With this presentation I was unable to attend as I had to undergo dental surgery. which left me a little confused and annoyed at how I could deliver my findings. It has possibly worked out in my favour. I felt a need to not only be concise within the 5 minutes but also cover the ground that I had I felt unearthed. by using the format of video It allowed me to of course do two things, cut imagery in from the film and try to convey some of my concepts and ideas through the use of this format. I decide not to cheat and cut my best bits! From the 15 takes I did! And keep working toward a single presentation unbroken at least in sound delivery. And this was a struggle I am not known for my concise delivery! What I realised was that of course as someone who works in moving image, that I could use the source text (dil) to try and show as well as tell some of the ideas, to speed up delivery. Also it was fun because I knew early on that the ideas of complicity that perhaps Trrantino was working with in this film could also be a tiny part of the presentation. So I hope some of this is at least partially evident, by simply putting words together with images and sound we can of course create associations, and reactions in an audience, some films are made to spoon feed and to control the audience, this presentation starts with a jocular version of this, “eyes front” Pay attention here comes some propaganda! I also wanted to show that re-appropration of images can then change there context and therefore meaning again. so it is a journey shared by the viewer and the audience, and one built to a certain extent on expectations and trust. Leaving hitler with the last word was a risky decision and actually one I deliberated over. It came from a desire to include ideas I had had to leave out of the presentation, these revolved around the idea of certain subjects being ring fenced morally in their dramatic treatment. There appears to be an implication when looking at these horrific events from a historical perspective that all portrayals should be of a very serious nature, I think that this may bring its own problems too, when we allow a truly open approach to how we deal with these horrors we may remember that satire remains a very powerful tool of dissemination. Two great examples of the power of satire, are the Great Dictator (1940) by Charlie Chaplin, and Dr Strange Love (1964) by Stanley Kubrick, both films offer a powerful critique of the horror of War genocide and the ability of humankind to transgress in maniacal and terrible acts. Perhaps as we move further from historical events the temptation is to enshrine them in certain thematic treatments and readings. We may feel unqualified to comment, on a time passed, but to learn from history to make use of its power for positive means, surely this should encompass a wider and more open approach. Hitler is given the last word, yes, but to show two things: how easily images put together can be given new context, (we can be easily lead) and how by not allowing these figures to maintain there power we can break the spell of fear that they have over us even from a historical standpoint. essentially we should remember those who suffered with awe and respect, and at every opportunity deride the perpetrators and seek to pull any remaining teeth they might have.