rigorousintuition.ca

IanEye wrote:
The feature attraction starts on Thursday.

until then, blah blah about anything you want...

Thanks to §ê¢rꆧ, I just may get around to watching this by then. It sounds great, and familiar, and I may have seen it before but my memory's not what it was. Apart from Brainy's Killer Klowns post the other day I haven't watched a full movie for at least ten years partly because, like Hugh, I read in my own sinister subtexts, though not the same ones, but mostly because I'm bored before the titles are finished.

Though this is what really piqued my interest...



A local landmark, sitting on the horizon as it does...





These cultural studies could get interesting.

IanEye wrote: .....
i mean it, in my mind's eye i sort of saw this thread going this way. Once people have taken the time to see the film I am sure a stimulating discussion will unfold.

Establishing ways to 'see' a film, what to experience besides the 'cool-fun-90 minutes' is
worth the effort if not the ad hominum chaff ahem.


I used to pick a video rental and have a good eye for non-mainstream stuff that seemed much more satisfying to watch with subtle production and subtle scripts having rich dialogue and, y'know, independent or foreign or some Coen brothers or, y'know, something with William Macy, a marker that rewarded more than disappointed.

Whatta ya got to go on?
-Title
-Video cover/poster
-genre
-previous ads
-cast
-director
-buzz reputation

Then I discovered psy-ops stuff in movies I had liked when I first watched them cold with just 'face value.'
So I started scrutinizing and researching more of the 'mainstream' movies at the megaplex and found the same devices too often...and that led me to go back and find them in even more of the movies I had once liked.
And it all made sense as I learned more of the long long history of psy-ops and the growing need for counterpropaganda to hide the ever-growing pile of political liabilities that time brings to a government.

There isn't as much difference between 'art' and 'politics' as we are led to believe regarding expression to a percieved audience through a technical group for strategic purposes.

Seems to me many folks have only an impressionistic view of an article's/movie's/book's topic keyword and might not, for time or interest reasons, spend much time searching up some contextual stuff to figure out the piece's-
original artist intent
or
spook psy-ops function
or
both intentionally intertwined
or
both un-intentionally intertwined
...as defined by
the social delivery network that gets it to you-
1 - as pre-theater advertising
2 - a run at the multiplex theater
3 - pre-rental advertising
4 - the rental store shelf
5 - pre-rerelease advertising
6 - rerelease as
----A a new media
----B a new script version

And that's a chain of people with differing influence and agendas synthesizing into a many-parented experience better described in the plural as 'THEM' that you add to with your own agenda, 'I.'

And lots of us don't know how we got the attitudes we did
and are still figuring out what they are...
which then changes them, sometimes quite a bit.

*So that's the 'WE' side of discussing a movie we take for granted.

*So on the 'coming-at-you' end one can consider lots of things about 'THEM.'-

>Timing
...year written
...for which media
...year beginning prep for different media
...year of release to public
...years of rerelease to public

>Source
...name
...biography
...politics
...allies
...enemies
...other works
...awards
...sponsors
...grants...etc.

>Cultural context of themes
...war
...elections
...institutions
...scandals
...court cases
...gender
...justice
...resources
...economics...etc.

...and much more as listed in this Data Dump thread-
(200+ Questions to Analyze Political Language)
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=12692

To be honest, so far i am intrigued by what Hugh is not saying about "Being There", as opposed to what he is saying...

'Being There' was a helluva choice. The rich layers make a great hiding place.

I found TONS of information just online including key script lines in reviews.
There's SO much info to be add even before you stick it in the machine and hit 'play.'

sigh.

If blah, blah, blahhing is permissable before the movie starts, how about tossing popcorn off the balcony or bouncing some juji fruits off someone's head.

Sorry, more of this since Pan interjected the "Chewbacca" topic into this thread...to attack me as usual.

professorpan wrote:At the risk of facilitating the further derailment of this conversation, I can't let this gem pass without comment:

[HMW]: The American kids Lucas made 'Star Wars' for don't know regions of Tunisia.
They hardly can find the USA on a map

.

Yet you propose that the film "Nacho Libre" was a sophisticated psyop to keep those same kids from learning about a Mexican peasant leader named Nacho.

You can't have it both ways, Hugh.

I erred only in not writing precisely what I meant about 'Tattoine.'
No contradictions despite your wishes. (And you got 'Nacho Libre' only partly right.)
What I wrote about kids not having any idea about a place with that name is completely true but not the reason I discounted the keyword hijacking of "Tattoine" as having anything to do with the Tunisia.

There isn't any reason for either pointing at or away from Tunisia, as far as I know.
And I have already found other keywords as homonyms for things related to risk, male identitity, male status, and warrior culture as auxiliary themes supporting the primary military recruiting theme.

So "Tattooine" is completely consistent with keyword hijacking and YES Lucas made USG war propaganda for kids.

And right here, once again, you've shown a glaring logical hole in your "keyword hijacking" nonsense.

Wrong again, Pan.

Hey! Where's your analysis of 'Being There?' The OP?!
How about that 'Rand' name and the presidential theme?
Why does Shirley McClaine do that on that particular rug?
Gosh, the CIA just doesn't know who that guy influencing people is.

found the same devices too often

You sure did.

this is an all-time great flick that has more layers to it than the local hen house.

It was certainly one of the items that helped to begin my thinking about who and/or what lay behind the scenes.

I recall seeing a picture of Paul Wolfowitz in the local St. Louis newspaper where he was seated on the floor with several exotic looking "dignitaries" who were from Indonesia. I don't remember the exact story from the paper but can remember the image precisely. At the time Wolfowitz had a position like Ambassador to East-Asian affairs or some such thing. This was in the early 90's and I saw that image just a few days after my first viewing of "Being There." For whatever reason it kind of creeped me out.

There he was to my mind, this geeky looking guy in the suit, the unassuming guy behind the scenes. This reminded me of the guys who were always pulling the levers of power in the movie who were to orchestrate Chauncy's "rise."

I took an interest in Wolfowitz as an archetype as a way to understand how power politics operates. This was useful.

And to think there was a 'chance' meeting with this guy just a year ago in a seafood restaurant in DC.

Weird stuff. More to the story of course. In any case what a great movie.

Here's Paul W and yours truly:

Was this when the photo showing the holes in his socks was circulating?

http://wonkette.com/politics/paul-wolfo ... 232624.php

At least we can see his reflection in the mirror.

Annie

chlamor wrote:this is an all-time great flick that has more layers to it than the local hen house.

.....
And to think there was a 'chance' meeting with this guy just a year ago in a seafood restaurant in DC.

.....

Here's Paul W and yours truly:

Ewww. You touched a war criminal!

No, really, that is a pretty wild piece of personal history and appropriate to 'Being There.'

The banality of evil and all that. Reminds me of the partly-repentent Robert McNamara in 'The Fog of War.' Gosh, you just try to rise to the occasions of career and you end up incinerating millions of civilians as a war criminal.

Clamour that you?

You look like ricky ponting.

That's not condi behind you is it?

Trailer

So, I went out and picked up the novel Being There which I have never read. I also picked up Candide by Voltaire. The last time I read Candide was in high school. I remember thinking there must be a connection when I watched Being There based on the last line of Candide: "That is well put", replied Candide, "but we must cultivate our garden". Having read the first five chapters last night it sure enough appears there is a connection. I wonder if the kosinki novel will have direct allusions.

BTW... I've always wondered if professorpan was a reference to professor Pangloss. It seems it has to be.

BTW... I've always wondered if professorpan was a reference to professor Pangloss. It seems it has to be.

Believe it or not, it isn't. Professor Pan originated before I'd even heard of Professor Pangloss.

That does make more sense after the first five chapters. Pangloss does not seem like a character you would want to take your nick from given what I have read of what you have written here.