entertainmentawardevent:oscar

  • Jonathan Cook: Israel’s thriving arms trade is a setback to peace agreement | Israeli Occupation Archive
    http://www.israeli-occupation.org/2013-07-23/jonathan-cook-israels-thriving-arms-trade-is-a-setback-to-peace-

    The Lab, which won a recent award at DocAviv, Israel’s documentary Oscars, is due to premiere in the US early next month. Directed by Yotam Feldman, the film presents the first close-up view of Israel’s arms industry and the dealers who have enriched themselves.

    The title relates to the film’s central argument that Israel has rapidly come to rely on the continuing captivity of Palestinians, in what are effectively the world’s largest open-air prisons. Massive profits are made from testing innovations on the more than four million Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

    • FELDMAN: Again, I don’t think my argument in the film is that it’s all about money and economic interest and that’s everything and, you know, the main reasons to go to operations in Gaza is greed or profit. It’s not really that way. There is ideology, there are other factors, of course, which have, probably, a heavier influence.

      I do think it does play a part in the way the operations are managed in their length, in their duration, in the kinds of weapons which are used. There is a very strong influence, I think.

      And the other is the fact that now the Israeli economy is so much dependent on these operations. It’s 20 percent of the exports. It’s 150,000 families—not people—in Israel actually dependent on this industry. And if one day it will stop, if there will be no next operation in Gaza, so Israel will have some economic problems.

      http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10220

  • Et voilà Ziad Doueiri avec un nouveau costard, grâce à Angry Arab : Ziad Doueiri : prostration at the feet of Zionists (textes méchants et jubilatoires, que je trouve plus que mérités) :
    http://angryarab.blogspot.fr/2013/05/ziad-doueiri-prostration-at-feet-of.html

    Hell, any Arab or Muslim in the West can write a silly story about love between an Arab and an Israeli, and he/she would surely win Oscars, Nobel, and Pulitzer at the same time. And since this silly director is obsessed with awards and represents all that I mock about Lebanonese culture (he in fact claimed in an interview with BBC Arabic that “the president of Oscars” called him and told him to apply and told him that he has a good shot at winning. Kid you not), he should get the award for prostration before Zionists. You now can figure out what type of a person we are talking about. Look what he told this Israeli paper: “I hated Israel’s guts during the 1982 war and the 2006 war, but I have done my questioning too. I’ve changed.” So this buffoon has changed although Israel has not changed. He is willing to change some more in return for more Western awards from the Zionist white man.

    Angry Arab occupe le terrain, d’ailleurs, puisqu’il publie en même temps sa longue tribune dans la version arabe du Akhbar sur le même sujet :
    http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/182501

  • Voilà que les anciens dirigeants des services secrets israéliens deviennent des ennemis d’Israël !

    In a flurry of telegrams, Israeli diplomats respond to ’The Gatekeepers’ - Diplomacy & Defense - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/in-a-flurry-of-telegrams-israeli-diplomats-respond-to-the-gatekeepers.premi

    From their bases across the world, Israeli ambassadors grapple with international screenings of the controversial Oscar-nominated film, debating whether or not, at its core, the film is anti-Israel.

  • Islamophobia on the red carpet
    http://socialistworker.org/2013/02/27/islamophobia-on-the-red-carpet

    When Emad, his wife and 8-year-old son Gibreel arrived in Los Angeles to attend the award ceremony, they were detained and questioned at the airport. Despite the fact that Emad had his official Oscar invitation, they were threatened with deportation by immigration officials, who apparently could not believe a Palestinian could be nominated for an Oscar.

  • Oscar-nominee ’Five Broken Cameras’ sparks identity debate - FRANCE 24
    http://www.france24.com/en/20130222-oscar-nominee-five-broken-cameras-sparks-identity-debate?ns_campa

    Fundwashing

    “Two Israeli films are among the five nominated for best documentary for the Academy Awards,” Israel’s embassy in the United States said on its Twitter feed immediately after the nominations were announced.

    It was a narrative quickly echoed by some of the Israeli press.

    “After a remarkable string of Oscar nominations for scripted dramas, Israel’s film industry has managed a new feat in 2013: earning two nods in a different category, in a single year,” said the online Times of Israel.

    The Jerusalem Post also flagged it as an achievement for “Israeli cinema.”

    For Burnat, it was a “cunning attempt” to damage the film.

    “The Israeli press tried to describe the film as Israeli which was strange to me because it is about me, my family and my village,” he told AFP.

    “It cannot be an Israeli movie because it is about an attempt to erase Palestine.”

    For Burnat’s co-director Davidi, the debate about whether the film is Israeli or Palestinian is “not important.”

    “For me, the whole discussion is not a very important one because for me generally, films do not represent countries, even if they are produced by countries,” he told AFP.

    “I don’t think films should have nationalities.”

    The film, which also received French funding, tracks the life of Burnat and his family since the birth of their son Jibril in 2005, the same year Israel began building its sprawling separation barrier on lands owned by the village.

    The title comes from the five cameras that were broken as Burnat captured the villagers’ plight on film over the years.

    Davidi, a former Israeli activist who used to attend the weekly solidarity protests, got involved at Burnat’s request to help with production problems.

    “I asked Guy to come and take part in the movie because he was a solidarity activist who comes to the demonstrations with us. I didn’t ask him to come to represent Israel or take part in an Israeli-Palestinian production,” Burnat said.

    “Guy doesn’t represent Israel; he helped with the production and the funding.”

    Davidi says there are many Israelis who produce work critical of the occupation, which often gives official Israel a way of showcasing the country’s democratic principles.

    “There is an expectation that Israeli filmmakers will represent their country... but there is a way to use them to show Israel is democratic and an open society that allows open discussion and freedom of speech,” he explains.

    “I am not willing to be used in that way to clear Israel’s name, especially as I am a part of a very small minority,” he said.

  • Argo fuck yourself: Ben Affleck’s Iran hostage movie is the worst. - Slate Magazine
    http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/01/down_with_argo_ben_affleck_s_iran_hostage_movie_is_the_worst.html?wpisrc=most

    Perhaps my disgust wouldn’t be as intense if it weren’t for the potentially great film suggested by Argo’s opening sequence: a history of pre-revolutionary Iran told through eye-catching storyboards. The sequence gives a compelling (if sensationalized) account of how the CIA’s meddling with Iran’s government over three decades led to a corrupt and oppressive regime, eventually inciting the 1979 revolution. The sequence even humanizes the Iranian people as victims of these abuses. This opening may very well be the reason why critics have given the film credit for being insightful and progressive—because nothing that follows comes close, and the rest of the movie actually undoes what this opening achieves.

    Instead of keeping its eye on the big picture of revolutionary Iran, the film settles into a retrograde “white Americans in peril” storyline. It recasts those oppressed Iranians as a raging, zombie-like horde, the same dark-faced demons from countless other movies— still a surefire dramatic device for instilling fear in an American audience. After the opening makes a big fuss about how Iranians were victimized for decades, the film marginalizes them from their own story, shunting them into the role of villains. Yet this irony is overshadowed by a larger one: The heroes of the film, the CIA, helped create this mess in the first place. And their triumph is executed through one more ruse at the expense of the ever-dupable Iranians to cap off three decades of deception and manipulation.

    • http://www.wideasleepinamerica.com/2013/02/oscar-prints-the-legend-argo.html

      In an interview with The Huffington Post, Affleck went so far as to say, “I tried to make a movie that is absolutely just factual. And that’s another reason why I tried to be as true to the story as possible — because I didn’t want it to be used by either side. I didn’t want it to be politicized internationally or domestically in a partisan way. I just wanted to tell a story that was about the facts as I understood them.”

      For Affleck, these facts apparently don’t include understanding why the American Embassy in Tehran was overrun and occupied on November 4, 1979. “There was no rhyme or reason to this action,” Affleck has insisted, claiming that the takeover “wasn’t about us,” that is, the American government (despite the fact that his own film is introduced by a fleeting - though frequently inaccurate1 - review of American complicity in the Shah’s dictatorship).

      Wrong, Ben. One reason was the fear of another CIA-engineered coup d’etat like the one perpetrated in 1953 from the very same Embassy. Another reason was the admission of the deposed Shah into the United States for medical treatment and asylum rather than extradition to Iran to face charge and trial for his quarter century of crimes against the Iranian people, bankrolled and supported by the U.S. government. One doesn’t have to agree with the reasons, of course, but they certainly existed.

    • L’Oscar décerné à « Argo » : « Un succès politique et immérité », selon des Iraniens | Nouvelles d’Iran
      http://keyhani.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/02/26/loscar-consacre-a-argo-vu-par-des-iraniens-un-succes-politique-

      Nous l’avons bien compris : les politiques iraniens et les médias proches du régime sont en colère contre l’Academy Awards américaine qu’ils accusent d’avoir couronné le film « anti-iranien » Argo, de Ben Affleck. Mais qu’en pensent des intellectuels, réalisateurs et militants qui ne sont pas proches du régime ?

    • CIA’s Work With Filmmakers Puts All Media Workers at Risk | FAIR
      https://fair.org/home/cias-work-with-filmmakers-puts-all-media-workers-at-risk

      (2016)

      Vice’s Jason Leopold (4/6/16) has uncovered documents showing the CIA had a role in producing up to 22 entertainment “projects,” including History Channel documentary Air America: The CIA’s Secret Airline, Bravo‘s Top Chef: Covert Cuisine, the USA Network series Covert Affairs and the BBC documentary The Secret War on Terror—along with two fictional feature films about the CIA that both came out in 2012.

      The CIA’s involvement in the production of Zero Dark Thirty (effectively exchanging “insider” access for a two-hour-long torture commercial) has already been well-established, but the agency’s role in the production of Argo—which won the Best Picture Oscar for 2012—was heretofore unknown. The extent of the CIA’s involvement in the projects is still largely classified, as Leopold notes, quoting an Agency audit report:

  • Oscars Message to Israel – Forward Thinking – Forward.com
    http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/171798/oscars-message-to-israel

    “The Gatekeepers” and “5 Broken Cameras” have already succeeded in breaking one of Israel’s biggest taboos: airing out its dirty laundry on the big screen, for the whole world to see. Now the two films are both heading to the biggest stage of all: the Academy Awards. ...

    (...)

    But there are salient and important differences between the films. Most obviously, “The Gatekeepers” provides the perspective of the privileged and powerful occupier, while “5 Broken Cameras” speaks for the powerless and debilitated occupied. (...)

    (...)

    While both films reflect a different piece of the harsh reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they exist in entirely separate political discourses. “The Gatekeepers” takes place within Israel’s national ethos, from a conscious place of privilege and power. Palestinians are not really present in “The Gatekeepers,” except as the legitimate enemy as well as the victimized “other.”

    (...)

    ... [“The Gatekeepers”] is not as much a condemnation of the occupation as it is a lamentation of its stain on Israeli democracy. It in effect applauds Israeli guilt over being the occupying force.

    (...)

    “5 Broken Cameras,” on the other hand, is a personal Palestinian story, showing the implications of occupation and its human rights violations on the very people suffering it. It gives voice to a narrative often neglected, dismissed or combated — or simply ignored — in Israeli society and media.

    (...)

    If “The Gatekeepers” wins, it will be like the Academy giving the film — and by extension, Israeli society — a pat on the back for demonstrating that some of Israel’s most elite security men know how to be retrospectively self-critical. While that may be a nod toward a more honest way of viewing Israel, it’s ultimately a cop-out since it still manages to portray Israel in a redeeming light, and thus stops short of a sea change.

    If “5 Broken Cameras” wins, it will amount to symbolic recognition by mainstream America of the Palestinian narrative as the occupied – and defy arguments voiced in Israel that it is nothing more than a provocative Palestinian propaganda film. It will go beyond the message expressed in “The Gatekeepers” that what Israel is doing is wrong and show the world what wrong looks like – and just how ugly it is.

  • How My Friend and Current Oscar Nominee Emad Burnat Was Held and Threatened with Deportation Last Night at LAX | MichaelMoore.com
    By Michael Moore
    http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/how-my-friend-and-current-oscar-nominee-emad-burnat-was-held-and-threa

    Thus, last night, as an elected Governor of the Documentary Branch, I and my fellow Governors – Michael Apted and Rob Epstein – were co-hosting the nominee dinner for the documentary filmmakers. But one of the nominated directors was not there – Emad Burnat, the co-director of the Oscar-nominated ’5 Broken Cameras.’ This exceptional, award-winning movie about how Emad’s village in the West Bank used non-violence to oppose the Israeli’s government’s decision to build a wall straight through their farms and village – only to see (and capture on camera) Israeli soldiers shooting unarmed Palestinian civilians – had become the first Palestinian documentary ever to be nominated by the Academy.

    While we awaited Emad’s arrival from the airport – he and his family had already spent nearly six hours at an Israeli checkpoint as he was attempting to drive to Amman to catch their plane – I received an urgent text from Emad, written to me from a holding pen at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

    Here is what it said, in somewhat broken English:

    “Urgent - I am in the air port la they need more information why I come here
    Invitation or some thing
    Can you help they will send us back
    If you late
    Emad”

    I quickly texted him back and told him that help was on the way. He wrote back to say Immigration and Customs was holding him, his wife, Soraya, and their 8-year old son (and “star” of the movie) Gibreel in a detention room at LAX. He said they would not believe him when he told them he was an Oscar-nominated director on his way to this Sunday’s Oscars and to the events in LA leading up to the ceremony. He is also a Palestinian. And an olive farmer. Apparently that was too much for Homeland Security to wrap its head around.

    “They are saying they are going to put us on the next plane back to Amman,” he told me.

    I immediately contacted the Academy CEO Dawn Hudson and COO Ric Robertson, who in turn told Academy President Hawk Koch. They got ahold of the Academy’s attorney who is also partners with a top immigration attorney and they went to work on it. I called the State Department in DC.

    I told Emad to give the Homeland Security people my name and cell number and to have them call me ASAP so I could explain who he was and why they should let him go.

    After being held for somewhere between one and two hours, with repeated suggestions that the U.S. may not let him into the country – saying that they may send him back home – the authorities relented and released Emad and his family.

    I texted him to say we would not start the dinner until he arrived. When he got there, he was fairly shaken and upset.

    He told us that this sort of treatment is something he is used to “on a daily basis under Occupation.” He gave an eloquent and moving impromptu speech, in his usual soft-spoken voice, to his fellow nominees. He said this was his 6th trip with his film to the U.S. this year and that this was the first time he was detained. He said they wanted to see some “official document” that he was an actual nominee. I said, “Doesn’t Immigration have Google?”

    The Americans in the dining room apologized to Emad for the way our government and its security police treated him. We then sat down and ate some good ol’ American roast beef.

  • Sally Field shares with Katie Couric her pride in openly gay son, Sam Greisman
    ’It’s a whole different era, his generation’
    16 November 2012 | By Greg Hernandez

    Sally Field, currently getting Oscar buzz for her performance in the new film Lincoln, talked about more than the movie during an appearance on Katie Couric’s daytime talk show to air Monday (20 November).

    Field shared with Couric her pride in being introduced by her gay son, Sam Greisman, when she was presented with the Human Rights Campaign’s Ally for Equality Award last month in Washington DC.

    ’For me to do it, I had to talk about Sam,’ says Field. ’I felt those were Sam’s issues and Sam’s life and his own private business. And he wanted me to do it, and they asked him to introduce me.’

    Greisman, 25, is the youngest of Field’s three sons and told the crowd that night of his mom: ’When I came out, she didn’t bat an eye. In fact, she was overjoyed. Being gay was just one more thing she loved about me. She couldn’t be more supportive of me.’

    Reflecting on that night, Field tells Couric: ’One of the most important things in my life is that my son introduced me and he hit it out of the park. He wrote the speech, and he delivered the speech, and he was absolutely fabulous. Funny and in his own voice, and of his era, which I think is important - It’s a whole different era, his generation.’

    ’For me to watch him do that and own himself and be so cute and so funny and so smart,’ she adds. ’There’s that word ’cute.’ But somehow it fits for how great and important and appealing he is as a human being.’

  • Gareth Thomas on gay athletes, Mickey Rourke and coming out | Gay Star News
    http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gareth-thomas-gay-athletes-mickey-rourke-and-coming-out051112

    Gareth Thomas on gay athletes, Mickey Rourke and coming out
    Welsh rugby star chats to GSN about making his acting debut as the Genie in Aladdin and why he doesn’t care if Mickey Rourke looks nothing like him
    05 November 2012 | By Matthew Jenkin
    Welsh rugby star chats to GSN about making his acting debut as the Genie in Aladdin and why he doesn’t care if Mickey Rourke looks nothing like him

    When hunky Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas came out at the height of his sports career, he became one of the very few openly gay active professional athletes in the world.

    Since his retirement from his sport last fall, Thomas was voted the most influential gay person in the UK, receiving Stonewall’s hero of the year award in 2010, and proved his credentials as a positive role model during his time in the Celebrity Big Brother house earlier this year.

    His inspirational story is now being made into a feature film with Oscar nominee Mickey Rourke as star.

    But before then, he is making wishes come true starring as the genie in a pantomime production of Aladdin.

    The out and proud star will be polishing his lamp and flexing his acting skills, among other things, especially for the traditional British festive show at the Stiwt Theatre in Wrexham.

    Gay Star News chatted to Thomas about his latest career move as a panto hero.

    Are you excited about your acting debut in panto?

    When they first rang me about the part my first reaction was ‘no chance’ because I’ve never done it before and never thought I would get to do it. But when I spoke to my family and they told me how much they liked panto and how much fun it is at Christmas.

    When you’ve finished doing something all you’ve ever wanted to do, it’s good to try and step outside of your comfort zone and challenge yourself. That’s how you find out what you want to do for the rest of your life. It’s all about having fun and making people laugh. So why not give this opportunity a crack and who knows what it may bring in the future?

    How are your acting skills?

    Panto is less about acting and more about not taking yourself too seriously. People come in with a smile on their face and expect to leave with a bigger smile on their face. You can’t dress up in silly costumes and tell gags if you take yourself seriously. I want people to laugh along with me.

    Since you retired from professional rugby, you appeared in Celebrity Big Brother. For many the reality show has been career suicide. Has it helped or hindered you?

    I don’t care about what other people think of me. I do what is exciting to me. I’ve learnt in my life that you can’t please everybody and the only people that matter to me are those that are close to me, my family and friends. If they don’t mind what they do, if they think it’s good for and fun, then it’s their opinion which matters to me.

    Celebrity Big Brother was a fantastic experience for me. I learnt a lot about myself and I made some really good friends. Now I’m doing panto. Some people may say, ‘Why are you doing panto?’ You know what, it’s because I want to and I want to have a laugh. When I go in my box at the end of my life, maybe panto could have been the worst thing I did in my life but it may have been the best thing. There’s only one way to find out and that’s by doing it.

    I’ve done everything I wanted to do in rugby, so I can’t just sit on my arse in my nice little house and watch life go by. I want to carry on living my life. I’m 38 and loving everything I do. I’m challenging myself and doing things I never ever thought I would do. People think if you’ve done this, you should automatically do that. But I say balls to that. If it puts a smile on my face, I do it regardless.

    One positive thing which came out of you starring on Big Brother was that you gave many young people a positive gay role model...

    On TV sometimes gay people are portrayed as a stereotype. A big thing about me going into the Big Brother house was showing people who I was and how I am. There’s nothing wrong with being a stereotype either but a lot of people only see that. So they never get to see any other type of human being.

    It was a good thing for me and it was an education to a lot of people who realized that there are not only different types of straight people but there are also different types of gay people.

    A lot of gay athletes wait until retirement before they come out publicly. Why did you decide to do it while you were still playing the game?

    Children are usually sent the message that it’s ok to come out in sports but not until you have retired. But I wanted to show that you don’t have to stay hidden when you’re playing sports. I hid for a long time because I chose sport before I chose my life. But I matured to a point where I decided that I wanted to do both. I didn’t know if the sport would allow me too but I am blessed that it did.

    It’s not just me that was the positive role model though, it was also the sport and the team that I was with and played against. That’s what makes me proud to say that I was a sportsman who was able to be myself. I wanted to show that you don’t have to hide because sport is sport, regardless of gender and sexual orientation. As long as you are good at it, people will respect you for that.

    There was a lot of criticism during the Olympics that there weren’t enough out gay athletes. Do you think sport in general is still homophobic?

    I don’t think it’s homophobic inside sport. But I think the terraces and sometimes the crowd give an intimidating atmosphere. I wouldn’t want to play rugby if I thought I would have to go to a grounds where I would get abused from the crowd because I can’t focus on the game.

    I’ve never come across any homophobia in changing rooms or elsewhere within the game. There only place I have experienced it is on the terraces or in the crowds. But within the game it’s all about what you contribute to the team as a professional athlete not what you do behind closed doors.

    How important is it to have more out gay athletes?

    I do think it’s important but I think it’s more important that they’re positive role models. For me, the reason my story is positive is not the fact that I’m gay but because of my story and what I do after. It’s my acceptance of people, going into the Big Brother house and starring in panto. Who really cares if the person is gay?

    If I read that Justin Fashanu came out as gay and killed himself for his football, what message does that send? If I read that Gareth Thomas came out as gay, he carried on playing and his life was great, people accepted him and he can walk on the street with no bother, holding his head high for the next 15 years. That to me is what it’s all about. People have changed their lives and come out because my story was positive.

    Your story is going to be told on the big screen in an upcoming Hollywood biopic. How do you feel about Mickey Rourke being chosen to play you?

    I don’t give a shit what I look like. I look in the mirror and I don’t care. I’ve trained hard in my life and worked hard to be good at my career. People say Mickey doesn’t look like me but that’s because I don’t care what I look like. I care more about how people portray the way I am, the way I treat people and the way I talk to people. Who I am inside and what I’ve been through is what’s important.

    To me, there’s not a fucking actor in this world that can touch Mickey Rourke for playing emotional roles. I’ve spent time with him and he knows me inside out. I’ve told him things that nobody has ever been told. Maybe when they watch the movie at first they will say, ’Fuck, he looks nothing like Gareth’, but then after, because my story is not about what I look like, it’s about what I’ve been through, I think people won’t even see it, they will see an emotional rollercoaster ride.

    I want them to see where I’ve come from and where I’ve come to, as well as all the shit that’s happened in between. That’s emotions, not taking my top off and standing in front of the mirror. I’m a guy who has been an emotional wreck and at the same time has been the happiest man alive. To try and get that across takes one hell of an actor.

    • In early September 2007, Alex said to Pepperberg: “You be good. I love you. See you tomorrow.” The next day, the 31-year-old parrot was found dead of what was determined to be a heart event probably related to hardened arteries

      S’ils en font un film, avec cette scène-là, l’acteur qui interprétera le perroquet est certain de gagner l’Oscar.