"Why"

[Weezer]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Herr Flick

Als je hetgeen googelt wat je hier in superklein hebt neergeschreven kom je
http://www.kskelder.nl/verhalen/geenoordeel5.php hier terecht,...

Gelukkig had ik nu géén koffie in m'n bakkes...

maar dan ook echt:

[hurricane]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Txiki

Die zanger zijn moeder zit op het forum. Althans, iemand die dat als nick gebruikt.

De moeder van Piet Veerman ???

[Txiki]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door hurricane

De moeder van Piet Veerman ???

Jep.

[Cdude]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Weezer

Dat je haar een knappe verschijning vindt, okee. Ben ik het mee eens, maar de cd kopen?

Euh, ik wilde haar "steunen" (denkt heel diep na over excuus )
Kweenie, ik vond die samenzang zo verfrissend.
It puts me in a good mood(and a dirty mind )

[Cdude]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Txiki

't is nog erger gesteld met u dan ik dacht.... (grapke dude, grapke) toch iemand die z'n geld daar wil insteken

Kan er tegen hor Nooit jong geweest en rare CD's gekocht waarvan je nu denkt?

Deze heb ik ook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTqCwlQODxo

[Txiki]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cdude

Kan er tegen hor Nooit jong geweest en rare CD's gekocht waarvan je nu denkt?

Deze heb ik ook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTqCwlQODxo

'k Heb veel rare cd's liggen, maar 'k vind die nog steeds fantastisch. Heeft ook te maken met mijn muziekvoorkeuren natuurlijk

[Herr Flick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Cdude

Kan er tegen hor Nooit jong geweest en rare CD's gekocht waarvan je nu denkt?

Deze heb ik ook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTqCwlQODxo

Eigenlijk, ... is da zo slecht nog niet, ... ge had veel ergere rommel kunnen kopen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUWyWmD0218

[Weezer]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Herr Flick

Eigenlijk, ... is da zo slecht nog niet, ... ge had veel ergere rommel kunnen kopen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUWyWmD0218

Weird Al Yankovic

[Herr Flick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Weezer

Weird Al Yankovic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVw-r...eature=related

En deze is echt geweldig :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo74D...eature=related

[Weezer]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Herr Flick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVw-r...eature=related

En deze is echt geweldig :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo74D...eature=related

Deze is ook geweldig! Maar dit vind ik de meest geniale tot nu toe.

[Herr Flick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CYwN...eature=channel

Nog zo een waarvan je je afvraagt, ...

[Weezer]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Herr Flick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CYwN...eature=channel

Nog zo een waarvan je je afvraagt, ...

Inderdaad

[Weezer]

Jiskefet: M'n eigen vrouw

[Herr Flick]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Weezer

Inderdaad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJHzawUovs8

Nog eentje om het af te leren, ...

[Weezer]

We gaan weer stug verder...

Jiskefet - Man in zwembad

[Weezer]

Zalf

[Egmond Codfried]

Zeer onder de indruk van Once Upon A Time in Mumbai met Randeep Hooda en Kangana Raunaut.

[Egmond Codfried]

Brooklyn’s Finest(2009)

The latest movie by producer and director Antoine Fuqua (Pittsburgh, 1966), an Afro-American making big budget movies, should have ‘Police Heroes Over The Brink’ as subtitle.

The movie stars Don Cheadle, Ethan Hawke and the aging American Gigolo star, Richard Gere as cops. And Wesley Snipes as a gentleman crook. The movie miserably fails its intentions, (or not!, depending on how racist its intentions really are) because we never feel any connection with the protagonists, no matter what tender emotions or fatherly cares they profess to have. There is no saving grace. One just hates them to the point of utter indifference about their fait and is relieved to see it over with, and watch them die. I seldom hated a movie so much.

There are three troubled policemen and their stories progress separately. At the final, resolution act, there is a suggestion of the threads coming together, because it all happens in one location at the same time; but they are not. The movie does not work, in spite of good acting, because there is a major flaw in the unity of genre. Although realistic in tone, whenever the protagonists show their skills as policemen, they come off as super action heroes. They never fail to see their hulking attackers and shoot without ever missing and never failing to mortally strike their fumbling victims. Who off course, but wholly unrealistically, instantly die like flies.

This is a subtle hint that the evil group is biologically different, thus inferior, as they die like bugs; not like humans. All gangsters are pure black men. There is only one white on white, and one black on white shooting. All the crooks, save one white police man, and pimps and their whores are Blacks. Blacks are emphatically whore mongering, MTV video clips-type of gangster-Blacks, extremely violent and nothing else. So the Blacks and whites too, incessantly shoot these criminal Blacks who are like throw away creatures. As if they were nothing but cheap, target figures in a shooting gallery. Even the Black, Internal Affairs director tries to induce the white policeman protagonist to lie about a shooting incident by portraying the innocent victim, a Black student (who could have been his son), as a drug criminal. Even this Black, police professional does not give a **** about Blacks. Not even if they struggle to get out of the ghetto, to break the cycle.

Like with Fuqua’s King Arthur(2004) movie, produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, I was greatly troubled by the promotion of white supremacy by a Black director. Because Hollywood movies are never, ever colour-blind, but propagate a racist status quo. There was no person of colour in view in King Arthur, there were some in the production staff, and only pale whites play the Woads, who are supposed to be warrior Celtic people who painted themselves blue but were obviously a historical black skinned nation. Only Merlin, their leader appears in a few scenes black skinned, a Golden Mohr, because of his blue and golden body paint. But Kiera Knighley, a Woad, is just white. The Franks look white and Slavic. And no Roman soldier has anything like a tan, or a native dark skin. So Black directors other then Spike Lee, can only swim with the big fish if they deny their blackness and embrace white superiority. This upsets me, and the more so as I foresee European governments preparing yet another holocaust, but this time against European Blacks, Coloureds and Muslims.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) is also very Black oriented, but although his loving but surrogate Black mother, is middle class and an independent entrepreneur, and he visits black churches; he does not act Black, but white. There is a white clockmaker who is blind and subsequently has a half-black wife. Then there is a Black prostitute for Jeremy to sow his wild oats with. There is plenty of satire of Blacks in the way Blacks laugh at themselves, but nothing like a Black identity otherwise then below whites, being colourful and ready to serve whites. This is emphasised by the sophisticated actors presenting themselves as rather ‘commenting’ on the demeaning ‘Fetchitt’ type roles, then just playing these roles. So whites can perceive an Irish or Jewish identity, but not a Black identity, that rejects white supremacy. Buttons remains a white person and in the end there are none of his Black relatives near him, but his patrician, white wife.

The role of director Fuqua is perfectly symbolised by that of Cheadle, the role of a sell out, a cop who is first prepared to set up, to sacrifice his only friend, who has saved his life, but who he had already spied on as an undercover agent. The message is spelled out; for bad or worse: whites are on top and they view Blacks as ‘monkeys’ wallowing in their ‘monkey ****,’ as how police inspector Ellen Barkin put it to Cheadle. The one good cop is white, but suicidal and helplessly flawed, irrationally trying to turn the sweet, Black neighbourhood whore into an (his) honest woman. Yet there is no explanation forthcoming for his extreme unhappiness. She is differently damaged, and cannot even bear the suggestion of such a relation. The movie could have been saved if the third cop story line by Richard Gere was cut, as it is rather puzzling and perfunctory and has no bearing on the two other story lines. And so leaves us a chance to spent more time with the two other cops and be able to discover some humanity, some worthiness in them.

I’m not a racist and I do not hate whites, they are victims of history too, but in order to be white today there seems to be an overwhelming need to feel and express superiority over Blacks. All the time, and everywhere. Even the nicest white person is conditioned never to overstep this law, to never side with Blacks and risk being treated as a Black and a traitor by his fellow whites. And whites always operate from a position of power. One notice this when one wants to have a rational discussion with whites, and how they summarily dismiss any arguments or proof and rather make you feel bad for bringing any of this up. Upsetting them by trying to have them read several passages from all of Jane Austen’s novels that show that all the protagonists are either sallow (light brown), brown, very brown and black in complexion. Even the personal descriptions of Jane Austen as a ‘very brown’ woman causes them great discomfort, embarrassment and agitation because they cannot tell you in your black face that the whole idea of them worshipping a Black woman is just sickening. They hold out for some clever interpretation by one of their clever scholars that this ‘black’ must have a logical, but very different meaning. Mostly because ‘there were no Blacks,’ they say; and most certainly the few were not part of the gentry or nobility. This they also learn from Jane Austen movies with all the brown and black characters played by very ‘pink’ looking, blue-eyed actors and actresses.

The final message of Brooklyn’s Finest is that Blacks can participate and even get promoted to a subaltern position, if they swallow their pride, betray other Blacks and accept inequality as a law of nature. Me, I could not wait to see them all die and leave the cinema, before the shops close, to buy a rutabaga and some pig feet. Yet I felt humiliated and ashamed, among the people shuffling out the cinema, as a creature that one can just kill off, as even its own kind does not consider him worthy, and I prayed for Mr. Fuqua’s soul.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Fuqua
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsono...e-failure.html
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsono...e-failure.html

[Cdude]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Weezer

Jiskefet: M'n eigen vrouw

JISKEFEEEEEEEEEEET

[Egmond Codfried]

[Sonam Kapoor and Abhay Deol as Emma Woodhouse and Mr. Knightley]

AISHA

The timing could not have been better for me as I’m presently surrounded by scholarly books about author Jane Austen (1775-1817). I’m writing a research ‘Was Jane Austen Black?’ based on her personages who all are Blacks, and her own personal description as a dark brown woman, with African facial traits. All of these works are seriously flawed and ideological racist, as they never touch on the insistent skin colour schematics Austen offers. But they have an analysis of Emma (1816), which is Austen’s final novel, and is credited as her most accomplished and cynical; but the hardest to analyse. Aisha (2010) is an Indian, movie adaptation of Emma and there is no colour subtext. To me Emma seems to resist analysis because it should not be read as a straight romantic story, but as an allegory about Black History, the causes of The French Revolution and the new political realities the classes must accept. It’s a novel about self-knowledge, self-improvement and a warning to Blacks to pay attention and not to be afraid of change.

The movie treats the book as a straight romantic story, without any attempt at historification. (is this not an English word?) There are a few faint references to her other novels and scholarly approaches. It’s in a sense a picaresque story, with things just happening to the protagonist; Aisha/Emma. A rich, and wilful girl who takes up the business of matchmaking with disastrous results. Hurting the ones she sets out to help. It takes a long time before she discovers how wrong she is. Finally at the brink of self-annihilation her instincts kick in. Throughout she is questioned and scolded by her livelong friend Arjun, the Mr. Knightley of the novel. The film writers carefully preserved the basic storyline, asking themselves; what makes Emma, Emma? A true cinematographic tour de force! Any adaptation is a new reading, an experiment and a comment on the original. Emma is much about class and rank, which does not translate well to the merotocratic and cosmopolitan world in which we live today. So the makers omitted these two major forces, which in the novel work on Emma. Aisha now only belongs to metropolis of Delhi, hardly a country village, and the moneyed higher classes. There is no threat to her social position, which is really the greatest driving force and the danger in Emma. Aisha is not, like Emma, the dominating presence, nor is she a queen about to be dethroned. Just someone who manages to be the centre of attention. And this she does most beautifully in a stunning Dior wardrobe.

The white Miss Harriet Smith, Shevaly in the movie, is a middle class girl from the village who, even worse in light of the original, does not accept being perceived as socially inferior. Miss Smith from the novel is acutely aware of her inferiority to Emma, which makes Emma’s attention to her so remarkable. Gear is of great importance, also cars and houses which today only scream ‘money’ and not ‘class and breeding.’ The trips to Donwell and Box-Hill are represented by a trip to a white water rafting resort, where the company also indulges in some weed smoking. It’s a nice touch to be alerted to the fact that Emma and her set would today be knocking about in Dior, Chanel, Ferragamo and Louis Vuitton, but I ‘am not prepared to have them smoking pot! Perhaps this shows too much realism, even to the point of showing them sitting on toilets; as a device of verisimilitude. The unity of place is however less enforced as it is in Emma because we actually get to see the places outside Highbury/Delhi, where Emma as a novel is situated.

It’s hard. How would the movie have satisfied me if I did not know the story beforehand? What about the folks who don’t know Jane Austen? The look is very modern and contemporary. The main characters are dressed in European stile. Stylish, elegant but very skimpy. Only Shefaly wears some traditional sjalwaar chamise, off and on. In the hospital where Aisha visits her sister who gave birth, we notice how short a dress Aisha wears, as the camera catches her panties. The women are young but at times appear disturbingly like pre-teenagers, children really, even sitting in a dollhouse. Perhaps this is a pointed reference to Austen’s fierce feminist criticism of how society looks at women? We also see Aisha standing outside the hospital in her short dress with two fully dressed Indian ladies in the background. As if Aisha escaped the movie set, to symbolise how detached she has become from reality.

The personal struggle Aisha has to face when she realises how lost she is, is symbolised by her binging on desserts and Häagen-Dazs ice cream. She then applies for a job which means quitting Delhi, like Aarti/ Jane Fairfax, but is saved from this somehow wretched fate by Arjun who finally states his love for her. They had loved each other for a long time but did not think themselves worthy. She was distracted by her projects and was not really thinking. He because he watched her mainly to find fault and keep her from harm.

The question is: does the movie convince on its own merits? Perhaps the story needed to be watered down, because we live in more complicated but less trying times. There is less a climate of change and uncertainty, then when Emma was written. We are however never more in need of a global revolution, to eradicate the last vestiges of colonialism. India has fully outgrown its status as a former British colony and matches or even exceeds anything perceived as western and forward. An Indian producer can even do a better Emma adaptation then a western filmmaker and sets a hard act to follow. The choice was made to take the major incidents from Emma out of context and give them another, less dire meaning. The ill-judged, untimely and unforeseen marriage proposal by Mr. Elton is an error of manners and high comedy, but becomes in Aisha an ironical joke about sexual harassment. Without understanding of the underlying story about revolution and change, a full strength presentation would have been too long, complicated and bewildering with the many twists, to a movie audience. Austen’s contemporary readers would readily understand her references to the outside world, while we would first need a long history lesson.

It’s a very satisfying movie because of the visual spectacle it offers, as we may expect from any Indian movie. There is some alluring, but functional dancing and singing, that don’t put the plot on hold. All in keeping with the novel, too. The characters have the unusual appearance of purpose, although we have no clue where all this leads. So this movie version is a string of unrelated incidents, which yet give some measure of gravity to the characters; but only the final denouement is what really ties them together. This can also be said of the book version, which keeps us guessing with its many false leads. Aisha has given clues of little jealousies toward Arjun and Aatri, Knightley and Jane Fairfax, but nothing major. And towards the end she agonises because she thinks that Arjun and Shewaly are united, while they are not. All the while Arjun is like a big brother, all about solicitude and criticism. Yet from these disparate feelings, intensified by the incidents; love grows. It’s because of this strange story, told with great and unfaltering authority, we are forced to ask; what is the story Miss Austen really wants to tell us?

How would I go about making a movie adaptation of Emma? It would have to be a two-tiered affair; two stories, simultaneously told. An overpoweringly, romantic one with magnified bucolic charms and a fairy tale like air, commenting on itself. And a totally newly created, relentless and harsh story of civil war and terror, set around the French revolution, with the same players, doubling. The themes would be the corruption, inherent to class and rank without true personal merit. Upsetting the natural order by elevating a conquered people. And imposing equality on two disparate nations, which goes against historical truth. Both storylines singing the praise of decency and benevolence, a true love of humanity under pressure. These war-like themes would find their counterpart in her indolence and the race-mixing practises Emma indulges in. It has to be historical because of the central role of rank and class, which are alien to us today. The players would have to be as Austen decreed. Mr. Elton, spruce, black and smiling. Jane Fairfax would be a light skinned Black and Jane Fairfax; a blue eyed blond. While Emma and Frank, who used to tease her for her paleness would indeed be extremely dark skinned, like all the characters from Paradise by Toni Morrison. As would Mr. Weston and his wife. Mr. Knightley; and Mrs. Augusta Elton are Blacks, for she soon dethrones Emma to become a vigorous surrogate but vulgar replacement. Gentleman farmer Martin, the proper partner for Miss Smith who really loves her, is off course white.