domingo, 29 de septiembre de 2019

SYDNEY POLLACK DOESN’T HAVE A DIRECTOR CREDIT FOR ‘AMAZING GRACE’: THE LONG, STRANGE STORY


The acclaimed documentary that aims for a slot on the Academy’s shortlist will have to get there without a credited director. Here’s why.


“Amazing Grace”
Neon

Producer Alan Elliott has been nothing if not dogged in his pursuit of finishing and releasing Sydney Pollack’s 1972 documentary “Amazing Grace.” But until now he has not told the whole story about some of the wrangling that went on behind the scenes in order to get the movie made.
Back in 1972, a year after their massive hit “Woodstock,” Warner Bros. exec Ted Ashley set out to produce another music documentary with the help of Pink Floyd producer Joe Boyd, director of music services at Warner Bros. So Boyd set out to find someone to shoot the Aretha Franklin concert movie in Watts, which required someone who understood how to shoot multiple cameras with sync sound.
Boyd wanted to hire James Signorelli as his director of photography, who shot “Super Fly” and went on to shoot the first 35 years of commercials for “Saturday Night Live,” until Ashley talked up the planned Aretha Franklin documentary with Oscar-nominated “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They” director Sydney Pollack, who was shooting “Jeremiah Johnson” at the time. He wanted to direct it.


“Tootsie” director Sydney Pollack
Columbia Pictures

Boyd tried to talk him out of it, but let go of Signorelli. And Pollack, who had never made a documentary before and was still editing “Jeremiah Johnson” at the time, used four 16 mm cameras to capture the legendary concert when Franklin recorded her Grammy-winning, double-platinum gospel album “Amazing Grace”.
Unfortunately, none of his cameramen knew how to sync audio and video. In those days, a clapper made it possible to sync image and sound at the top of every 10-minute reel. Over two nights of filming at the New Temple Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles, four to five cameramen shot around the auditorium without clappers, creating thousands of pieces of film. Pollack and his editors tried to sync up the footage, but there were no reference points. Even for people familiar with the music, it was impossible.
Pollock went on to take “Jeremiah Johnson” to Cannes and to make Oscar-winner “The Way We Were” with Barbra Streisand and Robert Redford, not to mention “Tootsie” and “Out of Africa.” His career was on fire. Meanwhile, Boyd never heard from him again, as the unedited “Amazing Grace” sat in cans for 40 years.
“This explains the anger of Aretha Franklin,” said Elliott. “She was really upset that she was promised she was going to be a movie star, was going to make the follow-up to “Woodstock” with her father’s band and choir. And Warner Brothers screws it up. That’s why she never wanted the movie to come out. Her contract was not just Atlantic Records, but also with Warner Bros. Films. It was a tri-party agreement with a promise that she would become a movie star.”
In 1988, Elliott obtained rights to the movie and Pollack wrote Franklin to tell her he wanted to finish the documentary. Pollack died in 2008, and that’s when Elliot made it his passion project. Finally technology made it possible to sync up the sound.
It took 43 years, but Elliott completed the film. As he supervised the editing of the movie with Michel Gondry editor Jeff Buchanan (“Dave Chappelle’s Block Party”), which needed to be assembled from unedited and bits and pieces, he spent eight years dealing with Pollack’s estate. Elliott and Buchanan supervised the film’s editing, the Reverend James Cleveland’s narration and the non-chronological Broadway musical story arc. Elliott was in L.A. and Buchanan in New York, but the editor would send the day’s work to the producer to look at overnight and send back notes. In the end, they met in New York and finalized the edit. And the sound mix was enhanced just four weeks ago by Beyonce’s sound mixer, who flew up from Miami to Deluxe Labs.

Franklin cared deeply about this concert, which captured her in all her youthful gospel-singing glory, and she was legendary for wanting control: Selling distribution rights was contentious. According to the film’s producers, Franklin would accept money for marketing and promoting the movie — but she still wanted to retain the rights. Lionsgate was on board to release the film in 2015 until the courts granted Franklin’s lawyers an injunction to stop the scheduled world premiere at Telluride. The legal team also stopped a subsequent screening at Toronto, as well as a Telluride showing the following year, on the grounds that Elliott still needed Franklin’s permission to release the film.

And three years ago, the Pollack estate asked Elliott to take Pollack’s name off the film. Which he did. He came up with his final credit: “produced and realized by.” “Alan Eliott painstakingly did what a director should do — craft a movie that moves audiences and gets them out of the seats cheering and clapping at the end,” wrote Boyd in an email.

Over the past five years, as Franklin battled illness, Elliott became friendly with Sabrina Owens, the executor of Aretha Franklin’s will. After her funeral, with the family’s assent, they closed a deal to partner and hold onto the rights in order to retain more leverage in a distribution deal. Franklin’s estate has a big piece of the movie.
Now, after decades of setbacks both technical and emotional, after Franklin’s long illness and death from pancreatic cancer on August 16, Elliott clinched a deal with her estate to release the movie and booked two theaters in New York and Los Angeles to qualify for the documentary Oscar. Distributor Neon will book the film in more theaters in 2019. And audiences are flocking to see the film. (The shortlist will be announced December 17.)

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/documentary-oscar-contender-amazing-grace-director-1202026995/

ZORROS Y ERIZOS, BUENOS Y MALOS PREDICTORES

Uno de los capítulos más interesantes de La señal y el ruido, de Nate Silver, está dedicado a la cuestión de si algunas personas predicen mejor que otras.
Silver emplea las predicciones políticas como terreno de juego de su análisis. En concreto, se fija en un programa televisivo de Estados Unidos, The McLaughlin Group. Este programa reúne semanalmente un panel de expertos políticos que debaten sobre diferentes cuestiones y que finalizan su intervención con varias predicciones sobre la actualidad política. Las predicciones deben formularse en pocos segundos. Son tanto sobre temas sugeridos por el presentador como propuestos por el propio experto.


Durante el programa los expertos suelen manifestar predicciones con tanta rotundidad como poca base documental y estadística. Algunos de ellos no dudan en predecir una victoria de un candidato a la presidencia que cuenta con todas las encuestas en contra, dando a entender que manejan algún tipo de información privilegiada al respecto.

Así que Silver decidió analizar las 1.000 últimas predicciones del panel de expertos, para medir de forma objetiva su capacidad de acertar. El resultado fue el siguiente:

Predicciones completamente acertadas .............. 39%
Mayoritariamente acertadas.................................  7%
Parcialmente acertadas, parcialmente falsas.......  8%
Mayoritariamente falsas ...................................... 10%
Completamente falsas .......................................... 37%
Los datos mostraban que lo expertos apenas acertaban más que una moneda lanzada al aire. ¿Este nivel de aciertos es algo habitual entre supuestos expertos? Philip Tetlock, tras formularse la misma pregunta, decidió estudiar predicciones de expertos, tanto del mundo académico como gubernamental. Sus resultados mostraron que no es así: algunos expertos aciertan, de forma consistente, más que otros. Es decir, existen buenos y malos predictores.

El zorro y el erizo

Tetlock se dedicó a estudiar qué rasgos de personalidad caracterizaban a los buenos predictores frente a los malos. Dio con dos perfiles muy diferenciados: los zorros y los erizos.
Los erizos son aquellas personas que creen en ideas rectoras que gobiernan el mundo, convencidos de que todo puede ser explicado y comprendido. Son personas de fuertes convicciones, que buscan una victoria clara al enfrentarse a un problema. Karl Marx o Sigmund Freud encajarían en este perfil.
Los zorros, por el contrario, son personas que aceptan las imperfecciones del mundo, que creen en una multitud de pequeñas ideas y que piensan que la mejor forma de afrontar un problema es emplear diversas aproximaciones. Son más tolerantes a la incertidumbre, a la complejidad y a la discrepancia de opiniones.

Silver nos facilita una tabla de actitudes típicas de zorros y erizos. ¿Sabrías decir en qué lado estás tú?

Cómo piensan los zorros                                                      Cómo piensan los erizos

Zorros: De forma multicisciplinaria: Incorporan ideas de diferentes disciplinas, sin importarle su origen ideológico.  Erizos, especializada: Habitualmente dedican la mayor parte de sus carreras a uno o dos grandes problemas. Pueden ver con escepticismo las opiniones disruptivas.

Zorros: Adaptables: Encuentran una nueva aproximación - o persiguen múltiples aproximaciones a la vez - si no están seguros de que la aproximación original funciona.    Leales: Se mantienen fieles a la misma aproximación integral al problema. La nueva información que pueda estar disponible se usa para refinar el modelo original.
Autocríticos: A menudo reconocen errores en sus predicciones y asumen su culpa en esos errores.  Los Erizos son   obstinados: Achacan los errores a la mala suerte o a circunstancias inevitables. Un buen modelo tuvo un mal día.

Zorros: Tolerantes a la complejidad: Ven el universo como algo muy complejo, hasta el punto de aceptar que muchos problemas fundamentales pueden ser irresolubles o inherentemente impredecibles. Los Erizos son buscadores de un orden: Esperan que el mundo funcione de acuerdo a unas pocas y relativamente simples leyes fundamentales, obtenidas una vez se haya logrado identificar la señal dentro del ruido.
Cautos: Expresan sus predicciones de forma  probabilística, matizando sus opiniones. Confiados: Rara vez expresan predicciones con matices y son reacios a modificarlas.
Empíricos: Confían más en la observación que en la teoría. Ideológicos: Esperan que las soluciones a muchos problemas diarios sean manifestaciones de una gran teoría.

Los zorros son mejores predictores y por lo tanto los erizos son peores predictores
   
Tetlock se percató de que los zorros son mucho mejores predictores que los erizos. Es una cuestión de actitud. Pensemos en la caída de la URSS en 1991. Muy pocos analistas políticos predijeron dicha caída cuando, mirando retrospectivamente, gran cantidad de indicios habría permitido predecirla. Muchos de esos analistas eran erizos y su aproximación al problema no fue la correcta para hacer una buena predicción. Algunos analistas, muy críticos con el comunismo, veían la URSS como un peligro mayor de lo que realmente era a finales de los 80. Su aversión al régimen de Moscú les impidió interpretar correctamente las señales, de todo tipo, que emitía un estado en destrucción. Otros, más afines a la ideología comunista, cometieron el error inverso, infravalorando la importancia de esas señales precisamente porque no querían verlas. Sólo unos pocos analistas fueron capaces de detectar y dimensionar correctamente las señales.

Actitud frente a la información

Como se deduce del ejemplo anterior, la principal carencia de un mal predictor es una mala actitud frente a la información. Supuestamente, cuanta más información tenemos, mejor deberían ser nuestras predicciones. Sin embargo, esa regla no se cumple para el erizo. Frente a información abundante, el erizo se refugia en su idea rectora y filtra convenientemente los datos que recibe, quedándose con aquellos que refuerzan su predisposición inicial.

Esta actitud explica porqué Silver y Tetlock encontraron grandes fallos en las predicciones políticas. En política, es habitual encontrar predictores sesgados, vinculados a una fuerte ideología. Eso condiciona irremediablemente las predicciones. Si a eso sumamos un esquema de incentivos perverso - una predicción más temeraria es televisivamente más atractiva - nos encontramos con un ámbito especialmente castigado por malas predicciones.
Algo parecido sucede con el economía. Pero eso lo veremos en otro post.

https://www.netquest.com/blog/es/zorros-y-erizos-buenos-y-malos-predictores

FOR THE RECORD BY DAVID CAMERON REVIEW – THE PRIME MINISTER WHO FELL SHORT


David Cameron refuses to own up to his cowardice in calling the EU referendum in this long and defensive memoir


‘The man who put his country through years of polarising trauma’: David Cameron during the closing days of the Scottish referendum, September 2014. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian

Neville Chamberlain died in November 1940, just six months after the bankruptcy of his policy of appeasement towards Hitler had forced his resignation as prime minister. This was unlucky because he did not live long enough to write a memoir trying to justify himself. This was lucky because he was not around to hear himself being pilloried as one of the most calamitous leaders in British history.
David Cameron, who was an ex-PM at the young age of 49, is doomed to be remembered as a Chamberlain-class prime minister and fated to know it. Now and for ever more, he will be defined by the one epic misjudgment that terminated his time at Number 10 and hurled his country into the vortex of chaos in which it is still trapped more than three years later. In the unlikely event that Brexit ultimately proves to be a brilliant idea, he will not be able to claim any credit for an enterprise that he opposed. In the rather more likely event that leaving the EU proves to be the gravest error in Britain’s modern history, he will rightly shoulder a vast weight of the blame. And in the event that Brexit is reversed, Cameron will be remembered as the man who put his country through years of polarising trauma for no purpose.

Brexit is the giant, dark cumulonimbus that squats over the pages of this long memoir from its first sentence. You can sense that the author dreaded arriving at the chapters where he would have to explain himself, for the earlier ones are bulked up with some stodgy padding that could have benefited from more ruthless editing.

In the build-up to the breaking of the storm that sweeps away his career, the tone is largely sunny. He is amusing about the “tiny gene pool” at his hideous prep school, the classic posh English combination of privilege and brutality, where the Duke of Bedford and Prince Edward were among the “dorm captains” and the “spartan diet” included a dish of “curry, rice and maggots”. He is moving about his son, Ivan, writing of his death: “It was as if the world stopped turning.” He tends to the bland when discussing other leaders, but there are a few tangy titbits. I enjoyed the anecdote about Silvio Berlusconi taking Cameron into the then Italian prime minister’s bedroom, showing off an ancient two-way mirror and explaining: “They didn’t have porn channels in the 15th century.” He reminds us that he was occasionally brave as prime minister, legislating for gay marriage against the fierce opposition of reactionaries in his party. One Tory came to the constituency surgery to tear up his membership card in front of Cameron.

The book’s voice is not as humble as the interviews he has given to promote it. There are lengthy tracts of self-justification as he relitigates every controversy of his career before almost invariably coming tWhen he addresses the choice that immolated his premiership, Cameron is sufficiently sensible to know that a tsunami of derision would have come down on his head if he did not admit to some mistakes. So he agrees that he underestimated the toxifying effects on public opinion of years of rubbishing of the EU by the Tory party and its media. He accepts that he ought to have made a more positive case for membership. He just about acknowledges that he chose the worst possible time to hold the referendum. What he cannot confess is that it was a terrible mistake to make that cavalier promise in the first place when he had not a clue what he would extract from his “renegotiation” with the EU and no idea what the atmospherics would be like when he had to make good on the pledge. He continues to insist that a referendum was “necessary and, I believe, ultimately inevitable”. Here he is hiding from the truth, probably because confronting it would be too much to bear. Far from being “necessary” or “inevitable”, there was no nationwide clamour for a vote on EU membership when he made the pledge in 2013. Europe rarely made the top five when pollsters asked voters to tell them which issues were bothering them most. Cameron “resents” the accusation that he made the promise because he had a party management problem with a fervent minority on the right only later to half concede that this was indeed a factor in his calculations. “I don’t argue that the referendum pledge had nothing to do with party politics.” It was not a courageous decision arrived at in the national interest; it was a cowardly one made in a panic by a leader running scared of Nigel Farage and the ultras in the Tory party.o the conclusion: “I was right.”

One value of this memoir is that it offers some character clues about why his career soared and then self-destructed. He was born into home counties upper-middle-class affluence. As a teenager, he was nagged by the thought that he was “slightly mediocre” with “a weakness for going with the crowd, even when the crowd was heading in the wrong direction”, but insulated by a dash of charm. At Eton, he spent summer afternoons with friends getting “gently off our heads” smoking hash. Caught, he swerves expulsion by telling “more and more elaborate lies”. It may have been then that he first started thinking that there was no scrape he could not wriggle out of. At Oxford, “I fell in love. Lots of times.” That’s a sentence that doesn’t sound as attractive as he thinks it does.

Before he reached No 10, he was once asked why he thought he should be prime minister. “Because I would be good at it,” was his glibly insouciant reply. I recall being invited to lunch with him in Downing Street early on in his premiership. Knowing that many previous occupants of the office have found its responsibilities a shock, I asked what had surprised him about being prime minister. “Nothing really,” he replied, a nonchalance he intended to be reassuring, but which I found a bit disturbing. This hubris swelled with time. The defeat of Scottish independence in 2014 and his election win a year later were both squeaky bum campaigns and the victories ultimately achieved were by quite tight margins. Rather than conclude from this that he had been fortunate to pull them off, he started to believe there was no gamble he could not risk and win.
Cabinet colleagues considered Cameron to be smart, but not an original thinker. Others first conceived the Tory “modernisation project” that he used to rebrand them in opposition. His response to the economic situation that he inherited in 2010 was a highly conventional and painful dose of fiscal contraction that exploded his pretensions to build a “big society” and undid a lot of his previous effort trying to prove that the Tories were no longer “the nasty party”. You can now find quite a lot of Conservatives who think they overdid austerity. Cameron believes the opposite, arguing that “we might as well have ripped the plaster off with more cuts early on”. He doesn’t join any of the dots between the squeeze on disadvantaged communities and the increasing alienation among the “left behind” that helped to power the Leave vote.


He thinks himself a good judge of character and yet was often anything but. He gave a senior job at No 10 to Andy Coulson, the former newspaper editor who was later jailed for his part in the phone-hacking scandal. He made Steve Hilton – “one part brilliant to several parts bonkers” – his principal strategist at No 10 only for Hilton to quit in frustration at what he saw as Cameron’s lack of radicalism and later campaign on the other side of the Brexit divide. He lubricated the ascent of Boris Johnson and promoted Michael Gove, the duo who would be his nemesis as the “ambassadors for the expert-trashing, truth-twisting age of populism”. The two frontmen of the Leave campaign are the principal villains of Cameron’s account. Johnson “didn’t believe in Brexit” and “risked an outcome he didn’t believe in because it would help his political career”. The “mendacious” Gove, a man he had counted as “one of my best friends”, was serially treacherous and turned into a “foam-flecked Faragist”. These are not original accusations, but the charges have additional force when they are levelled by their former leader and chum. Here, the memoir oozes bitterness from the still weeping wounds of a man who feels betrayed. When Gove subsequently does the dirty on Johnson, Cameron sends Johnson a text: “You should have stuck with me, mate.” Johnson responds: “Blimey, is he (Gove) a bit cracked or something?”

How incestuous they are, even when at one another’s throats, this clique of frenemies who have wielded so much influence over Britain in the years since 2010. Cameron likes to bemoan the way in which Brexit became a “Tory psychodrama”, but he was the actor-manager who put the dysfunctional cast of this never-ending tragi-farce on the stage and trapped the whole of Britain in their theatre of the absurd.

Theresa May was never one of the gang. When they fell out, Cameron looked to her to be an instrument of his revenge on Johnson and Gove. Although he posed as a neutral in the contest to succeed him, he reveals that he secretly gave encouragement to May’s leadership campaign. When she became prime minister, “I felt relieved that I would be passing the responsibility to a safe pair of hands.” That was another misreading of character that failed to anticipate what she would do with the premiership. One of her first acts was to call in George Osborne, Cameron’s closest friend in politics, and sack him as chancellor in the most humiliating fashion. To this day, Osborne upbraids Cameron: “I told you not to do that fucking referendum.”
Cameron says he knows “I failed”. This memoir doesn’t convince me that he fully grasps why.
• Andrew Rawnsley is the Chief Political Commentator of the Observer

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/sep/22/for-the-record-david-cameron-review

LES EXPOSITIONS MODE OÙ VOUS NOUS TROUVEREZ EN 2019


Par Mélody Thomas

En 2019, la mode explore son patrimoine et garde un œil sur son avenir à travers des expos qui s'annoncent déjà incontournables. De la place de la diversité dans l'industrie à la découverte du travail d'un designer, petit tour d'horizon des expos qui vont marquer l'année.
Ces dernières années, les expositions mode font partie des évènements les plus attendus. Elles intéressent tout le monde. Qu'on travaille dans l'industrie ou qu'on soit un simple curieux fasciné par les beaux vêtements, ces expositions prouvent que la mode a un aspect anthropologique qu'il serait dommage de laisser de côté. Enrichies par l'intellectualisation du milieu, ces expositions mettent en miroir contexte historique et politique et histoire du vêtement.

Preuve s'il en faut, les expositions du MAD qui ne désemplissent pas alors qu'elles s'attaquent à de vraies problématiques de mode et montre l'apport d'une marque au sein d'un patrimoine culturel comme ce fut le cas avec Tenue Correcte Exigée et Dior. Le Palais Galliera, actuellement en rénovation, a su lui aussi attirer les visiteurs à travers expositions uniques comme celles sur le vestiaire de Dalida ou encore les collections de Martin Margiela. Et comment ne pas aborder le Musée Yves Saint Laurent qui fait vivre l'histoire de mode d'Yves Saint Laurent ?
Dans notre sélection, on a tenu à vous parler d'expositions qui se tiennent en France, mais aussi à l'étranger. L'occasion parfaite d'en savoir plus sur la manière dont la mode est perçue ailleurs………………..

https://www.marieclaire.fr/,expositions-mode,783479.asp

PIRELLI HANGAR BICOCCA. MILANO. DANIEL STEEGMANN MANGRANÉ A LEAF-SHAPED ANIMAL DRAWS THE HAND


A cura di Lucia Aspesi e Fiammetta Griccioli / 12 Settembre 2019 - 19 Gennaio 2020
Il lavoro di Daniel Steegmann Mangrané (Barcellona, 1977; vive e lavora a Rio de Janeiro) si interroga sulla relazione tra cultura e natura. L’interesse dell’artista per la biologia lo ha portato a indagare complessi sistemi ecologici e a introdurre il mondo naturale all’interno delle sue opere. Nella sua pratica numerosi sono i riferimenti alla foresta pluviale in Brasile – come rami, foglie e insetti – che, uniti a forme geometriche e motivi astratti, aprono a riflessioni sulle complesse dinamiche tra gli elementi che ci circondano.


La sua prima esposizione in Italia presenta più di venti opere realizzate a partire dal 1998 a oggi, che spaziano tra film, ambientazioni in realtà virtuale, ologrammi 2D, sculture e installazioni. L’artista pone al centro del progetto di mostra la dimensione fisica e sensoriale dello spettatore, offrendo nuove visioni sull’intero corpus delle sue opere, messe in dialogo tra loro.
Il percorso espositivo è caratterizzato dall’alternarsi di esperienze materiali a situazioni immateriali, attraverso un’installazione site-specific realizzata con partizioni in tessuto bianco trasparente che ridefiniranno il carattere industriale di Pirelli HangarBicocca, accogliendo e rivelando le opere esposte. Come membrane fluttuanti, questi elementi dividono lo spazio in aree diverse consentendo al tempo stesso, con la loro trasparenza, una visione d’insieme immediata dell’intera mostra.

Alcune tra le più importanti istituzioni di rilievo internazionale hanno ospitato sue esposizioni personali, quali IAC – Institut d’art contemporain, Villeurbanne; Nottingham Contemporary, Nottingham (2019); CCS Bard College, New York, Fundació Antoni Tàpies, Barcellona, CAC, Vilnius (2018); Fundação de Serralves, Porto (2017); Medellín Museum of Modern Art, Antioquia, The Green Parrot, Barcellona (2016); Museu de Arte Moderna, Rio de Janeiro, Casa Modernista, San Paolo (2015); CRAC Alsace Centre Rhénan d’Art Contemporain, Altkirch (2014); Casa França Brasil, Rio de Janeiro (2013). I suoi lavori sono stati anche esposti in numerose mostre collettive, presso, ad esempio, Centre Pompidou-Metz, Metz, 14ma Biennale di Lione (2017); 9a Biennale di Berlino (2016); New Museum Triennial, New York, Kadist Art Foundation, Parigi (2015); 9a Biennale del Mercosul, Porto Alegre (2013); 30ma Biennale di San Paolo (2012).

https://pirellihangarbicocca.org/mostra/daniel-steegmann-mangrane/

BRITISH MUSEUM. THE LEGEND OF TROY EXHIBITION


The legend of Troy has endured for more than 3,000 years. The story of a great city, plunged into a 10-year war over the abduction of the most beautiful woman in the world, is irresistibly dramatic and tragic. This allure has sent adventurers and archaeologists in quest of the lost city, which is now widely believed to have existed.
But what of the heroes and the heartbroken, the women and the wanderers, who are said to have a played a part in the Trojan War? Why have they inspired so many retellings, from Homer to Shakespeare and Hollywood? Get closer to these captivating characters as you explore the breath-taking art that brings them to life, from dramatic ancient sculptures and exquisite vase paintings to powerful contemporary works.
You can also examine the fascinating archaeological evidence that proves there was a real Troy – and offers tantalising hints at the truth behind the mythical stories.
From Helen of Troy’s abduction to the deception of the Trojan Horse and the fall of the city, tread the line between myth and reality in this phenomenal new exhibition.


https://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/exhibitions/troy.aspx

viernes, 27 de septiembre de 2019

EL MICRÓFONO DE ALICIA PERRIS – VICENTE JIMÉNEZ IFERGAN: COLECCIONISTA DE ORIGEN SEFARDÍ Y SU PASIÓN POR LA ARQUEOLOGÍA DE ORIENTE MEDIO


AUDIO


Casi por casualidad, hemos tenido en El Micrófono de Alicia Perris en Radio Sefarad la suerte de poder entrevistar a un hombre enamorado de historia y empresario además, que trashuma por el planeta en una geografía siempre ampliada de relatos, de maravillas y de sorpresas.


 El suyo es un caravansaray lujoso y estremecedor, por lo singular, bonito y raro. Como él mismo relata, “en 1958, frente a la ciudad de Tiro en el actual Líbano, se descubrió un pecio por casualidad, al enredarse en una red de pescadores. Al subir la red a bordo encontraron en su interior una figura de terracota con incrustaciones de moluscos y conchas. Con la financiación de la galería Asfar & Sarkis de Beirut y de una primera limpieza, intervención e identificación de las piezas, éstas fueron adquiridas en su mayor parte por las Galerías Salim Haddad y Marwan Shebab Collection, ambas en Beirut en la década de los 70. En los años sucesivos, las piezas individuales se fueron distribuyendo por galerías y colecciones privadas de todo el mundo”.

El suyo es un proyecto transcultural, que enhebra distintas culturas con una vocación de un sincretismo universalista y cosmopolita. Pero escuchen al propio malagueño israelí, ciudadano del mundo, contar su historia. Y nuestro saludo más dulce para que lo disfruten.
Alicia Perris

EMILIA LANDALUCE TIENE RAZÓN. ¡UN AÑO ROBADA Y EN JUZGADOS NAVALCARNERO! BURRITA SEVERINA ROBAN PERROS Y ANIMALES ALGUNAS PROTECTORAS APROVECHANDO CATÁSTROFES EN TODA ESPAÑA. OJO! PORQUE SI PENSÁIS APROVECHA AHORA EL VIRUS PARA ROBAR ANIMALES, ESTAMOS Y SEGUIREMOS ESPERÁNDOOS. Y ESTA VEZ MUCHO CUIDADO CON DELINQUIR!!

ULTIMAS NOTICIAS: CON VIRUS O SIN ÉL, NADA DE APROVECHAR OTRA VEZ CATÁSTROFES, LADRONES, PARA ROBAR ANIMALES DONDE PODÁIS. ESTA VEZ NO PASARÉIS. Y CUIDADO CON LOS CONTAGIOS....

LAS PROTECTORAS, TODAS, HONESTAS Y LADRONAS, RECAUDAN ESTOS DÍAS DINERO EN PASEOS, PARADAS , ADOPCIONES Y DONACIONES. TENED CUIDADO A QUIÉN DONÁIS, NO SEA A LOS CUATREROS QUE SE LLEVAN PERROS Y OTROS ANIMALES DE SUS FINCAS PARA REVENDERLOS. ¡INFORMAROS BIEN QUIÉN ES QUIÉN!


EMILIA LANDALUCE

Viernes, 27 septiembre


"UNA VEZ, un amigo se gastó 800 euros en un springer spaniel. Inocentemente, le pregunté que por qué no cogía uno de alguna perrera municipal. «Porque quiero un perro guapo y que sea de determinada forma». Entonces miré a mi Rito, un teckel guapo y fresco que anda desaparecido desde el miércoles, y entendí lo que quería decir.

En la nueva dictadura animalista, tener un perro de raza se ha convertido en un pecado. Basta comprobar el aire de superioridad con el que miran algunos adoptantes de la ciudad a los que tenemos un teckel, o un labrador. O lo que sea. Aunque nos lo haya regalado un amigo que haya tenido cachorros y no hayamos colaborado en absoluto con el mercado animal.

Hace unos días, leí en Libertad Digital sobre una pareja de Totana a la que una protectora de animales le había robado sus perros border collie. Uno de ellos, Scooby, apareció en la web de la protectora (ahora se llamaba Lanjarón) y los responsables le buscaban una nueva familia. La pareja no tardó en acudir para reclamar su perro, que por supuesto tenía chip identificador. No solo se negaron a pasar el lector sino que además les dijeron que ya había sido adoptado. Al parecer, no es el primer caso. 
Muchas protectoras utilizan perros de raza (¿los roban?) para recaudar fondos y captar nuevos adoptantes. «Hay un negocio encubierto en los subterráneos de muchas protectoras. Con la excusa del buenismo, utilizan a los denominados perros hucha, animales de raza bellísimos que se usan para recaudar más fondos o después venderlos», decía el reportaje. O sea: otro chiringuito más. Y para variar, basado en datos falsos.
Porque también habría que aprovechar para desmentir algunos mitos. Según un informe de la fundación Affinity, solo un 1,7% de los 6,3 millones de perros que hay en España es abandonado. Por otro lado, pese a las leyendas que corren sobre la crueldad de los galgueros (aunque algunos hay), la menor tasa de abandono de perros se da en el entorno rural. El 87,3% de los perros abandonados se da en las ciudades. Es decir: los cazadores no abandonan a sus perros. Además, no les importa que los perros no sean de raza. ¿Han visto los perros de las rehalas? El mixtolobo, el mitad oveja, el desarrapado con el pelo cosido a bocados.
Pero da igual. Seguirán machacando. Por dinero. Porque de eso en el fondo es de lo que se trata.

https://www.elmundo.es/opinion/2019/09/27/5d8c914221efa095738b45e2.html


EMILIA LANDALUCE,  PERROS (II) ABANDONADOS ROBO DE ANIMALES EN INCENDIOS ESTIVALES SIERRA OESTE.  BURRITA SEVERINA NO APARECE. LANDALUCE TIENE RAZÓN!!

Muy estimada Emilia:

En su columna de hoy de El Mundo sobre Perros Abandonados II, intuyo que le han caído una gran cantidad de críticas de protectoras  y afines. Seguramente más de falsas protectoras que roban animales y veterinarios cómplices.
Ánimo, siga adelante. A mí me robaron 4 ovejas y un chivo, que volvieron, 4 podencos que fueron devueltos previo pago de 330 euros y castrados, porque estaban, como Usted escribió, "abandonados". Agotados, mal operados y con miedo.

El caso completo se denunció profusamente hasta hoy en Guardia Civil y Seprona de Cenicientos y San Martín de Valdeiglesias, Comunidad de Madrid, Agentes Forestales, Juzgados de guardia de Navalcarnero, Ayuntamiento de Rozas de Puerto Real donde resido con mis animales, mi familia, y hasta en el Colegio de Veterinarios de Madrid, para que su comisión deontológica valorara algunas actuaciones de sus colegiados descontrolados y e instalados en el delirio más absoluto.  Efectivamente, son narcisistas, megalómanos, con poca educación en general, infancias y familias complicadas y poco amantes y una sorprendente necesidad de reconocimiento debido a sus más que probables complejos de inferioridad de toda la vida. Y tienen, además, una interpretación del mundo, "su "mundo, libérrima e inexacta aparte de ilegal.

La Burrita Severina, el décimo animal sustraído por unos fuegos que quedaron a 1 km con esa zona completamente preservada,  también robada en esa madrugada de una finca donde no se puede dormir porque es rural totalmente, no aparece, a pesar de tener chip y la finca, código Rega.

Sabemos quiénes estuvieron actuando en esa zona (hay testigos que declararon). Tuvieron colaboradores o, simplemente cómplices para llevar a cabo todas sus tropelías. Probablemente intercambiaron, regalaron a algún particular que la esconde o,  vendieron a Severina, pensando además que, como está gordita estaría preñada. Dos en uno, ¡qué bien! ¡Vaya negocio!

Funcionan como una secta, verticalmente, con líderes reconocidos que toman decisiones y exigen al resto la "omertà", como hacen los mafiosos y están muy bien comunicados entre ellos y con el mundo exterior por redes sociales.

En ElDiario.es una veterinaria, Rocío Puche publicó este verano un artículo impresentable (Sección El Caballo de Nietszche) donde decía actuar y haber actuado "en conciencia". Como Usted entenderá, es una frase más ligada a la espiritualidad religiosa, que el respeto de la normativa jurídica y la Ley en un país donde deberían cumplirse a rajatabla porque es un estado de derecho. A este artículo desnortado le contestó José Ayala, periodista también del mismo medio, titulándolo "Animalistas, ¿héroes o delincuentes?, incluyendo insultos de voluntarias insultando y con evidente delito de odio en redes sociales a vecinos, ganaderos, sin ningún tipo de discriminación.

A esos dos artículos le siguió en ElDiario.es uno de Constanza Lambertucci,  con entrevistas a "rescatistas", como ellos se definen y perjudicados, a los que les habían robado los animales.

También publicó el caso Severina Rosa Montero en su Facebook y Twitter, haciéndose eco de su robo y algunos compañeros de los secuestradores se solidarizaron con una acción con la que no están de acuerdo y difundieron la noticia, aunque finalmente sus jefes los mandaron callar.

Así que Usted va bien, con su sensibilidad, con su valentía denunciando a los "malos". Y no está sola, como puede ver. 

Severina seguramente no volverá nunca a casa. El juez que instruyó el caso lo cerró "provisionalmente", a pesar de los nutridos informes que cursó el Seprona de tres Cantos. Pero que devuelvan a Severina (seguiremos insistiendo) y que actúen no en conciencia, sino con decencia, para que periodistas sensibles y concienciados, no vuelvan a retratarlos en los medios como son, una desgracia para todos, sobre todo para los animales que tienen la pésima suerte de caer en sus garras.

Aquí me tiene, ya le envié una carta al director de El Mundo sobre su "Perros abandonados"  (I),  apoyándolo y a su labor en defensa de los maltratados que no tienen voz, están "abandonados" ni, parece, dueños o derechos, por ser "personas no humanas", como establecieron en Argentina y confirmado la similitud de mi caso con su relato.

Un abrazo muy fuerte y gracias por estar ahí, vivirlo y relatarlo para que todos se enteren quién es cada cuál y cómo son las cosas en el proceloso universo de los animales en España.

Alicia Perris