with a powerful message and inspiring story, however it miserably falls flat on its face due to a confused theme and a predictable, clichéd storyline.
To examine why this crucial theme of perseverance just doesn’t work, I’d like to compare it to the excellent animated 1998 film Mulan (dir. Tony Bancroft & Barry Cook), which also utilised a theme of perseverance. The eponymous character of Mulan doesn’t have master swordfighting abilities as soon as she picks up a dagger. She doesn’t instantaneously save China from the get-go. She actually perseveres through the challenges of serving in the military, with her father as a recurring motivation. In a masterful song sequence entitled “I’ll Make a Man Out of You”, Mulan is shown several separate occasions to fail at practising certain military activities, however, she persists through all that and, as the sun rises, symbolising her newfound victory, she attains the arrow previously challenged to reach. Unlike Paper Planes, Mulan takes the time to show the protagonist working hard.
As you, dear reader, can probably see, I despise this cash-grab feel-good movie. The cringeworthy acting, the frustrating storyline, the clunky screenplay, the uninspired cinematography, the horrible editing, and the god-awful CGI planes make this movie unbearable to watch. Ena Imai’s performance as Kimi is awful, and makes me cringe every time she says one of her lines of “wisdom”. The dialogue is awful, and it makes me wonder how this won the AACTA Best Original Screenplay Award. The cinematography is what you would expect from a blockbuster; nothing that special. The editing, however, is horrible, especially in two sequences, the first a hyperactive look at the streets of Tokyo, which almost made me vomit. Tokyo is a beautiful city, especially at night, and that leaves me wondering how they managed to make it look terrible. The second is a sequence in which Dylan walks past rows of paper, where the editor (Nick Meyers) chooses to fade into a close-up instead of simply cutting! It makes the effect look horrible. However, the worst technical aspects are the god-awful CGI paper planes, which look like deformed lumps of white slime. They fly in zigzag patterns, change speeds, turn direction, defying the laws of nature and physics. How am I supposed to feel tension in a climatic sequence if I know that these planes can defy nature? If this movie was released in the UK, I bet Newton would arise from the grave in order to criticise the special effects team! Finally, the nitty-gritty. Continuity errors, logical mistakes, blatantly fake acting, spacial continuity errors, usage of outdated memes (Psyched!) and disrespect to cultures are all littered throughout this movie, however I will focus onto what I think is the biggest offender: a wide shot of a Japanese Imperial Garden in which Japanese swordfighters duel. In the shot, they dance like madmen with their sticks and flail them around. What do you think that actual Japanese swordfighters would think about their cultural practice being reduced to crazy thrashing in a major motion picture? Another key offender is the usage of the ethnic slur “w**** t****” in a pivotal scene. Ethnic slurs are in actuality worse than normal swear words, as they specifically target a specific group of people. This is absolutely not child-friendly, and makes me question whether it was an intentional line in the screenplay or an improvisation by the actor. Would you want your child repeating this slur at places In order to write this humble review, I myself had to torture myself by rewatching this thrice. Please, dear reader, don’t pay to see this.
The Australian Classification rated this movie a G (General), however I strongly disagree. The usage of an ethnic slur and the questionable moral implications (don’t tell off a bully) make me personally rate this a PG (Parental Guidance). This movie is not good – no, wait, it’s terrible. Other reviewers state the inspiring story of perseverance can teach children, however I say that if you want to teach children perseverance, watch the original 1998 Mulan. The incomprehensible plotting, the strange story beats, the cringeworthy acting, the clunky screenplay, all these criticisms float around my mind, making me wonder how they could’ve made the perfect storm. That being said, it is clear that there was a lot of passion put into this project. However, my criticisms still remain. Passion is not an excuse for creating a terrible movie! I definitely wouldn’t recommend this movie to any viewers! Now, to my final verdict. In conclusion, I give this movie a 1.5/5 stars for a terrible screenplay and other factors.

– Nilavan

06/09/2020

LONDON - By NJ

Birdswhistle strolled leisurely down the dirty alleyway, a small withered stub of a cigarette held in his coarse hands, and took a few deep breaths, sending plumes of smoke elegantly gliding through the breeze. Taking small sips of his latté, served daintily in a tiny white coffee-cup with a dazzling green mermaid printed onto the front, he knocked over many a large black bag full of waste, causing shiny metal cans of alcohol to roll through the street. Suddenly, a party of towering British soldiers with furry black headwear darted through the alleyway on their perfect white stallions.

As Birdswhistle walked out the alleyway and into the main street, many pedestrians, some wearing broad grey coats, some nervously attempting to cross the street with their small light-brown cat, walked past him. London was crowded. Crowded with illegal immigrants and refugees from Mexico, Portugal, and other foreign bodies. Crowded with government officials living in luxurious mansions, oblivious to the impoverished masses beneath their feet. Crowded with lower-class citizens who daily suffered to feed their respective families. As Birdswhistle walked through the street, giant glittering ads for wealthy supercompanies flashed across large billboards plastered onto the sides of buildings. He turned his dark head around a few times, indifferent to the suffering of others. First his needs, then empathy. Birdswhistle turned after a few minutes of walking past cafés and fast food stores, with graffiti signs of protest on them, and onto the road, causing the short-tempered driver of a large red triple-decker bus to shout frenzied statements of rage. Police motorcycles and silver cars whizzed past, splashing rainwater and mud onto Birdswhistle. He walked into one of the shiny light-brown apartment complexes, thrust open the dirty black door, and tapped onto the door of a cobwebbed elevator.

To no avail. He would have to take the stairs. He walked up the stairs, exhausted though it was morning. As he opened the door to Apartment 237, sending chips of wood flying through the air, the light of the small silver television hit his tired red eyes. On the small screen was a cartoon of a strong moustachio’d leader who valiantly kicked foreign countries like soccer balls. The voiceover of a man with a deep baritone voice echoed on the cartoon. “We need YOU, to fight for the King in the Great Peace Struggle, against the cruel Asians of the foreign lands!” “Footage” of the Great Peace Struggle was then shown, in which Asian soldiers were systematically killed by a mass of gunfire. Birdswhistle watched, unfazed by the violence, as it were now commonplace.

He thought back to the children of one of his colleagues, Clive, who had stared, entranced by the violence of the “footage”. He turned off the television, then sat down at a small wooden chair. He thought deeply for a few moments, then pulled out his long white cigarette, reminiscent of the stub of a dirty white crayon. He lit it with a small bronze-coloured lighter, then sighed.

-NJ

19/05/2020

Russia in the 20th Century

Subtitles –
- The Czar and WWI
- The Revolution and the Russian Civil War
- The Great Purge and the Collapse of the Soviet Union

Did you know that over 680,000 citizens died in the Great Purge of 1937? The people who were killed were all either normal citizens, like yourself, or political opponents of Josef Stalin. The Russian Revolution and the events following and leading up to it, played a pivotal part in the history of Russia. Russia is one of the world’s largest powers, and is a vast country. It also has a diverse history. The Russian Revolution played a pivotal part in Russia, and also in the 20th century. The Russian Revolution eliminated monarchs from Russia, and brought in more power to citizens, but, did the oppressed topple over a cruel dictator, or simply replace it with another? If you read on, these questions shall be answered.

The Czar and WWI
Firstly, the cause of the Russian Revolution was the Czar; Nicholas II. Czar Nicholas was a cruel tyrant who oppressed his people. The poor, who were roughly 80% of Russia’s population, were starving, while the Czar and the other 20%; the aristocrats, lived in luxury and ate until their stomachs were full. The Czar was put into power in 1894, and oppressed his people. He was the emperor of Russia, which meant that he had the final say on anything that concerned the Russian empire, which was huge. Throughout the last century, Russia had seen massive industrialization, and the working class demanded greater representation. When the incompetent government tried agricultural reforms, it lead to the Russo-Japanese war. This, along with an event called Bloody Sunday in which a priest called Father Gapon lead hundreds of peasants to the palace to file a petition; the crowd was fired upon and many were killed, lead to several riots across Russia. A peace negotiator named Sergei Witte was tasked with negotiating with the lower class. Witte created a government called the Duma. To simplify, this Duma was useless and did nothing except further anger the lower class. A new Prime Minister named Pyotr Stolypin was appointed to pacify the working class. Stolypin brought in many agricultural reforms before he was assassinated at an opera in 1911. In 1914, WWI started and Czar Nicholas appointed himself as the head of the army, leaving his wife Alexandra with her advisor, Grigori Rasputin. After Russia’s failings in WW1, Rasputin was blamed and was eventually assassinated in 1916. War fatigue and hunger lead to several protests, which caused unrest, and Czar Nicholas ordered the army to gun down the protestors. However, the army turned on him and joined the protestors. After many of his generals advised the Czar to abdicate, he did just that, leaving the throne empty. Nicholas’ abdication allowed several exiled revolutionaries, such as Vladimir Lenin, to return to Russia.

The Revolution and The Russian Civil War
Lenin immediately called for the overthrow of the government, and formed a rival one, the Petrograd Soviet. Lenin promised, land, food, and an end to the war. Many people protested and they were lead by Lenin’s communist faction, the Bolsheviks. The army shot down the crowd and many important Bolsheviks, such as Leon Trotsky, were arrested, while Lenin fled to Finland. The new Prime Minister, Alexander Kerensky, appointed a new head of the army, Lavr Kornilov. They did not get along and Kornilov sent the army to Petrograd (St. Petersburg). With no other option, Kerensky turned to the Red Guard (The Bolshevik army) to take down Kornilov. Kerensky also released all of the arrested Bolsheviks. Kornilov was captured by the Red Guard before he could reach Petrograd, and was arrested. When Lenin returned, he again called for the overthrow of the government. Last time he had tried to use peaceful methods, as Gandhi did, but this time the revolution was to be violent. The Bolsheviks and the Red Guard plotted the attack, while Lenin allocated Trotsky as the commander of the Red Guard. Shortly after the attack, Kerensky ran away, and the Bolsheviks seized power. After Lenin was placed in power, he made three laws:

1) The decree on peace, which stated that Russia would not get into any more wars.
2) The decree on land, which stated that private land ownership should be abolished.
3) The decree on laborers, which introduced minimum wage.

After Lenin was put into power, he established proper healthcare, gave women more rights, and accepted Finland’s Declaration of Independence. However, the Bolsheviks had to accept a peace treaty with the Central Powers, which gave up Czechoslovakia to Austria and Germany. Most Russians were pleased with the peace, but civilians such as the Czechoslovakians were angry. In WWI, Czechoslovakia had fought for Russia in exchange for Independence. The Czechs revolted and their initial success was halted by the Bolsheviks entering the war. This war is commonly known as the Russian Civil War. The sides were the Bolsheviks, known as the Reds, and those who opposed them, called the Whites. Britain, Japan, and the United States decided to intervene on the side of the Whites, because of fear of the rise of communism. The Whites started to win, and they captured three-quarters of Russia and Yekaterinburg, where the ex-Czar was being held. The Bolsheviks did not want the monarchs to fall into enemy hands, so they executed the ex-Czar and his family. However, though the Whites had more weapons and soldiers, they lost because they were not very unified, and most were fighting because of their own agenda. In addition, the White generals were incompetent, and a prominent White, Alexander Kolchak, allowed his soldiers to drink, insulted the Czechs and the Brits, and executed thousands of citizens. In the end, the Allies left, the Czechs returned to Czechoslovakia, and the Russian Civil War ended. However, the collapse of two giant empires led to several nations, such as the Polish, led by Józef Piłsudski, trying to expand their own tiny empires. At the same time, Russia was looking to spread communism to their neighbours. Because of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Bolsheviks thought that they could also spread communism there. The Polish invaded Ukraine and captured Kiev. The Bolsheviks retaliated and forced the Polish to retreat. The three empires established clear borders. Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, which were all communist states, formed the U.S.S.R.

The Great Purge and Collapse of the U.S.S.R.

Lenin had become sick in the early 1920’s, and had had a series of strokes, leaving him immobile until his death in 1924. Lenin’s death caused a power struggle between two revolutionaries, Trotsky, and a certain Josef Stalin. Although Lenin disliked Stalin, Stalin concealed all criticisms of him by creating alliances with other prominent Bolsheviks, such as Kalinin. Trotsky’s and Stalin’s beliefs clashed, as Trotsky believed that communism should be spread to other countries, while Stalin believed that communism in the U.S.S.R was not strong enough to be used in other countries. Stalin was the victor and in 1929 Trotsky was exiled. Trotsky was later assassinated in Mexico. Stalin turned the U.S.S.R into a dictatorship, by use of assassinations, censorship, and a secret police, much like the Gestapo, called the N.K.V.D. He famously purged many members of the Bolsheviks in an event called the Great Purge. In 1934, a man named Sergei Kirov was assassinated. His assassin was probably working for Stalin. However, nobody knows for sure. Stalin stated that the assassination of Kirov was part of a Communist conspiracy to overthrow Stalin. As a result, the N.K.V.D, led by the secret police chief, Genrikh Yagoda, arrested two of Stalin’s old rivals, Grigori Zinoviev, and Lev Kamenev, saying that the conspirators were being led by none other than Leon Trotsky. Both Zinoviev and Kamenev were executed. Next, Yagoda was replaced by Nikolai Yezhov, who was a sadist. Over the next two years, many high-ranking officials were presided over in kangaroo courts and executed, one of the most important of them being Mikhail Tukhachevsky. The purge spread across the Soviet Union, and many factory owners, military commanders, and Bolsheviks were executed. The ones that weren’t killed were taken to the Gulags, a Holocaust-type torture camp. Over two years, 1936-1938, 650, 000 people were executed, and over 1, 000, 000 people were taken to the Gulags. Stalin had grown to be the very thing he had helped overcome. However, in 1939, Stalin finally stopped (to preserve his image) and had Yezhov executed. In the 1940’s, Stalin led the U.S.S.R into WWII, where many Soviets died. His mistake was killing off so many, as the people turned against him. The U.S.S.R failed horribly in WWII. In 1953, Stalin died. He had frightened all the surviving party members, so the most likely heir was a Soviet politician named Lavrentiy Beria. However, two of Stalin’s ministers, Georgy Malenkov and Vyacheslav Molotov, joined forces and took Beria out of power, and, eventually, had him executed. Their plan was to be joint Prime Ministers, however, none of them succeeded because the leader of the Moscow branch of the Bolshevik Faction, Nikita Krushchev, went in power through alliances with army commanders, including Georgy Zhukov. Krushchev used more civilised ways of handling his political enemies, such as demoting them. However, Krushchev was corrupt and handed out important jobs to his allies. These were called the Nomenklatura. Krushchev wanted immense change to the U.S.S.R. Riots were happening all over the U.S.S.R, because of torture in the Gulags. To pacify the rioters, Krushchev realeased most of the prisoners, and they promptly complained about how awful it was in the Gulags. In 1956, Krushchev released a speech known as “The Secret Speech”, which crticized Stalin. Krushchev believed that, if communism in the U.S.S.R was to thrive, it was needed to be changed. However, this did not mean that dissent would be tolerated, just that the dissenters would now lose their jobs instead of, you know, being shot. Throughout the 1950’s and early 1960’s, Krushchev brought about many reforms. He also tested the U.S.S.R’s first ever hydrogen bomb. He also embarked on a “space race” with the US, and achieved sending the first ever human, Yuri Gagarin, into space. However, the “space race’s” primary function was to test rockets, so they could send said bombs to the US. Krushchev believed that soon, communism would replace capitalism and take over the world. In one of Krushchev’s most famous speeches, he said, “We will bury you,” which, even though was a common Russian saying, as in, “We will outlast you,” was seen as a threat. In 1961, Krushchev faced the U2 Crisis, and the Berlin Crisis. He also had to deal with the Sino-Soviet Split, when Chairman Mao and China denounced the Soviet Union as abusers of power. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred, when Fidel Castro of Cuba requested Krushchev to place nuclear weapons in Cuba. The US was worried about nuclear weapons so close and threatened full-on nuclear war. However, peace negotiators found a compromise and the U.S.S.R removed nuclear weapons from Cuba while the US discreetly removed nuclear weapons from parts of the Soviet Union. This made Krushchev look like an idiot to the public, and damaged his shrinking reputation. In 1964, the people were fed up. They forced Krushchev out of power, and made him retire. He was replaced by a Bolshevik named Leonid Brezhnev. Brezhnev was less of a dictator than his predecessors, and would often ask for assistance. Eventually, he was made General Secretary and the title of Premier was given to his friend Alexei Kosygin. Kosygin and Brezhnev sought to undo Krushchev’s reforms, and eventually succeeded. However, the economy was failing because prices were rising, and Brezhnev ignored corruption. Some people, such as Andrei Sakharov, openly criticized the government. Another was the Nobel-Prize winning writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who wrote a book, The Gulag Archipelago, which described life in the notorious torture camps and stated that the Communist Party was evil. Both Solzhenitsyin and Sakharov were exiled from the Soviet Union, and the economy kept failing, because of the massive amount of money being spent towards military weapons, apparently to keep up with the US. Both sides were waiting for each other to move, as both had massive amounts of nuclear weapons. The U.S.S.R tried to calm the masses with an unsuccessful policy called Détente. However, Détente was broken in 1979 when the U.S.S.R tried to invade Afghanistan. The war with Afghanistan lasted for ten disastrous years, but Brezhnev died in 1982. Brezhnev was quickly replaced by Yuri Andropov. Relations between Andropov and the US president, Ronald Reagan, quickly deteriorated. Andropov died in 1984 and was succeeded by Konstantin Chernenko. However, Chernenko would not even last three months before he died. The reason that the two men (Andropov and Chernenko) died so quickly was because that they were old. Chernenko’s successor, Mikhail Gorbachev, was desperate to undo the disasters if the previous decade. Gorbachev tried many reforms, but all of them failed, while the US economy thrived. In 1986, a nuclear reactor blew up in Chernobyl, leading to the Chernobyl disaster. What shocked the people was that Gorbachev censored the disaster. In 1990, Gorbachev introduced democracy, and, in layman’s terms, he lost badly. Many small countries in the U.S.S.R opted to leave, and many did just so. Also in 1990, the first ever election in the Soviet Union took place. An ex-Bolshevik named Boris Yeltsin won the election. In 1991, many Communists were nervous about what Yeltsin would do, and, lead by Gennady Yenayev, launched a military coup. It was unsuccessful and Yenayev stopped after two days. During the coup, Latvia and Estonia declared themselves independent from the U.S.S.R. Three days after the coup, Gorbachev disbanded the Communist Party. Now Russia was just a single nation. On the 21st of December, 1991, the Alma-Ata Protocol was signed, ending the Soviet Union. On the 25th , Gorbachev resigned as President, and Yeltsin and the Federal Government took over. Yeltsin was the winner in a story of losers.

By NJ

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Tenminhistory Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4973164 Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/ten-minute-historys-store Spec...