1 March 2012 >>
Much has been written already about Andrew Breitbart and his life at the intersection of culture, media and politics. So instead, I will tell you a story about how Andrew Breitbart and I ended up at a Devo concert.
More >>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brain Terminal is available at:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Entertainment 29 June 2009 @ 8:41AM >>
PC World reports on a significant development in the evolution of new media:
28 January 2009 @ 9:01AM >>
The View’s Joy Behar, who considers herself a comedian, was asked by Larry King about the possibilities presented by the Age of Obama:
Perhaps our new president really is too perfect for mockery. Obama’s disciples, however, are another story. 23 January 2009 @ 9:01AM >>
Apparently, Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore are trying to do my work for me. I can’t find a better illustration of the disturbing cult-like quality among President Barack Obama’s more enthusiastic supporters than this video put together by the celebrity duo: A couple of choice quotes:
This Obama worship is being echoed by more of the vacuous class:
I get why people like our new president. I understand the historical significance of his election. And there is one thing about his election that makes me very happy: it disproves the leftist slander that America is a racist, bigoted country. But all this pledging to blindly follow and serve The Leader not only highlights the intellectual unseriousness of the pledgers, it also shows that none of these folks know enough history to understand where this sort of groupthink can lead. 24 October 2008 >>
I’m excited to announce that the Documentary Channel will be showing my film Indoctrinate U several times next week as part of its “Controversy in America” series. Airtimes are:
The Documentary Channel is available on satellite and many cable systems nationwide. Check your provider for channel information. These times are subject to change. Visit the Documentary Channel’s website for an up-to-date schedule. 15 October 2008 @ 9:05AM >>
You might not know it, what with Fahrenheit 9/11 being released a few weeks before the 2004 election, W. being released a few weeks before this election, and a whole slew of anti-Iraq War films over the last five years, but Hollywood all of a sudden does not want to appear partisan:
29 September 2008 @ 9:02AM >>
If you happen to be in Washington, D.C. this week, there are a few films you should take time out to see. Do As I Say exposes the hypocrisy of the political and media elite, who preach one thing to the masses while practicing another. U.N. Me is a searing indictment of the United Nations and how its institutional fecklessness has cost countless lives and wasted billions of dollars. I’ve seen early edits of both of these films. You will be stunned. One film I can’t wait to see is An American Carol, David Zucker’s hilarious-looking sendup of Michael Moore and the politics of Hollywood. All of these films will be shown at the American Film Renaissance festival, from October 1st through the 4th. Scheduling information and tickets are available online. 18 August 2008 @ 8:07AM >>
Chandler Tuttle, who did some great editing work on Indoctrinate U, is coming out with a film of his own. 2081 is his soon-to-be-released short film adapted from the Kurt Vonnegut story Harrison Bergeron. The film is set in a future society where everyone is finally equal. People who excel in any area are deliberately handicapped by the government in order to enforce equality. People with above-average strength are shackled to weights to prevent their strength from being an unfair advantage. Those deemed too intelligent must wear earpieces that emit loud crackles and noises to stifle coherent thinking. In other words, the world has finally become the egalitarian “utopia” that today’s social engineers desire. You can see the trailer for 2081 at the film’s website, finallyequal.com. 15 August 2008 @ 8:59AM >>
With just weeks until the new school year, we’re busy preparing for the Indoctrinate U fall campus tour. If you’re interested in a screening of Indoctrinate U at your school, contact the Moving Picture Institute. MPI—which in addition to organizing the campus screenings also provided funding for the film—recently posted a look back at the many exciting developments since the film’s trailer was first released last spring. Here are some highlights:
13 August 2008 @ 6:51AM >>
From Scott Johnson’s “Driving Mr. Bin Laden” post at Power Line comes the Quote of the Day:
9 July 2008 @ 9:19AM >>
If you’re a pop culture junkie who doesn’t share the politics of Hollywood, you may enjoy Yeah Right, a new blog started by some fellow Bucknell alums I met while filming Indoctrinate U. Current topics range from The Office to the latest Weezer album, Che Guevara t-shirts, and the new 90210. 24 June 2008 @ 9:25AM >>
Are you interested in film? Do you have narrative or documentary ideas that touch on themes of economic freedom or individual liberty? Then you might want to check out the filmmaker’s workshop being held in Los Angeles from August 15th through the 17th. If you’re interested, submit an application. Those who are accepted into the program will have all costs paid—including travel, lodging and food—courtesy of American Film Renaissance. The application deadline is July 9th. 9 April 2008 @ 8:16AM >>
 If you’d like to buy a copy of the DVD, head on over to the Indoctrinate U Store and you can have one in your hands in just a few days. Unlike the downloadable Virtual DVD (which is also available at the store), the physical DVD comes with bonus DVD extras. Reminder: This upcoming Monday (April 14th) is the New York City premiere of Indoctrinate U. Because this is a sponsored event, tickets are free. Seats are available, but you must RSVP in order to reserve your spot. 27 February 2008 >>
The Economist has a fascinating article on how the Internet is changing Hollywood. Indoctrinate U gets a brief mention. 10 February 2008 >>
Update: The review program has now ended. The offer below is no longer valid. If you’re interested in seeing the film, you can now download a copy from the Indoctrinate U online store. Within a matter of days, we will be ready to launch the Indoctrinate U online store, where we will be offering the film for download as MPEG-4 files and ISO DVD files. MPEG-4 files are playable on Windows, Mac and Linux, and ISO files can also be used to create your own DVD copies of the film playable on virtually all home DVD equipment. All you need is a computer with a DVD burner, software capable of burning ISO files, and a blank DVD. But before we open the store to the public, we will be offering free downloads of review copies to a limited number of bloggers who plan on publishing reviews of the film. If you’re interested in reviewing Indoctrinate U, please send your name (or online pseudonym), the name of your site, the site’s URL, and the e-mail address where you’d prefer to be contacted to this e-mail address:
When our online store launches, this offer will expire, so if you’re interested, e-mail us soon! Oh yeah, non-blogger media folks are welcome, too. 15 January 2008 @ 8:55AM >>
In response to the post Court Closes the “Michael Moore Loophole”?, Terry Howard writes:
I agree that political speech will be harder to regulate as media becomes more fractured and decentralized. But I wish I thought that meant politicians and bureaucrats wouldn’t try. If anything, the seeming chaos of the cacophony of individual voices in online media will probably lead some people to start arguing for tighter controls on political speech. So as long as speech regulations are pitched as something else—such as campaign finance reform—it ends up getting supported by people who don’t pay much attention to politics but casually believe campaign finance needs reforming. And unfortunately, people have a tendency to care a lot less about free speech when it isn’t theirs being stifled. It is interesting that, by and large, the editorial pages of the nation’s newspapers supported the McCain/Feingold political speech limitation bill. The fact that the legislation limited the speech of other private citizens—and not newspaper editorial writers—probably didn’t hurt. After all, in a world with less political speech, the power of a newspaper editorial writer is enhanced. Faced with a media environment where more people are getting news online and from independent voices, a cynic might say that newspapers saw campaign finance reform as the McCain/Feingold Endangered Editorialists’ Protection Act. Being embedded in an old-media business, the ink-and-paper columnists might not have seen the regulations as a direct threat to their speech. But that’s only because they’re confusing their product—words and images—with the physical carrier of their product. By encouraging the government to regulate political speech differently based on the employment status of the speaker and the medium in which the speech is conveyed, myopic editorialists have guaranteed that busybody bureaucrats will eventually try to tie down whatever medium those newspaperites flee to once the last inch of their sinking paper ship is finally dragged beneath the surface. Whether they be political activists or not, if private citizens, like the folks who formed Citizens United, do not have the right band together to engage in political speech during certain times of the year, then the First Amendment is just a part-time right afforded to only part of the citizenry. 14 January 2008 @ 8:26AM >>
The Economist reports on the music industry’s woes:
The prime function of a record label is to scout, identify and promote talent. Distribution is obviously key to the business, but it’s largely a function of logistics and technology, and it’s tangential to the consumer’s interest in the product. Talent identification and promotion is the real business value as far as consumers are concerned, simply because there are lots of people producing music, most of which probably wouldn’t appeal to any given person. So the role of record labels—first as a filter selecting talent, then as a megaphone promoting it—is a useful function. But this role doesn’t necessarily have to fulfilled by labels. Friends who share your musical tastes might do it, for example. But in order for your friends to turn you on to some good music, they have to be introduced to it somehow. Social networking sites online amplify the ability of individuals to act as filters and as promoters of what they like. People list their favorite bands on sites like Myspace, and their friends can click over to the band’s profile and often listen to a few tracks for free. More people can be exposed to more music through their friends on Myspace than in real-life casual conversation, so an increasing portion of the role played by record labels is now be handled by individuals, online. Market changes might force labels to become smaller, but the same technology that’s destroying their current business model will also let labels do more with less. If individuals are taking on more of the role of promoter, any promotion done by record labels will be amplified in a way that didn’t happen in the past. Special-interest niches can be targeted like never before, and the amateur music enthusiasts with influential online presences can be identified and courted by labels seeking to tout the next great act. Record labels won’t disappear altogether, because there will always be a role for professional filters. Talent needs to be scouted, and promotion will always be helpful in connecting people to new music. But the balance of power in the music industry is shifting, seismically. Labels will be smaller, but they have the potential to be sleeker. And if this gives artists an opportunity to keep more of the revenue their work generates, that won’t be a bad thing. 12 January 2008 @ 12:21PM >>
Matt Walliser writes in to say:
Even though the music business has been fighting the trend towards Apple’s online distribution dominance since at least 2005, ironically, one reason Apple has so much power today is because of bad decisions made by the music labels themselves. For years, labels have demanded that digital music be burdened with copy protection technology. In order to get permission to sell music through the iTunes Music Store, labels required Apple to implement copy protection, which they did. That technology, called FairPlay, is one of the less onerous copy protection schemes out there, but it does mean that music files purchased through the iTunes Music Store can’t be played by non-Apple devices (although they can be burned onto standard CDs, which can then be used in any standard CD player). In other words, the labels’ insistence on copy protection ended up giving Apple the ability to lock customers into its file formats, thereby making it more difficult for those customers to switch to devices sold by Apple’s competitors. Steve Jobs has called on the recording industry to abandon copy protection, and after one label granted permission, Apple now sells some songs in MP3 format without copy protection. Competitors like Amazon are now selling music in unprotected MP3 format as well. Maybe the recording industry is slowly waking up. Still, I can’t help thinking that Steve Jobs is secretly smiling to himself, knowing that the long-running short-sightedness of the music business is part of the reason that Apple enjoys such dominance in online music distribution. If music labels had allowed sales of unprotected MP3s right from the start, Apple’s iPod would probably be just as dominant in the market for portable music players, but the iTunes Music Store would likely be a different story. 10 January 2008 @ 6:37PM >>
A few years back, I interviewed Michael Moore and asked him if Fahrenheit 9/11 should be considered a political advertisement, and if so, whether campaign finance laws should apply. Moore admitted the film contained his opinions, but that his film should be treated like an op-ed in the paper.
 During the 2004 election, neither ads for the Bush-bashing Fahrenheit 9/11, nor the film itself were regulated under campaign finance laws. But now that there’s a new film about Hillary Clinton, all of a sudden, campaign finance laws do apply to political perspective films:
The content of the film is irrelevant; if the film merely expresses opinions, it is protected constitutional speech. And if it is factually inaccurate in a way that is defamatory to Hillary Clinton, she has legal recourse for that. It shouldn’t matter whether a film is made by a Hollywood insider like Michael Moore or an issue-based outfit like Citizens United. Groups like Citizens United—on the right and the left—are formed by private citizens with a common goal of promoting their shared ideas. The speech of Citizens United should not be more regulated than the speech of any of its individual members—or any other private citizen for that matter. All filmmakers—in fact, all citizens who value their free speech rights—should be concerned about this decision. Michael Moore should be concerned. Because even though he has the benefit of Hollywood’s infrastructure and support (and therefore has no need to become involved with an organization like Citizens United), his films are financed and distributed by corporations that may one day find themselves subject to the same regulations now being imposed on Citizens United. Any attempt to regulate political speech is direct assault on the First Amendment. 2 January 2008 @ 8:57AM >>
Two of my favorite creative minds in music—Thom Yorke and David Byrne—recently sat down to discuss the future of the music business. Last October, Yorke’s band Radiohead released its latest album, In Rainbows. But rather than releasing it through a traditional music label, Radiohead let fans download the music directly from its website. And rather than charging a fixed amount for the album, users were given the option of naming their own price—down to and including zero. The sinking fortunes of the music industry establishment may have been instigated by technological change, but they are worsened by the industry’s unwillingness to let consumers buy music that isn’t locked to specific formats or media. It’s like peering into the future of the movie industry. In both cases, you have industries whose fortunes have been protected for decades by the commingling of content and medium. Record albums weren’t just vinyl, they were vinyl with embedded music: the music couldn’t exist without the physical medium. As tapes replaced records and CDs replaced tapes, higher fidelity and increased convenience of each new format gave consumers a reason to re-purchase content that they already paid for in lesser formats. But when songs are stored as data and can be moved around like any other computer file, consumers will only ever need to buy one copy. As long as open formats are used, people will be able to play their music on any device devised in the future. There goes the upgrade gravy train. Like the music industry, the film industry is rightfully concerned with piracy, because once music and movies aren’t tied to a physical medium, they can be copied endlessly. But consumers don’t care if this inconveniences the industry; people have shown that they want the convenience of digital content, and they are willing to pay for it. So the more that record companies lock down digital content in order to fight piracy, the less incentive legitimate customers have to buy the product in the first place. What good is the “music as a file” model if it is artificially burdened with the same limitations as physical media? The movie business hasn’t been hurt by the shift away from physical media yet. But that’s only because technology hasn’t advanced far enough. It takes a lot more data to store a high-definition movie than an album’s worth of high-fidelity music. When a typical consumer’s Internet connection becomes fast enough to download high-definition full-length movies in a matter of minutes, the home market for movies will be subject to same technological dynamics affecting the music business today. And that future is only years away. But that isn’t the film industry’s biggest problem right now. After all, people won’t pirate content that they don’t want to watch in the first place. The problem with the film business is that too many insiders forgot that the rest of America doesn’t necessarily share the same view of the world as their friends in Hollywood. Instead, Hollywood has become its own echo chamber, which is why distributors keep pushing out flop after flop of military-bashing films. In Hollywood and at film festivals, such fare is highly praised. But in theaters around the country, the audience for films like Redacted is comprised mostly of empty seats. It’s almost as if Hollywood is producing films only for itself. My experience in trying to get distribution for Indoctrinate U only confirms this. People in the film business just don’t take seriously the possibility that there’s a market for documentaries outside Hollywood’s typical Michael Moore/Al Gore worldview. I don’t know to what extent that’s out of political bias or the result of a simple Catch-22: they don’t see a market for anything different, but that’s because they’ve never tried distributing anything different. That leaves us in the position of having to self-distribute Indoctrinate U. And because the Internet will allow us to put the film in people’s hands in the fastest, most cost-effective way possible, we’ll be able to conduct a little experiment of our own. Indoctrinate U will not be available on DVD right away. Instead, we’re going to focus our efforts on seeing whether the Internet can be used to route around the gatekeepers in Hollywood—without the shackles of physical media. (Although unlike Radiohead, I’m afraid, we’re not in a position to give our goods away for free.) Who knows? Maybe the market can be proven without Hollywood’s help. I think it can. And once the market is proven, we’ll finally know who in the film business wants to serve customer desires instead of the dogma of Hollywood groupthink. 12 December 2007 @ 8:32AM >>
Celebrities are frequently mocked for making political statements that yield applause on Hollywood back lots, but that sound tone-deaf to the rest of America. So it’s refreshing to hear a little common sense from a source I didn’t expect:
Death should not be a taxable event. 26 November 2007 >>
“The dogma of multiculturalism holds that all cultures are equal, except Western culture, which (unlike every other society on the planet) has a history of oppression and war is therefore worse. All religions are equal, except Christianity, which informed the beliefs of the capitalist bloodsuckers who founded America and is therefore worse. All races are equal, except Caucasians, who long ago went into business with black slave traders in Africa, and therefore they are worse. The genders, too, are equal, except for those paternalistic males, who with their testosterone and aggression have made this planet a polluted living hell, and therefore they are worse.”
More >> 14 November 2007 @ 7:43AM >>
Proposed speech regulation in Great Britain:
The problem with regulating speech is, an awful lot of power is placed in the hands of the people charged with deciding what is and is not within bounds. Given how speech codes have been abused to punish political speech on college campuses, it’s even more chilling to think of government, with all of its various powers, trying to make these distinctions. Do you trust that the right decision—as opposed to the politically expedient decision—would always be made in these cases? If so, you have a hell of a lot more confidence in government than I do. 27 October 2007 @ 6:58AM >>
Matthew Sheffield of NewsBusters recently interviewed me on a wide range of topics. His extensive interview, the first in what will soon be a series on the website, has now been posted. It is quite apparent from reading the transcript that I must have spoken with Sheffield after a few cups of coffee. 16 October 2007 @ 1:43PM >>
Indoctrinate U is coming to the Twin Cities for a week-long run at Minnesota Film Arts’ Oak Street Cinema! I’ll be there on opening night, Friday, October 26th. The run continues until the following Thursday, November 1st. Here are the details:
Tickets for the matinee screening (5:15 PM) are $4 for students and $6 for adults. All other times, tickets are $5 for students and $8 for adults. The Oak Street Cinema is on Oak Street SE at SE Washington Avenue, on the east edge of the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities campus.
The screenings are sponsored by the Minnesota Association of Scholars and the Tocqueville Center at the University of Minnesota. 16 October 2007 @ 9:31AM >>
In yesterday’s New York Times, Professor Stanley Fish took an extensive look at Indoctrinate U. While it is clear that the professor and I feel quite differently about the extent of the problems in academia, the final two paragraphs of the piece contained more intellectual honesty than the last bit of coverage the Times gave Indoctrinate U. Professor Fish admits:
Perhaps my biggest disagreement with Professor Fish is over the issue of speech codes. Professor Fish contends:
In the Cal Poly case cited by Professor Fish, a student spent 18 months of his life under the threat of expulsion while he battled the university all the way up to federal court. His crime? Posting a flier announcing an upcoming event: a speech by Mason Weaver, a black conservative author who wrote a book on economic empowerment called It’s OK to Leave the Plantation. Apparently, Mr. Weaver’s point of view was not welcome in the Multicultural Center on campus, so Steve Hinkle, the student who attempted to post Weaver’s flier in there, had the police called on him and was brought up on disciplinary charges by the school. Ultimately, Hinkle was vindicated, and Professor Fish focuses only on the positive outcome in order to deem the whole issue of speech codes to be “fake.” But having to spend 18 months fighting for rights that are already constitutionally guaranteed sends a strong signal to other students that expressing the wrong point of view will end up costing you dearly. It corrodes the whole concept of free speech by dissuading people from speaking. After all, if simply hanging a flier could result in 18 months of battles, many students are going to conclude that certain speech just isn’t worth it. People whose views differ from the campus orthodoxy are going to keep quiet. Speech is undoubtedly chilled. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) gets hundreds upon hundreds of cases each year involving students and professors who have had their rights of conscience trampled. Many of these cases center on the “fake issue” of speech codes. A recent study conducted by FIRE found that over 90% of the hundreds of schools they surveyed had some form of speech regulation on the books. FIRE’s William Creeley comments on Professor Fish’s dismissal of the issue of speech codes:
Still, the good professor does acknowledge a problem in academia. We just disagree about the scope of it and the interpretation of the data that document it. There are other points made by Professor Fish that I could quibble with, but I don’t want to spend too much time arguing with someone who says I have “lean boyish looks that could earn [me] a role in Oceans 14 alongside Brad Pitt and Matt Damon.” Can someone please forward that suggestion to a few agents in L.A.? I’d do it myself, but the self-promotion might be a bit much...even by Hollywood standards. 1 October 2007 >>
National Review’s Stanley Kurtz attended the Indoctrinate U premiere:
19 August 2007 @ 2:09PM >>
Today’s New York Times profiles Thor Halvorssen, one of the producers of Indoctrinate U. The piece quotes Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock as saying Indoctrinate U “could be a lightning rod.” Spurlock adds, “Movies that get attention and spark a dialogue, get people talking on news shows, can be profitable at the box office.” Hopefully the Hollywood gatekeepers will give us a chance to prove him right! 10 July 2007 @ 8:48AM >>
A film industry insider discusses what’s wrong with Hollywood today and relays a telling anecdote:
Maybe if the powers in Hollywood remembered that not everyone votes or thinks like they do, they’ll be able to find an audience beyond what they’re reaching now. 4 July 2007 >>
It can be tough for a left-thinking American to get any respect in Tehran. You can speak out against the United States until you’re blue in the face, and you still get treated like a dirty infidel. Can’t they see that you’re not some stupid flag-waving, Bible-thumping, Bush-voting, buck-toothed hick? Can’t they see that you’re a jet-setting artist, a sophisticated post-national citizen of the world, a member of the intelligentsia who always recycles, and that you want nothing more than to bring world peace by connecting cultures through the magic of film? These sorts of questions may be floating around in the mind of Oliver Stone, now that he won’t be making a film about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. A spokesman for the Iranian president “said that Stone had requested to make a film about Ahmadinejad”:
Despite his ties to the Great Satan, “Stone is regarded within cinema circles in Islamic Iran as a distinguished filmmaker.” But I guess Stone’s exalted status in Iran was not enough to overcome his most fundamental flaw. No matter how great his talent, no matter where his political sympathies lie, he’s still nothing more than an infidel. And these days, that’s a crime punishable by death.
|
Follow Me   |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
