Bloggasm

Via maddox (wow, not only did maddox actually update his site for the first time in forever, he actually linked to an outside source AND his posts was something better than “My balls are huge”), Here are two comprehensive sites that debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. I haven’t gotten a chance to read through everything yet.

9/11: Debunking the Myths:

FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase “World Trade Center conspiracy” and you’ll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide:

This guide is meant to be a companion to, not a substitute for, the video itself. For one thing, I had to greatly reduce the resolution of the video screenshots in this document in order to keep the file size manageable. The video looks a lot better. “Loose Change Second Edition” is available as a free bittorrent download, as a Google Video stream, and for purchase from the Loose Change website. The creators of Loose Change also have an internet forum where you can discuss the video and 9/11 conspiracy-related issues. I encourage you to sign up there and let them know how you feel about their efforts.

Fittingly, this is the second edition of this critique. The first was done in six long nights, because I wanted to hand copies of it to the creators of “Loose Change” when they were in New York to protest the premiere of the movie “United 93″ on April 25, 2006. Because that version was written in the heat of the moment, it contained more obvious anger and sarcasm directed towards the creators of Loose Change. That anger hasn’t abated, but cooler heads than mine have convinced me that cutting down on the “cutting” remarks should help me get my points across more effectively.

These debunkings are mainly responding to this video.

Related posts: Copyright hurdles for documentarians

This is nothing I really stopped to consider before. I knew that film-makers who make fictional films have to run the copyright loops from a variety of venues, considering that they’re dealing with things like ad-placement, movie-albums, etc…, but never did I realize that documentarians have to go through these same hurdles. There’s something about this that just makes you want to scream; the fact that those who have enlisted themselves to record history for us in visual form aren’t completely protected by fair-use laws. There’s a Wired article that interviews law professors who wrote a comic book about this subject: Battling the Copyright Monster.

At one point, it begins talking about how copyright has changed over the last 80 years, and how it has actually become an us-versus-them mentality for film-makers:

A fourth thing that cuts the other way is the fear-and-loathing syndrome. There’s a whole generation of filmmakers and digital creators whose only experience of copyright is as a hassle, as an obstruction, as a cease-and-desist letter preventing them from making or distributing their work. They see copyright as a pointless labyrinth they have to make their way through to make their art. We actually view ourselves as copyright defenders, showing how copyright is supposed to work. We’re saying this imbalance could cause us to lose the next generation of artists, if they think of copyright as worthless.

But perhaps the most shocking paragraph in the whole interview was this one:

First of all, documentaries are incredibly important records of our history and culture. They’re visual histories, and they’re increasingly based on copyrighted culture. Our book describes several instances in which the telling of that history has been thwarted by permissions issues. An example is Jon Else having to pay $10,000 for a four-and-a-half-second clip of The Simpsons playing in the background of his film (Sing Faster: The Stagehands’ Ring Cycle). The makers of Mad Hot Ballroom had to pay that same amount to EMI because a cell phone rings in the background of one of the scenes, and the ringtone is the theme from Rocky. These examples really resonate with people. They understand that these are instances where copyright is not working the way it’s supposed to.

A massive amount of money for a Rocky ringtone that went off somewhere in the background? For a documentary? Something that usually isn’t expected to make much money anyway?

via IFC

Related posts: Netflix is getting distribution rights to indie movies, Supersize Me filmmaker makes fun of retarded people,

As someone who pretends to be a movie buff, I think it’s awesome that Netflix is buying up the distributor rights to a bunch of small indie movies: Netflix widens niche by broadening tastes:

So it’s no surprise that Netflix is moving into distributing more indie titles. On a mission to bring viewers movies they might never come across, Sarandos has acquired various rights to 175 titles, including the Hal Hartley art flick “The Girl From Monday” and several documentaries from distributor DocuRama, the Sundance Channel and PBS’ “POV” indie film showcase.

via cinematech

As someone who loves documentaries, I really didn’t like the self-indulgent crap-fest known as Supersize Me. That’s why I found this article interesting: “Super Size Me” filmmaker angers some with speech at high school:

Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock gave a profanity-laced, politically incorrect speech to several hundred high school students, and not everyone was lovin’ it.

…

In his hourlong presentation before 700 students, Spurlock joked about the intelligence of McDonald’s employees, using an Indian accent as he imitated a cashier trying to figure out how to ring up a Quarter Pounder. He also joked about “retarded kids in the back wearing helmets” and teachers smoking pot in the balcony.

Ok. Are you ready to laugh out loud?

There actually were special education students in the back row. Teachers led them out during the hourlong presentation.

via Sister Toldjah

Other than his work on Nehring The Edge and Australia’s best web site It’s A Matter of Opinion Scott Nehring spends his time teaching film and raising two boys. Scott has a background in theatre and film and produced in both mediums. While he’s always looking for another writing gig, he’s currently working on a Bible Study program concentrating on film.

Simon Owens: When doing film reviews, do you ever focus on documentaries? What are some of the best documentaries you’ve seen recently?

Scott Nehring: Absolutely. Documentaries tend to be thrown aside like used Kleenex in favor of fictional pieces in our culture. This is a mistake since this type of film often has the ability to connect with the audience in a way a regular narrative piece is incapable of doing. The problem with many documentaries is that the filmmaker often gets in the way of their subject (in the case of Michael Moore, I’m certain he gets in the way of many things.) Many times this is due to an egotictic filmmaker who is unable to contain their desire to be the star instead of just the filmmaker (Fahrenheit 9/11, Super Size Me, Grizzly Man.) While the filmmaker often makes appearances in their film out of necessity, I think we’re seeing more and more documentary filmmakers inserting themselves out of ego. This is proportional to the number of hack pieces that have been made as of late. If I see another hyper-political piece with no regard to facts or actually documenting anything other than the filmmaker’s myopia I’m going to spew.

I just used myopia in a sentence. Who the hell do I think I am? Myopia? I’m starting to read like a Gore Vidal Word-A-Day Calendar.

Back to your question. Recently, I watched two documentaries that blew me away. Born into Brothels and Murderball. The first focuses on children growing up in the slums of India as they wait to become old enough to join the lines of prostitutes working outside their homes. The latter is about the American full-contact wheelchair rugby team at the Paralympic Games. The films are entirely different in subject and style, obviously. The two productions, when put next to one another show the wide expanse of the form. Born Into Brothels is a quiet, and deeply moving film shot with cheap cameras on the fly. We are taken to a place normally hidden from the view of the international community and meet people we’d never otherwise know existed. Conversely, Murderball is a big explosion of a film. There are plenty of set up interviews, pre-ordained events that are shot (the competitions) and the personal dramas are played out in the open on the international stage. The films couldn’t be more different. What they do have in common is a strong focus on their subject and a willingness to let the stories speak for themselves. We are confronted with needless taunts of politics, and there are no self-promoting showboats. Both films simply offer a look at humanity.

(more…)