professor

Polish director Jan Komasa might be best known in the United States for his 2019 Oscar-nominated film “Corpus Christi,” but his biggest box-office success was in Poland for his 2014 film “Warsaw 44,” about the Warsaw Uprising, the bloody effort by the Polish resistance to expel the occupying German army from the city toward the end of World War II.

Komasa knows authoritarianism in its most flagrant, brutal forms, but his new film “Anniversary” imagines a scenario in which fascism doesn’t stomp in, jackbooted, but creeps, pretty and ladylike, on kitten-heeled feet. It’s a thought experiment more than anything else, from a story by Komasa and Lori Rosene-Gambino, the latter who wrote the screenplay.

“Anniversary” maps five years in the life — and obliteration — of an American family, a microcosm of a larger rapid political devolution that turns suburban utopia into a dystopia with a speed that could make your head spin.

Meet the Taylors — we’ll get to know them across reunions and celebrations starting with an anniversary party for Ellen (Diane Lane) and Paul (Kyle Chandler). She’s a professor at Georgetown, a public intellectual caught up in the university culture-wars debate; he’s a chef, and they have four children upon whom they dote: Cynthia (Zoey Deutch, also in this week’s “Nouvelle Vague”), an environmental lawyer, Anna (Madeleine Brewer), a provocative comedian, high-school science nerd Birdie (Mckenna Grace) and brother Josh (Dylan O’Brien), a nebbishy, struggling writer. The camera knits them all together in long shots, swirling around their idyllic backyard.

Josh has brought home a new girlfriend, Liz (Phoebe Dynevor, of 2023’s “Fair Play”), who is carefully coiffed and poised, immaculately presented and mannered, though her perfection gives his sisters pause. After the introductions, she and Ellen have a quiet, awkward moment together. As one of Ellen’s former students, Liz wrote a thesis that scandalized the professor, which Ellen describes to her husband as having “radical anti-democratic sentiments,” advocating for a single-party system. The title? “The Change.”

While Liz says she “came here with the best of intentions” and claims she and Josh were introduced by their shared agent, Ellen is suspicious and rightly so. The enigmatic Liz is mild-mannered and quiet, but her ideas are anything but. As she hugs Ellen, she whispers, “I used to be afraid of you but I don’t think I am anymore.” That is never more clear than when she sends Ellen a copy of her newly published book, “The Change,” dedicated to “the haters, the doubters and the academic stranglers.”

Two years later, the Change is officially afoot. Liz is a celebrity, now working with a mysterious organization called the Cumberland Company. She and Josh are married, pregnant with twins, and he’s achieved a conservative glow-up. New flags are popping up in the Taylor’s well-heeled neighborhood and things are shifting in ways that make Ellen uncomfortable, enraged even. But in the spirit of politeness and family unity, she acquiesces to Paul’s desire for a nice family Thanksgiving, despite their political differences.

Therein lies what might be “Anniversary’s” biggest warning: Don’t let the fox into the henhouse, even if it seems rude not to. Ellen maintains an appropriately wary distance and skepticism of Liz, but Paul’s fatal flaw is his assumption of good faith. He hasn’t even read “The Change” because, frankly, he doesn’t want to know. But as Liz attaches herself to Josh like a parasite, perhaps in an attempt to enact revenge on her former professor, so too do the other Taylor children topple as the nation changes under their feet.

Some might find “Anniversary” too vague: What, precisely, is Liz’s political stance that makes her so powerful and so repugnant to Ellen? She has advocated for a “single-party system” branded under the guise of “solidarity,” but the result is an autocratic surveillance state that suppresses free speech, upheld by a violent paramilitary police force. The film never gets into the specifics, perhaps because the only ideology of fascism is the concentration of power. “Anniversary” suggests the rhetoric doesn’t matter when we can turn on each other so easily, humanity and freedom crushed under such a state.

It is fascinating that recent movies that attempt to grapple with contemporary sociopolitical issues often feminize the threat: the #MeToo cancel culture fable “Tár” or this year’s academia scandal film “After the Hunt.” “Anniversary” situates a nonthreatening woman as the vessel for such evil, even as Liz’s male host, Josh, starts to embody the most extreme outcomes of what she has set in motion.

“Anniversary” is a deeply nihilistic film that can’t be described as a cautionary tale — that horse has already left the barn. Rather, it’s a hypothetical question as character study, an examination of how this happens and an assertion that a system like this shows no mercy, not even to its most loyal subjects, despite what we want to believe.

Walsh is a Tribune News Service film critic.

COMEDIAN Steve Coogan will pay substantial damages to a university boss for portraying him as a film’s sexist bully. 

The actor, 60, co-wrote and starred in 2022’s The Lost King, about the quest to uncover the remains of Richard III. 

Richard Taylor was part of the Leicester University team which located the grave of the king — often portrayed as having a hunched back — beneath a car park in the city. 

But Mr Taylor sued for libel after being characterised as “smug, unduly dismissive and patronising”. 

Alan Partridge star Coogan is a vocal campaigner for media fairness. 

Last year, a judge found Coogan and two production companies “knowingly misrepresented facts” in the film, starring Sally Hawkins and Harry Lloyd. 

FULL FRONTAL

Katy Perry & Justin hold hands at strip bar during 1st public appearance

BUSTED!

Anne Hathaway ‘arrested’ by Sabrina Carpenter with fuzzy pink handcuffs in NYC

Yesterday, lawyers for Mr Taylor told London’s High Court the parties had settled out of court and that he was being paid “substantial damages”. 

Producers will also make changes to the film. 

Mr Taylor called it vindication after “a long and gruelling battle”. 

Mrs Justice Collins Rice said: “These were momentous historical events and finding yourself represented in a feature film about them must be an unsettling experience, even in the best of circumstances.  

“I hope that this very clear statement and the settlement… will help Mr Taylor put this particular experience behind him. ” 

Coogan, his production company Baby Cow, and Pathe Productions were not represented in court and did not attend. 

However, the star said he was consulting lawyers over remarks made by Mr Taylor — and insisted of his film: “It is the story I wanted to tell, and I am happy I did.” 

President Trump signed a proclamation that imposes a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, the immigration allocation set aside for highly skilled workers the U.S. economy needs. The new rules threaten the availability and deployment of human capital in the United States. This is misguided and will hurt U.S. growth and innovation, at a time when the global arms race for AI creates a vital need for the sharpest human talent and innovators.

We are professors who study and teach innovation-related topics at U.S. research universities. As immigrants to the United States from India and Panama respectively, we understand firsthand the sometimes painful discussions around H-1B immigration. Tensions around immigration routinely affect our academic institutions, our current students and former students now in industry. But there should be a lot of common ground on this polarizing topic.

STEM immigrants are creating substantial value in the United States. Immigrants play a significant role in entrepreneurial ventures in the United States and particularly startup innovation. Further, such immigrants are responsible for 23% of innovation output in the United States. This effect is in part based on policies that allow for foreign students to study and stay in the United States to work in startups.

H-1B immigration is like a natural selection process that benefits the U.S. immensely. Highly skilled immigrants in areas such as technology and medicine come hungry for hard work and full of ideas to better the world — to create new products, services and even markets as well as to cater to existing needs through more incremental improvement and optimization. Many of our best students are immigrants who are looking to stay in the United States and create work opportunities that would not be possible anywhere else in the world. In the United States, we recognize entrepreneurial success perhaps more than any other country. It is one of our greatest attributes as a society.

Nevertheless, we do have an immigration problem in the United States. The problem is that the distribution of benefits across the United States is highly skewed. Much of the wealth generated in terms of company creation and jobs has redounded to innovative clusters. But the idea to reduce the total number of H-1B immigrants by increasing the cost is exactly the wrong way to “solve” this problem — by dragging down the thriving parts of the economy rather than lifting up the rest.

To grow economic prosperity throughout the country, we need to offer more opportunities for more H-1B visa applicants. There are simply not enough trained U.S. nationals to take on the sort of labor required for the next wave of a tech-enabled industrial revolution.

Distributing the fruits of H-1B visa holders’ work more broadly requires a different approach than the U.S. has taken before. We should increase the total number of new H-1B visa recipients each year to 350,000 from around 85,000, with the additional visas apportioned across states so that locations like college towns — places like Lawrence, Kan., Gainesville, Fla., and Clemson, S.C., as well as cities such as Birmingham, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Salt Lake City and Boise receive sufficient numbers of H-1B workers. Visas could be allocated through a process akin to the resident-matching system for medical doctors, thereby sending workers to states where they would create greater value by filling economic and technological gaps. This infusion of labor would improve technological innovation in local economies and create local spillover effects in job creation and additional innovation.

Such immigration is necessary particularly now given a global push toward increased industrial policy, as China and others invest in AI and broader digital transformation. At a time when our national security is linked to technological innovation, it is shortsighted not to open ourselves to more immigration. If we do not, we will lose some of the best and brightest minds to Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Singapore and other countries.

Immigration is currently a volatile political issue in the U.S., as it has been at some other moments in the nation’s history. Although this is a country of immigrants, for people who feel insecure about pocketbook and cultural issues, continued immigration can feel threatening. As a percentage of people living in the United States, it has been more than 100 years since there were as many immigrants here as there are now. But as with past waves of immigration, productivity and transformation have followed.

This is particularly clear for H-1B visa holders, who create opportunities for people born in the U.S. and ensure the vitality of American innovation, security and democratic values. Increasing the costs of such visas would chill their use and reduce U.S. prosperity and innovation exactly at a time of great need.

Hemant Bhargava is a professor of business at UC Davis Graduate School of Management and director of the Center for Analytics and Technology in Society. D. Daniel Sokol is a professor of law and business at USC.

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — Administrators at the state university’s campus in Colorado Springs thought they stood a solid chance of dodging the Trump administration’s offensive on higher education.

Located on a picturesque bluff with a stunning view of Pikes Peak, the school is far removed from the Ivy League colleges that have drawn President Trump’s ire. Most of its students are commuters, getting degrees while holding down full-time jobs. Students and faculty alike describe the university, which is in a conservative part of the blue state of Colorado, as politically subdued, if not apolitical.

That optimism was misplaced.

An Associated Press review of thousands of pages of emails from school officials, as well as interviews with students and professors, reveals that school leaders, teachers and students soon found themselves in the Republican administration’s crosshairs, forcing them to navigate what they described as an unprecedented and haphazard degree of change.

Whether Washington has downsized government departments, rescinded funding or launched investigations into diversity programs or campus antisemitism, the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs has confronted many of the same challenges as elite universities across the nation.

The school lost three major federal grants and found itself under investigation by the Trump Education Department. In the hopes of avoiding that scrutiny, the university renamed websites and job titles, all while dealing with pressure from students, faculty and staff who wanted the school to take a more combative stance.

“Uncertainty is compounding,” the school’s chancellor told faculty at a February meeting, according to minutes of the session. “And the speed of which orders are coming has been a bit of a shock.”

The college declined to make any administrators available to be interviewed. A spokesman asked the AP to make clear that any professors or students interviewed for this story were speaking for themselves and not the institution. Several faculty members also asked for anonymity, either because they did not have tenure or they did not want to call unnecessary attention to themselves and their scholarship in the current political environment.

“Like our colleagues across higher education, we’ve spent considerable time working to understand the new directives from the federal government,” the chancellor, Jennifer Sobanet, said in a statement provided to the AP.

Students said they have been able to sense the stress being felt by school administrators and professors.

“We have administrators that are feeling pressure, because we want to maintain our funding here. It’s been tense,” said Ava Knox, a rising junior who covers the university administration for the school newspaper.

Faculty, she added, “want to be very careful about how they’re conducting their research and about how they’re addressing the student population. They are also beholden to this new set of kind of ever-changing guidelines and stipulations by the federal government.”

A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Misplaced optimism

Shortly after Trump won a second term in November, University of Colorado-Colorado Springs leaders were trying to gather information on the incoming president’s plans. In December, Sobanet met the newly elected Republican congressman who represented the school’s district, a conservative area that Trump won with 53% of the vote. In her meeting notes obtained by the AP, the chancellor sketched out a scenario in which the college might avoid the drastic cuts and havoc under the incoming administration.

“Research dollars — hard to pull back grant dollars but Trump tried to pull back some last time. The money goes through Congress,” Sobanet wrote in notes prepared for the meeting. “Grant money will likely stay but just change how they are worded and what it will fund.”

Sobanet also observed that dismantling the federal Education Department would require congressional authorization. That was unlikely, she suggested, given the U.S. Senate’s composition.

Like many others, she did not fully anticipate how aggressively Trump would seek to transform the federal government.

Conservatives’ desire to revamp higher education began well before Trump took office.

They have long complained that universities have become bastions of liberal indoctrination and raucous protests. In 2023, Republicans in Congress had a contentious hearing with several Ivy League university leaders. Shortly after, the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania resigned. During the presidential campaign last fall, Trump criticized campus protests against the war in Gaza, as well as what he said was a liberal bias in classrooms.

His new administration opened investigations into alleged antisemitism at several universities. It froze more than $400 million in research grants and contracts at Columbia, along with more than $2.6 billion at Harvard. Columbia reached an agreement last month to pay $220 million to resolve the investigation.

When Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s actions, his administration tried to block the school from enrolling international students. The Trump administration has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Northwestern University, Penn, Princeton and Cornell have seen big chunks of funding cut over how they dealt with the protests about Israel’s war in Gaza or over the schools’ support for transgender athletes.

Trump’s decision to target the wealthiest, most prestigious institutions provided some comfort to administrators at the approximately 4,000 other colleges and universities in the country.

Most higher education students in the United States are educated at regional public universities or community colleges. Such schools have not typically drawn attention from culture warriors.

Students and professors at UCCS hoped Trump’s crackdown would bypass the school and others like it.

“You’ve got everyone — liberals, conservatives, middle of the road” at the college, said Jeffrey Scholes, a professor in the philosophy department. “You just don’t see the kind of unrest and polarization that you see at other campuses.”

The purse strings

The federal government has lots of leverage over higher education. It provides about $60 billion a year to universities for research. In addition, a majority of students in the U.S. need grants and loans from various federal programs to help pay tuition and living expenses.

This budget year, UCCS got about $19 million in research funding from a combination of federal, state and private sources. Though that is a relatively small portion of the school’s overall $369-million budget, the college has made a push in recent years to bolster its campus research program by taking advantage of grant money from government agencies such as the U.S. Defense Department and National Institutes of Health. The widespread federal grant cut could derail those efforts.

School officials were dismayed when the Trump administration terminated research grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Defense Department and the National Science Foundation, emails show. The grants funded programs in civics, cultural preservation and boosting women in technology fields.

School administrators scrambled to contact federal officials to learn whether other grants were on the chopping block, but they struggled to find answers, the records show.

School officials repeatedly sought out the assistance of federal officials only to learn those officials were not sure what was happening as the Trump administration halted grant payments, fired thousands of employees and closed agencies.

“The sky is falling” at NIH, a university official reported in notes on a call in which the school’s lobbyists were providing reports of what was happening in Washington.

There are also concerns about other changes in Washington that will affect how students pay for college, according to interviews with faculty and education policy experts.

While only Congress can fully abolish the Department of Education, the Trump administration has tried to dramatically cut back its staff and parcel out many of its functions to other agencies. The administration laid off nearly 1,400 employees, and problems have been reported in the systems that handle student loans. Management of student loans is expected to shift to another agency.

In addition, an early version of a major funding bill in Congress included major cuts to tuition grants. Though that provision did not make it into the law, Congress did cap loans for students seeking graduate degrees. That policy could have ripple effects in the coming years on institutions such as UCCS that rely on tuition dollars for their operating expenses.

DEI and transgender issues

To force change on campus, the Trump administration has begun investigations targeting diversity programs and efforts to combat antisemitism.

The Education Department, for example, opened an investigation in March targeting a PhD scholarship program that partnered with 45 universities, including the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs, to expand opportunities for women and nonwhites in graduate education. The administration alleged the program was only open to certain nonwhite students and amounted to racial discrimination.

“Sorry to be the bearer of bad news UCCS is included on the list” of schools being investigated, wrote Annie Larson, assistant vice president of federal relations and outreach for the entire University of Colorado system.

“Oh wow, this is surprising,” wrote back Hillary Fouts, dean of the graduate school at UCCS.

UCCS also struggled with how to handle executive orders, particularly those on transgender issues.

In response to an order that aimed to revoke funds to schools that allowed trans women to play women’s sports, UCCS began a review of its athletic programs. It determined it had no transgender athletes, the records show. University officials were also relieved to discover that only one school in their athletic conference was affected by the order, and UCCS rarely if ever had matches or games against that school.

“We do not have any students impacted by this and don’t compete against any teams that we are aware of that will be impacted by this,” wrote the vice chancellor for student affairs to colleagues.

Avoiding the spotlight

The attacks led UCCS to take preemptive actions and to self-censor in the hopes of saving programs and avoiding the Trump administration’s spotlight.

Emails show that the school’s legal counsel began looking at all the university’s websites and evaluating whether any scholarships might need to be reworded. The university changed the web address of its diversity initiatives from www.diversity.uccs.edu to www.belonging.uccs.edu.

And the administrator responsible for the university’s division of Inclusive Culture & Belonging got a new job title in January: director of strategic initiatives. University professors said the school debated whether to rename the Women’s and Ethnic Studies department to avoid drawing attention from Trump, but so far the department has not been renamed.

Along the same lines, UCCS administrators have sought to avoid getting dragged into controversies, a frequent occurrence in the first Trump administration. UCCS officials attended a presentation from the education consulting firm EAB, which encouraged schools not to react to every news cycle. That could be a challenge because some students and faculty are calling for vocal resistance on issues from climate change to immigration.

Soon after Trump was sworn in, for example, a staff member in UCCS’s sustainability program began pushing the University of Colorado system to condemn Trump’s withdrawal from an international agreement to tackle climate change. It was the type of statement universities had issued without thinking twice in past administrations.

In an email, UCCS’ top public relations executive warned his boss: “There is a growing sentiment among the thought leadership in higher ed that campus leaders not take a public stance on major issues unless they impact their campus community.”

Tau writes for the Associated Press. AP education writer Collin Binkley in Washington contributed to this report.