The United States Constituiton recognizes a militia/military

The signing of the USA Consitution

I find it most interesting it recognizes militias within the context of empowering individuals. Never anywhere within the USA Consitution does it mention that the 'United' states should have a military more powerful than the potential of the individuals either. In fact, if one reads the USA Consitution in it's 'context' without dicing up words and slicing apart paragraphs, there is the very distinct 'spirit' of individual over 'United' country. Where in any document, in any country, in any government has there been such pains taken to insure the individual the highest power of the land?

Amendment I

... the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...


Amendment II

A well regulated militia,

being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms,

shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, ...


Amendment V

... unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

Under the influence

Influence or Power.

Which is the real road to peace?

Composition to follow.

You didn't think this was about alcoholism, did you? There are capable people other than me to 'influence' people with addictions and diseases that interfer with social success.

This is to return to sanity, regarding war and the choice of peace.

Can peace co-exist with power?

It's Saturday Night

"Influence" from the album Someone in Control by TRAPT

Do I want this...

Liquid courage pouring down,
sober surface hits the ground,
the masquerade has started now,
and you have faded into the crowd

How do you know?
How do you know
just who your friends are?
How do you know
when you've gone too far
to get high again?

You always feel so alone,
the real you is never shown.
Whose influence,
whose influence are you under?

So much pressure to fit in,
you never know where to begin.
Whose influence,
whose influence are you under now?

Liquid courage pouring down,
sober surface can't be found,
there's no denial you can drown,
but nothing's final so turn around

How do you know?
How do you know just
who your friends are?
How do you know '
when you've gone too far
to get high again?

You always feel so alone,
the real you is never shown.
Whose influence,
whose influence are you under now?

So much pressure to fit in,
you never know where to begin.
Whose influence,
whose influence are you under now?

I want this...
Do I want this?
I want this / I want this
Do I want this? / Do I want this?
I want this / I want this
Do I want this?

How do you know?
How do you know
just who your friends are?
How do you know
when you've gone too far?

You always feel so alone,
the real you is never shown.
Whose influence,
whose influence are you under now?

So much pressure to fit in,
you never know where to begin.
Whose influence,
whose influence are you under now?
Whose influence,
whose influence, whose influence
are you under now?

I had to return to responsiblities at home...

... but, I didn't want to leave.

I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With

This was more a sad picture than a comedy, but, there is always that truth with comedy there is usually sadness behind the laughter.

It was a first time film as a director for Jeff Garlin. Mr. Garlin is the producer and co-star of HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm" (click on)

If the word "Fat" could be used as a title this movie needed to be renamed. It is about a man whom has a chronic issue of obesity due to failed romatic endeavors in his life primarily because he is in a self defeating cycle of depression after disappointment. Needing to find love he enters into a realtionship with a nymphomaniac whom seeks more and more satiation of sexual nuances to satisfy her empty life. The relationship ends in disappointment when he realizes the woman of his dreams simply wanted to experience a sexual encounter with a 'fat man.' That reality again returns him to depression and the ice cream parlor. He is in a huge social cycle of failure exchanging immediate gradification for long term social satisfaction. It's one of the saddest films I have ever seen. Even his professional life as an actor takes a down turn and I expected him to look for the edge of a bridge someplace. The film exploits the concept of loser. I mean this man probably didn't have a voting card as a source of hope in his helplessness. He needs a friend to go to the health club with as his mother is an anchor to his social liberation.

The 'journey' he takes through the film has many funny twists and turns and for that it is worth seeing. There is no moral to this story simply a good laugh at some quirky realities too many Americans will find commonality.

I thought it was interesting and funny but the dialogue Mr. Garlin brought before and after the film in his director's debut was as enjoyable as the film.

Minerva's

I didn't set out to find a five star hotel restaurant to test the best cuisine in Traverse City, Michigan, it just worked out that way.

I was not disappointed. Minerva's served some of the best Michigan has to offer with a special 'local' menu of the day including a 'Cherry Torte' for dessert. The cuisine was fantastic, the chef deserved a standing ovation, the service was great. I made a good choice and never once did I believe I was in a hotel restaurant. It was a place I had researched locally and they were right. Minerva's proved to 'Do Traverse City Proud' for all the care it took to find the pride of the area and create a menu to enhance it. I enjoyed myself a great deal and took home a bottle of a local wine (Not cheap - $28.00) as a soveigner and gift to my son who likes to exercise his 'chef' side from time to time.

Tsotsi was the final film I viewed, but, was not the last I wanted to see.

This may sound ludicrous but there wasn't much about "Tsotsi" one cannot find in the ghettos of the USA with the exception of the 'child community' where this young South African survived to adulthood. It was that 'child community' that brought him away from complete demise of himself.

The film is very violent but it is also very starkly real. An introduction of the film was made regarding the reality of these young men of South Africa and their continued existance in an economy of violence and crime. To counter that the South Africans that are victimized by these young men are 'self-protected' by iron fences and alarms. Not very different from the USA in many ways. There is a police force but they are twarted in their prevention of crime so much as responding to it after the fact. There are absolutely no social programs providing hope for these young South Africans.

Tsotsi finds himself alone in a hostile world of crime with piers his own age in order to survive. As a result a paradox of events happens. He ends up taking an infant from it's home after the mother was shot. She didn't die, but, the young vandals didn't know that. There is no ransom note or kidnapping per se, just a lonely young man in search of some meaning to his life. The infant required food and diaper changes and all the things infants require including amusing 'mobiles' to enhance their curiosity and as amusement.

The story unfolds in a severely poverty stricken area of an urban environment where Tsotsi is forced to seek help in taking care of the infant. He forces an already lactating mother to take on another infant. In time and through more crime he returns to her with powdered formula and a bottle. He no longer needs her help and takes the infant on himself. He seeks out his old 'child-in-the-hood' territory. It is a series of large unused sewer pipes where children seek shelter and protection from storms and sun alike while looking out for each other. Tsotsi hopes these children will be able to give care to the infant and raise him as he once was raised. They were overwhelmed at the thought so he leaves them and then sets out to return the infant to his home.

The young South African finds himself when he tries to compassionately care for an infant. He projects love and receives it in return though satisfying the infants needs in accomplishment and the smiles the baby occassionally expresses as infants will. The movie ends on a positive note with the infant returned to the parents in a very upscale neighborhood voluntarily by Tsotsi through a tense moment with police. The father, a successful South African, is magnificent with his now paralyzed wife at his side in the final scene of the film. It is he that perceives Tsotsi's life although remanding him to the police and most likely a trial. The outcome past that is anyone's guess, but, more than likely a jail cell for some length of time will make this young African's return from violence resulting in compassion toward an infant, a return to it.

The film is poignant. It needed to be made and the production is flawless. It is a statement about not just South Africa and it's social difficulties but poverty in general. Where there is no outreach there is no hope and the people that are borne into poverty frequently live in it's dynamics including crime and punishment endlessly, while the society that tries to protect itself from it provides no real incentive for an alternative to it.

It's a difficult film to watch. More difficult than Hotel Rwanda. I have a feeling many Rap Artists would find commonality in some of the realities Tsotsi lived.

The travel back home was uneventful and only repeated the same obversations I made before.

Everyday at the Traverse Film Festival proved more enlightening than the day before

Films, Films and more Films

Lotlita, a Stanley Kubrick film

I decided to view this film for many reasons, the least of which is that this is a Kubrick film. Stanley Kubrick was a bit of a revolutionary in his time. He chose this book to make a film and the book itself was revolutionary. Lolita was written by a Russian, Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, in 1955. That was during the Cold War. The chance that a Russian author would ever find his material attractive to a Hollywood producer was a real change for the American society. The reason it caught the imagination of Kubrick is because of the 'creepiness' of Humbert, the scholar whom rents a room in a lonely widow's home after seeing her twelve year old daughter, Lolita, sunbathing in the backyard.

The film is an exercise in obsession. Humbert is sexually attracted to a pubescent child he watches grow into a woman knowing full well he could never have a relationship with her as a child. He has designs on the girl from the beginning and becomes a bit of a 'sexual confidant' to her as she develops into a woman. The widow/mother panders to his obsession in hopes to divert his passions in her direction. it works and eventually they are married. The obsession with Lolita doesn't end and the marriage enters into failure. Eventually the emotional turmoil of the mother's life results in a hysteria sending her running into the street and then killed by a car.

The plot spins all kinds of victimization of women. It was interesting to me that women 'of the time' were victims of their sexuality and not in control of it. A scarey reminder in the year 2006 when women's rights are under attack, beyond what Kubrick intended to the extent 'a male dominant' society could have to destroy a woman's right of self determination. I don't believe love obsessions belong exclusively to men and the ability for 'finding a relationship' is more a challenge in a society where women are esteemed for their accomplishments rather than their ownership of a vagina and uterus. Women, during Kubrick's time were still chattel, especially in this film.

It's meant to be a torturous film of emotion with fear as the basis to saving Lolita from Humbert and his obsession. All I can say is that to realize this film was revolutionary is a sad statement to the society so fascinated with it. Today. If a woman/girl found someone like Humbert stalking them it would be a matter of getting restraining orders and chasing him into prison for his inabilitiy to deal with his own issues. At least that is the ideal to protect women from obsessed men. Then there is the reality that manifested into the murders of Nichole Brown and Ron Goldman. We still have a long way to go, but, at least a path is now carved.

I enjoyed the film and found lots of reason to reflect. It was a lengthy film of over two and a half hours. Kubrick was a genius and very revolutionary. It may very well be, Kubrick in his own way was actually the imputus to the woman's movement. I mean, "yuk," who wants a Humbert in their lives !

Who Killed the Electric Car?

What is there to say about this film? It is a vital 'need to see' film. This is a prime example of the lies coming out of DC. The technology is there. There is no reason to be dragging our feet on this issue. We have the means to change our society's impact on Earth and we need to take control of that direction with the commitment to never turn back. We can't. The Oil Age is Over.

This little car could easily be driven by people owning SUVs as most of the time there is only one person in the large and polluting vehicle and that is the driver. This quick to accelerate car could easily be tooled up for mass production resulting in a lower cost to consumers. GM made a huge mistake to invest in production of SUVs rather than taking a stand for a safer Earth. There are currently waiting lists for hybrids, there is no doubt in my mind this car would have taken off in popularity. With use would come wider spread infrastructure and Americans would have their answer to Kyoto, proudly again at the forefront, leading the way into the energy revolution we are all capable of.

This is a must see film. The insight regarding electric cars from the beginning of the horseless carriage is fascinating. The film educates to the power a "W"rong minded corporation and the ill effects it brings to a society of people seeking answers and not more problems. This film has shadows of "Roger and Me" all over it. It was a great film. Very nice inclusion for a film festival that would also screen "An Inconvenient Truth."

Viva Zapatero!

This film won the Gold Place Winner of the Audience Prize of the Film Festival. I was fortunate to attend the first screening. We were enthralled with this woman intent on satarizing the Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Her name is Sabina Guzzanti and she was censored by Italy.

She is on the international indepentant filmmaker scene with no end in sight. The standing ovation began during the ending credits of the film and didn't stop for at least five minutes and then only when the staff took the stage stating she and Mike were on their way. We waited patiently and if there was no other film playing that night would have stayed with questions after questions after questions. Her talent was pervasive.

Her message was simple. We can laugh about men leaders whom we disagree and find overbearing in their authority and it's misuse. It was done with satire. She had extensive make-up to look like the Prime Minister with his partner in crime, Tony Blair, played by another actor with extensive make-up as well. They were great. Contrary to Italy's response in censoring her, Britain and Europe simply loved her upraorious talent.

Ms. Guzzanti is an extremely brave woman. She is without any inhibitions in expressing her views through a penetrating satire. In her expression of issues we could relate to for Italy and in commonality we all shared she was absolutely brazen without leaving a stone unturned. She is the future of political outrage, without a doubt.

As a woman among so many men, we need her there. She needs to realize the USA is also not the same either, jailing journalists, producing government films with designer outcomes, changing the game of freedom of speech, privacy and expression of decension in flag burning and otherwise. Sabrina should be willing in an international arena to take on the oppression of government as it affects her craft. She is capable of it. We look forward to more of her work as soon as this film, with it's subtitles, finds an American distributor. Her burgeoning influence was nearly thwarted by the way, when her film was never promoted at the Venus Film Festival EXCEPT on atypical venues on the INTERNET. After the word got around 'on the net' the film was a huge success. From there it was onto Europe and now Traverse City.

The real satire of Sabrina Guzzanti is to realize she is the daughter of an Italian Senator. "Politics are Us" is her claim to life and she wears it well. She promises more films about Italian issues including the oppression of a new Pope intent on returning the Catholic Church to the dark ages. She is a marvel. Pay attention to the name, she is only starting.

Hotel Rwanda

It was an interesting end to my film viewing day. Here again, Terry George's ability for bringing clarity to an impossible subject mired in chaos takes center stage. Terry George captured the violence of genocide in unexpected ways introducing it's promise right from the beginning of the film when a crate of machetes are dropped in a warehouse where they spill onto the floor.

Hotel Rwanda is a subject no one believed would find the silver screen. The stark reality of living within a genocide was more than anyone watching the film expected. The actual reality is that the bloodiness of the genocide was not nearly witnessed in this film so much as preceived. In one scene, Don Cheadle (click on) in his roll as the hotel manager, is a passenger in a truck taking supplies back to the hotel traveling in a fog along a familiar road they were reassured was 'clear' when he starts yelling to stop the truck as he believed they were off the road because of the very bumpy traverse. When he gets out of the truck to see how far off the road they were he steps on bodies. For as far as the eye could see there were bodies strewn across the road and in the jungle lining the road. In fact, the truck he was traveling was now standing on bodies and not the road surface. It was a horrifying, bloodless scene to the eyes but to the emotions it was as bloody a scene as I have ever witnessed.

The horror of Rwanda's genocide could not be captured on film entirely, no one would be able to sit through the film. Terry George's ability to bring that horror to an acceptable level for the civilized mind is the reason I find myself attending so many of his films. It is a film I will not readily forget. It left me feeling stronger in my values and more committed than ever to non-violent and vigilent resolutions. I stress vigilant as that is the place where the impetus lies and where the violence is still preventable. Once it begins, diplomacy has failed. Although diplomacy will be 'the end' of the violence what happens between is a result of failed programs to avert the imputus to the killing. It is frankly honest analysis that is required to bring proper programs and funding with effective use of that funding without corruption that stops such inconceivable cruelty.

The Rwanda Genocide was bigotry. Simple as that. Someone wanted power they didn't have and they chose to kill anyone along the way that wasn't their ethnicity to get it. The most interesting statement made by Nick Nolte, the leader of the UN peacekeepers, was "We are peacekeepers, not peacemakers." Nothing is more true. Nothing should be more expected than that either. War is not the place for the United Nations.

That ended the day ...

.. and I was off to the Tall Ship for a bed and breakfast that literally 'rocked' me to sleep in the waves of the bay.

I was still contemplating a place where I could 'check out' the cuisine of Traverse City but the scope of possiblities was getting smaller.

The American Public is fed pablum by the Movie Industry

The Films of the Film Festival

Outrageous Love Affairs happen and evidently they did in "Pittsburgh"

This film is based on a true story about a somewhat successful actor that finds his heart stolen by a Canadian actress thirty years his younger whom has visa problems. Without the help of someone in the USA, Catherine must return home to Canada. Determined to give way to his heart over his head, the actor played by Jeff Goldblum, sets his career aside to assure Catherine a job with hopes of pure romance as well.

It is a film about foolishness and yet there is so little foolishness in it when one realizes love and being in love can be a life's pursuit worth seeking. In this film, the actor sets aside a $4 million role in a film with wild abandon only to enlist every available film to take over a remake of "The Music Man" of which the love of his life will star as well. The movie is being filmed in his hometown Pittsburgh, so what could go wrong? After all he is an accomplished actor of which the movie maker should be grateful to have him. Well, he is put through a trial of a variety of talents and what results is a very funny film.

The very oddest parody of this film is that it lacks a distributor in the USA and it's actual audience doesn't even know it exists. The theme to my visit to The Traverse Film Festival would prove to be the understanding of the very plight of this delightful film. It would seem as though the film industry highly descriminates against independant film producers to 'corner' every available dollar into their 'ready cash' till. In fact, as the days wore on it became very obvious to me that Hollywood, which I often refer to as Hollyweed, is simply that. A weed among the crop of great films available that the American Public never sees.

Tuesday Morning at 10 AM was a surprise

Evidently, the surprise was not surprising to the panel of Malcolm McDowell, Jeff Daniels, Terry George and Ari Emanuel. They are all accomplished professionals whom openly discussed 'the film industry.' The art of film. The difficulty in making good films.

Much to their credit they did not 'diss' Hollywood so much as embrace it but with a reality of living within an industry that likes to rubber stamp emotion into every film to guarantee hefty profits. These long standing film professionals brought light to the subject of emotional competency in film making. Their perspective is not radical. It has been developed and well honed over decades of dedication to 'the art' of translating ideas to a viewing screen. Not an easy task.

The panel was light hearted. It began after Michael Moore had given the keynote address to the festival. He dearly loves this industry. Michael is accepted among the film directors and producers at this festival whom's films have proven to be some of the most profound ever made. Their commitment to creating 'meaningful' film for a viewing audience cannot be understated. They don't like to waste their time 'making money' so much as making impressions. Rarely did I feel the same at the conclusion of any of the films of this festival and it is understandably clear as to why. These men and women are insightful to the skills they bring but mostly insightful to the human experience. They understand the power of their media, their culture but they also have very high ethical standards to their viewers. They respect the dollars a consumer pays to see a film, hoping to impart a reality about life the viewer has yet to experience.

Michael Moore entered the public scrutiny with his film Fahrenheit 911, which would prove to be an opening salvo of conscious censorship by the American Film Industy. Fahrenheit was not Michael's first film. He was already an accomplished documentarian with an award winning film, "Bowling for Columbine" (click on) under his belt. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Fahrenheit 911 is a highly patriotic film. Most of Michael's work is. Now I said patriotic, not 'flag waving nationalism.' There is a huge difference. When one boils down the content of Michael's work it is based in love of country, love of citizens and the dismantling of mind speak that brings injustice and tragedy to the average American. He is a brave man and artist. It is that quality that sets him among the independant filmmakers of this festival and why many people love him, his work and his commitment beyond his work to the very subjects of his films. Many of his books such as "Roger and Me" or "Dude, Where’s My Country?" (click on) have been an imputus for average Americans to get in touch with their own living reality. Don't take my word for it, at nearly every website that commemorates Michael's work as the one of Bowling for Columbine there is a link to 'how to take action' to empower the reader or viewer. Michael is a phenomina that touches lives on a daily basis. His 'style' of outreach is respected among his piers.

The discussion opened up coming to understand how closely these independant filmmakers were related in their 'mission' of bringing meaningful film to the public.

Ari Emanuel is Michael's agent. He didn't have to 'take on' the Disney Film Machine when they censored Fahrenheit 911 realizing there was peril in 'taking a stand to back Michael's artistic insight and commitment;' but; he did. Ari Emanuel is a great guy. He does not walk in the shadows of Michael but walks with him. His insight along with the light-hearted approach of the other members of the panel proved to be a 'fly on the wall' experience I'll sincerely value all my life. They made an impression on me and I hope that means something to them as I know it does to Michael Moore.

The article that broke the news to the world about the beginnings of the Bush Censorship Ambitions appeared in The New York Times. Front page. It was Ari Emanuel that brought the news to The New York Times. A pure act of bravery considering his dependence of acceptance by the industry he makes his living.

Disney Is Blocking Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG (NYT) 9
89 words
Published: May 5, 2004

WASHINGTON, May 4 - The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, ''Fahrenheit 911,'' links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis -- including the family of Osama bin Laden -- and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: ''We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably.''
But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

''We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax,'' said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. ''That decision stands.''

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

''Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him,'' Mr. Emanuel said. ''He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved.''

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

''It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle,'' this executive said.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, ''At some point the question has to be asked, 'Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' ''

Mr. Moore's films, like ''Roger and Me'' and ''Bowling for Columbine,'' are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, ''Bowling for Columbine,'' took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like ''Stupid White Men,'' a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that ''Fahrenheit 911'' is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. ''If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine,'' he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but ''the project wasn't right for Icon,'' said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, ''The Big One.'' In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F40B13FA35590C768CDDAC0894DC404482

The bravery across the board here cannot be realized enough, especially when one considers the determined 'Freedom of Speech' the New York Times continues to celebrate and continues to be battered with by this Washington administration, House and Senate. I believe rarely in the history of this newsprint has it ever experienced such rough times. This article was the beginning salvos of the cry of our Constitution's Fore Fathers. My loyality. But. Not my silence.

Iron Island

This Iranian film would prove to be the most charming of all the films I watched. There was no blood filled scenes anywhere. It is completely translatable into the American experience. The human emotion that pervades this film is common experience regardless the alien patriarchial authoritarianism of it's community leader called affectionately 'The Captain.'

This community of Muslim Iranians (I am not sure there is any other religion beside Muslim in Iran, but, I am taking no chances.) that numbers somewhat around 75 members literally lives on an abandoned oil tanker. The 'boat' ran aground and was abandoned by the company that owned it only to have it coveted later by a metal salvage company which brings the turning point to the community.

I simply loved this film. It has profound implications in bridging the void of cultures as it exists today. As is true with many of the films screened during this festival, reading is fundamental. The subtitles would also serve any hearing impared that came to view these screenings. A service not found in film theaters either. Think about it.

Iron Island has an intriguing plot of community and resourcefulness, loyality and descency, pride and commitment. Not wanting to give the 'story line' away or the ending, I will say this; the dimension of filmmaking is impressive.

Besides the main story and it's crisis there is a blending of charm and culture that arises in conflict among members of the community and the greater society. Within the primary story lies 'character plots.' One of those plots involves a Romeo and Juliet story line of star crossed lovers which brings extreme focus to the commitment of Muslim fathers to preserve their daughter's honor and hence community respect in maintaining their virgin status. Of course, no different than in the USA, the daughters could not care less about being a virgin, but, we can always honorably chalk that up to the desire to procreate. HORMONES.

Another really charming character plot is with a young boy affectionately known as 'Small Fish.' He seeks to define his life by saving small fish from being demised in places they grew but would not be able to get out of when fully grown. There is a 'hatch' within the oil tanker that houses a hatchery of small fish doomed to die as large fish with little resources within that pool to sustain them.

All these plots leave questions rather than answers at the end of this film. I found myself wanting to see the sequel to the fate of the community, the star crossed lovers and Small Fish. So much did I want my questions answered I sincerely believed a weekly half hour program would best serve my interest in this film.

The Beauty Academy of Kabul

This was still another great film I was treated to by the organizers of this film festival. It was charming to realize women whom came to the USA as immigrants leaving behind the Taliban never lost their love of their homeland. In expressing that love they returned as soon as reasonably possible to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. They brought with them the greatest gift they could to their piers. That gift would be the full expression of woman, in a context of female sexuality, hence, 'the beauty parlor experience.'

The most indomitable mentor of the group lived completely in denial of the war, fighting and daily danger of her own life. Her focus was on the beauty academy, it's participants and the 'product' that would carry with it great hopes of the liberation of Afghanistan women. The product was not a salable commodity. It was not hair spray or hair condition, but, the graduates of the academy itself. She was magnificent and none of the academy's mentor/instructors ever settled for less than perfection of it's graduates.

It was a perilous journey with the women that would be the students. They mounted incredible odds to become beauty academy graduates. They found time somewhere in households without modern day conveniences to attend classes and learn a skill. This by the way is not uncommon to the experience of American women even with modern day conveniences. The overwhelming role of 'Super woman/Super mom' to maintain relationships, families, household responsibilities and love of children while seeking self expression and many times economic security in pursuit of career all at the same time, is something easily common place to both sides of this Afghan/American accomplishment.

This film as well leaves the viewer wondering, although not necessarily as a sequel, to the success of the graduates and the continued career choices of it's mentors/instructors. Considering today in Afghanistan there is a resurgence of Taliban now that the Brits and NATO have taken over the demise of al Qaeda following the London bombings, I was left with concern for those in the film rather than sustained joy. At the end of this film I felt a paradox and never before that moment had I realized how profoundly the current administration and legislature in DC had failed these people. At the time this film was made there was profound hope that was supposed to translate a permanence of change that obviously was not obtained due to the derailment of the American military to Iraq. We have lost far more than a chance to end al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we may have very well lost the hopes the Afghanistan people placed in the USA at the beginnings of the invasion.