But why are religious sensitivities so much more likely to provoke demands for censorship than, say, political sensitivities? The answer lies in the nature of faith. If my views are challenged I can, in the end, check them against reality. If you deregulate markets, will they collapse? If you increase carbon dioxide emissions, does the climate become destabilised? If my views are wrong, I can correct them; if they are right, I am soothed.
But when the religious are challenged, there is no evidence for them to consult. By definition, if you have faith, you are choosing to believe in the absence of evidence. Nobody has “faith” that fire hurts, or Australia exists; they know it, based on proof. But it is psychologically painful to be confronted with the fact that your core beliefs are based on thin air, or on the empty shells of revelation or contorted parodies of reason. It’s easier to demand the source of the pesky doubt be silenced.
But a free society cannot be structured to soothe the hardcore faithful. It is based on a deal. You have an absolute right to voice your beliefs – but the price is that I too have a right to respond as I wish. Neither of us can set aside the rules and demand to be protected from offence.
Very often, our reaction to film is affected by when we watch it. The point in time in which we watch a movie may well determine how we react to it. If i had watched United 93 or Man on Wire in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, my opinions of these films may very well be different (both are good films in any case). I watched Waltz in Bashir, a film about the 1982 Lebanese War and it is impossible not to think about Israel’s attacks on the Gaza Strip this year. That alone gives the film a greater sense of pathos that it may not otherwise have had. It a film about a past conflict that remains as topical for us today as it was decades ago. And it presents to us a most disturbing message, and if i may borrow a line from Joe Morgenstern: “Wars are fought, the film tells us, then literally forgotten.”
Waltz in Bashir is presented as an animated film. It is not a cartoon and it is not for kids. It can best be describe as a animated semi-documentary, but that is a label that does the film great disservice. 2008 has been a year where genre films have broken free of the confines of their genre and achieved something almost transcendental, like The Dark Knight for superhero movies and WALL-E for animation. Waltz with Bashir is a stunning accomplishment in both animation and documentary and it utilizes the medium to tell a story in a way that could not have been possible in any other manner. Visually the film is a beautiful pastiche of colors but while the imagery impresses, it is the story that lingers long after you have watched it.
The film is a forceful, mesmerizing and utterly devastating pean on war and memory. In its final scene when it cuts from animation to real stock footage, the full force of its arguments hits you in the gut. It is an argument that we cannot stay passive, that we cannot hide behind the shield of ignorance when atrocities are committed. Waltz With Bashir has already won the Best Foreign Language Film award at the Golden Globes and is in the running for Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars. Made by an Israeli filmmaker, Waltz with Bashir forces us to look into the darker side of humanity and perhaps as Nietzsche suggests, As we peer into the abyss, the abyss also looks into us. Waltz with Bashir is one of the best films of 2008. Don’t miss it.
“One of the most profoundly explosive animated documentaries I have ever seen, and is clearly one of the best pictures of the year.”- New York Observer
“Ari Folman’s “Waltz With Bashir” is an absolute stunner, a feature-length animated documentary, from Israel, in which the force of moving drawings amplifies eerily powerful accounts of war, shaky remembrance and rock-solid repression.”- Wall Street Journal
“”Bashir” is a thinking person’s horror movie, about real horror and horrifying echoes”- Washington Post
Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.
…
About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes.
…
The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.
An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”
Another example of the tragedy of blind faith. Or how faith overrides common sense. This should be treated as a case of child abuse and gross parental negligence and dealt with accordingly. Freedom of religion is no excuse and no defence against acting like an idiot. If you are an adult and you wish to refuse medical treatment for religious reasons, by all means do so. The world will probably be a better place, but do not foist your ignorance on your children who have no choice on who they are born to. Remember, there is no such thing as a Christian child, a Muslim child or a Hindu child but rather children of Christians, Muslims or Hindu parents. And in a somewhat Kafkaesque turn, there is a website in support of the Neumann’s actions and argue that there should be no liability for their actions. The website actually dares to argue that faith healing is no less effective than medicine. For example it tries to argue that:
“So you see, many hundreds of thousands die in the U.S. every year trusting in drugs and doctors and not even 100 die attempting to trust fully in God.”
I mean seriously. There is a malaise in logic and reasoning here. It is not a case of one or two loonies believing that prayer alone can cure diseases, but a significant number of people who believe in this lunacy. I don’t know which is sadder: the fact that a young life was lost because her parents believe that prayer was all they needed, or the fact that large numbers of people believe in this deluded stuff.
So says the global boss of 2K Games, Christoph Hartmann, and at least in the opinion of video game critics, he’s on to something. Using figures from review aggregation site Metacritic.com, almost half of Wii games released since the console launched in 2006 have scored below 65%, compared with about a third of Xbox 360 and PS3 titles. And 65% is a pretty crappy aggregate score, considering that many game review sites rarely score below 50%.
Raise the bar to 85%, and the difference is even more pronounced: 360 owners can play twice as many games rated above 85% as Wii owners, while the PS3 nearly triples Nintendo’s numbers.
and find a strand on white hair. The stress of work is probably getting to me. Concurrent intensives are simply unsustainable. You get burned out by the second week.
No Best Picture or Best Director nomination for The Dark Knight? Seriously? The best film of the year, and you don’t think it deserves at least a tip for Best Picture? And to add insult to injury you give the Best pic slot to The Reader instead? This year’s Oscar will probably be remembered as the one where one of the best films in recent memory gets the big snub.
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
For those who have fallen, The Wrestler is a film for you. You don’t have to be a wrestling fan to love it, and i am certainly no fan of wrestling. But as someone who loves film, I dare say that i love The Wrestler to bits. Its not the best film of the year (that honor goes to The Dark Knight), but the Wrestler is firmly perched at second place. In many ways, it is a comeback, a sort of redemption for both Mickey Rourke and director Darren Aronofsky.
I am a big fan of Darren Aronofsky’s work, and i am probably very biased in favour of him. Nevertheless, his last film, the wildly ambitious effort The Fountain not only took ages to put to screen but it also flopped. Personally i enjoyed the Fountain, but as a die-hard fan, i admit that The Fountain was abit of a disappointment. So when his latest film the Wrestler won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, it bought alot of buzz to this indie flick. Naturally i was psyched and when i finally managed to watch The Wrestler, it brings a certain electric thrill to watch the work of a master. I have said it before and i’ll say it again: I believe that Darren Aronofsky is one of the brightest young directors alive, and in years to come, he will be in the pantheon of great directors of our age. What strikes you, if you have been following Aronofsky’s career, is how little directorial flourish he brings to the film which seems mostly shot in verite style. This is truly the first film that he lets the script and the actor tell the story. Aronofsky is restrained and steps backs to let the strength of the material stand on its own. Not that it is entirely bereft of style. One thing i noticed was how in the early shots, the camera always followed Rourke from the back, but by the end of the film, the camera almost always shoots Rourke from the front: a subtle reflection of the journey Rourke has taken so far. In many ways it is a maturation of his craft and it hints of greater things to come from this director. Aronofsky has yet to make a “bad” film and even when he doesn’t quite succeed (The Fountain), the end result is still a cut above the rest. With the Wrestler, Darren Aronofsky has made his comeback and showed that his is no one trick pony with Requiem For A Dream (his magnum opus). I eagerly look forward to his next cinematic effort, and i sure hope he gets some Oscar love.
But it is for Mickey Rourke that i reserve my greatest praise. In many ways, the life of his character Randy “The Ram” Robinson mirrors his own life. Once, a long time ago, Rourke was a rising Hollywood star in the 80s. But he screwed it up and has since been languishing in obscurity ever since. Rourke has landed the perfect role, one that feels as if it was written for him. The term “once in a lifetime performance” probably sums up Rourke’s performance, who brings with it a powerful physicality and emotional vulnerability. Sticks and stones may break your bones, but it is his isolation that truly wounds the Ram. Mickey truly deserves his Best Actor win at the Golden Globes and i hope that he wins Best Actor come Oscar season.
The film is supported by excellent supporting roles by Marisa Tomei, who looks fantastic and Evan Rachel Wood, another young rising star who has picked some truly excellent starring roles in recent years (she was really good in King of California). The script may follow a fairly predictable trajectory, but this is no Rocky. The excellent cast and tight script elevates this above your standard melodrama and the film proves to be a moving and engaging film experience. It has been a long time coming, but i’m glad to say that Mickey Rourke and Darren Aronofsky are back, and they are at the top of their game. One final note: the theme song by Bruce Springsteen, which has already won best song at the Golden Globes, is one of my favorite songs and its lyrics are beautifully poignant. So, if you can, give the Wrestler a chance. The Wrestler is a film about a wounded soul, and for those of us who have a chip on our shoulders, it resonates and moves in a way film is meant to.
“Rourke works his way into the soul of “The Ram” as if he has known this character his entire life. He probably has.”- Philadelphia Inquirer
“I cared as deeply about Randy the Ram as any movie character I’ve seen this year. I cared about Mickey Rourke, too. The way this role and this film unfold, that almost amounts to the same thing. ” Roger Ebert
SINGAPORE: Singapore’s deputy prime minister said the island state, which is hosting a summit of Asia Pacific leaders this year, may further tighten laws against public protests, according to reports.
Wong Kan Seng, who is also Home Affairs Minister, said the government is reviewing public order laws and may pass legislation to deal more effectively with illegal protests and other acts of civil disobedience
Somewhere, another nail is hammered down the coffin of liberty…
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an example of strict legalistic interpretation overriding common sense. It is a poorly decided case, all the more shocking because a majority of the US Supreme Court upheld it. The facts are these:
“Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and
Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 until her
retirement in 1998. For most of those years, she worked
as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men.
Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of
men performing substantially similar work. Over time,
however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male
area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of
1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area
manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and
her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid
$3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager
received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236.”
Now what seems to be a clear cut case of gender discrimination becomes altogether more complicated because of a statute of limitation because Title VII provides that a charge of discrimination “shall be
filed within [180] days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–5(e)(1). Because Ledbetter did not file her claim on time, her suit failed on this technical ground. The absurdity and manifest injustice of this decision is clear and it is appalling that the majority denied her claim. Justice Ginsberg’s vigorous dissent is noteworthy in just how strongly worded it is:
“The Court’s approbation of
these consequences is totally at odds with the robust
protection against workplace discrimination Congress
intended Title VII to secure… This is not the first time the Court has ordered a
cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the
statute’s broad remedial purpose. … Once again, the ball is in Congress’ court. As in 1991, the
Legislature may act to correct this Court’s parsimonious
reading of Title VII”
And indeed it seems that Obama and the Congress are working to overturn Ledbetter, which is an appalling decision and a step back for workplace equality.
And as always, Stephen Colbert demonstrates with his usual satirical style, how ridiculous this case really is. Hopefully common sense will prevail, and the atrocious decision that is Ledbetter be overturned.
I just can’t enjoy Mike Leigh’s films. I did not enjoy his earlier film Vera Drake, and i was bored by his latest, Happy-Go-Lucky. Despite being critically lauded, I was equal bits bored and annoyed by Leigh’s latest film, Happy-Go-Lucky. Ebert has put this film amongst the best films of the year, but for the hell of me i couldn’t see the charm of this film at all. Sally Hawkins’s performance has been praised as Oscar worthy but i found her character obnoxious and frankly annoying. This is not so much a limitation of Hawkins as an actress, but the role was written such that it is almost impossible not to go over the top and turn into a caricature. Hawkin plays an unnaturally optimistic character, the sort that is so cheery it becomes grating. The misanthropic side of me probably found that portrayal immensely annoying and the film itself plods through at a fairly glacial place. The film could easily be renamed the “Mundane and boring existence of an annoyingly cheery girl”. The only enjoyable scenes were the ones where Hawkins’s character takes driving lessons. All the other scenes are just plain boring.
Dream, or Bi-Mong, is Korean auteur Kim Ki Duk’s latest film. Like all his films, Dream is a love it or hate it film. It is obtuse and carries with it a dreamlike quality. By Kim’s standards, the film has a surprisingly significant amount of dialogue. The story, is about how a man’s dream becomes intertwined with the life of a woman, such that she carries out what he dreams. The film’s logic is labyrinthe and not always logical, while Kim moves with his usual style and flair. To me Dream was similar to his earlier film Time: both alienated me and i did not enjoy them. Still, i can appreciate Kim’s ambitions and his unwillingness to churn out easy, crowdpleasing efforts. Dream is challenging, difficult, obtuse and the classic stereotype of arthouse films. I didn’t like it, but i certainly admired it.
Keira Knightley probably acts in way too many period dramas, but she certainly looks gorgeous in those costume. In fact, the entire film looks gorgeous. If judge solely by how pretty the film looks, the Duchess would score very high indeed. But despite the usually solid performance by Knightley and Ralph Fiennes, the film feels constrained by a largely mundane plot and nothing really interesting happens. There isn’t a compelling plot development or conflict, which makes the film a very blah excercise. Still, the beautiful visuals and solid cast make the Duchess a watchable, albeit unremarkable effort.
Proof that yes, you can make a time traveling film on a shoestring budget and succeed. Unlike the similarly low budget Primer, Timecrimes is actually understandable and fun to watch. The film doesn’t necessarily make alot of the sense but its really a fun and entertaining little film. It gets major brownie points for doing so on such a small budget. Overall, an underrated indie flick that deserves a look.
There is a scene at the end of the film, using real historical footage, of a long candlelight march to commemorate the death of Harvey Milk. It is a scene that is singularly powerful and moving, of a man who dared stand up for his beliefs and pave the way for equality. This is not a spoiler, because it early on it is made clear that Harvey Milk, played to perfection by Sean Penn, is assassinated. The tale of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person elected to public office in the United States is in many ways the story of the rights movement in general. There are the bigots, the Anita Bryants, and then there are those who challenge the status quo, because of the singular belief that all men are created equal. As a film, as a biopic, director Gus Van Sant crafts a solid and moving film that shows Milk in all his idiosyncrasies. Harvey Milk is flawed, common, persistent but not in an exceptionally heroic way. He is in other words just a regular guy, except for his sexuality. Sean Penn disappears into Harvey Milk and his intonation, mannerisms are portrayed with the expert craft of an Oscar winning Actor. Let there be no doubt: Sean Penn will get a Best Actor Nomination for Milk, and he has a fairly good chance of winning.
The reason why this film does not get a higher grade, despite excellent acting, including a strong supporting performance by Josh Brolin is because as a biopic the film does not really scale beyond comparable biopics. When placed next to Ray, Capote, The Aviator, Walk The Line, there is nothing here that elevates it from a good film to a great film. While the film carries a laudable message, i am bound to critique it as a film and in that aspect alone Milk is a good and well crafted film that just falls short of greatness. Still, this is a film i urge you to watch because it is still better than the multitude of films available at the cineplex.
Just a random movie junkie. There is nothing interesting here. Move on. Site Best viewed with Firefox. Nothing works here, no point trying. Some links are broken. Use the calendar to navigate.Comments will be moderated due to spam.
