'The War You Don't See': A Film You Won't See; It has been Banned

Published on Saturday, June 11, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
'The War You Don't See': A Film You Won't See

An Open Letter to Noam Chomsky and the General Public

by John Pilger

Dear Noam,
I am writing to you and a number of other friends mostly in the US to alert you to the extraordinary banning of my film on war and media, 'The War You Don't See', and the abrupt cancellation of a major event at the Lannan Foundation in Santa Fe in which David Barsamian and I were to discuss free speech, US foreign policy and censorship in the media.

Lannan invited me and David over a year ago and welcomed my proposal that they also host the US premiere of 'The War You Don't See', in which US and British broadcasters describe the often hidden part played by the media in the promotion of war, notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. The film has been widely acclaimed in the UK and Australia; the trailer and reviews are on my website www.johnpilger.com

The banning and cancellation, which have shocked David and me, are on the personal orders of Patrick Lannan, whose wealth funds the Lannan Foundation as a liberal center of discussion of politics and the arts. Some of you will have been there and will know the Lannan Foundation as a valuable supporter of liberal causes. Indeed, I was invited in 2002 to present a Lannan award to the broadcaster Amy Goodman.

What is deeply disturbing about the ban is that it happened so suddenly and inexplicably: 48 hours before David Barsamian and I were both due to depart for Santa Fe I received a brief email with a 'sorry for the inconvenience' from a Lannan official who had been telling me just a few days earlier what a 'great honor' it was to have the US premiere of my film at Lannan, with myself in attendance.

I urge you to visit the Lannan website www.lannan.org. Good people like Michael Ratner, Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald are shown as participants in discussion about freedom of speech. I am there, too, but my name is the only one with a line through it and the word, 'Cancelled'.

Neither David Barsamian nor I have been given a word of explanation. All my messages to Lannan have gone unanswered; my calls calls are not returned; my flights were cancelled summarily. At the urging of the New Mexican newspaper, Patrick Lannan has issued a one-sentence statement offering his regrets to the Lannan-supporting 'community' in Santa Fe. Again, he gives no reason for the ban. I have spoken to the manager of the Santa Fe cinema where 'The War You Don't See' was to be screened. He received a late-night call. Again, no reason for the ban was forthcoming, giving him barely time to cancel advertising in The New Mexican, which was forced to drop a major feature.

There is a compelling symbol of our extraordinary times in all of this. A rich and powerful individual and organization, espousing freedom of speech, has moved ruthlessly and unaccountably to crush it.
With warm regards
John Pilger
John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, film-maker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism's highest award, that of "Journalist of the Year," for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia.

Contact the Lannan Foundation

Lannan Foundation
313 Read Street
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-2628
505.986.8160 phone
505.986.8195 fax
Questions? Comments? Send an email to info@lannan.org

We need to go to Lannan.org and see who is on their schedule and write to THEM and ask THEM to complain. That would be a powerful move, imo. What do you think?

asking about what happened to the much-anticipated Pilger presentation in Santa Fe, expressing their disappointment in it being cancelled suddenly and without explanation.

Contact info here:

http://www.lannan.org/lf/contact/

I see others are willing and is what is needed. we the people have to push back again and again.

Let's see how we do.

... any idea of whom?

Neat quote. When did Northcliffe say this? I love tight, terse statements like this, that say so much and explain so much more and like this, hold-up over time.

:kick:

British press baron.

The country of my birth is disappearing before my eyes.

FUCK YOU, CORPORATE AMERICA!!!

And FUCK YOU DEMOCRATS, if you let this stand.

:mad:

:nuke:

:argh:

:kick: & Rec!!!

:puke:

Why no response... why no acknowledgement... why no explanation ???

What are the afraid of?

:shrug:

This is no different from a theater refusing to show that stupid creationist film that Ben Stein was flogging a few years back. Venues are free to decide what they will or will not screen.

...since foundation isn't being required to air speech it disagrees with.

the Santa Fe New Mexican this past week.

What's so incomprehensible is that the Lannan Foundation tends to bring in very liberal speakers. The disinviting of John Pilger is really quite strange.

Sorry, words mean things.

Just for starters...

:shrug:

I think the use of the word "banned" is a cheap ploy to get attention. The film has not been banned.

Since it is not banned, I should be able to see it. Right?

Since it is not banned, I should be able to see it. Right?

I don't mean that to sound harsh, but from the info we have here, this film has NOT been banned in the usual sense of the word. You can still see it.

Why is word choice so important here? The point is that this LIBERAL organization is refusing to show this film. Does that bother you or would you rather nitpick the choice of words used to describe this?

And people can see the film if they choose to. They simply won't see it at this venue.

One organization chose not to show the film. Yes, it might be troubling. Maybe they had a good reason.

But the film has not been banned and claiming it has only calls into question the filmmaker's honesty and integrity.

I don't think it's nitpicking to use the right word.

Just deciding not to say something you were about to say is censorship.

http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/index.html


"Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society -- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state.

Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force. People self-censor all the time; such restraint can be part of the price of rational dialogue. The artist Ben Shahn's poster illustration reads: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." Silence can indicate a forced assent, or conversely, it can be contemplative, a necessary part of dialogue that rises above the din of quotidian life.

To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated.

- snip -

There are also forms of censorship that are not so obtrusive, and that have to be examined very carefully to define. "Censorship through intimidation" can be anything from threats against individuals to a government proposing to monitor all activities online (as in one proposal current at the time of this writing in Russia). If citizens feel their activities online will be screened by governmental agencies in their country, their inclination to engage in expression will be much less than if their government stays away -- the classic "chilling effect."

"Censorship through consensus" is also a real possibility. There are countries where the adherence to a shared social, though not religious, code is a fact of life. Understanding that entails discerning where the boundaries of expression are, and where they might be interfered with in a consensus situation."

If you're taking that broad sense of "censorship", there's nothing bad about it.

First, I wasn't arguing that it was bad or good. I was arguing that the word censorship was appropriate, which it is, and which is the opposite of what you were arguing.

Second, you had better define "bad" if you're going to bring it into the argument. But a liberal organization cancels the showing of a controversial film on warmongering by the media without apparent explanation? Yeah, until more info is forthcoming, there is plenty that can be perceived as "bad."

Fascism, MAN!!! :mad:

Christ. Quit while you're behind.

How many times does this need to be pointed out to you? And which is more important - the language used here or the obvious cover up of information people should have?

you can't have it both ways. Well, you can see it. And actually, you can see it for FREE. So there is no 'cover up', unless you don't think the people in charge of, say, film festivals should NOT be able to decide which films they want to show.

There is not a 'cover up'. This film isn't going to be shown in one particular venue. I suspect that due to all this noise, more people will see it than would have in the first place.

And I have no doubt that's the intent in using incendiary, incorrect language like saying it's somehow been "banned".

Good grief.

It's not "banned".

http://www.johnpilger.com/dvds/the-war-you-dont-see-uk-

the film has been "banned", i.e. there is some sort of governmental interference with people being able to SEE THE FILM AT ALL. Clearly, that's not the case- you can just go to the website and order the thing.

You're bright-- I have no doubt that you understand this, even if you're intending to argue this point into the ground. So let's spare ourselves the charade, and not kid each other.

You're bright. I have no doubt you understand this and that you have access both to a dictionary and in a more limited way, to popular culture.

they wouldn't need to use circus tactics to try to drum up attention.

That's fine. At some point, I didn't either. He's probably one of the top five documentarians alive and this is by no means the first time a film of his has been censored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger

All I said was, if this film was all that, he shouldn't need to resort to circus tactics to drum up interest. Hell, it's almost like he planned the "Non-troversy" (thanks, Javaman) when he picked the title of the thing.

But I'll give him credit, the ploy worked, somewhat. I'm about 40% through the thing, now. It's not bad, but I haven't seen any Earth-shattering new revelations. And chronologically and topically, it's all over the map, and NOT in an effective narrative way. I'll wait until I'm done to really analyze it, though.

The sponsoring organization canceled the event. I don't see anything that says they will never show the film in the future.

Plus, it was to be shown at a cinema. The cinema owner got a late-night call telling him the event had been canceled. Presumably that owner can show the film at his cinema if he wants. The cinema had nothing to do with the cancelation.

Not banned. Canceled, very possibly under sleazy circumstances, but not banned.

while any press release can make ones film sound like the next gone with the wind, this one tries to make this film sound as if it was so controversial that it was "banned".

more than likely, it failed to meet the criteria of the venue in which it was to be shown.

countless low budget filmmakers get a bee in their bonnet over stuff like this.

the film maker probably missed the deadline for submissions and is pissed at the venues owners. THAT never happens in low budget film making. LOL

on edit: the film premiered last year on Dec 7th 2010, then went to TV on the 14th of Dec. And you can buy it on line.

no wonder it wasn't shown, it's not "new" material. They probably chose not to show it, because of that. The film industry is a fickle beast and getting pissed about it, or feigning being pissed about it, is nothing new.

Plus we are only getting the film makers take and not the point of view of the Lannan Foundation. They could have bumped his film for any variety of reasons.

Faux outrage by a filmmaker trying to promote his film and make money. Because at the end of the day, regardless of the "important" message whatever film has to say, the film maker still has to pay his bills and sell his product. Being in debt as a film makers sucks. I know from personal experience. As a result, said film maker will even resort to creating fabricated situations. Which I have seen before.

than make them think there's a big conspiracy to not let them see it.

So let's hear the legitimate reason why it was cancelled.

Personally, I could care less.

silence this brave, truth-telling documentary. Right?

Personally, I haven't weighed in at ALL about the film or the cancellation of the showing of the film. For all I know, it's a great film, and for all I know, the folks at Lannan were kidnapped by Bohemian Grove Bilderburgers and replaced with pod people specifically to prevent this film from being shown. I have no idea.

I just think 'banned' is the wrong word to use.

They're just not particularly correct and making too big a deal about it.

Without explanation.

Yes, words mean things, words such as "nit-picky crap."

the film makers press release states that it was banned without explanation.

Having worked in film a good part of my life as a film maker, I would first like to hear Lannan's version of events before I make a judgment call.

words are "nit-picky crap" as you say, cut both ways. the film makers release a version of what was said and the venue will release their version of what was said if it is worth their time. by worth their time, I mean, this is probably a "non-trovercy" hyped up by the film makers to sell a film that came out last year via DVD on their website.

Like they say, even bad press is good.

Great word. :thumbsup:

1) http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/style/ms-lannan-mr-korybut-daszkiewicz.html
2) http://www.defenseprocurementnews.com/topics/companies/tactical-air-defense-services/

pure speculation of course...:eyes:

happening in this country is getting scary.

As Julian Assange said, 'governments spy on us, surveille us all the time, then they want to hide their secrets'. His mission has been to balance that equation. They tell us 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about'. So, what are they afraid of?

Thank you for this post.

Wednesday January 19 2011
Lorrie Moore
with Kate Moses

Wednesday February 2 2011
Tom Engelhardt
with Jeremy Scahill


Wednesday February 16 2011
John D'Agata
with Ben Marcus


Tuesday March 8 2011
Glenn Greenwald
with David Barsamian

Wednesday March 16 2011
Everything and More: A Tribute to David Foster Wallace
with David Lipsky, Rick Moody, and Joanna Scott, moderated by Michael Silverblatt


Monday April 4 2011
Maria Hinojosa
with Mary-Charlotte Domandi


Wednesday April 13 2011
Kay Ryan
with Atsuro Riley


Wednesday May 4 2011
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
with Binyavanga Wainaina
CANCELED. Will be rescheduled next season.

Tuesday May 17 2011
Chris Hedges on the Work of Sheldon Wolin
with Chris Hedges


Wednesday May 18 2011
Joe Sacco
with Chris Hedges


Tuesday May 24 2011
Michael Ratner
with Mary-Charlotte Domand

Wednesday June 15 2011
John Pilger
with David Barsamian
THIS EVENT HAS BEEN CANCELED.

http://www.lannan.org/lf/rc/current-season/

The movie has not been "banned". An institution has chosen not to show it. The producer has the right to find another venue, mail DVD's to people at random, display it in a public forum or take any number of other approaches to find an audience.

If you want to make an argument about the irresponsibility of the Lannan Foundation, fine. Let's not overblow the story however.

The event isn't showing it, but that's not the same as "banned". They probably wouldn't show anything I made either, but I wouldn't say they were "banning" my movies.

If it's available for purchase or online, it's not "banned". It's just not showing at this event.

Maybe you are not familiar with this use of "banning", but performers and artists are. My ex was banned from the Punchline in Walnut Creek for making a crack about the owner's nephew in the green room. If you get a group of comedians sitting around telling stories, inevitably they tell stories about being banned. This is a precise and apt use of the word.

Nothing to say about the OP?

If anyone knows about banning, it's John Pilger.

This is what happens when someone overly dramatizes a situation, we end up discussing the inappropriate wording instead of the topic the person raised. This is why hyperbole never accomplishes anything.

It was a poorly worded OP otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's not censorship or 'being banned', its a theater's decision not to show a film.

You would be much better served organizing an effort by another benefactor to either finance showing of the film, or to finance the purchase of the DVD's for free distribution.

from being shown at this institution might be pretty important, too. Not banned? Then let's hear the expanatuin of how it has not been banned, or cancelled, when apparently it's been banned, or cancelled.

People who understand the correct meaning of these terms are going to be immediately and completely turned off by it.

This is the same thing I say to Republicans who misuse the terms 'appeasement' and 'socialism'. In fact, if you google my name and those terms, you will see an article saying so.

If you are upset that a theater or organization has decided not to show a film and want people's help in trying to change their mind, that is a worthy effort. Calling it 'banned' just makes you and the effort look silly and it is unnecessary. I am sure that there are plenty of people who will want to help you without misuse of terms.

Somebody got to Lannan. Whether it be US/Israel government or big monied interests... it's obvious something is going on.

There is no evidence for anything that you assert. Theaters decide not to show films all the time, mostly because they think there isnt enough interest. Atlas Shrugged never made it to widespread distribution. Do you think that is because of 'banning' or 'suppression'? No,its because the film was awful, and showing it would have lost money for theaters.

The right way to attack something like this is to show theaters that there is interest. Create a petition where people can say that they would like to see the film. I'll sign.

Until further info that would make any of these terms incorrect is forthcoming.

It's "Israel" and Shadowy "moneyed interests", (no doubt with names ending in -stein and -berg) who "got to them".

I see.

As far as I can tell based on the lack of explanation on why the film is no longer scheduled. Yes, there are different types and degrees of "banning "and this situation may turn out to be not as egregious as it might seem, but until more info is forthcoming or someone points out some facts I may have missed, the term banned is appropriate.

word or imagination. It's not even hyperbole. It's just completely wrong.

Like the way I could ban a neighborhood kid from visiting my house.

Good grief.

That said, I probably would have put "apparently censored" in the subject line if I had posted this.

The Lannan Foundation doesn't seem to own the theater. The theater can show the film if it wants to.

I identified myself in my new capacity which I will discuss with you all later.

I pray the banning of this film from Lannan Outlets helps to catapult this work into the public awareness.



All Monsanto Products have been permanently banned from our property.




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses!

:dem:

That must be the same "plan" the White House is using when they attack Assange and other Whistle Blowers!
I just knew they were on our side the whole time!
Thanks.
:hi:

And when did whistleblowing start meaning releasing scads of classified documents to all & sundry?

You're helping with "The Plan".
Good Job.
Silly me.
I had you pegged all wrong.
:grouphug:

Let me try.
Julian Assange is a TRAITOR, and should be BANNED!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.

How did I do?
Pretty good, hunh?

reside has reciprocal agreements with the US or other treaties, they can be extradited.

I'm glad it's getting some exposure. And I'll make my own mind up once I see it, if it's worth the effort - and I'll let others know as well... this is the same way I heard about Inside Job, Gasland, Why We Fight, Body Of War and many other documentaries worthy of consideration.

Its over an hour and half long. If necessary use direct Youtube link and watch a bit at a time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x591444

it's still BANNED!!!

you could've watched on TV last December just using an old fashioned aerial on ITV1.

Most of our TV documentaries subsequently get archived here : http://www.thedossier.info/video.htm

About the word "banned."

"a film you won't see," well that's another issue.

Yet we can see it anytime we want and it's freely available. Poorly worded.

know for sure the film is readily available on Youtube.

the knee jerk squad is now sitting quietly on their hands looking out the window.

for what, I have no idea

and actually, a clever one- because I'm watching the thing now, to see what the fuss is about.

unless....
get your copy now..."BANNED IN THE US"!

I think we may be seeing some viral marketing.

one on Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", which is also only available in PAL format on amazon.uk.

Check out these pages to get them "together"! :)



The War You Don't See - http://www.amazon.co.uk/John-Pilger-War-You-Dont/dp/B004BF91KK



The Shock Doctrine - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shock-Doctrine-DVD-Mat-Whitecross/dp/B003NEQ7HU

14 June 2011

Statement by Patrick Lannan
President, Lannan Foundation
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

The cancelation of a Foundation-sponsored event featuring the journalist John Pilger was not based on censorship. Mr. Pilger was to speak Wednesday 15 June at the 820-seat Lensic Performing Arts Center in Santa Fe followed by a conversation with the journalist David Barsamian as part of the Foundation's Readings & Conversations series. Last week we learned from The Lensic that only 152 tickets had been sold, despite extensive full-page advertising. It became apparent to us that the Lensic event was not viable. In our opinion, to have Mr. Pilger travel thousands of miles from London to Santa Fe to face such a low turnout would have been embarrassing to him.

At the request of Mr. Pilger, the Foundation also had agreed to pay for a community outreach screening of his film The War You Don't See, an event the Foundation considered secondary to Mr. Pilger's Readings & Conversations appearance. The Foundation rented a local theater venue, The Screen. We advertised the film, and ticket proceeds were to have been donated back to the theater. Mr. Pilger was to have introduced the film and answered questions from the audience after the screening. The cancelation of the Lensic event clearly necessitated that the screening be canceled.

Both Mr. Pilger and Mr. Barsamian were paid their honoraria for their engagements, and both The Lensic and The Screen were compensated for venue rental fees.

The Foundation regrets that the reason for the cancelation was not explained to Mr. Pilger or to the public at the time the decision was made.

Lannan Foundation's record of supporting outspoken writers and social justice activists speaks for itself. Upcoming speakers for our public events include Richard Wolff, Tariq Ali, and Norman Finkelstein.

The Foundation will have no further comment on this issue

have you ever had any dealings with any type of film festival? Have you ever worked one? have you ever started one? have you ever had to make sure that the bills were paid?

The film was not popular. The organizers have to make money to cover their costs.

If they can't cover their costs, they go into debt. That's money out of the foundations pockets.

Any film festival bumps films, shuffles films, changes viewing times.

Any time you attend any festival of any type, in the small print it always states, "film or showing times are sometimes subject to change, sometimes without warning."

That's just the fact.

If the filmmaker can't put people in seats, that's not the fault of the venue, it's the fault of the filmmaker.

I have seen this time and time again at film festivals.

Once again, this is nothing but a "non-trovercy" and a disgruntled film maker who was unable to excite the public enough to fill the theater.