is a recent graduate from the, with us. The, normally, I do announce the next one, but the next one will only be in September, so while I don't like to say it, if you ever have any suggestions, we're still putting the list together until about, if you haven't just seen anything African is welcome and we're setting it up for eight more presentations. Also, if some of you are not on the list serve of the Institute of African Studies and you would like to be on it, please, I will circulate my pad here. Please write your name and your email address and we can include you on our list serve, which is published every week and says everything that's happening in the Ottawa region about Africa in the cultural, political academy events. So, Matt, as I said, I just finished this PhD last year on the modern French cinema and the Algerian war and what we're hearing today are the conclusions of his thesis. Before he did that, he did an amazing year as well where he was working about Hollywood and reading recent questions of disappearing reality with the help of the theory of the loads. And he is just coming here for a few days from Toronto where he's currently teaching at U of T, film and memory and film theory. And we're also happy to have with us Chris Faulkner, who was the supervisor of his doctoral thesis. So it's always nice to have cinema people come up here and read and I think it's very well and I understand that some of you also come from that school. So, thank you very much for coming. Okay. Could you switch up? Would that help you to switch up the mouth? That's, either way, it's fine. I don't know if everyone can see this. Okay. I don't know. You may as well switch it up one by one. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you so much Dominique and to the African Studies Department for having me here. I'm really excited to be introducing this work really for the first time. I'm also happy to see some old school film studies and cultural mediation faces in the crowd. I'd just like to preface my discussion today with a few remarks. The subject I'll be addressing, which is René Voce's anti-colonial cinema represents a sort of crossroads in my own research. It was really the site where my dissertation on French film and the Franco-Algerian War came to an end. And now that the period of teaching and applications are over, it's the site where I'm hoping my future research will begin. So the title's talk, which is about questions of militant cinema is really an authentic one. I see my objective here today as about formulating questions as opposed to posing solutions as I did in my dissertation about the cinema of the left-bank group and the Algerian War. This is a new project and I'm really here to think about what are the most crucial questions when we're thinking about militant cinema and Voce's work. So in the first 10 or 15 minutes of my talk, I'm gonna give you some very broad strokes about the cinematic representation of Algerian decolonization in the 1950s and 1960s French film. And this framing context will illuminate why Voce's cinema is so radically unique among his contemporaries and why it demands study at this particular point in the historiography of European cinema. Then I'd like to move into a slightly more scripted discussion of Voce, introducing his filmography, the various forms of discipline to which this filmography has been subjected, as well as some key points of intersection between the reception of his cinema and the right-wing response in contemporary France to the cinematic memory work surrounding the war. So those are sort of the broad objectives of the talk. So some broad strokes, framing perspectives. My discussion today returns to what is one of, if not arguably the most influential and canonized period in the history of global cinema, the French film culture of the 1950s and 1960s. It was a period which, following the occupation and the censorship of American cinema that took place during the Second World War, gave rise to an aggressive culture of cinephilia. In Paris especially, a series of film clubs and journals emerged in the 1950s that as Dudley Andrew has recently argued, constituted the noisiest forum for debate around the competing ideas of what cinema is. Some of the concepts and methodologies developed during this time, such as auteur and mise en scene analysis in the 1950s and semiotic film analysis in the 1960s, largely set the agenda for film studies as a discipline when it crystallized into the 1970s and well beyond that. Moreover, French film culture in France in the 1960s is widely associated with a certain romantic narrative of the French new wave, who were, I'm sure many of you know, a group of spirited young film critics turned directors who rejected the stodgy costume dramas associated with the tradition of quality. According to orthodox wisdom, filmmakers like Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard and Claude Chabral took to the streets amalgamating techniques from documentary in the Hollywood B film in order to take on the accelerated rhythms and shifting sexual mores of post-war European culture. This cinema in turn would go on to influence the formation of new wave cinemas around the world, as well as the emergence of what you might today call new Hollywood cinema or post-classical Hollywood cinema. All of this is to say that the French cinema of the 1950s and 1960s represents a period that film studies thinks it knows extremely well. And yet, at the very same time that France was re-establishing its international cultural capital, it was also engaged in one of the most bloody and prolonged colonial wars of the past century. Like you to consider that over the course of its eight year duration from 1954 to 1962, the war precipitated the collapse of the Fourth Republic, produced ruptures within the French intellectual left and right, eroded France's international reputation as a leader of human rights legislation and forcefully intervened into the lives of a young generation of over two million conscript soldiers. In the final stages of Algerian independence, especially topical issues such as the war's impact on the nation's youth, the rise of the radical right and the state's use of torture made headlines of centrist and left-wing newspapers including Le Monde, Le Express, and texts like Henri Alleg's La question. So the question remains, how did this torrent of events inform the period's cinematic representation? According to Orthodox film history writing, Algeria was totally absent from French screens both during and long after the war. And there are two common reasons suggested for this absence. The first points to what we might call a repressive hypothesis. That is, the French state stringently censored any kind of public dissent against the war, suppressing manifestations, confiscating papers that took even a moderate stance against state policy. The situation was particularly grave in the case of cinema because mechanisms that had been put in place by the film industry since 1916 allowed the granting of commercial distribution visas for films to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, filmmakers couldn't adjust their work to any kind of normative censorship legislation. Films like Chris Marker and Alan Rene's Le Statue's Mero Si, for example, was banned for reasons that were never even specified to the directors for a period of over two decades. These conditions have led a number of film historians to conclude that film was completely silenced on the situation. Second, we can suggest a set of softer ideological conditions that eclipse the representation of colonialism, which concern the onset of postwar capitalist modernization. The 1950s marked the flourishing of the trans-glorieuse in France, a period of economic growth and acceleration paralleled in its early years only by similar developments in Germany. It was a period marked by intense urban development, population shifts from the provinces to the metropole by a nationalist embrace of American-style corporate capitalism and by the emergence of a new youthful technocratic class of intermediaries. Finally, it was marked by a proliferation of consumer products, gadgets and durables that were propped up by a hyper-mediatized audio-visual culture of print advertising, radio and cinema. The latter often cast modern France in the ambience of science fiction as a sanitized, functional and futuristic world in which humans occupied an increasingly administrative rather than productive relationship to the things around them. Given that French society emerged from the Second World War, eager to forget the legacy of the occupation in Vichy, many historians argue that most French people chose to ignore the reality in the colonies and focus on the American dream of setting up a house. Benjamin Stora notes the common place historical assertion that, quote, within the euphoria of progress everyone gave into the pressure of the immediate, caught up in the avalanche of novelties and consumption, the nascent modernity concealed the issues born of the Algerian years. I'd also like to suggest a third reason why most historians and film historians particularly have failed to see colonialism as figuring into the period's film aesthetics and this failure concerns the schemas of classification that film studies has inherited as a discipline. I'd say right up until the present moment, film historiography continues to devote fastidious attention to the formal innovations of the young Turks of the new wave and to Kaede Sinema's theories of film realism and authorship while leaving the period's countervailing perspectives almost completely unexplored. So whether we reject the new wave as tended to be the case in 1970s and the 1970s or uncritically celebrate it as tends to be the case today, I would argue its legacy stands for the period's film culture as a whole. However, when one explores some of the competing critical discourses, a radically alternative picture of the period's cinema begins to emerge. For example, according to Kaede Sinema's chief theoretical interlocutor, Positif, French cinema of the 1950s and 1960s constituted a radically heterogeneous field. Positif drew clear distinctions between the cinema of the new wave, the cinema of the left bank group, which was the subject of my dissertation and the militant cinema of figures like Rene Voce, we'll be talking about today, and it drew these distinctions on the basis of the problem of decolonization. A little show and tell here. I have this particular issue of Positif, which contains what are the two most devastating and notorious critiques of the new wave written at the time, and perhaps until the day, the new wave's complicity with Gaul's capitalism. You'll note that the issue is actually devoted to the subject of the Algerian War. My point here is that once we expand the disciplinary purview beyond this new wave narrative of French cinema, two myths begin to reveal themselves, as such, as myths. The first is that Algeria was certainly not repressed from media representation. In fact, status discourses often mobilize the image of the dirty conflict against Algeria and the so-called bandits and backward religious zealots who were conducting the war to promote the ideals of modernization, its promise of a sanitized and technocratic future. The second point is that this attempt to define the war as a police action against a few radicals ultimately failed. As early as 1955, left-wing progressive weeklies like France Observateur and Express published reports and photographs of police barbarities in Algeria, conscript soldiers returned to spread news of torture by word of mouth. Demonstrations began to spread across the metropolis. As Jean-Paul Sartre would put things in his writings for the top modern, we are not naive, we are dirty. Everybody has heard about the torture in spite of everything something has filtered through, but we do not seek this evidence because in spite of ourselves, we know. In my dissertation, I demonstrated how French militancy against the war was directed not only against the state's crimes in Algeria, but against precisely this policing of discourse within France against an entire machinery of deception that acted in the French public's name while masking its operations from their view. In the cinema of the left-bank group, and here I'm referring to directors like Chris Marker, Alan Rene and Agnes Varda, the left-bank mobilized discourses and images specific to the war in order to critique the increasingly disciplinary nature of their own modern society. By placing the mise-en-scenes of the modern world, its museums, its department stores, its cultures of objects in a dialectical tension with images of policing, torture, and concentration camps, the left-bank group demonstrate how the horrors of the counter-insurgency in Algeria permeated everyday life in the metropole. So you consider this example here from Chris Marker's rather canonical film, La Jetée, which graph scenes of torture that strongly resemble Henry Oleg's testimony in La Custion over scenes of everyday consumer society. Here are stills from Alan Rene's film, Tut Le Memoir Demand, which satirizes the very notion of a complete and total account of French national history with not-so-subtle images of the internment of books and newspapers, which was of course taking place at the time of the war. Now you'll note the profound ambivalence of this approach to politics, which in some ways resembles what the theorist Nicholas Mirzov has called the Eurocentric critique of Eurocentrism. On the one hand, this break with French identity as defined by the state set the stage for the later rejections of social identity that characterized the May 68 movement. During the events of May 68, students, workers, and anti-colonialists broke with their fixed role in the social structure in order to form a collective front against global capitalism. On the other hand, when the left bank took up Vietnam at the end of the decade, they strove to confer visibility on the Vietnamese's struggle, rendering it directly intelligible within the currents of industrial and intellectual contestation taking place across France. In the case of Algeria, however, the Algerians don't really figure as more than a structuring absence. Their agency in historicity often reduced to idealist meditations on the politics of visibility. So it is against this backdrop that I'd like to consider the work of Rene Voce whose work crossed over to the other side to use Etienne Balabar's phrase daring to interrogate the relation of Algeria to its own interior alterity and its necessary disidentification as opposed to French's disidentification with the state and with themselves. His work illustrates a process of French cinema transforming into a legitimately Algerian cinema concerned with the revolutionary and post-revolutionary aftermath of Algerian society. This transformation began in the late 1940s when, as a student at the Institute for the Invents Study of Cinema, he was commissioned to make a pedagogical film about what was then called French West Africa for secondary school students. Outraged by what he saw as the parallels between the situation in Niger and Nazi violence, he witnessed as a fighter for the resistance. Voce made what some historians call the first ever anti-colonial combat documentary called Afrique Saint-Gon, or anti-colonial documentary, leading to his one year imprisonment for violating a 1934 decree by Vichy collaborator Pierre Laval. In contrast to what he identifies in his memoirs, Caméra Citoyenne, as Jean-Rouche's capitulation to the state's policed and complicit representation of the colonies, Voce developed an undercover identity in the ensuing period and traveled to Algeria to become a filmmaker and educator. There he helped the FLN establish its official film unit in 1957 and trained a number of influential Algerian filmmakers. In the same year, he made one of the first ever combat anti-colonial combat documentaries called Algerie en Flamme, during which his camera was gunned down by the counter-insurgency, leaving a small fragment of the camera embedded in his skull to this day.  Over the remaining course of the War of Independence, he collaborated with a reluctant Frans Fanon on a short documentary, J'Huitan, which combines ethnography with radical psychiatry to represent the drawings of Algerian children who fled to Tunisia, to a Tunisian refugee camp after their parents were both tortured and killed by French troops. The conclusion of my talk, I'd like to show you a little clip from that film. On the dawn of independence in 1962, he developed the Santra Audiovisual, which in the style of Alexander Medvedkin began what's called a CinePops program that used two projection vans to facilitate agit-prop screenings across 220 locations in Algeria for a largely illiterate peasantry. In addition to key Soviet texts like Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin, the project screened Voce's own Hope on Marsh, the first documentary to demonstrate the realities of life in post-war independence Algeria. At the end of my talk, I'd also like to show you the conclusion of that film as well. Now, when considering Voce's work in view of my dissertations, broader themes of policing and horror, it's necessary to return to the disciplinary space. First explored in the film I mentioned earlier, Rene's Tutla memoir Demand, the Bibliothèque Nationale, the France. For France's National Library was not only the subject of Rene's 1956 documentary on the disciplining of historical knowledge, it was also the site where Voce compiled the materials for his first anti-colonial Cine pamphlet in the name of Algerian independence. Wanted by French authorities for Afrique Saint-Con, Voce was unable to secure a visa to travel to Algeria after the FLN staged their first acts of resistance on All Saints Day, 1954. And so he decided to make a research film composed of all the written sources he could gather from the Bibliothèque on France's relation to the Maghreb. After months of research, Voce excavated materials from French generals dating back to the mid-19th century, which provided rather strong evidence that France's history of barbarism in Algeria included the use of gas chambers. With the assistance of his colleagues at the Institute, he made a short documentary entitled Une Nation L'Algerie, whose voice over narration incorporated direct passages from Voce's research findings. This short film, although it was produced with the state's reference materials, had no chance of securing a state visa, and Voce didn't bother to apply for one. He organized clandestine screenings across Paris and was eventually able to place one of the two copies of the film in the hands of France Fanon during a secret meeting in Tunisia in 1956. The latter wanted to present Voce's work to an FLN delegation in South Africa. The first copy was destroyed by the FLN counter movement, the Movement Nationale Algerienne, at a screening in the Latin Quarter, and the other was apparently stolen from Fanon. So here I'm kind of alluding to how questions of militant cinema largely surround not only questions of film aesthetics, but of course, questions of distribution and exhibition. Now, what Voce describes in a 2001 interview with Nicole Brené as a paradoxical sense of the archive as a site that simultaneously exposes history while constituting its repression, is perhaps resident with the fate of his own cinema, now stored in libraries across France, including the Bibliothèque Nationale. I experienced a similar kind of vertigo when I screened a number of his films, including Poupon-Marche and J. Weed-En in the library's audio-visual archive. This encounter with Voce's cinema was admittedly primed by my own subject position at the time as I had arrived in Paris in the midst of mass demonstrations and strikes by millions of protesters in October 2010 against the federal government's pension reform plan. On my first night in the city, I watched as parliamentary riot police cleared the manifestation surrounding the Bastille, putting the principle of nothing to see here and to practice. Here's one of my own shots of what were kind of walls of police. The imprint of the event certainly asserted its relevance in the ensuing days when I started my research at the National Library. Certainly, all archival research demands that the researcher proceed through a series of softly coercive disciplinary checks and mechanisms, be they proof of citizenship, a letter attesting to one's cultural expertise, even physical searches. Nonetheless, the particular topic at hand, the French cinematic representation of the Algerian War, seemed to provoke a prolonged pause at each checkpoint accompanied by some form of reminder that this was a bizarre or loaded topic to be studying, especially for a Canadian student. For years, I had read about Algeria as the specter, the structuring absence of French cinema of the 1950s, 1960s. Now, after succession of what seemed to be interminable escalator rides, security checkpoints, and clearances through metal detectors, I was in a modest room in the library's basement, watching films by a French director in which millions of Algerians and their expansive cultural diversity could be seen manifesting themselves across the country's streets. Vocae's films could not be assimilated into the opaque cinema studied in my dissertation with all of its strategies of illusion and indirection. Instead of Auschwitz and Dekal as allegories or screen memories for Algeria's concentration camps, Vocae's poop on March confers visibility on the real Jelfa and Bousset and all of their architectural and criminal specificity. It also contains the only footage of the massacre at Saki at City Yusef, what the director refers to as Algeria's Guernica. However, it was not only the images, dead bodies, or the testimonies of torture that made the experience of watching the film somewhat chilling, but rather the collision between the disciplinary setting and the film's images of the post-war revolutionary masses. In the vein of Eisenstein and Vertov, Poop on March shows the hardships of post-war reconstruction, the shared efforts among the peasantry and the military to harvest the land still embedded with explosives, the rebuilding of schools and hospitals, and the political demonstrations that involved all classes of society in the cause of socialism. Above all, Vocae's agit-prop film, as its title suggests, shows masses of bodies in the process of taking and giving form and is perhaps even too utopian in its promotion of the unified Algerian society to come. J. Weedon contains a similar combination of trauma and celebration, enforcing the spectator to confront the faces of the five boys whose stories confront the voiceover and in narrativizing their drawings of scenes depicting French troops torturing, killing their parents, the film asks us to imagine how France's presence and now absence modifies Algerian subjectivity and constitutes its interior alterity as opposed to the films that I studied in my dissertation. And like Pope on March, this short film concludes with visualizations of the people reunited to the uncanny soundtrack of a chant for Algerian independence and here are those final images. Encountering these sounds and images, it was difficult not to be reminded of the conclusion of Ponte Corvo's famous The Battle of Algiers, in which a French radio broadcaster defines the undulating sounds emanating from the city streets as something entirely alien to his European ears, even monstrous. Revotier's films now left to languish in the Bibliothèque Nationale, also potentially monstrous to the French Society of Control beyond the library's walls. The source of insight into this question arrived during the final days before I left Paris when the magazine La Nouvelle Observateur, accompanied by a limited edition DVD of Bertrand Tavernier's Laguerre Saint-Name was released. And here I have this text as well in case anyone would like to take a look. Thanks so much. In responding to the arguments made by that film, since expanded by philosophers and historians, including Balabar and Herb and Lvivivics, the articles in the issue describe how the Algerian functions as a synecdoche for the figure of the immigrant or non-European other in contemporary France, a generalized target of right-wing bigotry and scapegoating. This slippage, the authors of the issue rightly point out, is the product of over 50 years of state-sanctioned amnesia, which began with the amnesty agreement secured by the Evienne Accords in 1962 against the re-interrogation of French war crimes in Algeria and continues into the knife-edge present. For example, in the 2005 legislation, which forces educators solely to emphasize the positive role played by France in the former colonies, the state's prolonged refusal to identify historical links between the war, the wave of Algerian immigration to France during the period of modernization and decolonization, and the economic and geographical concentration of Arabs around the banlieue in the wake of deindustrialization has spawned what's now known as the gangrene and forgetting from which current xenophobic anxieties have been allowed to spread. These anxieties are masked in the name of a pious devotion to French cultural sovereignty and the far-rights' so-called defense against the invasion of Arabness into public space and of Arab slang into everyday French vernacular. Yet such observations concerning the consequences of a national inability to count the French-Algerian past as French have been made, and albeit more diffuse form elsewhere, what makes this special issue of Lenoval observateur of particular interest is that it was in part triggered by the cultural response to Rashid Bouchereb's film, Horlalois. A quasi-Western, Horlalois tells the story of three brothers who survived the French militaries and Pied-Noir's massacre of the Muslim population of Satif and become involved in distinct ways with the cause of the FLN in Paris in the 1950s and 1960s. Prior to debuting at Cannes on May 21, 2010, it became the target of pre-emptive attacks by the radical right to halt its distribution. Lionel Luca, a deputy of the National Assembly, belonging to Nicholas Sarkozy's party, condemned the film as anti-French before even seeing it and commissioned the service that belongs to defense, an arm of the Ministry of Defense, to evaluate the film's historical accuracy. In a continuation of the legacy of disinformation that typically characterized the state's official response to the war, this Ministry undermined the film, noting that the director wants to suggest, and I quote, that on May 8, 1945, Muslims in Satif were blindly massacred by Europeans, whereas it's the contrary that transpired. All historians agree on that. Europeans lashed out against Muslims in response to Muslims massacring Europeans. I would suggest, of course, that no Europeans agree with that, especially not French historians. This was an event in which the French killed over 45,000 Arabs in the area of Satif. So the film premiered at Cannes to the scenes you see here of thousands of protesters belonging to the far-rights national front, whose presence led police to frisk all attendees out of fear they might be carrying explosives. The mayor of Cannes responded to the protest by organizing a pro-French rally for all the European soldiers who were lost or injured by the war. If the far-rights' response to Boucherab's film is any indication, then those counter-informational images stored in the bibliotech remain a threat to the state and its ongoing instrumentalization of history. In fact, the simultaneously bureaucratic and repressive character of the intervention against Horlalua looks unfortunately familiar when seen against the backdrop of Boucherab's career. All of Boucherab's anti-colonial films were denied a visa until the 1970s, often for reasons here again that were never even specified to the director. But soft tactics of censorship against his work were also accompanied by incarcerations, lawsuits, assaults, and acts of state terror. This history of violence culminated in the 1980s when Boucherab directed a film called Apropos de l'autre Detail which synthesizes the testimonies of the Algerian prisoners of war tortured by lieutenant and former presidential candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen. Having violated the 1968 law that gave blanket amnesty to all acts committed during the war, Boucherab was sued by Le Pen and lost. When he returned home to Brittany following the court case, he discovered his entire audio-visual library torched by a commando who remains unidentified into the present. In characteristic fighting style, Boucherab would then make a film about the destruction of his own archives, entitled Destruction of the Archives. Nicole Brunet notes how this short documentary which provides a kind of inverse image of the pure presence satirized by the film I mentioned earlier, Tute Le Memoir du Monde, quote, sums up the fate of political cinema today, dispersed, destroyed, shredded in the memories of those younger generations for whom it sought to build a better future. Indeed, Boucherab's entire cinematic and extra cinematic career can be perceived as a lifelong struggle against the erasure of history. It is crucial to remember that the reason films can no longer be censored in France for their political content today is because he went on a 31-day hunger strike. In the cause of another director's film, Jacques Panagel's Octobre Paris. Yet, Boucherab's victories in the name of a cinema of counter-information and social intervention raise another set of questions about the invisibility of his work. Legally speaking, his films could be made widely available to a new generation of activists, cinephiles, and students. Is the eclipse of his filmography solely the consequence and the aftermath of a protracted history of censorship and state terror? Or is there perhaps a more implicit cultural form of discipline that has contributed to the destruction of his archives? In the years following my initial screening of Pouponmarche and Jay-Weet-Anne, I've become attentive to how Vochier is discussed within broader scholarly accounts of the history of French cinema. Across a series of significant film history texts, including those by Susan Hayward, Mark Betts, and Alan Williams, there is a consistent tendency in English-language scholarship to acknowledge Vochier and the militant parallel cinema, which he represents, but only to defer this acknowledgement onto a footnote listing a few sources and scarce sources in French. Why exactly has Vochier been relegated to a footnote or half-sentence in the official narratives of French film history? Late in my research, I came across another such afterthought on Vochier's cinema in a text by Tom McDonough that confirmed my suspicions. And I quote, the point here is certainly not to align political tendency with the overall quality of a given work. Of course, one would rather watch Gadar's La Petite Souda than say Rene Vochier's Algérie en Flème, however much one might admire the latter's support for Algerian independence. This hypothetical one admires and perhaps even sympathizes with Vochier's politics while supposedly regretting his cinema's lack of artistic form. Written with the smug flippancy so characteristic of white male academic discourse, this statement is slipped into McDonough's observations on French aesthetics during the years of de-qualinization, quietly deriding the reader who would have the poor taste to question itself evidence. And yet, as with any slip of the tongue, McDonough's argument betrays the work of a political unconscious that demands interrogation. First, who is this hypothetical one and why would he or she rather watch La Petite Souda, a film that positive critic Robert Benayoun identified? Rightly so, I think as plotting, pretentious and politically reactionary over Algérie en Flème, one of the only films in history to take the spectator directly into the daily realities of the FLN in combat. It is unlikely that this one would be found among the Algerian youth who participated in the screening and lecture session on Boche's early work, as depicted in the recent documentary by Leila Marouche and Oriane Rochetti, Algerie Tour de Tour. At first cynical about the idea that a Frenchman might give them a lesson in Algerian history, the majority of the group is both moved and stunned by the time of the event's conclusion at their own alienation from the national past. So this is a documentary in which Boche travels along with the filmmakers and shows his cinema all over Algeria to a new generation of youth. Let me just show you some of the reactions of the crowd who've never seen his cinema before. I have goosebumps just talking about it. Let me tell you sincerely, I get goosebumps. We, the young generation, we've forgotten, we've been deprived of our history. So these are four different locations in which very different communities are completely stunned by Boche's cinema. So it's highly unlikely that one would rather watch Petit Soldat than, let's say, Boche's cinema. Second, what is the apparent obviousness implied by the course of McDonough's dismissal? Of course we wouldn't want to watch Boche's cinema. Presumably the point is that Gadar makes art cinema, thematically ambiguous, informally rich, whereas Boche's commitment to documenting history consigns him to a less evolved, pre-structuralist faith and the veracity of this image. Yet this kind of thinking betrays what Brene calls one of film studies most convenient misconceptions, namely that politically committed cinema because it is caught up in the practical necessities of history remains indifferent to questions of form. In fact, Brene has gone to painstaking lengths to demonstrate the formal diversity of Boche's cinema through its experimentation with modes, including documented fiction, poetry, and the didactic fable. Boche's key imperatives, an emphasis on polyphonic forms of authorship, the pedagogy of the oppressed, and the citation and recombination of previous work can be seen to actually anticipate the radical collective filmmaking projects of the late 1960s, and particularly Chris Marker's work with the group Sloan and the Medvedkin group. I became personally convinced of the artistry of his cinema when one of those filmmakers who made the documentary was gracious enough to provide me with an extremely rare copy of this film, LaFalle de Touzhan, a feature length film that weaves together footage from all of Boche's previous documentaries on Algerian independence into an extremely formally complex narrative about the lives of a separated Breton couple. So all of this is to say that Boche's occlusion from the canon of film history cannot be reduced to his cinema's supposed lack of artistic quality. This absence is rather a question of the political commitments that subtend our received epistemological approaches to knowing the historical past. Consistent with the fetishistic isolation of form perpetuated by Caillou's cinema throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the historicization of modern French cinema has often been content to divide questions of aesthetics from politics and theoretical innovation from practice. McDonough's disavow of the artistry of Boche's cinema is only one expression of this tendency. The hefty collection of essays that make up recent edited volumes like the one called Opening Bazin, combined to form an image of post-war French film culture in which the journal I circulated positive and its commitment to the cinema as an instrument of decolonization and revolution are completely excluded from the critical frame. By foreclosing perspectives like those of positive as a source of dialogue and debate, film studies tends to present a singular version of the past in which the new wave in Caillou's cinema emerge as the great arbiters of real history and are confirmed as the only lasting voices of philosophical wisdom. In this and other cases, film historiography functions less as a critical space for the promotion and distribution of dialogic narratives and more as another avatar of the police conception of history and its erasure of the memory of resistance. On the other hand, I must note that film studies is also a profoundly disorganized, internationally dispersed and contradictory discipline. Its radically conservative accounts of the post-war European cinematic past are counterbalanced by equally contestatory and politicized currents of historiographical scholarship. Such currents are most forcefully embodied in the growing number of special issues devoted wholly to the question of militant cinema and a number of issues have come out in journals like Framework and Third Text that incite the discipline to reinterrogate the diverse cinematic traditions that were dedicated to the liberation and liberation struggles and revolutions of the late 20th century. And it's particularly the militancy of the late 1960s film culture that has reemerged as a central hub of this critical discourse and has been discussed not only as it was exemplified by particular films but in both its situated production distribution and exhibition contexts and broader historical genealogies. In my dissertation, I aim to elucidate the genealogy of the French militant cinema of the 68 period by tracing its conditions of possibility back to earlier cinematic oppositions to the Algerian war. I tried to return to a canonical body of cinema in order to question the schemas of perception and classification which established the cinema's canonicity and aesthetic value. By demonstrating how the sociopolitical context of decolonization informs the very themes and formal motifs of chief modern cinematic texts, I insist that our received epistemologies for knowing these texts have debased the social significance of colonialism. In my engagements with the largely forgotten writings of positive, I also aimed to reopen a historical perspective that viewed Algeria as a fundamental and palpable dimension of French film aesthetics. In situating these aesthetics within the broader memory of anti-colonial resistance, I hope to show the ways in which modern cinema enacted a refusal of French identity as defined by the state and an impossible identification with the cause of Algerian solidarity, thus setting the stage for the later relational subjectivities that emerged around the time of the late 1960s. Now having concluded my dissertation, however, I recognize the urgent need for scholarship concerning the intersection between the cinema and social struggle to venture beyond the confines of the canon. In the case of the Franco-Algerian war in particular, the time has come for film studies to decolonize its own archive and make visible the anti-colonial cinematic traditions that fought to make film an instrument of both perceptual and political emancipation. So with that agenda in mind, I'd like to show you two very brief clips of voce cinema clips that are very hard to find. The first is the concluding moment of Poop on Marsh, which shows actually demonstrations that took place immediately in the aftermath of independence. The second is the film about eight-year-old children who actually illustrate their experience of the war. So I'll show you just a very brief three to four minute clip of the first film. The second film is nine minutes long. Maybe we can determine after how much of the film we want to watch, but I'll show you a few minutes in any case just to give you an indication, and then maybe we can open it up to a more kind of loose discussion about all of this. So with that said, I'll show you some clips, which I now hope will just work automatically or not. Oh, it's okay because I also have them on a memory stick here as well. The experience is made of 100,000 experiences from the smaller villages, the Guards and the Meshtas. Our force is made of millions of faces, millions of faces of light-bearers, barriers-bearers, millions of faces of light-bearers in the light of the fire, those who will make peace on Earth, the forgets of the peasants, the warriors of the foes, the people of Algeria and the whole world. The people of Algeria are walking on the path that is drawn, the path of the Socialist, united, strong, master of his destiny, he advances. Now, these pacific warriors, part of the extremism of the Depression, have committed all battles against ignorance, against exploiters, against misery, against disease, and above all, for the dignity. A program that was given to Tripoli, and the text of the Constitution that was created and voted, the whole world, our people are walking. We know that the enemies will redress their heads, and we will break them into our walking towards the future. We are not alone in our struggle. To all those who have helped us, to all those who will help us, thank you. Mediterranean, we give you the good day. The past, the borders are broken behind us, the barriers are broken, we will not return them. We will win the battle of dignity. And we have a social legacy that we have won with our blood. We win. Okay, and I'll just show you a clip from the second film. The film is about eight or so minutes long. Should I just show the entire thing at that point? I mean, it's quite short. Is that okay with everyone? Okay. I have a computer and I don't have a real friend. I have been here for 30 days. They told me, if you can help us, at least I have. We have come to the valley and they have taken the coffee. They have been in this company for five days. We have seen yellow planes and planes of the Bézintis. And it started, like me, when we were in the Bézintis. And it started the battle. When we were in the Bézintis, they took the plane and there were people in the Bézintis who were in the Bézintis, and the French asked the Bézintis, why were you in the Bézintis like that? They said, we won the battle for our country. They took the French soldiers and they told me, we will help you, if you can help us, we won't help you. They said, we will help you from there. I said, no. When they told us, we will help you, we won't help you from here. I told them, I told them, they didn't give us anything. There is nothing, and the plane, he told me, he took the plane and he hid it under a big plane. I was scared. I was scared. But then it started. And we went with them. We went, there was a Thursday that we sang, and on the night of March, the day we died, we found the French soldiers of our country. We said, we can't go, if we die, we will be killed, because they told me. We put air on our backs and believed that we were already there. We walked, from the night, we arrived at the border of Tunisia. We took the barrage, we went to the conflict. We cut off the defeat, I went, we took the gun, we took the gun, we took the gun, we went, and we left. We came to rest. They took our arms, and they said, tomorrow, I'll find coffee, I drink, with the bullet. I mean, the bullet, if you don't, how will the French come? I don't. So, you know, as I said at the beginning, this is actually very new material to me, and it's the place where my dissertation, I kind of felt reached its limits, which was really much about French culture, French society, so I'm very curious to kind of open the field, and, you know, engage everyone's thoughts and questions and whatever you might think about. This material. So, in what's not that, they often say, this has always been perceived this way, now I'm telling you, I wanted to present this way, but they don't study why it's always been perceived this way. It was bad, and it's no longer, but the history of why it's been manufactured, that's what it's very, very telling, and history of childhood, so it was really nice to see the thing at the end. You say that, Fanon had something to do with it. So, did you all, I didn't hear anything about that film?  And what about Fanon? I think that, well, Fanon was actually involved in a project that helped children through a form of therapy illustrate their experience of the war, and then it was Voce and some of the Algerian filmmakers that he collaborated with, they got a hold of this archive and developed the film out of those pictures, and five of the boys, no girls, but five of the boys in the film made some of the drawings. So they basically went to an archive that was created by Fanon and a lab he had in Algeria. And Nicholas Mirzoff writes a little bit about this in his book, The Right to Look, and there are a few other things, but they're very scattered. It's underrepresented, certainly. The boys themselves. No, that's part of the film. That's part of the film. They interviewed the boys as part of the film, the process of the film. The drawings belonged to the archive, but then they just found some of these boys, their pictures, and kind of assembled the narrative out of the drawings. And say that people like Voce have something to do with their aesthetic and their view of the work. Absolutely. So I recognize the battle of Chile all over. Now, I tend to think this is how a political film should look like, but there might be all sorts of ways by which, what you're saying, it's Voce and it may invent the way to show these things with good manners. Well, I think that, you know, they belong to, Voce belongs to a genealogy and cinema that goes back to Soviet propaganda films that weaves a narrative. But I think one particular narrative surrounding French film of the 50s and 60s, which, again, is such a generative kind of place in film studies is that Voce belongs to the past. He belongs to a kind of naive faith in the image, whereas, of course, with the emergence of structuralism and then later kind of Althusserian Marxism, we start to think about structuring absences and how the image is always mediated. And so this kind of might seem old-fashioned and propagandistic that, well, we can just go ahead and blatantly represent or have a transparent relationship between representation and reality. And what I'm trying to say is Voce is certainly not doing that, though. And I don't want to set up some binary between on the one hand a French modern cinema in which this was absent and then here we get presence. I think it's much these categories of presence and absence in which were complicated. And Voce is also aware of the mediated nature of all representation. And it becomes this question of defining, well, what is militant cinema? I mean, a lot of it has to do with questions that are beyond the text. Third cinema circulates in different kinds of reception contexts. It's also something in which the subjects making the film have a totally different kind of skill set. It's not such a specialized division of labor. Anyone on the set has to be able to direct. So it's a different mode of production. It's a different mode of exhibition. And then there is this question of what constitutes the aesthetic of militant cinema. On my way here, I was kind of frantically reading a number of essays that kind of try to define militant cinema. And I think more needs to be done. It's open. It's not a, we don't have a cut and dry answer. It needs to be defined in different historical situations. I mean the documentary that John made seems to suggest that his films are not certainly widely available in, I mean, they're available in archives in Algeria. But the Algeria, this is something I need to think about research more. I'm still trying to understand how I'm going to incorporate this into my existing work. But no, I don't think his work is widely circulated. I mean the film industry in Algeria largely consists of films that are 10 years old in Hollywood and circulated DVD in video stores. And one of the things that happened in Algeria is that even though it created this kind of revolutionary arm of film making, film distribution in Algeria was actually soon kind of locked into other kinds of commercial transnational matrices that kind of prevented it from distributing this work around the world. Like while it was making revolutionary cinema at other levels of the production process, it kind of got shut down. And then when it turned into a one state party, figures like Voce were completely ejected from the country altogether. And he had to go back to Brittany. So I don't think anywhere is this archive something that's really received tons of attention. I mean that's changing a little bit. But in relation to someone like Marker, who's the subject and I'm completely to blame here too of, you know, infinite number of PhD dissertations, you know. Myself included someone like Voce is really just missing. I think on both sides of the spectrum. Yeah. People have access to it. Right. Well, when I went to Paris to find the films in 2010, they were not available on YouTube or Daily Motion. I think you had, what is it called, Karenga? Yeah, well maybe there's one film, but I mean even on these kind of advanced torrent sites, none of it was available. Since that time Jay Weedong has been put on YouTube, I should go ahead and put some of this stuff on YouTube, but it's still very hard to find. So that's just in questions of access. No, I think it's still still repressed. In terms of other, you know, the other maybe interesting question around the archive and aesthetics is, you know, Voce Cinema is also kind of, and this was kind of getting at when I'm talking about the Bibliotech National Archival Project. You know, the archive of course represents official history, represents a narrative of origins. Voce is a sensibly one who's kind of going through the archive, his own archive, and trying to create, infuse it with subjectivity, fantasy in order to create a kind of counter narrative. And his films are actually essayistic in this way, which is again, I know the kind of this is what's strange, the end of the film I showed you, the point about the end of showing the film like, you know, the people on March is just to show the radical contrast between this and modern French cinemas very kind of allegorical representation of the war. Here you have a kind of brute presence, but I don't want to just say again he's a naive realist. I mean, there are all kinds of aesthetic decisions getting made, and I think one of those is archival, and I think maybe with new media, with filmmakers in France, they are starting to take up his work and in that documentary, for instance, and incorporate his kind of visual history of the war alongside official documents and official representation. So I think that will come and attention is kind of mounting towards his work, but I mean for a very long time it's been very suppressed.  I mean, they do show clips of the films in the, in that documentary, which I kind of wish I brought now. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, these are, these are you know, militant filmmakers working on the margins. You know, this is not a widely distributed film. When I went to their little one-bedroom apartment, and they were like, you know, here I wonder how many people have seen that film, maybe a thousand at most. But the film does act as kind of a vehicle to screen a lot of his own films. And his own films, he has that film, I mentioned at the end, the Mad Woman of Tujan which actually incorporates his entire archive of films on Algeria into a new narrative. So there is this constant variation of, of the stuff in, in his work. But I don't know how much, how much that film functioned as a vehicle for his stuff. I mean, I found these filmmakers on Facebook.  I don't think this is like these are not blockbuster reception here, right? So I did find them. New media. There is something. Yeah. Yeah. And we go to think it's available archive. Right. Absolutely. It's possible. I mean, yeah, I definitely think that's a possibility. I've wanted to have a kind of series about the representation of this topic for a while and I have been thinking, I do have some contacts and I'd love to show this stuff as part of that screening, absolutely. I feel like at this point again, like, you know, today all I've really done is introduce this object. I haven't really theorized it, which is what I'd like to do too. I mean Voce is deeply influenced by Eisenstein, by Brecht. So I'd like to understand its aesthetics a little bit better within the genealogy of radical cinema. And, you know, right now, again, I kind of feel like just, I'm just discovering it, right? And discovering its place. Whereas, again, the stuff in my dissertation these are films of kind of theorized and have a matrix to think about. And this is just taking me into areas I'm not certain about. And I think it's a very important role in the Hungarian society for one and a whole different kind of aesthetic. So these are things, you know, it's a very preliminary stage. Something you touched on, I think, the responsibility of this is and has been academic film studies is basically, well, as it's become professionalized, it's American. American American. The pockets are much, much lesser than France, but it's that academic film study has, in a way, failed a lot of work. And to some extent, history of film studies has conceived by academics and has to be rewritten. And frequently have at certain moments even, at certain moments academic film studies has paid attention to so-called third-world cinema alternative cinema and so on. But it's a very inconsistent kind of attention, you know, keeping in mind that academic film studies are from also ways in which because it's primarily North American it kind of got lost on the wrong foot and we still live with that. And so getting access to films making certain films available writing about these films getting one's writing read or heard. And, you know, for my money, that orientation, you know, and I don't want to blanket film studies as a discipline, which is, again, highly contradictory, but in some ways is getting almost more complicit with those processes. Like, I don't know, David, if you have any thoughts about this, but like some of the discourse on global cinema, for instance, and Dudley Andrews are in the number of pieces on global cinema and, you know, the emphasis of those pieces is taking the orientation away from questions of politics and resistance. It's like, well, this strangle holds us into a very kind of limited idea of what world cinema is in which we have a center in periphery and we need to think about why, you know, musicals and Bollywood films are successful and we need to think about flows and there's an almost kind of avowed gesture to say, like, we can't just think about resistance, and for me this actually has the counter effect of naturalizing the American hegemony of Hollywood cinema, right, to say that we don't need to be thinking about resistance. We need to get rid of the category of resistance and thinking about global cinema that seems absurd, you know. I think, if anything, those kind of, like, so I think part of, you know, to follow up what Chris is saying, there is a kind of tendency to now think of third cinema or militant cinema as passe, as belonging to a particular trend in the discipline's genealogy, and that's something, I think, that needs to be countered because, you know, there certainly are a number of film theorists and filmmakers who are very actively thinking about what constitutes political cinema, new forms of contest and neo-colonization, things like that. But, yeah, I mean, my own project's very much about film studies, too. It's part of my interest in this topic. Better at ... Oh, right. I don't know, I'd have to ... I don't know who's better or worse. I'm sure there are all forms of, like, repression in each one of those contexts, right? I don't think you have the Italian context. I mean, these kinds of aesthetic strategies recur in different national situations, you know, in the Giallo cult films of the 1970s also had various kinds of coded attacks on the emergence of fascism. You know, as opposed to something like, yeah, Cuban cinema or yeah, like you mentioned tradition in Chile, I think maybe there is a kind of more, there is a rootedness third cinema. To be clear, third cinema is not a cinema rooted in a particular place. It's an attitude toward filmmaking that has an internationalist agenda. So even at the end of People on March Year, they're like our brothers across the Mediterranean, and so there is an internationalist agenda to third cinema, but I do think absolutely other nations do have a closer affinity with that kind of filmmaking and promoting that kind of filmmaking. And in France, France certainly has an impressive host of militant directors, but there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of emphasis on figures like Marker and Gadar and all the people I talk about too. Can I not be in the film? No, I'm sorry. Thank you. Thanks.


Clash of the Titans. Oh Yeah, welcome to the channel where fashion meets fragrance. My name is Kevin Samuel. Just style Godfather today's video We have Godzilla versus King Ghidorah the authentic clash of the Titans If you like this kind of video cool great describe drop a like down below Shout out to the CIA. What's going on you modern sexy savages guys today We have a doozy and today we have a doozy I've talked about clash of the Titans before clash of this clash of that However, today, we have the superpower Godzilla versus King Ghidorah What are those fragrances? Blu de Chanel, Parfum and Dior Sauvage Parfum This is the top of the Blu de Chanel line and the top of the Dior Sauvage line. How are they match up? This one is going to be an official clash and one will come out on top Shout out to the CIA. You want to love FBI? You want to become part of the movement? Make sure you join me on Patreon for exclusive video and live stream content Join me on that platform for things you will only see there details down in the description First up, let's take Blu de Chanel The Chanel fragrance that took the market by storm now Understand a lot of people in the quote-unquote fragrance community Didn't think a whole lot of this generic kind of cash grab offer But that is for us fragrance freaks. The world Love this fragrance you go in almost any modern guys home And you will see this little square bottle sitting on his counter either the edt or the edp But this is the Parfum version and what it did is it took everything that I liked about the original Blended it with the edp smoothed it out and gave me a much more sophisticated wear I dig Blu de Chanel Parfum better than any of the line take everything I just said about the Chanel and transfer it over to the Dior They took what I liked about the edp and mixed it with the edt Took the bergamot and they took the bergamot citrus kind of thing in the opening Mixed it with the amber the woods and actually injected frankincense down in the base You know what this actually reminds me of if you've ever looked at some of the old-school NBA tape This is magic versus bird. That is this match up heavyweight matchup Bird was the guy who put in a hard work to practice the workman My magic Johnson was the guy with the glitz a glamour showtime when I think of these two fragrances It's that kind of matchup The question is which one came out on top magic Johnson's Lakers or Larry Bird's Celtics when we get right down to it both of these rank highly in compliments They perform about the same length on my skin six to eight hours They project about the same two to three feet and they both have about a two to three feet sea eyes Neither one of these a beast mode performers They're meant to sit closer to the skin be much more refined and sophisticated a bit more of an upscale wear For a guy who likes to be suave chic But still wants to be kind of modern both of these will fit the same kind of style personality We're going to be much more that boss kind of fragrance both were going to be signature sent worthy It can be worn from t-shirt to tuxedo inside outside anywhere So if you look at both of these which one comes out on top they sound like they're evenly matched Honestly, I have to tell you the one that comes out on top is Bleu de Chanel parfum. Why? Because when I think about everything I like to have in a fragrance. I like to have it smell good I like to have it last long. I like for it to have some kind of see-ya as you walk throughout the room But I also like to be able to wear one fragrance most anywhere and not have to think about it And guys when it comes right down to it in a head-to-head matchup of these two I got to give that nod to Bleu de Chanel parfum should we put Chanel just does it better now I have almost the entire Dior pre-vay line almost the entire Chanel exclusive line I like what both I like what both of these houses do with their fragrances But in my opinion Chanel just gives you that extra edge when it comes to sophistication class Yep Sophistication and class look you could easily wear Dior survival parfum and smell great But honestly, I think this has a cutoff of around age about 40 This one on the other hand you can be 95 years old wearing this still smelling good This is a lifetime fragrance. This is a good time fragrance That is how I look at these two when they match head up now granted Now granted Dior savage is no slouch They took all that shower gel kind of teeny bopper thing out of it and made it much more well rounded and things like that But you got to still look at the spokesperson.  Where are you gonna be more often in front of a campfire or in a suit taking care of business? That's how I look at these fragrances Which one is going to have the most longevity most impact for most guys life? And I think it has to be blue the Chanel parfum because it takes care of business literally But like I always say don't just leave it up to me hit us up in the comments section Let us know in a head-to-head matchup in a clash of the Titans when we have Godzilla versus Kingie Doro Which one do you rate and why feel like these kind of videos go ahead and give me a thumbs up And share it out to somebody that you think you use the information as usual. Thank you for watching Thank you for subscribing till the next time talk to you later. Godfather Hey guys, whether look style or life or the personal profession You can level up and be your personal best each and every day if you're interested in any of that Do us both a favor follow the link in the description and book your one-on-one session with me details down in the description peace


The branding course in the marketing division is an important course because it brings together a lot of the principles that students will have learned in kind of their 300 and 400 level coursework. So while it's not at all a capstone course, it's highly assimilative of previous learning. And as you think about coursework that is highly assimilative in nature, it's really important to apply it. So as I was thinking about creating exercises within the branding course that would bring together this previous learning, new learning, and enhanced student comprehension of the principles, it occurred to me that me as talking had was absolutely the worst possible approach, and students were actually the very best spokespeople of the assimilation process. So that was my starting and genesis point. Moving from there, if you've decided students are the best approach to if you will in a way sort of coach one another or make the principles of the course come to fruition, my job as I see it as an instructor is then to design as many and as many reality based exercises as possible. It occurred to me, pulling from my own experiences in the world of work, that the times I had run into problems with branding was when I knew what I wanted to say, but nobody made me say it. And so that created the moment of I want to ensure that a strong creative brief process is an integral part of the branding instruction within this class. And to bring that together, I wanted that to be the students creating and then presenting to one another a creative brief. So that literally was how I intended my first draft if you will of the course, that was the exercise. What ended up happening was something far more organic than that because a student, the very first time I taught this course, when they saw the syllabus and saw what we were doing was, well, out of curiosity and who do you present creative briefs to? This is those moments as an instructor where you realize the students are indeed far more advanced than you give them credit for and they are far smarter than you are. And as I began to answer, I realized I had missed the joke, which was it's one thing to hear me say who it is, it would be quite something else if the entire exercise was stood a bit on its head if you will. And to instead of present a creative brief as if it's a knowledge moment, why don't you present a creative brief to the rest of the students as if they were the creatives to work on it. They are people who have a gift either with words or with vision, sometimes with sound, and they can bring ideas and make a sentence out of six paragraphs and with such magic that makes you shudder. But it's not easy. And so those creative people are an important and integral part of the essence of my course, which is branding, because while we don't do it as branding people, those are the people that take the ideas to life. She asked us to take on the role of an individual who was a creative rather than just a student evaluating the presenter, which made it more challenging for us having to evaluate each other because we had to take on a different sort of persona, which was definitely a challenge. I think the assignment as a whole is empowering for everyone in the situation. So you have the teacher, you know, who is sitting there listening to these presentations, the creative brief assignment. She's sitting there listening to these presentations, and she has one perspective. But when you get the entire classroom involved, you now have 35 perspectives on this presentation. So there's engagement at every level. The people that they're presenting are engaged because they're actually giving a presentation. But now they're not giving a presentation to a teacher, they're giving a presentation to a classroom. They're giving a presentation to 40, you know, 35, 40 people. And I think that's very different. Also keeps the participants who are the viewers, I guess, keeps them engaged as well because now they have to evaluate the presentation on these set criteria that they have. And so the fact that there's involvement on every level, I think that's really the strength of this type of assignment. Exactly.  We know that if we're standing in front of an audience of creatives, we know what the expectation is. Because we would know what they're looking for, what we need to deliver, because we've been on the other side. We know what it's like to watch somebody deliver a very dry message that does not click with our creative minds.  You know what the creatives are thinking. We know that now, being in the creative role play. Yeah, that's what she did. She did exactly that and took it a step further and made it into a role play.


987% increase in meat-free products in the UK alone last year. That's nearly a thousand percent increase. Okay, did that happen because people were sitting there nice and quietly not wanting to? No, that happens because activists are standing up. Did blacks get their rights because activists sat down and did nothing? Did women get their rights because activists stood by and said nothing? No, no, these things happen because people spoke up, they had enough. They want to adjust this. We're going to pack up. Pack up all the signs, pack up all the food, pack up all the tables, take it all to the car. Okay, and about 15 minutes we're going to hang out in the other cars. Alright, and then we'll come back. Okay, so then what they probably will do is radio through to the trucks. Apparently there's some trucks being held back, then they'll send them through and by that time we'll be back here and try and trick them. They trick us, we'll trick them. Filming? Slots are even too hot, they're so much higher than what the camera is. They're like, look how much higher it is. So you can't see their faces. They're dairy cows. Okay, so what they did is they held the trucks back because they knew I was going to be here and I've got a big social media presence so they didn't want that type of publicity. So we packed up, we left, pretended that we left and now we come back and the truck came immediately. Courage is feeling the fear and doing it anyway. Okay, and it's a liberating feeling. Okay, when you have that nervous anxiety and you just go for it anyway. Okay, nothing's going to happen to you. Anything that's going to happen to you is going to build confidence and you're going to be a more powerful voice for the animals and we need you now. Not next year when you develop some confidence, we need you now. The trucks that they're using now have got a really high top. So it's really hard to see the cattle inside. But we had a selfie stick, you can sort of see that they're spent dairy cows. They save from farm to plate. They miss out the struggle that happens in a slaughterhouse, you know. Right here is where the animals are being killed. This tunnel here looks like where they're led. There's nothing more powerful than showing someone what happens inside of a slaughterhouse because they make up a story in their mind about what happens to animals and I don't know where this story comes from. Maybe it's the milk cart with the humane label and the happy cows. But you can take me to the most humane slaughterhouse on earth. You can hear the cows distressed. Your imagination does not do it justice, okay? Nowhere near. And I realized, wait a second.  Poor things. We're at the front of a slaughterhouse yesterday and you can hear the cows getting prodded down the line. Dairy cows. Okay? You can hear them bellowing out. You know, that was so scared. So scared.  Who's really scared? This is what I mean about perspective. Think about that. Okay, so these are spent dairy cows in here. Exploited mothers and what happens is when they don't produce milk anymore, when they're not financially viable for the farmer, they send them all to get killed here. No matter what dairy farmer it is, they send them all to get killed here. When you go to a cow slaughterhouse, cattle slaughterhouse, a lot of the cattle that come in are spent dairy cows. So they've had their children taken off of them their whole lives. Suffered maternal trauma. And this is what they have to look forward to.  They're probably walking in there and they can... Poor darlings. They're probably walking in there, can smell the blood, can see body parts of their friends, and it's a horrible place in there. It's really hard because they're just through that... just through that fence there and we can't help them. Like they're bellowing out for help or someone to help them.   This is what human beings are doing to animals. The oldest they will live is in the dairy industry. They might live to five or six years, but that is because they can still produce milk and provide a product. But once they can't provide that product anymore, they're slaughtered. This is because people want to eat burgers. I mean, half of the beef here in this country in the UK comes from spent dairy cows now. In other countries, you're probably eating the corpse of a spent dairy cow. I did not look at a piece of cheese and see that. You know, because it's a little bit far down the line. Excuse you, an eerie feeling, doesn't it? Human beings aren't natural killers. You can condition someone to be violent. Like that happens from their environment, yeah? And there's residents just over here. There's houses just here. People that live right behind here hearing these cows bellow out. They probably eat cows too. And they take her child from her after she's given birth. She moans out for days. That milk is for humans, so you just can eat their cheese, basically. Which is just coagulated breast milk cheeses. They add salt and stuff to it to make it taste nice. The first step is that you go, wow, I've been causing immense pain and suffering with my actions. Okay, now I'm going to stop. It's crazy how conditioned we are to this violence. This horrific, you know, murder scene in here. They've done nothing wrong to us, these cows. So gentle and peaceful. And here they are screaming out for help. And animals cannot speak for themselves. They cannot voice their suffering to you. And when you go to the slaughterhouse, you'll see them trying to beg for mercy. And no one's listening. No one's listening. People look at a glass of milk and they don't think that they're doing anything wrong. And it's a little bit of a fast stretch to think that a glass of milk is causing this to happen. But without, you know, without your money, the dairy industry doesn't exist. Okay, the dairy industry supports the beef industry, okay? They work hand in hand.  This is what you're supporting. Wholesale slaughter of innocent beings. So when you eat cheese, you're basically condemning these animals to slaughter and separating families. They show you the cow on the field and they show you the plate with the steak on it. They don't show you the slaughterhouse in between, do they? People look at the carton of milk with a cow on the front with a nice green pasture and they think that these cows are somehow free. But these cows are slaves. They're not free. They have no freedom. Okay, we've already determined the day that they're going to die. Would that excuse justify owning a slave? You know, they're being used for their bodies. They're treated as products. There's no justification for this. Literally, none. They're still being treated as products after their death. Their exploited, suffered, traumatised body will be sold to human beings so they can eat it. The females will be forcibly impregnated, have their children taken off of them until they can't produce milk anymore. So this happens after about five or six years. Can't produce milk. You know what happens to them? They go to a sanctuary. No, they get looked after in a sanctuary. No, they don't. They get slaughtered for their bodies. So people can eat burgers. And when they're crying out like that, they're expressing real emotion. They do scream in terror. They do try to avoid pain and suffering, but humans aren't listening. Cows express emotion. Sadness, when their child gets taken, they bellow out for days. What is that? That's emotion they're feeling. We're putting them through this. All animal deaths, when we're killing them to consume them, when we don't need to for our survival, all of those deaths are in vain. I don't know how traumatic that would be just waiting for your turn to be killed. Think about that. Put yourself in the animal's position here.   Imagine how anxious and scared they would feel right now.  You're giving fear power. There's nothing to be afraid of. Also, perspective, remember perspective. Who's really in fear? The anxious animals on the way to the slaughterhouse are getting prodded down that line. Something overcomes you when you see those animals. You realise, wow, they're suffering more than me. Who's really got the anxiety here? And you can hear it in the desperation in their calls. They do not want to die. Somehow people think that they're going in here voluntarily. No, they're not going in here voluntarily. They're going to push down the kill line. Treated as units of production. At the front there it says linden foods. Linden foods. These sentient beings are being labelled a food product, a piece of material to be commodified. Their skin will be turned into a pair of shoes or a jacket or a belt for human beings to wear after they've had their burger with their bodies in it. I'm not sure a nice day is what's going to be happening. What? Is that a sad one? Yeah, but there's animals being slaughtered inside, aren't there, against their will? Well, yeah. Yeah, unfortunately. A bit of a sad. If you go around the side, you can hear them bellowing out for mercy. Well, unfortunately, I used to work in a slaughterhouse when I was a young lad. Yeah, it's not a nice place to be. No, it's not. No, I agree with you on that one. I just wonder if people knew that their food screamed out for mercy before they ate it. Okay? If people knew that, your food bellowed with fear before your food was killed. Society pushes people into these types of jobs, don't they? I don't know, does it?  So they have to have people with their stabbing animals, which is a pretty harsh job. I don't know. You're on duty, you don't have an opinion. You're unbiased? Yeah. And that's all veganism is, it's showing animals mercy. Okay, that's all we want you to do. Give these innocent beings mercy they deserve. They've done nothing wrong to us. And can't we choke the true nature of a human being showing compassion? They just want us to stop doing this to them. It's hard to know which sound is actually the bolt gun. I don't like those sounds. There's machines in there that kill animals and that's what those sounds are. They're spraying the floor of the blood after they've slashed the animals' throat. A bolt gun. They're putting something called a knock box where they can't move. They have a bolt gun in the head, hung upside down by their hind leg and dismembered. And you have to ask yourself, is a piece of cheese worth that? Okay, when we have vegan cheese, is a glass of milk worth that when we have 30 different alternatives to cow's milk? It's legal though, isn't it? What is? Stabbing animals to death for burgers. Well, it is legal. You can't legally go and stop them for animal cruelty, can you? It's under, you know, it's monitored and stuff like that. It's hard to believe that what's happening behind those walls right now. Okay, the horror that those animals do is completely legal and socially acceptable. Okay? This is why something needs to change on Earth. This needs to change. This is not civilized. This is savage. This is savage, heartless behavior. And human beings aren't like that. It doesn't change the morality of it though, does it? Morality. Yeah, like that it's immoral to take an animal's life against their will. Because out here you would stop them, wouldn't you?  But in there, because it's industry, they can kill as many animals as they want. Unfortunately, I can't answer them questions. I'm a police officer. I know you are, man. This is something hidden behind industry walls. Okay, and we need to bring it to the light. Every single human being watching this knows that these cows don't want to die. They don't want to be in there. But they also, the one thing they don't know is that you're making this happen. Someone's going to say something really insensitive, but the thing is they don't know what you know because they're coming from a place of sort of innocent ignorance, if you like. Do you care about animals though? I do actually, yeah. Every time you buy a carton of milk you're saying this is okay. Okay, you're supporting this.  Listen to them. Listen to them, the poor animals. They're no different to your dog at home. Poor babies. On the streets you're showing it to them and obviously people have a picture in their mind of what they think a slaughterhouse looks like, which never does it justice. That's what you've got to ask yourself, what have they ever done to us to deserve what we do to them? Like it says a lot about a society when we look at how we treat the most vulnerable, our children, you know, those who are more at our mercy, these animals. They're at your mercy. Are you killing animals in there?  Are you consuming animals? I do, yeah. Okay, the best thing we can do is to help the most vulnerable and the most vulnerable are those who can't speak up for themselves. Nothing's worth this. Alright, let's go. Let's go, that's f***ed. I know it's a neutral position you've got. I know the drill, mate, but something to think about, mate. What's legal and what's moral? There's a lot of things that are legal that are immoral. Immoral. There's a lot of things that are not legal that feel the way around. Yeah. That's just the way we're living, isn't it? It is. Not a very nice world to live in for animals, that's for sure. Well, you're right on that one. See, on the front of the cars there, it says, police, proud to protect. At pity they don't protect all beings, only some. I've found it a lot in men, not gay men that I speak to, but straight men. They find it hard to be openly emotional or something, which I think is a weakness. Two to 2.7 trillion marine animals dragged out in the ocean, suffocated, stabbed so we can have fish in our sushi. The more educated you are, the more confident you are. Earthling, Ed Spring, Boarding out a series, 30 excuses in 30 days. Watch them. And then there's starving children that are going without food, and we're fattening up 70 billion land animals every year so we can eat their bodies. If you're educated on certain aspects, ethics is pretty important because ethics cannot be refuted. We're taking the food out of a hungry child's mouth and feeding it to cattle.  That might not be you. Luckily we're all different and luckily my skill set isn't the same as each of yours. So everyone can bring something to the movement. That's all you have to do. Stand at the side of some trucks and put your phone up there. Share a picture. Not asking you to walk down the line with the cows. So we have to have a different idea of what activism actually is. Really not trying to reach vegans unless I'm trying to get vegans active. I'm trying to reach non-vegans with the message so I want to communicate effectively. There's like more like... There's no bacteria, feces, salmonella, blood. This is right here in front of you.  This isn't something that's happening in Syria that you have no control over. If you're vegan, you're vegan for a reason. You know what's going on. So when you know, then you have the obligation. Being vegan just doesn't hurt them. Basically. Okay? Being an activist helps them. It's the same injustice that's happening right now. And we're going to stand by and let that happen. People say, oh, how long until we get a vegan? Well, Joey, a lot sooner if you're out here with me, hey. So the conviction has to be strong in your why. All right? And you always remind yourself of why you're doing it and it keeps you going. We're still kicking massive goals. Okay? Because the truth is more powerful than any propaganda they can perpetuate. Okay? They are scared of this movement. The dairy industry is shaking in their boots. Okay? Because they cannot, they cannot lie to us anymore. Okay? Injustice cannot last forever. Although it can last for a very long time, it cannot last forever. Okay? We've got the truth on our side. Okay? There's no denying that.  Okay? Because we'd take to the streets and we'd revolve. Okay? There's nothing they could do to stop it now. There's too many of us now. I get criticized by non-vegans, vegans and other activists. Okay? Luckily, we're not doing it for any of them. Are we? Who are we doing it for? Animals. Animals wouldn't criticize you if you're trying to help. So just keep that in mind. The animals wouldn't criticize you. Okay? They'd be so great for whatever you're doing for them. Unwavering belief. No one can tell me any different. This has happened already in my mind. Now, I honestly believe this is possible. That's why I fight so hard. And this is a very important time right now. That's why we all need to be on it. On it. But that's why I say if you remain silent, you've missed an opportunity. A golden opportunity there to be either that first seed planted or that last bit to finish them off. Okay? We want people to stop hurting animals with their food choices. If we don't stick together, we are a weaker force. We need to stay together and solidarity is what's going to make this movement like skyrocket. It really is. Hello. I love you. Hello. How are you? I'm great. Hello, everyone. This is Land of Hope and Glory. You get them to watch that. More powerful than any pamphlet you could give them. Everything's in there. That's what they're actually showing. Land of Hope and Glory. This is Land of Hope and Glory. This is Land of Hope and Glory. All high welfare RSPCA approved. Red tractor approved farms. On here you've got Land of Hope and Glory. This is on the front here. This is Land of Hope and Glory.  Yeah, of course. You can't care for animals while you're eating them, can you? Enjoy. Land of Hope and Glory was all filmed in the UK. Nelson Mandela said it always seems impossible until it's done. We've been waiting for you all this time. Nah, it's joking. Sorry. It's a very intense thing to talk about. I know, I might be hitting you with it, but it's just basically what I'm saying is the truth. I think how old is 17, 18? 17, 18? Yeah? Yeah.  If I was in a younger school, I probably wouldn't be as hectic about it, but the things that you're exposed to on television and things like that, and you know, this is actually something we all have power in. We all have power in this. You can all make a choice today to stop contributing to this. And I'll give you a resource for that. It's called Challenge 22. It's on the back of my cards. And it's just an important thing to be a part of. It really is. So boosting the numbers here is really important because they see, wow, wow, there's more people here. What's going on? It makes a really sense of strong message. Anything can happen at these vigils, so you never really know. So I just want to say thank you to everyone who come out and did activism with us and come and said hello. It's really inspiring to see the movement growing in so many places.  Then I hope you all feel the same way. We want animals to be freed. This shouldn't be happening in this day and age.  So absurd that we have to be teaching people that it's wrong to murder innocent beings. But this is just the way society is. It takes a while for society to catch up. But it will catch up a lot faster if we all do something about it. So keep going. Thank you very much. Who come and marched the UK March last year? All out this year. I want to see it's all there this year. All of you out to march this year. Okay?


What's going on guys welcome back to the channel critical overload here So we'll be talking about a few different horror topics in this video here today We'll be talking about the Strangers trilogy. We'll be talking about Chucky season 3 We'll be talking about these first reactions to the Nun 2 and we'll be talking about the exorcist believer now Just to start it off with the Strangers trilogy recently I shared with you guys that the Strangers trilogy would be within the same universe according to one of the stars despite reports of it Being a remake trilogy now August 2023, which has come and gone at this point was expected As the release but the strikes altered plans it seems and now we know we were also robbed of a first look at Comic Con That would have occurred back in July, but there's also more Firstly shout out to you is tamer home for keeping the news coming with this series I'll actually leave a link to your website down in the description again Here's what would have happened at Comic Con in July Actress and executive producer. This is according to this description actress and executive producer Madeline Petsch and Producer Courtney Solomon discussed the Strangers and will provide an exclusive first look clip from their new horror trilogy Which will be in theaters from Lionsgate in 2024 So we would have gotten to see some type of clip of the film I would assume back in July, which would of course made its way online at some point The last bit there though is the most significant to me because it for now clears up the thought of going straight to streaming And it again lets you know that of course it did indeed shift to 2024 the release anyway The Strangers will be back on the big screen going off of this scrap the Comic Con plan description again I'll link this article from is tamer home in the description for you guys to read Here's what I also was kind of thinking about what if the release plan since they've already finished shooting all three movies What if they release a new movie every three months or so beginning next year whenever the first film arrives They could drop a movie a every month in theaters Also could be a format they take but it also depends on what marketing is being considered and how they want to go about The marketing and putting it all out there. I could see them adopting a Style of doing a movie every few months since you already have three why drop all of them so fast like that That's just me but diving into Chucky season 3 Chucky season 3's teaser dropped earlier today Mixed reactions. I saw from a lot of people over on Chucky Twitter. I did enjoy it, but yes I would have loved to see our trio. I get what they're going for Devin Sawa is the bigger name Devin Sawa is the person that they want to draw attention to since we were Misdirected into thinking he would not be back. I get it. I get all of the marketing tactics Devin Sawa. Yes is back in Chucky season 3 He's the president of the United States and Chucky We know will be at the Oval Office causing trouble for these political snakes Here's an updated plot description from Fangoria in regards to Chucky season 3 So in Chucky's unending thirst for power season 3 now sees Chucky in In sconce to whip the most powerful family in the world America's first family Inside the infamous walls of the White House. How did Chucky wind up here? What in God's name does he want and how can Jake Devin and Lexi possibly get to Chucky inside the world's most secure house? All while balancing the pressures of romantic relationships and growing up Meanwhile Tiffany faces a looming crisis of her own as the police close in on her for Jennifer Tillie's murderous rampage last season now Some theories based on this teaser that I've seen is That they could be doing a 50-50 thing or 50-50 splits like the first half that we're getting in October Could be with the newbies at the White House And then the other half could be with Lexi Devin and Jake trying to make their way to the White House Which I would assume would have to include Miss Fairchild possibly Andy and Kyle But you better hope that isn't true if you're someone who wants to see the trio this October You better hope that is not true because in that would mean they are not going to appear anywhere in these four episodes They were about to get however I do suspect that they will be in these four episodes the synopsis makes it clear that the kids still matter So don't worry about them not being a factor in season three I've seen so many people think that this teaser means that they have somehow scrapped what they were doing and Domicini wrote up something else and that's what they feel no no no no otherwise. Why were those kids there? What were they doing there? Were they just there hanging out? It's just I see no logic behind that they're they're involved that that's why they're mentioned in the plot synopsis They're they're still relevant, but the first reactions for the none have arrived the none too I should say they've arrived arrived online. There was like a world premiere last night in LA Most of them are positive. I will admit Perry from Collider had this to say just to talk about a couple of the reactions I'm not gonna talk about all of them, but Perry from Collider had this to say about the none too She said the none too is a rock-solid new installment of the Conjuring universe or of the Conjuring verse yet Again, Tysa, Farmiga and and Jonas blockhead are winning leads and love the fresh energy storm rebrands to the series eager for Another watch to overanalyze the new additions to the lore But on the first go-around thought the colliding storylines work quite well Just like the first none the eerie atmosphere is hugely effective and there's a bunch of strong set pieces the magazine Raxing featured in the trailer is great But there's a certain something in the third act that will wound up being that wound up being my favorite for me around Up being the favorite for me Tessa also from Mama's geeky said this is about the none too. She said the none too is a is Infinitely better than the first film. It's scarier and much more intense This is what I wanted out of the first one, which was too heavy and bogged down with lore now we get to leave fun Or now we get to have fun with this terrifying villain stay for the mid-credits scene So echoing what I was talking about from my friend who saw a test screening It's better than the first movie But I did see other reactions cite the problems I've been told about like the film juggling too many plot threads depending on how the pacing is received For everyone who watches it my friend from the test screening actually was at the premiere last night They did enjoy the second time around but still didn't find it to be all that great Since there were some improvements. They didn't admit that I'll go in with low expectations personally, but I know for a fact It will bury the first movie just from the stuff that I know I know this will be better than the first movie also visually I would have to say that it does of course look better than the first movie But the writing still has its problems Which is why I think a lot of this is also going to be a game of peek-a-boo Like what killed the first movie I know the first movie also had some issues where you as the viewer were waiting for them to catch on to solve the mystery Because they kind of solved the mystery for the audience in the first five minutes of the opening And then you were spending so much longer with these other new characters Waiting for them to figure out something you already know And I don't think they're doing this approach with the none too which already to me makes it better I just hope I end up enjoying it and hope I come out having to say a lot of positives about the movie Because I know for right now I am going to keep on joking that it's trash until I see it execution is everything Though I've said it that I have no problem giving that movie a good review. Last thing we're going to talk about here is The exorcist believer This one is funny as hell to me because this movie is getting knocked out of the release spot once again Five nights at freddy did it first and now taylor swift delivered a second knockout The exorcist believer is coming october 6 now This is the second move because october 27th did not stick that turned into october 13th Due to five nights at freddy and now due to taylor swift october 13th has turned into october 6th The amc app today was spiraling due to taylor as well So they made the right call here if they want exorcists to survive because the swifties would have Annihilated that weekend the exorcist believer better stay put and take that l if something else arises But october 6th should be a sticking point jason blum announced it with a tweet earlier today And again, I just think it's funny that taylor swift caused this She's a star no denying that but I never thought I would see a day like today Where a horror movie shifted release days Dates due to taylor swift Let me know what you guys think about this down in the comment section below if you haven't already of course make sure you subscribe Turn on post notification near miss video in the description. I'll have links on my social media accounts I'm on facebook twitter and instagram. You can message me there Of course, let me see movies news or views you let me to cover in the future and with all that in mind Guys, I will see you in the next video


What's up everyone it's your girl Kenzie here from Layton Sports Cards and I'm ripping a personal here for Isaac K We've got a 2022 tops formula one chrome sapphire box. Good luck Isaac. Thanks for hopping in Again every one of these cards will be sleeved and toppled it for you Good luck God's a Gunther Steiner Aqua Charles Leclerc on the driver of the day Great Britain That is 53 of 99 Future Stars Katelyn Williams and fastest pit stop award for Red Bull got award winners Mercedes Lewis Hamilton Future Stars drug of itch and Carlos Sainz driver of the day for turkey future stars JQ's Daniel Ricardo a Kevin Magnuson and Lewis Hamilton driver of the day for Spain Future Stars Marcus Armstrong Sergio Perez driver of the day Netherlands Joe Guanyu rookie base and Max Verstappen Grand Prix winner of mechico Lewis Hamilton got a chartreuse of Otmar Zafner for Alpi 109 of 199 Botas and Verstappen Grand Prix winner Australia Esteban O'Conn Nicholas Latifi Max Verstappen Verstappen no one two and three that is not a photo variation look like it for a second And Andrea Seidel oh we got purple our first purple of the day Verstappen Good luck here Sebastian Vettel Purple is gonna be out of ten For McLaren a Daniel Ricardo Grand Prix winner for Italy on the purple four out of ten Nice one there for you Isaac will mag this Congrats on the first purple of the day last pack here We're stopping Grand Prix winner we've got stepia of total wolf for Mercedes total wolf 29 out of 100 Sergio Perez and Albon Alrighty that'll do for your box Isaac. Thanks as always for hopping in we'll get these right out to you