"Thank you Mr. President"

Helen Thomas is America's most senior White House correspondent. She has covered every President since John F. Kennedy, having travelled with all Presidents since Nixon and having covered all economic summits. From 1943 to 2000 she worked for UPI, later becoming White House Bureau Chief.

Helen resigned from UPI in 2000 in protest for the acquisition of the company by News World Communications (which owns the ultra-right-wing Washington Times). She is widely respected and considered as one of the most "professional" journalists in the States and is still - after all these years - filing from the White House.

She still holds a seat in the front row of the White House Briefing Room, although in 2003 the Bush administration pushed her into the back seats during press conferences because she always asks the tough questions.

In March 2006, President Bush directly called upon her for the first time in three years! It was a decision that he would live to regret.

Here is the transcript from that historic briefing (although you MUST view the video because the transcript doesn't do justice to the exchange). Notice how consistently Bush avoids the question, which is solely about Iraq.

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

Helen Thomas' latest book - a publishing event in its own merit - is entitled "Watchdogs of Democracy? The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public" and is now available.

A few other senior journalists and public intellectuals have come out and reflected upon the state of the US Press and its failings in regards to asking the tough questions in the post-9/11 context. Most famously, in 2002, Dan Rather claimed that "patriotism run amok" was limiting press freedom. Similar reflections were expressed after the ill-conceived 2nd Gulf War. George Clooney's film "Good Night, and Good Luck" was a direct and acid commentary on the current situation. Thomas' book is only bound to add to that pressure for more critical and independent journalistic practice in D.C.

Things I Wanted to Become When I'd Grow Up

- Archaeologist, especially an Egyptologist as i have a big thing for the Pyramids and ancient Egypt. Plus there's the Indiana Jones factor - apparently applications to Archaeology university departments shot up after the three 'Indy' films in the 80s. These days i prefer to exercise my amateur skills by reading Herodotus.

- Historian. I love History - it's one of my big passions and i was fortunate enough to get quite a lot of it during school and university so that was close. Hey, the good thing about History is that it's never too late to start.

- Diplomat. That was one of my main options out of my undergraduate studies but due to a variety of reasons [mostly the impossibility of getting into the Diplomatic Corps without friends in high places] i didn't choose that path.

- Spook. Every young boy's dream. Hours and hours of Bond films. The problem is that if you finally get the coolest job in the world you can tell no one, and you have to keep risking your life while lying to your family about your real job. Wouldn't it be cooler if you could show off as a spook without having to actually risk your life?

- Writer. Fiction and non-fiction. Academic and non-academic. Scripts, plays and novels. I basically love reading and when you read a lot you get the appetite to write, to create characters, to construct stories, to put forward arguments, to build imaginary worlds. Status: ongoing.

- Film Critic. One of my big passions in life - and certainly an option for the future. Until Premiere, Sight and Sound or ΣΙΝΕΜΑ discover my talent though, i will have to keep posting my reviews on MATK.

- Film Composer. I love film music and i love writing music for images so there you go. Again, one for the future.

- Journalist. Fact. I am a news junkie and like to be up to date with everything. I love writing up commentaries and reports on politics and current affairs, but hate having to follow editorial orders. Thus, i became an academic!

- University Professor. Getting to learn about everything and then talk about it.

Hey, you could probably tell i was a geek from way back then right?

i like Miro

Review: United 93

On Wednesday i watched the first of two new feature films on the events surrounding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The film was Paul Greengrass' United 93, on the fourth plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

+ Anyone who can shoot a (Hollywood) film of this quality with a mere $30m budget should be given an award (just for budgeting) in today's 9-digit-hungry industry. Honestly, they've made a $100m-dollar-looking production for a third of the price, combining slick sets ('national command centers' and 'FAA control centers' full of gadgets and screens reminiscent of 1980s War Games) with many external and on-flight shots. Well done to location managers, exec and assoc producers, production managers and designers et al. The late Ismail Merchant would have been proud of you guys.

+ Paul Greengrass is not any director. He is the director of The Bourne Supremacy, the ultimate post-Bond spy thriller. He is also the director of Bloody Sunday, a seminal film on the Northern Irish troubles. I'm pleased to say that in United 93 Greengrass manages to combine the former's breath-holding suspense with the latter's acid yet non-existent, subtle yet invisible political commentary. Sometimes just showing what happened in documentary style is more shocking than dressing the story up with all sorts of dramatic frocks. Greengrass' comment on the state of the country's response capability (esp. in terms of inter-agency communication) is crystal clear and reminds me of Richard A. Clarke's "Against All Enemies".

+ The lack of any identifiable actors - really important not just for the purposes of disbelief suspension, but also as a deliberate strategic choice of the film-makers (is it for respect to the victims? is it for budgeting purposes? is it for narrative purposes? it doesn't matter - it works!).

+ The film's visual feel and aesthetic approach (especially the logos and posters, which pay an homage to 1970s disaster movies); the title with its double meaning (United as in the flight; united as in all passengers united against the hijackers); the production notes, most of which is dedicated describing the bios of United 93's (real) crew and passengers, as opposed to the usual spin by the studio. I think that alone is testament to Greengrass' intentions to make a film about real heroes, i.e. everyday people.

+ Yet, it's the raw, sterile, surgical, simple, blank, empty, silent transcription of what happened on the day (from the moment the hijackers woke up - first shot - to the very final one) that steals the show. It all feels like one of the BBC's awesome docudramas, or like Gus Van Sant's Elephant (without the repetitive multiple points of view, although these are implied) in that the film-makers simply present what happened on a sunny morning without any explicit value judgements or ethical lectures. Yes the first half feels mundane, but that's absolutely vital in setting the scene and building up for the second half. Also, if you were born on this planet before say 1985, you will probably get goosebumps throughout the film as the events of that day have affected more or less everyone alive (to different extents and for different reasons).

+ Music by John Powell. One of the best soundtracks of the year (and I'm using the literal sense of the word - sound track as in the sound that surrounds the film, not necessarily the final CD in itself, although that would be very interesting to listen to and see if it stands on its own).

- Not sure about the opening (prayer) shots. Factually accurate but quite dangerous too, i.e. it can subtly affect people's perceptions of Islam and Muslims and can be used against the (big) majority of peace-loving law-abiding citizens.

- A few continuity errors with the plane going up and down on the same scene (when it was supposed to only go down).

Overall, then, United 93 is a must-see not least as a tribute to those who gave their lives to save others, irrespective of where you stand on the 'war on terror' and the Bush / empire agenda; as well as a lesson on what humans can achieve if they are united and (note to self) calm during times of crisis. And on top of that United 93 is just a good film.

Things to do if you HATE the World Cup (and the hysteria around it)

1. Book your tickets for this year's Wimbledon Championships

2. Take a long walk at Hampstead Heath and pay your respects to Rembrandt at Kenwood House.



3. Get hooked on podcasting and vlogging: my top two podcasts are Bicyclemark's Communique [in English]; and CinemaCast [in Greek].

4. Listen to Athens' Best Radio.

5. Read Lefas and Kazeros' Without Limits ("Χωρίς όρια: Οι αχανείς εκτάσεις των αθηναϊκών προαστίων") [in Greek], one of the most fascinating and accessible books I've ever read - a 'must' read for everyone born, raised or living in the Athenian suburbia.

6. Catch the next Eurostar and grab a coffee at Paris' Place Vendôme.



7. Book a table at Simpson's-in-the-Strand, England's most traditional (and poshest) restaurant.

8. If all else fails, book your August flight to Athens.

Review: The Da Vinci Code

At long last, my review of The Code, which I watched at Brixton's uber-cool (and rich in history and atmosphere) Ritzy cinema on Monday.

Right, straight on to the business at hand:

+ The film is not as bad as most critics make it sound - it's actually quite enjoyable. Lavish cinematography, good locations, nice gadgets; London looks good, Paris looks (and is) amazing. If you haven't read the book you'll probably enjoy it even more.

+ Generally speaking most sequences of the book have materialised well cinematically.

+ Supporting actors (Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany) are very well cast...

- ...having said that, all roles aren't particularly "beefy". Neither is the story. The main problem is that the book is massive and moves at a frantic pace. There is absolute loads of information, codes, urban legends and suspense scenes in the book - in a sense the book tries to do a lot (too much?) and suceeds. Film isn't the right medium for this sort of thing mixing interactivity, visual atmosphere, nuance and detail. An interactive website, or a video game, might have been more appropriate outlets.

- Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou have been criticised for their performances, yet it's probably the script wot dunnit. We never really get to know let alone identify with the heros, something which Dan Brown spends ages working on in the book. The film is better in bringing out the mystery and symbols of the original, rather than building up a breath-taking action thriller.

Overall, this is definitely enjoyable although probably not worth the excessive marketing and media hype. If you were expecting a film that would be as breath-taking and intriguing as the book you'll be probably disappointed (but that would happen anyway because a lot of the book's breath-taking material is information, historical stuff, that you only learn once - the film has an a priori disadvantage that it can't undo your knowledge). If you were expecting a slick, atmospheric adaptation for the screen then you'll leave the cinema (almost) satisfied.