Freedom? Not at a Bush speech... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 07-07-2004, 06:21 AM

there is a second level to this--apart from the civil rights violation matter that has occupied folk so far:

i think it is instructive to consider for a while the difference between political events that is not going to be televised--which can accomidate dissent and often does--and which retain something of the idea of politics as public debate, and thereby something of the messiness of democracy (well, american pseudo-democracy)----as over against one that is designed to be televised.

maybe use this situation--which demonstrates the right's affection for generating an illusion of unanimous support---as an example. think about the function of the police action--to work as janitors for the sanitized tv image, to help organize it--maybe this will start people thinking (if they do not already) about the problematic nature of film/video/tv images as sources of anything like reflection of the world----this problem goes well beyond the faux news matter, the obvious right biais of the talking heads that verbally frame image sequences fro example---and to the medium itself.

what makes people imagine that footage has in itself a documentary value? that there are not always problems of framing (what is included, what excluded), of editing....why are people still fooled by the apparent referential nature of a video or digital image into thinking that the image itself can be understood as somehow "truth"?

this illusion seems fundamental to the current system of population management.
this despite the fact that for years there have been filmmakers whose work has tried to undermine this faith and explore other ways of thinking about what film is/does/can do--i was reading stan brakhage writings last night, so he is the example that floats to mind.
it is good to see some of this stuff--it is kind of lilke trying to watch a slasher film after you see "henry portrait of a serial killer" which exposes all the conventions of the form by simply not using them....
any thoughts on this?

pan6467 · 07-07-2004, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by shakran
As Superbelt said, as soon as you're in restraints, you're legally under arrest.

Not technically, technically you can be considered "in custody, pursuant to investigation" which is police talk for taking you away to cool off.

Technically speaking you can be held in ANY jail cell in the USA, without the phone call or any outside contact for a period of, I believe, 48 hours (might only be 24) at which time the police have to formally bring about charges (place you under arrest, at which time you may call an attorney) or release you.

Believe it or not this is a more common practice than many believe it to be.

It's a way for the police to "scare" people without giving them a record of any kind. Or a way to cool down people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.

I wouldn't know anything about this personally, as I am a very mild mannered, well adjusted, never let emotions get in my way kinda person..... yeah right.

apeman · 07-07-2004, 03:33 PM

roachboy we do not have your learning

plus the "what is documentary" question could easily morph into a MM thread, and we don't want that do we? personally I'm with Bergsson on this, or whoever he was ... but I'd have to re-read it to explain whatever he thought ... sigh

shakran · 07-07-2004, 04:13 PM

no, an arrest is depriving a person of his/her freedom. If I put you in handcuffs and haul you away, I have arrested you.

The next step would be taking them into custody, which is closer to what pan is describing.

apeman · 07-07-2004, 04:16 PM

"arrest" surely comes from the French "to stop" ? that's what it's all about, restraint

roachboy · 07-07-2004, 06:10 PM

ok so i just happened to have been reading a book by brakhage last night...hey....

the question is quite different from any possible mm thread because in his films you know its documentary--meaning an argument--but when you see footage on the news, for example, you might think this is real life and not an argument about real life--so what i was wondering is--based on this thread, thinking about the bushrally and the cops and their control over a rally for the benefit of the tv cameras--what enables you to imagine that you are seeing "reality" when you see tv news footage?
because there is cropping
there is editing
there is commentary
nothing is raw
so why do you believe that the images on the news are not a problem?
or do you not?

cthulu23 · 07-07-2004, 06:23 PM

Although I do think that there is some lingering vestige of "I see it so it must be real" style credulity out there, it is fairly apparent that there is also a rising level of public cynicism about the "proof" that video constitutes. This probably has more to do with the perception of the power of technology rather than any sort of political skepticism.

07-07-2004, 06:21 AM	#41 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	there is a second level to this--apart from the civil rights violation matter that has occupied folk so far: i think it is instructive to consider for a while the difference between political events that is not going to be televised--which can accomidate dissent and often does--and which retain something of the idea of politics as public debate, and thereby something of the messiness of democracy (well, american pseudo-democracy)----as over against one that is designed to be televised. maybe use this situation--which demonstrates the right's affection for generating an illusion of unanimous support---as an example. think about the function of the police action--to work as janitors for the sanitized tv image, to help organize it--maybe this will start people thinking (if they do not already) about the problematic nature of film/video/tv images as sources of anything like reflection of the world----this problem goes well beyond the faux news matter, the obvious right biais of the talking heads that verbally frame image sequences fro example---and to the medium itself. what makes people imagine that footage has in itself a documentary value? that there are not always problems of framing (what is included, what excluded), of editing....why are people still fooled by the apparent referential nature of a video or digital image into thinking that the image itself can be understood as somehow "truth"? this illusion seems fundamental to the current system of population management. this despite the fact that for years there have been filmmakers whose work has tried to undermine this faith and explore other ways of thinking about what film is/does/can do--i was reading stan brakhage writings last night, so he is the example that floats to mind. it is good to see some of this stuff--it is kind of lilke trying to watch a slasher film after you see "henry portrait of a serial killer" which exposes all the conventions of the form by simply not using them.... any thoughts on this? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2004, 03:33 PM	#43 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	roachboy we do not have your learning plus the "what is documentary" question could easily morph into a MM thread, and we don't want that do we? personally I'm with Bergsson on this, or whoever he was ... but I'd have to re-read it to explain whatever he thought ... sigh __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

07-07-2004, 04:16 PM	#45 (permalink)
apeman Wah Location: NZ	"arrest" surely comes from the French "to stop" ? that's what it's all about, restraint __________________ pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy

07-07-2004, 06:10 PM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok so i just happened to have been reading a book by brakhage last night...hey.... the question is quite different from any possible mm thread because in his films you know its documentary--meaning an argument--but when you see footage on the news, for example, you might think this is real life and not an argument about real life--so what i was wondering is--based on this thread, thinking about the bushrally and the cops and their control over a rally for the benefit of the tv cameras--what enables you to imagine that you are seeing "reality" when you see tv news footage? because there is cropping there is editing there is commentary nothing is raw so why do you believe that the images on the news are not a problem? or do you not? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-07-2004, 06:23 PM	#47 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Although I do think that there is some lingering vestige of "I see it so it must be real" style credulity out there, it is fairly apparent that there is also a rising level of public cynicism about the "proof" that video constitutes. This probably has more to do with the perception of the power of technology rather than any sort of political skepticism. Last edited by cthulu23; 07-07-2004 at 07:48 PM..

07-07-2004, 04:13 PM	#44 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	no, an arrest is depriving a person of his/her freedom. If I put you in handcuffs and haul you away, I have arrested you. The next step would be taking them into custody, which is closer to what pan is describing.