Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby lux on May 4th, 2013, 7:58 pm

^ Good observations.

Just as an aside, and this is purely my opinion, I don't think there is the slightest reason to be concerned about "spoilers" when discussing Hollywood's products here. We all know that Hollywood isn't about entertainment. All one might "spoil" in discussing these things is propaganda, manipulation, social engineering and the like, so there is little need to be concerned. If there is something worthy of note that one sees in a Hollywood movie/show then I believe one should simply say so without worrying about such things. :)
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby I, Gestalta on May 7th, 2013, 4:21 am

Well, all you really need to know about Iron Man 3 is that it is directed and co-written by the individual who also wrote The Long Kiss Goodnight:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vwjFhF4dA


edit: Not sure why it isn't embedding the video.

Only need to place the code # of the video between the tags (see on edit page) :) — Maat
I, Gestalta
Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: July 25th, 2012, 10:00 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby antipodean on May 7th, 2013, 9:11 am

I, Gestalta wrote:Well, all you really need to know about Iron Man 3 is that it is directed and co-written by the individual who also wrote The Long Kiss Goodnight:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vwjFhF4dA

Interesting piece of dialogue at 1m25s "Down at the Albion, Chopper one" be interested to know anyone's take on this.
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 604
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby lux on May 7th, 2013, 7:26 pm

As regards Hollywood's violent depictions of "The Old West" in hundreds of movies, TV shows and other media I recently found this summation excerpted from the books The Non-Existent Frontier Bank Robbery by Larry Schweikart and Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of American History by Richard Shenkman that paints a far tamer picture of that era.

Some notable quotes:

The frontier West was not the violent "Wild West" depicted by the press and history teachers who don’t know history. Before 1900 there were no successful bank robberies in any of the major towns in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, or New Mexico, and only a pair of robberies in California and Arizona. Lots of people carried concealed weapons, so potential robbers were always vulnerable. Criminals don’t want to get hurt doing their criminal acts, so they aren't as likely to pick prey that appears willing to fight back.
...
There are more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade, perhaps in the entire frontier period.

One of the enduring images of movies and television about the frontier west in America is the bank robbery. … There is one thing wrong with this scenario: it almost never happened.


And, on violence in the Old West:

In the real Dodge City of history, there were five killings in 1878, the most homicidal year in the little town's frontier history. In the most violent year in Deadwood, South Dakota, only four people were killed. In the worst year in Tombstone, home of the shoot-out at the OK Corral, only five people were killed. The only reason the OK Corral shoot-out even became famous was that town boosters deliberately overplayed the drama to attract new settlers. They cashed in on the tourist boom by inventing a myth.
...
There is no evidence anyone was ever killed in a frontier shoot-out at high noon.


Hollywood went all out from the 1930s to about the mid 1960s pouring out a huge volume of Western genre material that created the image of "The Lawless West" as a violent and dangerous place and time. Even the word "lawless" (an absence of laws and government) has been re-engineered to mean chaotic and violent when, in truth, there was far less crime and violence in those days than today.

One of the key players in this Western media hoax was this guy, John Ford:

Image

If you study film, as I have, you will likely be taught to revere Ford as being akin to a god. He is known as the director's director and, to this day, still holds the record for the most Academy Awards for Best Direction, a record that, in Hollywood, would be considered heresy to challenge.

Ford made more than Westerns, however. He was also well know for his WWII films (now freely admitted by Hollywood pundits to have been war propaganda) and other genres such as his “historical” ode to Abraham Lincoln, “Young Mr Lincoln” and other famous films.

A number of biographical books have been written about John Ford. They often laud him as a genius but at the same time reveal that he was an antisocial alcoholic who was known to emotionally and even physically abuse his actors (per Harry Carey Jr in his book Company of Heroes as one example). In his later years Ford directed with a handkerchief always hanging from his mouth due to his uncontrollable drooling and a patch over one diseased eye. He was not a friendly man and was feared by his cast and crew.

Prior to 1939 the Western movie genre was considered purely childrens' fare and was not taken seriously by the public or the critics. Westerns were mostly hokey serialized shorts with corny good-guy/bad-guy plots and cartoonish heroes and badmen. But, it was John Ford's 1939 film “Stagecoach” that changed all that. It was one of the first “legitimate” Westerns by a major studio and it was a huge hit. There were some earlier “A-list” Westerns but none matched the impact and success of Stagecoach. It was also the film that elevated John Wayne from his B-movie status to full fledged A-list movie star. Wayne went on to work in a number of famous John Ford films, most of them Westerns, and became one of the biggest movie stars of all time.

In the decades following the release of "Stagecoach" Hollywood poured out innumerable Western genre productions that painted an indelible cultural image of the violent and dangerous "Wild West."
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby simonshack on May 7th, 2013, 8:42 pm

Lux,

Sincere thanks for a very interesting post. I'd like to know what your take is (if you have time) on so many Hollywood movies that portrayed the native Americans as the bad guys - whereas we can safely say that they were ruthlessly exterminated in what is probably the least publicized 'holocaust' of our recent (last few centuries') history.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6549
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby bostonterrierowner on May 7th, 2013, 10:45 pm

I, Gestalta wrote:Well, all you really need to know about Iron Man 3 is that it is directed and co-written by the individual who also wrote The Long Kiss Goodnight:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1vwjFhF4dA


edit: Not sure why it isn't embedding the video.

Only need to place the code # of the video between the tags (see on edit page) :) — Maat


Good pick. I see an old paradigm associated with these "limited hangout" Hollywood scripts at play here and more precisely :

"Good Tzar and the evil ministers " paradigm .

In pre revolutionary Russia , poor urban folk was hacked to death by Kozak swords carrying their Tzar's portraits on the banners . It was never Tzar's fault but the treacherous state officials' one . People believed that Tzars were kept in ignorance about the living conditions of 99 per cent of the population and always had the miserables' good on their minds but the state was too corrupt and bad influence over the supreme ruler was omnipotent . I can see the same thing in this movie . They talk about the evil CIA faking terror to squeeze funds out of the congress . Good parliament ( supreme leader according to US constitution ) and evil CIA . It can be good CIA and bad agents like in Bourne movies , take your pick .

What all this has in common is upholding "good people in government " myth always blaming some CABAL fooling the masses about the real state of things . There is always the same oligarchy ruling only differently , at least I see it like this

I put Kennedy psyop series in the same bag. Good president had to be assassinated because he stood up against the CABAL in defense of the people . Events like this strenghten the above mentioned mind bending , false paradigm .

IMHO there is no need to kill actors playing the roles of national leaders. They wouldn't have been permitted to get that high if they were able to even remotely threaten the system.

The only reason politicians exist is that somebody has to sign some papers in the end .
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 849
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby lux on May 8th, 2013, 12:01 am

simonshack wrote:Lux,

Sincere thanks for a very interesting post. I'd like to know what your take is (if you have time) on so many Hollywood movies that portrayed the native Americans as the bad guys - whereas we can safely say that they were ruthlessly exterminated in what is probably the least publicized 'holocaust' of our recent (last few centuries') history.


IMO Native Americans were the most demonized (by Hollywood) people on Earth during the decades-long heyday of the Westerns. Even more so than the Nazis and the Japanese during the relatively brief WWII propaganda era and the more recent “Islamic Terrorist” themed propaganda.

The unfairness of the “Savage Indian” stereotype seemingly had some exposure during the American “Civil Rights Movement” of the 1960s but, as usual, this so called movement was (IMO) more of a media driven social engineering operation used as a springboard for the alleged Nazi Holocaust hoax than any sort of real reparations effort for Native Americans (BTW I'm not a Native American).

But even so, Hollywood began to draw criticism for their treatment of Native Americans in the 1960s and John Ford, in his last Western film “Cheyenne Autumn” (1964), allegedly made the film as an apology to them. It is a somewhat sympathetic film but it could hardly be considered amends for all the earlier propaganda by Ford and the others who followed his lead. Also, few people saw the film as it flopped at the box office.

Now, since you asked me for my own take on all this, I will use that as an excuse to throw in some conjecture on this topic. :)

In modern times it is widely known to be common practice for various intelligence groups to provide weapons to “rebel” groups and encourage them to use them so I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that this was also going on in the Old West era as regards various Native tribes. In other words the conflicts that supposedly justified the slaughter of these people was actually instigated and armed by the slaughterers.

But, in Hollywood's version of history the “savage Indians” got their guns from independent traders often called Comancheros and many movies were made that depicted these allegedly evil businessmen as the source of these weapons. I doubt this was really the case.

Image

But anyway, I suspect that what was going on back then is pretty much the same thing that goes on now. The government (banksters really) wanted the land and wanted the Native People to shut up and go away but they didn't so they created fake and/or instigated scenarios that justified slaughtering them. Then, later, Hollywood re-wrote history and made them out to be evil terrorists.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby Maat on May 8th, 2013, 11:48 pm

▲ I agree; that sounds very plausible to me. I was disgusted with Hollywood's depiction of American Indians even as a kid, when I intuitively recognized what a revolting parody Western movies made of them (usually played by whites with 5 o'clock shadow :rolleyes:). Nothing much improved until the 80s when they started casting more real Indians, as in Dances With Wolves; which, despite the protagonist being white, at least represented the Lakota Sioux in a more realistic, dignified way — even earning their approval.

An American Indian friend I used to chat with in the late 90's told me a lot of his relatives were extras on the movie Stargate, for the scenes filmed in Arizona. (He was also the one who told me his people referred to Thanksgiving as "Invasion Day").

Regarding the euphemistic term "Native Americans" for America's Indians (i.e. First Peoples/Nations), George Carlin actually explained it best in his speech at the National Press Club in '99 here: http://youtu.be/Pc0ZHsoHAlE?t=29m4s
Maat
Moderator
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: September 9th, 2010, 2:14 am

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby Farcevalue on May 10th, 2013, 4:22 am

Thanks for that link, Maat. I have always been intrigued by George Carlin's deconstruction and analyses of language and his ability to find humor in common turns of phrases that are inherently nonsensical or self-contradictory.

This video gives insight in how redefining words and rewriting history are used to confine and confound minds, rendering them malleable for the authors.

Al Sleet, the "hipp-dippy weatherman" was onto something much deeper than: "Tonight's forecast - dark."
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 383
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby brianv on May 10th, 2013, 1:00 pm

Image

Of course. I racked my brain last night trying to think of the bloody name, when it did finally drop, and I googled images Ulzana's Raid, the first two I looked at were already posted at guess where? Cluesforum.info.

Ulzana - Osama, same shit different day. Same Holywood snakery.
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby hoi.polloi on May 10th, 2013, 4:41 pm

Or should that be Unholywood?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby Farcevalue on May 12th, 2013, 3:04 pm

When reviewing the Boston cast of characters, I was reminded of the 2012 major release, Silver Linings Playbook,which featured ballroom dancing as an integral part of the plot. I am becoming more convinced of the idea that these intersections of art and "reality" are not coincidental.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 383
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby hoi.polloi on May 12th, 2013, 4:29 pm

Back in 1946, Orson Welles made a movie called The Stranger in which an escaped Nazi war criminal marries a small town provincial girl in Connecticut. A detective traces him down and as the war criminal becomes more and more desperate he begins a string of murders to throw off the detective's trail.

His wife is presented film footage of a "concentration camp" and told who her husband is, but she denies the story — and significantly to our research into Hollywood propaganda, she explicitly denies the story in connection with the footage and says it's a "lie" several times. The film reel then ends and strikes the surface of the table repetitiously seemingly adding "realism" to the propaganda movie-within-a-movie that was just shown to the mostly unwitting audience.

The detective then says something rather hypnotic and strange: he says that she has now learned the truth (seeing the concentration camp footage) but her subconscious is "struggling" to reach the surface and when it does, she will have fully accepted the facts about her husband being a war criminal. "The will to truth within your daughter is much too strong to be denied," he comments to the woman's father.

If we (and the 1940's audience) don't really know how the subconscious works, but the movie makers have an inkling about how the subconscious absorbs and replays stories ... is this detective's peculiar statement actually meant to be hypnotic suggestion of the power of hypnotic suggestion?

In other words, Orson Welles makes his detective claim that the footage is "truth" (which the audience witnesses through seeing its contents and hearing the detective's narrative about gas chambers, and then witnessing its physicalness as it strikes the table ominously and as the detective removes the reels from the projector), then claim that this "truth" cannot be denied because of her internal strength and resolve and because she is internally divided.

In this way, Welles seems to be forcing the audience into a mind trap: the idea that the subconscious accepts as true that which it has absorbed and is considering. Which, is not true in my opinion. In my opinion and experience, our minds have the power to absorb and reprocess information freely, dream and ponder and wonder about information, hold it in uncertainties, but Welles presents in his narrative a complex suggestion that the subconscious must absorb and must accept what is presented to it — and presents no alternative explanation. No argument against this idea. Only the suggestion that she could die if she does not accept the truth of subconsciously absorbed information.

And hence, the audience is subconsciously "invited" to absorb this rule into their own subconscious. Some people may even be totally hypnotized by this suggestion.

Indeed, the rest of the movie becomes a dramatic fight for the audience to accept the idea, or else the sympathetic woman dies! Deny the truth and the bad desperate Nazi man gets closer and closer and closer to her throat. Accept the argument that the footage is real, that her subconscious accepts it as real, and the woman can fight back against the invading Nazi force.

In the end, that's exactly what happens. Two separate people aim a gun at him despite his being cornered like a rat, and his wife shoots him, which causes his death. The detective comments that the small town won its very own "V Day" and — creepily — suggests that the woman have "Pleasant dreams!" after she beams happily that she has just killed her evil husband. This is the last line of the movie as "The End" floats over a black screen.

---

What if the concentration camp footage shown is bullshit? Would anyone invested in the big imagery, the big actors, the big names and the big score be able to pull themselves out of the movie at that point — let alone sit through an additional act with the tension resting on whether or not we accept the propaganda footage as real on a conscious and subconscious level? Humans do not naturally sit through such tension easily. One either walks out of the theater or accepts the message in order to choose to enjoy one's self, or else one watches a horrible threat hanging over a beautiful woman with murderous glee.

Particularly back in the 40's when images simply meant to people that it was as real as seeing it with your own eyes, how would such a movie affect the subliminal receptors?

In short, Hollywood has been up to this hokum since the beginning. Big stars and big money and big rewards to the most entrancing propaganda that serves war profiteering interests — Zionists, war criminals and so on. Just who is the bad guy is not as important as making sure we are constantly afraid of some bad guy, and Nazis were the baddies of that age just as average citizens who don't want the security apparatus installed in their bodies are the baddies today.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby lux on May 12th, 2013, 7:28 pm

^ Great post, hoi.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: October 1st, 2011, 11:46 pm

Re: Reviewing Hollywood snakery

Postby Libero on May 13th, 2013, 6:16 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:...just as average citizens who don't want the security apparatus installed in their bodies are the baddies today.


Or, better yet, market the propaganda and fear so well that an individual will have their eye on the ball such that everything in the world is still OK as long as the security apparatus is not physically installed to their body. However, they have long since willingly purchased a cellphone for its 'safety' , convenience and fun factors for themselves and for their children and have not only accomplished the same result but actually pay a monthly fee for the privilege of doing so.
Libero
Member
 
Posts: 333
Joined: August 24th, 2012, 9:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Question of Fakery

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron