peril

Wembanyama’s concussion puts Spurs in peril the Lakers avoided

Towering superstar Victor Wembanyama toppled onto his face Tuesday night — timberrr!!! — and the NBA playoff scenario immediately became as scrambled as the San Antonio Spurs’ 7-foot-4 center’s thoughts must have been moments after he suffered a concussion.

Without Wembanyama for nearly three quarters, the Spurs fell to the underdog Portland Trail Blazers, 106-103, with the first-round series tied 1-1 and headed to Portland for Game 3 on Friday.

Meanwhile, without superstar guard Luka Doncic, the Lakers powered past the Houston Rockets, 101-94, to take a 2-0 series lead. Guard tandem Marcus Smart and Luke Kennard combined with the ageless LeBron James to make up for the absence of injuries to Doncic as well as fellow starting guard Austin Reaves.

Peering forward, an extended absence by Wembanyama would seem to place the Spurs in serious jeopardy of a first-round exit. After all, “Wemby” is the league’s defensive player of the year in addition to averaging 25 points and 11.5 rebounds a game. He is a two-way force of unprecedented magnitude.

Meanwhile, the Lakers have responded to the loss of Doncic so well that Times columnist Bill Plaschke declared “believe it, this series is already over” after their Game 2 victory Tuesday night. The absence of Doncic and his 33.3 points, 8.3 assists and 7.7 rebounds a game was masked by the exceptional play of teammates.

Does that make Wembanyana more valuable than Doncic? Does it raise Wembanyana’s NBA Most Valuable Player credentials to the level of fellow finalists Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Nikola Jokic?

That’s a topic worth debating on another day. For now, the pertinent questions are how severely Wembanyana is injured and how long will he be sidelined. The Spurs and Trail Blazers play Game 3 on Friday night, Game 4 on Sunday and Game 5 on Tuesday night. The median time lost to concussion in the NBA is seven days.

“He has a concussion and he is in the protocol,” Spurs coach Mitch Johnson said afterward. “We’ll obviously take the proper and appropriate steps.”

A player in concussion protocol must have at least 48 hours of inactivity and undergo neurological testing while meeting certain criteria without symptoms before being cleared to play. A decision on clearance will come from the NBA concussion protocol director Dr. Jeffrey Kutcher in consultation with the Spurs’ team doctor.

The injury occurred early in the second quarter. After backing into the paint with the ball, Wembanyama turned to explode toward the basket. Portland defender Jrue Holiday executed a maneuver termed “pulling the chair” — moving completely away from the Spurs center, who clearly was expecting contact.

Wembanyama lurched forward, toppled and slammed the right side of his face on the floor. He stayed down for several seconds before sitting up and putting his hands on his face. Television analyst Reggie Miller exclaimed, “He is dazed.” Wembanyama finally stood and jogged directly to the locker room. He did not return.

Meanwhile at Crypto.com Arena, Doncic and Reaves cheered from the bench throughout the Lakers’ inspired dismantling of the Rockets. Smart scored 25 points and Kennard added 23.

“I know we just kind of flipped the switch,” Kennard said. “We told each other, this is what we got right now. We’ve got to believe in what we have.”

Added Smart: “The word is, ‘elevate’ for us, and that’s all we’ve been trying to do, is elevate our play on both ends.”

Wembanyana’s backup is Luke Kornet, who has played for six teams since going undrafted out of Vanderbilt in 2017. He was effective during a 14-minute stint in the Spurs’ Game 1 victory over Portland and had 10 points and nine rebounds in Game 2 after Wembanyana exited. He’ll need to step up the way Smart and Kennard have for the Lakers.

Injuries are inevitable. How teammates respond when a superstar is sidelined provides insight on multiple levels. So far, the loss of Doncic — and Reaves — has been overcome by the Lakers while the loss of Wembanyama could cripple the Spurs.



Source link

As U.S. democracy is in peril, these Brazilian films offer perspective

When Brazilian journalist Tatiana Merlino watched “The Secret Agent” — one of this year’s Oscar nominees for best picture — it felt like seeing scattered scenes from her own life.

As the movie follows Marcelo (played by Wagner Moura) — a professor fleeing from a vindictive businessman during Brazil’s military dictatorship (1964-1985), the story skims through old audio tapes and newspapers, reviewed by a researcher looking into how he died. Like her, Merlino also dug into the past to piece together how her uncle, Luiz Eduardo Merlino, a communist activist, was killed by the right-wing regime in 1971. Though it was initially reported as a suicide, the family soon found his corpse with torture marks in a morgue.

“It became necessary to fight for memory, truth, and justice, because these crimes committed by dictatorship agents weren’t punished at that time, and have not been to this day,” says the 49-year-old journalist, who first saw “The Secret Agent” in São Paulo, and made a career from investigating human rights abuses.

“When a country does not come to terms with its past,” she adds, “its ghosts resurface.”

Recent dictatorship-themed movies like “The Secret Agent” and “I’m Still Here,” which won the Oscar for best international film in 2025, were instant blockbusters back home in Brazil. While both films honor those who, like Merlino, still seek justice for the regime victims, their popularity also got boosted by the country’s zeitgeist.

To many Brazilians, these movies served as reminders of what could have been had former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, himself a retired Army captain and a dictatorship nostalgic, succeeded in his 2022 attempt at a coup d’etat.

On Jan. 8, 2023, encouraged by Bolsonaro, hundreds of vandals stormed into the Three Powers Plaza, a square in the country’s capital, Brasília, that gathers the congress, the supreme court and the presidential palace. Neither he nor the vandals accepted the 2022 election — won by the veteran leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as “Lula.”

The uprising followed the same blueprint as the pro-Trump rioters behind the Jan. 6 insurrection in the United States. Although President Trump himself was federally prosecuted for election obstruction, the case was dismissed after his reelection in 2024.

Unlike the U.S., however, Brazil has charged, judged and arrested the conspirators — including Bolsonaro and members of his staff who participated in the coup plot.

“Bolsonaro doesn’t come from Mars,” said “The Secret Agent” star Wagner Moura to the L.A. Times in February. “He’s deeply grounded in the history of the country.”

In 1964, a U.S.-backed coup enacted a violent, 21-year autocracy run by the military, whose effects still resonate today, says Alessandra Gasparotto, a professor at the Federal University of Pelotas (UFPEL).

“It was a dictatorship that worked from a perspective of building certain legitimacy, keeping the congress functioning, but of course, after purging dissent,” explains the Brazilian historian.

“I’m Still Here,” for example, dramatizes the real-life quest of Eunice Paiva, a housewife whose husband Rubens Paiva, a former leftist congressman who had his tenure revoked after the coup, then disappeared in the hands of the military in 1971. To this day, his body still hasn’t been recovered.

In 2014, Bolsonaro, then just a congressman, spit on a bust of Paiva erected to honor his memory during the coup’s 50th anniversary in Congress.

“The cinema of all countries has the role of preserving memory, so if you take a look at the Holocaust, the American Civil War, or World War II movies, it has this role of almost an ally of history,” says writer Marcelo Rubens Paiva, son of Rubens Paiva and author of the book from which “I’m Still Here” is based. “There’s an old saying: History is the narrative of winners, while art is of the defeated.”

In the case of Brazil, the militaries who led the repressive apparatus of the dictatorship got away with torture and murder through a 1979 amnesty law. It was initially enacted to pardon alleged “political crimes” committed by the regime opposition and allow a transition to democracy — but it was also used to pardon the dictatorship’s human rights violations. Then, in the late 1980s, the military oversaw a slow, gradual shift to democracy, stepping down from power only in 1985.

“This new republic had more continuity than novelty, since many politicians who were central to the dictatorship moved to central roles in the democratic government,” explains Gasparotto. “That’s why they built this pact [to forgive the regime’s crimes].”

For that reason, these movies still feel contemporary. “The Secret Agent,” for example, blends past and future through the records analyzed by a researcher, while “I’m Still Here” highlights Eunice Paiva’s post-regime fight for the recognition of Rubens Paiva’s death; without any corpse to officialize his death, he was just deemed disappeared.

When Merlino watched the movie, for example, Eunice reminded her of her grandmother, Iracema Merlino.

“I’m the third generation of my family fighting for memory, truth and justice,” says Merlino. “It started with my grandmother, who passed away, then it was handed to my mother, who’s now very ill, then to me.”

Nowadays, she awaits trial for the third lawsuit attempt of the family to hold her uncle’s torturer, Col. Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, accountable — the two other cases against the accused were dismissed over the years.

Since Ustra’s death in 2015, the Merlino family is now suing his estate for reparations. Yet he still remains a hero to some; in 2016, while Bolsonaro was still a congressman, he shouted a dedication to the memory of the torturer during the voting of the impeachment of Brazil’s former President Dilma Rousseff — herself one of the victims of Ustra in the 1970s, but among the few who survived.

“These films make connections with the present because understanding the past is important for understanding today’s contradictions,” says Marcelo Rubens Paiva. “What happened before interferes in the conflicts a country lives in today.”

So if authoritarians like Bolsonaro don’t come out of the blue, the same goes for other autocratic leaders, like President Trump.

Although founded on democratic principles, the U.S. itself has a long, muddled history with the concept. The authoritarian turn the country is reckoning with is part of a long legacy of inequality that stemmed from the 246-year institution of slavery. Following its abolishment in 1865 came a near-centurylong period of tension marked by racial segregation that we now refer to as “Jim Crow.”

“With some exceptions, the South was governed by a then-segregationist Democrat party — with [rampant] electoral fraud, authoritarianism, use of local police for political repression, and no chance for opposition, even [by] moderates,” says Arthur Avila, a history professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) in Brazil.

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended segregation and granted voting rights to people of all races — signed by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Southern Democrat who broke away from the party’s history to spearhead progressive domestic policy — the decades that followed were ridden with manipulations of the electoral system. For example gerrymandering, or the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one political party, is an ongoing, albeit controversial tactic among both Democrats and Republicans.

President Trump himself was federally prosecuted for election obstruction. The indictment alleged that, upon losing the 2020 election, Trump conspired to overturn the results and manipulate the public by spreading false claims of election fraud on social media. It argued that this, in turn, stoked a mob of his supporters into leading the deadly Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol; but the case was dismissed upon his reelection in 2024.

In the lead-up to the midterm elections in November, Trump has pushed for federal control over elections, restrictions on mail-in voting and the addition of citizenship documents to vote, despite an existing federal law that already prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections. (He tried implementing the latter through an executive order in 2025, but it was permanently blocked by a federal court; a voter ID bill called the “SAVE America Act” is currently stalling in the Senate.)

“There’s a strong local authoritarian tradition in the U.S. that Trump himself feeds from,” says Avila.

Besides that, according to Avila, the country faces a growing “de-democratization” process from within. This shows in the rising control and dismantling of institutions by reactionary sectors — including efforts to block professional, educational and athletic programs promoting DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion — from what many critics and scholars have cited as lingering resentment from desegregation, he says.

“We may see it as a slow authoritarian turn in North American politics that didn’t overturn the democratic regime yet,” Arthur considers. “But if this process goes on, and that’s a conjecture, in the next decade the U.S. may become a state of exception that keeps democratic appearances but has been stripped of any democracy’s substance whatsoever.”

As movies such as “The Secret Agent and “I’m Still Here” remind us, a great deal of maintaining a democracy has to do with keeping a good memory.

Source link