An absurd romp about the Gong Show guy claiming to be a CIA assassin. How fun is that?
Plenty of fun, apparently, as the book sold quite well. I find the story pretty interesting (though I haven't seen the movie, so can't comment on it).
I don't see why films about the CIA or conspiracies, regardless of their slant, are indications that Hugh is "onto something." It's gotten to be reflexive among some posters -- if it's about the military, CIA, conspiracies, deep politics, whatever -- that it's de facto propaganda. Which, barring any actual evidence (which Hugh never presents), seems quite silly.
And it completely negates the roles of the artists who make films reality -- writers, directors, editors. I'd be the first to admit that art often takes a backseat to commercial interests -- I've experience it myself.
But anyone who has ever worked in media knows firsthand how absurd and uneducated Hugh's claims are. Things just don't work the way he suggests, and if he spent half as much time reading about how the industry works -- instead of poring over psypos manuals from the 50s and projecting and creating word associations -- he'd understand that, too.
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:37 pm
by sunny
professorpan wrote:I liked Syriana. A lot. It is a very damning commentary on many of the themes addressed on this board.
Yeah, that's why I went to see it in the first place, but damn that movie should have come with a map or a key, or something. The unitiated would have no hope understanding what the hell it was talking about.
Maybe I'm just dumb, but I don't usually have a problem understanding complex films. In fact, I prefer them. But something about it distracted or annoyed me and I never got into it enough to give it a shot or to give a shit.
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:52 pm
by sunny
professorpan wrote:Plenty of fun, apparently, as the book sold quite well. I find the story pretty interesting (though I haven't seen the movie, so can't comment on it).
Sorry, but I don't find the idea of CIA assassins fun in the least.
And it completely negates the roles of the artists who make films reality -- writers, directors, editors. I'd be the first to admit that art often takes a backseat to commercial interests -- I've experience it myself.
I'm not negating the roles of artists in film, I'm quite an admirer of the art form and would never do that. However, as you said "art often takes a backseat to commercial interests" and who is to say that these "commercial" interests do not include propagandists seeking to promote and normalize the idea of CIA assassins, (if they are fun and cute and working for us, how bad can they be?) or the militarization of society, or any other State agenda?
Artists working in such a lucrative field are burdened with all kinds of pressures. Many will tell you there are subjects they can't touch or that have to be handled a certain way. If they want to continue working, they have to play the game by the rules laid out by the suits. Look what happened to De Palma's Redacted. He did it the way he wanted, but it did him no good. Who but the State and it's sycophants would have been offended by the truth in that film?
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:53 pm
by FourthBase
I don't see why films about the CIA or conspiracies, regardless of their slant, are indications that Hugh is "onto something." It's gotten to be reflexive among some posters -- if it's about the military, CIA, conspiracies, deep politics, whatever -- that it's de facto propaganda. Which, barring any actual evidence (which Hugh never presents), seems quite silly.
And it completely negates the roles of the artists who make films reality -- writers, directors, editors. I'd be the first to admit that art often takes a backseat to commercial interests -- I've experience it myself.
But anyone who has ever worked in media knows firsthand how absurd and uneducated Hugh's claims are. Things just don't work the way he suggests, and if he spent half as much time reading about how the industry works -- instead of poring over psypos manuals from the 50s and projecting and creating word associations -- he'd understand that, too.
Hugh being onto something is in no way saying that things work the way he suggests. I think I've made it pretty clear that I personally think his overall hunch is correct but that his idea of the particulars is abysmal.
It's gotten to be reflexive among some posters -- if it's about the military, CIA, conspiracies, deep politics, whatever -- that it's de facto propaganda. Which, barring any actual evidence (which Hugh never presents), seems quite silly.
That's what Hugh usually assumes, that it's de facto propaganda. He has virtually no standards for inclusion. That's different from looking at the recent filmography of Tom Hanks or George Clooney, seeing that they've worked in an inordinate number of establishment-twisted movies (especially Hanks), adding that they represent the elite product of Hollywood, adding that the national security industry has an established interest in and working relationship with the entertainment industry, and taking an educated guess that it's not all a coincidence or a matter of "what people traditionally want to see in movies".
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:33 pm
by theeKultleeder
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:06 pm
by FourthBase
Which 1000 (or 100) words is that pic of Wilson supposed to be worth?
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:09 pm
by theeKultleeder
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:12 pm
by FourthBase
an inordinate number
Just checking to make sure you knew I didn't type "everything they've ever done".
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:18 pm
by theeKultleeder
"Movies are like a box of chocolates; sometimes you swallow a CIA satellite transceiver that controls your thoughts..."
(joke!)
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 7:20 pm
by FourthBase
Forrest Gump is definitely an instance where Hanks gives the status quo a rimjob.
yes it's really me
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:00 am
by Col. Quisp
chiggerbit wrote:OMG, Col. Quisp, is that really you?
I pop in here now and then, not like i used to...time is limited these days. Nice to know I'm not forgotten! Happy holidays, all
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:37 pm
by MinM
IanEye wrote:
And there are plenty of semantically disorienting self-referential mirrors in this Clooney movie, too.
I guess you can sit in the theater and eat your "Now and Later"s as you decide whether to burn "Before or After"......
Ira David Wood III thinks that Clooney 'gets it'
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:26 pm
by MinM
MinM wrote:
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Note to whistleblowers - Don't do professional wrestling if you wan't to help the truth instead of hinder it. The recent movie, 'The Wrestler,' was made to discredit Jesse Ventura since he was doing a book tour and talking about CIA in state government, 9/11 truth, and the CIA murder of JFK...
The clown that played the 'Wrestler' is Pro War! Pro Bush!
ACTOR Mickey Rourke sympathises with U.S. President George W Bush - insisting he doesn't know how any politician could have successfully navigated America after the 9/11 attacks on New York...
Ironically the 21-year old actress hanging out with the old dude is probably much more politically astute and aware than Rourke. She's the daughter of Ira David Wood III:
In his most recent interview on Black Op Radio, Ira David Wood III spoke of going out to dinner with his daughter, Evan Rachel Wood, and George Clooney while they were shooting a political thriller The Ides of March in Ohio. Apparently they delved into the JFK related matters, E Howard Hunt, et al. (7:00 minute mark)
# Show #532 Original airdate: June 23, 2011 Guests: Ira David Wood III / Jim DiEugenio Topics: JFK Assassination Research
Play Part One - David Wood
# JFK Chronology Nov 22 1963 - who said what and when. # was research originally for a play he was writing # Recent updates bring known research up to June 2011 version # Part one preface details facts leading up to Nov 22 1963 PREFACE - Chronology Part one # New updated JFK Assassination Chronology Starting at Nov 22nd 1963
BTW 6 minutes into the interview linked above Wood mentions that Stephen King is coming out with his own JFK book.
Re: Ira David Wood III thinks that Clooney 'gets it'
Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:33 pm
by hanshan
MinM wrote:
MinM wrote:
Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:Note to whistleblowers - Don't do professional wrestling if you wan't to help the truth instead of hinder it. The recent movie, 'The Wrestler,' was made to discredit Jesse Ventura since he was doing a book tour and talking about CIA in state government, 9/11 truth, and the CIA murder of JFK...
The clown that played the 'Wrestler' is Pro War! Pro Bush!
ACTOR Mickey Rourke sympathises with U.S. President George W Bush - insisting he doesn't know how any politician could have successfully navigated America after the 9/11 attacks on New York...
Ironically the 21-year old actress hanging out with the old dude is probably much more politically astute and aware than Rourke. She's the daughter of Ira David Wood III:
In his most recent interview on Black Op Radio, Ira David Wood III spoke of going out to dinner with his daughter, Evan Rachel Wood, and George Clooney while they were shooting a political thriller The Ides of March in Ohio. Apparently they delved into the JFK related matters, E Howard Hunt, et al. (7:00 minute mark)
# Show #532 Original airdate: June 23, 2011 Guests: Ira David Wood III / Jim DiEugenio Topics: JFK Assassination Research
Play Part One - David Wood
# JFK Chronology Nov 22 1963 - who said what and when. # was research originally for a play he was writing # Recent updates bring known research up to June 2011 version # Part one preface details facts leading up to Nov 22 1963 PREFACE - Chronology Part one # New updated JFK Assassination Chronology Starting at Nov 22nd 1963
