Search
WP
Women, Peace and Security in Nepal: From Civil War to Post-Conflict Reconstruction
Book
This book sheds new light on the important but diverse roles of women in the civil war in Nepal...
The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do, and How to Change
6.0
Rate It
Book
In "The Power of Habit", award-winning "New York Times" business reporter Charles Duhigg takes us to...
Lee Ronaldo recommended The Ascension by Glenn Branca in Music (curated)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Battle of Algiers (1966) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
This film-maker was unknown to me entirely before I decided to watch this film. In fact, I had only heard of the film itself quite recently from seeing it mentioned as one of the best films in the genre as a commentary on political insurgency and civil unrest. It is so well regarded that even the US military used it to prepare troops for entering Iraq. The main actors are largely unknown and many of the supporting cast and extras are not actors at all. The camera is allowed to wander and wobble, and such is the feel of random chaos at times you’d be forgiven for thinking this was a documentary. Nominated for 3 Oscars, and faultless in achieving its goal of humanising both sides of an argument, you can see the influence on Oliver Stone and Paul Greengrass, to name but two better known directors with a political edge.
It’s not a film I would feel the need to go back to, unless demonstrating to someone how to make something staged feel entirely real. I admire this film very much, but wouldn’t exactly call it entertaining or even rewarding as a story. Its purpose is to reinforce the tragedy of a people facing oppression and to realise the lengths both sides will go to in protecting their ideals and relative freedoms. The excellent hand held photography and score by the always inspirational Ennio Moricone are other reasons to watch it. As a history lesson of North Africa post WWII it also has a lot to offer.
It’s not a film I would feel the need to go back to, unless demonstrating to someone how to make something staged feel entirely real. I admire this film very much, but wouldn’t exactly call it entertaining or even rewarding as a story. Its purpose is to reinforce the tragedy of a people facing oppression and to realise the lengths both sides will go to in protecting their ideals and relative freedoms. The excellent hand held photography and score by the always inspirational Ennio Moricone are other reasons to watch it. As a history lesson of North Africa post WWII it also has a lot to offer.
Anarchism: A Collection of Revolutionary Writings
Book
One of the few members of the Russian aristocracy to become a revolutionary, Prince Peter Kropotkin...
Death of a Russian Doll
10.0
Rate It
Book
It’s all fun and games with toyshop owner Liz McCall until deadly secrets are unwrapped upon the...
Why the Ramones Matter
Book
via Edelweiss "Hey Ho, Let’s Go! A musical, cultural, historical argument for the centrality of...
Music criticism music history punk rock punk
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”
…the lasting legacy of Peter Finch’s rants, which began with a breakdown and became the ratings winner in the 1970’s Network driven news media. This is of course, fiction but the commentary on the changing and more corporate driven American media industry of the the time is not without merit.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Smartly scripted, on the ball cynicism and yet harking back to the rose tinted nostalgia common with American media movies in whcih the industry was supposedly filled with Walter Cronkites,
the notion that American press was once beyond reproach is clearly a fallacy, in contrast, the notion that American news media was becoming so ratings driven that the news gave way to outlandish editorialism, is not.
Howard Beale (Finch) has an on air breakdown and whilst his best friend and producer, Max Schumacher (William Holden) tries to pull him from the air waves, allowing him to bow out with some dignity, the new wave of corporate management lead by CEO Frank Hackett (Robert Duval) and Holden’s replacement and eventual lover, Diana, (Faye Dunaway), have other ideas.
She sees an opportunity in the ratings spike gained by Beale’s rants which speak to the peoples growing frustrations and takes advantage, only driven by ratings.
Though the screenplay and performances are nothing less than brilliant, there are two core problems with this movie.
The first being that it is too long. The plot seems to be dragged out and repetitive as we approach the almost inevitable conclusion and the second is the level of preaching. But this is a symptom of the first, opening with a good argument, with old school journalism versus the TV generation and as the film goes on, the arguments need to escalate but since this was covered in the first half an hour, the points become laboured and over started.
The notion that the TV generation is shallow and amoral is put at odds with the middle aged newspaper reader, where time and decency are standard. This is a point which I refuse to accept since some of the 20th centuries most amoral acts where committed either before 1936, the birth of television and in the first couple of decades there after, by the very generation whcih is being held up as the moral standard here.
large_network_blu-ray_3The press has always had its paymasters, always had to sell newspapers and whilst the medium and methods may have changed, this does feel like sour grapes by the end. Criticising the characters motivations is one thing, but this film seems to imply that the modern world of television is making sociopaths of us all, dumbing us down and numbing our emotions to the point of accepting nothing but pure spectacle.
In many ways this is true but is also a very flawed argument and comes across as bunch old men crying into there Scotch in some dimly lit bar, in a way not too dissimilar to the print or broadcast media of today, hitting out at the blogging and twitter generation.
The ending was amusing though with the quote “This was the story of Howard Beale, the only known case of a man killed because of poor ratings”.
Very droll.
Katie Guinn (34 KP) rated My Husband's Wife in Books
Dec 7, 2018
Lily Macdonald is a young, newly married lawyer, determined to make a fresh start and leave her secrets in the past. But her first murder case, representing a convicted killer named Joe, will threaten her happy future.
*sigh* I’m getting really burned out on “domestic thrillers,” guys. The kind that center around husbands and wives with secrets and strained relationships, that focus on the minutiae of everyday life than on any real action. The kind that likes to tout themselves as “the next Gone Girl.” Give me a good suspenseful serial killer novel, with a twisty plot and an actual likable main character!
That’s one of my biggest problems with these sorts of books, every character is just so hard to like that it’s difficult to connect with anyone or really feel invested in the story. Lily and Ed Macdonald are two people who honestly shouldn’t have married in the first place; they barely knew each other and neither of them knows how to communicate unless it’s in the form of an argument. Their nine-year-old neighbor, Carla, gains some sympathy at first as she copes with bullies and the feeling of being “different,” Unfortunately, when the story picks up more than a dozen years later, Carla hasn’t changed very much. She still thinks and acts like a child, turning out to be, in my opinion, the least likable character in the book. A note to all the thriller authors out there: it’s not a crime to write characters that people like.
I gave this one three stars because while the writing and plotting was decent, it’s ultimately a forgettable novel. Also, it’s no Gone Girl.
*sigh* I’m getting really burned out on “domestic thrillers,” guys. The kind that center around husbands and wives with secrets and strained relationships, that focus on the minutiae of everyday life than on any real action. The kind that likes to tout themselves as “the next Gone Girl.” Give me a good suspenseful serial killer novel, with a twisty plot and an actual likable main character!
That’s one of my biggest problems with these sorts of books, every character is just so hard to like that it’s difficult to connect with anyone or really feel invested in the story. Lily and Ed Macdonald are two people who honestly shouldn’t have married in the first place; they barely knew each other and neither of them knows how to communicate unless it’s in the form of an argument. Their nine-year-old neighbor, Carla, gains some sympathy at first as she copes with bullies and the feeling of being “different,” Unfortunately, when the story picks up more than a dozen years later, Carla hasn’t changed very much. She still thinks and acts like a child, turning out to be, in my opinion, the least likable character in the book. A note to all the thriller authors out there: it’s not a crime to write characters that people like.
I gave this one three stars because while the writing and plotting was decent, it’s ultimately a forgettable novel. Also, it’s no Gone Girl.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2593 KP) rated The Girl with the Dachshund Tattoo in Books
Sep 18, 2018
Clearing Betty Depends on Finding the Girl with the Dachshund Tattoo
This weekend, the Dachshund Dash has come to town, and Mel has closed down her Bow Wow Boutique to be there. Not only does she have a booth, but she is also providing the official racing jerseys for the contestants. While she isn't familiar with the backstage drama associated with this racing circuit, she quickly gets a crash course when Lenny and Richard, the owners of the dogs expected to finish in first and second, get into an argument right outside her booth. A little while later, her assistant, Betty, gets into an altercation with Richard, even brandishing a gun at him. So, naturally, when Mel finds Richard's dead body after he's been shot, Betty becomes the prime suspect. Only Betty claims that someone, a girl with a dachshund tattoo, took the gun away from her. Why is Betty being so secretive? Where is her gun? Who shot Richard?
This is another fabulous book in the series. The plot introduces us to a couple of solid suspects before the murder takes place, and it then gives us a few more once things really get going. We get plenty of twists and turns before Mel figures everything out. And we also get plenty of humor. I was grinning and chuckling when I wasn't laughing. The characters can be a bit broad as a result as they serve the dual purpose of suspect and provider of laughs, but it works for the series. It helps that Mel is very real, and her concern comes through. The result is lots of fun.
This is another fabulous book in the series. The plot introduces us to a couple of solid suspects before the murder takes place, and it then gives us a few more once things really get going. We get plenty of twists and turns before Mel figures everything out. And we also get plenty of humor. I was grinning and chuckling when I wasn't laughing. The characters can be a bit broad as a result as they serve the dual purpose of suspect and provider of laughs, but it works for the series. It helps that Mel is very real, and her concern comes through. The result is lots of fun.