The Alt-Hist File: Red Moon

The world of audio drama is home to all sorts of wonderful productions and great stories. However, as with any medium, there are a few stinkers out there as well. Most times, I'm able to just move along if I encounter one of these. However, there are other times that an audio drama misses the mark so much I have no choice but to talk about it. Regrettably, the show we're looking at today is one of these audio dramas. We're taking a look at Red Moon.

 

Red Moon takes place in a world where the Soviet Union landed a manned mission on the Moon in 1968. Specifically, Yuri Gagarin became the first man to set foot on the Moon. This is a humiliating defeat for the United States. However, America refuses to give in, and creates a new goal of being the first to establish the permanent lunar base. By 1979, both superpowers have established bases on the Moon. Both bases have nuclear launch capability and the Doomsday Clock has been set to one minute to midnight. Tensions remain high between East and West.

Also, NASA was folded into a new branch of the American military known as Space Command, or SpaceCom for short. They have command center throughout the world, including in Britain. Meanwhile, in London, a former British spy named Eddie is still morning the loss of his beloved wife. Little does he know, however, that he's about to unravel a conspiracy with major geopolitical ramifications.

I'd heard about Red Moon before, and I was very happy to finally have an opportunity to listen to it. It seemed like an incredibly promising premise, and I went in with high expectations. Red Moon took its brilliant premise...and promptly bungled it into an incredibly boring story.

First, let's see how the alternate history checks out. I should note that this is the third work of alternate history I've reviewed that centered around a Soviet moon landing. As such, comparisons to The Soyuz Files and What If? Russians on the Moon! are pretty much inevitable, but we'll get to that soon enough. Alternate histories about the Space Race seem to be on a slight rise as of late. Besides Red Moon and the aforementioned works, there's also For All Mankind over on Apple TV+. For All Mankind is absolutely amazing, and I totally recommend watching it if you haven’t already. Alternate histories about Germany winning World War I have also seen a slight rise, not doubt thanks to the Hearts of Iron mod Kaisereich. It is nice to see more variety than the usual Nazi victory or Confederate victory scenarios. So, how's about some more Aztec Empire never falls scenarios? But I'm getting off track here.

Overall, the alternate history itself isn't too bad. We learn that Sergey Korolev did not die in 1966 like he did in our world. Korolev was very much the heart of the Soviet space program; and keeping him alive would significantly increase the chances of a successful Soviet moon landing. I also think that moon bases would be the logical next goal for an extended Space Race. The technology for a manned mission to Mars just would not be feasible by 1979.

I'll also give Red Moon credit that I'm willing to buy that the moon bases have nuclear launch capability. For all the talk of lofty goals of exploration, one of the major driving forces behind the Space Race was "Hmm, I wonder if we can put some nukes up there?" Furthermore, the Apollo missions weren't as popular as you might think. Numerous polls showed that only about fifty-three percent of the American public supported the Apollo program. That number was even lower among racial minorities. Apollo also consistently made the top five programs Americans said they'd eliminate in order to curb government spending.

The point is, you're going to have to convince a lot of Americans if you want to keep the Space Race going. One good way of doing that is to stoke up fear about the Soviets placing nukes on the Moon, and emphasizing how America needs to get there first. It is even mention that the United States and the Soviet Union have pulled out of the Outer Space Treaty. It was a treaty signed in 1967 where the signatories agreed to ban the use of nuclear weapons in outer space.

I'll also concede that sound effects were top of the line and very professional. The voice acting was, for the most part, quite excellent as well. The only issue was that I'm not sure I can see Eddie's voice actor as leading man material. There were also a couple minor American characters who sounded more like British people attempting American accents. Otherwise, the actors playing Americans did an excellent job. Well, for all I know they might well have been actual Americans.

Okay, the alternate history is reasonably solid, the sound effects and acting are great, so where did Red Moon go so wrong? It comes in the execution of the story. Series writer Robert Valentine seemed to be drawing quite a bit of inspiration from Robert Harris' classic alternate history novel Fatherland. Personally, I always found Fatherland to be dreadfully boring, except towards the very end when the action finally picked up. I get that Harris was going for the banality of evil and all that, but you'd think a novel about a victorious Nazi Germany would be more exciting.

Anyway, novels that take the Fatherland approach to alternate history. Said approach goes as follows: take an average person, usually a detective or reporter, and have them go about their lives. Then something happens where they get drawn into a conspiracy involving the government and they must unravel the conspiracy before it's too late. Problem is that, much like Fatherland, these novels tend to move at the pace of molasses in an igloo, and are incredibly dull to boot. The only book I've seen use this premise, and not turn out dreadfully dull, is Resurrection Day by Brendan DuBois. I may have to put that one on the rotation for review at some point.

Unsurprisingly, Red Moon suffers from serious pacing issues. Episode one started well enough, but episodes two through four were a complete drag. There were times I wanted to shout "Get to the point already!" Things somewhat picked up by episode five, but it was too little too late. Episode six, the concluding episode, felt incredibly rushed, which is quite a feat given how plodding the proceeding episodes were. It certainly didn't help that I found all the characters to be variously flat, one-dimensional, and overall just not that engaging or memorable. To be perfectly frank, it didn't take long before I simple did not care about what happened to the characters.

Also, I need to talk about one scene in particular. Eddie meets one of his associates, an American fellow, in the park to discuss what's really going on with SpaceCom. We learn that the American space program has been doing shady things from the start. They even, horror of horrors, hired former Nazi rocket scientist. This is treated like some grand revelation, but it really isn't, not even in-universe. It was common knowledge among the general public, even as far back as the 1950s that NASA employed former German rocket scientists as part of Project Paperclip. Tom Lehrer even pinned a famous song in 1965 making fun of Wernher Von Braun for his ties to the Nazi Party. So, since the audio drama is set in 1979, this wouldn't be a bombshell at all.

Project Paperclip is also treated as a unique black mark on America's part, but again, not really. The Soviet Union had its own equivalent of Project Paperclip. Curiously, those who wag their fingers at America for Project Paperclip hardly ever bring this up. And that's to say nothing of the Soviet Union's incredibly cavalier attitude towards the safety of its cosmonauts. For example, one out of five, possibly more, Soviet rocket launches ended in failure.

It was more of a minor annoyance, but throughout the audio drama we have characters bemoaning how Britain is just an innocent bystander in the fight between the two superpowers. I can kind of understand where they were coming form, but I spot a few flaws with that. Britain is a member of NATO, so it isn't like they were some unaligned nation caught-up in the conflict. Moreover, Britain has a nuclear arsenal, which is a lot better than most nations can claim. In fact, Britain was the third nation to get the atom bomb. They would have been second, but the Soviets beat them to the punch on that one.

A few of the characters grumble about how they've basically became a colony of America, and how America is imperialistic. The nation that used to own a quarter of the world is really not in a position to be lecturing about imperialism, just saying. Now, to be fair, this was probably meant to be in-universe...probably, but more on that in a bit. The embarrassment of Britain's failure during the Suez Crisis was still very much fresh in everyone's minds in 1979. Furthermore, with decolonization in full swing, Britain had pretty much lost its entire overseas empire by 1979. I'm sure many British people were rather sore about that. There were grumblings all the way back to when India got its independence in 1947. It was also probably rather embarrassing to have a former settler colony overtake Britain as a major world power.

So, why do I say probably in-universe. Well, by the time the show as over, it was pretty clear to me that Robert Valentine seems to hate the United States quite a bit. Almost all the American characters are completely evil, and with little to no redeeming qualities. The Americans of Red Moon are largely depicted as greedy capitalists, zealous jingos, and blood-thirsty warmongers. It is certainly true that America did some screwed up things during the Cold War. The Vietnam War alone contains examples ranging from the My Lai Massacre to the drafting of mental handicapped individuals.

However, the villains of Red Moon were completely over-the-top, to the point of coming across as cartoonishly evil. I was half expecting them to eat puppies and kittens at some point. They felt more like James Bond villains than legitimate villains in an alternate history audio drama. This is compounded by the fact that we only ever see one Soviet character, and he's practically a saint compared to the Americans. He waxes about how the Soviets never wanted the Space Race, and it's all because the big bad Americans forced them into. Again, that could have been an in-universe remark, but given the track record thus far, I have my doubts. The Soviets definitely took part in the Space Race of their own volition, and they aimed to win.

And now let's talk about what the big evil plan is. At first, it seems like it is a rouge general doing it, but it turns out the orders are coming from the president himself. The plot is to blow up the Russian moon base, but that runs the risk of sparking World War III. So, the American moon base will bomb Juneau, Alaska as a false flag. Then, America can destroy the Soviet Union once and for all. See what I meant about the Americans being more like bad James Bond villains?

Now, this all could have worked as a satirization of Cold War paranoia, but unfortunately, the premise is played completely straight without the slightest hint of irony or humor. Sorry gang, but Dr. Strangelove this is not. For that matter, even playing the premises seriously, showing a potential dark side to a Space Race that never ended, could have worked. It could have, but it would need to be in the hands of a far more competent writer.

Valentine said that he had the idea for Red Moon for a while, but were galvanized to do it because of the election of Donald Trump and the passing of Brexit. Uh, if Brexit was an inspiration, then why are Americans the villains? Also, why do they care that Trump was, at the time they wrote Red Moon, president of the United States? There is a big blue wobbly thing called the Atlantic Ocean that separates America from Britain.

So, does this mean Red Moon is loaded with anti-Trump and anti-Brexit moralizing? Surprisingly, no. If fact, had I not known, I wouldn't have suspect that Trump and Brexit were influences on Red Moon. If anything, I'd suspect the Robert Valentine just really hated America and Americans.

There is a brief scene at the end where the president is ousted from power, and reporters remark on him spending a bunch of time golfing, but that's about it. Don't ask who it was, they never say. In our world, Jimmy Carter was president in 1979, but I can't see him going for something like armed moon bases. That would be more Ronald Reagan's thing, and he didn't become president until 1981. I'd call it lazy writing, but that would be redundant at this point. Of course, the bigger sin of Red Moon is that it's just so boring and poorly paced.  

And I don't think any of this is due to the writer of Red Moon being British. What If? Russians on the Moon! was created by a pair of Frenchmen, and yet it managed to tell a compelling, well-written, excellently paced story with excellent research. It also featured compelling morally complex and engaging characters without demonizing either the Americans or the Soviets. Seriously, go read What If? Russians on the Moon! Likewise, The Soyuz Files also succeeds in all of these categories, and you should absolutely listen to it instead of Red Moon.

The Wireless Theatre Company has some other audio dramas, and perhaps I'll give them a try some time. However, if Red Moon is anything to go off of, I'm won't be setting my expectations too high.

So, yeah. Red Moon took an excellent premise for an alternate history audio drama, and completely bungled it. It has terrible pacing, flat characters, anti-American bias that borders on bigotry, and worst of all, it is just so utterly boring. Don't waste your time with this sinker. If you want an actual quality audio that explores the aftermath of a Soviet moon landing, listen to The Soyuz Files. And if you're hungry for more Soviet moon landing alternate history, read What If? Russians on the Moon!

Well, that should do it from me for now. I will see you guys next time.

The Audio File: Miriam and Youssef

So, the audio drama we're looking at deals with the origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and the founding of the State of Israel. Well, I can see absolutely zero ways that this could go pear-shaped. For those of you who couldn't tell, that was sarcasm. Well, no point in putting it off any further, so let's just get into it. We're taking a look at the audio drama Miriam and Youssef.

Miriam and Youssef tells the story of the British Mandate of Palestine and the founding of the State of Israel. It does so by following a Jewish woman named Miriam and a Palestinian man named Youssef. Miriam came to the Mandate of Palestine to escape persecution in Poland, and is optimistic about the future of the fledgling Jewish State. Youssef was born and raised in the village of Deir Yassin, just outside of Jerusalem. He's cautiously optimistic about the changes the British bring to Palestine, but fate has other plans. It is these two who will serve as our eyes as we explore the history of the British Mandate of Palestine. We begin in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration and the founding of the Mandate, and end in 1948, with the founding of the State of Israel.

Miriam and Youssef is created by Steve Walters and is a production of the BBC World Service. Steve previously teamed up with the BBC World Service to create the excellent audio drama Fall of the Shah. It is because of this that I was willing to give Miriam and Youssef the benefit of the doubt. And it would seem that my faith was not misplaced. So, a bit more background about Steve Waters. He worked on a kibbutz in Israel when he was a teenager. Kibbutz are a type of Israeli communal farms. So, he obviously got to know many Israelis, but he also met several Palestinians and learned their stories and perspectives.

As part of his research for Miriam and Youssef, Steve worked with several Israeli historians and scholars who have begun to question the traditional narrative of the founding of the State of Israel. These scholars argue that traditional narratives largely ignore the Palestinian perspective, and downplay Israel's less than shining moments. Was he right to do this? Are these scholars really worth their salt? I freely admit that I don't know the answer. I'm just letting you know so that you know what perspective Miriam and Youssef is aiming for.

For what it's worth, Steve has stated that he believes the creation of a Jewish state in the Levant was justified and necessary, especially after the Holocaust. That having been said, he also believes that Israel did wrong by the Palestinians.

Well, time to see how well I can navigate this mine field. So, what do I think? No nation is perfect or immune to criticism, and that includes Israel. I would say there probably were mistake made along the way. On the other hand, few other nations have their right to exist so often called into question. I also think they don't get enough credit for the good that they do. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East where you can have gay pride parades. Almost all of the Arab gay rights organizations are headquartered in Israel, because there is nowhere else in the Middle East they can do so. Don't get me wrong, there's still a lot of conservative religious Jew in the Knesset, and in Israeli society in general. Still, Israel remains far more secular and liberal than pretty much all of its neighbors. The Middle East needs all the secularism and liberalism it can get.

On the flip side, Palestine is dominated by Muslim fundamentalists and other radicals who aren't above bombing school buses and targeting civilians. There's a reason Israel needs its Iron Dome missile defense system. One State? Two State? I don't know, I really don't know. Honestly, there is no easy answer, I don't expect a solution anytime soon. Still, there is a small, but hopefully growing, movement among young Jews and Palestinians living in Israel to move on from the past, and work towards a common future. We can only hope this is the case. Also, Arabs account for nearly twenty percent of Israel's population. Not all Palestinians live in the Palestinian Territories. Some do live in Israel proper. Just letting you all know where my thoughts and biases are.

Well, now that I have alienated just about everyone by discussing modern-day politics, let's get back to the podcast. This means we now get to discuss 1917-1948 politics. I will say that it is interesting that the series begins in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration. Usually, works exploring the origins of Israel, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, begin in 1948, with the founding of the State of Israel. By contrast, that is where Miriam and Youssef ends. You don't really see the British Mandate of Palestine explored in fiction very often, so this was a nice change of pace. This means we also get the preservative of British people who moved to Palestine during this time. We do so through the eyes of, arguably, our third main character: Harry Lister. He's a British civil servant stationed in Jerusalem. Unlike most of the other civil servants, he makes an effort to connect with the locals and learn their culture. He winds up befriending both Miriam and Youssef over the course of the series.

In fact, the podcast actually argues that the British are most to blame for the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Throughout the series we see the British do only the bare minimum required to keep peace between the Jews and Palestinians. Even this rarely proves sufficient. The podcast argues that the British made no effort to integrate the Jews and Palestinians, and often inadvertently fanned the flames of resentment. It's rather telling that, by the end of the series, both Jew and Palestinian alike are revolting against the British. The episode set in 1942 is especially sad. It intersperses the story of Miriam and Youssef with the story of a boat of Jewish refugees desperate to escape the Holocaust. They arrive in Palestine, only to be turned away because the British are limiting Jewish immigration to appease the Arabs. The ship spends several weeks docked at a Turkish port before it is torpedoed. It is a somber reminder that Miriam is lucky she got to Palestine when she did.

Interesting that the British are assigned the most blame. That's not a perspective you see too often in discussions about the Arab-Israeli Conflict. But the series doesn't just leave it at that. If anything, the blame is placed on the fear and mistrust both sides had for each other. Distrust leads to fear, fear leads to hate, hate leads to violence. This is best demonstrated in episode two. Jews and Arabs are doing work near the Western Wall, and some small bits of rock fall. The Arabs and Jews immediately get into a fight with each other. Worse, the Arabs have been wary about the Jews building kibbutz, and use the riot as an excuse to attack the kibbutz. Earlier, the Jews has been debating about if the kibbutz needed to have more security, or if they were worrying for nothing. It would seem they had good reason to be wary.

Now let's talk about our two leads. Miriam starts off very optimistic about the possibility of a Jewish state in Palestine. By the end of the series, she's still cautiously optimistic, though it is an optimism tempered with the world weariness of life experience. She quickly rises through the ranks of leadership within her local kibbutz. She also winds up working for the British administration in Palestine, which is how she meets Harry.

Miriam also rubs shoulders with several figures involved in the founding of Israel. For example, she frequently mentions having a cousin named Ben Gurion. When we finally meet him, it becomes clear that he is David Ben Gurion, one of the founding fathers of Israel. I can best describe him as the George Washington of Israel, as he was the first prime minister of Israel. In other figures, Miriam also works as the assistant to Rabbi Judah Magnes. He was a rabbi from New York City who was one of the leading voices of the Reform Judaism movement. He was a major propionate of the One-State Solution, with him envisioning Palestine as a multinational joint Arab-Jewish state. I guess he envisioned it as a federation of sorts.

Miriam's views on the Arabs shift throughout the series. She starts out reasonably open to coexistence, but then the attack on the kibbutz happens. Miriam's mother is among the causalities, which rather sours Miriam's views on the Arabs. As the series progresses, however, she begins to disavow the more extreme elements of Jewish resistance. Her major turning point when she participates in the bombing of the King David Hotel and the French Embassy. By that point, the Jews had grown angry with the British for failing to protect them from the Arabs, and for turning away Holocaust refugees; so the Jews began armed resistance against the British. Miriam grows guilty and try to warn the hotel, but it proves too little too late. Well, that and real history said the bombing had to happen.

Youssef is, in many ways, not all that different than Miriam. He starts out uncertain about the Jews and the British. He finds opportunity by attending British-run schools, and working for the British civil service, but these prove unsatisfying. He frequently finds himself falling in and out with various extremist groups. Usually, he'll try to do things the nice way, but then circumstances force his hand. In so, the series ask the question of just what drives someone to become an extremist? Ultimately, however, he rejects extremism, but doesn't necessarily accept peace. By the end of the series he's world weary and jaded, but accepts things as they are. The same can be said of Miriam.

Now, I do have a few criticisms of the series. For example, I felt like it seriously downplayed the role of religion in the conflict. Now, it is certainly true that there were more factors than just religion that went into the Arab-Israeli Conflict. For example, many Arabs weren't keen on having a largely scalar and westernized people moving in on their territory. However, to flat out ignore the role of religion in the conflict is, I would say, a major oversight. Also, I couldn't help but feel that Youssef and his family were awfully open-minded and liberal for their culture and time-period.  Arab antisemitism has roots way before the British Mandate of Palestine was established. In fact, it goes all the way back to the Prophet Mohammad himself. There were some Jews and Muslims living together in the Middle East, true. However, just because they weren't loping each other's heads off doesn't mean they got along particularly well.

Now, you could argue that Youssef and his family weren't meant to represent all Palestinians. Likewise, Miriam and her family aren't meant to represent all Israelis. It is the focus on the human element of the story that makes this podcast work so well. Still, there were a few times it felt like the podcast tried a little too hard to be sympathetic to the Palestinians. For example, at one point, Youssef bemoans that his father has been unjustly imprisoned. He conveniently leaves out the fact that his father was imprisoned because a hateful speech he gave caused the Arabs to riot against the Jews. The riot eventually leads to the attack on the kibbutz that claimed the life of Miriam's mother.

I think the podcast might have acknowledged this in a way. In episode three, Miriam and Rabbi Magnes are discussing the kibbutz massacre, and Magnes basically says "well, it is understandable why the Arabs attacked." Obviously, Miriam is having none of it and breaks-off their friendship. Even if Magnes might have had a point, it probably wasn't such a good idea to say so just after Miriam had lost her mother. He definitely could have been more tactful and sensitive.

On the other hand, there were plenty of well-written and powerful moments. The most notable of these was the depiction of the Deir Yassin Massacre. For those who don't know, Deir Yassin used to be a village located just outside Jerusalem. It had a population of about 600. During the War of 1948, a far-right Jewish paramilitia attacked the village, almost all of whom were unarmed civilians. To be fair, Israeli leaders, and international Jews such as Albert Einstein, condemned the massacre. All the same, it became a major rallying cry for the Arabs. Mind you, most Arabs don't love Palestinians. In fact, Palestinians are considered the bottom of the totem pole in most Arab nations. The Arabs primarily supported them to get back at Israel. Pretty much the only Middle Eastern nation, besides Israel, were Palestinians aren't still in camps is Jordan. And they aren't in a rush to give citizenship to Palestinian refugees, because if they did, Jordanians would be a minority in their own country.

Despite all of this, and despite acknowledging the massacre, the Israeli government hasn't really done anything to commemorate it. There were calls for the village to be abandoned permanently, but these were rejected. In fact, this is briefly depicted in the show. Today, a mental hospital sits on the former sit of the village. You can still see the ruins of the village in the hospital courtyards. Like the bombing of the King David Hotel, it is very much an example of the persecuted becoming the persecutors, and the hunted becoming the hunters.

Still, overall, I did very much enjoy Miriam and Youssef. Steve Waters said that originally, he wanted the series to be forty episodes long, but the BBC made him cut it down to ten. Perhaps if it has been forty episodes long, we would have gotten more nuance, well, more than what we already got. He also said that he could easily have made it about all the political maneuverings within the British government that allowed for the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine. Hey, I'd give it a listen. More than just that, I'd love to see what Steve could do with the history of Israel post-1948. Perhaps we'll get a sequel series one day. For the moment, though, that is only in our dreams. Of course, I'm also eager to see what Steve Waters can do with other eras of World History.

So there you have it. Miriam and Youssef tells the story of the British Mandate of Palestine and the founding of the State of Israel. It does so by examining these events through the eyes of ordinary people caught up in extraordinary events. It is a well-made and well-written podcast, and I happily recommend it.

Well, I think that should do it from me for now. I will see you guys next time.

The Audio File: Fall of the Shah

Britain has had a long history of producing quality audio dramas. I suppose it is partially because television arrived there later than it did in America. Of course, even after television arrived, the British continued producing audio dramas, even into the present day. That brings us to the podcast we're reviewing today. We're taking a look at Fall of the Shah, a BBC production.

Fall of the Shah tells the story of the early days of the Iranian/Islamic Revolution. We see this historic event though the eyes of many people. There is of course, the Shah and his wife, but also leaders in America and Britain, a Canadian journalist, and an Iranian family divided by the revolution.

Okay, I know that doesn't sound terribly exciting, but this is an excellent podcast. Being produced by a major company means that the audio production is a true cinematic experience. The BBC usually does with their productions. I say usually because there have been some occasion, many within the last few years, that they've gotten sloppy with their audio drama standards. Thankfully, Fall of the Shah is not one of those instances. Everything from the voice acting, to the music, to the sound effects, are all top of the line. Fall of the Shah has a full voice cast, but also features a narrator, voiced by Dame Diana Rigg, who helps to set the scenes and explain some of the background details about the various events the podcast depicts.

I should perhaps give a bit of background to help set the stage.  The Iranian/Islamic Revolution wasn't the first revolution. The first revolution occurred in 1953. It was a socialist uprising, and since it was the Cold War, the United States and United Kingdom didn't look too kindly on it. Especially since Britain owned several oil companies in Iran, and the Iranians were trying to reduce British influence in their nation. The uprising was swiftly squished, and America and Britain installed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran. The Iranian people always resented this, especially since Pahlavi was rather incompetent as a ruler. This anger continued to simmer until it boiled over into a new revolution.

Obviously, the Shah gets a fair bit of focus. I'm heard some people accusing this podcast of whitewashing the actions of the Shah. I would argue that it doesn't, as it takes time to have other characters voice precisely why so many people are angry with the Shah's government. More on that in a bit. Even if it might go a bit soft on the Shah, I'd argue that the writers did so because they knew what came after him was much worse. It's a bit like how media relating to the Russian Revolution tends to downplay Tsar Nicholas II's faults, because everyone knows how much worse the Soviet Union turned out to be. And I will applaud the writers for really humanizing the Shah.

On the flip side, the podcast also does an excellent job portraying Ayatollah Khomeini. He's cold, cunning, and calculating. The podcast doesn't say away from the fact that he was a religious extremist. At the same time, the podcast also makes a point of show how he was able to manipulate people and gain their support. Hats off to the voice actor who played him, and really captured Khomeini's public speaking ability. Many of those who initially supported the 1979 Revolution were socialists, but they believed the Ayatollahs and their followers would be useful idiots. They wrongly assumed that the Ayatollahs would be too obsessed with their religion to be of much harm. It is quite ironic that Khomeini's exile took him to Paris, a modern secular Western city. He railed against all of these things, and yet he only survived because of them.

We also get to see things from the perspective an Iranian family, and see how revolution divides, and ultimately disillusion them. The kids begin by getting involved in student protest groups, which were key in the early stages of the revolution. Then the fundamentalists begin to seize control of the government. Like I said before, the podcast might glossed over the Shah's flaws because the fundamentalist government was so much worse. For example, the Shah had 3,000 political prisoners, but the Islamic government had over 300,000 political prisoners, and that was just at the start of the revolution. One definition of revolution is to move in a circle, or in other words, make things like they were when you started. Having the family as one of the groups of focus characters gives a really great street view of revolution.

We also get to see things from the perspective of leaders in America and Britain. First, off, whoever played Jimmy Carter really nailed his voice. The writers also did a good job portraying Carter sympathetically. Carter is often remembered for how he mishandled the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In my opinion, Carter wasn't a bad president per se, but he got dealt a bad hand. It was during his presidency that the OPEC Oil Embargo, and the ensuing Oil Crisis, occurred. My mother tells me she remembers that because she'd just gotten her drivers license and gas had gone up to the outrageous price of one dollar per gallon. Carter can be said to, perhaps, have been in over his head, and might have made a better Secretary of State than president. He was a nice guy, but maybe not necessarily pragmatic enough for the job.

The podcast ends on a somber note. The Shah has died in exile, and the fundamentalist government maintains its grip on Iran. Women who once dressed as freely as Western woman now walk the streets clad in burkas. The desert waits for rain, and the Iranian people wait for the day when they can breathe freely once again. A powerful ending indeed.

So there you have it. Fall of the Shah is an excellent audio drama podcast from the BBC. It chronicles the Iranian/Islamic Revolution from a variety of perspectives, and I happily recommend it. Sorry if this review was a bit on the short side. I've been planning a...not so secret project, shall we say. If you are in the same Facebook groups I am you should be able to guess what it is. If not, you'll be hearing more about it relatively soon-ish.

Well, I think that should be enough from me for now. I will see you guys next time.