You have a fine opportunity tonight: Carlos, the extraordinary film about the real-life international terrorist Carlos the Jackal, will begin airing this evening on the Sundance Channel. The movie is scheduled to open in some theaters on Friday. Don’t miss the chance to watch it at home: Think Scarface with radical politics.
Director Olivier Assayas contructs the movie like a thriller while being careful to lay out all the issues behind the explosiveness. Carlos is shown to be an intense supporter of the Palestinian state, an independent operative willing to bring his cold-blooded talents to the cause. Soon known as “Carlos the Jackal,” he moves across Europe and the Middle East, moving weapons and bombs, plotting with various fugitive groups, encouraging pacifist leftists to go hardcore, and leaving rivers of blood in his wake.
The movie’s centerpiece is the 1974 raid on a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Vienna. Carlos and an assembled gang take foreign oil ministers hostage and demand a multi-million-dollar ransom. The scene is breathtakingly tense.
Like all good gangster films, Carlos makes you identify with its central figure, even though you know that, in life, you’d reject his methods. It’s easy to get absorbed in this man’s movements, because Ramirez gives an insinuating, irresistible performance. Sometimes Carlos’ exploits were hapless failures — guns jam, co-conspirators chicken out or botch their targets. But this only makes him seem more human, more fallible, and more ruthlessly determined.
The Alex Gibney film, Client 9, follows the career of the wild-west-esque New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer.
The film chronicles his rise in the political arena as a guy who played hardball with Wall Street by prosecuting white-collar criminals, pushing for regulation and reform of the markets, and taking a strong stance on New York City’s illegal rackets.
The only problem was, his “hard-balling” extended beyond the political arena into a scandalous affair that lost him his governors seat (and possibly a presidential bid) and caused a rollback of the financial reforms he had put into place, which ended up working out well for the taxpayers…
The film makes some pretty strong points, and serves as an allegory for the risks of power. The term, “drunk on power,” comes to mind: when one is intoxicated, one’s judgment is the first thing affected. This seems to apply well to those in the highest of offices and positions of power, authority, and influence. It is baffling how some of the most virtuous people (superficially) get caught up in the very things they fight against.
The film shows us that vice makes no party distinction: bleeding-heart democrats and warmonger republicans all get caught up in the same shit. It references the fable of Icarus, and serves as a warning to those who reach too high. When we, as fallible humans, are given wings, the seeming absolute freedom makes it all too easy for us to neglect the consequences of the actions in our personal lives (the classic: fall from grace). And in the lives of politicians, personally breaking the law is more than just a crime: it is a breach of contract with the people you represent. It is the ultimate hypocrisy, and a slap in the face of taxpayers.
Have you ever listened to you favorite band, and then found out the lead singer is a terrible person? At the time it seems hard to believe: that someone whose music speaks to you turns out to be a lie, or simply the work of a producer. Does that mean we should hate the music, or can we still have a connection with the music, and disconnect it from the personal exploits of the band? The band is obviously made up of hypocrites, but you can still look past it and focus on the homage they pay to something greater than themselves. It goes along with the old saying, “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.” What does that mean? It means that sometimes we know what the right thing to do is, even if we are not doing it.
Need a more relevant example? Let’s keep it political:
Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves: true. He was the man that brought us the Emancipation Proclamation. He was also a slave-owner. Are we to believe that the Emancipation Proclamation is meaningless because Abraham Lincoln was a slave-owner? Absolutely not, and to say so is to make an analytical fallacy. This ties in to the story of Eliot Spitzer. He tackled crime, and changed the face of Wall Street. The problem was that in his fight he made some powerful enemies along the way, enemies that had endless amounts of money to wage personal wars. He was found to have been involved in an illegal prostitution ring, and resigned from office. But did this mean his financial reforms imposed on a prosperous but morally bankrupt institution was wrong? Absolutely not! This did not stop republicans from rolling back the Spitzer team’s financial reforms as soon as they got the opportunity.
So what did ArtePolitik get from Client 9? That Eliot Spitzer was the worst thing to happen to Wall Street, and the best thing to happen to the average American investor/taxpayer. Spitzer is a morally fallible character who was led to the dark side like so many other democrats and republicans before him. The Republican rollbacks of Spitzer’s policies were more of an exposure of the political agenda of the Republican Party, and their true feelings toward the average American holder of mutual funds. Don’t believe me? Just look up “late trading.” It is disgusting, illegal, and Spitzer caught some powerful people with their pants down. It dealt mostly with mutual funds and hedge funds, and thanks to the fall of Spitzer’s regulatory prowess, the manipulation of these hedge funds caused a global market collapse, while the rich got richer.
ArtePolitik recommends seeing this film in theatres, partly because looking at the media’s post-affair-scandal “shame photos” look so hilarious on the big screen. All jokes aside, this film is relevant to our times. It debuted on November 5th, and in the opinion of ArtePolitik, this was a week late…
Disney Propaganda, Walt Disney: On the Front Lines
Disney Propaganda, By: Ian Dosland
In the 1920’s, Mussolini and his Fascisti Party (the Black Shirts) were being hailed by the world’s powers for fighting Bolshevism, and strengthening the Italian state. These events landed Mussolini on the cover of Time Magazine, where he was praised for his actions and given congratulations.[i] In the early 1930’s, Reichstag president Hans Göring was being praised by British Ambassador Sir Nevile Henderson, for his party’s (The Nazisozi “Brown Shirts”) handling of dissent and the handling of the S.A., creating political “unity” in Germany.[ii]
As the 1930’s wore on, the German state was growing, and creating weapons. The League of Nations seemed to be in denial that Germany was actually up to something. In 1936, Germany sent troops and took the demilitarized Rhineland. Another 3 years of complacency by the world rolled by until Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
In April of 1940, US magazines like Time and Life were writing stories and short bios on Göring and Mussolini, but making little-to-no protest of what was happening, but instead pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the leaders’ ideals.
Why does this short history matter? There were politicians and corporate heads in the 1930’s who saw fascism as a viable option for getting the US out of the Great Depression. There was even a planned coup d’état against the US government.[iii]
Then, on December 7th, 1941, the war came to the United States with the attack on Pearl Harbor. It would not have been difficult for anyone in the US to recollect what the media had said about the leaders of the Axis Powers. So, it was time for the US Government to engage in creating propaganda, while the media started their back peddling.
Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US Army had the military quartered in Disney Studios, which were located close to Lockheed. Soon, Walt Disney was asked by the US Government to do some public relations films. In all, Disney produced a series of 75 films for the government ranging from propaganda to instructional videos for wartime (fixing planes, fighting, taking prisoners, etc…).[iv]
The purpose of the first film Walt did for the US was to get people to buy War Savings Certificates. Walt used the story of the 3 Little Pigs to show the importance of buying these certificates. The film was called Thrifty Pig:
Walt then created a series of psychological films that were designed to “expose the follies of fascism and promote American Patriotism.” They were created with the guidance of the US Government, and released between 1942 and 1943.[v]
The film, “Reason and Emotion,” showed the development of reason in the human psyche, and the importance of reason and emotion working together. The film then goes into full propaganda mode when it shows the mind of a Nazi who, “let emotions rule, while reason took a back seat,” (or in the case of the cartoon, reason is put in a concentration camp). It outlines the dangers of media speculation and fear mongering, using comedy and a sort of chauvinism that was common in those days (men thinking about sex, and women thinking about their “figure”). Interestingly enough, the same sort of reason could have been applied to American nationalism during and after the war.
The cartoon, “Chicken Little,” portrayed the notion of bottom-up groupthink. The idea was that a crafty fox (aptly named Foxy Loxy) uses psychology to win over Chicken Little, and undermine the reigning authority inside of a farmers fowl coup. The “psychology,” Foxy Loxy uses is actually comprised of quotes from Hitler’s, “Mein Kampf.”[vi] It suggests: “going after the most stupid member of a group [Chicken Little] to take down the group as a whole. The film also shows the dangers of hearsay, with “henpecking” by women, discourse by the academe, and gossip by drunkards at bars.
In the cartoon, “An Education for Death,” Walt shows the growth of a child from birth to adulthood under the Nazi regime. The film depicts how Nazis, “indoctrinate children with the subhuman philosophy of Germany’s evil trinity (Hitler, Goebbels, Göring)”.[vii] The film asks its viewers the question, “What makes a Nazi?”
Then Disney brings out the straight comedy. In the cartoon, “Der Führer’s Face,” Donald Duck experiences the nightmare of living in Nazi Germany as a worker. See if you can count all of the Swastikas that appear…
Walt Disney’s crowning propaganda film was called, “Victory Through Airpower,” which was based on a book by Russian ex-pat, US Major Seversky. He was the protégé of the famous proponent of airpower, General Billy Mitchell. The film outlines the importance of long-range bombers as the key to winning the war not only in Europe, but also in the Pacific. The film was not only educational for the American public, but also for world leaders. As stated in the beginning of the film, “It is said that Churchill saw the film and was convinced that long-range bombers were the way to go. When, on a trip to Canada, he learned that FDR had not seen the film, he ordered a copy sent to him. Upon watching the film, FDR was also convinced of the importance of long-range bombers.” The film is concise and very convincing. It is so effective as a propaganda film that it convinced not just the American people, but changed the minds of world leaders. The film was nominated for an Academy Award for best musical score.
In creating these films, Walt Disney lost money. The money he was given by his government contract covered the needed expenses and that was all. This was most likely because being a war profiteer was frowned upon in those days, and doing discounted or pro bono work for the government was considered patriotic.
These videos are captured in the new Walt Disney Treasures DVD entitled, "Walt Disney: On the Front Lines." (www.amazon.com/Walt-Disney-Treasures-Front-Lines/dp/B0000BWVAH/ref=sr_1_1) It consists of the various propaganda, and other films done for the US military. It also has "Victory Through Airpower." Here are some more videos that are found in this collection:
Another version of the tax cartoon, better quality
Exit Through the Gift Shop is a marvelous, one-of-a-kind contraption, a joyfully spinning top of a movie that keeps zigging and zagging and taking the audience right along with it. It’s easily the cream of this month’s crop of movies, though it’s so tricky and layered that before I saw it, everything I’d heard about it made it sound a little…complicated. Maybe even intimidating. Not to worry: For all its through-the-looking-glass playfulness, it is really, at heart, a vividly direct and witty and biting look at the world of contemporary street art.
A lot of the kick of the movie is that the art itself is so much damn fun. There have been rumors, from the outset, that Exit Through the Gift Shop is a fake, a very crafty put-on documentary. I actually think that something quite the opposite is true; it’s more genuine than it knows. The movie is billed as “a Banksy film,” which implies that Banksy, the hit-and-run virtuoso of underground British street art (he’s one of the movie’s prime subjects), directed it, or at the very least that he’s pulling the strings. But such is the magic of Exit Through the Gift Shop that the movie’s ultimate what is art? joke comes almost directly at Banksy’s expense. And it’s not even clear that he’s fully aware of the joke’s ramifications.
Much of the giddy high of street art is that it’s so toyish and graphically simple and childlike and accessible. The film’s central figure, Thierry Guetta (pictured at left), is a French-born Los Angeles boutique owner who, in the late 1990s, becomes obsessed with videotaping street artists in the act of putting up their guerrilla installations. It’s through Guetta, who as many have noted resembles a Gallic hipster- bourgeois Ron Jeremy, that we come to know such prominent street artists as Guetta’s cousin, who goes by the nom de plume Space Invader, or Shepard Fairey, the young man who later became famous for his Obama “Hope” poster, and who is here represented by what was (until then) his most celebrated and relentlessly repeated image: a faux-fascist print of a scowling face (it’s taken from a shot of Andre the Giant) underscored by the word “OBEY.” Fairey plastered this image everywhere he could — on walls, curbsides, billboards — and its message, though somewhat free-floating, would seem to be this: We’re living in a media society that, though politically free, has a fascist spirit, a world that keeps giving us orders through images.
This kind of mock-didactic message-mongering is a hallmark of the new wave of street art, and in many ways its godmother is the artist Barbara Kruger, who in the early ’90s featured cut-out Big Brother slogans (I Shop Therefore I Am, Your Body Is a Battleground) imposed, with maximum irony, on top of iconic photographs. If Kruger is the muse of the Shepard Fairey generation, the other ancestral art god who hovers over Exit Through the Gift Shop is Claes Oldenburg, the celebrated Swedish museum prankster known for his giant sculptures of badminton birdies, cigarette butts, and what have you. Banksy takes a major page from Oldenburg when he deposits a beautifully wrecked London telephone booth on the street. This is “art” as Candid Camera — it’s really all about seeing what passersby will do — and Banksy then ups the ante by depositing a dummy version of a Guantanamo-prisoner-in-orange-jumpsuit right into the middle of Disneyland. The sheer danger of staging this stunt feeds right into the Banksy mystique. He’s the artist as hooded outlaw, seen only in tabloid-TV silhouette, an invisible man too fatally cool to emerge from the shadows.
Is his art political? Yes, indeed. But sort of the way that the hippies were political. I loved the rascally audacity of Banksy’s creations, but at the same time, there’s a naive undercurrent to the implication that the street art we’re seeing in Exit Through the Gift Shop is somehow “subversive.” And where that naiveté truly comes into focus is in the second half of the film, when Thierry Guetta decides to become an artist himself. Taking a page from Banksy, who had already crossed over into the world of expensively chic high-end gallery shows, Guetta rents out a Los Angeles warehouse and mounts his own outrageous grab bag of an art show.
Calling himself Mr. Brainwash, he shamelessly appropriates ideas from all the street artists he’s chronicled, and he also rips off, flagrantly and openly, Andy Warhol. But it’s not just that he “lifts” some of Warhol’s most famous images — like the Marilyn Monroe silkscreens (only now with the face of Michael Jackson, and other celebrities, grafted onto Monroe’s glowing blond sex halo). In a strange way, he does to Warhol what Warhol did to the straight art world. Guetta’s most ingenious creation is an eight-foot-tall spray can of Campbell’s tomato soup — that spray can being, in effect, a vehicle for mass-producing Warhol’s most famously mass-produced image of mass-production-as-art. Would Warhol himself, if he saw that spray can (or those Michael Monroes), turn over in his grave? Or would he laugh at the pop-art-is-dead/long-live-pop-art spectacular awfulness of it?
One thing is for sure: As you watch Exit Through the Gift Shop, the movie — which is to say, Banksy — encourages you to look down your nose at Thierry Guetta, to see him as a huckster vulgarian who represents the end of art. And he is. But unless I’m seriously missing something, what Banksy doesn’t seem to realize is that he’s precisely the wrong messenger for that condemnation. In Exit Through the Gift Shop, Thierry Guetta is supposed to represent the ultimate commodification of street art, but what he really represents is the playful, happily brainwashed, do-what-you-dare fulfillment of it. He outdoes Banksy at his own game by taking him all the way to the bank.
The Doug Liman film, Fair Game, is based on the books: “Politics of Truth,” by Joe Wilson; and, “Fair Game,” by Valerie Plame.
Both of the books offer an introspective view into the lies and misinformation that brought us into the war with Iraq. When put together, as they were in this Liman film, they show not only the political struggles that Joe and Valerie went through, but also the struggle their marriage went through.
Being in the public eye puts a massive strain on those in the spotlight. This is especially so when it is negative attention that is brought on by a partisan game to pull the United States into war
While maintaining her legitimate front as a venture capitalist, Valerie Plame Wilson was actually doing clandestine work for the CIA involving counter-proliferation (preventing nuclear weapons from being constructed).
Valerie is sent all over the Middle East, tracking where components and nuclear secrets are going to, and coming from.
The beginning of the film takes place in a post-9/11 US, where the government is in a desperate struggle to stifle the capacity for advanced conflict with the Middle East. The CIA co-opts Valerie’s husband, former US Ambassador Joe Wilson, to go to Niger and inspect Uranium mines to question the validity of claims that it has been shipped to Iraq. He finds all the evidence he needs to confidently state that no large shipment of yellowcake uranium (500 tons) was taken from the mines to Iraq. Such an endeavor would have left lots of evidence.
With the need for more reliable intelligence from Iraq, Valerie comes up with a plan. The problem was, while she was doing this forces were working in the background to undermine her work. Vice President Cheney and Scooter Libby were looking for the information they wanted, so they could begin banging the wardrums for an Iraq invasion.
The film offers an in-depth view of the “aluminum tubes,” and why their existence played such an important role in the lead-up to the war. It sounds trivial, but they are the key piece of information that is knowingly misrepresented as the means for enriching uranium.
Despite the credible information from the CIA, the war drums began to bang. This is when coin-phrases begin being repeated so much in the news they become the truth, and everyone becomes an expert. Terms like, “aluminum tubes, yellowcake uranium,” and other keywords back up the lies of their existence in Iraq.
So, you want to know where the weapons of mass destruction were? Where the nuclear program was?
It was taken by the US. All of the facilities were blanket-bombed in the first Gulf War. There were no weapons of mass destruction, only the remnants of VX gas, which never made it on the news? Why was existence of VX gas not brought up by then President Bush? Well, because it would not have helped him politically to say where it was from. We shall leave that at that.
One of the great things about the film, what really pulls you in, is the role of the media. During the trials and tribulations of the Wilsons, TVs were on to provide the viewer with a timeframe of events, and also to show the frustrations. How frustrating it must have been for them to know the truth, and yet they could tell no one. They watched people bicker around them, and could not say a word.
Joe hears Bush completely disregard the information from Niger, during the speech about going to war with Iraq. It is at this point Joe writes his famous article, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.”
The explosion that ensues was a missile fired straight from the desks of the United States’ highest offices. The airwaves were flooded with misinformation that attempted to discredit the Wilsons, and bring all of the attention away from the war in Iraq. The Wilsons were threatened, harassed by conservative “journalists” in public, non-official settings. This was a warning from the government to anyone who would try to blow the whistle on the Iraq war: if you say anything against us, we will ruin your lives.
The political machine, along with a supportive and unquestioning media, did everything in their power to discredit not only Joe, but also the work and credentials of Valerie.
As far as we know, the authorization from the leak did not extend above the office of the then Vice President. Though Libby testified that the order came from Cheney to “out” Plame, he later recanted his testimony and took the fall for the whole thing. This is similar to what Oliver North did for Reagan in the 80’s (but that is another story).
ArtePolitik recommends this film for anyone who is unfamiliar with the details of “Plamegate.” This movie accurately covers a pivotal point in the US war on terror when lies are exposed, and we get to see first hand the role of the media in framing what we view as truth (for better or worse). This film is exciting, emotional, and true to boot. We recommend seeing it, whether it is in theatres or at home.
Pirate Radio
PIRATE RADIO (2009)
<!--StartFragment-->
Plot:
“Carl (Tom Sturridge) arrives on the pirate radio ship, Radio Rock, after being sent to stay with the ship's Captain, his godfather, Quentin (Bill Nighy), to hopefully set his life on a different track after being expelled from school. Here he meets Radio Rock's crew of ramshackle disc jockeys, led by The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a buoyant rock-loving American, along with the suave and bawdy Dave (Nick Frost) and the naive but good hearted Simon (Chris O'Dowd). Also filling the airwaves is self proclaimed New Zealand "nut," Angus (Rhys Darby), the mysterious Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom) and the even more mysterious, reclusive and downright disillusioned late-night DJ Smooth Bob (Ralph Brown). Serving as the ship's crew are the shy lesbian cook Felicity (Katherine Parkinson) and radio assistants, Harold (Ike Hamilton) and the appropriately nicknamed Thick Kevin (Tom Brooke).” –Courtesy of wikipedia.com
This film is about Radio Rock, a pirate radio station that was operating off the shores of England in the 60’s. It follows the lives of a tight-knit group of airwave usurpers that are bringing rock-n-roll to fans longing to absorb its auditory splendor. They essentially live the lives of rock stars, by playing the music of rock stars. The sub-story is more like an American Pie film: young man goes on great adventure to get laid. Now keep in mind, this film is “based” on a true story, however it is hardly a true story. The truthiness of the plot is: “radio stations that were unsanctioned by the government broadcasted from ships.” Though many of the characters were based off of ‘real-life’ DJs, it is still more fictional than anything.
So what is this film trying to say? They story essentially tells us that when you are passionate about something, and when you love something enough, you should be willing to die for it. It is a story of the few who are willing to stand up to a ruthless government to defend what they believe in. It is sort of a ‘less bloody’ V for Vendetta. The government viewed their dissent as a crime against the government, but a government is supposed to be representative of the people, and the film essentially stated that the majority of Brits were listening to Radio Rock. So it was up to the DJs of Radio Rock to stand up to “the man”.
This film, which like I said is mostly fiction, is definitely worth seeing in theatres. The visuals and the soundtrack are amazing, and the momentum of the story keeps you “tuned-in”. In a way, the young Carl is a representation of the audience: he is going to the ship and experiencing what the DJs are experiencing, for us. It is sort of an “imagine yourself in this situation” kind of experience. However, the American-Pie-esque-ness was a little annoying. What also bothered me (SPOILER ALERT?) was the Top Gun ending of the film. If you don’t remember how Top Gun ends, you will by the end of this film (talk to me Goose). The film, by the end, is inspiring and really makes you want to “stick it to the man” (and by “the man” I mean the FCC).
Trailer:
<!--EndFragment-->
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Review by Andrew Bunker-- (of El Roberto Productions)
History can happen sometimes while nobody is expecting it. And then there are times when a camera is present to document everything as it unfolds. On April 11, 2002, when an Irish documentary film crew that had been covering Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was able to film a dramatic coup that unseated him (briefly) and installed a powerful businessman, Pedro Carmona, as president.
<!--StartFragment-->
Concerned about Chavez’s rhetoric of redistributing the nations oil wealth amongst its people, the powerful elite decided to remove him from power – though, in a frustrating fashion, the film doesn’t get into much detail here. The privately owned media channels utilized the elite’s anger and proclaimed a massive protest against Chavez on April 10, 2002. Though the film shows the glaring differences between Chavez’s supporters (generally poor and dark-skinned) and those of his enemies (wealthier-seeming and white, for the most part), they don’t explain how the opposition was able to pull together the thousands of protesters who showed up that day (elites being, by their nature, not especially numerous). It turns out that the opposition had the support of the country’s trade unions and that Venezuela was at the time of
the coup engulfed in huge, crippling strikes; again, these are details that would have been helpful for the film to include. However, its also important to note that in the documentary, its shown that footage that was broadcast by the privately owned news outlets in Venezuela was clearly manipulated in a variety of ways in the oppositions favor throughout the film. Film can be made to lie, as this is clearly one of arguments of the pro-Chavez supporters. If private TV lied to the nation in support of the coup, you could argue that the doc itself is clearly biased in favor of Chavez - most clearly so in depicting his opponents. When the right-wing leaders are introduced, it's in slo-motion, and with depressing music. All done for dramatic effect.
The events captured in the film are undeniable dramatic and make for great theater....but you can ask the question why no one on either side thought to question the presence of the TV crew is a mystery, but they got an inside look at a coup - before, during and after which is unique in film history. However, despite having this one of a kind opportunity, the filmamkers of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised barely touch its subject. Potentially important facts like the likelihood of U.S. support (or at least verbal approval) for the opposition coup is barely expounded upon, except for an interview of Colin Powell where he provides a few negative remarks about the Government of Hugo Chavez. It is of course impossible to prove that the coup was sponsored by the U.S. government, but what was the purpose when the U.S. welcomed two of the anti-government leaders who soon after were instrumental in the coup? Why would the U.S. be interested in Venezuela?Because its the fourth largest oil-producing nation on the planet and its price has been guaranteed by the nation's ruling class.
The bottom line....the film leaves the viewer wondering...what's the position of the filmmakers? Unfortunately, the film is clearly one-sided and the filmmakers end up more as propagandists then documentarians. I would recommend watching this film for its interesting take on a coup as its happening and basically as pure entertainment.
Watch the full film! You're welcome.
<!--EndFragment-->
VIDEO REVIEW: Exit Through the Gift Shop
Brought to you by artepolitik.com and El Roberto Productions
