This is a Movie Health Community warning. It is intended to inform people of potential health hazards in movies, and does not reflect the quality of the film itself.
Dunkirk has one scene where a light is going out, and flickers slowly as it does.
There are several scenes of air combat, during which we follow fighter planes through complex maneuvers at extreme heights. There are also extensive scenes on watercraft which will most likely trigger any issues with seasickness. Handheld camera work is also used, but sparingly.
Flashing Lights: 3/10. Motion Sickness: 9/10.
ADDITIONAL NOTE: This is a very immersive and intense war film. Not recommended for anyone with combat-induced PTSD, as there are very loud and sudden gunshots and explosions throughout.
For those of you that don’t know, Net Neutrality is under attack again. So here’s a list of the names of the leading people in the companies that are attacking it. [2/?]
Please note that if anything is wrong with this list as of time of posting (7/12/2017), all of these names were pulled directly from the representative sites themselves. If they are wrong, it is because the companies/organizations themselves have posted them incorrectly.
Lowell C. McAdam Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Martin Burvill Senior Vice President and Group President Verizon Business Markets
Eric Cevis President - Verizon Partner Solutions
Roy H. Chestnutt Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer
Kenneth Dixon Senior Vice President & Group President - Consumer Sales & Service (PFFFFFFTHAHAHAHAHAHAHACUSTOMERSERVICEMYASS)
Ronan Dunne Executive Vice President and Group President of Verizon Wireless
Matthew D. Ellis Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Tami Erwin Executive Vice President - Wireless Operations
George Fischer Senior Vice President and Group President – Verizon Enterprise Solutions
James J. Gerace Chief Communications Officer
Roger Gurnani Executive Vice President and Chief Information and Technology Architect
Marc C. Reed Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
Diego Scotti Executive Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer
Craig Silliman Executive Vice President – Public Policy and General Counsel
David Small Executive Vice President - Wireline Network Operations
John G. Stratton Executive Vice President and President of Customer and Product Operations
Hans Vestberg Executive Vice President and President of Network and Technology
Marni M. Walden Executive Vice President and President-Global Media
Once upon a time, during the early 1980s, Warner Co. was actually considering to sell DC Comics to Marvel Entertainment due to poor comic sales. According to their boss Jim Shooter, seven titles would be relaunched(Superman, Batman Woman Woman, New Teen Titans and others). If that were the reality now, how do you think it would've been like?
Essentially - according to Jim Shooter, Warner Communications president Bill Sarnoff contacted him in 1984 about licencing Marvel the publishing rights to DC’s characters since DC was losing money on the comics while Marvel was dominating the market, and in spite of some resistance from Marvel President Jim Galton (who felt DC’s characters must not have been any good if they weren’t selling), a preliminary business plan was put together. Fortunately or unfortunately Marvel was soon the subject of an anti-trust lawsuit, and it was decided that essentially gobbling up their only real competitor probably wouldn’t be a great look.
What we do know is that Marvel’s plan was to roll out an initial lineup of seven titles - Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Teen Titans, Justice League, and Legion of Super-Heroes - with more to come in the likely event they did well, and that John Byrne had his pitch for Superman on Shooter’s desk complete with an inked cover for the first issue pretty much the moment word started to spread through the company. I have to imagine it would have been treated as a major prestige gig in the earliest days - Byrne on Superman, probably Miller doing Year One a couple years early, Claremont on one of the team books, etc. - but the real question to me is whether or not they would’ve taken the tempting step of trying to smash the universes together.
They’d already done crossovers where the likes of Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, Hulk, Wonder Woman, the X-Men and the Teen Titans interacted with each other without any need for explanations as to how they could wind up in the same place at the same time, and the idea of being able to do that on a regular basis through entirely integrating the DC heroes and eventually getting a proper Justice League of Avengers going would have surely been a tempting prospect, even compared to the simple Earth-One/Earth-Two setup the JLA had already been using to get together with the JSA. There were two problems on this front though:
1. They wouldn’t have known for certain how long they’d have those characters. It was one thing to have Spider-Man meet Optimus Prime that one time, but quite another to make Superman a major part of the landscape with the possibility that they’d eventually have to drag him out of it and never mention him again.
2. Secret Wars was already in production. Prior to that both universes were ill-defined enough that maybe, just maybe, if you stretched and squinted and believed hard enough, you could conceivably make the argument that the DC and Marvel Universes didn’t strictly bar the possibility that they were one and the same, and everyone simply hadn’t had occasion to meet yet. But Secret Wars was based entirely around the idea of getting everybody who was anybody on Earth in one place for a superhero battle royal, and the Justice League weren’t in that assemblage.
Of course, they could have just inserted them into the world as new characters, but given that that’d make Superman Spider-Man’s junior as a crimefighter, I don’t see that happening. Or they might’ve more literally mashed the universes together, given Crisis was already in the planning stages, but that’d have been an awkward-as-hell way of beginning that collaboration, especially since it would be going as far out of the way as possible to incorporate characters Marvel wouldn’t have fully owned. Like everything else about this, there’s no real meaningful predictions to make beyond maybe speculating about some initial creative teams - this would’ve been an unprecedented shift in How Superhero Comics Work Now, and we simply don’t have a frame of reference.
EDIT: It occurs to me that since Alan Moore had already forsworn working with Marvel, this would’ve kicked him out of mainstream comics a couple years early, and between that and there being no reason for him to be inspired to work with Charlton characters, Watchmen never would have happened (or at the very least whatever his masterwork was wouldn’t have had nearly the same chance at reaching a wide audience), changing comics forever even more profoundly than I initially thought. Take that as you will.
1993 Like no other film, Schindler’s List changes Spielberg not only as a director, but also as a person. For the first time, Spielberg confronts his Jewish identity and the Holocaust in one of his films. What Spielberg always feared in the anti-semitic suburbs of his childhood (and beyond) now comes only naturally to him: embracing his Jewish faith.
In his novel Schindler’s Ark, Thomas Keneally tells the story of several Jewish families between 1939 and 1945. They are saved from being murdered in concentration camps by the Sudeten German Oskar Schindler who hires them for “war-critical production” in his Krakow factory. The book is based on interviews with 50 of the 1,200 so-called “Schindler Jews”.
One of them is Leopold “Poldek” Pfefferberg. After the war, he makes it his life’s mission to thank his savior by communicating Schindler’s story to the world. As early as 1963, he tries to produce a biopic, but the project gets cancelled. In 1980, he meets Thomas Keneally and sparks his interest to write a book about Schindler. Spielberg later signs Pfefferberg as a consultant for the location shoot in Poland.
When Keneally’s novel is published in 1982 Universal studio boss Sid Sheinberg purchases the film rights for $500,000, with Steven Spielberg attached as director. However, Spielberg hesitates and nearly passes the project over to colleagues such as Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski and Billy Wilder, before he finally takes it into his own hands (encouraged by Billy Wilder). “I didn’t go to work on it right away because I didn’t know how to do it. The story didn’t have the same shape as the films I have made. […] I needed time to mature within myself and develop my own consciousness about the Holocaust.”
Spielberg’s decision to make the film is triggered by the growing media presence of Holocaust deniers and the rise of the neo-Nazi movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Spielberg waives his fee as a director and any profit sharing.
Screenwriter Steven Zaillian focuses on Oskar Schindler (played by Liam Neeson) and combines several people to create the figure of Schindler’s accountant Itzhak Stern (Ben Kingsley). Spielberg adds more stories of Schindler Jews that he is told. “I wanted the story to be less vertical – less a story of just Oskar Schindler, and more of a horizontal approach, taking in the Holocaust as the raison d'être of the whole project. What I really wanted to see was the relationship between Oskar Schindler – the German point of view – and Itzhak Stern – the Jewish point of view. And I wanted to invoke more of the actual stories of the victims […].”
Spielberg avoids simple explanations for Schindler’s motivation to help the Jews, and put at risk his business and his life. He portrays Schindler in an ambigious constellation similar to Faust & Mephistopheles: torn between the life of luxury and liquidation, represented by camp commandant Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes), and his human conscience, represented by Itzhak Stern. His accountant eventually helps him to set up the titular list of persons that Schindler signs to work in his factory. Spielberg lets Itzhak Stern speak the famous phrases from the novel that are missing in Zaillian’s screenplay: “This list… is an absolute good. The list is life. All around its cramped margins lies the gulf.“
For the first time, Spielberg works with the Polish-born cinematographer Janusz Kamiński (and continues to do so in all his movies to this date). The two of them develop a cinematic language that has little in common with the techniques of Spielberg’s previous films and instead follows a documentary approach. To emphasize the authenticity of events, large parts of the film are shot with a handheld camera. Spielberg feels “like more of a journalist than a director of this movie. I feel like I’m reporting more than creating. […] I’m sort of interpreting history, trying to find a way of communicating that history to people, but I’m not really using the strengths that I usually use to entertain people.” „The authenticity of the story was too important to fall back on the commercial techniques that had gotten me a certain reputation in the area of craft and polish.“
Spielberg insists to shoot the film in black and white and categorically rejects advances by the studio to shoot the film on color negative (for a potential release of a color version). “The Holocaust was life without light. For me the symbol of life is color. That’s why a film about the Holocaust has to be black-and-white.“ In front of the black and white ghetto scenes, Spielberg can effectively employ his concept of the girl in a red coat: here, it is a symbol for life, but shortly after, Schindler and the audience discover the girl on a pile of corpses. The girl is a cipher, representing approximately 6 million murdered Jews.
Unlike Jurassic Park, the film he has finished just three months before, Spielberg directs Schindler’s List spontaneously – like in a fever – and abstains from using storyboards, creating up to 40 shots per day (the film wraps 4 days ahead of schedule). Some ideas emerge only a few hours before the shooting or on the film set. Amidst principal photography, Spielberg conceives a new epilogue in which we see the actual survivors together with their performers – building a bridge between past and present, reality and film.
Before the credits roll, Spielberg dedicates his film to Steve Ross. The philanthropist and CEO of Warner Communications has inspired Spielberg during the development of the film character Oskar Schindler: “Steve Ross gave me more insights into Schindler than anybody I’ve ever known. […] Before I shot the movie, I sent Liam all my home movies of Steve. I said, „Study his walk, study his manner, get to know him real well, because that’s who this guy is“. Ross supports Spielberg as mentor and – like Itzhak Stern – helps to turn a non-political showman into a mensch who is committed to contribute to a better world.
During the 72-day location shoot in Poland, Spielberg is drained physically, and pushed to the limits of his emotional strength. Kate Capshaw and his children rent a house near the set for the duration of filming, so they can give him support. Robin Williams calls Spielberg on a regular basis in order to cheer him up.
At the film’s release, the critics response is almost unanimously enthusiastic. Filmmakers Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Lanzmann and Michael Haneke accuse Spielberg of using Hollywood techniques to depict the Shoah.
At the Academy Awards, Schindler’s List receives 12 nominations and is awarded in the categories Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction. This is Spielberg’s first Oscar for Best Director. Brilliant actors Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes are nominated, but go away empty-handed.
No one expects the enormous audience appeal of the more than three-hour black and white film. At a budget of $22 million Schindler’s List grosses more than $320 million worldwide. All proceeds from the film are used for the Shoah Foundation. It is founded by Spielberg with the goal of providing an archive for the filmed testimony of as many survivors of the Holocaust as possible.
There is something deeply appealing and rather melancholy to me about the selection of images gathered for a new exhibition which opens in Walthamstow at the end of the month (perhaps because this couple look a bit like my mum and dad, and that looks very much like our old fireplace). But the subject, the gradual disappearance of a cohesive, well-housed working class community in London is of much broader interest.
WE: The Ex-Warner Estate in Waltham Forest looks at a disappearing community and the distinctive Warner homes in Walthamstow and Leyton from the start of the 20th century, using a combination of photographs from residents, new photography, archive images and oral histories.
The show illustrates how radically working class family life has changed in London. The Warner homes saw generations of families renting and living close to each other. But the newest generations of these families have been forced out of the area or of London altogether, as homes are sold off and London gentrifies. A two-bedroom Warner flat currently sells for around £450,000.
Artists Lucy Harrison and Katherine Green have collected hundreds of images from as far afield as the US and Australia, as well as oral histories from those who have lived in these distinctive properties for 20 years or more, to create an exhibition that shows how residents lived in the properties throughout the 20th century and into the 21st.
“At a time when east London is becoming rapidly gentrified and a lack of affordable housing is a huge issue for many, the project looks at one example of how a private company developed large amounts of good quality housing stock and its legacy for the area today,” says Harrison. “These outstanding photographs show an era where working class families could live comfortably in stable accommodation, enjoying their homes and community life. The images provide a stark contrast with the conditions in the rented sector for families like this today.”
WE: The Ex-Warner Estate in Waltham Forest 29th October 2016 –19th February 2017 Vestry House Museum, Vestry Road, London E17 9NH Open 10am-5pm, Wednesday – Sunday. Admission free.
On this day in music history: August 1, 1981 - At 12:01 am, MTV, the world’s first 24 hour cable music network is launched. A joint venture between Warner Communications and American Express (i.e. Warner-Amex Cable, later Viacom, Inc.), the cable television channel originally shows music videos and concerts during its round the clock broadcasts (VJ segments are pre-taped). The concept for the channel is created by Bob Pittman, who later becomes president and CEO of MTV Networks. The original MTV VJ’s are J.J. Jackson, Mark Goodman, Alan Hunter, Nina Blackwood, and Martha Quinn (Jackson, Hunter, and Blackwood leave in 1986, Goodman in 1987 and Quinn in 1991). The first music video aired on the channel is the clip for The Buggles’ 1979 single “Video Killed The Radio Star”, making a symbolic and prophetic statement on how the visual aspect of music will impact it in the future. The network revolutionizes the way music is marketed and promoted to a mass audience, forever changing the music industry. In the months and years that follow, MTV spawns numerous competitors and imitators including Video Jukebox, Night Tracks (on SuperStation WTBS out of Atlanta), Friday Night Videos (on NBC), ABC Rocks, Cable Music Channel, and D-TV (on the Disney Channel). Later in the decade and the early 90’s, the channel breaks new ground with the introduction of shows like “Yo! MTV Raps”, “Headbanger’s Ball”, “120 Minutes” and “MTV Unplugged”, impacting the rise of Hip Hop, Metal and Alternative Rock into mainstream popularity. By the mid 90’s, with the shifting tides in musical tastes and trends, MTV begins to significantly reduce the number of hours per day that music videos are played, in favor of other programming created for the channel including reality shows like “The Real World”, “The Osbournes, "Jersey Shore” and various game shows, comedy programs and animated programs. Happy 35th Anniversary, MTV!!!
there’s this thing, in circles of young artists practicing to become professionals. the idea comes from somewhere, and i don’t know where it comes from or how it gets in but the idea is always that your work has to be perfect before you can expect to demand pay. maybe it’s a baudrillardian violence through representation, and seeing a perfect finished product that’s run through god knows how many hands before landing in our one hand as a book or a poster or a movie makes it seem like it was one perfect run, i don’t know. in the end, though, the thing is the same: until it looks perfectly commercially polished, it’s not real. naturally, the folks with the money aren’t complaining.
been seeing it a lot with film, lately. kids, young adults, churning out amazing performances, pacing their stories excellently, composing and lighting better than most of what i’ve seen outside of primetime, working for free. because the sound isn’t perfect. because the script was lacking. because the movie was a short. forgetting that disney and warner and every cinematic community the world over was built on shorts, producers – almost to a person tall straight white men in this town – lament thee is nothing to sell, nothing to pay these artists for, they’re just going to have to get better.
those that can’t afford to work for free, who are compelled to create anyway and make things in spite of feeling wholly irresponsible for pursuing their art and ashamed of lacking the materials, they go by the wayside. the sharpening, it has to happen for free. it’s virtuous that the people at the face of our fledgling artists’ communities have dayjobs, as waitstaff and engineers, nevermind racial disparities in unemployment, nevermind the overwhelming anti-queer bias of this military industrial complex city, those kids don’t want it enough.
let them tell it and there just never will, nor should there be, a vector for the professional development of young artists in the field. the apprentice work has been dissolved, it happens in schools instead and the money moves in the opposite direction. there isn’t a roger corman taking a chance on a john carpenter to direct his first feature with the three extra days of budget and who cares how it comes out. what happened? who cares, the effect’s the same: nobody thinks they’re good enough to demand remuneration for their work. the abuse we’ll put up with in exchange for the scraps we’ll accept, it’s ridiculous. we’re plenty good. even if not, somebody’s getting paid off us, regardless: where’s our cut?