Cloverfield

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Have you ever read any bell hooks, Hugh Manatee Wins?

No, I haven't. Grabbing a clue from the wiki site, she looks to be right on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_hooks

A prevalent theme in her most recent writing is the community and communion, the ability of loving communities to overcome race, class, and gender.

But what bothers me is that many progressives who recognize that there IS racism and sexism and militarism don't realize that it isn't only a systemic hang-over from history.

What I want people to know is that there is a psy-ops beaurocracy that maintains baseline levels of these -isms, using tv and movies, for instance, and it is going to take exposing this to cool us down and thereby increase the rate of social evolution.

The aggression pot will not stop boiling until more people know that heat is covertly added through media to keep us simmering against each other.

And preventing Americans from finding out how this psy-ops system works is the real reason behind the thought crime bill allegedly about preventing "radicalization and homegrown terrorism."

The real fear is that military recruiting will get even harder and affect national security once more people know the score.

Information is power. And what you don't know can hurt you, as Jeff's motto says.

[IanEye]

What I want people to know is that there is a psy-ops beaurocracy that maintains baseline levels of these -isms, using tv and movies, for instance, and it is going to take exposing this to cool us down and thereby increase the rate of social evolution.

your struggle to communicate the knowledge of a 'psy-ops beaurocracy' is fine.

you are wearing a mask known as 'humanity wins' to bring about this communication however. and thus you are duty bound to show the mask's counter-face. that is the thing about masks or personas, each one has a counter-mask, living in the personage of the mask you decide to wear. if you do not address this, the mask takes hold of you.

be honest with yourself, person wearing the HMW mask, and consider this task:

find a piece of art and swoon over it.

do not bring up a piece of art only as a means to downgrade another piece of art.

just be enthralled with humanity's need to communicate through art...












... wait for it......











.... you fucking human being you

to not acknowledge the presence of the counter-mask is to enter the realm of the fundamentalist, correct?

- - -

[sunny]

Just got back from seeing it. Total 911 redux just as 8bit says. I liked the camcorder cinematography but I gotta tell ya, the acting was barely adequate. They weren't totally horrified enough by

********SPOILER WARNING************
*
*
*
*(I'm serious, don't read past here if you don't want it spoiled )
*
*
*
*

the incredibly UUUUUGLY gigantosaurus monster thing that looked something like a cross between a pterodactyl and a gargoyle and it had these poisonous huge ugly spider things dripping from it that caused you to explode within a few minutes if it bites you.(or maybe the military takes you into a tent and shoots you, I'm not sure which) From the acting you would think they were running from a tornado. meh.

And the totally useless obstacle and danger filled trek across the city to rescue a girl was a plot device the movie could have lived without. Just trying to get out of the city before"Hammer Down" (total destruction of the city in order to kill The Beast Who Wouldn't Die) would have been enough of an adventure.

It was pretty funny in a couple of spots. The main camera guy/narrator "Hud" was the best actor of the lot and you hardly got to see him. When the beastie ate him while he was still holding the camera it was the scariest part of the movie.

There was almost zero exposition, but there was some indication that the completely mindless, relentless, awesomely destructive terroristic biological beast was government engineered. That was pretty cool.

*********End Spoiler***********

Go see it. It's a pretty fun evening, not a total waste.

[Hilda Martinez]

Hugh, I see what you mean now. The target audience does not necessarily need to watch the SOTU directly, but the message will be "out there" and will slowly get to its target eventually. Good point.

IanEye, maybe I'm not getting why you are so upset at Hugh but I don't think he is saying all art is controlled by the CIA or the PTB only the "consumer art," the mass-media-delivered art that is pumped into our homes and theaters and printed on those glossy magazines waiting for bored people to peruse at the checkout stand. The local artist at the Friday night Art Walk in your town is the farthest thing from this. Hugh doesn't really have to address that "counter mask" if he is just talking about the big stuff, does he really? I can't speak for him, but I think Hugh can enjoy art for art's sake like the rest of us, but here he is speaking of "the big stuff," which is important.

Personally, I think the biggest movie to impact the teenage boy and military recruit crowd last year was "300." I talked with teenage boys in my neighborhood about the film after witnessing some bizarre behaviors on the block. As a woman of color living in America, I can say - especially with regard to that movie and its impact on male youth - that much of what Hugh is saying about maintaining racist and sexual stereotypes to motivate and influence a target audience is true. It may be more pervasive than many of us may realize.

And now we have a spoof film of "300" out on January 25th being heavily advertised called "Meet the Spartans." This film has the tagline "The bigger the hit, the harder they fall" showing people being thrown into a well, referring to the scene in the original movie where King Leonidas of Sparta threw the ambassador of Persia into a big, gaping well. The spoof movie is full of the the same buff guys in the exact same costumes and scantily clad women and is sure to be full of lots of racially-based and sexist jokes. I think this movie is a go-see for me as much as "Cloverfield" will be. I'll have to ask my sample of neighborhood teenage boys what they think of both of those films. I'll report back...

[orz]

I don't think he is saying all art is controlled by the CIA

Well he always says it's a 'straw man' or whatever to claim that is his view, but really since he has NO objective criteria for determining which art is or isn't controlled by the CIA, and there isn't any use of a word or image in any media which he wouldn't claim is deliberate keyword hijacking if it fit his preconceived ideas, then yes...

He is saying all art is controlled by the CIA.

If he disputes this then he is admitting that he's failed to successfully form or communicate a coherent theory... but if he admits it he's a nutter. He's trapped by his own limited thinking.

[elfismiles]

So what constitutes proof of CIA (or PR firm front company) complicity in in MSM products promoting psyops?

Is it overt like this:

Operation Hollywood
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7073763777

Or would it have to be a video like this but verified as officially real:

Scary Terror Focus Group Video: Real Or Hoax?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5rV--FUB_I
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no ... sgroup.htm

Or a whistleblower with verifiable credentials claiming to have been a liason tween CIA and Paramount?

Or a declassified document showing payoffs from CIA to Paramount with specific notes about things to include or play up for a specific psyop, social engineering agenda?

Or something else?

How the Central Intelligence Agency Played Dirty Tricks With Our Culture
by Laurence Zuckerman
Published on Saturday, March 18, 2000 in the New York Times
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031800-02.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/a ... ganda.html

Propaganda - See Through the Process - from GNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5t2VCzh0IA

The Man Who Sold the War
Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war
by James Bamford
Published on Friday, November 18, 2005 by Rolling Stone
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1118-10.htm

Information Warfare- GNN Profile: Robert Sterling (2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeBGRSzecxQ

[professorpan]

Or a whistleblower with verifiable credentials claiming to have been a liason tween CIA and Paramount?

Or a declassified document showing payoffs from CIA to Paramount with specific notes about things to include or play up for a specific psyop, social engineering agenda?

If you're talking about the documents from the 50s that Hugh keeps insisting are "proof" of his theory, you need to go back and read them. The Paramount mole got very little accomplished, and had nowhere near as much influence as Hugh suggests.

No one, I think, denies that gov't and intelligence agencies desire to control mainstream entertainment, nor do I or others deny that some meddling takes place. The major disagreement with Hugh is with the scope of what he asserts and the lack of logic and facts to support those assertions.

Because he's a zealot who cannot examine his own ideas critically, he can't understand that a person like myself can accept *some* meddling in popular media without accepting his vast, micromanaged conspiracy.

[professorpan]

Just to clarify a bit:

I am aware that the military works with producers, particularly on films that use military hardware. And it's very likely that the portrayal of U.S. soldiers and policies in films are influenced by the military and/or intelligence.

But that's conceptually and factually logical and possible to prove, unlike the manatee's surreal and illogical rantings.

[elfismiles]

Just to clarify a bit:

I am aware that the military works with producers, particularly on films that use military hardware. And it's very likely that the portrayal of U.S. soldiers and policies in films are influenced by the military and/or intelligence.

But that's conceptually and factually logical and possible to prove, unlike the manatee's surreal and illogical rantings.

Hi Prof. I understand where you and Hugh's critics are coming from. And I think he is trying to do a better job at "proving" his analysis.

Like so many others whose ideas I find fascinating and POSSIBLE yet difficult to prove, I like what Hugh is attempting to analyze even if I can't believe it 100%. As always I'm also interested in what constitutes proof to various people. But I get tired of people who start slinging such emotional meanness - at Hugh and others.

Yes, what Hugh is suggesting is quite a level up from plain old PR Firms being employed to sway public opinion. But I think it's established fact that theater in the past and present is manufactured with an eye towards social control. It can't be total and complete nor 100% effective and it will necessarily have to let through much actual artistic creativity but I think the fact that the CIA can both push and pull back media coverage of certain news topics extends to their ability and interest in pushing and pulling on the threads of modern culture.

Obviously this can all be a matter of debated degrees. Like what the heck DID Gloria Steinem exactly do for the CIA?

Overt stuff like the military creation of gaming is much more obvious:

Destineer teams with CIA-funded In-Q-Tel
Close Combat developer lands deal to create training sims for US gov't; Destineer pres tells us what he can.
By Curt Feldman, GameSpot
Posted Jun 16, 2005 10:28 am PT
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/16 ... 27611.html

Note the info on In-Q-Tel there.

I've talked to an ARG/Viral Marketing guy who would disagree with Hugh's analysis but would also agree that he (the viral arg dude) and his peers are very much in demand amongst advertisers/marketers and probably the Mil/Int complex.

And no ... I wasn't actually trying to build off of Hugh's docs on the Paramount mole. Just trying to phrase the questions to get you and his other critics position on what would constitute proof of Hugh's ideas.

smiles

[Attack Ships on Fire]

I saw it and liked it. The overture at the end is a nice nod to the monster movies of old.

[medicis]

Hi Prof. I understand where you and Hugh's critics are coming from. And I think he is trying to do a better job at "proving" his analysis.

Like so many others whose ideas I find fascinating and POSSIBLE yet difficult to prove, I like what Hugh is attempting to analyze even if I can't believe it 100%. As always I'm also interested in what constitutes proof to various people. But I get tired of people who start slinging such emotional meanness - at Hugh and others.

I tend to agree with your view. In addition, I simply 'tune out' the 'slimers' as being irrelevant if only because of the slime. I believe it is important to have HMW (and people like him) who seek to connect those dots that others may then go back and analyze in the attempt to see which ones actually have a higher probability of 'connectedness'. The art/science of psyop and propaganda has come a long long way from the days of Bernays.... much more pervasive and persuasive. Referencing war flicks and Defense Department films seems to place the level of analysis back 70 years. A few things have been learned since then, I would imagine. And the messages target the media venues most observed. And the budgets for implementation hugely vaster. I no longer view society and culture as the pastiche I once did. Rather a malevolence and corrupt desire appear to permeate to connect the hodgepodge.

All in all, HMW is far more persuasive than his critics if only because he presents interesting analyses, is rarely mean-spirited (at least from my limited reading) vs the critics who are opposites on both those points.

Also, because in therapy, subtle images and metaphors etc. are often very useful in promoting attitudinal, conceptual and behavioral change. Though I must admit, I am not nearly so good at this as some of my colleagues appear to be.

And believe it or not, my son just called for me to drive over and pick him and his girlfriend up from just having viewed, yup, Cloverfield....... maybe I'll have to do some 'debriefing'.....

[judasdisney]

OK. I just saw it.

Although it lacks the intellectual smarts of the best monster movies, and has limited other appeal, there is a pro-9/11 Truth message to be had.

If you view the film as a 9/11 Truth metaphor for citizens trapped by a giant, unleashed Cheney/Rumsfeld fascist juggernaut, the film works perfectly. And actually becomes poignant in that light.

Unfortunately, most people won't be viewing the film from a 9/11 Truth perspective (whatever that means to each of us), and so, the resonant echoes of 9/11 in "Cloverfield" have no propaganda effect beyond the sense that the film is exploiting tragedy awkwardly, thereby encouraging us to accept the further coarsening of our culture.

There is no overt metaphoric link to either "Al Qaeda" or "Cheney" as the monster. Therefore there is no overt propoganda value.

There are no covert propaganda devices that I could detect, and I take this idea more seriously than I believe anyone I know, including HMW.

Including the name "Robert Hawkins," which has limited cultural impact since most filmgoers will not know the name from the Omaha event. "Hawkins" is a common and naturally occurring name that has no primary significance or resonance to the story, and therefore has little propaganda value within the film, whether one extracts "hawk" or "kin" or "hawkin'" (as in the verbal method of expectorating human mucus from nasal passages) from the interchangeable name of an interchangeable character.

The film's studious avoidance of any and all possible political resonance, with the noteworthy exception of the overt 9/11 imagery, is (I believe) a topic worthy of discussion, if we're interested in the business of arcane topics on this board.

If anything, rather than parse for Keyword Hijacking or propaganda beyond a minimum threshhold of concrete emotional impact, what's parapolitically significant about "Cloverfield" lies in the opposite direction: the fact of its meticulous aversion to meaning except for the noted, significant overt 9/11 imagery:

Why does the film make this one exception, for the images of dustclouds rolling down skyscraper-lined avenues toward fleeing crowds? Is this mere exploitation for the sake of an emotional jolt that evokes the trauma of 2001? (Trauma: whether you believe the Official Story or you recognized the unleashed fascist juggernaut).

The poster image of the Statue of Liberty with its head ripped off is a political image, as explicit as an editorial page political cartoon.

But there's no further capitalizing on this image as a political metaphor within the film. And so, at the very least, the film is open to be read as a limited metaphor for a ravaging fascist nightmare monster that has torn the head from Liberty.

And that's about all it is. Which carries a political meaning within itself. And that's far more profound -- in this case -- than any Keyword Hijacking you could parse. Because "Cloverfield" is reducing that Statue of Liberty metaphor to a meaningless, apolitical gimmick.

As such, "Cloverfield" has the same perfunctory net value as a dream. Much of what you take from "Cloverfield" is what you bring to it. And although some dreams or nightmares are exceptions to this rule, the net value is usually not more than zero.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

So I just saw Cloverfield.......
they definately tried to mimic the feel of 9/11, from the running people and pyroclastic dust clowds rushing down the street, to the shots of the city with smoke rising, to people escaping into nearby stores covered with dust, to buildings imploding, etc......

That's quite political. Just like the real 9/11. That simple and obvious.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Just got back from seeing it. Total 911 redux just as 8bit says. .....

And the totally useless obstacle and danger filled trek across the city to rescue a girl was a plot device the movie could have lived without.

That's a standard gender psy-ops for militarism-
"Women are detrimental to security."
.....

There was almost zero exposition, but there was some indication that the completely mindless, relentless, awesomely destructive terroristic biological beast was government engineered. That was pretty cool.

"Government engineered...." Hmm.
Except that it is in the context of a totally out almost 1950s sci-fi mode.
And that dilutes the reality.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
The art/science of psyop and propaganda has come a long long way from the days of Bernays.... much more pervasive and persuasive. Referencing war flicks and Defense Department films seems to place the level of analysis back 70 years. A few things have been learned since then, I would imagine. And the messages target the media venues most observed. And the budgets for implementation hugely vaster. I no longer view society and culture as the pastiche I once did. Rather a malevolence and corrupt desire appear to permeate to connect the hodgepodge.

All true. The history, principles, and institutions carrying out psy-ops since WWI are open source. Ex-CIA whistleblowers and dots that poke out here and there confirm the endeavor.

Having studied these and then examining the product I found the psy-ops to range from painfully obvious to more subtle and clever semantic dismemberment, meme-reversal, and negative-framing of whistleblowers.

Also, because in therapy, subtle images and metaphors etc. are often very useful in promoting attitudinal, conceptual and behavioral change.
.....

Therapists know about transferrance.
Attitudes towards primary objects can be transferred to surrogate objects. Emotions and attitudes can be aroused and then projected towards sanctioned targets to induce behaviors, amplify the emotions, or minimize the emotions.

That's what movies are used for, to create sanctioned attitudes towards targets by taking advantage of the audience's receptivity to the suggestions on the subconscious level since they think it is 'just a movie.' In reality, very often it is carefully crafted psy-ops, NOT humanizing art .