On Thursday 26 June an audience collected at the Frontline Club to watch Martin Scorsese and his longtime documentary collaborator David Tedeschi’s latest film: The 50 Year Argument. This multi-layered documentary offered a unique historical retrospective over the last 50 years through the eyes of the iconic New York Review of Books. The film interweaves monumental historical events with critical analysis of their consequences by some of the Review‘s contributors, through interviews and unique archival footage. The screening was in partnership with the award-winning arts programme BBC Arena and concluded in a Q&A with its series editor Anthony Wall, also the film’s executive producer.

With over 15,000 articles published to its name, The New York Review of Books has notably set a stage for intellectuals to express their often conflicting views, whether they be orientated by politics, human rights, science or the arts. During the film, key critical events and movements covered by the paper, such as the Vietnam War or the Arab uprisings, were juxtaposed with insight into The New York Review of Books’ own history. Founded by Bob Silvers and late Barbara Epstein in 1963, the initiative arose out of what Silvers describes as “a sequence of coincidences”. One such coincidence was the New York newspaper strike of 1962 which created a publishing vacuum. Silvers says in the film of his paper’s intentions:

“It is not seeking to be part of an establishment but examine the truthfulness and the workings of the existing establishment whether political or cultural.”

Since Epstein’s death in 2006, Silvers has held the fort and is presented as a key character around whom much of the film revolves. Many scenes show Silvers at his desk surrounded by an overwhelming number of books. This is a man who, despite his old age, has an impressive amount of energy dedicated to ideas and, perhaps most importantly, to the freedom to express those ideas. One contributor affirmed in the film:

“Writers are inhibited by editors but that never happens with Bob.”

Another praised Silvers for his input, “That’s what you want as a writer to have an editor who knows more than you.”

At times the documentary seemed to overflow with beautifully interlaced interviews, anecdotes and archive footage of poets such as Robert Lowell, political philosophers such as Noam Chomsky, authors like James Baldwin, activists like Mary McCarthy, classicist like Mary Beard and the list goes on. Norman Mailer versus Gore Vidal and Bernard Lewis versus Edward Said are only a few of the intellectual clashes touched upon during the film and played out in the paper’s pages.

Despite the very high brow nature of the characters featured in The New York Review of Books, the film humanised these individuals and emphasises the subjective nature of their arguments. During the Q&A, Wall reflected on the what he called the various contributors’ vulnerability which he felt presented a side of the intellectual world which is rarely seen. Importantly, throughout the film, each historical insight was contextualised within an endless cycle of knowledge and power. Zoe Heller, the British writer and New York Review of Books contributor, said of the paper: “I have to admit, its been part of my education.”

No doubt it has also been part of some of the audience’s education. One member asked Wall how the editing decisions came about, to which he answered:

“Scorsese’s heart is in the cutting room . . . it is the holy grail for him.” He continued,  “They have had a method of editing which carries you through on a sea of ideas so effectively that there was little any of us could add.”

Anthony Wall, BBC Arena Series Editor

The 50 Year Argument pays homage to the great print media industry at a time when it is being forced to adapt and digitise. Like the The New York Review of Books, this film intends to inform and re-inform its audience. The following sentence from the film’s introduction seems to summarise this well:

“Our only truth is narrative truth, the stories that we tell each other and ourselves.”

Silvers’ position as editor seemed deeply entrenched in the fibres of the paper, provoking questions as to who could possibly take his place. The film ends, as it begins, with scenes from the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations from October 2011. The violent repercussions of this and other citizen-led peaceful protests around the world are still being unraveled today. Indeed humanitarian issues were not shied away from in this film nor human nature in its many forms. As Wall concluded:

“This is an uncompromising film, it is made to be true to its subject and its subject is its subjects.”

The 50 Year Argument aired on BBC Four on Sunday 29 June at 9:00 PM and is now available to watch until Sunday 6 July here.

These were two themes that emerged from April’s First Wednesday discussion last night, which focused on the way that the West was being forced to adapt its foreign policy by events in the Middle East and North Africa.

In a discussion that was very much lead by questions from the floor, one audience member commented that countries in the Middle East have in the past been viewed as pariah states or stooges by the West. Now that people movements are seeking "a plain, simple democracy" can they trust that the West genuinely wants the same?

Jane Kinninmont, senior research fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, said Tunisa and Eypt are "potentially a great opportunity" for the West to offer genuine support to real democratic transitions through political support, training, legal advice, help finding assets and economic support including debt relief:

There seems in Egypt to be particular demand for investment and for guarantees, under writing of investments that will create jobs. Jobs are going to be absolutely key to Egypt’s success.

I do very much hope that Western policy makers do take that opportunity and don’t decide that they fear the Muslim Brotherhood so much that they would prefer another disguised military government.

Barak Seener, research fellow, Middle East Studies at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies argued against democratisation and instead for liberalisation.

Classical Islam has a system of consultations, in Arabic there is no word for democracy, they have justice, they have consultations. Why should we impose a Western style of democracy on the Middle East. There doesn’t need to be a clash of civilisations if consultations are working in sync with Western democracies.

The panel, including Libyan writer and historian Dr Faraj Najem, largely supported intervention in Libya:

We have had a regime which for the last 42 years has not liked the word democracy and has denied its people personal freedom and also development and has pillaged the country’s riches.

A regime which is not just lethal to its own people – we saw what happened in Locherbie, the French airplane over Niger and also in Chad, causing too many problems to its neighbours, Tunisia, the Egyptians and the Saudis. A regime that even sponsored a coup in Fiji.

So it’s a regime which is very dangerous and what’s particularly dangerous is that it’s not  just the father, it’s the seven sons who are taking over and a daughter who is also very dangerous.

But should we expect more interventions in the new world order that is emerging? What of countries like Syria, Bahrain and Yemen?

Dr Noel Brehony CMG, research associate at the London Middle East Institute at SOAS and author of a recent book on Yemen said that it was unlikely that a precedent for intervention had been set:

It’s very important to remember that we are talking about 19 or 20 different countries that are all different and the pace of what’s happening in each country and their trajectories will be different. I think in Saudi Arabia, for example, it will be very slow.

There was a consensus on Libya, it was a very clear situation. I don’t know whether we will see the same in Yemen, where you’ve got the opposition parties, you’ve got the people on the streets who are all united in wanting to remove  [Ali Abdullah] Saleh but arevery divided among themselves. Anything there would be very messy indeed. 

Syria is a very strong regime and it will have to react in some way to what’s going to happen but I hope that we can do that through diplomatic and other pressure. They are all learning, these regimes from each other. That’s why we are seeing economic concessions being made, these promises of political change.

For further discussion on whether opposition movements in Yemen and Bahrain are justified in feeling betrayed by the international community for failing to do anything to reign in regimes there, the importance of Saudi Arabia to the West, morals v self interest and a great deal more, listen to the podcast here or download from itunes.