Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Umera Ahmed doesn’t write stories. She performs open-heart surgery on the soul and leaves the wound open for the audience to stare at. In Dar-e-Nijaat, she has once again proven why most writers in this industry are just filling pages while she is conducting a spiritual autopsy. The way...

22,038 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Mabel Chinomona is not merely an embarrassment to leadership. She is a case study in how power decays when it falls into hands that mistake noise for authority. Every time she speaks, she performs her own autopsy, exposing the incompetence, greed, and ideological bankruptcy at the heart of the Emmerson Mnangagwa system she defends. This is not leadership. It is malpractice. In a nation staggering under hunger, poverty, and hopelessness, she stands on public platforms boasting about being a “thug.” That single word is her confession, a self indictment delivered with pride. While citizens scrape for survival, she celebrates the very behaviour that has brought Zimbabwe to its knees. It is a grotesque display of detachment, a declaration that the suffering of the people means nothing to those insulated by privilege and protected by impunity. She drapes herself in the title of “war veteran” as if it were armour, yet her conduct desecrates the very legacy she claims. True liberation fighters fought for dignity, justice, and the future of the ordinary person. She fights only for relevance. True veterans carried the weight of a nation. She carries only her own self interest. Her behaviour has reduced a noble history to a hollow slogan, a shield used not to defend the nation but to escape accountability. Here is the surgical truth, when the people look at her, they do not see courage, wisdom, or leadership. They see the final symptom of a system that no longer even pretends to care. They see a voice that echoes the regime’s arrogance, a mouth that opens only to remind the nation how far its leaders have fallen. History does not forget such betrayals. Her legacy is writing itself, and it is damning, loud, and irreversible. Kunyangara fesi zvese nemoyo. #mabelchinomona #dutyeremadutye #diabolical

kerina mujati

36,328 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Quentin Tarantino on Pam Grier & the opening sequence in 'Jackie Brown' (1997): "'Jackie Brown' (1997) is not a black exploitation film. Having said that, Pam is such an icon. To one degree or another, it is like casting John Wayne in a movie. You cast John Wayne in a Western, you are not just dealing with this unknown figure walking in there that you have got to learn about. For some audiences that will be the case, but that is not where I am coming from. John Wayne has got a whole past behind him, and his past is built up from these other movies. That is good baggage. Some baggage can be very, very good. By casting Pam, I did term this in my mind to a Pam Grier movie, but it was a Pam Grier movie with its feet on the ground more. That is not putting anything down, because 'Coffy' (1973) is one of my favourite movies, actually; I love 'Coffy'. Jackie Brown is a real human being. She is not a super bad momma - she is a kind of super bad momma to tell you the truth! - she does not get razor blades in her Afro, and she is not Kung Fu-ing people, and she is not pulling a sawn off shotgun and blowing a guy's head off. She is realistic; she is a real lady in those dire circumstances that I described. One of the things I liked about the opening credit sequence is if you are familiar with Pam's movies, a whole lot of them start with Pam just walking, and beholding the glory that is Pam. I thought, OK, I will make me the greatest Pam Grier opening sequence of all time. I think I pulled it off actually. The structure of it is very interesting. It is not supposed to be naked to the eye, but it starts off that she is on the conveyor belt, and you see her, you are drinking her in, you are taking her in, and she is walking down the airport and she just looks like the baddest creature a guy ever created. She has just got all this power and strength - and she is Foxy Brown 20 years later, she is Coffy 20 years later - and she has all this womanness, and it is great. In the last part of it you see she is running and running, and you realise she is just trying to get to work. She is not walking down the street to burn Harlem to the ground. She is a woman working in this world, and she is late for her job, and she is going to get fired if she does not get there. After the big bad ass opening credit sequence, two minutes later she is serving peanuts. So it starts off as this mythical, super hero figure and then by the end of the credit sequence we have brought it back down to earth." ('Quentin Tarantino interview (I) with Pam Grier, Robert Forster and Lawrence Bender', Guardian, 1998)

DepressedBergman

53,783 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

So the discourse around this Dave Ramsey clip is so mixed up that I’ve just decided to upload the whole thing. In the full context of the call, the caller makes it perfectly obvious that: 1. She has been with this man, whom she is now living with, for six years. 2. She is a nurse and can make her own money. 3. She has been out of school for two years, and in that time she has paid off $70,000 of the debt. In the course of the call, Dave never suggests that this man should have to pay for that debt. Indeed, he actively suggests that she leave him, which guarantees he will not pay for the debt. Dave also all but says that, because of her career choice, the caller will be able to pay for the debt on her own, even if she has to take extra hours. All Dave is saying—and this should have been obvious from the original clip—is that the two are not aligned on money and debt at all. It is also clear that Dave thinks the man is stringing her along, which he is. So they simply should not be married at all, because this is a fundamental failure in the relationship. I myself would add that, at this late stage in the relationship, if you do not trust a woman financially, you should simply not be with that woman. And that is perfectly fine. But what you do not do is drag her along for six years when she obviously wants to get married, and then put another two or three years of financial hoops in front of her so that maybe you will propose. It is a waste of everybody’s time.

CTrefugees

135,314 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten