“Nothing Lasts Forever” is a Documentary Film about Diamonds Crafted with a Hefty Dose of American-style Dezinformatsiya, Served with a Berlin Twist

This content was first published on IGR – Italian Gemological Review no. 17 in 2023. The information provided here is therefore current as of the original publication date.

Well, Mr. Director and Film Producer Jason Kohn, allow us, here in Cricketland, to express our bewilderment at your documentary film “Nothing Lasts Forever”, which has been streaming on Netflix since February 2023. It appears you are on a mission to deconstruct the diamond industry. The noxious and numbing odors that have lingered for so long in the Old Continent are making a comeback. We can’t help but instantly perceive the nuances of sensationalism and misinformation: you see, what some might call “witty inventions” (which to us, appear as fabrications), the warping of reality (commonly known as lies), the manipulation of facts (presented as the revelation of hidden truths), the mesmerization of son (evocative and emotive music) et lumière (visually striking images artfully edited) are grasped by us in the blink of an eye.

The Cricket has little faith in benevolent reviews, and the film has been scrutinized and dissected with meticulous attention

Well, after experiencing 20 years at the Minculpop (Ministry of Popular Culture) in Rome, followed by another 12 years at the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda in Berlin, and an astounding 73 years at the Otdel Propagandy i Agitacii (Agit-Prop) of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow — with each stint addressing the revered “Masses”, or perhaps I should say, the People — our tolerance for such matters has become rather limited. Therefore, Illustrious One, it wasn’t enough for us to rely on reviews from The Guardian in Britain⁽¹⁾, Showtime Review⁽²⁾, Jewelers’ Circular Keystone⁽³⁾⁽⁴⁾, Midgard Times⁽⁵⁾, Screen Daily⁽⁶⁾, The Hollywood Reporter⁽⁷⁾, and on the online portal Josh at the movies⁽⁸⁾. No, not at all. We certainly perused them all; we do appreciate the diversity of perspectives. However, the fact that, with a few exceptions, most reactions seemed to align uncritically with the narrative you presented and the underlying theses without any substantive scrutiny of the content raised red flags: a little too reminiscent of those noxious fumes mentioned earlier. You see, there’s nothing more suspect than a unanimous adherence to a singular line of thought, a chorus singing in unison — it’s either coerced or willingly orchestrated. In this case, given the historical context, we would rule out the former and contemplate the latter. It’s rather fascinating to uncover the origins of this phenomenon.

The Cricket has meticulously examined the film, scrutinizing its use of editing, soundtrack, and the extraction of statements taken out of context. In this cinematic spectacle, Martin Rapaport emerges as a charlatan, while Lussier appears to be manipulated by arbitrary and misleading editing

For your investigative exposé, you chose to rely on the testimonies of two diametrically opposed groups of characters. On one side, a diverse ensemble of ardent supporters of your “J’accuse” campaign (gemologist Dusan Simic, designer Aja Raden, synthetic stone producer John Janik), presented without direct opposition, thus violating the principle of “fair play” in a balanced confrontation. This approach deprives the audience, the viewers, of the opportunity to form an impartial judgment. In our circles, the Cricket’s Lairs, such tactics are considered blatant biased manipulation.
On the other side, we find representatives of the “Consolidated Establishment” (shall we call it The BIG DIAM?), including De Beers CEO Stephen Lussier, internationally renowned price list publisher Martin Rapaport, and former GIA President Bill Boyajian. This trio represents the crème de la crème of cunning capitalists, the embodiment of avaricious and duplicitous “Diamantaires”, paraded before the masses for their ridicule. Their testimonies are manipulated through the out-of-context extrapolation — a disgraceful cut-and-paste job — of statements, some dating back years (as is the case with M. Rapaport and B. Boyajian), all this mixed with a hodgepodge of unrelated images and a dramatic musical backdrop that has no relevance to the current discussion. Allow me to elucidate:

What is the hidden message you, Esteemed Director, seek to convey to the perplexed “Masses” by abruptly interrupting De Beers CEO Lussier as he elucidates the undeniable and verifiable benefits stemming from the company’s partnership with Botswana? You insert footage of explosions and a lion devouring an elephant⁽¹⁾⁽³⁾, not to mention a lion amusingly relieving itself⁽⁸⁾. Did you bother to fact-check⁽³⁾ Lussier’s assertions, or did you simply not care, even when the future of a developing nation (Botswana)⁽³⁾ hangs in the balance? Is your sole objective the annihilation of your adversary, regardless of the consequences? Are you aware that similar techniques — albeit executed live and not through film snippets but via other means and criteria — brought joy to Prosecutor General of the USSR Vyšinskij, famously known as Stalin’s judge and executioner, during the infamous Purge trials? Have you ever seen recordings of their trials? It’s a chilling (and sinister) parallel, isn’t it?

Dear Sir, what emotional chords do you intend to strike with the audience by overlaying the voice of the aforementioned Lussier with the iconic and hypnotic main theme from Riz Ortolani’s 1980 horror film “Cannibal Holocaust” soundtrack⁽⁵⁾? Are you aiming to elicit a mere pilomotor reflex (goosebumps), or is there a deeper purpose at play here? Could it be an attempt to associate this eerie musical theme with the “revelation” of the “decades of atrocities” allegedly committed by the marketing titans of this “fraudulent fluff” (the Diamond) against unsuspecting consumers? Genius! But does such a tactic seem appropriate? I can’t speak for the other side of the Atlantic, but here (especially in Berlin), it sends shivers down one’s spine.

And what about Martin Rapaport? Taking snippets from his conversations or presentations and deliberately crafting an incongruous context to depict him as a hustler straight out of a Woody Allen movie doesn’t exactly align with the principles of fair play⁽⁶⁾. Furthermore, to paint him — still through the words of others (an attendee at the Berlin Film Festival premiere in February 2022)⁽³⁾, I must remind you! — as a venal scoundrel, all the while neglecting to mention his refusal to include Synthetic Diamonds in his renowned price list (which would have bolstered his profits further), seems, at the very least, biased⁽³⁾. The same applies to the omission of his ongoing battle against “Blood Diamonds”. Are these trifles of little consequence, Monsieur le Directeur? Or are they one-sided propositions designed not only to tarnish an individual’s character but an entire category?

In moral summation: considering the aforementioned, can you still lay claim to credibility? Anyway, we may still grant you the benefit of the doubt if the examinations presented by your supporters appear to hold merit.

Behold the arrival of the “good guys”, the pillars of your narrative or the fervent apologists for your Revelation. Leading the charge is Dusan Simic

Dusan Simic: Graduated in Natural Sciences and Mathematics from the University of Belgrade in 1983; Certified Gemologist by the German Gemological Association, Idar Oberstein, Germany (1989); Scientific Gemologist Certificate by the Swiss Gemological Institute, Basel, Switzerland (2004); 6 years as a Research Gemologist at the European Gemological Laboratory; 2 years as a Developer General Manager at Gemology Headquarters International, India; and an impressive 25 years as a Research Gemologist at AG&J/LLC Analytical Gemology and Jewelry. Quite an impressive resume, I must admit⁽⁹⁾. He appears to be a heavyweight in the field of gemology, Mr. Director, and you’ve chosen him as your spokesperson. From his lips, you unveil the distilled truth: «Natural and synthetic diamonds are essentially identical. From a gemological standpoint, there is really no difference at all»^(6)(2)(5). But really, Gospodine Simic*? From a gemological (scientific) perspective, not just a naked eye observation, have we got that right? And if there’s no difference from a gemological standpoint, what’s the rationale — according to you — behind the equipment developed by DTC (De Beers) in the early 2000s for identifying natural and synthetic diamonds (HPHT and CVD)? Are you unfamiliar with instruments like the “Diamond View” and the “Diamond Sure”? The former is used to detect differences in growth patterns — between natural and synthetic — utilizing short-wavelength fluorescence below 253.7 nm; the latter determines the presence or absence of absorption at 415.5 nm or the absorption of the typical N3 center in Type IaAB diamonds (even in mounted and small diamonds). Have you not heard of techniques such as Infrared Spectrophotometry (FTIR), Photoluminescence (PL), and X-ray Fluorescence? Instruments that may be costly for the average gem dealer, you say? Well, all major gemmological institutes worldwide have had them for years, and no one in the trade or industry would have failed to take advantage of their services to protect their reputation and satisfy their customers. Today, with devices like the “Magilab EXA Natural Diamond Detector” (€ 9,300) or the “Dia True CX CVD/HPHT Detector” from OGI (± € 7,000), even jewelers and mid-income gemologists can address their doubts “in-house”. These devices have been readily available in Italy for quite some time, I might add. It wouldn’t be too far-fetched, Mr. Simic, to assume that, in the case of HPHT, you’ve never employed a simple microscope with 10–70 magnifications to identify the typical inclusions of synthetics, or used a pair of crossed polarizers to visualize the “tatami effect”, or even observed the distinct luminescence reactions to UV, longwave, and shortwave, in natural and synthetic diamonds, would it? At this juncture, Mr. Simic, could we kindly request details of the method you’ve developed to differentiate natural from synthetic diamonds? This method, touted in the “Showtime Review” as a product of your “considerable scientific expertise”⁽²⁾, deserves an explanation. And while you’re at it, could you offer a brief résumé of that synthetic diamond you’ve specifically conceived, the one that can reportedly outsmart your own identification method⁽⁸⁾? Curiously, neither this nor that has been mentioned here. Strange, considering that nothing escapes the watchful eye of Big Diamond’s big brother and the specialized press.

In conclusion, Esteemed Director Kohn, it appears that the pillar (one of the film’s stars, as described by Rob Bates of JCK⁽³⁾) on which your eschatological indictment pivots doesn’t quite withstand the test of credibility. And, if you’ll pardon my candor, there’s also the nagging suspicion that the reason poor Dusan Simic ended up driving for Uber in the East River of New York⁽⁷⁾ might have less to do with sinister machinations by the nefarious De Beers⁽⁶⁾ and more with a mundane conclusion that even those who do not believe in God can draw. Naturally, Director, one wonders why you didn’t seek out a scientifically more esteemed “pillar”, even if less adorned with titles? The stage is crumbling here, it’s crumbling!

The second star of the show, Aja Raden, and her intriguing narrative featuring Archduke Maximilian of Austria being mistaken for the Duke of Burgundy, as well as the disputed value of diamonds and gold

Aja Raden stands as the second foundational pillar of Your Good News, Esteemed Director⁽⁸⁾. Macmillan Publishers has bestowed upon her the titles of a “Qualified Scientist” and a “Learned Historian”, accentuating her proficiency in Ancient History and Physics, credentials earned at the University of Chicago. Additionally, she spent 7 years as a Senior Jewelry Designer at Tacori Co. in Los Angeles and currently leads the Auction Division at the esteemed Kahn House. Consequently, she is duly recognized as an “authority” within the realms of gemstones and jewelry⁽¹⁰⁾. The central theme of your entire film, as articulated by this sagacious Oracle of Revelation, is encapsulated in a single sentence In her own words: «De Beers and the Powerful Entities controlling the Diamond Industry (the BIG DIAM, as we say) have created such a spectacular illusion that it has become reality and truth»⁽⁸⁾. «A lie upon a lie that deals with a lie about a lie»⁽⁸⁾. In accordance with the erudite historian, the age-old tradition of diamonds symbolizing enduring love and substantial value is, in her estimation, founded on shaky ground. She contends «The act of gifting a diamond set in an engagement ring (an act that initiated the tradition), from the Duke of Burgundy to his future wife Maria in 1477, didn’t symbolize eternal love but rather a strategic tribute to her father (to whom the ring was actually given) in pursuit of political-diplomatic agreements concerning land distribution»⁽⁶⁾.

Now, there are two possibilities: either the words of the Learned Historian have been inaccurately reported, or the Learned Historian’s research or recollection fell short of due diligence. The historical verity, however, remains unchanged. The betrothed lady in question was indeed Maria of Burgundy, the sole daughter of Duke Charles. But, the prospective bridegroom in the year 1477 was not the Duke of Burgundy but rather Archduke Maximilian of Austria, who later ascended to the role of Holy Roman Emperor in 1508, adopting the name Maximilian I. The territorial division, as a matter of historical record, pertained to the inheritance outlined in their marriage contract, encompassing the County of Burgundy and the Low Countries. This clarification is offered to the Learned Historian in the interest of preserving historical accuracy. Let’s assume that her statement, asserting that the act was devoid of love and driven solely by calculated economic-dynastic interests, is accurate. Nevertheless, an intriguing question arises: Why, in order to maximize his gains, did Maximilian not adhere to tradition by presenting exquisitely crafted chests brimming with gold and silver? Instead, as reported by a reviewer from “The Hollywood Reporter” after viewing the film, he chose to offer «a piece of rock, not particularly rare, which was imbued with supernatural powers through cutting, faceting, polishing, rigorous pricing, and one of the most successful marketing campaigns in the history of humanity, surpassing any other product»⁽⁷⁾.

So, why did Archduke Maximilian opt for a mere piece of rock while forgoing all other precious artifacts? This decision, made in 1477, transpired during a period when diamond cuts were still in their rudimentary forms — encompassing table cuts, step cuts, rose cuts, and truncated octahedrons — far from the intricate brilliance of later cuts like the Mazzarino cut (1661), Peruzzi cut (1680), and Tolkowsky cut (1919). The latter, in particular, fully unlocked the optical potential of diamonds, thanks to groundbreaking discoveries such as X-rays by Von Röntgen in 1895 and X-ray diffraction by Von Laue in 1914. It’s elementary, my dear Watson! The answer lies in the unique properties of two precious materials: gold and diamonds. Gold is renowned for its softness, heftiness, malleability, ductility, and its enchanting yellow hue that lends itself beautifully to intricate craftsmanship. Conversely, diamonds have been celebrated since biblical times for their perceived attributes of unalterability and longevity (beyond just hardness) over time. So, there’s more to it than hardness. Gold is impervious to most chemical compounds, essentially reacting solely with Aqua regia (a blend of one part nitric acid and three parts hydrochloric acid) and cyanide ions. Conversely, diamonds, equally impervious to atmospheric agents, resist acids, alkalis, and virtually all other chemical agents, save for fused potassium nitrate or sodium carbonate. The fact that gold is (and always has been) a soft, hefty, ductile, malleable metal with a beautiful yellow hue suited for intricate craftsmanship, while diamond is (and continues to be) the hardest natural substance known, explains the enduring preciousness attributed to both materials. It’s noteworthy that references to diamonds as the quintessential precious gemstone, known as “Yahalom”, can be found in the books of Exodus (20:18) and Ezekiel (28:13) in the Old Testament. The term “Adamas” is employed in works by the Greek poet Hesiod dating back to the 8th century BC. In ancient Indian lapidary texts like Ratnapariska by Buddhabhatta (pre-6th century) and Brihatsamhita of Varahamihira from the 6th century, as well as in Pliny the Elder’s De Naturalis Historia from the 1st century AD, diamonds are also referenced. Nonetheless, what truly stands out is the mention of diamonds in the ancient Sanskrit manuscript from the 4th century BC known as the Arthashastra (translated as the “Science of Wealth”) by Kautilya, who served as the minister to King Chandragupta Maurya. This manuscript not only documents the thriving diamond trade from the Golconda mines in India within the kingdom but also outlines the regular taxation and customs duties associated with it. Isn’t it evident why gold and diamonds, both rare and enduring materials, ascended to the status of precious commodities with substantial exchange value? At this point, it becomes abundantly clear that the statement attributed to the esteemed and knowledgeable historian, Aja Raden, namely, «A lie upon a lie that deals with a lie about a lie»⁽²⁾⁽³⁾ regarding the “created illusion” surrounding the tradition and value of diamonds, is not merely a lie but rather a baseless assertion.

The cornerstone of the narrative crumbles entirely, along with all the grandiloquent pronouncements of Aja Raden, the self-proclaimed Qualified Scientist, Historian, and Expert

Aja Raden declares: «The tradition of the diamond as a symbol of ‘Forever’ is an invention of De Beers, capitalizing on the post-World War II economic boom; it’s capitalism disguised as tradition»⁽²⁾.

«The scarcity of diamonds is a “load of nonsense”» (a milder translation of more colorful term, “bullshit”)⁽²⁾. My apologies, dear knowledgeable friend and Qualified Scientist: Natural diamonds are one of the rarest forms of one of the most common elements in nature, carbon. Among the three million compounds containing Carbon, mostly of organic origin, only two forms of crystallized Carbon of inorganic origin exist, consisting almost entirely of this element: Diamond and Graphite. Diamond, consisting of 99.98% carbon, crystallizes in the most symmetrical crystallographic system known as the cubic or isometric system. It forms under temperatures ranging from 1100 to 1625 °C and pressures between 46,000 to 60,000 atmospheres — conditions found deep within the Earth’s lithosphere, over 150 km below the surface. Its genesis can be traced back to the early stages of our planet’s formation, which commenced approximately 5 billion years ago, during a geological period spanning between 800 million and 1,800 million years ago. Thus, Natural Diamonds are a unique product of Mother Nature, generated through an exceptional natural geological process — magmatic segregation or cooling of the Earth’s crust — in the presence of specific environmental conditions of temperature and pressure. This, dear friend, is the essence of the uniqueness and rarity of Natural Diamonds, forming the foundation of their value. It is certainly not as you assert, that «De Beers hoards them in secret vaults to slowly release them onto the market to inflate prices». This policy aims to maintain price tension and, consequently, stability, but it is not the fundamental reason behind their value. This is why Synthetic Diamonds, produced in laboratories at will, may replicate the external appearance, chemical composition, and many of the physical and optical properties (though not all) of their natural counterparts, but they can never be considered unique and rare products (and the explanation above should also shed light on the assertion, «[…] what makes a natural diamond an object of value? Its beauty? Its size?»). It’s akin to asking what distinguishes the value of “Girl with a Pearl Earring” by Johannes Vermeer or “The Starry Night” by Vincent Van Gogh from their counterfeit imitations⁽⁴⁾⁽¹⁾. Consequently, there will be no saints or miracles capable of keeping synthetic diamonds’ prices stable, as evidenced by the news from the end of August this year (2023) that synthetic diamonds are being discounted by 99% compared to the Rapaport Price List (which pertains to naturals). Yes, 99% off, you heard it right (JCK Online, Aug 28, 2023). To the extent that in Philadelphia (USA), there’s a jeweler who has taken to giving away a one-carat synthetic diamond with every purchase of an engagement ring set with a natural diamond, with a minimum value of $548 — news from August 24th this year, in the Idex Newsletter⁽¹¹⁾.

One might ponder, or perhaps it’s not such a perplexing question after all? It boils down to a straightforward principle of supply and demand: when the latter significantly outpaces the former, prices inevitably plummet. Given the recent deluge of synthetic diamonds produced by numerous well-equipped groups (armed with BARS presses and the like, or utilizing microwave plasma chambers), all without any price control policy, this outcome was almost predictable. And, dear Director, let’s not forget the involvement of opportunistic groups who set up operations in abandoned Chinese industrial sites reduced to mere piles of scrap metal, as subtly hinted at in your esteemed documentary. Is it truly astonishing that Synthetic Diamond production has burgeoned to the scale of Mount Etna’s cascading lava flows?

John Janik, an illustrious nobody (in the industry), armed with a PhD in “Crystal-Making” (whatever that means), has been entrusted with the noble mission of taking down De Beers

Janik, a producer of various synthetic gemstones, including diamonds, had the honor of being interviewed by you, Director, in the heart of Salt Lake City, Utah⁽⁷⁾⁽²⁾. You’ve assigned this individual the task of tarnishing De Beers’ reputation, perhaps secretly hoping to take its place, given that De Beers has been producing synthetic diamonds for industrial purposes, since 1958, followed in recent years by branded synthetic diamonds for jewelry use. He accomplishes this mission through a series of incoherent rants disguised as scientific discourse. We won’t bother to address his claims directly, as their credibility can be measured by statements such as: «The value of synthetic diamond lies in its technological capabilities […] it has the same transformative potential as silicon, and I think probably within 15–20 years we will see incredibly fast diamond transistors in many of our personal devices […] we consider it a gem, so I have to do what I have to do, which is to make money by dismantling the gem industry to create a more valuable one […] it’s creative destruction, didn’t Shiva say that?». As for his initial predictions, it’s possible they could come true. As a synthetic producer, he’s certainly hoping for it. As for the rest, we leave it to the reader to judge the depth and coherence of his statements.

Once again, the modern-day Cassandra, Aja Raden, chimes in with her wisdom: «All diamonds are the same, and none of them are worth a thing»

If our “distinguished” Expert is referring to synthetic diamonds, based on the information available as of late August 2023 (see above), she might just be onto something. Bravo! It seems that she, or should I say the Highly Qualified Scientist, possesses the gift of foresight, considering the movie has been in the making for the ten years before its release⁽⁸⁾. With that femme fatale air — heavy makeup, hair pulled back in a long ponytail, enormous earrings, piercing gaze, a statuesque figure, even while seated — surrounded by sturdy wooden furniture, an austere setting of cold marble, a skull in the background resting on a small table (of all things!), she couldn’t be anything but the modern incarnation of Cassandra. But if, instead, our “expert” meant her statement to apply to Natural Diamonds, one can’t help but wonder about her role as the head of the Auction Division at the renowned Kahn House. In fact, whether she is indeed a modern Cassandra, Aja Raden, can be deduced from the bell she tolls for Natural Diamonds (or is it someone else she’s talking about?). This brings to mind a certain Epstein who, in 1982, wrote a book centered around predicting the downfall of the De Beers Cartel and the Natural Diamond. “Our” Epstein made some decent money with his groundbreaking (for its time) prediction. His book has since ended up in the trash, and he’s faded into obscurity, but the Diamond is still here, thriving, one might say. Let’s see how the new Cassandra fares…⁽⁴⁾
«Not all Diamonds come from the galleries of that mine in Botswana. Mixed in with the ‘real’ Diamonds, there are also synthetics that would give even all the Dusan Simic of this world a hard time identifying»⁽²⁾. Our unsparing comment: Dusan Simic and those like him would certainly struggle. Refer to Point 2a under the heading Dusan Simic. But for all the other serious and prepared experts, not a problem. See also Point 2a, again.

Allow me, Distinguished Director, to point out that your data is not up to date. The narrative is subtly mixing different time frames

Regarding the monopolistic “Cartel” of De Beers, either you’re a few decades behind, or you’re deliberately playing with misinformation, making it seem like things are still the same: the claimed control of 80–90% of the Natural Diamond market dates back to the 1980s. Today, we’re at less than 25%, for various reasons⁽³⁾⁽⁴⁾. The same goes for the banning of De Beers in the United States based on local anti-trust laws; that ship has sailed. Yet, you give the impression that this matter is still relevant. How would you define this heap of falsehoods? Would you like to just admit that “the end of the De Beers Cartel is irrelevant to your narrative”⁽³⁾? We call this intellectual dishonesty in Cricketland⁽³⁾.

As for the assertion that 20% of diamonds sold as Naturals are actually Synthetics, as estimated by one of your interviewees⁽¹⁾, and the claim that these have already so deeply infiltrated the market that commercial operators prefer not to talk about them⁽¹⁾⁽⁶⁾, could you kindly explain and answer the following questions?

• Based on what statistical data did your interviewee quantify that 20%?
• On what basis does the same individual (who amplifies the film’s overall message) refer to Synthetics as untraceable when, for a good 20 years, a range of tools for their identification (including melee) has been developed, and for 20 years, all major Gemological Institutes issuing “Certificates” have equipped themselves with such tools, and have even issued “Certificates” specifically dedicated to Synthetic Diamonds?
• Why, if traders prefer to keep “the problem” under wraps, have trade magazines from at least three continents not extensively debated “the problem” for decades, ever since gem-quality Synthetics appeared in significant quantities at acceptable prices?
• Why isn’t “the problem” globally addressed in industry conventions and conferences? How do you, Excellency, explain the nature of “the problem” if “the problem” isn’t actually a problem, given that there is a specific demand for Synthetic Diamonds from the consuming public (especially the younger crowd on a budget or not eager to open their wallets wide). It’s true that in Antwerp, they are certified and have been identifiable since the mid-2000s, and that the debated issue is confined to blatant cases of dishonesty by a few opportunists.
  Why do you indiscriminately cast aspersions on an entire category of operators, knowing full well that, like in all fields of human activity, there are scoundrels and rascals who, however, are marginalized and ostracized by colleagues whose professional reputation (of paramount importance in such activities) relies entirely on trust?

In conclusion, the film “Nothing Lasts Forever” is nothing more than an exercise in pure sensationalism built upon manipulation and misinformation

Esteemed Mr. Director and Film Producer Jason Kohn, your one-hour and 27-minute concoction of “lies about lies about lies concerning lies” — to paraphrase one of your Stars — reveals itself to be precisely what it is: sensationalism executed with masterful manipulative and misleading techniques, worthy of an Oscar in Moscow (provided Alrosa approves), the homeland of a well-established tradition of Dezinformatsiya. If nobody in Hollywood is giving to your masterpiece the time of day, and if Berlin hasn’t bestowed its accolades upon you, perhaps try your luck there. In the meantime, please do provide a postal address, as it appears impossible to obtain an email address, a mobile number, or any means of contacting you in person for further explanations. It seems that no one has been able to unearth any more about you than what’s already known. Not even the current place of residence, but just the place of Your advent into the world (New York), the year of Your birth, 1984 (or 1979?) and some reviews of your three films, including this one (all seemingly with pretty meager box office earnings)^(12)(13). Why all this secrecy?

With deference, Yours truly,

Bad-Mouthed Jiminy Cricket

Notes

⁽¹⁾ https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/feb/08/nothing-lasts-forever-review-lab-grown-v-authentic-in-murky-diamond-biz-doc

⁽²⁾ https://decider.com/2023/02/10/nothing-lasts-forever-showtime-review-stream-it-or-skip-it

⁽³⁾ https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/showtime-diamond-nothing-lasts

⁽⁴⁾ https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/why-the-diamond-business-keeps-getting-slammed

⁽⁵⁾ https://moviesr.net/p-nothing-lasts-forever-netflix-review-a-captivating-documentary

⁽⁶⁾ https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/nothing-lasts-forever-berlin-review/5167322.article

⁽⁷⁾ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/nothing-lasts-forever-review-1235090066

⁽⁸⁾ https://joshatthemovies.com/2022/03/12/sxsw-2022-nothing-lasts-forever

⁽⁹⁾ LinkedIn profile of Dusan Simic.

* Gospodine Simic: Mister Simic, in Serbian language^.

⁽¹⁰⁾ MacMillan Publishers, Aja Raden: https://us.macmillan.com/author/ajaraden

⁽¹¹⁾ http://www.idexonline.com/Memo?Id=48826

⁽¹²⁾ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/jason-kohn

⁽¹³⁾ https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm1161623

Counter-Current Gemology from the “Bad-Mouthed Jiminy Cricket” Luigi Costantini, published on IGR – Italian Gemological Review #17, Autumn 2023