Aaron H. Bynum-Animation Insider

Canada Animation's New "eclectic mix"

Bhavana Puljal-Televisionpoint

From mythological sagas to kid's movies, TV serials and advertisements, visual effects today are ubiquitous. And animation experts from India are making a mark in the international and domestic industry back home. Mandeep Singh, Mitul Patel and Deepak Ganguly, give an insight into the industry.

About a decade ago when Mitul Patel, chief technical officer, BR Films Studio, began his career in graphics and animation, there was little information on its prospects but this self taught visual effects expert went by his creative instincts and today has projects like Pinnochio, Mangal Pandey, Bhootnath Johny Gaddar, Lage Raho Munnabhai, Jajantram Mamantarm and Hera Pheri to his credit.

"Every new project is a challenge in itself and to do something different every time, is a new high," believes Patel, who began his career in 1996 as a visualizer in an advertisement agency. Having worked as a technical director for various international projects for Nickelodeon and BBC UK, Patel believes the animation industry can be tapped endlessly to exploit creative potential.

"Bhootnath gave me a chance to execute some of the most innovative sequences which was very challenging," says Patel, who has also given visual effects for various TV serials including Son Pari for Star Plus. Some of the projects in the pipeline for Patel include Amol Palekar's film, Dumkata, BR films, Pappu Paas Ho Gaya and mythological animation, Hum Panch.

Mandeep Singh of Rhythm and Hues, is a bohemian for treading a less traveled path since eight years. His perseverance paid off as today. He is one of the most sought after names in the animation industry. Hailing from Chandigarh, he talks about his not so easy journey to success and his experiences of being a part of some mega Hollywood projects.

"I lead the team of animators in India which rendered the visual effects of the academy award winning movie, The Golden Compass and later bagged an award in the same category", avers Mandeep. Working with an international animation company, he tells us about more flicks which are on the cards, "we are through with Hulk 2 which was released a while ago and now are eagerly awaiting for Mummy 3 and Cirque de Freak to be screened worldwide."

He does not forget to mention how tough it was to make it big in the profession that was unheard of some years back. "When all my friends were opting for higher studies in regular subjects, I took a fancy to study animation", says Mandeep.

And then he reveals, "The most challenging part was to make my parents understand what animation means, which for them was mere sketching of cartoon characters, Chacha Chaudhary and Saboo".

Accompanying the two is Deepak Ganguly, who is also part of B R films and is proud to be a part of the team that is making special effects for the first Indian animation movie based on modern day concept, Roadside Romeos. "With this movie, Indian animation industry will not be limited to just making movies on mythological characters and subjects." he says.

Hailing from Kolkata, Deepak developed interest in the field during his school days. "Stunts of characters like superman and batman made me inquisitive" says Deepak.

GRIMES, IA, July 16, 2008 – Anime producer and distributor Right Stuf, Inc. and Nozomi Entertainment are pleased to unveil the trailer for ARIA The ANIMATION, now playing at aria.rightstuf.com ( http://aria.rightstuf.com ).

The ARIA THE ANIMATION DVD Collection – which includes the franchise’s entire 13-episode first season – is scheduled for release on September 30, 2008.

ARIA The ANIMATION is the first of three television seasons, plus an OVA (original video animation), that comprise the anime adaptation of Kozue Amano’s best-selling Aria manga. The ARIA anime is helmed by Director Junichi Sato (Princess Tutu, Sgt. Frog, Sailor Moon/ Sailor Moon R) and features animation by Hal Film Maker (Boys Be…, Pretear, Slayers Premium, Sketchbook ~full color’S~). The franchise’s third season completed its TV Tokyo broadcast in March 2008.

Amano’s 12-volume Aria manga and its two-volume prequel, Aqua, are both published in North America by TOKYOPOP. In Japan, Aria was originally serialized in Mag Garden’s Comic Blade magazine.

Visit aria.rightstuf.com for more information about ARIA and the ARIA The ANIMATION DVD Collection.

About ARIA THE ANIMATION (Season 1 - TV)
In the early 24th century, Mars has been terraformed by mankind into a sparkling planet covered in water. Akari Mizunashi, at the age of 15, has left everything behind to travel to that reborn world, now known as Aqua. More than anything, Akari wants to be an “undine” – a female gondolier who navigates the canals of the Aquan city of Neo-Venezia. As she begins her training with the prestigious Aria Company, will she be up to the challenges that await her on the path to achieve her dream? Contains the complete 13-episode first season.

ARIA THE ANIMATION DVD Collection (Season 1 – TV)
Pre-Book: 8/26/2008
Street Date: 9/30/2008
Runtime: Approximately 325 minutes, Dolby Digital Stereo, Color
Genre: Science Fiction / Drama
Suggested Rating: 13+

Format: DVD (2.0 Japanese, English Subtitles, English On-Screen Translations)
Catalog #: RSDVD0822
ISBN: 1-57032-786-6
UPC: 7-42617-0822-2-1
SRP: $49.99

Discs/Set: 4
Item Measurements: TBA
Case Qty: TBA

DVD Features:
Scene access, Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo audio for Japanese dialogue, English subtitles and English on-screen translations. PLUS: More features to be announced.

Cover Art: http://outgoing.rightstuf.com/sleeves/rsdvd0822.jpg *
ARIA The ANIMATION © 2005 Kozue Amano / Mag Garden - ARIA Company.
* To view this image, cut and paste the URL into your Web browser.

** Product specifications and content may be subject to change.

ABOUT RIGHT STUF, INC.
Currently celebrating its 21st year in business, Right Stuf, Inc. was one of the first players in the U.S. Japanese Animation ("anime") industry, as both an anime producer/distributor and a retailer. Right Stuf works to promote knowledge of its own products, as well as the anime and manga industry, in general, through its online storefront at RightStuf.com and a variety of media including podcasts and special publications.
Nozomi Entertainment, Right Stuf’s production division, is dedicated to the highest quality releases. True to the Japanese word that inspired its name, Nozomi’s focus is on “what fans want.” By focusing on a limited number of anime properties each year, the Nozomi production team ensures each release receives the care and attention to detail it deserves.

From anime classics like Astro Boy, Kimba and Gigantor to modern comedies, dramas and favorites such as The Irresponsible Captain Tylor, His and Her Circumstances, Gravitation, Shingu: Secret of the Stellar Wars, Ninja Nonsense, To Heart, The Third: The Girl With the Blue Eye, Emma: A Victorian Romance, Maria Watches Over Us and ARIA, Right Stuf and Nozomi Entertainment produce quality programming for fans of all ages and interests. For more information, visit www.rightstuf.com and www.nozomient.com.

Ryan Gilbey-Newstatesman

Our great-grandchildren will be so envious of us. "What was it like to live in the golden age of Pixar?" they will ask, as they huddle around the iFire on a freezing summer's night, after paddling home from school on an ice floe and downloading that evening's viewing directly into their frontal lobes.

WALL·E is the computer animation studio's latest work of genius. Yes, another one. Boring, isn't it? This film is a love story between two robots. If that précis came from anywhere else, you would run for cover. But remember, these are the whizz-kids who started out in 1986 with the two-minute Luxo, Jr, starring a pair of charismatic anglepoise lamps. Nothing fazes them.

Much of the joy here comes from the aesthetic clash between the metallic sweethearts. The grubby, custard-yellow worker droid WALL·E, who peers quizzically out at the desolate world through binocular eyes, spends his days compacting into spindly towers the waste that has made the earth uninhabitable. Colonies of overweight, romper-suited humans have fled to the Axiom, a vast cruise-ship hovering miles above the planet, where they laze around in automated hover-chairs and slurp food from cups while their offspring are tutored by the sinister Buy N Large corporation.

The planet is WALL·E's playground now. He scoops up bellyfuls of rubbish, creaming off any knick-knacks that take his fancy - cutlery, light bulbs, bubble-wrap, a fetching little box (but not the diamond ring inside it). It is these keepsakes that he parades to impress EVE, a sleek probe who glides around searching for the merest wisp of vegetation to enable the return of human life.

EVE, whose head floats serenely an inch or two above her body, resembles a cross between a hand-held fan and a ceramic bullet. The couple communicate through semi-vocalised beeps that manage to sound more expressive than most orthodox dialogue. I don't think it's churlish to say that the film loses some of its unique mystery when WALL·E follows EVE back to the Axiom, where human characters converse in drably familiar American English.

Each new Pixar film is duty-bound to make some technological leap, aside from the sophisticated storytelling and coruscating wit that cinema audiences, ungrateful pigs that we are, have come to take for granted. In WALL·E, it comes in the visualisation of two contrasting but intricately detailed worlds - the charred, photorealistic junk pile that is Planet Earth of the future, and the Axiom, with its antiseptic surfaces and multiple, yapping video screens. A Pixar film is a keeper, built not just to survive multiple viewings, but to be enhanced by them. The new picture may even be visually too complex; you need eyes as big as WALL·E's to soak it all up. But despite the majestic sweep, and the admirable environmental message, it is the intimate moments that stick with you - for instance, the sight of WALL·E rowing the sleeping EVE, who is wrapped in fairy lights, through the Stygian waters of the world that we ruined.

Another month, another documentary about the US government's refusal to play nice. Standard Operating Procedure adopts a similar tack to the recent Taxi to the Dark Side: both films explore the psychology and bureaucracy that underpin abuses by the US military. However, the focus of SOP is tighter, unpicking the specific details behind the Abu Ghraib snaps. An uncharitable viewer might argue that the director Errol Morris's true subject is even narrower - himself. He may not appear on screen, but his stylistic choices, from Danny Elfman's overwrought score to the carefully lit and staged reconstructions, place his film-making style centre-stage.

Not that Morris doesn't come up with the goods. He challenges the demonisation of Lynndie England and others who were photographed humiliating their Iraqi prisoners, and gets them to speak plainly about what happened. But the film is as much concerned with the voodoo power of the photographic image as it is with Abu Ghraib; it raises the idea that anything is permissible as long as it's not captured for posterity. The point could have been made just as effectively, without Morris's own camera screaming, "Look at me! Look at me!"

David Hinckley-Daily News

Los Angeles-Matt Groening, creator of "The Simpsons," says one thing drives him crazy about the computer-generated imagery (CGI) used in hi-tech animated movies these days.

"It's the eyes," he told a Television Critics Association panel here. "The characters in CGI have human eyes. That's why I like the 2-D animation we use. Our illustrators draw a circle and put a dot in the middle. Now that is an animated eye."

Groening also said there will be a second "Simpsons" movie, but not to get in line yet.

"It will happen at some point, but I have no idea when," he said. "The first one took us four years - mainly because we don't like to work any harder than we usually do."

* The producers of Fox's new "Secret Millionaire," where rich people live like poor people for a week and then give them money, tried very hard to distance it from Oprah's "Big Give."

On the Oprah show, people competed to give away money most effectively, and at the end, a winner was declared, leading to complaints about exploitation.

"Secret Millionaire," said producer Greg Goldman, "is not a game and not a competition. It's a social experience" in which millionaires also learn lessons from their week among the poor.

* Timothy Olyphant, a new cast member on FX's "Damages," said he always figured there was "a really strong chance" David Milch would never film the ultimately canceled "Deadwood" finale.

Asked about the difference between filming "Damages" and "Deadwood," Olyphant said, "When these guys talk, I understand what they're saying."

* Kurt Sutter, creator of FX's new outlaw biker drama "Sons of Anarchy," said Katey Sagal's matriarch character may rule her criminal clan like Ma Barker, but that his inspiration for the role was Shakespearean.

"I wanted to put a layer of 'Hamlet' on top of this drama," he said. "Katey plays the Queen Gertrude character."

* The producers of FX's "Damages" declined to say if Ted Danson's Arthur Frobisher character lives or dies this season. Danson will return, though the producers said it could be just in flashbacks.

Danson said he hopes Frobisher lives. Asked if it has been more fun to play this evil attorney or his womanizing bartender Sam from "Cheers," Danson said, "In my 30s, the womanizing bartender. Today, this is far more fun. I've never had carte blanche to be as narcissistic. Except in life."

* One of the ways Fox's new sci-fi series "Fringe" will relieve the tension of its dark storyline is with a series of quirky little visual signatures.

One of those signatures is a cow. But discerning viewers will note that between the first and second episodes, it's a different cow. That's because the first episode, the pilot, was shot in Toronto and when filming shifted to New York, agricultural regulations prohibited Fox from bringing the cow along. So an American cow was cast.

Obama is making a big deal out of the "satiric" cartoon in the LEFTIST New Yorker magazine (a cartoon MENAT to be INSULTING to Obama opponents).

I have said before, correctly, that leftists do NOT believe in free speech. NO one has really challenged me on any of those entries, because the examples have been inarguable. If YOU doubt me, consider what would have happened if RUSH LIMBAUGH had put the New Yorker cartoon on the cover of his newsletter (maybe he will do something similar yet, since one of the things I like about Limbaugh is that he has no fear). There would have been ANOTHER (unconstitutional violation of free speech) letter on the official stationary of the the Senate Majority Ledaer, signed by Democratic Stnatores, asking/demanding that Limbaugh be fired (that previous letter was over the PHONY, distorted "phony soldier" comment by Limbaugh referring to FAKE soldiers out there who pretend a military record they do not have).

Nople Leftists do not believe in free speech. But there is only so far they are willing to go in trashing a LEFTIST publication. They have no such restraints as far as any CONSerVATIVES (or Don Imus, who mistakenly thought he had built up leftist goodwil).

In case you don't know (living under a rock), by the way, the New Yorker cartoon was a COVER showing Obama in traditional Muslim garb with Michelle Obama in an AFRO, combat boots, with a weapon, and generally looking like a member of the Symbiones Liberation Army (kidnapped Patty Hearst). Aside: Is there ANYONE who does ot think Michelle Obama is fully capable of being that kind of person? I digress. The cartoon further shows a picture of Osama bin Laden in the background, and a burning American flag.

Segue to the Danish, Muhammad cartoons. That is where the mainstream media PROVED that IT did not believe in freedom of the press and free speech (being leftists, they do NOT really believe in either), as they CAVED to Muslim INTOLERANCE and violence with regard to the (relatively tame) Danis cartoons of muhhad. Oh, the mainstream media also proved themselves to be COWARDS.

Segue to this blog and my cartoonist, older daughter (Kenda). If I could draw like she can, this blog WOULD contain Muhammad CARTOONS (as offensive as I could make them, in the sense of attacking Islamic extremism). I toyed with the idea of having Kenda do those cartoons (at least the drawings) for me. Two problems: In real life, Kenda is a BOSTON LAWYER, with a big firm, and I really could not ask her to take that big a risk with her career and life. I am perfectly willing to take it (retired as I am, and unafraid of Muslim extremists as I am). But, really it was way too much to ask of Kenda.

Second: I can't CONTROL Kenda. She has a mind of her own, as exhibited when I attempted to get her to illustrate (with slapdash caricatures, in myu view of things) blog entries. She has her STANDARDS, and refused to do carttons that did not meet those standards. That meant both that she was unvilling to take instruction from me, AND that it was too time consuming for her to do regular cartoons that met her standarsds as an "artiste". I still hope Kneda will contribute a cartoon from time to time, on subjects of her choosing (subject to my sarcastic comments), but have pretty much given up on the idea of her as a mere illustrator of MY entries. Boy, am I glad I never approached her with the idea of Muhammad cartoons. Talk about the HUMILIATION I would have suffered!!! I digress again (sort of).

Still, my yearning to have MUHAMMAD cartoons on this blog shows you why I LIKE Rush Limbaugh's reaction to Obama's reaction to the New Yorker cover. Limbaugh, in a deliverate provocation to the mainstream media (who were out there saying that he New Yorker SHOULD have done a cover showing LIMBAUGH PAINTING THE PICTURE THAT THE LEFTIST NEW YORKER PUT ON THE COVER), had a unique take. He basically suggested (by implication, rather than directly saying it) that he had never thought Barack Obama was a Muslim, UNTIL Obama's reaction to the New Yorker cartoon cover. This is what Limbaugh basically said (close to word for word, and capturing the spirit): "Who is it that gets all upset and intolerant about CARTOONS? Isn't it MUSLIMS?"

You have to love a man willing to tweak the mainstream media that way, and able to get them to PUBLICIZE Limbaugh almost daily. If I were in the mainstream media, I would just resort to the old Japanese code of honor requiring suicide when you have been shamed. Limbaugh hands these people their head every single day.

Notice that conservatives did NOT do the New Yorker cover. Sure, there are right wing kooks, or just plain kooks, engagin in a "whisper campaign" that Obama is a Muslim (question: Is it REALLY better that Obama was a member of Reverend Wright's CULT?). "Influential" leftists engage in more deliberately deceptive and HATE filled misinformation every single day. If you doubt that (you really are a fool, aren't you), consider how many prominent leftists (Rosie O'Donnell) were willing to endorse the idea that President Bush arranged 9/11 (not to mention the KOOK idea that President Bush invaded Iraq for Halliburton, which the WHOLE Democratic Party is willing to consider at least a strong possibility/probability).

Nope. Leftists have it all over conservatives as far as irrational HATE is concerned. The New Yorker cartoon is actually an example--MEANT to DISTORT conseervative criticisms of Barack Obama.

P.S. No, I don't think conservatives/right wingers should be portraying Barack Obama as a Muslim, although I have no problem with mentioning his actual NAME (Barack Hussein Obama). There is no need to try to smear Obama with false allegations. The real ones are damaging enough. Of course, there is also no need to be AFRAID of being called "racist" for criticizing Obama. Few people who have ever run for the Presidency deserve criticism as much as Obama, and he will continue to get it here.

Kevin O'brien-The Plain Dealer

The New York er's current cover takes some big risks.

The magazine stuck a caricature of Barack and Michelle Obama right out there in front, where everyone could see it. It shows Mr. Obama in Muslim garb and Mrs. Obama in cammies, combat boots and massive Angela Davis-style Afro, tastefully accessorized with an assault rifle. They're standing in the Oval Office. In the fireplace, an American flag burns merrily. On the wall is a portrait of some bearded Muslim.

The New Yorker's editors have been explaining ever since that the cover was high-minded satire - the sum of Obama opponents' most ridiculous fears all rolled into one brilliantly searing indictment of prejudice, innuendo and not-very-nice politics.

And by golly, it was.

The following paragraph is intended to be humorous. It is in no way meant to be a representation of the whole truth, a partial truth, a shred of truth, anything formerly accepted as truth or anything remotely likely to be revealed as truth at some future date. Nor does the following paragraph reflect the views of The Plain Dealer, its editorial board or the author of this column. We would have made this print smaller if we could have, but then we thought you would have trouble reading it, thereby defeating the purpose of including it - which is to avoid angry phone calls. So we're going with italics, in the hope that a type face different from the rest of the column will serve as a clue that something unusual is afoot here - in this particular case, a little takeoff on those legal "disclaimer" statements you hear on some advertisements and before some talk-radio shows. We realize that this disclaimer will have no effect on those of you who have no clue, cannot get a clue, cannot imagine a circumstance under which you could be persuaded to accept a clue, and firmly believe the New Yorker cover is a hit job on the Obamas. But including it makes us feel better.

Unless, of course, Mrs. Obama really is a raving black nationalist time-warped here from 1971 and Mr. Obama really is a Muslim sleeper agent who has succeeded beyond his handlers' wildest dreams by positioning himself to capture the American presidency, after which he intentionally will lead the country to ruin.

Show of hands: How many of you out there think that sounds plausible?

Hmmm. Well, it takes all kinds, I guess.

OK, how many of you think, as I do, that the cartoon fell short of expressing conservatives' fears about Obama? What it needed was a hole in the Oval Office ceiling to signify what will happen to Americans' taxes should the voters allow the very junior senator from Illinois to take up residence in the White House.

Ah, but that little refinement would have gone right over a lot of people's heads. Just as the actual cartoon apparently has.

Read more here.

James Joyner-Outside the Beltway

Good line, purportedly from Jon Stewart:

Obama is not upset about the cartoon that calls him a Muslim extremist. Who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists.

via Steve Garfield.

See “New Yorker Obama Terrorist Cover” for background and commentary on the story.

UPDATE: Amusingly, I see via Memeorandum, the hubbub goes on. Obama is continuing to beat this dead horse:

Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday that the New Yorker magazine’s satirical cover depicting him and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals doesn’t bother him but that it was an insult to Muslim Americans.

“You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things,” the presidential candidate told CNN’s Larry King. “And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it’s not what America’s all about.”

Obama blamed himself for not being forceful enough in challenging some of the rumors about him, including that he is Muslim. Obama is Christian.

This is bizarre on so many levels. First, Obama clearly knows that the cover was a satire and one which is helping him. Second, he seems to be implying — while touting all the fine things Muslims do — that “Muslim” is some sort of slur.

Meanwhile, even those on the Left are defending the New Yorker. Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel and others at The Nation :

[A]s comedian Bill Maher observed, “If you can’t do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you?” I tend to agree.

[...]

It’s interesting how through time, especially in these last years, images seem more powerful, troubling, provocative and threatening than words. Why is that? Hard to fully fathom. Perhaps the speed with which images, unmoored from their original home and context, zip around the 36/7 Internet? Whatever the full range of reasons, it seems to me that one fact is that a caricature is almost by definition provocative, often offensive. It’s a misrepresentation, an exaggeration for effect, a parody.

While I understand why many object to this cartoon–and to images which they believe reinforce stereotypes (and there are many at The Nation who found the New Yorker cartoon offensive), I believe satire–even if it flops or offends –has a place in our culture and politics.

She then has some of the magazine’s cartoonists weigh in. Steve Brodner’s take is especially keen:

So basically we have the Wolf Blitzers pretending not to get this to rev up ratings which rely, largely, on the “outrage of the day.” However, in that process a dialogue is forced, satire is discussed, the truth about Obama is put on the table. And so, even if it’s taking the long way to get there, Barry Blitt’s strong image does what we need it to do: put these issues up for discussion and in a very real way, educate America.

Christopher Hitchens has a withering piece for The Mirror. Some excerpts:

Satire, according to Jonathan Swift, is “a mirror wherein every man will commonly discern every face but his own”.

[...]

Ludicrous as it might seem to have John McCain enlisted as an art critic, and obvious as it should be that the New Yorker would never do anything deliberately to hurt the Democratic nominee, it remains the case that a Newsweek poll has just found 12 per cent of voters believing that Obama is a practicing Muslim and another 12 per cent (possibly the same 12 per cent) convinced that he used a Koran for his swearing-in ceremony at the United States Senate. These are of course exactly the sort of people who do not read the New Yorker, or go in very much for the ironic and the satirical, so that as usual the aesthetic effort is somewhat lost on what ought to be its target audience.

[...]

If reassurance is what was wanted, it would have been nice to hear Barack Obama agreeing with the New Yorker’s people that the cover was (a) a joke and (b) a pro-Obama joke and then adding (c) that he and his wife “got” the said joke. No such luck. A statement of extreme lugubriousness from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton announced that “most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive – and we agree”. So in other words, the Obama team disagrees strongly with those readers who don’t see it as tasteless and inoffensive, as well as those who interpret it as an attempt to draw the sting from a whispering campaign against Obama. Take that, you broad-minded and humorous rabble! Satire can do no more.

Finally, Salon’s Gary Kamiya makes the unkindest cut of all:

It’s official: The Bush era has made liberals so terrified of right-wing smears it has caused them to completely lose their sense of humor. Much as I hate to repeat one of Rush Limbaugh’s flat, stale and unprofitable applause lines, that’s the only conclusion I can draw after witnessing the left-wing blogosphere’s bizarre reaction to the New Yorker cover. . ..

[...]

I don’t know what lugubrious planet these people are on, but I definitely don’t want any of them writing material for Jon Stewart.

[...]

If you satirically depict Obama as an Islamist terrorist, in this view, you are only reinforcing and giving broader currency to right-wing smears. Since the essence of satire is exaggerating negative stereotypes, this means that satire itself is off limits. Or, at least, all satire except that which the cowering — but oh so semiotically sophisticated — left-wing commentariat deems to be sufficiently broad-brush and polemical to pass its funny test.

If nothing else, this controversy has apparently revived the word “lugubrious.”

About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.

Jon Gold-The Daily Iowan

It's another one of those sky-is-falling weeks, sad to say. The end times are clearly nigh, wherever that is. The president opened our coastline (well, not ours per se; you might remember that Iowa has very little coastline) to oil exploitation, because what the country really needs right now is a bunch of ugly derricks ruining the view and saving us almost nothing in gas prices. (Congress has displayed a heartening reticence to act on the president's latest dippy suggestion.) America's financial system is about one snide remark away from total disaster, thanks - as I understand it - to a couple of very irresponsible country folk named Freddie and Frannie.

But no, that's not the worst of it. Apparently, the cover of this week's New Yorker makes fun of Barack and Michelle Obama. Now there's something we can all pay attention to without disturbing our corporate overlords!

Full disclosure: I'm a New Yorker subscriber. I also listen to NPR, drink espresso drinks, and would be driving a Prius if I had the money, so if you can think of some liberal stereotypes I haven't fulfilled yet, please let me know. I have not yet gotten my copy of the offensive cover, however. (And whom do I talk to about that, anyway?) Said cover, as I'm sure you already know, depicts Sen. Barack and Michelle Obama as Muslim terrorists, in a funny, if heavy-handed satire of the staggeringly dumb rumors that the senator is some sort of secret Muslim.

There's nothing we in the media like more than inflating some nonsense issue into screeching prominence, because it helps us conceal the fact that we don't understand the more complicated ones and are frequently too lazy to figure them out. Front and center: The incredibly true story of Fannie and Freddie, those star-crossed, federally sponsored pseudo-corporations whose very natures are the subject of some debate. What's a "government-sponsored entity" when it's at home? Are we headed for another Great Depression? Why must taxpayers ante up every time some greedy half-wits in the financial sector cause a massive collapse? (It's not enough that they rob us; we have to pay for the privilege, it seems.) You see discussion of issues like this in maybe 10 percent of the nation's newsprint and almost none on its public airwaves. Sometimes it seems like the media attention paid to a given issue is inversely related to how important it actually is.

Read more here.

by Kent Harper
elynews.com

A few years back, a kindly little old lady in Ely asked me where I learned to draw cartoons.

“School,” I told her.

“Art school?” she sweetly asked.

“No, high school. I sat in the back a lot.”

My first ventures were trying to draw my teachers. Eventually one caught me and hauled me to the Dean of Boys' office.

I was sentenced to after-school detention... a more lenient punishment than my social studies teacher wanted.

Highlighting her rather large nose and matronly bosom was too much for her ego. She wanted me suspended.

As part of my “lighter” punishment, the dean banned me from submitting more cartoons to our high school newspaper.

I didn't realize, at the time, what an education that experience was.

Cartooning can be dangerous. And hazardous to your publication's health.

And you don't have to draw pictures of Mohammed to get in hot water. You recall the furor when that Danish newspaper ran various cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet.

Anger exploded across the Middle East and in Islamic enclaves around the world.

Westerners chuckled at extreme reaction and threatened fatwas.

But things aren't really all that different here.

Ben Franklin is given credit for publishing the first American cartoon in 1754 in his Pennsylvania Gazette.

The drawing depicts a snake cut into eight pieces, with the caption “Join, or die,” referring to those colonies that were considering a unified complaint against British injustice.

Old Ben caught just a little heat for the artwork that some called seditious while others just didn't like the snake.

More recently, back in the 1980s, a cartoonist working for a California newspaper, took on a local city official who had made some racist remarks and was rebuked by the rest of the city council.

The cartoonist depicted the official wearing KKK-style white sheets and a hood. The council was shown pulling the rug out from under him.

While the cartoon was clearly anti-racist, it set off a fire storm in the Black community.

Local civil rights leaders called for a boycott of the newspaper for allowing such a hurtful image to appear on its op-ed pages.

Although the publisher explained that the intent of the cartoon was to fight racism, he eventually had to fire the cartoonist to stop the boycott.

The mine field a cartoonist must trip through is vast. Depicting any cherished icon is sure to produce mobs equipped with torches and pitch forks.

Barry Blitt is getting that occasional reminder that all cartoonists are subject to.

Blitt drew the cover cartoon gracing the current issue of The New Yorker.

The cartoon, meant to ridicule false accusations lodged by many against Barak and Michelle Obama, shows Obama in Muslim attire in the Oval Office.

A portrait of Usama Bin Ladin hangs above the mantle, while an American flag burns merrily in the fire place.

Michelle Obama is shown with a '60s Afro hair style and an AK-47 slung on her back.

The Obamas are doing a “gangsta' fist bump.”

It's satire. A joke. You're supposed to laugh.

Not everyone did.

No one in the Obama or McCain campaigns saw any humor in the piece.

And all the back-peddling by the Obama-supporting New Yorker hasn't done any good.

“Obviously I wouldn't have run a cover just to get attention,” New Yorker Editor David Remnick told the Huffington Post website. “I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say... It combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed 'lack of patriotism' or his being 'soft on terrorism' or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.”

Remnick learned the same dangerous lesson from the flap that the California publisher learned in the '80s -- even a well-meaning cartoonist can cause a publication a lot of grief.

That's why fewer and fewer newspapers hire an on-staff cartoonist. Running syndicated material is safe. Running local cartoons isn't always.

But the Ely Times will continue to publish my Harpoons until they take the pencil out of my cold dead fingers.

Besides, problems usually arise when the cartoonist is misunderstood by the readers.

Later in my conversation, with that kindly little old lady, she told me, “I love your cartoons. But I don't always understand them.”

“Don't worry,” I assured her. “I don't always understand them either.”

by Ed Morrissey

from hotair

Barack Obama, 2005:

But what I love about political cartoonists - at least, what I’ll love about them until I open up the paper and see a drawing of my big ears accompanied by something that came out of my big mouth - is that they cut through the conventional wisdom and just tell it like it is. People like Herblock and Tony Auth and others can jolt us awake from our political cynicism with a few ingenious images and a clever phrase that can often speak more truth than a thousand words. And this is the kind of wake-up call our politics needs today more than ever.

Barack Obama, 2008:

I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment. And as I said, ultimately, it’s a cartoon, it’s not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about.

Uh-huh. Cartoons awaken us from our political cynicism except when they explicitly try to point out that cynicism — and then we have to ignore the satire and take them at the most superficial level? Sounds like someone wants to play a victim card a little too enthusiastically here, and on national television, no less.

It got worse. Obama tried playing the victim-by-proxy card as well on Larry King’s show:

“You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things,” the presidential candidate told CNN’s Larry King. “And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it’s not what America’s all about.”

Did Barack Obama just accuse the New Yorker of editorial profiling? Does Obama really think that the New Yorker cartoon meant to skewer him rather than the Right? How clueless is Barack Obama, anyway?

Let’s try to explain this in small words so even the laughless Left understands it. The New Yorker meant to satirize (sorry — make fun of) what they saw as conservative smear campaigns against Obama. They did not mean to imply that there was anything wrong with wearing a dishdasha or being Muslim. The New Yorker could have provided more context for the gag, but anyone with a lick of common sense can deduce its meaning — which may be why the Left finds itself in such a lather over it.

Michelle reminds us of some truly offensive cartoons, in case Obama wants to know the difference. (via Jim Geraghty and HA reader Yakwill83)

Sony Computer Entertainment America made an announcement at their E3 press conference Tuesday in regards to the launch of their PlayStation Store's video download service. This service is available for the PlayStation 3 and their handheld PSP (PlayStation Portable). Videos can be downloaded on the PS3 and transferred to the PSP.

Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc., the parent company to SCEA, then announced that the newest anime from the BONES studio, most famous for Fullmetal Alchemist and Eureka Seven, will be part of the store's exclusive downloadable content.

Making this very exciting news more exciting, the new anime Xam'd: Lost Memories, though yet to premiere in Japan, is currently available for download at the price of $3.99!

Xam'd is the story of a boy named Akiyuki who comes in contact with a mysterious light which transforms him into Xam'd. Xam'd can only be stopped by a red-haired girl.

Available for download from the PlayStation Store are these FUNimation series:

Afro Samurai season 1
Basilisk season 1
Burst Angel season 1
Desert Punk
Gunslinger Girl
Kiddy Grade
MoonPhase
Samurai 7 season 1
Trinity Blood season 1

All available for $1.99 per episode in standard definition.

FUNimation feature Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles is currently available in standard definition for $7.99.


Source: Anime News Network

Publisher unveils Naruto sequel, exclusive to Xbox 360

Ubisoft has announced a sequel to its 2007 action title Naruto: Rise of a Ninja, entitled Naruto: The Broken Bond, set to release in time for Christmas this year.

The title will feature an online multiplayer mode that gives players the chance to compete in tournaments.

Based on the world-renowned anime series, The Broken Bond is the second game from Ubisoft’s licensing agreement with the TV TOKOYO Corporation.

Christian Salomon, vice president of worldwide licensing at Ubisoft enthused: “Featuring vibrant and imaginatively detailed settings, NARUTO: The Broken Bond will take players on an epic journey through an accurately recreated Naruto world.”

“We’re excited to continue in the Naruto: Rise of a Ninja tradition, boasting the only video game in the franchise that features an online multiplayer mode that lets players compete against their friends in tournaments over the Xbox LIVE, online entertainment network, and also gives players the opportunity to relive genuine moments of the anime, while exploring the open universe of Naruto.”

SAN FRANCISCO, July 16: Three of VIZ Media’s most popular animated action series—Naruto, Bleach and Death Note—will be available for purchase and download on Apple’s iTunes Store in the U.S.

iTunes will offer English-dubbed versions of Naruto (uncut), including the first two volumes of season one, two story arcs of Bleach (“The Substitute” and “The Entry”) and all 37 episodes of Death Note.

“VIZ Media is committed to giving fans the best in animated entertainment and we are thrilled to have captivating and unique series like Naruto, Bleach and Death Note now available on iTunes to provide the best options in delivering exciting animated content in a high-quality digital way,” commented David Rewalt, the senior director of retail development at VIZ Media. "For new fans, iTunes also presents a flexible and portable way to view content when and where they want. We look forward to fans visiting iTunes for the latest in Japanese animation.”

—By Kristin Brzoznowski

Matthew Goode plays Ozymandias in Zack Snyder's upcoming adaptation of Watchmen. Yet despite taking the role of one of comics most convoluted characters, the actor revealed to HollywoodChicago.com that he was unaware of the popularity of the comic when the script came his way.

"I was not aware of the popularity of the comic when I received the script," Goode says. "I was was just blown away by the scope of the story and was intrigued by the character they wanted me to play."

Goode spent a total of six months on the set of the film, although he was only involved in a total of 40 days worth of shooting. "I became aware that this story is the Citizen Kane of graphic novels," Goode said. "I think fans of the story will be very pleased with this adaptation."

Watchmen is set in an alternate 1985 America where costumed heroes are a part of the world's history, and the "Doomsday Clock", which measures the tension between the USA and the U.S.S.R. is constantly at five minutes to midnight. Rorschach, a vigilante who refused to retire when his teammates did, is drawn out by the murder of one of his colleagues, and pulled into a world-wide conspiracy with terrifying implications for the future of mankind.

Watchmen stars Patrick Wilson, Billy Crudup, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Jackie Earle Haley, Malin Akerman, Matthew Goode, Stephen McHattie, Carla Gugino and Matt Frewer. The film hits theatres March 10, 2009.

We reported this awhile ago, but more confirmation has come in that they didn't dick around with the final scenes of the Watchmen movie.

Actor Patrick Wilson, who plays Nite Owl in the film has corroborated our previous report that the climactic ending in Watchmen will be the same as in the comics. Of course, we aren't going to spoil the ending, so if you've never read the comics and don't know how it ends... too bad. Pick your sorry ass up and go down to the local bookstore, or comics shop and get the graphic novel!

In an interviw with MTV, Mr.(Nite Owl)Wilson commented...

"I have to say, if you know how much Zack believes in it, you wouldn't believe he would go that far from the graphic novel. I don't know how those rumors start, but that'd be a stretch!"

Wilson also says that "Zack [Snyder] tried to put everything he could in and he left it to the studio to cut it and tell him what he can't fit in." For example, "the script we started with, every scene has something different than what's on the page. That's the fun of it, building it as you go."

and...

"Zack loves the graphic novel and he wants to tell the most faithful story he could, but obviously, changes had to be made, things had to be cut. Yet any question I had about adding something, if it helped the scene, he would say, 'Sure, if it works, great.'" Wilson also adds in his own appreciation for the comic's writer Alan Moore, saying "I love everything [he] does. He really deconstructs comic book characters, and he's just fearless. All the good and the bad, you have to respect it." And that's what leads him directly into connecting that respect for the material with Zack Snyder's directorial decisions.

Jim Littler
7/16/2008
Source: Comic Book Movie

by Alex Cohen from npr

When the movie The Dark Knight opens Thursday at midnight, thousands of people will be haunted by the late Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker.

Before he died, Ledger told reporters that it took a ton of energy to play the role, but that it was the most fun he ever had.

"It was one of those moments where I was asked if I'd be interested in playing The Joker, and I knew five seconds later exactly how to play it," he said.

His "how" differed significantly from some of The Joker's earlier incarnations. In his nearly 70 years of existence, that "Clown Prince of Crime," that "Harlequin of Hate," has taken a wild ride between the forces of goofy and evil.

Joker was born 68 years ago, on the pages of the comic book Batman #1, as simply a bit role. His creators at DC Comics killed him off after only two appearances.

Only after he was on the way to fictional hell (or wherever evil comic-book characters go when they die), an editor at DC Comics said, "Wait a minute — this guy is pretty good!" And they decided to revive him.

"They added a panel at the end of the story where, in the ambulance, the doctor goes, 'Well I'm amazed this guy's actually going to live!'" says comic book writer Steve Englehart.

After that, he was a regular character.

Looking For Chemical Inspiration

Over the years, there have been many interpretations of The Joker's origins. Most stories involve an ordinary crook who falls into a vat of chemicals while running away from Batman. When the criminal emerges, his hair is bright green, his face ghostly white, and his fiercely red lips are frozen in a clownish grin.

Englehart says that look was originally inspired by the 1928 silent movie, The Man Who Laughs.

"The makeup is precisely what you think of as The Joker, so they just stole it cold. I think in the '40s in comic books, nobody much worried about things like that."

Back then, The Joker was a pretty straightforward psychopath who stole things and killed people. His main motivation in life was messing with Batman.

"He sees The Batman as his perfect other," says Englehart. "And The Joker doesn't want to kill The Batman, because then he wouldn't have a Batman to play with."

The Forces Of Goof

In the 1950s, the character went through a metamorphosis when a group called the Comics Code Authority was created in response to what some deemed "inappropriate material." When censors banned "excessive violence" from comic books, The Joker became less dark and a lot more silly. That goofy thieving trickster version of the villain jumped out of comic books and onto TV in 1966, when ABC launched its version of Batman.

Actor Cesar Romero's Joker sported a Technicolor purple suit and looked like a villainous Liberace. Romero laughed more than he ever spoke, and when he did talk, he was feverishly fond of alliteration; sentences like, "Oh, my playful pilfering pals, how delicious it is."

Evil Conquers Silly

During the '60s, The Joker was mostly absent from Batman comic books. In the '70s, he had a big comeback with several writers, including Englehart, who says he had no interest in the family-friendly, goofy Joker. He wanted to take the character back to his roots.

"He was this very crazy, scary character. I really wanted to get back to the idea of Batman fighting insane murderers at 3 a.m. under the full moon, as the clouds scuttled by."

Englehart 's much darker interpretation of The Joker later became part of the inspiration for Jack Nicholson's portrayal in Tim Burton's 1989 film, Batman.

In a promotional video for the film, Nicholson said he's often told in real life that he oversteps the boundaries of good humor. But Nicholson added, he doesn't have anything on The Joker.

"Things that even the wildest comics would be afraid to find funny, burning somebody's face into oblivion, destroying a masterpiece in a museum — not this character, and I love that," he said.

Humor has always been a pivotal part of The Joker, and though we usually think of humor as an enjoyable, likeable trait, it can also be tinged with evil says Paul Levitz, president and publisher of DC Comics.

"There's a level in humor, where humor can verge on being offensive or invasive of your space or your life — where you don't quite know what's going on. Is this guy putting me on? Is he actually going to do those things to me?"

In the 1988 DC Comics book Batman: The Killing Joke, the man who eventually becomes Batman's archenemy starts off as a chemical engineer who quits his job to become a stand-up comedian. He fails miserably.

"Yeah, I could see someone getting really crazy off of that," says Maz Jobrani, a real-life stand-up comic. "A lot of times, comics will then get upset at the audience for not understanding them, and they go, 'You don't understand me, I'm funny, you people are horrible, you people should go to hell!'"

Jobrani adds that many comics, like The Joker, are a little bit crazy — and it's their peculiar worldview that makes them funny.

In his interpretation of The Joker in the new film, The Dark Knight, actor Heath Ledger thrives on that insanity.

"I keep coming back to the way he physically incarnates madness," says Levitz. "Leave the makeup aside, leave the costuming aside — if you had Heath Ledger in plain clothes, who's a very handsome, well-presented, very affable looking man — if he walked in a room and started acting in the behaviors that he uses for The Joker, you'd get the hell out of that room fast. And that's pretty cool."

Ledger's Joker may be enthralling for viewers, but playing the role took its toll.

The Australian actor told reporters that he barely slept while playing the part. Even when his body was exhausted, he couldn't stop his mind from reeling, he said.

The challenge of the role wasn't lost on Jack Nicholson. When told of Ledger's death, the actor's immediate response was: "I warned him."

by David Harsanyi from realclearpolitics

It's been an exciting few days for Barack Obama. First, Jesse Jackson suggests his castration. Now, the beacon of liberal intellectualism cuts his "n@#s" off.

As many of you have heard, this month's New Yorker magazine depicted Barack Obama as a flag-burnin', terrorist-lovin' candidate whose wife sports a Foxy Brown afro, camouflage pants and an AK-47.

I wish. But it's only satire. Still, for the perpetually offended, irony doesn't cut it. First, the progressive blogosphere -- where, as we all know, commentary is always civil -- took mass umbrage. Then the Obama campaign called the cartoon "tasteless and offensive."

Some of America's best moments in journalism are "tasteless and offensive." And, in satire, we've see some of our sharpest political punditry. Just ask fans of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

"Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," explained New Yorker editor David Remnick.

No worries. The reflection you should see is a barbaric, right-wing smear machine, not Obama in a turban.

Well, this explanation wasn't enough to avoid censure.

It's too bad the indignation over the cartoon is not applied evenly. When Rolling Stone published a cartoon of John McCain in a Vietnam bamboo jail being tortured by other candidates a couple of months ago, no uproar could be heard. And though George Bush is portrayed as a mentally deficient simian (for the millionth unimaginative time), there is rarely talk of a pox of "tasteless" journalism.

In the case of the New Yorker cartoon, one of the arguments critics make -- and I heavily editorialize here -- is that boobs in Wal-Mart America aren't sufficiently sophisticated to deal with the cerebral wit of a New Yorker cartoon.

Those people will believe anything, after all -- well, anything but science.

Inarguably, there are those who perpetuate the myth of Obama the Muslim Manchurian Candidate. They often send me e-mails, pictures and letters. My guess, though, is that they're not the type who read Talk of the Town.

To be as unfair as possible, I would also suggest that rumor mongering and conspiracy theorizing are not the sole province of any one political affiliation. Take if you will, the many highly educated and literate New Yorker readers who believe that bloodthirsty Republicans met in a smoke-filled room to hatch 9/11 and the Iraq war so Halliburton could kill children for kicks.

Now, if we're to take this cartoon as seriously as the offended, there are other problems. To begin with, the cover feeds the false perception that there exists a mainstream effort to smear Obama with vile rumors. Or that those who oppose Obama do so because they are unduly influenced by vile rumors rather than policy disagreements.

Finally, it forwards the notion that any question remotely unseemly about Obama should automatically be filed under "vile rumors." Not so.

It's completely preposterous and unfair to portray Obama as a terrorist enthusiast or a secret Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with that!). But is it unfair to ask Obama about his longstanding relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn or a clergyman who "goddamns" America?

Fortunately, the average voter is not swayed by silly things like an ironic cartoon or a false Internet rumor. We choose our candidates using a high- minded formula that takes into account things like height, who we'd rather have a beer with and best slogan.

So this cartoon controversy proves only one thing: that the invested political class (bloggers, journalists, junkies or anyone whose world revolves around politics and power) is a bunch of self-important and humorless flakes.

As if politics wasn't depressing enough.

by Ralph Seliger from meretzusa

The current flap over the cover cartoon in the July 21 issue of The New Yorker reminds me of a situation I almost got into, but avoided. When ISRAEL HORIZONS' budget permitted (hint to potential donors out there!), we used to commission original cartoons from Ilan Goldstein, a young Israeli.

He often sent more than one cartoon for our choosing, and when IH was commenting about the work of Professors Mearsheimer and Walt on the "Israel Lobby," he sent us a cartoon that delighted me. It pictured two hasidim stirring (as if they were witches) a boiling cauldron labeled "Israel Lobby." I marveled at the fact that it actually was an antisemitic image but the context of who we are as a publication, and who the cartoonist is, meant that we were lampooning any antisemitic fallout from the Israel Lobby controversy.

It also could have been interpreted as accusing Mearsheimer and Walt of intentionally stirring up antisemitism. Readers of IH and/or this blog would know that I don't think highly of M & W's work and that I view M & W as having unintentionally stirred up antisemitism, but I don't believe that they meant harm. Yet they merit being lampooned. Nevertheless, after discussing this with a couple of associates, I reluctantly chose to play it safe and go with another cartoon.

It should be obvious that ISRAEL HORIZONS would not be promoting antisemitism. It should be obvious to anybody who knows The New Yorker that it was satirizing the insinuations about Senator Obama being Muslim – "not that there's anything wrong with that" if he were a Muslim (I'm quoting Jerry Seinfeld's character's P.C. afterthought when he and George Castanza were mistakenly identified as gay lovers) – and that somehow Obama and his wife support terrorists.

The ridiculousness of the images portrayed on The New Yorker cover clearly connotes satire: Michelle Obama in an Afro with an assault rifle slung across her back, making a "terrorist fist bump" (in the idiotic words of a FOX News commentator) with Senator Obama, himself dressed in African Muslim dress, an American flag burning in the fireplace, a picture of Osama bin Laden apparently on the wall.

It was said at the time that the attacks of 9/11 killed off irony. We also may be reminded of the violent reactions around the world to the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Mohammad; protestors had a genuine reason to raise their voices against a perceived insult to their religion but never to engage in violence. And their lack of regard for the prerogatives of free speech (which should protect the cartoonists and the protestors equally) and the institution of a free press was disheartening. But the New Yorker cartoon is being protested out of a misunderstanding (as I feared would happen with that cartoon meant for IH).

I have to agree with one of NPR's "Car Guys" (I'm going far afield here but I love this quote): "Ah stupidity, the universal language." (See the Egyptian-born Muslim commentator Mona Eltahawy's sage reaction to the Obama cartoon affair.) Whether it's stupidity, hyper-sensitivity, or an over-eagerness to confront critics who are too often perceived as enemies, we lose something as a society when publishing a cartoon becomes a risky endeavor.