Thursday, May 9, 2013

Pierce Brosnan – Love Is All You Need

“I know something of the life that this man lives in this film,” says Pierce Brosnan, when asked what attracted him to Love Is All You Need. It’s without doubt his most personal role to date. He plays a character very different from the cool, calm and collected men of action that dominate his résumé, which includes the title role in the TV series Remington Steele, and leads in movies such as Dante's Peak, The Thomas Crown Affair and The Tailor of Panama, as well as a four-film stint as James Bond, in Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day.

Though still suave and sophisticated, in Love Is All You Need, Brosnan’s character Philip is also very vulnerable beneath his expensive suits and default crabby demeanor. Philip is an English businessman isolated by geography in Denmark, and cut off from love due to the untimely and sudden death of his wife. As a coping mechanism, he divorces himself from his emotions and thrusts himself into his work running an international fruit and vegetable import/export empire. However, on the way to his son’s wedding at a picturesque but neglected Italian villa, surrounded by orange and lemon groves, that he once shared with his late wife, love literally and metaphorically crashes into Philip's life.

The somewhat chaotic Ida, played with extreme candor and subtlety by Danish actress Tinre Dyrholm, is the last thing Philip wants in his well-ordered and controlled world. But she is everything he needs. They bump into each other when Ida reverses her beat up car into Philip’s pristine one in an airport parking lot. As they exchange information, to their mutual horror and embarrassment, they realize they are both en route to the same wedding since Ida is the mother of the bride.

Ida’s vulnerabilities are far less well concealed than Philip’s. Indeed her wig is knocked off when her car airbag inflates, revealing a scalp left hairless due to the rigors of chemotherapy. But her hair – and a breast – are not the only losses Ida’s recently endured. Her husband has also just walked out on her, and into the arms of a younger woman. As a result, Ida is barely able to keep it together as she suffers the weight of Philip’s frustration and scorn. But her kindness, dignity, and cheerful spirit in the face of adversity prevail, and ultimately chip away at the stone that surrounds Philip’s heart.

Though dealing with the grim realities of breast cancer in an unusually honest way, the film –– which was directed by Academy Award-winning Danish filmmaker Susanne Bier and produced by Vibeke Windeløv, who has worked extensively with Dogme director Lars von Trier –– is very much a celebration of life and love. The two central characters ultimately come to terms with their respective losses, and find a way to move past them, and it’s this aspect that resonates deeply with Brosnan’s own experience.

The Irish born actor lost his first wife, Cassandra Harris, after a four-year battle with ovarian cancer in 1991. She was just 43. Like Philip, Brosnan eventually allowed himself to love again, and married journalist Keely Shaye Smith after a 7 year courtship in 2001. The couple have now been together for over 19 years and tirelessly campaign to raise awareness and money for environmental causes and women’s healthcare issues.

I recently met up with Brosnan at the Regent Beverly Wilshire hotel to talk about Love Is All You Need, which is in theaters now.

Nicole Powers: You must have been at this all day.

Pierce Brosnan: I have actually. All day, all yesterday, all week, but it’s good, because the film is a beautiful film.

NP: I was just going to say how beautiful it was. It’s a very unusual love story too, because it’s not just about the transformative power of love, it’s about the transformative power of a little honesty and a lot of kindness.

PB: It is. You’re absolutely right in that regard. It is about kindness, it is about affairs of the heart, it’s about the humanity of people’s lives who are mangled by love or by their own infidelities. It’s also about a woman who’s dealing with the rigors and the stress of breast cancer and trying to cleave her way through the healing of that, and a man, like myself, who is dormant within his own widowdom. That’s the power and the glory of Susanne Bier, she’s a really fantastic writer, a fantastic director.

NP: I love the brave choices she made. I mean, there’s the traditional Hollywood portrayal of cancer, but she chose not to take that route. There’s a particularly powerful bathing scene where you actually see…

PB: Her breast.

NP: And her wound. And that was important, to see that and have that honesty in the portrayal.

PB: Yes. I think it’s one of the most gorgeous scenes in the movie. I think it’s probably the epicenter of the movie. You see the vulnerability of this magnificent woman played by Trine Dyrholm. You see the joy away from the pain of cancer [as she’s] just bathing in these gorgeous waters – naked and abandoned to life. Then he thinks she’s drowning, it’s very tender and really beautifully done. It was an amazing setting to play the scene out in, and to see Trine do it with such courage and be naked. It’s not easy to be naked and have a camera on your as well.

NP: I also think it was a very courageous film for you to take on, because it must have brought back some painful memories from your past.

PB: It was come the day for the memories to go there, to go back to the loss of a wife that you loved, to go back and touch into that space and time and heart. But one does that in many different ways in your work. That’s what the job and the art of acting is, to go back to places that you don’t necessarily want to go back to and to bring them alive. That’s the challenge. And if you have a piece like this that is so supportive for those memories, and you have a director like Susanne Bier, who’s directing you through the piece, then you can surrender to it. And you have actors like Trine before you who make you real.

NP: Yes, she’s incredible. When you first saw the script what attracted you to it?

PB: Because I could identify with the emblems that were in this character’s life. Losing a wife, being a single parent, being a widower, being, not necessarily a workaholic – because I do like to do work. I love working, I love acting, and it’s what I do.

NP: And finding love again?

PB: And finding love again, I knew about that. I’ve got a great girl, a great woman who’s my North Star, nineteen years together going down the road. So, you know, I know something of the life that this man lives in this film. It’s about faith, new beginnings, all in the celebration of a wedding. Everyone can identify with a wedding. It’s the bringing together of two families, it’s a bringing together of a man and a woman, a boy and a girl, their love in the eyes of god, so there’s all of that ceremony that is timeless, generation after generation. And then the crazy, madcap world within that when they clash and the alcohol flows and the music flows and the resentments come out and people really begin to show themselves.

NP: The whole thing with family is that you have to love them despite their flaws.

PB: Yeah, you do. Because we’re all cracked and fractured, that’s love and only love really. It’s the essence of being human, being kind with whatever you do – writing, painting, being a dentist or being an accountant or whatever – I think it’s to be kind, to be loving.

NP: How long did you get to spend in Italy? The location was stunning.

PB: We spent just over a month there. It was amazing. It was just fabulous. Sorrento is a gorgeous part of the Italian coastline.

NP: I went on vacation there. It was the best trip I’ve ever had in my entire life. And seeing that villa set amongst the orange and lemon groves made me want smell-o-vision, because it must have smelt good.

PB: Oh, it was mighty, it was really, really unbelievable. I had the time of my life. It’s a film that I will carry in my heart forever and a day, because of the nature of it. Then that it’s there on film, that Morten [Søborg], the DP, captured it in such glorious color. And to wake up every day and go to work and Vibeke [Windeløv], one of the producers on the film, who’s a very charismatic lady. She found a villa for me, so I lived in the Villa Tritone, which was down the back streets. Do you remember when you were there, you could go down the back streets of Sorrento, down to the little village, the little bay? Well, as you go down that avenue, just before you get to the Saracens’ Gate, if you remember that, where the Saracens came through all those centuries ago, on the right there were green gates, and there was the Villa Tritone. So I stayed in this villa. Vibeke made a deal with the lovely owners, I stayed there, and then consequently all the cast and crew could come in – because they wanted to have James Bond in their house. [laughs] God love ‘em! God bless ‘em! [Puts on thick Irish accent] I’m just an actor. There you go, let’s party guys!

NP: This movie, and Mamma Mia, which is also set in a Mediterranean surrounding and centered around a wedding, made me realize that Europeans know how to eat, drink, and be merry, in a way that…

PB: Americans do, Americans do as well.

NP: But the lushness of the land, and the connection of it to the wine and the produce on the table…

PB:: Well, there is that old worldliness to it – that’s what’s so beguiling and captivating. These films are like bookends, Mamma Mia and this one. They sit there like bookends on the shelf. Because both are surrounded by the epicenter of a wedding.

NP: Did the locals enjoy the fact that James Bond was staying in their town? Were there any particularly funny moments with the locals while you were in Sorrento?

PB: Erm…Yes, but I can’t really talk about the one that comes to mind. [laughs] It involves…Oh no, I couldn’t. You’ll have to read the memoirs for that one. [laughs]

NP: [laughs] Damn, that’s a tease!

PB: It’s a tease, isn’t it? No, not really, I wondered around and, you know, the locals…I’d get out and about and I’d go to church Sundays, because the churches are everywhere, on every corner, and they’re so magnificent and such a celebration of faith. And the food was fantastic. I met a family who had a boat, so some days I’d just go around the coast and down the coast of the Amalfi.

NP: Ah, the Amalfi Coast.

PB: It was just around the corner, literally.

NP: Yeah, I took a bus trip along the coastal cliff road, and the bus was so long and the corners were so sharp it felt like we were going to plunge over the edge at times.

PB: Yeah, best not to look too closely. That opening scene with us in the car, that was all along the Amalfi Coast. I don't know how the hell we managed to do it but we did…But it was an embarrassment of riches.

NP: Well your career’s almost been an embarrassment of riches. I mean you got a big break early on when Tennessee Williams handpicked you to be in the UK premiere of his play [The Red Devil Battery Sign], and then you’ve work with Roman Polanski on The Ghost Writer – is there anyone you feel that you’ve yet to work with?

PB: Oh, so many, so many.

NP: Who? Put their names out into the universe and see what comes back.

PB: I’d love to work with Ang Lee and David O. Russell, I’d love to work with Robert De Niro, Quentin Tarantino – he wanted to do James Bond.

NP: Yeah?

PB: Yeah.

NP: I could see that actually.

PB: We got so, so polluted one night, he and I. Just absolutely in our cups at the Four Seasons.

NP: That’s a nice euphemism. What were you getting “polluted” on?

PB: Apple Martinis.

NP: They’re lethal.

PB: Ah, lethal.

NP: Because they’re so fruity.

PB: Ah, fruity, we were being very fruity that night, the two of us.

Publicist: [walks through the door and interrupts our conversation to bring the interview to a close] On that fruity note…So sorry

PB: On that fruity note…there we go…

NP: Nooo! Just as I’m getting the story of the night Pierce Brosnan gets drunk on Apple Martinis with Quentin Tarantino – Argh!!!!

Monday, April 1, 2013

Rob Zombie – The Lords of Salem

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Monday, March 11, 2013

Jules Stewart – K-11

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Cory Doctorow: Homeland –– Part 2

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Cory Doctorow: Homeland

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Kalle Lasn - Meme Wars: The Creative Destruction of Neoclassical Economics

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

We Are Weev

by Nicole Powers

These days, it's kinda like your computer illiterate granddad is laying down the law on the internet. Only worse. Cause your computer illiterate granddad doesn't have the power to send your ass to jail for longer than most rapists for the crime of clicking on the wrong http link. Which is something the US government is trying to do. Fo' realz. Yep. That.

Case in point. Andrew Alan Escher Auernheimer, a.k.a. @rabite, a.k.a. Weev. He's just been found guilty on one count of not actually hacking anything and one count of having a list of email addresses, even though no one bothered to prove he ever actually had 'em, tho everyone agrees his mate did. Confusing right? You can totally imagine Gramps throwing his hands in the air at this point and saying to hell with this good-for-nothing with two too many silly-ass names - which is pretty much what the US government is doing.

Part of the problem is that the laws Andrew Alan Escher Auernheimer, fuck it, let's just call him Weev, has been found guilty of violating - which came into being under the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) - predate Hypertext Transfer Protocol, the first documented version of which, V0.9, was codified in 1991. In light of the fact that we've yet to come up with a fully functioning flux capacitor, as you can imagine, the application of the CFAA on today's internet works about as well as Doc Brown's DeLorean time machine.

***

"Couldn't it be argued that Weev actually did something good and beneficial for society?"

Wait? Wut? If that's the case, remind me why Grampa Government is trying to throw his ass in jail?

I'm chatting with Jay Leiderman, a chap who knows a thing or three about the law and the internet. He's an elite California State Bar Certified Criminal Law Specialist-grade lawyer who's defended several high profile hacktivist types, including Raynaldo Rivera of LulzSec and Commander X of the Peoples Liberation Front. He also happens to be a Twitter ninja, which is how I got to know him. A quick perusal of his @LeidermanDevine twitter feed will tell you Jay's a rare legit legal animal who clearly gets today's wobbly whirly web, which is why I called him up to discuss Weev's wobbly whirly situation, which is as follows...

On November 20, 2012, in a Newark, NJ court, Weev was convicted of USC 1028, "identity theft" (as in "stealing" a list of email addresses) and USC 1030 "conspiracy to access a computer device without authorization" -- which, according to Jay, is something we technically all do multiple times every day. Given that Weev was singled out of the entirety of America's online population for prosecution, in real terms, it's safe to say what he's actually more guilty of is embarrassing the fuck out of a Fortune 500 company...and the government no likey that.

Let me explain: Back in 2010 when the iPad first came out, Weev's mate figured out that AT&T was doing a sloppy ass job with autofill on an app, and in the course of achieving this great technological feat had publicly published the e-mail addresses and ICC-IDs (the identifiers that match a person to their SIM card in a mobile device) of its entire iPad customer base on the web - with no password, no firewall, no fuck off or die warning, no nothing to protect them. Yep. Really. They were that dumb.

"There's an AT&T web app that had a URL on it with a number at the end, and if you added one to the number you would see the next email address," explains Weev by phone after I tracked his ass down via teh twitters. Obviously there's quicker ways to get kicks online than adding a digit to a URL and hitting return (have you tried Googling Goatse?), so Weeve's ever resourceful mate, Daniel Spitler, created an app called the "iPad 3G Account Slurper" which sucked up well over 100,000 addresses. "My friend just wrote a script to irate though and add one to the number again and again and again," Weeve tells me. "It's not fucking rocket science. It's basic arithmetic. It could have been done manually on any iPad."

So that explains how they "stole" the list of publicly published email addresses, but why might be a better question to ask. "Comment and criticism against large companies which go unchecked in our country," replies Weev, when I ask him. "And making a public spectacle and ridiculing them, which I think frankly makes me the best fucking American in the room. We used to be a country that valued criticism of the powerful, and we haven't really been in the past three decades."

To add context, at the time, Weev and his mate (who copped a plea bargain) were working under the banner of Goatse Security, and as such, their mission in life was to explore gaping holes (I told you to Google Goatse!). AT&T's might not have been the sexiest of holes, but it was gaping and it could be argued that it was in the public interest that Goatse Security rummage around in it.

Among the private email addresses that AT&T were publicly publishing were ones belonging to politicians (New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel), members of the military and multiple government agencies (DARPA, DHS, NSA, FAA and FCC), and high profile media types (Diane Sawyer and New York Times CEO Janet Robinson). Goatse Security could have had much lulz with the list and/or sold it for mucho dinero, an option which the duo allegedly discussed in IRC chats but put aside. Instead, they decided to go to the press to speak truth to power, which was really when the trouble began.

Weev served as Goatse's spokesperson and spin master. It was his job to liaise with the media and present stories in a way that might titillate us lazy-ass scribes. "Hey, look, I just found a list of email addresses on a bunch publicly accessible web pages" might have been accurate, but it wasn't the kind of story that would make copy even on the slowest of news days, so Weev sexed it up a bit. In a press release sent to several news outlets he wrote, "I stole your email," and, like a magician offering to explain a trick, followed it up with, "Let me explain the method of theft."

Because of this hyperbole, Weev essentially convicted himself on the first count of "identity theft." The prosecution spent much of their time with Weeve on the stand discussing his use of the words "stole" and "theft" during cross-examination. I mean, I know it's said that sarcasm is the lowest form of humor, but I didn't know it was illegal! And speaking of the law's humor bind spot, the prosecution also referred to Weev's Encyclopedia Dramatica entry and used that against him, which, given the spoof nature of the site, is tantamount to using a Saturday Night Live skit as legitimate and damning character evidence. I. Kid. You. Not.

At no time did Goatse ever make the list publicly available - AT&T were the only ones doing that. The prosecution never really attempted to prove that Weev possessed the full list of email addresses. What neither side disputes is that Weev tapped the list for a handful of press email contacts (something he would have likely got by calling the media outlets direct anyways), then merely passed on a link to it to a journalist for verification. The journalist in question was Ryan Tate of Gawker. His story ran on June 9th, 2010, and it was because of this that the shit hit the proverbial fan.

"This access would have gone unnoticed if I hadn't gone to the press. If I hadn't informed AT&T's customers," says Weev. "They're not really pissed about the access, they're pissed about the speech attached to the access. God forbid corporations be subject to fair comment and criticism."

Talking of access, the second count Weev was convicted of - "conspiracy to access a computer device without authorization" - is something that should be cause for concern for anyone that has ever clicked on anything on the web. The way this law - which predates all of One Direction and the hyperlinked internet as we know it - is interpreted means that accessing a "protected computer" could get your ass slung in jail. But what is a "protected computer" and how the fuck are you supposed to know when you're accessing one? This is where the law gets interesting. And by interesting, I mean really fucking stupid.

"The definition of protected computer comes from comes from the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, and in 1986 http hadn't been invented yet," says Weev. "This was a long time ago when servers were things that were only accessible by dial-up that every single one universally had a password for. There wasn't the concept of a public network. At the time, if you were accessing a remote server, and you didn't have permission to be there it's clear that it wasn't public data. But now it's the age of the internet. We click links every day. You've never gotten Google's permission to go to Google, you've never gotten any website's permission that you've visited. It's the universally understood aspect of the web that you can visit a public http server without pre-written authorization. It's a ridiculous notion that you need it. And the prosecutor is using an ancient antiquated definition of a protected system, which is any system that engages in interstate commerce. So essentially, every cell phone, every computer, every public web server is a protected system, and the minute you do something that a website operator doesn't like - if they're rich enough of course, if they're a Fortune 500 company - then they can have you."

That might sound rather dramatic, but Jay, my favorite SG-lovin' lawyer agrees. "Based upon this case, the government's new position is that you are required to be clairvoyant in terms of determining what a protected computer is and what a non protected one is," he tells me. "From now on you have to be a psychic...because if it isn't password protected but it's a 'protected computer' you're potentially going to be found guilty like Weev was."

Thank god there's free tittysprinkles on the internet, because otherwise the risks of clicking on something you shouldn't wouldn't be worth price. As Weev puts it, "The law says every time that you click a link, if the person at the other end has enough money and connections, and they just don't like you, they can have you arbitrarily thrown in jail by declaring your access - after the fact - unauthorized."

But how did we get from "something good and beneficial for society" to "free tittysprinkles"? Well, some might see a very obvious linear connection, but those that don't should consider this; There's a cat and mouse game that goes on between big business and the internet security community, but it's a symbiotic relationship nevertheless. And as consumers who are clueless when it comes to code, we should be grateful to those that are scanning for flaws, and pressuring big corporations to sort their shit out on our behalf.

"Perhaps the greatest lesson of Weev's case is that not only is there no reward for helping these companies patch their holes and fix themselves, indeed now you're going to be facing ten or fifteen years of prison if you do," says Jay. "What's the incentive to make these companies more secure? I mean, you're better off just hacking them now. You're better off just hacking these companies and not telling them. If you get caught essentially you're facing about the same punishment anyway so what's the difference?"

***

Weev is currently in the process of appealing his conviction. You can donate to help with his legal costs here.

And tell Grampa Government to get off our lawn and out of our emails.

Isn't it time we upgraded our legal operating system?