Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

As a KNUST graduate, you are expected to demonstrate basic intellectual honesty. Instead, you have chosen to spread falsehoods and package them as political commentary. Recording yourself while doing so does not make it true or brave. It only exposes a lack of understanding of how serious political communication...

27,801 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Yes, indeed, this is lawlessness by any standard. Even by banana republic standards, this is still lawlessness. Your country has a constitution, it has a government, it has a police service, and it has a ruling party. I am sure you can see that some of the people there are actually wearing ruling party T-shirts. It is lawless regardless of whoever does it. It is an embarrassment to South Africa as a country, what you are doing and what you are encouraging people to do. Your country has an immigration service. If people are in your country illegally, they should be arrested and deported through lawful processes. You do not go around destroying property, tearing down markets, and attacking people. It is illegal regardless of whoever does it. It is not illegal because I have said so. It is illegal because the laws of your country make it so. This is vigilantism, pure and simple, and it is tainting the reputation of South Africa, not only across Africa but across the world. If you have got satellite television in your home, you can see that these actions are being reported everywhere. It is not good for your country. This kind of barbarism undermines the rule of law, fuels division, and damages South Africa’s standing as a constitutional democracy. It is the actions of a few that are tainting the reputation of many. The average South African is not mindless like this. They respect the law, and they respect the fact that among them, in their communities, there are people from other countries. If those people are in the country illegally, you report them and the law takes its course through proper processes of arrest and deportation. You do not descend into mob justice, lawlessness, and destruction. That is not who South Africans are, and it must not be normalised.

Hopewell Chin’ono

80,760 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The Circle (2000, Panahi)/ Iran "Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date." --- Jafar Panahi Full Excerpt: "Interviewer: The subject matter of 'The Circle' (2000) is controversial. You mentioned that the film is still banned in Iran. In fact, when I was watching the film, I realized that through the characters, there’s a lot of fear about the system, the establishment, the police. The women can’t smoke; they have to wear the chador; they seem to want to hide every time. This is all very clear from watching the film. Did you deliberately want to make a statement about the political situation in Iran? Panahi: I have to tell you again that I’m not a political person. I don’t like political movies. But I take every opportunity to comment on the social issues. I talk about the current issues. To me it’s not important what is the reason for what has happened. Whether it’s political reasons or geographical reasons: these are not important—but the condition, the social issues. It is important to me to talk about the plight of humanity at that time. I don’t want to give a political view, or start a political war. I think that the artist should rise above this. Political movies have limited time. After that time, it doesn’t say anything anymore. But if the whole thing is said in an artistic way, then it doesn’t have an expiration date. So it doesn’t really serve a political purpose. Then it can be everlasting, for always, and it could be for anywhere. But I know that politically, with the film authorities, with any kind of film that has some political background in it, they would take issue with it. And for this reason, that is what the problem is. Interviewer: Still, your film makes a very strong statement about the problems that women face in Iran. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. Interviewer: So that is humanitarian, of course, but it’s also political. Panahi: Yes, I agree with that. It has the elements. It all depends on how you look at it. If a person has only political views, then he will only see the political. But if you are a poet or an artist, then you see other things as well in the movie. If you are a socialist, you see political or economic or whatever different points of view. You mustn’t look at a film with only one point of view. If you want to see 'The Circle' (2000) as political, then it is one of the most political movies in Iran. By political, I mean partisan politics. But even the police, I didn’t want to show them as bad. In the first instance, you are afraid of the police. Because you are looking at them from the point of view of someone who is now in prison. And normally you see him in a long shot, but when they come nearer and you see them in a medium shot, you can see their human faces. Then it comes down to, “Do you need any help?” But he goes back again and becomes frightening. If I were being political, then I would always show the police as dangerous or bad persons." (Jafar Panahi's interview with Stephen Teo, Senses of Cinema, 2001)

DepressedBergman

43,871 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад