RIP Sydney Pollack

[MacCruiskeen]

Now he's dead. How many are dead because of his propaganda movies?

None.

Cute meme-reversal in 'Three Days of the Condor.' CIA agents as victims. sheesh.

And as utterly amoral perpetrators, though you don't see fit to mention this.

mnemonic bullshit

You said it, Hugh.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....And as long as he keeps slandering and labeling people CIA shills, I won't bite my tongue calling him out on it.

Who do you see as CIA media shills, Pan?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Cute meme-reversal in 'Three Days of the Condor.' CIA agents as victims. sheesh.

And as utterly amoral perpetrators, though you don't see fit to mention this.
.....

C'mon. You know the illusion of balance trick.

This movie is the old good cop vs bad cop theme related to 'a few bad apples' justification.
CIA Hero Redford ("I just read") and his CIA co-workers (rubbed out) are the victims of a rogue CIA element.

The parasocial interaction with the pretty boy actor as nice alpha-male is schmeered on CIA like creamcheese on a bagel.

If you think the theme and timing of this movie has no relation to the international assassination of leftists programs called 'Operation Condor' which CIA aided in South America, I'd say you were a coincidence theorist.

[Jeff]

And it seems that Pollack was central to this process for years.
Now he's dead. How many are dead because of his propaganda movies?

It's Pollock.

I can't type more than that, I'm seeing too much red at the moment.

on edit: hell, no it isn't. (See what you make me do?)

[MacCruiskeen]

If you think the theme and timing of this movie has no relation to the international assassination of leftists programs called 'Operation Condor' which CIA aided in South America, I'd say you were a coincidence theorist.

So we have the "keyword" [sic] "Condor" in the very title of a film depicting the CIA as ruthless, arrogant, amoral, lying mass-murderers, even of their own employees, including unsuspecting American women performing menial office-jobs. We see the CIA doing all this in the service of nothing but greed and Realpolitik. We see the handsome hero, with whom the audience inevitably identifies, gradually coming to realise that the CIA -- the organisation he has blithely served, believing it's a force for good -- is in fact a moral cesspit.

So tell me, Hugh:

1. Precisely how does this film reveal its director to be a CIA shill?

2. Precisely how does it discourage people from finding out more about Operation Condor?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

And it seems that Pollack was central to this process for years.
Now he's dead. How many are dead because of his propaganda movies?

It's Pollock.

I can't type more than that, I'm seeing too much red at the moment.

on edit: hell, no it isn't. (See what you make me do?)

I was addressing Pan's huffing at me just because the man is dead.
Hollywood is a major social influence and affects people's attitudes and choices in life.

So examining what Pollack's patterns of influence were is warranted.
(Did I really just have to write that...on this board?)

Please, people. Have at. Pollack, not me.

[professorpan]

Who do you see as CIA media shills, Pan?

Far, far, far fewer than you do. And I don't call anyone a CIA shill without evidence. But since evidence (i.e. real, verifiable stuff) is toxic to your mode of theorizing, I can't blame you for avoiding it. You're allergic to facts, logic, and reason.

And you slime the recently dead, on top of it all. That's just reprehensible on any level. I wonder if you would say those things to Sydney Pollack's wife, or his children. Would you, Hugh? Would you dare to say to Rachel or Rebecca Pollack "Your father was a fascist propagandist whose films were responsible for the deaths of many people"?

[IanEye]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYzs65mwXiw

Higgins: Hey Turner! How do you know they'll print it??

[Searcher08]

Oh, come now. You must be kidding. Please don't make me go through the agony of searching through all of the posts in which Hugh accuses people of being CIA agents, CIA propagandists, deliberate liars, cowardly enablers of the CIA, etc. etc. etc. If someone directs a film, writes the screenplay, or stars in the film, chances are Hugh will toss the "CIA shill" label at him.

Well, I am relatively new here, but had taken this as just an instance of Hugh accusing nearly everyone in Hollywood of being in on it. I have had extended family who worked directly with Speilberg (for years!) and find what HMW saying - he is a CIA-shill - very funny. Similarly with the Monroe Institute and Dean Radin and IONS.

However, I also think there is probably MUCH more pervasive subtle control of the media in the US and UK than we think - and at a level of subtlety and sophistication that we would find amazing.

I also diverge STRONGLY from HMW in saying rational critical thinking is the solution. IMHO that is one of the main reasons why we are IN this mess. It is like thinking in black and white.

Hugh has maligned a good and trusted friend of mine, Douglas Rushkoff, as a CIA shill. He slimed a person I invited to this board, accusing him of being a disinfo agent, and the guy said "To hell with this crap" and bailed. So, yeah, it is kind of personal for me. I'm tired of him getting away with it.

For me, this is a different story. I am really sorry (and fucked-off, to be honest) to hear that. I like and respect Doug Rushkoff's work and would have been really delighted to have him at R.I. I am also a passionate advocate for Open Source.

Plus, the simple ugliness of slandering a well-respected director who just DIED should repulse any sane and compassionate person.

I did think it was in very bad taste.
From the other point of view, if when Shrub expires, part of me will feel sad. I believe he was probably treated HORRIBLY as a child, by the guy at the centre of the Octopus. While most people here would probably be queuing to piss on his grave, I wouldn't.

So I guess your friend, the manatee, can say anything he wants -- even the most ugly and baseless accusations -- but it's not okay to reflect a little of that ugliness back at him?
Sorry, I don't buy that. And as long as he keeps slandering and labeling people CIA shills, I won't bite my tongue calling him out on it.

I had regarded Hugh as almost always having humour around his whole "program" and didn't take his accusations against specific people very seriously (George Clooney??? WTF??? C'mon!!!) and had been really puzzled why you always seemed to be "beating up on him".... especially as you were a Moderator.

Thanks for writing this, I did not have this extra information and the way you describe Doug being treated was, as we say in Lunnin, "bang outtuv ordah". You made your case, for me, really powerfully by just speaking about your mate

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

All of you eager to post about what how Pollack's work was noble and good for us, please do so.

Jeff, tell us why we should trust the POLITICAL opinion of the Globe and Mail's writer. Or any mainstream media movie reviewer, for that matter.

Hollywood is one of the best mediums for viral marketing ever invented.
And it is used as such by people other than benevalent actors. Just like the rest of mainstream media.

I want to note that when other people want to discuss something, they are doing so on their own volition. I'm sick of being called a thread-derailer for other people's actions just because I have a viewpoint which I declare and back-up.

I keep seeing that people don't understand how movies influence culture, especially American youth. The people on this board are not anything like America At Large.

I'd love to hear how 'The Interpreter' was just a coincidence containing negative framing of Sibel Edmonds and Ariside in it. Just one of those zillions of 'coincidences' coming from Hollywood? Yah, right....

I was just posting here about the discrediting of the reality James Earl Ray's handler, "Raul," in Pollack's 'The Firm.'

Today CIA-Time put up an article about another "Raoul." No breaking news about this "Raoul" except Bush's speech evoking WWII to tag it onto in 'related articles.' Viral marketing at work.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080527/wl_time/theenduringmysteryofraoulwallenberg

[Jeff]

"And isn't that the American way?"

"Thank you, Joe Lieberman." (Recount was Pollack's last project. He produced, and was going to direct until he fell ill.)

[KarmaMatters]

Since there is so much whining going on here maybe you all would like some Cheezwiz or sumpin' as a snack.

For crying out loud, this board is really slipping down in quality. I've been reading the board for the past couple of years with great interest. So many fascinating topics and people contribute to board to make it what it is. Lately though, I've seen more sniveling immature comments made. Many of those comments seem to be directed at Hugh.

Jeff, quite frankly you ought to be ashamed for letting your board take the turn it has. I've moderated several boards in my role in the "establishment media" and know how quickly they get out of control when the moderator lets the crap fly. Clearly, this is a decision you've made and now many who respect you have followed suite. Its amazing you let "modeators" like ProfessorPan get away with what he does. As a moderator he ought be using a little more restraint and politeness.

Hugh has made many crazy assertions about many different topics. Tell me, just how the hell different is that from about 75% of the stuff posted on this board? And don't give me the "Hugh is illogical" crap. Most stuff on here is so far fetched to the mainstream public you'd all be labeled wackos. I just about piss my pants laughing when so many of you lable Hugh as a conspiracy nut (my words). What a joke!!!!!!!!

Wake up people, everybody who visits this site is a "conspiracy nut" who loves drama and intrigue and are probably pissed off with various forms of ruling elite.

Fact is, its no wonder nothing ever comes of websites like this other than constant bitching. You all are spending so much of your time bitching at each other that you don't have time to actually organize some local groups in your communities, write a book (maybe some of you have) or do something positive to help educate others to the real nature of what is happening out there. Your behavior is probably being laughed at by those in the Intel biz who have to read this stuff just to keep up on the latest conspiracy theory. They are laughing to the bank because you make their jobs so much easier. Instead of taking action and getting off of your asses you sit behind your keyboards and rail on one of the most active researchers this board has.

Ever heard of positive comments? What if you all tried a little bit more kindness instead of shoveling the hate? Some of you people really seem a little out of balance emotionally, take a deep breath and go for a walk before you post inflammatory comments.

I don't agree with all that Hugh posts, but having spent my life working for several different newspapers in the mainstream media I know a hell of a lot more about how the industry and average newsroom operates than most of you do. Yeah, sometimes Hugh thinks the media is pretty organized about stuff. In general though, the media is lazy and too pressed for time to do a decent job. Is the media manipulated on a daily basis? HELL YES! You would have to be a very very ignorant and naive person not to think the media isn't manipulated all the time.

I'll keep checking out this board from time to time. But if Jeff and his cadre of "moderators" don't clean it up then all the hate being spewed isn't worth the knowledge gained.

Most Sincerely,

KarmaMatters

[MacCruiskeen]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYzs65mwXiw

Higgins: Hey Turner! How do you know they'll print it??

Ah, but you see, Ian, Higgins is allowed a memorable little speech in that final dialogue, and he says something not easily refutable: that many people will passively support the most ruthless actions of their government if they feel those actions serve their own vital interests:

Turner: "Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?"

Higgins: "Are you crazy"

T: Am I?

H: Look, Turner....

T: Do we have plans?

H: ... The plan was all right. The plan would have worked.

T: What is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?

H: No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15 years -- food, plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

T: Ask them.

H: Not now -- then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. Do you want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them.

That's a sharp insight into what motivates the passive support of many "good citizens" for the great evils done in their name -- especally when those evils are perpetrated in secret. And it's all the more pertinent in 2008.

Hugh, being Hugh, will of course see it as a big hoo-ray for the CIA.

[IanEye]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYzs65mwXiw

Higgins: Hey Turner! How do you know they'll print it??


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

[IanEye]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AYzs65mwXiw

Higgins: Hey Turner! How do you know they'll print it??

Ah, but you see, Ian, Higgins is allowed a memorable little speech in that final dialogue, and he says something not easily refutable: that many people will passively support the most ruthless actions of their government if they feel those actions serve their own vital interests:

Turner: "Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?"

Higgins: "Are you crazy"

T: Am I?

H: Look, Turner....

T: Do we have plans?

H: ... The plan was all right. The plan would have worked.

T: What is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?

H: No. It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15 years -- food, plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

T: Ask them.

H: Not now -- then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. Do you want to know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them.

That's a sharp insight into what motivates the passive support of many "good citizens" for the great evils done in their name -- especally when those evils are perpetrated in secret. And it's all the more pertinent in 2008.

Hugh, being Hugh, will of course see it as a big hoo-ray for the CIA.

Higgins: Hey, Turner! How do you know they'll print it? You can take a walk. But how far if they don't print it?

Joe Turner: They'll print it.

Higgins: How do you know?

Pollack asks each and every viewer in the 1975 movie theater audience to consider the presence of the Mockingbird in their Media. a full two years before Bernstein does. It is just a simple fact.