Posts Tagged ‘alliances’

687474703a2f2f7777772e676c6f62616c72657365617263682e63612f77702d636f6e74656e742f75706c6f6164732f323031352f30342f5275737369616e2d6f6666696369616c732d61742d49562d4d4349532e6a7067

Russia hosted an international conference to bring together the nations that oppose US and NATO warmongering. Nations included Russia, China, Iran, India, Kazakhstan, Greece and others.

Did a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition opposing NATO debut in Moscow?

All of them addressed Washington’s multispectral warfare that has utilized color revolutions, like EuroMaidan in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, for regime change. Shoigu cited Venezuela and China’s Hong Kong Special Administrative Region as failed color revolutions.

Foreign Minister Lavrov reminded the attendees that the possibilities of a dangerous world conflict were increasing due to the lack of concern by the US and NATO for the security of others and a lack of constructive dialogue…

…it is only possible to meet common challenges and preserve the peace through collective, joint efforts based on respect for the legitimate interests of all partners,

…During a meeting with Chinese Defense Minister Chang Wanquan, [Russian Defense Minister] Shoigu emphasized that Moscow’s military ties with Beijing are its overriding priority.” In another bilateral meeting the defense honchos of Iran and Russia confirmed that their cooperation will be part of the cornerstones of a new multipolar order and that Moscow and Tehran were in harmony in their strategic approach to the US.

A direct challenge to the “New World Order”:

S-300S-300 Missile Launchers

[Chinese] Minister Wanquan flatly told the MCIS that a fair world order was needed.

The new arms race is touched upon also.

glass-ceiling

Hollywood’s Glass Ceiling: Why Doesn’t the Film Industry Trust Women?
by Mellissa Silverstein

There’s a myopia to some of these articles that irks me.  It’s that she doesn’t seem to care what the stories themselves are saying — the entire point of this blog, btw — but only if they are directed by women, produced by women, or about women’s issues.  It’s a hard numbers kind of argument, without regard for the actual propaganda content of the films.  I tend to see it a bit differently, to say the least.  Kathryn Bigelow’s pro-torture opus does not end up in my plus column, least of all because she happens to lack a penis.  There are issues beyond who gets to direct, important issues, society-wide issues of war, peace, empire and authoritarianism.

That’s my simplistic response to the article, I admit, but it does cover my main gripe:  Hollywood is part of a fascistic system of social control, selling authoritarianism in partnerships with increasingly despotic surveillance states.  Whether those hammering out the next propaganda extravaganza possess dicks or not is not my primary concern.

Her myopia is the expected result of issue politics, where support is thrown behind tyrants based on narrow sets of interests and narrow understanding.  The counterargument to that will of course cite how this isn’t strictly “narrow” when talking about half the population (gender bias).

The concept holds though.  By obsessing over one metric, one parameter, we ignore the rest.  This is why Obama can turn America into Orwell’s worst nightmare: at least he’s not Bush.

Now I’ve heard debates over this Hollywood gender problem, the underrepresentation of women in Hollywood,and usually the first thing trotted out by the defenders of the establishment is that the box office dictates the decisions.  Is this true?  It’s not just perception, they argue, but actual ticket sales that determine these movies getting made the way that they are.  After all, these shlock Superfests sell tickets, and they sell them to male and female.  Hard to argue against that.

Women do make films about women all the time, but they aren’t the ones raking in the dump trucks of money. Melissa Silverstein:

“… but the sad news is that the numbers have remained consistently dismal for the last decade. In 2012, in the US, women made up 18% of the directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films.”

On the top grossing films???

Well who made that happen?

That’s the audience, not a dark cabal in suits smoking cigars and sticking voodoo needles into Barbie dolls.

Now if an argument could be presented for more marketing dollars affecting this equation, and male movies being typically funded at much higher levels (probably true) then there would be a more solid foundation, but Silverstein doesn’t even bother to go there.

The counterargument will remain that this is what the movie-going audience is “demanding” according to the strict economic dogma of supply and demand.

So if we’re talking gross box office, at what point does the audience share in this responsibility, this culpability?

If women themselves aren’t supporting women up on the silver screen, then how can this be considered some great intractable problem?

“When we don’t see women, and we don’t see women’s stories, we get the message that women don’t matter as much, that our stories don’t count, that our experiences are less valid.”

Ever tried watching TV?

It’s ALL WOMEN ALL THE TIME!

Perhaps women prefer the comfort of their living rooms compared to the excursion to the overpriced, smelly, crowded MultiPlex where you overpay for popcorn, candy, liquid junk and have to endure the cell phones and blather of nincompoops while you try and follow the film.  Then you must miss scenes while you head off to pee in the middle, and perhaps some jerk will start a fight or shoot up the place and kill everyone.

Maybe there are other factors involved.

Day of the Falcon-poster-8

Finally a grown-up movie set in the Arab world.  This Is one of the most memorable and epic films I’ve seen in a while, with an international cast, a wonderful poignant story, real issues and intense action.

Drawing obviously from Lawrence of Arabia, Day of the Falcon works better in my opinion.  For several reasons, not least of which is the idea of a British imperial white man (Lawrence) leading the Arabs, I don’t find that film the immaculate classic that others may.

But Falcon features Antonio Banderas in a harsh role as an emir of an Arabian tribe and pitted against his rival, the Sultan of the neighboring tribe.  In a deal, upon the conclusion of a battle, the Sultan’s two sons are taken as hostages to live with the emir and to insure the peace.  The disputed desert region is to be a no man’s land, owned by no one.  When oil is later discovered in the no man’s land, it sets the stage for different world views, different traditions and different approaches to this newly-discovered resource.  That conflict has been at the center of world politics ever since.

It’s a travesty that a film of this caliber apparently lost money, and was not embraced by audiences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgH2wkiaIQ8