true

The film has been hailed a “must-see” by fans.

Fans of war films are being urged to watch a “powerful and moving” movie with a star-studded cast.

Those who love war movies and historical dramas are in for a treat as a classic biographical war drama is available to stream now.

The film is based on the Austrian mountaineer and Schutzstaffel sergeant Heinrich Harrer’s 1952 memoir of the same name.

Documenting his experiences in Tibet between 1944 and 1951, Seven Years in Tibet stars Brad Pitt and David Thewlis, and it is available to stream on Paramount+.

The film sees Thewlis play Austrian Peter Aufschnaiter, with Pitt as Harrer as the pair go mountaineering in 1930s India.

When the Second World War begins, their German citizenship results in their imprisonment in a British prisoner-of-war camp in the Himalayas.

Fans have taken to IMDb reviews to share their thoughts on the film, with one hailing it a “masterpiece”, adding: “I strongly recommend this movie to those who think about war and occupation all day long.”

Another called it “vital viewing”, adding: “This movie is in my Top 100 of all time. Well acted by everyone involved, well directed, and the soundtrack is awesome. I feel this movie should be shown in schools [over the world].”

A third called it a “must-see”, sharing: “I accidentally picked this movie up w/o knowing anything about it! I was intrigued with it from the very beginning! Brad Pitt did an excellent job! I don’t know why I haven’t seen or heard anything about it before.”

Another fan added: “I can’t believe I did not watch this masterpiece earlier. Heinrich Harrer, from climbing mountains and escaping prison to being the Dalai Lama’s teacher, lived a life that it’s fascinating to learn about, and the movie shows that excellently.”

Another viewer commented: “This masterpiece still makes me curious every time I see it. Brad Pitt does an amazing job portraying an Austrian, even down to his accent.

Get Paramount+ free for a week

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£4.99

£0

Amazon/Paramount+

Get Paramount+ here

Telly fans can get seven days of free access to Paramount+ shows like Tulsa King and Dexter: Original Sin by signing up for a free trial via Amazon Prime’s Paramount+ channel.

“The cinematography is extraordinary, and the direction is quite good. I love watching it every so often, and learning new things that I missed the times before.”

The film did not go down well in China, and it was condemned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, which said the Communist Chinese military officers were intentionally shown as rude and arrogant, brutalising the local people.

Films produced by Sony were initially banned from playing in China and Pitt and Thewlis were temporarily banned from entering the country.

The movie was nominated for a Golden Globe Award and Pitt won a Rembrandt Award for Best Actor for his role.

Seven Years in Tibet is on Paramount+

Heyerde “Seko” López is a Venezuelan artist and activist with experience in plastic arts, screen printing, photography, graphic design, and audiovisual production. For 13 years he has been a member of Fundación Nativa Crea, a grassroots organization from Guarenas, on the outskirts of Caracas, dedicated to social work and advancing popular power.

What is Fundación Nativa Crea and what does it do?

Fundación Nativa Crea is a sociocultural organization dedicated to bringing together communes, social movements, and individuals in the town of Guarenas. We organize a variety of activities in our territory, ranging from rescuing abandoned spaces and painting murals to offering free workshops on screen printing, music, theater, and circus in local communities and schools.

Nativa is also dedicated to grassroots communication through social media. We’re always doing digital and graphic design and recording in the community to make visible what people are doing. We work to forge the identity of our barrio, our working-class areas, and our communities, so that people can be the protagonists of the revolution we’re building and the path we’re traveling together.

We’re located in Plaza Bolívar in Guarenas, right next to City Hall, because we had the chance to speak with President Chávez and decided to occupy that space, which was a Corpoelec [state electricity company] substation that had been abandoned for 15 years. At the time, we identified 37 abandoned spaces in Guarenas, but that one stood out as the most visible and strategic. We surveyed the area, and the project was born.

How is Nativa’s work organized in practice, and how does it integrate with the local community and the people’s power organizations?

There are six of us now, but we coordinate with other people in the territory and in other parts of the country. We have a set of goals and an action plan. Each person takes on tasks based on their strengths. We have six production units, two of which are currently operational: the auto repair shop, where we fix cars and motorcycles, and the screen printing and communications workshop, where we make T-shirts. We have a brand called “Contestatarixs” to market prints of iconic figures and world-renowned fighters. The other four units are a cultural café that we will soon reopen, a community bakery, a recording studio, and a greenhouse. In fact, we plan to establish a greenhouse in every community council.

In total, there are 15 community councils in our territory, which make up the General José Félix Ribas Commune. Our organization belongs to the Pueblo Arriba Communal Council. In our sector, we’re going to start with a medicinal garden, as well as tomato and onion seeds, and coffee and cacao seedlings, to later coordinate with local farmers. We’re also considering a partnership to grow barley in the nearby campesino settlements and produce craft beer. Why not have a Venezuelan communal beer?

You mentioned the bakery and the café that closed down. What obstacles did they face?

The bakery and the café closed down due to the economic difficulties resulting from the US sanctions. For example, when wheat imports were restricted, it became very difficult for us to acquire the raw materials. Previously, it had been subsidized. Although we were part of a bakery coalition with other grassroots organizations, and we held numerous meetings and coordinated efforts with the government to defend community bakeries, it was not possible to maintain our operations. In Venezuela, wheat is controlled by the owners of the silos. We fought a tough battle between 2014 and 2017, but that coalition practically fell apart, and now only the large, capitalist bakeries remain. But we are creating the conditions to revive this productive unit. We want to build a communal economy. We are going to start creating the conditions, now with more criteria and the lessons learned over these years. After all these battles, I believe we have the necessary experience.

What are the main challenges Nativa has faced over the years?

The main challenge is staying true to our identity as a left-wing organization in the face of the imperialist blockade. Nativa Crea started out as a clothing brand and is now a social organization running a headquarters of 542 square meters. But the hardest part is sustaining ourselves over time. It’s one thing to have an idea, to design a project, and quite another to sustain it –to preserve the ideology, retain the members, and create conditions so that it’s a space where people aren’t exploited and can have free time to organize alongside the pueblo. 

We also knew that, as we asserted ourselves, we would deal some blows to the bourgeois state. Not all mayors, governors, or institutional leaders will want to relinquish their share of power and accept the consolidation of popular power or the communal state. In practice, we have seen that things are not as beautiful as they are in theory. Rather, they are riddled with contradictions. But we have the spirit to fight and move forward. Today, what we do is join forces with different organizations, communal councils, etc., to keep the project moving forward and to help them identify with it. Nativa has always been a space where people can meet, hold workshops, organize politically, and so on.

What would you highlight as Nativa’s main achievements over the years?

Our main achievement has been bringing together different people, from different communes, and ensuring that everyone understands we’re all fighting for the same cause: building the communal state. 

I believe our task is to demonstrate that popular power is the way forward. For example, eight years ago, using the surplus generated by the bakery, we were able to build a sports court. So, we showed that economic activity can take place under decent working conditions, serve the community, and generate a surplus to contribute to the territory where we live. Therefore, if we have productive units –which is what we insist on in the commune –we will be able to achieve autonomy, we will be able to make decisions in the territory, and we will be able to develop what the barrio needs.

Nativa, and you in particular, place a lot of emphasis on the cultural front, especially on graphic design. What is the vision behind this?

Through graphic arts, we shape our identity. Ever since we started creating prints, painting murals, taking photographs, and producing audiovisual works, we’ve always sought to reclaim Venezuelan identity. Not the identity sold to us about barrios in mainstream culture –the glorification of crime or the idea that people dress and speak a certain way. Every town has its identity, every city has its identity, every territory has its identity. So, through the arts, we try to capture that, what we experience, and in this way, people begin to recognize themselves, know where they come from, and also to appreciate things that are nationally, locally, and indigenously produced. It gives new value to their experiences, to what they consume, read, and so on.

You recently hosted an international brigade from Brazil’s Landless Workers’ Movement (MST). What was that exchange like, and how can that feedback help strengthen grassroots organizing?

The MST brought a large group that split into seven brigades spread across different parts of the country. We were assigned one as the representative from the central capital region. This experience has been very important, because we see that our brothers and sisters in Brazil are fighting for the same cause as us: against capitalism and imperialism, and for the unity of the Latin American peoples.

The Landless Workers’ Movement has been raising that banner of struggle –the fight for land and the construction of campesino settlements –for over 40 years. They have very advanced methods, and they are masters of organization and planning. In fact, they are advising us on the various productive units. They believe that we, Venezuelans, need to focus more on planning, sticking to schedules, fulfilling responsibilities, etc. The exchange has helped our communards hear the perspective of comrades from outside, with their experience and organizational skills. They have shared their insights with 10 communes here in Guarenas and are also getting to know the local projects that have been approved through popular consultations.

As someone with many years of experience in grassroots organizing, how do you view the relationship between constituted power (institutions) and constituent power? What is working, and what needs to change?

Chávez, and also our professor Manuel Sulbarán, always told us that we, the working-class people, are the only ones capable of bringing about change and progress in our own country through popular power. So, popular power must continue to develop these methods and strengthen our communes, making them active and productive, and demanding that the state or institutions transfer the responsibilities we can assume and the resources we need. 

For example, in the General José Félix Ribas Commune, the project that won last year’s consultation was focused on the youth to build a soccer field. There was a group pushing for it, but the US $10,000 allocated for the project wasn’t enough. That caused a lot of discontent and led some to think that popular consultations were useless. These are the issues we need to debate and politicize. We explained to them in an assembly that this is a megaproject that cannot be done with just $10,000, so it must be conceived in several phases. We have to keep our spirits up and continue participating.

The soccer field has been a good topic for debate and reflection, because it is also true that the commune has many priorities that are more important than a soccer field. Everything is needed, and sports play a fundamental role, but for example, if the sewer system is damaged, the community will likely prioritize fixing that. That’s why we need to plan and see which projects are proposed through which channels. If we do a better job of categorizing projects by scale and setting timelines, we’ll be able to strengthen our commune. 

But, to answer the question, institutions need to work with us, the pueblo, and understand the priorities of each territory. Perhaps it’s not best for the commune to choose building a sports field because that should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Sports. This ends up giving the commune a responsibility that it should not have to assume, or that it is not in a position to take on. Nor should we be taking on the project of repairing a school when we have a Ministry of Education and a Ministry of Public Works. Obviously, our communards will dedicate themselves to anything that improves the community’s life, but why should the commune burn its only chance to access funding for popular power on unfeasible projects that should, moreover, be the responsibility of the institutions? So we must also demand that those holding constituted power –the government and institutions –fulfill their responsibilities, so that we, as an organized people, can move forward with ours. Another challenge we face is that some people confuse the tasks of the party [PSUV] with the exercise of popular power, and as a result, they sometimes end up dragging the commune into areas that are not its responsibility.

Finally, how does Nativa interpret the current political situation, and what role should the organized people play?

January 3 was a grave moment, a call for reflection, just as the 2002 coup had been, when the people took to the streets to make history. The lesson is the same: the people must understand that only popular power will allow us to overcome this onslaught by the capitalist economic system and imperialist attacks.

Today we must organize ourselves once again, win over all those people who were fighting, or who are fighting out there but scattered. We have to unify the struggles, as President Chávez said at the time: it is very important that we know who we are, what we want to build, in order to move forward in consolidating the Bolivarian Revolution. And beyond Venezuela, we must understand ourselves as a bloc with our neighboring countries. 

For the youth, it is important not to abandon the banners of anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggle and to create our own methods. The past centuries’ revolutionary struggles of Germany and France will not apply here. It is not enough for us to simply “follow the ideas of Lenin, Mao, Che, or Fidel,” although we must certainly read and study them. Chávez put it very clearly: we are going to give birth to the 21st-century revolution; we are going to create it. We’ve only been at this for 20 years, developing different theoretical and political aspects, with different participants sometimes on different wavelengths. But we all know that we have a right to an anti-imperialist revolution that defends life on the planet.

If they were true to their principles, moderate Republicans and consistent conservatives would be supporting John Kerry. Instead, their acquiescence to the reckless whims of George W. Bush marks a descent into that political abyss of opportunism where partisanship is everything and principle nothing.

How else to explain their cynical support for this shallow adventurer, a phony lightweight who has bled the Treasury dry while incompetently squandering the lives of young Americans in a needless imperial campaign? If Al Gore had been knighted president by the Supreme Court and overseen this mess instead of Dubya, the rational remnant of the Republican Party would be rightly calling for his head.

Instead, a century’s worth of conservative ideals are tossed out the window for political expediency. Soaring budget deficits suddenly don’t matter, and not a tear is shed for the wasted surplus accumulated during Bill Clinton’s tenure. Despite two huge tax cuts for the super-rich, Bush turns out to be a big believer in that old GOP boogeyman, Big Government. An equal-opportunity spendthrift, he throws billions into the sinkhole of Iraq as easily as he doles out corporate handouts.

In the newspapers we read about American mothers and fathers working in deadly Iraq as drivers and security guards because they can’t find work at home. More than a million jobs have been lost since the end of the prosperous Clinton era, while real wages are stagnant. The rich have enjoyed unprecedented tax breaks even as the middle class has eroded and millions have fallen below the poverty line.

Healthcare costs are spiraling, nothing has been done to shore up Social Security and Medicare against the impending flood of retiring baby boomers, and the number of those without medical insurance is a national embarrassment — though perhaps not to the former governor of Texas, a state that far and away leads the country in this disquieting statistic.

Bush’s startling inattention to our serious problems is explained away by reference to the new burden of the war on terror. How odd, then, to note that it was Bush’s preoccupation with Iraq both before and after 9/11 that has left us so vulnerable to Muslim hatred and terrorist attacks. Before Sept. 11, 2001, ignored warnings and flaccid response; afterward, a campaign of lies to justify a military occupation at the Muslim world’s heart.

Instead of making the U.S. safer, the hasty and unilateral dive into the Iraq quagmire shredded the post-9/11 international unity of purpose indispensable to any serious effort to root out terrorism.

But don’t take my word for it: That the occupation of Iraq is a festering disaster was finally acknowledged by some Republican senators on Sunday’s talk shows in the wake of the latest depressing prognostications of U.S. intelligence agencies.

“The fact is, we’re in deep trouble in Iraq,” Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) conceded. “We made serious mistakes,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, blamed the glaring failures in Iraq on “the incompetence in the administration.”

Unfortunately, the solution offered by these Republican critics was an escalation of the U.S. military effort, the root cause of the rising anti-U.S. nationalism in Iraq that is crossing ethnic, religious and regional lines. A true conservative would heed George Washington’s warning to avoid such foreign entanglements. This is why in 2000, candidate Bush, pretending to be conservative, said he was against “nation-building.” Now, led by radical ideologues way outside the conservative mainstream, he’s got us trying to build two nations — and failing — with many in his administration hoping to take on a few more in a second term. Talk about flip-flopping.

On Monday, Kerry made his strongest case yet that Bush was leading us dangerously astray. “Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight,” Kerry said, calling Iraq a “profound diversion” from the war on terror. “The satisfaction we take in [Saddam Hussein’s] downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.”

Kerry has now framed the debate we need to have concerning American priorities. And in their hearts, responsible Republicans and independents must now realize that Kerry is right.

The Dropout tells the story of the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of biotech company Theranos, starring Amanda Seyfried.

The true crime series starring Amanda Seyfried is now available to stream on ITVX.

The Dropout chronicles the true story behind the collapse of tech firm Theranos and its founder, Elizabeth Holmes.

The tale commences in 2002, when Holmes embarked on a chemical engineering degree at the prestigious Stanford University in California, where she quickly began developing concepts for groundbreaking inventions.

Her initial concept involved creating a patch that would adhere to a person’s skin and continuously monitor the body for infections, automatically dispensing antibiotics when required. While the idea appeared fascinating in principle, it proved physically unachievable.

Professor of Medicine Dr Phyllis Gardner (Laurie Metcalf) advised Holmes of this, but she appeared to dismiss the academic’s knowledge as an underestimation of her capabilities.

Holmes insisted that she could “change the world” with this pioneering technology and garnered international acclaim, reports the Express.

She left Stanford before completing her second year to concentrate on her new venture, Theranos, which centred around an equally ambitious and potentially transformative piece of technology.

Nevertheless, when The Wall Street Journal launched an investigation into the firm, its reporting triggered a cascade of enquiries and increased scrutiny of Theranos, prompting it to become more transparent about its tightly guarded methods.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched an investigation, and 40 per cent of staff were made redundant a year later as the company went through restructuring.

Following the charges, the trial was postponed due to Holmes’ pregnancy and the COVID-19 pandemic, but eventually commenced in September 2021, with a jury convicting her on four counts of defrauding investors four months later.

No verdict was reached on three additional counts of wire fraud against investors, which the government later dropped, while Holmes was also acquitted on four counts of defrauding patients.

On 18th November 2022, Holmes received a sentence of 11 years and three months in prison, and she began serving her sentence in Texas on 30th May 2023.

The Dropout chronicles the dramatic downfall of the woman Forbes once dubbed the “youngest self-made female billionaire” in the world.

“Wow.. this show is insane. I want to start off by saying that I know movies and shows overdramatise true stories, so I’m speaking solely about the show right now. This goes from you rooting for the main character to you hating her.. like a real life Anakin Skywalker story”, one viewer commented about the series in a review on IMDB.

Another remarked, “The story itself is good. It moved at a quick pace, and everything they got is amazing. The one that played Edmund Ko, Stephen Fry as Ian Gibbons, are standouts for me. Sunny was also great.”

A third wrote: “Highly Watchable With Great Performances”, while another stated: “Wonderful! One of the very best shows you can see. Amanda Seyfried deserves every award to which she is eligible. Her performance as Elizabeth Holmes is off the chart.”

The Dropout is available to stream on ITVX