Cloverfield

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby professorpan » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:32 am

The Power of Film and Its Influence, a speech given by director Norman Jewison, is really worth reading for anyone interested in the film and society.

http://www.empireclubfoundation.com/det ... echID=1976

Here's an excerpt, but the whole article is quite good.

As a Canadian, I have always felt we could view, more objectively, the problems that face our American neighbours. I became fascinated in the early fifties with the Americans' almost paranoic fear of communists. They became hysterical at the very mention of Marx or Lenin. Communists were under every bed and behind every script. All Russians were communists and therefore evil and not to be trusted. The more I thought about this overreaction, the more the humour of the situation began to appear.

Then, by chance, I read a paperback called The Off-Islanders by Nat Beuchley. It was not a very good book. Not even that funny. But it did have a marvellous and unique idea. Beuchley, who lives on Nantucket Island, based his story on what would happen if a Russian submarine got stranded accidentally on a local American sandbar.

I loved the situation. It was full of visual images and smelled of satire. I would tell the studio executives this hilarious story about a bunch of Russians landing in a remote village on the American coast, and everybody panics and thinks it's an invasion. The first studio group just sat there stunned, then made a move which looked suspiciously like a violent gesture, so I ran from the office. The next studio executive muttered something about "Commies aren't funny" and that the whole idea sounded subversive to him. Some agent in the local press heard about my intentions to contact some Russian actors and immediately branded me as a Canadian Pinko. At that point, it looked like The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming would never reach the screen.

The next problem was the submarine. The U.S. Navy contact for the film industry felt the script put the Navy in a bad light. So, anyway ... no co-operation or sub from the U.S. Navy. I tried the Russians, but they wanted to change my script. The Chilean government and the Canadians were both interested in renting us a sub but we would have to move the location of the picture. Finally, we decided to build one. So, with plywood, styrofoam, some World War ii armament, and lots of black paint, we built a 180-foot vessel that would float, sail at eight knots, and carry a full crew of Russian sailors. So what if it moved like a porpoise in heavy seas; in the harbour it looked great.

The film was a labour of love. We spent over four months isolated in a tiny community miles from any major city. But we all knew we were making an important film. It was not really just a comedy. It was a film about war and peace. It was about the fears and suspicions of one people for another because of a lack of communication and a surfeit of political propaganda. It was a film that dealt with the absurdity of international conflict. It was about love and hate and honour and real courage. It was our plea for international understanding. I made the film for Russians and Americans. I wanted them to see each other honestly revealed as 1, a Canadian, saw them.

Those were my reasons for making that film. In general, a film takes almost two years out of my life. Therefore, I could

not commit myself to this idea too easily. The statement the film made was important enough for our first screening to be held in Washington with the Vice-President of the United States as our guest of honour, and an assemblage of ambassadors, senators, and diplomats, including Senator Kennedy. It was gratifying for this Canadian to witness the effect the film had that night on that particular group.

When the general audience also responded well to the film, the Russian ambassador asked for a print. We sent him one which promptly disappeared for some months. Later, we learned it was screened in the Kremlin six times and at every Russian Embassy in Europe. They loved it.

Later that year, we opened the Berlin Film Festival - a thousand yards from the Wall - and Willy Brandt told me this would do more for American-Russian relations than any speeches about peaceful co-existence by political figures. A month later, I was invited to Moscow. After the film was screened at the Soviet Film Workers Union, many of the audience burst into tears. That was the moment when I realized the importance of film and its power to communicate ideas. It was a deeply moving discovery. So, those were my reasons for making The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming. I hope it didn't look like a message picture. Films must entertain, grip the audience, and totally suspend belief for that short time we are together in the darkness. If they fail, they have no audience. A film without an audience, playing to an empty theatre, is not a living thing and it will end up as just another forgotten can on the shelf (ask any Canadian producer). This is the true standard by which the success of a film should be judged.

The power of television is its mass audience. I spent nine years in live television and found myself always struggling with network officials, advertising agency executives, and the sponsors themselves as to creative content of the programs. With hardly a single exception, their interests had nothing to do with responsibility to the viewer, with truth, with improving the artistic level of programming, with self-criticism.

Indeed, we witnessed the television industry in the United States actually become a mere extension of Madison Avenue and the advertising interests. CTV may have the glitz and hot American shows, but thank God for the CBC. I guess I had good training at the BBC and CBC, because in all those years of directing television, I never shot or was involved in one commercial.

When I turned to film as a new form of expression, I was determined to continue this struggle for artistic freedom. My first four films at Universal were compromised in many ways by pressures from various individuals and groups. Because the film studios, distributors, and exhibitors are all primarily interested in gross, the dollar once again becomes the criterion for success. Everyone wants a hit. A blockbuster. Jaws I, Jaws 2, Jaws 3, Rocky 1,2,3 - can you imagine making a sequel to Ordinary People or Terms of Endearment Revisited? During the last few years, many American filmmakers have begun to assert more creative control over their films in an attempt to produce films of quality. It's a tough struggle; a lonely, and never-ending defensive action. But occasionally, one gets the opportunity to make a film of content and substance.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:42 am

In reality its probably somewhere in between Prof.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:11 am

In reality its probably somewhere in between Prof.


Okay, then, out of all of Hugh's theories and examples, which ones are most likely to be accurate? Anyone care to put together a list?

Take those you find most persuasive and let's all put them to the test. Send them to the best media critics, propaganda scholars, progressive historians, and muck-raking journalists. Let's see what they say.

Let's gather piles of evidence and documentation for Hugh's best examples and apply some serious rigor to them.

Or let's admit that, as far as consensus reality goes, they are malarkey.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:22 am

Does that mean I have to go through and read them (ha only jking hugh, tho I certainly haven't read them all.)

What about my own examples.

For one - any event in any plot of the TV show NCIS.

Even if there was not one single example of Hugh's KH theory that I agree with, that theory has added another element to how I view popular culture.

That alone means its outside the either or parameters you set.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:23 am

As far as consensus reality goes quite a few of my views on how the world works are malarky too.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hilda Martinez » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:33 am

Prof, why does it have to be either or?

And for those who shout at Hugh, "Proof, proof, proof!" I ask, what is the name of this board? How about intuition? (and I'm not saying that Hugh comes to us with nothing concrete to back up what he is saying)

Back to the topic of this thread...

I just saw the movie.

I will discuss my particular impressions, feelings, etc. about it and please skip over what I am writing here if you don't want me to spoil it for you.

First, I don't go to the movies often and I was surprised at the number of trailers there were before the film started. As someone said earlier in this thread, the movie itself was only something like an hour and twenty minutes long. I was nearly finished with my popcorn by the end of the trailers. Ironically, the first "trailer" was a recruitment commercial for the Marines (Hugh, I'm rubbing your lamp here :) ). The others were for films appropriate to the audience who would go to watch the film. There is a new film called "Doomsday" about a killer virus that ravishes London, there's that "10,000 BC" movie about to come out and they did a small blip for the "Star Trek" movie due out in 11 months.

The audience watching the film with me was primarily high school age or early 20s (which I am NOT).

The overall feel from the cinematography of the movie was that it was one big YouTube video. I guess this is the "digestible" format for "the kids" these days. For me, it was interesting to annoying.

I don't know how much a recruit-age kid would identify with the characters in the movie. They were too successful for such a young age. Plus, who gets to live in New York? I doubt if anyone who was watching the film with me would identify with them even though they were the same age group. Maybe this was part of the plan, too: the message being that no matter how successful you are you can't protect yourself from the monster. But if this is the message, the movie didn't make a case for the military or government being able to protect you because no one could stop the monster.

I didn't see too many overtones of 911, although the dust cloud of the collapsing building was pretty obvious and in several scenes papers floated to the ground like snow, just like what happened on September 11th. As an overall feel, though, it felt more like "Independence Day" or a Godzilla movie. I do have to ask, why New York? Why that city and not Miami or Houston or Chicago even?

The decapitation of the Statue of Liberty made no sense in the context of the movie whatsoever. It did make for good shock effect and now we all know what the poster looks like.

I'll talk a little bit now about sexist stereotypes in this film, which were very obvious and strong (well, at least to me). All the characters die in the end because the protagonist - Hawkins - does the stupid thing ("No, don't go back there! Don't go back there!") and "rescues the girl" when he should be leaving Manhattan instead. From the beginning to the final scene, the female characters were absolute messes and the male characters were the strong ones in charge. There were no members of the military who were female in the film.

For race/ethnic stereotypes, the rich kid/yuppie scene from which the main characters hail is full of ethnic diversity but little apparent cultural diversity (cue, "we're all Americans"). There were some minor stereotypes in the film like the East Indian convenience store owner and the hysterical Spanish-speaking immigrant who didn't know a word of English (Darn, when are those immigrants ever going to LEARN OUR LANGUAGE?? They can't even communicate when a monster is attacking their city to save themselves).

I though that the guy who was doing the filming was meant to be annoying. He was like the picked-on, awkward and whiny fat kid all grown up. His name was Hud. Hud, Hud, Hud. That is all you kept hearing throughout the film. It annoyed me to hear that name after a while.

I will have to ask the teenage boys on my block what they thought of the film. As with "300," they were my best sounding boards to test my theories on the impact on that age group.

Was it worth the $8.50 for the ticket? I don't think so. Wait until video, DVD, Blue Ray Disc or whatever.

Time for bed. I look forward to more comments on this thread. :lol:
Hilda Martinez
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:53 am
Location: The Occupied West Bank of the Rio Grande
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:39 am

Points taken, Joe. I shouldn't have said consensus reality -- I should have said empirical, testable, and logical consensus.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:45 am

And for those who shout at Hugh, "Proof, proof, proof!" I ask, what is the name of this board? How about intuition? (and I'm not saying that Hugh comes to us with nothing concrete to back up what he is saying)


Simple answer: Because Hugh, the anointed manatee, zealously proclaims himself the infallible bearer or the secret truth, and woe to those who challenge his holy word.

Asking for proof is not mean-spirited or brutish when someone won't shut up about a subject and insists he is the possessor of Truth.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:23 am

I agree that the scale of control that hugh presents is just too big, and that he needs to apply more rigour. I doubt that empirical consensus would agree with him

I also think that synchronicity needs to be taken into account. Cos sometimes the world is just like that.

But I also think it wouldn't be that hard to pull off some KH. It doesn't even need awareness on the part of the people responsible for the art, just access to them.

And I suspect that the Co$ could play a role implementing KH.

I'm not saying it definitely does, just that I can see potential for it. To be honest tho, I don't really take that much notice of popular culture.

I'd say that if KH happens it happens on a smaller scale, well at least with less operatives than it appears are necessary when looking at the myriad examples Hugh puts forward
...


I just had a visitor interrupt, now I gotta go help chase cattle, then probably have some beers to relax (bloody cows), sorry PP I'll get back to this either tonight if I'm not to wasted or tomorrow.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby FourthBase » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:24 am

I agree with everything Joe just said.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Attack Ships on Fire » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:43 am

Speaking as one who has also asked for more proof from Hugh in the past and not seen enough compelling evidence to suggest that his higher theory is correct, I feel bad for watching the Professor be the lone voice of disagreement. However, and speaking solely for myself, that's because I've given up trying to debate with Hugh. I tried to focus on specific films or TV shows where he believes they have been used for the purposes he alleges and often my points were dismissed and other examples were brought up instead of the original ones. And speaking as someone that has worked in the entertainment industry and is a phone call away from asking some of these creators a direct question about the nature of their works that Hugh and others are quick to brand as duplicitous machines of disinformation, I've frankly gone from the place of not having the energy anymore to continue the endless argument to bordering on disgust seeing how quickly some of the RIs on here can smear creativity. Much of the sentiment that I saw coming from IanEye towards Hugh and his rough, careless dismissal of the talented people working in film resonated with me. At times I feel that Hugh is leading a wave of McCarthyism directed at all facets of mainstream entertainment and that he has too many automatic believers willing to take all of what he is preaching as fact. Also, my job is also one of the reasons why I feel that I've said my piece and wanted to be done with this discussion. I've shared all that I am willing to provide of my inside view of the entertainment landscape and I just don't see the kind of widespread disinfo campaign that Hugh alleges exists. And now, frankly, I expect some people on here to view me as the enemy in their midst because of my inside knowledge of the industry.

That's OK though. As more and more threads are taken over by this subject matter, the less I find myself wanting to participate in this forum. And truth be told, if I actually were one of the people involved with one of the film projects that Hugh so brazenly discredits as machines of disinformation, I wouldn't want to try and convince that crowd of torch-wielding crusaders of my innocent intentions. I don't think that I would be believed.
Attack Ships on Fire
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:24 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby FourthBase » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:52 am

Hilda Martinez wrote:Prof, why does it have to be either or?


My all-time favorite question.

Back to the topic of this thread...

I just saw the movie.

I will discuss my particular impressions, feelings, etc. about it and please skip over what I am writing here if you don't want me to spoil it for you.

First, I don't go to the movies often and I was surprised at the number of trailers there were before the film started. As someone said earlier in this thread, the movie itself was only something like an hour and twenty minutes long. I was nearly finished with my popcorn by the end of the trailers. Ironically, the first "trailer" was a recruitment commercial for the Marines (Hugh, I'm rubbing your lamp here :) ). The others were for films appropriate to the audience who would go to watch the film. There is a new film called "Doomsday" about a killer virus that ravishes London, there's that "10,000 BC" movie about to come out and they did a small blip for the "Star Trek" movie due out in 11 months.

The audience watching the film with me was primarily high school age or early 20s (which I am NOT).

The overall feel from the cinematography of the movie was that it was one big YouTube video. I guess this is the "digestible" format for "the kids" these days. For me, it was interesting to annoying.

I don't know how much a recruit-age kid would identify with the characters in the movie. They were too successful for such a young age.


It's not about identifying as much as it is self-idealizing via idealized characters, wanting to be what those characters are. Most people want to identify with sexier richer movie versions of themselves.

Plus, who gets to live in New York?


About...3-4% of the entire population are there now. Many more have been, and most don't mind imagining themselves there. Oh wait, there's also a big contingent of right-wing-sympathizers who enjoy seeing New York in particular destroyed on screen. (Which, funny enough, belies their over-the-top "Remember the Alamo!" about 9/11)

I doubt if anyone who was watching the film with me would identify with them even though they were the same age group. Maybe this was part of the plan, too: the message being that no matter how successful you are you can't protect yourself from the monster.


Good point, no matter how virile and young and affluent you are...DOOM.

But if this is the message, the movie didn't make a case for the military or government being able to protect you because no one could stop the monster.


Hugh's military-recruitment motif is probably only one of the things being telegraphed and reinforced in movies embedded with propaganda (of all kinds -- overt, covert, thematic, keyword, whatever). Another could be, say, the acclimation of the public mind to total catastrophe. Like, say, a doomsday virus or a "monstrous" unfathomable nuclear chain reaction which brings about the collapse of human civilization into the Stone Age except for those few who have escaped post-civilization Earth with superior technology into the vacuum of space? That could be happening, too.

I didn't see too many overtones of 911, although the dust cloud of the collapsing building was pretty obvious and in several scenes papers floated to the ground like snow, just like what happened on September 11th. As an overall feel, though, it felt more like "Independence Day" or a Godzilla movie. I do have to ask, why New York? Why that city and not Miami or Houston or Chicago even?


If there weren't too many overtones, well, how about the undertones?
...But wait, there were overtones? That's pretty tasteless of them.

The decapitation of the Statue of Liberty made no sense in the context of the movie whatsoever. It did make for good shock effect and now we all know what the poster looks like.


Good shock effect makes sense outside of the context of the movie. How many of these Doom, Annihilation, Total Destruction, Pure Evil movies have there been lately? And by lately, I mean, the last 10 years. And especially this year. Every big drama seems to be excessively nihilistic.

I'll talk a little bit now about sexist stereotypes in this film, which were very obvious and strong (well, at least to me). All the characters die in the end because the protagonist - Hawkins - does the stupid thing ("No, don't go back there! Don't go back there!") and "rescues the girl" when he should be leaving Manhattan instead. From the beginning to the final scene, the female characters were absolute messes and the male characters were the strong ones in charge. There were no members of the military who were female in the film.


Hugh launches a three...swish!

For race/ethnic stereotypes, the rich kid/yuppie scene from which the main characters hail is full of ethnic diversity but little apparent cultural diversity (cue, "we're all Americans"). There were some minor stereotypes in the film like the East Indian convenience store owner and the hysterical Spanish-speaking immigrant who didn't know a word of English (Darn, when are those immigrants ever going to LEARN OUR LANGUAGE?? They can't even communicate when a monster is attacking their city to save themselves).


Every studio movie is full of those stereotypes today.

I though that the guy who was doing the filming was meant to be annoying. He was like the picked-on, awkward and whiny fat kid all grown up. His name was Hud. Hud, Hud, Hud. That is all you kept hearing throughout the film. It annoyed me to hear that name after a while.


HUD?

I will have to ask the teenage boys on my block what they thought of the film. As with "300," they were my best sounding boards to test my theories on the impact on that age group.


Excellent!
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby FourthBase » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:55 am

and that he has too many automatic believers willing to take all of what he is preaching as fact.


Now, again: That's not an accurate statement.
I think people are somewhere between you/pan and Hugh.

What was your response to pan's last post on the previous page?
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Attack Ships on Fire » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:19 am

FourthBase wrote:
and that he has too many automatic believers willing to take all of what he is preaching as fact.


Now, again: That's not an accurate statement.


No, it is a fair statement to make and here is my proof.

HughManateeWins wrote:From the beginning to the final scene, the female characters were absolute messes and the male characters were the strong ones in charge. There were no members of the military who were female in the film.

FourthBase wrote:Hugh launches a three...swish!


A female military doctor was the one that rushed to Marlena right after it was noticed that blood was oozing from her eyes. I noticed it.

And that's my point: you assigned Hugh a "three pointer" for something he claimed was a fact that was not. And I have seen that happen again and again in these discussions over larger issues than a very minor military character in a monster movie.

Respectfully Fourth Base, I'm not going back to reread whatever Pan wrote in the prior page and get into a larger debate. I've said my piece and my heart is at rest. I also don't have the mental or physical energy right now or the free time anymore to spend getting involved in another discussion about the same subject again. But in the interest of correcting an error that you and Hugh have made about "Cloverfield", I'm in and out of this discussion once again.
Attack Ships on Fire
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:24 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Please rub my lamp, Heinz Haber and Barbara Eden.

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:34 am

"Ironically, the first "trailer" was a recruitment commercial for the Marines (Hugh, I'm rubbing your lamp here :) )."
Yikes. Hate being right about this.

Hilda Martinez wrote:Prof, why does it have to be either or?

And for those who shout at Hugh, "Proof, proof, proof!" I ask, what is the name of this board? How about intuition? (and I'm not saying that Hugh comes to us with nothing concrete to back up what he is saying)


As you politely allowed for, Hilda, I'm not just intuiting but have actually have researched the aprox. 100 year history of government propaganda, objectives, techniques plus the moving audience target plus the accumulation of things to cover-up with counterpropaganda AND development of mnemonic psychology which is a parallel timeline.

I could transcribe some of Charles Osgood's CIA experimental psychology research on perception, memory, and problem solving that illustrates why meme-reversal and multiplicity of similiar definitions creates the spook's desired latency over-threshold that impedes cognition..if you like. And that is OLD research that has been much refined since. Still, the basics of neurscience are - ahem - timeless. (sorry)

The methods of government social control through media have become progressively more sophisticated and the need for this control has steadily increased, too-

WWII - Office of War Information and Office of Special Services

Cold War - CIA, Psychological Strategy Board, U.S. Information Agency

Internet age - eliminate USIA and centralize psy-ops planning again, search engine strategizing, rehide old dirty laundry dug up from the Cold War, datamining and realtime feedback on psy-ops campaigns for improvements.

I can't put the whole of my research in a post so I point at the basic end result, military recruiting using gender identity and stereotypes while obscuring 'hostile information' using mnemonic decoys which are very similiar to vaccines. That is, they are made out of parts of the original narrative but in a diluted form the brain can still subconsciously gravitate towards as an alternative to the more disturbing 'hostile information.'

And, Pan will call this hubris on my part, it seems I am the only one writing about these mnemonic strategies like keyword hijacking in TV and movies since the psy-ops professionals who actually do it get their career successes by NOT exposing how this is done.

But "googlewashing" to get a product or idea ahead of others in the search engine line has been written of since 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb

The Pentagon cites "imitative deception" as a tactic going back to WWII and DECOYS have been used for eons.

That's all keyword hijacking is, a linguistic decoy creating mnemonic bias meant to minimize the effect of undesirable information.

Some elections have had a person with the identical name as a competitor put on a ballot to confuse voters.

Copyright and patent laws are based largely on preventing keyword hijacking.

Oddly, I seem to be the only person writing about it being used as a covert psy-ops device. So what? Covert activities will be found out by fewer people than overt activities.

The first example I've found of KH is the OSS's psy-ops guru, Paul Linebarger, in 1945 using the name of one of the Project Paperclip Nazi rocket scientists, Heinz Haber, in a sci-fi story slightly modified to "Henry Haberman."

Heinz Haber in 1956 worked with Disney indoctrinating American kids to love atomic technology in a filme series called 'Our Friend the Atom,' even writing a science text book used in public schools which showed nuclear tech as a genie let out of the bottle which can now do Humanity's bidding for good, not just evil.

Since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis freaked people out just before Vietnam was ramped up to overt war, I wonder whether 1964's TV sit-com, 'I Dream of Jeannie,' and the comic genie movie that preceded it, was an effort to make that atomic genie even friendlier.
The nuclear comedy, 'Dr. Strangelove,' was also released in 1964.

Every new military tech during the Cold War was preceded or accompanied by a psychic shock-absorber to prevent rejection of war by the body-politic.

Militarism must be created and sustained.
Recruiting is a constant goal.
Dirty laundry must be obscured.

That's how the psy-ops beaurocracy reasoned and worked at the time. Still does.
That's the reality-what 'they' do for many years now, not what you expect or what you think would work best on you specifically. If you're here reading RI, it ain't about you anyway. Different demographics, especially kids.

You have to actually research the Ivy League-CIA culture that psy-ops was/is made by to recognize their mnemonic craftmanship in its historical context.

That's the only way to understand 1965's 'Hogan's Heroes' as both propaganda (selling the Vietnam War with WWII) and as counterpropaganda (humorizing Nazis in case the Gehlen Organization is exposed during the West German Auschwitz trials.)
Homonym assist: "Hogan" = Ho (Ho Chi Minh) + gan (Gun).
Almost certainly found by the psy-ops researcher when looking for Asian mnemonics in American culture for subliminal use and examining the comic strip called 'The Yellow Kid' which took place in 'Hogan's Alley.'

Back to the topic of this thread...

I just saw the movie.

I will discuss my particular impressions, feelings, etc. about it and please skip over what I am writing here if you don't want me to spoil it for you.

First, I don't go to the movies often and I was surprised at the number of trailers there were before the film started. As someone said earlier in this thread, the movie itself was only something like an hour and twenty minutes long. I was nearly finished with my popcorn by the end of the trailers. Ironically, the first "trailer" was a recruitment commercial for the Marines (Hugh, I'm rubbing your lamp here :) ). The others were for films appropriate to the audience who would go to watch the film. There is a new film called "Doomsday" about a killer virus that ravishes London, there's that "10,000 BC" movie about to come out and they did a small blip for the "Star Trek" movie due out in 11 months.

The audience watching the film with me was primarily high school age or early 20s (which I am NOT).

The overall feel from the cinematography of the movie was that it was one big YouTube video. I guess this is the "digestible" format for "the kids" these days. For me, it was interesting to annoying.

I don't know how much a recruit-age kid would identify with the characters in the movie. They were too successful for such a young age. Plus, who gets to live in New York? I doubt if anyone who was watching the film with me would identify with them even though they were the same age group. Maybe this was part of the plan, too: the message being that no matter how successful you are you can't protect yourself from the monster. But if this is the message, the movie didn't make a case for the military or government being able to protect you because no one could stop the monster.

I didn't see too many overtones of 911, although the dust cloud of the collapsing building was pretty obvious and in several scenes papers floated to the ground like snow, just like what happened on September 11th. As an overall feel, though, it felt more like "Independence Day" or a Godzilla movie. I do have to ask, why New York? Why that city and not Miami or Houston or Chicago even?

The decapitation of the Statue of Liberty made no sense in the context of the movie whatsoever. It did make for good shock effect and now we all know what the poster looks like.

I'll talk a little bit now about sexist stereotypes in this film, which were very obvious and strong (well, at least to me). All the characters die in the end because the protagonist - Hawkins - does the stupid thing ("No, don't go back there! Don't go back there!") and "rescues the girl" when he should be leaving Manhattan instead. From the beginning to the final scene, the female characters were absolute messes and the male characters were the strong ones in charge. There were no members of the military who were female in the film.

For race/ethnic stereotypes, the rich kid/yuppie scene from which the main characters hail is full of ethnic diversity but little apparent cultural diversity (cue, "we're all Americans"). There were some minor stereotypes in the film like the East Indian convenience store owner and the hysterical Spanish-speaking immigrant who didn't know a word of English (Darn, when are those immigrants ever going to LEARN OUR LANGUAGE?? They can't even communicate when a monster is attacking their city to save themselves).

I though that the guy who was doing the filming was meant to be annoying. He was like the picked-on, awkward and whiny fat kid all grown up. His name was Hud. Hud, Hud, Hud. That is all you kept hearing throughout the film. It annoyed me to hear that name after a while.

I will have to ask the teenage boys on my block what they thought of the film. As with "300," they were my best sounding boards to test my theories on the impact on that age group.

Was it worth the $8.50 for the ticket? I don't think so. Wait until video, DVD, Blue Ray Disc or whatever.

Time for bed. I look forward to more comments on this thread. :lol:


Excellent report! All the ingredients of psy-ops movies-
Gender role-modeling, recruiting messages, stereotypes, keyword hijacking, the name game.

And I already knew all of it from the poster and plot blurb and character names. Didn't even have to see the movie because psy-ops is formulaic.

"As an overall feel, though, it felt more like "Independence Day" or a Godzilla movie."

Bingo. 'Independence Day' was from 1996 and was an analog for catalyzing an expected major terrorist event (like 1995 Oklahoma City-nevermind it was an inside job) into a nationalist war in alliance with Israel. Remember the emphasis on Jeff Goldblum and his loveable Jewish father helping save the world from evil attackers? Not for nothin.'
And the whole 4th of July theme? How obvious is that? Same nationalist theme as the 'Cloverfield' Statue of Liberty poster.

"His name was Hud. Hud, Hud, Hud. That is all you kept hearing throughout the film. It annoyed me to hear that name after a while."

HAH! (doing my toldjya so dance)
The exposure by Catherine Austin Fitts of the CIA's cocaine business and spook looting of H.U.D. for many billions of dollars is a sore subject for the spooks. She's written that they even tried to sucker her into a UFO disinfo scheme to discredit her when she figured out H.U.D. was being systematically looted for covert ops.

And the Coen brothers already tried to redirect us towards 'The Hudsucker Proxy.'
(Those Coen brothers have been doing CIA subtext movies that shocked me once I took a close look at all of them. Very clever bastards.)

http://www.narconews.com/Issue40/article1644.html

Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. and the Aristocracy of Prison Profits: Part I
Inside the Financial World, Government Agencies and their Private Contractors Lies a Hidden System of Money Laundering, Drug Trafficking and Rigged Stock Market Riches

By Catherine Austin Fitts
A Six-Part Series for The Narco News Bulletin

February 27, 2006
.....
This series is both an exposé and an invitation to shift the power of wealth creation from those things that diminish and destroy to those which support freedom and productivity in transformative ways.

Read on for Part I

Part II: Narco Dollars in Mena and LA, Insider Deals at Dillon Read and Massive Mortgage Fraud in HUD related to Iran-Contra

Part III: Graft Makes HUD Under George H.W. Bush “A Sewer”; also, as Dillon Read Goes Into Business with Cornell Corrections, the Prison Contractor’s Dirty Secrets Begin to Come to Light

Part IV: The Clinton Years: Progressives for Private Prisons, HUD’s Corrupt Role in Centralizing Debt and Corporate Dirty Tricks

Part V: HUD and DOJ Begin All-Out Legal War and “Enforcement Terrorism” to Destroy the Author’s Company, and Dillon Read Cashes Out on Cornell Corrections

Part VI: A Financial Coup d’État, the Role of Private Banking, and Closing Thoughts

Brady, Bush, Bechtel & “the Boys”[1]



http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00238.htm

Dillon Read : "HUD is a Sewer"
Friday, 14 September 2007, 11:23 am
Opinion: Catherine Austin Fitts

Catherine Austin Fitts' Mapping the Real Deal
A Serialised Story - Part 8 of 20 (publishing August/September 2007)
Dillon Read & Co. Inc.
And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
By Catherine Austin Fitts

Click Here For Links To Other Chapters
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0708/S00302.htm#2
Chapter 7: “HUD is a Sewer”


(on edit: Attack Ships on Fire, the appearance of one female military doctor in no way diminishes the gender device of dynamic males endangered by rescueing a vulnerable woman. Plus women are being heavily recruited, too. That's an affirmation, not a contradiciton of what I say movies are used for.)
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:24 am, edited 5 times in total.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 161 guests