July 27, 2006
A good thing that James Hewison put the wraps over the 2:37. It is a morose, dreary, turgid self indulgent supposed exploration into teenage angst in a no named but suburban school in middle Australia. It is bookended with the discovery of a suicide and ends with the act of that suicide. The film elite again revel in yet another ”worthy” film which is guaranteed to garner a minimal local audience. According to the Herald Sun it has made 3 times its cost already with foreign bookings. So what, it is still a dreary dull uninspired story. Teenage angst is not a new theme and it wasn’t handled in any signfiicantly different way bar being more gritty than the usual fare and extremely confronting in the final suicidal scene which bordered on pornographic.
According to the Age Murali Thalluri is the veritable new wunderkid. It marvels:
Director Murali Thalluri, 21, wrote the script the morning after a suicide attempt two years ago in the wake of a friend’s death.
Two things immediately spring to mind. First, the script is about what you would expect from someone befuddled. The second, why didn’t he do the job properly. Alright the second is cruel but the film is torture to body and soul.
For the last 10 years luminaries in the film industry complain about the obsession with ultra art, ultra independent worthy films which are being made and played to empty theatres. 2:37 is just another example and evidence that those who do the funding and selecting have tin ears when it comes to what the average punter wants to see.
A few positives for this film:
- the camera work is effective. The endless corridors and claustrophobic atmosphere gives extra effect to the regularly placed crises;
- the acting, in particular the black and white interviews, are gritty and gut wrenching. I guess that had to be the case because the dialogue doesn’t really fill out the characters roles and motivations.
- Thalluri shows real skill in demonstrating the “trick” of overlay, covering the same scene from another characters perspective.
Posted in Censorship & media, General
|
1 Comment »
July 26, 2006
Mick Dodson has long been a member of the Aboriginal establishment that came into being in the mid nineteen eighties and had their moment in the sun during Paul Keating’s tenure at the top. Those days are long gone but you would thnk beign itit smart would involve trying to get along with they that control the purse strings. But Mick Dodson has always preferred a good headline over a good working relationship. Yesterday on PM he wanted to show that he could change the way interest groups deal with governments. According to Dodson, responsible Ministers can be bypassed if you want to. Hell go to the top because Dodson is, well, Dodson. Butting heads with a government controlling both houses of parliament with an opposition that runs a mile from the Keating legacy is a guaranteed way to end up with the dinasaurs.
An extract from the PM program says it all:
MARK COLVIN: And the Aboriginal Affairs Minister Mal Brough is on a path to getting rid of customary law as a defence. Where do you stand on that?
MICK DODSON: It’s a misrepresentation of what customary law is, you know. And he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, essentially. And I care not to comment, I won’t talk to people who don’t know what they are walking about, he doesn’t appear to know what he’s talking about.
MARK COLVIN: But he’s the Aboriginal Affairs Minister…
MICK DODSON: Well, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, I’m telling you.
MARK COLVIN: But you have to get on with him just as well as you have to get with the Prime Minister, don’t you, ultimately?
MICK DODSON: Yes, well, I’m talking to the Prime Minister, not the minister.
MARK COLVIN: That’s not a very hopeful sign in terms of your relationship with the Government.
MICK DODSON: No, look, what I want done can only be done by the Prime Minister, not his minister.
MARK COLVIN: And how would that happen?
MICK DODSON: That’s what I said today, read my speech.
MARK COLVIN: But how… are you calling on the Prime Minister to get rid of his minister?
MICK DODSON: No. No. I’m having a conversation with the Prime Minister, not his minister. If he wants to talk to his minister about what I said, well he ought to do that. But my conversation is with the Prime Minister.
MARK COLVIN: How can you have a coherent conversation with Government if you’re just talking to the Prime Minister but you have no confidence in his Aboriginal Affairs Minister?
MICK DODSON: What’s the problem with that, you know, I can talk to the boss about the cock-up of one of his staff?
MARK COLVIN: But the problem is that the Aboriginal Affairs Minister is the person who carries out…
MICK DODSON: Not for what I want done. This is a matter for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister must lead this.
MARK COLVIN: Mick Dodson, Director of Reconciliation Australia.
Posted in General
|
Post a comment »
July 25, 2006
Terror is to the current day public dialogue as what communism was to the dialogue of the nineteen fifties. It shuts down debate and ring fences whatever issue the powers that be want out of bounds. It also allows for some dubious debates and justifications for just plain stupidity.
Example 1
The Saville property group now want to “ban” photography within the Southbank precinct. John Faine interviewed a twit from the Sydney office this morning on 774 ABC. She described the policy as being “a proactive stance” because of a “heightened sense of security.” For a change Faine applied some of his legal training to pin her down but was a bit rusty and she kept parroting the same stupid line.
Example 2
Anthony Albanese cited terrorism as part of his grab bag of arguements against altering the ALP’s uranium policy. Terrorism?!! C’mon!!!
Ah the glory of political discourse.
Posted in General
|
Post a comment »
July 10, 2006
In another brilliant career move the Clarke strikes fear into the hearts of the Visiting officers Association:
Download the VMO case
Posted in General
|
Post a comment »