I was driving back to New Orleans last night from a soulful interfaith prayer service in recognition of the oil spill at the Houma/Terrabonne Civic Center, when rapid-fire phone interviews with parish presidents pierced through the radio.

The WWL interviews with St. Bernard Parish President Craig Taffaro and the nearly famous Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser furiously expounded on the Thursday morning meeting with all parish presidents, mayors, Admiral Thad Allen, the National Incident Commander of the Unified Command for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and Doug Suttles, Chief Operating Officer of BP Exploration and Production.

Unfortunately, the meeting unexpectedly turned into a "listening session" describes Taffaro,
"Here we are thinking we're going to a meeting to discuss post-capping activities, and we're handed a plan before there's even a discussion. It just sort of illustrated the very source of our frustration."

The parish presidents finally protested and demanded to express their thoughts and concerns. Admiral Allen assured the crowd that because the oil well would not be capped permanently for another 10 days at least, no assets would be removed before the local leadership had a chance to agree on a plan and schedule another discussion with United Command leadership.

Feeling skeptical, Taffaro immediately asked if the commitment to retain all assets was supported at all levels of the United Command, and he received a rousing confirmation from the head voices at the table.

Immediately following the meeting, Taffaro received calls and emails from Houma command and BP leadership contradicting this very commitment and a letter greeted him the next morning to announce that as parish president, he did not have any authority that the Coast Guard could not supersede. Moreover, if the Coast Guard or BP wanted to move assets without the consent of the parish president, they had the authority to do so.

On the same day, deputies from the Plaquemines Parish Sheriff's Office pulled over trucks with loaded boom attempting to leave the base. A few miles away, Taffaro received a message that five trucks were heading toward the Oakdale Base to remove boats from his parish. As a result, Taffaro issued an Executive Order to declare that no assets related to the oil spill response be removed from St. Bernard Parish. Although he hopes the executive order will send a strong enough message, he explained that if a truck still attempts to remove assets they will need federal intervention to pave the road to the base.

Why are the parish presidents angry and frustrated?

"I just don't understand how this is coming to pass. We're in the middle of hurricane season, we have boats and planes that are identifying oil every day, and we're having to fight to convince the very people who have the authority to help us that it exists!" Explained Taffaro.

I recorded sections of the revealing radio interviews and added some small effects for emphasis. Take a look and listen:

Has the oil disappeared? Or, do we need to be asking a few different questions: Why are parish presidents and affected community members easily able to spot oil slick and sheen? What is the process for cleaning up the millions of gallons of subsurface oil that now seems to be out-of-sight and out-of-mind?

Social Security is once again under attack.

Time after time Social Security has come under attack. Do you remember the Bush "privatization" campaign a few years ago? Each time the attack uses a different myth, repeated over and over. Then, in between attacks, the myths continue circulating. This time they're trying to make people think that Social Security contributes to the budget deficit. It doesn't. They say this because so many people are worried about budget deficits. If polling showed that people were worried that their arms are going to turn into green cheese, they would be repeating and repeating that Social Security is the reason your arms are turning into green cheese. Sheesh!

In response to the latest attack a coalition of groups has formed to fight back and protect Social Security, demanding that Congress not make any benefit cuts. The coalition represents 30 million members, who are asked to remind elected officials that Social Security remains the "third rail" of American politics and that any sort of benefit cuts are opposed by wide majorities, from liberals to Tea Partiers.

The coalition is saying Strengthen Social Security, Don't Cut It. Their website is strengthensocialsecurity.org and its blog is at strengthensocialsecurity.org/blog.

Most important, its petition is available to sign here.

The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility is trying to cut Social Security benefits. We can't let that happen.

Can you sign our urgent petition to the Commission?

Social Security belongs to the people who have worked hard all their lives and contributed to it. Social Security is a promise that must not be broken. If you pay in, then you earn the right to benefits for yourself, your spouse and your dependent children when you retire, experience a severe disability, or die.

We need to strengthen Social Security, not cut it. That is why I oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including increasing the retirement age. I also oppose any effort to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part.

Meet Billy Bankster! Please watch this video from the coalition:

Here are videos from the launch event. First is Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW):

Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP):

Richard L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO:

Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org:

Gerald W. McEntee, President of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME):

Ed Coyle, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans:

Dennis Van Roekel, President of the National Education Association (NEA):

Eliseo Medina, International Executive Vice President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU):

This video showcases an amazing new interactive mirror that functions like a massive touch-screen, allowing users to paint and draw with the tap of a finger.

The technology was conceptualized by Lit Studios and developed by Interference Incorporated, an innovative marketing company based in the New York City area, that develops interactive technologies for clients "wishing to set themselves apart."

According to the video, there is still no patent on the mirror.

Interference Inc, the guerilla marketing agency that developed the mirror, gained a measure of notoriety in 2007 when it was accused of having engineered the Boston bomb scare, where police thought that small Aqua Teen Hunger Force LED placards were improvised explosive devices. The placards turned out to be part of a marketing publicity stunt for the Cartoon Network--which led many to accuse Boston Police of not following the tech blogosphere closely enough.

Yes, yes, 2010 is the worst year for movies EVER, screams Joe Queenan of The Wall Street Journal. There have been plenty of years where I felt 'this is the worst year/summer ever', especially as, yes, I've gotten older. Part of it is nostalgia, as I remember the years past through rose-colored glasses. I remember the great moviegoing experiences (my dad taking me to a jampacked advance-night screening of Jurassic Park... best moviegoing experience of my life) more than the bad ones (my dad taking me to see an afternoon matinee of Airheads that had me feeling guilty that it turned out to be such a stinker). But looking back at years that I didn't care for, there are still more than a few movies that are so good that they all-but redeem the year. We forget about the bad movies and only remember the good ones. When people discuss 1972, they discuss The Godfather, Deliverance, Sleuth, and Sounder. They do not mention Horror at Snape Island, The Revengers, or The Last of the Red Hot Lovers. When we think of 1996, we remember (depending on our taste) Fargo, Independence Day, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders At Robin Hood Hills, Get on the Bus, Mission: Impossible, Big Night, or Star Trek: First Contact. But I'm betting most of us haven't given a second thought to Sargent Bilko, Eddie, or Striptease in fourteen years.

Sure, I may have complained that summer 2001 was a stinker, but who among us really knew how wonderful The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring was going to be just a few months later? I would never think for a moment to trade away the crap of Pearl Harbor or Planet of the Apes if it meant losing the sheer triumph of The Lord of the Rings or the curtain raiser than is Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. 2010 has been one of the lesser years in my memory, but it has still given us Toy Story 3, Inception, How to Train Your Dragon, Mother, the awesomely awful Mega Piranha, and Winter's Bone. When looking back over a year in film, we don't need every film to be good, we just need an occasional Pulp Fiction or Being John Malkovich to remind us why we're still in this game. If it means we have to sit through Iron Man 2 to appreciate Inception, it's worth it. If experiencing Toy Story 3 means that I'll also have to watch the upcoming Alphas and Omegas, it's a fair trade to me.

Also of note, as Lauren Feder seems to acknowledge after Queenen's screed, many of the alleged classics that Joe Queenen brings up were NOT universally beloved in their time. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves got mixed reviews at best, with many complaining about its darkness, violence, and the weakness of its lead performance. The Matrix only became a 'classic' after the fact, as frankly do most films considered classics (would you believe that the New York Times panned Goldfinger back in 1964 because Bond didn't get laid enough?). And as for 'no Slumdog Millionaire on the horizon', part of the appeal of Slumdog Millionaire is that it took audiences somewhat by surprise. We (in general) rarely see the classics as classics when they are first released. We overpraise American Beauty and trash Fight Club, not realizing which one will truly stand the test of time. We pan There's Something About Mary only to then complain that Me, Myself, and Irene isn't as great as There's Something About Mary. Today's Marilyn Manson is tomorrow's Beatles.

We complain that things are worse/different than they were in our youth, and then our kids will do the same when they are our age. There are just as many good movies made now as there were at any time. Granted, you may have to seek them out. You may have to go to an arthouse theater, you may have to order IFC On Demand, you might have to watch them on cable, or you may have to troll around Netflix for a minute. But the quality is out there and more accessible than ever before. When 2010 is discussed and remembered, we won't be talking about Jonah Hex, The Bounty Hunter, The Last Airbender, Sex and the City 2, or The Wolfman. We'll be fondly remembering the dozen or so movies we loved from this year, be they Toy Story 3, Inception, The Kids are All Right, something great coming this fall, or some other little gem that only you 'truly appreciated' (I say Shanghai Knights is one of the best films of 2003 and I'll challenge anyone who disagrees). We remember the movies that are worth remembering. Everything else is collateral damage. After all, we need to sit through Percy Jackson and Olympians: the Lightning Thief to truly appreciate how special the Harry Potter series really is. To quote one of the last decade's very best films, if everyone's special, then no one is.

Scott Mendelson

"This is like outer space." Just one of the many accurate observations uttered by the incredibly giddy (and likely, incredibly impaired) geniuses who poured 32 glow sticks into the back of the toilet. But you know what? It is like outer space. And it's awesome. So without further ado, we present: The Rave Toilet. (via Hunter Covington)

WATCH:

Last week I had the privilege of being asked to judge Tony Blair's Faith Foundation's Faith Shorts competition which showcased films by young film makers on the theme of faith. Young people from across the globe submitted films, each telling their own unique story giving a personal interpretation on faith.

I must say it was refreshing to see some positive coverage being given to faith which so often is misrepresented: on one end of the spectrum it's perceived as being "uncool" or no longer relevant and the on the other more dangerous end, we see faith high jacked by violent extremists for political ends. These young people have reclaimed faith for today's youth and those who believe in the true tenants of faith. Peace, love, forgiveness and hope, all of which could be found within the films submitted.

Apart from the positive messages being espoused through the films my fellow judges and I were treated to a true carnival of creativity courtesy of a diverse group of talented young artists. No less diverse was the ensemble individuals of who were invited to judge this competition. Just like the entrants we judges were representative of various countries and from different backgrounds. I found myself judging the work of these young artists in the company of a group of ranging from the movie star and martial artist Jet Li to Her Majesty Queen Raina of Jordan. We all found the films extremely powerful moving and thought provoking.

I felt both honored and humbled to be asked to support the work of the Faith Foundation in seeking to bring future generations together through faith and personal expression. The shorts we watched all reminded me of the inexorable optimism of our young people and the ongoing quest for international peace and understanding. If more young people as remarkable as those who were honored last week continue to be given a platform to show us how we can live together then I think we might have a shot.

For further information visit: www.tonyblairfaithfoundation.org

A weekly round-up of LA's biggest losers, click here to see the winners.

Oliver Stone: Hard to imagine what Stone was thinking during his interview with London's Sunday Times in which he condemned "Jewish domination of the media" for the bad wrap Hitler has gotten over the years. He did give perennial LA loser Mel Gibson a week off our list, however.

Robert Rizzo: The story of Bell's $800,000 man went from local outrage to national firestorm this week, as seen in this clip from MSNBC's Countdown. You can be certain many more casualties of this scandal will grace this list in coming weeks.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Lane Kiffin: Not an ideal start for the new USC coach, getting sued by the Tennessee Titans after signing their running back coach Kennedy Pola. Kiffin's theory that the Titans were motivated by their proximity to his former employer, the University of Tennessee (which incidentally would like Kiffin's head on a pike), is not likely to stand up in court. According to the AP, Titans coach Jeff Fisher isn't buying it either:

Fisher is baffled at the idea that the Titans sued to pacify Volunteers fans. He says: "How one could think they would combine the two is absurd to me."

Steve McPherson: Amid rampant speculation in Hollywood regarding Steve McPherson's sudden resignation from ABC emerged reports that the former executive was under internal investigation for sexual harassment. McPherson has hired "pit bull litigator" Marty Singer to fight the charges.

A few years ago, Lawrence Bender and Jeffrey Skoll set out to make a new documentary about nuclear weapons, a film which would act as a wake up call to the imperative of nuclear abolition, just as their last project, An Inconvenient Truth, galvanized public discourse--and action--surrounding climate change. Teamed up with policy expert Bruce Blair and Writer-Director Lucy Walker (Devil's Playground, Blindsight) they created the newly released Countdown to Zero, which unequivocally argues that, whether by accident, malicious intent of "terrorists" or as a result of failed diplomacy, nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable risk and must be eliminated.

While scores of arms control and disarmament civil society groups are deeply inspired by the mass consciousness-raising and mobilization opportunity the film presents, many disarmament activists are vocally disappointed with the film. They are concerned that the film overemphasizes the hazard of sub-state actors acquiring these weapons of terror and places insufficient responsibility upon countries like the US and Russia for their continued reliance on-- and dangerous posture of-- nuclear weapons.

Countdown to Zero makes the case for abolition without employing the moral arguments eloquently posited by luminaries such as Albert Schweitzer, or Cold Warrior George Kennan, who once stated:

The readiness to use nuclear weapons against other human beings - against people we do not know, whom we have never seen, and whose guilt or innocence is not for us to establish - and, in doing so, to place in jeopardy the natural structure upon which all civilization rests, as though the safety and perceived interests of our own generation were more important than everything that has taken place or could take place in civilization: this is nothing less than a presumption, a blasphemy, an indignity- an indignity of monstrous dimensions - offered to God!

Indeed the film omits many valid arguments highly relevant to advancing to the security of a world without nuclear weapons:

1) The continued possession of nuclear weapons--which by itself entails a threat to use them--instigates others to acquire them. As UN High Representative Sergio Duarte said, "One cannot worship at the altar of nuclear weapons and raise heresy charges against those who want to join the sect."

2) It is necessary to uphold the rule of law by fulfilling the unanimous ruling of the International Court of Justice wherein the Court held " ...there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control"

3) Because nuclear weapons, in the words of the late Senator Alan Cranston, are "unworthy of civilization," it is imperative as a matter of conscience to address their moral impropriety.

4) We should not overlook the injustice and destabilizing impact of the extraordinary economic expenditures wasted on nuclear weapons and outrageous allocations within nuclear weapons-states to modernize their arsenals - a burlesque expression of improved means to unimproved ends.

5) This is the moment to utilize the political high ground opened by the Five Point Plan set forth by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon which includes, inter alia, a "call for the (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) NPT parties to pursue negotiations in good faith - as required by the treaty - on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification."

6) Every citizen has a right to demand compliance with the commitments stated as "The reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon States of their unequivocal undertaking to accomplish, in accordance with the principle of irreversibility, the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under Article VI of the Treaty," as stipulated in the 2010 Final Document of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, agreed to by 189 countries that are parties to the NPT, and the important diplomatic processes that are necessary to achieve that goal.

Do such omissions weaken the core argument of the film? Do they dilute the film's efficacy as a public outreach and engagement tool? Hardly. Rather, it is the responsibility of civil society groups and concerned citizens to seize the opportunity of this powerful, mass-distributed major motion film arguing for abolition and supplement the film's message by drawing attention to these various initiatives and remonstrations.

Of course nuclear proponents could try to use the film for their own nefarious ends by focusing singularly on the dangers of terrorists or unfriendly states getting a hold of the weapons, arguing that military force can prevent such proliferation. Such people brought the US into a war in Iraq by simply telling lies. Will they try to distort the message of this film? Possibly. However, this possibility should only motivate abolition-minded civil society members to redouble our efforts and help amplify the movie's unambiguous concluding message: that abolition is the only way, and we will achieve it with engaged, public support.

The film's core message is compelling, effectively presented and unambiguous: the only way to address the nuclear threat of nuclear weapons is through their elimination. Towards this end, it calls for incremental threat-reducing steps, such as bringing the new US-Russia Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty into force, taking the weapons off of high alert status, lowering the numbers of existing warheads and obtaining a universal, legal, intrusive, and enforceable agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Russia, the United States and China already have pronounced modernization programs in place, to say nothing of the more shrouded programs by the "unofficial" nuclear weapon states of Israel, India and Pakistan. The politics of turning these programs around will require a shift in the characterization of nuclear weapons: that they are a greater problem than any problem they seek to solve. This is the message of Countdown to Zero. This shift will require all of us to speak up, mobilize public opinion and, as captioned in the last frame of the movie "Demand Zero"!

Jonathan Granoff is the President of the Global Security Institute (GSI). Rhianna Tyson Kreger is a Senior Officer at GSI. See: www.gsinstitute.org.

This post originally appeared on the Tikkun blog.

I didn't really know much about Helen (except that it was going to be released this summer) until I got an email from Sandra Nettlebeck, the director asking me what I knew about when her film was coming out. I was surprised to get the email from a woman who has a track record (Mostly Martha) and has a film that premiered at Sundance and that has a very high profile star (Ashley Judd.) But that's the business and films get lost and lots of time don't even get released. The good news is that 18 months after its premiere at Sundance, Helen will finally see the light of day this weekend in NYC and shortly thereafter on DVD.

Sandra Nettlebeck answered some questions about the film.

Women & Hollywood: In the press notes you talk about how you were inspired by your friend's suicide to tell this story. Why did you work so hard and long (10 years) to get this film made?

Sandra Nettlebeck: I was profoundly shaken by the death of my friend. The terrible loss, the painful questions and self-doubts that inevitably come with such an experience stayed with me. But it wasn't until three years later, when I read an article in The New Yorker by Andrew Solomon about his battle with and survival of his own depression, that I started working on Helen. Andrew's story of survival inspired the story of Helen, and I felt it was a hugely important story to tell. So many people are affected by this deadly illness, and so many people still know so little about it. I am convinced that the lack of information, support and acceptance that clouds clinical depression costs lives every day. I wanted to do my part in trying to change that. This kind of motivation, to feel that you have something to say that will matter, make a difference, possibly help other people, goes a very long way.

W&H: Mental illness is a very common theme in films yet we usually see other people commenting on the person who is ill. Here you give us almost an x-ray of a person living with depression. Why was that important to you?

SN: It was important to me to try and tell the story from the perspective of Helen. We've seen plenty of films about mental illness, addiction, etc. from the perspective of the husbands, wives, parents, children, friends, about how they experience it when a loved one falls ill. I wasn't interested in that, even though the family plays a crucial role in Helen as well. I wanted to show what it is like inside of depression. Shed a light on the enigma of a hellish disease and the extent to which it can ruin us. Depression, by nature, is the loss of communication. Film is all about communication. That's a tricky opposition to balance throughout a two-hour drama. Hopefully, I managed to give a glimpse of what it can be like to live in such a skin, give the audience an idea of what it feels like when these walls are closing in on you.

W&H: This is not an easy movie to watch, but it is hopeful and redemptive. What can you say to people who might be put off and not want to make the effort to see a "hard" movie especially in the summer.

SN: That it may be even harder to watch it in the winter! No, seriously, this is a tough movie in any weather. And I'm sure it's not for everyone. But in ten years I have not met one person who was not in some way directly or indirectly affected by this illness. Everyone had a story to tell. Consider the numbers for a moment. In the US alone, almost 20 million people suffer from depression, more than twice as many women as men, and it is the leading cause of disability in the country. And these are just the ones we know about, the ones who got treatment, who managed to face the fact that they need help.

But Helen is also, first and foremost, a love story. It asks the question that I always ask, and that really is the one question that I never get tired of asking - what love can do for us. Helen gives a big answer to that. No matter how hard or dark it gets, I know there is hope and love, and I think the movie compounds that. How crucial it is not to give up hope, under any circum­stance. Not as the one afflicted, nor as the one trying to help. I've met a lot of people who shook my hand after the movie because they either finally felt under­stood or did understand in a way they hadn't done so before. So I do believe this film can make a difference. And as a filmmaker, to me that is the proudest moment.

W&H: How did you get Ashley Judd?

SN: Actually, she got to me. Somebody gave her the script to read and she wrote me a passionate letter about how much it would mean to her to be involved in this film. What she hadn't been told was that, at the time, I already had a lead actress committed to the project. Ashley and I met anyway because I was very moved by her conviction and enthusiasm, her readiness to take on such a challenge. A few months later, fate would have it that my lead actress had to leave the project due to another prior commitment and ill-timing. So I called Ashley and asked her if she would still consider the role. She said yes right away, and lucky for me, she was available. I think it was meant to be. The film was as personal to her as it was to me.

W&H: Ashley Judd goes to depths we have never seen from her before. How were you able to get such a stark and brutally honest performance from her?

SN: Ashley was ready and prepared to give herself to this complex and difficult performance in a way that doesn't happen very often. I think that is the greatest gift to any director - when it is as meaningful and significant to an actor to embody a character, become part of a story, as it was for Ashley to portray Helen. Of course it is also a huge challenge. How much do you push someone on this journey, and how do you protect them. I had to rely on Ashley to draw the line, all I could do is offer her my guidance, my presence, a safe haven any time she needed it - and ask her to trust me as a director. I think she is a brilliant actress, and what she is able and willing to share with us on the screen as Helen is nothing less than extraordinary.

W&H: There are two different forms of mental illness dealt with in the film, depression which Ashley Judd's character suffers from as well as bi-polar disorder which Lauren Lee Smith's character Mathilda suffers from. How were you able to choreograph the scenes between the two actresses who were both dealing with very different emotions that needed to come out onscreen.

SN: As a director I do everything to make the actors feel safe, and if they trust me, they can go to places they haven't been to before. There is also something truly intimate about Lauren Lee Smith's performance, something very private and raw. I don't think you get that if the actors don't believe you'll do right by them or if they're not convinced that you know what you're doing, that you will protect and appreciate what they give you. I think both Ashley and Lauren felt extremely self-confident inside of their roles, and I myself had very precise ideas about each of the characters that I was able to convey to the actors. So nobody got lost. I think it was this clarity that guided us through the scenes. There was never any doubt in my mind about their relationship, how they affect, oppose, care for and love each other for who they are. The very thing that drives the two women together, their ability to accept each other and give each other the space (and company) they need, their unique relationship within the story, their dynamic opposition and alliance is also what makes the scenes work, and ultimately how Ashley and Lauren worked next to each other. And even though they deal with different illnesses, Mathilda knows depression, as it is part of her condition. She knows how Helen feels, and this is their common ground. Helen on the other hand doesn't know mania, she can't follow Mathilda to that place. She doesn't understand the terrifyingly appealing ambivalence of bi-polar disorder that Mathilda feels and lives with, and that is precisely where she loses her.

W&H: Depression and mental illness in general is pervasive yet is still stigmatized. The most fully functioning person could all of a sudden be plunged into such deep depths. What do you want people to learn from this film?

SN: That it can happen to everyone. That it often happens to people you least expect it of. Also, of course, and this is particularly challenging, people have to understand how fine and fluctuating the line is between unhappiness and illness. That people, including and especially the sick ones, often can't tell the difference - sometimes until it's too late. Many people would never get as sick as they do if they would find help sooner. The stigma is everywhere, maybe even particularly in the hearts and minds of the people who are ill. You very often hear severely depressed people wish they had cancer, broken bones, anything other than depression - in other words, a "real" illness. Something one can see, point to, identify, isolate. Depression is invisible, often masked (by alcoholism for example), and it afflicts the mind, so it robs us of the very organ we need to cope with it in the first place. It can be a deadly cycle. When you're inside the illness, you not only lose your grasp of reality, of perspective and hope, you also lose your ability to understand and rationalize your condition. Death becomes attractive because it seems to be the only means to heal the disease.

What I want people to learn above all else is that there is no shame in seeking help and that the best help one can offer as a loved one or friend is to help a depressed person find that help. Nobody expects people with diabetes to "pull themselves together" and try living without the insulin. But there are many people who would still be alive today if they had found the proper professional help at the right time, and this includes medication. You can see, I do think we have a lot to learn and I could go on and on. If I had to sum it up, once again, I'd say, don't be afraid or ashamed to ask for help, don't give up hope, and don't give up the fight.

W&H: You also really try to get to the heart of how mental illness is so misunderstood. When Helen's husband David (played by Goran Visnjic) says to her psychiatrist, Helen is unhappy, the doctor responds - your wife is not unhappy, she is ill. Can you talk about how hard it is for people to understand mental illness?

SN: It's a bitch. Like I said, we can't point to it. Multiple sclerosis doesn't look like a broken heart. Cancer doesn't feel like sadness. Clinical depression however moves within this realm. And we're inclined to solve our own problems, get a handle on things, tough it out, move on, not whine, take control, be a winner etc. Even when depression is at its worst, when your despair is beyond belief, when you can't get out of bed, when you feel nauseated all the time, when you can't sleep, when you loathe yourself inside and out, when nothing makes sense and you don't feel love for anything, when you can't stop crying and all you can think about is how best to end your life - even then, the idea that it is your fault, that you really only need to pull yourself together and you'd get better, can easily manifest itself. And it's not surprising. The lines are almost impossible to draw, and it's hardly ever completely exclusive of one another. At the other end of the spectrum one may draw the line too easily. As if a pill is all you need. I can tell you this: at best pills can help you manage depression, they can help you learn to live with it, they can lift the most paralyzing black blanket and enable you to get back some control, to live your life in a way so you are no longer a victim of your illness. But they're not a cure. They can't make you happy. Happiness is still very much our responsibility and has nothing to do with the disease. Just as it is our responsibility to deal and address conflict that arises, face necessary struggles and respect and accommodate love and relationships. Happiness is no guarantee and can't be medically induced. The ability to live your life fully however is something one can be robbed of by the disease. And all this is just the tip of the iceberg. Depression is long, tedious, hard work, and once you get through the thick of it and are lucky enough to survive it, the real work begins (like it does at the end of the movie). Even under the best of circumstance, when you have people who love and try to understand and accept you for who you are, living with this illness is hard.

W&H: The film premiered over a year ago at Sundance. Why did it take so long for it to come to theatres?

SN: More often than not it is frustrating, demoralizing and sometimes infuriating how little control one has over this aspect of the filmmaking process. Not to say that there has ever been an easy time to release a challenging film, but the last couple of years certainly haven't been favorable for independent drama. I have to say I am very happy that the film will see the light of day at all in the US. I feel that that's where this film really belongs. I surely wish it had gotten a lot more exposure than it has.

W&H: What are you working on next?

SN: I'm adapting a French novella about an American widower in Paris. It's a charming, bittersweet and melancholic comedy. It reminds me in many ways of Mostly Martha and once again revolves around the themes that you can find in each one of the five films I've made so far - who is part of the family, what we do for love and what love can do for us.

Helen opens in NY at the Quad today and will be out on DVD August 10th.

Originally posted on Women & Hollywood

"All mothers want their children to live a better life than theirs; to give them the opportunity to fulfill their hopes and dreams. Throughout my childhood my mother worked countless double-shifts flipping burgers and scrubbing toilets at the local fast food joint. We never talked about the cockroach-ridden apartments or the yearning to see our family back in Colombia. Instead we smiled through the grit, the tears and the heartache. As the years passed, I realized our story was not unique. Thousands of immigrant mothers, for hundreds of years, endured what we had overcome for exactly the same reason, a better life for their children." -- Paola Mendoza, award-winning documentary filmmaker

Since the founding of our nation, mothers from every continent in the world have come to America to seek a better life for their families. Their hopes and dreams have been inspired by the founding ideals of this nation -- that of freedom and equality.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

These words, enshrined in our Declaration of Independence 234 years ago, conveyed a profound aspiration upon which to build a nation. And as time passes, this aspiration requires constant cultivation so that its intent can be upheld and celebrated.

Yesterday we heard the news that Federal Judge Susan Bolton issued a preliminary injunction in the case of United States v. State of Arizona, blocking much of Arizona's SB 1070 from going into effect today. The fact that Judge Bolton knocked out some of the most damaging provisions is a step in the right direction. But we're not out of the woods yet. Human rights abuses in the name of immigration law enforcement were being inflicted upon mothers, children, and others in Arizona (and throughout the country) long before Arizona's SB 1070 was introduced, and without vigilance to uphold our founding values, these abuses are likely to continue into the future despite the recent ruling.

As President Obama noted in a recent speech, the Arizona law has "the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound."

Laws that allow the violation of civil and human rights of anyone, anywhere in the United States, are not compatible with our nation's founding principles. They are not compatible with the spirit of our Declaration of Independence. They are not what we, as a nation, aspire to be.

And let's not deny it -- human rights violations are indeed happening in our nation in the name of immigration law enforcement. A United Nations report in March of 2008 states that:

[X]enophobia and racism towards migrants in the United States has worsened since 9/11. The current xenophobic climate adversely affects many sections of the migrant population, and has a particularly discriminatory and devastating impact on many of the most vulnerable groups in the migrant population, including children... [T]he United States lacks a clear, consistent, long-term strategy to improve respect for the human rights of migrants.

For those for whom seeing is believing, here's a video of what happened to two young children in Arizona in January of 2009: