The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: February 15, 2020
Its Illegal to Take Drone Photos of Cattle Feedlots in Texas. Press Groups Say That Violates the First Amendment. – The Texas Observer
Posted: February 15, 2020 at 9:48 am
Close up, a feedlot cow is a sight to behold: Its a hulking, broad-shouldered eating machine with a three-foot-long tongue and a jaw that never seems to stop chewing. At just 20 months old, one of them can weigh 1,300 pounds. And where you find one, youre bound to find others. In Deaf Smith County, a cluster of communities 45 minutes west of Amarillo, 720,000 cattle each year are packed side by side like sardines at feedlotsthe sprawling, treeless expanses where the penned animals are fattened en masse before being shipped to slaughterhouses.
This part of the western Panhandle, stretching from the Oklahoma border into West Texas, is a national cattle feeding powerhouse that supplies one-fifth of the countrys beef. Its also home to mountains of manure. Each year the regions feedlot cattle produce millions of tons of waste (just one large feedlot produces roughly 1.1 million tons of manure), which is dried by the sun, stomped by hooves, and carried by the wind to nearby communities.
The resulting fecal dust storms, some so thick they blot out the sun, make it difficult to breathe, residents say. Some people have reported persistent bouts of bronchitis and other respiratory problems as a result of living in close proximity to feedlots. A growing body of research indicates that living near concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, is associated with myriad health risks including increased infant mortality due to respiratory disease and a greater risk of developing asthma in children and adults. In the Panhandle, the fecal dust from cattle feedlots appears to present an important public health problem that has spent little time in the public eye.
To get a true sense of the Panhandles massive network of cattle feedlots, youve got to take a few steps backor rather, up. Its only from the sky that you can see it for what it is: Miles upon miles of milling, munching, pooping cattle spread out as far as the eye can see. Its a remarkable sight that few ever glimpse.
Thats why the Observer, in partnership with the Food and Environment Reporting Network, hired photographer George Steinmetz to capture this image. We decided to document the operations using a drone, which is safer and more cost-effective than chartering an airplane or helicopter. But after doing some homework, we found that simply photographing a feedlot with a drone could open us to lawsuits, fines, and even jail time.
In 2013, Texas legislators passed a bill prohibiting the use of drones to conduct surveillance of people and properties and making it a misdemeanor offense for possessing or distributing such an image. In subsequent legislative sessions, lawmakers took the prohibitions even further, making it illegal for drones to take pictures of prisons, sports venues, and cattle feedlots. The rationale was that drones would make it easier for bad actors to keep tabs on the facilities. (This is the same straw-man argument lawmakers have used to keep footage from the Capitols video cameras, along with other formerly public records, out of the public eye.)
Though photojournalists must abide by the ban, it doesnt apply to everyone. Real estate companies, engineering firms, and others are exempt, along with anyone feedlot operators permit to take pictures. In November, when I called approximately a dozen feedlot operators in Deaf Smith County to ask permission to take drone photographs for our story, none of them acquiesced.
That could change soon. The National Press Photographers Association is suing leaders of the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Highway Patrol, and the district attorneys office in Hays Countywhere police warned a reporter not to continue using a drone to photograph a structure fireover the law. Plaintiffs say the prohibitions single out photojournalists, limit reporters constitutional rights, and fly in the face of federal airspace rules. These restrictions chill and criminalize speech and newsgathering activity protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, reads the lawsuits petition, which was filed September 26 in federal court. Defendants in the case have filed a motion to dismiss. There has been no ruling on the motion.
Theres that old cliche that a picture is worth a thousand words, said Jim Hemphill, who is trying the case and also represents the Observer in legal matters. Concentrated animal feeding operations pose potential hazards with regard to environmental pollution, with regard to treatment of animals, with regard to many things that may be in the public interest. There appears to be no compelling public interest in prohibiting [drone photography of CAFOs]. Brandon Wade, a professional freelance photographer in Dallas who has used drones extensively in his work, said that unmanned aircraft can give readers a unique view of newsworthy locationssuch as cattle feedlotsthat few other methods can. Aerial photography can show a sense of scale very quickly. With ground-based photography, its hard to get a sense of just how big these places are, he said.
In the end, our photographer still ended up nabbing some incredible shots of cattle feedlots in Deaf Smith Countyhe chartered a plane, at considerable expense, to get the images. But as the lawsuit notes, not all news organizations have the means to shoulder that additional cost, leaving their readers, listeners, or viewers without newsworthy information. If plaintiffs get their way, the problem will be fixed.
In the meantime, well just have to wait and not see.
Read more from theObserver:
Read the original:
Its Illegal to Take Drone Photos of Cattle Feedlots in Texas. Press Groups Say That Violates the First Amendment. - The Texas Observer
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Its Illegal to Take Drone Photos of Cattle Feedlots in Texas. Press Groups Say That Violates the First Amendment. – The Texas Observer
FIRST FIVE: Focus on when the First Amendment protects and doesn’t – hays Post
Posted: at 9:48 am
Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute.
When it comes to free expression and the First Amendment, its important for us to know when it protects what we say and write and when it doesnt.
Case in point: Proposed Arizona House bill HB2124, related to access to online content. The sponsor, state Rep. Bob Thorpe, proposes to allow users or the state attorney general to sue an internet site that edits, deletes or makes it difficult or impossible for online users to locate and access content on the site in an easy or timely manner for politically biased reasons.
The bill is in line with complaints now fashionable among political conservatives nationwide that online platforms and social media sites from Google to Facebook to Twitter and others somehow exclude or downplay their views while emphasizing liberal viewpoints.
Nothing wrong with raising such concerns. The inner policies and algorithms of these web behemoths largely generally remain hidden and the entire online world is simply too new and ever-changing to provide an accurate portrait from the outside.
So, in effect we dont know what were not seeing when we search or use such sites, and those companies are free to set their own practices and rules on what we do see or post. Whether for altruistic or political motives, proposals such as the Arizona legislation would change that except that the First Amendment rules out such government intervention in a private business.
The First Amendment guarantees against content or viewpoint discrimination and by extension, access to information apply to government, not private individuals or companies, which have their own First Amendment rights to decide what they will or wont say and post. And even legislation cannot empower individuals (or attorneys general) to override that constitutional protection by using civil penalties rather than criminal law see the old legal adage, you cannot do by the back door what you cannot do by the front door.
Moreover, do we really want to override the First Amendment with such open access laws? Turn to another adage the law of unintended consequences. Requiring internet providers to permit unrestrained access and right to post material denies such companies the ability to respond to their consumers demands on materials that can range from offensive to repulsive. Thorpes bill excludes libelous or pornographic material, but what about currently banned content on most social media sites, such as videos that show public assaults or are intended to bully or harass? Would internet companies and social media sites be mandated to carry deliberate misinformation about health issues?
There is a small window in the wall of First Amendment protection that could possibly permit regulation of private online companies, called the public function exception. In effect, it turns a private concern into a government operation when performing an essential government function. The exception rests on a 1946 Supreme Court decision, in Marsh v. Alabama, involving a so-called company town. The court reasoned that since the town functioned as a government entity, not a private enterprise, it had become one.
But the court has refined its ruling through the years, and in 1974 held that such a conversion takes place only when the private concern is providing services exclusively done by government. Clearly, providing an online platform or a social media site fails to meet that test.
Some critics of the current social media policies argue that those sites are effectively a digital public square by virtue of their ubiquitous presence in modern life. Some reports say that more than seven in every 10 Americans used social media sites in 2018 and that the number increases each year. But the very nature of the web, in which start-ups and competing sites of all kinds arise constantly, would also seem to prevent isolating even dominant companies for such a quasi-government role with the required exclusive provider condition.
As shown in other examples where First Amendment protections come into conflict with practices or actions that offend, or seem to run counter to the marketplace of ideas concept of the widest exchange of ideals or viewpoints, the court of public opinion often functions more effectively and more quickly than legal action or legislation. Public discussions and resulting social pressures to combat online bullying or videos showing assault or even murders have demonstrably changed those private provider policies on what is posted and permitted, for example.
A shortcut through First Amendment protections may seem an expedient method at the time but for very good reasons, free expression advocates should resist quicker solutions for some, in the name of protecting those long-term freedoms for us all.
Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at[emailprotected], or follow him on Twitter at@genefac.
See the article here:
FIRST FIVE: Focus on when the First Amendment protects and doesn't - hays Post
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on FIRST FIVE: Focus on when the First Amendment protects and doesn’t – hays Post
Amend the Hatch Act and Restore Federal Workers’ First Amendment Rights – FedSmith.com
Posted: at 9:48 am
View this article online at https://www.fedsmith.com/2020/02/11/amend-hatch-act-restore-federal-workers-first-amendment-rights/ and visit FedSmith.com to sign up for free news updates
The Hatch Act, originally passed in 1939, substantially limits the political activity of most federal workers. The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the Act is constitutional. Being constitutional does not necessarily make it the right thing to do.
Here are the basic restrictions that apply to most federal workers:
And here are the restrictions that apply tofurther restrictedemployees (those in intelligence or enforcement agencies, SES, ALJs and other highly paid employees):
While the intent of the Hatch Act provisions restricting federal workers may be sound, the result is, in effect, muzzling many federal workers and depriving them of their First Amendment rights.
Some of the restrictions as outlined Office of Special Counsel (OSC) guidance border on the absurd. Considerthis guidanceissued to a member or the Senior Executive Service whose wife was considering a run for Congress.
One question was, You first ask whether you can prepare food for fundraising events held at your home. The response? As a further restricted employee, you may not act in concert with a candidate for partisan political office. See 5 C.F.R. 734.402. The Hatch Act also prohibits further restricted employees from organizing, selling tickets to, promoting, or actively participating in a fundraising activity of a candidate for partisan political office. See 5 C.F.R. 734.410(b). Therefore, because you may not provide volunteer services to a candidate, you may not prepare food for, or otherwise help organize, any fundraising event. So he cannot make cookies for an event in his home. OSC also noted that there is no problem with his wife holding the event in their home, but he cannot make a welcoming speech. He is able to welcome them, however.
Does that do anything to protect our democracy? I think not. Does anyone assume this gentleman would not support his wifes candidacy? Does anyone think his direct reports or co-workers dont know that?
The Hatch Act restrictions serve to limit his right to speak and in the process reduce transparency. They also add confusion about what can and cannot be done. Many federal workers disciplined for Hatch Act violations had no intent to violate the law.
A far better approach is to retain limits on federal workers running for partisan office and absolute prohibitions on federal workers taking official action based on political views. A hiring manager makes a hiring decision based on politics? S/he should be fired. A federal employee awards contracts based on politics? S/he should be fired. A federal executive bakes cookies for his wifes fundraiser in their home? Who cares?
The way the Hatch Act is working now does nothing to protect our democracy, nor does it do anything to ensure electoral integrity. It prevents many employees from speaking out about the politicians whose decisions affect them, such as employees who are furloughed due to a lapse in appropriations. It drives political activity for many employees underground, and does nothing to limit the political activity of senior political appointees.
When Obama Administration Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro violated the Act in April 2016, nothing happened. The OSCissued a finding that he had, in fact, violated the Hatch Act, and that was it.
When Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act at least twice, OSCissued a letterto President Donald Trump saying, If Ms. Conway were any other federal employee, her multiple violations of the law would almost certainly result in her removal from her federal position by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
In both of these cases, highly ranking political appointees violated the Hatch Act and got away with it. Both spoke in their official capacity in favor of the president they served in a manner that clearly violated the law.
OSCs letter to President Donald Trump was spot on any career employee who committed the same offense would be fired. One of the glaring weaknesses of the Hatch Act is that it is toothless with respect to an Administration in power. President Obama could ignore Julian Castros violation and President Trump can ignore Kellyanne Conways violation.
In 1973 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hatch Act. In his dissent, Justice William O. Douglas strongly disagreed with the decision. Justice Douglas said:
We deal here with a First Amendment right to speak, to propose, to publish, to petition Government, to assemble. Time and place are obvious limitations. Thus no one could object if employees were barred from using office time to engage in outside activities whether political or otherwise. But it is of no concern of Government what an employee does in his spare time, whether religion, recreation, social work, or politics is his hobby unless what he does impairs efficiency or other facets of the merits of his job. Some things, some activities do affect or may be thought to affect the employees job performance. But his political creed, like his religion, is irrelevant. In the areas of speech, like religion, it is of no concern what the employee says in private to his wife or to the public in Constitution Hall. If Government employment were only a privilege, then all sorts of conditions might be attached. But it is now settled that Government employment may not be denied or penalized on a basis that infringes [the employees] constitutionally protected interests-especially, his interest in freedom of speech.If Government, as the majority stated inMitchell,may not condition public employment on the basis that the employee will not take any active part in missionary work, it is difficult to see why it may condition employment on the basis that the employee not take an active part in political campaigns. For speech, assembly, and petition are as deeply embedded in the First Amendment as proselytizing a religious cause.Free discussion of governmental affairs is basic in our constitutional system.
I believe Justice Douglas was right, particularly when he said, In the areas of speech, like religion, it is of no concern what the employee says in private to his wife or to the public in Constitution Hall.
What we have is a law that restricts speech of federal workers, but in practice does not restrict the speech of highly visible senior political appointees. It limits transparency by driving political activity underground, where it is less likely to be known to anyone.
I prefer to see transparency, and free exercise of the First Amendment rights of everyone, whether s/he works for the federal government or for Burger King. But at least we can take comfort in knowing that senior executives will not be baking cookies for their spouses political campaigns.
2020 Jeff Neal. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Jeff Neal.
Tags: Hatch Act
Read more:
Amend the Hatch Act and Restore Federal Workers' First Amendment Rights - FedSmith.com
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Amend the Hatch Act and Restore Federal Workers’ First Amendment Rights – FedSmith.com
Our View: Be more inclusive for all holy days – The Register-Guard
Posted: at 9:48 am
Christian students in Eugene dont attend school on Christmas and Easter, the holiest days of their religion. However, that same respect for holy days doesn't apply to other faiths.
The Eugene School Board finally is grappling with that inadvertent but blatant discrimination. We cannot expect schools to close on every religions holy days, but students should not be penalized for missing school in observance of those days.
Schools sometimes misinterpret the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. The First Amendment does not stop schools from dealing with religion. Rather, it requires neutrality. Schools and government must neither promote nor inhibit any religious belief or nonbelief.
Eugene school officials say the district recognizes seven religious holidays: Christmas, Easter, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, the first and last days of Passover and Eid (the last day of Ramadan).
Reflecting the traditions that have built up, Christmas and Easter Sunday never are school days. The Eugene School District, like many others, has not ensured that other religious holidays are taken into account when planning the school year. Many students have had to choose between attending school on those days often because of scheduled tests, field trips or other activities or prioritizing religious observances and thus missing those school events.
Consider what its like for a student or family to be placed in that position. For Johanna Seasonweins twin daughters in kindergarten, that meant not going on a field trip. "That was the first time I ever heard my kid say, Its not fair that were Jewish, and that really hurt," Seasonwein recounted.
Eugene prides itself on being an inclusive community, yet it has tacitly enabled such pain.
No more. The Eugene School Board should adopt strong policies and follow through. It is not enough to simply remind teachers, administrators and others not to schedule tests, assemblies, field trips, meetings or other major school activities on major holy days. The district must build a culture in which the full education system understands the family importance of religious holidays and does not put parents in a bind. Administrators must ensure such conflicts do not happen, and, if they do, that students are given adequate opportunity to make up work, tests or assignments.
The push for change primarily has come from Jewish parents. But the issue affects families of many faiths, including Islam. It is wrong to make students choose between honoring their religion or participating in a school activity. As children grow older, this dilemma becomes more palpable when test scores and participation in activities, such as marching band, become more demanding and have greater influence on a child's academic career.
No one should have to make those choices. No parent should hear their child say school makes me wish I werent Jewish or Muslim.
This is basic respect for our diverse community. Make it easy, just as the district does for major, federally recognized Christian holidays, for children to follow their faith and be fully included in school. Religion and education dont have to be at odds.
Read the original here:
Our View: Be more inclusive for all holy days - The Register-Guard
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Our View: Be more inclusive for all holy days – The Register-Guard
How to save journalism – The Boston Globe
Posted: at 9:48 am
In most of the country, the kind of reporting I did in Narragansett no longer exists. Original, on-the-ground reporting the kind of reporting built on a deep understanding of people, places, and issues . . . the kind of reporting that requires time, resources, and the steadfast support of journalistic institutions (and sometimes their lawyers ) . . . the kind of reporting that provides the common facts that bind communities together and the oversight to hold leaders accountable. That kind of reporting is disappearing as the news industry continues its long, heartbreaking collapse.
Youve all felt the impact of that collapse. Youve felt it inside newsrooms, as friends and colleagues lose jobs they loved. Youve felt it in your hands, in ever-thinning local papers. And youve felt it in your communities, which are steadily more disconnected and divided.
We all know the two main factors behind this collapse one connected to how publishers fund news and one connected to how people find it. The advertising-based business model that supported American newsrooms buckled, causing the rapid loss of more than half the journalism jobs in the country and leaving news organizations struggling to pay for original reporting in the public interest. Meanwhile, the tech platforms became the most powerful distributors of news and information in human history, straining the direct relationship between journalist and reader that is essential for maintaining trust and loyalty. As a result, readers are increasingly unsure of what news is and where it comes from, making it easier for bad actors to unleash a flood of misinformation that has corrupted public understanding.
This is the moment when Im supposed to pivot and say that things are looking up. The truth is, theyre getting worse. Thats because theres another existential threat to journalism today, and far too few of us are talking about it.
Were losing popular support for the free press in this country. Over the past few years, weve witnessed the most sustained attack on the legitimacy of journalism in our history. Its an attack with catchphrases plucked from the mouths of tyrants and dictators. Fake news. Enemies of the people. Traitors. And a growing portion of the country believes these dangerous, misleading accusations.
Trust in independent news is evaporating and cleaving. A majority of Republicans now think the news media is better characterized as the enemy of the people than as an important part of democracy. More than 80 percent would rather get their news directly from President Trump than from the media. And there is evidence that skepticism of journalism is expanding across the political spectrum. A majority of Americans, regardless of party, do not trust the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. And, perhaps as a result, nearly a third believe the government should be able to shut down news organizations.
With the news industry already struggling, this erosion of popular support for the press poses a threat not only to journalists and journalism but also to the very notion of truth and the health of our democracy. Weve already seen influential individuals, companies, and even nations exploit the trust vacuum to serve their own interests. Its the powerful, not the people, who benefit from a weakened press.
One of the lessons of the last few years is that our countrys institutions and norms are more fragile than we had assumed. And while law and precedent are valuable shields, public support for the principles of free expression and a free press is what gives them their enduring power. Look at Turkey or Hungary or India to see how quickly things can change when a society stops fighting for its democratic institutions.
So this is our task, all of us in this room. We must convince people that the free press is worth fighting for.
Its not enough to talk airily about holding power to account. We cant just assert the importance of bearing witness. It is time to stop talking about the First Amendment as an abstraction. Instead, we have to make powerful, practical arguments rooted in the lives of people and communities.
Heres a start. The free press lets you know how your tax dollars are spent. The free press makes sure that your kids health isnt jeopardized by contaminated water. The free press makes sure that the hospital you visit isnt spreading antibiotic-resistant germs.
The free press makes sure that the planes you fly in, the pharmacies you rely on, the banks that safeguard your savings are worthy of your trust. The free press shows how climate change may threaten your home and, if the worst happens, why your insurer may not be there to help.
The free press ensures you are protected by a justice system that jails the guilty and frees the innocent. The free press helps you make an informed decision about who to support for county clerk and who to support for president.
In a country with a free press, a new and deadly virus is promptly acknowledged and addressed, not hidden by the government until it becomes an international pandemic. No democratic country with a free press has ever suffered from a famine.
I think we can all agree that the press isnt perfect. We make mistakes, sometimes big ones. And when we do, we own up to them, and we strive to do better. But the imperfections of journalism make it no less essential.
At a moment when support for the press is fracturing along ideological lines, we must remind people why enshrining it in the First Amendment was one of the few areas of true consensus among the nations founders and why it remained so through our history. If youre a conservative, Id remind you that the free press protects against government corruption and overreach, provides businesses and entrepreneurs with the reliable information that fuels economic growth, and helps spread democracy around the world. If youre a liberal, Id remind you that the free press provides the scrutiny that keeps corporate power in check, interrogates the true impact of American interventions abroad, and makes sure that everyone, especially the little guy, has a voice.
A detailed, compelling accounting of the value of the free press is an essential message to share. But weve been delinquent messengers, taking far too long even to recognize that the message needs to be delivered.
Of course, as we make the popular case for the First Amendment, we have to keep fighting to fortify its legal framework. Across Democratic and Republican administrations, legal efforts have attempted to weaken safeguards for journalists and their sources. Activists, many politically motivated, are increasingly seeking to punish outlets for publishing unflattering information. These trends threaten decades of hard-won legal precedent. So we need to keep filing FOIA requests, battling libel lawsuits, pushing for whistle-blower protections, and doing all we can to defend the publics right to know.
To keep the First Amendment strong, we need to not only defend it in court but also convince our friends and neighbors why it matters to them on a personal level. They may not get a newspaper delivered to their doorstep, but the stakes of this struggle already reach inside their home.
If weve learned anything from the experience of the last few years and from the struggles of our colleagues reporting in repressive nations around the world its that we cannot take the free press for granted. And nothing is more perilous to a free society than when the public loses its reliable sources of information.
Read more:
How to save journalism - The Boston Globe
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on How to save journalism – The Boston Globe
Can the Constitution stop the government from lying to the public? – The Fulcrum
Posted: at 9:48 am
Norton is the Rothgerber chair in Constitutional Law at the University of Colorado Boulder.
When regular people lie, sometimes their lies are detected, sometimes they're not. Legally speaking, sometimes they're protected by the First Amendment and sometimes not, like when they commit fraud or perjury.
But what about when government officials lie?
I take up this question in my recent book, "The Government's Speech and the Constitution." It's not that surprising that public servants lie they are human, after all. But when an agency or official backed by the power and resources of the government tells a lie, it sometimes causes harm that only the government can inflict.
My research found that lies by government officials can violate the Constitution in several different ways, especially when those lies deprive people of their rights.
Consider, for instance, police officers who falsely tell a suspect that they have a search warrant, or falsely say that the government will take the suspect's child away if the suspect doesn't waive his or her constitutional rights to a lawyer or against self-incrimination. These lies violate constitutional protections provided in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
If the government jails, taxes or fines people because it disagrees with what they say, it violates the First Amendment. And under some circumstances, the government can silence dissent just as effectively through its lies that encourage employers and other third parties to punish the government's critics. During the 1950s and 1960s, for example, the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission spread damaging falsehoods to the employers, friends and neighbors of citizens who spoke out against segregation. As a federal court found decades later, the agency "harassed individuals who assisted organizations promoting desegregation or voter registration. In some instances, the commission would suggest job actions to employers, who would fire the targeted moderate or activist."
And some lawsuits have accused government officials of misrepresenting how dangerous a person was when putting them on a no-fly list. Some judges have expressed concern about whether the government's no-fly listing procedures are rigorous enough to justify restricting a person's freedom to travel.
Can the Constitution stop the government from lying to the public? theconversation.com
When a person or agency backed by the power and resources of the government tells a lie, it sometimes causes harm that only the government can inflict.
But in other situations, it can be difficult to find a direct connection between the government's speech and the loss of an individual right. Think of government officials' lies about their own misconduct, or their colleagues', to avoid political and legal accountability like the many lies about the Vietnam War by President Lyndon Johnson's administration, as revealed by the Pentagon Papers.
Those sorts of lies are part of what I've called "the government's manufacture of doubt." These include the government's falsehoods that seek to distract the public from efforts to discover the truth. For instance, in response to growing concerns about his campaign's connections to Russia, Donald Trump claimed his predecessor that Barack Obama had wiretapped him during the campaign, even though the Department of Justice confirmed that no evidence supported that claim.
Decades earlier, in the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy sought both media attention and political gain through outrageous and often unfounded claims that contributed to a culture of fear in the country.
When public officials speak in these ways, they undermine public trust and frustrate the public's ability to hold the government accountable for its performance. But they don't necessarily violate any particular person's constitutional rights, making lawsuits challenging at best. In other words, just because the government's lies hurt us does not always mean that they violate the Constitution.
There are other important options for protecting the public from the government's lies. Whistleblowers can help uncover the government's falsehoods and other misconduct. Recall FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, Watergate's "Deep Throat" source for The Washington Post's investigation, and Army Sgt. Joseph Darby, who revealed the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. And lawmakers can enact, and lawyers can help enforce, laws that protect whistleblowers who expose government lies.
Legislatures and agencies can exercise their oversight powers to hold other government officials accountable for their lies. For example, Senate hearings led McCarthy's colleagues to formally condemn his conduct as "contrary to senatorial traditions and ethics."
In addition, the press can seek documents and information to check the government's claims, and the public can protest and vote against those in power who lie. Public outrage over the government's lies about the war in Vietnam, for example, contributed to Johnson's 1968 decision not to seek reelection. Similarly, the public's disapproval of government officials' lies to cover up the Watergate scandal helped lead to President President Richard Nixon's 1974 resignation.
It can be hard to prevent government officials from lying, and difficult to hold them accountable when they do. But the tools available for doing just that include not only the Constitution but also persistent pushback from other government officials, the press and the people themselves.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Related Articles Around the Web
See the original post:
Can the Constitution stop the government from lying to the public? - The Fulcrum
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Can the Constitution stop the government from lying to the public? – The Fulcrum
Pelosi, a Ripped Speech, and the Records Debate – FactCheck.org
Posted: at 9:48 am
Q: Did House Speaker Nancy Pelosi break the law by ripping up the presidents State of the Union address?
A: Legal experts have widely dismissed the idea that Pelosis copy of the address would be subject to a criminal statute cited by some conservatives.
Did Nancy Pelosi tear up an official copy of the speech at the State of the Union Address? Is she liable for any legal penalty?
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosis supporters praised her decision to publicly rip up her copy of President Donald Trumps State of the Union address at the end of his Feb. 4 speech, conservatives lambasted the act, calling it partisan and childish. But some, including the president himself, went further by alleging that the act was illegal.
First of all, its an official document, Trump told reporters. Youre not allowed its illegal what she did.
The claim that Pelosi violated federal law circulated widely on social media before Trump himself made the suggestion it was advanced by Charlie Kirk, of the prominent conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, and by Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz, who called for an ethics investigation and said the act was a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071).
Readers asked us about the claim and about a viral story circulating online with the headline, Nancy Pelosi Fined $40K for Destruction of Government Property. That false story was first published on a website that calls its work satire.
Legal experts have widely dismissed the notion that federal prosecutors would try to apply the criminal statute cited by Gaetz which deals with concealment, removal, or mutilation of federal records to Pelosis ripping up a copy of the speech.
A saving grace of federal criminal law is that its applied by prosecutors, judges, and juries with common sense, Daniel Richman, a law professor at Columbia Law School, told us. Richman, who previously served as chief appellate attorney in the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York and was a legal adviser for former FBI Director James Comey, added: That approach makes it impossible to see the aggressive recycling of a non-unique document as anything more than that.
Similarly, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who served as an impeachment expert for House Republicans, concluded that it would not be considered a violation of the law.
The specific statute in question refers to someone who willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of anycourt of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of theUnited States.
I am not convinced that this is a covered document. The law does not prevent the destruction of any government document in any form. If so, we would have nothing but warehouses from sea to sea, Turley wrote on his blog.
Turley opined that the copy is a historic document worthy of preservation as one of two copies hand delivered by the President to the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and that it should be preserved. But, he said, It is a copy and a court would likely decline to read the law broadly to find a violation on the margins of the defined covered conduct.
Another provision of the statute applies to the destruction of such records by those with custody of the records generally those considered having responsibility for their maintenance. Turley said Pelosi wouldnt be considered a custodian of the copy she received.
Some law professors also have argued that the First Amendment, or the U.S. Constitutions free speech or debate clause, could be further protection for Pelosi.
Its worth noting that the National Archives and Records Administration will preserve a copy of the speech from the White House.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) preserves and provides access to the permanent records of Federal Agencies and the President in accordance with laws and regulations that govern the disposition of those records, the agency said in a statement. NARA will receive the Presidents version for preservation as a permanent record in accordance with the Presidential Records Act.
NARA also said that while it holds the historical records of the House and Senate, those records remain the legal property of the respective Chambers [t]he rules governing those records are not determined by federal laws or overseen by NARA, but rather by each Chambers agreed upon rules. The agency said it does not have information about the record status of Speaker Pelosis copy of the speech.
The conflict reveals the fuzzy rules surrounding the Houses record status of the specific copy given to the speaker.
Turley, in his blog, said: I cannot find any source that stipulates the preservation of this document or even requires that it be given to the Speaker.
The day after the State of the Union address, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer debated the matter on the House floor. Hoyer argued that Pelosis conduct was protected by the First Amendment and McCarthy countered by saying Pelosi had no right to destroy this document. But the question of whether the specific, printed version of the speech given to the speaker constituted a document of the House went unanswered.
Gaetz, in a column on the website Townhall.com, argued that the signed versions handed to Vice President Mike Pence and Pelosi, as the leaders of the Senate and House respectively, are original documents that are not the personal property of the two recipients, but instead, the permanent record (and property) of the two chambers of Congress. When the document is received by the Speaker of the House, it becomes an official record of the House of Representatives.
We asked Gaetzs office to point us to documentation or evidence that stipulates that process and record-keeping protocol. His office told us that the information was relayed by Republican Rep. Mike Johnsons office and that Johnsons office gathered the information from officials in the House clerk and House parliamentarian offices.
A spokesperson for the House clerk, on the other hand, told us in a statement that the Congressional record of the State of the Union address is the transcribed remarks, as recorded by the Official Reporters of the House. The Clerk of the House has a duty to preserve documents transmitted to the Clerk, and a duty to publish the State of the Union address. The Clerk received the Presidents prepared State of the Union remarks electronically, which will be preserved for the National Archives.
Consistent with precedent and practice in prior Congresses, immediately after the Presidents address to the joint session of Congress, the House, without objection, ordered the Presidents remarks to be printed, the statement said. The Government Publishing Office has accordingly published the Presidents remarks as a presidential address before a joint session of Congress.
18 U.S. Code 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally. U.S. Code. Accessed 7 Feb 2020.
Gaetz, Matt (@RepMattGaetz). BREAKING: Im filing an ethics complaint against @SpeakerPelosi for destroying @realDonaldTrumps State of the Union speech. Her conduct was beneath the dignity of the House, and a potential violation of law (18 USC 2071). Nobody is above the law. She must be held accountable. Twitter. 5 Feb 2020.
Garvey, Todd. Understanding the Speech or Debate Clause. Congressional Research Service. 1 Dec 2017.
House of Representatives. Congressional Record. Vol. 166, No. 24. 5 Feb 2020.
Remarks by President Trump Before Marine One Departure. White House. 7 Feb 2020.
Richman, Daniel. Professor of law, Columbia Law School. Email to FactCheck.org. 10 Feb 2020.
Turley, Jonathan. No, Nancy Pelosi Did Not Violate Federal Law . . . Just Decades Of Tradition. JonathanTurley.org. 6 Feb 2020.
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 7 Feb 2020.
Excerpt from:
Pelosi, a Ripped Speech, and the Records Debate - FactCheck.org
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Pelosi, a Ripped Speech, and the Records Debate – FactCheck.org
Maurizio Cattelan and When Art Ridicules Art Itself – Merion West
Posted: at 9:48 am
(Maurizio Cattelans Comedian)
This is an art which no longer presumes to speak to or for the general public. Such an art assails all previous art and even ridicules art itself.
It seems every year or so some new peculiarity from the Art World is cast into the public spotlight. Most recently, a single banana duct taped to a wall at the Basil Miami Art Fair sold for $120,000. Apparently, before artist Maurizio Cattelan (of golden toilet fame) could even cash his check, someone came along, untaped the banana from the wall and ate it.
The general public is more or less amused by such antics, while critics enlighten us on their cultural significance. We are told that a banana duct-taped to a wall is more than a banana duck taped to a wallor, alternately, that a banana duck-taped to a wall is nothing but a banana duck taped to a wall. Apparently the words profound and banal are now synonyms. As often as not, we are further informed that our sensibilities have been challenged and subverted. Most of us dont seem to be aware that weve been challenged and subverted, which is apparently why the adamantine public is in perpetual need of ever more challenging and subverting. This kind of thing has been going on for quite a while now, so we might well wonder: Why does it persist?
A Return to Nothing
Cattelans banana and golden toilet partake in a century-old tradition of anti-art. Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gassetin his 1925 essay The Dehumanization of Artdescribes the emergence of a radically new sensibility in art, which was arising in response to the cultural and institutional collapse of Europe. For artists, all forms and conventions were called into question, and the very nature and purpose of art became problematic. This new art turns away from lived reality, observes Ortrega, and the artist is going against reality. He is shattering the human aspect, dehumanizing it. This is an art which no longer presumes to speak to or for the general public. Such an art assails all previous art and even ridicules art itself.
Marcel Duchamps ready-mades epitomize this absurd state of human creativity, stripped of its historical powers of depicting a common reality. Duchamps inverted porcelain urinal is the ultimate parody: not only has art become uselessart makes the most utilitarian useless. Ortega was ambivalent about this emerging sensibility. Who knows what will come of this budding style, wondered Ortega: the task it sets itself is enormous, it wants to create out of nought.
Europe found itself in a state of nought very much as Nietzsche had prophesied more than a generation earlier. He called this state of civilizational and psychological collapse nihilism. Nietzsche saw this as simultaneously a disasterbut also as a great opportunity. He envisioned two kinds of responses to nihilism: one response as divine or activeand another as pathological or weak.
With the benefit of hindsight we can see these two responses to an experience of nihilism manifest in two strains of art. Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is overcome by an immersion into the world of experience and the acceptance of conflict and suffering as necessary aspects of a unified universe. This active or healthy response to nihilism is found in artists like Wassily Kandinsky or Paul Klee. The collapse of art represented the possibility of a wholly new beginning, an unprecedented opportunity to shed dysfunctional conventions. Kandinskys abstract art represents a return to essentials, purging itself of its now useless outer forms, and it was guided by an inner necessity. Kandinskys abstract art contains the hidden seed of renaissance, and artists were to be, in effect, the invisible Moses who sees the dance around the golden calf.
For Klee, the disastrous collapse of Europe could be seen as a part of an ever-greater transcendent whole. Evil is not conceived as the enemy whose victories disgrace us, wrote Klee, but as a force within the whole, a force that continues into creation and evolution. This divine or transcendent strain of art accepts the reality of the modern human condition, while affirming the many millennia traditional function of all art as a unifying power (as a way of reconciling us to nature). This is Camille Paglias characterization of art as, revelation of the interconnectedness of reality.
Nietzsches weak or pathological response to nihilism is characterized by a confused understanding of the very nature of the experience of nihilism. The collapse of the Christian interpretation of reality, awakens the suspicion that all interpretations are false. Absurdity, disorder, and meaninglessness are not understood to be aspects of reality but to constitute the very nature of reality. This sensibility does not embrace and transcend its historical moment; rather, it succumbs to nihilism. To reconcile meaning and meaningless requires an affirmation of the unity of history and nature. As Nietzsche imagined, this weak response to nihilism has prevailed. It is precisely Nietzsches last man who fails to transcend nihilism; he is sterile and incapable of creative acts of affirmation and renewal.
Some of the pathological aspects of nihilism can be seen in sentiments expressed in the anti-art Dada movement. The beginnings of Dada were not the beginnings of art but of disgust. wrote Tristan Tzara in 1924. As Dada marches it continually destroysThe Beautiful and the True in art do not existEverything is incoherentThere is no logic. This tendency to reject lived reality (and this incapacity to affirm a unity of experiential reality) suggests a kind of art and a whole sensibility that no longer serves as a revelation of the interconnectedness of reality. This strain of art became a revelation of the disconnectedness of reality.
Both Nietzsche and Ortega anticipated this tendency to dissociate from experiential reality into the world of ideas and ideation (this is indeed the soil out of which would grow the great totalitarian monstrosities). The idea, writes Ortega, instead of functioning as the means to think an object with, is itself made the object and the aim of thinking. Writing in 1946 Marcel Duchamp recognized the Dadaist movement as serviceable as purgative, but Duchamp himself did not re-engage the world of experiential reality; rather, he ceased creating art and immersed himself in the world of ideas. And so the experience of meaninglessness became the idea of meaninglessness. Nihilistic Dada arose from experience but became a state of mind, incapable or unwilling to reengage with paradoxical reality and, in the words of Ortega, doomed to irony.
The Opposite of All Earthly Things
Ortega recognized the youthful nature of this new artistic sensibility, which recognizes no past and no obligations. However, nothing is free to remain young forever. Its been more than a century since Duchamp first exhibited his inverted porcelain urinal. Art as provocation, subversion, and a challenging of norms has now been around long enough that it has become quite normal. The iconoclasts are now icons, and unorthodoxy is the new orthodoxy.
A sensibility of disconnectedness and absurdity has become routinized and institutionalized. We now have what Arthur Danto christened as theArtworld: an international complex of artists, museums, galleries, critics, theorists, and educators who propagate various forms of art as concept, art-as-art, art as self-expression, as a display of wounds, as provocation, etc.This is generally a dehumanized self-referential art that makes no attempt to give form to a common reality, except, of course, ironically. Czesaw Mioszcharacterized this sensibility as, the rapture of self-liberation. What began as an experience of disconnectedness became the idea of disconnectedness, and, finally, the idea becomes idol. The visions of the prophet become the dogma of the priests.
This sensibility of absurdity inevitably would percolate down through consciousness into pop culture. The nihilistic anti-art sensibility even made its way into comic books. In 1961, DC Comics published a strange satirical inversion of Superman comics called Tales of the Bizarro World. Bizarros are inverse duplicates of Superman; they insist on doing the opposite of normal: they say goodbye when they arrive, hello when the leave; they punish their children if they get good grades, andin Bizarro Worldgold is worthless and rags are riches. Bizarro anti-morality is actually well-described by the Bizarro Code:
Us do opposite of all earthly things!
Us hate beauty!
Us love ugliness!
Is big crime to make anything perfect on Bizzaro World!
I discovered Bizarro comics when I was around twelve years old. What appealed to me and my friends was the unrelenting silliness and absurdity of the Bizarros. We ourselves would play at Bizarro logic, which would, of course, quickly devolve to pure inanity. (You dont have to go very far with the logic of negation to arrive at complete nonsense.)
A total negation of any thing is no thing. There is, then, no Bizarro worldor, more precisely, there is no Bizarro world in itself. Bizarro comics are a pictorial representation of the human minds amazing capacity to play games with itself. Bizarro comics reflect an imaginary unreal world. Bizarro comics are part of a greater physical, social, economic order, but they tell us nothing about how disorder is part of ordernothing of the interconnectedness of reality. Bizarro comics are simply the objectification of an experience of absurdity for twelve year olds
In one episode of Bizarro comics someone commits the great crime of building a beautiful museum. This museum is apparently full of great classics of art, which, of course, disgust the Bizarros. We can well imagine the kinds of art that would fill a proper Bizarro museum: perhaps an upside down urinal, an 18k gold toilet, a blank painting, a banana taped to a wall. The anti-art of the modern world is our Bizarro Art. The likes of Maurizio Cattelan seem to have stepped right out of the pages of Bizarro Comics. Anti-art is the objectification of an experience of absurdity for adults.
Absolute Irony
A twelve year olds reaction to Bizarro comics is quite similar to the way most of us react to contemporary anti-art: We are amused and move on. However, a flirtation with absurdity can cultivate a healthy sense of irony. Irony helps keep the mind supple by understanding the fragility of the forms of existence. A sense of irony reflects an awareness of the fragile balance of order and disorder and an understanding that we never get something for nothing.
All traditional art has an element of irony insofar as all art understands there to be a tension between the work of art and reality, a tension between the surface world of appearances and distinctions and the greater whole. But, an irony which presumes no underlying reality is an irony unmoored from reality. This is an absolute irony. Anti-art has come to embody an absolute irony.
No artist is presumed to embody this absolute irony of anti-art more than Andy Warhol. He famously said: If you want to know all about Andy Warhol, just look at the surface of my paintings, my films and me, and there I am. There is nothing behind it. Andy Warhol is the Chauncey Gardinerof anti-art, and, arguably, he didnt have an ironic bone in his body; he simply tells the truth as he sees it.
The anti-art acolytes of a beatified Andy Warhol confuse his banality with profundity. They encase themselves in a prophylaxis of irony presuming to protect themselves from the bourgeois sin of actually taking experiential reality seriously. They seem to actually believe that the Bizarro-speak of absolute irony transforms their own banality into profundity. This absolute irony, this hyper-awareness of the illusory nature of all forms, pushed to its limits resembles obliviousness, idiocy and ultimately navet. This is an irony, which presumes to see through everything and ends up seeing nothing at all.
So again, why does anti-art persist? Every kind of art, Nietzsche observes, tells us something about the artist and, in turn, something about the civilization that sustains such art. An art of disconnectedness reflects a civilization of disconnectedness. A civilization which is so powerful at controlling and manipulating nature has no apparent need to articulate a relationship to nature. A civilization which presumes we can get something from nothing supports and celebrates a kind of art which, in effect, reveals and affirms nothing.
Anti-art is, then, the tip of a civilizational iceberg. The persistence of anti-art is merely one manifestation of a way of thinking that presumes reality can be subverted, broken down into pieces, and reconstituted as we please. When all forms appear as arbitrary or self-serving, then nature and history are merely raw materials. We dont participate in reality; we fabricate reality. Reality is our idea. Which is to say, reality, like everything else, is a choice, a commodity. Society itself is a ready-made, which can be remade from nothing.
When Arthur Danto pronounced the End of Art in 1984, arguably what he was doing was acknowledging that the transcendent powers of the human imagination had been rendered impotent and absorbed into the greater economic order of disorder. Which is to say, the human imagination has been doomed to irony. Anti-artists propagate ways of thinking that reflect and reinforce a sense of fragmentation and a larger economy of disconnectedness. Anti-artists are the propagandist and performers for the disconnected universe. Far from subverting the greater commercial and social order, they reinforce a fragmented kind of thinking best adapted to that order. They are apparently ironical about everything but themselves.
Anti-artists have even figured out how to capitalize on our fragmented psyches while presuming to maintain their own innocence. I cant wait to make really bad art and get away with it, pronounces a youthful rebellious Damien Hirst. Decoding this Bizarro-speak means that he cant wait to do exactly what hes expected to do and get handsomely compensated. Anti-artists are celebrated and paid large sums of money by those most invested in a fragmented universe, those most abstracted from the world of conflict and connectedness. Its no coincidence that anti-art reflects and justifies the world of urban intellectuals and cosmopolitan capitalists.
A Return to Earthly Things
Our anti-art artists, experts, and educators tell us one thing, but reality increasingly appears to be telling us something else. Anti-art does, indeed, address an aspect of our modern experience, but it declines to look at the whole. We, as individuals and as a civilization, live on the razors edge of order and disorder, and it was once the role of artists and poets to articulate how it all interconnected. Today, our anti- artists apparently have nothing to say and would convince us there is nothing to know.
Our art has been dehumanized, but we remain human. Even those who presume to do the opposite of all earthly things always seem to end up doing some kind of earthly thing. Anti-artistsjust like the rest of uslive in a world of relationships, which sustain life. Artists who affirm a fragmented, meaningless universe are affirming a reality which even they themselves in their daily lives do not actually experience. No doubt Maurizio Cattelan eats food on plates, defecates in toilets, puts his pants on one leg at a time, says hello when arriving, goodbye when leaving: No one actually lives by negation, absurdity, or disorder. Every twelve year old knows: Bizarros are notand never can bereal.
Chris Augusta is an artist living in Maine.
Link:
Maurizio Cattelan and When Art Ridicules Art Itself - Merion West
Posted in Nihilism
Comments Off on Maurizio Cattelan and When Art Ridicules Art Itself – Merion West
Repetitive and laboured White House Farm finale is too focused on the details – review – The Independent
Posted: at 9:47 am
Jeremy Bamber looks very smug at the beginning of White House Farms finale. Hes in St Tropez sipping cocktails on a sun lounger, hes jumping into the pool, chain-smoking Marlboros and sleeping with a glamorous woman who likes paying for his drinks. He even retains this smug expression when police arrest him at the airport for the suspected murder of his family.
Seeing the details of the White House Farm investigation unfold piece-by-piece has made for a satisfying watch. The decision to draw out the series into six parts means that the evidence has been easier to follow than in other recent police procedurals. But I was hoping that it might have interrogated something beyond the murders themselves: how quick police were to believe a woman suffering from a mental illness could murder her children, for example, or perhaps the pitfalls of the drug-fuelled nihilism and excess of the Seventies. Instead, White House Farm fixated on bullet angles and breaking and entry points throughout.
Jeremy Bamber relaxes by the pool in ITV drama White House Farm (ITV)
Sharing the full story, not just the headlines
The last episode sees us leave the mustard yellow and kitsch china of domestic family life for the clinical whiteness of the courtroom. Much focus is placed on wrapping up the details of the case. At points, it feels as though we are rehashing details we learnt in previous episodes. Did Jeremy leave the gun out overnight on purpose so he could grab it quickly? Why did Jeremy ring the local police station rather than 999? How did Nevill Bamber walk downstairs to call Jeremy if by that point he would have supposedly have been shot in the jaw twice? We have already been told that none of this makes sense, we dont need to be told again.
Launched to much fanfare as a television movie and boasting a killer theme tune from Quincy Jones, Ironside starred Raymond Burr, who was still hot after his stint as televisions Perry Mason, as San Francisco Chief of Police Robert T Ironside, who is confined to a wheelchair after an attempted assassination. Over 199 episodes, the series followed Ironside and his team in his role as consultant to the Police Department as they sorted out the bad guys of the City by the Bay.
NBC
Ian Rankin says he has never watched any of the television adaptions of his famously brooding, heavy drinking, loner detective because he didnt want the actors faces replacing how he envisaged Rebus in his head. Two actors have played Rebus on screen, John Hannah and Ken Stott. Hannah gives the role his best but was probably too young and lacked the cynical gravitas that Stott gave to Rebus. With similar roles in The Vice and Messiah giving Stott an identifiable acting persona, he perhaps has the same problem as Humphrey Bogart being too much like Bogart to play the definitive Philip Marlowe, but in the absence of any other candidates, Stott is just fine. Rankins central theme of the Jekyll and Hyde dichotomy of Scotlands capital city remains intact, and as in the novels, the real star of the show is of course, Edinburgh itself in all its historic beauty, showing the dark underbelly of the city behind the chintz curtains.
Nostalgia might not be what it used to be, but the biggest mystery with Life on Mars is why it took someone so long to come up with this inspired paean to the pop culture and TV cop shows of the 1970s. Throw in the fish-out-of-water time travel motif and the tongue in cheek non-PC scripts and characters, and its not hard to see why the series struck a chord with audiences.
BBC
Like many of his ilk, dedicated near-genius DCI John Luther (a brilliant Idris Elba) is a tormented soul, struggling with his own inner demons, hugely affected by the stomach churning crimes he investigates. Luther is so obsessive that he will do anything to get his man (or woman, in the case of his nemesis, the psychopathic scientist Alice Morgan (Ruth Wilson) Both cerebral and heart pumping, Luther was created by Neil Cross and has spawned American and Russian versions.
BBC
Gillian Anderson is the deliberate, dedicated senior detective on the trail of an equally meticulous serial killer in this controversial drama filmed and set in Northern Ireland. The Fall survived accusations of misogyny and voyeurism to lift a Bafta for best television drama and keep viewers hooked for three series, but remains a troubling, unsettling experience for many.
The cop show that more than any other blew the stereotypical image of female police officers out of the water, and challenged the sexist attitudes of many executives in the television industry. Tyne Daly and Sharon Gless won the hearts of millions of viewers, and six Emmys between them, as two dedicated New York police officers who happened to be women with normal lives and challenges like everyone else. The bond between the two characters was unbreakable despite leading entirely different lives (Lacey was married with a family and supportive husband, Cagney drifted from relationship to relationship). A game changer in many ways, Cagney and Lacey explored issues such as rape, abortion and Cagneys alcoholism head on.
Set in the Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Bureau, the Bafta winning Between the Lines follows ambitious Chief Superintendent Tony Clarke and his team as they investigate corruption within the police force. Between the Lines drew praise for the way it tackled topical issues of the day as it attempted to address the age old moral dilemma, quis custodiet ipsos custodes who will guard the guards themselves?
The cop show that more than any other blurred the lines between the good guys and the bad guys. Rogue cop Vic Mackey leads the elite strike force of LA detectives who routinely break the law to keep the streets safe, but also to feather their own nest. There are subplots aplenty, and Mackeys downfall plays out almost like a Shakespearean tragedy.
Set in the fictional northern town of Newtown, Z Cars broke new ground in police drama shows, challenging the homely predictability of the likes of Dixon of Dock Green. Devised by Allan Prior and Troy Kennedy Martin, the series centred on not just one central protagonist, but rather several police officers both uniformed and plain clothed. Z Cars brought some iconic characters into the nations living rooms such as detective Charlie Barlow, PC Fancy Smith and desk sergeant Bert Lynch. The police officers themselves were portrayed warts and all, with gritty subject matter, including domestic abuse at the hands of a police officer, at the heart of the storylines. The actors became household names with the iconic theme tune whistled on everyones lips, and of course there were the Z cars themselves, the American-style Ford Zephyr and Zodiac patrol cars.
If Cagney and Lacey blazed the trail for female cops, then the first series of Prime Suspect in particular indicated a seismic shift in the perception of, and the attitudes towards, the female police officer. Helen Mirren is outstanding as DCI Jane Tennison who heads a murder squad hunting a sadistic serial killer, but has to overcome opposition and resentment from her team as well as the institutionalised sexism of the police department itself. Subsequent series concentrated more on Tennisons inner demons as she began to rely on alcohol to help her cope with the pressures of the job.
This Danish police procedural and prime example of Scandinavian noir attracted criticism for its violence against women. It did, however, become an international success particularly in the UK. Viewers were gripped by the formula; that of each episode reflecting 24 hours in the same murder case, and by the cold-fish female detective protagonist Sarah Lund, while developing an almost fetishist fascination with her knitwear. The Killing paved the way for other subtitled European crime dramas and equally popular and acclaimed entries such as The Bridge and Borgen quickly followed.
Filmed in New City with a two-pronged approach of the investigation of a crime and arrest of a suspect, followed by the suspects trial, Law and Order introduced one of the great small-screen detectives, recovering alcoholic Lennie Briscoe. (Jerry Orbach). The shows boast was that many of its subject matters were ripped from the headlines and it was this approach that gave it a compelling topical feel and made it the longest-running American crime series and the benchmark for police procedurals.
An outstanding ratings success for BBC2, Jed Mercurios masterful police corruption thriller gripped viewers from the very beginning and kept them guessing until the explosive climax to the third series. The bold, serpentine and gripping storylines provided the exemplary cast with parts of a lifetime, with the most outstanding feature of Line of Duty undoubtedly the lengthy interrogation scenes as the tension was racked up notch by notch.
PA
After Bing Crosby turned the role down, Peter Falk became synonymous with the cigar smoking, dishevelled police lieutenant in a shabby raincoat, winning four Emmys and a Golden Globe. Referred to as a howcatchem by its creators, Columbo deviated from the traditional whodunit in that the audience and, it seemed, Columbo himself, knew the identity of the murderer from the start. Half the fun of the show was watching the murderer (frequently an A- or B-list guest star) underestimate the seemingly bumbling, absent-minded detective while he baited the trap to snare them. Oh, and just one more thing, as Columbo himself might say: although Columbo routinely spoke of his wife, she was never seen in any episode, but the character was later given her own, short-lived, spin-off show, Mrs Columbo.
It has been compared to the works of Dickens and Dostoevsky and lauded as the greatest television programme ever. But the triumph of The Wire is how it tells the story of the decaying city of Baltimore through the lives of the police, drug dealers, politicians, children and the dispossessed, making no moral judgements between good and bad in a predominately grey world. The Wire may not be the greatest television programme ever, but its realism and authenticity can never be in doubt. In 2005, members of a drugs gang claimed they had studied The Wire in order to learn about the latest police surveillance techniques, surely the ultimate example of life imitating art.
Aping its antecedent Hill Street Blues cinema verite style, multi award winning NYPD Blue was a natural progression for co-creator Steven Bochno, who along with David Milsch came up with even grittier storylines, atmospheric New York locations and warts n all characters to create a hugely compelling and influential cop show. But lets be honest, despite a terrific ensemble cast, Dennis Franz as scenery-chewing recovering alcoholic detective Andy Sipowicz, was virtually the whole show, appearing in all 261 episodes and in the process searing his psyche in viewers minds.
Getty
Baltimore native Barry Levinson was a natural fit as executive producer of this ultra-realistic police procedural, based on The Wire creator David Simons book chronicling his experiences following homicide detectives at work in the so-called City of Firsts. From the very first episode Life on the Street succeeded in dispelling the myths and stereotypes about the television cop, showing that murder and violence were just a routine parts of the job. Indeed the murder of a schoolgirl in that first episode was never solved. Aficionados rate this show even better than The Wire. Some have called Homicide: Life on the Street the missing link between Hill Street Blues and The Wire. Beg, borrow or steal the box set and find out why.
Such is the renown of the celebrated television adaptation of Colin Dexters novels featuring the enigmatic real-ale swilling, arts loving, crossword buff detective, that theres very little left to say apart from its basically a brilliant variation on the classic English whodunit, Kevin Whatelys Lewis is to John Thaws Morse as Dr Watson was to Sherlock Holmes, and Thaw is simply wonderful.
Rex
It has become so caricatured and parodied in recent years that its easy to overlook the fact that The Sweeney made Z Cars look as antiquated as the former did Dixon of Dock Green a decade earlier. Created by Ian Kennedy Martin, brother of Z Cars co-creator Troy, The Sweeney was shot in 16mm film and that, along with extensive location shooting, gave it a more cinematic look than other studio-bound rivals.
Rex Features
Created by Steven Bochco and Michael Kozoll and still celebrated, still hugely influential, and still the cop show to which almost everything that has come since owes a huge debt. From Mike Posts iconic theme and the innovative cinema vrit-evoking handheld camera, to the brilliant ensemble cast creating beloved characters and dramatic storylines in the urban sprawl of an unnamed US city, Hill Street Blues pioneered a new wave of cop shows. Ironically, it never gained huge audience ratings, but garnered a grand total of 98 Emmy nominations. Groundbreaking, thought provoking, emotional and funny, Hill Street Blues stands tall in the canon of truly great television.
Hulton archives/getty images
Launched to much fanfare as a television movie and boasting a killer theme tune from Quincy Jones, Ironside starred Raymond Burr, who was still hot after his stint as televisions Perry Mason, as San Francisco Chief of Police Robert T Ironside, who is confined to a wheelchair after an attempted assassination. Over 199 episodes, the series followed Ironside and his team in his role as consultant to the Police Department as they sorted out the bad guys of the City by the Bay.
NBC
Ian Rankin says he has never watched any of the television adaptions of his famously brooding, heavy drinking, loner detective because he didnt want the actors faces replacing how he envisaged Rebus in his head. Two actors have played Rebus on screen, John Hannah and Ken Stott. Hannah gives the role his best but was probably too young and lacked the cynical gravitas that Stott gave to Rebus. With similar roles in The Vice and Messiah giving Stott an identifiable acting persona, he perhaps has the same problem as Humphrey Bogart being too much like Bogart to play the definitive Philip Marlowe, but in the absence of any other candidates, Stott is just fine. Rankins central theme of the Jekyll and Hyde dichotomy of Scotlands capital city remains intact, and as in the novels, the real star of the show is of course, Edinburgh itself in all its historic beauty, showing the dark underbelly of the city behind the chintz curtains.
Nostalgia might not be what it used to be, but the biggest mystery with Life on Mars is why it took someone so long to come up with this inspired paean to the pop culture and TV cop shows of the 1970s. Throw in the fish-out-of-water time travel motif and the tongue in cheek non-PC scripts and characters, and its not hard to see why the series struck a chord with audiences.
BBC
Like many of his ilk, dedicated near-genius DCI John Luther (a brilliant Idris Elba) is a tormented soul, struggling with his own inner demons, hugely affected by the stomach churning crimes he investigates. Luther is so obsessive that he will do anything to get his man (or woman, in the case of his nemesis, the psychopathic scientist Alice Morgan (Ruth Wilson) Both cerebral and heart pumping, Luther was created by Neil Cross and has spawned American and Russian versions.
BBC
Gillian Anderson is the deliberate, dedicated senior detective on the trail of an equally meticulous serial killer in this controversial drama filmed and set in Northern Ireland. The Fall survived accusations of misogyny and voyeurism to lift a Bafta for best television drama and keep viewers hooked for three series, but remains a troubling, unsettling experience for many.
The cop show that more than any other blew the stereotypical image of female police officers out of the water, and challenged the sexist attitudes of many executives in the television industry. Tyne Daly and Sharon Gless won the hearts of millions of viewers, and six Emmys between them, as two dedicated New York police officers who happened to be women with normal lives and challenges like everyone else. The bond between the two characters was unbreakable despite leading entirely different lives (Lacey was married with a family and supportive husband, Cagney drifted from relationship to relationship). A game changer in many ways, Cagney and Lacey explored issues such as rape, abortion and Cagneys alcoholism head on.
Set in the Metropolitan Police Complaints Investigation Bureau, the Bafta winning Between the Lines follows ambitious Chief Superintendent Tony Clarke and his team as they investigate corruption within the police force. Between the Lines drew praise for the way it tackled topical issues of the day as it attempted to address the age old moral dilemma, quis custodiet ipsos custodes who will guard the guards themselves?
The cop show that more than any other blurred the lines between the good guys and the bad guys. Rogue cop Vic Mackey leads the elite strike force of LA detectives who routinely break the law to keep the streets safe, but also to feather their own nest. There are subplots aplenty, and Mackeys downfall plays out almost like a Shakespearean tragedy.
Set in the fictional northern town of Newtown, Z Cars broke new ground in police drama shows, challenging the homely predictability of the likes of Dixon of Dock Green. Devised by Allan Prior and Troy Kennedy Martin, the series centred on not just one central protagonist, but rather several police officers both uniformed and plain clothed. Z Cars brought some iconic characters into the nations living rooms such as detective Charlie Barlow, PC Fancy Smith and desk sergeant Bert Lynch. The police officers themselves were portrayed warts and all, with gritty subject matter, including domestic abuse at the hands of a police officer, at the heart of the storylines. The actors became household names with the iconic theme tune whistled on everyones lips, and of course there were the Z cars themselves, the American-style Ford Zephyr and Zodiac patrol cars.
If Cagney and Lacey blazed the trail for female cops, then the first series of Prime Suspect in particular indicated a seismic shift in the perception of, and the attitudes towards, the female police officer. Helen Mirren is outstanding as DCI Jane Tennison who heads a murder squad hunting a sadistic serial killer, but has to overcome opposition and resentment from her team as well as the institutionalised sexism of the police department itself. Subsequent series concentrated more on Tennisons inner demons as she began to rely on alcohol to help her cope with the pressures of the job.
This Danish police procedural and prime example of Scandinavian noir attracted criticism for its violence against women. It did, however, become an international success particularly in the UK. Viewers were gripped by the formula; that of each episode reflecting 24 hours in the same murder case, and by the cold-fish female detective protagonist Sarah Lund, while developing an almost fetishist fascination with her knitwear. The Killing paved the way for other subtitled European crime dramas and equally popular and acclaimed entries such as The Bridge and Borgen quickly followed.
Filmed in New City with a two-pronged approach of the investigation of a crime and arrest of a suspect, followed by the suspects trial, Law and Order introduced one of the great small-screen detectives, recovering alcoholic Lennie Briscoe. (Jerry Orbach). The shows boast was that many of its subject matters were ripped from the headlines and it was this approach that gave it a compelling topical feel and made it the longest-running American crime series and the benchmark for police procedurals.
An outstanding ratings success for BBC2, Jed Mercurios masterful police corruption thriller gripped viewers from the very beginning and kept them guessing until the explosive climax to the third series. The bold, serpentine and gripping storylines provided the exemplary cast with parts of a lifetime, with the most outstanding feature of Line of Duty undoubtedly the lengthy interrogation scenes as the tension was racked up notch by notch.
PA
After Bing Crosby turned the role down, Peter Falk became synonymous with the cigar smoking, dishevelled police lieutenant in a shabby raincoat, winning four Emmys and a Golden Globe. Referred to as a howcatchem by its creators, Columbo deviated from the traditional whodunit in that the audience and, it seemed, Columbo himself, knew the identity of the murderer from the start. Half the fun of the show was watching the murderer (frequently an A- or B-list guest star) underestimate the seemingly bumbling, absent-minded detective while he baited the trap to snare them. Oh, and just one more thing, as Columbo himself might say: although Columbo routinely spoke of his wife, she was never seen in any episode, but the character was later given her own, short-lived, spin-off show, Mrs Columbo.
It has been compared to the works of Dickens and Dostoevsky and lauded as the greatest television programme ever. But the triumph of The Wire is how it tells the story of the decaying city of Baltimore through the lives of the police, drug dealers, politicians, children and the dispossessed, making no moral judgements between good and bad in a predominately grey world. The Wire may not be the greatest television programme ever, but its realism and authenticity can never be in doubt. In 2005, members of a drugs gang claimed they had studied The Wire in order to learn about the latest police surveillance techniques, surely the ultimate example of life imitating art.
Aping its antecedent Hill Street Blues cinema verite style, multi award winning NYPD Blue was a natural progression for co-creator Steven Bochno, who along with David Milsch came up with even grittier storylines, atmospheric New York locations and warts n all characters to create a hugely compelling and influential cop show. But lets be honest, despite a terrific ensemble cast, Dennis Franz as scenery-chewing recovering alcoholic detective Andy Sipowicz, was virtually the whole show, appearing in all 261 episodes and in the process searing his psyche in viewers minds.
Getty
Baltimore native Barry Levinson was a natural fit as executive producer of this ultra-realistic police procedural, based on The Wire creator David Simons book chronicling his experiences following homicide detectives at work in the so-called City of Firsts. From the very first episode Life on the Street succeeded in dispelling the myths and stereotypes about the television cop, showing that murder and violence were just a routine parts of the job. Indeed the murder of a schoolgirl in that first episode was never solved. Aficionados rate this show even better than The Wire. Some have called Homicide: Life on the Street the missing link between Hill Street Blues and The Wire. Beg, borrow or steal the box set and find out why.
Such is the renown of the celebrated television adaptation of Colin Dexters novels featuring the enigmatic real-ale swilling, arts loving, crossword buff detective, that theres very little left to say apart from its basically a brilliant variation on the classic English whodunit, Kevin Whatelys Lewis is to John Thaws Morse as Dr Watson was to Sherlock Holmes, and Thaw is simply wonderful.
Rex
It has become so caricatured and parodied in recent years that its easy to overlook the fact that The Sweeney made Z Cars look as antiquated as the former did Dixon of Dock Green a decade earlier. Created by Ian Kennedy Martin, brother of Z Cars co-creator Troy, The Sweeney was shot in 16mm film and that, along with extensive location shooting, gave it a more cinematic look than other studio-bound rivals.
Rex Features
Created by Steven Bochco and Michael Kozoll and still celebrated, still hugely influential, and still the cop show to which almost everything that has come since owes a huge debt. From Mike Posts iconic theme and the innovative cinema vrit-evoking handheld camera, to the brilliant ensemble cast creating beloved characters and dramatic storylines in the urban sprawl of an unnamed US city, Hill Street Blues pioneered a new wave of cop shows. Ironically, it never gained huge audience ratings, but garnered a grand total of 98 Emmy nominations. Groundbreaking, thought provoking, emotional and funny, Hill Street Blues stands tall in the canon of truly great television.
Hulton archives/getty images
HBO miniseries Chernobyl also ended inside a courtroom, but it got away with such an enclosed setting by unveiling new evidence on the podium and through a series of dramatic turns where people you considered cowards decided to speak out against injustice. As is the problem with dramatising a crime so heavily publicised, we always knew Shelias memory was saved, we always knew Jeremy did it and we always knew Julie will speak out against him.
DS Stan Jones watches Jeremy Bamber trial in ITV drama White House Farm (ITV)
Granted, it is very satisfying to watch a woman who'd been whittled down by emotional abuse confront her tormentor. Freddie Fox is great as the sharp-tongued and theatrical Jeremy Bamber, and though hes never sweating, you do get to see the smirk wiped off his foppish ex-private schoolboy face. Julies character transition is an interesting one: she goes from hiding in the corner of parties as Jeremy flirts with other women, to pushing past paparazzi camera flashes to tell the world of the horrors he is capable of. But as the episode comes to an end, theres a slightly confusing reversal. Having been pushed to recognise the bravery involved in Julie speaking out against the man she loved, we are then made to think of her as a money-hungry vulture, wholly undeserving of the 25,000 she receives from publicity.
Julie Mumford enters the courtroom in ITV drama White House Farm (ITV)
After the penultimate episode sees him taken off the case, I thought we had seen the last of Stephen Grahams DCI Thomas Taff Jones. But we are forced to sit through another few minutes of Grahams lukewarm Welsh accent. The cynically careerist bad cop has come to the office to congratulate his rival DS Stan Jones (Mark Addy) on Bambers arrest: I guess its my turn to take my leave he snarls. It should be a satisfying moment: the weary and unappreciated good guy has finally been proved right, but the script renders both characters too cartoonish for even talented actors such as Graham and Addy to pull it off.
You get the impression that Bamber would be quite pleased with his presentation in White House Farm. The only humiliation he suffers the removal of his tie and shoes as he moves into the blackness of his cell. Though Bamber has complained that the series could potentially damage his latest appeal of innocence, you cant help but think a narcissist such as he would delight in the attention. After all, according to Julie, the first thing Bamber said after committing his crimes was: I should have been an actor. I imagine he still looks pretty smug in his cell in HMP Wakefield.
Read the original here:
Posted in Nihilism
Comments Off on Repetitive and laboured White House Farm finale is too focused on the details – review – The Independent
Review: The Big Goodbye: Chinatown and the Last Years of Hollywood – HeraldScotland
Posted: at 9:47 am
Faber & Faber, 18.99
WHERE and when does a movie begin? How far back can you trace its origins? How close can you get to the source?
Take Chinatown. Do we trace it back to writer Robert Towne reading Chandler and getting nostalgic for the Los Angeles he remembered as a kid? Or him watching developers tearing up the land around his home in LAs Hutton Drive waved through by city hall?
Or do you go back further to the Second World War and the Jewish ghetto in Krakow where Chinatowns eventual director Roman Polanski spent his childhood and from where the Nazis took his mother?
Or maybe, like every other crime story, we start with a murder. Maybe we go back to an August night in 1969 when Charles Mansons followers broke into a house on Cielo Drive and murdered the five people they found inside, including Hollywood actress Sharon Tate, Polanskis pregnant wife.
In The Big Goodbye, author Sam Wasson explores all these tributaries and more in telling the story of the 1974 movie about crime and corruption both financial and moral in 1930s LA. Wasson in the past has written about Audrey Hepburn and the choreographer Bob Fosse. Here, he argues that Chinatown is one of the last gasps of the New American cinema of the 1970s before the blockbuster bulldozed in and took over the neighbourhood.
He locates Chinatowns story within the lives of four of its main participants, adding the stories of its star Jack Nicholson and its producer Robert Evans to those of Towne and Polanski. Nicholson was the coming man, an actor who had shared a flat with Towne, was the star of The Last Detail, written by Towne, and someone who felt he owed Evans a favour. Evans was enjoying his status as the man who saved Paramount, after a run of hits including Rosemarys Baby, The Godfather and the hugely successful Love Story.
Evans saw in Chinatown a chance to combine Hollywood traditional glamour with artistic integrity and he was prepared to push Townes desire to direct to the side as a result. Polanski, meanwhile, had come to believe, from experience, that there was no such a thing as a happy ending and kept pushing against the romanticism of Townes script. Hard to see how else he could have reacted given what happened to his wife.
Wasson deals with the murders of Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Wojciech Frykowski, Steven Parent and Jay Sebring sparingly. At the same time, he refuses to look away from the horror of it. As a reminder of what happened it shows up the callowness of Tarantinos counterfactual take on that night in last years Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
The senseless murders of that summer marked an end of innocence for the hippy idyll of the 1960s (Altamont was still a few months in the future). Strung out on grief, Wasson reports, Polanski turned himself into a detective in its wake. He would sneak into friends garages and swab their cars for fingerprints. He bugged their homes. Hed even surreptitiously checked Bruce Lees lens prescription against that of a pair of horn-rimmed glasses found at the scene of the murder.
There were no lessons to be drawn from the murders, Polanski would say. There is just nothing. Its absolutely senseless, stupid, cruel and insane. Im not sure its even worth talking about. Sharon and the others are dead. I cant restore what was.
That nihilism followed him through to the making of Chinatown a few years later. Shooting started with casting not finished and no agreed ending. The films female lead, Faye Dunaway, quickly made herself unpopular with crew and her director. At one point Polanski pulled an errant hair from her head which was ruining his shot. It didnt go down well. Nicholson had it easier, although Polanski did end up chucking Nicholsons TV out of his trailer during a Lakers game when the actor wouldnt present himself for a set-up because he was trying to catch the end of a game.
No wonder, then, that Nicholson was worried Polanski was to be the one who was to slit his nose with a prop knife that had to be sliced in the right direction in one of the films most notorious moments. Polanski shot 12, maybe 14 takes. Hed got the shot he wanted on the first.
Evans was the man who had to placate everyone. Including Towne who was seeing his romantic vision darkened, his story tarnished.
But maybe he shouldnt have been surprised. America was going through Watergate, the fag end of the Vietnam war, an oil embargo. Nihilism, understandably, was in. As the films last line has it: Forget it Jake, its Chinatown.
Wasson corals all this with energy and commitment. His style at times overblown, reaching for effect, seductive for that very reason is obvious from the first line after the introduction: Sharon Tate looked like California. If you respond to that, then this is for you.
Wassons argument is that 1974-1975 was a pinch point for Hollywood. The last hurrah for the American version of auteur cinema; the kind of films Evans produced and Polanski directed. In 1974, the year Chinatown was released, so were Alan Pakulas The Parallax View, Robert Altmans Thieves Like Us, Francis Ford Coppolas The Conversation and Steven Spielbergs The Sugarland Express, movies that were ambitious, adult, arty.
Spielbergs next movie, Jaws, would change the current, opening in hundreds of cinemas rather than trying to build an audience as had been the release pattern before. It worked. Spectacularly.
Soon the blockbuster was key. TV execs began to take over Hollywoods studios and the appetite for ambitious, adult and arty began to recede. Deal-making took over from film-making, Wasson argues. There were still ambitious films ahead: Altmans Nashville, Michael Ciminos The Deer Hunter, Coppolas Apocalypse Now, but the tide was going out. And Star Wars was waiting in the wings to change everything. Who wants auteurs when you can have franchises?
Wassons book is a lament for a style of movie-making that is no longer in favour. It has not, despite the books elegiac tone, disappeared though. Martin Scorsese kept making movies and, in the years that followed, American directors such as Michael Mann, Kathryn Bigelow, David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson would all emerge.
Still, the film ecology did change. It keeps changing. Chinatown the movie is now as distant from us as it was to the 1930s. It stands as a reminder of how Hollywood once was.
Wasson wants us to believe that Chinatown is a heroic achievement. But he doesnt hide away from the fact that there are no real heroes in this story. Townes reputation soared after Chinatown but so did his appetite for drink and drugs. Evanss, by contrast, took a huge hit with the failure of The Cotton Club. And Polanski? He pleaded guilty to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl in Nicholsons house and then fled to Europe. Some things you should never forget.
Read more here:
Review: The Big Goodbye: Chinatown and the Last Years of Hollywood - HeraldScotland
Posted in Nihilism
Comments Off on Review: The Big Goodbye: Chinatown and the Last Years of Hollywood – HeraldScotland