A good primer on intel and the intel community's view of itself.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Monday, March 01, 2004
The most remarkable thing at the Oscars last night
With all the recent hype regarding Janet Jackson and Howard Stern's indiscretions or the fear of more political stones (thank you Michael Moore) that might have been cast tonight (of which there was little), I found Aaron Schneider's speech, winner of the Oscar for Live Action Short of Faulkner's Two Soldiers remarkable. Remarkable for the way it alluded to causes of war, specifically WWII and perhaps to the War on Terror.
Though delivered like a machine-gun and running out of time for his speech, it sounded to me as if Schneider compared Pearl Harbor to 9-11, calling them attacks on American soil. He didn't get into details. But I was stirred from the lull his delivery had lead me into, and I got online to see this short was about.
From the official website and a website of one of the actors, Ron Perlman, it looks like this: a story about a small, southern family torn apart by the older of two, inseparable brothers whose patriotism leads him to sign up to defend America after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The younger brother, hardly of age (11, I think), soon follows but out of love of his brother and family. Hence, two soldiers.
At this point, until I get a hold of a transcript of the speech or see the short, it is hard to be sure what Schneider said, let alone meant. But, it was interesting to find that the websites mentioned above seem to want to apply the story to our time. They see some relevance of the WW II story to "our day." Check them out. And I will update more when I get some more info.
UPDATE:
I have just found Aaron Schneider's acceptance speech (at oscars.com) and while he doesn't name 9-11 he does call Pearl Harbor "the first unprovoked attack on the United States," alluding to 9-11 as the second. (Not sure what else could be counted. If somebody knows, let me know.) Here is the fuller quote of the last bit of his acceptance:
Though delivered like a machine-gun and running out of time for his speech, it sounded to me as if Schneider compared Pearl Harbor to 9-11, calling them attacks on American soil. He didn't get into details. But I was stirred from the lull his delivery had lead me into, and I got online to see this short was about.
From the official website and a website of one of the actors, Ron Perlman, it looks like this: a story about a small, southern family torn apart by the older of two, inseparable brothers whose patriotism leads him to sign up to defend America after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The younger brother, hardly of age (11, I think), soon follows but out of love of his brother and family. Hence, two soldiers.
At this point, until I get a hold of a transcript of the speech or see the short, it is hard to be sure what Schneider said, let alone meant. But, it was interesting to find that the websites mentioned above seem to want to apply the story to our time. They see some relevance of the WW II story to "our day." Check them out. And I will update more when I get some more info.
UPDATE:
I have just found Aaron Schneider's acceptance speech (at oscars.com) and while he doesn't name 9-11 he does call Pearl Harbor "the first unprovoked attack on the United States," alluding to 9-11 as the second. (Not sure what else could be counted. If somebody knows, let me know.) Here is the fuller quote of the last bit of his acceptance:
. . . our American treasure William Faulkner who wrote "Two Soldiers" in 1942 after the first unprovoked attack on the united states. It's the story of two brothers who fight to preserve their family and country. Like a sibling's love, a soldier's devotion is selfless and unconditional and need not concern itself with the politics of war. I dedicate this to my family and the soldiers who protect our loved ones and the freedoms we celebrate. Thank you.
Violence in the Passion
I hesitate to contribute to the discussion of Gibson's Passion before seeing it, but I came across an observation that seems worth considering when talking about violence in films.
Peter Robinson, over at the Corner, shares some thoughts of one of his friends, Bill Park, "a scholar of film and literature." He says something that seems true to me about the use of violence in films today. Gibson has made a film in the aesthetic film tradition of Samuel Peckinpah and Quentin Tarrantino. Films in which the portrayal of violence begins to look like ballet. It is orchestrated and arranged for different purposes perhaps but it is integral for the film's purpose. Hence, I wonder, doesn't it make Gibson's film the film of Christ for our day?
“[S]hould the flagellation be alluded to, the results shown, but the actual whipping and gouging removed from view? The Greeks never exhibited such sights; the Elizabethans delighted in them. Our own age favors the Elizabethans. Ever since the Production Code was abandoned in 1967, the aesthetic of Hollywood has favored sensationalism, blood spattering and explosions as a kind of ballet of gore. Gibson has merely applied the aesthetic of Peckinpah and Tarantino to the Gospels…."
I am not trying to justify the use of extreme violence in Gibson's film, or in any other. I merely offer what looks like to me as the tradition of film that Gibson (and we too, in a way) is a part of and in which he creates his telling.
Peter Robinson, over at the Corner, shares some thoughts of one of his friends, Bill Park, "a scholar of film and literature." He says something that seems true to me about the use of violence in films today. Gibson has made a film in the aesthetic film tradition of Samuel Peckinpah and Quentin Tarrantino. Films in which the portrayal of violence begins to look like ballet. It is orchestrated and arranged for different purposes perhaps but it is integral for the film's purpose. Hence, I wonder, doesn't it make Gibson's film the film of Christ for our day?
“[S]hould the flagellation be alluded to, the results shown, but the actual whipping and gouging removed from view? The Greeks never exhibited such sights; the Elizabethans delighted in them. Our own age favors the Elizabethans. Ever since the Production Code was abandoned in 1967, the aesthetic of Hollywood has favored sensationalism, blood spattering and explosions as a kind of ballet of gore. Gibson has merely applied the aesthetic of Peckinpah and Tarantino to the Gospels…."
I am not trying to justify the use of extreme violence in Gibson's film, or in any other. I merely offer what looks like to me as the tradition of film that Gibson (and we too, in a way) is a part of and in which he creates his telling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)