Connect with us

The Dictatorship

There’s a reason the world can’t seem to look away from the breathtaking Louvre heist

Published

on

There’s a reason the world can’t seem to look away from the breathtaking Louvre heist

I recently rewatched — for the thousandth time — the 2001 film “Ocean’s Eleven.” Oscar-winning director Steven Soderbergh’s stylish crime thriller, with a cast of superstars including George Clooney, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, revolves around a team of smooth-talking, charismatic rogues who knock over three casinos in one night. It has long been one of my comfort movies, because I love stories where rascals do a good job. But this particular viewing was also perfectly timed, because a real-life “Ocean’s Eleven” played out in France.

I’ve had heists on my mind since the brazen smash-and-grab of more than $100 million in jewels from the Louvre in Paris. This past Sunday, around 9:30 a.m., a team of thieves entered the museum by breaking through a second-floor window, busted open three displays and, within four minutes, spirited away with Napoleonic-era treasures.

We live in a golden age of high-profile (though not always successful) plunder.

It was a breathtaking crime at what was thought to be an impregnable home of some of the world’s most famous artworks, including the “Mona Lisa” and the Venus de Milo. But the thieves instead targeted jewelry that once belonged to the French royal family and that, according to some experts, could be melted down for easier sale on the black market. An investigation is underway, and the thieves are now the most notorious criminals in Europe.

We live in a golden age of high-profile (though not always successful) plunder. This heist comes on the heels of a lesser-known crime in Paris last month, when a woman allegedly stole 13 pounds of gold nuggets from the National Museum of Natural History. She was arrested two weeks later in Barcelona, Spain.

In 2022, seven thieves knocked over a Brinks truck in California, in what was called the largest jewel heist in U.S. history; the loot totaled $100 million. In 2019, five men stole a cache of precious 18th century jewels worth $113 million from Germany’s Green Vault museum.

The Louvre heist was a crime that will negatively affect the lives of otherwise innocent people. Museum officials have admitted to security lapses, including insufficient closed-circuit television coverage outside the Louvre’s perimeter. The blame game is just beginning.

But it’s hard to read about this daring plot and not, in a small way, root for these villains. There are far grislier and more destructive crimes committed every day, big and small. This might sound like a rationalization, but petty crooks routinely mug regular folks while wealthy pedophiles escape justice. The thieves who robbed the Louvre, on the other hand, just ripped off the French government.

The sense of rooting for the robbers plays a part in Hollywood’s and audiences’ enduring love for heist movies. One of the genre’s most influential films is Jules Dassin’s 1955 French noir “Rififi,” about a jewel heist led by a debonair master criminal. The black-and-white classic is anchored by its iconic 30-minute break-in — a silent nail-biter as the crew painstakingly muffles the sound of their drilling.

Heist movies are Robin Hood fantasies where hypercompetent thieves take on powerful institutions.

In the decades since, many of Hollywood’s biggest directors have put fresh spins on the genre, including Spike Lee’s lively bank-heist-turned-standoff thriller “Inside Man” (2006), Edgar Wright’s “Baby Driver” (2017) and Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” (2010), about a heist team that infiltrates dreams. Even “Avengers: Endgame” (2019), the second-highest-grossing movie of all time and the climax of more than a decade of Marvel movies, hinges on a time-travel heist.

Crime doesn’t always pay in these movies: My second-favorite heist film is Michael Mann’s “Heat” (1995), about a seasoned team of seasoned thieves led by a smoldering, goateed Robert De Niro, who are constantly having to look over their shoulders for a Los Angeles police detective, played by Al Pacino. Despite knowing the police are on their tail, the robbers can’t give up the action, and in the end, most of them pay the ultimate price. But we root for these doomed men nonetheless.

Heist movies are Robin Hood fantasies where hypercompetent thieves take on powerful institutions that loom over our moral lives. They cut across cultural and political lines because everyone’s been screwed over by a bank, or an insurance company, or, if you’re a formerly colonized country, a Western empire.

Like their thematic siblings, the prison break flicks — one’s about breaking in, the other’s about breaking out — heist films are tales of the little guy versus the system. The main characters are frequently skilled criminals who adhere to a moral code. They’re committing crimes, but for the most part, they’re “victimless” —banks, casinos and museums are insured and loaded with cash, right?

But the most important part of the fantasy is asking yourself: What if you could get away with it? I am no master criminal. I don’t even like to jaywalk. But I’d make an excellent member of a heist crew. For instance, I have dainty fingers that would be perfect for safe-cracking. I’d certainly enjoy the planning stages: I’m a fan of maps and spreadsheets. But heist movies are simply safe spaces for me to make believe I can wear a tuxedo like George Clooney.

Now that I think about it, I may have to watch “Ocean’s Eleven” again.

John DeVore

John DeVore is a culture writer and author of “Theatre Kids: A True Tale of Off-Off Broadway.”His writing has been published in Esquire, Vanity Fair, Marvel Comics, and many other publications.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions

Published

on

Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.

In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.

Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.

In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”

A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.

Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.

Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.

In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.

It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.

On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring

Published

on

The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring

About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.

All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.

The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.

The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.

The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

The Times summarized the broader context nicely:

Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.

Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.

In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.

The article added:

Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.

Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.

This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race

Published

on

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.

* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”

* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.

* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.

* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.

* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.

* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending