Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech
A "documentary" by Liz Garbus for HBO

Reviewed by Marion DS Dreyfus

Friday night at HBO HQ, for Fordham Law's annual film festival on ethical and legal issues, they featured the inaugural festival offering, Liz Garbus' film on the First Amendment, featuring her father, Martin Garbus, a major 1st amendment lawyer with the (often dubious) ACLU.

The name of the film is "Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech." The quote comes from Justive Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous caution that one may not falsely yell Fire! in a crowded theatre.

It was very uncomfortable to sit through, especially for what felt like the only non-Socialist in the packed house: The film is a long left-wing screed that mentions the word 'leftie' only once in 2 hours (and that only indirectly, as Martin Garbus used it dismissively as what some might charge him with in one particular case, that of nazis marching in Holocaust-survivor-thick Skokie, Illinois some years ago), but the words 'right-wing radical,' 'far right radical,' 'GOP' (always derisively, usually preceded by a negative adjective), 'Conservative representative,' 'right-wing nuts' occurred every few minutes, or more often. Without irony.

It did not appear that the filmmaker interviewed any live non-leftist, but used clips from others' interviews or TV segments, yet always used live left-of-center speakers, except in the case of Justice richard Posner, who, though he is a moderate and judicious speaker, was ridiculed by the discussion panel after the film.

They made Dhabah Almontaser of KGIA a martyr, with the panel afterwards agreeing she was railroaded 'without reason.' The moderator, Thane Rosenbaum, a gracious and witty man, called the actions against her "Just plain vulgar, vulgar." A clearly uncomfortable Mayor Mike Bloomberg was shown in a two-shot with Almontaser (referred to throughout only as "Debbie," by the way, a traditional way leftists have--always Americanize the possibly suspect insofar as possible. So Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a terrorist clear and obvious, is usually referred to jauntily as KSM by our local media. Terrorist? No sweat, just acronymize or initialize the guy, and vitiate his threat. Oops, sorry: "Threat"), as it was agreed she could no longer remain principal of Kahlil Gibran 'International' Academy. City officials and supporters of Almontaser repeatedly droned, "It's just a public school, one of 62 dual language schools in the city...".

Of course it was more than 'just a public school,' as a scan of its board, legal advisers, monetary infusions, student body, parents' association and foreign backing reveal.

Not a soul appeared to have been interviewed in person, live, by the agit-prop filmmaker, Liz G, either--she just used footage of the City Hall press conference last year, in which one of our associates confronted a guy standing nearby about the Holocaust and the millions murdered there, and he dismissed her questions with some idiotarian remark about the questioner's lack of broadmindedness or something equally insipid and infuriating. I gather Garbus bought the footage, since I don't recall her there.

As I sat in the front row at the screening, I feared my face would suddenly appear somewhere in the City Hall footage, since I wrote articles about the event and, along with 30 or 40 others, was there in person at that press conference. The head of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, was shown on the screen, as was Jeff Weisenfeld, a board member in numerous colleges and schools in the NYC area (as well as a past staffer in the Pataki administration) both speaking: Both remained unidentified.

Almontaser, parenthetically, just lost her appeal this past September 1. Issues that are germane to the Almontaser case were not brought up or alluded to. People were told by Justice Richard Posner, a "conservative judge," in fact, "People ought to be careful of what they say." This is unremarkable, is in fact accurate in an age of instant capture of the slightest tic by anyone, but elicited more ridicule both onscreen and at the discussion afterwards, for some reason.

I asked a question afterwards, but they hardly remarked on my question--about the often-toxic NY Times, in their unwarranted disclosures of national secrets, not once but repeatedly, disclosures that many regard as treasonous--to which Garbus answered "That is just your opinion..."! My question about Jim Gilchrist's being deprived of his free speech at a Columbia event, and being physically chased offstage by thugs not even students at Columbia, was not answered at all. A next question was solicited.

Also, someone asked about a preacher in Colorado or somewhere out West who apparently asks his flock to 'kill' Obama every week (according to her, anyway). This questioner was a psychologist I had met earlier in the evening. The panel said he was not imminently threatening, so nothing could be done. When we brought up the fact that Bush was threatened every day of 8 years, one of the panel, Abner Greene, another Fordham Law prof, and a 1st amendment maven, joked that if anyone had to be threatened, he'd rather the life of Bush be threatened than Obama.

Big laugh, tee hee.

I confronted him afterwards saying that no president ought to be threatened; he demurred and said he had only been joking. But why joke, always, at Bush'es expense?

It is so skewed and biased, and not a thought for honest, true balance and interviews--she used excerpts from David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes--and characterized him in the mouths of her voiceovers and speakers as a "far right idealogue," and David Horowitz the same approximate way. She abstained from subtitling them in some pointed way, but the entire tenor of her fake-umentary was mockery of any rightist position.

The only position that was not supportive of the left point of view (she used Almontaser and public schools, quoting some underling, not Klein himself; and she used ''hate speech'' which consisted of one boy in Poway HS who made a T shirt that said Homosexuality is shameful (plus a quote from Romans I:27)--otherwise, she was a stalwart for the faux Native American liar/plagiarist creep, Ward Churchill, and the right of anti-war people to burn flags. There was nothing about the current tea parties or Townhall freedom of speech being mocked by media, the newschannels, and the croaking fetid frogs in the Administration, Pelosi the mentally challenged, Barney Frank, and President Obama himself. Convenient. The film is copyrighted 2008, so perhaps these hot current issues of free speech had not reared their heads yet.

Highly inflammatory for viewers who do not agree with the leftist cant of the filmmaker--Daniel Pipes came off as more reasonable than most of her personal interviews. I don't know if she interviewed Pipes or Horowitz, live. They used a few moments of Pamela Hall's remarks at the press conference, as well as her appearances on Glenn Beck and O'Reilly. No personal face to face, however.

Garbus, who is no novice to TV or documentaries, having made a slew of treatments on various topics of [mild] interest [to leftwingers], used clips of O'Reilly to mock his concerns, of course. Garbus herself is not a lawyer. They made fun of Judge Posner, too, a highly respected if legal conservative. They made fun of the people trying to quash free speech in that proven liar and plagiarist, faux Native American, cheesy 'academic' hired under false pretenses, Ward Churchill, making him too a martyr, trying to mask his partisan and ahistorical postures and credential lies--pretending his plagiarism and creepiness as a cheating researcher were immaterial, and people did not like his "Coo-Coo ideas." Those are not coo-coo ideas--they are vile and dismaying, especially right after 9/11.

For those who have forgotten, he called the nearly 3,000 people who were murdered on 9/11 "little Eichmanns." He blamed their deaths on a strung-together wacko notion that ill serves any so-called college teacher.

Much filmic footage and panel discussion centered on Garbus'es father's support for the nazi march in Skokie, which moderator Thane Rosenbaum, a son of two Holocaust Survivors, strenuously objected to as cruel and an undue infliction of pain, more than any concern with so-called freedom of speech. Of the 4 people on the panel, Shane was the most reasonable and balanced (as well as the one with the liveliest intellect and sense of humor).

The current makeup of the Supreme Court was decried, especially by Martin Garbus, as "unfortunately with us for 25-30 years" because Justices Alito and Roberts are both in their early 50s, and "even if the current President replaces Ginsberg" and another justice, "that will not change the makeup of the court." He spoke heavily, unhappy at the likely conservative mold of the court.

I judge documentaries professionally; this one is uneven and decidedly skewed, but not in a way that the vast left-wing NewYorkocracy could apparently point out at the screening. I would not deem it a fair picture of freedom of speech, however, in that it handled exclusively pro-leftist causes but for one token and highly unrepresentative coverage of an "anti-gay" concern, represented by the case of one high schooler in a T shirt. Issues of workplace harassment were not covered. Disabilities issues were not covered. Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen (which issue recurred this very week, at Harvard, as well as notably in the past, at Columbia; he was cordially disinvited from an invitation to speak at Harvard. The 'explanation' given by Harvard reps was lame to incredible) and Ann Coulter and others on the right being denied their free speech was not covered. Routine denial of pro-Zionist speakers to present their case for Israel in the face of bullies and arab provocateurs and rioting was not covered.

This unbalanced and tiresome propagandistic screed will probably appear on HBO sometime soon, or be buyable/rentable at NetFlix or the like.

marion d s dreyfus
20(c)09

N[COLOR=#ff00ff]au[/COLOR]ghty tho[COLOR=#000080]u[/COLOR]ghty



She spied that skirt in penis pink

A size too small, or so she think

Three tiers, a tie, a [flirty] flounce

Not too costly, so she pounce



Though some too sma’

Makes her look ta’

Just loves the fabric, gathers, hue

It satisfies her needs, not few



She wears it [solo] now, coquette for sure

One look at it: Now she ain’t pure

Dare she plumb where it may lead?

Gatherin’ sex, a sorry seed?





[SIZE=4]marion d s dreyfus[/SIZE]

14 October 20©09

THE W[COLOR=#999999]H[COLOR=#c0c0c0]IT[/COLOR]E[/COLOR] RIBBON
Directed by Michael Haneke's [Austria]
Reviewed by Marion DS Dreyfus
In German, English subtitles.

Cast: Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Tukur, Burghart Klaubner, Michael Kranz, Marisa Growaldt, Josef Bierbichler, Leonie Benesch (Sony Classics)

Think Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible,” moved up a century or two, set in Germany in the early 20th century. Or Grace Metalious’ 1956 PEYTON PLACE, removed from Middle America and straitened into forbidding and constraining clothing. Even William Golding’s LORD OF THE FLIES comes to mind. The children here are not cherubs, but as guilty as are the adults. This is not an accident, as the auteur conceives of children as malevolent as adults.

The images evoked in this astringent, 2½ hr black/white study of deflected lives are of passions barely under control, people seething with unexpressed rage, unpalliated emotion, sexuality inexpertly stuffed into societally correct gear and guises.

Director Haneke paints an iconic, if austere, masterpiece in violent villagers trying to cope with familial secrets, ugly liaisons, unholy alliances—while looking for all the world like a religious broach of impeccability. The roots of evil. Of fascism. Of religion owning nothing religious.

The town minister thinks he is fair, but he is brutal, unable to show love for his mistreated, heavily restrained children. The town doctor seems a model of probity, but is carrying on a brutally unloving sexual dalliance with a widow with whom he shares less than nothing, insulting her whenever she asks for a crumb of affection or self-regard. Wives live in frank terror.

People are being hurt in a town with no apparent ‘reason’ for these ‘accidents.’ The doctor is felled while riding his steed of an afternoon. A child is taken into the nearby woods and flayed to within an inch of his young life. A town building is set afire in the darkness of deep night. The rich baron and his wife are not liked, though they employ half the town, and displeasing the baron, especially, spells economic disaster. Children are severely punished without the opportunity to explain or remark on the injustice of the offense they may not have committed. Wives try to flee cruel husbands, without much luck. Children with disabilities are tormented.

All told, it is probably much like our early childhoods, actually. Maybe others’ too.

The lack of color well suits the subject matter, the time just before the Archduke is assassinated, the world is holding its collective breath, and the vileness of the village under its starched aprons and canonical vestments is a caution for so many towns and villages of the past, and those yet to come.

In interview, the director knew very particularly his goal, and his aim was to point to a former time as a metaphor for the later times we all know perhaps too well. His effort is as shocking, but as powerful, as highly decorated German artist Anselm Kiefer’s huge, haunting sodden ‘artworks’ of earth, jagged metal, torn railroad ties and ground glass. They are art only to the extent that they evoke and point haunted fingers at his country for the havoc wreaked on the world in more than one World War.

Not a pretty picture. DER WEISSE BAND is rich with ironies and metaphors viewers cannot escape, even if they leave the theatre mid-film. Probably one of the more important films of the past decade, this director’s searing vision is in its way a cleansing blame, a scalding lesson.

Marion DS [COLOR=#ff00ff]Dreyfus[/COLOR] 20©09

nannymarch

they parade their
blonde and nimbly baubles
proudly in other
people’s double-decker prams

An army of out-borough
modest myrmidons, unmatched hue ~
trundling the cosseted bundles
of working ceiling-tappers

and daddies on the go
young and not-so
getting streetcandid in
playplaces and streetside jewels

umbilically cellulared
gossipy with back-home
as the passing panoply
spells wasted opportunity

rolling display cases, from apart-
ments too small by half, too costly
by twice, so Out is best
(for the fresh air), and the elbow

room, the squiggly princelings
and female bootie-losers, fat-
faced and uniquely gorgeous,
a mix of rarefied specialty DNAs

Lab-work or labia-work: who knows?
calendared too-busy hurry-up tick-tock
couplings; hiring the roughest part
of their precious trinket care,

hand-candy for weekends
when they pick up the shiny baubles
for a few hard-core bonding
hours, their little charges wondering

Who is this?

marion d s [COLOR=red]dreyfus [/COLOR]
[COLOR=red]20[/COLOR][COLOR=red][COLOR=#33cccc](c)0[/COLOR][COLOR=red]9[/COLOR][/COLOR]

G O O D H A I R

Produced, directed by Chris Rock
Reviewed by Marion DS Dreyfus

The character played by Ted Danson, a tall, handsome man with a full head of snow-white hair, comments to a younger, dorkier writer character, played by put-upon Jason Schwartzman, in the new sit-com “Bored to death,” that Jim Jarmusch (the renowned filmmaker of DOWN BY LAW and other almost subliminal entertainments) has “such good hair…!” Though Danson is no slouch in the hair department, Jarmusch is evidently an object of envy to the character.

This is a movie, as the eponymous title suggests, about hair. To be specific, it is about black hair.

More specifically, it is one of the most uproarious, funniest deadpan coverings of a topic that has never, really, until now, gotten any coverage at all. Weaves and straightening are the secret addiction of these charming ladies. And often, their men have to accept the sky-high cost of these weaves ($1,000 to $3,500 each!) as part of their courtship or other maintenance. These women would sooner not pay the rent than do without their weaves and monthly tightening. And, um, do that.

Blacks have long had “hair issues” around the texture of their hair. They have, almost universally, preferred to iron or straighten or “relax,” as the movie goes to enormous pains to describe and itemize and depict, their apparently unsatisfactory (read: white-like) locks.

Without adding his own views, except to comment on what he won’t let his two little girls do when they come of age, Chris Rock—one of the flat-out funniest comics this side of the Yangtze—makes hilarious questions elicit rollickingly accurate but laugh-out-loud responses from women (and men in a particularly riotous functioning barber, with men of all ages jumping all over each other to relate what you may not do to black women when making love, and the comparison to white women) in Harlem, Detroit, black neighborhoods in California and even India (the motherlode of all sold weave hair, amounting to the chief product/export of South India, due to the ritual of religious tonsure hallowed by Hindu worship. Millions of women, teens, toddlers and infants are shaved bald as a sacrifice of vanity. The more hair for the hair merchants, apparently, who live in swank homes with glitzy wheels in their driveways.) If Rock is to be believed.

Our audience enjoyed the heck out of it, and the audience was almost entirely non-Caucasian. But everyone had a great laugh, for the entire length of this tour de force on an annual hair-cutting jamboree down South, where hair designers compete in a frenzy of oom-pa-pah and pizzazz, pyrotechnics and almost unclothed models, mad make-up and tons of attitude.

This is ‘way better than “American Idol.” More hilarity. More pretty actresses and self-confident sassy babes. More rockin’ Rock. Can’t remember a funnier documentary in ages: Five chortles out of five.

m[COLOR=#800080]arion[/COLOR] ds dreyfus 20©09