Speeches For Father's 60th Free

"Game of Death" and the dividends of zero-thought

February 22, on its second channel, dedicated to cultural and sporting events, RTBF ran a "document" high grade "controversial" followed brainstorming a staggering brains to "provoke debate" (such as movies Joachim Lafosse) in the morning croissant, horse butchers, the laundromat, the PMU and during secular religion. Hearing test for broadcast, two weeks later, on France 2.

In one case as in the other, it was a flop. While in Belgium, this desperate attempt to boost ratings was being pressed by King Kong Peter Jackson tf1, unless it was followed in France Louis La Brocante .

And it justice.


It is however important to mention, as his trash down the night before going to sleep, and remember that shampoo & vibrators ray bookstores, we can now obtain " Experience extreme "of Nick and Christopher Michel Eltchaninoff, next to the battery of the future bestseller by Patrick Sebastien (" revolt, not revolution ." Manifesto of the sting, "gathering humanist and citizen awareness and pressure" ***)

What to say further in this great moment of behavioral psychology bidonnée? Not much, if not likely that we will explain, after counting the number of product sales, which - even better than the Stanley Milgram experiment - the true test subjects were not, ultimately, those which were thought to know or think that he believed were, but we, ourselves, what will be a second broadcast hopefully before the summer schedule.

Lacking the courage to fade the nth description of "device" in this issue (just type on google), I will reproduce here a comment I committed the night of the Belgian broadcasting on the site "intermedia" in rtbf where everyone-each was invited to respond.




http://www.intermedias.be/profiles/blogs/le-jeu-de-la-mort?

"- No, what'll it's a bit big. Rtbf I know that sometimes likes to do in the malicious. I therefore welcome the staging, though a bit thick.
I have not thought a second, potentially situable issue anywhere in the geography television francophone accents or Belgian or French or Canadian, but typically "airs" (kind of Trianon actors, see, is an art of be just "a few" bad), famous psychologists perfectly cheesy and / or unknown (plus bonus: a true-false book-writing by a super-reporter and co-authored by a philosopher unlikely).


The all arranged around the famous Stanley Milgram test tightens we are on the grid every 5 years, as if they were amnesic.
Only one candidate was seen, we are told, "the flight of Icarus," and therefore had to be excluded from the selection. All others, yet recruited by a large representative sample of the population - requires scientific methodology - lived on Saturn.
Although it is the tube as second helping of dish, sauce, dessert and coffee grows in all schools of France and Navarre for over 40 years by all the teachers failed to imagination, these men and women were mostly applied electric shocks gun false false counterparts, but never combine the classic television school.

short, "we" are, tele-spectators, the "tested" this real issue, which would be a little heavy, a setting in abyss of our own credulity and our submission to the authority of that TV.

But if you want my opinion, this kind of demonstration on the map called, um ... "Scientific" (of course if one believes that the field of human behavior can be reduced to a behaviorist always positivist side) does not show. Issues of zero-sum thinking, just the show.

Whatever "balance sheet" which will be drawn, I do not give any credit, because in my case, it is nice game I give no authority, no legitimacy nor the tests, nor on TV, or psychologists and sociologists-advertising toothpaste.
Thanks anyway for the opportunity to say so. It was fun, nothing more. But seriously, we can do better: I am a hoax simmering with onions when you want, and far more credible. You know where to reach me. In advance, thank you.


PS: Chris "Nick" (the misnamed, because no "picnic" not who wants), and the specialist Stanley Milgram, whose name is not for me right now, tsssss.


But shame on the "significant" (academic and others) that lent themselves to this farce on the board. Ç has speaks volumes about the irrelevance of their own work and their incompetence in their field. When it is indeed to assume that people are stupid enough to swallow all these stereotypes of psycho-sociology formatted 50s (to the point of being unable to place these demonstrations belaboured smokers and on occasion a docudrama video gag-worthy), it has only shaved the walls. "


" - jerzy @ pericolosospore, should stop drinking and take the products ... must go to bed the ... "


" - I go to bed late on Friday and I do not drink.

For products, submit the question to Michael Eltchaninoff, French philosopher, co-author with Nick's bestseller published in early March: "Experience extreme " more and better qu'Ushuaia Doctor Mabuse together, account of a mind-blowing experience-survey, to Stephen King, that nobody saw coming in the scientific community, and who will yet shake thoroughly, fortunately preceded already by TV broadcasting documentaries in prime time, and in a few days on France 2, oh joy.


Remember that Michael Eltchaninoff is a major thinkers of our time, the equal of Luc Ferry, a Andre Comte-Sponville or Michel Onfray: author of a booklet published on Dostoevsky in PUF ago 10 years, unfortunately out of print, but better known for the immortal "Bronzer is a Russian specialty standing" and season 1 of "unbearable".


This author as rigorous as facetious did not hesitate to put his skills to the great journalist Christophe Nick, to finally get to the general public and viewers tateuses admirable work of Zeno Ligre of psycho -Sociology Experimental, I appointed the general Jean-Leon Beauvois , keynote speaker in this shocking document, and specialist-mondialo global issues affecting the Manipulatio No, of course.


I did not know yet, I confess, the existence and crucial importance of this "maverick" until I drop, at the moment, the instructions that he devotes Wikipedia. I quote:

"Jean-Leon Beauvois, taking a distance with the meta-theories in a good position [sic] in the scientific and cultural Zeitgeist (interactionism, constructivism, cognitivism, neuro-scientism ...) and asserting his materialism and behaviorism, wanted to develop, with some of his students (number of doctoral students are now university ) [re-sic. What has happened to the other deuce?] , lines of research not dependent on the dogmas of the liberal and individualistic societies, dogmas too often taken by social and psychological sciences, for meta-theoretical truths first. Research topics on which he worked or has driven throughout his career within this concern. They are mainly related to the analysis meta-theoretical, theoretical and experimental investigations of socio-cognitive processes, these processes in which social relations inserting the subjects and objects of knowledge are all constitutive of knowledge generated and / or used as psychological subject and the objects themselves (ternary diagram of knowledge, see 4, 5, 6, 7). His latest book (10 below) inserts a synthesis and analysis work done in a political essay on the historical and social power. "

---> Gee, it's beautiful. I am graduated in phizolofie vaguely, and although I do not "authority" in this area, I am able to confirm that, obviously, despite the faux-scientific Patagonian snoring in this excerpt from the leaflet Wikipedian (in its entirety, it does justice to JL Beauvois, because it is almost as important as that devoted to Galileo or Einstein, or Jean-Baptiste Botul), the work of this laboratory Pico della Mirandola in experimental psychology from front to rear guard spawn truly paths new, with assumptions about the "manipulation" of the subject by the object (and vice versa, as Mark Twain would say) never interviews up to date, or by Gaston Bachelard, nor by Jean Piaget, Karl Popper nor nor by Peter Sellers, nor by Michel Foucault, nor by Dr. Spock.


We had to read it, wait for the remarkable documentary by Christophe Nick, flanked, it has not stressed enough, a Hollywood soundtrack taking, as well as a parallel to Eisenstein would green with envy, which undoubtedly strengthens the impact epistemological powerful drawings by "Shadocks" the great JL Beauvois, contemptuous of totalitarianism manipulator sketch on his table at his fellow-students out any Right-of season 5 Experts.

Like what television leads to everything.


Thank you and goodnight. "




(*** Despite or because of personal investment that requires exacting detail by the urgent task in the show Sebastien P. cultural G. Durand (" the object of scandal "), it will continue to provide weekly programming of" the greatest cabaret in the world ".
Spearheading the fight against nepotism and the privileges," the years happiness will be ensured, as last summer, Olivier Villa, his son)

Addendum analytical vaguely, if at that the irony is not, has never been an effective weapon to resist the exponential spread of stupidity legitimized:

Node of the case, if there is one (I continue to believe in a pseudo-test "abyss" where we believe and test the claims submission to the authority of the viewer of the protocol and interpretation of the figures of "scientific" initiating and framing this issue), c ' is that acquiescence to the contents of the "demonstration" (obedience to authority, namely that of a "game show," a presenter and an audience) just depends on the assumption "meta-theoretical "looks like Beauvois, whereby the viewers watching" experience "and its" interpretation "can not fail to" comply "with the legitimacy and prestige of "science" that says "truth" of the deduction process he himself induced.
And on what basis? All bases are subject to dispute here:

a)
We establish a relationship between structural equivalence "game tv host / candidate" and relationship "scientific / Volunteer tester.

Admittedly evidence here, the context of the "game show" (in this case "press the buzzer") was substituted in the space-time, value and effect comparable , context test Milgram.

Based on the equivalence of this whimsical and haphazard implementation, we "built" device "test" is supposed to measure immediately the same effects induced by the same causes.

b)
But in terms of behaviorist premise of Milgram himself, independently operated by fraudulent equivalences, already a problem arose: as measured at fair test Milgram? Was it always like that Milgram asked his hypothesis, soon emerged as "given" basic indisputable: the submission to "authority" learned "- the subject presumed to know - which gives guidelines? What do we know about? Induced reactions could be interpreted otherwise.

For example: what would it be the "bid" and "obedience" is it identifiable with the "submission"?
The guy who executes instructions, even the most unspeakable, is that necessarily the bid is at stake? The alleged abdication of personal responsibility, secondarisée in a chain of responsibility upstream and fragmented, that it mean "submission"? It became a sort of "ready to think" from Arendt's writings (at least we keep it general) about "the banality of evil" and officials of the Nazi state.

But it is a rather weak assumption that rely, in the range of decisions an "official" within a framework of "x" state crime, a "loss of autonomy "the subject, interpreted in terms of" submission / obedience ". Why would it matter by then deprived of his liberty and his choice? It is quite possible to act with responsibility and full conviction, joining a cause or a world view he believes is right and legitimate in the name of "good".
And it's much more alarming than simply "Abdicating" his responsibility and to submit, and much less easy to excuse. Zeal is also the case of the zealots, and zealots is not difficult to find in a society that spends his time defining and delineating an "axis of good", "axis of evil", a specific category of people designated to stigmatization, demonization, the characteristics of a radical alterity whereby the other, as another sort of defined forms of empathy, is more identifiable with a " alter ego. " The immigrants, the unemployed, etc..
Onem the officer who applied to controlled the sanction of deprivation of unemployment benefits, deciding on the basis of quantitative and "objective" in his list that he does not meet the conditions for "actively seeking employment and permanent" applies does He and the directives of the Ministry of Employment and authoritative secondarisation his "subjectivity", or he believes in personal conscience, from his position as an employee, especially employee contracted and poorly paid a thankless job, that does indeed deserve not controlled its benefits? Etc..

c) The hilarious
"specialist" Jean-Leon Beauvois brandishes eloquent, moving it himself (or pretending) and raved like a magician hypnotized to pulling rabbits out of his own hat fake, its battery worn concepts, so impressive and so spectacular: "totalitarianism", "handling" and big brother television company.

is more than a little weak and easy as we wondered for a moment, in the terms mentioned above, the pseudo-evidence of causality posed between "obedience" and "submission ", and therefore we also reflects more contemporary analysis (beyond the eternal scheme of pontificating "totalitarianism" and "loss of autonomy of the subject"), Foucault and others, showing that operating procedures are now more power to the logic of decentralization, dispersion, and most are integral processes "subjectification" free and intimate, much more efficient than the old stuff of alienation vertical (constant value of responsibility, conscience autonomously, assertiveness, personal initiative, of "resilience" - as it was discussed here ).


d)

- In the case of this issue, not only what kind of presuppositions ethological "ready to think" organizes the material conditions of the alleged "experience", but its protocol is nothing "scientific", despite evidence that the supposedly shared psycho-sociology behaviorist based on the establishment of panels, according to statistical frequencies representative of a "population" "standard: how the" candidates "are they representative of a" standard "and on what basis this" standard "was supported?

The candidates were selected randomly according to a procedure of "competition" spontaneous: they are "representative" of anything. But even in the case - not proven - the establishment of a target audience recruited by some unknown statistical panel, the panel itself would participate in the enactment of the arbitrary "standard" in terms that recognizes as legitimate only on the basis of the authority not discussed the psycho-sociology "scientific" operating here his inductions.

So in the best case, whatever the content inferred from what is called "result" of the test according to the interpretative assumptions discussed here, such proof rests entirely on the premise - which is a consensus - a submission to the authority of "scientific expertise" that says the "real" and creates the conditions for "true".

New Arnica Premium Hair Oil

The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2008)

I do not know how under the influence of poor inspiration I rented "The Hurt Locker" (deminers "), Kathryn Bigelow, in new release of the video club at the corner, but I can assure you one thing: I rarely, these last 10 years, contemplated a object as contemptible, the absolute peak of non-value, mass incitement to hatred and fear of the other, a monument erected to the glory of war-mongering, the constant insecurity of self and of all against all, the negation of any form of alter-ego (I do not say "otherness" because the term "otherness" is too much to validate the "Differential" which call to consider the other in the face of misunderstanding, radical exteriority) that is not returnable to the metaphysics of the axis of evil as Bush entered here in its most instinctive, paranoid, and idiotic atavistic, a touchstone to the contribution of misunderstanding between the native peoples, a radical negation, but so radical any universality, if universalism meant something big one day to as "Enlightenment".

Besides that stuff, "District 9 " follows Levinas, or Martin Luther King or Gandhi, "The Green Berets " John Wayne is a treaty anthropology Lévi-Strauss, "Tintin in the Congo ", the treaty reform of the understanding of Spinoza. That is to say at what level this "beautiful" little metaphysical Series B "ranks.

insecurity discussed here is a feeling that the film extends to the vehicle and the proportion of a unifying symbol, that of some American soldiers plunged into the hell of a threatening world where every inhabitant is equal in its treatment of an alien, whose every gesture or gaze are synonymous with death imminent, destined to plunge the viewer into the adrenaline of a pleasant panic and paranoid.

This insecurity has illustrative value insecurity, a threat more fundamental global opponent in the eye of the beholder two distinct areas, he lives by proxy and enjoyment visceral opposition, his hands clutching his head.

course, the "local population" is insecure, it is not of course because of the U.S. occupation. Which, in this film is presented as it should be, through the symbol of the mine: a thankless job pragmatic humanist, who is under ordinary men placed in extraordinary conditions, as would Professor Lacombe in "meetings Third Kind "and we are invited to live, with maximum empathy, psychic slightest tremor.

In terms of exotic folklore (the "local population"), there are two clearly distinct categories, in this film , palimpsest of humanity that flicker at a not very reassuring in the corner of the screen:

1) potentially threatening the native , flying like an eel, crafty and misleading as the weasel. We never see him in full, is still shaky and oblique planes on a body part: eyes curiously expressionless, with basically a mysterious glow, causing anytime doubt panicking in the skull of deminers, familiar only entities to which the viewer can identify with dramaturgical, and body postures of immobility disturbing as "The Body snatchers "(Renner brave soldier was already in the midst of the" infected "in" 28 Weeks Later ", one can not help but see an effect of casting," reference ", successful and well thought out) Cajun or Southern Comfort , a (good) film by Walter Hill: Who is the friend, who is the enemy? It follows from all the "paranoid thriller" respectable.

Lesser bearded djellaba standing out in a "cut-up nervous on the sly, the slightest glance at the bushy eyebrow in cons seized immediately shook the slightest sound of the muezzin instance, are organic signs of threat imminent danger of adrenaline, barbarism millennium as pestilential as anacondas and tarantulas viscous infesting a dark swamp. Quite simply, I thought it was a transposition of Taken , prod. Besson (meaning cutting plans, assembly, action, clipped, approach "interesting" of the "neighbor" as a sort of "far").

The feeling of heightened danger, meaning deceivers, is exploited in this film so that it becomes its principal figure of speech: the lesser peasant who picks up rubbish and putting them into a trailer to this strange slowness anxiety.

At every shot, the viewer, who lives in fear immersive empathetic with these teams alpha-tango, shuddered, and any presence in the field of Aboriginal visual material to provide the Fear and adrenaline: what do they all, rooftop, to spy on us and we filmed for "youtube", send us ambiguous greetings may be sent coded signs to a guy in a window recess, which manipulates strings, the blue on the red button, the white wire to the green button. The smallest closed face, expressionless = bomber, deceitful scheming. More distant in the field, moving silhouettes on a roof of a hut isolated in the middle of the desert = snipers. And, damn, it gets shot like rabbits.
Everything conspires to magnify this sense of insecurity at all levels, in us-American viewers, but that did we do in this hell, laments that the ranking at the end, understands that the only way to survive is going to be a hothead in front of death, as minesweeper which initially shocked both her military ethics, and it ends like all of us to admire the courage crazy. Especially as he is gifted for the love of his neighbor more than others, especially if the neighbor is a small Beckham who reminds him of the son left at home, the only one who can sympathize with the middle of this node snakes.

For indeed, the only "indigenous" that we vaguely represented here as a "human being" who can identify with, it's a boy hustler who sells the "good-shit-porn , man "and identifies with soccer star David Beckham. is entitled to a nice pass that sealed a friendship with the ephemeral accomplice and Minesweeper. As ever, this small Americanophile will then subjectively identified (in a subtle perceptual hallucination and a suture near) a traitor slaughtered and eviscerated by his own "ethnic group", and in the stomach which was placed a charge of dynamite to blow the Yankees, is to say how point sub-human savages are could be located; confuse it cheaply and turn into a burned head traumatized any brave guys sensitive father and divorced in Connecticut.


2) the native paradigmatic victim: one who is transformed into a Christmas tree with rolls of dynamite as a twinkling wreaths on the occasion of weeping amid the rubble, which hinder the movement and whose only sound events are the litany of sharp cries of pain (as is seen routinely in reports from CNN and elsewhere), so unbearable in fact they also collaborate in this climate of constant insecurity: the spectator is again brought to question. Is not it a diversion to fool our senses? Victims are they no accomplices disguised hypocrisy experts, the elements of a trap will close over us?

"Man-bomb" from the end as a paradigm, therefore, the victim-Civil how the contrast is found between mastery, self control and self-denial Minesweeper ( paces behind his deceptive "store" is a competent guy, it is the only guy in charge, in addition to being the coolest) , trying to save him, and hysteria of the noisy victim, his own incessant wailing and whining which become cons-productive: "hey you, we almost want to say you could not keep quiet for a second and stop gesticulating while attempting to save you the fuck? "Translation plaintive voice over by a fellow" c'y a brave man, he y MSIO nice, if he has 4 children vo PLE "is not to calm things down. That will be the only thing translatable and understandable in the local jargon typical of the" foreigners "among them, and that sounds plaintive Univoc po so American. Everything else is only cries, prayers and lamentations deafening.

No empathy possible, with regard to local human in this second category, if not for the "victim-set-window" : the native cunning schemer, not invisible (one who does not hesitate to kill and eviscerate his own children into the mail bomb), but cannon fodder moaning.



In this "mess", the only rest periods where you feel a bit between "friends" is in the barracks when the fraternity gets involved, that the regular guy who thinks his kids and his girl left the country, and the fights that are actually a communion for discharge voltage and prove to the other's eyes that we no longer fear of beatings and death.

Obviously, the black sergeant did not like the early hothead very "scottish" that did not follow the safety instructions.

In the end, he realizes that his only real friend is one who saves his life, the only one appropriate response for survival in a hostile environment. In this the film is generous and humane, for the diversity of its representatives to the great American democracy: confronting the enemy dark, turbaned, inscrutable face of a piece of land that is as stones, scrap metal and trapped facies ("f.. ck man, i hate this country"), we can understand us, respect us, and unite fraternally.

Latest pacifists or talkers before the call to burn and uncompromising "patriot act", will be ashamed, guilty conscience: that the doctor "psychological" way that gives the "soldier" condescending whose only experience in the field is Yale, "said the soldier, unless vot'respect mister not shoot inside the car. Besides the first to jump, helmet forward on bombinette was called, and it will teach him to do the cautious, lacking self control and very cowardly for that matter.

It is courage, the value, the senseless sacrifice of our brave lads sent into a world of savages, we are presented here. Must not imagine this kind of film breaks in any way with the litany of famous war films on the "Vietnam" or other substitution framework to meditate on vertigo of evil that lies in man.
is always the same cathartic recantation of Mormon: I saw the horror, sir, I saw the horror, and I should not have, Scuse me but I go back. The war is a drug, the ultimate trip, always the same old song from "Apocalypse Now", "The Deer Hunter" and the guy was traumatized, has no choice but to re-enlist at the end credits (so unexpected), not on Wagner, but against a background of hard-metal good romp, but scary, too, oooh, it looks to meditate on the evil that 'we are made to us, brave people, who ask only to live alone at home with us after our brave rapper cabbage and carrots. Look what you made of us, hotheads, mercenaries, rips anti-mine personal rhooo.
Moviegoers most insightful and shrewd seized here in a very critical final and daring of the war: it debunks the Convention Film " return at home." It is sufficient to reverse a narrative convention, a stereotype - it's also a method of the most stereotypical - for which it detects, in a reflex arc "Pavlovian", a powerful act of subversion "questioned" cliches.

Not at all sure that it does not awaken vocations elsewhere. It's not some young n'électrise Burns vegetate between bowling, shit and the net, a daily newspaper in the "Less Than Zero" by Brett Easton Ellis, and may enter in this representation the alloy delicate an oath of allegiance to his great country and during a trip extreme vaguely suicidal. A real pub in disguise for an alternative to the dull existence, with a risk-taking where you feel manly life, Zounds, and sensory experience of land larger than a video game of survival fps. And it's true that it's tempting, my faith in these times when companies offer their framework that's not enough nia courses khaki tracksuit survival in the wilderness, mayday mayday, pan, t ' 're dead, bang, you jump.



entire film emerges as an obvious and pervasive smell of operation muscular cause "sensory" afterthought of "politics". And this time, "purified" is the word, any judgments about the good, the bad, the cause of any political angle of perception: you avoid the chatter, contrition and reflexivity two balls a De Palma. No, an immersive experience, to live alone descriptive plan, the aesthesis pure, claim those in search of excitement, delight them.

criticism is unanimous. A "return to the real human" at last, and that gives pleasure, it whispers. "It would wrong to be choosy before this great (...) Hurt Locker, which is considering the war from a strictly practical point of view of three men stuck in a daily newspaper as repetitive as it is extraordinary, "explains Jean-Baptiste-Thoret Charlie weekly, and that is true, when you think that the repetition of everyday life is extraordinary. War "at breast height," whispers we advertise. Yeah. There's a dozen men 100 kilometers as the crow flies, in this film. All around, it smells like the mongoose and jackal.

In short, a "phenomenology" of the war, will not hesitate to conceptualise the pedants penetrated to rescue the "funistes" (which just spare themselves as vain attempts of "intellectual masturbation"), ante-predicative, obtained by some unknown "Epoch" transcendental, a "suspension" of Judgement neutralizing the "natural theory" of the existence of objects already constituted by the beliefs and psychologism.
joke.
As if such neutralization was only possible in relation to a film that takes as "material" a situation, a present, a geography, a policy, population, an occupying force, war, reward, strictly determined empirically . This is the reverse movement takes place, of course: this supposed return to the "appearing of the thing itself" (sensations and experience of war, danger) renewing the hard core "thésique" which determines the shape Similarly, and this core, it is entirely beliefs and objective judgments, stereotypes psychological naturalized, we know well. Therefore mean simply that stuff behind pseudo-sensualist: back to the hard-effectiveness of the best games immersion "fps" to the "Gears of War ", replacing the turbans here locusts.

A form adequate to its merits, and a bottom at its proper form, as usual, and it is not surprising even to the the eternal return of rhetoric on the supposed ability to dissociate, to "live" without the show "theorize" in the secondarisation intentions and ideas that eventually do not belong to the author, but should be left to the discretion of each. Does not claim that "The Jew Süss " Veit Harlan - a propaganda film that is worth another in terms of perception of the "other" - can be approached from a purely "aesthetic" or so decontextualized. We can also read this kind of approach "mac-mahonienne" in the dictionary film Jean Tulard (Laffont, 1982):

"By 1948, in his letter to Rabbi Prinz [ ...], then in his autobiography published in 1966, he has sought to justify himself: he has wanted to make an "artistic representation of the Jewish problem" [...]; publicity shot the film in sense anti-Semitic than Harlan did not anticipate. Let him the benefit of doubt (he was also acquitted after the war by a court) and acknowledge that the film is technically well done. But Harlan was nonetheless an active propagandist of National Socialism, exalting Prussian militarism [...] If The Golden City second film Agfacolor, opposing "the health of rural depravity to the big city (Courtade and Cadard), is now unbearable sentimentality force, unlike the previous films that have aged much less on the artistic level, we still say, however, although two large romantic works: Immensee and Opfergang, cleared of any concerns policy. After 1950, Harlan found a small sign business but pseudo-exotic adventures (The tiger Columbo ) or semi-pornographic films ( The third sex) ".

( Aah, the academic records of webbed Tulard. Too much fun. I appreciate enough, Me, his erudition, his sincere love of the series z, "giallos" movies and "gore," his humor - very "Knoxville" before the letter, although I'm not sure that his readers preferred to grasp the subtleties)



should detail point by point, shot by shot, "block" with "block", the broad signal alarming decline and mental deterioration that "Hurt Locker" is, but tired, I will just say this, in Summing up. Let's call a spade a spade: deeply and unmistakably racist the soles of feet to the hairline, to a degree of suffocation and décomplexion difficult to achieve even a Joel Schumacher (which even at the height of Zemmour its xenophobic hysteria, or a Philippe Val Knight informed of the right to caricature, fail to meet one hundredth efficiency), the growing appeal to the instincts Virilio-burnées most gregarious as the eternal and hypocritical pretext of a "critical" (?) of "War" (this "addictive drug" that "extreme experience "If immersive, etc.), this movie stinks of shit every inch of his film, there's nothing else to say.

The success of this film, its laurels, are even more alarming than the film itself: it says a lot about the state of our imagination, the success of the extensive work undertaken in the way undermines self -representation of the West, the impregnation of the "clash of civilizations" in the same the eyeball, since some events are called "founders".

the Oscars this year was a display of banality and cowardice. The three films

most awarded by the Academy, Locker (The Hurt Locker), Precious and Inglorious Basterds embody a whole what is backward and unhealthy industry movie, and they argue all masked.

Locker Despite statements on his approach "apolitical" or "non-partisan," he reveals, in its own way without flavor, be a movie in favor of war and imperialism. Far from offering a compassionate perspective on the lives of African-American inner-cities [poor, ndt], Precious revels in the social backwardness, which he blames the oppressed themselves. The repulsive Inglorious Bastards Quentin Tarantino's film is as "anti-Nazi", but offers its own version of porn and sadism, which takes up more than a fascist element. Three

works frankly appalling.

seven years ago that, in March 2003, just days before the start of the illegal invasion of Iraq, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore - receiving an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine - denounced George W. Bush as "fake president," adding, "We live in an era where a man sending us to war for reasons that are not there ... [We] are against this war Mr Bush. Shame on you. "

Seven years after this statement includes Moore's film industry has officially thrown in the towel last Sunday and as the lowest that is, abandoning even the pretense of opposing the colonial wars of the Middle East and Central Asia. In fact, the choice of Locker as the best film is part of a creeping rehabilitation and concerted war of Iraq, taking place in liberal political and media establishment.

From The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss wrote that he saw "hopeful signs" of fraud in the recent Iraqi elections, to think-tank of the Democratic Party, the Center for American Progress, says that these elections "represent the last step of the Iraqis to regain control their own affairs, "the official left and the liberal middle indicate their agreement for the permanent presence of U.S. in Iraq, to control the vast oil reserves in the country.

Liberals' anti-war, "prominently in Hollywood, for whom opposition to the Iraqi invasion of 2003 had much to do with psychological and cultural hostility toward the Bush administration, are there also. The election of Barack Obama represented for them, as with any social environment, the full realization of their political aspirations. The director of

Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow seized the opportunity in his acceptance speech for the prize for best director, "to dedicate to women and men of the army who risk their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. And after that, on receiving the Oscar for best film, she repeated, "perhaps more than a dedication to men and women around the world who wear a uniform ... they are there for us and we're here for them. "

No, they are not there for" us ". The U.S. military is a professional army, not a conscript army, it operates as a band thugs of the world to serve the American financial elite. All kinds of ex-leftists and liberals rallied around the current imperialist war effort, often by the formula that we must "support the troops. "It's a pathetic and fraudulent slogan. In practice, it means trying to discourage or ignore the criticism of the causes, conduct and objectives of this brutal conflict.

The success of the Oscar campaign for Locker is a measure of the intellectual bankruptcy of critics and Hollywood's elite. This film has not been a big hit with the public, but as Jeremy Kay writing for the Guardian noted, "This thriller has become the muse of critics, praised as the best film about the war in Iraq made the United States, and indeed as the best slice of war shown to the screen for years. "This is not true, but much better films like Battle for Haditha and In the Valley of Elah, or others, have been deliberately marginalized by the U.S. media.

The public relations company hired to look after Locker, focused on the prospect that Bigelow is the first filmmaker to receive an Oscar. "The idea was attractive, "Kay wrote," and I can attest to how fast it spread in the arteries of Hollywood. One day before the appointment, February 2, virtually no one spoke of nothing else. "

In other words, the fact that the director is a woman has counted more than anything else. Of course, that's not all. The Academy members were also praised Locker because of its themes.

Under the guise of objectivity and "authenticity," Bigelow's film presents the war in Iraq from the perspective of a "hothead," Sergeant William James, bomb disposal expert. The presence of U.S. forces as an occupation army is never questioned, and the work of this individual reckless (and, frankly, psychotic) is presented as heroically saving thousands of lives.

The few bits of dialogue inserted between the various scenes are forced and defusing not convincing. Bigelow has no idea what the soldiers are, or how humans interact. His films (the Loveless, Near Dark, Blue Steel, Point Break, Strange Days) is not made from life, but from patterns and confused unhealthy, including scattered pieces of post-structuralist philosophy and postmodern.

In his first film, The Set-Up (1978), for example, two men fight in an alley, while, according to The New York Times, "semioticians [studying the language] and Marshall Blonsky Sylvère Lotringer deconstruct Images in voiceovers. "Bigelow said in this connection:" The film ends with Sylvère speaking of the fact that in the 1960s were conceived as the enemy outside itself, that is to say, a police officer, government, system, but it's not really the case in fact fascism is very insidious, it reproduces all the time. "

We want to answer, again: talking to you! Bigelow is clearly fascinated by violence and power ... and War, which it regards as attractive and "overly dramatic. "Bigelow supports the idea that" there is probably a fundamental need in this conflict "and she finds herself attracted to the notion of a" psychology of addiction, attraction towards the fight. "His admirers say

Bigelow complains, or critical, such a situation. Instead, Hurt Locker, glorify violence and beautified, the director associates' reactions emotional intensity. All this, with a dose of badly digested Nietzsche is quite unhealthy, even sinister, but corresponding to a mindset among some well-defined intelligentsia considered "radical" in the United States.

Bigelow's film, directed from a screenplay by the journalist "embedded" Mark Boal, is not an antiwar movie. It merely pause occasionally to think about the high cost paid by American soldiers for the massacre of Iraqi civilians and insurgents. Regarding Bigelow, as they do not seem to have fun and they show signs fatigue and stress, American soldiers can continue to kill and wreak havoc.

As noted by the chronic WSWS last August, "the biggest mistake of the film is that its makers apparently believe that it is possible to correctly portray the moral and psychological state of the American soldiers not to mention the nature of the Iraq adventure as a whole, as if this does not change the way soldiers think and act. "

Locker has appealed to voters in Hollywood, as one commentator noted with satisfaction, because it" does not force viewers to make a political assessment on the war, " that is to say that it is compatible with the ultra-right, the Pentagon and the Obama.

The annual Academy Awards is more than just a chance for Hollywood s'autocélébrer. Dissemination (for this year by 40 million people in the United States.) Has become a ritual of American public life, a way to forge more, manipulate public opinion.

Thus, as in all such opportunities, the ceremony is an event now fully prepared and sterile from start to finish. Nobody has the right - or would think - out of range, there is virtually no time that is not written in advance. Although this ceremony probably has never had its heyday, there were times where she kept the possibility of sincere feelings, and even opposition, to speak.

Even the Oscar for Documentary that Moore had won in 2003, was closely monitored. Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith were competing in the same category this year with their movie The Most Dangerous Man In America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. Ellsberg is the man who released the Pentagon's secret history in the Vietnam War in 1971, dealing a blow to the version events presented by the government. He was present at the ceremony last Sunday. In the current atmosphere dominated by corruption and fear, it would have been too embarrassing to remember someone who opposed the authorities!

Instead, The Cove, a documentary on a Japanese fishing village where thousands of dolphins and turtles are caught each year, received the award. This topic can be good, but it is considerably less important than stopping the bloodshed in Vietnam, or its equivalent today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
short, the Oscars This year was again a very low level. Directors, screenwriters and actors honest Hollywood will come forward and act. The current situation is simply untenable in terms of cinema as society as a whole.

(David Walsh, 11 March 2010, "World Socialist Web Site )

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/hurt-m11.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/hurt-m16.shtml