Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There's a place for short posts, and a place for long ones. But either way, the length of a post should be determined by what you have to say, not by arbitrary restrictions based on the short attention span of business consultants.
Too long, didn't read.
-
So it's a win-win for all parties going forward?
Only if we can work out a way to align all our ducks to cherry-pick the low-hanging fruit.
It's moaners like Spohie and Steve, always stopping to rearrange the deckchairs, who don't realise we have to be client focussed in these difficult times. It's sink or swim out there. Personally, I think this is a great example of blue-sky thinking.
So what we need is to interface to keep it fluid, run a few more ideas up the flagpole and see who salutes. We need to hit the ground running, have the conversation and become more results-driven. Stop moving the goalposts so that we can stretch the envelope. If they stop rocking the boat, we can start putting some ticks in boxes.
Less is more these days, so we'll go back to basics. With something this iconic we just need to suck it and see.
Clear?
-
No, Goff just left out a pretty damn pertinent piece of information and while I feel kind of icky about defending The Herald, they're perfectly entitled to be hellishly pissed off about being punked.
Hold on a sec, Craig. If the original article had actually made any sort of attribution to Goff or Labour, then APN could come out of this looking relatively clean. But they didn't. They ran the original story yesterday as if it was an original piece of their own journalism, not something that had been spoon-fed to them.
Then they tried to re-write history, and they've been called on it.
I agree that Goff looks like a dick for planting the story in the first place, especially with such weak-arse material (WTF was he thinking?).
But APN look like dicks for running with it unquestioningly under their own banner. If they got punk'd, it's their own fault, and no-one else's.
-
'Flame and Citroen' yesterday.
Worth a watch. A lot like Paul Verhoeven's 'Black Book' in tone.
If you do see it, it's worth bearing in mind that for most of the war, the Nazi jackboot was not quite as firmly on the throat of Denmark as it was the rest of occupied Europe (Holland, France, etc) - the Danish government and various branches of the civil service had quite a large degree of autonomy. Also that Sweden was neutral, and that Danes could travel there relatively freely.
Helps explain a couple of things in the film that might otherwise appear a bit odd.
-
What about fortifying coffee?
Because pregnant women need to be careful of their caffeine intake? :)
-
'Dead Snow' gets five BRAAAAAIIINS out of five from me.
Zombies and nazis - together at last.
A sure fire nominee for many Zombie Oscars, including 'best use of intestines', 'most imaginative use of fishing line and gaffer tape', and, yes 'BRAAAAIIINS'.
Hat tips from the makers to many films, including 'Bad Taste' and other early stuff from Peter Jackson.
The first film I've been to for a long time where there was a spontaneous round of applause at the end from the audience. So if you're into that sort of thing ('normal people', etc), definitely worth a look.
-
A small grump about the film festival ticketing.
The programme notes that at two cinema's (LIDO and Bridgeway), tickets can't be bought in advance. The wording in the programme is phrased in such as way as to suggest that tickets can't be brought in advance for screening at these shows at all .
However, tickets can be brought in advance for screenings at these two cinemas via ticketek, just not at the box offices, for those two screens. The programme doesn't make this clear.
I found this out the hard way on Saturday.
Anyhoo, back to the 'remix manifesto'. Some more coherent thoughts than 'it's rilly good, and you should, like, see it' (it is, though).
As a salesjob for a particular point of view (the 4-point remix manifesto), and a particular artist (girl talk), it was excellent. I'm certainly on the hunt for some of 'girl talk' back catalogue now.
But it skated over, and didn't really engage with, the central point of the doco - what exactly constitutes fair use, and when do you start infringing copyright? That is, exactly how restrictive are these laws?
There is only one point in the film when the makers try to answer this, and this is by going to the USPTO and asking the woman who does the copyright filings what she thinks. Now, without wanting to do this woman down, and in the gentlest possible way, she ain't much more than a glorified rubber stamp driver - she's certainly not an expert in US intellectual property law.
So I went and looked it up so you don't have to. For those who are interested, wiki has some reasonably comprehensive stuff.
General article on 'fair use' here.
The important stuff wrt music and sampling are these two decisions: here and here.
-
OK - I see where you're coming from now. And that does actually raise quite a thought-provoking point.
There are several degrees of separation between me and the events this film portrays. I am able to view it at least somewhat dispassionately. Similarly 'out of the blue'. I wasn't living here then and I have no immediate visceral emotional response to the events of that film - I am a step removed from it.
But I certainly don't feel the same way about, for example, Steve McQueens 'hunger' (which I'll admit I've not seen). Now, on an intellectual level, I can accept that it's a story that should be told, that neither side comes out smelling of roses in Northern Ireland, and I can read reviews that indicate the film is well-made, engaging and deals with the subject matter in a fair and balanced way.
But I can't help but have a reaction on a gut level, too. The PIRA are not something I can be completely dispassionate about. I read those reviews and I can feel my blood getting angried up.
Similarly, I can watch 'The Wire' with a degree of detachment, but have a rather more immediate gut reaction when presented with for example, 'Essex boys', 'rise of the footsoldier', or any one of the dozens of books and films that have been released in the UK which deal with that sort of 'laddy' hooligan/gangster/organised crime culture, whether or not they glorify it, or try to present it in a more balanced way.
Food for thought.
-
Craig - your post implies that there was controversy around the making of this film in Germany. I'm not at all up to speed on the background. Could you please elaborate?
My comments relating to radical mentaility were intended in a general sense. The mentality of far-left and far-right organisations is something that I have a little (a very little) personal experience with, at one remove. It's also an area I've done a bit of reading and research around. I was attempting to relate my more general experience and knowledge to the more specific situation covered by the film.
-
>"what is the answer if you believe that something is going on that is so horrific that it must be stopped, and every reasonable legal and illegal means for stopping it has been tried? What do you do?"
Which is more or less the question that most radicals ask themselves, consciously or unconsciously.
You could also add:
1) Seeing the situation (whatever that may be) in black and white, and not acknowledging shades of grey in human behaviour and motivation.
2) An ability to dehumanise your targets (they're not 'people', they are just a cog in The Machine built by The Man).
3) A belief that the end justifies the means, however violent and destructive that means may be.
4) A lack of patience and a belief that radical action will produce radical results.
5) A belief that 'the people' will, once properly informed and shaken out of their ignorant apathy, flock to your cause.
All of which are behavioural and thought traits that younger people tend to demonstrate more than older (and bitterly experienced) people do.
The 'dehumanisation' thing is addressed slightly tangentially in the film. At one point, Ulrike Meinhoff asks a cop about his family and kids, just before her 'comrades' burst in and start spraying the place with bullets.
there is always a significant proportion of true-believer revolutionaries who are either douchebags or assholes, and although these tendencies may initially be latent, the douchebaggery or assholery comes to the fore eventually, thereby undermining the movement's original goals.
And I'd tend to agree with this, too. If 10,000 people are part of a protest movement, then you can pretty much bet that 10 of those 10,000 are going to be radical, angry and violent.