Star 69 and Duplex team up together to bring you brand new remixes of Celeda- The Underground to help celebrate the 10 year anniversary! Remixes from D-Unity, Richard Grey, Abel Ramos, and Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike !

Its been a while since Celeda- The Underground first came out 10 years ago and Duplex (along with Star 69) brings it back and up-to-date! It arguably has been played by more DJ’s than almost any other track in dance music history and not only put Celeda on the map but helped introduce NYC-based label Star 69 Records to the world. Support from Erick Morillo, Bob Sinclar, Roger Sanchez, Avicii, and more !

All mixes went straight to the Beatport Charts

BUY NOW:

https://www.beatport.com/en-US/html/content/release/detail/198245/The%20Underground

Detta inlägg handlar om Cali Culture’s nya track “Vaccine”. Som bonus låt delar jag även med mig av en mash-up som Sanchez & iBang har gjort. Dom är warm-up dj för David Guetta. Hadet, adios!  

Cali Culture – Vaccine (Preview)

BONUS

Steve Angello vs Cali Culture – Vaccine For Your Monday (Sanchez & iBang mash-up) 

/Jesper

This film has been going through my mind for the past few days, and I love it. There are just so many memorable moments in it that exemplify the magnitude of image and sound—I can hear The Rolling Stones’ “Jumpin Jack Flash” and drunken evil laughter every time I think about the scene where that crazy Johnny Boy walks through the fiery red lit bar in slow motion as the camera follows in front of him. “I talk about penance and you send this through the door. Well, we play by your rules don’t we? Well, don’t we?” questioned Charlie’s catholic conscience right before the Rock n’ Roll music blasted. Is this hell? No, this is Scorsese’s Mean Streets (1973).

After the directing the Roger Corman produced film Boxcar Bertha (1972), Scorsese was advised by John Cassevetes to make a more personal film. In contrast to The Godfather (Coppola 1972), Mean Streets portrays the dirtier and grittier side of the New York City gangster life, which was something that Scorsese was constantly surrounded with while growing up in Little Italy. The film’s main protagonist is Charlie (Harvey Keitel) an Italian-American small time gangster trying to rise in the ranks of the mafia by working for his old school Mafiosi uncle, Giovanni. He is a seemingly devout catholic that quotes the bible, but often doubts his faith in his mind. Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro) is Charlie’s erratic and crazy childhood best friend, who owes money to everybody on the block and most importantly, the loan shark, Michael. Charlie is in a secret relationship with Teresa (Johnny Boy’s cousin) and feels the need to help Johnny Boy out with his debts, both of whom his uncle has advised him to stay away from. Charlie thinks he can’t be saved by the church, but in the streets he can, and in the end, he will experience the meaning of sacrificing himself for others.

It’s no surprise to anybody who has seen Goodfellas (1990) or Casino (1995) that one of Scorsese’s famous tropes is the use pop music as the film’s soundtrack either diegetically or non-diegetically. Its influence on younger directors is easily recognizable in films like Resevoir Dogs (Tarantino 1992) and Boogie Nights (Anderson 1997). There are other films that may have had a pop track for a scene before Scorsese, but Mean Streets is the first film to use pop music extensively and as an indicator of the set time period. At a party later in the film, one of the characters requests that they play “one of the old ones,” on the jukebox, which is indicative of the strong connection the characters themselves have with the film’s music.

Look familiar?

Look again.

The voiceover in the film is used quite uniquely opposed to its conventional use as a story commentator. Just like in Shoot the Piano Player (Truffaut 1960), a different actor did the protagonist’s voiceover, which creates a disassociation, or distanciation, between the external and internal character. (Coincidentally, the protagonists from both films are named Charlie.) In Mean Streets case, Scorsese actually recorded his own voice as Charlie’s self-doubting catholic conscience. In the introduction scene while the screen is black we hear, “You don’t make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets. You do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it,” and then it immediately cuts to Charlie abruptly waking up in his bed as though he had a nightmare. We are led to presume that those are his thoughts and inner conflict, which later in the film becomes much more evident. At one point, his thoughts become so over bearing that he unintentionally says them out loud in front of Johnny Boy and Teresa, but still in Scorsese’s own voice.

As seen from the images above and below, the color red seems to reoccur plenty of times in the film and hold great significance symbolically. The first taste of red we get is in the first bar scene where it looks like it is completely drenched with bloody red by lights as we listen to Charlie’s voiceover talk about the two sides of “the pain of hell.” Incidentally, the place does look like what hell is thought to be—hot like “The burn from a lighted match increased a million times.” Thus the color red is associated with evil, danger, and to a certain extent Charlie’s catholic religion for the rest of the film. Inside the blue car that Charlie drives with Johnny Boy and Teresa to escape from Michael, hangs an ominous red sign of the horns amulet from the rear view mirror. It looks just like the Hook ‘Em Horns sign, except that in “Sicily the red corno or horn is the most popular amulet against the evil eye.”* It later proves to have no effect in fending off Michael or preventing Johnny Boy and Charlie from getting shot on the neck and hand, respectively. I’m not religious myself, but I think Charlie’s newly made hole in his hand and the blood that squirted everywhere from Johnny Boy’s neck is somehow representative of Jesus’ sacrifice and the “blood” Catholics drink during communion. Also, there’s a funny line said before they get attacked by Michael; Charlie runs a red light and Teresa tells him to slow down to which he responds with: “What does red mean?”

I definitely believe Mean Streets was the first film that qualified Scorsese as an emerging American auteur during the Hollywood Renaissance. Like Truffaut’s The 400 Blows (1958) before him, Scorsese’s breakthrough film was a very personal one, almost autobiographical. I think we are lead to believe that both Charlie and Johnny Boy each represent one side of Scorsese—the unselfish side and the self-destructive side. Also, as any good Hollywood Renaissance film would, Mean Streets delivers plenty of violence, nudity, and profanity to go around for everybody.  This film is so great that it offers so much to discuss about that I didn’t even tap into.

* “Gangster Priest: the Italian American cinema of Martin Scorsese” by Robert Casillo, page 209

Why is it that March through June drags by with no gridiron action (unless you count the Draft as action, which we only do because we’re desperate by April) while September and October streak by like a Jared Allen blitz?  Yeah, yeah – time flies and all that.  But I am shocked that we are past the halfway mark of the 2009 season.  However, be comforted football faithful.  Even though it’s Week 10 – we’ve got the playoffs coming in the new year – all the way to February!

In the meantime, the favorites ruled again in Week 9, much to my chagrin.  And to quote Forrest Gump:  ”That’s all I have to say about that.”  Onward to bigger and better picks:

San Francisco 49ers -3.5 over the Chicago Bears.  Despite their recent losses, the Gold Rush boys are definitely coming along as a cohesive team.  Alex Smith is still somewhat tentative and inconsistent, but I am hopeful that he may succeed in this comeback attempt.  Vernon Davis has apparently drunk the whole vat of Singletary koolade .  Result:  his best season to date.  The defense takes steady steps forward each week.  Chicago probably has more talent, but the WR’s and Cutler haven’t quite put it together yet.  I’ll go with SF at home – but don’t go ANY higher on this spread.  Straight Up:  49ers.  Barbara’s Best Pick.

Oakland Raiders -1.5 over the Kansas City Chiefs.  The Chiefs made a very smart move last week by snatching WR Chris Chambers off of waivers when San Diego let him go.  This move gave them a legit #2 WR to work alongside Bowe.  Then they made a very gutsy move by dumping immature RB Larry Johnson.  The backups may not be as talented but they couldn’t possibly be as disruptive.  Todd Haley is on the right path, but I don’t think they’re ready to win consistently yet.  Not that the Raiders truly resemble a successful NFL franchise at this point – but I think they can prevail at home.  Straight Up:  Raiders  Barbara’s Best Pick

New Orleans Saints -13.5 over the St. Louis Rams.  Yeah, I know it’s a big spread – but I cannot pick against Drew Brees when he’s facing the Rams’ D.  No offense to Steve Spagnuolo, but – really.  Steven Jackson may have his usual stellar day – especially since all-Pro Safety Darren Sharper (who went to my alma mater William and Mary btw) is out with a sore knee – BUT it won’t make any difference in the final score unless the entire Rams’ D has a body transplant.  Straight Up:  Saints.  Barbara’s Best Pick

Dallas Cowboys -2.5 over the Green Bay Packers.  Apparently the entire Cheesehead squad had revival meetings this week to try and right their proverbial ship.  Will it work?  Probably not – unless Romo has a meltdown.  But it’s a little early for his annual deconstruction, so you have to go with a Cowboys’ team that’s really clicking right now.  Particularly since it’s a balmy 45 degrees and mostly sunny on the not-so-frozen tundra today.  Straight up:  Cowboys  Barbara’s Best Pick

Cincinnati Bengals +6.5 versus the Pittsburgh Steelers.  I’m in the minority on this one, but I think the Bengals are for real in ‘09.  (And, incidentally, could we let up on Chad a bit – I’m sorry, but that dollar bill thing last week WAS funny.)  Bottom line, Pittsburgh has won enough for a while – it’s someone else’s turn.  Take a look at that Bengals’ D – first sighting of any kind of defense in the Rust Belt city in years!  Straight Up:  Bengals.

New York Jets -6.5 over the Jacksonville Jaguars.  My gut tells me that Sanchez will be recovering from his rookie rough patch about now.  Coupled with a Rex Ryan defense and the best rushing attack in the league I think they’ll be too much for an inexplicably flat Jaguar team that’s being completely carried by diminutive dynamo Jones-Drew.  Straight Up:  Jets

Indianapolis Colts -2.5 over the New England Patriots.  I’m the only one I know picking the Colts in this one, but I just can’t bring myself to cheer for a team that’s won 3 Super Bowls this decade.  I have no idea who will really win this game, but I sure wouldn’t miss it for the world.  Indy is in danger due to all of the injuries in their secondary.  We’ll find out if the young replacements can play with the likes of Moss and Welker.  I’m guessing they’ll play better than anyone expects; these are, after all, the players that Tony Dungy drafted and coached up in his last couple of seasons.  Brady is back to his old self, though, so this one will be close.  Go NO higher on the spread.  Straight Up:  Colts

Minnesota Vikings -16.5 over the Detroit Lions.  The Lions are still very much a work in progress, but 16 and a half points is an awful lot.  This could be a bit of a trap game for the Vikes, but I simply cannot cheer against Favre – even on paper.  Straight Up:  Vikings.

Washington Redskins +6.5 versus the Denver Broncos.  I’m so far past being in the minority on this pick that I might be the only person in California picking the ‘Skins.  Denver SHOULD win and cover but I also think that at some point Washington will pull off a rally this season.  And this could be the week.  Straight Up:  Denver

Arizona Cardinals -8.5 over the Seattle Seahawks.  This game will depend on which Cards Oline shows up:  the one that lets Warner hit the dirt or the one that keeps him upright so that he can throw 5 TD’s as he did last week.  The Seahawks have better talent than their record indicates, but they are not playing well or as a unit yet under their new Head Coach.  Mora looks like he isn’t in charge at all in the Emerald City.  Rumors even abound that Holmgren may be back next year.  WHAT?  At any rate, I’m picking the Cards at home.  Straight Up:  Cardinals

Carolina Panthers +1.5 versus the Atlanta Falcons.  Carolina has found its stride finally with their lethal running duo of Williams and Stewart.  Unfortunately for Panthers fans, Michael Turner is back to his burner ways for the Falcons.  Ryan is by far the better QB, but I’m hoping that home field and keeping the ball on the ground will help the Panthers prevail.  Straight Up:  Panthers

Philadelphia Eagles +2.5 over the San Diego Chargers.  I do NOT trust the Chargers.  They are far too inconsistent on defense and their running game is nonexistent.  Westbrook is back for Philly and the team really needs this game to keep pace with Dallas in the NFC East.  Straight Up:  Eagles

Miami Dolphins -9.5 over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.  Yeah, I know Josh Freeman had a great winning debut last week.  But the Dolphins D will shut him down Sunday in this Sunshine State battle.  Williams and Brown will eat the aging and disorganized Tampa D alive.  Straight Up:  Miami

Baltimore Ravens -10.5 over the Cleveland Browns.  Can’t the Browns just concede the season and go on vacation until free agency?  It hardly seems sporting to make them keep playing.  Quinn will be back under center this week.  Why, you may ask?  Who knows what goes on in the mind of Mangini.  The Ravens will want a decisive win to get them back on track.  Straight Up:  Ravens

Tennessee Titans -6.5 over the Buffalo Bills.  VY is on his way to redemption in the second half of ‘09.  Good for you, Vince.  Don’t go any higher on this spread since the Bills are battling all the way to the whistle on every play.  Straight Up:  Titans.

That’s it for now, sportsfans – break out the nachos!

Por tercer año consecutivo, San Miguel confió en nuestra productora Only925 para producir su campaña veraniega sobre la selección española de baloncesto, campañas que han sido preludio de éxitos deportivos. Así, en 2007 el spot rodado por los “Gasol boys” junto a Paquito, el repartidor de cervezas, significó el pistoletazo de salida para una memorable actuación en el Eurobásket celebrado en España, que concluyó con la medalla de plata. Al año siguiente, la selección protagonizó dos spots especiales como preparación a los Juegos Olímpicos de Pekín, donde se repitió el éxito de alcanzar la plata.

Y por fin llegó el oro, en el tercer intento: el Eurobásket de Polonia. Al igual que en los dos años anteriores, Fernando García-Ruiz fue el realizador del spot para San Miguel diseñado por la agencia Publicis, bajo la dirección creativa ejecutiva de Fabio Mazía, con Alfonso Morillo y Óscar Martínez como directores creativos y Gustavo Samaniego y Carlos Sánchez como producers de agencia. Por parte de Only925, Mª Jesús Horcajuelo dirigió la producción en colaboración con Geles Santiuste, siendo Kiko de la Rica el director de fotografía. Esperamos seguir contando también en 2010 con la confianza de San Miguel y su agencia creativa cara al Campeonato del Mundo que se celebrará en Turquía.

(ESPERO QUE SE ENTIENDA, VOY UN POCO RÁPIDO. SINO YA LO EXPLICARÉ.)

Andaba yo por Twitter. Leyendo un poco. De repente Enrique Meneses dice algo:

Fidel, Raúl y Ramiro Valdés,@yoanisanchez sólo amenaza el régimen cuando la amordazan y maltratan http://tinyurl.com/yfq5ser

Después de leer el artículo del twitt llego a la conclusión de que todo lo que se dice sin prueba alguna, cosa que, para hacer afirmaciones categoricas debería ser insuficiente. Enrique Meneses es un reputado periodista, así que me parecío cuanto menos paradójica su contundencia, ya que no duda ni por un momento en la posible veracidad de los hechos. De esta manera y en un intento de respuesta escribí:

A Yoani Sánchez no le han pegado. Es una farsante. Habría que demostrarlo…

Creo que se nota claramente que intento dar la misma versión pero al revés para intentar hacer reaccionar a alguien acerca de lo fácil que es afirmar algo sin prueba alguna. De hecho, para no afirmarlo totalmente puse “Habría que demostrarlo“. Esperaba la misma reacción que en el caso anterior, con lo que no contaba es con que algunos twitteros se lanzasen a atacarme al decir esto, sobretodo teniendo en cuenta que aceptaron el twitt de Enrique Meneses sin el menor atisbo de duda. ¿Qué había dicho yo que no hubiese dicho él? ¿No se supone que la información es neutral? ¿O es que simplemente tenían ganas de deslegitimar al regímen cubano?

Empieza así la cosa:

Lo copio para el escarnio público ==> RT @Reven333 A Yoani Sánchez no le han pegado. Es una farsante. @mmerino

Aparte de que obvia la parte final de mi twitt, lo que acaba con el sentido del mismo, su intención es claramente ofensiva. Tras esto hay un intercambio de “argumentos” que no creo que merezcan la pena resaltar pero que estan en mi timeline y en el suyo. Lo que sí me gustaría que quedase claro es como me acusa de negar la agresión a esta disidente (tampoco la afirmo) sin haber dicho nunca realmente eso (sino que lo demuestre). También el hecho de que después de haberme declarado contrario al regímen cubano se me acusa de paleocomunista por unas cuantas personas y se utiliza la demagogia sin querer razonar, todo después de haberme llamado dogmático por poner en duda algo. Yo creía hasta hace poco que el dogmático era el que no ponía en cuestión nada y actuaba como un autómata, que es la actitud que ellos han tomado desde que empezó el debate, pero al parecer un sociata también tiene el poder de darle nuevos significados a los términos.

Cosas que se han dicho y que creo que merecen una disculpa:

1: CarlosCalvarez intenta explicar con unos artículos el porqué habría que poner en duda (por lo menos) la absoluta verdad acerca del tema:

@mmerino http://tinyurl.com/ybejww7 http://tinyurl.com/ybmzjtg http://tinyurl.com/y8mablb (claro q dirás q no son medios fiables, como EP)

A lo que Netoratón, alguien que es considerado un gran bloggero contesta algo propio de una persona tan crítica y tan abierta como él. Tengamos en cuenta sobretodo la infalible argumentación que utiliza:

@CarlosCAlvarez mas que poco fiables, son basicamente basura dogmatica de la peor especie. LINK

2: Sin venir a cuento entra Rosa Jímenez Cano (periodista de El País para más inri) y me insulta directamente:

@Reven333 creo que eres un maleducado q solo qudas mal tú. Es cuestión de prestigio y crédito no de fama. ¿que has demostrado tú en la vida? LINK

Ahora poner en cuestión algo que se ha dicho sin argumentos ni pruebas también es insultar. Todo por el hecho de que no me sale de las narices de creerme lo que me cuentan si no son capaces de demostrarmelo. ¡Pero oigan! ¡Yo soy el individuo normal que no ha demostrado nada en la vida! ¡Debería usted ser la que dude de periodistas que no contrasten sus informaciones y no den una misera prueba! Qué mal esta el mundo. Tras esto decide desfollowearme, cosa que me molesta ya que es ella quién me insulta:

YO: @petezin Gracias por desfollowearme. A tí no te apetece discutir donde puedes perder y a mí no me interesa escuchar tus chorradas. LINK

Rosa J.C: @Reven333 Se puede discutir con follow o sin follow pero no tengo motivos para seguir a alguien que no conoce el respeto o que juzga LINK

@Reven333 casi por capricho, que denosta, que juega a difamar, a tirar la piedra y a falta al respeto. lo siento pero no me merece la pena LINK

No conozco el respeto porque no tengo una visión opuesta a la suya, porque no me creo lo que su amiguito periodista me diga, no tengo respeto porque creo que lo que se publica hay que demostrarlo, porque creo que es una falta de verguenza que haya periodistas publicando la primera bocanada de información que les llega a su pupitre. ¿Por eso? Sí es así no tengo verguenza. Sino quizás la que no tenga verguenza es ella, mucho mayor que yo, una persona que se supone que es madura y responsable por llamarme maleducado, don nadie, irrespetuoso, difamador, caprichoso y encima que no doy la cara. Luego soy yo quien juzga?

3:Insultos de Netoratón:

Los 4 paleocomunistas de siempre tratan de ensuciar la imagen de @yoanisanchez usando las peores tacticas de la stasi. LINK

4: Otro que insulta:

@Netoraton Que se vayan los paleocomunistas a Cuba, a disfrutar de las bonanzas del régimen y del racionamiento LINK

Además de ser el único que esta a favor de otras dictaduras (recuerden la relación Pinochet-Cía, entre otras):

@Netoraton Y si fuera de la CIA, sería honroso… lo deleznable es ser del PCB LINK

En ningún momento se ataca a Yoani, solo que se pone en cuestión el hecho de que se pueda publicar algo sin pruebas y pase por una verdad absoluta.. ¿Para que leer lo que decimos? ¿Para que mover su argumentación? ¿Para qué tener en cuenta el hecho de que me haya pronunciado contra el castrismo (por su falta de democracia) antes de llamarme paleocomunista? Una verguenza. Creo que merezco una disculpa. Sino es que simplemente son artesanos de la demagogía.

PD: No menos grave es lo que se dice de manera directa e indirecta contra Carlos.

Tirez sur le pianiste (Shoot the Piano Player)(1960) is Auteur Francois Truffaut’s second feature film after his internationally successful and critically acclaimed French New Wave film The 400 Blows (1959). In stark contrast, Shoot was very disliked by the public and thus a box office failure. Also, it is his most experimental—meshing genres like comedy, drama, and film noir together, which display his love for American film with a personal French touch, and exploring new film techniques. Shoot is loosely based on an American book called “Down There” from author David Goodis, which Truffaut became interested with during the filming of his short Les mistons (1957). Charlie Kohler is a mild-mannered piano player at a bar when one night his brother, Chico, lands into some trouble with two gangsters and comes to him at his work for help. Charlie soon gets involved with the criminal underworld and in the process falls in love with the waitress, Lena, who reveals Charlie’s past as Edouard Saroyan, a famous concert pianist.

Who is Charlie Kohler?

Right in the beginning of the film we see Chico running away from a car in the dark streets à la old Hollywood gangster films.  He suddenly trips and knocks himself out with a light post. And then, inexplicably, some stranger slaps him awake and they start having a completely irrelevant conversation about marriage, love, and women in general, as they walk down the sidewalk. Once this chance encounter is ended with the conversation, Chico starts running again as though that conversation had never occurred. This is something that probably throws a lot of viewers off and may find it to be irrelevant to the story. It appears to be fragmented narrative, but I think the dialogue actually becomes somewhat relevant later on in the film as this seemingly gangster film also becomes into a love story. The conversational topic of women amongst men reoccurs many times.

Truffaut really experiments with the use of voiceovers throughout most of the film. As opposed to using voiceover to narrate the film and push the story, in Shoot we hear what the timid Charlie is thinking at a given scene. For example, after Charlie helps his brother escape from the gangsters, we see him play on the piano with a worried look on face and hear the voiceover say, “Wish him good luck”, which he then actually does so. We later begin to develop a sense that there is a dichotomy between what he is actually thinking and what is happening in the narrative. This juxtaposition of the visual and the auditory, is another one of Truffaut’s experiments that may have irked the viewers because of the typical coherence between sound and image that they were accustomed to seeing in films, especially Hollywood ones. Hearing Charlie’s thoughts gives us the opportunity to go inside his head and make the film more subjective, thus emphasizing the disassociation between the character’s mind and the narrative world. In the scene where Charlie walks Lena home, we hear his voiceover contemplating what he should say in order to break the silence and how he should ask her if she wants to go somewhere for a drink. On a side note, Charles Aznavour (a famous singer in real life) who played Charlie didn’t do his own voiceover work because Truffaut felt Charles’ voice was not soft or poetic enough.

"It'll look odd if you don't talk."

I think Truffaut’s strong sentimentality towards tough street children is one of his many reoccurring auteur themes. One can clearly see quite a bit of The 400 Blows in this film with the character of Fido, Charlie’s younger brother who is played by an actor that has also appeared in 400 as the kid in the classroom that doesn’t know how to work with his ink pen. In this film though, we see him exit a convenience store with milk and run inside a building, only to reappear immediately at the top of it. He then drops the milk on a car beneath where the two gangster of the film are in. It’s further reminiscent of 400 when we see him run in the street and get away from the gangsters via the school entrance. Fido was not a character in the novel, but by addition of him in the screenplay is evidence of Truffaut wanting to show his juvenile troublemaker self again.

I really liked Shoot, but I’m not sure why. It’s one of those films that after watching the first time one feels ambivalent about, which isn’t until one puts it into context and actually think about it more. So, I find it to be a difficult film to pinpoint on exactly why I enjoyed it like other French New Wave films, or other European Art Cinema films for that matter. Was it the unconventional characters? The quick mood shifts in one scene from serious to funny? The biggest thing I admire and respect about films like Shoot is its desire to explore cinema’s potential and saying, “look what I can do with a fraction of your budget” to all the hack, unimaginative filmmakers.

After watching Week-End (Godard 1968) for our screening this week, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to see another Godard film. As an RTF Major, I’m aware of the necessity to be open to many possibilities and see many different styles to become well educated in the film spectrum, but Week-End to an extend was too much for me. The extensive use of narrative ambiguity; it seemed that the plot was going nowhere. Then the drastic political message incorporated in the film along with some of the actions the characters committed made me feel a little uncomfortable. However, I understand that the purpose of this film was to stir the viewer’s attention. It got very annoying at times.

Although both films are part of European Art Cinema, French New Wave to be precise, they are very different. Breathless (Godard 1960) is a more enjoyable film to watch. The story revolves around Michel who has just killed a police officer and then runs away. He turns to Patricia and asks her if she wants to go to Italy with him. Patricia, unconscious of Michel’s situation, accepts and then they hide in a hotel room while Michel is trying to find money for his escape. At the end, Patricia realizes Michel is being “wanted” by the authorities and decides to betray him and calls the police. Michel is killed while Patricia observes his death.

The romance blended with the adrenaline would camouflage this film as a CHC, but the style and techniques sets it apart. The film has a strong sense of documentary style to it. The scene at the beginning of the movie where he has just stolen a car and is driving on the road is heavily influenced on Michel’s psychology. Here, we are quickly introduced to this guy who is kind of “eccentric”. He addresses the camera and “talks to us” about random stuff. The viewer feels as if he or she is right there in the car with him, playing with the fictional and real world. Another scene that it is very “documentary-esque” is Patricia’s interview. This scene did not complement a lot of information to the narrative but it sure gives the feeling that the viewer was watching something else. It was interesting listening to this person answering the questions.

Another important aspect of this film is the editing and the jump-cuts. I was reading the trivia section for this movie in imdb (yes, I do that after every movie I watch) and the discontinuity present in it was probably an “accident.” Godard had to edit the movie since it was too long for distribution, but instead of getting rid of scenes; he just removed little parts from the movie. That is why sometimes the camera angle suddenly changes or we see one thing then we switch to another.

One of the most predominant examples of Jump-cut is the convertible scene with Patricia. While driving around the city, the camera is only focused on her but the angle and the background suddenly change from time to time. This gives a sense of discontinuity and even though it is supposed to be one time and space, it seems as if it is very different places not following a time-lapse.

Also part of the editing, sometimes there was no flow of narration. For example, one shot he was inside a room, and then suddenly he was already in a restaurant. In CHC, we would probably see Michel going to the room, getting ready, actually exiting the room, just going outside and then entering the restaurant to create a sense of space and time. Having just one shot to another construct an elliptical narration very distinctive of European Art Cinema, the viewer is supposed to build conclusions.

What other European Art Cinema troupes are visible in this film?-The use of long takes as in the scene where Michel encounters Patricia selling the newspaper on the streets. The camera follows them from the back while they are walking but then suddenly they turn around and now the camera is following them from the front, getting closer as they walk, all in one shot. It is also very particular how their relationship is being set with just this one shot. Also, it is very noticeable that the film was filmed “on the fly” as in the scene where Michel and Patricia are walking and discussing about how she has to go meet someone. People around are staring at them and at the camera too, it just show how it did not employ very high production values.

The scene in the bedroom was fantastic. Although it might seem that this scene does not provide anything to the plot, it actually connects Michel and Patricia’s relation to an extreme. We see them interact in an intimate space and see how they love each other. The use of jump-cuts and elliptical narration beautifully establishes the emotions and thoughts they have. They go through many different “phases” in just this scene than by the end of it, we feel that we know them a lot.

The ending was a little bit confusing for me. I was not sure if Michel reproaches Patricia for betraying him or he has just resigned to die. Either way, the final shot of Patricia looking at the camera is absolutely fantastic. It transmits a sense of despair that finishes the movie on a great note.

I think that the main reason Breathless is more pleasing than Week-End is that the latter belongs to “Political Modernism” while the former is just “Modernism” through the use of form and stylistic techniques. Week-End is full of “subliminal” messages about government and criticizes a capitalist society. On the contrary, if Breathless is trying to portray a message, it is not so abruptly presented. It gives the viewer the opportunity to “fall in love” with the story and the structure.

   Quan un professor programa a principi de curs les activitats extraescolars (extra- en el sentit que impliquen una sortida física de l’edifici-escola, tot i que estan, o haurien d’estar, plenament connectades amb el que es fa entre aquelles quatre parets), es troba avui en dia amb una gran varietat de propostes. Afortunadament, hi ha moltes d’institucions públiques i privades que en l’actualitat organitzen un munt –“un munter” dirien les meves filles– d’activitats didàctiques ben aprofitables per a afavorir l’aprenentatge de l’alumnat i per a acostar l’escola a la realitat social que viuen quotidianament.

   Els nostres infants i joves assisteixen així a interessants sortides en el medi natural, tallers sobre arqueologia o artesania medieval, actuacions musicals i teatrals, visites guiades a l’aeroport o a fàbriques i altres empreses… A més de les activitats que promou la pròpia Conselleria d’Educació, el Consell de Mallorca, o l’Ajuntament de Palma –com molts d’altres ajuntaments illencs– és destacable la tasca realitzada per fundacions privades i per l’Obra Social d’institucions com la Caixa de Pollença ‘Colonya’, la Caixa de Balears ‘Sa Nostra’, o La Caixa. No sé si és per un excés d’oferta, però de vegades tenc la impressió que certes activitats són poc aprofitades pels educadors i les escoles.

   Quan el mes de setembre em vaig assabentar que el fotoperiodista GERVASIO SÁNCHEZ (Córdoba, 1959) venia a fer una xerrada al Caixafòrum de Palma, dins el marc de les seves activitats educatives, vaig reservar correntsos la participació del nostre grup del Batxillerat de Ciències Socials perquè no volia que s’ho perdessin. La veritat és que quan dijous passat, el 29 d’octubre, arribàrem al Gran Hotel, la sala no era plena del tot: tan sols hi érem noltros i un grup (de 4t d’ESO) d’un institut. Llàstima.

   Llàstima, perquè va valer la pena. I molt. Llicenciat en Periodisme per l’Autònoma de Barcelona, Sánchez ha cobert els principals conflictes armats del món, tant la guerra del Golf como els de l’antiga Iugoslàvia, Àfrica, Àsia i Hispanoamèrica. Ha fet feina per a l’Heraldo de Aragón, la BBC, i el Magazine de La Vanguardia i altres mitjans. Amb motiu del 50è aniversari de la Declaració Universal dels Drets Humans (1998), l’Organització de les Nacions Unides per a l’Educació, la Ciència i la Cultura (UNESCO) el nomenà Enviat Especial de la UNESCO per la Pau.

   Té una llarga llista de guardons, com el Premi Internacional de Periodisme Rey de España – Fotografia (2009), el Premi Ortega y Gasset d’EL PAÍS (2008) per la sèrie Vidas minadas, el Premi LiberPress (2005) en reconeixement a la seva tasca “en favor de la libertad de prensa y la denuncia de las injusticias“, i el Premi Cirilo Rodríguez (1996), el més prestigiós a Espanya per a periodistes que treballen a l’estranger com enviats especials o corresponsals permanents.

   Érem pocs, …i la conversa va ser molt profitosa. Quan ens presentaren, el primer que em va dir va ser: “¿De cuánto tiempo disponemos: dos, tres horas…? ¿Tenéis prisa?”. Començà a les 11:00 dematí i eren les 13:30 quan acabàvem, després de les preguntes que feren alguns dels nostres alumnes. Gervasio contà la seva experiència com a fotoperiodista (captant l’atenció dels estudiants de Cultura Audiovisual) però sobretot donà una lliçó de com es pot ser un gran professional, premiat múltiplement, sense trair les seves il·lusions com a lluitador en favor dels més dèbils i com a activista contra les mines antipersones. En aquesta descripció de la seva feina, va anar intercalant tota una sèrie de fotografies –algunes d’una cruesa molt dura, però ben reals, sense photoshop que valgui– que il·lustraren la narració d’anècdotes i de l’explicació del projecte Vidas Minadas, que ha duit a terme en col·laboració amb OnGs com Intermón Oxfam, Manos Unidas, i Médicos sin fronteras. Aquí en podeu veure algunes imatges.

   Per ventura vos sona el seu nom perquè quan el 7 de maig del 2008 rebé el Premi Ortega y Gasset, davant la plana major del grup PRISA, la vicepresidenta del govern, ministres del PSOE, Gallardón i Aguirre, i exministres del PP, armà un gran rebombori amb un petit però contundent discurs sobre la venda d’armes espanyoles en el món, que ha circulat, i ben molt, per internet. Aquí el teniu, amb algunes fotografies.

Ara llegesc en premsa que Gervasio Sánchez ha estat premiat amb el Premi Nacional de Fotografia, atorgat pel Ministeri de Cultura ahir per primer cop a un fotoperiodista. Des d’aquí li enviï la nostra enhorabona i, de pas, felicit La Caixa per haver inclòs Sánchez en aquest cicle dedicat a persones ben interessants que poden acostar l’autèntica realitat del món als més joves. No sé…, de qualque manera, crec que sent l’enèssim guardó d’aquest nº 1 com una miqueta més proper: més proper perquè dijous passat l’escoltàrem de primera mà durant més de dues hores. Vaig parlar amb ell uns minuts en acabar el col·loqui i, creis-me, la conversa em reconcilià en certa mesura amb el periodisme que es fa actualment (si més no, amb una petita però valuosíssima part d’ell). Com en Gervasio, jo també vull creure que Martin Luther King tenia raó quan negava que el Banc de la Justícia hagués fet fallida. No ens ho podem permetre. Mai.

When I think of Judy Garland the first thing that comes into my mind is The Wizard of Oz (Fleming 1939). Garland’s innocent and sweet persona constructed through the character of “Dorothy Gale” is difficult to forget. From what I have researched so far, she fought very hard to “grow up” since the public held her back and perceived her as “an infant”.  Once she was able to “become an adult”, I will consider how the roles she chose and her life in general gave the audience a specific view of who she was. She mainly starred in Musicals and her life was surrounded by music. I would analyze how this “musical image” gave the impression that life was supposed to be enjoyable. Although Garland’s career expands about 4 decades, I will focus precisely on her “M-G-M Era” starting in 1938 with her breakout role in The Wizard of Oz (maybe covering some of her previous little works) to 1950, the end of her contract with M-G-M.  I will analyze how she was able to stand out from the rest even though she was seen as “the ugly duckling”and how this perception turned into a crisis that affected her personal life.

Consequently, I will based base part of my research on The Golden Girls of MGM, a book of biographies of different stars compiled by Jane Ellen Wayne; Judy’s Jobs, an article from Hollywood Magazine published in January 1942 by Edward Martin. I also plan to watch the movies Meet Me In St. Louis (Minnelli 1944) and obviously The Wizard of Oz (Fleming 1939). Possibly, I would also like to watch The Pirate (Minnelli 1944) since she suffered a “nervous breakdown” halfway through the movie and I would like to see how it affected her acting.

Judy Garland as "Dorothy Gale" She was only 16 years old back then.

For my paper I will research a Hollywood legend by the name of Gary Cooper. First off, I have never seen a film with Gary Cooper, but my interest in him sparked when I saw a promo in TCM about his film roles and personality off screen (he would take immediate naps in between shooting scenes.) As I watched the film clips in the promo, Cooper struck me as a ‘40s equivalent of a ’60-‘70s of Clint Eastwood—cool, soft-spoken, rugged, and an overall man’s man.  After, some quick research I began to like him even more for I realized he wasn’t just a Hollywood actor but also an American icon of masculinity. His roles ranged from playing heroes in westerns to playing the common American man, which may be accounted for his great appeal on average American audiences. I will mainly focus on the peak of Cooper’s career, which began in the late ‘30s and ended with the decline of Hollywood’s Golden Age (late ‘40s). Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (Capra 1936) and Sergeant York (Hawks 1941) are two films that display the range of lead characters Cooper could play, so I will definitely watch them for my research. Two sources that I plan on consulting are “The Last Hero: A Biography of Gary Cooper” by Larry Swindell and “Putting on the Ritz: masculinity and the young Gary Cooper” by Jeffery A. Brown.

8/6/09 … Repubblicani "assistenza sanitaria" "assicurazione sanitaria" CPR "Rick Scott"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7o1pphlLnY&hl=en

See Also : Faucet Filter Faucet Filter boris-halolas healthy i diet Douglas says

Kompilacja walk legendarnych latynoskich pięściarzy.

Promocja w sklepie Pretorian – sprawdź teraz!

Ed D. Wood’s Plan 9 From Outer Space is the antithesis of a good film. Yet many of us are fascinated by it. We call it ‘the worst movie ever’ yet we say we love it. Is it simply its cheesy dialogue and cheap production values that draws us toward it? Or is it the preconceived notion that Plan 9 From Outer Space doesn’t take itself seriously that gives us the gratification we receive when we enjoy film after it meets our set of expectations? I think that’s why I enjoyed the film. I had a sense of what it would be like after watching A Bucket of Blood (the first B movie from the fifties I have ever watched) last week at our screening. I expected all the typical tropes of a B movie, i.e., recycled plots, forced acting, not-so-special effects, and overall cheapness. And it completely delivers in all its glorious B-ness. In its own right, I would consider it a masterpiece.

After reading Ed Wood’s name come up many times in movie message boards and looking up many of his films, I never actually bothered to go rent and watch any of his world famous B classics. So, Plan 9 From Outer Space was my first Ed Wood experience, and it was definitely a positive one. What just really pleases me is the overall cheap aesthetic quality displayed in all aspects of the film. From start to finish, Wood seems to have managed to, in one way or another, give Plan 9 its famous quality. And without the consistency of its cheapness, the film would’ve lost its aesthetic pleasure. In the final narrative scene where everybody is standing looking up at the burning flying saucer, Paula’s mouth moves unsynchronized to a clearly post-production dub. Of course by the end of the film I became so accustomed to seeing such B-ness that I was just waiting for some sort of film error. So by having that noticeable sound error in that scene, it gave me this feeling of the film coming full circle.