Showing posts with label fake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fake. Show all posts
So the Joaquin Phoenix "I'm Still Here" thing was an act, which everybody pretty much knew...
... except Roger Ebert (kind of), who gave it a terrible review, which everyone else did too. So now, the director (Casey Affleck) is trying to claw his way back into respectability by taking the stage to tell us it was a Borat-ish fake, except that no one cares anymore, because the film wasn't entertaining, partly because it made the few people who saw it feel bad about the druggy dissolution of a once-great actor.
Well, so maybe it could become entertaining now that Affleck has unburdened us of the sadness we felt to see Phoenix fall — a burden, Affleck had to know, hit people with the additional weight of reminding them of the death of Joaquin's brother River — and we know that Joaquin is acting!
But when Joaquin was traveling about making the film, clips leaked out, people suspected it was an act, and the clips weren't funny then, which I suspect is why they decided to put the film together in a way that deprived the audience of the ability to confirm that it was an act. Make it a puzzle. Stir people up. But that didn't work.
It's so pathetic to try to get a second chance at attracting attention to your movie. But we're all glad, I take it, that Joaquin's okay. Now, will somebody give the actor a script?
Well, so maybe it could become entertaining now that Affleck has unburdened us of the sadness we felt to see Phoenix fall — a burden, Affleck had to know, hit people with the additional weight of reminding them of the death of Joaquin's brother River — and we know that Joaquin is acting!
But when Joaquin was traveling about making the film, clips leaked out, people suspected it was an act, and the clips weren't funny then, which I suspect is why they decided to put the film together in a way that deprived the audience of the ability to confirm that it was an act. Make it a puzzle. Stir people up. But that didn't work.
It's so pathetic to try to get a second chance at attracting attention to your movie. But we're all glad, I take it, that Joaquin's okay. Now, will somebody give the actor a script?
"By the time this thing would reach the Supreme Court Obama's going to have amnesty. He's s going to have all these brand-new Democrat voters."
Rush Limbaugh rails against the federal court decision preliminarily enjoining the Arizona immigration law:
To quote Rush, out of context, from the middle of that rant: "Nothing, nothing in the media is real. There is nothing real. Media is not real. [Political ideology] is not real. It's all spin; it's all fake; it's all lies."
The judge is a Clinton appointee, Susan Bolton, and I remember, after it was reported or learned that she was a Clinton appointee, I remember everybody said, "Ah, but this woman, she's not a political judge. She's really not partisan judge. She's a fair judge." Oh, yeah, right. Right, right, right, right....This is all reacting to the sudden news of the opinion, which he hasn't read. It's 36 pages long, and "there's no way that I'm going to be able to go through all 36 pages prior to the program ending, but I know what went on here":
This judge has not ruled on the law. There is no racial profiling. We didn't make a [big] deal of it because we figure a judge is gonna look at the law, not the stupid media in making her decision. But she listened to the media. She had to ignore the high bar that was not met in staying the law. This underscores why Sonia Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court. This underscores why Elena Kagan should not be on the Supreme Court, because they are activists. They have no judicial temperament, judicial experience, they're not judges. Well, Sotomayor pretended to be one on TV, I guess, but she's not....
[The judge has] bought the notion there was racial profiling and discrimination and all this happy horse manure that's part of the American left these days. So that's pretty much it. I guess the judge is saying it's not in the public interest for Arizona to try to defend itself from an invasion. I don't know how you look at this with any sort of common sense and come to the ruling this woman came to. But, she didn't. She's a leftist and she made an activist decision, not a judicial decision.So... Judge Bolton just looks at the hot-button issue and emotes without attending to the text that should govern her opinion... asserts Rush Limbaugh as he takes a glance at the news of the decision and let's his feelings flow.
To quote Rush, out of context, from the middle of that rant: "Nothing, nothing in the media is real. There is nothing real. Media is not real. [Political ideology] is not real. It's all spin; it's all fake; it's all lies."
"No one in recent pop memory has been a greater enemy to the authentic than Lady Gaga."
No one? What about Madonna?
From the start of her career Madonna was a savvy pop trickster, using outrageous imagery as a distraction while smuggling ideas about religion and social politics into her music. Most of the Gaga generation, however, is interested in distraction as an end in itself.As a 60s person, I'm highly amused by this presentation of the 80s as the standard what was once real in popular culture. Madonna was fake as a means to an end, but Lady Gaga is really fake, and fake is what's real now. To my 60s ears, that sounds like something Andy Warhol would say.
Lady Gaga has become successful by adhering to the belief that there’s no inner truth to be advertised, or salvaged: all one can do is invent anew.Wait. People took Lilith Fair seriously? 11-year-old girls, maybe. Seems to me it was mostly abhorred.
It wasn’t that long ago when artifice appeared to be on its last leg. In the mid-to-late-1990s female performers especially were in a confessional place, a movement captured and branded by Lilith Fair, the summer tour package founded in part by Sarah McLachlan that ran from 1997 to 1999.
The last couple of years have seen the first wave of 1990s nostalgia, which might explain in part why Lilith was resurrected this year. But Lilith aesthetics haven’t aged well....Do we say hasn't aged well about something that was never pretty?
"So often, powerful forces and powerful interests stand in your way, and the odds seem stacked against you...."
"I want you to know this: I've taken on the powerful forces. And as president, I'll stand up to them. ... It's about our people, our families, and our future — and whether forces standing in your way will keep you from having a better life...."
Just something Al Gore once said, as noted by Mickey Kaus in the year 2000. It came up in conversation this morning as we were talking about — can you guess? — the origin of religion. I was riffing on the idea — based on my memories of "The Evolution of God" — that primitive man perceived the entire environment as imbued with spirit and — this may not be in the book — there had to have be individuals in early human times who saw how to amass power by making it seem as though they could influence or appease whatever spirit or spirits made things — such as weather — happen in the world. This led — can you see how? — to a discussion of Al Gore.
Just something Al Gore once said, as noted by Mickey Kaus in the year 2000. It came up in conversation this morning as we were talking about — can you guess? — the origin of religion. I was riffing on the idea — based on my memories of "The Evolution of God" — that primitive man perceived the entire environment as imbued with spirit and — this may not be in the book — there had to have be individuals in early human times who saw how to amass power by making it seem as though they could influence or appease whatever spirit or spirits made things — such as weather — happen in the world. This led — can you see how? — to a discussion of Al Gore.
Hotel Photo Fakeouts.
Ever since I ran across this website, I have had a terrible time picking a hotel from websites. I look at every picture and wonder what's just outside that frame. And I'm ultra-suspicious when a hotel website doesn't feature the premises at all, but some people who are obviously not going to be in your room. I mean, are you supposed to project yourself into these characters? If I go there, a beefy, handsome guy will have me rolling in the bed, clutching my belly in helpless laughter.
Things singers sing that they do that they actually never do.
I'm starting a list:
(Here's the song that was playing....)
- Hop a train.
- ...
- ...
(Here's the song that was playing....)
Who are the Mobys?
I think that lately the comments section of this blog has been attracting a lot Mobys. Yesterday, I called attention to a commenter who wrote something outrageous (and actually funny, if you recognize it as fake). A very high-traffic blog had exposed me to criticism for having that in my comments, and a commenter over there suggested it was a "false flag operation," and linked to a post by SEK over at Lawyers, Guns, & Money, that begins: "I went over to Althouse’s and wrote a number of insanely offensive comments, but everyone started agreeing with me before I could declare 'April Fools'!" Now, I already thought I was dealing with a Moby, and here was SEK, apparently, bragging about being a Moby. So I threw him a link and quoted him. He then showed up in my comments and said:
This is all so pathetic. Or is this another satire that I'm not bright enough to understand?
Anyway, to my commenters: Please understand that there are Mobys here. There are commenters who pretend to mean what they are saying, when what they are trying to do is to make us look bad somehow. Take that into account when you interact with people here.
Dear Ann,I was in the middle of a 1000-mile drive, so I wasn't exactly anguishing over my failure to pick up whatever-the-hell SEK had layered into his blog post that was written in the form of a confession. My response to that — written at 11:23 at night from an I-80 rest stop in Iowa — was:
I didn't write any of those comments. You just got fooled twice over by your own racist and misogynist commenters. Please, feel free to check the IP addresses of the comments I claimed, all April-Foolsy, to have written.
Someone was fooling, either you, per your confession, or someone else, if you're not fooling now. It makes no difference to me who did it. It wasn't one of our regulars and it wasn't a believable story.Now, SEK has updated his post, with a not-too-attractive mix of hostile insults and whiny fears for his own fate:
The attempt to paint my commenters (or me!) as racist or whatever is inflammatory and ugly, and I've lost track of who wants that to stop.
You Althouse people really aren’t very bright. To anyone who thinks that I actually wrote the comments paraphrased above, I suggest you click here and enter my last name into the “Instructor” field. I’ll wait … so are you really ready to accuse me of writing that?Well, you'll have to wait a long time, because I don't know your last name, SEK. Is that me being not very bright? Or are you patently a fool?
I’m only asking because, unlike Althouse, who has tenure and can misbehave as she pleases, I’m a lowly lecturer who, if he steps out of line, will be fired on the spot.So why are you being so hostile and calling people names? It's interesting that you feel vulnerable, but what are you doing slugging people and then claiming vulnerability when you get a response.
Ann has the IP addresses of the people who left those comments and knows that it wasn’t me. If she insists on lying, I can’t afford to prove her wrong in a court of law; however, I’m willing to put my name and career on the line and proclaim, in no uncertain terms, that I didn’t write the racist comments I mocked her for brooking on her blog. She can’t be fired for besmirching her university in public like this, but if I’m lying, I can be dismissed with two snaps from an irate bureaucrat. So in the interests of truth, I demand that should Althouse insist on claiming that I wrote those comments, she publish the IP addresses of the authors of the comments I linked to. If they all resolve to Corona, California, I’ll exit the internet for life.As noted above, I do not have a collection of IP addresses. I have no way to check who's behind the various pseudonyms, so you're on your own denying that you wrote what you previously said you wrote. I believed you then, and you ask me to believe you now, and the reason you're supposed to be believable now is that you have a strong self-interest in disassociating yourself from your own words. You made your own problem, and yet you are still being nasty to me, trying to smear me with racism for nothing but maintaining a free-speech forum. You accuse me of lying for quoting you. You threaten to sue me — for quoting you! — and at the same time whine that you can't afford to sue me. You stress that you would like to see me fired — for what?! — and yet you beg in the most pusillanimous fashion that I should pity you because you could be fired.
This is all so pathetic. Or is this another satire that I'm not bright enough to understand?
Anyway, to my commenters: Please understand that there are Mobys here. There are commenters who pretend to mean what they are saying, when what they are trying to do is to make us look bad somehow. Take that into account when you interact with people here.
About those attempts to smear the Tea Party as racist.
Doubt is cast on the spit story.
And what about the claim that the n-word was chanted? It seems likely that all that was ever chanted was "Kill the Bill." Maybe one of the elderly congressmen heard "Kill the Bill" as "n*gger." Without any recorded audio to corroborate that perception, I'd say the hypothesis should be: It didn't happen.
And what about the claim that the n-word was chanted? It seems likely that all that was ever chanted was "Kill the Bill." Maybe one of the elderly congressmen heard "Kill the Bill" as "n*gger." Without any recorded audio to corroborate that perception, I'd say the hypothesis should be: It didn't happen.
Megan McArdle was just trying to explain the nefarious "doc fix," and now she's stuck fending off a wave of stupid with the dreaded rhetorical device "um."
The post — "Politico's 'Doc Fix' Memo: Fake, But Accurate?" — now begins with a sadly urgent "update":
Update: Please READ THE POST before launching into your attacks. Hint: the headline is name checking a famous quote, not suggesting that this was a valid idea. Had you read the post before beginning your cringe-inducing denunciations of my "hypocrisy", you would have, um, known that.The life of a blogger is tough. It's not easy, as some people seem to think. You work hard crafting snark, and nobody understands it! You write updates beating readers over the head with your point, and other bloggers needle you for being pissy and obvious....
Incredibly, this is an ad produced by the country of Denmark to promote tourism.
The ad has since been pulled:
Sociologist Karen Sjoerup said the ad suggested "you can lure fast, blonde Danish women home without a condom."Or was it very well thought out — and pulling the ad was part of the promotion scheme? It got me to embed it. The controversy itself is part of the virus.
Economy Minister Lene Espersen said the video presented "a not very well-thought-out picture of the country." Espersen also holds the government's tourism portfolio.
"I regret that the film has offended so many people," VisitDenmark manager Dorte Kiilerich said, explaining that intent had been to tell "a nice and sweet story about a grown-up woman who lives in a free society and accepts the consequences of her actions."
"A Health Care for America Now (HCAN) organizer is caught on tape outside the meeting instructing supporters on how to shout down opponents..."
From Gateway Pundit:
Via Instapundit, who says: "Remember, what they accuse their opponents of is usually what they’re planning themselves..."
Via Instapundit, who says: "Remember, what they accuse their opponents of is usually what they’re planning themselves..."
Faking the hate.
Meet Maurice Schwenkler, the new Ashley Todd.
IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage:
Let's speak of the pompatous of politics.
IN THE COMMENTS: Bissage:
Our young Mr. Schwenkler, a/k/a the Gangster of Love, would have done better to have spent his spare time watching reruns of "thirtysomething," learning how to be an adult.
Let's speak of the pompatous of politics.
The Instapundit on Twitter is not Instapundit.
Instapundit asks the faux-Instapundit to contact him.
Non-parody impersonation is a violation of Twitter's terms of service. Let Twitter squelch that account for you.
ADDED: Glenn says:
Non-parody impersonation is a violation of Twitter's terms of service. Let Twitter squelch that account for you.
ADDED: Glenn says:
JUST TO BE CLEAR, I don’t think the Instapundit feed on Twitter is any sort of a scam. I think it was just set up by someone trying to help. I just want to upgrade it and need the keys. I figured it would be easier to ask the person who set it up for me first, rather than going through Twitter.I can see why he'd want to take over the existing feed rather than eliminate it and start over, and while the person who started it may have meant well, I do think Glenn needs to control his brand. I assumed this Twitter feed was his and formed the opinion that it was awfully unimaginative. And as Jason (the commenter) notes, the fake Instapundit was following various Twitterers: "It's like Mr. Reynolds is endorsing them and I wonder if payments are being made for the follows." Well, that would be a scam.
"It’s a very realistic looking portrait. There are some interesting features that I think people will find unique."
Well, now, I really am curious about this portrait of Mitt Romney. Realistic... and yet interesting, unique features on this man who is often said to be made of plastic.
"A network of 30 'phantom' companies, some complete with logos and websites, to obscure the true nature of the movie he was making."
Assuming you're a lawyer, wouldn't you love to do the legal work that supports Sacha Baron Cohen?
The nature of the challenging and complicated work has come to light in the course of a lawsuit that may or may not be trumped up:
The nature of the challenging and complicated work has come to light in the course of a lawsuit that may or may not be trumped up:
The court documents say the comedian has established “greater than 30 fraudulent corporations that set-up websites and mission statements to mislead individuals form (sic) discovering the true identity and purpose of the requested appearance by... Sacha Baron Cohen”.Or would you hate to use your legal skills to trick people like this? Come on, I said assuming you're a lawyer.
At least 29 company name registrations linked to the film have been filed with the LA County Clerk, all in 2007. Many of them give the appearance of being German or Swiss broadcasting firms, such as Deutsches Modefernsehen and Deutsches Unterhaltungsfernsehen.
Among the firms that seems to have been most used as a front for the film is Amesbury Chase.
Its website is now blank, but before being removed, it described Amesbury Chase as a production company offering “world class facilities, and state-of-the art equipment to help you create dynamic and compelling content”.
Its address was a mailbox on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles. At least three other “front companies” – Chromium Films, Cold Stream Productions and Coral Blue Productions – used the same address and phone number and had identical websites.
Production staff working on the film used the companies as fronts to contact several organisations and individuals to persuade them to take part in the documentary they were filming, often pretending it was a European production looking at American culture.
Among those taken in were the Alabama National Guard, which was contacted by staff from Amesbury Chase to say they were an affiliate of a German TV station shooting a documentary on what it was like to be in officer recruitment school. Baron Cohen was allowed to train alongside new recruits and was filmed changing into uniform, exposing a thong he was wearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
