Namnaste, Family -

I had the honor of handing the DVD made by New Jersey Films LLC entitled "WE LOVE YOU" to participants at the 2009 National Gathering - N.Y.Purple Gang's brunch.

Just curious about reactions from you-all to this documentary.

I told the producer, Johnathen, that I felt it was too short (He says a feature-leingh version may be in the works in the future)!
That aside, I wish there was more time to interview not just our Rainbow Elder friends - Garreck, Plunker, Grandpa Woodstock - et all - but some of the more marginalized members: Gutterpunks, anarchos, fairies, 'A' campers to kinda fill it out.
I also wanted to see an atempt to interview the ICT commander or the Feddies - get their take on it, but they seem very reluctant to make public comments. Gee, I wonder why?

The hipstory by Gareck and Plunker is facinating, as I wasn't aware of the deep connection to vets and peace activists that launched the Gatherings. Phew! As a vet it gives me goose-bumps. Also wanted to see what family thinks is going to happen next.

I am currently working on a simular project on the 2009 Gathering. I wanted to address the growing concerns about the problems with some of our younger participants bringing in hard drugs, alchohol and increasing theft but more importantly what can those of us who ARE concerned can do about it.If you attended the Womyn's Circle or the July 7th circle these issues were quite vocally debated.

So,if you didn't have a chance, go to: to see more.

Bright Blessings from PeacePirate

Views: 83

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

i havent seen it yet buyt i reallllly want to badly can ya maybe burn me a copy
also the links wrong if i remember correctly its or .org
Oppsy! Arrgh- my grog was too mellow...soaring eagle pointed out that the correct web address for the film is: - my bad! Oh! And while we're at it, mates - the disks handed out at Rainbow in New Mexico are protected, so PLEASE do not copy or put parts of it on the You Tube. Johnathan asked this because they want to enter it into film festivals, so please be groovy and respect his requests. Thankyathankya -
but can someone who did get a copy please please please burn me one?
eventualy i will be putting it on the web, but only when he says its fine to
till then i just want a copy to show ppl
Why not distribute it? Please don't tell me he's trying to MAKE MONEY off the Family by showing it at film festivals...cuz I know my minor child is in it and NEITHER of her parents were asked, consented to, or were even informed of her being in it. i'm under the impression that the documentary aspect of it allows certain liberties to be taken with consent or signed releases. But does that include filming minors without a parent's explicit, not implied, consent?

I just hope that the film is GPLed and distributed freely. I'm told it's a beautiful representation.

its my understanding that no he is not making a cent its being shown freely
it will be distributed freelyuy as well but, hes a pro filmaker who was proud of his work awnd wants it submitted for concideration to the acadamy awards and the sundance..
he is showing it at a couple film fests because it was made to be seen on a big screen like in theaters
he gave out many copies at the gathering and will give out many more
but untill hes submitted it to the varius popularity contests he doesnt want it on the web, thats all...from my understanding anyway

hes a nice guy you can ask him yourself if you want
Namnaste -

I think some things need to be taken into concideration. First, as a rule, documentaries rarely make a 'profit', but even if Johnathan DID make some, don't you believe he is entitled to re-imburse himself and his associates for the costs incured in such a production? I can tell you this as a film-maker: the costs and time is enormous...and we are talking an independent film group here, not a major studio.
Second, New Jersey Films brought to the 2009 Gathering over 600 copies. MY cost in cutting a copy is at least a dollar each. Plus they were kind enough to offer it FREE at the Gathering. It had to be transported and distributed at the Gathering.
Third, in regards to Jelly's concerns - yes there are specific release documents for actors when engaged in a production. I've delt with this before...but the key here is that a documentary is a trust relationship dynamic betwen the filmmakers and the subject. If you have seen the documentary AND were at dinner circle's, info center or anywhere in the FOREGROUND SUBJECT, they announced their intention to film and that anyone objecting only had to mention it to change the video procedure.
I think the fact that a production company would go to such trouble AND expense at least entitles them to show their efforts at film festivals - this can only lead to a greater understanding of the Rainbow Experience as a whole...and that is a very good thing indeed!
P.S.: I would be proud to see any body I know in this..and I do!
Actually he brought well over 2000 copies. That was costly. I have been recording music at gatherings for 10 years and the effort and cost involved in making CDs and hosting a web site is several hundred dollars a year all from my pocket. I can only imagine what he has spent in his ambitious project.

As for the Doc, it has great interviews and shots but I agree that it could have included more interviews and features but for 40 minutes it certainly does capture the basic essence of a gathering.

i agree with ya both

hell just the fact that someone whos already been nominated for 2 oscars would do this is amazing in itself
even if he did make money off it its still a valuavble gift to family just in the fact that it now exists

look, at what king of the hill did, making rainbow look like low life lazy scum
was there any consent there? wasnt that pureely for proffit without any concideration for family or how we were shown?

but even with how bad it made us look, jusr the fact that king of the hill would have a gathering episode only shows that we are oput there..making a difference.. and they know we are out there

i know when i saw that episode i felt both excited and discusted..i had never imagined id see the simpsons at a gathering let alone king of the hill..

and now to be featured in a oscar nomination?
all i have to say is..we've come a long long way towards acceptence
isnt that what we want?
the rainbow way of peace and love to spread throughout all society?
hows that gonna happen if we hide behind the trees?
Ummm, STEVEN Kalafer, his dad, was nominated for 2 (maybe 3) ACADEMY Awards for "More," "Curtain Call," and "Sister Rose's Passion". Jonathan worked as an intern on some of those films.

( )

Jonathan has one previous credit to his name, and that as Producer, not Director, for "The Diary of Imaculee." Which film ended up on the 2006 Academy Award "Hopefuls" list (again sharing credit with his father), but was not nominated.

( )
( )

On the same topic, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Mr. Kalafer DOES get at least a nomination for this documentary. All I have heard about it from friends and family who have watched it is good stuff and the press in LA is loving it.

Sure, it's okay to make a few bucks, but what's the line and when is it crossed? As long as it's okay for everyone to make money from our non-commercial event, I'm okay with it. But, if it's not ok for EVERYONE tomake a buck off of Rainbow Gatherings, then what?

What Mike Judge and Co. did was a parody. Not intended to be an accurate representation. They used what they wanted to make a story that (sorta) flowed. Also, "King of the Hill" is animated and does not follow the same LEGAL rules as other filmed media. '

And this is the big problem here folks. No one seemed to pick up on this. HOW can a 10-year-old girl give consent? Anyone? Please remember, neither I nor her mother were aware of this until the DVD was watched. I haven't seen it yet, but I was told during this years Annual of this. Star, her mother, watched it and was TOTALLY surprised to find out her daughter was filmed like this. Now, that's not to say that either or both of us would have said 'no.' But I ask again, just to be clear; how do you get consent from a minor without their parents knowledge?

Hmmm, just found this:

a user asks, "I know I have implied consent for using the material in my podcast... would this also apply to using the same material in the film? "

To which an answer was returned:

"You need a written release for interviews you do in a documentary. The only time that doesn't apply is when it's a public news event such as the mayor making a speech or a news event. "

( )

We, the media consumers, are clearly confronted with two polarized opinions on this. Mr. Kalafer seems to be fronting like not getting signed consent is a TOTALLY legit practice. I question that based on my experience with filmmakers and the film/entertainment industry. My research thus far supports my position.

I'm betting a little more research is going to support the position that releases were in fact needed and his production is illegal and could be "liened" until releases are signed.

DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN ATTACK! I would never put a lien on "We Love You." I'm glad it was made and I thank Mr. Kalafer for doing so. I just want his next production to be ethical.

i may have read this wrong, but
it looks like signed consent is needed when you use an interview, words spoken, ideas repressented, noyt when you accidently wander into a shot

when you see people making faces waving at theyre moms behind news reporters im betting dont have to sign consent, they jumped into a shot without being asked to be there...concent is implied by the fact that your in view of the camera.

im not taking anyones side here..just restating this as i see it
i havent seejn the vid but i imagine the girl was 1 of many people in the background
when you face a camera in any direction there will be people in the background wether easily seen or not
the focus is on the subject being interviewd, or the person being filmed intentionaly
thay are the ones needing consent

when you go to a concert or sports event and a shots taken of the thousands sign consents? i doubt it

but if one is interviewed after they sign one
i may have read this wrong

you did 8)

when you see people making faces waving at theyre moms behind news reporters im betting dont have to sign consent,

that's because the consent laws don't portect individuals at news events. Tho technically, those broadcasts are freely redistributed, as long as proper credit is given to the creator(s) of said newsmedia.

A documentary isn't made for unbiased information to reach the masses as a public service of sorts. It's a private enterprise by an individual or individuals to present their ideas and/or agendas. Thusly the law was made to differentiate between the two.

The gathering can clearly fall into both categories. In the one, local channel KOAT 7 wants to send a crew up to tape the happenings at the gather. Because they are a news crew and they subject matter they compile will be released for consumption to the public, via the media outlets, tv in this case; So-called "news" get this leeway because journalists are supposed to be unbiased. (IMO it's improbable that we can be w/out bias, but for argument's sake, let's say journalists have trained themselves to achieve that end.)

But when a crew of documentarians, documentary film makers, what have you, they are not there to make news. They are there to make art. Artists DO make art for art's sake. Johnathan's creation is art. He is giving a shit ton of it away. But he STILL should have had a signed release for every face in the film. It's not like he wouldn't have had enough footage to finish the film if he didn't have a release for every person in every shot. I'm sure HOURS and HOURS ended up "on the cutting room floor."

when you go to a concert or sports event and a shots taken of the thousands sign consents? i doubt it

Read the fine print - available at your ticketsellers office or online. You waive consent the moment you buy a ticket and walk into the stadium. Heck, I signed a contract for my job as a stagehand waiving my ability to collect on use of my image, even if it is accidentally used. Th eSuperbowl was the worst by far about releases and only being in areas were your level of release allowed you to go.

-----------------|> that's me on the far right. From his Twitter page.

The point is he needed to be walking around with sheafs of consent release forms. Reality shows have to, any pseudo-news (snl weekend report, daily show colbert report) has to get signed releases. HAVE TO, or blur out the people without them. the sig doesn't have to be more than "your mark" and minors have to have parental/guardian consent.

i still haven't seen it either se, tho i should soon. but my understanding was she was taped directly, the subject (or one of a few people). not as a part of a shot.



Rainbow Family Resources

Rainbow Family Websites. 

Please message me if you have more links and resources can share. You can also create your own group.

Goodreads Group

Help select the next Author Interview on "Up Close with Chris Tinney". Join THIS GOODREADS GROUP 

Latest Activity

HALEY R PASSALINO updated their profile
Cevher shared their album on Twitter
Jul 30
Cevher posted a photo
Jul 30
Sukadev Bretz posted a video

Online Live Mantra Konzert mit Matthias und Pieter 12:30 Uhr 08.07.2020

Sei dabei, beim Live Mantrakonzert mit Matthias und Pieter. Genieße das Konzert zum Mitmachen und öffne dein Herz. Verbreite Liebe und Verbundenheit, in dem ...
Jul 22

Contact Admin

Questions? Message me here or any of these social networks.

This site supported by   

Linked In / Facebook / Instagram / Radio Show

Chris Tinney
My Rainbow Profile

"Help the Homeless

Thankyou network marketing companies Hempworx, & Uforia, and Young Living Essential OilsPurium Brand Partners, and Arbonne Distributor for sponsoring this site, and paying the monthly fees!

© 2020   Created by Chris Tinney.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service