Posts Tagged ‘writers’




Life’s way too short to tolerate those losers. You want to know something, you look it up yourself instead of relying on clowns to distill it for you, spun to appease their corporate bosses.


Beyond Idiocracy

Posted: August 19, 2016 in -
Tags: , , , ,



Political scientists such as Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, authors of Democracy for Realists, who study how democracies really work are repeatedly astonished by the shallowness and incoherence of people’s political beliefs and the tenuous connection of those beliefs to their votes. Most voters are ignorant not just of current policy alternatives but of the most elementary facts about politics and history, such as the major branches of government or which countries have used nuclear weapons. Their opinions flip depending on how a question is worded: they say that the government spends too much on “welfare” but too little on “assistance to the poor”, and that it should use “military force” but not “go to war”. When they do formulate a preference, they commonly vote for a candidate with the opposite one.

leading writers on Donald Trump



A Hollywood producer has created @femscriptintros to expose the majority dolts who bang out this crap.

Twitter Account Shows How NOT To Introduce a Female Character

I would dispute the headline though. This is how it’s done. Not sure about the word “not.”






Highly disturbing:

This is alarming on many levels, and the principles involved go far beyond my individual lawsuit. Every writer who sells film rights to Hollywood must now contend with the possibility that the studio they signed the contract with could be swallowed up by a larger company — and that parent company can then make a movie based on your book without compensating you. It means Hollywood contracts are worthless.


The number of readers has more than doubled this past week. Many people dropping by, and it doesn’t just seem related to the Holidays. Even so, here’s my Christmas Movies List.


But if you would like some more exposure for your film writing, take a chance and send it in. I’ve posted articles from more than 70 writers.

June 12th, 2011 032


I sent out a film survey to the PFB contributors, whom you can read by clicking on their names on the sidebar.

1.    What’s the top film(s) of the past decade?

Kieran Kelly had an interesting response: “Antichrist was the most impressive thing I saw, and I hated almost every second of it.  The Proposition was amazingly good and not at all gratuitous even if it was also quite horrible to watch.”

Other answers:

2.    Have movies declined in cultural significance, and no longer all that relevant to society, or is it the opposite?

“Neither.  About the same they have always had.  Just different emphases in different loci.” -Steven Jonas

“I certainly believe that movies remain very relevant for those who are already attuned to their tradition and culture. I do believe however that with the rise of other digital media, the spread of the Internet, etc. (all the usual suspects in other words…) for the younger generations and in the last two decades or so, their impact on social, cultural and political awareness has indeed declined.” -Mark Epstein

“Vastly decreased. Event films have always been around, but now they’re taken seriously – critical discussions of Batman and KickAss and such. My dad has talked about what it was like in 68 when 2001 arrived – and everyone on every college campus in America was talking about it. Fewer people go to the movies than ever before, attention spans are shorter, money is scarce. Good work still gets done but with far less impact.” -Joseph Green

“I’m shocked to report that the once great and groundbreaking film Doctor Strangelove, has lost its fizz.  Wish it weren’t so, but it is.  If you don’t believe me try watching it without watching the clock. On the other hand, Terry Gilliam’s masterpiece, Brazil, has become required viewing on an annual basis. ” -David Price

“Culture has declined in cultural significance, movies have just been sucked down into the bottomless vortex. Seriously, though, television has overshadowed film in several key areas. During the Bush years big TV dramas became the main vehicle for a sense of twisted uncertainty that was sometimes offensive, but definitely fertile. Now, its a bit staler. Now these sorts of programmes are mainly devoted to a violent Hobbesian nihilism, but a lot of them are still much more compelling than what the big screen has to offer. In figurative terms, the television is now the bigger canvas even if only for depicting horror and ugliness.” -Kieran Kelly

3.    Name a severely underrated film(s) that the world needs to see.

Mark Epstein said: “The Big Question, a documentary interviewing cast and staff of that obscenity, The Passion of the Christ, about their takes on religious belief or the lack of it.”

Other responses:

[I stopped attributing every quote, and I jumbled the ordering.  Could be any of the named people…]


4.    Which film and/or scene really pissed you off?

Zero Dark 30 (which pissed me off so much that I did not go to see it — does that count?”

“Christopher Nolan’s career. In general, the willingness of people to accept not just trite but actively oppressive entertainment and enjoy it anyway. It’s depressing.”

“Every sports movie where my enjoyment of the film is calculated to hinge on the outcome of some damn sporting event.

[4.1] What scene from a film in the last decade sticks with you in a haunting way you can’t quite shake?

Opening scene of Melancholia

The Hurt Locker still tops the list. There’s lots of critically acclaimed TV that is utterly repulsive too. If I have time I may watch all of Breaking Bad and write some stuff about it. My hypothesis is that it is this millennium’s version of The Waltons.”

“Too many to list. Since I wrote about it indirectly, Zero Dark Thirty.”

I’m appalled every time the “heroes” get to their time to torture somebody for information cue.   There should be a special torture chamber in hell for people who sell torture as heroic.  Jingoistic nationalism similarly pisses me off.


5.      Thoughts on filmmakers who knowingly deceive their audiences?

“Whores come in an infinite variety and all professions. The real ones (i.e. peddling the sex trade…), as the Romantics used to say, are the most honest…”

“I’d be more interested in sharing some thoughts about filmmakers who have contempt for their audiences, but you can probably guess what they are.”

“Does not compute.  Film is deception.  Does not compute.”

“Anti-humans. Paul Greengrass, go fuck yourself. Tom Hanks, ditto.”

6.      Define exploitation.

“Working against “informed consent/dissent” for profit, power, connivance, presstitution, control, social engineering, creeping totalitarianism, etc.”

“Webster’s’ Dictionary defines ‘exploitation’ as any film I don’t like.”

“Base appeal for its commercial sake without taking the human being into account. Denying humanity is what it’s all about. Tony Scott was much more of an exploitation director than, say, Gordon Parks, in my estimation.”

7.      Does our nature bias us toward hopeful, positive illusion?

“No. That is learned. We learned from movies how to kiss, how to love, how to defend ourselves. Even the gangsters learned from Cagney and Muni how to behave. It’s cultural, not instinctive.”

“Humans are social beings (even when they don’t realize it, or actively try to deny this fundamental aspect in the genesis of their identity and life), and in their better moments they find that common bond again, and work towards constructions that until realized can be thought of as illusory.”


” No. All the Hollywood-ending prechewed-for-easy-digestion morality play junk food for the eyes in cinemas is just escapism for those traumatised by the daily torture our society inflicts on working people. Part of the reason that our current system remains politically stable despite its omnicidal insanity is that the chains that bind people have become their main source of comfort. The worse things get the more people dig deeper and darker dungeons for their own minds, but they kid themselves that they are digging their way to sunshine.”

I threw that one in thinking of religion, afterlife, the development of positive illusions throughout human history all over the planet.  I think with our big brains we want to overcome death and tend to tell ourselves all sorts of stories to make life more livable.  So I guess I’m in the minority on that one.

8.     Which obscure current artist should live on into eternity?


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?


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.


From Dangerous Minds:

Writers on Writing: Martin Amis, Malcolm Gladwell, Joan Didion, Jonathan Franzen and more





Good tutorial–