Collaborated effort?

[Nic Martin]

I hope I am not thread jacking here...

For anyone interested, there are two documentaries by Mark Akbar and Co (SP) that are very interesting in terms of how the information itself is presented, and by this I mean they don't look and sound like wildlife documentaries.

One is The Corporation and the other is Manufacturing Consent.

These have both gone on to festivals and have been nominated for Acedemy Awards (for what that is worth) but have gone on to large audiences.

One thing I would hate to see is a super dry "I'm Bill Curtis" approach and I  loathe the idea of seeing Michael Moore talking to Panhandling experts in Dealey Plaza while buying a hotdog...

PBS had a pretty even handed Doc on the Banana War a few months back and it was pretty informative but again, kinda dry.

An aside, John Simkin would be very useful provided he has time, as he seems to have a very good handle on historical timelines and has a pretty cohesive approach towards things in my opinion, which most filmmakers/producers don't have. There seems to me to be an awfully large amount of qualified people here to undertake such a project.

It's really just a question of peoples time I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, people here are by far the most qualified people, especially Jack White - who's just, brilliant. Several witnesses are still living, and I think some of them would talk on camera if it was on their terms.

[JL Allen]

Perhaps the filming could coincide with the annual Dallas commemoration when many researchers might already be in attendence. I'm sure many of us believe that something extremely powerful could be created - and, if done to high standards - possibly submitted at Cannes and Sundance, etc. - reaching sizable audiences and garnering some interesting press coverage. There are so many deceptions, flaws, holes and discrepancies - the discussion deserves to be kept alive. The original ideals and principles which supposedly founded this nation demand it. "Coup me once - shame on you. Coup me twice - shame on me."

[Nic Martin]

If we do this, I think we should avoid dragging in "big names" to keep credibility - this means no Oliver Stone, no Kevin Costner.

I also think we should avoid theories that are still under debate as to their authenticity ( Jimmy Files, Judy Baker, and Oliver-Messagee/Babushka Lady ), as I think that'd cheapen it.

[Dawn Meredith]

One thing I would hate to see is a super dry "I'm Bill Curtis" approach

Hi Blair, welcome, great to have another Canadian here. (I'm former Canadian).

I disagree about Bill Curtis. I saw the first episodes of TMWKK when he did the voice over for Nigel, in 91. I became an instant fan and have watched many of his American Justice docs since. That he is "Established Media" would lend a lot of creibility to this cause, IMO. (Since the media has been so much a part of the cover-up)

The ideas on this thread are great.

Dawn

[David G. Healy]

I hope I am not thread jacking here...

For anyone interested, there are two documentaries by Mark Akbar and Co (SP) that are very interesting in terms of how the information itself is presented, and by this I mean they don't look and sound like wildlife documentaries.

One is The Corporation and the other is Manufacturing Consent.

These have both gone on to festivals and have been nominated for Acedemy Awards (for what that is worth) but have gone on to large audiences.

One thing I would hate to see is a super dry "I'm Bill Curtis" approach and I  loathe the idea of seeing Michael Moore talking to Panhandling experts in Dealey Plaza while buying a hotdog...

PBS had a pretty even handed Doc on the Banana War a few months back and it was pretty informative but again, kinda dry.

An aside, John Simkin would be very useful provided he has time, as he seems to have a very good handle on historical timelines and has a pretty cohesive approach towards things in my opinion, which most filmmakers/producers don't have. There seems to me to be an awfully large amount of qualified people here to undertake such a project.

It's really just a question of peoples time I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

throwing aside Michael Moore may be foolish -- what did his last documentary garner at the box office, how many appearences did he make on National TV, how many copies of the DVD are out there - how does that number compare to the MPI DVD? Moore's distribution contacts is worth how much? His PR organization? His web presence? Academy Award? Who cares what the peers think!

You'll need a thorughly vetted script if you expect some on this forum to take the project seriously. Having access to a NLE and a few software packages, although good doesn't make a project of this type a slam dunk..

Look towards 30K-80K as a licensing fee re the Z-film, depending on broadcast disribution and how much used in the project. Yes, approval cycles can be a pain. I suspect regarding the material under consideration, you'll get little response from the Z-film copyright holders and/or their assigns.

Selling DVD's with same incorporated into the piece? Well -- be prepared, it'll go higher, maybe much higher. You can contact Gary Mack at the 6th Floor Museum -- evidently his organization handles request of this type... he does lurk hereabouts though - he may contact you...

we're use to hijacked threads here, btw.

Do much 'compositing'?

David Healy

Edited August 28, 2005 by David G. Healy

[Blair Dobson]

David Healy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks David.

I should say right away that I quite enjoy Michael Moore and his work.

I have a tendency to throw glib comments like that out in an attempt at pop culture/media based humor and sometimes it doesn't come through.

I am a smartass that way.

I agree that the repro rights of the z film would be costly. Provided that the holders of the copyright aren't sticklers for the lone nut idea, the money itself isn't really too much of a problem. (Stock footage being about 1/10th of a budget for a doc...)

Here's an interesting thought:

If I were to incorporate a specific thread in a doc about limo speed etc, I would need the Z film and some analysis...comparisons to the Nix film for example..

Now I also know that by most it is considered to be the cornerstone of debate between LNers and Grassy Knoll shooter theorists as well as the "Jackie had a gun hidden in her hat" bunch, (though few in numbers they are...) but I don't think it is the most important part of the whole case itself, but rather, at times a bit of an albatross. ( Not to discount any of the research around it in any way shape or form..)

It is my strange opinion though that a case could be made quite effectively without any of the films or the work related to them to prove that there was a conspiracy...And who the players were.

Here's why:

There is enough research in and around the case that comes from what is now declassified, public record and historically documented fact with a liberal sprinkling of disinfo thrown in for good measure that is very compelling towards a high level conspiracy and a number of conclusions can be drawn from the connections of the power elite, big business and the trail of hidden documents etc.

A very compelling case could be made simply with comparitive historical analysis between what was done to Arbenz as was done to Kennedy without ever touching the films thmeselves.

And I don't think anyone has approached it quite on that level yet in terms of a documentary/expose.

In most situations, information is segmented, dissected and dropped into unrelated bundles adn factoids unrelated to a bigger picture. (This site is the exact opposite of what I am talking about.)

The bigger picture is where the truth is most times imho.

Most people wouldn't put Guatemala's Banana War together with the head of the CIA having a financial and thus vested interest via the United Fruit Company and how any of that relates to Cold war / anti communist paranoia of the time, or how that relates to foreign policy etc, because the information is never delivered that way.

Dulles? The United Fruit Who? Chiquita?

I am not for a moment saying that the films aren't important, I am simply saying that they are important only in the sense that they pertain to certain aspects of the case and not the others. If Gary Mack or whomever were to say, "No you can't have access to the Z film because...yadda yadda.." this wouldn't preclude a historical case being made in any way.

We know what happened to Arbenz and who was involved. That might be more important than where the shots came from as most of the dialogue surrounding the case in those areas is relegated to "badgeman, dog man and Jackies Hat".

Again, that is not to say that these are trivial pursuits in any way..

At this point, I am still looking at how I would approach this should I decide to be so bold as to undertake a project of such magnitude myself and then ask a bunch of serious researchers in the case to help out.(And I don't mean to fixate on Arbenz either, its just quicker to type ARBENZ than it is to type WATERGATE).

Sorry to ramble. It's late and I wanted to address your post.

Again, thank you to everyone here for taking the time to read and respond to my posts. I know none of this is new to most of you.

I just think it's of historical importance, not only to remember the assassination, but how it relates to the overall structure of what we call "Democracy" and take a closer look at what the cost and price of just what democracy is. This is sometimes overlooked in a flurry of Tippets, Knollmen and David Ferries.

p.s.

And yes, I composite, roto and all that stuff. I don't do 3-D modelling however as it's not my area of expertise. Film/video restoration and special effects editing are more my area. I can send my resume to you if you should need it.

(I don't do weddings however...unless they are greenscreened...

Thanks again everyone.

Dobson..

Edited August 29, 2005 by Blair Dobson