Google
 

Gary Glitter to be released from prison this month

August 5th, 2008 by Scott Marks

Gary Glitter on his way to Thu Doc prison in 2005

Glam rocker Gary Glitter is the only entertainer to spend more time in Viet Nam than Bob Hope. While Bob’s biggest sin was holding an audience of bored G.I.’s captive for 90 minutes, Gary spent three years in the Thu Duc prison for committing obscene acts with two girls, ages 10 and 11.

In 1999, the British Pop Star was listed as a sex offender after he was convicted of having downloaded 4,000 images of child porn to his computer. He tried in vain to keep his recording career going, but the public wasn’t in the market for the song stylings of a convicted child molester. Vincent LaGuardia Gambini Sings Just for You sold more copies than anything Glitter offered.

In 2002, Glitter was suspected of sexually abusing minors and permanently exiled from Cambodia. According to the Bangkok Post, Glitter, whose real name is Paul Francis Gadd, was accused of kissing, fondling and “engaging in other physical acts” with the girls at his rented villa. Continue reading Gary Glitter to be released from prison this month

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Filed Under News, Rants

Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch to be auctioned off to the highest bidder

February 27th, 2008 by Scott Marks

jacko-and-his-ranch-hands.jpg

Q: What did Emmanuel Lewis say to the hovering helicopter pilot?
A: NEVER LAND!!!

Unless Jacko can come up with the $24,525,906.61 he still owes on the Neverland Ranch, the gloved one’s Pleasure Island will be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The Santa Maria Times has learned that Financial Title Co. filed the notice of trustee’s sale with Santa Barbara County Superior Court, setting the auction date for March 19.

The Fox News website said a five-page notice of trustees sale stated that Jackson was “in default of a deed of trust” and “Unless you take action to protect your property it may be sold at a public sale.”

In 2006 authorities ordered the property to be boarded up and fined Jackson for failing to pay his 70 employees or maintain proper insurance. The pop superstar has not lived in the Ranch since 2005 when he was acquitted of all charges after being put on trial over allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior towards young boys.

Telegraph.co.uk noted, “At his trial, defence lawyers described Neverland as a fantasy-land where children from underprivileged areas would spend the day playing as Jackson did his creative thinking from atop a tree.”

When Jackson acquired the approximately 3,000 acre estate in 1987 he quickly installed a private amusement park complete with a Ferris wheel, merry-go-round, spider, sea dragon, wave swinger, super slide, dragon wagon kiddie roller coaster, bumper cars and the pop star’s favorite attraction, his zipper. Neverland also housed a well-stocked and fully operational zoo. All of the ranch’s furnishings and assorted fairground items would also be put on the auction block.

In addition to acting as an oasis for children, the Neverland Ranch also hosted numerous celebrity parties including the storybook wedding of Liz Taylor and Larry Fortensky.

Who would have guessed that Michael Jackson would belong to the more than 1 percent of US households that were in some stage of foreclosure during 2007? Certainly not Michu or Bubbles the Chimp.

threes-company.jpg

Tags: , , , , ,

Filed Under News

What’s wrong with this photo of Michael Jackson?

July 13th, 2007 by Scott Marks

No, it isn’t Jacko’s mismatched socks. The real boner is that the icky girls outnumber the boys 3 to 1.

Neverland Raunch

Tags: , ,

Filed Under Rants

BORN INTO BROTHELS: CALCUTTA’S RED LIGHT KIDS / Zana Briski & Ross Kauffman (2004)

January 21st, 2005 by Scott Marks

Born Into Brothels: Calcutta’s Red Light Kids (2004)
Directed by: Zana Briski, Ross Kauffman
Written by: Zana Briski, Ross Kauffman
Aspect Ratio: 1.85 : 1
Genres: Documentary

Rating: ☆☆☆☆☆

Another windowboxed, grainy, hand-held documentary on an emotionally burdensome topic.

We open with cumulus-sized close-ups of a child’s eyes intercut with long shots of poverty and famine. Why not just throw bricks? Is it really that hard to make a well-intentioned film about children void of sentiment?

We follow the lives of several children of prostitutes trapped by fate in Calcutta’s red light district. The goal of the film is to document their hell in hopes of making their lives better. Where does one draw the line between enlightenment and exploitation? It’s one thing to document the plight of third world children being forced into prostitution. It’s another to choose brutal images that, at the expense of the film’s narrative, may have been prevented.

There are a couple of scenes where mothers call children “f***ing c****” and, in one case, beat up on a boy. Put the camera down and do something to stop this abuse. I know this breaks the first rule of documentary cinematography, but what about the laws of humanity, something this film definitely wishes to hammer home.

The filmmakers hope to liberate these children by giving them still cameras in order to allow them artistic expression. After about the third or fourth on-screen portfolio it became what Pauline Kael called a “coffee table movie.” The majority of quality photos by the children on display are happy accidents. The most praised picture of the bunch has a child’s hand in the center that was not intentionally placed there. Is this really teaching children how to “see” or is this just a distraction to help get them through their lives (in addition to giving Briske and Kauffman a chance to produce a film)?

What’s ironic is that the children’s images are a hell of a lot more aesthetically competent than the cinematography. Briske is a still photographer who knows nothing about cinema and it shows in virtually every frame. Strictly shoot-now-and-figure-it-out-later filmmaking. Formally, this is no better or worse than Jackass: The Movie. Of course the message is an important one, but were it transformed into a literary essay loaded with grammatical errors would she still court the critic’s favor? Call me cynical, but this film raised more questions about the misapplication of cinema and sentiment than answers to the children’s dilemma.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Filed Under Reviews, Theatrical