Tag Archives: readings

REVIEW: Hollywood Heartbeat Powers Stirring Football Doc Undefeated

The underdog candidate for this year’s Oscar for Best Documentary Feature, Undefeated is, fittingly, about an underdog sports team, a group of kids from an underfunded urban school for whom football provides some desperately needed structure as well as a possible route to a better life. There’s good reason the Weinstein Company reportedly coughed up seven figures for distribution and remake rights to the film — Undefeated  is Friday Night Lights meets The Blind Side  in nonfiction form, examining issues of class and race through the lens of its ragtag athletics program while also reinforcing American mythos of bootstrapping, hard work and community. Its triumphs are bittersweet, but they’re irresistible. That title isn’t literal, however; there are definite losses over the course of the single hard-fought, promising high school football season this film follows, and it’s still one of the best years the North Memphis Manassas Tigers have ever had. Bill Courtney is Undefeated ‘s center, a ruddy-faced, sweaty white guy who serves as volunteer coach at the mostly (if not entirely) black school. We first see him lecturing his team about how their ranks have been decimated by drop-outs, shootings and arrests: “Most coaches, that would be a career’s worth of crap to deal with. That sums up the last two weeks for me.” Bill has a family of his own and a flooring company to run, but coaching is his great love, and the depth of his investment in it and his sincere faith in the potential saving power of football make his gruff character easy to latch on to. He looks to be the closest thing most of the young men he works with have to a male authority figure in their lives, fathers out of the picture, and they latch on to his devotion and to the expectations he has of them with a quiet hunger. Undefeated also follows three of Courtney’s players through the year. The talented, good-natured O.C. Brown stands a good chance of getting a football scholarship if he can pulls his grades up. Montrail Brown, who goes by “Money,” is a good student working towards college until an injury on the field derails him and destroys his confidence. And Chavis Daniels arrives back on the team after a stint in juvie, and has alarming rage issues to manage. The Tigers have never won a playoff game, and they’re so underfunded that they used to raise money by traveling to play other schools for pay as an easy win. Over their season they face teams that are obviously more upscale (and ones whose racial make-up is very different) as well as teams that aren’t — one game against another Memphis school ends with the police on field shooing the boys back onto their bus to head off a potential brawl with the opposing school. Despite some early setbacks, the Tigers are having a good year, and as the team wends its way to a possible playoff spot the film starts to shine as it delves into the personal lives of its players. O.C. is going to become unrecruitable if his academics don’t improve, but tutors won’t go to the neighborhood where he lives with his grandmother, so another (white) coach takes him in a few days a week, O.C. moving into the coach’s comfy suburban set-up with his wife and kids. The matter-of-factness with which this and a later act of startling generosity are done make them heartwrenching, but also provide a reminder of how difficult  things like paying for college or getting better at classwork can be without outside help. Money struggles to find motivation to keep going with school after a knee injury possibly ends his season, and flirts with dropping out. Chavis, the most haunting character, seems to have no filter on his emotions, rage seething up without warning and dissipating just as quickly. He chooses the number “0” for himself because he claims he has no sense, and has a clash with another player based on nothing at all. But he keeps coming back, gets off suspension, finds a place for himself on the team, realizing he needs football and has to change if he wants to be allowed to stay with it. “I’ll die for you tonight,” he tells Bill when he’s put in the game, and you believe him. Aside from what looked like a few technical snags in terms of color,  Undefeated ‘s look is fluid and vital. It’s shot vérité style, but still finds moments for nods to studio magic — a circling camera around a hugging Bill and O.C. toward the end is unadulterated, completely effective Hollywood. Directed and edited by Daniel Lindsay and T.J. Martin (the pair collaborated previously on 2008’s Last Cup: Road to the World Series of Beer Pong ), the film finds romance in its images of the sport, from the boys walking off the field at sunset to the battles under the bright lights to a close-up that lingers on the Manassas temporary tattoo one player has fixed to his cheek. Undefeated doesn’t have the epic, years-spanning arc of Hoop Dreams , but it finds in its season some unfeigned resonance that, like tears during that final embrace on the field, can’t be eluded. Follow Alison Willmore on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Continued here:
REVIEW: Hollywood Heartbeat Powers Stirring Football Doc Undefeated

Director, Into Torture, Seeks Same

“Mr. Liman will create a feature-length film whose script is compiled from various documents on prisoner abuse and torture, some of which were obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, and whose footage will consist of user-submitted videos of their readings of these documents. ‘The experience people will have recording a scene, whether you’re the one speaking the words, or the one behind the camera — or the phone that’s filming the person, more likely — is extremely powerful, in and of itself.'” [ NYT ]

Visit link:
Director, Into Torture, Seeks Same

Pro-War Conservatives Are A Walking Contradiction

It is a testament to the power of government propaganda that several generations of self-described conservatives have held as their core belief that war and militarism are consistent with limited, constitutional government. These conservatives think they are “defending freedom” by supporting every military adventure that the state concocts. They are not. Even just, defensive wars inevitably empower the state far beyond anything any strict constructionist would approve of. Prowar conservatives, in other words, are walking contradictions. They may pay lip service to limited constitutional government, but their prowar positions belie their rhetoric. “War is the health of the state,” as Randolph Bourne said in his famous essay of that title. Statism, moreover, means central planning, heavy taxation, fascist or socialist economics, attacks on free speech and other civil liberties, and the suffocation and destruction of private enterprise. Classical liberals have always understood this, but conservatives never have. (Neoconservatives either don't understand it or don't care.) Thus, you have the celebrated neoconservative writer Victor Davis Hanson writing in the December 2, 2009, issue of Imprimis that antiwar activism and other “factors” that make people “reluctant” to resort to war are “lethal combinations” that supposedly threaten the existence of society. Hanson was merely repeating the conservative party line first enunciated by the self-proclaimed founder of the modern conservative (really neoconservative) movement, William F. Buckley Jr. Murray Rothbard quoted Buckley as saying in the January 25, 1952 issue of Commonweal magazine that the Cold War required that we have got to accept Big Government for the duration — for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged … except through the instrumentality of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. … [We must support] large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington. “We” must advocate the destruction of the free society in the name of defending the free society, said “Mr. Conservative,” a former CIA employee. In reality, antiwar “factors” are a threat only to the military/industrial/congressional complex, which profits from war; they are not a threat to society as a whole. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Seeing through the dense murk of such war propaganda is one of the purposes of my ten-week, online Mises Academy course on “The Political Economy of War,” which begins on September 21. Students will learn about the economics and politics of war from some of the giants of classical liberalism, such as Ludwig von Mises, Frederic Bastiat, Lionell Robbins, Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Robert Higgs, and others. Among the topics to be discussed are * Why capitalism is the very opposite of war * The economic causes of war * Why nationalism is always a threat to peace and prosperity * Why Marx was wrong about war and imperialism, but the Austrian economists got it right * Why and how war is the health of the state, always ratcheting up governmental power at the expense of individual liberty and prosperity * The role of free trade in deterring war * The evils of military conscription * How war cripples a nation's economy, benefiting only a small group of war profiteers in the process * How the state employs the Fed to hide and disguise the costs of war * The role of statist intellectuals in promoting war precisely because they, too, understand that war is the health of the state * Why conservatives love war and the state * The dangerous myth that democracy promotes peace * Private alternatives to a massive “national-defense” establishment * What is a just war? Each class will consist of a 45–50 minute lecture followed by 45 minutes of Q&A with students. My lectures will cover the topics listed on the syllabus for the course, but will be more than rehashes of the readings that are listed — I will concentrate on both my understanding of the readings (and other literature) and my own research and writings. The importance of understanding the political economy of war is perhaps illustrated by this passage from Randolph Bourne's famous essay: War is a vast complex of life-destroying and life-crippling forces. If the State's chief function is war, then it is chiefly concerned with coordinating and developing the powers and techniques which make for destruction. And this means not only the actual and potential destruction of the enemy, but of the nation at home as well. For the very existence of a State in a system of States means that the nation lies always under a risk of war and invasion, and the calling away of energy into military pursuits means a crippling of the productive and life-enhancing processes of the national life. Ludwig von Mises expressed a similar sentiment in Human Action, when he wrote, Mises Academy: Tom DiLorenzo teaches The Political Economy of War What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor. Man curbs his innate instinct of aggression in order to cooperate with other human beings. The more he wants to improve his material well-being, the more he must expand the system of the division of labor. Concomitantly he must more and more restrict the sphere in which he resorts to military action. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war. … This philosophy is, of course, incompatible with statolatry.[1] These two quotes give one an indication of why those individuals who help the public to become reluctant to support war are more likely to be heroes of society as opposed to the “lethal combinations” of neoconservative folklore. http://mises.org/daily/4659 added by: shanklinmike