Jackson Hole Film Festival

http://www.jacksonholefilmfestival.org/

The Man Who Tamed Russia

Your selection of Russian President Vladimir Putin as Person of the Year was spot on [Dec. 31, 2007–Jan. 7, 2008]. Putin may yet become the single most important person of the 21st century. Occupying the largest landmass of any nation, Russia has just begun to tap its natural resources and national potential. Putin's rise to power in 1999 is an astonishing story and was a stroke of genius by an otherwise embarrassing drunk of a President, Boris Yeltsin. Putin is that rare individual who came to govern Russia without the cancerous corruption that seems to plague East European politics. We have watched him grow over the past eight years into a brilliant politician and forceful leader, who is determined to bring his country to the forefront of world affairs. I wouldn't underestimate his capability. Dan Mitchell, SPARTA, N.J., U.S.
tiiQuigoWriteAd(755777, 1391588, 142, 225, -1);


More Related
Putin and TIME: The View From Russia
Sunset for the Bush-Putin Era
The Godfather
How could Putin be Person of the Year in anyone's book? All he's doing is fronting a restyled, repackaged communism characterized by the criminalization of dissent. His political feats of derring-do are irrelevant. Peter Lomtevas, NEW YORK CITY
Being married to a Russian and having traveled to both Russia and Ukraine over the past 10 years, I must agree with your choice of Putin. He is the first leader I've seen who excites the Russian people. Regardless of the criticisms relating to limits on political opposition, human rights and freedom of the press, Russia is a better place for the Russian people since Putin came to power. A major reason is that better management of its vast resources has produced economic growth. We Americans typically don't like other countries stepping up toe-to-toe with us, and certainly Putin has ruffled many U.S. feathers with his actions. It would be good if the American people could look past their indignation at the situation in Russia and better understand why we have lost prestige in the international community. Howard Hinman, BLOOMINGTON, IND., U.S.
With its enormous natural resources and energy wealth, Russia is poised to be the dominant country of the 21st century. Before the surge in oil and gas prices, we all thought China would take that role away from the U.S. Now, with Putin's stabilizing hand, we know it could turn out differently. David O. Hill, MEMPHIS, TENN., U.S.
Although I wish you had chosen Al Gore as Person of the Year, I was fascinated by your decision to go with Putin. His determination to bring greatness to his nation, and his disregard for charm and charisma — which can fool people — are what we need in a leader. Sadly, those characteristics are lacking in most of the candidates of both parties in the U.S. Congratulations on a great choice and story. Harriet Robinson, DOYLESTOWN, PA., U.S.
Thank you for giving me a glimpse into Russia's soul. The heartbeat of a nation is its pride. I see Russia now not as Stalinist but as Putinist. Russia's story is indeed Putin's story. Jeremy P. McConnell, BALTIMORE
You should have named General David Petraeus Person of the Year. Petraeus' handling of the counterinsurgency in Iraq has been nothing but a miracle. When I was deployed there in 2005 and '06, it was clear that we needed to change the way we were fighting. Iraqi officers and leaders told me we needed to get out of the castle mentality and get into the streets with the Iraqis. Petraeus' plan was to do just that, and it has worked. Michael J. Mawson, Lieut. Colonel, USAF COLORADO SPRINGS
I am extremely pleased to see that you chose Putin as Person of the Year. The fact that he is unlike his predecessors Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev has proved positive for him. Putin is a leader who conveys the firmness of an unshakable persona. He has been successful in gaining economic prosperity for Russia and reviving it as a superpower. Putin does his best to keep friends with the U.S. while simultaneously checking its global policing activities. As long as Putin is around, he will have a much greater role to play in international affairs, and Russia is sure to get a further makeover. Akshay Mor, BANGALORE, INDIA

Teenage Fashion Designer Kira Plastinina

Fashion Princess
Backed by her father, multi-millionaire Sergei Plastinin, Kira Plastinina has turned her personal love of sparkles, high heels and pink shades into a line of clothes aimed at girls aged 15 to 25.

The Post-Movie-Star Era

By RICHARD CORLISS



A few months ago, I sat with three of the most popular actors of the past few decades — Robert Redford, Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise — who were promoting their new film, Lions for Lambs. I posed to them an indelicate question: Are movie stars obsolete? Consternation erupted as the three quickly and forcefully dismissed the idea. And why shouldn't they? They had nearly a century of movie history on their side.

The notion of star quality, of the famous face and magnetic personality that get the mass audience into theaters, has been an article of film-industry faith ever since Charlie Chaplin and Mary Pickford became worldwide sensations in the infant medium back around 1914. Over the years, almost everything else about movies changed, but one tenet held firm: the name above the title sold tickets. That's why the top stars could earn $25 million a picture — because they were the surest guarantee of a return on investment.

Except now they're not. Indeed, we may be in Hollywood's first poststar era. If you judge movie stardom by the actors who headline the biggest hits, then the top stars of 2007 include Tobey Maguire (Spider-Man 3), Shia LaBeouf (Transformers), Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) and Gerard Butler (300). Each of these films took in more than $200 million at the domestic box office, or more than three times as much as the political comedy Charlie Wilson's War, with a cast headed by Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. Among actresses in the year's releases, the big star was Ellen Page, whose low-budget Juno has made $138 million domestically. Doesn't she deserve an eight-figure contract for her next film? No, because even studio bosses know that, appealing as Page may have been, what drew crowds to Juno was story and attitude. Those are the lures of indie films, as surely as comic-book grandeur is the sine qua non for today's franchise blockbusters.

Meanwhile, star vehicles keep tanking. One reason is salutary: being in a string of hits no longer matters much to many stars. They have a taste for the off-Hollywood project that wouldn't be made if they weren't in it and that can stretch their talents even as it challenges their fans. Bravo for all this pro bono work. Still, you have to ask why The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, with Brad Pitt as the outlaw hero and Oscar-nominated Casey Affleck as his nemesis, should cadge a mere $4 million domestically or why The Good German, a spy thriller starring Maguire, Cate Blanchett and George Clooney — "the last movie star" — should earn a pitiful $1.3 million.

Every trend needs an exception, and Hollywood still has a guy whose movies are sure-shot smashes: Will Smith. (Matt Damon and Adam Sandler are also reliable hitmakers if they stick to their respective action and farce genres.) And yes, it's always possible that we're at the dawn of a new star era — that LaBeouf and Page will be the Hanks and Roberts of the next decade.

But with Hollywood getting most of its revenue from no-name epics and nonstar animated features like Ratatouille and Alvin and the Chipmunks, the moguls will realize that big names no longer mean big grosses. Just ask Redford, Streep and Cruise (but not to their faces). The movie they starred in last fall earned only $15 million domestically. Which suggests that the industry should stop paying for the pricey lions and place their bets on a flock of fresh lambs.

A Brief History Of: Former Soviet Republics

Since the breakup of The Soviet Union in 1991, its former republics have attempted to take different political directions. Most came together in the Commonwealth of Independent States (C.I.S.), which is still led by Russia. The Baltic nations joined NATO and the European Union in 2004--a course Ukraine and Georgia have flirted with recently--while the resource-rich Central Asian republics have remained largely loyal to Moscow. But after the invasion of Georgia, former members of the U.S.S.R. face an inescapable truth: you can't run from geography. Try as they might to move closer to Europe, many are now nervously eyeing a resurgent Russia on their borders.

EASTERN EUROPE

1. BELARUS 2. UKRAINE 3. MOLDOVA Russia has held a grudge against Ukraine since the 2004 pro-democracy Orange Revolution. Belarus has kept particularly close ties with Moscow, while Russian troops are currently stationed in a semidetached Moldovan territory.

THE CAUCASUS

1. GEORGIA 2. ARMENIA 3. AZERBAIJAN A vital region for the West, which has high hopes for an oil pipeline through Azerbaijan. George W. Bush visited ally Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia in 2005. Tiny Armenia, which borders Turkey and Iran, readily accepts Russian protection.

CENTRAL ASIA

1. KAZAKHSTAN 2. UZBEKISTAN 3. TURKMENISTAN 4. KYRGYZSTAN 5. TAJIKISTAN These states are wedged between Russia and China. Several are resource-rich and endure varying levels of autocratic rule; a few have let NATO use land for bases.

THE BALTICS

1. ESTONIA 2. LATVIA 3. LITHUANIA Thriving, technologically advanced democracies with prickly relationships with Russia. Estonia blames Moscow for major cyberattacks in 2007.

With their endless string of pearl beaches, heavenly climate and sensual bossa nova culture, Brazilians consider themselves uniquely blessed. So when the first of two gigantic oil fields was discovered off the coast near Rio de Janeiro last fall, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva saw it simply as further proof of a celestial bond. "God," Lula gushed, "is Brazilian."


Related
Stories
Lula, In His Own Words
More Related
Lula, In His Own Words
In Latin America, Pointing a Finger at the US
Mixed Results for Lula in Brazil Election
That kind of good fortune, divine or not, has helped Lula, 62, a former steelworkers' union leader and high school dropout, become Brazil's most popular President in a half-century. The oil find could make Brazil one of the world's largest crude producers, but even without that bounty, the economy has been growing as vigorously as a guava tree in the Amazon rain forest, allowing Brazil to start reducing its epic social inequality. Economic strength has also allowed the country to flex its diplomatic clout as the hemisphere's first real counterweight to the U.S. Lula led the creation of a bloc of developing nations, the G-20, to thwart U.S. and European hegemony in global trade talks. "I believe implicitly that Brazil has found its way," Lula told Time at the Planalto presidential palace in Brasília.

Now Lula is aiming for membership in the world's most exclusive club, the group of nations with permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council, part of his effort to "change the world's political and commercial geography." Brazil, the world's fifth most populous country, has begun lobbying more ardently for membership, and in his speech to the General Assembly in New York City on Sept. 23, Lula argued that the council's "distorted representation is an obstacle to the multilateral world we desire."

That may be a dream too far for the bearded, gravelly voiced President, but Lula's self-confidence is understandable: he has pulled off other unlikely feats. When he was first elected in 2002, many feared that Lula and his leftist Workers' Party would trash Brazil's emerging economy by pursuing socialist policies. Instead, Lula shrewdly embraced fiscal sobriety, strengthening Brazil's currency, the real, and reforming a bloated civil service pension system. Those policies and a windfall in commodities fueled a boom--the economy will grow 5% or more again this year, and inflation is historically low. Even his rivals acknowledge that despite his firebrand image, Lula has been a deft political operator. "The danger with Lula is that he can be rather messianic," says Rubens Ricúpero, a Finance Minister in the 1990s, when Lula opposed the market reforms he now backs. "But he's one of the most intelligent politicians in the world."

Just as important, Lula has steered Brazil between the Scylla and Charybdis of the right-wing Bush Administration and left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, whose clashes have rocked Latin America. In Washington, Lula is seen as an important ally. "Our relationship is solid--there are lots of points of convergence," says Christopher McMullen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. But while Lula bonds with Bush over biofuels--Brazil is a global pioneer in that area--he's also huddling with Chávez over plans to turn South America into an integrated economic bloc along the lines of the European Union. Lula, in fact, is one of the few leaders both Bush and Chávez will listen to. "I joke with them and tell them their fight is very weird," Lula says, "because oil makes them so dependent on each other."

Lula's biggest challenge, though, has been bridging the huge chasm between Brazil's rich and poor--a gap that makes the country look more like the feudal monarchy it was in the 19th century than the modern democracy it wants to be in the 21st. Lula, who as an impoverished kid shined shoes on the streets of São Paulo, has pumped more than $100 billion into social projects ranging from microfinance to grants for families who keep their kids in school. As a result, 52% of Brazil's 190 million people are now designated as middle class, up from 43% in 2002. At the same time, he hopes to make Brazil more business friendly with a $280 billion Growth Acceleration Program to boost infrastructure and cut taxes. "It's called doing things right," Lula says, "allowing the rich to earn money with their investments and allowing the poor to participate in economic growth."

For all his successes, though, some of Brazil's oldest maladies have proved stubbornly resistant to Lula's ministrations. Official corruption remains rampant; Lula blames a fetid political culture "that has been there for centuries," but that's an old excuse. One of his election promises was to clean up Brazilian politics, and with two years to go--rules forbid him to seek a third consecutive term--he'll have to start wielding the broom vigorously. The education system, despite increased funding and access, is still an embarrassment: Brazilian students continue to score at the bottom on international math and reading tests. Taxes are exorbitant, Amazon deforestation is rising again, and Brazil has one of the world's most wasteful public bureaucracies. To fix all those problems in two years would require much more divine intervention.