something about the Mask, Not sure...next.
if it's special, faces have names.

By doir at 01:32 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

REF:http://www.just-marvel-x-men.com/image-files/astonishing-x-men-1-100k.jpg

QUOTE: "The black rucksack is perhaps the most politically charged wearable object of current times. Especially when worn by a NON-CAUCASIAN PERSON. "

Really what is the point of doing something , writing something to purposely ' POISON ' people's minds and craftily make everyone a ' SUSPECT ' of being a 'dormant ' racist with that 'POLITICALLY CORRECT " , totally false and inaccurate statement ?..... as I PERSONALLY see it !...
Does it accurately mean that if I a person sees an INDIAN, CHINESE, JAPANESE, NIGERIAN, ARGENTINIAN, POLYNESIAN, BRAZILIAN,AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL, TIBETAN , A ZULU .... wearing the bacpack they are supposse to immediatly trigger you line of POLITICALLY CORRECT POISONOUS THOUGHT ? ......

Could you be so kind and take the time to explain and be more specific about where did you get your 'scientifically ' proven ' FACTS' with that well known margin of error , could you please name the source in order to TOTALLY 100% VALIDATE your ' CLAIM ' ? and by doing so I may then be able to apologise to you for calling your statement a TOTALLY MANIPULATIVE INACCURATE and very MALICIOUS statement ... in which you very implicitly and with a kind of hidden pleasure seem to mention the word .........NON- CAUCASIAN...... unless of course you have the Godgiven GIFT of being able to read everyone's mind on the streets, in a store, on the bus, on the plain .... just like one of those .... X-MAN !!

I do really find it appalling how the press for that matter .... manipulates and poisons people's mind as well ..... as if they think and already assume that ordinary people are that 'brainless' as not to be able to make deductions by themselves..

QOUTE" Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead by police at Stockwell tube station on 22 July 2005.....'

NO he was not shot because he was BRAZILIAN or because he was just simply wearing a rucksack !! .. HE as a matter of fact made a suspect of himself by
not complying with the police demands at that very point in time ... by FOOLISHLY making himself a SUSPECT and therefore an UNWILLING and INNOCENT TARGET .... and all in all with the compliments of those totally TWISTED MINDS who are unwittingly called and made themselves TERRORISTS! whom out of INSANE HATE and TOTAL IRRATIONALITY go around planting bombs and targeting any baby, child, woman, mother,grandmother, father grandfather, elderly , hard working people of all COLOURS, SIZE, NATIONALITIES and any innocent who by MISFORTUNE happened to be around them at that MOMENT , and all just because they have nothing better and positive to do with their very short lives on this wonderful planet ....

Please do think twice when writing something that doesn't totally add up before you make every ' CAUCASIAN' a TARGET with such vociferous statement !

JEAN CHARLES was not a victim of the POLICE because they love shooting people at random and wherever they come from ... very unfortunately and tragic what happened but NOW we know why it all happened but had he chosen to stay put at that very moment nothing would had happened because there are laws in place to make sure the Police is accountable to the legal system, not like in BRAZIL self where ironically their Police as a matter of fact do shoot poor street children from the FABELAS out of pleasure !! ..... so it seems !... Read the press !

In my opinion it was nobody's blame ... IT WAS AS A TRUE MATTER OF FACT ... THE TERRORISTS BLAME !!!

If one thing your film does for me is just to reinforce the cause you seem to try to shed a light on but with the NEGATIVE effect ... from now I think I will become really weary of any backpack at all because of the possibilities of a nuclear bomb hidden inside ..... while before it never bothered me to see ANYONE carrying a backpack . THANK YOU for warning us !

By Galileo's Universe at 08:38 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

intelligent film.
Aitor Throup is the most original designer for ages.

By saint at 08:41 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

If a film gets this reaction - wow - its worked.

I'm sorry our friend from Greenland clearly didn't follow the inquiry into the Stockwell tube shooting, as witness statements say he the police did not instruct him to comply.

The media on the day of the shooting said he was seen with wires hanging out of his rucksack - fact or not this was what people thought at first, young men were asked to take bags off shoulders here and in NYC. The failed attempt to blow the London buses were all with black rucksacks and all non-white young men.

I suspect in Greenland the population is more used to Santa's sack than the reality that backpack's have been used in London to murder in the name of Islam. And the unfortunate consequence is a climate of suspicion that does relate to the way people dress.

Great film, Jez Tozer is the emerging talent I'm keen to see more of. Bravo.

By mopar at 10:24 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

Does Santa really live in Finland? I thought it was Lapland or Greenland?

My point is that your comments are speculation not experience as you don't live in London.

I am assuming you are formulating an opinion from what you have gathered in the media, and did not read the summary of the inquiry.

The "facts" are this;

- The recent bombs on the underground/ buses successful and unsuccessful were carried in ruck-sacks.

- They were carried by young men of middle-eastern origin.

The point of the film as I see it is that these facts have conspired to create fear of a stereotype (skin colour/ male/ youth/ suicide bombers) by those living in urban areas.

I don't think of bombs every time I see a ruck-sack or a Muslim. But those carrying ruck-sacks were asked to remove them from there backs based on suspicion.

I think you agree with the films message but the subtly has gone over our head rather like Santa. . ho . ho .ho

I wonder how many kids would still sit on Santa's lap if he blew himself up in Hamley's - now that would be a negative situation.

By mopar at 12:14 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

Oh well it seems that I have to give you a lesson in Geography ! and to tink that you are a PHOTOGRAPHER !! .. anyway JUST to ENLIGHTEN you and help you to locate Lapland ..:):)

LAPLAND ....a region in northern Europe that extends from the Norwegian Sea to the White Sea and lies mainly within the Arctic Circle. It consists of the northern parts of Norway, Sweden, and Finland, as well as the Kola Peninsula of Russia.

About the 'facts' as you wrote them ... yes I do know that... I'm not disputing that as a matter of clarity.

QUOTE: ' The point of the film as I see it is that these facts have conspired to create fear of a stereotype (skin colour/ male/ youth/ suicide bombers) by those living in urban areas. "
Conspired ? ..... but aren't you talking about FACTS ?... No I don't think the facts have 'conspired '.... the 'unbiased ' press have turned the facts into a so called 'conspiracy' and because of the atrocious acts by the terrorist , a climate of 'suspicion ' has been created against even their own relatives , that I must give it to the terrorits ! ... they are ' CLEVER ' but in a totally twisted and evil way !
They do seem to have achieved something after all !!! .. and that is their triumph ! ..... as I personally see , but then that is my opinion of no importance!

QUOTE: ' I think you agree with the films message but the subtly has gone over our head rather like Santa. . ho . ho .ho " ...

No I don't ! ..... if one thing it seems to point to the wrong direction ... the direction the TERRORIST precisely want to .... so in order to claim the " RACIST' .... theory and make everyone else' s who may look like them ... a so called ...'suspect' Do not underestimate their use of psychology, they do know how to divide people and turn them against each other, and they certainly have achieved that as this films seems to prove by using Jean Charles as an example .... that is very unfortunate, indeed !

QUOTE: " I wonder how many kids would still sit on Santa's lap if he blew himself up in Hamley's - now that would be a negative situation. "
Well your imagination does seem to reach the NORTH POLE ... lol !!... but then again that would certainly be a psychopath in disguise.... and no doubt that would be really sick if that happens to involve children !! ...... and I wouldn't put ideas in their minds ... anything is possible with them !!

By Galileo's Universe at 13:04 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

You've been babbling on this sight for years - upholding the reputation for drivel forums unfortunately have. I regret having instigated further nonsense no-one will read.

Powerful film - credit to all involved.

By mopar at 14:21 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

Where's Chris Summerfield when you need him most . . ?

By mopar at 15:17 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

This is the most blatant form of exploitation that I have seen on the web for a long time: I escaped one of the bombings in London. The theoretic concept of this work is naive in the extreme. It is subversive for all the wrong reasons. I suppose using a skull is really fashionable at the moment?

By marko at 16:37 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

Don't be so ridiculous

By mopar at 16:44 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

does no-one else shite themselves when someone comes on the tube with a beard and a ruck-sack? does this make you a bad person?

I would say not.

Anyways, i thought fashion was all about making judgements and inferences on what people chose to wear. this project for example suggests that what ppl wear has political significance.

and now this film comes along trying to say that we're assholes for making any inference at all.

this is getting confusing. If I was marking you, you'd get a high 2:2 for this.

By bamia at 18:12 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

Where does flattery get you?

By marko at 18:58 Fri 04 Apr 2008
reply to this

.... it all sounds more like an exploitative propaganda item and very bias !... perhaps not the original intention but definitely ... the effect !

By Galileo's Universe at 07:16 Sun 06 Apr 2008
reply to this

There is a huge difference between a fine artist making a political statement, and a fashion type 'art' approach to making a visual statement. An artist usually engages with his subject matter for months or years, and usually does extensive research that can encompass contemporary theoretical and cultural debates. It seems that most fashion type projects are just done because they look good and use outmoded shock type tactics to draw attention. Anyway, it seems that a lot of people do not even know what political really means in relation to fashion. And finally, most people in the UK do not travel by tube, so the rucksack is not really a potent symbol of anything for a large majority of the UK public.

By marko at 17:53 Sun 06 Apr 2008
reply to this