Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Chris Sharma spent weeks falling on the same move before Realization became the route that changed sport climbing forever. In 2001 at Céüse, France, Sharma was trying to finish a line that would become the world’s first confirmed 9a+ climb. The hardest part was not simply pulling harder. It...

35,293 Aufrufe • vor 11 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

3 Kommentare

Profilbild von rob.eth
rob.ethvor 11 Tagen

If you wrote this yourself I might have finished reading it

Profilbild von A.M. Burns
A.M. Burnsvor 11 Tagen

Now do it without a safety line!

Profilbild von Stephen T. Crye
Stephen T. Cryevor 11 Tagen

I remember that well. It had the climbing world enthralled.

Ähnliche Videos

Oprah Winfrey said she called Meghan Markle in early 2018 asking for an interview and was told “it wasn’t the right time.” Now it’s being spun as if the palace blocked it. If Oprah was so interested in Meghan, what stopped her from interviewing her before Harry was even in the picture? Where was that interest when Meghan was just another working actress trying to make it? Where was the sit-down when she was deep in Suits, far from global headlines? No one needed palace permission back then. No one was “banned.” No palace. No restrictions. No “people in the room.” No one to “block” anything. You want to blame the palace as if it was some kind of silencing move, but you fail to understand that instead it exposes what this really is. Meghan Markle was simply not someone Oprah was prioritising for a major sit-down. Nor was Meghan Markle relevant enough for that level of attention. It’s also interesting how Meghan frames it as not being “allowed” to speak privately, with others present, as if that’s unusual. She was about to marry into one of the most scrutinised institutions in the world. Of course communications are structured. That’s not some shocking revelation, that’s standard. Then comes the key line. “Now we can speak freely.” “Now I can say yes.” So what changed? It only became “the right time” once she had the global platform, the title, and the leverage that came with the royal connection. You can’t rewrite this into a story about being silenced by the palace when the timeline shows something much simpler. The demand wasn’t there before Harry. The value wasn’t there before the royal family connection. And suddenly, after everything, we’re supposed to believe this was always about “not being allowed” rather than finally having something to sell. Let that sink it.

Queen Esther

149,986 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

David Simon on the barriers "The Wire" (2002-2008) faced: "Interviewer: Do you think the fact you're telling stories in different ways than is traditional, and it has this darkness to it, was that the big barrier to the show becoming more popular than it was? Would you say it was the racial makeup of the cast? Simon: There were a lot of barriers. The racial makeup of the cast was problematic and we knew that going in. The complexity of the serial itself -- the fact that you couldn't miss a couple of episodes and feel comfortable watching it. Though I think that HBO was a wonderful vehicle for that with the multiple viewings, the DVDs and ultimately with On Demand. It was less of a problem as the show went on. It was also less of a problem as people who watched the show got used to its rhythms. The first season was on some level training the audience to watch television a little bit differently, and reducing the expectations in terms of pacing, in terms of cliffhangers, in terms of the requirement to absorb detail or even to look for symbolism. Those were problems. The other problem is, no easy gratifications, other than some real effort at careful characterization and humor. That was it. Without the humor, it would have been unbearable. Without an acknowledgement of the humanity of the characters, despite all their flaws, their vanities, their absurdities -- if on some level, you can't make people care about the characters, you've got a problem no matter what you're doing. We had some obligations to people if they wanted to watch, but a happy ending was not among the list of obligations." (David Simon's interview with Alan Sepinwall, 2008) P.S: On this day, 24 years ago, the first episode of "The Wire" was aired worldwide.

DepressedBergman

33,114 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

John Carpenter on how Howard Hawks's "Rio Bravo" (1959) inspired him to become a filmmaker: "As I got older I began to see that certain directors did certain things. One of the earliest examples of this was Roger Corman. I started going to see these exciting, fast, kind of cheesy but really fun monster movies, and there was one name that kept coming up on the screen: Roger Corman. 'It Conquered the World' (1956), 'Not of This Earth' (1957), 'Attack of the Crab Monsters' (1957), 'The Undead' (1957)... But | really understood for the first time what a director did when I saw 'Rio Bravo' in 1959. There was something about that movie that was like home and I can't really explain it. It was held over in Bowling Green for three or four weeks in a row because people kept coming to see it. I abandoned to see what was new in the other movie house in town to see this movie every weekend again and again because there was something in it that was different from the other westerns I had seen. I had certainly seen John Wayne before. He had become a part of my growing-up experience. He was the action guy, the cowboy. He was the guy in 'Flying Tigers' (1942) who was flying the airplanes. So what was so different about that movie? Then I became aware of this credit: “Howard Hawks’ Rio Bravo.” I looked at the poster and I said to myself, “Who is this guy? He didn't write the movie and he wasn't starring in it so why is his name up here? And why is he last in the credits?” All these things started to occur to me, but it was the emotional impact of the film that got me to start using my brain. Some way I figure out that this director made that movie." ("The Prince of Darkness: The Prince of Darkness", Gilles Boulenger, 2001) P.S: Remembering the great American filmmaker Howard Hawks on his 130th birthday.

DepressedBergman

55,688 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

According to Roy Scheider, "Filming 'Sorcerer' (1977) made 'Jaws' (1975) look like a picnic". He considered the Bridge scene to be the most dangerous he has ever acted in. The scene was so real that he said, "What the audience will see on that screen is what really happened." Building the bridge cost about a million dollars. It took 3 months to complete. Friedkin called it "A mad enterprise and definitely life threatening". The bridge was built on what they considered to be a "perfect river" in Dominican Republic. It was 12 feet deep. However, there were weeks without rainfall and the level of the river started dropping. The river has never went dry before according to the locals. When the bridge was completed, the river had only 1 feet of water making it impossible to film the scene there. With only 2 scenes left to film, the crew had to leave for Mexico to shoot the bridge scene. So they decided to shoot the scene in a river in an Aztec village in a remote location in Mexico. The Bridge had to be reassembled and anchored in the new location. The shutdown of production had lasted a month which was a huge expense to the management. When the crew arrived at the village, there was a huge exodus of the local population. When Friedkin enquired, he was informed by one of the authorities that it was because of word of William Friedkin's arrival. They were a deeply religious people, and when they heard the man who made "The Exorcist" (1973) was coming to their village: they felt it was "bad karma". But few of the locals stayed and helped with the filming. Before arriving, Friedkin was informed that it rained often in the area, but didn't know that it was only in the summer season. Since it was the fall, there was no rain and the river began to drop at the rate of six inches or more a day. The water was diverted to the location of the bridge in the river using large pipes and pumping equipment. Since Friedkin wanted to shoot the scene in the rain, they brought in half a dozen large sprinklers that drew water from upriver. The scene runs twelve minutes, roughly 10 percent of the final cut, but it took months to complete and cost more than $3 million, most of it not budgeted. ("The Friedkin Connection: A Memoir", William Friedkin, 2013 & Roy Scheider's interview to the The New York Times, 1977) P.S: On this day, 49 years ago, "Sorcerer" (1977) was released in the USA.

DepressedBergman

76,740 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

1994. Parliament Lobby. Kampala. The Constituent Assembly was debating the shape of a new Uganda when a young army captain, Noble Mayombo, rose to move a motion. It was a small thing, on paper: Change the name of the national army. But Mayombo understood that names carry power. The Name and the Man: Mayombo's Motion for the UPDF - 1994 "This is no longer the army of a resistance," he told his fellow delegates. "It must be the defence force of a people." The motion was simple in phrasing but profound in meaning: That the National Resistance Army, born of the bush war, be renamed the Uganda People's Defence Forces. Mayombo reminded the Assembly that while the NRA had fought valiantly, it belonged to a chapter of struggle. A constitution, he argued, must speak for all citizens, not for a movement. The army's name had to project neutrality, professionalism, and national ownership. Mayombo's words carried weight beyond his years. He had fought in the bush, but he understood that the new constitution was meant to bury the divisions of the past and build a common future. By proposing the name change, he was not merely editing a document; He was redefining the relationship between the soldier and the citizen. The word "People's" was not cosmetic but constitutional, a signal that the guns were now bound by law, accountable to Ugandans rather than to a party. Outside the chamber, in the Parliament lobby, seasoned journalist Bart Kakooza intercepted Mayombo for an interview. Standing tall, the young captain repeated the essence of his argument into Kakooza's microphone. Through radio and newspapers, his vision reached far beyond Kampala. For many Ugandans, that was the first time they heard the phrase Uganda People's Defence Forces. It carried a freshness that suggested rebirth, a shift from partisan struggle to shared nationhood. When the Assembly finally voted and Article 208 enshrined the UPDF in the 1995 Constitution, the moment was sealed. The NRA passed into history, and the UPDF was born in law. For Noble Mayombo, it was more than a legal victory; it was his signature contribution to the republic. The image endures: A young man in Parliament, moving a motion with conviction, then stepping into the lobby to explain to a journalist, and to the nation, why Uganda's army must belong to the people. Mayombo's motion ensured that the army would no longer be the instrument of a movement, but the shield of a nation. It was not just semantics. It was a declaration that Uganda had moved from revolution to constitution, from the bullet to the ballot. The name change may have been a small clause in a long document, but it was the mark of a mind that understood that the words you choose determine the nation you build. What does it take to stand up in an assembly of elders and veterans and suggest that the revolution's army should be renamed for the people it serves? Noble Mayombo was a young captain when he moved that motion. He understood that constitutions are not just about power, they are about identity, and the names we give our institutions define the country we become. The NRA won the war. The UPDF was built to keep the peace. #UPDF #NRA #Ughistory NRM Party Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Government of Uganda Bart Kakooza Uganda Media Centre

UgHistory

13,021 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten