سینما، ادبیات، مطالعات فرهنگی و ...
Azerbaijan’s Copyright Agency to protest Googoosh
Azerbaijan’s Copyright Agency commented on introducing Azerbaijani song “Gedek uzu kuleye” by Iranian singer Googoosh as an Armenian song. Head of the agency’s legal department Khudayat Hasanli told APA the Iranian singer of Azerbaijani ancestry Googoosh sang the song “Gedek uzu kuleye” in Armenian language.
The song was posted on YouTube. “This song was composed by Azerbaijani composer Elza Ibrahimova and lyrics were written by Azerbaijani poet Aliagha Kurchayli. It was a popular song from Azerbaijani popular singer Shovkat Alekperova’s repertoire. It was performed by another popular singer of Azerbaijan Gulagha Mammadov too. The question is that if you sing this song in another language, you have to show its authors and which culture it belongs. Unfortunately, while performing this song, Googoosh didn’t inform that this song was composed by Azerbaijanis. This is a violation of copyright law”.
Hasanli said if the work is translated, it should be authorized by its authors. “In this case, this principle was also violated. Googoosh doesn’t live in Iran. All countries, except Iran, joined the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The convention should be seriously observed in the territory of these countries. Now we are specifying the singer’s contacts. While performing this song, Googoosh violated this principle of the international convention too. We, as the governmental organization, are strongly condemning this action. Copyright of the two authors were violated. We will send letters of protest to administrations of YouTube and other sites spreading this song, which was performed in 2010 and spread only now. We are identifying now where Googoosh performed this song for the first time. When we identify her address we will send a letter of protest to her too.
نوشته شده توسط علی بیدار در چهارشنبه 91/6/8 و ساعت 1:19 عصر | نظرات دیگران()What has Michael Moore — and digital technology — wrought?
Now anyone with a political agenda and low-cost digital camera can make a movie and call it a documentary. Even enterprises that at best are vanity projects and at worst badly disguised and overly long attack ads are taken seriously by audiences — and box-office observers.
That is precisely the shape of things in "2016: Obama"s America," which promises to demystify the president — "Love him, hate him, now you know him" is one of its tag lines — but does more to illuminate its filmmaker, Dinesh D"Souza, and his ego instead.
The conservative author, who wrote and directed the film with John Sullivan, draws liberally from his book "The Roots of Obama"s Rage." The book, in turn, draws on the author"s life — how he left his native India to study in America and how those disparate experiences shaped his political point of view. The film, released in late July, went from a handful of theaters to wide release with more than $6.2 million in ticket sales over the weekend, the better to ride the GOP convention coattails in Tampa, Fla., this week.
Since "2016" is unlikely to be the last DIY polemic we will see in the coming years, the question becomes: How does it measure up as a film? Where is the line between documentary and propaganda? How are moviegoers — or campaign-spending watchdogs for that matter — to separate veracity from vanity?
What is certain is that "2016" is already a commercial success. In a world where $14 million puts you into the top five moneymakers of all time among political documentaries, its $9.1 million puts "2016" within striking distance. That is a long way from Moore"s No. 1-ranked "Fahrenheit 9/11," which topped $119 million but a success nonetheless.
It is worth noting that documentaries don"t necessarily promise pure objectivity. Moore, the defining figure in crafting the modern-day political rant, never has. From his first relentless pursuit of General Motors Chief Executive Roger Smith in 1989"s "Roger & Me," the in-your-face filmmaker has been blunt about his intentions. But Moore"s work and the genre itself come with an implicit understanding that whatever truths emerge, they were ultimately forged by the process, not set in stone beforehand.
Indeed, the basic framework of the documentary narrative tends to be one of discovery. The question of what was driving an underfunded, underprivileged South Memphis football team"s success became the spine of "Undefeated," which won the documentary Oscar this year. And the how-and-why dreary details of this country"s financial collapse, as parsed in Charles Ferguson"s "Inside Job," another Oscar winner, made the catastrophe film exciting.
That "2016" was built on a book is one of its fundamental weaknesses, its course determined before the first frame was shot. The film is not after new insight; rather, it"s intent on laying out the arguments of a man who has given the same lecture countless times. That makes for a sluggish film. Even its outrage falls flat.
The film begins with D"Souza, once a political advisor to President Ronald Reagan, drawing parallels between his life and Obama"s — born in the same year, Ivy League degrees earned at the same time, both politically engaged, skin equally dark. While D"Souza"s quiet, scholarly sensibility serves him well on the TV talk-show circuit, a relief from the intense rhetoric that reigns, it works against him on screen. As he sits, legs crossed, addressing the camera like a professor, the film begins to feel like a class you wish you had cut.
The many dramatic reenactments, long controversial in the documentary world, don"t help its cause. There are seven setups involving more than 100 credited actors. The scenarios themselves play like badly scripted sitcoms. Some are like "Dartmouth," an affectionate if silly re-creation of D"Souza"s student days. Others, like "Cowboy Bar," are sheer fantasy. In that scene, which comes as D"Souza outlines his theories on why Obama did not play the race card in his 2008 election bid, a young African American comes into a bar and sits down between two white guys, who immediately push away in disgust. Cut to a few minutes later when the white guys return, all smiles, with a birthday cake in hand for their friend. Not only is the scene poorly acted, it simply doesn"t make sense and raises questions about the logic underpinning the other connections the film is seeking to make.
The core thesis in "2016" is that Obama"s politics come from Third World influences — from his father in Kenya and his early years spent with his mother in Indonesia. There are lengthy explanations of colonialism, which D"Souza supports, versus what he describes as Obama"s preference for an anticolonialist approach, one that would favor the rise of the Third World (or, as D"Souza labels it, the United States of Islam), greatly reduce Israel"s influence and cede the U.S." role as a superpower.
D"Souza goes on to argue that this approach explains everything from healthcare reform to a reduction in the nuclear arsenal. Interviews with interested parties, news footage and excerpts from Obama"s 1995 book "Dreams From My Father," are woven in as well. But mostly it is D"Souza connecting the dots; there are no opposing points of view.
In weighing "2016"s" documentary credentials, one scene that resurfaces many times in the film is instructive. Shot at the grave of Obama"s father, the scene shows a close-up of a hand grasping some dirt and reverently dropping it onto the burial site. The hand is an actor"s, not Obama"s.
The moment is merely another piece of heavy-handed drama conjured up by the filmmakers — nothing more, nothing less.
نوشته شده توسط علی بیدار در دوشنبه 91/6/6 و ساعت 10:38 صبح | نظرات دیگران()
Military Moms Breastfeeding in Uniform Stir Controversy
At a time when breastfeeding in public is already controversial, pictures of two military moms doing so while wearing their uniforms is sparking outrage.
The photo is part of a local breastfeeding awareness campaign by Mom2Mom of Fairchild Air Force Base, a support group launched in January by Crystal Scott, a military spouse and mother of three. Among the intimate close-ups of smiling young mothers cuddling their adorable babies, the images of the two airmen stand out.
Terran Echegoyen-McCabe, a member of the Air National Guard who was photographed in uniform nursing her 10-month-old twin daughters, says that she"s surprised by the reaction to the photos.
"I have breastfed in our lobby, in my car, in the park ... and I pump, usually in the locker room," she told the "Today" show, adding that she usually nurses her babies while on her lunch break during drill weekends. "I"m proud to be wearing a uniform while breast-feeding. I"m proud of the photo and I hope it encourages other women to know they can breastfeed whether they"re active duty, guard or civilian."
All of the women in the photos volunteered to appear in the awareness campaign, and Echegoyen-McCabe is featured -- wearing civilian clothing -- in a few of the other candid shots. None of the photos are posed; the women are simply feeding their babies the way they usually do. But even though some of the other photographs are just as revealing, only the ones of Echegoyen-McCabe and her friend Christina Luna in uniform have been criticized.
"The Air Force has never endorsed these photos," the photographer, Brynja Sigurdardottir points out on her website, where she posted several other photos from the Mom2Mom campaign. "These women just happen to be in the Air Force, in their uniform, breastfeeding their babies."
When it comes to talking about breastfeeding in public, comparing it to other bodily functions -- and even sex -- is common, in spite of the fact that breastfeeding is legal and protected while defecating or having sex in public is not. But the fact that two of the moms are shown breastfeeding in public while wearing military uniforms makes the entire controversy more complicated. The Army, for example, didn"t even come up with a combat uniform for women until 2010, so accepting the idea of a uniformed soldier breastfeeding a baby may be especially jarring. And the uniforms themselves come with their own sets of rules.
According to Military Spouse Central, public displays of affection -- even something as innocuous as holding hands -- are not allowed while wearing a military uniform. Also forbidden while in uniform: eating, drinking, or talking on a cell phone while walking, carrying an umbrella that"s not black, and (in some cases) smoking or even chewing gum. While there is no policy that addresses breastfeeding in uniform, Air Force spokesperson Captain Rose Richeson told MSNBC: "Airmen should be mindful of their dress and appearance and present a professional image at all times while in uniform." Military moms who are still breastfeeding are encouraged to pump and bottle-feed their babies while they"re in uniform.
Scott suggests that the issue might have less to do with the uniform and more to do with our own internal conflicts. "I think a lot of people think that you can"t be a mom and be a soldier," she says. "This is not something that"s out of norm for them. They breastfeed in uniform all the time -- it"s just not something that"s usually captured on film."
source:http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/military-moms-breastfeeding-uniform-stir-controversey-214500503.html
نوشته شده توسط علی بیدار در پنج شنبه 91/3/11 و ساعت 10:57 صبح | نظرات دیگران()
