My pot movie
- Thread starter browndirtwarrior
- Start date
- Status
browndirtwarrior
New Member
You're quite articulate and fairly even-handed.What a thread. A lot of the things people are arguing about here aren't 'black and white' issues. The legalization and medical marijuana movement is important. Until it reaches its goal of widespread decriminalization and then gradual legalization, we will have illicit commercial growers--because we need them. They will remain a part of the ecosystem so long as that niche exists, as it were. Nature abhors a vacuum.
I used to live in Portland, OR. It was and is a weed Mecca. Amazing pot came in from all directions. A good amount of the weed and even more of the genetics going around came from B.C. . So, I enjoy seeing a dramatization of what B.C. outdoor growers have to go through. Hell, I even enjoy the scenery. (I really need to get up to B.C. and see the Canadian rockies, being a big fan of the Sierra and the Cascades.)
I think it's clear that the movie is dramatized, and exhibits a typical story arc. So what?
Who cares if BDW really has a marriage on the rocks? Who cares if he actually is hounded by bill collectors? For that matter, who cares if it's a stunt helicopter? It's a story. It may be a true story, or it may only be based on a true story. It may be a pastiche of things that have happened over a long time, or that have happened to different growers. Or it just may be a fairly realistic (if hyperbolic) fiction.
I'm sure there are growers that are dodging bill collectors. Helicopters are a real threat, as are hikers, hunters, etc. We all know how spouses, families, etc. can be. It doesn't need to be cinema verite. It's a good story, fun to watch, nice to look at, and will be at least somewhat educational. It manages to work in spots by various figures who are in the reform movement. Taken all together, that's not too shabby!
Whether or not you want to buy into BDW's 'message' is up to you. I think it's an interesting perspective (maybe overstated for marketing purposes, but what isn't these days), even if my own point of view is closer to FDD's. Certainly, BDW is getting a lot of mileage out of RIU, and I think that's fine as he seems to have come around to the idea that you have to take to community here for what it is: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Plus, for added flavor, the resolutely incomprehensible and the absolutely fucking batshit insane.
Now, what's up with all the California hating? I'll not be tolerating any bitchy slighting of the mighty Bear Republic, dammit.
Booky, do you live in fucking Texas? If weed is so important to you, and you've been so oppressed over it, pack up your shit and MOVE. This isn't Soviet Russia, you don't need papers to relocate. Everyone can afford to live somewhere in California if they want to. California is a fucking huge state. It has every kind of environment you can name from coast to desert to alpine ranges to tundra to fucking glaciers. There are huge, empty parts of the state where land is dirt cheap and very sparsely populated. There are mountains that look like something out of BDW's movie. California is like a microcosm of the entire West. There's something and somewhere for everyone here. You're not a vassal of your home state and you're under no obligations to toil under the yoke of their backwards laws. This isn't feudal Europe.
Furthermore, the reforms we have here weren't handed down on high as a gift from the gods, they were worked towards over a long period of time. First we had decrim in major cities. Then some reform of state laws. Then the medical campaign got underway. This has been a fight sustained over generations. Yes, we have a more permissive culture here and that helps. Boo fucking hoo. Plenty of states that aren't California have accomplished much, and have done so faster (having started more recently.) Oregon's advocates went through plenty of ugly fights and busts before the movement really got established and began to succeed in changing the environment. In states like CA and OR, once the medical system becomes the uncontroversial status quo, we'll be ready to take the next step in pushing back on the national stage against the failed Federal policies that were put into place almost one hundred years ago.
It's a long fight, BDW was right about that. A war of attrition. And one long stalemated on the illicit front. It's time to storm the fucking Bastille and call our leaders to account. It just so happens these days we do that with ballots and prescriptions instead of torches and pitchforks, as satisfying as that might be. Maybe we should bring the old ballots back. I wouldn't have minded chucking a few of these at Ashcroft:
Anyway, just as in the Prohibition BDW makes reference too, it won't be the 'rum-runners' that ultimately win the war. It will be the weight of shifting social opinion and growing public opposition to the prohibition, as brought to bear by reformers and advocates and as expressed through the vote, that forces lasting change.
Also, a big part of it is generational change. The 'greatest generation' may indeed have been great--but they aren't 'great' on this issue. They're passing on in alarming numbers, though, and it seems somehow appropriately respectful not to rush things *too* much while they're still around. By which I mean I until they're mostly gone it's probably best to focus on decriminalization, sentencing reform, medical programs, etc.
When the older voters are all mostly 'me generation' with plenty of ex-hippies and ex-yuppies (and a more Libertarian bent on the conservative side) you'll see things change. Fast.
I enjoyed the vids, and will buy the DVD. I don't need BDW to be anything more than a decently experienced grower and a good amateur filmmaker to enjoy the movie, and he's clearly over that hurdle.
[This post may be edited. I think there are a couple things I forgot to say. Need to skim the last couple pages again.]
But it's my position that art CAN affect change -- precisely for the reasons you state: it's the masses who make it happen; and if a great number of people are attracted to the material for aesthetic or for whatever reason, it can incite dialogue and alter view points -- if not set fire to apathy through controversy. To illustrate my point, look at what it has already done in this little microcosm -- and we are all pro pot people. Now throw the anti pot establishment into the mix, and you never know the full implications of where a vision can take you.
Filmmaking of this nature is a highly mysterious process...because fortuity is the alchemy of the destined, and big concepts can meld with your life through the course of their realization. I didn't choose to make the film I'm making -- not really. It was put on me in a kind of strange way by events. I have one foot in make-believe, true, but I can assure the license has only been taken where it is obvious, and the piece has maintained it's integrity as a reality. These notions of hiring helicopters and such are absurd. Assuming I would have had the wherewithal to do that (and get a company to go along with it), I'm sure I would have taken better advantage of it as a filmmaker -- being this over top dramatist the some people in here think I am.
The work has already sort of past a litmus test for compelling content, you are correct on that point -- which paves the way for it to transcend its boarders I think. And if no one buys it? You know what? -- I'm alright with that. I'm not quite as exploitive as one might think (though I thank you and am flattered that you would buy it). This piece is a project. I have many irons in the fire, I can assure you. But marijuana has been very good to me on both an intellectual and monetary level over the long stretch. It has certainly come to stand for far more important precepts than growing pot and getting rich off it. And I hope that comes through in the work.
I think the broader picture of this piece (where marijuana is concerned) has to do with where this takes me as a filmmaker (as opposed to the content itself). The "faux real" style ... which really fuses three kinds of filmmaking -- reality, documentary and drama (and by drama I mean in the editing style: creative choices made from over 30 hours and five months of shooting which incorporate all the conventions of classical story structure save dramatic irony) will hopefully create a platform for my advocacy of the movement to legalize the stuff.
I've got another episode coming out here shortly, which is sure to provoke and compel. But would I have it any other way? ...They call me the brown dirt warrior don't they?
browndirtwarrior
New Member
I think you are becoming a bit of a parody of yourself, aren't you? It seems quite clear you come in here just to enflame. Your humour falls flat in the face of your character.My uncle has been deemed the BrownDirtWarrior for over 35 years now
Truth is: you don't know anyone like me, never have known anyone like me, never will know anyone like me -- and sure as hell don't have a hope in hell of ever becoming like me. And that eats you up inside ...doesn't it? You had an opportunity to be man and apologize for your totally unprovoked inflammatory comments a while back but chose not to. You were in fact adamant about not apologizing -- as if it was somehow alright for you to attack someone's character in such a way. And if that weren't enough, you keep coming in here and prodding, looking for negative attention. So we know you are not a stand-up guy who can recognize the errors of his ways. You're not the kind of person anyone might want watching their back. You're a loser.
Zekedogg
100% Authentic A$$Hole
i spoke with her today. she says it's called "ratification". i'm still searching but i think i'm getting closer. she said it was written into the constitution. maybe this.........Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
still researching........
if he knew you like we did he wouldn't say that.Ahhhh cmon dude, chill out , smoke some of that bud you got
lick it.
t0k3s
Well-Known Member
Do you now..yeah I know that dude
t0k3s
Well-Known Member
right.......I think I do actually.
\
Oh damn Im so sorry BDW, it seems my son has gotten a hold of my RIU account..Much love to you my friend
Maccabee
Well-Known Member
Woah, tell her to dial back the bongloads.i spoke with her today. she says it's called "ratification". i'm still searching but i think i'm getting closer. she said it was written into the constitution. maybe this.........Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
still researching........
Ratification is the process by which the States approve an Amendment to the Constitution.
There are two possible ways this can happen:
1) Congressional action:
First, Congress has to pass an Amendment by a 2/3 majority in both houses. The amendment then goes to the states for their ratification. 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment for it to become law.
All of our current amendments have been done this way.
2) Constitutional Convention.
A two-thirds majority of the state legislatures can call a constitutional convention. The convention develops the amendments and submits them to the states for ratification.
There are no rules set out for how this is supposed to happen, nor do political scientists agree on how it should work even hypothetically. It has never been attempted in the history of the United States. (The first Constitutional Convention attended by the framers doesn't count, as that convention predates the Constitution itself.)
Either way, ratification of an amendment by the states can be via the state's own legislature or by a special convention convened in each state for the purpose (the amendment will specify which before the ratification process begins.)
Typically they go to the state legislatures, only one ever specified state conventions: the 21st, or repeal of prohibition, ironically enough. Perhaps very apropos for this discussion.
So, it breaks down like this:
--Drafted in and approved by the Congress, submitted by to state legislatures for ratification (all but one amendment passed this way)
--Drafted in and approved by the Congress, submitted to state conventions for ratification (repeal of prohibition)
--Drafted in a Constitutional Convention (of state delegates) called by a 3/4 majority of state legislatures, and then submitted to state legislatures for ratification, thereby bypassing Congress (never attempted)
--Drafted in a Constitutional Convention (of state delegates) called by a 3/4 majority of state legislatures, and then submitted to state conventions for ratification, thereby bypassing Congress (never attempted)
Incidentally, the Executive branch has no role in the amendment process. There is no veto, nor is there any recourse to the Supreme Court--as the Court only enforces and interprets the Constitution.
t0k3s
Well-Known Member
So i guess you were paying attention in class
Maccabee
Well-Known Member
Kinda. Law is kind of the family business, so I picked up a lot here and there, in dinner conversation, etc. Heh.So i guess you were paying attention in class
Actually, they don't really teach civics anymore like they used to. There are some parts of the postwar public education system that went by the wayside that shouldn't have.
HomeEc and Shop class? No. I'm grateful to have been spared that kind of crap.
Civics? Please, yes, bring it back. At the high school level. I'm all for multicultural education--I'm an anthropologist by training-- but kids shouldn't be getting ancient Egyptian history when they have no idea how our government is organized. As it is, the last time most students have anything on civics in earnest is around 4th grade or 5th grade when 'how a bill becomes a law' is covered. People wind up thinking that's all there is to our government, and then the political establishment gets to do whatever it want, as so few citizens understand how it works.
If people understood the history and organization of our government, how its supposed to work, and the laws surrounding it they might be better persuaded to do something about its current sorry state.
- Status