HMW, what's your take on this?

by **professorpan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You should really stop putting your head in the sand and saying "There's nothing to see here, move along". You're missing out on some really fascinating and informative info by being a "serial rationalist".<hr></blockquote> I addressed this on your other thread, but since you're accusing me here, I'll address it here. First, you're just wrong. If believing in rational thinking makes me a serial rationalist, I'll accept that moniker. I believe in rational examination of evidence -- can you propose a better alternative? Channeling? Digging through entrails? Sifting for clues to fit my preconceptions (a la Hugh's Nacho Libre)? I post regularly, and I do a lot more than criticize. Out of the nearly 1,000 posts I've made to this board, I'd bet at least 75% of them have been articles or material I've posted -- not critiques of others' material. Head in the sand? I'm more inclined to believe some of my more vocal critics have their heads too far up their own asses to be capable of objectivity.

by **AlicetheCurious** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:47 pm

HMW, I'd be very interested if you could flesh out your take on "The Terminal", maybe be more specific on what you think are the underlying messages. Or provide links. I can't say it affected me much one way or the other. I agree that much of what Americans see on tv and in movies is blatant conditioning. Trust me, turn it off for a few weeks, I mean completely get away from it (if that's at all possible), and then expose yourself to it again. I guarantee you an eye-popping experience. I must say that one movie that I found inspiring and very beautiful, is "The Shawshank Redemption", based on a short story by Stephen King (of all people!). I've seen it many times, and each time have been deeply touched by it. Have you seen it? If so, I'd love to know what you think of it...

by **professorpan** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I agree that much of what Americans see on tv and in movies is blatant conditioning. Trust me, turn it off for a few weeks, I mean completely get away from it (if that's at all possible), and then expose yourself to it again. I guarantee you an eye-popping experience.<hr></blockquote> I would agree, in some respects, but I don't think the majority of the conditioning is controlled and intentional. There is one way that it is very controlled and intentional, though, and that reason is primary -- to foster consumption. It's the force that drives the medium. That's why I appreciate the occasional high-quality program -- Twin Peaks, The Sopranos, The Simpsons, Six Feet Under -- those that are well-written, superbly cast, and emotionally complex. That's the only reason I still turn the box on -- the shows that don't cater to the lowest common denominator but strive to be real art. And yes, The Shawshank Redemption is a beautiful film. King is often dissed as a hack, but he has a great way of bringing characters to life.

by **Lizzy Dearborn** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 12:15 pm

"That's why I appreciate the occasional high-quality program --Twin Peaks, The Sopranos, The Simpsons, Six Feet Under -- those that are well-written, superbly cast, and emotionally complex. That's the only reason I still turn the box on -- the shows that don't cater to the lowest common denominator but strive to be real art." Imo, real art and even seemingly edifying, enriching entertainment can leave a bad trace behind. I watched a profile/documentary on the person (i forget her name) that was the driving force behind HBO's creative high point, she helmed it during the late 90's stuff ...and she talked with great passion about how she looked to produce only the stuff that grabed your emotions, got in your face, made you sit-up, and shook your beliefs. Shouldn't we strive for those emotions, big ideas, and challenges within our personal lives, face to face, not face to screen and not get used to recieving them vicariously? Water cooler talk tends to be the extent...not bad, but not enough. TV is so passive, you have to watch and listen, can't do anything else while you enjoy. And it's in your most private and intimate space, your home. Like you say, once and a while is fine, but I just watched way way too much of it in my life, and I know many others who have also. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=lizzydearborn>Lizzy Dearborn</A> at: 7/9/06 10:46 am

by **bvonahsen** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:13 pm

I barely watch TV anymore. Maybe a couple of shows here and there but in the past two weeks I think I've watched maybe two three hours of TV. If there is a show that I really really want to see I can always get it on the net. I live in Minnesota and we have one of the best public radio stations anywhere, but I get tired of it. I want to participate and be involved. That goes against how all big media operates. They choose and distribute the sacred news and we humble consumers are supposed swallow it thankfully. If I call into MPR on one of their morning talk shows I get maybe one sentence and that's it. I don't get to talk with the guest. I don't get to participate. Here and on any blog I care to choose, I get to comment and be a part of it. The death of the old media can't come fast enough if you ask me.

by **snowlion2** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:14 pm

Garrison Keillor et.al. singing the Marseillaise on MPR right now...a little wierd ;-)

by **orz** » Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:54 pm

Hugh, have you ever considered becoming a postmodern film theorist? Because like a lot of cultural critisicm writing, your ideas are really interesting + thought provoking, but totally incompatable with the reality of how films are actually made. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Reading your ideas I get the same feeling as during film theory lectures at college, where the lecturer would be anylising in great detail the socialogical meanings of the positioning of some cushions on a sofa in some 50's b-movie film noir... fun to think about but common sense and any actual practical filmmaking knowledge tells you that the director certainly didn't intend this level of deep, detailed meaning... that some props guy stuck a few random pieces of furniture on the set + they shot the scene quickly and rushed off to get to work on their next movie the following week <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Basically what i'm trying to say, is that in the normal everyday working system of filmmaking, there's simply nowhere that your elaborate and detailed hidden meanings could be inserted as a matter of course. Even the most superficial understanding of the Hollywood industry (ie watching 'making of's on dvds etc) should allow any sensible person to see that movies are made in a way which is not at all condusive to the kind of attention to detail required by your theories, let alone in secret!! Have you watched the credits of a big budget movie? So many names, just ordinary people putting in their creative or technical input without taking orders from any sinister forces.... I mean, I know people who work in special effects etc... my friend who worked on a certain recent blockbuster is quite high up in his department, has a lot of say over the scenes he worked on... I know for a fact that he's not in the pay of the CIA or anything exciting like that... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> If you read about so many classic movies you realise that often the most iconic and memorable scenes were total happy accidents... It's amazing to think that they never intended them when you look at it with hindsight. For example, Roy's dying speech in Blade Runner was actually written on set by Rutger Hauer, it wasn't originally in the script... If you consider how many things about a movie can change in between the script being written and the finished film then, like i said, there's simply no way that the wide ranging, detailed control over the whole process that your theories require could ever actually happen in a mainstream commercial movie.

by **Quentin Quire** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:24 am

Orz - this has been pointed out to HMW a number of times by Prof Pan and myself, both of us with personal experiences and knowledge of the film industry (I'm a film student and writer). According to HMW this personal knowledge of how films originate and are produced is irrelevant to the topic. Now I'm not saying that often memetic themes crop up in movies and propaganda can be a part of many productions but the overarching control of the film industry that HMW proposes is just not feasible IMHO.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:21 am

however, big themes ARE surely a result of at least informal and sometimes formal government relationships. The propaganda during world war 2 is an easy example. But such collaborations continue. I think one day, people will collect cheesy cold war films like they collect bad sci fi. Maybe people do already. On the other hand, you have directors who put nothing in films by accident. that's why the Stanley Kubrick discussion was so interesting. At one point, I learned in that thread, Kubrick had hundreds of photos of different doorways taken in order to choose just the right one for a scene. So some directors do insure that every detail is there as they want it. I imagine you don't get to be this way until you are "big" enough. I imagine Orson Welles was similar. So, it's not like it's impossible to micromanage such films. But I think it would be more fruitful to look at relations among film execs and the military industria complex. I can't prove "Top Gun" was a recruiting tool, but I can prove they got access to all kinds of military equipment. We shouldn't even completely dismiss the "post-modernists" in their analysis of film "texts". Ultimately, when arranging cushions, SOME pattern has to be decided on. It may reflect the values at the time, the "cushion zeitgeist" if you will. Okay, bad example. But even seemingly small details do get picked for a reason, even if it is subconscious, racial/class/gender assumptions and worldviews often come into play. This is why I think it is sometimes okay to play with a text or a film to look for meanings not overtly intended by the authors. We cannot fault HMW, for example, for bringing up (I think he did), the rather racist opening of the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie with dark-skinned cannibals chasing Johnny Depp around. One doesn't have to go so far as to assume this particular theme was picked by a guy in Langley...but racism is in our culture so it gets into films...and racism is in our films, so it gets into our culture.

by **Quentin Quire** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:47 am

I'm certainly not denying the existence of such themes in films and I agree with many of HMW's points regarding propaganda, memes and mind viruses. I'm just skeptical to the large-scale nature of there use with he proposes. If certain themes or ideas - whether it be the racism you pointed out or notions of mind control or extraterrestrials - are inherent in society then they will end up in films and entertainment without the need for a large scale co-ordinated psy-ops operation. If you look at psy-ops such as the Paul Bennewitz affair and Dulce Base such memes are intially spread on a small scale to 'true believers', enter folklore and then spread into the mainstream without any overt control by the originators of the meme. The existence of a underground base in Dulce goes from a small psy-op to discredit a scientist to appearing in comic books, films and TV shows. I find this a more credible and efficient way to manufacture and transmit certain themes than a blanket control of the entertainment industry's texts at their conception. Why perform such jobs it you can get people to unwittingly do it for you?

by **orz** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:29 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>but I can prove they got access to all kinds of military equipment. <hr></blockquote>Definitely... this is one of the real, documented ways in which the 'military-entertainment complex' deliberately and directly influence the content of movies... ie that they will give support, equipment etc to movies who's scripts are suitably jingoistic, but refuse those who are critical, thus pressuring hollywood to compromise their movies with propaganda in exchange for increased production values on the cheap... I think it's much more interesting + valid to research this kind of stuff than to exercise Dali's "paranoid-critical method" to find a load of meaningless 'connections' on a surface level... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b">

by **professorpan** » Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think it's much more interesting + valid to research this kind of stuff than to exercise Dali's "paranoid-critical method" to find a load of meaningless 'connections' on a surface level... <hr></blockquote> Amen!

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:34 am

Who gets weapons as props and who doesn't, you really think that is the only level of interaction between Hollywood and the National inSecurity State? Or that a fucked up society simply creates fucked up films? Kind of a 'we only give them what they want' dynamic? That viewpoint seems rather simplistic. Not that those things don't happen. Of course they do. Money systems are great carrier waves for plausibly deniable strategies. People carry out their tasks sincerely and don't question the values and attitudes their 'product' promote in a psycho-political context. So to what degree path-of-least-resistance opportunism is a driving cultural force rather than Psychological Strategy Board-type programs is what I think is critical to discern. And looking around at 'product' and its context leads me to believe that far more is coded for National inSecurity State goals than any of us would like to admit. Myself included. I'm horrified at how much crap Disney puts in kid's heads. But there it is, militarism, sexism, racism, and social Darwinism. And parents buy that shit UNcritically. "Oh, Disney. No porn so its safe clean fun for Johnny and Sally." You writers who "know the industry" leave out who decides what scripts go into production and when they are released. You also leave out who gets encouraged to develop a script and you don't know the entire decision path on every detail. There are only a few 'mainstream' mega-studios cranking out most of the product that plays at cineplexes and then lines the video store shelves like tiny billboards. Most jobs, just as in intelligence, are highly compartmentalized and people tend to turn whatever assembly line gear is in their department while others way way up design the machine with mass-marketing psycho-political goals. I just watched the 2004 'remake' of The Manchurian Candidate with the pause button in one hand and a notebook in the other. The 1962 original partly-based on the 1959 book has a fascinating history. I took 4 pages of notes on social engineering themes, keywords, and imagery that was in the background on almost a subliminal level and often just plain overt. Anyone else see that film and remember the Fat Elvis, pink triangles, and Twin Towers? Who was the real enemy in this 2004 presidential election season agit prop? Who were the real heroes? Who the hell put pink triangles as supermarket check-out chute numbers? And made pink the main counter color as Denzel Washington, the Delta Force 'war hero' buys romance novels and meets the black Janet Leigh-figure for the first time?! That wasn't accidental. Despite the instances of spontaneous creativity cited by others, almost all of most films is a deliberately crafted jigsaw puzzle of units of meaning. Re: the pink triangles as Denzel Washington meets The Woman- <a href="http://www.innertalk.com/progressive/papers/The_MIP.html">www.innertalk.com/progres...e_MIP.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> We can present words fused with images which oppose the meanings of the words. This slows down the identification process. It is as though thinking itself has been slowed. Colors provide the most dramatic instance of this well known and intriguing phenomena.<hr></blockquote> I intend to rewatch and take notes on the 2004 Tom Hanks 'romantic comedy' called The Terminal which also had themes snuck in regarding torture, surveillance, Chinese spies, drug myths, Cold War myths, discrediting women and people of color, justifying outsourcing, on and on and on. Really heartwarming amusing stuff. Right. I dunno who put that shit in this Spielberg film but it wasn't technicians. And those are the weapons that shape the attitudes and values and beliefs of Americans through the subconscious using fascist symbols as units of meaning, not just props like tanks and airplanes. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 7/13/06 2:09 am

by **professorpan** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You writers who "know the industry" leave out who decides what scripts go into production and when they are released. You also leave out who gets encouraged to develop a script and you don't know the entire decision path on every detail. <hr></blockquote> And you do? How many people do you know in the industry? Where do you get your inside information -- and what makes you more of a competent analyst of how the film industry works than people who actually work in the industry? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I took 4 pages of notes on social engineering themes, keywords, and imagery that was in the background on almost a subliminal level and often just plain overt.<hr></blockquote> Confirmation bias in action! Anyone with a creative imagination can watch a film and parse it for nonexistent imagery to fit their preconceptions.

by **orz** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:24 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Who gets weapons as props and who doesn't, you really think that is the only level of interaction between Hollywood and the National inSecurity State?<hr></blockquote> No, i don't... i think it's just one minor and more 'mainstream' example of the huge and serious interaction they have... but the important point is it's a REAL example, as opposed to a overtly, inherently IMAGINARY examples which you alway seem to get down to despite your posts' promising starts! ie you take the correct premise that our media is full of deliberate propaganda at many levels, but go off on one into inane cataloguing of anything and everything that reminds you of a "keyword," with complete disregard for whether it's feasible or even physically possible that these details were inserted for the reasons you state...... tho having said that you often don't even state a reason that makes a jot of sense... <blockquote>Quote:<hr> and you don't know the entire decision path on every detail.<hr></blockquote>No, of course not... but you don't have the beginning of a clue about how the film industry even works, yet claim to anylise its output in great detail! Try reading some books on how to write and sell a movie script... there are many, and they explain a lot about the process.

HMW, what's your take on this?

Re: Red Queen and The Grand Scheme

Re: The Terminal?

Re: The Terminal?

Re: The Terminal?

Re: The Terminal?

bvonahsen:MPR

theory

RE

Re: RE

RE

Re: RE

Re: RE

Re: "paranoid critical method"...oh, brother.

Re: "paranoid critical method"...oh, brother.

Do you know what the paranoid critical method even is?

Who is online