Preventing Power Struggles: Fill & Download for Free

The Death of Stalin, banned in Russia to the amusement of all those who appreciate irony, manages to be both a searing indictment of totalitarianism and a fantastic satire of it; showing how power can turn man into animals.(This review is spoiler free)There’s a wonderful moment in this film. A moment that shows both these features at the same time. It is the events of Stalin’s actual death. He has a heart attack as the camera suddenly cuts outside, the two guards hear a hilarious ‘plop’ sound effect that seems right out of Loony Tunes. Knowing something is wrong, they don’t care enough to risk annoying Stalin by checking.It’s a hilarious scene that shows how Stalin’s death could have been prevented if he wasn’t a terrible person.What follows is a movie that portrays the inefficiency of the soviet system through a power struggle, specifically between Steve Buscemi’s Khrushchev and Simon Beale’s Beria. Two incredible performances that are complemented by the likes of Jeffrey Tambor, Michael Palin, Jason Isaacs, and others.The film has a gimmick, a gimmick which makes every single line comedy gold: The actors each use their native accents. If you have never heard Jeffrey Tambor talk about how sad he is to see Stalin die in his unmistakable tone. Or even better, Steve Buscemi conduct mock trials in Soviet Russia with that classic Buscemi inflection, you are missing out.There is some great filmmaking in The Death of Stalin. Armando Iannucci is in total control of the camera. He knows when to let the characters breathe and he knows when to allow the comedy to shine. Moments like Zhukov’s entrance or the final ‘trial’ are as memorable for the shot composition and editing as they are for the tension and comedy.Despite being a comedy, this is a suspenseful political thriller. Sure, you know that Khrushchev is going to come out on top, but you don’t quite know how the film will portray this rise. There are points where Ianucci casts Khrushchev’s rise as so seemingly impossible you start to doubt it will happen. I began thinking the film may take a Tarantino-Esque alternate history route.That’s the genius of The Death of Stalin; it takes a historical power struggle and makes a better political thriller than you could hope for. The satire is icing on a delicious cake.Rating: 8/10Recommendation: A Must See.

Yes. PM should attend as this is a huge event for India — a closure to a long pending issue of not having a great temple at the birthplace of Rama. Everyone is gearing up and even the top opposition wants a celebration: Invite all parties for Ayodhya bhumi pujan, dispute over after SC verdict: Salman KhurshidIt is going to be a great day for India. And I will use this opportunity to tell you about the core characteristic of our secularism.Unlike the French kind of secularism, India’s secularism is not based on avoiding religions, but on accepting all religions equally.Europe got that kind of secularism because the Pope was playing politics all around the continent leading to a power struggle with the kings. India never had a Pope nor any big history of religious institutions getting into direct challenge of the rulers.The Prime Minister has been visiting hundreds of mosques, churches and gurudwaras. I don’t think any of you had problem with that. Then what is the issue with him visiting a temple? Are you implying that Hindus have lesser rights in the country?Again popular leaders around the world celebrate their country’s dominant faith.In fact, PM not attending the event would be seen as a disrespect to India’s culture and its biggest religion. And it would be seen as disrespecting Indian secularism which rests on the idea that all faiths must be respected and accepted.Anyway, this issue is a much ado about nothing:Muslims don’t have an issue with it: Ayodhya litigant Ansari, Shia Waqf Board chief to accept Ram Mandir bhoomi poojan invite – ThePrintWaqf board has started work on the Mosque construction in the alternate site. UP Waqf Board sets up Trust to build mosque on 5-acre land

Yes and that would be a coup. And Boris Johnson could well draw on the experience from his Russian namesake: the late Boris Yeltsin.Once prime minister, Boris Johnson would be attempting coup. A prime minister leading a minority government, suspending the directly elected legislature in order to implement his preferred version of Brexit for which there is no specific mandate: either from MPs or from voters.It would set a precedent for future prime ministers who were not getting their own way.In reality, there are several legal protections against this course of action. For starters, House Speaker John Bercow has already said that he will prevent parliament being prorogued. He would provide opportunities for directly elected MPs to stop the Mr Johnson’s efforts to close parliament.There might even be a court case. Recall the twice failed legal efforts by Theresa May’s government to block a parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50.And if even Mr Johnson were successful, MPs could simply ignore the prorogation of parliament. There would be two centres of authority, both claiming legitimacy: the prime minister (elected by Conservative members) and MPs (elected by UK voters). This showdown would have all the hallmarks of the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis when Boris Yeltsin attempted to resolve a power struggle with the Russian federal parliament.