DUNE II is better than DUNE (2021) -- though neither is as good as 1984's DUNE. The film works best when it emphasizes Timothee Chalamet the least. He still can't carry an action film -- not on those petite shoulders. He comes across less an action figure and more a fashion doll. Early on, he is supposed to be triumphant over an ambush but comes across as though he's working the runway. Instead of DUNE II, it should have been entitled DUNE: A FOP IN EMPEROR SHADDAM'S COURT. Frank Herbert wrote some great books. At least he died before Timothee was born and didn't have to see this abomination.
It'll be a hit but mainly just because there's nothing else to watch. This is the worst time for movies right now. They don't have enough product and they're not working to bring in audiences with anything that qualifies as quality.
It's such a shame because DUNE II would really be something with Keith Powers or Michael B. Jordan in the role.
Other news. PARAMOUNT cancelled WOLF PACK. I didn't know. I was mentioning to C.I. that I wondered if there would be a season two? She said only if another streamer picked it up. Huh? At the end of January, it was learned that PARAMOUNT+ wasn't interested in a second season.
WOLF PACK brought in viewers. There's nothing else that's been on PARAMOUNT+ that I have watched. It's a useless streamer. Old people shows for the elderly. The one good show that they had and they axed it.
It would be great if NETFLIX picked it up or PEACOCK. THE TOURIST was a hit for HBO MAX but now just MAX dumped it. NETFLIX has season two. Be great if they'd grab WOLF PACK as well. PEACOCK dumped GIRLS5EVA after two seasons but NETFLIX is giving the show a third season.
Please read Mike's "You know Dusty Springfield used to tuck a maxi pad under there to give it
more oomph" which sums up FEUD: CAPOTE VS THE SWANS and Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Lorne Michaels tries to shift the overton window" which addresses SNL letting a hate merchant host last week.
Going out with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
New doubts are emerging about the New York Times’s coverage of sexual violence during the October 7 Hamas-led attack — and the paper owes its readers an open and transparent explanation.
What’s more, its reporting on this issue has become so questionable that it should assign new reporters to go over the entire story again.
The latest questions are centered around Anat Schwartz, an Israeli who co-authored several of the paper’s most widely circulated reports, including the now well-known and scrutinized December 28 article headlined: “‘Screams Without Words’’ How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.”
Independent researchers scrutinized the online record, and raised serious questions about Schwartz. First, she has apparently never been a reporter but is actually a filmmaker, who the Times suddenly hired in October. You would expect the paper to look for someone with actual journalistic experience, especially for a story as sensitive as this one, written during the fog of war. Surely the paper had enough of its own correspondents on staff who could have been assigned to it.
Next, the researchers found that Schwartz had not hidden her strong feelings online. There are screenshots of her “liking” certain posts that repeated the “40 beheaded baby” hoax, and that endorsed another hysterical post that urged the Israeli army to “turn Gaza into a slaughterhouse,” and called Palestinians “human animals.”
(Just this morning, more evidence emerged online; Schwartz apparently also served in Israeli Military Intelligence.)
Finally, one of her co-authors on two of the reports was Adam Sella, who is her nephew. ********* [see note added below]*****
Let’s pause here. What would happen if the Times suddenly hired a Palestinian filmmaker with no journalistic background, who had recently publicly “liked” posts that called for “pushing Israeli Jews into the sea,” to co-write several of its most sensitive and contested reports?
(We don’t have to speculate. The Times fired Palestinian photojournalist Hosam Salam in 2022 after one of the pro-Israel media watchdog groups protested about his social media posts.)
After Anat Schwartz’s online history became public, she locked down her accounts and then deleted much of the incriminating content.
The New York Times imposes strict rules on its reporters to maintain the appearance of objectivity. Reporters are not supposed to attend demonstrations of any kind, wear campaign buttons, or post opinions on social media. By hiring Anat Schwartz, the paper clearly violated its own guidelines, and it should publicly explain and apologize.
***********[Added 3/1/24 2:49 PM EST, not her nephew. Jeremy Scahill explained that on today's DEMOCRACY NOW!
And her partner in this, Adam Sella, is the nephew of Anat Schwartz’s partner, and they’re not married. In fact, Amy, The New York Times, they requested a correction from us, because we had initially said that it was her nephew, which I think in the context of America and other countries you would say. If you’re somebody’s longtime life partner, you would say, “Oh, yeah, this is my nephew.” OK, they’re not blood relatives, and they emphasize that she’s not married. Fine, we corrected that.
My question is: Where are the corrections in The New York Times piece? The New York Times has grave, grave mischaracterizations, sins of omission, reliance on people who have no forensic or criminology credentials to be asserting that there was a systematic rape campaign put in place here. And to publish this article at a moment when Israel was intensifying, after that brief pause where captives were exchanged — intensifying its genocidal attack against the people of Gaza, this played a very, very significant role. And the more we learn about this, the more we discover that the reporting tactics that The New York Times used are certainly not up to the standards that the newspaper claims to be promoting. They will not issue any corrections on what has already been documented to be very problematic sins of commission and omission in this piece.