Cloverfield

[compared2what?]

Does anyone here really question that the state, with the witting or unwitting complicity of the mass media engages in extensive activities the intention of which is to systematically manipulates the citizenry from cradle to grave?

As a general proposition? I don't. Nor do I contend that they all succeed. Beyond that, it is just a question of what happens to trigger your alarm bells, which is dependent on many, many innate, environmental, and acquired strengths and vulnerabilities. My personal blind-spots and extra-sensitivities rarely overlap with Hugh's, but sometimes he shines a light on something I was unaware of in myself, and I'm grateful for it, as I am grateful, to pick an artist at random, to David Bowie, whose work does the same thing for me. And who obviously is also a genius and very good-looking and otherwise in possession of multiple exceptional qualities that are a proximate occasion for enormous gratitude, and which together make a straight up Hugh-David Bowie comparison ludicrous. So don't straw-man me with one. My point is narrow and it is: A lot of this stuff is in the eye of the beholder and operates according to the Barnum Fooling People Selectivity Principle. I've never seen Hugh assert otherwise.

The following opinion is just opinion, but to the best of my ability, it's thoroughly considered and it's based on extensive experience, careful observation, and serious study: If you have the ordinary amount of human fear and the ordinary amount of human desire, any pro who really sets him- or herself to the task can play you like a violin, interpersonally or through mass media. And that's not an insult to your humanity. It's an acknowledgment of it.

That has neither more nor less validity than the opinion offered by dissenting members of the court, and I don't pretend to claim otherwise.

Dissent in the form of mockery isn't exactly welcome, but since it's the custom of the country on this thread, go for it if you must. I only demand respect for Mr. Bowie, because he's one of my gods and my worship of him is protected under the constitution.

Hugh, the Disney Birds-thing poster from about 11 pages back is amazing. That cat has too many generic-Asian-stereotype features to be coincidental. And what is the fist in the upper left about?

Also, whence the hostility, hatas? You're free to behold or not. They're your eyes.

[FourthBase]

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.

Dude, you didn't understand the context.

Hugh is always talking about shit like "From the beginning to the final scene, the female characters were absolute messes and the male characters were the strong ones in charge." That wasn't even Hugh I was quoting though, it was Hilda, whose observations about female/male roles in the movie conformed to Hugh's general theorizing, however broad it is. Score one for Hugh. Just one basket, though, albeit a three-pointer. An individual instance where Hugh's usual worldview played out like he would predict. So re-fucking-check yourself and realize what I was assigning and who I was assigning it to. And so fucking what if Hilda should have said "almost no members" because you caught a single female character who was.

[FourthBase]

Evidence shows quite clearly that the government tries to influence the content of popular media, and frequently succeeds. And sometimes it doesn't -- many films of the past several decades demonize the U.S. government, the military, and the CIA.

Pan, do you think just because a movie demonizes the CIA or the military, that it couldn't contain (or, be) propaganda which promotes certain objectives of the CIA, military, elite, etc? Like, a limited hangout or a derailment of the real issues, for example?

Attack Ships, what about the evidence of government/intelligence/military interference/guidance in various production stages of studio movies? It's not an either/or IMO, that either the individual examples Hugh chooses are factual or the concept of keyword hijacking itself is void. Shit, I don't even think keyword hijacking would stand out amongst the ways that movie-making is manipulated by propagandists, if it exists to any substantial degree it must be just one of a multitude of ways, probably relatively low in the order of importance. Everything I've ever felt like saying about KH was summed up by Joe:

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

That, Attack Ships, is what I mean by being in between you and Hugh. And yes, it makes your portrayal of me and others like Joe as "automatic believers willing to take all of what he is preaching as fact" an inaccurate, unfair statement.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
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.

If you aren't going to offer what you know about the business, you are more constricted by your position than I am regarding the subject.
Please make those phone calls.

But if anyone is CIA or working for them, they wouldn't tell, would they?
So you have to analyze the product and its context.

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.

Why do you project to "talented people working in film?"
Is this more 'HMW' hates artists? Puh-leeze.

At times I feel that Hugh is leading a wave of McCarthyism ...

Oy. Sounds like personal defensiveness on your part. "I'm nice and so are my friends."
That's myopic but a common viewpoint most people take, including my friends in academia who got pissed when I pointed out that the CIA had warped entire fields, like anthropology, to their Cold War ends.
It took months before they stopped being pissed about finding out that their sacred academia was not 'intellectually pure' as many had mistakenly and VERY personally assumed.

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.

Sounds too personal and anecdotal to be applicable to an entire industry that has decades of tight relationships with the USG and, in many cases, IS the USG.

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.

Not at all. But you seem to be hampered by your 'inside knowledge' which I haven't read any of yet.

I'd love to know what you see and hear specifically.

[compared2what?]

I have insider knowledge of that industry too, and if I had any relevant insider info, would offer it. But I don't. Most of what's shady in news and entertainment media hides in plain sight. That's why Hugh can see it, when he does.

However, FWIW, I can vouch for the credibility of ATOF's industry insiderness, insofar as I have privately noted his fluency and familiarity with respect to small and routine workaday aspects of it before, which are, you know, of the kind you find in any line of work -- of too little inherent interest to be worth noticing if they're not a part of your workaday world, but as obvious a part of external reality as the sun, moon, and stars if they are.

[winston smith]

attack ships on fire said

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.

I understand you (and others) have come to the end of the road with this theory but dont leave the board. I hope you can focus your energies elsewhere because i like reading your comments and observations.

[IanEye]

That, Attack Ships, is what I mean by being in between you and Hugh. And yes, it makes your portrayal of me and others like Joe as "automatic believers willing to take all of what he is preaching as fact" an inaccurate, unfair statement.

yes, FourthBase? How does it feel? How does it feel to have your mask portrayed in a way that is inaccurate and unfair? Now imagine your FourthBase mask is stripped away and the statements are aimed at you directly, towards the name you carry from day to day. The name your kids can Google.

There is a difference between saying you think "Mama Tried" is an awful song and saying Merle Haggard is a CIA stooge who writes these songs as part of a massive project to psychologically depress poor white people. (I just made that example up).

If you are comfortable coming to a board where Terry Gilliam gets categorized as a "dupe" then you shouldn't really be getting upset about getting your goalie mask a little dinged up. Your fake name acts as a shield, and as long as you wear it you have a modicum of protection that others who get called all kinds of names here at RI do not.

Many people here get really uncomfortable when I point out that the personas we assume here are created as much by our inactions as our actions. I find it much easier to listen to a pointed critique from Sunny about a thing she finds offensive because she also offers many examples of things in her life that she adores.

When all anyone brings to the table is negativity, that is a choice. But part of the choice is the shape and dimensions your persona takes on. Like a three dimensional object that passes through a two dimensional plane, we on the plane only see the part that is passing through. Whatever fullness of beauty that you possess, it is up to you to reveal it, or conceal it.

If one's concealment comes under the guise of, "i only have time to post about these topics that bother me, not the ones i enjoy", then one has chosen the mask of the curmudgeon, and one looks odd to then shy away from the perception.



Naked Lunch: “a frozen moment when everyone sees what is at the end of every fork.”

[Hilda Martinez]

Okay, guys, you were right, there was ONE female military character of note, but I guess I overlooked her because her appearance was brief. All the other HUNDREDS of military characters - those in charge, those in the streets valliantly fighting the monster, the rescue team when they emerge from the subway, and those shoving along the crowds - were all men. This one female military character took Marlena to be shot, so she could be seen as having somewhat of a "look what that bitch was responsible for" role in the film.

FourthBase, thanks for adding to my understanding of the film. I appreciate the analysis.

I was thinking about something else about the film, we never find out what happens to the monster, how far in the future we are when the video is discovered - there really is no conclusion. Kind of like the War on Terror. There can be no conclusion to this and the monster is always out there. Shouldn't we still be scared if we really, really don't know if it's over? Maybe that is the whole point of the movie.

I appreciate Hugh. I'm a big enough girl to look at what he says with some objectivity and I don't always agree with what he says. He is bringing to the forefront some important stuff, though - very important stuff. I thought of him immediately when I saw the Marines recruiting commercial as the first trailer and many, many things he has said I have taken away from here and thought about. And that thought has caused me to learn, investigate and grow, so I appreciate what he does.

I just hope that he won't leave in a huff like people do here every once in a while, but I think he has thicker skin. Please keep doing what you are doing!!

[professorpan]

Oy. Sounds like personal defensiveness on your part. "I'm nice and so are my friends."

No, it's someone with actual knowledge of how the film industry works pointing out that you are wrong. But ASOF's real-world experience contradicts your all-powerful conspiracy, so that must be "defensiveness." What a crock. I can't imagine you have any friends in the real world if you treat other people like you treat people on this board.

What you have advocated here -- art that exists only to fight the imaginary fascist megaconspiracy in your head -- is so very similar to socialist realism as advocated by Stalin:

Socialist realism became the official doctrine in the USSR in 1932 when Stalin's repressive government issued a decree ‘On the Reconstruction of Literary and Art Organizations’. Painters were expected to produce scenes of happy workers on collective farms, heroic portraits of Stalin and other leaders, and industrial landscapes, all painted with a straightforward naturalism. Novelists were expected to concentrate on uplifting stories and not concern themselves with subtleties of plot or characterization. Composers were to produce ‘vivid realistic music reflecting the life and struggles of the Soviet people’.

Yep, Stalin didn't like "woo" clouding up art's "message" either.

The fact that you can't see the repressive and anti-creative bias in your screeds is very illuminating for those of us who care about art.

[Uncle $cam]

Why the fuck don't you guys just ban HMW's and get it over with?

While you guys complain the hir clutters up every post, it seems to me hmw's is attacked by a cabal of posters here with every post.

Including Jeff.

You guys remind me of school yard bullies. So far, S/he has been called an asshole, "off the meds", Stalin, and I'm sure other things that I'm not remembering. You guys pounce on hir every chance you get like a wolf pack.
Whatever happened to, if you don't agree, move on and let it be? In other words the old adage, if you have nothing nice to say, then say nothing?

[professorpan]

I have too much history with Hugh to ban him, and I'm not comfortable making that kind of decision anyway. And others seem to enjoy his zealous stream of nonsensical tirades. Go figure.

He cleverly skirts the rules of the forum, though -- visit the New World Order comic thread if you want to see how he essentially accuses an artist of spreading disinformation. And don't get me started on how he derails conversations into anti-Disney rants and mucks up interesting threads with "keyword hijacking" examples.

It's tiresome, and I realize my reaction to his stuff is also getting tiresome. Maybe I'll just shut up and let him run rampant. In which case, I don't think I'll have much appetite for hanging around here.

[nomo]

For the record, I started this thread with the two images because it seemed liked it was tailor-made for Hugh... Like a ready-made conspiracy of sorts. Or rather, a set-up. So you won't hear me complaining about him hijacking this thread, even though I don't necessarily agree with his analysis. Too much focus on the movies while neglecting the much more ubiquitous and obvious propaganda that is mainstream television -- which has been proven to be controlled and funded by the state.

And for what it's worth, I haven't seen the flick myself yet. But as a New Yorker, I find myself strangely attracted to movies depicting the destruction of my beloved city, so I'll probably end up seeing it at one point or another. The references to 9/11 don't seem nefarious to me, quite the opposite. It would be very strange if it didn't reference the single biggest real-life attack on this town.

(And at the risk of hijacking the thread myself, I would like to add that I don't take Hugh all that seriously precisely because he insists on controlled demolition of those towers by repeatedly using proven lies and falsehoods to make the point. I mean, if you can't even get that straight...)


Oh, and on edit: promotional trailers for the Marines have been showing in theaters for years. Please don't start trotting that out as proof of anything.

[elfismiles]

xxx

[AlanStrangis]

I'm surprised that a thread about Cloverfield has lasted so long.

I mean, it's pretty vacuous and somewhat entertaining overall (definitely DVD though). Worthy of note is the cinematography, especially the lighting in what was essentially meant to be 'real world' style camera work. Somebody did an excellent job there.

When it comes to the 9/11 imagery, that's to be expected of a movie made after real life buildings collapsed/blew up - note my fence straddling . The images are part of our collective consciousness. A director (and more technically a special effects artist) who ignores what everyone KNOWS as reality to give the audience something less convincing would be making the wrong choice. Direct visual allusions to 9/11 are there, including the people running into a store as the dust cloud spreads.

But come on, HUD? Really?

I thought the name Hud was a deliberate pun, as in Heads Up Display. A term gamers are quite familiar with. Given that the movie looks as inspired by Half Life 2 as it does Godzilla and Blair Witch, and is told with first person perspective most of the time, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that if there's ANY meaning behind the name Hud, my guess is right, and any references to Housing and Urban Development scandals.

Then again, I remember a lot of people who I often agree with politically making the argument that 300's King Leonidas was George Bush, when I came out thinking that Xerxes was Bush, because Xerxes was the crazy invader.

Funny thing about Art, great or small - people interpret it differently.

[FourthBase]

You guys remind me of school yard bullies. So far, S/he has been called an asshole, "off the meds", Stalin, and I'm sure other things that I'm not remembering. You guys pounce on hir every chance you get like a wolf pack.

To be fair, there are times I myself have told Hugh to get back on his meds, because the absurdity of his particular examples often verges into a disconnection from reality that would probably be harmful to him in real life.

Ian, you're right.