We tell Black people to move on from slavery(and you know it), so...........
Not that in any way am I suggesting that I EVER agreed with slavery, discrimination of any peoples, or any Holocaust. I'm not saying, but, I'm just saying...just wondering
Similar scenario ~ another case where 3 teenage boys were charged with killing the sister, Stephanie Crowe, of their friend. The brother, Michael Crowe, of the victim thought he'd get to see his mom and dad if he confessed. I think this was broadcast on "48 Hours." When the teenagers were exonerated, ....years later, Michael's parents sued Escondido Police, county prosecutors and others involved in the case and won! Posting link for viewers who don't believe that an individual won't say they did it, if they didn't do it. See link below:
So many people have suffered and it's heartbreaking to know the violence that was committed on those three 8 yr old boys that led to their death. I believe like others that whoever did it, had planned it very well in advance based on so little evidence at Robin Hood Hills. And, I believe Jesse, Jason, and Damien were railroaded.
Bradley Manning's supporters are furious with this film. They say the arguments Alex Gibney makes in it are exactly the same as the US government prosecutors in his trial.
People who have followed the Swedish case in detail are pretty peeved too. There really is no excuse for a documentary maker to interview a woman making allegations of sexual assault, juxtapose that interview with a photograph from the police forensic evidence file of the torn, "used" condom she handed to police, and then NOT tell his viewers that the forensic lab ALSO found that the condom in question didn't have any DNA on it - not even hers. Clearly, she's handed in fake evidence and, clearly, that must have been obvious to Alex Gibney when he read the police file during his research. Reputable filmmakers don't do that.
Conclusion: Not a credible documentary. A biased hit job.
After viewing the next-to-last film (Paradise Lost - Purgatory)...there is something so glaring, something so inherently wrong with the justice system that I am surprised no one has called the Arkansas Supreme Court to task on it.
The prosecutor, now having to deal with professionals far beyond his league, stood there...in front of the Supreme Court...and stuttered and gave "I don't smoke" answers to the judges. He looked like an utter fool and much reminded me of those money men giving testimony after the 2008 financial collapse. Stuttering and tripping over their tongues when asked intelligent questions by people who knew what to ask.
The judges, this time, knew there was money behind the three, and started, for the first time...to actually listen to common sense. What is wrong with this picture? That prosecutor wanted only incriminating evidence to be allowed! What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Evidently, every other time that an appeal came up, the Supreme Court listened not only to that prosecutor but to the judge who heard the case the first time. And that judge is now a SENATOR? Excuse me?!?!
Both Damien Echols and Jason Baldwin gave such moving interviews, eloquent in their simplicity and directness. They did not so much bemoan their own fate and suffering, but had the true prize never out of their minds. Finding who did this heinous thing and doing it for the poor babies that were so horribly killed, and their loved ones. Hardly sounds like the demons the prosecutors painted them to be. The prosecutor and the state are only interested in covering their collective asses, not in justice.
I applaud those with the ability and means to fight for these six people. I say six because the dead babies and the 'convicted killers' were equally victims. And if angels really do happen, I'm sure those three babies and fighting hard to see that justice is finally done.
The prosecutorial system has to change. The prosecutors have to be held accountable with no "Alford" escape route.
What I dont understand is why the courts did not look at Hobbs he was see with them babys its not fair those boys might as well lost there lifes too well most of it there is not justice for them babys and probably never will
This is so fucked up the state fucked over three young men and the killer is walking around free they need to have they live turned up side down and 18yeas taken from them and let see how they like it it took them no time to send these kids to jail because of the way they looked and the music they liked so What the fuck is the hold up on the real motherfucker that took these sweet kids life so young this is bull shit the justice system sucks and they know it
Linda B., you may find more of what you're looking for in our interview with Greta Gerwig: http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/greta-gerwig-on-the-end-of-youth-and-frances-ha/Content?oid=3649205
Good review of "Frances Ha," especially the comparison of this film's New York 20-something scene with Woody Allen's earlier ones.
I would have like more about Frances' psychological journey. That is, in the beginning she seems just slightly off-center. Then, as she navigates among these creatively-cursing New Yorkers, she moves farther away from the center. To wit, she's just a little quirky when she cleans her room by taking all the dirty clothes from her bed and putting them on the window sill. She is in need of help when she tries to impress friends by booking a weekend trip to Paris, where she spends half the time sleeping and the other half wandering aimlessly. You should give up on her, but you don't.
I have watched all three Paradise Lost. Those boys are clean and should NEVER HAD TO PLEAD GUILTY!! WHY IS TERRY HOBBS NOT ON TRIAL? His interview on the third looks like he is guilty. They even have DNA TO PROVE IT AND NEIGHBORS WHOM SAW HIM WITH THE YOUNG BOUS WHOM LOST THEIR LIVES!! That state is very judgmental when it comes to how a person looks, acts, music etc.... So should EVERYONE BE ON TRIAL FOR LISTENING TO METALLICA, WEARS BLACK AND LONG HAIR??? I wear black, love Metallica, and grew up with boys with long hair. We NEVER MURDERED ANYONE!!!! SHAME ON THAT STATE. THEIR NAMES SHOULD BE CLEARED. NOT HAVE TO PLEAD GUILTY FOR SOMETHING THEY DID NOT DO!!! WHERE IS THE REAL KILLER??? WHY WON'T THEY CHECK OUT TERRY HOBBS? OFFER HIM A LIE DETECTOR TEST. SEE WHAT HE SAYS THEN!!!! There was NO JUSTICE for the three Memphis boys. TERRIBLE. THEN TERRY HOBBS CAUGHT LIEING, BEAT HIS WIFE, WAS SEEN WITH HIS STEP SON, LOOKED EXTREMELY GUILTY DURING HIS INTERVIEW ON THE THIRD MOVIE. I FEEL FOR THOSE MEMPHIS THREE. SHAME ON YOUR SYSTEM FOR NOT FOLLOWING UP ON TERRY HOBBS!!!
Jean-Luc Godard’s “Contempt/Le mepris” (1963) is the first part of his religious trilogy, followed by “Hail, Mary” (1985) and “Woe Is Me” (1993). While “Contempt” examines the psychological mechanism of relations between humans and gods of pagan “design” – the human humans (the people with psychology of god-worshippers) and the human gods (people with psychology of unconscious identification with gods), “Hail, Mary” analyzes the psychological roots of the Christian cult of Saint Mary, and “Woe is Me” – the return of pagan gods into post-Christian modernity in a form of technological constructions, tools and toys dominating people’s life in Western democracies.
In his analysis of religious psychology Godard separates people from religious (in a narrow sense) practices and metaphorizes these practices on personal and social relations between people in order to make their religious essence more articulate and vivid for the perception of the viewers. Religious psychology is not necessary creates loyalty to despotic dogmas (many atheists are very religious by psychology). In “Contempt” Godard shows how religious feelings show itself in private relations between Paul (Michel Piccoli), a modest writer of detective stories but educated and with an exceptional existentially spiritual taste person, and his wife Camille (Brigitte Bardot), a monumental beauty, and in social relations between Paul (identifying with Homer and Odyssey) and the mighty Hollywood producer Jeremiah Prokosch (the new incarnation of Poseidon/Neptune), played by Jack Polance in the only intellectually serious performance of his whole career. The both “gods” – Camille and Prokosch, are depicted with tender and subtle caricaturishness, while Paul’s destiny Godard generalizes as that of us all, the humanity. Godard deconstructs the relations between humans and gods as known in history - as metaphoric constructions of markedly sociomorphic relations between human beings as such (personified by Paul) and the human gods (personified by Camille and Prokosch). On the level of the plot the film describes the disagreements between Paul (the author of screenplay), Fritz Lang (the director) who plays himself, and Prokosch (the producer) – all trying together to make a film based on Homer’s Odyssey. But Godard’s scholarly intentions in the film are not limited to symbolizing a certain type of relations between human beings into relations between humans and gods. The second important scientific contribution of Godard in “Contempt” is his classification of the types of bonds human beings are prone to establish between themselves and our historical past, and themselves and any work of art they perceive and react on. Here Prokosch personifies the type of perception of the past which is based on our projection into the historical past of our self-aggrandizement (our megalomaniacal need). For him Ancient Greece is a kind of Olympus in comparison with today’s life. This is, essentially, a conservative position based on authoritarian/totalitarian behavioral habits including the proneness for religious or secular cult of ancestors. The second position is represented by Lang who tends to “objectively” study the human past without the need for any identification with it. This position is that of liberal scholars – it’s the accumulation of a kind of an archival knowledge about the past without any worshipful or critical emotions. The third position is represented by Paul who sees in people of the previous epochs our existential brothers. He learns from the past and from the art and understood that people who lived before us made their own attempts to resolve their problems with gods as idealized models (theologized, from Olympus, or living on the Olympus of the tops of the social hierarchy), as we today trying to with the human gods of our times. Existential identification with our ancient ancestors is simultaneously brotherly and critical. The same three positions – projection of self-aggrandizement (or its negative reflection – the dismissal: “I love-I hate” approach), “objective” position of “neutral/truthful” representation, and existential identification Godard discerns in our relations with works of art.
“Contempt” occupies not only a unique place in history of cinema and Western culture in general, but a distinguished place of an exemplary work of art.
Please, visit: www.actingoutpolitics.com to read an essay about the film (with analysis of stills from it) – “Psychology of Human Obsession with Super-human (Human Need for Association with Gods as a Result of Problems in Relations between People)”.
While the past cannot be changed, its hard to believe this issue has not yet been addressed. It is unfortunate that film is still being handled as a second class art form at NCMA, particularly since these film series have become more and more popular over the years. Not only is a cultural service being handicapped to current and future patrons, but an opportunity for increased revenue to the museum is being missed. With proper facilities, NCMA could become the premiere venue for classic film in North Carolina. Lets hope improvement and expansion plans will be in the works soon.
While it is true that digital projection is becoming the mainstay of multiplexes, there is good reason not to turn our backs on reel-to-reel presentation in the indoor auditorium. Doing so would effectively eliminate access to archival film libraries, which stipulate their films be presented using this "obsolete" technology. As long as there is demand for screening classic and archival prints, there will be a need for reel-to-reel presentation.
Kevin Porter, NCMA Projectionist
It’s important to understand that hypnosis is NOT a tool for retrieving lost memories – period. “Memories” that surface during hypnosis are notoriously unreliable. With a little guidance from the hypnotist, the subject may “remember” things that never happened – from past lives to alien abductions. In reality, clinical hypnosis is a powerful tool that can help with a wide variety of emotional, cognitive, and even physical issues. It is essential that the person doing the hypnosis be a professional clinician who has solid credentials, such as membership in one of the major clinical hypnosis associations. See http://ronaldgbegley.com for more info.
Thanks, you're right. I kept notes watching this but it's hard to keep track, especially when I occasionally can't read my own hand writing. I wish I were kidding.
Nice review, but Nick was not one of the privileged kids. He was "Nick the farm boy." He went to a one-room school house, not a private school, although he did end up at Oxford. He's also the only one who moved to the U.S. and the only one who earned a Ph.D.
I am a big fan of Tarantino........having said that, the review of Django is excellent.
I had the exact same reaction to the film.
Despite some wonderful acting and scenes, it was disappointing.
Giving back to the community indeed Ms. Karen Brown...More like scavenging on what's left of it..
Art houses and book stores and record shops ... you will be missed.
Ugh. Another damn review lauding the film for being "unflinching."
The problem with Zero Dark Thirty isn't that it's "amoral," as Morris claims. It's that it claims the mantle of journalistic integrity, then mucks with the very critical fact that torture, according to every public report we have available, demonstratively DID NOT produce any information which lead to the killing of bin Laden. Changing that critical fact, to my mind, obviates any grittiness or "realism" that Bigelow and Boal achieved.
Bigelow fully earned her Oscar snub. You can't claim the mantle of a journalistic eye and then change facts. And if the allegations prove true that this was changed as a sop to the CIA's PR department in exchange for access, she deserves not an Oscar, but a Congressional subpoena.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation