Sunshine/Lollipops
Ray Harryhausen, stop-motion animation master, dies in London at 92 | Guardian
video: The Ray Harryhausen Creature List (by Mat Bergman)
› Newly Declassified Memo Shows CIA Shaped Zero Dark Thirty's Narrative | Adrian Chen
Kathryn Bigelow’s Osama bin Laden revenge-porn flick Zero Dark Thirty was the biggest publicity coup for the CIA this century outside of the actual killing of Osama bin Laden. But the extent to which the CIA shaped the film has remained unclear. Now, a memo obtained by Gawker shows that the CIA actively, and apparently successfully, pressured Mark Boal to remove scenes that made them look bad from the Zero Dark Thirty script.
The CIA’s whitewashing effort is revealed in a cache of documents newly released under a Freedom of Information Act request about the CIA’s cooperation with Bigelow and Boal. The documents include a 2012 memo—initially classified “SECRET”—summarizing five conference calls between Boal and the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs in late 2011. “The purpose for these discussions was for OPA officers to help promote an appropriate portrayal of the Agency and the Bin Ladin operation,” according to the memo. (Hundreds of pages of CIA documents about the film were released last year; the memo obtained by Gawker was approved for release late last month.)
During these calls, Boal “verbally shared the screenplay” for Zero Dark Thirty in order to get the CIA’s feedback, and the CIA’s public affairs department verbally asked Boal to take out parts that they objected to. According to the memo, he did. [continue]
“Ah, hon, ya got Arby’s all over me.”
› Argo: The Stupidest Movie of the Year | As'ad AbuKhalil
It is reflective of American liberalism that Ben Affleck, who is considered to the left of the Democratic Party and who is supposed to have been critical of US foreign policies in the Middle East, is behind the movie Argo. The movie received wide publicity and acclaim and has served to energize American national pride. That is what patriotic movies are supposed to do.
But if you think about it, this movie is based on a simple premise that does not require a complicated or sophisticated plot: basically, as CIA agents were hiding in the Canadian embassy, an American traveled to Iran with fake Canadian passports, which enabled the Americans to leave the country. The rest is either manufactured or unnecessary. In fact, the entire scheme of the movie was actually comical and entirely unnecessary. Once the Americans obtained the Canadian passports, they were free to leave the country, and that is exactly what happened.
The character played by Affleck is in fact less impressive than what appears on the screen: his scheme was not the product of a sophisticated mind, and the extra length to which the CIA went to create a fake production company and even a phone number for it was entirely unnecessary, especially that the details (of the last minute phone call) were all manufactured for extra dramatic effect.
This is a typical Hollywood movie with typical Hollywood twists and turns, and with the typical formulaic ending. I mean, who is going to believe that suspenseful ending: with the plane about to leave Iranian territory, while Iranian armed men were chasing the plane on the runway because they discovered at the last minute that they were duped. But the White Man is always – in Hollywood – more than one step ahead of the native.
It should not be surprising that the movie recycled racist and stereotypical depictions from other racist movies on Iran, like Not Without My Daughter. All the Iranians in the movie were frowning or angry or yelling, and the movie never bothers to subtitle what they have to say. Only the words of submissive natives, i. e. the Iranians who cooperate with the Americans and are smiley are worth translating to the audience.
There are comical touches to the movie: there is a seconds-long history lesson at the beginning of the movie which talks about the 1953 CIA coup. But that short intro leaves out the rest of the history of US-Iranian relations: the movie mentions SAVAK [Organisation of Intelligence and National Security] in passing but does not mention that the CIA helped set up that torturing apparatus of the Shah. The movie also leaves out the various cover operations between the Shah and the US, and that the Carter administration did not rule out military intervention in Iran to keep the Shah out of respect for the people of Iran, but due to the infeasibility of that option compared with the climate of 1953.
Iran and its people and culture are all unpleasant in American popular culture and there is nothing worth admiring or liking about them. Basically, Americans can’t forgive the Iranians because they had not forgiven the Americans for their 1953 coup and for their endorsement and embrace of the rule of the Shah. Nothing about Iran is pleasant according to the stereotypical American portrayal.
But there is a funny moment at the end of Argo.
Just before the credits, you read that the movie is about a great “cooperation” between countries of the world for good purposes. So of all the examples of international cooperation, Ben Affleck and his team found the Canadian-American cooperation for the production of fake passports to be the most exemplary.
Alain Delon in Le Samouraï. Melville. 1967.
(Source: chainedandperfumed.com, via criterioncollection)
The film tells but doesn’t show some of the US atrocities in Iran. It shows the plight of the hapless US diplomats. In making that key dramatic decision, and then in Orientalizing the Iranian protagonists as angry and irrational, the film betrays its subject matter and becomes propaganda, lacking true moral or emotional ambiguity.No Iranian character in the film who has a legitimate grievance against US policy is permitted to be sympathetic or to have any intimate moments that would humanize him or her.
“Argo” as Orientalism and why it Upsets Iranians
(via fariyah)
I’m actually glad that it won essentially half of an award, for sound editing, as that’s somehow more cruel than if it just won nothing.
Glenn Greenwald, Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA and film critics have a very bad evening
(Source: coudal.com)
› Oscar-nominated Palestinian director detained at LAX
Palestinian director of Oscar-nominated “5 Broken Cameras” Emad Burnat was detained at Los Angeles airport and threatened with deportation Wednesday, the filmmaker told Al-Akhbar in an interview.
Burnat traveled to Los Angeles, from Palestine via Turkey, to attend Sunday’s Academy Awards ceremony, where his film has been nominated for the “Best Documentary” category.
He was interrogated, detained for six hours, and had his fingerprints taken twice. Airport officers googled his name to confirm that he had indeed been nominated for an Oscar.
LAX officials at first told Burnat they intended to deny him entry to the United States. “I told them I don’t care if you send me back to Palestine, just don’t detain me for any longer,” Burnat said.
His wife and eight-year-old son, who is the documentary’s main character, were also held at the airport.
During his layover in Turkey’s Istanbul, Burnat was also questioned by airport security officials.
Asked whether he thought he was sought out because of his film, Burnat said: “I don’t know, but this is the first time this happens. I’ve been to the States six times in the last year.”
“5 Broken Cameras” documents non-violent resistance in Bil’in, a Palestinian village surrounded by Israeli settlements and Palestine’s Apartheid Wall. [++]