Trevor Olafson

 FILM DIARY #9 – Network

 ”We lie like hell – we’ll tell you any shit you want to hear! We’re all you know!”

Howard Beale (Network)

The thing that struck me as I watched Network, was that each character in the film played a part that was not only required of the story line, but they each represented a facet of the television/corporate structure – or those who are enraptured or disenchanted with it. As we see in the film for example , Diana is more than a network producer – she embodies the dispassionate television executive that is only able to think in terms of ratings and profit, these being derived proportionally from content more often than not exploiting the misfortunes of others (if it bleeds it leads). After the initial set up in which Max Shumacher has told Howard that ‘he’ is being cancelled, we are taken to a production meeting set the next day – for that nights’ news. The stories are being timed and slotted for the show, they consist of terrorist threats, oil embargoes, sports scores, and ‘kitty rescued from tree’ viewing fodder.

Things don’t go as planned however, the producer in the control room is distracted by an assistant and does not notice the deviation in Howard’s segment that night – however we hear the first of what will become a complete manifesto, confession, condemnation and shockingly, at the end – submission, supplication to, and finally blood sacrifice by ruthless power in control, or in the words of Arthur Jensen, “the primal forces of nature”.

 It is very easy to forget that the film is structured as a satirical comedy, other than the narration at the start and end that plays against the split screen of different TV stations, I think the film could have worked just as well as a straight drama. The reason? I am quite sure that the portrayal of the vulture-like television/corporate executives and producers is not far off the mark, the assassination of Howard was coldly decided in an ‘emergency meeting’, this has surely been done in reality the same way in boardrooms across the land.

 Howard’s first ‘rant’ and subsequent backlash from his implying that he will ‘blow his brains out’ on next weeks show, gaining a ‘fifty share at least’ – darkly foreshadows the message being delivered by this film, we live with manufactured fear and societal breakdown (to allow control), and I believe the producer who missed it (allowing it to go to air) during this first of the five ‘Howard’ diatribes – is symbolic of those of us who hear, but don’t listen – in this case comprehending that something was actually ‘out of order’, only after having to be convinced by others that it happened.

 While watching, it is important to note the ‘five rants’ prior to meeting with Aurthur Jensen, and then how strangely Howard was affected by his ‘sales pitch’. This is I feel one of the most powerful scenes – Howard has what is to him a pseudo religious epiphany, seeing the face of ‘God’ in Jensen. This is the turning point of the film, Howard is no longer telling people that they matter, instead he now preaches a new kind of societal apathy – telling them to basically expect the worse and they won’t be disappointed, a complete turn around from his previous platform. Howard was kept on the air in this new ‘format’ until his death despite poor ratings – by the powers represented in Arthur Jensen. Interesting, because in this case profit was not a factor in the corporate formula, it was replaced with a message which I would read as – “Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here”.

Trevor Olafson

FILM DIARY #10 – Citizen Kane

 Given the task to analyze how Orson Welles constructed Citizen Kane, both technically and thematically as a statement on power, corruption and loss is not an easy one – but we will explore it here, however briefly.

First I must confess, this was the first time I had seen this film in its’ entirety – my knowledge had consisted up to this point of twenty or so minute snippets caught at two in the morning (waking up to the late show, falling asleep again) – or references made to the film in the Simpson’s for example, sad but true. So, with that out of the way let’s talk about Citizen Kane.

 Brilliantly shot and edited, Welles used every method available at the time to construct this classic. The film opens with a posthumous newsreel about the fictitious Charles Kane, it effectively sets up what will become the story line as told by the people in his life through flashbacks – appropriately triggered when being interviewed by a tenacious reporter who is tasked to find ‘Rosebud’ (Kane’s last words) dead or alive, it is material the producers of the newsreel want to add to it before release. It is through this mechanism of an investigative reporter that Welles’ takes us into the life of Charles Kane and the people affected by it.

 A major part of the effectiveness of this film are the fantastic sets, and the intricately woven soundtrack, both music and background sounds are used to set each scene and the mood in it. Transitions between the story as the reporter searches for ‘Rosebud’ begin with the introduction into the life of Charles Kane as told in a memoir written by Walter Thatcher, the man who is the catalyst for change in boy Kane. Being read by the reporter ‘Thompson’, the scene itself begins with the manuscript having to be pulled from a secured vault, and as with each successive flashback it begins with a narration which dissolves into the point in time being referenced.

Kane’s story of loss is recurrent from the start, and as we jump from the period in time when young Charles is taken to Chicago by banker Walter Thatcher from the family homestead, to the end when he dies alone in the unfinished and by then derelict monument Xanadu – never finding fulfillment through the accumulation of objects and people as objects. I feel Welles makes this statement beginning with a literal and allegorical parental rejection – the parents being a representation of western society, which through its’ very nature has created generations of people cut-off yet seeking to attain a kind of ‘parental approval’ from the same power on the other hand that works within to keep us cut-off from our rightful inheritance.

By the end of Kane we become privy to the secret of ‘Rosebud’ – the sled represents the loss of innocence, and that it really was ‘just a simple thing’. The implied irony of the fiery destruction of ‘Rosebud’ is that we are living in a system that institutionalizes from birth, separates us from our joy, and grooms us to play our role as decided by our handlers.

Trevor Olafson

 The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

 While viewing this film I found that throughout I was continually drawn closer to identifying with Hugo Chavez and his supporters as they are portrayed in what I feel is one of the best examples of Cinema Verite that I have seen to date. The film-makers accidental presence during the short-lived attempted coup of the Chavez government in April of 2002 gives it a very succinct and thus memorable, easily documented time line of the events as they occurred; since it took place over a period of only 48 hours, unlike other films documenting events which occurred during a relatively much longer span of time.

 The film at several points does take us into the inner sanctum of Chavez and exposes what seems to be a completely genuine, thoughtful and fair minded man. This seems very apparent during one interview with Chavez in which he explains how as a young man he was compelled to investigate the allegations of murder against his grandfather – made by Chavez’s own mother. He is incredibly compelling as a story teller while he describes his journey of discovery into the past of his grandfather, and how he was not a murderer, but a fighter; and how Chavez himself became a fighter in the revolution because of how this knowledge changed him. One can feel a sense of the true pride and conviction in his beliefs when hearing the man speak so intimately on film.

 Throughout as in the beginning of the film Chavez is shown to be a man of the people. First shown in the parade and his opening address in which tells his followers that he would “go to the gates of hell to defend them”. We see the use of mainstream television from the US Venezuelan television stations and how they obfuscate and confuse the real issues that Chavez is trying to address. We are shown talking heads giving jumbled explanations of what the US is concerned about with the Chavez government. The film maker then explains to us his interest and reasons for being in Venezuela to film Chavez, who luckily is granted total access starting with the presidential plane, taking us with him as he films the first of many daily activities of Chavez and his aides.

 In the film we are shown that support for Chavez came from a huge portion of the population, 80%; the other 20% of the elites were in control and reaping the benefits of the countries wealth. Predictably they are against Chavez and rally against him calling his supporters terrorists and describing Chavez on television as a mentally ill, sexually deviant dictator. He clearly is not and his speeches to the people continually speak to the oil profits that the campensinos have never received and how he wants to change it through the constitution through which all of the people have rights that they need to be aware of. His speeches also contained messages about the importance of education and in the film we are shown how he makes himself accessible to the people through a weekly call in radio show called ‘Allo Presidente’, as well as responding to every single note or letter that is sent to him with requests for help. Chavez faced powerful enemies throughout his 3 year term up to this point but he had the loyalty of the troops as he was in the military as a commandeer and knew instinctively how tho gain the loyalty of his troops.

 The filmmaker shows us how well Chavez understood how important the media was to his government and its’ support by the people. The five private media outlets were railing against him and his policies, Chavez used his only channel of addressing the people which was the state run Channel 8. His impassioned response to the people that he is standing against the US and Venezuelan oil interests as a matter of principle. He explains in his speech that he is against terrorism, but does not support it Carte Blanche as he show photographs of dead Afghan children, the result of US bombing. I felt sorry for the victims in the photos and Chavez at this point – here is a feeling person truly trying to give peace and prosperity to his people and having to fight off the US Military/Media complex that are trying undermine both in Venezuela.

 The coup unfolds and Chavez supporters rally to support him at the presidential palace, however a counter march by a much smaller group move towards the palace; the army is used as a buffer between the two factions until shooting starts and several people within the Chavez group are killed or injured. As panic ensues we see people from the Chavez side shooting back with pistols at rooftop or balcony positions they believe the shots are coming from. What was then incredible was how the footage was manipulated through editing to look like these people who were defending themselves were actually shooting into a crowd of unarmed Chavez protestors, the camera angle did not show that the street below was actually empty at this time – they further twisted the scenario by blaming the deaths on Chavez and calling for his immediate removal. I definitely felt a sense of confusion as well as the apprehension of the people within the palace, becoming even more palpable as first the main state television and then remote stations signals are cut off. Finally the palace is surrounded and Chavez receives the ultimatum to give up or be bombed, he agrees to be leave but not step down to avoid bloodshed, he is a given an emotional farewell by his staff as he is led away at the end of this powerful scene. The next day, even as the new officials swear themselves into office word has gotten back to the people that Chavez did not resign but was secretly being held captive. Their righteous indignation and demands that Chavez be returned to them as President climaxes with the secret plan carried out by the palace guard to retake it and arrest the coup organizers – finally leading to the cathartic return of Hugo Chavez to his rightful place as leader of the people of Venezuela.

 The films title is itself the statement being made – given the way in which this event was hidden and minimized in US and Venezuelan television markets. It also alludes to the power that mainstream media wields when it wants to build up or tear down governments. By using manipulated images and omitting events that would provide context rather than being used to obfuscate the truth, it show us just how vulnerable we all are to being lied to by government when we willingly accept whatever version of it is spun – as long as it comes through the television. The filmmakers have attempted to provide us with this insight with the systematic filming and breakdown of these events as they unfolded and fill in possible knowledge gaps that we as viewers may suffer from – induced by the mainstream media.

 I feel that this film falls into a category unto itself in that it exposes the corruption and manipulation of opinion and ultimately behaviours that we as societies impose on ourselves; through our own sometimes wilfully induced ignorance as to the way things really are, and that everything we see on television is deigned to illicit the correct response by the viewer, Unfortunately this type of film is not made more often as it rates extremely high in my opinion as a benchmark example of committed independent documentary film-making for these very important, high-level reasons.

For those of you who care… I have come to like the TRacks S3OptoComp and Vintage670 compressors by IK Multimedia… both have a really nice old style layout and METERS! I won’t go into what is the best ratio to use etc..
.. the digital in/out levels on many other plugins don’t let you do what I feel is the single most important aspec.t of adding the ‘right’ compression… VU meters let you ‘see’ if the track is ‘breathing’. Since the needles on the meters appear as if they ‘bounce’ it makes all the difference when you are dialing the levels and amount of compression to get the needles on the meters to bounce really in time to the music.. NOT lag to the music, this is a product of attack and release time and proper ratio being happy together.
Also another important thing to remember… compression should not add volume(my feeling), but you will notice if it is gone when you bypass!

Trevor Olafson

Control Room

The first impression of the film Control Room is one of foreboding. In the offices of Al Jazeera we are introduced to the producers and reporters who are on high alert and afraid of the coming American invasion of Iraq in 2003. They are going about the business of reporting in the best way they can, while cooperating with CENTCOM and its media intelligence officer Lt. Josh Rushing. This included running translated broadcasts of American political speeches or opinion pieces during the run-up to the attack on Baghdad.

In North America we have a collective memory of it as seen through the eyes of FOX, MSNBC, ABC etc. that is very devoid of the kinds of nightmare images that are the reality of armed conflict; this is especially true when the victims are civilian. In the film we see evidence that one of the first missions of CENTCOM is to create the correct atmosphere and context to justify an invasion of Iraq. In contrast to the types of localized human interest counter-narrative of the Al Jazeera reporting, in Control Room American media is in the process of de-humanizing the citizens. Their stories do not focus on how much we have in common. They are not showing the people in Baghdad going shopping, taking their kids to school or going to work. As we see in the film, footage of a screaming mob is quite effective at winning the sympathy of those ready to just ‘nuke em’.

To portray the citizens of Iraq as ‘like us’ is one way that Al Jazeera tries to provide a counter-narrative. They go further however and portray the true face of suffering and death, and take flak for showing the real human cost. It makes for a laugh when we see Josh Rushing argue with Hassan Ibrahim about how this is minimal and just one of the by-products of conflict. He still believes the military rhetoric about ‘smart weapons’ and ‘surgical strikes’. The missile strikes on Al Jazeera and Abu Dabi TV etc. were evidence that ruffling the feathers of some birds can be deadly.

Al Jazeera’s mission statement is presented in the film as “The Opinion and the Other Opinion” this is a very good definition of what a democratic model of journalism should be. In the film we see one instance of the producer Samir Kadher say that “We at Al Jazeera play the American propaganda as if it is news”. We also see him admonish his reporters to remain objective as possible while carry out their duties. This is in contrast to American claims that Al Jazeera is Osama Bin Laden’s mouthpiece, followed up by Josh Rushings’ admission that there is “ incredible bias” with the CENTCOM reporting.

The biggest difference between Al Jazeera and the American style media is the fact that reporters are local to the region. They understand the people and their problems, foreign reporters do not have the same insights. Whether Al Jazeera really is a contra-flow of news is brought into question in the film. The scenes of the statue of Saddam being demolished in the center of Baghdad were not covered by Al Jazeera. In the film we saw as they could only comment on the feeds they were getting from the embedded media as this event unfolded. It became clear that the mob that had ‘spontaneously assembled’ to topple the despotic edifice were in fact not even Iraqis’. The producer at Al Jazeera gave evidence of this by saying that they did not have the correct accent. He then pointed out that the whole thing was “not right”, there were no women or children present in any of the shots, nor were there any Iraqi soldiers or Republican Guard. He raised suspicions that the event was staged – one of the mob had an Iraqi flag pre 1991 with him (deemed unlikely). These aspects of this event were not heard on FOX or MSNBC, instead it was spun as the Iraqi people embracing democracy and freedom.

During the film,
Al Jazeera ended up not able to truly provide the ‘other opinion’; due to damage to infrastructure as well as political pressures.

Trevor Olafson

News From The Holy Land: Theory and practice of reporting conflict

The central question in regards to understanding conflicts, is how we hear of them. The news in the West usually focuses on a war and violence angle in their stories and leaves out important information as to the cause of the it. An effect in perception of news watchers towards the unrepresented side of a conflict manifests as a them and us mentality; which helps win support for military actions against the ‘enemy’ or ‘terrorists’. Most of us have been duped at one time or another by this kind of reporting, and simply gone on with our lives. While war atrocities and genocides were taking place – we slept.

News stories based on a Peace Journalism perspective would for example, be constructed differently than the traditional pieces. The order of the shots in the segment can change perception of the context, this lack of context feeds polarization; Peace Journalism is a counter to this aim. Knowledge of what created the conditions in which people feel driven to become ‘suicide bombers’ is often lacking. A culture (Palestinians) that has had to endure persecution and hardship would have much more support in the West if we were shown the checkpoints, barbwire and soldiers they contend with on a daily basis. Questions that ask why, don’t happen without wanting to know who and what. In the case of the Israel – Palestine conflict, the tradition is not to ask about this structural violence. Understanding people and the landscape in which they live is the goal of Peace Journalism. Giving a voice to those on both sides would help to end patterns of mutual mistrust and begin reshaping attitudes which dictate behaviour.

For example, stories about a peace talk or summit often include a line that there is little chance of a successful meeting. The alternate version would focus on how to create conditions for successful peace initiatives, such as empathy and understanding of those who have been affected. It is easy to turn a blind eye to something that you cannot see. Without inclusion of the facts, opinion is misshapen and contradictions are ignored, allowing the same conditions to continue.

Certainly I would have a deeper understanding of the plight of Palestinians if the major news reports included stories about how they have been displaced from their land and forced to live in a enclosure. The ‘Apartheid Wall’ symbolizes and enforces daily injustices against the Palestinian people, who are literally caged and at the mercy of their colonial masters.

Approaching these issues in the spirit of ethical journalism requires that they be brought to light by showing real instances of the frustration of Palestinians; blocked from farmlands, harassed and killed. The truth of the background issues would become transparent as previous cover-ups are exposed by journalists who are not foreign to the area.

Without a drastic change in the amount of foreign news reporting(local journalists) getting their stories out to the mainstream, they will remain ‘alternate’. At this time, viewers in North America see a small percentage of reports from journalists based in the region, and those must meet the ‘gatekeepers’ approval before being allowed to go to air.

The typology of violence in a troubled region will continue as long the attitudes and contradictions that cause and perpetuate it remain invisible to those outside the conflict. Let us all hope that those seeking to tell the truth are allowed, I for one still want answers.

Trevor Olafson

A Little Bit of So Much Truth

The film by Jill Freidberg, Un Poquito de Tanta Verdad(A Little Bit of So Much Truth) documents the teachers strikes in the Mexican state of Oaxaca. In this sympathetic look at the popular uprising, the film-maker focuses on how radio became a vital part of making it possible. In May of 2006 over 70,000 teachers went on strike fighting in defense of public education. They had spent years voicing their concerns about the poverty of the children they taught and the lack of funding for even the most basic of school supplies. In a bold move, the teachers went to the capital city of Oaxaca where they set up a camp known as a ‘planton’. For the first time the teachers also used radio to organize themselves, and set up what became known as ‘Radio Planton’. Unlike previous years the government refused to negotiate with them, threatening instead to use police action to break up the strike and evict them from the capital.

The immediate response by main stream media outlets in Mexico was to begin to paint the protesters as being a mob that was not only causing traffic jams, but causing huge economic losses and violating the rights of all Mexicans to move about freely. The counter to this was Radio Planton, it was the only way the protesters were able to get critical information passed amongst themselves and their supporters. Through call in shows, people were able to add their voices and support to the teachers in the struggle. Police action against ‘Radio Planton’ galvanized people to defend it. Calls to the citizens to come out of their homes and help as the police entered the radio station mobilized most of the population, who later drove the police out of the city center. Two days after the attack on the teachers over 300,000 took part in a protest march in solidarity with them. The teachers and the population came together to form APPO, they had one demand, the removal of Ulises Ruis Ortiz from power. This uprising grew through the continual updates given on Radio Planton with calls to people in various regions to support blockades and defy military action. Mass resistance against government forces would not have happened in the same way without the use of media outlets taken over by the protesters throughout the state of Oaxaca.

The government countered and used it’s own television to try to frame the protesters as ‘radical groups’. By using the postponement of a yearly celebration known as the Guelaguetza, the government thought that they would be able to turn public opinion; it was the fault of the protesters that they must cancel the event because of fears that members of the public or even tourists would be hurt. Celebrations went on as normal, despite the official statements on television. People had listened to their radio which they trusted. The radio was used to further incite the protesters who wanted to disseminate ‘a little bit of so much truth’ to eventually take over a TV station when they were refused some air time. The police moved in after three weeks and destroyed the transmitter equipment, because of the impact broadcasts were having on the people, who continued to call for Ortiz to step down. They did not let themselves be silenced however, and instead the same morning took over 19 commercial radio stations and continued to broadcast critical strategic information to keep themselves organized. Main stream TV was calling the protests and takeovers violent clandestine guerrilla actions, not reporting that the violence that happened was against the people by the police.

Once the people had the media in their hands they were changed by it. Having this control allowed them to be able to mobilize and resist government forces, information about possible attacks against roadblocks or troop movements could reach a large number of people who could know when and where they were needed to fight back. The radio became their main defense. The power that the people began to wield changed the way they identified themselves, having control of the media was the turning point, from which they did not want to go back to the way things were.

Despite a huge organized march supported by people throughout Mexico and many parts of the world, thousands of police were used to attack and break up the teachers resistance movement, government television was used to whitewash these attacks in which at least 100 people were ‘disappeared’. One of the last stands of the movement was made at Radio Universidad when people were urged to bring their barricades to help preserve ‘the voice of the people’ and establish a new planton from which to continue the struggle. Unfortunately a campaign of propaganda instituted by the government against the movement was eventually able to negatively affect public perception. Once this was accomplished the government was able to completely break up organized protests without public resistance. Fear of being involved in supporting the protests grew as some were be
aten and arrested. With the eventual loss of Radio Universidad the protests died and the movement never quite recovered it’s support.