Posts Tagged totalitarianism

Understanding the Themes in The Man in the High Castle Season 4

Warning spoilers! Season 4 of The Man in the High Castle arrives with the air of a regime in its final days: brittle, paranoid, and unable to sustain the weight of its own mythology. If the earlier seasons were about the seduction of authoritarian certainty, the final chapter is about its collapse — not in a blaze of moral clarity, but in a slow, grinding unravelling where every character is forced to confront the stories they’ve told themselves to survive. The show’s last movement is less a political thriller than a study in ideological entropy, where the Reich’s immaculate surfaces crack to reveal the rot beneath.

At the centre of this collapse stands John Smith, whose arc reaches its inevitable, devastating conclusion. Season 4 strips away the last of his rationalisations and exposes the truth we’ve been circling since Season 2: Smith is not a man corrupted by the Reich; he is a man who found in the Reich the perfect architecture for his own need for control. The multiverse — once a destabilising curiosity — becomes a mirror he cannot bear to look into. The sight of a world in which he remained an ordinary American, a man without power, is intolerable. His tragedy is not that he chose the wrong side; it is that he cannot imagine himself outside the machinery of domination. His final act, a suicide framed as a refusal to be captured, is less a moment of redemption than a last attempt to control the narrative. Even in death, he cannot relinquish authorship.

Juliana Crain, by contrast, becomes the show’s moral and metaphysical anchor. Season 4 completes her transformation from reluctant fugitive to a figure of radical possibility. She moves through the world with a clarity the Reich cannot comprehend: she understands that resistance is not merely political but ontological. The multiverse is not a plot device; it is a rebuke to totalitarianism itself. Where the Reich insists on a single, immutable truth, Juliana embodies the idea that reality can branch, fracture, and be remade. Her calm, almost spiritual presence in the final season gives the show its emotional ballast. She is not the hero because she wins; she is the hero because she refuses the seduction of certainty.

Around these two poles, Season 4 widens its lens. The BCR (Black Communist Rebellion) becomes the most grounded and politically coherent thread of the season. Their struggle is not abstract; it is material, lived, and rooted in the history of American resistance movements. The show finally acknowledges that liberation is not a philosophical exercise but a collective act, messy and imperfect. The BCR storyline gives the season a sense of urgency that the Reich’s metaphysical obsessions lack. It reminds us that while the multiverse may offer infinite possibilities, freedom must still be fought for in the world at hand.

Kido, too, receives a quietly powerful ending. His journey from rigid enforcer to a man haunted by the cost of obedience mirrors the show’s broader meditation on complicity. His final choices are not framed as redemption — the series is too honest for that — but as a recognition that the machinery he served has consumed everything he once valued. In a season filled with grand ideological gestures, Kido’s small, human moments land with surprising force.

But it is the ending that gives Season 4 its lasting resonance. The portal — long teased, often debated — finally opens, and people from other worlds begin to walk through. It is a strange, unsettling, almost dreamlike moment, and it reframes the entire series in a single gesture. Throughout The Man in the High Castle, the Reich has insisted on a closed universe: one truth, one history, one destiny. The portal’s opening is the ultimate act of defiance against that worldview. It is a literal rupture in the authoritarian imagination, a reminder that no regime, however totalising, can fully contain the human capacity for possibility.

The ambiguity is deliberate. We are not told who these people are, what they want, or what world they come from. They arrive without weapons, without explanation, without fear. In a show obsessed with surveillance, control, and the policing of identity, this final image is almost radical in its openness. It suggests that history is not a sealed vault but a permeable membrane — that trauma, hope, and resistance echo across realities. The Reich’s downfall is not framed as a victory of good over evil, but as the collapse of a system that cannot withstand the existence of alternatives.

For Juliana, the moment is a vindication of everything she has believed: that the world is not fixed, that choices matter, that reality can be remade. For Smith, it is the final horror — proof that the universe is larger than his authority, that he cannot control the narrative even in death. And for the audience, the ending functions as a quiet, subversive reminder that authoritarianism thrives on the illusion of inevitability. The portal shatters that illusion.

Season 4 is not perfect. Its pacing is uneven, and some narrative threads feel compressed. But as a culmination of the show’s thematic architecture, it is remarkably coherent. It understands that authoritarian regimes do not fall because the righteous triumph; they fall because they can no longer sustain the contradictions at their core. It understands that resistance is not a single heroic act but a series of choices made by people who refuse to accept the world as it is. And it understands that the most radical idea in a totalitarian universe is the possibility of another world.

The Man in the High Castle closes not with triumph but with rupture — a world breaking open, a story refusing to resolve neatly, a reminder that history is always unfinished. Season 4 honours the show’s central insight: that the struggle between domination and freedom is not a battle to be won once, but a condition of being human.

Reviewed by Pat Harrington

Advert

Leave a Comment

The Man in the High Castle Season 3: A Study of Totalitarian Control

A world rebuilt from ashes, and the people crushed beneath the weight of its new myths

Promotional image for 'The Man in the High Castle' Season 3 featuring a destroyed Statue of Liberty amidst rubble and flames, with Nazi symbols and a large portrait of Hitler in the background.

Season 3 of The Man in the High Castle is where the show stops merely imagining an alternate history and begins interrogating the machinery that sustains one. It’s a season obsessed with erasure — cultural, personal, historical — and with the terrible quiet that follows when a regime decides that the past is an inconvenience rather than a foundation. The Reich’s “Year Zero” programme, lifted chillingly from Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge, becomes the ideological spine of the season: a promise to wipe the slate clean, to bulldoze memory itself, and to force a population to live inside a story written by its conquerors.

The show understands that such projects are never abstract. They seep into homes, marriages, friendships. They demand loyalty not just to the state but to the fictions the state insists upon. And Season 3 is at its strongest when it shows how that fiction corrodes the people trying to survive inside it.

Year Zero: the art of unmaking a world

The Reich’s plan to inaugurate a new age by obliterating the old is not just a plot device — it’s the season’s central metaphor. The replacement of the Statue of Liberty with a Nazi colossus is the most obvious symbol, a moment staged with operatic cruelty. But the deeper violence is quieter: the rewriting of textbooks, the cleansing of archives, the insistence that the world before the Reich was a mistake.

This is where the season becomes genuinely unsettling. It shows how totalitarianism doesn’t simply dominate the present; it colonises the past and mortgages the future. It demands that people forget who they were so they can be remade into who the regime needs them to be. And in that forced forgetting, families begin to fracture. Parents and children no longer share the same memories, the same moral vocabulary, the same sense of what is real.

Season 3 is, in many ways, a study of that fracture.

The Smiths: loyalty as a form of self‑harm

John Smith’s ascent into the highest echelons of Nazi society is presented with a kind of suffocating glamour — the immaculate uniforms, the banquets, the whispered conspiracies. But beneath the surface lies a family imploding under the weight of its own obedience.

Helen Smith, still reeling from Thomas’s death, becomes the emotional centre of this collapse. Her grief is not permitted to exist in a society that treats sacrifice as virtue and mourning as weakness. She is forced to perform loyalty even as her world shrinks to a single, unbearable absence. The season’s most painful moments come from watching her try to protect what remains of her family while knowing, deep down, that the regime she serves is the very thing destroying it.

Season 3 makes clear that totalitarianism doesn’t just demand compliance — it demands complicity. And the Smiths, more than any other characters, show the cost of that bargain.

The LGBTQ+ storyline: visibility as danger

Your notes rightly highlight one of the season’s most resonant threads: the vulnerability of queer characters in a society that treats difference as treason. The relationship between Thelma Harris and Nicole Dörmer is handled with a kind of tragic inevitability. Both women occupy privileged spaces — media, propaganda, the curated world of elite culture — yet their status offers no real protection.

The crackdown on queer spaces, culminating in the raid on the lesbian club, is one of the season’s most harrowing sequences. It’s not just the violence of the act; it’s the message behind it. Even those who help manufacture the Reich’s illusions are disposable if they fail to embody its ideals. Thelma’s storyline becomes a study in how isolation is engineered — how a regime convinces people that their private selves are liabilities.

This is where Season 3 feels most contemporary. It understands that authoritarianism always begins by policing the margins, and that the people who believe themselves safe are often the first to fall.

Juliana, Tagomi, and the widening mystery

While the Reich tightens its grip, Juliana Crain moves in the opposite direction — toward uncertainty, toward possibility, toward the multiverse that the films hint at. Her alliance with Tagomi remains one of the show’s most humane relationships, built on mutual respect and a shared sense that the world is larger than the Reich or the Empire can comprehend.

Their storyline provides the season’s philosophical counterweight. If the Reich is obsessed with narrowing reality to a single narrative, Juliana and Tagomi are drawn to the idea that reality is plural, unstable, and resistant to control. The films become artefacts of hope — proof that other worlds exist, and that this one is not inevitable.

Joe Blake: the prodigal son returns

Joe’s return from Berlin is framed as a diplomatic mission, but it quickly becomes clear that he is being used as a pawn in a much larger game. His reunion with Juliana is brief, charged, and ultimately tragic. Joe is a character torn between identities, and Season 3 finally forces him to confront the fact that he cannot inhabit all of them at once.

His arc is a reminder that the Reich devours its own. Loyalty is never enough; purity is always demanded.

A season of tightening screws

By the time the new Nazi programme is unveiled — a project with implications that stretch far beyond geopolitics — the season has made its point with devastating clarity. Totalitarianism is not sustained by brute force alone. It is sustained by stories: the ones people are told, the ones they are allowed to remember, and the ones they are forbidden to imagine.

Season 3 is the show’s most methodical and thematically coherent chapter. It’s a season about the violence of forgetting, the danger of conformity, and the fragile, stubborn persistence of identity in a world determined to erase it.

It leaves you with the uneasy sense that the greatest threat is not the regime’s power, but its ability to make people believe that no other world is possible.

By Pat Harrington

Promotional image for 'The Angela Suite' by Anthony C. Green featuring a book cover with a pair of feet and a city background, along with the text 'BUY NOW'.

Leave a Comment

Review: Orwell: 2=2+5

Film review, The Light Cinema, New Brighton, April 16th, 2026, by Anthony C Green

Produced and written by Raoul Peck

Narrated by Damian Lewis

Introduction

This 2025 documentary film seems to be receiving only a very limited cinema release in the UK. This single-night showing was the only one I could find locally. Consequently, the admittedly smallish theatre was packed. Hopefully, the film will soon find a wider audience through streaming and/or a physical release.

Format

Made with the full co-operation of the Orwell estate, the format of the documentary is to feature excerpts from Orwell’s writings, read by Damian Lewis   accompanied by illustrative visual footage. The writings include excerpts from his novels, especially, as one might expect, from 1984, as well as Animal Farm, Burmese Days, non-fiction works like Homage to Catalonia and Down and out in Paris and London, and many of his essays and letters, right up to his very final letter before his early death, aged 46, in 1950.

Thus, we get the story of Orwell’s life and the development of his world outlook, and as a writer told in his own words.

The visuals include clips from three of the filmed versions of 1984, the BBC play production from 1954, starring Peter Cushig and reviewed by me here Review of the 1954 BBC Adaptation of Orwell’s 1984 , the 1956 American version, and the version starring John Hurt and Richard Burton released in 1984 itself. We also get clips from the animated 1950s version of Animal Farm, and from the BBC 1983 play The Crystal Spirit: Orwell on Jura (the isolated Scottish Island where Orwell wrote 1984). This latter was particularly pleasing to me, as I well remember this at the time of broadcast and have been searching for a means of watching it again in full for years. Sadly, it still doesn’t seem to exist anywhere.

We also get to see rare photographs of Orwell, from infancy onwards, supplied by the Orwell estate.

But the bulk of the visuals are either historical in nature, of Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc, and especially relatively modern footage, up to and including 2024, all designed to show the prescience of Orwell as a writer, of his continuing relevance today. 

Positives

For the most part, the format works superbly well, and some of the footage is very powerful. For instance, the beating of natives by British police in Burma/Myanmar, in which Orwell served as a low-level operative of the British Empire, and documented in Burmese Days, a period that made him a staunch anti-imperialist for the rest of his life, and the public hanging of Nazi collaborators in, from memory, France, accompanied by cheering crowds, just as such executions were greeted in 1984.

Orwell was one of the greatest of all English writers. We can’t quite hear his voice itself because, sadly, despite the very many BBC broadcasts he made on behalf of the coalition government during the Second World War, not a single recording of his voice has survived, or as yet to be recovered. Given that we can hear Oscar Wilde resighting The Ballad of Reading Gaol from a half-century before, and even the voice of Queen Victoria, this is surprising, so we can live in hope that one day the real voice of Orwell may be unearthed from somewhere, just as two long-long lost episodes of Doctor Who and first film appearance of Oliver Hardy were recently recovered from private film collections by British charity Film Is Fabulous.

In any case, in the narration of Lewis we get the next best thing, and he does it well, sounding as we might expect Orwell to have sounded, allowing us to suspend disbelief and imagine that we are hearing the voice of Orwell himself.

And every word we hear did indeed come directly from Orwell, revealing his continued relevance as a writer and social commentator.

He was both very much of his time and out of this time. A very English radical with whom one can have their political differences, as I certainly do, especially over Spain and his death-bed fingering of British fellow writers for being potential or actual communist sympathisers to MI5, while still appreciating him as a writer whose politics came from the right place, from his essential decency as a human being.

Of the footage, the parts towards the end which reveal the extent that the corporate media in the West has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and has essentially become the mouthpiece of a corrupt political elite which essentially funded and maintained by the same small group of people perhaps hits home hardest.

Negatives

I’m not sure all of the modern-day examples designed to heed Orwell’s warnings about Totalitarianism worked quite so well. Indeed, there was a certain irony about some of these choices.

I can’t quite remember the quotation, and I’m paraphrasing, but someone once sad that the most effective forms of propaganda is that which is invisible to its intended recipients. We don’t see it and accept it as normal, in the same way that fish can have no concept of water. Water to a fish simply the world.

This idea is, I think, referenced in the film, and yet, taken as a whole, I thought the documentary almost took for granted that a left-liberal-worldview is a normality that should be defended, and that any challenge to this, however mild, has the potential to evolve into the form of totalitarianism which we hear Orwell repeatedly warning against.

Thus, as well as the obvious choices of the usual pantheon of ‘evil dictators’, we see footage of largely innocuous modern populist politicians such as Meloni, Le Pen, and Orban defending traditional ideas of the family that were taken for granted by virtually all until only a few years ago (and still are by most).

From my perspective, the difficulty many mainstream politicians have had in recent years in defining fairly self-explanatory concepts such as the definition of a woman, or the mangling of the English language to suit the sensitivities of small groups of self-appointed LGBT+ leaders through the introductions of pronouns like ‘They-Them’ would seem to be the very epitome of Newspeak as articulated by Orwell. The film seems to ignore this and to concentrate on alleged demagogic populism as the danger, ignoring the possibility that liberalism itself can be every bit as totalitarian as socialism or nationalism.

There is also far too much Trump. There are very many reasons to be anti-Trump in this time of the war on Iran, but just as McCarthyism in the early 1950s introduced the concept of ‘Premature anti-Fascism’ as a means of damning American radicals as communists, this film was made before the current war, and there were legitimate reasons for supporting Trump in 2024 in the hope of rolling back the rise of a totalitarian form of liberalism.

There is also evidence that the 2020 election was indeed stolen, and that the January 6th demonstrations only took a violent turn through FBI infiltration (as the Iranian protests of December 2025-January 2026 turned towards violence through the infiltration of, and supply of weaponry by Mossad.) It’s taken for granted here that it was the January 6th protesters in Washington who represented a threat to democracy.

There’s also too much Putin. Putin is an authoritarian, undoubtedly, but not a Totalitarian. Political debate happens in Russia. The term used by Putin to categorise their ongoing action in Ukraine, the Special Military Operation, is presented as a mere euphemism for war, and used as an example of how Newspeak is alive and well in the modern world. All I can say, is that the issue is not so black and white. The Russia-Ukraine conflict didn’t begin in February 2022, and I suspect Orwell would have been aware of this, and would have highlighted it, had he been alive today.

There is footage of the devastation caused by Israel in Gaza, but again, no indication that the Israel-Palestine conflict has much deeper roots.

The inclusion of criticism of the state of Israel in the modern IHRA definition of antisemitism is also, rightly, referenced as a modern example of the use of Newspeak. But there nothing about the power of the Zionist lobby within the modern body-politic, especially in America.

A few lines by Orwell about how the British ruling class often spends its time on stupid frivolities are accompanied by footage of Richard Branson taking a space pleasure-trip. But there is nothing about some of the far darker activities of what is increasingly being dubbed The Epstein Class; and the files were already well-known at the time the film was being made.

I think Orwell would have had a lot to say about the descent from frivolity to debauchery and outright evil by a corrupt globalist elite.

There are also sections about the dangers of misinformation being spread by an unregulated alternative media, including social media. Of course, this does happen, and with the spread of AI generated content it’s getting harder and harder to sift through platforms like X and make a judgement as to what is and isn’t true. But without such platforms, and the availability of dissident podcasts on platforms like You Tube and Rumble, we would be completely at the mercy of the corporate media as regards access to information. Had he been around today, I’m sure that Orwell, who was never comfortable about being a paid mouthpiece of British propaganda through his wartime BBC broadcasts, as is made clear in the film, would have been one of those alternative Oline voices.

The most glaring omission of all for me was the absence of any mention at all of the covid-lockdowns, perhaps the biggest, in global scale, exercise in mass brainwashing ever seen; and this happened only five-six years ago.

We close with the famous quote from 1984 that ‘If there is hope, it lies in the proles,’ accompanied by footage of striking nurses on a picket line. A hopeful place to stop, but to damn any form of mass, populist action as potentially totalitarian as happens earlier in the film, seems to me to be a contradiction.

Conclusion

I’m perhaps being over critical. There’s a lot here, in a two-hour film, to digest in a single sitting. I hope to see it again soon in the not-too-distant future, and I recommend it to anyone interested in Orwell, in politics, or simply in the art of documentary filmmaking.

Anthony C Green, April 2026

Picture credit: By Neon – http://www.impawards.com/2025/orwell_two_plus_two_equals_five.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80887431

Leave a Comment