So a recent email announcing the line up for the Deep Ellum Film Festival started like this "The fiercely independent festival will open with the Texas Premiere of Kinsey..." Then a later email from them had this description: "Kinsey is remarkable: a star-studded, glossy Hollywood film about Alfred Kinsey..." Now lets fuse those sentences together: The fiercely independent festival will open with the Texas Premiere of Kinsey, a star-studded, glossy Hollywood film.

I think this pretty much sums up the reason why several local filmmakers, myself included, aren't exactly happy with what DEFF has to offer us. I fully understand that they are trying to raise money for a cause. Great, do that. But don't try to front like your "fiercely independent" when all you really care about is getting as many "celebrities" out to your festival and show as many hollywood or indie superstar films as possible while pushing local filmmakers (and truly indie film in general) to the back burner. This is why I consider the Dallas Video Festival far superior to DEFF. DVF has a true grasp on what it means to be independent and proves it every year with their wide range of local, national and international underground and avant-garde films.

Amy and I finally had a chance to see "Motorcycle Diaries." It was a great film, we both very much enjoyed it. It did leave us both feeling a bit melancholy about the state of the world. Things haven't changed a whole lot since then have they? There is still so much injustice in the world. Che fought and died for the cause of justice and now he's on a T-Shirt made by non-union child and slave labor in other countries. It all just makes me feel there is little hope for real change. We're all just biding time till the end.


just another anonymous kook | 12:15 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
just another anonymous kook | 10:31 PM

Oops... I didn't mean to delete my comment. I did want to qualify it, so I'll do that now.

Che Guevara fought for the liberalization of Cuba from American industrialists. He wrote the definitive text on Guerilla warfare, which is now basic knowledge for anyone in the military. Che fought to rid Cuba of feudalism and his spirit seems to be what so many admire.

However, you mentioned he fought for "justice"; whereas I would not make that claim. It's very simple as to why he didn't--he was a brilliant strategian, but he didn't hang around long enough to structure a proper system of government. He left that to Castro. I think Castro did what he could under the circumstances, and I really think he was motivated by the idea that he could create what was best for his people. The problem is obvious: Cuba has so little assets, Castro--or anyone for that matter--would be hardpressed to create the system of government given the resources.

The point here is while the idea was a just one, what happened was an ugly mess. Was it uglier than the industrialization of Cuba prior to Che and Castro? Maybe not. Sometimes an existing government just has to fall to ruins--but somebody with capital has to put it back together. Castro tried to put it back together after Che left for more revolutin', but even still, he simply didn't have the resources to do it.

Now, the real question is this: what happens in a few years when Castro dies? Does United Fruit go back in and assume control? Will the United States have an industrial presence there? It seems to be a problematic issue.

But the fact of the matter is industrialization is a good thing, if the people have a say so in the manner. Here in America, we do. We all have the option to own stock in the companies we do business with. We have say so, and the people are heard.

If we can pass this information to other people, perhaps there is a solution. Unfortunately, the exploitation of people who don't have this knowledge and oppurtunity are precisely the reason why Che and others set out to revolutionize the "tyranny" of industrialization.