← The Monocle Daily
Loading summary
Transcript87 lines
- [00:00]
A
You're listening to the Monocle Daily, first broadcast on 28th October 2025 on Monocle Radio.
- [00:06]
B
US President Donald Trump bemuses his way across Asia, arguably related how old is too old to run a country? And how to phone in a bare minimum Halloween costume. I'm Andrew Muller. The Monocle Daily starts. Hello and welcome to the Monocle Daily. Coming to you from our studios here at Midori House in London. I'm Andrew Muller. My guests Patty Cohen and Simon Brooke will discuss today's big stories. And we'll meet the Hong Kong filmmaker Elizabeth Low, who will explain, as does her new film, what a Mistress Dispeller is. Stay tuned. All that and more coming up right here on the Monocle Daily. This is the Monocle Daily. I'm Andrew Muller and I am joined today by Paddy Cohen, global economics correspondent at the New York Times and Simon Brook, journalist and communications consultant. Hello to you both.
- [01:11]
C
Hello.
- [01:11]
B
Hello there, Patti. You have recently come back from Poland, which I am excited to talk about, partly because I am a huge fan of Poland myself, as regular will be aware. But also the new issue of Monocle magazine has a huge big feature in it about Poland's fairly dramatic rearming and re equipping and expansion of its military.
- [01:34]
A
Yes. Well, I went to do a story on its economy. It actually is the newest member of the trillionaire Club, which is 20 nations whose GDP exceeds $1 trillion. So it's doing quite well and is actually set to get ahead of Japan, for instance, in per capita gdp.
- [01:57]
B
Is there a simple explanation as to how Poland has done it?
- [02:02]
A
There's a few reasons. I mean, there was a kind of longer term ones going back, but more recently it would be on the whole, they have a very diversified economy, which is good. So even if one sector kind of goes down, they still have other things to help them. Very centrally located, obviously in the heart.
- [02:22]
B
Of Europe, which hasn't always been to its benefit.
- [02:25]
A
True. And finally, they have a very large domestic market, 38 million people. It's a large country. They're unlike particularly smaller other, you know, let's say talking of other Eastern European or Central European countries which were coming out of Soviet run economies, they don't have to depend on exports necessarily for their businesses to flourish. So that's an important factor too.
- [02:55]
B
Simon Germaine, to what we shall shortly be discussing, you have just come back from Japan. While you were there, how agog or otherwise were people at the prospect of their first female prime minister, which of course they now have.
- [03:09]
C
Yeah, I think they were Very interested. It is a change. I mean, I was just looking at some figures about the role of women in the world and how they're perceived in various societies. And even though Japan is, of course, a very advanced society and a very successful economy, it comes way down the rankings when it comes to women's rights and perceptions of women, which is interesting. So, obviously this is a major turnaround, really. And yeah, there's a lot of optimism, actually. She, her political coalition is quite fragile. But, yeah, people I was talking to were enthusiastic about her, her taking office.
- [03:46]
B
Well, we will start in Japan, where one of the first duties of recently installed Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has been to welcome US President Donald Trump amid his current Asia trip, which has included or will include stops in Malaysia and South Korea. At the latter, he is expected to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping, who, like, will be attending the APEC summit in Tokyo. Takaichi, who appears to have read the Trump Handling Guide, apparently in circulation among world leaders, troweled on the praise for the United States and its president, gave Trump a bunch of golf related merch and solemnly promised to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. I think just going back, Simon, to Japan's new female prime minister, she's been fairly thoroughly briefed.
- [04:34]
C
She has. And of course, the other advantage that Japan has, which we have as well here in the US Is it's a monarchy. And as we know, Donald Trump, the.
- [04:42]
B
UK we're not the same country yet.
- [04:44]
C
Right, sorry, we, yeah, exactly. We have a monarchy which is always extremely useful because we know that Donald Trump loves royal, loves royalty. So he has met the Japanese emperor twice. And so that certainly helped. The thing that really struck me, though, looking at the coverage of this visit, was obviously very much, it's very much about the balance sheet for Donald Trump. You know, trade is important, but making sure that, you know, that the US Comes out of this world economically. But one of the things that struck me when I was in Japan was various people pointed out to me that actually, if you look at the geography of the country, Japan is very near and is threatened by three of the four most aggressive and unpredictable states in the world, China, Russia and North Korea. So I think really for Japan, the defense element, the security element is particularly important. And also just being a visitor my first time to Japan, I really realized how this complex relationship that Japan has with the US in that during the Second World War, of course, the US Bombed Japan almost out of existence. When you go there, almost everything you see has been built in the last 60 years. Or so. But they do have this complex relationship. They now emulate everything that the US does. Japan. Japanese cities look very American to me, a European. And so there is this sort of. This real enthusiasm for all things American. So the relationship, the fan club, if you like, goes back a long way. But as I say, I think very much for Japan at the moment, defense security is top of the agenda.
- [06:26]
B
Paddy, are you surprised by Trump's apparent friendliness towards Japan? I mean, there is, as Simon correctly points out, the advantage Japan in being a monarchy. And he loves palaces and gold and ceremony and all of parades, carts, all of that sort of thing. But it's been a recurrent thing, not just of Trump, but of previous U.S. presidents, that Japan soaks them on trade, does not do enough to, you know, fortify and defend itself, leaves all that to the Americans. Similar complaints to those which Trump has been making, not altogether without reason about Europe, but he doesn't seem all that upset when Japan does.
- [07:08]
A
Doesn't surprise me, only to the extent that I think Trump is extremely unpredictable and goes. I mean, even just look at relations with Russia and Ukraine, which have kind of swung back and forth on the pendulum. I mean, those are more extreme cases. But I think it's like you were talking about in terms of the way that he responded to Britain as opposed to other countries, in very much about personal relations with him. And he did have an excellent relationship with Abe, and the current Prime Minister is a kind of protege of Abe, So there was already that kind of personal relationship to some degree. And I think that's very much about the way Donald Trump reacts to things, as well as whatever policy in the afternoon he's most concerned about.
- [08:06]
B
Simon, again, to come back to your recent visit to Japan and things you may have picked up there. It's a perennial debate in Japan, the one about the degree to which it can or should take responsibility for its own defence. Its Defence Forces, or Self Defence Forces, as they're called, are circumscribed somewhat by the Constitution, which the United States imposed on Japan after World War II. Takaichi has announced plans to increase defence spending. It's known that she favours favors. It's Article 9, I think, of the Japanese constitution, which does stop them from being a military power, as we understand it. Did that seem like a live topic when you were there?
- [08:44]
C
Yeah, very much so. And of course, one of the things she. She has done and she does is to visit the country's war memorial, which is a very controversial center, you know, not just in. Outside the Yakasuni shrine. Absolutely. Exactly. So when she visits that, of course, it does commemorate people who are considered war criminals. So that is very controversial. But she's always made that commitment to defence, something that's very important. And certainly, yeah, the people I was talking to in Japan made it clear that defence is something that's increasingly important for them. And also, it's this interesting contrast, as you say, the Americans impose this pacifism on Japan with the constitution. And, of course, for decades after the war, any suggestion of defense, military spending, whatever, has been seen as something aggressive. Whereas now, of course, since we've had the Russian invasion, I know this is a European thing, but since we've had the Russian invasion of Ukraine, suddenly things are changing in terms of the morality of defence spending. It's seen less about aggression, but more about defence. And in the case of Ukraine, of course, a sovereign nation and a democratic nation defending itself against an aggressor. And of course, you have to look particularly at the case. What muddies the water even further here is, of course, in most of the 20th century, Japan does have a record of being very aggressive. Invading Russia, invading Taiwan, China. And so it was a very sensitive issue. But there is a feeling now that times are changing and defence has got to be a priority.
- [10:29]
A
Also, I was just going to say that, you know, China, in terms of economic superpower, that's the first time in this century or last century that that has changed as well. So clearly it changes the calculus.
- [10:43]
B
Paddy, just finally on this. Another thing Trump wanted to do in Japan, and doubtless on the rest of his trip, was get business leaders excited about investing in the United States, cooperating with the United States. But how tough a sell is that going to be at the moment? Obviously, big businesses, huge multinational corporations would rather have the good opinion of the President of the United States and the United States market than not. But it's axiomatic that big businesses especially crave stability, and the United States at the moment doesn't really offer that.
- [11:18]
A
I mean, there was a lot of talk about. Trump bandied about a figure of $550 billion of investment, but details were very spare. You know, he mentioned a $10 billion from investment from Toyota, but I still. I think it's unclear. We've also seen previously that there's a lot of promises that have come forward, even during the first Trump administration, about vast sums that are planned to be spent in the United States, which never actually materialize. Foxconn is a famous ex of a huge plant that was promised so. Which is not to say I don't think there will be investments. I do think clearly the trade restrictions are a fear, particularly for car companies. But again, what actually gets end up the money changing hands versus a lot of talk is hard to say at this point.
- [12:18]
B
And just finally, finally, we should look ahead to this possible meeting with Xi Jinping in South Korea. Do you get the sense that that relationship is due another lurch or about turn or something similar? Or are the Chinese, who famously do take the long view, taking a very long view on Trump and just thinking we can just sort of curl up in a ball for another three and a half years and deal with the next person?
- [12:45]
A
I mean, I think number one, certainly the Chinese take the long view. And Xi actually also has talked about how this generation, even the younger generation there needs taste, bitterness, that, you know, if it means sacrifice on a comfort level or economic level, that they're willing to go through that. I mean, what we're in, the situation now is, is Trump is talking about possibly getting a breakthrough deal with China, which would essentially get the US Back to where it was before he blew up the relationship when he first came to office. You know, suddenly they're going to buy soybeans again. Well, they were buying soybeans till you threaten tariffs, kind of like getting back to square one. And I think what we've seen is China clearly has a lot of leverage, which a lot of other countries don't have on several levels. One, rare minerals and magnets, of course, but then also just its incredibly important place in the supply chain and its economic superpower.
- [13:51]
B
Well, to Europe now, which appears to be following the United States out of the overseas medical assistance business. Documents circulating within the EU suggest that the European European Commission might cease funding various health and immunization initiatives, among them gavi, the Global Fund and the Vaccine alliance, which between them are credited with saving tens of millions of lives with their work to ameliorate malaria diphtheria, polo, HIV and Ebola, among other ailments. The view appears to be that this is worthy outlay, while clearly doing a great deal for the recipients, is not actually doing all that much for Europe. Simon, a reminder here of how hard headed, even altruistic diplomacy often actually is. Is it clear what Europe thinks it should be getting from these initiatives that it isn't getting beyond, obviously, the warm fuzzy glow which one would think would come of saving millions and millions and millions of lives?
- [14:47]
C
Yeah, the thing about the warm fuzzy glow is it's got to come from an audience, hasn't it? You could feel it yourself. But if you're an elected official, then you've got to hope that your electorate enjoys that warm, fuzzy glow. And as we've seen over the last few years, with the rise of populism and also with the squeeze on finances in countries across the world, there just isn't that desire and there certainly isn't the money as well to spend. I mean, it was interesting to spend on overseas aid. Just looking at the figures from the oecd, for instance, that global official development assistance, as it's called, sometimes fell by 9% last year and it's projected to fall by something between 9% and 17% this year. So that's a significant drop. And as I say, I think it's partly because governments don't feel they've got the money for it, but also they just feel the electorates now are not less keen on spending money abroad. The problem is, I would say, and it's been said before, is that if Europe and the EU step back on this funding, somebody else is going to take over, aren't they? And then the question is, will that be China? Will it be Russia as well? Certainly it does look like it is China. And so China will want something back for that. So whether it's establishing infrastructure and power in Africa and other parts of the developing world, whether it's Russian oligarchs making money out of the developing world, it could be either of those things. But it does seem the risk is, of course, that as the west retreats, then China and Russia and other countries take their place.
- [16:21]
B
Is this retreat arguably? Patty, this is a leading question somewhat, somewhat short sighted, because the most interesting advocates for all kinds of foreign aid to me have always been both in the United Kingdom and the United States, conservatives, those ones who say that we're not doing this because we're nice people, we're doing this because it ultimately does us good. In terms of the grand scheme of things, absolute beans get spent on foreign aid. But in terms of what it brings back in enhancing the security of developed nations by making developing nations safer and nicer places, forging business and cultural exchange, et cetera, et cetera, so many conservatives I've asked about that, those who do favor foreign aid just say you get it back over and over and over again.
- [17:10]
A
I mean, so a couple of things. First, you're absolutely right. Foreign aid has never been motivated by altruism. It has always been motivated by self interest. The US did not rebuild Europe necessarily out of altruism. The Marshall Plan after World War II or Japan. Right. It did it because it could not economically survive with the rest of the world being poor. So that's number one. Number two, the US Already we've seen a clear retreat on aid, as the US has done that. There has been more pressure on Europe to give more, in fact, and to. To kind of make up the difference, as I understand the reports. And I could be wrong about this. This is a proposal that has been floated in the European Union.
- [17:59]
B
Nothing's been signed, nothing's been decided. Somebody is flying a kite of some sort.
- [18:04]
A
And it's clear why. For a lot of the reasons that Simon mentioned. Obviously, there's budget squeezes. All of these countries are under intense pressure to increase defense spending. We know Keir Starmer has already said that he is redirecting foreign aid in order to increase Britain's defense budget. You know, France, the government's about to fall again over its incredible debt problem. And so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a decrease in Europe's giving. It's unclear, though, to me whether just by how much that's happening and whether it's decided. I think the OECD figures, my impression would be that's probably very skewed by the United States, which would be part of that, and they're by far the largest contributor. And just for your last point, I actually was in Africa and writing about Persian Gulf investment in Africa recently and Chinese and. And clearly the US Withdrawal from Africa is leaving a kind of influence vacuum, if you will. And I think that's very true, that certainly China and the Emiratis and others are looking to fill that vacuum.
- [19:27]
B
Simon, just thinking about this with your comms hat on, even if we are of a mind that it is a good thing to do this sort of stuff, not just because it's a good thing to do, but because it ultimately benefits the people who are doing it. Has it just become not just economically difficult to keep doing that in straitened times, but actually politically impossible to sell it? Like, can you, realistically, as a prime minister, even if you do fervently believe in this stuff, and you can absolutely see the logic of it, is there any way you can, in the current climate in Europe or the United States, make that case without answering for it at the ballot box?
- [20:06]
C
Yeah, I think it's really difficult. And the problem is, of course, we're going to see governments having to make cuts in all kinds of areas as the, you know, the squeeze tightens even more. So you can. I mean, it's really difficult because you could, you could make the case, if you wanted, what a wonderful country we are. And in that case, I would say again, as a comms person, let's get some human beings here, let's give some examples. We've built this school, we've built this hospital, whatever. And that would certainly appeal to a younger electorate, I think that the polling shows. But to a lot of people, they would say, okay, if we're going to build schools, we're going to build hospitals, we're going to put sanitation into place, let's do it in our own country first. Which is, as we were just saying, really unfortunate in terms of, you know, the global, the influence that you could have as a country and the fact that somebody else will step in if you don't. But, yeah, I think it'd be very difficult to argue for that at the moment. What is interesting, I think, is that this is not necessarily about countries looking inward, it's just they're still looking outward, but just doing it in a different way. So, as you say, Patti, we've here in the uk, massive reduction in aid spending, but that money will go to increase defence spending. So when countries, when governments are looking externally, it might be less about aid as a way of making the world a better place, but more about defence as making the world certainly a safer place.
- [21:27]
B
Just finally on this one, Patty, and just quickly, if you would, Also on the subject of a possible unintended opening of a can full of worms, the EU is also embarking on a drive to cut regulation. I think they're possibly a bit mindful of that quip of which Americans are so fond, that America innovates while the UK regulates. This idea of the EU as this bureaucracy which just trusses everything up in red tape. Worries, however, that if the EU does that, that might encourage similar abandonment of regulation in developing where it could have somewhat grimmer consequences. Does the EU have to be mindful of setting an example?
- [22:05]
A
I don't think it's a question of example, really. I actually took a 900 mile road trip through Borneo last year to write about this issue. Exactly. And developing countries are the ones who are lobbying most vociferously against all of these environmental sustainability rules because they're worried that they're not going to be able to compete. They're very extensive. There's been a lot of controversy of them on a global level as to whether, you know, how practical it is, how much it's going to cost. And it's one of those things where it was like a gold standard of ideas, of something the world should take account of in terms of improving the environment and climate change, and has just gotten mired in so many debates about economic competitiveness and poor farmers in developing countries. So it's a morass.
- [23:01]
B
Well, to Cameroon now, where results have been declared of the presidential election held earlier this month. The wait since October 12th will have been an especially nervous one for the interminably serving incumbent President Paul Beah, who turned 92 this past February and was therefore no sure thing to make it to the announcement. However, Cameroonian voters appear to appreciate President Beer's experience. He comfortably defeated his more youthful opponent, Isa Chiroma, a callow whelp of a mere 79, to win an eighth consecutive term. President Beer will be duly sworn in and indeed propped up for another seven years. Whatever faults he may have, he does not lack optimism. Simon, we. We are also talking about this in the context of President Lula da Silva of Brazil, who turned 80 yesterday. Happy birthday, Mr. President. If you're tuning in, he has announced that he is planning to go round again in 2026. Donald Trump is, of course, not ruling out having another pop in 2028, despite the fact that, I mean, if he can spot a loophole in the 22nd Amendment, he's got better eyesight than I have. It looks like a fairly tightly written piece of legislation to me. What we're trying to assess is like, are you ever too old to run a country?
- [24:19]
C
Well, I have to say I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan's quip during. I think it was the 80s.
- [24:26]
B
It would have been, yes.
- [24:27]
C
Yeah. With what? Against Walter Mondale. And Reagan said, I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I'm not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience. So you can. And of course, he went on to win.
- [24:40]
B
And even Mondale laughed at that one.
- [24:43]
C
Absolutely. So it can work to an advantage. I think the question with Beer, of course, is it's not necessarily your age, it's how long you've been in power. And I think he's been in power since the 1980s or something. Ridiculous. So that the riots that we've seen in Cameroon are less about the fact. Well, certainly about the fact he's old, but really about the fact the question of whether this has been. This election's been rigged or not. So I think it's really interesting because in the rest of society, in politics generally, there is this focus on youth, isn't it? Young, fresh, energetic. You know, I know that Certainly in the media, we'll always go for young people because young people like to hear about young people, not old people like to hear about young people as well. But certainly the older politicians have been doing very well. Big question as well. Again, in the United States, isn't there about the age of so many of the Democratic Party leaders? But yeah, I think it's not so much about age, but more A, are you fiddling the vote? And B, do you have that capacity? So talking about Democrat Party leaders, thinking the thing about Biden wasn't that he was 81, was it? It was the fact that he clearly had lost his mental capacity during that infamous debate. So I think that's what really counts.
- [25:55]
B
In Paul Beer's case as well. Paddy. There is also the fact that he's really not terrifically well and spends quite a lot of his time in Geneva rather than in the country he's actually president of. But nevertheless, he appears to have been elected. Again, as Simon points out, we may need to sort of imagine inverted commas around elected. But the United States, of course, has a minimum age limit for the presidency. You can't be president before you're 35. Should they think about an upper age limit? Because it does seem quite strange that you can't serve beyond a certain point in so much of most governments. You sort of get mandatorily retired from the military at a relatively youthful age from public or civil services. Again, you can't bang on into your 90s even if you want to and even if you're abundantly up to the job.
- [26:48]
A
I mean, there's two kind of separate, though related issues. One is the one, Simon, that you talked about, which is just how long should somebody be in power? And certainly term limits, which were instituted after Roosevelt in the United States was aimed at that. But arguably it also had the effect of putting on an age limit. The issue now is that people are living much longer. And so, you know, most presidents probably wouldn't have made it past 80 if, if you look back at kind of life expectancy and such. But it's very hard to say in the sense of right. Somebody in their 80s could be incredibly sharp and others are not. And it's always often hard to tell. I mean, that was the whole issue with Biden, which was actually, was he impaired and staff covered it up. Those questions came up after Reagan as well, when it was learned after he left office office that he suffered from Alzheimer's disease. And there was a question of whether. Of whether that had affected him previous to that it's not only age related. Woodrow Wilson, right. Going back, he had a stroke and there was a question of was he really incapacitated during the end of his term. I don't know how you deal with it, but I think clearly after the Biden fiasco, the, that question is going to come up more and more.
- [28:18]
B
But does it ultimately, Simon, just finally on this, have to be left, or should it be left to the voters to decide? President Nelson Mandela, of course, was in his late 70s when he got the top job in South Africa. His career in politics had been somewhat delayed by, you know, the obvious, but he was 81 when he left office and I don't think many people would argue that he didn't do a good job.
- [28:39]
C
Yeah, like Patty was saying, you know, it is about you could have an 80 something year old who's full of energy and is sharp and implementing successful policies or whatever. So I think, yeah, let's make it Democratic. Let's leave it with the voters to decide. They can look at somebody and say, yeah, all right, so you are as old as my granddad, but you do look like you're up for the job. On the other hand, you could be in your 20s or whatever and you're just absolutely rubbish. So it's more about, I think it's more about ability than age.
- [29:06]
A
I mean, Trump's going to be, what, 83 or something? 82. When. When his term is.
- [29:12]
B
Yep.
- [29:13]
C
Whipper snapper.
- [29:14]
B
Bill Clinton, still comfortably younger, but to the looming jamboree of forced jollity due to occur this Friday. It is, of course, Halloween, which in many jurisdictions will compel householders to trudge repeatedly to the front door while they're trying to eat dinner in order to foist confectionery upon children dressed as witches while their sullen, resentful parents fiddle irritably with their phones at your gate. For reasons surpassing understanding, some adults also insist on conducting fancy dress admir observances, expecting their guests to outfit themselves appropriately as ghosts, mummies, Prince Andrew, whatever. In the US the Halloween costume trade is estimated at $4.3 billion annually. Helpfully, Patty's newspaper, the New York Times, has published a guide to meeting the dress standard with the least possible effort. Paddy, it does strike me that there is one option, with due respect to your colleague, that they did not consider, which is just merely RSVP to the effect as I'm simply not coming, as I cannot imagine anything worse.
- [30:17]
A
Well, there is that. I think the question this was actually, there's a kind of Question column that our fashion chief fashion critic holds where readers can put a question. So it was if you want to go to the party but you don't want to dress up or maybe you want to just stay home and dress up by yourself. That's also a possibility.
- [30:43]
B
That's a whole weird, absolutely mesmerizing vision you've conjured there of someone just sitting in by themselves dressing up as Lex Luthor and you know, sticking on the television. I might try that.
- [30:58]
C
Perhaps by the time you've dressed up, you're so exhausted, it's so late, you think I can't be bothered, I'll just sit and have a drink at home and do it on my own.
- [31:05]
A
All right, so actually I have a question here. As an expat American, I mean Halloween has kind of grown into you know, like Christmas sized proportions in the United States. Is it big here and do I need to buy candy Friday?
- [31:21]
B
It's a pretty big deal here. I generally sort of try to go with the just not be home on Halloween evening thing and that's.
- [31:30]
A
I like giving out candy. I rather give out candy than get dressed up. Up.
- [31:34]
B
Okay, well, why not? Why not?
- [31:36]
C
That's very generous. I have to say. The last time we had. Well, I remember when it first, this trick or treat thing first started in the, in the uk I was sharing a, a house with some other retrogrades in, in South London or whatever and we got trick or treated and these kids came and said, you know, trick or treat. And we're like, look at the state of this place. What are you going to do to it? Tidy it up, you know. So I'm afraid we sent them away with a flea in their ear. But yeah, I, I have to say I, as a Brit, I just stand Halloween apparently. I was trying to do a quick calculation about how much plastic is created every year because of Halloween. But we traditionally had the 5th of November, which we still sort of do. Bonfire night, Guy Fawkes Night, whatever. That was our big thing. And then your American Halloween thing has just come and swallowed it up. It's just absolutely huge. And my teenage nieces are just absolutely love it. And they are the people who spend forever dressing up and then not, not quite sure what to do with it once they're dressed.
- [32:31]
B
I did like in your colleagues, Colin Patty. The suggestion that somebody they knew of had just once just gone to a Halloween party wearing what they normally wear and announcing that they were J.D. salinger.
- [32:43]
A
I love that.
- [32:44]
B
That was who. Of course nobody really knows what he looks like, or what he wears. But I'm not. I'm. I think that strikes me as a bit of a cheat because, I mean, J.D. salinger is not really thought of as an especially sinister or terrifying figure.
- [32:57]
A
But it's not necessarily terrifying figures. I mean, you know, is that the point of it? No. Like, you don't ever get nurses, fairies, you know, Disney princesses. Those are some of the most popular.
- [33:11]
B
Batman, Superman turn up on my doorstep dressed as Florence Nightingale.
- [33:14]
A
No, I. Well, it's usually sexy nurses if you're getting older. But it's funny that you mentioned your teenage nieces, because of course, when I was a kid, it was really for kids. And by the time you get to be a teenager, it would have been considered the height of uncoolness. Dress up. But that's completely changed.
- [33:35]
B
Just finally. Then what would Simon, you. First of all, what would your low effort, phoned in resentful, can't be bothered Halloween costume be?
- [33:44]
C
I think I'd go wearing something outrageous like a polo shirt and chinos or whatever. And then people said, what you dressed as? And I said, well, I'm a CEO, and there is that statistic.
- [33:53]
B
I thought you were gonna say Ted.
- [33:54]
C
Bundy or Ted Bundy, same sort of thing. But the Ted Bund CEO, the number who are apparently psychopaths, is quite remarkable. So there you go.
- [34:03]
B
By the same token, Paddy, we could just go saying, we've come as journalists, everyone hates us.
- [34:08]
A
Well, I actually did have a very kind of easy, low rent Halloween costume because as a parent of a child in New York, you know, there were. When my kid was little, there were innumerable Halloween parties that the parents had to go through. So I had a great witch's hat that, you know, you could fold up and that's perfect. Yeah, it was great.
- [34:30]
B
Just the hat.
- [34:31]
A
Just the hat.
- [34:32]
B
You didn't whip a broom out of the cupboard or anything else.
- [34:35]
A
The face. My face did it on. I didn't need that. Fortunately, this is a podcast.
- [34:42]
B
Do yourself a terrible disservice. Patty Cohen and Simon Brook, thank you both for joining us. Finally, on today's show show in cities across China, there is a special kind of consultant that you can hire if you find out that your spouse is cheating. They're called Mistress Dispellers, the name of which now lends itself to a documentary by Hong Kong based filmmaker Elizabeth Low, which follows a woman who has made a career out of negotiating one of the most delicate scenarios any romantic relationship can face. And she does so by befriending the Mistress to persuade her to end the relationship. Monocle's Tom Webb caught up with Elizabeth and began by expressing what many of us will be asking at this point, why don't these people just do couples therapy?
- [35:25]
D
I actually asked the same question to Teacher Wang, the mistress dispeller who becomes involved in their lives. And she said that because the sentiment that private shame should not be made public, that that sentiment is so strong in Chinese culture, that if she were to enter into their marriage as a marriage counselor who's a stranger but a professional, that she would be ejected immediately by the husband. Husband because of that notion. And so if she enters under a covert identity, a false identity, as you know, the wife's long lost friend from college who happens to be passing through town, something like that, that because she's perceived to be within their friend circles, organic friend circles, already, you know, one of their own people, then she is more likely to be able to gain the trust of the husband because therapy is still very much stigmatized in middle class China.
- [36:21]
E
So you would say that there is a sense of kindness in deceiving your loved one here.
- [36:27]
D
Yes, I think what I've come to sort of realize over documenting and witnessing this process, which of course has ethically dubious approaches because there's so many lies involved, there's so much deception, that at the heart of it, what they're trying to do is solve a problem while preserving everybody sense of dignity by leaving things left unsaid and never directly confronted. They're trying to resolve a conflict through the most pragmatic and subdued and gentle way that allows everybody some grace at the end of the case.
- [37:03]
E
And how does that compare to relationships Very, very close by in Hong Kong, for example, which I know you know well.
- [37:11]
D
Yeah. What I noticed as a Hong Kong filmmaker, you know, venturing into mainland China, is that Hong Kong is actually much more traditional than China in terms of the way families are structured and the values there.
- [37:25]
B
But.
- [37:26]
D
And I think it has to do with the fact that Hong Kong never went through the Cultural Revolution, which, you know, the Cultural Revolution was scrapping all propriety, all tradition, Confucian values for several decades. So I think that does have an impact on society. I think we talked to matchmakers there and they said that, you know, dating in China is like the Wild west because people are making up the rules as they go.
- [37:49]
E
And this was also an opportunity for you to learn more about mainland China beyond relationships. I'd be very intrigued to find out what you. You managed to take from your time there.
- [38:01]
D
Yeah. So over the three year journey that we made this film where we were filming many different cases, but we also. So because we never knew how deep our access could get and we didn't know whether we would be able to achieve the film that we set out to make, which is this Rashomon of a love triangle involved in a mistress dispelling case. We traveled throughout China and explored many different industries around love and desire, including, you know, dating camps, matchmakers, divorce lawyers, bdsm, you know, role play, communities in the big cities. And I think China is just a really diverse and ever changing space and country that's, you know, had this meteoric rise in the world, economically and financially. And with that comes a lot of shifts, seismic shifts to family and what people want. And, you know, divorce rates are rising there too. Young people are not wanting to get married. So there's just so many changes that I think are, you know, there's a lot of clashes between older generations values and younger peoples. And so, yeah, it's difficult to make any broad generalizations because it's the culture that I think is so dynamic and constantly shifting.
- [39:16]
E
And you were successful, you did get in there and you did develop a deep relationship. I mean, how were you able to persuade all participants into taking part in the first.
- [39:28]
D
Yeah, so it actually took us three years of following Teacher Wang and filming with a handful of her clients out of hundreds who were willing to be on camera. But what allowed us such deep access to document the case from beginning to end, which was always our goal with the couple that are at the center of the film is the younger brother, who you see him in scenes of the film, the younger brother of the wife. He had actually a male mistress that we had filmed with two years prior to production. He himself was getting dispelled by Teacher Wang, the mistress dispeller, you know, and he slowly comes to realize this. And so two years later, when his older sister comes to him and says, I have a problem, my husband is cheating on me, he says, I have the perfect solution for you. Participate in this film. They're a very lovely crew, but more importantly, Teacher Wang as a magician who will make your problem go away. And that kind of pre existing vouch of approval from a trusted relative is how we gained the trust of Mrs. Lee, the wife immediately. But that, you know, obviously the husband and the mistress couldn't have known what Teacher Wang's role was initially. And so they were approached and agreed to be in a documentary about really broadly about modern love in China. And that's what they had agreed to initially. But what we worked into, into our production to handle it from an ethical perspective. My producers, Emma Miller and Maggie Lee and I, we knew that by the end of the process, once everybody fully grasped the role that the mistress Dispeller played in their lives, we traveled back to China and showed them a cut of the film to offer them the opportunity to either reconsent to being a part of the project, or they could drop out if they wanted to. And we would have completely respected that. And thankfully, because of how gracious they are as human beings, which you see in the film, how vulnerable they choose to appear and allow themselves to appear, they were the kind of people who decided to stay featured in the film, which I'm very grateful for and amazed by too.
- [41:32]
E
Since I've seen the film, I've been talking about it a lot to people with great praise, but also the concept, trying to explain to people what it's about. And here in Europe, as I've begun the interview, people are so shocked by the subject matter. How have audiences around the world reacted? Have you had a different reaction in Asia to Europe, to the Americas?
- [41:51]
D
Yeah, definitely. It's so interesting because while I think sort of, obviously the themes of love and betrayal are really universal and infidelity, you know, people experience it around the world. What I've noticed in audience reactions is that in the West, I think the initial response, response to maybe having discovered you've been betrayed or cheated on would be to divorce your partner and to leave. Whereas in Asia, I think when they see this, it's more understandable that the husband chooses to stay or that the wife chooses to set aside her pride to save her family. And I think the difference, the theory that I've come up with is that in collectivist cultures in the east, where sacrificing yourself for the greater good, such as a family unit that is more instinctual and more baked into society than in the west, where the individualistic culture, where the pursuit of your own happiness, personal happiness, is paramount above all, even if it comes at the expense of those around you. And I think that contrast in approaches to life is what also is informed, the shock or the, you know, complete understanding of what's happening in the film.
- [43:06]
B
That was Monocle's Tom Webb in conversation with the filmmaker Elizabeth Lowe. Mistress Dispeller is out in theaters in the US this week. That's all for this edition of the Daily. Thanks to our panels today, Patty Cohen and Simon Brook. The show was produced by Chris Chermack and researched by Joanna Moser. Our sound engineer was Elliot Greenfield. I'm Andrew Muller here in London. The daily is back at the the same time tomorrow. Thanks for listening.