The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


no goverment support for the film "akamas"

Benefits and problems from the EU membership.

Postby cypezokyli » Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:41 pm

from the two biggest greek newspapers eleftherotypa and kathimerini :
"Και μετά λέμε ότι ο Ερντογάν είναι αυτός που χρειάζεται ταχύρρυθμη εκπαίδευση για να μάθει ευρωπαϊκούς και δημοκρατικούς τρόπους, μπας και γίνει η Τουρκία μέλος της Ε.Ε. Έχουμε και μεις οι Έλληνες, και ειδικότερα οι Ελληνοκύπριοι, τα χάλια μας. Χάρη στην περιπέτεια της ταινίας του Πανίκου Χρυσάνθου "Ακάμας", μάθαμε ότι υπάρχει ειδική τριμελής υπουργική επιτροπή που περνάει από κόσκινο (με ποια κριτήρια, άραγε;) τις ταινίες που επιχορηγούνται από το κυπριακό κράτος. Τόσα λεφτά έχουν, χάθηκε να φτιάξουν, επιτέλους, ένα αυτόνομο Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου να χρηματοδοτούν τις ταινίες τους, που όλες, μα όλες, καταλήγουν στο δικό μας; Μήπως για να γλυτώσουν τη λογοκρισία;"
Βένα Γεωργακοπούλου, Ελευθεροτυπία

"Η τέχνη ανοίγει διάλογο. Xωρίς όρους και χωρίς προκαταλήψεις. Mπορεί να εξοργίσει, να προκαλέσει, να κινητοποιήσει, να διχάσει, να προβληματίσει, να ενθαρρύνει, να προτείνει, να ανακουφίσει. Kαι κυρίως, να θέσει ερωτήματα. Όταν περιορίζεται, λογοκρίνεται ή στομώνεται, τίποτα απ' όλα αυτά δεν συμβαίνει. Tότε, οι "θεωρίες συνωμοσίας" εισβάλλουν παντοδύναμες. Kαι επιβάλλονται. Xωρίς αντίλογο".
Μαρία Κατσουνάκι, Καθημερινή.


http://www.politis-news.com/cgibin/hweb ... columns&-p

the whole article from kathimerini can be found here :

http://www.politis-news.com/cgibin/hweb ... columns&-p


and this is from another guy.
if i am not mistaken he is the president of the cinamatography group of limaasol.

enjoy :

Η λογοκρισία επιστρέφει;
Η ένταξή μας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, δυστυχώς, δεν συνοδεύεται και με αλλαγή της νοοτροπίας που εξακολουθεί να μας διακατέχει και που επιζητεί (στον 21ο αιώνα) να ποδηγετεί, και μάλιστα επιλεκτικά, την καλλιτεχνική έκφραση και δημιουργία. Η πρόσφατη προσπάθεια επιβολής λογοκρισίας στην ταινία "Ακάμας", κάτω από τον μανδύα νομικίστικων επιχειρημάτων, αποδεικνύει περίτρανα τις κρατικές αναστολές, που με τη σειρά τους οδηγούν σε μορφές εκβιασμού (στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση οικονομικού), όπου το κράτος επιχειρεί να "επιβληθεί" ως χορηγός σε καλλιτέχνες που, συνειδητά, επέλεξαν να δημιουργήσουν ό,τι το ξεχωριστό (που δεν εντάσσεται στα "ακίνδυνα", στα "αποδεκτά" και στα "τετριμμένα").


http://www.politis-news.com/cgibin/hweb ... ivecolumns
cypezokyli
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: deutschland

Postby Piratis » Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:04 pm

Bananiot and cypezokyli, you continue to try to use this issue as a way to harm the government. Do it. Post as many articles from Politis and the other anti-government newspapers as you like. You had no clue about this film until you decided that it can be used for attacking the government.

The fact remains: The government did not censor any film, they just did their job. Giving blank cheques with OUR money is not part of their job.

I hope you will realize that such tricks to harm the government do not work when you will lose the next presidential elections again. With your unfair attacks you make us even more supportive for our government.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Bananiot » Sun Sep 03, 2006 6:37 pm

Excellent arguments Piratis! Your reactionary views on this simple issue is surely much appreciated by your master.
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby cypezokyli » Sun Sep 03, 2006 11:28 pm

need to repost the above with the hope that someone will read and understand what it tries to say :
Η τέχνη ανοίγει διάλογο. Xωρίς όρους και χωρίς προκαταλήψεις. Mπορεί να εξοργίσει, να προκαλέσει, να κινητοποιήσει, να διχάσει, να προβληματίσει, να ενθαρρύνει, να προτείνει, να ανακουφίσει. Kαι κυρίως, να θέσει ερωτήματα. Όταν περιορίζεται, λογοκρίνεται ή στομώνεται, τίποτα απ' όλα αυτά δεν συμβαίνει. Tότε, οι "θεωρίες συνωμοσίας" εισβάλλουν παντοδύναμες. Kαι επιβάλλονται. Xωρίς αντίλογο
cypezokyli
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: deutschland

Postby Piratis » Mon Sep 04, 2006 2:32 am

Censorship: The act of hiding, removing, altering or destroying copies of art or writing so that general public access to it is partially or completely limited.


The government did not censor the film. They just didn't want to continue funding it because the director had violated an agreement. This is not censorship, plain and simple. Do you think you can fool anybody with such tricks? Those that say those things are the same like those that believe them: The ones that do not support our current government and want to find ways to harm it.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby reportfromcyprus » Mon Sep 04, 2006 6:09 am

What if we compare it to other cases where the government has put an end to self-expression; Socrates was sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC because of his views and opinions. He preferred to commit suicide as ordered to make his point - he'd rather die freely than live gagged.

Are we going to say that Socrates deserved to die because he violated an agreement not to critisise or undermine the government at the time? The greatest philosopher in history?

If the government is to fund art, they'd better expect that the artists will express themselves as they wish. Otherwise they should get out of the cultural world completely or set up a decent trust run by independent film and art experts.
User avatar
reportfromcyprus
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Limassol, Cyprus

Postby cypezokyli » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:47 am

Piratis wrote:
Censorship: The act of hiding, removing, altering or destroying copies of art or writing so that general public access to it is partially or completely limited.


The government did not censor the film. They just didn't want to continue funding it because the director had violated an agreement. This is not censorship, plain and simple. Do you think you can fool anybody with such tricks? Those that say those things are the same like those that believe them: The ones that do not support our current government and want to find ways to harm it.


you insist of not seeing the point!!!!

the point is not if the director violated the rules. (this is not yet certain btw)

the point are the rules themselves. the point is that people who have nothing to do with art , decide to limit the ability of the artist to express himself in any way he wants , using political criteria.

the point is that the process for supporting a film in cyprus is pushing cyprus directors away from their birthplace.

the point is that for the goverment it is competely irrelevant if a cypriot film makes to venice or not. so long the syndesmoi agoniston are happy, who cares about venice ?

the point is that it is not acceptable to present the slightest critisism of EOKA no matter what.
....
the definition of sencorhip you have posted is way too simple .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

let me ask you something. when michael moores documentary was not (allowed to be) shown in any of the big cinemas in the US, this is not cencorhip according to your book, just because the goverment didnot hide remove altered or destroyed the copies of the documentary ? !!!! :shock: :shock:

when the film "the last temptation of christ " from martin scorcheze (written by nikos kazantzakis) was not yet shown by any channel in greece (and i guess in cyprus as well) , is that not cencorship for you just because the goverment didnot hide remove altered or destroyed the copies of the film ?!!!!


you really have to catch up with the new age. cencorhip, just like everything else has evolved.

McCartyism is also considered a form of cencorship (not for you ofcource) besides tha fact that nothing is in practise physically removed or destroyed or altered.
no wonder it blossoms and accepted also in cyprus :roll:
cypezokyli
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: deutschland

Postby Bananiot » Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:09 am

I think that poor old Pefkios is not responsible for the mess. Actually, he is an artistic bagger. He must have followed the directives of Papadopoulos who does not want to start a fight with "syndesmos agoniston" (actually there is a number of these associations, those that were not caught, those that were imprisoned etc, etc) one a half years before the presidential elections.
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby Piratis » Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:02 am

the point is that people who have nothing to do with art , decide to limit the ability of the artist to express himself in any way he wants , using political criteria.


So if an artist decides that he wants 50 million pounds to express himself in any way he wants, that means that the government should give him a blank cheque???? Where is the logic in that?

let me ask you something. when michael moores documentary was not (allowed to be) shown in any of the big cinemas in the US, this is not cencorhip according to your book, just because the goverment didnot hide remove altered or destroyed the copies of the documentary ? !!!!

when the film "the last temptation of christ " from martin scorcheze (written by nikos kazantzakis) was not yet shown by any channel in greece (and i guess in cyprus as well) , is that not cencorship for you just because the goverment didnot hide remove altered or destroyed the copies of the film ?!!!!


If those films were banned by the government and not allowed to be shown (=hide) then yes it is censorship by the government. This is not what happened in the case of this film, so stop to intentionally confuse things trying to attack the government out of nothing.

According to your logic, michael moores documentary was also censored in the UK, France, Finland and in every country of the world, simply because those countries didn't sponsor it! Oh, wait, according to your logic most films produced are "censored" since they are not sponsored by governments to be made! Sorry, but your argument is totally baseless. You are just trying to score points against the government our of nowhere.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby cypezokyli » Mon Sep 04, 2006 12:00 pm

So if an artist decides that he wants 50 million pounds to express himself in any way he wants, that means that the government should give him a blank cheque???? Where is the logic in that?


15 000 pounds is hte money that were missing for our country to be represented in venice.
for piratis it is obviously 50 000 000 pounds.

the artist asked to be treated as any other cypriot artist.

If those films were banned by the government and not allowed to be shown (=hide) then yes it is censorship by the government. This is not what happened in the case of this film, so stop to intentionally confuse things trying to attack the government out of nothing.


let me repost to you for a third time something and hopefully you will comprehend it this time :
Η τέχνη ανοίγει διάλογο. Xωρίς όρους και χωρίς προκαταλήψεις. Mπορεί να εξοργίσει, να προκαλέσει, να κινητοποιήσει, να διχάσει, να προβληματίσει, να ενθαρρύνει, να προτείνει, να ανακουφίσει. Kαι κυρίως, να θέσει ερωτήματα. Όταν περιορίζεται, λογοκρίνεται ή στομώνεται, τίποτα απ' όλα αυτά δεν συμβαίνει. Tότε, οι "θεωρίες συνωμοσίας" εισβάλλουν παντοδύναμες. Kαι επιβάλλονται. Xωρίς αντίλογο

what is this psychosis that i want to attack the goverment? i am not trying to attack the goverment, but simply to make it better. only in fascist ditaorships critisism is considered as "attack".

my above example was inteted to show to you ,your poor definition of sencorship, and not to say that this happenned to the film in question.

nevertheless we all know that this happenned in the case of angastaniotis film. it seems we are no different from the americans (we learn a lot from those we tend to accuse).

not to mention, that knowing what happens in cyprus i wouldnt be surprised if "akamas" has the same luck. would you ?

hopefully it will receive enough reputation to be shown somewhere... but then who ? RIK ? hatjikostis ? papafilippou ?
perhaps akels channel, but i wouldnt bet on it.


According to your logic, michael moores documentary was also censored in the UK, France, Finland and in every country of the world, simply because those countries didn't sponsor it!


other countries do not have a committe of three ministers to approve a film. read what i posted above.

Χάρη στην περιπέτεια της ταινίας του Πανίκου Χρυσάνθου "Ακάμας", μάθαμε ότι υπάρχει ειδική τριμελής υπουργική επιτροπή που περνάει από κόσκινο (με ποια κριτήρια, άραγε τις ταινίες που επιχορηγούνται από το κυπριακό κράτος. Τόσα λεφτά έχουν, χάθηκε να φτιάξουν, επιτέλους, ένα αυτόνομο Κέντρο Κινηματογράφου να χρηματοδοτούν τις ταινίες τους, που όλες, μα όλες, καταλήγουν στο δικό μας; Μήπως για να γλυτώσουν τη λογοκρισία;"

it is the way that films are funded that is the problem in cyprus. precicely because as an artist in cyprus one is dependent on the goverment while he shouldnt be. because once the goverment is involved in art, it will most probably cencor anything that it is against the party in goverment.

consequently you have to see how films are sponsered and sencored in other countries before you use absurd paradigms.
cypezokyli
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: deutschland

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus and the European Union

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest