Via
Simply brilliant!
Friday, 20 May 2011
First Listen: Joseph Arthur - 'The Graduation Ceremony'
That varied span of work mirrors the career Arthur has built as a "triple threat" artist since the mid-'90s, bridging music, poetry and painting with prolific creativity and unyielding inventiveness. He's even opened a gallery, the Museum of Modern Arthur (now online only). None of those endeavors suggest that "restraint" is part of his vocabulary.
But if there ever was a Joseph Arthur project to dispute that claim, it's his new album, The Graduation Ceremony, out May 24. From the first finger-picked notes of "Out on a Limb," it's clear that Arthur's goal is to keep things simple in both process and sound. Even with full orchestration (guitars, bass, strings, keys, Jim Keltner on drums and Liz Phair on backing vocals), there's an intentional sparseness at work. As with much of Joseph's musical and visual work, layers — however delicate — create depth, not excess.
Restraint in subject matter is another story, as Arthur adds no filter to reflections on a relationship's ebb, flow and end. With his vocal range in fine form, moving from Greg Brown-esque growl to winding falsetto, listening is an almost tactile experience. (Try to not react to the opening line of "Watch Our Shadows Run," in which Arthur sings in full falsetto, "You betrayed me.")
Still, dark ruminations aren't the only color in the album's musical palette. "Midwest" invites listeners to clap along, dream and turn up the distortion, and the sun appears repeatedly throughout The Graduation Ceremony, including in the soaring chorus of "Over the Sun." (That said, the tune also features the line, "When I cheat on you, you're still all I see.")
Whether "Over the Sun" is a sequel to his 2000 hit "In the Sun," only Arthur knows for sure. But his catalog rarely treads the same ground twice, and The Graduation Ceremony proves it by exploring another artful dimension entirely.
Sarah Wardrop @'npr'
Hear 'The Graduation Ceremony' In Its Entirety
WebGL: The Technology Behind '3 Dreams of Black'
Experience "3 Dreams of Black" at http://www.ro.me/
"3 Dreams of Black" is Chris Milk's new interactive film, created in WebGL with some friends from Google, for Danger Mouse & Daniele Luppi's ROME, featuring Jack White & Norah Jones. The project is a Chrome Experiment (http://www.chromeexperiments.com/) that showcases some of the latest web technologies in modern browsers like Google Chrome.
In building "3 Dreams of Black", we've had the opportunity to build many tools, libraries, and models. We've fully opened up the source code and made it available for web developers to tinker with us at http://www.ro.me/tech. In addition to the code, a few other highlights include eight WebGL demos, a fun model viewer for interacting with some of the animals from the web experience, and the Three.js 3D library used for building the experience. In addition, a big part of the project was to define a good pipeline for getting all the animals and environment models right in WebGL -- for this, we extended Blender with custom plugins so we could manipulate and export the data with ease.
Via
"3 Dreams of Black" is Chris Milk's new interactive film, created in WebGL with some friends from Google, for Danger Mouse & Daniele Luppi's ROME, featuring Jack White & Norah Jones. The project is a Chrome Experiment (http://www.chromeexperiments.com/) that showcases some of the latest web technologies in modern browsers like Google Chrome.
In building "3 Dreams of Black", we've had the opportunity to build many tools, libraries, and models. We've fully opened up the source code and made it available for web developers to tinker with us at http://www.ro.me/tech. In addition to the code, a few other highlights include eight WebGL demos, a fun model viewer for interacting with some of the animals from the web experience, and the Three.js 3D library used for building the experience. In addition, a big part of the project was to define a good pipeline for getting all the animals and environment models right in WebGL -- for this, we extended Blender with custom plugins so we could manipulate and export the data with ease.
Via
The seductive power of the U.S. military
You get the point. Towel off and read on...
HERE
Man behind 'Great Firewall of China' pelted with eggs
The unusually daring protest comes as China's leaders move to tighten internet controls following the wave of Jasmine revolutions in the Middle East, and indicated the depths of frustration felt by some young Chinese towards the censorship.
Four students apparently sought out Mr Fang as he gave a talk at the Computer Sciences Department of Wuhan University in central China, pre-arming themselves with eggs purchased for the occasion at a nearby market, according to their own account on Twitter.
"I definitely hit Fang. As for whether there are pictures will depends on the two students," read a post by one of the students, @hanunyi, "I came by myself. It was not difficult to hit with my shoes but a little bit harder to target him really successfully." Two others, @zfangzhou and @yinhm, said the protest has been organised spontaneously after hearing word that Mr Fang was on the campus.
"It was not prepared in advance. We heard the news [of Mr Fang's presence] at noon. We then went to the agricultural market near the computer department. My friend bought eggs and went to scope out the place, where we meet @hanunyi
"We were are thinking of doing it ourselves and then unfortunately noticed that our professor was there and our graduate supervisor, and we immediately lost courage. Then we met @hanunyi, he was really courageous and did the thing directly." Photographs were also posted online purportedly showing the four holding the eggs that were allegedly thrown at Mr Fang and, later, the bare feet of @hanunyi after the protest which echoed that of an Iraqi journalist who hurled his shoes at George W Bush in Baghdad in December 2008. The identity of @hanyunyi is unclear, however his Twitter account uses a picture of the jailed artist Ai Weiwei, with the sentence "If you don't want to release Ai Weiwei, then just pull me in too." Another photograph posted online appeared to show police or security guards at the scene, but messages posted on Twitter indicated the students had managed to leave the campus before being caught. Other students Tweeted that the police vans were on campus.
Police said they were seeking a man following the incident.
The protest is the first known physical attack on Mr Fang, however last December he was subjected to the virtual equivalent of an assault after online users discovered he had opened an account on Sina Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter.
Mr Fang, the principal of Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications, was forced to close the account hours later after being deluged by thousands of incensed 'netizens' who left expletive-laden messages denouncing him as an agent of repression.
China has some of the harshest censorship rules in the world, blocking many overseas sites such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube and spending billions of pounds and man-hours policing the internet for information deemed to be inimical to the ideal of a "harmonious society".
The attack on Mr Fang sent the censors scrambling to delete jubilant posts on Weibo in which online users offered to shower gifts on the two protestors from expensive meals to cash prizes, with one user even offering herself to the 'heroes'.
When censors at Sina Weibo were forced to declare searches for "Fang Binxing" illegal, the irony was not lost on many users. "Kind of poetic, really," observed one Twitter user, "The blocker, blocked."
When an account of the protest was posted on China's Netease web portal by a blogger using an alias, other online users rushed to offer "prizes".
One promised the use of a luxury flat in Shanghai for three months - worth GBP3,000 – while another offered the students "10 VPNs" - the relatively costly Virtual Proxy Network software used by students to "leap the Wall" and circumvent internet censorship.
"I offer a package of tourist tickets for Suzhou gardens to those who hit Fang successfully," said another, while a third from the US, said "I offer a pair of Nike shoes to the one that threw his smelly shoes at Fang."
Michael Anti, a veteran Chinese journalist and blogger who has campaigned for free speech in China, said the reaction of China's online users to the stunt showed how deeply many resented Chinese internet controls.
"The netizens were happy to see this scene. The Great Firewall not only blocks political content, but also prevents the most intelligent minds in China getting useful, up-to-date information from the outside world in science, technology, and other non-political spheres.
"We Chinese have now become second-class citizens in the Internet Age. A whole generation is suffering from the lack of freedom of information, and definitely, Fang should be blamed for this."
The idea for the protest appears to have been originally planted by a Hong Kong-based activist and freelance writer Jia Jia, who posted Mr Fang’s whereabouts online at around 11am and urged students go prepared to show their displeasure towards him.
“All persons with lofty ideas are welcomed to be present,” wrote the activist, “The host won’t offer tomatoes, horse sh*t, 50 cent coins, rotten eggs, etc, so students please prepare them by yourselves.”
Mr Jia said he was surprised at the students’ response to his post which was re-Tweeted on student bulletin boards, but said the reaction showed the high levels of anger among the students at internet controls.
“It reflected their dissatisfaction about current internet controls and it showed people’s willingness to make an effort and pay a cost to break down internet controls,” Mr Jia said in a phone interview with The Telegraph.
Concerns were mounting last night about what would now happen to @hanunyi who is a student at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, according to Mr Jia, who said he feared he would be charged with causing a disturbance.
Isaac Mao, the man who wrote China’s first blog in 2002, said he had exchanged several direct messages with @hanunyi via Twitter immediately after the incident, said he was now concerned for the protestor.
“He sent a message after this happened saying that he felt this was something he needed to do, that he had not prepared it in advance, but he said he had not been at all prepared for the strength of the netizens’ response,” Mr Mao told The Telegraph.
“This is China. There could be two very different responses by the authorities. They could be lenient, and play the episode down so that more people do not learn about it, or they could not.”
Peter Foster @'The Telegraph'
Future Vintage 035 @ Red Light Radio 05-17-2011 (Sun Ra special for the Sun Radio Dedication Night at Toko MC May 21st)
Sun Ra - Interstellar Low-ways
Sun Ra - On Jupiter
Madvillain - Light of the Past
Sun Ra - Third Planet (live)
Alan Lomax compilation - Jesus on the Mainline
Sun Ra - Images
Mo Kolours - Drum Talking
Sun Ra - Interplanetary Music
Sun Ra - Sleeping Beauty
Sun Ra - Love in Outer Space
Africa Hitech - Light the Way
Sun Ra - Somebody Elses Idea (live)
Sun Ra - On Jupiter
Madvillain - Light of the Past
Sun Ra - Third Planet (live)
Alan Lomax compilation - Jesus on the Mainline
Sun Ra - Images
Mo Kolours - Drum Talking
Sun Ra - Interplanetary Music
Sun Ra - Sleeping Beauty
Sun Ra - Love in Outer Space
Africa Hitech - Light the Way
Sun Ra - Somebody Elses Idea (live)
Sonic Youth rare live tracks
Scream (Recorded Live, Rolle, Switzerland 6/83) [2:20] *
"Plato's Cave, Rothko's Chapel, Lincoln's Profile" (full version)
Performed with Mike Kelley, Live at Artist's Space, New York City, December 5, 1986 with Molly Cleator and Adam Rudolf. Recorded by C. Parkinson.
NOTES
* From Tellus #1 (1983)
@'UbuWeb'
"Plato's Cave, Rothko's Chapel, Lincoln's Profile" (full version)
Performed with Mike Kelley, Live at Artist's Space, New York City, December 5, 1986 with Molly Cleator and Adam Rudolf. Recorded by C. Parkinson.
NOTES
* From Tellus #1 (1983)
How to Read Freedom House's Censorship Circumvention Report
Freedom House released Leaping Over the Firewall last month, a report covering two angles: details about Internet censorship in Azerbaijan, Burma, China, and Iran; and the use of circumvention software in those countries to bypass Internet censorship. As government censorship of the Internet spreads worldwide, research about the technology, norms and policies determining the flow of information is going to be increasingly vital.
Leaping Over the Firewall blends a non-technical survey method with some lightweight lab testing of circumvention software. This approach is unique, but has some limitations that affect how the report should be read in order to avoid confusion.
The report isn't about how to communicate securely and safely. Internet filtering and blocking is increasingly combined with Internet surveillance, partly because tools capable of surveilling Internet traffic can help better identify what and how to block and filter. A software tool can provide circumvention but still be well-short of providing any kind of meaningful security against a government. The report does surface the complexity of making security decisions around using the Internet, but the report also makes notable misuses of "security" throughout.
Here is an example of "security" being used irresponsibly:
Tor is software that a user can run to give themselves a relatively strong guarantee of anonymity online.1 Tor's design allows it to work as circumvention software, but its value extends beyond getting access to blocked or filtered information—Tor's design is intended to give its users anonymity by taking measures to defeat network surveillance and traffic analysis.
A reader glossing over the report might see that Tor received 2 stars in security, and make the unfortunate judgment that Tor shouldn't be used on that basis. What this graphic actually means is that Freedom House's survey respondents—on a purely anecdotal, non-random sampled basis—evaluated Tor to present "operational problems" while having fewer technical support resources available.2
Everywhere else in the report, this category of poll question is called "security and support," but for some reason, in the box summary, it's inappropriately reduced to just "security." Looking at the questions, the category referred to as "security" in the boxes actually represents survey respondents' views on usability and support—essentially whether or not users had trouble using or understanding the software, and whether or not there were resources to help them understand what was wrong. Usability and support are certainly important characteristics, but describing it as "security" is a gross misnomer.
The security ratings for the circumvention tools don't appear to heavily weight crucial elements of the design of the circumvention software system as a whole—in particular, whether or not the operators of the circumvention software have tracking or data collection capabilities over users of the software, and whether or not the source code of the tool has been made available for analysis.3 One baseline factor in evaluating the security of a piece of software is whether or not the widest possible community of knowledgable technologists has had the opportunity to identify defects, from design and architecture, down to the code itself. From a computer security perspective, most (if not all) software has exploitable flaws—taking advantage of those flaws to disrupt or control a piece of technology is more or less a matter of time and resources. And so there's a general understanding that any tool whose source code hasn't been made widely available doesn't have the benefit of having allowed broad research into the ways that it could be exploited, making claims of security essentially impossible to validate.
The report features a decision-making flowchart, where the resulting recommendation of software rests upon whether or not users are seeking to receive information or upload information; and also whether or not they're interested in speed or security. But without sufficient context—details buried in the written descriptions about software—users are being encouraged to conduct a risk assessment without the broad range of knowledge that may be necessary to make a truly improved decision about which circumvention software to use, and how to use it.
A second goal is to help "tools developers to learn how their tools are perceived by the users in these countries, and what enhancement would be beneficial." In this regard, the report could be beneficial if tools developers take the anecdotal survey findings and seek additional evidence to see if there are patterns that need addressing.
Ultimately, the Leaping Over the Firewall report seems to face a difficult internal contradiction: approaching circumvention tools from a largely non-technical perspective. The blocking of Internet content by governments and the circumvention of those blocks is a deeply technical topic where the adage that "code is law and architecture is policy" are powerfully validated.
However, there is value in attempting to identify and quantify what end users of circumvention software experience, and Freedom House's general finding that users will trade security for operational speed raises a number of vital questions about exactly why that choice is being made. Under what conditions does a user switch from a slow, highly secure channel to a faster, less secure channel? And for activists, when is an appropriate time to make that decision, and when should speed be sacrificed for security? The answer to these questions will help tool developers, activists, and users understand how to continue to have free expression on the Internet even and especially when faced with censorship.
Leaping Over the Firewall blends a non-technical survey method with some lightweight lab testing of circumvention software. This approach is unique, but has some limitations that affect how the report should be read in order to avoid confusion.
What are the report's goals?
The report is about circumvention tools—software used by Internet users to get around blocking and filtering technologies set up by governments. More specifically, the report is a vehicle for two very different sets of information:- the results of non-probability sampled surveys about users of circumvention software, distributed to and collected from users in Azerbaijan, Burma, China, and Iran; and
- the results of lab-based testing of circumvention software.
Freedom House conducted this product review to help internet users in selected internet-restricted environments assess a range of circumvention tools and choose the tools that are best suited to their needs. [...] By providing this assessment, Freedom House seeks to make circumvention tools more accessible in countries where they are needed, thereby countering internet censorship. The evaluation is also useful for tools developers to learn how their tools are perceived by the users in these countries, and what enhancement would be beneficial.
What are the report's limitations?
The survey results are not representative. Note that the survey was only issued to users in four countries, and that those users were not randomly sampled. Understandably, safety and operational considerations limit the ability of researchers to conduct a more robust survey—but it also means that the findings in this report should not be treated as generally applicable. Internet censorship takes place in many countries apart from Iran, China, Azerbaijan, and Burma. China and Iran in particular are understood to have more sophisticated, aggressive Internet censorship operations than other countries. Readers must be careful to avoid over-generalizing the report's results to other countries that practice censorship of the Internet, but differ in userbase, politics, technology understanding, and more.The report isn't about how to communicate securely and safely. Internet filtering and blocking is increasingly combined with Internet surveillance, partly because tools capable of surveilling Internet traffic can help better identify what and how to block and filter. A software tool can provide circumvention but still be well-short of providing any kind of meaningful security against a government. The report does surface the complexity of making security decisions around using the Internet, but the report also makes notable misuses of "security" throughout.
Here is an example of "security" being used irresponsibly:
Tor is software that a user can run to give themselves a relatively strong guarantee of anonymity online.1 Tor's design allows it to work as circumvention software, but its value extends beyond getting access to blocked or filtered information—Tor's design is intended to give its users anonymity by taking measures to defeat network surveillance and traffic analysis.
A reader glossing over the report might see that Tor received 2 stars in security, and make the unfortunate judgment that Tor shouldn't be used on that basis. What this graphic actually means is that Freedom House's survey respondents—on a purely anecdotal, non-random sampled basis—evaluated Tor to present "operational problems" while having fewer technical support resources available.2
Everywhere else in the report, this category of poll question is called "security and support," but for some reason, in the box summary, it's inappropriately reduced to just "security." Looking at the questions, the category referred to as "security" in the boxes actually represents survey respondents' views on usability and support—essentially whether or not users had trouble using or understanding the software, and whether or not there were resources to help them understand what was wrong. Usability and support are certainly important characteristics, but describing it as "security" is a gross misnomer.
The security ratings for the circumvention tools don't appear to heavily weight crucial elements of the design of the circumvention software system as a whole—in particular, whether or not the operators of the circumvention software have tracking or data collection capabilities over users of the software, and whether or not the source code of the tool has been made available for analysis.3 One baseline factor in evaluating the security of a piece of software is whether or not the widest possible community of knowledgable technologists has had the opportunity to identify defects, from design and architecture, down to the code itself. From a computer security perspective, most (if not all) software has exploitable flaws—taking advantage of those flaws to disrupt or control a piece of technology is more or less a matter of time and resources. And so there's a general understanding that any tool whose source code hasn't been made widely available doesn't have the benefit of having allowed broad research into the ways that it could be exploited, making claims of security essentially impossible to validate.
The report features a decision-making flowchart, where the resulting recommendation of software rests upon whether or not users are seeking to receive information or upload information; and also whether or not they're interested in speed or security. But without sufficient context—details buried in the written descriptions about software—users are being encouraged to conduct a risk assessment without the broad range of knowledge that may be necessary to make a truly improved decision about which circumvention software to use, and how to use it.
What are the essential take-aways?
Does the report deliver on its stated goals? As far as helping users assess a range of circumvention tools, the report's writeups about circumvention software projects do include valuable contextual details—such as that a software project is not openly documented or described, or that the operator of the software is able to log what its users are accessing. But the reductive star ratings and the conflation of survey content with lab research content throughout cast doubt on how beneficial this report will be to end users who don't read the report in its entirety, with an eye for the few caveats that establish the report's limitations.A second goal is to help "tools developers to learn how their tools are perceived by the users in these countries, and what enhancement would be beneficial." In this regard, the report could be beneficial if tools developers take the anecdotal survey findings and seek additional evidence to see if there are patterns that need addressing.
Ultimately, the Leaping Over the Firewall report seems to face a difficult internal contradiction: approaching circumvention tools from a largely non-technical perspective. The blocking of Internet content by governments and the circumvention of those blocks is a deeply technical topic where the adage that "code is law and architecture is policy" are powerfully validated.
However, there is value in attempting to identify and quantify what end users of circumvention software experience, and Freedom House's general finding that users will trade security for operational speed raises a number of vital questions about exactly why that choice is being made. Under what conditions does a user switch from a slow, highly secure channel to a faster, less secure channel? And for activists, when is an appropriate time to make that decision, and when should speed be sacrificed for security? The answer to these questions will help tool developers, activists, and users understand how to continue to have free expression on the Internet even and especially when faced with censorship.
- 1. EFF sponsored Tor early in its development because of its explicit, sophisticated focus on Internet anonymity, which EFF considers to be central to free expression.
- 2. The poll questions chosen by Freedom House leading to the "Security" star rating were:
- Problems: How often have you encountered operational problems using the abovementioned tools?
- Solutions: When you have encountered a problem, how easy was it for you to obtain help?
- Support Validity: How frequently does the help you find come directly from the tool’s developers or the tool’s network?
- 3. The technical testing methodology has a section for "logging practises," but is not clear how this detail was represented in the relatively non-granular star rating.
John Zorn - Branded to Kill
Flipping around the channels of late-night TV in my Tokyo apartment in 1984 I came across what seemed like a B movie from the ’60s. The studio: Nikkatsu. The star: Joe Shishido. The director: Seijun Suzuki. I was not at all prepared for what I was about to see, and I remember spending much of the following hour or so riveted to the screen with my mouth open. That night changed my life and set me on a journey to explore the darker side of a culture known predominantly for its classical beauty.
What I discovered were entire genres of popular films that had never been seen outside of Japan. Hard-Boiled Noir, Nikkatsu Action, Toei Pink, Roman Porno. Far from the highly respected award-winning films on the international film circuit, these were the popular low-budget B pictures that the public thrived on. This, then, was the world of gossip columns, fan magazines, and superstars who graced the walls of Yakitori shops, nomiya (bars), and family-run businesses. This was the life and blood of Japan, neatly hidden from foreign eyes who, it was assumed, would not understand what the attraction was in the first place.
In the postwar ’50s and ’60s, Japan had its own version of the Hollywood star and studio system. Names like Tetsuya Watari, Mie Kitahara, and Akira Kobayashi may be largely unheard of in the west, but in Japan they are as famous as Bogart, Monroe, and Brando. Countless directors flourished in the studios of Daiei, Toei, and Nikkatsu as directors for hire—auteurs in their own right. By comparison, Kurosawa’s work is considered more “Western.” Here we are looking at a whole new aesthetic, where plot and narrative devices take a back seat to mood, music, and the sensuality of visual images. Character development is often distilled into moments. There is a quality of timelessness—The Floating World translated to the scope screen.
Of all the B studio directors, the one who perhaps most deservedly has earned the title auteur is Seijun Suzuki. Of the forty-two films Suzuki made for Nikkatsu, the final fourteen films he made between 1963 and 1967 are some of the most important, original, and Japanese films of all cinema, and of all his disturbing masterpieces, none is as powerful or unique as Branded to Kill. Each time I see it I discover something new—it’s like seeing it for the first time.
Astonishing. Exhilarating. Inspiring.
Nobody utilized Cinemascope like the Japanese (its similarity in shape to the Kabuki stage is suggested as a possible reason) and the use of the scope screen reached extravagantly delirious heights in the hands of master cinematographers like Mine Shigeyoshi and Nagatsuka Kazue, and directors like Seijun Suzuki. In Branded to Kill and Tokyo Drifter (Tokyo Nagaremono), each shot is a masterpiece of Japanese design. These traditions go back centuries, but on the scope screen they hit us afresh and right where we live.
Born in 1923 during the short-lived and quirky Taisho period in Japan, Suzuki inherited a powerful appetite for Haikara (modern style) that was tempered by his experiences in World War II. As the member of a meteorological unit, he was twice shipwrecked in the Philippines and Taiwan, and bore witness to atrocities we can only imagine. His nihilistic philosophy is quite apparent in this work—“Making things is not what counts: the power that destroys them is”—as a kind of playful irreverence that echoes the French New Wave that influenced Suzuki and his contemporaries.
Seijun Suzuki’s Branded to Kill is a cinematic masterpiece that transcends its genre. It is about as close to traditional Yakuza pictures as Godard’s Alphaville is to science fiction. Suzuki paid a price for his brilliance, however. Fired for “incomprehensibility” after making Branded to Kill, he was unable to work in film for ten years. This film is his seminal work; a genre film from a major Japanese studio by a team of creative geniuses who made no compromises. But here the genre is merely a point of departure.
Branded To Kill
@'Criterion'
(Thanx SJX!)
What I discovered were entire genres of popular films that had never been seen outside of Japan. Hard-Boiled Noir, Nikkatsu Action, Toei Pink, Roman Porno. Far from the highly respected award-winning films on the international film circuit, these were the popular low-budget B pictures that the public thrived on. This, then, was the world of gossip columns, fan magazines, and superstars who graced the walls of Yakitori shops, nomiya (bars), and family-run businesses. This was the life and blood of Japan, neatly hidden from foreign eyes who, it was assumed, would not understand what the attraction was in the first place.
In the postwar ’50s and ’60s, Japan had its own version of the Hollywood star and studio system. Names like Tetsuya Watari, Mie Kitahara, and Akira Kobayashi may be largely unheard of in the west, but in Japan they are as famous as Bogart, Monroe, and Brando. Countless directors flourished in the studios of Daiei, Toei, and Nikkatsu as directors for hire—auteurs in their own right. By comparison, Kurosawa’s work is considered more “Western.” Here we are looking at a whole new aesthetic, where plot and narrative devices take a back seat to mood, music, and the sensuality of visual images. Character development is often distilled into moments. There is a quality of timelessness—The Floating World translated to the scope screen.
Of all the B studio directors, the one who perhaps most deservedly has earned the title auteur is Seijun Suzuki. Of the forty-two films Suzuki made for Nikkatsu, the final fourteen films he made between 1963 and 1967 are some of the most important, original, and Japanese films of all cinema, and of all his disturbing masterpieces, none is as powerful or unique as Branded to Kill. Each time I see it I discover something new—it’s like seeing it for the first time.
Astonishing. Exhilarating. Inspiring.
Nobody utilized Cinemascope like the Japanese (its similarity in shape to the Kabuki stage is suggested as a possible reason) and the use of the scope screen reached extravagantly delirious heights in the hands of master cinematographers like Mine Shigeyoshi and Nagatsuka Kazue, and directors like Seijun Suzuki. In Branded to Kill and Tokyo Drifter (Tokyo Nagaremono), each shot is a masterpiece of Japanese design. These traditions go back centuries, but on the scope screen they hit us afresh and right where we live.
Born in 1923 during the short-lived and quirky Taisho period in Japan, Suzuki inherited a powerful appetite for Haikara (modern style) that was tempered by his experiences in World War II. As the member of a meteorological unit, he was twice shipwrecked in the Philippines and Taiwan, and bore witness to atrocities we can only imagine. His nihilistic philosophy is quite apparent in this work—“Making things is not what counts: the power that destroys them is”—as a kind of playful irreverence that echoes the French New Wave that influenced Suzuki and his contemporaries.
Seijun Suzuki’s Branded to Kill is a cinematic masterpiece that transcends its genre. It is about as close to traditional Yakuza pictures as Godard’s Alphaville is to science fiction. Suzuki paid a price for his brilliance, however. Fired for “incomprehensibility” after making Branded to Kill, he was unable to work in film for ten years. This film is his seminal work; a genre film from a major Japanese studio by a team of creative geniuses who made no compromises. But here the genre is merely a point of departure.
Branded To Kill
@'Criterion'
(Thanx SJX!)
Henry Rollins on WikiLeaks
Henry: If WikiLeaks is treason, then so was the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame [VP Dick Cheney called her and her husband "Fair Game" after they proved and announced to the media that Bush was lying about Saddam Hussein's WMD's] and let’s get everyone into court and get it going. If America has so many things that we are not supposed to know about, perhaps it’s time to change the way we do things. The way America conducts itself at this point only seems to lead to new conflicts. If America didn’t go to Iraq, there would be no deficit. Since the American media has been bought and paid for, some people need alternate sources to get their information.
I don’t go to CNN for news like I don’t go to a Burger King for a meal.
Max: In a time when many American's are wanting more transparency in government and to get their voices heard, what do you see as the most honorable and expedient way to get the government to listen to the will of the people?
Henry: Campaign finance reform would help. Thanks to the Citizens United case, politicians can be wholly own by corporations and really don’t have to listen to the people. If the government really listened to the people, do you think we would be in Iraq now? Do you think we would have the healthcare system we do? I think for at least the last three decades, politicians have been distancing themselves from the citizens they serve. I don’t know if that will change in our life time. I think both the left and right are part of the problem.
Toth: Aside from Campaign finance reform, how can the US public get our government to realize the importance of transparency?
Henry: I don't think it can. I think that big business, multi-national corps. have had every administration's ear from at least post-FDR to now. At the end of the day, your vote is somewhat meaningless, rioting is useless, destruction is pointless. When the SCOTUS gave corporations First Amendment rights, the writing that has been on the wall for years was set in neon. I think what needs to happen is more things like wikileaks. The curtain that protects the wizard has to be assaulted. You might not like what you get but in the end, I think we will all be the better for it.
Toth: In your opinion, what is the best means of networking for like-minded people who want change?
Henry: Internet, twitter, things like that. They are cheap, hard to stop and easy to start.
Toth: Do you boycott certain businesses, if so which ones?
Henry: I don't eat at fast food places. I don't base any opinion I have on things I learned on any network news outlets, even if it turns out to be true. I have to cross reference the information. Past that, I rely on myself to make the right decision at the time. I don't have kind of list though.
Toth: For all the rumors about "secret societies" do you believe that most of the major decisions are made by "shadow governments" and if so, how do the People out them?
Henry: I think business runs the world. Always follow the money. From all that hearts and minds crap in any country the America is "spreading Democracy" in to anywhere else. Dig down into the ground. If there's oil there, chances are, that country needs some Democracy and we're the country to drone strike them into freedom.
Toth: Do you think WikiLeaks as a whistle blower outlet and activist for "free press" is a good idea? Why?
Henry: Ultimately, yes. The America has to change its policy. It won't unless it's outed. Why should it? Corps in the America loved Mubarak, he bought their shit with your tax dollars. Great deal. Transparency means transparency. Ripples in the water upset those who are used to navigating in placidity. That is to say, there will be some lawyers involved.
Full Interview
Via
abumuqawama Andrew Exum
When GOP candidates whip up fury about Obama and Israel, their primary audience is not Jewish voters but Evangelical Christians
When GOP candidates whip up fury about Obama and Israel, their primary audience is not Jewish voters but Evangelical Christians
Internet Freedom
A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age
By Richard Fontaine and Will Rogers
(PDF)
A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age
By Richard Fontaine and Will Rogers
(PDF)
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Fake security software catches out Apple owners
Hundreds of people who installed the software have turned to Apple's forums for help to remove it.
The program's tactic of peppering screens with pornographic pictures has made many keen to get rid of it.
MACDefender seems to have been successful because of the work its creators did to make it appear high up in search results.
The number of people seeking help was uncovered by ZDNet journalist Ed Bott. In a blog post, he wrote about finding more than 200 separate discussions on Apple's official forums about MACDefender.
The volume of reports about the problem was "exceptional" in his experience, he said.
The fake Mac anti-virus software, which goes by the name of both MACDefender and Mac Security, began circulating in early May and has steadily racked up victims.
Such programs, often called scareware, urge people to install software that then pretends to scan a machine for security problems. It then fabricates a list of threats it has found and asks for cash before it will fix these non-existent problems.
Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, said the scareware's creators had turned to search engines to get the program in front of potential victims by linking it with innocuous phrases such as "Mother's Day".
"You search for something on Google Images, and when you click on an image you are taken to a webpage which serves up the attack - regardless of whether you are running Mac OS X or Windows," he said.
One trick the software uses to make people cough up cash quicker was to fire up the browser of unattended machines and call up one of several different pornographic websites.
Mr Cluley said the vast majority of malware that Sophos and other security firms see is aimed at Windows users. About 100,000 novel malicious programs for Windows are detected every day, he said.
"Although there is much less malware in existence for Mac OS X than there is for Windows, that's no reason to put your head in the sand and think that there are no Mac threats out there," he said.
@'BBC'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
