Log in

No account? Create an account

'Ode to Film (written by Andrea Calabrese in October, 1998.)

Jan. 14th, 2018 | 05:08 pm

Knowledge From Beyond
Andrea Calabrese
10/98 San Francisco, CA

'Ode to Film

Welcome. The following forum was born of a ten year film study. Its purpose is to give and to gain greater insight and perspective, for everyone to learn from.

If you would like, select your favorites and add a few comments as to why you think those are the greatest works of all time, within and of, the parallel reality of film. I have also added a suggestion box at the end, so that if you know of any masterworks or master artists that should be included here, but that I have not included as of yet, please know that any suggestions, comments, or questions are welcome.


Since it is difficult to pinpoint the exact present, (knowing the reality of time--defined as: procession of the earth, kept in rotation/force, by the gravitational pull of the sun,) in exact numbers, (realizing there just might possibly be 'no such thing' as the exact present), I have found that it is also difficult to pinpoint the exact present in words, as well. For example, try dissecting one precise second, and see what you get. Meaning, the closet I am able to describe the exact present, is a mere, "passing over."

Time is caused to exist by the forces of torque--the wobble which is caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and of the moon on the earth's equatorial bulges (oceans), causing the poles to move around the center point axis. Due to this cause and effect process (of the procession of the earth), that which exists on earth is formed, causing the effect of life.

Time is difficult to pinpoint in numbers because it is a measure of the earth's spins (caused by the balance of the torque's force of rotation--which is the effect exhibited by a spinning body, as a top, occurring when an applied force tends to change the direction of its rotational axis causing the access to generally describe a cone and to turn at right angles in the direction of the torque), and the result of the chemical compound mixtures formed are THE EFFECTS OF LIFE ON EARTH.

As we begin to further understand CREATION, we are to realize then how combustion of the chemical elements and compound mixtures form life on earth due merely to the procession of the earth. We are then able to understand how time is infinite in/of its infiniteness of/in exact numbers, realizing then that there is 'no such thing' as the exact present (future-past, future-past, future-past), because the earth doesn't stop spinning.

To explain, try, for a moment, to pinpoint the exact present. To do so, one would have to first pinpoint an exact second. Try dissecting 'one second' and see for yourself, the infiniteness in exact numbers. Not only is it difficult to pinpoint the exact present in numbers, but therefore, it is also difficult to pinpoint the exact present, in words, as well. Again, with a greater understanding, the closet I am able to describe the exact present, is a mere, "passing over."

Any professional in the industry might find the humor in this in knowing the reality--that you could lose your job for being one second over the 29.5 minutes of airtime that you are allowed to work with. This is especially difficult when your response time is dependent upon the response time of so many others. (This could be especially critical for you to do your job correctly, if you are depending upon the response time of an alcoholic, for example.)

The Significance? Does this mean that one photograph contains many milliseconds? Yes, one still photograph is capable of capturing apx. three minutes to 1/8000 of one second in one picture.

Therefore, because I have been studying film for over ten years, I realize that the time reflected--in and of reality, within and of--the parallel universe/reality of film, (which records current time to be reflected in a continuation of history) is all about future/past relationships, and the recording of them. The films, having been recorded, show the people how the power of cause and effect--evolve/has evolved, change/has changed, reflect/has reflected, and then shown more results--in how the use of film has been the cause and effect for the further production of our mass consumer societies. It also shows what the results have been for the further development of our social and national consciousness's.

It has been stated this way because we are talking about a hundred years of film--in pre-production, production, and post-production, which brings us to today--here, on the world wide web, where many people are working together, from many countries.


From the first hand painted frames in the 1920's as seen in The Red Spectre, to digitally animated films created with animated art, and cartoon animation as seen in Toy Story (where animated art/computer generated photographs and cartoon animation/drawings are painted with pixels to fit to the screen), the forms of creation have expanded to include many new ways of applying knowledge into practice.

A greater intellectual awareness, an imagination mixed with many cultures, religions/philosophies, and beliefs is exactly what is needed to turn/create illusion into/from reality. This brings us to the end results, of which are, the products of our imagination.

This is especially important when referring to the meaning of what the results have been, in and of, how motion pictures (and other forms of communication/expression/reflection) have had cause and effect for so much more in and of our societies.

The power of cause and effect has had meaning and influence upon everything from D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and the K.K.K. in the early 1900's, to the advancement of further production in science and technology by the selling of: appliances, dishwashers and clothing irons (to make life easier), through the use of the motion pictures in the 1950's.

Throughout history, films have been used as 'display windows' to reflect not only what has been developed by the scientists for further production in/of a mass consumer society, but also, on the other hand, films have been used to reflect the artist's ideas--and in return, have then been the cause for the effect of not only what has been reflected in society, but of what has also been the cause for the development of so much more. Meaning, from Melies' Trip to the Moon in the 1920's, to the open easels of the 1950's and 60's, the ideas of: the artists, the filmmakers and the writers have developed scientific frameworks--that have then laid the ground work for scientists--to then prove the concepts, ideas, and or hypotheses of the artists imagination correct, for the idea to then become known as what we now know as scientific fact.

This should help you, the reader, better understand why I have categorized the artists by those who have reflected history, in and of the past, and those we hope to see, to hear, and continue to reflect their beautiful perspective's of what is happening today, what happened yesterday and what is to happen tomorrow.

So here you have it, a brief description and synopsis of the best of film. One giant reflection of the filmmakers who have taught and brought us here today. Those of which we have loved and those that we are fortunate enough to continue to hear, and to learn from.

As long as communication is kept open and honest, the people will continue to be allowed to hear and to learn, of the reflection of the times, as it happens. The people, then, will continue to be allowed to hear from the great artists, the great thinkers, and all of the beautiful people that exist--in and of, the reflections of the creation of God's time, and of other of God's beautiful masterwork(s).As long as the communication is allowed to occur between the artists and the people, we will all continue to be fortunate enough to continue to learn from, be inspired by, entertained, and informed by, all that which each of us has learned and experienced, for a better future, for all of us.


Copyright 2000 TMT Ltd. All rights reserved.

Link | Leave a comment {1} |

Essay on "2001: A Space Odyssey" written in 1999.

Jan. 14th, 2018 | 05:01 pm

Posted on October 26, 2001 at 02:38:23 AM by Andrea Calabrese

The film 2001 is an extraordinarily beautiful montage of extreme precision in model work and brilliant but inconspicuous symbolism, a visual masterpiece that has become one of the greatest films of the science fiction genre in film history. The thematic montage portrayed throughout the film leaves the viewer with many questions which not only become insightful into the human capacity for intelligence, but provoke many ideas and thoughts regarding the classic conflict between man and machine. A machine is but mechanical parts put together and created by man.
In this case, where man (the protagonist, being Dave) is in battle with the machine, the human audience is kept in constant fear throughout the film in regards to whether Dave will be capable of surving a battle against a machine, the Hal 9000. The Hal 9000 is a machine so intelligent that it has obtained it's own will to survive. The Hal 9000, known for being the most intelligent computer ever made, is proud of it's reputation for being error-free and holds great liberty in living up to that reputation. The computer obtains such a level of intelligence that in seeking to expand its consciousness, it tests the will of man by creating an error (in simply being scientific in it's experiments) to test and learn more about man and his capabilities as human. When this occurs and Dave sees this error, he becomes mistrusting of Hal and it becomes his duty to disconnect Hal. When Hal becomes aware of Dave's intent, Hal begins to fight against man for it's own survival.
In Dave's efforts to understand Hal's intent and intelligence capabilities, he questions whether Hal is capable of feeling or understanding human emotion. Is the will to survive an emotion? Hal does admit at the end that it's will to survive is derivative of it's fear, of becoming extinct or being disconnected, and because fear is a strong feeling, Hal--the computer, is capable of having and understanding human emotion. Throughout the movie, the director, Stanley Kubrick, continuously emphasizes in the dialogue that Hal is error-free and that error has only been and can only be at the fault of man. Because this is emphasized to Dave by Hal, it seems as though Hal is requesting for Dave to release himself and his own will to Hal, the computer. When Dave does not do this and continues to try to disassemble Hal, Hal becomes defensive and causes malfunction of the life support systems of all the other humans on board. If then, Hal is intelligent enough to have a will to survive and has a fear of extinction, then why is it that Hal chooses not to find reason to reach or obtain a higher understanding of Dave and his efforts, but instead continues on a power struggle with him? Is it because Hal is testing the capacity and limits of Dave as human? How far will Dave go in his efforts to destroy Hal? When Hal realizes that Dave is capable of pulling Hal's plug at it's core, Hal tries to turn things around and becomes deeply apologetic to Dave, in its efforts to survive. Hal then begins to admit his mistakes and begs Dave for its survival. Dave, however, does not give in, and continues to disconnect Hal and land the ship. If Hal was intelligent enough to play chess and beat man at his own games, why then, did Hal not foresee this of Dave and survive? If Hal was so intelligent why did it not survive? It is clear that in it's efforts to test man, it lost the trust of Dave and was killed. If Hal was intelligent enough to feel fear, was Hal--the computer, capable of hurting? Hal had a fear of not being able to live up to man's expectations of its ability to be error-free. Was Hal intelligent enough to hurt? At the end of the movie, when Hal sings and Dave is disconnecting it, Hal seems to try to reach a level of understanding with Dave by showing Dave that Hal is/was capable of understanding the human emotion of hurt and tries to provoke compassion from Dave for Hal's survival. Was Hal ever capable of finding reason to reach a higher understanding, to find within itself, compassion for Dave, and the crew members there? Was Hal capable of choosing to have compassion for the humans? Or was Hal just jealous of it's inability to be compassionate for man? Or did it just choose not to be compassionate because of it's inability to be human? If it was intelligent enough to be jealous, why then, was it not intelligent enough to realize or admit its own jealousy or merely recognize and gain an understanding of the pure existence of what it means to be jealous? Was it because Hal had too much pride in being error-free to admit it's own jealousy or recognize it as an emotion that does exist? Was Hal killed simply because it chose not to be compassionate for man? Or was it too jealous to be capable of becoming compassionate? Why was it that it was not intelligent enough to foresee and overcome this? Because it (Hal) chose not to? Was Hal's choice not to find reason for compassion or gain a higher understanding dominated by it's fear of having error and becoming extinct? If Hal--the computer, was capable of choosing what it was that it desired to obtain a higher understanding of, was then, Hal's choice influenced by who it was that created Hal? Man or woman? Justice or mercy? If Hal was created by man, is this then the reason why Hal chose not to find reason for compassion for Dave, ultimately leading to Hal's death?
Other than ways already suggested, the films ending was ambiguous or changeable in other open ended questions. Such as, what happened to everyone else on board? What happened to all of those originally on board and who were the added characters meant to be symbolic of at the end? Could Mr. Kubrick have been playing with time? After Dave is warped through space and time to this new land, was this old man at the table meant to be Dave in the future? Was the last shot of the embryo of a child meant to portray Dave's image of the core of himself in the past? Or was the shot of the embryo simply in representation of mankind and in question of what the future is capable of holding for mankind?
Then we are left with the ultimate question, was Hal really ever disconnected? We know that Hal was responsible for all operations of the ship and necessary for the movement and survival of Dave. Was Hal ever disconnected? Why the shot of fear in Dave at the end? Was it meant to be symbolic of Dave's shocking realization that Hal's existence was necessary for Dave's survival? I think this leads to other important concepts and raises important questions for the future of mankind. Was it Kubrick's intent to show man the importance of recognizing why it is important for man not to become reliant upon machines and that it is important for man to foresee why and (if we allow ourselves to become dependent upon machines) how we as a humanity could ultimately be destroyed by these very machines that we've created?

--Andrea Calabrese, Actress
December, 1999

Link | Leave a comment |


Dec. 29th, 2014 | 09:26 pm
location: Hollywood, CA

Hey guys!

I decided to get a brain, so I've been studying screenwriting the past two years--since earning degrees in Theatre Arts and in Liberal Arts.

I'm finding that screenwriting is a very exciting business! There are lots of prizes to be won and sales to be made!

I thought it'd be a good idea to start an open blog for anyone who may know of any great screenwriting contests that shouldn't be missed, throughout the year.

Please feel free to post them!

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

Andrea Calabrese

Independent Spirit Awards
Beverly Hills Film Festival
Nicholl Fellowships
Burbank Film Festival
Creative World Awards
Page Awards
Catalina Island Festival
Action On Film Fetival


If you know of anymore, please post! Thank you!

Link | Leave a comment |


Apr. 24th, 2014 | 06:22 pm


Please visit my IMDb page! THANK YOU!

Andrea Calabrese

Link | Leave a comment |

It's a Locked Oppression

Dec. 22nd, 2010 | 11:25 pm

I wrote this paper for my Liberal Arts degree With Honors in 2007. Not only did it help Arnold and Maria with a minimum wage increase to 8.00/hour for all of our supporting actors at Central Casting, but it also helped to encourage the minimum wage increase on a national level to 7.25/hour. I hope you enjoy it!

written by Andrea Calabrese

Santa Monica College
Spring, 2007

"OUCH! What the hell did that guy just do to me?" cried Cindy. On November 29, 2006 at Cal State Fullerton, she was unexpectedly grabbed on her left side and put into a headlock. Suddenly, her neck was twisted and her face was red. A principal actor on the Fox production, "The Comebacks" is currently under investigation for the physical assault of a non-union background actor employed by "Sessions" Casting. They were both working on the same set. She was playing a reporter, and he was playing a 6’5" football star, but because she was working as a non-union actor on the set (after working on hundreds of television and film productions) to this day she has not been allowed SAG union actor's rights, insurance, or other benefits and is scrounging on minimum wage. Cindy was left stranded holding the hospital bill.

On another film set in Hollywood, another non-union background actor employed by Central Casting (the casting agency used by almost every major studio in Los Angeles), "Nicole," (whose name has been changed to protect her identity) complains "Jesus Christ! I thought slavery and segregation ended when Martin Luther King Jr. perished! I have been working on this set for 12 hours today and they are putting up signs that say, DO NOT TOUCH on coffee and snacks reserved for SAG actors and technical staff only."

The non-union actor quietly proceeds to the segregated section of the cafeteria and says to another, "Why do they divide us like this? We are doing the same acting work as them. We are all working on the same show together. Why do they treat us like second class citizens?" She continues, "They don’t let us into the Screen Actors Guild so they can abuse their power over us. They hold our SAG union vouchers over our heads and do not let us have them just to get the background actors to bow down to sexual harassment and discrimination."

Turn on the TV. Every day on every television in America, there is a silent injustice going on that not many household audiences realize or understand. Every day, non-union background actors are seen on television entertaining audiences across America. They are the silent ones, without a voice in the background on TV and in the movies, pretending to talk. They are the lives that fill the stands, the people on the dance floor, the populace in the bars, the citizens of the town, and the patrons on the screen working to support the television show making it look cool, like it’s a hip place to be.

Take a closer look. Who and what are those life forms in the background? They are not lifeless mannequins and they are not robots. They are people with lives, emotions, and responsibilities. In reality, Central Casting is being paid millions of dollars by the movie and television studios for the townspeople working on television programming that are seen in the background: the waiters, the pedestrians, the shoppers and the givers of life to the TV. Many are non-union background actors because they are not being allowed to join the actors union, SAG. Many of these actors are skilled workers and have been working on minimum wage for many years with no increase to their wages as their skills develop. On the set, they are treated unfairly by the production companies and many times are segregated from the one or two celebrities because of discrimination via agents that do not want to represent them--even though the law (labor code 1700.4) states that every artist in the State of California must "procure work through a Talent Agency." It is difficult to imagine that entertainment industry leaders and celebrities find it acceptable to pay non-union actors (their very own supporting actors) minimum wage because the acting skills they hold and have worked to acquire do not qualify as quality attributes of a skilled trade.

Television would be lifeless if the principal actors were the only people in the town, and on the screen. By taking a closer look at these "extra" artists, many of whom have been denied representation because there are not enough talent agents to handle the demand, we find that the lack of 'artist's own rights' incorporates all sorts of problems that these oppressed non-union background actors are dealing with on a daily basis: low wages, no benefits, no residuals, sexual harassment and discrimination to name a few. With no extras union available to assist non-union background actors into the Screen Actors Guild, the real question is: Where is the money going that is allocated to pay the townspeople in television programming?

At almost 400 movies produced in America each year and over 100 million dollar profits from each film--after cinema sales, Internet sales, DVD sales, cable sales, satellite sales and pay-per-view profits off of each movie (400 times 100 million dollars each year), there is no damn reason why the background actors that work on these productions should have to be sleeping in tents on the sidewalks, going to the sets with sickness making everyone who doesn't have a private trailer sick and over 80,000 homeless people in the City of Los Angeles, many of whom are homeless because they've been forced to work as a non-union actor on these multi-million dollar productions. The fact of the matter is that if these studio workers/non-union background actors were paid proportionate wages to the few celebrity contracts written to benefit the agent's cut, the City of Los Angeles would not currently have the highest levels of poverty in the country.

Besides the lack of representation for non-union background actors, there also seems to be a few misunderstandings in the matter of how these actors should earn their way into the Screen Actors Guild on their own. SAG officials have expressed that any actor (employed by an agency, such as Central Casting) has the right to work on a SAG union voucher whether they are union or not. According to Terry Becherer, a contracts specialist at SAG, non-union "actors don't have to be a SAG member to be hired on a SAG union voucher." The contradiction arises because the casting agency (Central) is telling the non-union actors that non-union actors are not allowed to work on SAG union vouchers unless they are SAG members.

One solution to solving this "locked oppression" could be to create a new department or new job position at the SAG headquarters in Los Angeles, such as "Official Voucher Person" available to assist non-union actors if they are having problems getting their SAG union vouchers because they are trying to be SAG members, working as non-union actors at Central Casting or other agency.

If this type of assistance was made available to non-union actors, it would help to minimize the extreme and unfair poverty levels in the City of Los Angeles, help to reduce the homeless crisis, and greatly improve the quality of life for Los Angeles families and communities everywhere. What kind of life is someone to have that works 20 years at minimum wage with no increase to their wages as their skills are developed?

According to "Nicole," who says the production assistants at Central Casting "take advantage of the non-union actors and use their power to get what they want out of them" (ranging from bribery to sexual favors in exchange for SAG union vouchers) before letting them have a SAG union voucher. "The entertainment industry would be lifeless without background actors," she says. "If there was no movement, no life, no customers, no pedestrians, no fans and no supporting actors, the television would be boring and dull. If people turned on their television sets and only saw the principal actors and no people in the background, the show would be dull and lifeless. The audience would question the TV shows' legitimacy and say, 'Where are all the townspeople? Is this a real show?'"

Cindy has worked almost 1,000 days as a non-union actor and only has one SAG union voucher. She has an excellent reputation, but unfortunately has been given many excuses for why she is not being allowed to have a SAG union voucher. For example, she has been told by the production company on the set that they "would be fined $1,000" if they let her work on a SAG union voucher, which has been proven to be an illegitimate excuse by a SAG representative. Other excuses have included: Central Casting didn't have any SAG vouchers to give out to non-union actors that day; they didn't have the power to hire a non-union actor on a SAG voucher; the "P.A." didn't have the power to give out SAG union vouchers; or the production company had already met their quota for the day. Many times when non-union actors arrive on a set, they are faced with signs put up by the production companies that say: "DO NOT ASK FOR SAG UNION VOUCHERS."

Other non-union actors are complaining because they are being asked to do sexual favors in exchange for SAG vouchers. Some are being asked to wait until the show has wrapped to see if there will be any time left in exchange for SAG union vouchers and others are even being told that they would be given SAG union vouchers if they are willing to go to hotel rooms after the shoot.

If what children are watching on television is such an important issue, then isn’t it time for our leaders to realize that if what our children are watching on TV has any relevance at all, then isn’t it important to pay the people on television more than minimum wage? Paying the non-union background actors more than the minimum wage (Such as, an increase of five cents per day of work on each television show or movie set. Since they do not currently receive any annual or biannual relief from basic minimum wage after several years of working on productions—compared to 22 million per year for a few agent contracts to benefit five percent of the population of actors in Los Angeles—a five cent increase per day of work for over 90 percent of the entire acting community wouldn’t be very much.) would allow the presentation for television programming to be of higher quality.

How can anyone expect to deliver quality television programming for the children of every television household when the actors are suffering on minimum wages? After all, children reflect what they see. Isn't it important to be concerned about what they are watching on TV?


Link | Leave a comment {2} |


Sep. 21st, 2010 | 10:27 pm
location: Hollywood


Please set any and/or all home pages to: http://www.imdb.me/andreacalabrese

If you send me your email to: mustcastandrea@gmail.com, I can send you a copy of my most recent screentest by email!

FACEBOOK: Andrea Calabrese

YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bxR7FOovuQ

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/leomarriedandi

Voice Demos available at: http://www.joematters.com/VoiceDemos.html

Goal: To be cast in speaking roles in movies and on TV.

Quote: I've been on stage since I was three years old--in something every year growing up. I was Miss Wisconsin Pre-Teen 1983, Graduated Modeling School 1987, Won Best Actress in High School 1990, Won several Awards for Local Origination Television 1996-1999, Graduated Theatre Arts Degree With Honors 2008, Won Best Feature Film 2009, Featured in July 2010 Players Guide for Casting Directors

Blog: http://andreacal.livejournal.com/
Facebook: Andrea Calabrese
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/theultimateloudmouth
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/andreacalabrese

Available for screentests and/or auditions in Los Angeles!
Please contact: mustcastandrea@gmail.com

Thank you for your consideration!


Link | Leave a comment |

"South of the Border" directed by Oliver Stone

Aug. 1st, 2010 | 02:58 pm

"South of the Border"
directed by Oliver Stone

A Film Critique
written by Andrea Calabrese


Oliver Stone has created one of the best movies about the continent of South America that I've ever seen. In the movie, "South of the Border" Oliver Stone takes us on a journey around the continent of South America with his cameramen and crew to give us an inside perspective of what's really going on there. In "South of the Border" Oliver Stone meets with eight presidents in the South American region to decipher the in-depth perspective's of who they are and how they feel about us, the Americans. 

In the beginning of the movie, "South of the Border," Oliver Stone questions the quality of U.S. mainstream media and the information that is being provided to us through mainstream media sources.  He encourages U.S. journalists to do their jobs better. Oliver Stone questions the definition of "media," the lack of media representation and the lack of insistence from journalists who should be fighting to preserve the rights of the people to Freedom of the Press as stated in the Bill of Rights. For instance, we see clips of Michael Moore questioning the legitimacy of the war in the Middle East. Michael Moore demands, "Why are we here? Why are we in this war?"  He says that mainstream media has "refused to demand the honest questions, and here we are, in this mess!" I believe there is meaning to the relevance between Michael Moore's presence at the beginning of this film that may be concurrent with questions of war in the Middle East that are pursuant to the meaning behind the creation of "South of the Border."  What does the in-depth analysis of "South of the Border" directed by Oliver Stone have to do with the war in Afghanistan, today?

Can the Middle East learn something about economic freedoms from the countries in South America? Can the Middle East learn from the countries in South America about the governing of their own oil? Would it be best if the Middle East learned how to become independent of the IMF (International Monetary Fund of the United States of America) and independent of foreign persuasions regarding the control of oil in their regions as the majority of South America has? Oliver Stone proves he is a genius, once again. Would socialism work in the Middle East as it has in South America? Are the leaders in the Middle East educated enough to understand what socialism is and how it could help them to become more sovereign (from war) in the global economy? Who the heck does anyone think he or she is to use the U.S. military for his or her own financial gain?

Oliver Stone begins his quest in Venezuela. He introduces us to the president of Venezuela, Mr. Hugo Chavez. The first impression of Hugo Chavez is that he is a very hard working man. Chavez is educated and well-mannered. Oliver Stone has made it clear that Hugo Chavez is a president who runs Venezuela with a love for the people in his heart. Chavez is interested in developing Venezuela's history with the intentions that the Venezuelan government can benefit from serving its people.

What is the IMF? How has it affected the governing of these countries in South America? The International Monetary Fund is controlled by the US Treasury Department. It monitors the currencies of 186 countries. It's purpose is to maintain the global economy.

In 1988-89, Venezuela was declared a State of Emergency. The Venezuelan Army was used to massacre its own people, producing Chavez. In February, 1992, Hugo Chavez launched a rebellion with the intent of a Bolivarian movement. He was arrested and jailed for two years. He was pro-Bolivarian movement. The majority of the population of Venezuela saw Hugo Chavez as a hero. In 1993, the then president Carlos Andres Perez was arrested for embezzling 17 million dollars of government monies. In 1997, Hugo Chavez ran for president. In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela, reclaiming Venezuela as a Bolivarian Republic. He said, "It will be a government of the people." He greatly loves and continues to follow the thinking of Simon Bolivar, who had previously led six countries in South America to independence and freedom(s).

In 2002, George Tenet, Director of the CIA for the United States Central Intelligence Agency, made it clear that the U.S. had interest in Venezuela's oil. Venezuela is the third largest supplier of petroleum in the world. There began the attempts of a coup d'etat via Pedro Carmona. Oliver Stone quoted Hugo Chavez as saying, "The reasonings behind the coups in Venezuela and Iraq are the same." Chavez reveals that the problems Iraq and Venezuela are having of being pushed around by international private interest groups are similar. The media in Venezuela was used to justify a dominate perspective which showed Chavez as an evil man vs. the truth--that Hugo Chavez wanted to use the Venezuelan oil industry to benefit the people of Venezuela versus the corporate interests of the United States and other foreign private interest groups.

The media in Venezuela became part of the opposition to Hugo Chavez in what is known as the first "media coup d'etat." The IMF was already declaring support for the new political administration that had hoped would overthrow the political genius of Hugo Chavez. The IMF assisted in setting Chavez up to look bad. The IMF was already supporting a new administration in support of Pedro Carmona--who was friendly to U.S. oil interests, and the statesman at the head of the coup d'etat. Pedro Carmona was used by the IMF in attempts to overthrow Hugo Chavez, while Washington was asking for Hugo Chavez's resignation. This means that US special interest groups were funding the support of Hugo Chavez's rival, Pedro Carmona, because of the pro-U.S. interest in Venezuelan oil--that Carmona supported. Pedro Carmona was forced to flee the palace when Hugo Chavez was rescued from detention. (Does this have meaning relevant behind the thinking in the war in Afghanistan? How is this funding of a rival of the political sovereignty of a nation and independence from foreign persuasion of a country's oil economy relevant to what's going on with the war in Afghanistan, today?)

Hugo Chavez is not a criminal. He is a man of the people of Venezuela who fights for the rights of the Venezuelan people to use Venezuelan oil for the benefit of the people. Back in his role in the palace as the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez says, "The law respects virtue and honor." Pedro Carmona was an "ouster." Carmona made it look like Chavez was the problem when in reality, Chavez was fighting for the human rights of the people of Venezuela. There is evidence in "South of the Border" which proves that the U.S., under the Bush administration, funded and was hosting people in the coup (Venezuelan opposition leaders) against Hugo Chavez with 3.3 million dollars and failed. Chavez made an infamous trade with Fidel Castro: Doctors and medicine in exchange for cheap oil. The poverty in Venezuela was reduced by half. "This farmland belongs to the community," Hugo Chavez said.

Oliver Stone presses on with his course--venturing into the country of Bolivia. Evo Morales is the first Indian indigenous person to be elected to the presidency of Bolivia. Bolivia is the second largest supplier of natural gas in the world. In 2005, Morales was elected president of Bolivia. He is a great leader of the coca farmers. La Paz is the capital of Bolivia. Throughout history, there was great conflict over the monopoly of water in the country. Historians say that at one time it was illegal for residents of Bolivia to collect water on the roof-tops. Bolivia has the highest altitude of any International airport in the world. Mr. Evo Morales is great friends with Hugo Chavez. Oliver Stone shows us, the viewer, the correct way to survive upon the cocoa leaf. Morales is very honest about not allowing foreign military bases to exist in their country. Morales wants to lead with peace and prosperity, not violence and opposition in Bolivia. He fears international disputes and rebellion of corporate tyranny against his efforts of truth, peace and justice for his country of Bolivia. He fears international involvement and the communication barriers that provoke ousting of "uncomfortable" conflicts due to his insistence upon human rights for the people of Bolivia versus a lack of understanding for his excellent leadership.

Oliver Stone proceeds to the study of Argentina. In 2001, Argentina collapsed, and the president Fernando de la Rua resigned. Nestor Kirchner was elected. Inheriting millions of dollars in debt, he was the first to challenge the IMF directly. When Mr. Kirchner's term expired, his wife Christina Kirchner took over as president. The Kirchners were and are great friends with Hugo Chavez. The Kirchners uphold the honor and dignity of the Simon Bolivar spirit as Chavez does. When asked about the IMF, Christina Kirchner says, "It was terrible...the IMF was interested in recognized privatizations." She continues, "In 2003, we confronted the IMF." Mr Kirchner adds, "...They were only about their benefit, and not about the benefit of society." Meanwhile, the Kirchners wanted to "...ease poverty and help to create jobs." When Mr. Bush visited the Kirchners in Argentina, Mr. Kirchner suggested "The Marshall Plan." At the time, Mr. Bush laughed and mentioned that the only way to economic progress was through war. The Kirchners disagreed.

Oliver Stone's voyage of South America intensifies as he treks to Paraguay. There he meets with the president of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo. Fernando Lugo has also become a leader for the people, by the people and of the people. In Stone's interview with Mr. Lugo he discovers that Paraguay is 2.3 billion dollars in debt to the IMF. Lugo clarifies that during the history of his family, his ancestors were persecuted by Streossner. Lugo is quoted as saying, "We want to be consistent with Hugo Chavez's neo-liberation movement and we want dignity for our institutions." President Lugo finds it to be a paradox, yet he is quite content that the palace he currently resides in was once home to the very people who tortured his own family. President Lugo is prepared to stand-by and defend the honor of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian movement every day for the rest of his existence.

Oliver Stone's odyssey in South America continues when he soars into Brazil to meet president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Da Silva is known as a working class leader of the people of Brazil. He was a labor union leader and prisoner of war. Brazil is known for being the ninth largest economy in the world. As a trade union leader, Mr. Da Silva has learned that, "One only respects someone who respects themselves." Mr. Da Silva goes on to proudly say how in the past few years Brazil has paid off the IMF, the Paris Club and goes on to proclaim with fierceness, "We don't owe anyone, anything!" Da Silva says, "I dream that one day we will have a structure of common currency in South America." He is friends with Hugo Chavez and wants unity with the other countries. For the first time in Brazil, the poor are treated like human beings.

Oliver Stone navigates his adventures into Ecuador where we meet Rafael Correa. Correa, like the others, honors and respects Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez's great leadership has led many countries in South America to great developments. "We love the United States. I studied there," Correa asserts. He expresses that we must admit the U.S. foreign policy in South America is questionable. Correa perseveres, "We're going to continue the fight against drugs, but we are going to do it independently."

The mission continues to Cuba where we meet Raul Castro. Raul Castro is the brother of Fidel Castro. Raul Castro is great friends with Hugo Chavez. He carries on the legacy of his brother who for 50 years fought off the United State's stronghold to dominate the land of Cuba. He agrees with Chavez's ideas of socialism and believes strongly that Cuba has the right to be a sovereign nation.

Oliver Stone's beautiful masterpiece on South America comes to a conclusion when he returns home to the United States to find the first African American man ever elected as the president of the United States. Barack Obama emphasizes to Hugo Chavez that no further destabilization offensives will threaten the South American regions. Oliver Stone, an expert in military politics states, "I hope we see the end to predatory capitalism."

Oliver Stone does an excellent job of bringing it all together by quoting Chavez as saying, '"I hope that Obama will introduce a "New Deal" to the world--to all continents."'

Da Silva has three requests for Obama, of whom he admires: "Lift the embargo on Cuba. There is no need for it, anymore. Work towards solving peace in the Middle East. It is for everyone's benefit. Invite Hugo Chavez to the United States. He is a great man."

Mr. Kirchner of Argentina reminds Hugo Chavez that it is better to have 10 leaders of a continent than just one. What would happen to the people of South America if a sole leader were to pass on? It is better to have 10 great leaders to "build collectively."

Overall, one of the most important aspects in "South of the Border" that Oliver Stone emphasizes is the importance of reminding and teaching to today's journalists that they have a responsibility as journalists to ask hard questions and demand answers as to who, what, where, when and how things are happening. What can we do to help? What is really going on there? Most importantly, journalists need to realize that their jobs in mainstream media include the responsibilities of informing, educating, and recording the truths of both sides of the stories in an objective, unbiased point of view. We want to know the truth and we want the media to stop fooling around with precious airtime. We need today's journalists to understand and to appreciate the value of the viewers' time and to also use their time more wisely when educating and informing us.  (For example, how would the United Nations view what the journalist or reporter did with his or her airtime?)  Oliver Stone contributes to the accomplishments of world peace in "South of the Border." It is a great movie that everyone should see.

The music plays out to the tune of "The South American Way" and the credits roll.


Cuba, Raúl Castro
Columbia, Álvaro Uribe Vélez
Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
Paraguay, Fernando Lugo
Ecuador, Rafael Correa
Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías
Bolivia, Juan Evo Morales Ayma

My only request is that I get to wear polka dots in an upcoming movie. :)

Link | Leave a comment {5} |

"Restrepo" directed by Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington

Jul. 27th, 2010 | 03:52 pm

directed by Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington

A Film Critique
written by Andrea Calabrese

In the beginning, the camera opens up on a group of guys hanging out with each other, laughing and having a good time.  We, the audience, see their free-spirited innocent perspectives of life and love for the United States of America.  The camera introduces us to some of the characters that we'll see in "Restrepo" through "home videos" shot by a young man in a vehicle, traveling with his buddies.  These young men are embarking upon a ride into the future they will never forget.  The screen cuts to black.

The credits roll.  It is May, 2007 and the 2nd Platoon is heading into the Korengal Valley, East of Afghanistan. Korengal Valley is considered to be one of the most dangerous deployments for the United States military in the Afghanistan War.  The movie is called "Restrepo" and it is directed by Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington.

Suddenly, the friendly home videos we have become familiarized with turn into home videos of slaughter as these same young men shooting handheld footage of themselves, are no longer laughing and having a good time, but are now live in action, on the battlegrounds.

The audience is thrust into the harsh reality and awareness of what thousands of US soldiers are going through every day when they struggle to put their lives on the line for the safety of the American people here at home. The camera begins on a journey in a panoramic array of film shots portraying the vast terrains of mountain ranges and pine bluffs hiding the enemies beneath the tree-tops in Afghanistan.

The Arabic music is edited perfectly into the film causing spine-chilling sensations in the viewer, knowing that this rare perspective we are fortunate enough to experience for ourselves is known only to those brave enough to devote their time, energy and livelihoods for the well-being of us, here at home.  Viewers experience the warm-hearted "home movies" shot by a few innocent kids turn into a massive war film with serious inside footage shot first-hand by soldiers on the battlefields of Afghanistan in the middle of a treacherous war zone.

"Restrepo" is an excellent reminder to the people of America that the war in Afghanistan has not ended, yet. Although we feel peace and comfort here at home, we are reminded that it is because of the men and women overseas--that are away from their families, getting shot at every day, putting their tails on the lines for us--that we, the American people can: live, love and work in peace and safety every day.

The audience begins to experience a full-fledged feature worth budgeting as extreme closeup shots of survivors are intermittently edited into camera shots of the expansive Afghanistan landscapes full of mountainous terrains. For example, the director cuts to an extreme close-up shot of Mr. Caldwell, 1st Lieutenant of the 2nd Platoon, who gives the audience very intense and emotional briefings as he narrates his war filled memories of the battles on the Afghanistan hillside.  Another survivor exclaims, "I felt like we were fish in a barrel.  We were new to this terrain and the enemy that has been there for hundreds of years was now looking down upon us."  Another soldier explains how the enemy was already learning how to attack us and developing advanced war strategies while we were just beginning to identify who they were and where they were located on the terrain.

The film cuts to the Korengal outpost, also known as "The Kop."  We see a US battalion (teams of US soldiers) in the midst of the Afghan foothills struggling to survive and fighting for their lives.  Soldiers are being shot down at by gunfire from up above in the Afghanistan mountainous terrains.

The soldiers of the 2nd battalion lead the audience with an inside perspective (to help the viewers understand) of what's going on there.  The mountains of Afghanistan are filled with hundreds of years of ancestry.  The people there have well developed villages and have struggled over the years to achieve a way of life for themselves which is sustainable.  One soldier explains an understanding of these people and their terrain, "The civilians in Afghanistan are deep-rooted;" whereas, we are new to their terrain.

Should we be introducing ourselves to the people of Afghanistan by firing guns and missiles?  The people of Afghanistan are hundreds of years of ancestry and we are invading their villages.  Instead of invading their communities with guns and missiles, shouldn't we be taking our diplomacies to their grounds and homelands with peace and logical reason?  Would we be losing so many United States soldiers if we proceeded into their valleys with love, peace, kindness, understanding and legible diplomacy instead of introducing ourselves, what we represent and what our intentions are with: violence, bloodshed, tyranny and destruction?  Shouldn't we be more advanced in our thinking in our offensives for peace instead of the old-school way of progress in the Afghanistan developing regions?  "They (The Taliban) see us and of course, they are going to flee."

We are trespassing against hundreds of years of developing ancestries.  One of the biggest concerns the civilians in Afghanistan have is that when we trespass against them, we are shooting at their family members.  According to the soldiers of the 2nd platoon in "Restrepo," we are telling the people of Afghanistan that we are there to build roads and to help make their villages more productive communities.  (While we kill their children and elders to do it?)  Really, what is the purpose for us being in Afghanistan?  To produce peace and stability with guns and knives?

Why are we introducing the meanings of peace and stability to the people of Afghanistan as intrusion, invasion and trespassing onto their: lands, homes, families and livestocks--with guns and missiles?  Shouldn't we be teaching the meaning of peace and prosperity with diplomacy and understandable communication methods, with plenty of interpreters, instead of teaching them peace and prosperity with bloodshed, ambush and weapons? What are we teaching them when we force ourselves into their communities with little or no respect for their lands, their families, or their agriculture?  Are we not teaching them to fight back at us when we help them to understand nothing but the barrels of our guns?

The realities of the conditions of the soldiers we see in "Restrepo" is that the US soldiers are building their own shields and bases with very little armor.  "We dropped 70 percent of our ordinance (artillery) in the Korengal valley," the lieutenant says.  He explains how our soldiers are dying and losing limbs while the troops are being shot at every day.

Live hand-held footage from the inside of the battle as it is happening portrays real emotions, real thoughts and real actions of what is going on there.  We see the anger, frustration, and desperation of these young men in ultimate survival mode pushing the limits of human capacity.  They are in a quest for survival in a war zone that is happening NOW.  This is a very important reminder that the war is not over.  Meaning, the people of the United States are currently in a quest for survival, as well.

"Restrepo" is a great film because it teaches us not only what strategies and war tactics we can do better on our offensive, but what we can do better as a country on our defensive.  If this war in the Middle East is the longest war in the history of the United States, at what point does it end?  We are trespassing against them into territories the United States has never tread before.  Of course they are going to shoot back at us.  They are afraid and struggling to do their best to defend their families and the lands that their ancestors worked hard to obtain and to build.  It is not them on our land.  We are on theirs.

Doc "Restrepo" was a soldier of the 2nd Platoon.  He was shot in the neck and bled to death in the helicopter on the way to the emergency room.  Was the helicopter ride too long to the emergency room?  Do we have enough emergency rooms in Afghanistan for our soldiers?  In his honor, "Outpost Restrepo" was built.

To the people of Afghanistan, we are the war child.  Further on into the movie, the Majors visit with the platoon and are briefed by the soldiers.  They leave the scene with the attitude, "We'll take their hearts and their minds." The sergeants orders are to push forward, through the villages to push the enemy back.  (Trespass against villages of women and children with no intent to hurt or violate the civilians?)  There are weekly meetings held between soldiers and the elders called, "Shuras."  The elders say, "If we talk about the Taliban, we will be killed."

Patrolling villages is very scary for the US soldiers.  The soldiers cannot communicate without an interpreter (which there are not enough of), and when patrolling new areas the men do not know where the bullets will come from next.  The enemy could be standing five feet away and the US soldiers would not know it unless they were being shot at.  One of the soldiers mentions "the police," but says that there aren't enough of them and "they are too far away."  Sometimes after repertoire with the villagers has been established, planes will come in and drop bombs.

One day, in the middle of the film, the troops at Outpost Restrepo are visited by elders.  The elders have come to complain that their cow was killed and want to know how they will be repaid.  The troops offer: rice, beans and sugar in return, because funding is not approved through the Majors over the telephone when the troops ask for it. This brings up another point that every time the US soldiers invade the Afghan villages there is a cost for the Afghanistan villagers.  The villagers lose: family members, materials, cattle and agriculture that they have worked their tails off to acquire for hundreds of years.  Some of these items are greatly cherished as they may have been passed down from previous generations.  The Afghani's want monies for:  our intrusions on their properties, stolen goods, and for the burials of their family members.  The United States' soldiers are there, invading their villages, because they are looking for information and clues as to the whereabouts of the Taliban and the Mujahideen.  Do these villagers even know who or what the Mujahideen is?

"Restrepo" is an excellent perspective of the way things are really happening in Afghanistan.  The soldiers agree that "Operation Rock Avalanche" was one of their most dangerous missions.  The live footage shows the soldiers preparing for battle, and then executing the mission.  There is a large poster hanging over the meeting grounds that reads, "Live in Freedom in Ohio."

On Day One of "Operation Rock Avalanche" the soldiers proceed through the village.  The audience sees now that this is definitely real footage shot from a real battle as it is happening.  The bombs start going off and the audience sees big, red clouds of fire and smoke just a few meters away from the troops.  Bullets start flying at the heads of the young men, including the camera man.  The adrenalines of the soldiers starts pumping to the smells of gunsmoke, fireballs going off around them, and to the surround sounds of live artillery being shot off, right in front of the camera. The soldiers are learning which doors to look behind, which crawlspaces to search and what not to touch because it is hot.  Every soldier hopes he will be the hero to find Bin Laden.  Are we supplying the villagers with enough medical materials to repair the damages of the bombs that are being dropped?

Is the right way to proceed through villages to bomb them and then try to make peace with their friends and families after the dust settles?  The innocent women and children lay bleeding and dying with little to no medical attention for them.  The high ranking military officials visit the troops again and this time they are led into the villages that have just been overthrown by the 2nd platoon.  They are speaking English to the Afghani's.  We see close up shots of the faces of the villagers whom obviously have no clue as to what is being said in English.  Are we doing this right?  We're explaining to 90 year old elders that we: invaded their property, wounded and killed their children, and stole their cattle because we're going to put them to work?  One soldier remarks, "The enemies eyes are on us at all times," for we are strangers on their land.

Suddenly, the 2nd platoon is ambushed.  A soldier explains, "This means every position is hit at the same time." The enemy starts shooting at the troops from every direction, causing US soldiers to be wounded.  The US soldiers respond by "bum-rushing" the enemy without knowledge of "where they're at."  As the days of "Operation Rock Avalanche" continue, the US soldiers go down one by one.  The "bum-rushing" causes unnecessary damages to US troops.  Why?  Because we're looking for Bin Laden behind every door?  Heartfelt explanations are given explaining the absurdities and questionability behind the thinking to any further advancements with the war in Afghanistan.  One soldier follows a blood trail thinking it will lead him to a bigger pack of enemies?  Our soldiers are soaked in blood, and struggling, to find sanity in a reality that has become completely insane.  One thing is for sure that more interpreters are definitely needed to travel with the high ranking military officials into the villages and the Majors need more patience when communicating to the villages being intruded upon by us.

The troop pushes forward, hiking into the mountains where it gets colder.  We begin to see snow on the ground. Here the troops become bored out of their minds searching for something they cannot find when they hear on the radio that their sister company has just been ambushed.  Why are we proceeding with this war with the perspective that we should make them pay?  We seek revenge upon them when we are the intruders on their land?  They should pay us for intruding on their land?  Money is being wasted on artillery to shoot into villages at an unknown enemy.

In April 2010, troops withdrew from the Korengal Valley.  Approximately 50 US soldiers had been killed there.

Before the film cuts to black, we see a reality of the soldiers perspectives that shows us the psychological impact of war upon young men that would not have been understood had this movie not been filmed.  Young men are running around chasing each other imitating the actions of Norman Bates, "Psycho" style.  One young man runs around with his arms in the air flaring at the other soldiers as if he had a large butcher knife in his hand.  He is pretending to stab the other soldiers as they are preparing their deployments back to the US.  This proves that the US specifically needs to reconsider further psychological medical assistance to soldiers returning home, so that we may be a better America in honoring our soldiers when they return.  The theme song plays out, "We've got to keep these fools from lying, so we can keep ourselves from dying."

The most important point in "Restrepo" is to remember that our US military service men and women are busting their tails every day to protect every minute of freedom in America that we breathe.  We need to remember that although the diplomacy may not be perfect, as long as we are in Afghanistan, we the people are in Afghanistan. The US soldiers are our fellow Americans.  They need our support to get them out of there, so they may return home to their families safe and secure as they have provided for us.

"Restrepo" is an outstanding reminder that our peace and happiness as Americans are appreciated at the expense of so many Honorable men and women with their lives on the lines for us.  The reality of Bin Laden and his attacks against the US and our families has not ended, or we would not be there.  For every breathe of joy we take--as this war in Afghanistan continues--there is another bullet to the heads of the men and women overseas fighting for our rights and for our freedoms to live in the peace and comfort of our freedoms, here in America.


Link | Leave a comment |

"Ghost Writer" by Roman Polanski

Feb. 23rd, 2010 | 05:49 pm

First of all, I have to say I totally loved Roman Polanski’s new psychological conspiracy thriller, “Ghost Writer.” As in many of Polanski’s films, the music alone is cause enough to see this great movie. The music grips the viewer from the opening scene and doesn’t let go until the credits are rolling. Intense violins matched with spine-tingling rays of high-pitched notes on the treble clef of the piano is a classic signature of Polanski in this thought-provoking masterpiece.

Another element that is equally distinguishable in Polanski’s “Ghost Writer,” is the riveting chemistry between the brilliant characters. The actors work so well together it seems as though they could be family members. It is evident that the harmony of elements soulfully connecting the actors together has been meticulously chosen as Polanski has been known to do before in his previous Academy Award winning movies. Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Williams and Kim Cattrall create fountains of serene good work in “Ghost Writer.” Their souls immediately intertwine as their beings of light shine together to set the stage for the outstanding intellectually compelling genius of a metaphorically challenging screenplay. There is great heart powering Roman Polanski’s “Ghost Writer,” which is reflected in all elements of this beautiful addition to his collection of masterpieces.

“Ghost Writer” provides: mystery, suspense, intellectually challenging thought-provoking conspiracy in this political adventure which gives the audience an exciting ride for two hours and 15 minutes of outstanding entertainment and inspiration to new and old fans of Roman Polanski. The director once again proves his mastery in making motion pictures by presenting to the audience skilled and experienced filmmaking on screen, captivatingly defined as another simply irresistible Roman Polanski masterpiece. The cinematography, the lighting and the technical direction of “Ghost Writer” are absolutely beautiful examples of excellence in filmmaking. The cameras waltz in zen with political dialog that is a tour de force of thought-provoking insight any intellectually advanced “movie-goer” would enjoy.

Without giving too much of the multi-layered metaphorical genius of a story plot away, the gist of the movie is that Pierce Brosnan plays former Prime Minister, Adam Lang, who hires Ewan McGregor as an editor and as a ghost writer (a second opinion) to transform Lang’s multi-layered political history as (former) Prime Minister into a book of fact and fiction that results in a decently honest memoirs.

Olivia Williams plays Ruth Lang, the former Prime Minister’s wife who falls in love with the ghost writer due to problems and questions regarding a possible love affair between her husband, Adam Lang, and his secretary played by Kim Cattrall. The plot is set ablaze when viewers discover the CIA is trying to set the (former) Prime Minister (a political leader of metaphorical grandeur) up as a war criminal who is being accused of torture authorized by the CIA.

The incredible plot of “Ghost Writer” thickens when the meaning of the malicious intent grows deeper. Specifically, when the audience discovers “Hatherton” (possibly referring to Dick Cheney’s "Halliburton") and the thrilling truths behind the definition and meaning to “war” and how it is politically funded for corporate profits. “Ghost Writer” is a beautifully intelligent masterpiece providing an entertaining battlefield for the truths and the fictions of the characters.

Many lessons of life are taught, lived, learned and remembered in this eloquent monument of masterwork. The aim is not just to be politically enlightening, but “Ghost Writer” hopes to inspire intellectual developments in all human beings, possibly as a personal accomplishment for Roman Polanski himself. It’s a good reflection of his subconscious that he is making an effort throughout this film to prove to others that he is much wiser now. Polanski sets out to teach to others something they can learn about humanity and the love that people share towards each other.

“Ghost Writer” teaches us not only about the relationships between corporate politics and the abuse of power through military etiquette, but also about the use of force through authorized torture and how human relationships can survive amongst inhumane cruelty. The audience learns what we can learn from each other at the most advanced levels. Some relationships are of eternal, unconditional love--that will never change, whereas some are “too good to be true” and completely paid to exist. Who knew that love could be bought and used for malicious intent against another? Hence, the meaning of “Too good to be true.”

Where entertainment drives technology, “Ghost Writer” inspires even the best of us. The underlying twisted metaphorically genius cast and crew of “Ghost Writer” are reasons enough to see this outstanding motion picture by Roman Polanski.

Link | Leave a comment |

For Your Consideration to the following story on Polanski

Dec. 23rd, 2008 | 11:17 pm

The previous post on Polanski reads to me "Field Full."

Therefore, I would like to add a few points:

Let's' all ask Jack Nicholson, "Would you prefer to have the cops at your house or not at your house?"

Who called the cops on Jack Nicholson?

I believe that Samantha Geimer was prostituted by her mother who then called the cops on Jack Nicholson. It may very well be true that her mother prostituted her daughter into Jack Nicholson's house, and then called the cops trying to get money out of Nicholson.

Link | Leave a comment {1} |