Saturday, June 19, 2010

The "Capital of Animation"

This one, remarkably enough, is not in Emeryville, CA.

TEHRAN – The city of Borujerd in Lorestan Province, one of Iran’s western provinces, has been designated the Iranian Capital of Animation.

The city was named capital of animation in a ceremony attended by several officials invited from the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance and the IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting), as well as Lorestan’s Governor General and several provincial officials. ...

I'm sure there are various American companies that would be glad to place some sub-contracting work inside Borujerd's city limits, but since Iran is currently near the top of the audition list for the international series Who Wants to be the United States' Newest Enemy?, I seriously question whether that scenario will play out anytime soon.


Anonymous said...

Iran - or at least its government - IS the United States' enemy.

As someone with family members in the military, I would not patronize any film originating in Iran - until the government there changes, and drastically.

Anonymous said...

Iran - or at least its government - IS the United States' enemy

Why? Because they're building nukes?

What about Pakistan? They also the enemy? They're Muslim, they don't like us much, and they have nuclear weapons.

And how about Russia? They got nukes.

And what about those Chinese commies?

Then there's North Korea. I understand they're in possession of a half dozen weapons with fissionable material. And they're working on rockets.

(So many enemies. So little time.)

As someone who's a military veteran, I think there are only so many wars and enemies we can fight in any given decade. Because at some point we're going to go broke.

And when that happens, we'll have to give up charging around making the world safe for ... something, whether we like it or not.

Anonymous said...

In regards to giving money to terrorists? "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

The U.S. should clean up it's own house before condemning others for doing the same thing.

Anonymous said...

The former CFO of Pixar, now the head of Twitter, is Iranian. I guess you won't be using twitter.

The Military does.

Steve Hulett said...

Iran is being ruled by a nut job who wants to obliterate Israel and who is giving aid and comfort to terrorist groups. And now it wants to build nukes.

And your remedy is ... ??

Pete Emslie said...

As someone with family members in the military, I would not patronize any film originating in Iran - until the government there changes, and drastically.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, although I'll respect your stand on the issue. Personally, however, I've seen about a half dozen films by Iranian filmmakers that were so wonderful and fresh in their concept that I'd happily continue to pay money to see them. So long as there are films being produced like "The Colour of Paradise", "Children of Heaven" and "A Moment of Innocence", I'll be supporting the Iranian film industry, as I make a clear distinction between a nation's politics and its artists.

Anonymous said...

The Military is the Military. But they, like I do, must respect the constitution first, and whims of the paranoid wingnut teabag last.

Anonymous said...

How the hell did this discussion degenerate into accusations of bigotry? Did I not make it clear - must I put up a billboard and write what I wrote earlier in bigger, easy-to-read letters or hire English tutors for you all - that I was criticizing the Iranian GOVERNMENT? If not, wipe the ideology out of your eyes and read my statement again. Then open your minds a little and try to grasp it.

I surmise those of you criticizing my post lean heavily to the left, since all too often any criticism anyone involved in a discussion makes regarding a totalitarian government gets turned around by leftist ideologues into criticism of the U.S. government and ridiculous accusations of narrow-mindedness. The truth is that Iran oppresses its people horribly and is largely responsible for many of our service members getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran is bad news right now, and I will not support anything that comes out of it if I can help it until the regime there changes. I'm against the Iranian government, not Iranians. There, I've said it twice, and even clarified for you. Got it this time? Or are some of you just a little too blinded by your assumptions and determined to stereotype and belittle those who support our armed forces?

Anonymous said...

It would seem you belittle those who have served in our armed services, given how disrespectfully you spoke to a military veteran.

Anonymous said...

"Israel gives as much as the U.S. does to terrorist groups."

Excuse me???? That's outrageous, inflammatory, nonsensical and highly provocative. Please, PLEASE be specific or shut the fuck up. I can't wait to hear exactly what you characterize as a "terrorist group."

Anonymous said...

It's true.

Even ronald reagun illegally sold arms to Iran to fund an illegal war by terrorists in Central America. It's not anything more than a fact.

bush sr. and donald rumsfeld sold chemical weapons to Iraq.

There is NO GOOD to come out of supporting terrorists of any kind. By anyone. It's un-American.

Anonymous said...

And Reagan should have been jailed for selling arms to Iran, the hostage-takers of our embassy employees, and Bush Sr. should have never been President and Jr. should have never been President-Select. There are Iranians that are good people, and eventually good people shall rule Iran. But for now, you have bad people doing so, and they only aggravate the situation. They HAVENT attacked anyone. Let the artists make their way through, and an occasional one shall be trounced on by the Guard. Let it be known when this happens, and eventually, change shall take place. However, I am not likely to have the palette for Iranian animation, unless something really good is done and comes to the surface, I'll likely pass after a few minutes of observation. I am not going to pay respect to Iranian animation attempts in order to protest their government any more than am I going to ignore really good animation in order to oppose their goverment.

Anonymous said...

I think I see the problem, here. You are conflating and confusing; "terrorists," "insurgents" "imperialists" and "dictatorships." Dictatorships oppress and politically suppress their own people, like the current Iranian regime and Saddam Husein's Iraq. Insurgents are political rebels who want to take power in their own country by force, like the Sandinista's or many other violent political groups around the world. Their targets are the powers that be; the local governments.
Terrorists are at war with the whole world; governments, civilians, all fair game. In their country or others. Anyone opposing them is the enemy.

Iran's current government supports insurgents, for sure. They started as an insurgency, themselves. They support Hamas and Hezbollah. Insurgencies? Definitely. Terrorists? Yes, when they attack civilians and non-combatants.

Does America support insurgencies? Yes, frequently. Terrorists? Absolutely not.

What does this have to do with animation? Absolutely nothing.

Anonymous said...

This topic is about artists, not rogue governments. We know how intelligent and opinioned you are. But you are not going to change anyones desire to view an animation coming out of anywhere in the world. If it comes out of a state free enough to have produced it, what is on the other side of the artist that prevents you from seeing it?

Anonymous said...

Your nice, tidy definitions obscure the reality that the line distinguishing between "insurgents" and "terrorists" frequently gets blurred.

Terrorism does not distinguish between military and civilian targets. Many insurgent groups employ terrorist tactics to further their aims. Terrorists need not be at war with the whole world--that is an inaccurate description. They need only instill terror in a local population, if it serves them.

The Contras come to mind as an insurgent group that employed terrorist tactics. They killed cilivian populations, and targeted Catholic priests. We gave them no shortage of support--financial, logistical, weaponry, and personnel.

Anonymous said...

How long ago was that? Too long, IMO to use the present tense. Let's get back to Israel: Which "terrorists" do they support?

Anonymous said...

How long ago was that? Too long, IMO to use the present tense.

Oh, of course! Stuff that perfectly valid evidence under the rug arbitrarily. By the way, that was just the example I used off the top of my head, I could drudge up plenty of others if I cared enough.

I'm not the "Israel = terrorists" commenter, but I do think that it's clear that, these days, Israel is the cause of most of its own problems. It brings many of its troubles onto itself lately. No one has an inherent, "god-given" right to land that has historically been shared by many different people--especially land that has been annexed.

Anonymous said...

So, wipe them from the face of the earth?

It's not the Israelis but the Arabists and Islamists who believe that Arabs should be in control of every single grain of sand in the Middle East.

It was the UN, not the Bible that established the State of Israel. The original partition agreement even excluded Jerusalem. The Jews accepted it. It was the absolutist Arabs who rejected it. By the way, there was a sizable Jewish population already in place at the time. The partition plan was not arbitrary. It was based on existing demographics.

Site Meter