Spike Lee Shares His NYU Teaching List of 87 Essential Films Every Aspiring Director Should See.

I’m sure you’ve heard by now: wealthy, successful film director Spike Lee hopes to fund his next film via a Kickstarter campaign. Yes, that’s right, he wants you to pay for his art. His campaign, perhaps needless to say, is hardly popular with the average film fan, many of whom find it hard enough scrounge up the skyrocketing prices of tickets these days. Lee has responded to his critics, but somehow I doubt his reasoning will go over well.

But we’re not here to talk about alleged crowdfunding abuses (have at it in the comments if you must). Instead, today we have for you—in the tradition of our many posts on famous teachers’ syllabi—one of Lee’s teaching tools in his role as an NYU professor. Where all of our previous posts have featured reading lists, Lee’s is a list of films, which he hands out to all of the students who take his graduate class–not required viewing, but recommended as “essential” for every aspiring director.

In the video at the top of the post, see Lee introduce the list of what he considers, “the greatest films ever made.” “If you want to be a filmmaker,” he says, “you should see these films.” The list, above and continued below, includes some of the usual critical favorites—Rashomon, Vertigo, On the Waterfront—and some pretty left field choices, like Mel Gibson’sApocalypto.

Slate, which first published the list, notes the omission of usually revered directors like Howard Hawks, John Ford, Fritz Lang, and Yasujirō Ozu as well as the paucity—or near non-existence—of female directors (only one makes the list, the co-director of City of God). In addition to possibly ranting about, or defending, Lee’s use of Kickstarter, many of you may find yourselves quibbling over, or defending, his definition of “essential.” And so, I say again, have at it, readers!

Source: http://www.openculture.com/

Leaders in Europe Cave Under US Pressure over Snowden

Europe’s Shame: Snowden and Morales

by DAVE LINDORFF

Those of us who have been saying that the US has become a weak, or at least more ordinary power among many in the world because of its military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because of its economic decline, will have to recalibrate our analysis after watching the pathetic behavior of the leaders of Russia, Germany and France under pressure from the Obama administration not to allow Edward Snowden to gain asylum in those countries or even to escape his purgatory in Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport.

Last night, in an astonishing display of fawning obedience to the demands of US leaders, France and Germany first announced that they would not grant asylum to Snowden, despite broad popular support by French and German people for such an offer of aid to the embattled whistleblower. Then, France and Portugal abruptly refused to allow a Bolivian aircraft carrying the country’s president, Evo Morales, from a state visit with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, to land for refueling in their countries, saying that they were concerned he might be flying Snowden to asylum in Bolivia.

Although Spain said eventually it would allow the Morales plane to refuel in the Canary Islands, it did not have enough fuel to get there and had to be diverted to Vienna, where, astonishingly, it was then searched like a drug-smuggling flight over Bolivian protests. Snowden was not aboard. A furious Morales immediately blamed the US Department of State for the whole incident — a charge that no one has disputed, though of course the US is refusing to comment.

Aircraft carrying national leaders have absolute diplomatic immunity under international law and moreover, Bolivia would have the absolute right to grant Snowden amnesty, and to bring him to its territory, whether or not he had a valid passport. As the leader of a sovereign nation, Morales has every right to carry anyone he wants on his plane with him back to his country.

That France, Portugal and Austria would so violate such basic diplomatic rules suggests that the US (which of course has long demonstrated that it views diplomatic rules and international law as applying only to others, but not itself) has some powerful leverage to exert behind the scenes. The more so because this whole incident makes leaders like French President Francois Hollande, who only the day before had suggested his country might consider Snowden’s asylum appeal, look foolish, and because this aggressive and hostile action taken against the leader of a sovereign nation makes France, as well as Portugal and Italy, look pathetic and ridiculous at a time that public sentiment across Europe is solidly in support of Snowden. (An activist friend in Germany reports that sentiment there in support of Snowden and even of granting him asylum is “probably at about 80%,” and that is probably also true in France.)

This latest incident, which has incredibly not been protested either by Russia’s Putin, from whose country the disrupted flight originated, and who was Morales’ official host, also shows Putin and Russia to be under America’s thumb. Who could have imagined Putin allowing a meeting of leaders in his own country to be so shamed by US intervention with a foreign leader’s return flight home without a loud protest and even some counter action. At a minimum the US ambassador should have been called in to be tongue-lashed by the Russian president.

Has the US, with its massive spy network, just demonstrated that it now has a power greater than its nuclear arsenal: a dossier perhaps on almost every leader in the world with which it is able to blackmail even the likes of Hollande, Merkel and Putin? It is hard to come up with another explanation for the way this incident played out.

We will have to see now whether Morales, a popular leader from an impoverished indigenous background who is clearly no coward and who is probably too clean to be blackmailed, will make good on his assertion made in Moscow that Snowden would be welcome in Bolivia. Russia could recover a modicum of its self-respect by flying him there on a Russian plane to avoid similar US-orchestrated interference. Venezuela’s new president, Nicolás Maduro, who has also spoken favorably of granting asylum status to the National Security Agency whistleblower, should also step up at this point. Since he is still in Russia, he could offer to bring Snowden back home with him, and dare the nations of Europe to try and stop him.

Europeans are pissed already off at the US, in the wake of National Security Agency leaker Snowden’s latest revelation that the US was aggressively spying on its European allies, both at their and the European Union’s embassies in Washington, and in Europe itself, gleaning not information about terrorism, but inside-track knowledge about trade negotiation positions and other areas of disagreement or negotiation.

Leaders in Germany, France, Italy,  and other European countries are demanding that the US cease its spying on them, and give a “full accounting” of the spying that it has been engaging in. But given the steady stream of lies coming from the NSA, the Obama Administration, Secretary of State John Kerry, and other American sources, why should they believe anything they are being told? Most Europeans understand now that all this bluster from their leaders is just that: bluster.

Europe’s leaders have shown themselves to their own people to be sell-outs in the pocket of the US.  As several commenters on the website of the German magazine Der Spiegel, which last week ran a cover expose about the NSA spying program directed against European leaders, have written, Germany’s and France’s leaders have sold out their countries and people by caving in to US demands. As one person wrote: “Our government has sold us out and is beyond help.”

To be sure there was a wave of tough talk only days earlier, with, for example, Martin Schulz, the president of the European parliament, saying that the NSA is like the Soviet-era KGB, and with leaders of countries like Ireland and Norway saying that they might consider amnesty for Snowden, but only if he could reach their soil first — a ludicrous requirement, since there is no international law requiring such silliness. Any country can grant asylum to any person it wishes, wherever that person may be at the moment. They cannot offer protection, of course, except in an embassy or in-country, but that’s different from just offering a grant of amnesty. Indeed, the mere fact that the US has cancelled Snowden’s passport doesn’t mean his passport cannot be respected as a travel document by another country. How, in fact, when you think about it, would a country know that a person’s passport had been “cancelled” unless the issuing nation had issued some kind of news release about it as the US did in Snowden’s case? There’s no international registry of global passports. Those records are held closely by each country and in fact are supposed to be secure.  Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Norway, Ireland or any other country that had said at any point that it would be willing to accept Snowden, could stamp their visa on his passport and accept him on their planes.  (Even the US Passport Office accepts an old, expired passport as an identity document when one is applying for a new one.)

After this abject display of rank servitude in the interest of the US Imperium by some of Europe’s most powerful nations, if little Bolivia and/or Venezuela don’t step up and show Europe how sovereign nations are supposed to act, it will be up to the people of Europe to act.

Certainly, following the latest revelations in the Guardian and elsewhere showing that the NSA has been vacuuming up data on millions of Europeans, and with former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden stating publicly that the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution — the one that at least used to protect Americans’ right to privacy and from government search and seizure — “is not an international treaty,”  the anger among Europeans at US spying is swelling, and with it, support for the embattled whistleblower Snowden.

We can only hope that the revelations of outrageous US intelligence abuses and violation of Europeans’ privacy rights will continue, that the rage against the US among ordinary European citizens will grow. We can only hope that with that growing rage, a desire to stick it to the US by protecting Snowden will grow too, until some European leader finally sees it as a popular or necesssary move to offer him asylum.

This latest abomination in the treatment of Bolivia and its leader, which has shamed  France, Portugal, Austria, Italy and Russia, will be a great test of how angry the peoples of those countries are about their leaders’ servile behavior towards the US.

Of course, we in the US should be the most outraged of all, but sadly, there is probably even less chance that a majority Americans will get angry at all this than that Europeans will.

DAVE LINDORFF is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

The Empire Strikes Out

Bolivian Plane (and Sovereignty) Grounded by US

by KEN KLIPPENSTEIN

Yesterday the Bolivian presidential plane was forced to land due, in theNew York Times’ words, to “suspicions that Mr. Snowden was aboard.” As the Bolivian Defense Minister has pointed out, this “is a violation of the conventions and agreements of international air transportation.”

The plane originally intended to land in Lisbon, Portugal for refueling; however, it was denied permission to land, forcing it to instead refuel in Vienna, Austria. Austrian officials have since confirmed that Snowdenwas not on board. The U.S. was almost certainly behind this maneuver, unless you believe that Portugal acted independently—unlikely given that Snowden is leaking only U.S. data, some of which showed that the U.S. has been spying on Europe extensively.

Obama, assuming the annoyingly unflappable, measured persona he always does when addressing embarrassments to his administration, said that he’s “not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year old hacker.” Not scramble them—just force them to land. His earlier claim that he’s “following all the appropriate legal channels…to make sure that rule of law is observed” in apprehending Snowden is a statement that now reads like sarcasm. John Kerry’s lecturing admonition that “it’s important to uphold the rule of law and respect the relationship between two nations”, directed at Russia for its refusal to extradite Snowden, is similarly laughable.

Somewhat more surprising is the cowardice of European officials, namely those of Portugal and France (France also disallowed the Bolivian presidential plane from flying through their airspace). Just days after Snowden’s revelation that the U.S. had bugged European Union diplomatic missions in both Washington, D.C. and the United Nations, EU leaders seemed furious. French President Francois Hollande asserted, “We cannot accept this kind of behavior between partners and allies.” This kind of indignation is limited, of course, to words and not actions: the French Finance Minister yesterday said thatSnowden’s asylum request to France is “not an issue”; and now, of course, Hollande’s administration denies a plane passage based on the possibility that it was carrying the very whistleblower who informed them of the “kind of behavior” to which Hollande expressed dismay.

The German Chancellor’s Spokesman said of the spying scandal, “we are no longer in the Cold War”. Her remarks can be assumed to be no more sincere than those of Obama, Hollande, et al. Yet the sentiment she’s expressing is held quite seriously by the German people. During the Cold War, Germany was split between two superpowers: the U.S. and U.S.S.R. East Germany belonged to the Soviets, whereas West Germany was allied with NATO. During this time, Germans were heavily surveilled by both sides. Regarding empires, the currency on which their political economies function is control. Whether or not a particular state is an ally of an empire is irrelevant; control will still be exercised over them. What empires will not under any circumstance tolerate is independence, which brings us to Bolivia.

The Bolivian Vice President put it well when he characterized the grounding of the Bolivian presidential plane as an “act of imperial arrogance.” Once again, imperial empires derive their power from control—economic, military and otherwise—over other countries. As Snowden’s list of countries that have not yet rejected his asylum bid dwindles, we see which countries are not truly satellites to U.S. power. One of these is Bolivia.

Whether or not Snowden was on the plane may not have even been relevant to U.S. officials. The grounding of the Bolivian presidential plane signifies a power even more awesome than the ability to capture whistleblowers: the ability to capture even potentially wayward heads of state—of which Bolivian President Morales is one, for merely considering Snowden’s asylum request. The same dynamic is at work when Latinos in Arizona are systematically stopped, searched and asked for their passports. The authorities don’t particularly care about illegal immigration (it offers cheap, non-union labor and is therefore favorable to big business); what they care about is that Latinos know who’s in charge.

This concept may seem nebulous to the privileged, but those inhabiting the less privileged levels of society are thoroughly familiar with the dynamic to which I’m referring. Totalitarian states like the U.S. depend, as the root word suggests, on total control. When someone like Morales even intimates that he’ll consider Snowden’s request for asylum, this diminishes the totality of U.S. power. And so he, like a Black man being racially profiled and searched for possession, will be grounded and searched for possession of a certain whistleblower.

Ken Klippenstein lives in Madison, Wisconsin, USA, where he co-edits the left issues journal, whiterosereader.org He can be reached at Reader246@gmail.com