Wait just a Minaret

December 1, 2009

The Swiss have got their anti minaret laws passed by a referendum recently. There has been the usual ‘outrage’ in the media. But, I dare say, a similar referendum here in OZ would easily pass in this lucky country. Indeed, some local Sydney councils have blocked or banned mosques here in Australia. Here is Swiss anti Minaret poster that caused some controversy.

Hack is for hacks

November 18, 2009

The Triple J news and current affairs program Hack with Kate O’Toole totally gives me the shits.

Its Auntie’s (the ABC) youth propaganda half hour. The show is constantly presenting ‘youth’ perspectives on ‘hot spot’ issues like: homeless youth, leaving School early, schoolies, internet censorship, crime and punishment, drugs, indigenous rights, etc, etc. And on and on it goes. All presented with same kind of vapid moral viewpoint and sickening condescension.

For example a program a while back on leaving school early, starts with some moron going, “Yeah its fun to leave school early, you can do what you want mate”. Cut expert saying well it might seem like fun experts say people who leave school early end up losers. Cut to intelligent non school leaver saying they won’t leave school. Cut back to moron saying how he is broke and can’t get a job. Moral: Don’t leave school.

Yesterday I posted this on Facebook:

…I hate that show Hack on Triple J with a passion. Every ‘hot spot’ teen and young adult issue Auntie gets to have ‘a reasonable discussion’ on ( i.e Government propaganda), like leaving school early, etc., any PC issue you can think of really. Todays topic: warning mong proles to have kids before their biological clock expires. Hack, I’d like to do some hacking in JJJ’s programming…

Some responses:

Virginia Tachos: i was listening in on this drivel..this line particularly stunned me ” Have a child as early as you can with your boyfriend/partner” or engage in egg freezing …so many “great” options…drive time drivel by Triple J…triple jjj is not edgy , it’s packaged that way ..people who have an ounce of integrity will decipher this and today’s program was plainly offensive to anyone’s intelligence

Trevor Howis: Who’s running JJJ now? Have they cloned Goebbels?

David Jackson: Agreed. It’s a pathetic program with a boring as fuck host (like everything else on JJJ). It reminds me of the 7pm Report or whatever it’s called. Watered down news and issues with Rove-esque graphics and Garage band sounding loops. Current Affair for the new generation.

I then posted this today:

So I listened again today to Hack again (…why, oh, why?)…this time whinging about equal amounts of women in high powered board jobs, and serious talk of implementing quotas. Then New Moon, is it bad for teenage girls as it teaches masochism and violence in relationships. Question from moron host O’Toole: “This sounds serious, should we be closing cinem…as tomorrow?”. OMG!… its Auntie’s equivalent of a lefty student Rush Limbaugh show…Someone please do something to stop this shit house show!

I wait another flood of hate against this moronic news half hour. It is as bad as, if not worse than A Current Affair and Today Tonight, in its poisonous propagation of lame Left wing ideology and status quo thinking…

I hate it so much I am tempted to found a radio, or even TV show, along Transcendental Fascist lines of argument and philosophical discussion to combat its bullshit. More on this later perhaps…

Here is a link to Jake Wilson’s review of MUFF. See here.

Its his usual part hostile approach to it. But, its better than Adrian Martin’s purely hostile approach, I suppose…

He says our Open Letter doesn’t hold water but can’t really say why. His objections are clearly dealt with in the document itself. He also hardly gives us credit for being one of the few people who has the guts to say anything about the state of the OZ film industry. He’s too busy busy sipping latte’s with the likes of Michelle Carey, dullard, MIFF programmer and Senses of Cinema cultural gate keeper.

Here is my Facebook post on the matter currently stirring up debate. Will post some choice responses later…

“Jake Wilson being a semi cunt (again) as he continues in his eternal quest to be Adrian Martin. But, at least he covers the festival and he did program a MUFF section in the past, so he can’t be all bad! Haha. He also attempted to engage with th e Open Letter this year, which was nice, though he dismissed it. Last year’s Manifesto on Ontological cinema had him bamboozled… as he knows zero of Heidegger. Funny that!”

You put Jake Wilson into Google images and you get these two hits. That speaks louder than words…

0607-pjg06tn-500_img_7436


Here is an article sent to me by Kent Morris of the band The Prostitutes. The Prostitutes were am electronic industrial band from Melbourne in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Here is an interview I did with them when I was editor of Beat magazine back in 1990 and 1991.

Prost Beat Article

An ad we ran in Beat…

download

And (just some of…) the debate at Facebook…

Liam Firmager
Liam Firmager

you may as well ban every film from every festival from every nation if you’re going to take issue with the policies of their government.
It defeats the purpose of free speech and articulating different apolitical viewpoints by banning or blacklisting individuals work or festivals themselves simply because their respective governments may or may not have partially financed it. Should Leni Reifenstal’s work be blacklisted because the Third Reich financed her work?Should AFI backed films be blacklisted by international festivals because of our governments stand on various issues?The focus should be on the film itself. I can’t agree with you on this one Richard…but I defend your right to say it.

Richard Wolstencroft

No Liam. I am not trying to ban anything, of course. I am trying to say “No” to funding from Governments like Israel, Iran and China for film festivals, that is all. I support playing films from all countries including Israel or wherever. Its a question of financial support. MIFF should have just offered to pay the 2 to 5 grand? You can get away with funding by states committing current human rights abuses, I suppose. But, as a rule I’m against it according to my own ethics. If called on it, like MIFF was by Loach, why not drop the financial support? That’s the point…Never drop a film, no matter what someone says. I supported the Chinese critical doco 10 Conditions of Love on the Xinjiang district. That was a good MIFF call. The Israel funding is not…


Liam Firmager
Liam Firmager

I respect your personal opinion..I just don’t think you should align yourself to someone like Loach who is an agenda driven hate-filled champagne socialist who is very a la carte in his criticisms of ‘human rights abusers’. I believe it’s all about the ART not the artist or the origins of funding to allow that art to flourish. It’s my opinion festivals should be apolitical…springboards for ideas and fresh viewpoints, and not the arbiters of cultural dialogue. But ..as the saying goes, it’s your ball.. :)

Dave de Vries
Dave de Vries

Hi Liam. Mate you sem to be going off on a tangent. It might be worth re-reading Richard’s ad. As I read it, all Richard is saying is that MUFF doesn’t accept sponsorship from states that commit human rites abuses. Seems like a reasonable position to me.
Richard Wolstencroft
Richard WolstencroftI agree they should be apolitical in the funding department and not receive funds from Governments like Israel, China, etc… hence my point. Your point is they should be politicized by accepting the funding and hence give Loach something to protest…screw your head on, Doofus….
Liam Firmager
Im not going off on a tangent..simply drawing Loach’s position into the debate as it was his protest which triggered it.
I don’t particularly care where the funding comes from..festivals should be APOLITICAL in their subject matter and not arbiters of cultural dialogue which Loach is demanding MIFF become.
Dave de Vries
Dave de Vries

Are you saying it’s okay to accept sponsorship from anyone?
Oh , and yes… covert to Judasim.
Liam Firmager
Liam Firmager

Why is it ‘obvious’ ? I think you either need to say no to ALL state sponsored funding ( an admirable posture)….or you allow it all without prejudice. Drawing distinctions based on your personal perception of ‘human rights abuse’ ( and lets be honest…it’s an opinion and not a fact) means you are politicizing the issue and taking the role as an arbiter.
Some accuse Australia of human rights abuses against our indigenous population and also refugees…does that justify the blacklisting of AFI funded projects?
I just don’t think it’s as black and white as your posture suggests . Your tone suggests you are very much inclined to accept Israel as state sponsored human rights abuser.
I ask you again…if the film in question was funded( or semi-funded) by the USA, Australia, Colombia, Nepal…etc.etc…would you maintain the same posture? A Hypothetical..but a valid one.
Ronnit Sternfein
Ronnit Sternfein

You should convert….you sound like you need a good circumcision ;-p
Richard Wolstencroft

Its not film funding for movies Liam, its Festival funding. A big difference. I don’t care who funded movies, so Leni and the Nazis are tres cool. A festival Director can and should make these decisions as to who funds a festival, based on a case by case basis, and the current world situation. Its part of their job to politicize these issues when conflicts get out of hand (ala Israel and the recent Gaza incursion and the use of phosphorus weapons, etc.) and a stand of solidarity sometimes needs to be made (ala Loach). I think Moore called it wrong, and I stated why… end of story. MUFF likes to criticize MIFF, as we have in the past on many, many different issues. I appreciate your position, but just think you are wrong. Yes, crew, I’d like to convert, how do I go about it? Shalom!

Richard Wolstencroft
Richard Wolstencroft

Already am Ronnit…yes u heard it here first… I’m secretly Jewish . Shh don’t tell anyone…
Liam Firmager
Liam Firmager

So what you are stating is the festival director bases his/her funding criteria acceptance on personal political opinion. Which is NO different to Moore’s current posture.
I can’t see what the problem is as you’re both excercising your rights as festival directors to accept funding based on individual opinion of issues. And in the mean time…film makers are used as political pawns.. this is what sits uncomfortable with me. Now if you were taking a swipe at Miff for their incestuous unimaginative programming then I’d be with you 110% :) I don’t believe I’m wrong…I’m simply seeking clarification.
Ronnit Sternfein
Ronnit Sternfein

pffffft….ill believe it when i see it ;-)
Richard Wolstencroft
Richard Wolstencroft

I do support Israel in general and just find some actions and the current Israeli direction a bit over the top…i.e recent Gaza incursion.
Jacinta Palmer
Jacinta Palmer

Rich I’m afraid I’m edging towards Liam’s side of the debate.

It seems what you’re essentially saying is that a festival director should only accept funding from countries which that festival director personally believes are not guilty of human rights abuses. It’s a completely subjective issue based on personal opinion, and as Liam said, one could easily view our country as being guilty of human rights abuses and would thus be obliged to refuse any Oz government funding. You’ve applied for Oz funding in the past, haven’t you?

Jacinta Palmer
Jacinta Palmer

Having said that, I don’t agree with MIFF’s decision to accept Israeli money. Aside from the human rights abuse issue, accepting money from an outside government raises questionable issues regarding the involvement and/or control this funding gives to that outside government over the running or programming of the festival.

All art is political, absolutely, but it doesn’t mean there are lines that perhaps shouldn’t be crossed.

Dave de Vries
Dave de Vries

You’re right, Jacinta. It’s completely subjective. But then again, all values of principle are. Richard is taking ownership of his beliefs about the human rights records of China and Israel, and acting accordingly. I see no problem with that. And if he chooses to add others to that list down the line, that sits fine with me too. As we judge is how we are judged. But of itself, there’s nothing wrong with acting on subjective personal opinion. As artists, that’s what we do.
Richard Wolstencroft

Thank you Dave, I share your above sentiments. Yes, it is just about getting Israeli financial support for a foreign Film Festival. Israel should obviously fund their own film festivals, and good luck to them. I just feel this way. I run MUFF, we debate MIFF, so I commented. Your welcome to disagree. I do things like this to spark exactly the kind of debate you see here. I find it healthy. I’m not saying you have to agree with me. Disagreement can breed healthy results as long as a mutual respect is shown. But on a lighter note, if there is any Mossad agents out there reading this, a sufficiently generous bribe or an all expenses paid trip to the Holy lands, could well change my mind…hehe again…

Well, I’m ticked off with SUFF (Sydney Underground Film Festival) director Stefan Popescu at present… again!

More, later on all this later…if I can be bothered relating it.

It seems some other people are ticked off as well. Here are two videos from some unknown filmmakers ( ….not me, really!), sending up the two SUFF directors, that someone pointed out to me at You Tube.

The Stefan one, is actually a little like the real person, dare I say it!

The MUFF X trailer

August 12, 2009

Just saw Von Trier’s AntiChrist, probably the greatest film about Misogyny ever made. The women (She) deforms and allows her own kid to fall from an apartment window, then cuts off her own clit after torturing her husband, when he finds out the truth about her psychotic ways. Don’t let film critic wankers over intellectualize this movie, the truth of AntiChrist is staring you right in the face. Von Trier is a deeply subversive reactionary…
Some of the fun chat from my facebook page:

Jacinta Palmer
Jacinta Palmer

Do you mean to say the film itself was misogynistic, or merely addressing misogyny? I didn’t think it was misogynistic at all – Von Trier was playing with the notions of woman as unbound and untameable Nature and man as unmovable Logic and Rational Thought. I thought he missed a few good opportunities along the way though; it came off a little clumsily. If Lynch had directed it…
Jacinta Palmer
Jacinta Palmer

(does the above make me a film critic wanker? haha)
Richard Wolstencroft
Richard Wolstencroft

Well both. He was addressing the topic, but the film itself is misogynistic, I’d say. Of course due to post modernism all kinds of alternative readings are possible and Von Trier knows this completely, which is how he gets away with it…his cruel laughter can be heard behind much of the films last act.
Jacinta Palmer
Jacinta Palmer

Ah, postmodernism. You can get away with anything, it’s true. Best way to shield a prejudice is by overtly stating it and then waiting for someone respected to cry out “irony!”
Richard Wolstencroft
Richard Wolstencroft

Yes, the addiction to critical irony is so passe. What is daring is the reading of misogyny. Its so blunt and to the point. Von Trier has been accused of it before, but I never agreed fully with the criticism, his other films have different core meanings. Here I see it fully. This immoral “I don’t give a fuck” portrait of misogyny is daring. The nature is Evil, women is nature, women is evil equations are present all through the film. The male is a Genesis/Adam like innocent figure, trying to solve the riddle of the female, through psychology, sex and at last force… only to swarmed by faceless women at the end of the film.
Mark Savage
Mark Savage

Sounds fascinating, Mr. Richard.
Mark Savage
Mark Savage

Damn US release isn’t until October. The distribs here really drag their feet with non-US films.
Frank Howson
Frank Howson

Sounds like the crazy women I date.
Jacinta Palmer
Jacinta Palmer

The only thing stopping me from embracing the misogyny reading (which definitely seemed overt in places) is the levels of comedy and farce which seemed to almost dominate the last quarter of the film. I could hear Von Trier laughing, definitely, but I can’t quite put my finger on who he was laughing at.
Mark Savage
Mark Savage

But craziness isn’t gender exclusive.
Richard Wolstencroft
Richard Wolstencroft

Of course, Mark. Misandry is featured in many, many great movies…and for darn good reason! But AntiChrist, when you let it resonate with you, is about women.
Jacinta Palmer
Jacinta Palmer

I’ve only just realised that the symbol for ‘woman’ makes up part of the title.
Richard Wolstencroft
Richard Wolstencroft

Of course. Von Trier hides his meaning in plain sight. Manderlay is all about how when you liberate slaves of all kinds things turn to shit. That’s what Manderlay is about and that is the films meaning. No hidden Deleuzian reading about multiplicity… just bare ontological facticity.
Mark Savage
Mark Savage

Actually, I was just talking about humans in general, not the film. I understand ANTICHRIST is about women. I’m hanging out to see it (have been for quite a while).
Richard Wolstencroft
Richard Wolstencroft

Of course. In general its like my friend Alex Spalck said in his cool song, “I’m Lost Little Girl” from Pankow, “Misanthropes are always right · Misogynists quite often”…words to live by, my friends, words to live by…

Antichrist logo with the symbol for woman:

anticrist

The following is going into the MUFF X catalogue (with maybe minor alterations). We will then be inviting people to sign it online at: muff.com.au and then we will send it to the various Ministers and funding bodies, etc. Thoughts? Suggestions? You have to Sunday night to make them…

An Open Letter on the State of the Australian Film Industry
Drafted by Australian filmmakers, industry practitioners and cinema-lovers

August 1, 2009
As members of the Australian film industry we can no longer sit idly by and watch our nation’s cinema continue to slide into critical and commercial obscurity. The Australian Government’s bureaucratic infrastructure is failing the Australian film industry, and it is unaccountable to anyone for its failure. It invites feedback, but does not listen to it, and thereby proves itself unaccountable. Its lack of response to criticism when change is so obviously needed and should be actioned is symptomatic of this unaccountability. We need new ideas for innovation, rebirth and vitality in the Australian film industry. We need to stand together, and be counted, in support of real change in the local film industry and culture, and to bring new ideas to bear on a system that has been out of control for many years.
We demand change in the Australian film industry. The changes we suggest are canvassed below.
The current, perpetual crisis in Australian film has been well documented by the Australian media. Much coverage has been afforded to the crisis on network television and in the country’s newspapers, most notably in The Age, whose film critic, the courageous Jim Schembri, has tackled the debate head on.  The issue of industry failure has also been covered in alternative/grassroots venues and publications: the Melbourne and Sydney Underground Film Festivals, The Bazura Project on Melbourne’s Channel 31, the world-renowned cinema journal Senses of Cinema, and countless cinema blogs. Two independent documentary projects about the Australian film industry crisis are currently being produced: Into the Shadows and Nothing but the Struth. Last year, Film Victoria even held a summit on the crisis called Mindshift.
Needless to say, we have seen no actionable changes.
The industry crisis has also been the subject of much obloquy in private discussions, not only between filmmakers and industry insiders, but also among members of the general public; those people who, faced with the decision between seeing an American film at the cinema and an Australian one, will doubtless turn to their partner and say: “Better not risk it.” These people want change: they want a dynamic and exciting Australian film industry.
And we, the undersigned, think it is long overdue that we gave it to them.
Australian filmmakers, industry practitioners, cinema-goers, and the mainstream and underground media are all in agreement: there is major problem with our film industry that needs to be addressed at both state and federal levels.
The issues concerning what to do about the continuing failure of the Australian film industry have been hotly debated. From these debates a consensus for action has been forming over time, and its broad outline, and our demand that it be acknowledged and addressed, is the reason we have compiled this document.
We wish to outline twelve steps, like those of Alcoholic’s Anonymous or some other recovery program, to wean Australian filmmakers and the funding bodies off their addiction to unentertaining, uninteresting, unworthy movies.  We insist on change in the Australian film industry: even if only six of these twelve steps were to be actioned, it could well lead to a Renaissance once again in Australian cinema, and not a continued fall from grace out of the world cinema spotlight and increasingly towards critical insignificance.
We make these suggestions humbly, and with the hope that it open channels for real discussion and actioning of these matters, that can follow the tabling and publishing of this document. We wish only to encourage, foster and make possible change in the Australian film industry.
Our demanded agenda for change is as follows:
1.    Genre and Commercial Filmmaking. It is suggested that many, many more genre films be produced in this country; more, indeed, than sensitive, politically correct ‘art-house’ fare that has been force-fed to the public since the end of the 80’s. By genre we mean horror, action, sci-fi, crime, comedy and erotica. We believe that an embrace of genre filmmaking at the higher levels of film financing and government decision-making will see those who work within the Australia film industry embrace ideas of profitability and marketability, especially beyond our shores. We want a national and international cinema of genre that embraces commercial values and has distinct markets in mind for the product.
2.    Accountability. For to long in the Australian film industry the people who make the decisions for the yearly flops and failures are not in any way held accountable for their failures. There exists a professional class who somehow consider themselves beyond the failure or not of our film industry. Given that they purely exist at the behest of our national cinema, this situation should be promptly corrected. The names of board and committee members behind funding decisions should be added to the credits of government-funded films, listed there as either executive producers or, even better, precisely what they are: the persons responsible. That way, massive flops and errors can be publicly traced to their source. Similarly, ongoing reviews of the decision-making standards of the various boards and committees should be initiated. The same accountability should be applied to failed directors and producers who haven’t had a hit since the 80’s.
3.    Supporting the alternative industry. The most popular and successful Australian films are very often those that no one in Australia sees. They are privately funded and tend towards either low-budget Ozploitation filmmaking or difficult experimental, avant-garde and documentary work. These films are confronting, both locally and internationally. A new fund to support such already-established and emerging independent talent is required. It is necessary to reward that which is daring, confrontational and relevant. Rethinking and rebooting Indivision with a much more daring brief, state and federal funding bodies must combine in their efforts to establish a $5 million fund. This fund should make seven to ten $500,000-$1 million features per annum, selected by a regularly rotating board of Ozploitation, industry and genre luminaries. Australia could produce eight to ten new low-budget features yearly, with that number to expand as their commercial success becomes self-evident. The aim? To get new blood into the film industry each year. While not all of these films will work, many will. Not all will have to be Ozploitation. Indeed, some should be avant-garde works and more challenging art films than are currently produced. From The Horseman to The Ister, anything is possible. We must turn work around quickly and cheaply with an ear to being inventive and innovative.
4.    Reward talent and success. Any filmmaker who enjoys a commercial or critical hit should immediately receive funding for their next project, which is to be produced within twelve months. The budget for this second film must be significantly higher. The era of successful filmmakers languishing in development hell for a decade must end.
5.    More money invested in the promotion of Australian films. The establishment of an office within Screen Australia that will promote Australian films both locally and internationally is required.
6.    An end to political correctness and “Australian content” prerequisites and biases in both the industry and in funding bodies.
7.    A celebration of the diversity of techniques available to filmmakers. From low budget guerrilla films to large budget and special effects movies, all film forms musts be celebrated.
8.    A change in industry methodology. There needs to be a cultural shift within the funding bodies that sees them move away from their currently prescriptive role to one of discovery. Instead of imposing upon the industry their own prejudices and biases, both about cinema and otherwise, film finance bureaucrats must learn to search for new ideas, styles, marketing and distribution opportunities; learn to recognise innovation; learn to celebrate diversity by allowing for a slate of pictures than embrace all budgets, genres and approaches.
9.    Getting distributors involved in the process of selection and approval for new productions. This is key and would be greatly assisted by provisions making in necessary to devote part of a film’s budget to be spent on helping to promote Australian cinema more broadly.
Signed
Richard Wolstencroft

and…

Sorry if Idea Fix has been a little spare in recent weeks. Been busy as a lizard drinking putting togerher MUFF 10’s Poster and catalogue and prepping a two week trip early July to Uganda.

Yes, Richard Wolstencroft is going into Africa. And I’m told I will have net access, so stand by for a travel diary here at Idea Fix.

I am shooting a documentary, more on this later, and this will be a unique experience for me. I have had my vac shots, I have got my anti malarials and I’m ready to journey into the heart of the mysterious and at times dangerous continent of Africa. Uganda has always fascinated me since I idealized Idi Amin as a child. Here was a strong black leader standing up to the West. There was something wonderful about that. I found Amin a charismatic and fascinating media presence. I knew nothing of the atrocities until I grew older, but Uganda’s past will hopefully find its way into this new project.

More details on all this later…

Until then a map of Uganda to look at. Former homeland of aforementioned Idi Amin and location for conflict in the past 20 years between the democratic current government of Museveni and The Lords Resistance Army in the North lead by Joseph Kony. We land at Entebbe airport in under two weeks.

I will put MUFF in place before I go… and then away we go! Oh, I will write my directors statement for MUFF X from Uganda, so that’s bound to be a treat…

I welcome any thoughts and advice on travel to Uganda and Africa. Cheers RW

uganda_map