Stevemayeda

Well there's a few things about this movie. Everyone should see it. You see the nation of Iraq like you've never seen it covered by the media, and shot from a perspective that is hardly considered by most Americans, where the movie has its main audience. However all that glorious stuff in mind lets take a look at a few other facts of the movie. There were 150 cameras handed out to the Iraqi people most all of which view the war and subjugation of the occupying forces as a growing pain for the bettering of their nation. And in comparison to Saddam it is simply a feeble scratching at the skin. Also, Netflix as its main distributor advertised it before the fun election we just had by sending out a mass e-mail to its entire roster to see the film. Many of the, what should be labeled as opinions played out as facts listed off by the interviewed Iraqis are wrong. If one is to review the Red Cross' records of Abu Ghraib tortures it wasn't Saddam's henchmen who were being tortured it was a fine mix of a 80-90% innocent civilians and 10-20% rightfully detained people. Never was it disclosed that any of that 10-20% were Saddam's Henchmen or curfew violators. In addition the Arab world really has never listed 'Democracy' as one of their opponents, more correctly it is the USA's 6 Billion Dollars a year to Isreal, our military bases in Saudi Arabia and our interest in Oil. I agree that the media is a complete distortion, but this film shows that same distortion. I'm afraid that the Iraqi people that this film represents have been edited to speak with a Yankee voice. Yes its true that Saddam is a puke, and that his removal many see for the best. Its true that some Iraqis actually get paid a good wage. Just as its true that no Iraqi people have control of their most prized oil and US corporations do. Nor does it mention that 20,000 civilians have died due exclusively to US artillery. Still 15% of the country which once had running water and electiricity now does not. Nor does it mention that from 1993-2003 UN sanctions purposed and authored by the USA Government killed over 200,000 Iraqi civilians. Nor does it mention that Democracy in when people decide the government, not a massive war machine that sends the message, 'Be killed or Obey'. I am afraid that the cutting room floor must have quite a bit of Iraqis that aren't so happy with the Occupation. Just as the vast majority of the world was not for the war. In fact the America, Britian, Spain and the rest of them are not carriers of Democracy, they turned their back to it when they saw how full their pockets could be. Hurray, Saddam is out of power, but I'm afraid that no Iraqi is yet in power. Corporations are in power, the media is in power. Read, do your own research, and don't let them blindfold you.

I should start this off by saying that being of Japanese and Caucasian decent I could possibly be an errored commentator to this film; however I was truly moved and inspired by watching it and interacting with its director (Haile Germina) at the LA African Film Festival. Also knowing my background what connected to me about the film was not the same as the rest of its audience, but it speaks on many levels (mine may seem a bit flat, so see the movie yourself). With that being said...

The film is a dramatic documentation of the 1896 attempted colonization of Ethiopia by Italy. Ethiopia like many African countries contains a rich history and culture ignored by the west. And more so ignored by American mentality. The battle of Adwa and story of Emperor Manalik and Empress Taitu are legendary and should be a part of the human history. Instead we learn about Christopher Columbus and such annihilating greats. At the time of Adwa and the many years to follow Manalik and Taitu were viewed as champions to much of the world. They had accomplished what would be considered impossible by defeating the Italians, their story spread as far as the Americas. This is a great showing of the battle of Adwa what lead to it and what preceded it. The film also previews its (in the making) sequel, a documentary to show 40 years latter. Another great feat one that most other nations could boast of, Haile Salassie holding off the Italian Fascists.

The film is a must see. So little is shown about this defeat of European arrogance. The film is not about military victory, but a victory of morals. Just in the poetics that this film speaks it is sure to connect to anyone open to it.

It is hard for me to imagine that there is a God after viewing a movie like this. Quite possibly the most inert thing I've seen all year.

To start, I rushed out to see 'Derrida' after reading Kenneth Turan's Los Angeles Times review praising 'Derrida'. Turan, as a reviewer, is usually quite perceptive; however, in this one I think he missed it. Upon arriving at the theater I was very excited because the two Directors, Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman were to be hosting tonight's viewing at the Nuart Theater in West Los Angeles. And from then on began the decent into maelstrom.

The movie begins with a taste of hope. Its rough textured video blurring an urban landscape all to the tune of Derrida's ramblings about something. The movie never really takes off from there. It then cuts to what turns out to be its anthem. The mundane and impersonal life of Jacques Derrida. And as I write this I would like to make clear that by all means Jacques Derrida's life is not mundane, nor does he ramble into oblivion. And it would have been nice to see a documentary that suits him, he deserves one.

But what make his life or the portrayal of his life completely soulless are directors Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman. It seems that the two went into this documentary with absolutely no agenda. The film just goes about showing the man move about the house and speak to classes and friends. Which could work in any normal documentary, but these are the most impersonal moments they could have shown. And somehow they maintained this for five years thinking that they were doing something.

In speaking with the two afterwards, which allowed one to see just how pretentious and disillusioned the two exist as, they boasted about how they edited over one hundred hours of footage into an eight-five minute 'piece' as they call it. What baffles me about this is that with all that material what they showed seemed to be such a disservice. Perhaps the only relief is went Derrida speaks freely. But even then the film is minced with cutaways of the directors smearing their signature over it. The most insulting part about the event was that when Dick and Kofman spoke to the audience answering questions, they intellectualized this all. Somehow they all thought there was artistic merit to the lifeless nature of their work; rather than an unintentional defacing and humiliation to Mr. Derrida. But what should he care? Being one of the fathers of Deconstruction, his identity does not exist within Dick and Kofman's deranged portrait.