Carol (mom) and I saw this at Living Room Theaters, the same venue where I saw Citizen Four. She asked afterward how much of the back story was really real, and that got me thinking.
Having checked the web in a few places, I see Adam (not his real name) really is a professor at some New York college or university. I was imagining he might have rented a classroom and pulled the same stunt, of having us believe that was his job.
Could it be that other guy (Mike) had never set foot in Scotland? You can see where my mind was going with all that: even the back story was paper thin, constructed for our edification (Adam promised in Uganda he'd do something GLTBQish, and on that promise he made good).
The spoof technique the Yes Men use is pretty interesting:
(A) show people in authority doing what we subconsciously think would be the "right thing" (US Department of Energy, Chamber of Commerce)
or...
(B) show people in authority being flagrant and crass about their true intentions (Shell and Gazprom).
Both work, although I'm not always clear on the criteria for success. Their parody of the Gazprom / Shell collaboration in Amsterdam was deemed a failure. How so? Too complicated to understand?
Watching Canada lose its sovereignty has not been pretty. Another cast of politicians has lost credibility, a needed attribute for government, but what else is new?
All this activism can get exhausting and the oceans continue to rise. Occupy was a shot in the arm.
Stay tuned.
Having checked the web in a few places, I see Adam (not his real name) really is a professor at some New York college or university. I was imagining he might have rented a classroom and pulled the same stunt, of having us believe that was his job.
Could it be that other guy (Mike) had never set foot in Scotland? You can see where my mind was going with all that: even the back story was paper thin, constructed for our edification (Adam promised in Uganda he'd do something GLTBQish, and on that promise he made good).
The spoof technique the Yes Men use is pretty interesting:
(A) show people in authority doing what we subconsciously think would be the "right thing" (US Department of Energy, Chamber of Commerce)
or...
(B) show people in authority being flagrant and crass about their true intentions (Shell and Gazprom).
Both work, although I'm not always clear on the criteria for success. Their parody of the Gazprom / Shell collaboration in Amsterdam was deemed a failure. How so? Too complicated to understand?
Watching Canada lose its sovereignty has not been pretty. Another cast of politicians has lost credibility, a needed attribute for government, but what else is new?
All this activism can get exhausting and the oceans continue to rise. Occupy was a shot in the arm.
Stay tuned.
