Hollywood to release a movie about South Ossetian conflict called "Georgia"

[MikeWB]

Andy Garcia as Mikheil Saakashvili :lol:
[youtube:32wwih4u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unlvUfVG7p8[/youtube]32wwih4u]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unlvUfVG7p8


http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct ... li-georgia

Andy Garcia plays Saakashvili in Renny Harlin's Georgia
Harlin's anti-war film about the 2008 war in the Caucasus began shooting in Georgia at the weekend
   (160)
Tweet this (16)
Ben Child and agencies
guardian.co.uk,    Tuesday 20 October 2009 11.36 BST
Article history

In the hot seat ... Andy Garcia, in the role of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, photographed in the presidential office in Tbilisi. Photograph: Reuters

Andy Garcia has stepped into the shoes of Georgia's maverick president, Mikheil Saakashvili, for a Hollywood thriller set against the backdrop of the 2008 conflict between Russia and the former Soviet republic.

Directed by Die Hard 2's Renny Harlin, the picture began shooting at the weekend on location in Georgia. It is billed as an anti-war film about an American journalist and his cameraman who get caught in the crossfire and struggle with their duty to be impartial.

Garcia, whose credits include The Godfather: Part III and Ocean's Eleven, arrived in Georgia on Sunday as shooting moved from the former Russian-held town of Gori to the capital, Tbilisi. Harlin says the film – provisionally entitled Georgia – will be impartial, even though Papuna Davitaia, an MP from Saakashvili's ruling United National Movement, is one of the producers on the project.

"I've waited a long time to find something with substance and reality," Harlin said in August. "I want to make a film that says something about the human condition, and even if only a few people see this and feel its impact and its anti-war message, then I will have done something that's important and I will be proud of it."

"Our main concern was to show war as a bad thing," executive producer Michael Flannigan told Georgian television. "We had an opportunity to make a really anti-war film."

Saakashvili, who has embraced relations with the west to Russia's chagrin, was blamed for triggering the 2008 conflict by launching an assault on pro-Russian South Ossetia following a period of frequent border clashes and rising tension with Moscow. However, a European Union report released last month concluded that Russia's retaliation, which saw it invade its neighbour and occupy the territory, violated international law.

Some 850 people died during the conflict and more than 100,000 fled their homes as the Russian military carried out air strikes and sent tanks deep into Georgia.

Meanwhile, Serbian film-maker Emir Kusturica revealed yesterday that he had rejected a Russian offer to direct a separate film about the war. "I didn't accept it because I have a binding contract for the next four years," he told Reuters.

[VoltaXebec]

Harlin is a 5-time recipient of the famous Golden Raspberry Award for worst film directing.

If they had been successful they would have used Spielberg :lol:

[Christopher Marlowe]

Looks like derivative crap.  From the man who brought you "Cutthroat Island" and "The Adventures of Ford Fairlane".

[LordLindsey]

I wonder if they are going to get into all of those "Irish" citizens who were in the Georgian government at the time preceeding this human disaster...not to mention the fact that "IRISH" citizens were actively involved in the murderous operation against South Ossetia.

LINDSEY

[Christopher Marlowe]

It's funny that you should use the term "Irish" to refer to those people who must not be named.

I was thinking about this in terms of the novel "1984". Two of the main characters are O'Brien and Emmanuel Goldstein.  

O'Brien is a big insider in the Party that controls everything. Goldstein is the boogey man; he is made out to be the scapegoat and is the subject of the "two minute hate".

O'Brien is an obviously Irish name and Goldstein is obviously Jewish.  As everyone knows, England has had a history of brutal repression of Ireland and the Irish. If O'Brien is one of the leaders of Oceana, which ruled England, that would stand in stark contrast to the reality of England in Orwell's time.

Conversely, as readers of this forum well know, England and Great Britain have long been controlled by "the Crown" in the "City of London". That is a deceptive term because it makes the hearer think of the King or Queen, but it is actually a legal entity: a city state controlled by bankers.

http://www.freedomdomain.com/banking/the_city.html
When we speak of 'The City' we are in fact referring to a privately owned Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater London' area. The population of 'The City' is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.
The 'Crown' is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City.' 'The City' is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state. It is the Vatican of the commercial world.
The City, which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth," is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britian's great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. [Such as the British Invisibles, I kid you not]. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

So this deceptive term is used to cover the secret power of Britain: the bankers. Jewish bankers rule England.

So Orwell seems to have made everything backward in "1984": he put the Irish on the top, when in reality they were on the bottom; and he put the Jews on the bottom, when in reality they are on the top.  Of course "1984" would not be widely read if Orwell had O'Brien and Goldstein in the positions that mirrored reality.  Perhaps Orwell meant proclaim the truth in a hidden way; the obvious contradictory naming of characters makes the reader question what is really being said.  I wonder if he left a clue within the book that underlines his choice?