“Living Legendz” Telling OUR STORY, RECORDING OUR PATH” l Filmmaker, Nicholle La Vann

OUR COMMON GROUND with Janice Graham

WITNESSES FROM THE BRIDGE Series

 

      Filmmaker, Nicholle La Vann

 “Living Legendz” Telling OUR STORY, RECORDING OUR PATH”

 March 30, 2013      10pm ET  LIVE and CALL-In

    “WITNESSES FROM THE BRIDGE”

                      “They came to Change a Nation and Lift Up A People”

                                   The Women of the Black Power Movement

 ABOUT ” Living Legendz” and Award-Winning Filmmaker, Nicholle La Vann

 FREEDOM and JUSTICE WARRIOR

“Living Legendz” is documentary that highlights the lives of Abiodun Oyewole, Dr. Leonard Jeffries and Jamal Joseph and their contributions to their community and culture.

“Living Legendz”  The documentary series explores the lives of African and Latino American icons. So much of Black and Latino history has been lost or not documented leaving others to tell our stories.

The filmmaker, Nicholle La Vann, says, ” It is my responsibility to be that keeper of our history and provide a platform where their lives and accomplishments can be heard.”

La Vann is a an award winning filmmaker with a Master of Fine Arts from the City University of New York in Media Arts Production. As an artist of visual culture, Nicholle is interested in the intersection between the digital environment and media social issues. As a video artist, she focuses on the impact of injustice and youth development while integrating related factors such as poverty. Nicholle’s interest continues to be in the area of facilitating dialogues between people. Which mean challenging existing assumptions as well as searching for new ways of addressing current issues.  La Vann continues to give back through teaching documentary workshops in New York City and Toronto and screenings that provide feedback discussions with audiences.

She is a warrior storyteller with a modern day weapon. Recording the best of our aspirations in the 21st Century.

She notes that, “Too much emphasis has been put on our appearance and not enough on our mindset.  It is my goal to inspire audiences of all races with a special interest on my own. The amount of knowledge that children learn in school is not always accurate nor true, depending on where the source comes from.”

Living Legendz is a sponsored project of Fractured Atlas, a non-profit arts service organization. Contributions for the purposes of Living Legendz must be made payable to Fractured Atlas and are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

Your contributions in support of this project are appreciated.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/living-legendz

about Filmdress Filmz

 Filmstress Filmz is a creative multimedia production company specializing in social marketing.  We work with an array of agencies, corporations and non-profit organizations, and government agencies to build and educate cause marketing campaigns through a wide range of video productions. Our  work includes Public Service Announcements (PSAs), documentary shorts, music videos and internet streaming video.  Our projects address social issues rarely heard in mainstream media. We offer broadcast quality media for television, community screenings, fundraisers, presentations, conferences, film festivals and workshops. 

Join us in this conversation with Filmmater, Nicholle La Van about  this important recording of our history and storyteller, a  contemporary warrior in Black History.

LIVE:  OCG Meetinghouse: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/OCG

For More Information: http://www.ourcommongroundtalk.wordpress.com

Community Forum

 @JaniceOCG #TalkthatMatters

Web   

DOWNLOAD OUR APP Here

http://7f3186db-1b59-417d-989e-5feaed15b224.conduitapps.com/#

Three Ways to Consider Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” l Amy Alexander

SUNDAY, JANUARY 6, 2013

Three Ways to Consider Tarantino’s “Django Unchained”

Two weeks after it opened,  “Django Unchained”continues kicking up a windstorm of commentary, critiques and rants.  It has also earned more than$100 million at the domestic box office, not exactly small change for a spectacularly complicated film that opened at the height of the Christmas season.

I’d read the reviews in The New York Times and other outlets and sat it out, opting for a Christmas holiday free of blood-splatters.  During the film’s first week, I followed and sometimes chimed in on the discussions that clogged my social media channels. Many of the writers, academics and media folks who are the core of my network expressed — sometimes in heated language — widely diverging opinions about the movie.  Insummary:

— Tarantino foolishly makes light of the horrors of slavery. (Susan Fales Hill.)
— Tarantino delivered a liberating revenge fantasy, disturbing but legitimate (TaRessa Stovall.)
— Tarantino wrongly suggests that an eye-for-an-eye philosophy would have been an acceptable antidote to slavery, i.e., slaves or former slaves killing whites in retribution. (William Jelani Cobb)
— Tarantino is talented but woefully immature. (Me.)

Now that I’ve watched it, here are two points on the film, brief analysis on the buzz surrounding the film, and observations on the filmmaker’s comments about how and why he made it.

1) Story
“Django Unchained” is a love story wrapped in an action-packed revenge fantasy set against the backdrop of slavery in the Deep South and in the Southwest.

Or is it?

As a postmodern, edgy action movie, it is wildly successful. As a love story it is weakened by excesses that Tarantino either didn’t notice, failed to reign in, or willfully created. As a revenge fantasy-cum-commentary on racism, it succeeds moderately.   There are strained metaphors and over-long scenes that hamper the action  (Fales Hill, for example, quite astutely noted the ‘hamfisted’ inclusion a reference to Wagner’s “The Ring Cycle,”  within the plot).  But the  biggest story deficit is that the film’s spine — it’s core meaning — isn’t clear. Is it foremost a love story? A revenge fantasy? A buddy film? Tarantino’s reputation as an enfant terrible of modern film auteurs springs from his ability to produce jarring, swift acts of violence, unexpected moments of tenderness, and black humor laced with creative explosions of colorfully profane language.

All are present here, but given the incendiary frame (slavery, the ultimate third-rail in American cultural politics), identifying the genuine point of the story is difficult. Tarantino’s biggest weakness as a filmmaker (in my book) has long been his inability or unwillingness to honor the tradition of linear cinematic storytelling, i.e., plots that have clearly defined beginnings, mid-sections, and endings. His elliptical style, in which flashbacks and future developments pop up randomly, swing around and double back on each other, sometimes at a dizzying pace (“Reservoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction”) is used, I believe, as something of a dodge: He may indeed be capable of writing a linear narrative and simply elects not to. But as I view his catalog, Tarantino is more interested in encouraging incipient ADHD in the audience than in steadily building our investment in the characters, in cultivating a gradual, creeping tension as plot developments logically unfold. (No, I am neither inflexible or inherently opposed to ‘non-traditional’ storytelling tactics, I merely prefer the former method and Tarantino has yet to produce a film that  has this flow.)  The story within “Django Unchained” is obscured; it takes a back seat to the main theme that Tarantino is promoting — blacks avenging the cruelties of slavery. That is not a ‘story,’ it is a political statement.

2) Artistry

Other reviewers — film scholars and smart movie-goers alike — have correctly identified the film’s obvious homage to the “Spaghetti Westerns” of Sergio Leone.  Unmentioned, though, is its liberal borrowing of motifs from a host of other films and filmmakers, including Hitchcock, John Ford,  Gordon Parks, Mel Brooks, and in a fleeting reference, David O. Selznick. Taken individually, the references to Leone, Hitchcock, Parks, and to Brooks are not problematic.  Collectively though, they diminish the opportunity for a truly original film that might have been enhanced by deploying fewer (or by a more subtle deployment) of references to past films or other genres. As it is, the driving artistic feature of “Django’ is that it is a mash-up, however slick, visceral and humorously drawn the total sum of its parts.

There are liberal doses of Peckinpah in the grisly images of spurting blood and rending limbs; reminders of Parks in the many shots of  Django’s quick-draw skills and bad-ass lines of dialog; hints of Ford in the back-lit, sillhouettes or heroic shots of Jamie Foxx’s Django swaggering away from the camera framed by looming mountain ranges;  big splashes of Hitchock in Django’s intense, tunnel vision focus on rescuing Kerry Washington’s Brunhilda, a character who serves as the proverbial ‘McGuffin’ — that item or person identified by the Master of Suspense as the driving momentum of a plot (really, Brunhilda in “Django’ may as well have been a mysterious uranium formula, a la Cary Grant’s and Ingrid Bergman’s ‘McGuffin’ in ‘Notorious”). The scene in which the Klansmen — led by Don Johnson’s character —  disagree over their hoods is an updating of the bandit’s ‘beans for dinner’ scene in “Blazing Saddles” — unexpected, hilarious and decidedly un-PC.

And the appearance, mid-way through the second reel, of the word “Mississippi” in all-caps, slowly crawling (or is it ‘wiping?’) majestically across the screen from right-frame to left-frame, indicatingthe protagonist’s traveling into the Deep South is clearly a reference to Selznick’s “Gone With the Wind.” Much has been made of the possibility that Tarantino is attempting with “Django’ to reap a kind of cinematic payback upon that epic film and presumably other ‘Golden Age of Hollywood”  tales of the Old South in which blacks were portrayed as simpletons and victims. This may be the case and Tarantino and modern directors are of course welcome to update that hoary genre at will. Yet, while “Django” is indeed a ‘fun,’ moderately cathartic revenge fantasy-take on slavery, it is also ultimately a fairly cold-hearted film, unlike “Gone with the Wind.” Tarantino istremendously talented, and I enjoy his films — within limits. I do though eagerly await the moment when his output begins to show signs of genuine maturity, artistically and in the ability to explore the human condition with a stronger emphasis on compassion rather than cynicism. At least in “Django,’ Tarantino has improved on a basic skill of mainstream film auteurs — constructing mis en scene that is visually arresting, if ultimately in need of editing.

3) Buzz, Criticism, Tarantino’s Comments

As I said up top, lots of very smart people are chattering about “Django Unchained,” with most of the heat apparently arising from Tarantino’s decision to take on slavery. Part of the challenge — and I say this with all due respect to my peers! — is that academic experts in black studies are not necessarily experts on film, while film scholars are not usually known for their expertise on black American history. Thus, we’ve had a huge amount of teeth-gnashing in the media ecosystem about “Django Unchained,” but not very much in the way of genuinely useful analysis.

Even so, a common  point of contention is the violence and surfeit of images showing Washington’s character being whipped and of another slave character being ripped apart by dogs after attempting to escape.  These scenes are upsetting, although, yes, they are meant to be and they should be.  What is objectionable is Tarantino’s decision to return to them gratuitously in the second and in the final reel.  The fact that the characters use the word ‘nigger’ with abandon does not bother me — it is, after all, a story that unfolds in a era when that word was widely used.  What does rankle me is what appears to be the author’s insistence that he deserves a pass on his continued appropriation on black pain (as we have endured it throughout the brutal physical abuse of the antebellum era and in the deep psychological and emotional scarring that has accumulated in the decades since thanks to Jim Crow laws, and more recently, persistent, low-grade racism that permeates American institutions including corporations, the law, and education.) Also, Tarantino does not get a ‘ghetto-pass,’ just because he grew up among blacks in Southern California, or because his mom ‘dated Wilt Chamberlain,” as he recently disclosed in an interview. I don’t abide anyone using the word ‘nigger’ in conversation in my presence; and while Tarantino’s film characters are obviously fictional, it is not acceptable that he apparently believes that he has earned a license to continuously deploy that word and that he seems to have the impression that by doing so he is diminishing its power.  I argued nearly a decade ago that there was something sick about the proliferation of the phrase ‘ghetto-fabulous’ in popular media and culture and this appropriation of the word ‘nigger’ by Tarantino or other artists — black and white, truth be told — is in the same category of outsized entitlement and general Dumb Assery.

Moreover, I find Tarantino’s insistence that the gleeful depictions of over the top violence that he often highlights in his film are ‘fun’ to be terribly ill-considered.  Even Clint Eastwood — who rightly caught lots of hell for the splatter-fests that distinguished his “Dirty Harry’ films of the ’70s and ’80s — eventually gave up the argument that such violence didn’t have any negative impact on our national consciousness.  Eastwood grew out of such displays, likely in no small part because as he matured to fatherhood and grandfather-hood he could no longer justify producing films with the potential to negatively inform the behavior of individuals within his off-spring’s cohort.

On January 2, Terry Gross, the veteran host of  NPR’s “Fresh Air” published a riveting interview with Tarantino.  I am always rooting for artists, even those who produce high profile work that garners lots of press, generates high heat but which is often stubbornly flawed.  Tarantino, as I’ve said, is genuinely talented, and I root for his success. Yet his response to one of Gross’s questions was very troubling: Gross asked if Tarantino ever considers the the possibility that the violence and brutality in his films may have any connection to or influence over the mass shootings that have increased in the U.S. in the past decade, in particular, the recent horror of 20 dead children and six dead teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut. Tarantino replies that he is ‘annoyed’ by such a question, and that even asking it is, ‘insulting to the memory’ of those who died at Sandy Hook Elementary.

If I were writing a script about a public figure who produces mass media designed to resonate with millions of viewers…..but who also denies that his product has lasting influence on any audience members, I would include a version of this interview.  It would take place in the beginning of the third reel, at the crucial moment when the protagonist finally receives profound enlightenment, matures, and finds the strength and maturity needed to infuse his mission with clarity of vision, the bright light of hope, and the beauty of compassion.

POSTED BY AT 5:10 PM
My Photo

Content Producer. Formerly known as Journalist.
Visit her Website
OUR COMMON GROUND Voice
11-12 AMYA

Race-Talk | A Kirwan Institute Project

Django Unchained & Tarantino’s Quest for the “N-word” Pass

January 2, 2013 | Filed under: African Americans,Culture,Featured,Pop culture | Posted by: Guest Author

By @Robtheidealist, Carleton College Law Student,

Originally posted on Orchestrated Pulse

The following is a two part series that examines Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained. Part 1 explores Tarantino’s approach to the film, while part 2 will explore the content. I’m writing these articles because media plays a pivotal role in cultural production. Django Unchained has real-world implications.

Both the racial representations in the film and the racialized audience receiving them are mutually constitutive. That is, audiences make active meaning of movies while movies are produced to engender what audiences desire and find relevant. Mathew Hughley “The White Savior Film and Reviewers’ Reception” 478

Legends are stories passed along and accepted as historical. Legends often serve as “myths” because in addition to being historical, these stories also function as a repository of cultural imaginings and practices.

A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon- Webster

The cultural space of myth-making is a contested landscape. Historically, oppressive regimes have used violence to secure their power, and they like to tell their history as the myth of massacre and domination of powerless (read: inferior) foes. Even today, these same power interests work diligently to erase resistance practiced by marginalized groups, whether in the past or present. Through myths, revolutionary violence becomes an archetype of resistance alongside noncooperation and other nonviolent tactics. As with all archetypes, there is a spiritual significance in resistance myths. There is a sense of kinship and connection to the past as the myth informs marginalized people not just of who they were, but of who they are and who they may become. Each time these myths are told they not only erase the dominant narrative that marginalized people passively accepted subjugation, but the myth also arouses the contemporary revolutionary imagination, thus threatening existing power relations.

Unfortunately, I believe that Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” is a myth that does more harm than good. First, I want to make a few things clear. I have no problem with myths of revolutionary violence, and I don’t automatically object to White people telling and/or experimenting with those stories. In fact, I was very excited about Tarantino’s film until I saw the trailer this past summer.

via Race-Talk | A Kirwan Institute Project.

OCG Feature l “The House I Live In” l A MUST SEE MOVIE l “Must Change Realities”

January, 2013

OCG Feature

 

The House I Live In

From Executive Producers DANNY GLOVER, JOHN LEGEND, BRAD PITT & RUSSELL SIMMONS

A FILM BYEUGENE JARECKI

As America remains embroiled in conflict overseas, a less visible war is taking place at home, costing countless lives, destroying families, and inflicting untold damage on future generations of Americans. Over forty years, the War on Drugs has accounted for more than 45 million arrests, made America the world’s largest jailer, and damaged poor communities at home and abroad. Yet for all that, drugs are cheaper, purer, and more available today than ever before. Filmed in more than twenty states, The House I Live In captures heart-wrenching stories from individuals at all levels of America’s War on Drugs. From the dealer to the grieving mother, the narcotics officer to the senator, the inmate to the federal judge, the film offers a penetrating look inside America’s longest war, offering a definitive portrait and revealing its profound human rights implications.

While recognizing the seriousness of drug abuse as a matter of public health, the film investigates the tragic errors and shortcomings that have meant it is more often treated as a matter for law enforcement, creating a vast machine that feeds largely on America’s poor, and especially on minority communities. Beyond simple misguided policy, The House I Live In examines how political and economic corruption have fueled the war for forty years, despite persistent evidence of its moral, economic, and practical failures.

EVERY DAY MORE PEOPLE AGREE
THE WAR ON DRUGS HAS FAILED
JOIN  THEM AND MUST CHANGE

Comprehensive in scope, heart wrenching in its humanity, and brilliant in its thesis, Jarecki’s new film grabs viewers and shakes them to their core. The House I Live In is not only the definitive film on the failure of America’s drug war, but it is also a masterpiece filled with hope and the potential to effect change. This film is surely destined for the annals of documentary history.

– SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL 2012

FEARLESS! A model of the ambitious, vitalizing activist work that exists to stir the sleeping to wake.

– NEW YORK TIMES

2012′s BEST DOCUMENTARY! The House I Live In should be seen by everybody.

– FORBES

SEARING! One of the most important pieces of nonfiction to hit the screen in years.

– LOS ANGELES TIMES

Expertly researched, brilliantly argued and masterfully assembled, it is easily the documentary of the year.

– TIMES PICAYUNE

Eugene Jarecki’s incisive and incendiary The House I Live In, which won the U.S. documentary Grand Jury Prize at Sundance and might win next year’s doc Oscar, will blow your mind.

Join the movement, Get INVOLVED !!!

Learn More

LEARN MORE HERE

Host A Screening

Look for the 2-Part OUR COMMON GROUND Special Broadcast with the Producers and Consultants on this film in January, 2013.

Subscribe to our Program Newsletter