Press TV, the international news organization and propaganda arm of the Iranian government, has had its British bank account frozen, the Times of London reported today.
The frozen account is thought to contain more than $140,000 (100,000 euros), and National Westminster Bank is expected to close it shortly.
And while National Westminster Bank said the move was a “private commercial decision over which the Government has no control,” there has been speculation by both critics and supporters of the news station that politics may have played a part in the decision.
Lauren Booth — the Israel-bashing sister-in-law of Tony Blair — has written a barely legible opinion column for Al Jazeera, blaming the freeze on Zionism, the Blair machine, and American imperialism (errors in the original):
“The freezing of Press TV Ltd business account by Nat West Bank, is a politically motivated act,” wrote Booth. “The bank accounts of those companies who bring uncomfortable truths into the public domain, can now be closed as part of a political agenda, eliciting from the USA. Supported by the Nat West and Her Majesty’s Government.”
Booth compared it to a similar incident in 2007, when National Westminster Bank shuttered the account of a Hamas-linked Palestinian “charity” called Interpal. The bank said it closed the account under pressure from the U.S. legal system.
And it’s possible that similar concerns could have prompted the bank to freeze Press TV’s account as well. Legally, the Iranian-government-funded news organization may be subject to Iranian sanctions.
“[I]t is not surprising that an international bank like Nat West has frozen the accounts of a propaganda station, funded entirely by the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is increasingly subject to international financial and trade sanctions in the European Union and the United States,” wrote Alan A. at the conservative blog Harry’s Place.
Whatever the reason for the freeze, hopefully it’ll lead to some more government scrutiny for Press TV. The fake news station not only devotes itself to publishing constant anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda; it’s also issued news reports denying the Holocaust and claiming that the Mossad helped commit the 9/11 attacks. At the very least, the government should require the station to provide a content warning informing viewers that it’s funded entirely by the Iranian government.
Hardcore Bond fans – they are legion – have long tossed around the option of re-interpreting the early Fleming novels as period pieces. It may happen… 25 years from now or so. I thought that the first Craig outing was possibly the best Bond film of all, so I’m only slightly disappointed and not at all surprised if QoS involves a significant drop-off (haven’t gotten around to seeing it yet). I believe that what’s occurred with this story arc is that the winking self-referentiality of the Brosnan Bonds has re-appeared on a narrative level: It’s all about the spy organization itself, rather than about its confrontation with an external menace. Bond needs enemies who more or less belong to the same civilization that he does, yet pose a threat to it. Aside from the political correctness problems that all out Bond war with Islamists would cause, it may be that there’s just not much for a double-0 to do these days – though maybe Gerald Seymour could come up with something…
While we rush madly to agree with Dr. Boot on 007, let us not forget that it is also he who has declared that Kenneth Millar was a better writer than Hammett.
“Of course I have scant hope of being listened to. Given that “Quantam of Solace” has already taken in more than half a billion dollars in worldwide box office the producers have every incentive to keep doing what they’re doing. Unless, that is, they care about making good movies, not simply making money.”
A large part of the problem is that Hollywood has lost all sense of originality and creativity. For proof of this, simply take a look at the vast assortment of remakes of old (and not-so-old) movies, conversions of old tv shows into movies, etc. Of course, none of this is new to Hollywood, but over the last ten years, the numbers of these retreads has grown significantly.
The town needs an enema.
But even that likely wouldn’t help. As you state, these movies are the ones that bring in the bank. It seems that the average movie-goer/tv-viewer in this country simply does not appreciate originality and creativity. The untimely cancellation of the enormously clever television show Pushing Daisies is a great example.
Hollywood has conditioned its audience to not expect anything more from them than what special effects, computers can give, and stock plots can give. And it seems they have succeeded.
Has anyone agreed yet? Not having seen QoS, I’m agnostic, though Boot’s reaction squares with the general critical reception. Never noticed the Millar statement. Come to think of it, I never noticed Millar, period. Oh – I see: You mean “Ross Macdonald.” Never got around to him before either, so I’ll vote present on that one, too – though I did re-read RED HARVEST recently. Hammett’s weird, though not necessarily in a bad way.
Or they could make movies of Buckley’s Blackford Oakes books, which did what you’re suggesting.
A question I’m surprised nobody’s asked yet: which aspect of the original Bond novels did you find more appealing than the film versions? The antiquated snobbery? The anti-Semitism? The sadomasochism?
To me, the Bond novels are like Bond films rewritten by a John LeCarre character: the adventures of a glamorous secret operative as imagined by a tawdry, delusional weirdo. Films that hew closer to the original might win more critics’ awards, but are unlikely to be either more popular or more entertaining.
Funny. I really enjoyed QoS. And especially when you compare it to the travesty that was “Crystal Skull”. I just saw that recently and was really pissed off at how bad it was.
I think QoS suffers slightly from being a thread that holds the story arc together. Which they’ve never done with Bond films before. It’s clear that the powers-that-be intend at least one or two more movies to complete the grand story, and I think QoS, as a piece of the puzzle, suffers from being incomplete as it’s own independent tale.
But I really enjoyed it as a follow-up to Casino. And the change in character brought on by Craig is fabulous. His Bond is clearly not indestructible (and the Producer’s willingness to display Bond’s physical vulnerability was a risky, but successful, choice). But he’s committed to go to all extremes to complete the task in front of him. And Craig projects that ruthlessness perfectly. Bloodied but unbowed. Perfect.
Hey, different tastes for different people. Your idea to make it retrospective is intriguing. Who knows.
Iron Man was better (I hope this doesn’t turn into a Dark Knight vs. Iron man thread. People take that stuff seriously, apparently).
Bring back some of the 50s and early-60s sensibility while keeping the plots contemporaneous. Are present world offers an incredible array of real issues and themes to explore. As a bonus, use the films as a vehicle to educate the audience. Fuse Bond and Bauer into a tough, intelligent, shrewd, and principled uber-grownup…
“Our present world…” ahem.
“Unless, that is, they care about making good movies, not simply making money.”
There you go, you said it. Producers care about making money, good movie or not, really doesn’t matter.
“…and by dropping the jokiness of previous outings (especially those by Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan)”
Hey, HEY, HEY!!!
Just a minute, there.
The fact is, the Brosnan era was precisely a moving away from the “jokiness” or smarmyness (sp?!?) of the Moore era. In truth, it was a condition of his doing the films that he have some control over the script in general, and in that regard specifically.
Remember when Brosnan was taken prisoner? And had the bloody daylights beaten out of him? Well?? Can you tell me when you have EVER seen any previous Bond in such straits? (Moore?!!?)
It would not be unfair to say that Brosnan was the critical bridge which made Craig possible. So credit where credit is due. Sure, I didn’t appreciate the phreakin “invisible car” either. But on the whole Brosnan took a sharp turn towards what had to be, and he, contractually, as well as… er.. “thespianically”, had something to do with it.
Yes, other “serious” action films of the time helped push the franchise as well, but… well, I already said it– credit where it’s due. Long Live Craig, but don’t poop on Brosnan.
How many Bond movies are there? I shut ‘em off after I saw Moores portrayal or betrayal, however one chooses to look at it. Havent looked back since, nor do I want to. I cherish my memories of whats his name in Her Majesty’s Secret Service and Connery’s portrayal. To me, going to see a Bond flick now is akin to seeing a Rocky # 19. I mean really, how many times can one see Faust at the Met.
“Never Say Never Again” was the perfect Bond film, in my opinion, and Craig’s “Casino Royale” was a close second. They were entertaining, smart, and fantastical, with just the right amount of kitschy nostalgia. QoS was dreary, and very smart production values couldn’t lift the plot out of the doldrums.
One cringe-worthy moment: people in the audience laughed at the sight of the Bolivians in their indigenous garb (bowler-like hats for men and women.)
@6 Dan: until you mentioned it, it never occurred to me that I don’t even know anyone who has actually *read* a Bond novel. Not that that would be a measure of our culture’s decline…
Hello to all
I cant understand how to add your site in my rss reader. Help me, please