Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
This is a well-written story.
When you say "fledgling holy man," you mean, man with fledgling holes that he fills with male members. Right? Any other meaning would be an insult to our intelligence.
But Daniel Domscheit-Berg left Wikileaks on 7 February 2010. He simply wasn't around for any of the massive releases Wikileaks made in 2010. Neither was DDB's wife Anke, who has never met or talked with Assange. DDB made up nearly everything he said in his book, to make lots of money and out of revenge for Wikileaks not seeing him as nearly as important as Domscheit-Berg thought he was.
Here, proof that in December 2009 Wikileaks was already having problems with the guy who acted as their spokesman in Germany (DDB) misrepresenting himself in the press:
This is probably as close a glimpse as most of us are likely to get of Burning Man's inner circle...and what makes the organization tick. Also, provides a really nice historical overview of how the event came about, has evolved and where it's heading from here...
For this viewer, SPARK! is a stunning achievement and major documentary feature. The film offers one eerie, surreal image after another; multiple camera crews on the ground and in the air capture the gathering by night and day -- bacchanalian revelry, colorful people in elaborate costumes, incredibly designed 100' high buildings, fantasy cars, giant statues and more.
No spectators are allowed at Burning Man, only participants. No cash is permitted; participants earn their keep by what they bring, and by the art they contribute. In 2012, 60,000 people attended the week-long event in the Nevada desert; it happens at the end of August every year.
There are plenty of laughs in SPARK as well. The film follows two ordinary people, young artists who became extraordinary when they took the step of committing themselves to contributing major art pieces to the festival.
The documentary includes footage of the first Burning Man on a San Francisco beach in the 1980's, and shows a Board meeting in crisis mode in 2012. We witness the groundbreaking and construction of the 2012 event on the 'Playa', before moving on to the incredible coverage and stories at Burning Man.
The sheer logistics of coordinating the filming of such a large gathering, and later editing hundreds of hours of footage into a cohesive feature documentary, is an achievement by itself.
SPARK is a truly stunning documentary film -- superb camera work and sound, excellent editing, and two stories about ordinary people who became major contributors to the Burn. Highly recommended.
It's notable that SPARK was made available for home viewing the day after it was released theatrically. This viewer downloaded it on Video on Demand, and after a bit of research, I learned it's also on VOD most cable and satellite networks, and that it can also be watched through iTunes, Roku, Amazon, and Apple TV and other digital outlets. The movie's official website www.SparkPictures.com .
I found "Jobs" compelling and satisfying. It's a good movie for young people who find school boring and lacking in challenge. It shows how sticking to your own vision makes great things possible, and that might be outside the academic box. I'm glad it covers just the part of Steve's life that it does. The film has integrity, in that it shows both the dark and light sides of the protagonist. Jobs was no humanitarian, but I think people who use their Ipads and Iphones everyday should go easy in expressing such condescension.
"Let's not stop here very long."
It seems you didn't as half of your piece is a wildly inaccurate synopsis of the first 30 mins of the movie.
Your whole review smells of bored fast-forwarding without even the effort of grasping the details of the plot, let alone the eventual artistic nuances.
Like a lost tourist passing through a country he refused to blend in from the very moment he crossed the border.
I'm not arguing about how good or bad the movie actually is - just stating that reviews like this are unprofessional and a disservice to the readership.
Crystal Fairy opens tomorrow, Friday, July 19, at the Landmark Cinemas in Berkeley.
So where would one find this film in the Bay Area?
This review does a gross disservice to a great film!
Before seeing the film -- after reading the review -- I emailed a set of friends as follows:
"Without question, Mehserle was an asshole, if not a monster; he obviously had no viable reason to shoot Oscar Grant. Nonetheless, given this review's description of Grant (whether in real life, or as the film portrays him), I take issue with those who view him as a sympathetic character: an edgy guy who gets into fights, did time in San Quentin, and fathered a child he couldn't afford to support, among other endearing attributes.... Grant was obviously a victim of injustice, but he was not a martyr, and he was certainly no paragon or hero. To me, at least, the review inadvertently makes the point that whatever it means to be "underclass," it certainly doesn't mean being a good or decent person. Unlike (ostensibly) Mehserele, I've known numerous African-Americans (to whom, as an overall grouping, this review does a gross disservice); the ones who are like Oscar Grant (at least as he's described) aren't the sort of people that I'm inclined to like, let alone admire."
Then I saw the film -- a full house for 10:30 pm show at the Grand Lake, about 60% black and 40% white, with a sizable proportion of Latinos among the latter.
All of my above objections prove to be irrelevant to the film, which doesn't ask us to like Grant (let alone see him as some sort of iconic figure or representative of an "underclass), after all -- but which is a sure-fire tear-jerker that doesn't allow one to leave the theater without feeling deep compassion.
I have two problems with the review.'
One of my problem is that the review misses two crucial items. The first of these is that the best-performed character -- a real sleeper, arguably even better than Grant himself -- is his mother, who plays an incredible (and incredibly tough and tricky) supporting role in terms of understanding the African-American family. Secondly, there's a real villain in the film, and it isn't Mehserle! I'll avoid risking a spoiler, and merely note that this involves the fact that one needn't be black to belong to an "underclass," as the film makes abundantly clear.
My other problem is clear and simple, andt (ironically enough) it derives from this last point.
Whether from a sleazy underclass, or from do-goody preachers like the reviewer, I'm sick of hearing from white people who have a stake in believing that "race matters."
The reviewer's own "construction of everyday social reality" evidently demands that he view the film as "essentially a crime story about racial misunderstanding." Such a construction sells the film pitifully short; the story is far more human than that.
"Mistakes are always made in battle." - The police are not supposed to be at war with it's citizens you dumb ass!!! Black people are entitled to the BART Police's protection just as much as any of their lighter-skinned neighbors. He was in a fight. "I can't imagine a single person who would not want the police to wade into this situation and settle it." Excuse me officer, WILL YOU PLEASE GET THAT NIGGA FACE DOWN ON THE PLATFORM AND BLOW HIS FUCKING BRAINS OUT?!? Is that what people are seriously thinking? David Cohen, whoever you are, your ignorance scares the shit out of me. And yeah, I live in Fruitvale, bitch.
If “Fruitvale Station” is a defense for Oscar Grant, and if this movie review is a defense of the movie, then both defenses fail utterly. If you’re going to humanize Oscar Grant, that’s fine. But Coogler’s commentary on Johannes Mehserle completely undermines his moral persuasiveness in humanizing Grant.
Although desperately sought I’m sure, not any single anecdote about Mehserle ever emerged that showed him to be anything less than human, even though was “from Germany” and “lived in Sonoma”. He also was a young man, finding his way. Much of the take home from the trial was that BART training in the use of a Taser, and in handling both a Taser and a gun, was grossly inadequate. There was not a single iota of evidence supporting the contention that Mehserle’s actions were murderous. Nothing contradicted his version in which discharging of his weapon was accidental, and that he had intended to pull the Taser instead. These are the reasons that the jury acquitted him.
As for young toughs of any color “skylarking” on BART and then (surprise!) fighting, this is an assault on the public that cannot be tolerated. I cannot imagine a single person who would not want the police to wade into this situation and settle it. Mistakes are always made in battle. These consequences of the battle remain attached to those who created the situation.
This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.
Clearly a review by a guy who has an axe to grind with DDL or PTA or both. This reviewer looks foolish in retrospect as this movie is clearly heralded by movie buffs as a classic, and this, DDL's 2nd (of 3) Oscar performances, is generally held as his greatest. TWBB is unquestionably a masterpiece - and this reviewers central gripe that he didn't like DDl's accent is so trivial and alone as to seem pathetic.
What about a movie that actually tells a story about the roots of and the WHY there are Somali pirates. Maybe a love story between a Somali Pirate and a Somali woman ie: Somali Pirates of the Arabian Sea.
hey arbed, there are 2 condoms but only one picture. one condom has DNA the other doesn't.
"The same forensic teams found DNA thought to belong to the WikiLeaks boss on another condom, which was submitted by the second alleged victim."
and moreover, the film does not attempt to litigate the entire case. it simply makes the point that the sweden allegations are a matter to be decided in a court of law in swedem not in the court of public opinion and DEFINATELY not in the court of psychotic Assange supporters which you appear to be becuase you are trolling every review of this film with the same boring post about the DNA.
i doubt you even saw the film, you just read the "transcript" (which by the way ommitted every single on of bradley manning's words which are displayed as text on screen and not spoken- Assange has basically written manning out of the story, which is very telling and very pathetic).
Why do journalists continue to call Assange "enigmatic?" In every interview I've seen where he is not under attack, he is plainspoken and upfront.
Here's a recent example. (Questions in Spanish, but you don't need Spanish to understand his answers.)
Great Aunt Sophie has returned from Provence, where she has been working on “We Suck Sealtits: The Story Of GibneySqueaks.” She would not reveal how much Disney Movies paid her for the rights to her biography of Alex Gibney.
“Did you interview him?”
“I took him to McDonalds, bought him two Double Quarter Pounders with cheese, bacon, mayonnaise, ketchup, and mustard, and a chocolate chip mocha frappe. He talked for six hours about Julian Assange spreading his seed. And he wanted to be paid.”
“He said the going rate for an interview was twenty-five dollars. I refused, of course. But I’ve interviewed his mother-in-law, three of his ex-wives, his seventeen-year-old daughter, his lawyer, his psychiatrist, his hairdresser, his dog-sitter, a US Navy SEAL, and the Pope.”
“Gibney has a hairdresser?
“Had. I don’t want to spoil it for you.”
“What’s the deal with the SEAL?”
“He plays Battle Hymn of the Republic on a set of diatonic bicycle horns.”
“How’d you get him to do it?”
“Two hundred and fifty million herring.”
Wikileaks has leaked a full annotated transcript of the film, with links to documentary evidence rebutting many of the claims made in the film. I think in fairness to your readers you should maybe update your article to include it at the bottom, to at least alert your readers that a lot of things in Alex Gibney's film are inaccurate.
As an example, here's one Wikileaks note that deals with how the Swedish allegations are treated and why Alex Gibney chooses to show a photo of a condom that Assange is accused of "deliberately tearing" from the police forensics file without telling his audience that forensics found no trace of anyone's DNA on it:
That's either extremely poor research by a film-maker, or biased smear.
Please help support freedom of the press and freedom of information by sponsoring Julian Assange for the Nobel prize for freedom of the press: Google: Avaaz.org "Julian Assange for Nobel prize "Freedom of the Press"" and vote!
PLEASE HELP PROMOTE THIS LINK.If we fail to protect the "Assanges" of the world, we condemn ourselves to tyranny. More than, 500 people, from all over the world, have already voted; be the next to add your voice to freedom of the press!
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation