“We are family….”

The Birdcage is a remake of the French classic, LA CAGE AUX FOLLES, and hopefully will be become a comedy classic all its own. Armand and Albert are a gay couple running a night club in Miami, and Armand finds out his son is getting married. It just so happens he is getting married to an ultra-conservative Senator’s daughter. The Senator is in search of some good PR as his political companion was found dead with a minor prostitute. A wholesome family wedding seems to be the Senators answer for the media, and Val, the straight son, is worried about the Senator meeting his gay parents. Hence the attempt at a transformation to be a straight couple, complete with redecorating their home and changing the way they act…and finally the dinner with the parents.

I have heard a few complaints that all the characters are stereotypical and over the top. Yes, they are. But this film works for that very reason. It is not a film that is begging to be taken to seriously. Even though over the top, the characters are well-developed and likable. Robin Williams (Best supporting Actor Good Will Hunting, The Night Listener, One Hour Photo) give s a spot on performance as Armand and Nathan Lane (The Lion King, Nicholas Nickleby) is perfect as Armand’s mate and star of the Birdcage nightly drag queen show, Starina! Gene Hackman (Best Actor The French Connection, Unforgiven) is a nice casting choice for the conservative senator. The final scene with Gene Hackman dressed in drag and attempting to sing We Are Family, is worth the price of a ticket, or a rental in this case. Ok, since we are talking about performances, by the show stealer is Hank Azaria (Run Fatboy Run, Along Came Polly) who plays the very feminine butler Agador. He nails his performance right on the head. If he is in the scene, he is stealing it! Just a wonderfully funny performance!

Overall, I would highly recommend this film. It has many laugh out loud moments and truly priceless scenes. Mike Nichols (Charlie Wilson’s War, Closer) does a wonderful job of directing this talented cast and keeps this a very colorful and bright film. Visually and emotionally. If you haven’t seen it, do so! As for me, I’ll watch it again, probably for the 15th time.

The movie, Charlie Wilson’s War, is a good history lesson on how we got involved in Afghanistan. Congressman Charlie Wilson started the U.S. funding of the Afghan mujahedeen in their battle against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, then kept the U.S. Congress increasing the funding.

Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan years ago

Now the ex-congressmember from Texas has spoken out and said the worst mistake made was not helping to rebuild the war-torn country after the Russians left. “That was a terrible mistake.”

Wilson said during a speech in Scranton, Pennsylvania, “Had we spent that $20 million or $30 million for the entirety of the problem, we wouldn’t be spending $20 or $30 million an hour today.”

Wilson said in an interview with the Scranton Times Tribune that it is “best to make a calculated withdrawal” and said that if he were in Obama’s position, he would “probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure.”

Using his extraordinary power as a member of the US House of Representatives Defense Appropriations subcommittee throughout the Carter, Reagan, and GHW Bush administrations, Wilson succeeded in quadrupling the $30 million requested by the CIA in 1984 for the Afghan resistance to $630 million in 1987, each increment matched by the Saudis.

In 1986, the formidable Wilson prevailed over the Pentagon, CIA, and State Department resistance to supplying the Afghan Mujahdeen with shoulder-fired surface-to-air Stinger missiles and launchers. When the last Russian soldier bid adieu to Afghanistan in February 1989, Wilson boasted that his guys had won.

Apparently a film is due to be made about popular social networking site Facebook. I’ve just read online about the film, titled very originally I might add, ‘The Social Network’ and that also Justin Timberlake is starring  as the website’s founding president, Sean Parker. David Fincher, Alien 3, is due to direct filming, which starts shooting next month for a 2010 release. The script has been penned by Aaron Sorkin, whose credits also include the West Wing, Charlie Wilson’s War and The American President. The main role, that of Facebook’s creator and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is being played by Jesse Eisenberg whose previous credits include Adventureland and Zombieland. Personally, I think the film will be very interesting but then again I thought Rogue Trader would be interesting too. I guess only time will tell. Thanks for reading.

According to the weekly news index from Pew Research, Afghanistan has become the focus of both old and new media – at least until some cute video of a pet or a baby starts circulating or some reality show contestant starts complaining, at which point new media will take a sharp detour. I’ve been hesitant to blog about international affairs recently. So many people do it so much better (see Steve Clemons’ Washington Note) and what can I add? Or perhaps I should say: where’s the challenge? How hard is it to criticize a policy in flux? Like shooting fish in a barrel – one of my least favorite images, by the way, as it manages to encompass both cruelty and an excessive use of firepower to prove a point.

Still, I’m going to toss in my two cents, though I risk pointing out the obvious, over-simplifying the situation, and boring my readers to tears. We all need to be at least superficially up to speed before we can determine, not only what we want our country to do in Afghanistan, but also why we always seem to end up in these positions.

QUICK AND SIMPLE HISTORY UPDATE

Afghanistan is a country with a complex history. Landlocked, the area has been at the crossroads of competing eastern and western, religious and secular empires for centuries. For the last thirty years, it has been in a continuous state of civil war. In the late seventies, the secular government in Afghanistan was also viewed as pro-Soviet. The U.S. Cold War strategy at the time was to covertly support the “other” side in order to counter Soviet influence in the Persian gulf. In the case of Afghanistan, our support went to a loose but ideologically conservative coalition of religious leaders and tribal leaders – the mujahideen. The Soviets then countered with an invasion to shore up their friends in the government, the United States began to arm the anti-communist factions (which also received aid from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) and a horrible civil was broke out in which between half a million and two million Afghan citizens were killed. You can check at any one of dozens of sites on Afghan recent history (even Wikipedia is more or less up to date) or you can watch the infinitely enjoyable “Charlie Wilson’s War” starring Tom Hanks, Philip Hoffman Seymour and Julia Roberts. I leave it to you.

Although the United States may have assumed an ideological victory (as Charlie Wilson never did), it became clear, with the fall of the Soviet Union, that we might have backed the wrong horse. The Taliban wreaked havoc on the citizenry in its zeal to bring everyone in line with the supposed dictates of a particular brand of fundamentalism, resulting in not only a mass exodus of intellectuals but also a repressive regime that removed freedoms, violates human rights and reduced women to second-class citizens.

OUR POST 9/11 WAR

The United States’ activities in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks were called “Operation Enduring Freedom” a military campaign to destroy presumed Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The U.S. also sought to overthrow the Taliban government because they were presumably harboring Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members, although documents show that Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia – that would be our current adversary and our former one. The Taliban was ousted, the secular leader Hamid Karzai was made the transitional chairman of the newly installed government, then became president in 2004.

AND NOW…

In a few words: Taliban resurgence, particularly in the countryside, an spike in illegal drug activity, corruption charges against the present government currently enjoying U.S. largesse, voting fraud and human rights violations still occurring and the Afghan people – and our foreign policy – once again caught between a rock and a hard place. The Afghan government is neither reliable nor trusted by the people. The extent of our ability to force change appears limited. Even Joe Biden is dismayed. What we have is money to withhold and manpower to withdraw. We can just say no, or as Tom Friedman suggested in his NY Times op-ed piece, tell the government to shape up or we ship out. And do it.

We might also consider asking (or demanding or forcing) our own strategic thinkers to get to work redefining their own terminology with respect to our policy in Afghanistan and indeed around the world. What does it mean to choose sides? What does a victory look like? How do we propose to battle an ideology? What do we think will make the United States safe, what with poorly protected facilities, ill-defined immigration policies, poor follow-up for visas and other home protection issues that need attention? Can we say we’ve seriously considered a wholesale revamping of our foreign policy and military approaches to make those approaches at once more robust and more practical?

Or shall we continue as always, with an either/or, add more, subtract more, we won/we lost mentality? Shall we continue to send our troops into harm’s way while our leaders dither about what a sustainable foreign policy in the twenty-first century looks like and the rest of us dither about whatever it’s easiest to absorb?

That seems almost too easy – like shooting fish in a barrel.

CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR av Mike Nichols (2007)
Med Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jud Tylor, Hilary Angelo

SPOILERVARNING

Om en film handlar om krig och den ena sidans stridande soldater kommer från USA och filmen är gjord i Hollywood, så är formeln given: man kritiserar företeelsen krig och framställer den som hemsk, men ser samvetsgrant till att med stor omsorg framhålla (inte så sällan med hjälp av en berättarröst till slutscenen och eftertexterna, som i Platoon av Oliver Stone och Flags of Our Fathers av Clint Eastwood) att de amerikanska soldaterna är hyvens och reko pojkar med äppelpaj i blick och amerikanska flaggans mönster på kalsongerna. Ja, något i den stilen, i alla fall. Kriget är ont, men amerikanerna är goda.

Det här ska nu för all del inte förvåna någon, för det är i själva verket en rätt trogen bild av Hollywoods åsikter. Filmbranschen i USA är av tradition politiskt liberal och nu när både John Wayne och Charlton Heston är döda går det endast med stor svårighet att spåra upp någon i Hollywood som är republikan. Att filmbranschen röstar på demokraterna är närmast ett axiom.

Liksom det närmast är ett axiom att filmbranschens utövande konstnärer, från manusförfattarna till regissörerna till skådespelarna, ofta har helt andra åsikter än eventuell sittande, republikansk president om när det är befogat att börja kriga någonstans i världen. Men här finns en hake, för när den republikanske presidenten väl har börjat kriga får “våra män och kvinnor i uniform” Hollywoods fulla stöd. Ibland får de till och med via satellit dela ut något av priserna under Oscarsgalan. För när pojkarna och flickorna är på plats med sina vapen och riskerar livet, ställer sig även Hollywood som sanna patrioter bakom dem.

Och därav filmerna som dels kritiserar krig, dels hyllar de amerikanska soldaterna.

Fast i Charlie Wilson’s War sker inte hyllningen som en avslutande men ohyggligt effektiv fotnot i form av berättarröst i slutet, den pågår filmen igenom. Även om det inte är just soldater den hyllar, utan en amerikansk krigsinsats. För Charlie Wilson’s War handlar alltså om kongressledamoten Charlie Wilson, som för att ta död på så många ryssar som möjligt lyckades få de amerikanska anslagen till vapen åt afghanerna då Sovjet invaderat att höjas från fem miljoner dollar till en miljard dollar. Varpå afghanerna dödade hemskt många ryssar och vann kriget. Under filmen får man sig som tittare till och med regelbundet till livs ett slags serietabell, där antalet nedskjutna, sovjetiska helikoptrar och sprängda stridsvagnar anges år för år. Meningen är nog att man ska hurra. Det gör de i alla fall i filmen.

Men nu är ju det här en film av Mike Nichols. Mannen bakom bland andra The Graduate och Carnal Knowledge.

Så inte helt överraskande överraskar den.

För den avslutas med en käftsmäll mot USA:s krigsmakt som är så talande och så skrämmande att man faktiskt kan tro på att filmen, som det påstås i förtexterna, bygger på en sann historia. Jag har spoilervarnat ovan, så jag dristar mig att tala om att en miljard dollar till vapen inte är för mycket, men att en miljon dollar till en skola i Afghanistan inte kan komma på tal. Vilket är talande.

Fast å andra sidan är det också talande att de stridande förbanden kommer från dels Sovjetunionens Ryssland, dels Afghanistan. Det finns alltså inga amerikanska soldater att hylla. Vilket förstås är bekvämt om man nu vill överraska med kritik mot själva beslutet att kriga.

Annars lider Charlie Wilson’s War av samma verklighetssträvan som Flags of Our Fathers, men ur en annan, intressant vinkel. Medan strävan efter autenticitet fick teamet bakom Flags of Our Fathers att bränna av så många granater och skottsalvor under handlingsbärande dialog att det är omöjligt att uppfatta vad någon säger, låter teamet bakom Charlie Wilson’s War i stället alla prata i munnen på varandra när de promenerande längs kongressens korridorer bedriver politisk kohandel. Så är det säkert i verkligheten, men för filmen blir det katastrofalt – den handlingsbärande dialogen drunknar i… den handlingsbärande dialogen.

Så jag gick till dvd-menyn och knäppte på engelskspråkiga textremsor. Och det visade sig att man varit fantastiskt noggrann och med angivelse av vem som säger vad i kakofonin har skrivit ut vad precis alla säger, vilket lett till fem- eller sexradiga textremsor skrivna med mycket liten stil som täcker nästan hela bildrutan. Och tar så lång tid att läsa att man omöjligt hinner göra det när de sekundsnabbt blixtrar förbi i det kulsprutesmattrande tjattret och därför blir tvungen att gång på gång frysa bilden för att förstå vad som händer, och varför.

Kör hårt,
Bellis

Saturday, October 10:

Charlie Wilson, the ex-congressmember from Texas that started the U.S. funding the Afghan mujahedeen in their battle against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and kept the U.S. Congress increasing the funding, has spoken out and said the worst mistake made was not helping to rebuild the war-torn country after the Russians left. “That was a terrible mistake,” Wilson said during a speech on Thursday night in Scranton, Pennsylvania. “Had we spent that $20 million or $30 million for the entirety of the problem, we wouldn’t be spending $20 or $30 million an hour today.”

Wilson said in an interview with the Scranton Times Tribune on Tuesday that it is “best to make a calculated withdrawal” and said that if he were in Obama’s position, he would “probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure.” But during his speech, he backed off those comments and said he will support Obama in his decision on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Charlie Wilson in Afghanistan years ago

See the Movie, it is a good history lesson on how we got involved in Afghanistan, and that involvement increased greatly because of Charlie Wilson’s efforts. He brought down the Soviet Union by funding some of the same elements we are now seeking to destroy in Afghanistan.

From Netflix.com:Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)Texas congressman Charlie Wilson sets a series of earth-shaking events in motion when he conspires with a CIA operative (Philip Seymour Hoffman, in an Oscar-nominated role) to aid Afghan mujahedeen rebels in their fight against the Soviet Red Army. Julia Roberts, Emily Blunt and Amy Adams co-star in this fact-based political thriller directed by Mike Nichols and based on George Crile’s 2003 book by the same name.
Starring: Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts
Director: Mike Nichols
Genre: Drama
Format: DVD
Language: English
Subtitles: English …
Awards: Academy Award® Nominee …

For strong language, nudity/sexual content and some drug use

Friday, October 9: Today’s lead story: ‘All roads are leading to South Waziristan’ After a car bombing in Peshawar that killed at least 45 people and wounded over 100, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said Pakistan has “no option but to attack South Waziristan.

“Enter, Hakeemullah” a Dawn.com editorial Outlines Hakeemullah is alive and appearing with him is Waliur Rehman Mehsud, the man the Pakistan Government says killed Hakeemulla over a month ago. The South Waziristan Military assault continues, awaiting the attack orders, the Pakistan Military says it is surrounding the area. Here’s a map and the villages so when you hear about an attack, you can locate the site.

North and South Waziristan, with Villages designated

Another Waziristan story from dawn.com “Pakistan expects ‘tough resistance’ in Waziristan”

Yesterday’s stories:

Afghan Peace Festival, September 23, 2009, at Nader Khan Hill, overlooking Kabul. Three Afghan girls in traditional costumes AFP Photo Romeo Gacad

Under your watch, Mr. President, you have approved 17,000 new troops to Afghanistan. Now you are being asked to send 40,000 more troops, our young men and women in uniform. How many more after that, Mr. President? Some of our troops are on their 5th trip to the war zone. They and their families are in shock. This can not continue.

From today’s timesonline: American troops in Afghanistan losing heart, say army chaplains.
American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban.

Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, the chaplains told The Times in their makeshift chapel on this fortress-like base in a dusty, brown valley southwest of Kabul.

“The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion.

“They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” said Captain Sam Rico, of the Division’s 4-25 Field Artillery Battalion. “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The chaplains said that they were speaking out because the men could not. Read the rest of the story.

Pipelinestan. A term used to define the “…istan” nations that the pipelines carrying gas and oil have to pass through. We went into Iraq for the Oil. There were plans being drawn up to go into Iraq before 9/11 happened. Who controls the Mid-East-Central Asia oil and gas supplies control the world. We are in Afghanistan, not to raise Afghanistan from 188th place out of 189 of the lowest ranking nations upwards. We are there to get a government in place and calm everyone down so a pipleline can be built through Afghanistan, across Balochistan, to India and the Gulf of Oman from the rich oil fields of the Caspian Sea area. In Iraq, we want a government to work with us and have our oil companies come in and control the production and distribution of the oil under the sands of Iraq. End the War(s) means having to deal with these countries on a fair basis. Other countries may bid higher for the oil rights. It is a war over oil.
Here’s three maps for your viewing. Sign the petition at the bottom of this post. No More War.

First, a map showing 50 U.S. bases in the area. The Saudi one is gone now, as they asked us to leave

Existing and Proposed Oil and Gas Pipelines from Caspian Sea Region's Oil Fields

Pipelines from three different Oil Fields

Today, please tell your member of Congress and U.S. Senators to End the War in Afghanistan, sign this petition. If you live outside the United States, write to your leaders, End the War Now.

Stopping the Tide of Terrorist Activities in Afghanistan

History has clearly shown the world that war is a slippery slope in Afghanistan. Just killing the so-called “enemy” of the moment does not seem to change the problems in that region. Remember, at one time we supported the mujahadeen against Russia. Later these “Afghan freedom fighters” morphed into the Taliban and many joined up with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda!

So what is needed besides a military presence in that region?

What are the goals of the U.S. in Afghanistan?

A movie called “Charlie Wilson’s War” featuring Tom Hanks as Congressman Charlie Wilson documents the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in the early 1980’s. The problem, we gave lots of weapons and military training to future Taliban and the nascent groups that then became Al Qaeda.

With 20/20 vision, former Congressman Charlie Wilson talks about what he learned from his experience with pushing the military option in Afghanistan in a Washington Post article of 8/28/2008, “Charlie Wilson’s Peace”:

“We must recognize now, as we learned years ago, that a strong military alone is not enough to ensure our long-term national security.”

“If we had done the right thing in Afghanistan then — following up our military support with the necessary investments in diplomacy and development assistance — we would have better secured our own country’s future, as well as peace and stability in the region.”  (Charlie Wilson)

Just killing off one terrorist group will not stop the fundamental problem of people becoming terrorists. In fact, it may just incite more people to want to become terrorists! So, what is the fundamental solution to ending conflict and terrorist activities? As Wilson finally concluded, the country is in dire need of help with basic needs. Charlie Wilson says in the Washington Post:

“But the Afghans, with our weapons, had done nothing less than help precipitate the collapse of the Soviet Union. And instead of intensifying our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to help the Afghans meet their postwar challenges, we simply walked away — leaving a destroyed country that lacked roads, schools, and any plan or hope for rebuilding.”

“It takes much more to make America safe than winning on the battlefield. Had we remained engaged in Afghanistan, investing in education, health and economic development, the world would be a very different place today.”   (Charlie Wilson)

Charlie Wilson also explains the interconnectedness of all things and all people when he said in the same article:

“The aftermath of a congressional committee’s decision so long ago has turned out to be a warning that America is not immune to the problems of the very poorest countries. In today’s world, any person’s well-being — whether he or she is in Kandahar, Kigali or Kansas — is connected to the well-being of others.”

The Role of Dialogue, Diplomacy & Development in Securing the Peace in Afghanistan

Charlie Wilson pointed out in the Washington Post article of 8/2008 that the U.S. spends only 1% of the federal budget on critical elements of foreign policy related to diplomacy and development as compared to the 22% spent each year on the military and weapons.

Now is the time to create more balance in our foreign policy by properly funding non-military operations that help heal the areas of conflict.

Charlie Wilson concluded his article in the Washington Post with a plea to the next President who at the time of the writing of the article had not yet been elected. He said:

“Robust investments in health, education and economic development are critical elements of our national security. I hope the message of our experiences in Afghanistan will resonate with the next president, whoever he is, as he puts in place his strategic vision for America’s role in the world.”

The Road to a Secure Peace in Afghanistan Mr. President:

Three months after Charlie Wilson’s article in the Washington Post, the people of America chose Barack Obama as their 44th President of the United States on November 4, 2008. Barack Obama won the election 52 percent to 46 percent for John McCain. He also won 349 electoral votes compared to 173 for McCain. Basically, President Obama has a mandate from the people. Many people voted for Obama to “get out of Iraq and Afghanistan” and to stem the tide of endless military contracts going to cronies in the former administration. President Obama inherited the problems of the prior administration as well as a new set of challenges confronting the U.S. and world.

A “decider” can best decide what action to take by having the ability to listen objectively to competing views in order to chart the best course forward. In deciding the next step in Afghanistan, the key is to ask,

• Will this action protect U.S. & Afghan lives?
• Will this action help the people of Afghanistan move away from the causes of terrorism?

In answering those important questions, Mr. President, please consider the wisdom of Charlie Wilson to realize that military solutions are not always the best and final solution to solving a protracted conflict. It’s time for “Smart Soft Power” approaches.

Professor Joseph Nye co-chaired the Commission on Smart Power with Richard Armitage for the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

The Commission on Smart Power’s Report states in the Executive Summary:

To maintain a leading role in global affairs, the United States must move from eliciting fear and anger to inspiring optimism and hope.

The United States must become a smarter power by once again investing in the global good-providing things people and government in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain in the absence of American leadership. By complementing U.S. military and economic might with greater investments in soft power, America can build the framework it needs to tackle tough global challenges.

Professor Joseph Nye talks about Soft Power in an interview at the Harvard Kennedy School shown on You-Tube.

An interesting conference called “The Obama Administration Faces Afghanistan” sponsored by the Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies (SIWPS) at Columbia University, took place on April 24, 2009. This conference consisted of a series of panels that looked at the many issues confronting leaders making decisions about solving problems in Afghanistan. The video below is the first panel.

Panel 1: Afghanistan in Regional and Global Perspective: Kimberly Marten

In order to effectively help Afghanistan, it appears that the U.S. needs to work together with other nations. The fundamental problems in the region are intertwined with basic survival. People need a way to make a living for themselves and their families. Since the literacy rate is quite low, Afghans would benefit from educating both males and females to aid their society. Therefore, the fundamental issue is one of non-military solutions for basic human problems.

What happens in Afghanistan can affect the entire world. Therefore, it is in the interest of the global community to assist with a multi-pronged approach to wean the people away from terrorism and encourage peaceful economic and social development of the region. That would be a win-win situation for Afghanistan, the U.S. and the world community.

     Afghanistan is where we need to concentrate. That was the foreign policy strategy that Candidate Obama professed during the lengthy 2008 Presidential campaign. His liberal left base wanted him to get the troops out of Iraq immediately and to close GITMO, the latter being a lot harder to accomplish than the former.

     Now the top brass in Afghanistan has completed its assessment of the Afghanistan theater, and despite already increasing our troops in the region, it is not sufficient. Not having learned our lessons from “Charlie Wilson’s War” in the area, General McChrystal has, in a recently leaked report, made it clear to the President that if more troops are not injected, and soon, the war will be a lost cause. And the General does not want his horse tied to a non-existent cart.

     The New York Times reported:

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, in a confidential assessment submitted to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, warns in grim and urgent language that he needs additional troops — from 10,000 up to 45,000 more in the next year — or the conflict “will likely result in failure.”

The assessment, made public by The Washington Post, says that success “will not be attained simply by trying harder or doubling down on the previous strategy.” We asked some experts on Afghanistan strategy how should additional troops be deployed? What types of specialized personnel are needed now?

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/fending-off-failure-in-afghanistan/?hp

Consortium News founder Robert Parry discusses Latin America as the political training ground for Neo-Con torture regimes, bashing moral relativism to ‘manufacture consent’ for moral relativism, statist journalism, blowback in the Middle East, the lie of Charlie Wilson’s War, Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ role in the Former President Reagan’s C.I.A., and media scare tactics used to lie the U.S. into war with Iran with AntiWar Radio host Scott Horton (63:13):

Scott Horton Interviews Robert Parry

12 Sept 09 | AntiWar Radio

Robert Parry, founder of ConsortiumNews.com, discusses Ronald Reagan’s lip service to torture prohibition and support for atrocities in Central America, the hypocritical critiques of “moral relativism” by amoral neocons, the inheritance of an entire generation of government-worshiping journalists, Islamic fundamentalist blowback from Reagan administration attempts to weaken the USSR and the quid-pro-quo deal that enabled Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons.

[download the mp3 at AntiWar.com]

Robert Parry is an investigative journalist who won the George Polk Award in 1984 for reporting on the Iran-Contra affair and uncovering Oliver North’s involvement in it. He is the founder and editor of ConsortiumNews.com and author of Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, Trick or Treason: The October Surprise Mystery and Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.

I have long admired actress/writer/producer Patrika Darbo.

She was murdered by John Malcovich in IN THE LINE OF FIRE. She was the very popular “Nancy Wesley” character on DAYS OF OUR LIVES for years (1999-2003). Patrika Darbo has been in more than 25 movies and 35 TV shows and she’s even an officer of the Screen Actor’s Guild. She starred as Roseanne Barr Arnold in Roseanne and Tom: Behind the Scenes (1994 TV movie) and more recently played an auctioneer in Charlie Wilson’s War starring Tom Hanks.

Lori and I met Patrika about eight years ago at our church and we were very impressed with her talent and her wonderful personality. So, when I discovered that Patrika’s production company was shooting a short film (RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE) in Burbank and was seeking background actors, I signed up right away.

It was a professional and fun shoot at a tiny but popular little cafe on Riverside Drive. There were three other background actors and me and the stars and crew. We were in the shade and there was a nice breeze and good food and we were treated more nicely than extras often are.

Here are some photos from the shoot:

!!!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mike Nichols to Direct ‘Deep Water’ (cinematical.com)

Charlie Wilson’s War: pretty solid political romp with top acting but the biggest selling-point for me was the script, which threw up loads of funny & witty one-liners as well as some comedy situations. Seymour-Hoffman steals the show, and the film should keep you amused and informed, although the light-hearted mood makes it difficult to gauge how much of it is accurate.

Score: 7/10

For the first time in many, many years, Xin, Ming and I caught a movie together. It was a last minute decision, but we all managed to meet up for a midnight sneak movie screening of “Sunshine Cleaning” at VivoCity last Friday.

It was the perfect ending to a fruitful day – my last day of freedom, which started off with a shopping expedition to town, dinner with my aunts, and finally a movie date with my girls.

I think Emily Blunt is the cutest thing! Not your cookie cutter pretty girl next door, Emily has more of an offbeat and less mainstream beauty, which makes her all the more interesting. Plus, all the movies that I’ve seen of her has always been fun. Granted, “Sunshine Cleaning” is only the 4th movie of hers that I’ve seen, in addition to “The Devil Wears Prada“, “Charlie Wilson’s War” and “The Young Victoria“. Nonetheless, I think Emily is gorgeous, and totally kick ass! =)

An interesting and heartfelt movie with a tight storyline, the characters and their situations of “Sunshine Cleaning” were realistic, peppered with the highs and lows of sibling relationships. Little wonder the movie won over most of the movie critics, since I have yet to see a bad review of this indie piece.

Let me know if you’ve seen the movie, and what you think of it!

I blogged not long ago about the weird shifting around that the Super-Spy genre of filmmaking does.  I had a good time writing that, and I don’t feel many people (if any) read it.

Anyway, I went to Hollywood video today with the express decision to buy a used copy of In Bruges (the funniest, most quotable damn movie I’ve seen in years) and Speed Racer (screw your face, I love this movie… and I listen to the score all the time, because it’s great for pretending I’m driving extremely fast… when I’m stuck in a standstill on the 405).

Hollywood Video had one of those “Buy 2, Get 2 Free” sales (sales of which are entirely responsible for half my video collection… seriously… you plan yourself out right, you can get a shit-load of movies for almost nothing… just buy them 3 to 4 months after the fact).  And I was there to buy Speed Racer and In Bruges.  Period.  I was going to buy those regardless, no matter what.  So, BAM!, I got two free movies.  But I couldn’t find anything else I wanted (I stewed over this decision for maybe an hour).  So I settled on two movies I hadn’t seen, but always wanted to.  Charlie Wilson’s War (haven’t actually watched it yet… I did Speed Racer and In Bruges first) and Taken, the action movie with Liam Neeson.  So I just watched that.

HOT DAMN I loved it!  And I wish I had seen it when it first came out so I would have known to include it in my little diatribe about super-spy movies, because it fits right in.  It totally exists in a world post-Jason Bourne.  You’ve seen this movie a billion times.  Super-badass military dad loses daughter to kidnappers.  Dad kills the shit out of kidnappers to get kid back.

Hell, Commando is that plot:

God, I love Commando.

A building blows up in Commando nine times.  Same building.  Theoretically same explosion.  But it happens.  Nine.  Times.  Well, 5 times, then it cuts away.  Then it blows up 4 more times.  I’ve counted.

Anyway… Taken is great.  And it shows that to make a good movie, you don’t need to reinvent the wheel.  Taken’s plot is pretty average and… eh… boring.  It’s not the story it tells more than how it tells it.  The fact they chose Liam Neeson for it is inspired.  No one else could have sold this movie better.

But I tie it into my post-Jason Bourne spy world because… that’s what it is.  They took that same old, tried-and-true plot and recofigured it to the Jason Bourne super-spy mentality.  Ten, twenty years from now, it will be redone to fit whatever the hell is going on then.

So yeah.  That’s how it fits into my old blog.

Anyway… “THEY’RE FILMING MIDGETS!”

Iranians protest against election results

There has long been the saying, “Freedom isn’t free.” After eight-years of a totalitarian Bush/Cheney administration in which they mistakenly believed that they, (the Republican Party) could give Iraqi’s freedom and democracy, as if freedom and democracy were Christmas packages beautifully wrapped with ribbons and bows,  Iraq, Afghanistan, and now recently Iran are now quickly learning the age old adage that, “freedom isn’t free,” that democracy is not a gift that someone can give you. Democracy is something that you have to fight and die for and earn for yourselves. Much as America learned this lesson in 1776 in our own revolution against the British.

As America had to determine its own destiny in 1776, by drafting our two most sacred documents of independence, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, so now it is time for that region of the world, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Tibet and S. Korea to determine their own destiny’s, draft their own Declaration of Independence and fight their own revolution.

As much as I agree, 100-percent,  that President Obama is absolutely correct that the U.S. response to Iran should be mostly silence lest those inside Iran  make this argument be about America’s intrusion in foreign politics rather than a complete meltdown and dissatisfaction by the people for  Iran’s ruling religious council. Faced with the dilemma of an apparently rigged Iranian presidential election. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets, protesting against the incumbent president and the ruling religious council. President Obama has categorized the resulting violence as “troubling” and has called on Iranian leaders to respect the democratic process. That, aside from a reiteration of our preference for dealing with leaders in whose popular support we can have confidence and a preference for free and open democratic processes, is about as far as our commentary should go.

Being tight-lipped in the face of this crisis is not about abandonment of principle, nor is it a retreat from our historic advocacy of democracy. It is, rather, an acknowledgement that what is happening reflects a split in Iran’s ruling religious council, as well as a calculation of the probable effect of our words and concern for the well-being of the Iranian people. if we push hard for a recount, or international observers, or accommodation to the will of those Iranians clamoring for the installation of presidential candidate Mr. Mousavi, how will our pressure translate in Tehran? There is a very real possibility that the incumbent, Mr. Ahmadinejad, would rally the public to his side by railing against the “outside interference” such pressure would represent. This step, in fact, is already under way. Then, identifying his political opponents as a fifth column for Iran’s external enemies, he would turn international pressure for open elections into a hunting license. If you are fortunate enough to know any Iranian Ba’hias, ask them how that works.

The other part of the problem is this: What are we prepared to do about Iran’s flawed presidential election? Our president retains his faith in the persuasive power of speech, diplomacy, stern talk. Are we prepared to go to war with Iran when we are currently bogged down in Irag and Afghanistan and being bullied by N. Korea’s nuclear threats? And should we go to war in Iran- do we also then take on Russia and N. Korea as well, two of Iran’s strongest trading partners and allies?

Presdient Obama’s caution- contrary to the wishes of a genocidal Republican party is admirable for a young black man, as such an underdog, whose race would more likely identify with the underdogs and lean toward revolution. Neither blandishments nor bluster have turned Iran from its course on nuclear reprocessing. In fact, Mr. Ahmadinejad used President Obama’s Cairo speech as an example of Western impotence in the face of Iranian defiance — not a good portent.

And while I urge the Obama administration to exercise caution and restraint, I cannot help but smell the CIA’s involvement in the middle of this post-election violence. That’s what the CIA has demonstrated for the last 50-years that it excels at- stirring up revolution in Third-World countries to overthrow the corrupt regime. Financing the Contra’s in Nicaragua, arming the Taliban against the Russians in Afghanistan (Charlie Wilson’s War).

US involvement in the 1953 coup which overthrew the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.  The CIA, with British backing, masterminded the coup after Mossadegh nationalised the oil industry, run until then in by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. For many Iranians, the coup demonstrated duplicity by the United States, which presented itself as a defender of freedom but did not hesitate to use underhand methods to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own economic and strategic interests.

If Obama decides that Americans are unprepared or unwilling to do more than talk, we should speak only as is necessary. Aside from statements of principle favoring fair and open elections and a clear preference for processes which do not leave the streets littered with bodies, we should remain silent. When tensions run high, we should parse our words carefully to avoid misunderstanding or to give those within Iran- an excuse to go to war with the US or to ally themselves with our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan like the Taliban and al-Qaeda. In the past we have not done this, and the results have been both bloody and shameful and have come back to bite us in the ass like Bosnia, Sarajevo, and lately N. Korea’s tough talk.

If Obama, as Commander-in-chief of America’s armed-forces decides military action in Iran is unavoidable, then we should make it a surgical strike not prolonged ground action and target everyone of Iran’s military installations, taking them out as quickly as possible thus neutralizing Iran from further military reprisals against US Forces.

Peace Train by Cat Stevens

But for now- the “Walk softly but carry a big stick” approach seems best and America is fortunate that we have a young President who know this.

KH

I have been a fan of Jules aka Julia Roberts, since I can remember. I have just always loved her loads, and still to this day watch her movies over and over, while hoping that she will keep making more movies. Maybe even add more Oscar’s to the one she has as well. That would be fantastic!

To pick this top 10 I based it on how enjoyable the movie is and how much I love Jules character and the acting. So some movies may be missed off because of the enjoyed factor. This is also a difficult list to complete as it quite often changes around.

Films I’ve seen: Pretty Woman, Erin Brockovich, Runaway Bride, Hook, Steel Magnolias, Conspiracy Theory, My Best Friends Wedding, Oceans 11, Oceans 12, America’s Sweethearts, Notting Hill, Charlie Wilson’s War, Closer, Mona Lisa Smile, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, The Mexican, Stepmom, I love Trouble, The Pelican Brief, Dying Young, Something to Talk About

Films yet to see: Mary Reilly, Sleeping with the Enemy, Michael Collins, Everyone Says I Love You, Full Frontal, Duplicity

So from the above contenders to make it into my Julia Roberts Top 10 . . .

10. Hook

Why: Well this was always one of my favorite movies when I was young and I still love watching it as well. I think it is such a good take on the Peter Pan story . . . what would happen if he did grow up. Just think its a really interesting take on one of the most well known stories, of the boy who did not grow up.

Fav Jules Moment:I think it just has to be the fact that she is Tinkerbell and has wings, that is just great haha.

Fav Jules Quote: “You know that place between sleep and awake? That place where you still remember dreaming?”
[Peter nods]  “That’s where I’ll always love you… Peter Pan. That’s where I’ll be waiting.”

9. Steel Magnolias

Why:The cast, for starters is just incredible, Jules, Sally Field, Shirley MacClaine, Olympia Dukakis, Daryl Hannah and Dolly Parton . . . it really doesnt get much better than that. The tagline of this movie really does sum it up, the funniest movie to ever make you cry.

Fav Jules Moment: I think it has to be for Shelby to decide to have a baby, even though that meant putting herself at risk with her health.

Fav Jules Quote: “I would rather have thirty minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special.”

8. Oceans 11

Why: I dont want to start falling into fantastic cast, but again it really is great, and for Jules to be the leading lady in this is even better. I love the storyline to this movie, it is so clever and really keeps you guessing until the end and your never quite sure if your going to be right.

Fav Jules Moment:Tess telling Danny that they are over (even though she forgives him in the end). But seeing someone being good enough to say no to George Clooney deserves a lot of credit.

Fav Jules Quote: “You of all people should know Terry, in your hotel, there’s always someone watching.”

7. America’s Sweethearts

Why:Two of my favorite actresses in the same movies . . . and as sisters !!! What is not to love, ok the story is a bit predictable but I really do love seeing Catzy and Jules together on the screen. I do think John Cusack and Billy Crystal made this movie very enjoyable and amusing. It is a very tongue in cheek comedy, poking fun at the movie industry.

Fav Jules Moment: When she tells Eddie (John Cusack) that she was the one by the pool and that she has liked him for years.

Fav Jules Quote: [imitating Gwen] “Oh, Kiki, my butter has touched another food. I need new butter.” “Anything you want, honey.” That’s the way it goes, Lee. Right? You’re a publicist. You know, anything they want, right? She’s got a green dress. Looks like crap on her. Brings out the circles under her eyes. She knows it, I know it, she gave it to me. It actually looks pretty good on me. Then she said, well, maybe she wanted it back. She doesn’t want it, she just doesn’t want me to have it. That’s the truth.”

6. Runaway Bride

Why:Reuniting Jules with Richard, who share so much chemistry with each other, and just seem to fit together so well. So for there second movie together this was a good choice. Another rom-com which is just so good, and all about getting married . . . or running in Maggie’s case.

Fav Jules Moment:Saying the perfect proposal to Ike . . . after he had told her what the perfect proposal would be. (see fav quote below)

Fav Jules Quote:“I guarantee there’ll be tough times. I guarantee that at some point, one or both of us is going to want get out. But I also guarantee…
[starts to cry] . . . that if I don’t ask you to be mine, I’ll regret it for the rest of my life. Because I know in my heart… you’re the only one for me.”

5. Stepmom

Why:Because it really broke my heart so much! A fantastic dramatic movie with funny parts, with two incredible actresses at the helm in Jules and Susan Sarandon. They really were just fantastic in their arguments and then intimate conversations. Heartbreaking because of the story line, and that the children do not like Isabel at first but they all get along to get through it together.

Fav Jules Moment: When Ben hurts himself and has to go to hospital . . . when she sings to him.

Fav Jules Quote: I struggled to pick just a Jules quote . . . so this little exchange between her and Susan <3

“Isabel: [backstage at the school Thanksgiving play] I have something to tell you.
Jackie Harrison: You’re having Michael Jackson’s baby.
Isabel: That, *and* Anna is totally over her head for Brad Kovitsky.
Jackie Harrison: [gasp] No!

4. Erin Brockovich

Why:She eventually won an Oscar!!! For her role as Erin . It is a very good true story of a woman who ended up working in a lawyer’s office made such a difference to a small town and helped impact people’s lives. Some of the dialogue for Jules is just fantastic too.

Fav Jules Moment: All of her lines towards the other women in the office and Ed when they really do not like her to begin with.

Fav Jules Quote: “For the first time in my life, I got people respecting me. Please, don’t ask me to give it up.”

3. Closer

Why:Because it is so messed up and seems more true to life than other movies. It is a totally different type of role for Jules, and I have to admit some of the lines she has it can be quite shocking at first as it is so far from her rom-com roots which are most well known to people. I just love how the lives of the 4 people are just so inter-winded and mixed up. The acting by all 4 is incredible, as no one else is in the movie.

Fav Jules Moment: When she is about to leave Larry and they have an argument about Dan, is all just fantastic acting in my opinion.

Fav Jules Quote: “Don’t stop loving me. I can see it draining out of you. It’s me, remember? It was a stupid thing to do and it meant nothing. If you love me enough, you’ll forgive me.”

2. My Best Friends Wedding

Why:I just love it so much, I have watched it so many times I really do no it all word for word and find myself singing along to the “say a little pray for you” part. I adore the soundtrack and when listening to different songs just picture the movie. It has to be every girl’s nightmare, your best guy friend who you have known for like ever getting married when you realise that you are indeed in love with him. But actually trying to split them up like Jules does is quite crazy haha. Kimmy (Cameron Diaz) is fantastic in this, I just love the karaoke “Just dont no what to do with myself . . . ” (I can do the best impression of that, haha). But one thing that kinda annoys me is that Michael (Dermot Mulroney) seems jealous when she says she is going to marry George (Rupert Everett) . . . I mean he is going to marry Kimmy but then looks jealous about Jules, that is a typical man thing. But she loans them her and Michael’s song <3

Fav Jules Moment: Loaning them the song at the wedding <3

Fav Jules Quote: “I had the strangest dream. I dreamt that some psychopath was trying to break the two of you up. Luckily, I woke up and I see that the world is just as it should be. For my best friend has won the best woman. I didn’t buy you a gift. But this is on loan until you two find your song…”

1. Pretty Woman

Why:It is the ultimate chick-flick/rom-com etc . . . and it is the role in which shot Jules to ultimate stardom and made her become loved so much. Which is probably strange when you remember that she is indeed a prostitute. Rich business man Edward (Richard Gere) ends up hiring Viven for the whole week, staying in the penthouse suite at a posh hotel. She attends different meetings and events with him, and yes they do end up falling in love. But they do have problems before eventually getting together in the end. But it is really just the best, I am yet to find a woman who does not like it.

Fav Jules Moment: Going back into the shop on rodeo drive . . . big mistake, big huge . . . one of the best moments. That every would just love to do!

Singing in the bath, to kiss by Prince.

Fav Jules Quote: ” I’m gonna treat you so nice, you’re never gonna let me go.”

Jeff Skoll made hundreds of millions of dollars in stock from the IPO of eBay. He paid off his student debts for his Stanford MBA and became a philanthropist and social entrepreneur.  In his own words, there are ‘important things he wants to do in the world’ so he uses his wealth to “support good people doing good things”.  (His belief in the goodness of people seems to have been bolstered by the observation that from the outset only three in a million transactions went wrong on eBay.)  A middle class Canadian, he’s “delighted to be able to do this”.  Why?  Because, in a lesson learned from his father, ‘he wants to do the things he wants to do in his life’, and he wants to ‘make a difference’.

Skoll draws a distinction between philanthropy (giving away money) and social entrepreneurship: “Social entrepreneurs are really society’s change agents. They find the holds in the system that aren’t being fixed by corporate or government organizations or religious or traditional non-profit institutions.  They’re the ones that say, ‘wait a minute – there’s something here, girl’s education in Africa is completely lacking’”.  The list of big issues affecting the fate of humanity that he’s interested in include nuclear change, middle east peace, climate change, pandemics, and poverty alleviation.

Social entrepreneurs intervene and they use market innovations in their work.  Skoll’s commercial global media film company focused on the public interest is behind the financing of films that may not have other wise been financed such as ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’, and the ‘Kite Runner’. The purpose of the company is to educate the public so they can change their views.  In at least one case, however, the effect was ostensibly more profound. ‘North Country’ starring Charlize Theron was timed to be released with the Bush administration’s vote to renew the Violence Against Women Act.  The film was not did not do well at box offices but legislators who saw it reported that it influenced their vote.  So from a ‘social standpoint’ Skoll counts this film as a success.

The social entrepreneur is a soft power political figure. They are the result of the super-concentration of financial capital in the hands of a few, who are elevated into the privileged position of financing initiatives that support their own preferred agendas.  If this strikes you as an ungenerous statement then consider for a moment that Skoll was supporting a bunch of issues you just don’t agree with (which maybe he is).  There is, then, something discomforting about the rise of social entrepreneurship.  Because at the end of the day the best signal of democratic sociality is, perhaps, not the content of any particular politics, but rather, a widespread accessibility to the methods by which political resolutions can be pursued.

Jeff Skoll was interviewed on The Interview with Owen Bennett Jones of the BBC.

De voorbije twee maanden of zo:

• Noise (Henry Bean, 2007). Kwieke grootstadssatire over een op hol geslagen burgermannetje (Tim Robbins) dat besluit om in ware guerillastijl iets te doen aan de geluidsoverlast in de stad. Fijn basisidee, maar nodeloos lang gerekt. (**1/2)
• Charlie Wilson’s War (Mike Nichols, 2007). Nichols is de man die ooit debuteerde met Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? en meteen erna The Graduate maakte, dus hij weet waar hij mee bezig is. Charlie Wilson’s War is toch ook een verrassing, en totaal anders dan wat ik verwachtte; een lepe combinatie van intelligentie en boertigheid, en de zoveelste keer dat Philip Seymour Hoffman de show kan stelen. Nochtans is Tom Hanks ook best straf als wijvenzot Wilson en mag hij enkele van de grappigste dialogen uit zijn carrière debiteren. De hand van Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) is duidelijk voelbaar. (***1/2)
• Tyson (James Toback, 2008). Vrij goede documentaire over de gevaarlijkste man ter wereld (na Freddy De Kerpel en mezelf). Combinatie van archiefmateriaal en een diepgaand interview met de man zelf. Stilistisch bevat het geen verrassingen, maar de figuur van Tyson zelf blijft een eindeloos intrigerende figuur, die moeiteloos erin slaagt om haast infantiele commentaren af te wisselen met scherpe inzichten. En uiteindelijk blijf je achter met een getroebleerd lager-than-life-figuur. (***1/2)
• THX 1138 (George Lucas, 1971). Een mini-klassieker, deze cerebrale en arty sci-fi van George Lucas. Mijlenver verwijderd van de speeltuin van Star Wars en van invloed op films als Blade Runner, Gattaca, The Matrix en misschien zelfs Solaris. Een film over dictatuur en vrije wil, mens vs. systeem, strak en kunstig vormgegeven, met een opvallend hedendaagse look. De director’s cut oogt ronduit prachtig, al zijn de digitale toevoegingen hier en daar overbodig. Die DVD-editie bevat ook een bonus-DVD met extra’s die de moeite zijn, waaronder een documentaire over American Zoetrope (Coppola’s productiefirma die de film uitbracht) van een uur, een making of van een half uurtje en tenslotte ook de korte versie van THX 1138, nl. de studentenfilm die Lucas een paar jaar eerder maakte. (****)
• Who’s Afraid Of Kathy Acker? (Barbara Caspar, 2007). Kleurrijke documentaire over schrijfster, feministe, exhibitioniste en mediafiguur Kathy Acker, een van de meest opvallende figuren uit de recente(re) Amerikaanse literatuur geschiedenis en een agressief wijf waar de gemiddelde biker met bierpens schrik van krijgt. Poëzie, proza, theater, performance art, ze wilde het allemaal gedaan hebben en deed het ook, zij het dan met wisselend succes. Van pornografische arthouse-films tot literaire eerbetonen, het passeerde allemaal in die onnavolgbare, provocerende stijl, een postmodern alles kan, gestuurd via sex-positive feminism, Burroughs en continentale filosofie. De interviews met Acker zijn stuk voor stuk de moeite, de interviews met volk uit haar kennissen- en vriendenkring balanceren soms op het genante, maar de kleine filmstukjes, waarin fragmenten uit haar boeken uitgebeeld worden, zijn eerder storend. Een toepasselijk onevenwichtig portret van een al even ontastbaar figuur. (***1/2)
• Untraceable (Gregory Hoblit, 2008). Het enige dat ik onthouden heb is dat Diane Lane er nog altijd goed uit ziet, ondanks die bezorgde frons van 90 minuten. Voor de rest: dertien in een dozijn. (*1/2)
• I’m Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007). Een zootje, maar dat was dan ook de bedoeling, vermoed ik. Kaleidoscopische, bombastische, soms wat eigengereide prent. Fijne vertolkingen (Christian Bale en Cate Blanchett stelen de show wat mij betreft), en talloze knipogen en referenties naar het leven en werk van de grote troubadour. (***1/2)
• Leonard Cohen – I’m Your Man (Liam Lunson, 2005). Documentaire-annex-concertfilm die een eerbetoon is aan de man. De interviews met Cohen zijn de moeite; de man heeft het zo erg onder controle dat je automatisch in een zen-staat terechtkomt door naar hem te luisteren. De interviews met zijn artistieke bewonderaars variëren tussen aandoenlijk en irritant, net als de performances. Nick Cave, Kate & Anna McGarrigle en Antony hebben het begrepen, Jarvis Cocker zit wat arrogant te neuzelen, Rufus Wainwright hangt wat aanstellerig te janken met z’n ballen in de knoop, terwijl z’n zus nog maar eens het aandachtshoertje van dienst is met een aanstellerige performance. (***)
• Doomsday (Neil Marshall, 2008). Vijftien jaar geleden kwam ik na een concert van monsterlong Peter Brötzmann en medetoeschouwer tegen die zich afvroeg of hij dat concert wel goed mocht vinden. Bij Doomsday doet zich hetzelfde voor: je kan redenen genoeg bedenken waarom je het rommel zou kunnen vinden, waarom mens en uit je omgeving het zouden afdoen als a load of crap, en toch, toch werkt het, net zoals Knight Rider vijfentwintig jaar geleden ook de moeite was (nu helaas niet meer, heb ik mogen ondervinden). Lawaaierige, nonsensikale, gewelddadige actie/SF, maar van de goede soort (***1/2).
• Raising Arizona (Joel & Ethan Coen, 1987). Intussen al meer dan twintig jaar oud. Stond in m’n geheugen gegrift als een klassieker van de cinema. Viel daarom wat tegen, maar nog steeds een van de meest originele komedies van de laatste decennia. (****)
• Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead (Sidney Lumet, 2008). Niet meer de oplawaai van toen ik ‘m voor het eerst zag, maar toch: Lumet haalt wel heel erg zwaar uit in z’n oude dagen. (****1/2)
• Funny Games U.S. (Michael Haneke, 2007). Remake van het Duitstalige orgineel. Typisch Haneke is dat hij naar het schijnt alles intact heeft gehouden: verhaal, dialogen, visuele stijl. Enkel de taal en de acteurs zijn anders. Ook daarnaast typisch Haneke: een thriller die (net als Caché) ideeën aanbiedt over de rol en de participatie van regisseur en kijker en die een contemplatie is over geweld en hoe ermee om te gaan. En Naked City in de begingeneriek, da’s ook leuk. (****)
• Grizzly Man (Werner Herzog, 2005). Onvergetelijk portret van Timothy Treadwell, de naieve activist die jaren na elkaar een seizoen doorbracht bij de beren en het uiteindelijk mocht bekopen met zijn leven. Herzog maakte een film van het beeldmateriaal van Treadwell, maar interviewde ook een aantal mensen uit diens omgeving. Het resultaat is een boeiend beeld van een complex figuur, een intelligente, maar kinderachtige kerel die er, zoals Herzog meegeeft, een wel erg vreemd beeld van de verhoudingen in de natuur op nahield en uiteindelijk kreeg waar hij om leek te vragen. Het bevat fantastisch mooie natuurbeelden en gepast weidse, expansieve muziek, maar daarnaast ook enkele memorabel scènes, o.m. van de lijkschouwer die op theatrale wijze zijn versie van de feiten meegeeft. Ook memorabel: Herzog die luistert hoe Treadwell en zijn vriendin worden verscheurd door een beer (zelfs dat wist hij op te nemen). Je krijgt de opname als kijker niet te horen en ziet enkel Herzogs rug, maar toch is de gruwel bijna tastbaar. De DVD bevat ook een bonus met een special over het maken van de soundtrack. Alles draait rond de gitaar van Richard Thompson, die wordt bij gestaan door o.m. Henry Kaiser en Damon Smith. Dat maakt het een klassiek pakket. (*****)
• Heavy Metal In Baghdad (Eddy Moretti & Suroosh Alvi, 2007). Documentaire over Acrassicauda, zowat de enige heavy metalband van Irak. Nu ja, veel metal komt er eigenlijk niet bij kijken: de band speelde maar een handvol concerten in zijn carrière en die werden dan nog eens bijgewoond door slechts een handvol metalheads, die doorgaans met hun eigen leven dienden te spelen om het gebeuren bij te wonen. Meer dan over muziek gaat het natuurlijk over een passie en hoe ermee om te gaan in een maatschappij die op hol geslagen is, waar gevaar om elke hoek loert, waar je huis verpletterd kan worden door een bom en waar je zelf haast gestenigd kan worden als je er iets té Westers uit ziet. De film volgt de leden over een paar jaar, in hun thuisland en later ook in Syrië, waar ze naartoe vluchten in de hoop een nieuw leven te kunnen beginnen. De bandleden konden vrij recent naar de Verenigde Staten en hebben ook een MySpace-pagina. Wat de film betreft: een deprimerend gedoe. (****)
• The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007). Lange, trage, ingetogen, repetitieve western, die zijn charme vooral haalt uit sfeerschepping en schilderachtig kleurgebruik. Dreigt hier en daar wat in slaap te sukkelen, al is het ook mooi om te zien hoe het genre voor een keer een andere benadering krijgt. (****)
  
• Get Carter (Mike Hodges, 1971). Een beetje de Britse Dirty Harry en alom beschouwd als een klassieker uit de Engelse cinema. Ziet er wat verouderd uit (vooral de geweldscènes zijn vrij klungelig), maar hey, ”t heeft een fijne, sleazy soundtrack en ‘t is Michael Caine als wraakengel. Geen mens die daarover moet klagen. (****)
  
• London To Brighton (Paul Andrew Williams, 2006). Mottig evenwicht tussen grauwe misdaadfilm en schrijnend realisme. Donker, meedogenloos en gewelddadig, met 0% goedkoop effectbejag , 100% impact en memorabel acteerwerk. Onderbuik-KO. (****)
  
• American Movie (Chris Smith, 1999). Sinds vorig jaar een levenslange favoriet Ten Huize Boleuzia. Goed voor tientallen oneliners en talloze momenten van plaatsvervangende schaamte. Een onweerstaanbare, ontroerende, hilarische klassieker. (*****)
  
• Jumper (Doug Liman, 2008). Pfff. Heroes, maar nog onnozeler.(*)
  
• Redacted (Brian DePalma, 2007). Controversiële Irakfilm van een regisseur die in geen tijden nog een klassieker maakte. Ook dit is er geen, al biedt het wel stof tot nadenken, een vernuftige mix van verschillende media en toch een paar geweldige scènes (zoals die dialoogvrije stukken aan het begin van de film waar de geluiden van knarsende legerboots en plastieken flesjes even domineren). Nada subtiliteit, zoals gewoonlijk, maar evenwichtiger dan The Black Dahlia. (***1/2)
  
• Vera Drake (Mike Leigh, 2004). Van de koning van de miseriecinema (zie Naked en Secrets & Lies). Deze keer staat de abortusproblematiek in het naoorlogse Engeland centraal. Ronduit fenomenaal acteerwerk van Imelda Staunton, al moet ze in het laatste deel van de film niet meer doen dan huilen (wat ze erg goed kan) en in de eerste verzuchten dat een mens wel een kop thee zou kunnen gebruiken (en er wordt wat thee afgezopen). Dat geflirt met het karikaturale berooft de film wat van zijn potentiële impact, maar het blijft de moeite. (***1/2)
  
• Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi & Vincent Paronnaud, 2007). Gebaseerd op Satrapi’s bejubelde graphic novel. Ik las het boek niet, maar de film is alleszins de moeite: een biografie van een vrouw die opgroeit in een progressief gezin in Irak en worstelt met seksualiteit, venten, familie, roots, nationaliteit en culturele verschillen. Boeiend verhaal, maar vooral stilistisch blijft de film bij, met een vrij eenvoudige zwart/wit-aanpak, schaduweffecten en goed gevonden visuele prachtstukjes. (****)
  
• Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, 2008). Het zou vrij eenvoudig zijn om deze film met de grond gelijk te maken. Het vehikel weet immers niet of het de richting van de zelfparodie moet kiezen (eerste helft) of die van de prekerige, moralistische koers (tweede), maar hey, het is Clint Eastwood, die duidelijk een loopje neemt met zijn imago, zich amuseert als ouwe brompot en toch wel zorgt voor enkele hilarische dialogen en gemompelde beledigingen aan het adres van Aziaten, latino’s en allerhande negroïde manspersonen. (***)
  
• Pride And Glory (Gavin O’Connor, 2007). Met Edward Norton, Jon Voigt en Colin Farrell. Veel potentieel, maar het komt er niet uit. Good cop/bad cop-verhaal dat de mosterd haalt bij Copland en We Own The Night, die beide beter zijn. (**1/2)
  
• Pollock (Ed Harris, 2000). Vreemde film: Ed ‘50% voorhoofd’ Harris doet er echt alles aan om zijn intensiteit in zijn vertolking te steken, de film is nergens aanstellerig of goedkoop en toch heb je na een tijd het gevoel dat het geen meter vooruit gaat, dat je naar een weekendfilm zit te kijken. Pollock was alleszins een onuitstaanbare zeiker (kunstenaars kunnen zich steeds net iets meer permitteren dan andere stervelingen), en de scènes waarin hij aan het werk is in zijn studio, kledderend en spetterend, maken veel goed. (***)
  
• The Conversation (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974). Zie eerder ergens. Een filmbijbel. (*****)
  
• The Collector (William Wyler, 1965). Een van de laatste van Wyler, met een jonge Terence Stamp in een van zijn eerste rollen. Gebaseerd op de debuutroman van John Fowles en z’n tijd vooruit, maar het voelt de hele tijd wat stram en theatraal aan, waardoor het een ongewild komische ondertoon krijgt. Leuk einde wel. (***1/2)
  
• The Panic In Needle Park (Jerry Schatzberg, 1971). Grootstadsellende met Pacino in zijn doorbraakrol. Rauwe, realistische prent die aanvoelt als een documentaire. Naturalistisch en deprimerend. Pacino, kauwend, ratelend, intens als altijd, krijgt verrassend weerwerk van de intussen vergeten Kitty Winn, die sterk gestalte geeft aan het door schaamte en schuldgevoelens verteerde hoertje Helen. (****)
  
• Wallace and Gromit: A Grand Day Out (Ncik Park, 1994). Minst indrukwekkende van de reeks (de favoriet is hier vermoedelijk The Wrong Trousers), maar desalniettemin goed voor een half uurtje ongein. (***1/2)
• Series: het zevende seizoen van The Shield laat de reeks eindigen in schoonheid, i.e. met een laatste adrenalineshot (****1/2). Generation Kill beantwoordt nergens aan wat je van een oorlogsserie verwacht en blijft net daarom bij. Afstandelijk, chaotisch en met een geweldig einde (****1/2). CSI Season 7 kent, net als andere seizoenen van de serie, z’n ups and downs, maar het is het meest consistente seizoen tot nog toe en de miniature killer case is uitermate spannend (***1/2). Ook nog eens gekeken naar het leuke Stephen Fry in America een prima alternatief voor The Rough Guides en Lonely Planets. (****). Intussen begonnen aan het tweede seizoen van Mad Men. Het zet de stijl en kwaliteit van het eerste seizoen meteen verder.

NP: Richard & Linda Thompson – Pour Down Like Silver