Rendering on Music №1

The article published on the website www.npr.org on April 9, 2013 is headlined “Brad Paisley's 'Accidental Racist' And The History Of White Southern Musical Identity”. The article reports at length that the history of 'Accidental Racist' is the history of how white Southern musicians — heatedly, implicitly, at times self-servingly and not always successfully — try to talk about who they are in answer to what others dismissively assume they are. 

It’s an open secret that Brad Paisley is a sly country singer, a slick electric guitarist and a sometimes repentant West Virginian. Moreover, Paisley is SaveFrom.net right now, having been declared a national laughingstock by virtually all commentators coming from outside mainstream country. But then, this condescending dismissal was nothing new. 

Analyzing the situation, it is necessary to note that while the Jim Crow South was Anglo supremacist politically, American culture offered a very different dynamic. Ever since white Northerners started putting out their records, Southern whites have represented a backward rural mindset in a national culture of jazzy modernity. Black Southerners, by contrast, were jazz itself: urbanely looking forward, the cradle of hot rhythm.

There is a lot of comment on the fact that if anything promised to bury the backward white South issue, it was rockabilly (i.e., hillbilly rock), that signature 1950s moment when Sun Records in Memphis offered, and combining traditionalism, regional enterprise, crossover and a rebel yell in a whole lot of shaking. For young white Southerners, this was a vision of redemption. What is more, rock 'n' roll became Woodstock rock, as the South became the bloody ground of civil rights and Alabama Gov. George Wallace's credible presidential bids in 1968 and 1972 revealed the extent of white embattlement, the cultural image of the white South returned to bottom — Okies from Muskogee standing by their man. That’s why white Southerners faced the same old choices in new times. They could embrace black music and contemporary life and cross over, like former Texan Janis Joplin.

The article draws the conclusion that Paisley is a complicated figure in country music. He's an avid traditionalist, inducted into the Grand Ole Opry very early in his career after he'd volunteered to play it 36 times, seemingly every free weekend, "because, to me, that recharges me."

Film Review №3

Argo

Genres Drama Thriller
Running Time 120 min
MPAA rating R
Release Date Aug 31, 2012

Starring

Ben Affleck - Tony Mendez
Bryan Cranston - Jack O'Donnell
Alan Arkin - Lester Siegel
John Goodman - John Chambers
Victor Garber - Ken Taylor
Tate Donovan - Bob Anders
Clea DuVall -Cora Lijek
Scoot McNairy - Joe Stafford
Rory Cochrane - Lee Schatz
Christopher Denham - Mark Lijek

Plot

On Nov. 4, 1979, militants storm the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran, taking 66 American hostages. Amid the chaos, six Americans manage to slip away and find refuge with the Canadian ambassador. Knowing that it's just a matter of time before the refugees are found and likely executed, the U.S. government calls on extractor Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) to rescue them. Mendez's plan is to pose as a Hollywood producer scouting locations in Iran and train the refugees to act as his "film" crew.

Review

I enjoyed 'Argo', and perhaps the most gripping part of the film is the opening, as the US embassy is about to be taken over by fanatical 'students' and supporters of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who just returned to Iran as a result of the 1979 revolution. Ben Affleck does a great job in chronicling how US embassy staff members went about shredding classified documents, minutes before the embassy compound is taken over by the fanatics. Equally fascinating is the way in which the six US staff members make their escape, as they simply walk out on to the street from an adjoining building, while the crazed Iranians are focusing on attacking the main part of the compound.

As the Argo story develops, with Mendez flying to Iran posing as a Canadian film producer and establishing contact with the Iranian film board, it all seemed quite plausible. And when Mendez takes the six members to a bazaar in the city, where their cover is almost blown when confronted by an angry crowd, that also seemed quite real. But when we finally arrive at the crucial scene, where the six must get past an Iranian ticket taker at the airport, without any proof that they actually came into the country, I wondered if that happened the way it's depicted in the film. It turns out that in reality, the Canadian ambassador's wife purchased three separate sets of tickets on three different airlines for the six embassy staff members.

Finally, perhaps the most suspenseful part of the film, the confrontation with the Revolutionary guards at the departure gate, the call to Hollywood to confirm Mendez's cover and big chase out on the runway—none of that ever happened.

I was most impressed by the casting choices for the six embassy staff members. The ID cards of the actual escapees are shown during the closing credits, juxtaposed with the actors playing them. Take a look at the resemblance between the real and the fictional characters. It's uncanny!

Rendering on Cinema №3

The article published on the website http://www.latimes.com on February 25, 2013 is headlined “FULL COVERAGE: Oscars 2013 | Winners”.  "Argo," which became the first movie to win best picture without its director being nominated since 1989's "Driving Miss Daisy," collected two other Academy Awards, for editing and adapted screenplay. Moreover,  "Argo" — in which a Hollywood producer and makeup artist help engineer the rescue of six Americans from Iran — won the top prize at the 85th Academy Awards, one year after the silent film story "The Artist" took the best picture Oscar. But it was not the evening's most recognized film: That honor went to Ang Lee's "Life of Pi," which won four Oscars — for directing, visual effects, cinematography and score.

It’s an open secret that Lee’s movie came into the evening with 11 nominations, one behind Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln." The film about the 16th president helped Daniel Day-Lewis make movie history, as he became the only man to ever win three lead actor statuettes. "Lincoln" won one other prize, for production design.

Analyzing the situation, it is necessary to note that the song-and-dance heavy ceremony, hosted by Seth MacFarlane, hewed closely to a traditional awards show script, but there were several surprises. First Lady Michelle Obama, who joined the ABC telecast from the White House, announced "Argo" as the best picture. And the ceremony featured only the sixth tie in Oscar history and the first since 1994, with the sound editing award split between "Zero Dark Thirty" and "Skyfall." For the first time in Oscar history, six best picture nominees were $100-million blockbusters.

There is a lot of comment on how the ceremony was billed as a tribute to music in film, and boasted a number of extravagant musical numbers — including a medley of songs from movie musicals and an appearance by Barbra Streisand, who sang "The Way We Were." 

The article draws the conclusion that some of the evening's wins were bittersweet. For example, Rhythm & Hues Studios, the company behind "Life of Pi's" visual effects win, recently filed for bankruptcy and laid off hundreds of its employees. As Oscar winner Bill Westenhofer addressed the situation in his acceptance speech, he ran over time and the theme from "Jaws" began to play him off the stage. His microphone was cut off just as he said the words "I urge you all…"

Personally, I only can say that the results of any Oscar are almost always unexpectable, and this ceremony wasn't an exception.  My own  guesses didn't prove to be true, but that's all right.

Rendering on Cinema №2

The article published on the website telegraph.co.uk on April 2, 2013 is headlined “Martin Scorsese: Teach visual literacy”.  The article reports at length that film director Martin Scorsese delivered keynote Jefferson humanities lecture and appealled for children to learn 'visual literacy' and for film heritage to be protected. Film director Martin Scorsese has made an impassioned plea for young people to embrace the rich cinema heritage of America before it disappears.

It’s an open secret that the 70-year-old Oscar-winning director of films such as Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver was delivering the annual Jefferson humanities lecture at the John F. Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts in Washington. 

Analyzing the situation, it is necessary to note that Scorsese had been the first filmmaker to deliver the Jefferson address since it was launched in 1972 (writers Tom Wolfe, Arthur Miller and Robert Penn Warren have been previous guest speakers) and he called for "visual literacy" to be taught in schools, as he cited a reference to Plato's Phaedrus. Moreover, Scorsese's lecture incorporated a wide variety of movie clips to illustrate the four factors he regards as crucial to film — light ("something at the beginning of cinema"), movement, time and inference. 

There is a lot of comment on how Scorsese argued that to fully comprehend the language of moving images, it was essential to "preserve everything" from blockbusters to home movies, by way of films which may not look like works of art on first showing. To prove his point, Scorsese screened a clip from Vertigo — regarded now as a work of brilliance but dismissed by many at the time of its release in 1958 as just another crowd-pleasing Alfred Hitchcock thriller.

In resolute terms, the author of the article gives details that according to Scorsese, people need to take pride in their cinema, a great American art form and to treat every last moving image as reverently and respectfully as the oldest book in the Library of Congress.

The article draws the conclusion that when it comes to preserving films there is a danger in an era when a film's success is defined by its box-office takings, a standard which "culturally trivialises film". 

As for me, I absolutely agree with Scoesese that we should be proud of our poets and writers, should be proud of film manufacturing, because it’s our own unique history.

Rendering on Cinema №1

The article published on the website www.guardian.co.uk  on March 23, 2013 is headlined “Film student in UK at heart of Greek neo-Nazi storm”. The article reports at length that a British-based film school graduate who filmed rightwing extremists making inflammatory speeches had found himself at the centre of a political storm in his native Greece after his footage prompted the first official investigation into the neo-Nazi group Golden Dawn.

It’s an open secret that in the runup to last year's general election, Konstantinos Georgousis followed members of Golden Dawn, which was on its way from relative obscurity to winning support at a national level for the first time. As a result, the party won 7% of the vote and 18 seats in parliament.

Analyzing the situation, it is necessary to note that since then support for the party doubled amid a crippling austerity regime and rising unemployment rates, which have seen a third of Greeks fall below the poverty line.

There is a lot of comment on how excerpts from the documentary were broadcast on Greek TV, and the footage was considered so incriminating that the country's criminal prosecutor had launched an investigation. The group's membership was said to have doubled in the past year as many working Greeks had seen their standard of living plummet. 

In resolute terms, the author of the article gives details that the party condemned all acts of violence. The group had put a statement on its website claiming that the documentary was illegally filmed with a hidden camera, and that in fact its members were "joking".

The article draws the conclusion that Golden Dawn members featured in ‘Cleaners” were also fully aware of the fact that Konstantinos Georgousis was a student at the National Film and Television School in England, and that film footage of their electoral campaign would be edited and submitted as his graduation film. The NFTS fully endorses the authenticity of the footage and the fairness of the final film."

As for me, I think that Greek is a bit over-proud by its ancient and contemporary culture and unfortunately now cinema is not something worth as it was earlier.

Film Review №2. Shakespeare in Love

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

 

Movie Info 

Shakespeare in Love Cast

Gwyneth Paltrow			-	Viola De Lesseps
Joseph Fiennes			-	William Shakespeare
Geoffrey Rush			-	Philip Henslowe
Judi Dench			-	Queen Elizabeth
Ben Affleck			-	Ned Alleyn
Colin Firth			-	Lord Wessex
Rupert Everett			-	Christopher Marlowe

 

 

Shakespeare in Love Movie Basics

 

Year of Release: 1998
Running Time: 2 hrs. 02 min.
MPAA Rating: R
Director: John Madden
Screenwriter: Marc Norman and Tom Stopppard
Producers: Donna Gigliotti, David Parfitt and Harvey Weinstein
Studio: Miramax Pictures 

Synopsis

Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) owes a play to cash-strapped theater owner Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush). He has writer's block. He meets his muse in young Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) and is inspired to write Romeo and Juliet. That's the basic premise of this charming and clever romantic comedy set in 16th century England.

Review

"Shakespeare in love" takes place in the 1500's and tells the story about a young play writer named William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) who's out of ideas, but then he falls in love with a girl named Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow) and she inspires him to write the famous play "Romeo and Juliet"
 Have you ever thought of a well known story in terms of some novelties? So to say, can the content of a movie still leave a contemporary viewer breathless? Indeed, in our age of consumption and shallow effects, it seems that true commitment to the essence of what art is supposed to be is faded. We rarely encounter any freshness in such themes like love and romance, the themes well known in cinema but frequently considered as 'prefabricated,' and, consequently, distorted, deprived of their essential vitality. A very justifiable question arises: are there still films that can really move us? If there are some, is "Shakespeare in Love" one of them?

At first, it seems that the content of this movie is rather common and predictable. It shows, in a fictitious manner, the inspiration that Shakespeare might have had during writing one of his timeless love dramas. The suggestion goes on logically as the movie calls our attention to the creative experience of love that touches the mind and heart of the playwright to write one of the most beautiful love stories, "Romeo and Juliet". That is the crucial link between this movie and the great masterpiece since Shakespeare is showed as the one who goes through similar love that Romeo did go through.

Except for the main characters, we have a wide range of different people, different personalities: the proud, the rich, the noble, the poor, the curious, the wretched; finally, the gentle and creative. Witty scenes with curious and over-caring Nurse (Imelda Staunton) who sits at the door the whole night outside the room where Will and Viola are making love are hilarious. The character of proud and rich Lord Wessex is memorably portrayed by Colin Firth who stresses one of the key poisons of human pride: selfishness. The character of John Webster (Joe Roberts) is interesting, too: it calls our attention to the young boy, partly lost in the world's glamor, who finds his entire interest and enthusiasm in brutality. The supporting cast are also very good and in no way shadowed.
As for me, "Shakespeare in Love" may be considered one of the movies that still move us. The sumptuous costumes, the gorgeous sets and scenery, the excellent script, the vibrant direction, and the fantastic musical score and you have a film with absolutely no flaws whatsoever!