today ended well...but the bad taste lingers...

[acroyear]

Pharyngula: Peter Irons drafts a letter:

This letter will constitute notice to you, as Chairman of Premise Media Corporation, of the copyright infringement by your corporation, and its subsidiary, Rampant Films, of material produced by XVIVO LLC, in which XVIVO holds a copyright.

It has come to our intention that Premise Media and Rampant Films has produced a film entitled "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which is scheduled for commercial release and distribution on April 18, 2008. To our knowledge, this film includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled "The Inner Life of a Cell." XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in this video, and has not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of this material.

We have obtained promotional material for the "Expelled" film, presented on a DVD, that clearly shows in the "cell segment" the virtually identical depiction of material from the "Inner Life" video. We particularly refer to the segment of the "Expelled" film purporting to show the "walking" models of kinesic activities in cellular mechanisms. The segments depicting these models in your film are clearly based upon, and copied from, material in the "Inner Life" video.

We have been advised by counsel that this segment in your film constitutes an actionable infringement of XVIVO's intellectual property rights, as protected by federal statutes, including Section 106 of the Copyright Act, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998. Each of these statutes provides for judicial enforcement of their provisions, with substantial civil penalties for their infringement.

For those not following, Expelled is a "documentary" (scare quotes critical) about how the mainstream science community has supposedly ostracized and persecuted pro-ID scientists to the point of losing jobs, losing reputation, etc (all lies and exaggerations, mind you, easily disproved), all wrapped up in the scary association that Darwin's theory somehow led to the Nazi Holocaust and hosted by Ben Stein in a brilliantly stupid Kirk Cameron-style career destroying move.

The "Lying for Jesus" is bad enough in the film itself, but to make matters worse are the inept actions of the producers before the film was released (they lied to several pro-science interviewees about the nature of the film, including Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Eugenie Scott whose testimony effectively "won" the Dover legal fight) and since the film went into its limited release (trying to isolate the pre-release audience to message-friendly "Christians" in the hopes of good word-of-mouth, including to the two states with science standards on the table of their boards of education (Texas, Florida)), up to the point of actually intentionally making a big fuss with kicking out one of the scientists interviewed in the film (Myers) from actually seeing it, while at the same time completely missing the larger figure (Dawkins) who did managed to get in to see the drek.

They even sent lying email messages to *some* of the people who had registered online to see the film that their particular showing had been canceled (after first saying it was moved by an hour), when in fact it actually took place and at the original time.

Watching the film, Dawkins noticed a familiarity in the film with some footage of cells in action with some footage he saw in a Dembski-made promotional film.  That footage that Demski used was actually stolen from a free educational video made for Harvard University by the company mentioned above, XVIVO.  It seems that XVIVO, upon hearing this and investigating, have noticed that ONCE AGAIN, "Christians" have decided that it's perfectly valid to steal from others, as long as one is "stealing for Jesus".

Yes, "Christians" is in quotes, because those who claim to act in his name and yet carry out the very sins they claim to be commanded not to do (and to make matters worse, then strive to enshrine those commandments that they don't follow while not allowing others to enshrine their own), can't possibly have any idea who Christ really is.

I used to call myself a Christian.  Now, watching just the last 5 years of lies and hate in His name, I just can't.  I'm actually sickened to nausea to even hear that word.  My beliefs haven't changed, but right now I have no word to use to encapsulate them.

Comments

[thatwasjen]

Expelled is a "documentary" (scare quotes critical)

OK, this got me so steamed when people were denigrating Michael Moore, so it's only fair I make the argument on both sides: it is a documentary. It is a film that uses primarily nonactors speaking for themselves rather than actors reciting lines from a script.

Disagree with the premise; denounce the method; decry the argument -- and possibly even be right about all of it. But do not say that a documentary isn't a documentary simply because you don't like what the documentarian has said.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

actually, if I referred to a Michael Moore film (aside from Roger and Me, his only mostly-truthful one with the only lasting effect being the enlargement of his ego), I would have used the exact same scare quotes.

fact is, I've not seen either Bowling or Farenheit (nor have I seen more than a few minutes of Supersize Me).

NONE of them are documentaries in the sense that I would call it.

Documentary requires, in my opinion, something remotely approaching "facts", whether spun or not, and that the facts outnumber the lies or intentional deceptions.

Hell, Spinal Tap is more of a documentary than any of these films are.

[thatwasjen]

Documentary is nonfiction, i.e., the portrayal of real people and real events rather than made up characters or events. (Or real people describing their theories about possible events.) Whether "nonfiction" equals "factual" is probably up for debate still. A documentary doesn't have to be accurate, and it doesn't have to be agenda-less. (If a person didn't have an agenda, why would they spend their energy to make a movie?)

Michael Moore's documentaries are documentaries, as the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences defines the term. "Expelled" might not be, but I can't judge it without seeing it.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

watch the "goalpost moving" :)

you mentioned moore and complained about "both sides" not being treated equally. I stated plainly that i would treat "both sides" (lying for the right vs lying for the left) equally.

as for the larger issue of whether or not the Academy has the exclusive on deciding what is and isn't a documentary, that's a different issue. i can disagree with that, and i do, but that doesn't in any way negate my point that there are liars who pose their movies as being fact-based "documentaries" when they are as fictional as any other product of hollywood.

they assume that label as a means of gaining credibility where it isn't due, and that's worthy of a scare quote FOR EXACTLY the same reasons as these "Christians" are worthy of scare quotes: using that label for its credible associations.

[thatwasjen]

I acknowledge your point and my rhetorical failures (I'm a poor debater), but I still disagree. :) Medium and message are different arguments, IMO.

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Just curious, but how can you judge something as such if you haven't seen it? Personally, I think that's rather small-minded when you are judging things, or at least letting others make your opinion for you.

I personally don't have an opinion on Moore's films because I haven't seen any of them.

I'll also agree with thatwasjen that the documentary is mainly a filmmaking style. There are plenty out there who are trying to make a specific point, choosing which facts to present and which to ignore. That has been true for a long time. Course, people think just because it has interviews and maybe documents real events that what they see is the truth. It still falls under the definition of non-fiction, tho, which Spinal Tap (and all of Christopher Guest's films) are not.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think that's rather small-minded when you are judging things, or at least letting others make your opinion for you.

At a certain point, it does come down to trust. However, just like with science, I trust some reviewers more than others. In this case, I trust reviewers where reviews with things I *have* seen agree with my own.

I agree that it fits the format of a documentary. The scare quotes is my compromise - acknowledging that it fits the form and puts on the image of one, while at the same time being so full of false statements and intentional deceptions as to be practically fictional.

As I said, it's for exactly the same reason I put "Christians" in quotes - acknowledging that they are using that label and that "form", while at the same time bluntly stating that I don't accept it.

[capi.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

~heart~

I know, i know.... doesn't fix a thing. But this sort of thing requires sitting in the same room, able to see each other and hear each other and have no time pressure and be able to speak and listen to each other for as long as it takes to get it all out and clear the air.... if such a thing is possible.

And i'd do that with you right now, if i could, my friend.

[tomble.livejournal.com]

Have you read the rather excellent book `Telling lies for God'?. Very hard to get a hold of, and I don't know what exposure it had to the US market. It deals entirely with the topic of people saying things that they know aren't true and being deceptive in many ways to bolster their own beliefs. I will see if I can find a copy of it.