For anybody passionate about film, especially nuggets from the past, I cannot recommend Dave Kehr's weekly new DVD's column in the N.Y. Times highly enough. On April 15^th, Kehr reported on the new release of an obscure 1961 film noir called "Blast of Silence":

"Blast of Silence," coming out Tuesday in a very good edition from the Criterion Collection, stands out even in this field for its elemental style and relentlessly bleak vision. A late film noir shot with hardly a trace of the Expressionist distortions that initially defined the genre, Mr. Baron's terse, 77-minute feature describes a few days in the life of a seasoned hit man, played with few surface signs of emotion by Mr. Baron himself.

An expert imported from Cleveland, Frank (Baby Boy) Bono has been assigned to eliminate a "second-string syndicate boss with too much ambition." An easy assignment, but one that will require him to spend a few days in New York during the Christmas season, just enough time to fall in love, or something like it, with the sister (Molly McCarthy) of a half-forgotten acquaintance. This is a disturbing development for Frankie, whose hands sweat uncontrollably when he's around other people.

Mr. Baron's stripped-down visuals are complemented by an almost continuous voice-over narration, composed under a pseudonym ("Mel Davenport") by the blacklisted writer Waldo Salt ("Midnight Cowboy") and read (with no credit at all) by the blacklisted actor Lionel Stander: "You were born with hate, and anger built it. Took a slap on the backside to blast out the scream. And then you knew you were alive."

This curious mode of address - the second person accusative? - places the viewer in Frankie's uncomfortable skin, cornering us into taking the side of this faceless, largely passive psychopath as he drifts along to his noir-mandated doom.

But for all of its pulp poetry - the picture begins in a railroad tunnel, transformed by the narration into a birth canal that will blast the silently screaming Frankie into the harsh reality of Penn Station - the film retains a down-and-dirty, documentary aspect. The studiously gray, unglamorous views of 1961 Manhattan - St. Marks Place, where Frankie takes a room at the Valencia Hotel; the blanked-out East 30s, where Frankie's mark has a girlfriend stashed in a walk-up apartment - are worth the price of admission alone. Here's what was being left out of those Madison Avenue melodramas and Park Avenue romances of the period.

This just about sums up everything I would have written myself about "Blast of Silence" after watching a Netflix rental, but I do have a few other things to add.

The film score, which alternated between Stan Kenton type riffs and the kind of atonality that was fairly pervasive in art movies, was composed by Meyer Kupferman who died at the age of 77 in 2003. The N.Y. Times obituary notes:

Mr. Kupferman embraced virtually every form available to contemporary composers, writing 12 symphonies, nine ballets and seven operas, along with electronic pieces, works that combine taped sounds and live instruments and soundtrack music for films. He composed 10 concertos, dozens of picturesque orchestral works and more than 200 chamber and solo works.

He was omnivorous stylistically, too, a quality he traced back to childhood memories of his father's singing Yiddish and Romanian songs to him, which he would imitate on the clarinet, an instrument that he also used to imitate solos in the big band jazz he heard on the radio.

Suffice it to say that Kupferman was at the top of his game when he wrote the score for "Blast of Silence".

Watching "Blast of Silence" brought me back to my own youth in 1961, when I walked the same streets in New York that the hit man anti-hero walks. This is a city that I loved just as much as Allen Baron did. For both of us, the city was a symbol of the artistic and cultural ferment that was beginning to eat away at the repressive 1950s. In the documentary that accompanies "Blast of Silence", Baron explains hiring Stander as a way to save money since a blacklistee could be hired on the cheap.

Although Baron does not discuss politics, my guess is that he instinctively knew that people like Stander and screenwriter Waldo Salt would make it a better film since the Hollywood left had been long associated with the film noir genre. When watching the "Trumbo" documentary the other night, I was surprised to learn that Dalton Trumbo wrote "Gun Crazy", a 1950 noir that like "Blast of Silence" has dramatic power despite some mustiness. The steering wheels of the cars in either movie are enormous, almost like that on the Queen Mary.

Ironically, one of the most unintentionally comical moments in "Blast of Silence" stems from Baron's attempt to capture what was the "leading edge" of that time, namely the bongo-playing beatnik. Frank "Baby Boy" Bono has entered the Village Gate, just one of the artifacts of 1961 that no longer exists, in order to check out one of the customers, a man he is under contract to kill. As Bono sits at the bar sizing up his prey, a singer named Dean Sheldon is on the bandstand performing "Dressed in Black", followed by "Torrid Town". You can watch this scene here. You will be left speechless.

1999, agnès jaoui

contro i pregiudizi e la presunzione di chi si crede migliore solo perché sa più cose...

Dear MAC,

How come you keep coming out with lip glosses that are so entrancing?
Why do I keep buying these things?

Well my friends, if any of you catch me with the most perfect sparkling lips ever, shining in the sun, and you can't take your eyes off of them, I am probably wearing one of my two new purchases: Comet Blue and Fantabulous from the new, limited edition (so go to the counter now: Brie, are you listening?) MAC Dazzleglass. SO packed with glitter, so smooth, so versatile... sigh.

From the MAC site:
"Lipcolour that dazzles with light and shine to bring an exciting dimensional pop to your lips. Large particle pearls reflect and refract light to mimic the brilliance of quartz and opal crystal. Provides exceptional shine with a crystalline iridescence. Non-sticky, non-tacky, lightweight and moisturizing. Glides on. Wear alone, or layer over lipstick or Lipglass for dramatic effect. Features our signature M·A·C vanilla aroma."

The Comet Blue is amazing on it's own, but... put it over red, and shazam!
(It's a littl more teal than in the photograph.)
And Fantabulous, well, it was the colour I just kept gravitating towards.
(It's a atd bit more mauve than in the photograph.)

I can blame some of my newly restored makeup obsession on a new site I read daily:
Blogdorf Goodman. She is a beauty-blogger know it all, and I love it.

Back to Vancouver Life:
The new downtown-finally-H & M is opening on May 22nd (I think that's the date. There are signs on the doors!)

The Sex in The City movie opening on May 30th. That's the release date in the states: I'd imagine it is the same here too. Anyone know differently? Who wants to go opening night?

I haven't the chance to see the new Fluevog store in Gastown yet.

I treated myself to a facial and hot stone massage yesterday.
I'll write about it later or tomorrow...
Promise.

Lot's of medicalness (including and under sedation MRI) and fun (three birthday celebrations) for Chloe coming in the next few weeks. Lots of planning and work for me.

In the meanwhile, she is, my daughter, in the dandelion puffs, sans glasses.
She was, for some reason, calling them "spreckles."
As in in "More spreckles came and whooshed!"
(Of course.)

I got her a new bed from Ikea and, it's worked!
She's actually sleeping in it!
Her last one, suddenly she refused to sleep in,
she actually slept on the couch, or in my bed.
But not in her room.
Never.
But the new bed, she loves!
And she's been in it every day: all night long.

The sun is out.
Robert and I are celebrating Mother's Day tonight.
I want to watch the sun set.
And be kissed.
A lot.

{Cathy}

P.S. I'll work on doing something crafty today... I promise.

Manipulation in film, not only of the objects within the frame but of the audience as well, has been the practice of film makers for decades. In Philip Kaufman’s Quills (2000), a biopic loosely based on the last years of life for the18th century author, the Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush), the audience becomes not just an observer but an active participant in particular sexual acts through overtly suggested voyeurism. For what purpose does Kaufman so conspicuously manipulate the audience into committing these acts? In an ambitious argument for uncensored art, even when pitted against the utmost controversial fiction of the Marquis de Sade (a man who RollingStone.com calls “one sick twist” (Travers)) Kaufman wants his audience to actively lust for things they cannot have. For this reason, I examine the transition from the experience of fictional freedom in the first scene involving Mademoiselle Renard (Diana Morrison) with the oppression of that freedom within the rest of the film. By beginning the story here, Kaufman demonstrates that in order to understand what can be lost through censorship, one must understand, first hand, what exists prior to that loss.

Before the censorship debate plays out, there are subtle signs that reveal the director’s bias toward a lack of censorship intended to influence our opinion from the start. Within the first ten seconds, we are presented with the idea that fiction is the protagonist through white, beautifully calligraphic title credits which glow in stark contrast to a jet black screen. The gentle curves of the text represent something natural, not contrived, like human nature and the use of narrative to make meaning. The color and font also work as a metaphor for the greater good of those who bring fiction to light. With the title credits comes the sound of soft, quivering breath. It permeates the darkness and gains strength while accompanied by a lone clarinet holding a single, suspenseful note. It is unclear whether the soft breathing belongs to a man or woman, or whether it is derived from pleasure or fear. Immediately we question. We want to know more. In that wanting, we are seduced into lusting after the fiction unfolding before us. This ten seconds of manipulation is skillfully designed to guide us though a difficult debate as the argument for free speech is not one without complication.

Within the same opening minute, the Marquis de Sade is introduced to us through the sound of his voice which, like the white text, penetrates the darkness; or does it emanate from it? Either could be true. He addresses his “dear reader” introducing his “naughty little tale,” “plucked from the pages of history, tarted up, true, but guaranteed to stimulate the senses” (Kauffman). We are presented with the controversy that stems from the Marquis’ writing. While the film is a “tarted up” version of the real Marquis’s life, rather than embracing his historic penchant for committing horrific sexual crimes, it focuses on the writing that reflects the spirit in which these acts have been committed. If, in life, the Marquis’ actions are defined as criminal, could it be said that his fictionalized depictions of such acts should be considered criminal too? Or, is fiction the place to safely act out such libertine desires? In these few spoken words, we are presented with the dilemma which will plague and play with us throughout the film, whether we immediately realize it or not.

With no time to ponder, we are thrust into the tale of Mademoiselle Renard, a beautiful aristocrat “whose sexual proclivities [run] the gamut from winsome to bestial” (Kaufman). As the Marquis begins this line, the black screen fades up to an even, cobalt blue and classical music begins. We learn that the camera lens is pointed at a cloudless sky allowing us to gaze upward as if lying on our backs. The frame of blue is only contextualized by wisps of wavy, brunette hair which are carried into view on the wind while Mademoiselle’s rather innocent face, with half closed eyes and softly parted lips, enters and fills our entire overhead view. Her hair is upswept at the sides revealing the bare neck outstretched before us while loose tendrils of unruly curls carried on a strong breeze caress her face. That this sweet face belongs to a woman with such a wide range of sexual desire creates a great deal of intrigue and excitement for the viewer. With curiosity piqued, we linger in the space of this moment eagerly awaiting the Marquis’ next line.

At this point, the Marquis asks, “Who doesn't dream of indulging every spasm of lust, feeding each depraved hunger” (Kaufman)? Mademoiselle slowly closes her eyes, gently leans her head back to the left and her breathing, growing stronger, is heard once again. Because the camera lens is understood to be the viewer’s eye, the positioning and proximity of that lens to this young woman has the intended effect of making the audience experiencing emotions they would generally entertain only behind closed doors. Having been inserted into this intimate space, we realize that the Marquis’ question is directed at the viewer as much as Mademoiselle. Mademoiselle Renard appears to be in a state of heightened pleasure and the viewer, for this brief moment, is unmistakably positioned to look up at her as if we are her lover.

Why begin with this image, particularly since Mademoiselle Renard is never to be referenced again after this scene? Cinematographer John Alton says of framing in Painting with Light:

The screen offers the advantage of an ability … to photograph the story from the position from which the director thinks the audience would like to see it. The success of any particular film depends a great deal upon the ability of the director to anticipate the desires of the audience in this respect. (qtd. in Barsam, 141)

Following this philosophy, one can deduce that Kaufman acts on the supposition that the audience wants a film to awaken certain passions and offer an avenue to safely experience them. Since film has always been a voyeuristic experience, Kaufman raises the stakes by making the viewer painfully aware of the desire for indulgence through film. As Linda Mulvey says in her article “The Visual Pleasure of Narrative:”

The magic of the Hollywood style at its best (and of all the cinema which fell within its sphere of influence) arose, not exclusively, but in one important aspect, from its skilled and satisfying manipulation of visual pleasure. Unchallenged, mainstream film coded the erotic into the language of the dominant patriarchal order. In the highly developed Hollywood cinema it was only through these codes that the alienated subject, torn in his imaginary memory by a sense of loss, by the terror of potential lack in phantasy, came near to finding a glimpse of satisfaction: through its formal beauty and its play on his own formative obsessions. (Mulvey)

Not only do we become aware of our own desires, thanks to Kaufman, we are granted the utmost freedom to experience it under an open sky rather than behind closed doors before we experience the loss that Mulvey describes.

With one quick twist, we learn that this window of opportunity is short lived. The Marquis goes on to say:

Owing to her noble birth, Mademoiselle Renard was granted full immunity to do just that, inflicting pain and pleasure with equal zest, until one day Mademoiselle found herself at the mercy of a man whose skill in the Art of Pain exceeded her own. (Kaufman)

This man (Stephen Marcus), whose filthy hands glide over Mademoiselle’s head and neck from behind, intrudes upon our own experience. As his black, leather executioners’ hood enters the frame, we learn from Sade that “Mademoiselle found herself at the mercy of a man whose skill in the Art of Pain exceeded her own.” The executioner has slated Mademoiselle for his next kill and our precious lover is being taken from us. He slides his meaty fingers over her exposed collar bones and into the shoulders of her dress. The corners of her mouth spasm, although her expression is difficult to read. Does she enjoy this? The executioner rips the dress, revealing her shoulders, and she shrieks in terror “Please, no!” Only now are we sure of her distress. Leather straps bind her hands behind her back rendering her helpless, as are we in the throes of this horror. History, during this French Reign of Terror, is more appalling than fiction because it rings true.

It is important to note here the finesse of Mademoiselle Renard’s casting and acting. As screenplay writer Geoffrey Wright says in the DVD special features:

Philip Kaufman … wanted a classically beautiful woman, a woman who didn’t look contemporary, a woman who had a gorgeous antique quality and he looked at more actresses for this small role than any other in the film.

The attention paid to these details is a testament to the importance of the general viewer’s relationship with her. It is helpful that Diana Morrison, the actress who plays Mademoiselle Renard, does not have a great deal of star recognition so that presuppositions based on previous roles cannot be assigned. Also, Morrison’s facial expression during her extreme close-up remains skillfully blank. As is said about editing in Looking at Movies: An Introduction, the “tendency of viewers to interpret shots in relation to surrounding shots is the most fundamental assumption behind all film editing” (Barsam, 239). This holds true with any combination of cinematic elements. With no mis-en-scéne yet to contextualize our film, all that is left to make meaning is the Marquis’ narrative. What we learn very quickly is that this narrative is powerful enough to reorder our entire sense of “reality,” which has been upended in a matter of seconds.

So, who is the Marquis de Sade and from where does such powerful fiction flow? Watching from behind bars in a prison tower perched high above the guillotine, the master of this story looks on with his own blank stare. The pleading eyes of Mademoiselle make contact with his own as the executioner slowly moves her hair and inhales the scent of her delicate neck. The Marquis’ steady voice continues, “How easily, dear reader, one changes from predator to prey! And how swiftly pleasure is taken from some and given to others” (Kaufman)! He is not just speaking of Mademoiselle but of himself, once the predator and now the caught and caged prey. A packed audience cheers and jeers with smiling faces once the shirtless executioner slowly and seductively bends her over placing her head gently in the guillotine. A body in a green dress separated from one of the many heads in a cart is passed over the crowd. Another cart of people to be executed, one looking like a disheveled version of the Marquis, are visibly distraught and sickened. In sharp contrast, the Marquis is composed and unmoved. His lack of outward emotion toward this long line of executions suggests a numbing madness.

Regardless of the Marquis’ lack of emotion, he and Mademoiselle are inextricably connected as demonstrated by the film’s editing. An extreme close-up of Mademoiselle’s face captures a drop of bright, red blood that falls to her cheek from the guillotine blade. We cut to an extreme close-up of the Marquis looking out with one eye, the other obscured by a black window bar. His face is more gray than black, perhaps suggesting a clouded version of good with a definite black and evil streak. As he turns away, we enter with him into his space. We circle around a jar of fanned black quills interspersed with two of muted white, suggesting that, contrary to the man, his writing is more vile than good. He continues to write on a sheet more than half filled using a white quill while chains bind his hands. An aerial view of the execution mob is seen from Sade’s vantage point but only by us as he writes. Humming Claire de Lune along with the children in the street, the Marquis’ quill releases a single drop of blood-red ink just as the guillotine blade begins to fall. Our view enters the flesh and blood sliced by the blade, a view that the Marquis does not get from his desk. What this editing works to say is that the Marquis’ internalized experience of this French Reign of Terror is released through writing and the tragedy of Mademoiselle Renard is, in this case, his muse, and we are active participants as his audience.

This connection between the three of us becomes a significant source of the film’s realism. As Laura Mulvey explains:

To begin with (as an ending), the voyeuristic-scopophilic look that is a crucial part of traditional filmic pleasure can itself be broken down. There are three different looks associated with the cinema: that of the camera as it records the pro-filmic event, that of the audience as it watches the final product, and that of the characters at each other within the screen illusion. The conventions of narrative film deny the first two and subordinate them to the third, the conscious aim being always to eliminate intrusive camera presence and prevent a distancing awareness in the audience. Without these two absences (the material existence of the recording process, the critical reading of the spectator), fictional drama cannot achieve reality, obviousness and truth. (Mulvey)

No longer shall we follow Mademoiselle’s story for hers has come to an end. Instead, we follow the Marquis to Charenton Asylum for the Insane years later. It is the blood, red color of the execution scene follows us as well, unifying our connection and coating the inside of a cell as if to say that the internal workings of the Marquis’ mind are blanketed with the culmination of all the deaths he has witnessed. The close-ups of eyes that first connected Mademoiselle and Sade now connect Sade and Charenton’s laundress, Madeleine LeClerc (Kate Winslet). She slides the viewing panel on the heavy metal door open and calls for linens. Her eyes are centered in the open panel looking straight at us, but she cannot see the red that covers the inner walls. This is the Marquis cell and because Maddie is looking in at us, the audience members have just become lunatics.

This is the beginning of our time both as the asylum’s watched and the watchers. We begin by seeing limited parts of Sade, whether his eye through a circular hole in the door or his hands reaching through the laundry shoot. By the time the title of the film appears, our transformation is complete. From here on out we witness portions of the film one step removed and yet our experience becomes increasingly intimate. One example of this is when Bouchon, the executioner gone mad, is seen in his cell masturbating to his view of Madeleine through a hole in the wall. While he enjoys a peep at a girl, we are subject to deriving shock or pleasure from watching him watch her through our own hole in the wall. Regardless of our personal reaction, we have been made guilty of voyeurism and have a stake in the argument of whether or not we require censorship to protect us from ourselves.

It is now, in the unfolding of the film’s events that we are ready to assess censorship from a well-rounded standpoint. If fiction is a safe place to play out situations of vice, purging it as the asylum’s Abbe de Culmier (Joaquin Phoenix) instructs the Marquis to do, then the position of this film begins by leaning toward the Greek philosophy that art is cathartic. On the other side of the coin, because the power of the Marquis’ story results in the death of Medeleine, incites the chaotic destruction of the asylum, and frees the residents to copulate in the pouring rain, Plato’s belief that art is dangerous also comes to fruition. Even the The Bible, as a text, is portrayed as a dangerous narrative means, God being accused of stringing his son up “like a side of beef” making the Marquis fearful of what God might do to him if he succumbs to the word. The inclusion of this platonic argument asks the audience to truly examine all sides.

By partaking in such fiction, what does the debate surrounding censorship mean for and about the viewer? Kaufman says on the Cinema Review website:

I have always been fascinated by extreme literature… because it expands on our concept of what is human. And Sade more than anyone seems to demonstrate how extreme behavior can bring out hypocrisy in those who claim to be moralists. ("Production Notes: The Origins of Quills")

We, the viewers are not left to our own idealistic assessments of what should and should not be. Kaufman is sure to make us get our hands dirty, tarnishing our own perceived halos. Forcing his audience to commit conscious acts of voyeurism, Kaufman does his best to remove that moralizing impulse we often feel in response to anything that appears to be dangerous, even fiction.

If this film proves anything, it’s that this argument is still going on today, whether through the resurrection an ancient criminal or the blaming of video game violence for children acting like vengeful lunatics. Telling are the last lines of the film which echo an earlier sentiment: that to know virtue one must also know vice. Fiction offers that outlet. In the viewer’s ability to experience natural emotions as well as exercise restraint is where Kaufman’s condemnation of censorship is revealed and thus gains its power. The audience is given the opportunity to strongly sense their own personal desire to act upon certain wants coupled with an understanding that such wants are best satisfied through fiction rather than experienced in real life. In that rare event that some person acts out the fiction, as is the case of the murderous executioner, Bouchon, there is already a predisposition to violence that exists before the influence of fiction. One is likely to conclude after seeing this film, censorship be damned and damn the author too.

Works Cited

Barsam, Richard. Looking At Movies: an Introduction to Film. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2007.

Mulvey, Linda. "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema." Sonoma State University. Aug. 1975. Sonoma State University. 23 Apr. 2008 .

"Production Notes: the Origins of Quills." Cinema Review. 23 Apr. 2008 .

Quills. Dir. Philip Kaufman. Perf. Geoffrey Rush, Kate Winslet, Joaquin Phoenix, Michael Caine. DVD. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, 2000.

Travers, Peter. "Quills (2000)." Film.Com. Rolling Stone. 23 Apr. 2008 .

Wright, Doug. "Quills Script." Screenplay.Com. 20 Dec. 2000. 15 Apr. 2008 .

Space invaders vous connaissez ? Et penis invaders ? Non, alors que diriez vous d'une partie de penis invaders. Rien de plus simple, il suffit d'aller sur le site de supergrave.

Ce jeu vous est proposé pour la sortie en DVD et Blu-Ray du film supergrave (alias SuperBad le titre original). C'est un teen-movie comédie, qui pour la sortie de leur dvd, vous propose non seulement ce penis invaders mais aussi de gagner une PS3 et des slips en allant jouer sur le site web http://www.supergravedvd.fr/.

Ensuite voici la bande annonce du film

J'en profite pour vous annoncez que c'est la version non censurée du film et que vous aurez le droit à des bonus et autre scènes inédites et pour ce qui acheterons la version Blu-Ray, vous aurez 2h30 de bonus exclusivement exclusif.

Et pour finir une présentation superrapide de Supergrave.

Réalisé par Greg Mottola avec Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Christopher Mintz-Plasse...
Supergrave du titre original Superbad, est une comédie qui dure 1h52.
Synopsis
Evan et Seth sont deux amis pas très futés qui ne peuvent pas se passer l'un de l'autre. Pourtant, il va bien falloir qu'ils apprennent, parce que cette année, ils sont inscrits dans deux universités différentes !
Evan est craquant, plutôt intelligent et constamment terrifié par la vie - et les filles en particulier. De son côté, Seth parle trop, ne tient pas en place et s'intéresse vraiment beaucoup à tous les aspects de la reproduction humaine...
Pour ces deux-là, il est temps d'affronter l'existence, les filles et leur destin, mais pour cela, ils doivent d'abord survivre à cette nuit fatidique, leur première nuit, celle qui vous excite, vous terrifie et dont vous vous souviendrez toute votre vie !

Helin

Article sponsorisé

दूसरे के अल्फाजों में नजर आता है

वह दिल को छू जाता है

इसलिए कहते हैं

दर्द और खुशी दोनो ही

बांट लिया करो दोस्तों से
 
जश्न का मौका हो तो

मजा हो जाता दुगुना

गम आधा रह जाता है

खोये रहोगे अपने ही दिल में

तो रोशनी कहीं से नहीं आयेगी

जो सुनोगे किसी और की आवाज

तभी कोई मिलेगा आसरा

वरना कहते हैं कि

अकेला चना कभी भाड़ नहीं फोड़ पाता है

अपने लिये तो जिंदा हैं सब

बांटकर खाते हैं जो लोगों से मिलकर

उनका नाम ही दरियादिल हो जाता है
............................

I was pleased with the way the music came out.

Wow, I missed the boat on this one. This film is a breakthrough film. First of all, it really wasn't about poking holes in darwinism (although it probably did so -- at least from my viewpoint). The movie starts with Ben Stein investigating claims of harassment, black listing, and firings of scientists throughout the United States, especially in academia. What was their crime? Shouting at top of their lungs and with every research paper how darwinists and evolutionists were totally and utterly wrong and as a result, how young earth creationism should be taught in all public schools to the exclusion of all other sciences? No. These scientists did not have an agenda. They just happened to have doubts and/or express another opinion (in very benign ways). They were simply exercising their freedom of inquiry. I don't think I understood when watching the film that freedom of inquiry is such a revered freedom that most universities guarantee protection of it in their faculty handbooks, mission statements, etc. Both students and faculty basically have written guarantees of freedom of inquiry. For more info, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom.

What impressed me the most is that Ben Stein did not personally attack darwinists directly nor did he come across as representing religion or a religious sect. I have always hated the idea of a pastor debating a scientist. No fruitful discourse ever happens this way. Ben let the evolutionary scientists speak for themselves without interruption. He let them speak about the idea of an intelligent designer and even of religion. That was the astonishing part. When the evolutionists opened their mouths and spoke, you could hardly believe what was being said. They did not come across as tolerant, open-minded seekers of truth by empirical evidence, but just the opposite. In fact, the condescension and elitism on display by them were breathtaking (and, as such became the highlight of the film). The movie gives new meaning to knitting needles...

The movie progresses by showing that darwinism is not only a theory of origins but has been used as a basis for society building. Then it proceeds to uncover what a society would look like if built upon darwinistic principles (natural selection). Here's a small hint -- Mein Kampf. It finally ends on an inadvertent "mea culpa" moment for an evolutionist author that Ben Stein questions. Kudos to Ben Stein here!

But, on a personal level the movie made me realize why I gave up on pursuing a pure science when I attended college (I was originally an astrophysics major). I really did and do still love the subject dearly, but I quickly came to the understanding that I would have to keep my doubts about theories of origins to myself and would not be able to pursue freedom of inquiry. I know I am not the only one affected. Just think of the collective loss to the pursuit of truth that elitism or "agenda" highlighted by this film has caused by the sheer numbers of brilliant would-be scientists who will not participate in an environment devoid of the freedom of inquiry. This is a basic right. How can you get to the truth without it? "No Intelligence Allowed" is apropos here. That seems to be the current motto of a few prominent fields of science today. But, with this movie comes at least a glimmer of hope...

Haha, just kidding. Di poster barunya The Dark Knight emang mereka berpose cukup aneh, tapi aslinya keren kok.

Oh iya, yang paling kanan itu kayaknya Harvey Dent, seorang jaksa wilayah yang nantinya lebih dikenal dengan nama Two-Face. Woohoo! Sudah tak sabar menunggu mereka datang di bulan Juli nanti...

@q_p<damar!

Really, don't watch it if you're jumpy or of a nervous disposition.  It may all be nonsense, all be true or a mixture of the two. But I'm new to blogging and I don't want a Ghostwatch situation on my hands. (If you've never heard of Ghostwatch read this and this. And then get the DVD).

What do I think? Well, mostly I think most investigators who would kill to have that sort of thing on tape. Who are these lucky amateurs?

I also think that the poltergeist one is like that bit in Bedknobs and Broomsticks where the clothes move around - I think Angela Lansbury is responsible! Either that or rudimentary FX are being used.

But I don't like to judge. I tend to become fascinated any time someone believes something. And provided vulnerable people are not being exploited for cash or other purposes then a good hoax always cheers me up! (In fact in a future post I will describe my own family history of hoaxing involving South American explorers, miners and fake passports...)

Which is not to say that I don't believe in paranormal phenomena. Years ago I hankered after a T-shirt that read "I'm a Fortean, I have no opinion". Sums me up really.

This video reminded me of the release of the great looking Paranormal Activity.  Another movie in the Blair Witch, Cloverfield, Diary of the Dead handheld camera genre. Sadly, not out in the UK yet you can get more details at the website.

In the meantime enjoy the trailer:

From the creators of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, the indie film that was made by 3000 people and downloaded over 8 million times, comes their latest project Iron Sky.

From the Press Release:

Iron Sky is a pitch-black science fiction comedy that holds nothing sacred. It combines the dry irony of Dr. Strangelove with the visual style of invasion films such as Independence Day. Finns are known for their dark wit, perhaps due to their history successively under the oppressive thumb of Sweden, Russia, and the Nazis. Star Wreck repeatedly skewered Russia (and was wildly successful there), and Iron Sky continues in the same vein of mocking totalitarianism.

The film is currently in production via a collaborative filmmaking website called WreckaMovie. The site is also being used to create the horror film Sauna and is available for other collaborative film projects.

Link (via Smart Mobs) to the Iron Sky Web site, Link to Wired story, Link to WreckAMovie.com

See also:

Joi Ito on the Creative Commons, Sharing, Amateurs, and More
Remix Culture: Video Remix Challenge 2008

let's start with the first one. Released in 2007, a horror movie brought for the third time. POCONG 3. Yap, I've watch it! As I've promised before. And please don't ask me where do I get to watch it..

FR sure do lovely in this movie. FYI disini FR berakting sebagai seorang DJ di sebuah night club bernama Vendetta (yang asal lo tau berarti 'dendam' dan ga nama klub banget (mungkin untuk menambah kesan horor bisa juga kali yah)). Anyway, i dare to say that Pocong 3 is one flawed diamond. Originally a diamond, but flawed in many aspects. The story itself sure do unique in some way, about a beautiful female DJ named Putri who've just lost her father which she never met in the last ten years. Upon receiving her father's inheritance, Putri constantly disturbed by an other-worldly being called POCONG (a scary name indeed imo) which led to other-worldly clash between the POCONG and a failed image of evil spirit called Setan Merah (RED DEVIL anyone?). There are some quite nice twists you could expect from this movie. And it covered half of the movie's mistakes such as, unlike Pocong 2, failed in delivering fear and horror to the spectators as a horror movie should be. Oh yes, they do have some scenes that made to frighten the cinema audiences but it's just, failed. This movie is decent, and it wouldn't be anything near decent if not for FR acting in it.

Wow, sotoy bener kayanya gw kalo ngereview. Hahaha. Yayaya, gw tau gw ga bisa buat bikin film apa-apa, yang jelek sekalipun tapi ga ada salahnya (apa ada salahnya?) kan nulis apa yang gw pikirin meski itu hal yang kurang baik. Tapi pocong 3 ga jelek kok.. debutnya FR gituu.. dan kalo ngga ada film ini (dan/atau Aku, Kau, dan Dia) mungkin gw ngga bakal bisa liat FR di dua film selanjutnya yang in my humble opinion lebih bagus. Dimulai dengan.. XL.

SUPERB! FR luar biasa di film ini. Kesan pecun-nya dapet banget. Pertama kali gw liat si Intan yang masuk ke ruangan bareng si banci, gw kira dy cuman pecun numpang lewat ga penting dengan dandanan ala pecun yang pecun abis. Ternyata dia adalah tokoh utama kita!! And throughout the movie she looked like what she should be like, seorang pecun yg disewa seseorang selama sebulan. Lengkap dengan baju-baju yang 'kepecun-pecunan' yang dia pake selama ikut bareng si Jamie Aditya (lupa gw namanya di film). AND THOSE AWW-SO-SWEET FR SCENES! Argh don't think I should explain it a Googled her. Aside from FR, film ini lumayan meski ngga luar biasa. Film dengan genre romantic comedy dengan tema nyerempet2 seks yang menjanjikan banyak penonton Indonesia laki-laki maupun perempuan sampai-sampai nyaris mengalahkan horor dalam ajang genre film Indonesia 2008. But it's not a big deal as long as the movie's worth your time, and it is. I'd give it a 7 for XL with Sandra Dewi, Ida Iasha, Shandy Aulia, Pevita Pearce, Desi Ratnasari, or anyone else as Intan. With FR in it? A solid 9 undoubtedly.

Last but definitely not the least, sebuah film yang sampai saat gw ngetik ini masih diputar di bioskop-bioskop terdekat. Dan gw juga baru nntn 2 hari yang lalu bersama teman-teman yg seperti biasa, cowok semua. Hiks-hiks i led an unbelievably pathetic life. Well anyway here you go, Tarix Jabrix.

Penamaan judul yang salah in my opinion. Rada aneh dan sulit diucapkan (or is it just me?). Tapi hal itu sama sekali ngga mempengaruhi kualitas keseluruhan dari film komedi (tanpa romantis?) yang sangat menghibur ini. Yang membuat Tarix Jabrik Tarix Jabrix adalah keikutsertaan The Changcuters pastinya. Biarpun awam dalam akting tapi cukup bagus dan natural. Sosok si Cacing (gw gatau nama aslinya) yang Ace Ventura-esque kocak meski di beberapa bagian dialognya cheesy dan terkesan berlebihan. Buat si Dadang gw acungin jempol karena ke-natural-annya terutama di scene Mayang (FR!!) minjem selang. Coki dan Ciko tampil tolol dan menghibur serta Mulder yang kocak dengan logat Medan-nya. Carissa Putri yang cantik juga tampil memikat sebagai Callista, meskipun ngga sampai membuat gw pengen nonton Ayat-Ayat Cinta yang blm gw tonton sampai sekarang. Ke-cheesy-an kembali muncul hampir di setiap adegan yang melibatkan The Smokers, tapi sekali lagi ditolerir oleh jokes ringan yang dilontarkan personel Tarix Jabrix, dari sekedar berkata “Astaghfirullah” ataupun “Assalaamu'alaikum”. The biggest disappointment dari film ini adalah KURANGNYA KEHADIRAN FR! Anyhow that's should be expected secara FR bukan pemeran utama dalam film ini (walau di posternya gambarnya segede Carissa). Tapi yaa tetep aja gw rada kecewa secara FR menjadi satu alasan terbesar gw nonton Tarix Jabrix. Tapi ketutup kok karena peran FR disini melengkapi peran-perannya di dua film sebelumnya, secara FR tampil 'beda' di sini. Beda gimana? Pokonya beda, seakan lebih mirip sosok FR yang beneran (hahaha macam gw tau aja gimana dia aslinya). Nahh, sebelum gw kebanyakan bilang 'secara', let's end this one with three words conclusion : FRESH. HILARIOUS. WORTH WATCHING. Oh it's four words...

That's that. Mudah-mudahan FR mampir lagi di blog gw ini and if you do, please do drop a comment.., again. Tehee.

ThE TarIx JaBrIx

CACA SUTARYA A.K.A CACING (TRIA CHANGCUT, Vokalis THE CHANGCUTERS), a natural born leader yang enerjik, ingin menjadi anggota THE ROAD DEVIL, Geng Motor paling brutal dan ditakuti di Kota Bandung. Tapi ia tidak sampai hati untuk melakukan ujian yang diberikan karena tidak sesuai dengan hati nuraninya

Akhirnya ia mengajak teman-teman dekatnya DADANG MODIP (Drummer THE CHANGCUTERS), COKI & CIKO (Guitar THE CHANGCUTERS) serta MULDER (Bassist THE CHANGCUTERS). Mereka membentuk geng motor dengan nama The TariX JabriX yang nongkrong di BENGKEL SUGEMA milik Pak Rohim (Sellen Fernandez), Ayah Dadang. Seorang cewek magang di bengkel itu, namanya Mayang (Francine Roosenda). Teman-teman Dadang naksir sama Mayang. Sementara Cacing sedang mendekati CALLISTA (Carissa Putri), primadona sekolah

Tapi Callista sering dijemput cowoknya, Valdin (Andrew), temen kakaknya, Max (Ario Bayu) pentolan The Smokers, Geng Motor Gede. Diam-diam Callista menaruh hati pada Cacing yang dianggap lucu, menyenangkan dan enak diajak ngobrol

Kedekatan Callista dan Cacing membuat hubungan Callista dan Valdin renggang, Valdin tidak terima. Akhirnya The TariX JabriX berseteru dengan The Smokers. Cacing memberitahu Callista bahwa ada anak buah kakaknya yang membawa narkoba. Cacing dkk berinisiatif untuk membongkar kasus ini, setelah Callista mengatakan bahwa The Smokers adalah geng motor yang bersih

Niat baik The TariX JabriX untuk membongkar kasus ini lagi-lagi mendapat halangan dari Valdin dan Max. The Smokers merasa bahwa Cacing hanya cari gara-gara. Kedua geng ini berseteru, mereka siap tawuran meski jumlah The Smokers lebih unggul dan persiapan Cacing hanya satu hari. Berhasilkah Cacing dan The TariX JabriX melawan tantangan The Smokers?

Ni ane saranin bwt d pantengin c0s pilemx kocak bqanget.... ya iyalah masak ya iya dong.....

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1184557&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

dvd yang aku beli itu episode waktu mau munculnya si majin buu, waktu nonton tu film aku langsung teringat masa masa kecil dulu, pagi2 nonton abis nonton doraemon langsung nonton film ini, dan yang baru kusadari ternyata indosiar itu termasuk pembodoh anak anak.. soalnya begitu aku liat filmnya, ternyata aku sadar selama kecil aku selalu di bodoh2in ama indosiar, soalnya dari tahun 1993 sampe 2000 filmnya ga abis abis.. hahhahah... wong maennya cuman 1/2 jam, potong iklan 15 menit.. cuman 15 menit doank selama seminggu... hahahaha.. parah

andaikan aku dulu nonton dvdnya... pasti ga semalang ini..

Alfred Hitchcock, 1948. Rope

"Most expressions of homosexuality in most of movies are indirect. And what's interesting about that is of course that is what it was like to express homosexuality in life, that we could only express ourselves indirectly, just as people on the screen could only express themselves indirectly. And the sense in which the characters are in the closet, the movie is in the closet and we are in the closet." Richard Dyer

111 milioni di dollari. A tanto ammonta il risarcimento inflitta dal giudice della corte federale di Los Angeles, Florence-Marie Cooper, ai gestori di TorrentSpy, motore di ricerca di file torrent, nei confronti della Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). La causa legale si è conclusa nel peggiore dei modi e TorrentSpy è stato riconosciuto colpevole di aver violato il copyright.

Soddisfatto del verdetto Dan Glickman, CEO dell'MPAA: "Il sostanzioso rimborso economico manda un forte messaggio circa l'illegalità di questi siti. La scomparsa di TorrentSpy è una chiara vittoria per gli studios e dimostra che questo genere di siti non sono autorizzati a continuare ad operare senza avere a che fare con i detentori dei rispettivi copyright".

Nello stabilire l'ammontare del risarcimento, il giudice ha deciso di applicare il massimo della pena previsto dal Copyright Act: per ognuna delle 3699 infrazioni di copyright provate nel corso della causa, le major di Hollywood hanno ottenuto un risarcimento di 30.000 dollari, per un totale di circa 111 milioni di dollari.

TorrentSpy aveva tentato di alleggerire la propria posizione, decidendo di chiudere preventivamente il portale Web lo scorso 24 marzo,: tentativo finito male, a giudicare dalla sentenza.

TorrentSpy ha infatti annunciato che potrebbe decidere di impugnare la sentenza del giudice e portare il caso davanti alla Corte d'Appello. Se non altro perché dove li trova tutti quei soldi?

In ogni caso ci sono alcune cose che non mi convincono.

1. Quale risarcimento dovrebbero pagare gli editori o i loro dipendenti quando "scaricano" (uso un termine soft) contenuti ed altro da blog & affini? Ma questo non disturba il business...
2. Non è che la gente scarica musica e video perché le major vendono a prezzo troppo alti? E quanto ci guadagnano le major sul lavoro degli artisti?
3. iTunes a parte, le major poco hanno fatto per seguire l'evoluzione di internet e le abitudini degli utenti. ∞

A, a tak w ogóle to opowiadałem o Larsie von Tierze ;-)

Szef wszystkich szefów:
http://rapidshare.com/files/34107106/hls-boia.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/34107088/hls-boia.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/34107180/hls-boia.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/34107082/hls-boia.part4.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/34107100/hls-boia.part5.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/34107104/hls-boia.part6.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/34107146/hls-boia.part7.rar

Battle for Haditha is a genuine achievement. Nick Broomfield’s film is an effort to reconstruct the events and circumstances leading up to the massacre of 24 men, women and children by US marines in the Iraqi city of Haditha in November 2005.

The film, a dramatization of the episode, first follows the various participants—marines, Iraqi civilians, insurgents—as they go about their daily routines the day before the killings.

Local women with their children buy chickens for a party. A youngish Iraqi couple is focused on. The American marines patrol the city, expecting an attack from any quarter. They carry out raids, knocking down doors, terrifying and outraging the inhabitants. Their banter among themselves is coarse and super-aggressive. Two insurgents, one of them a former member of the Iraqi army, obtain an IED (improvised explosive device) and receive instructions on triggering it, by means of a cell-phone.

A good deal of the film, including perhaps its most memorable portions, is devoted to the processes which make the marines capable of carrying out their murderous assault. Battle for Haditha begins with one marine musing out loud, “I don’t why I’m here,” and expressions of alienation and demoralization continue throughout. “The marine corps don’t care, the country doesn’t care,” we hear. The individual marine has to learn to “act like a machine.” The Iraqis are “ragheads.” The marines chant, “Train, train, train, to kill, kill, kill.” They are indoctrinated to suspect and fear everyone: “This is a hostile environment.” Women and children, they’re told, are capable of carrying bombs.

We see an Iraqi man carrying a shovel over his shoulder. Someone claims he could be on his way to planting an IED; permission is granted, the man is blown to bits.

Meanwhile, Corporal Ramirez (Elliot Ruiz) is having nightmares and can’t sleep. He asks to see someone, a doctor. He’s told: not until your tour of duty is over. He explains he’s having bad dreams about the things he’s seen. Again: no doctor till your tour of duty’s finished.

It’s Ramirez who will lead the enraged attack on defenseless men, women and children when one of his favorites in the unit is blown up in a Humvee. The scenes of the massacre are chillingly and convincingly done; Broomfield bases them on eyewitness accounts from both Americans and Iraqis. After the IED goes off under the convoy, killing the one marine, a higher-up is consulted. His comment—“Take whatever action is necessary. I don’t want any more marines killed”—unleashes the atrocity.

Ramirez and his marines have already pulled a group of Iraqi men from a taxi stopped nearby and executed them. The families the film has been following have the misfortune to live in the houses near the IED attack. While the insurgents who planted the bomb are able to get away from their rooftop position, the marines burst into homes and kill the civilians, including small children, in cold blood.

After the initial killings, in one of the most horrifying sequences, marine snipers laugh and joke as they pick off a man running through a field. He’s the husband of the young Iraqi couple we’ve met before. His wife kneels over his body, hysterical. Ramirez offers her his hand, she spits at him. He goes and vomits. Later, in front of the other marines, though, he pretends to be fine. An officer leads prayers.

The next day, in his quarters, Ramirez suffers a kind of breakdown. The nightmares have continued. He keeps seeing bodies, women with kids. I have “to live with this guilt for the rest of my life ... I hate the officers who sent us in ... They don’t give a f—- about us,” he shouts.

The leader of the insurgents is pleased. “The Americans lost the battle ... Everyone is with us and we control the city.”

In a prologue, Ramirez is under arrest, charged with murder. The officer whose orders triggered the massacre presides over his fate. In a dreamlike sequence, Ramirez takes the hand of a small girl who survived the attack—two victims of the imperialist occupation of Iraq.

The film contains a number of remarkable and powerful scenes. It is not artistically perfect. Perhaps understandably, the writing of the Iraqi sections is somewhat weaker, a bit more schematic. Although Battle for Haditha was made with Iraqi actors (some of them professional stage actors) in Jordan, the filmmakers no doubt had a greater challenge in putting themselves in the shoes of ordinary Iraqis, much less fighters against the American occupation. The sinister figure of the ‘sheikh,’ the local leader of the insurgents, seems especially speculative.

All things considered, however, Broomfield and his collaborators have done an astonishing job. Best known for offbeat documentaries in which his own personality occasionally seemed to take center stage (Heidi Fleiss: Hollywood Madam, Kurt and Courtney, Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer), Broomfield has apparently opened a new chapter in his career.

The Guardian’s Paul Hoggart in a piece entitled “Mr. Wry gets serious,” cites the comments of Peter Dale of Britain’s Channel 4, which funded Battle for Haditha and Broomfield’s previous work, Ghosts, about the deaths of 23 Chinese immigrants in Morecambe Bay in 2004: “I think it’s part of a transition in Nick’s work from a slightly wry, off beat approach to a much more passionate and serious and political approach to his subject. In his more frivolous documentaries the joke had been wearing a little thin. Ghosts was a welcome return to form.”

Broomfield took great pains to represent the Haditha events accurately. Twelve of the performers playing US marines in his film are ex-marines. He also managed to speak to some of the marines involved in the Haditha incident. He told the Guardian reporter, “We spent five days in a motel in San Diego interviewing them for probably 10 hours a day, just to get a sense of their lives and who they really were. They were very wary to begin with, but once people start talking, they really talk. The main marine character we focus on was this guy called Ramirez. The night he got back from Iraq he broke into a truck and basically had post-traumatic stress and ended up driving into a house. He was best friends with the guy who was killed by the bomb, and then had the job of writing numbers on the dead people’s heads and photographing them. They were extremely tough and had seen a lot of action. They talked about chasing each other around with people’s legs and kicking people’s brains around.”

The filmmaker also stated that his team met with Iraqi insurgents who claimed to have been active in Haditha.

Broomfield ended up making the film for Channel 4 because he found no financing in the US. The Los Angeles Times noted in May 2007 that “Every Hollywood door he knocked at, he was told it was too soon for such a movie. ‘Everyone’s so worried,’ said Broomfield ... ‘They all wondered, “Does the American public have an appetite for this?””

The group of Haditha marines, in their conversations with Broomfield, explained the “standard operating procedure rules,” in the director’s words, under which they were operating. He told Time Out magazine, in an interview also published last May, “If, for example, a house is described as ‘hostile,’ then you just kill everyone in the house. It doesn’t matter if it contains two-year-olds or the elderly, which is what they did in Fallujah—where these guys had come from. ...

“I realised that these soldiers were very, very poor kids, who had all left school unbelievably early. It was the first time they had all been out of the United States. They didn’t speak a word of Iraqi. They had no idea what they were doing in Iraq, and they felt let down by the marine corps. It was hard to condemn them out of hand as cold-blooded killers. ...

“I think there have been lots of Hadithas, and there are lots of Hadithas every year.... The difference with this event is that the aftermath just happened to be filmed and now there’s an inquiry. It’s much more convenient for the US government and the marine corps to make scapegoats of these guys than actually deal with its policy and rules of engagement in Iraq. I’m sure it happens on a lesser scale every single day.’”

A conversation with two Iraq war veterans

I spoke to two of the former marines in Broomfield’s film in Toronto. Elliot Ruiz, born in Philadelphia, plays Corporal Ramirez and Eric Mehalacopoulos, born in Montreal, Quebec, plays Sergeant Ross. I asked Ruiz about his experiences in Iraq.

He explained, “I was 17 when I was sent to Iraq, during the initial invasion. We pushed all the way up to Tikrit and I ended up being wounded, I almost lost my life. It’s crazy, people don’t know the type of things that we go through. That’s what I like about the film, it shows that.”

I noted that film showed how the marines were whipped up into a frenzy and brutalized. I asked the pair if they had helped write or prepare any of the script.

Ruiz said, “No, but a lot of it was improvisation. Nick [Broomfield] just told us, ‘This is what’s happening in this scene, this is what I need,’ and mostly everything was improvised.” Mehalacopoulos added, “We used our experiences as the basis of it.” I commented, “So what we see is accurate?” Ruiz replied, “Yes.

I asked them both what they would like audiences to draw from the film.

“Like I said earlier,” Ruiz observed, “I just want the audience to take a look and see what we go through on a day-to-day basis. You might lose a friend, but you have to keep moving. It’s your job. A lot of people don’t understand that. I also hope that they see what the Iraqis go through on a day-to-day basis, you know.”

Mehalacopoulos continued, “As we speak, this is going on. The film only shows a little bit, there’s so much more to tell. I think it’s a movie that’s going to make people think, and that’s what important.”

I pointed out to Ruiz that the spectator finds himself horrified by the crimes Corporal Ramirez commits, but at the end he manages to be a sympathetic character. “The American soldiers themselves are victims,” I said.

Ruiz: “Exactly.”

Mehalacopoulos: “We were put there. We chose to enlist, and therefore we’re going to do our job and carry on the mission, and all that’s fine. But you ask 90 percent of the guys, they’d rather not be there.”

I suggested that no marine or soldier guilty of crimes should be absolved. “Those who are responsible for crimes are responsible for crimes, but the ultimate responsibility is above.” Mehalacopoulos agreed.

I asked them what they thought the war was about. Mehalacopoulos ventured, “It’s tricky, because there’s so much stuff that’s hidden from us, I think. A lot of people say oil. Who knows? It wasn’t what people were told, that wasn’t the real reason. There was a lot of lying, and that’s what’s not fair. All those families that lost their sons, brothers, husbands, whatever. It’s not fair. To die for a rich man’s, a powerful man’s cause. That’s throughout history. Big business ...”

Ruiz went on, “If people saw this, it would change the way a lot of people think. That’s what I like about this film, it doesn’t hold anything back. It shows what happens on a day-to-day basis out there.”

Both former marines praised Broomfield. Ruiz said, “Working with him was wonderful. He stepped back and just let us be us. And that’s what brought the authenticity to the film.”

I asked Ruiz about the scene of Ramirez’s breakdown, where the character curses the officers who have obliged him to commit actions he will feel guilty about for the rest of his life—had this scene been based on his own experiences and feelings?

“I mean, I was 17, I almost lost my life out there. Who wouldn’t be angry toward that? Working on this film, and being able to go back to Jordan ... People don’t understand, we were dropped in a combat zone in an Arab country. The things that happened to us, of course we felt a certain way toward the Arab people, or the Iraqi people.

“Going back to Jordan and being able to meet these people, see these people, live with these people on a day-to-day basis, totally changed my opinion and the way I thought about them. It was a wonderful experience. I never thought I’d be able to live with an Iraqi. I lived with an Iraqi. We shared the same bathroom. We joked around, he ended up being one of the nicest people I’ve ever met in my life, man. He was happy about everything. He didn’t care, it could be the worst day in the world, and he was happy.”

Mehalacopoulos continued, “It’s a people that’s been through a lot. And a lot more than anyone in the US probably. And they have so much pride because there’s so much culture and history, you know, the cradle of civilization, right?”

I noted there had been a propaganda war to paint all Arabs as terrorists. Ruiz nodded. “It took me going back to Jordan, another Arab country, to realize that. It’s a shame it took that, but that’s the reality. Thank god I went back to Jordan and got to spend time with the people and the culture.”

I noted that the Iraqis had every right to resist a foreign army of occupation. Mehalacopoulos said, “And they’re not going to stop fighting. I knew this from the beginning, because we got to a hospital in Baghdad. A doctor, a well-educated man told me, he predicted what was going to happen. He was totally right, and this was in the first few days of the war. You know what I’m saying? They know their people better than we do.”

Job Title: MOVING IMAGE PRESERVATION SPECIALIST
Location: United States, New York, New York City
Job Types: Professional
Categories: Preservation/ Conservation Entry Level

MOVING IMAGE PRESERVATION SPECIALIST New York University Libraries

Description The Preservation Department of New York University Libraries seeks an energetic individual to manage NYU Libraries’ moving image and sound preservation program. The program comprises a suite of activities that includes appraisal, format identification, condition review, cleaning, re-housing, and preservation re-mastering for motion picture film, video and sound recordings.
= The moving image preservation specialist also oversees grant-related projects.
= S/he directs, trains and supervises full-time and part-time staff to assist in these activities.
= Moving image and sound materials currently held in NYU Libraries include: 8mm, 16mm, 35mm motion picture film and a mixture of video formats spread across several archives and special collections. An assortment of formats can also be found among audio collections.
= The moving image preservation specialist also assists in the development of preservation goals and objectives, procedures, and policies for moving image and sound materials.
= S/he evaluates collections to assess preservation needs and collaborates with curators in setting priorities and arranging treatment and processing schedules.
= The specialist implements standard procedures for handling, examining, describing, and assessing moving image collections; ensures adherence to established access, storage, and handling policies for these materials; manages workflow for media transfers, including preservation re-mastering operations to meet preservation standards; communicates with vendors for outside services needed; and manages day-to-day activities of an active moving image preservation program.
= In administering the program, the specialist trains and supervises one full-time staff and two part-time graduate assistants from the Moving Image Archiving and Preservation Program (MIAP) in the NYU Cinema Studies Department as well as additional student assistants as needed.
= The moving image preservation specialist also supervises staff working on grant-related programs for media as needed within the Libraries preservation department.
= The moving image preservation specialist position is a permanent professional appointment and reports to the head of the Libraries’ Barbara Goldsmith Preservation and Conservation Department.
= NYU Libraries has an active preservation program for motion picture video and audio collections equipped with two labs designed to facilitate viewing, describing, cleaning, re-housing, and reformatting of moving image materials. An audio lab is under development. The specialist will manage the moving image and sound preservation program and provide leadership as the program continues to develop and mature.
= The incumbent will assist in grant-writing and grant project initiatives as needed.
= NYU seeks an individual who is active in professional organizations and who enjoys participation in the professional community of moving image and sound preservation.

Qualifications
= Formal training in moving image technology or equivalent experience, together with extensive experience in moving image archiving and preservation, including knowledge of the recommended practices and guidelines for archival restoration and transfer of moving images;
= strong organizational skills and demonstrated ability to work independently and productively in a fluid, complex organization and to communicate effectively both verbally and in writing;
= commitment to the education of future preservationists.

Salary/Benefits: Salary is commensurate with experience.

TO APPLY Please send a letter stating your qualifications, include your curriculum vitae, and three references that document your main activities in preservation, and any relevant publications to:

Ms. Janet Koztowski Human Resources Director New York University Libraries 70 Washington Square South New York, NY 10012

Fax: 212-995-4070 E-mail: jobs@library.nyu.edu .

For the NYU Libraries Mission and Strategic Plan go to http://library.nyu.edu/strategicplan

Resumes will be accepted until the position is filled. NYU IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER