Not to get complex about it, but when you look at the events of someone like Strauss-Kahn or Pasolini, you can fictionalize it, but who’s to say what’s true? In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter. You’re making a movie, so you accept that some of it, even events that really happened, some of it no one knows, some of it you can assume, some of it you can imagine. If someone tells you something, is that really the truth? Just because you put a camera on somebody & they’re talking to you, or just because you’re a journalist, you ask someone a question, does that mean you’re getting the right answer? This pursuit of the truth is really the deal. Doing a documentary, the reason we incorporated a lot of fictional elements is we’re trying to get at…
Some helpful person (via Picassa) has scanned in 32 pages of Army Man the now legendary zine George Meyer, John Swarztwelder, and Jon Vitti put together before working on The Simpsons.
The scans are tiny, but these are impossible to find otherwise and I haven’t seen this much of it in one place before.
Here’s when every episode airs.
"It begins with the king as a boy, having to spend the night alone in the forest to prove his courage so he can become king. Now while he is spending the night alone he’s visited by a sacred vision. Out of the fire appears the Holy Grail, symbol of God’s divine grace. And a voice said to the boy, ‘You shall be keeper of the grail so that it may heal the hearts of men.’ But the boy was blinded by greater visions of a life filled with power and glory and beauty. And in this state of radical amazement he felt for a brief moment not like a boy, but invincible, like God, so he reached into the fire to take the grail, and the grail vanished, leaving him with his hand in the fire to be terribly wounded. Now, as this boy grew older, his wound grew deeper. Until one day, life for him lost its reason. He had no faith in any man, not even himself. He couldn’t love or feel loved. He was sick with experience. He began to die. One day a fool wandered into the castle and found the king alone. And being a fool, he was simple minded, he didn’t see a king. He only saw a man alone and in pain. And he asked the king, ‘What ails you friend?’ The king replied, ‘I’m thirsty. I need some water to cool my throat.’ So the fool took a cup from beside his bed, filled it with water, and handed it to the king. As the king began to drink, he realized his wound was healed. He looked in his hands, and there was the Holy Grail, that which he sought all of his life. And he turned to the fool and said with amazement, ‘How can you find that which my brightest and bravest could not?’ And the fool replied, ‘I don’t know. I only knew that you were thirsty.’
It’s very beautiful, isn’t it?”
~Parry, The Fisher King
Thank you, Robin Williams.
So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.
We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:
Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.
The person who put this video together of NES-style grunge wins everything.
this photo is from a article about the worst bootleg bart tshirts but this is actually the best one