Great film, but no market for it: Sorry...

[MovieStuff]

His comment insulted you.

Not me. I am one of the "many, many wonderful exceptions" to his insult.

My read is that insulting was not his intent. His argument, might lack tact, but it is far from mere "baseless" insult.

That he felt a need to make a distinction regarding the US when there is obviously no distinction to be made only reinforces the intent. His conclusion is baseless. Thus we are only left with the insult.

With respect, your resort to call him a pompous ass is arguably more of a baseless insult.

It wasn't a baseless insult. He was a pompous ass. I wasn't trying to make a point. I was trying to insult him. Nothing vague there, Steve.

I recognize your intelligence and admire your artistry and entrepreneurial success. You are clearly literate, but it is also clear that you are not keeping up with the current literature on political economy.

Why? Because I don't agree with your point of view? Come on, Steve, you can do better than lay the old USENET tactic that, if someone doesn't agree with your position, then they must not be educated enough on the topic. You asked me before if I could suggest anything for you to read. I said no. But not because I had not read anything on economics but, rather, because I figured you had already read everything there was. That we draw different conclusions doesn't mean I'm illiterate on the subject. A true atheist and a true Christian both know the Bible backwards and forwards, don't ya think? ;)

It is some of the best source material for science fiction.

Agreed.

Roger

[steve hyde]

You asked me before if I could suggest anything for you to read. I said no. But not because I had not read anything on economics but, rather, because I figured you had already read everything there was. That we draw different conclusions doesn't mean I'm illiterate on the subject. A true atheist and a true Christian both know the Bible backwards and forwards, don't ya think? ;)

I have no idea what you are talking about concerning the Bible. I have never read it. So your point is lost on me.

I asked for reading references to better understand how you know what you know and believe. I am asking for your epistemology. Your logic is so full of gaps, I imagine that you will learn something from asking yourself how you know what you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[MovieStuff]

You asked me before if I could suggest anything for you to read. I said no. But not because I had not read anything on economics but, rather, because I figured you had already read everything there was. That we draw different conclusions doesn't mean I'm illiterate on the subject. A true atheist and a true Christian both know the Bible backwards and forwards, don't ya think? ;)

I have no idea what you are talking about concerning the Bible. I have never read it. So your point is lost on me.

You don't have to read the Bible to get the analogy, Steve. We can read the same information and draw different conclusions. Listing every book you and I have ever read doesn't make one opinion more valid than another. What if there had been only one book on economics ever read by the both of us? Do we declare a draw based on total book consumption?

What you see as gaps in my logic I see as comparing the reality of the marketplace to theory found in many books. For instance, you maintain that the concept of the free market was established on the idea of fair trade. I maintain that the reality is quite different and that there is nothing fair about the free market and never has been. I understand what many books on economics say about how the free market is supposed work but I have enough direct experience to know that the reality is very often different. Most experienced business people will tell you that economic theory is based on utopian ideals that do not take into account human nature because the little guy always wants to be the big guy. You started this thread complaining about the inherent unfairness of a free market place that prevents a good documentary from being successful. Yet you maintain that such a free market was founded on the ideal of fair trade! If I point out that such unfairness is proof that the market place isn't fair and never was, you don't provide any sort of evidence to the contrary. Instead, you just maintain that my point of view is illogical because all the books you read insist that the free market was founded on the ideal of fair trade. Nevermind the reality that started this thread! How can you reconcile such beliefs? Do you make your decisions as an experienced business person or because a book says so?

Roger

[npcoombs]

You started this thread complaining about the inherent unfairness of a free market place that prevents a good documentary from being successful. Yet you maintain that such a free market was founded on the ideal of fair trade!

Forgive me for being a pompous ass, but the point Steve is trying to make is that the circulation of ideas (e.g. film distribution) is normalised by those in the industry by an invocation of the free market as an ideal.

According to their logic: those films demanded are supplied and those not demanded are not supplied.

At any one abstract instance this is certainly true, but there are so many holes in this notion its difficult to know where to start.

1) On the most superficial level, decisions are made according to blatant political bias, i.e. censorship. But this is a crude old Soviet tactic which doesn't come into play as frequently any more. When it does it is often very obvious and therefore impotent e.g. Fox News

2) Not supporting ideas on fatuous grounds of non-commerciality. This is a mix of partial truth and censorship. We could call it instrumental censorship, because it serves both market orientations and political positions.

3) Cultural hegemony. Certain goods and ideas are not wanted because the mainstream makes them unappealing by moulding social positions through control of the mass media, politics and education. I.e. MTV kids don't want to see docos about Iraqis, but would love to see Black Hawk Down.

4) Socio-historical processes and trends that set the scene for cultural hegemony. This is a constellations of facts, trends and realities. USA as the sole superpower. The end of communism. Rise of neo-conservatism. Globalisation. And my theory: infantiliation of the average citizen.
***
And Roger, as for labeling me as an immature young man or whatever - grow up!

It's fairly clear that you haven't thought through your positions in any depth, so you resort to personal insults and patronization. I really don't see your contribution adding up to much more than rudeness in this thread.

[npcoombs]

That he felt a need to make a distinction regarding the US when there is obviously no distinction to be made only reinforces the intent.

Sorry, I missed this point. There is a big difference with the US in that it is an introverted, global superpower. It projects its might throughout the world and yet few of its citizens understand anything about the world or how we got to where we are. Same goes to a lesser extent in the wanabee/failure superpower of the UK.

Yes, all rich democracies are pretty apathetic, but believe me throughout the world the US media is regarded as an open joke. You will find more widespread activism and critical consciousness in any European country than in the USA. It's just a fact.

If you could drag yourself away from this insecure backfoot, you would see it not as an insult but as an observation to discuss. I don't spend my time walking round slagging off the US, most of the time I think about my own country and engage in debates about problems here.

[npcoombs]

[quote="MovieStuff"] There is more to education than books and more to life than the assumptions with which you frame your misplaced and ill-serving conceit. For someone that aspires to be a director, you sure know very little about people and the importance of tact. [quote]

And to finish the evening of online debate.

1) Studies prove every point. I have no conceit to serve. You still seem to be deluded that I put myself on a pedestal according to my Britishness. Anyone who knows me would laugh out loud at this idea.

2) Fuck tact, cold hard reality is what I'm interesting it. And yes I do piss a lot of people off very regularly. This is the price of honesty and independent thought.

[npcoombs]

That he felt a need to make a distinction regarding the US when there is obviously no distinction to be made only reinforces the intent.

Sorry, I missed this point. There is a big difference with the US in that it is an introverted, global superpower. It projects its might throughout the world and yet few of its citizens understand anything about the world or how we got to where we are. Same goes to a lesser extent in the wanabee/failure superpower of the UK.

Yes, all rich democracies are pretty apathetic, but believe me throughout the world the US media is regarded as an open joke.

If you could drag yourself away from this insecure backfoot, you would see it not as an insult but as an observation to discuss. I don't spend my time walking round slagging off the US, most of the time I think about my own country and engage in debates about problems here.

[MovieStuff]

You started this thread complaining about the inherent unfairness of a free market place that prevents a good documentary from being successful. Yet you maintain that such a free market was founded on the ideal of fair trade!

Forgive me for being a pompous ass, but the point Steve is trying to make is that the circulation of ideas (e.g. film distribution) is normalised by those in the industry by an invocation of the free market as an ideal.

According to their logic: those films demanded are supplied and those not demanded are not supplied.

At any one abstract instance this is certainly true, but there are so many holes in this notion its difficult to know where to start.

1) On the most superficial level, decisions are made according to blatant political bias, i.e. censorship. But this is a crude old Soviet tactic which doesn't come into play as frequently any more. When it does it is often very obvious and therefore impotent e.g. Fox News

2) Not supporting ideas on fatuous grounds of non-commerciality. This is a mix of partial truth and censorship. We could call it instrumental censorship, because it serves both market orientations and political positions.

3) Cultural hegemony. Certain goods and ideas are not wanted because the mainstream makes them unappealing by moulding social positions through control of the mass media, politics and education. I.e. MTV kids don't want to see docos about Iraqis, but would love to see Black Hawk Down.

4) Socio-historical processes and trends that set the scene for cultural hegemony. This is a constellations of facts, trends and realities. USA as the sole superpower. The end of communism. Rise of neo-conservatism. Globalisation. And my theory: infantiliation of the average citizen.

Which is just all another way of saying that the free market is not fair, even though it ideally should be. You don't need a complicated, 4 point drill-down to illustrate that concept. I agree. So what's your point, Nathan?

And Roger, as for labeling me as an immature young man or whatever - grow up! It's fairly clear that you haven't thought through your positions in any depth, so you resort to personal insults and patronization.

How do you do it, Nathan? How do you strike a balance between supposedly not understanding what I write so clearly and the forced facade of a superior intellect? Amazing.

I really don't see your contribution adding up to much more than rudeness in this thread.

Coming from a guy that proceeded to insult an entire nation while admitting his post did nothing to address the point of the thread, I find that to be an astonishing display of hypocrisy.

There is a big difference with the US in that it is an introverted, global superpower. It projects its might throughout the world

We don't. Our govenment does, Nathan. I don't blame you for the collar and leashed little poof of a PM you've endured over the last several years.

...and yet few of its citizens understand anything about the world or how we got to where we are.

Wow. That's incredible. I would never claim to know what people in the UK think or know. Must be nice to be telepathic. How do you find the time to read so many minds, and from across the Atlantic, no less!?? ;)

Same goes to a lesser extent in the wanabee/failure superpower of the UK.

Are we talking about the people or your government? I guess it must be easier to read their minds, what being closer and all.

Yes, all rich democracies are pretty apathetic, but believe me throughout the world the US media is regarded as an open joke.

I thought we were talking about the value of education and the economy? What has the media go to do with anything?

You will find more widespread activism and critical consciousness in any European country than in the USA. It's just a fact.

Then you'll have no problem backing that up with some stats, right?

If you could drag yourself away from this insecure backfoot, you would see it not as an insult but as an observation to discuss.

Who's insecure? I'm not the one trying to compensate for something by wearing out his dictionary.

1) Studies prove every point. I have no conceit to serve. You still seem to be deluded that I put myself on a pedestal according to my Britishness. Anyone who knows me would laugh out loud at this idea.

Oh, believe me, there's plenty to laugh at but I never made your Britishness a point in any of this. Now, about these studies you speak of that prove every point. Care to share them with the rest of us?

2) Fuck tact, cold hard reality is what I'm interesting it. And yes I do piss a lot of people off very regularly. This is the price of honesty and independent thought.

Gosh, I was just sure that one could be honest and independently minded without pissing people off. But what do I know, I'm an American! I guess everone on this forum that displays civility is dishonest without an original thought in their head. At least I now know I can't trust what you say unless you piss someone off. Then, THEN I know I'm getting an honest, mature, well formed, independent thought. Thanks for the head's up. ;)

Roger

[steve hyde]

For instance, you maintain that the concept of the free market was established on the idea of fair trade. I maintain that the reality is quite different and that there is nothing fair about the free market and never has been. I understand what many books on economics say about how the free market is supposed work but I have enough direct experience to know that the reality is very often different. Most experienced business people will tell you that economic theory is based on utopian ideals that do not take into account human nature because the little guy always wants to be the big guy. You started this thread complaining about the inherent unfairness of a free market place that prevents a good documentary from being successful. Yet you maintain that such a free market was founded on the ideal of fair trade! If I point out that such unfairness is proof that the market place isn't fair and never was, you don't provide any sort of evidence to the contrary. Instead, you just maintain that my point of view is illogical because all the books you read insist that the free market was founded on the ideal of fair trade. Nevermind the reality that started this thread! How can you reconcile such beliefs? Do you make your decisions as an experienced business person or because a book says so?

Roger

This is why epistemology is so important. You have misinterpreted my argument. If you go back and look at my arguments you will find that I never argued that.

I did say may have said that the ideologues of "Free Markets" argue that a "Free Market" will be governed naturally by the "invisible hand of supply and demand". That is of course precisely what they argue.

Hey Nigel! You still out there? Tell us about it.

I did say - and this is an epistemological point - that the logic of the invisible hand of the free market bringing about freedom and liberty for all participants in the market is based on the assumption that:

Free Market ideology is founded on the assumption that individual freedoms are guaranteed by freedom in the Market. If freedom cannot be guaranteed in the Market, then advocates for Free Markets are not advocates for freedom.

*Freedom* is at the ontological heart of "Free Market" philosophy.
Without the concepts of freedom and liberty in the market, Free Market philosophy is upended. It's negated. This is my argument. I'm trying to state it as plainly as possible.

Freedom and liberty for world citizens must be protected. The question is how? In the economy: Free Market? or Regulated Market?


The difference is I believe that regulation governed by a democratically elected government is still the best way to defend freedom and liberty in the global market place.

Yes, democracy is a deeply flawed system, but it is a fist for fighting against the so-called invisible hand. The biggest threat to democracy is the mass media apparatus.

hey look Rupert Murdock just bought Myspace, The Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal what is next? He already own major news papers in the UK and in Australia. Watch and learn how access to new markets and the manipulation of new markets adds to his coffers!! Think about that!

Citizens need to understand cultural hegemony and how to resist it..

Filmmakers!!! I hope you are listening!

We need an audio-visual media movement that works in defense of cultural diversity. Make films in your own languages that speak to what is important to you and your culture! Don't conform to the wants of English language audiences. Fuck that. Tell us who you are and what you care about. Don't let U.S/British imperialism continue to paper over the global cultural landscape. It's no good for the citizens of the world!

This is what neoliberalism looks like. For those of you that like numbers, dig this:


in 1996, the net worth of the 358 top richest people in the world was equal to the combined income of the poorest 45% of the worlds population. Stated differently: 358 people maintained an income equal to 2.3 billion people.

Aren't you just a bit curious how that works? Wouldn't you like to know?

Worse still, between 1996 and 1998 the worlds 200 richest people more than doubled their assets. If we scale it down to the top three richest people we have the combined income of three (3!!) people with incomes equal to the 600 million people living in the "least developed countries" according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 1996, 1999)

source:
http://hdr.undp.org/

I am arguing that the liberalization of trade helps the rich and hurts the poor. It does not create a "level Playing Field" . We should not assume freedom will be guaranteed by the "invisible hand of the market."

We should assume that the rich and powerful want deregulation because it serves the rich and powerful and therefore anyone who is not rich and powerful, or cares about social justice in the world economy, should be making a stand against neoliberalism.


Steve

[steve hyde]

As the moderator of this thread - I think we should shift the discussion back to film, and audio-visual communication more specifically, and talk about some of the ways audio-visual media works in service of neoliberalism and global domination.

Limiting the reach of films like "Iraq in Fragments" is one way, but we can also think about and discuss how and why certain forms of audio-visual communication are produced - become hegemonic - and proliferate wildly across the landscapes.

Steve

[downix]

How about this, rather than complaining or arguing about things, why don't we discuss methods of getting films such as iraq in Fragments out there? I have ideas, but I want to see what others are thinking. If you don't like the system, then buck it!

[Jim Carlile]

Yes, all rich democracies are pretty apathetic, but believe me throughout the world the US media is regarded as an open joke. You will find more widespread activism and critical consciousness in any European country than in the USA. It's just a fact.

I tend to agree with you. But I think the root cause of this is the horrible state of education in the U.S. There are exceptions, but I think in general it is safe to say that the European educational system-- for those who advance-- is far superior. This explains the sad fact that Americans have little sense of the possibilities in life and are so accepting of so little. They don't know any better.

Fortunately it's not everyone. I think much more is expected of people in Europe, though, and little is required of most Americans. And that's just the way the salesmen and the hyper-capitalists want it, too.

[steve hyde]

How about this, rather than complaining or arguing about things, why don't we discuss methods of getting films such as iraq in Fragments out there? I have ideas, but I want to see what others are thinking. If you don't like the system, then buck it!

I'm always interested in hearing ideas for "bucking the system", but I tend to focus my energies on understanding how and why the system works the way it does. I have always figured you have to know how and why something is broken before it can be fixed. What is your idea?

Steve

[steve hyde]

Yes, all rich democracies are pretty apathetic, but believe me throughout the world the US media is regarded as an open joke. You will find more widespread activism and critical consciousness in any European country than in the USA. It's just a fact.

I tend to agree with you. But I think the root cause of this is the horrible state of education in the U.S. There are exceptions, but I think in general it is safe to say that the European educational system-- for those who advance-- is far superior. This explains the sad fact that Americans have little sense of the possibilities in life and are so accepting of so little. They don't know any better.

Fortunately it's not everyone. I think much more is expected of people in Europe, though, and little is required of most Americans. And that's just the way the salesmen and the hyper-capitalists want it, too.

The American media is definitely considered an open joke outside the U.S and also inside, but much less so inside. When I was in Italy a couple years ago I was astonished how much more varied the coverage of the Iraq War was on the evening news. The American News is highly censored, but it is interesting how it is censored without censorship, if you know what I mean. It is self-censored internally within the media corporations themselves. It isn't as if the Bush government is wielding Power from above. The Power comes up from below with a friendly wink to the Bush government as if to say: don't worry, *we are with you.* This is what I mean by cultural hegemony.

See this Youtube video of filmmaker Michael Moore railing on CNN:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpKoN40K7mA




RE: Education

Most education comes from audio-visual media. Now more than ever of course with video games, the internet, television, the cinema. It's the powerful new language of the late 20th century and it looks like the wave hasn't even peaked yet. Adults almost exclusively get their education from mass media combined with the education they get out of work experiences and family life.

Neoliberalism is increasingly present in formal education too. Here is a paper that I haven't read yet, but looks like it speaks to some of the ways that neoliberal governmentality is finding its way into European and American schools.

http://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/conten ... imons.html


Steve

[steve hyde]

You started this thread complaining about the inherent unfairness of a free market place that prevents a good documentary from being successful. Yet you maintain that such a free market was founded on the ideal of fair trade!

Forgive me for being a pompous ass, but the point Steve is trying to make is that the circulation of ideas (e.g. film distribution) is normalised by those in the industry by an invocation of the free market as an ideal.

According to their logic: those films demanded are supplied and those not demanded are not supplied.

At any one abstract instance this is certainly true, but there are so many holes in this notion its difficult to know where to start.

1) On the most superficial level, decisions are made according to blatant political bias, i.e. censorship. But this is a crude old Soviet tactic which doesn't come into play as frequently any more. When it does it is often very obvious and therefore impotent e.g. Fox News

2) Not supporting ideas on fatuous grounds of non-commerciality. This is a mix of partial truth and censorship. We could call it instrumental censorship, because it serves both market orientations and political positions.

3) Cultural hegemony. Certain goods and ideas are not wanted because the mainstream makes them unappealing by moulding social positions through control of the mass media, politics and education. I.e. MTV kids don't want to see docos about Iraqis, but would love to see Black Hawk Down.

4) Socio-historical processes and trends that set the scene for cultural hegemony. This is a constellations of facts, trends and realities. USA as the sole superpower. The end of communism. Rise of neo-conservatism. Globalisation. And my theory: infantiliation of the average citizen.
***
And Roger, as for labeling me as an immature young man or whatever - grow up!

It's fairly clear that you haven't thought through your positions in any depth, so you resort to personal insults and patronization. I really don't see your contribution adding up to much more than rudeness in this thread.

Nice outline for an article here Nathan..

Steve