Alright Hugh, let's see if I can summarize your hairbrained theory... A task I have been avoiding for a week now.
The De Gaulle photo... just take a photo of it Hugh and post it. Now, explain to me again please how this fits into your scheme. Call me dense, but it never was clear to me. Honestly though, if your explanation requires that a 1979 audience connect Chance with the photo of de gaulle, don't bother. If one million people saw Being There, then perhaps three of them connected the images together. While I will allow you the latitude to assert that KWH/psyops work on a subconscious level and that they need not therefore be linear or rational and that they need not be effective or well designed, nonetheless there has to be some evidence that there is some chance that it will work. Don't you agree?
Chance might be the Nazi figure but conveniently changed into the ultimate innocent, a perfect meme-reversal.
Dr. Allenby who KNOWS about Chance? (CIA director Allen Dulles)
Franklin? (FDR)
Rand? (Rand Corporation)
Bobby? (Bobby Kennedy)
Dr. Allenby is intially suspicious that Chance is interested in a lawsuit. When he discovers that this is not the case, he becomes intrigued by who Chance is. Throughout the movie he is shown being suspicious of Chance, constantly eyeing him and observing him. He does NOT know who Chance is. In fact he does not know who Chance is until the very end of the film during Rand's death scene. This is indisputable. You never watched the film, did you?
Franklin as FDR is ridiculous. There is no other correspondence except the name. Not even subconsciously will people make that connection. No connection=no effect.
Rand is obviously Rand Corporation. That cannot be a coincidence and it is just about the strongest point you have in your favor, but it is blatant and intentional. It is the only real clue in the film as to what Benjamin Rand's core business was.
The president has no correspondence to Bobby Kennedy. None. Except his name. Bobby is probably nearly as common a name as Joe. no connection- no effect.
I think turning Peter Sellers into the ultimate innocent advising power is meant to take the edge off finding out that Nazi assets influenced and even led NATO powers after WWII.
In 'Being There' the CIA has nooo idea who that guy is! Gosh! So the CIA is innocent of this guy's background, aren't they?
Chance cast as a project paperclip era nazi? Surely you can see how preposterous a notion this is. If there is zero chance that the audience will connect Chance with hidden nazi assets then how does this work? Hogan's Heroes on the other hand works well in this regard. Remember that I am fine with the notion that a kwh/psyops need not be well designed. The fact that it is not well designed is not proof that it is not a psyops/kwh. But, again... doesn't there have to be some chance that it will work? Doesn't there have to be some evidence of design and intent? Presumably you do not believe the CIA propaganda machine is filled with idiots?
Look at the author's background. Do you smell CIA? I do.
Yes, I do. You have a point here. What's more, after seeing Kosinski interviewed a few times I do not think he could have written Being There. I can understand the charges of plagarism.
And the death of Charles de Gaulle on November 9, 1970 created an imbalance in hidden agreements that threatened to have operators like Klaus Barbie get exposed to the public.
Elaborate please.
The day de Gaulle died the president of West Germany called attention to Dr. Mengele in Paraguay, perhaps a safer diversion on the dangerous old Nazi topic.
Flip a coin.
Oh, did I mention that the Life Magazine Photo of the Week of Charles de Gaulle that the movie poster copies was captioned..."Sullen Savior"?
Link that to the last scene in the movie that recreates this photo but makes Chance a possible Jesus figure instead of Nazi asset.
I wish I knew what ending the studio wanted. You read the link I provided to the Ashby webpage that details how the ending came about?
The Jesus connection is too obvious and heavy handed for such a subtle film. This is why I dismiss it as a literal allusion. I think Ashby knew that people would make that connection, but that he was tricking the audience into doing the same thing the characters in the film were doing, projecting onto him.
I see lots of see lots of clues about Cold War military- intelligence agency secret societies and think that the not-subtle images of the pyramid and eye scream this theme loud enough to register it but without spelling out "CIA-MI6-Mossad-Gehlen Org
."
Alright. So give us some more clues.
What do you think of my linking in that article about the prison camp in Scotland for high-level Nazis with these components-
>made to watch movies to be 'de-Nazified'
>one escaped and did landscape gardening
>one became a CIA propagandist
I think it's intriguing history and completely unrelated.
The CIA was putting out decoy entertainment to dilute their old Nazi vulnerability ever since Mossad snatched up Eichmann 5/2/60.
'Hogan's Heroes' started in September 1965 because of an American professor with a very similar name putting out Nazi Holocaust denial stuff and making an international flap from 1963-1965. This American professor was even hooked up with the W. German Nazis with a newspaper which tied into Charles Willoughby, General Edwin Walker, and the murder of JFK.
More solid footing... completely unrelated.
So the death of Charles de Gaulle and the CHANCE of "Nixon's Nazis," that is, Nazis and fascists imported from Europe and brought into the Republican Heritage Groups Council, coming to light, as actually happened in one of Jack Anderson's 1972 columns, was worth a book and, later, when Klaus Barbie was getting eyed in Bolivia, a movie.
Possibly. Just not Being There. Zero chance of efficacy. Zero.
Old Nazi in the Pentagon, Fritz Kraemer, Pentagon Plans Officer from 1950 to 1985, and his disciple,
Henry Kissinger who was key advisor to the President when Jerzy Kosinsky wrote 'Being There.'
No one is denying the existence of ex-nazis in the USG.
Nazis and Republicans, old old dance partners. But we get to love Peter Sellers instead.
Yes, he is darling. Isn't he. Not even in the wildest of subconscious nonlinear, nonrational twists and contortions is anyone going to conflate Chance with an ex-nazi. No connection=no effect.
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8200/being.txt19 INT. CHANCE'S ROOM - AFTERNOON
Chance turns on the TV as Hayes and Franklin inspect the
room.
CHANCE
I used to listen to the radio,
then the Old Man started giving
me television sets...
Will Hayes and Franklin D. Roosevelt? Radio and then TV? That's USG propaganda progression and timeline from the 1930s to 1940s.
We get a facefull of hostile aggressive African Americans when Chance approaches the street gang. But the closing line of the scene mentions a name.
26 EXT. GHETTO STREET - WASHINGTON, D.C. - AFTERNOON
.....
CHANCE
Yes. I understand. If I see
Raphael, I will tell him.
(as he leaves)
Good day.
Abbaz, Lolo and the gang watch him go, then begin to buzz
with excitement: "Who the fuck died?" "Why'd he pull that
changer on us, man?" "The Old Man died, must be Papa Joe!"
"He's some weird honkie, man!"
"Papa Joe." Joseph Stalin? Joe McCarthy? Joe Kennedy? Hmm...
29 EXT. - WASHINGTON, D.C. - LATE AFTERNOON
Chance seems stumped on which way to walk. He looks one
way, then the other, turns and looks behind him and sees a
large statue of Benito Juarez pointing. Chance smiles and
goes off in the direction that Benito points.
"The way Bonito points." Ah, but perhaps not even Bonito Juarez. Perhaps Mussolini.
That's certainly what happened in post-WWII USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Ju%C3%A1rezBenito Mussolini was named after Benito Juarez.
The historical timeline continues.
30 EXT. WASHINGTON, D.C. - LATE AFTERNOON
Chance walks down the center meridian of a divided street.
He seems oblivious to the automobiles passing on either
side. In the background can be seen the Capitol Building.
"down the center"..."divided"..."the Capitol Building"...clearly political language.
If this is a timeline, this could be the Eisenhower years.
31 EXT. REAR OF THE WHITE HOUSE - DUSK
Chance is across the street from the White House, inspecting
the branches of a potted tree. He moves to a POLICEMAN
standing nearby.
CHANCE
Excuse me...
(points to tree)
...That tree is very sick. It
should be cared for.
The Policeman looks at the tree, then at Chance, figures a
man dressed that well must be important.
POLICEMAN
Yes sir. I'll report it right
away.
CHANCE
Yes. That would be a good
thing to do. Good day.
POLICEMAN
Good day.
The Policeman takes out his walkie-talkie as Chance leaves.
"White House"..."the branches"..."very sick"...obviously the Executive Branch of the USG is "sick." But the policeman is on it and deploys his tools.
Chronologically, this might be the assassination of JFK.
32 EXT. BUSINESS DISTRICT - EVENING
A fashionable area. Expensive shops, well-kept streets
and sidewalks. Chance stands by the display window of a
TV store, looks in at a dozen or so color TVs, all turned
on, playing various channels. A video camera points outward
and is focused on the sidewalk to allow passersby to see
themselves live on TV. Chance is intrigued by his own image.
He poses, then steps back off the curb, frowns as his like-
ness disappears from the frame. Standing between two parked cars,
Chance takes out his remote control, clicks it at the store.
Four or five other sets in the window change channels, but
he does not reappear on the giant screen. As he does this,
the car to his left, a large, American-made limousine, backs
up. The limo bumps Chance, pins him against the car to his
right. Chance cries out in pain, drops his suitcase, his
umbrella, his changer, and bangs his hand on the trunk of the
limo. The chauffer, DAVID, and the liveryman, JEFFREY,
immediately jump from the car, run back to Chance.
DAVID
I'm very sorry, sir... I...
David and Jeffrey reach out to help, but Chance is wedged
solidly between the two cars.
CHANCE
(in pain)
...I can't move... My leg...
Now we come up to what might be the turmoil and quagmire of the 1960s.
The protesting public sees its own image but doesn't see any response in government.
The government find itself caught painfully between the Left and Right and can't move.
DAVID
I'm terribly sorry, Mrs. Rand,
I never saw the man.
EVE
Oh, I don't think it was anyone's
fault, David.
DAVID
Thank you, ma'am.
Jeffrey holds the door open but Chance is hesitant about
getting in the car.
CHANCE
I've never ridden in an auto-
mobile.
JEFFREY
(a beat)
I assure you, sir, David is a
very careful driver.
CHANCE
(looks at the car,
then decides)
...Yes. You can take me.
JEFFREY
(as Chance gets in)
Very good.
Jeffrey closes the door, goes back to pick up Chance's
suitcase and umbrella but does not notice the remote
control. As Jeffrey puts Chance's bag into the trunk, we
see the personalized license plate "Rand 1."
Finally we are in the hands of "Rand," the name of the Air Force's think tank advising the Pentagon.
And we've heard the exoneration from Eve that "it wasn't anyone's fault." Vietnam?
etc.
All ridiculous and in the film, which you apparently did not watch, the license read "ER" for Eve Rand. And since Chance has been injured it has a double meaning. There are a number of differences between the script you are reading and the film. Some are happy accidents, which is the way Ashby worked. Some are improvisations by the actors, especially Sellers.
Now you're suggesting I'm fabricating out of nothingness and that's not true.
Context, themes, keywords.
Oh, and having analyzed and found psy-ops in many many movies and TV shows so I know what the cover-ups are and the devices used.
Like attaching innocence to a criminal role or vice-versa.
In 'Being There' the innocence of Chance the Gardener is being attached to Nazi assets to the USG.
Paranoid psychotics do not fabricate out of nothing. They twist and distort what is actually there. Have you ever met a paranboid psychotic? Have you ever attempted to reason with them and talk them out of their delusions?
And explain to me again how De Gaulle fits into Chance being conflated with ex-nazis embedded in the USG.
Yes, I am 100% certain about 'Being There.' I haven't even finished putting up the script evidence.
And I am 99% certain you are 99% wrong.
No, I have not often been wrong about psy-ops because I've really really studied it and thus have not often needed to admit being wrong.
Some find this offputting but knowing things and certainty have been discredited as signs of zealotry and subjective blindness. Not always.
You are so deeply wedded to this view that you could not possibly ever retreat from it. You have painted yourself into an idealogical corner. You have no choice but to continue to produce this stuff, which is a shame since you possess an intelligence and doggedness that could be put to better use (or there are worse explanations).
I agree with you that the gardening/seasonal motif is significant but for a different reason.
Note that Nixon's wage and price freeze was used in the script. And in the movie the analogy of inevitable cycles "so don't worry" is repeated and central to the plot.
This is because at the time of the book the US was going off the gold standard and the supposedly fine-tuned and predictable US economy was messed up despite the august experts who were supposed to know how to keep this social machine purring.
The unpaid for (and lost) Vietnam War was wreaking havoc finally and the nation was angst-ridden over many things.
Authority and Experts seem to be able to put a man on the moon BUT etc.
Hence the president's illness and impotence refreshed with Chance's mantra, "this too shall pass" which also placates the masses.
So the power of contagious MORALE is illustrated.
This is a real insight and a distinct possibility. Another connection you might enjoy is that I believe it was france that was demanding payment from the USG in gold for the US reserves they were holding. We didn't have it or were unwilling to honor that trust and Nixon more or less declared bankruptcy and we went off the gold standard by basically telling the world to f off.
However, even though the device of showing how people project their assumptions onto celebrity is notable, there's nothing realistic about the way people react to Chance. Nothing.
I see this as a flaw in the plot as well. I don't like artificial devices that don't connect with reality in a way that seems plausible. I think if the characters Chance meets had responded in a more realistic way to chance much of the humor would have been lost, but the plot would have had more integrity. Ashby/Kosinski come close to pulling off this delicate balancing act, but not quite.
It's totally a plot device to propel his innocence up to the levels of power.
In your world, yes. In mine it's where a lot of the humor is derived.
Only the black maid voices realistically what Chance is. An empty shell. Mindless.
Oh, but Dr. "Allenby" (Allen Dulles) has a clue about Chance's real abilities since Chance is an innocent stand-in for Nazi advisor, Fritz Kraemer and his ilk.
Not an "empty shell" at all. Nor mindless. You really do have to watch the film Hugh. Sellers is brilliant in this role. Even if the script gives the impression that Chance is vacuous, Sellers gives an amazingly subtle performance that suggests that Chance may be a man-child, but he possesses wit and wisdom, innocence and an inner peace. Compassion and empathy, without being attached to things. He lives very existentially.
The movie title, 'Being There,' is very abstract, another way to diffuse clarity and guilt.
Literally speaking, ALL language is an abstraction. The language "being there" is in fact by it's denotation the antithesis of an abstraction.
Kind of philosophical. Like existentialism.
Hey, here's some GERMAN existentialism ALL ABOUT "BEING THERE" edited by a Mr. Kaufman, same name as one of the presidential advisors in the movie. Hang on-
You want to connect Walter Kaufman with your hari brained theory?!! For God's sake Hugh. Have you no shame? I guess you've not read much philosophy and certainly you must have never read any Nietszche.
Art: packaged intent.
This is an unbelievably impoverished definition of art.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
