web analytics
November 27, 2014 / 5 Kislev, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘movie’

Chinese Crew Begins Blockbuster Filming in Old City (Video)

Monday, June 24th, 2013

A Chinese film crew has begun filming what is supposed to a blockbuster movie of a romantic comedy in the Holy Land and which will expose Israel to the Chinese, to the delight of the Tourism Ministry and the tourist industry.

The ministry is investing more than $80,000 to help promote the film, with expectations that the exposure of Israel to Chinese movie-goers will attract them to visit.

The artists worked with the Ministry of Tourism to arrange the filming of the movie “Old Cinderella,” starring Zhang Jingchu. “It’s a great pleasure to be here in Jerusalem and in Israel,” the actress says. “It’s amazing.”

Approximately 15 minutes of the 95-minute film will be filmed in Israel.

In recent years, more and more foreign film companies are choosing Israeli settings for their works. Jerusalem, the Dead Sea and other locales provide a dramatic and visually rich landscape for feature films.

China Chooses Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Dead Sea for Major Movie

Friday, April 5th, 2013

A major Chinese film company has chosen Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and the Dead Sea as scenes for what is expected to be blockbuster movie.

The Ministry of Tourism is investing more than $80,000 to help promote the film, with expectations that the exposure of Israel to Chinese movie-goers will attract them to visit.

Chinese stars are performing in the 95-minute film, 15 minutes of which will be produced in Israel, according to the Yediot Acharonot’s website.

The cast and production team are scheduled to arrive in the middle of the month to start filming.

 

 

Upper West Siders Forget to Think Jewish

Sunday, February 3rd, 2013

The crowd at the Lincoln Plaza Cinema on the upper west side is mainly Jewish and liberal—ultra-liberal. They behave as if they are superior to all “oustjuden,” the illiterate, superstitious, unwashed Eastern European Jews–and therefore, in their sleek leather boots and fashionable coats they are, surely, finally, safe. At least, safer. After millennia of persecution, here are Jews who are not self-hating, not even opportunist, just Jews who feel secure as long as they feel superior to other Jews. The “outsjuden today are the Zionists, the “settlers,” the “right wing.”

Psychologically, this means that they deserve to survive. They are the “good” Jews. Assimilated, exquisitely moral, the first to find imperfections in their co-religionists.

The line swells, people smile, conversations erupt.

“I am surprised those Zionists are not outside protesting,” says one woman.

“They’ll be here for the later showing, believe me” says another.

A man chimes in: “You have no idea how fanatic they can be. I know.”

His listeners nod approvingly.

And still, these safe-and-liberal Jews push and shove and behave like Jews do on a line, at the Jewish Film Festival or at the Central Bus Station in Tel Aviv. This I find funny and slightly endearing.

The film, “The Gatekeepers” directed by Dror Moreh, will cause Israel great harm, great damage. Even if each of the six former heads of the Shin Bet had the right to say what he said; even if the filmmaker had the right to direct just such a film—with messianic hopes of his own that his film will jump-start the Oslo Accords and influence the destiny of the Israelis and the Palestinians; even if more than half of what each former Shin Bet director has to say is true, either technically or factually or philosophically or metaphorically—the filmmaker has an agenda; he is following a lethal narrative script against the Jewish state.

For example, we mainly see Israeli soldiers in full battle gear, rounding up their unarmed, barefoot, blindfolded and handcuffed Arab cousins. Or, we see Israelis commanding targeted assassination drone attacks from safe distances with horrendous collateral damage. We do not see Palestinian terrorists knifing Israeli infants to death or stoning young Israeli boys to death in a cave, or blowing Israeli civilians and tourists up on buses.

Yes, we do see the bloody, heartless carnage of some bus bombings but we do not see the handlers sending their targeted “marks” off to do the bloody deed and thereby ascend to Paradise. Yes, we do see some quick shots of a Palestinian suicide video and of marching, face-masked Jihadists, but no one is ever tied to a particular attack upon Israeli civilians.

Only the Israelis are tied, over and over again, to a handful of specific (and alleged) military and “terrorist” attacks of their own.

Even if the scenes of the right-wing anti-Rabin protests and the alleged “settler” plot to blow up the Al Aqsa mosque are real, as in they really took place—the filmmaker does not manipulate the emotions of his audience by showing us, from within, the Palestinians building their bombs, indoctrinating the next generations, vowing to annihilate Israel and the Jews, torturing dissenters and “collaborators.”

We see Palestinians mainly as pitiful victims. We do not see Gilad Shalit in captivity. We have no fictionalized recreation of Kobi Mandel being stoned to death in a cave or of Israeli mothers and infants being murdered while they sleep. We have no footage of the rockets landing in southern Israel and the terrified children with only seconds to get to a bomb shelter—now traumatized for life. We do not see how 24 Israeli soldiers were massacred, one by one, in Jenin, as they went in on foot in order to avoid international censure for daring to dismantle the bomb-making apparatuses in Jenin.

Yes, we see some scenes of fiery Palestinian rock throwing and some of the awful bus bombings of both the first and second Intifadas. But, Mr. Moreh is no moreh.

He does not talk to the Shin Bet’s counterpart heads of Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Authority, or Hezb’ollah, etc. He has his six retired Israeli directors tell us that the Palestinians are ready for peace, that in private meetings they have said so, and that the Israeli government is blind, stubborn, refuses to listen—to the peaceful Palestinians and to their Shin Bet commanders. Can this be true?

The Real Reason They’re Digging Up Arafat (Satire)

Wednesday, November 28th, 2012

The news reports about why they are digging up Yasser Arafat are all lies! Read the below and you will learn the real reason the murderer is being exhumed today.

Last June a Swiss lab ran radioisotope tests on his the deceased mass murderer.

The Lab found “very small” quantities of polonium, an isotope that is naturally present in the environment. The quantities were higher than one would normally find in the environment, especially in Arafat’s underwear and hospital clothing ( I am not making this part up).

Suha Arafat, the despot’s widow and former “kissin cousin” of Hilary Clinton, called for an autopsy in the wake of the lab’s findings. She did not explain why she waited nearly eight years to have the belongings tested, nor did she explain why she doesn’t just release the report of the French doctors who treated him during his final days.

The fact is the polonium on Arafat’s “tighty whiteys” is an elaborate hoax. Polonium has a half-life of 138 days, which means every four-and-a-half months (give or take a day or two) only half of the radioactive substance would remains. The amount found on Arafat’s gown and boxers, eight years after his death translates to levels that would have infected his doctors and wife during his last days. In other words the polonium was added more recently than eight years ago.

The months before he died news reports showed Arafat looking frail and sickly. The rumors at the time ranged from Colitis to Cancer. His immediate cause of death was a massive brain hemorrhage according to the French doctors. After his death the rumors were that he died of AIDS.  We don’t know because Suha Arafat and the Palestinian Government have suppressed the actual medical reports.

Now if they reached into the gates of hell to dig up Arafat a month ago I might have thought they were doing it so he could vote for president, most probably in Chicago. But they are digging him up now

Which means the question still remains, why are they really digging up ole’ Yasser? There are only  four possibilities left:

  1. Its a set up—the Swiss lab will find that the dead terrorist was poisoned with polonium, and ignore the fact that the half-life of the substance makes it impossible.
  2. Ringo Starr is making a movie and wants to use the corpse as a stunt double.
  3. The cash poor Palestinian Authority is going to use Arafat’s body and make a movie, like “Weekend at Bernie’s.” That movie made over $30 million in 1989. Abbas believes a madcap romp with the always fun mass-murderer will make a blooming fortune in the Arab world. None of that money would be traceable, so the PA leadership would be able to steal all they want without any consequences. Just like they do now with foreign aid.
  4. Comedian Jeff Dunham is growing tired of Achmed. The PA intends to sell the body to Dunham and he will turn it into an new character: Yasser the Dead Terrorist.

Which ever way the Palestinian Authority goes, I can guarantee you one thing, lies will be told about Israel and the mainstream media will reprint them as if they were of divine origin.

Originally published at Yid With Lid.

The Innocence of Obama

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

Ten years ago most left-thinking liberals were constantly worried about the erosion of civil liberties under the War on Terror though they could rarely name an instance where an American citizen had actually experienced such an erosion.

This was after all before the days when naked scanners and drone strikes had entered the vocabulary and the best they could do was to haul out Jose Padilla, aka Abdullah al-Muhajir, ACLU’s choirboy of the month, a Brooklyn-born convert to Islam who was being held in jail for no reason at all except aiding terrorists and plotting to build a dirty bomb.

Ten years later the lefty civil liberties types were proven right. The War on Terror did erode our civil liberties and America’s first political prisoner in generations has spent a month in jail for making an inconvenient movie at an inconvenient time.

When Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the Navy SEALS who died fighting in Benghazi, met with Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State assured him that, “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And they got him, officially on charges of violating parole, unofficially on charges of violently offending violent Muslims.

The woman whose policy had overthrown the Libyan government and then placed a barely defended consulate in the middle of a city of Jihadists, did not promise the grieving father that his son’s killers would pay. She promised him that the man who offended his son’s killers would pay. Not only would his son be the first casualty of that appeasement policy, but the Constitution that his son had sworn to support and defend would be the second casualty.

Mark Basseley Youssef is not the first filmmaker sent to prison by a Democrat in the White House for making the wrong kind of movie and interfering with his foreign policy. That would be Robert Goldstein who made the The Spirit of ’76, a movie about the American Revolution, at a time when Woodrow Wilson was trying to get Americans deeper into World War I.

Wilson’s Justice Department directed Chicago Police Deputy Superintendent Metellus Lucullus Cicero Funkhouser to confiscate The Spirit of ’76 and Goldstein spent three years in prison and eventually died in a Nazi concentration camp. Both Youssef and Goldstein made two bad movies that were politically inconvenient. The Spirit of ’76 was not welcome in 1917 and the origin of Muslim violence is not an appropriate topic for 2012. “History is history and fact is fact”, Judge Bledsoe conceded and went ahead with his ruling anyway.

Goldstein’s Federal trial took place in the Southern District of California. Mark Basseley Youssef’s trial will take place in the Central District of California. Goldstein was convicted of creating a movie was calculated to arouse antagonism and enmity. That is the unofficial charge that has been brought against Youssef. Goldstein was convicted of reminding Americans of the origin of their country and Youssef is guilty of reminding them of the origin of Islam.

The strange confluence of using Chicago politics and California Federal courtrooms to cover up the nakedness of a progressive president’s policies has a certain resonance less than one hundred years later. Youssef and his video trailer made a convenient scapegoat so that progressive politicians could avoid talking about the collapse of Libya into roving bands of Islamist militias and the triumph of Al Qaeda in North Africa.

After Obama had denounced Youssef in every forum from 60 Minutes to the United Nations to Pakistani TV, he was arrested, not to protect the Innocence of Muslims, but to protect the Innocence of Obama.

Blaming the Innocence of Muslims briefly silenced the more dangerous questions about what had gone wrong in Benghazi and the even more dangerous questions about what had gone wrong with the Arab Spring. Youssef, like Goldstein, was a foreigner, and an excellent choice as a scapegoat. And for weeks people focused on Youssef and his many aliases, and not on the question of why Americans died in Benghazi.

Americans died in Benghazi for the same reason that American hostages had been taken in Iran and for the same reason that Leon Klinghoffer had been murdered on the Achille Lauro and US Marines had died in Beirut. They died because their government had appeased Muslims, had given their terrorist groups hope that they could achieve their aims if they killed enough people, had saved them at the moment of their greatest weakness and had elevated them to power.

Massacring the Truth

Wednesday, October 17th, 2012

The so-called “Jenin Massacre” of 2002 — a massacre that never happened — is emblematic of the way the truth is violated, over and over in this conflict.

I’ve written about this several times. I discussed Palestinian filmmaker Mohammad Bakri, and his “Jenin, Jenin,” an effective propaganda piece full of false accusations and made-up atrocities (including the bombing of a hospital wing that never existed). I wrote about the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by slandered IDF soldiers. I drew attention to biased journalist Philip Reeves, now a respected correspondent for NPR, who wrote some of the earliest reports from the site, suggesting that “hundreds of corpses” were buried in the rubble.

Dr. David Zangen, a doctor who works at Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem, was an eyewitness. As a reserve medical officer, he was present during the nine days of the  battle. He was interviewed recently by the IDF blog:

During the operation, we made a point to leave the hospital in Jenin unharmed so that injured people would be able to receive medical treatment. Whenever we passed by it snipers on the roof shot at us, but we didn’t fire a single bullet back at them.

Despite that, the people who were there at the time told the media that we killed 16,000 people — even though there were only 54 casualties — and that we shut off the hospital’s electricity. This lie drew a lot of harsh criticism from international organizations and news agencies.

Dr. Zangen wrote an article a few years ago called “Seven Lies about Jenin” in which he gives more details about what was in fact a massacre, not of Arabs, but of the truth.

The most shocking aspect of the affair, for me, was the cynical way in which Bakri and others were comfortable with inverting reality for ideological reasons. Bakri himself admitted that  many “details” were not exactly correct (a massive understatement), but that he served a higher truth.

And here is how Dr. Zangen, who was present at the scene (as Bakri, of course, was not) was treated when he tried to speak out:

A few months after the operation, Mohammed Bakri was about to release the movie ‘Jenin Jenin’, which projected many lies. A member of an Israeli bereaved family called me and asked me to try talk to a cinema manager in Jerusalem who was about to screen the film, and ask him to reconsider.

The manager called me and invited me to watch the film and give her my personal opinion. I came to the cinema and watched the movie, which was filled with lies. She still decided to screen the film, but invited me to stay and speak when the movie was over. I agreed. When I arrived, Mohammed Bakri was on stage and telling the audience that the reason he created the film was to show both sides of the conflict in order to promote peace.

Then I got up on the stage, told him and the audience who I was, and told him that the things he put in his movie never happened. The audience got upset, yelled at me that I was a child murderer and took the microphone from my hands. It was a tough moment for me. That’s why whenever I can, I fight to spread the truth.

Visit FresnoZionism.org.

Atlas Shrugged II: The Plot Thickens

Sunday, October 14th, 2012

Speaking for myself, I can’t wait to see John Galt’s 100-page soliloquy on screen, a pleasure that should be heading our way in, what? Twelve months? Eighteen?

Samantha Mathis as Dagny Taggart adds some gravitas to the second in the Atlas Shrugged series – Atlas Shrugged II: Either-Or – and director John Putch (the 2005 Poseidon AdventureThe Book of Love) keeps the story moving right along.  Some of the aesthetic choices are kind of weird (what were they thinking with the cut of that silver evening gown on Mathis?  And why the Boyz-in-the-Hood slow-mo with the Taggart Transcontinental board sauntering down the corridor?), but overall, the action is peppy and interest-keeping.

I had two strong impressions, however, watching the film yesterday.  One was quite simple: this should have been done as a TV miniseries.  Ending with cliffhangers is just tacky for theater fare.  (Changing out the lead actors between Parts is hard to overcome as well.  Hank Rearden was Grant Bowler but is now Jason Beghe – another change for the better, in my view, but it’s still jarring.  And where was Esai Morales when we needed him for Francisco D’Anconia in Part I?)

The writers (Duke Sandefur, Brian Patrick O’Toole, and Duncan Scott) tried to square the circle on the cliffhanger problem – Dagny pilots her plane into John Galt’s mountain redoubt, and Part II ends with his face in shadow as he pulls her out of the wreckage – by making it a story resolution previsaged in the movie’s opening sequence.  But, naahh, it’s still a cliffhanger, and it belongs in a cable miniseries.  I’m seeing six episodes and endless cult fascination.

The other problem is harder to solve.  The similarities between the U.S. federal government of 2012 and its fictional doppelganger in Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel are – who knew this would be weird – too obvious.  The tanking economy of Atlas Shrugged hits too close to home.  What you sit there thinking is not so much that Rand wrote prophetically as that the trappings of her fictional world are outdated and a tad annoying.

It’s as if someone had made – in 1942 – a movie of the Homer Lea geopolitical classic The Valor of Ignorance, which in 1909 prophesied a war between the US and Japan, starting with a sneak attack across the Pacific.  Had such a movie been made in 1929, it would have been appreciated later on, and perhaps become a minor classic.  But in 1942, post-Pearl Harbor audiences would have seen little point in creating a fictional story to compete with the real one.

An Atlas Shrugged made – faithfully to the novel – as a 1970s miniseries would no doubt be beloved of Rand fans today, and would figure in YouTube clips as a clincher to libertarian and conservative arguments across the infosphere.

Trying to set the story in the present day, with tablet PCs and ubiquitous information screens dotting the landscape, just highlights the incongruity of plot elements like railroads and steel – and in particular, the conundrum of the “motor of the world” device, which comes off in II as laughably silly.  With all that information at their fingertips, the remaining Great Brains of Fair Share America can’t, like, do some web searches?

One scene is especially poignant.  At the Unification Board hearing on Hank Rearden’s unauthorized shipment of Rearden metal to coal magnate Ken Danagger (Arye Gross), the scene is staged much like a 1930s show-trial, with sanctimonious officials presiding and a chamber full of press and people forming judgments as they watch.

But the theater of 20th-century collectivism has never figured on the American political scene, and it doesn’t today.  The real inroads of ideological collectivism on America have been made more sedulously and incrementally, in the most banal and uninteresting ways, with some industries sued into co-dependence here, and some silent job-killing over there.  Today’s industrial titan faces less the public calumny of show-trial tribunals than the disdain of bureaucrats.  The latter never approach their real goal head-on, but instead administer death to the titan’s bottom line by a thousand tangential cuts.

Ayn Rand’s ideas were formed by Sovietism, and ultimately, it would take a lot more editing to make Atlas Shrugged stand outside of its time on screen.  Americans saw the cartoonish bluntness of Sovietism coming; it was making the rule of law available for service to ideological arbitrariness that few recognized as a great threat 40 or 50 years ago.  That’s hard to capture in film, but the difference between that reality and Rand’s more dramatic vision of the collectivist threat lurks over the Atlas Shrugged movies like an unanswered doorbell.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/atlas-shrugged-ii-the-plot-thickens/2012/10/14/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: