Like In That Beatles Song

Firstly, I would want to mention that Hugh Jackman’s opening number at the Oscars the other night, which was all about putting together a production with a ridiculously minimal set of tools, had an awful lot in common with my “Steinhoff’s Monster” (1978), which was the work of mine referenced in the “Monk” season finale just two nights earlier (see my February 22nd blog). For this reason, and also from previous experience of being secretly referenced on the Oscars, I have to wonder about this. Perhaps Hugh Jackman (who referenced my “Adventure At The Pasadena Batman Estate” when he hosted the Tony Awards several years ago) leaked the number ahead of time to Tony Shaloub. Or perhaps any number of other scenarios – did you know that Andy Breckman, the creator of and a writer for “Monk”, was a writer for the 2003 Oscars?

And now on to other things!

Preface Regarding Secret Occurrences On TV Last Night
What I am about to describe regarding conclusions I’ve arrived at concerning last night’s television would never read as on target to someone unfamiliar with a specific inside shorthand that has evolved, and what’s worse, people out of that loop might easily be led to make wrong surmisals regarding just how I arrived at my conclusions, thereby believing my statements to be foolishly arrived at. I would be better off if the outsider felt himself in the dark as to how I arrived at my conclusions, which is truly where the outsider is. Being who I am, I will not allow the anticipated misperceptions of the outsider to interfere with nor dictate what I choose to communicate to certain people, though it may seem that I am inflicting pain upon myself in so acting. Maybe I should just limit myself to inside references cryptically expressed, as so many others do.... no, don't think so.

Secret Occurrences On TV Last Night
Every once in a while, rather than one TV show including enough things regarding my material as to allow me to draw clear conclusions about inside references to my works, instead several TV shows on the same evening include things regarding the same Steinhoff material, so that between the things contained on different shows on the same evening, there would cumulatively be enough things such that inside references would become obvious to me. Last night was such a night. I have in previous blogs referred to occasional references to my material on “24”, and also to occasional references to my material in works featuring Arquettes (reasons regarding why there should be frequent usages found in material involving Arquettes have also been detailed in previous blogs). And so last night, both “24” and Patricia Arquette’s “Medium” referred to the same moment in Steinhoff’s Dostoyevsky’s “Uncle’s Dream” (1992): the moment when Susan says, “Are you the hurting kind, you know, like in that Beatles song?” The legitimacy of this observation of an inside reference to my Dostoyevsky is reinforced by the subject matter found on both TV show episodes: On “24”, Jack Bauer is confronted, in the most poignant way thus far, on the question of whether he is too indifferent to the pain/suffering/death that result from his actions ("the hurting kind?"); on “Medium”, Allison Dubois (Patricia Arquette) asks herself whether she is guilty and should hold herself morally responsible for inflicting a wound ("the hurting kind?"). In both TV shows, conspicuous use is made of a commonly seen action, one character placing his hand on the shoulder of another. Yet these usages show up on my special "be alerted" radar, because the rhythm of the scene is slowed down for these actions, as if something of plot significance is occurring instead of a more common behavior. Thus, the shorthand was present, and sure enough, in looking further, I found reinforcement of this observation in the aforesaid focus on the “hurting kind” issue, combined with the repeating of these components in both shows on the same night. Due to copyright protection technology I cannot even copy these TV moments on camera to present here in a videoclip, even if I wanted to - but without explanation the moments scarcely speak for themselves anyway.

Ending
Do I see in all of this an invitation to expound on the subject of what makes someone the “hurting kind”? This is too vast a subject, requiring discussion of all sorts of issues: references to preconditioned social perceptions and so forth; the imagination and experience to even see the potential for devising ways to avoid collateral damage; the passing of a serious responsibility with the intention that the responsibility nevertheless be addressed, rather than the intention to avoid being held culpable; the illusion that the negative energy in the world, which is related to inflicting hurt, can be reduced if squeezed into occupying a box 5” x 3” x 2” instead of a box 6: x 4” x 3”. I may see things connected to this issue that others would find tangental. I would likely stray far from a discussion of rotten bastards who go around hurting people. Here I touch on a few of the things I see as related to this question, but do not feel that the time has been granted me to truly explore this gigantic subject.

Just Another Clue

Those watching "Monk" on Friday received word that the show will be airing its final season this summer. The word was apparently already out, yet it seems to have escaped the attention of most of us until Friday through only being carried in trade papers and obscure Internet places.

One wonders how much the concept of death should be applied, though we know intellectually that, as the characters were never truly alive, they can never truly die. Perhaps we should apply the concept of "etc.", and imagine we are already sufficiently informed of what these characters are up to even when they go outside the physical range of our perceptions. I am not one who sees the creation of fictitious characters merely as part of our need for entertainment. I believe characters we thusly create can exist but in some undefinable way, that our souls are not always physically confined within the parameters of our own bodies, that we sometimes provide each other with special vehicles for the collective souls of groups of us.

My weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip places the 2.20.09 "Monk" episode in relation to my 1978 16mm film, "Steinhoff's Monster", to which the "Monk" people have referred before, the 8.22.08 episode of "Monk" being the most recent occurrence of this, I believe (see my "Monk Takes A Vowel Of Silence" on YouTube). And so here is the latest:



In other news, I have been giving some thought to ways in which I may have contributed to The Beatles beyond those ways of which I am already aware. I know already that, if not for me, there would have been no "Yellow Submarine" or "Paperback Writer" or "Eleanor Rigby", at least in their present forms, and with no "Eleanor Rigby", perhaps no "Sargent Pepper". Now the song "Rain" appears to me as one I may possibly have overlooked. Additionally, the connection between the ominousness of the journey in the opening, title track of "Magical Mystery Tour", followed by the next album's opening track, "Back In The U.S.S.R.", a long-awaited return to a destination ominous in nature by many standards, followed on "Abbey Road", the next album (in terms of being a Beatles "concept" album), by the cover image showing a journey both amazingly simple yet amazingly dramatic. I don't believe these newly considered connections will ever be judged with certainty, short of Paul McCartney himself coming forward to state whether I share any amount of responsibility in these other creations.

Knowing might contribute to my understanding how it came about that I have had such an enormous influence regarding the post-Beatles work of the four ex-Beatles.

The Point

Just a few brief things, one of course being this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip. It includes a reference to my 1998 "Gosk, Part 2", and also a reference to last week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, which can be found in its entirety on my previous (2.8.09) blog. Incidentally, the February 13th Monk (which the following videoclip regards) is the second-to-last episode of the season:



Another thing I might mention would be the line on last night's Saturday Night Live, "I’m having a cattail sown on my upper butt so my little daughter will wanna play with me" (in the sketch about the three businessmen in a meeting). I relate this to my "Teddy Tinyfingers" sketch idea (for an additional reason than what is generally known, an inside matter SNL has referred to in the past which I steer clear of discussing).

And finally, because of the same matter alluded to but not detailed in the previous paragraph, I attribute the fact that Paul McCartney had a stuffed animal on his piano named "Ashley" at last week's Grammy Awards to his desire to give a shout-out for my benefit, as he has been known to do (see many of my previous blogs). I'm also thinking that his girlfriend during the 1960s, Jane Asher, might be in there somewhere.

Handful

In addition to this week’s Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, and another videoclip, related to my comedy sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers", I first have a few other things to report:

A Few Other Things To Report First
1. The special edition of the show, “The Office” that followed the Superbowl last week made substantial inside references to my material, unfortunately, it gets a little complicated to explain. That leaves it with those who trust my facility for identifying these things believing it, and the rest, well, nobody has time for everybody. As to the specifics, I’m sure I’ll go into it someday, perhaps after next year’s Superbowl?

2. This week’s “Life On Mars” (2.4.09) made several inside references for my benefit. Again, I’m not going into specifics at this time. I will observe that I made a reference to “Life On Mars” in my November 22, 2008 blog, and from that moment anticipated that I would eventually be seeing them make an abundantly clear reference to my material. At one point I thought last week’s (1.28.09) “Life On Mars” included a reference, but changed my mind when I saw it back. Now I’m not so sure. This is not entirely unlike the time I wrote a comedy sketch idea around “Law & Order, Criminal Intent”, followed by that show making inside references to my material.

3. This year's Grammy Awards, not unlike any number of major award shows in the past, appears to be making use of a concept of mine. Specifically, the backdrop of little cubes drifting around behind the presenters bears a significant resemblance to my use of bricks drifting around during a section of the music video for my song, "Whatever Happened".

"Teddy Tinyfingers" and Christian Bale
Besides my Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, I also have with this blog another videoclip, regarding my January 14th comedy sketch idea, “Teddy Tinyfingers”. But first a few words about Christian Bale. I notice that all this talk about his on-the-set “tirade” actually began just two weeks following my "Teddy Tinyfingers" comedy sketch idea, through the surfacing of a recording of Bale. The Bale story first broke back in July 2008, but never took off until the recording was heard. This is unusual, for a half-year-old story of this variety to suddenly receive new life in this way. I further observe that my “Teddy Tinyfingers” comedy sketch idea regards an on-the-set argument between Johnny Depp and Tim Burton (my fellow CalArts alum on whom I have been a major influence). I therefore wonder whether it isn't upon me to weigh in on the Christian Bale matter, which I see as having potentially been given new life by “Teddy Tinyfingers” (an extreme statement only to those unfamiliar with the kind of impact my works have been known to have): I find it most interesting that Mr. Bale is the person who gave that incredibly inspired performance in “American Psycho”, the best performance of his career, or for that matter what would be a great performance in anybody’s career. In that movie he artfully delivered a humorous insight into the idea that people who are perfectly behaved, people who might ostracize a member of their own circle should they so much as have a hair out of place or perform a public faux pas, may on the inside just as easily also be sadistic, twisted psychotics, perhaps an outgrowth of a suppressive social world - a social world with values so disconnected, as to grant its greatest approval only to those most adept at observing proper social decorum. Who doesn’t appreciate the emotions expressed in Christian Bale’s real-life tirade, and immediately forgive? And who doesn’t also get that emotions dwelling in actors on film sets cannot be viewed by normal standards? So why so a short leash, so to speak, when one looks at the public response? Let's keep it real: Christian Bale is entitled. Of course, one nevertheless understands his public apology, as we've all had to placate those devoid of all insight.

"Teddy Tinyfingers" and Others
And so now, a special videoclip regarding, well, see for yourself:



Monk/Steinhoff 2.6.09 Videoclip
So finally, this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip. (I hope those all about Monk appreciate why one of the moments from the February 6th "Monk" episode was determined to belong more in the previous rather than the following videoclip.)

Looking Through A Sad Onion

Monk/Steinhoff
Time for this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip. The work of mine involved, "Snow On The Way" (posted on YouTube in 2006 and archive.org in 2008) is not among the videos of mine most often referenced. An additional obscure factor, first noted in my YouTube Monk/Steinhoff videoclip of July 27, 2008, is that sometimes the context is expanded by the "Monk" people, so that an item they include one week designed by them for me to draw a circle around, also proves to be of significance to the Monk/Steinhoff videoclip the following week.

So between these two obscure factors, I expect that at the same moment I am making sense to people with a certain amount of brain power, I will simultaneously appear to be stretching things/contriving things in the opinion of others (which also opens the door wider for those merely posturing as skeptics to take a shot at me). Yet I'm glad to see my other work in the "spotlight", or whatever kind of light this is:



As I've mentioned in the past, for quite some time any situation I find myself in, whether it be a work situation, or a situation where the makers of a TV show involve themselves with my material over a period of time, any situation I'm in long enough, becomes infiltrated by people with hostile motives regarding me. This is something one might be more likely to accept as the experience of someone who has had a high profile over a long period of time, who might collect powerful enemies in life. Well, I have collected some very powerful enemies, and I've seen this infiltration too many times to rationalize that it is some subjective delusion. Those not victimized in this manner, on the other hand, are free to rationalize all they want. I bring this up because I see it happening increasingly in relation to "Monk," specific things I am not describing here.

January 31, 2009 Saturday Night Live
Though I did not write a specific sketch idea for this installment of this show, that hasn't generally prevented them from finding a way to put in something (such as a something gained through infiltration of my work situation). I noticed this week on SNL in some piece they mentioned that, "even John Kerry was funny". A few years ago when John Kerry got into trouble for his misfired joke, which he did immediately appropos of something I did, "Recipe For Fun" (on YouTube, about Heinz Ketchup (Kerry's wife's company) as a necessary comedy ingredient), I wrote to a Paul McCartney intermediary that McCartney should be in a comedy sketch relating to "Recipe For Fun". I felt partly responsible to generate support of some kind for Kerry, particularly as he had once been the Democratic Presidential Candidate. Eight days after my communication to McCartney asking that he be in a comedy sketch, McCartney made a surprise appearance on SNL, in a sketch with Steve Martin about someone putting poison in someone else's drink. The sketch subject clearly relates to the title, "Recipe For Fun". How clear this was to Kerry I do not know. So with Steve Martin being the host this week, and with the reference to Kerry's infamous misfired joke incident by saying that even Kerry was funny, I see a connection. One might or might not also look at the fact that Martin was in a sketch this past week where he took Ecstasy thinking he was eating mints.

The only three comedy sketch ideas I have written for SNL since the September '08 TV season began have all resulted in big Obama news stuff (perhaps I will review this in a future blog, complete with evidence showing date posted in relation to following events). Furthermore, the interpretations of my sketches through the "medium" of actual occurrences have not been too far from the intent, as compared to a good number of SNL's interpretations. This might be considered by those who presume that there's nothing so heavy going on when I pick up a pen, or presume there's no enormous demand on me to thusly bring something into the world that bears fruit.