After reading an article that the Rock and Roll Emporium in Huntington Beach would be featuring never-before-seen photos of a Beatles press conference regarding the release of "Revolver", I felt a sense of obligation. A story I wrote in 1965, "Endless Voyage", was responsible for "Yellow Submarine", "Eleanor Rigby", and other Beatles songs, and "Eleanor Rigby" and its concern for how to handle the world's lonely people led to "Sgt. Peppers", "Let It Be", and who knows what else. "Revolver" was and perhaps is the home of "Yellow Submarine" and "Eleanor Rigby". I couldn't be there at the moment depicted in the photos, but I could touch that moment just the same.
Based on previous experiences of this kind, I anticipated that Paul McCartney might somehow - or- another make his presence felt by me, that he and I are on the same page enough for us both to realize my doing this meant.... something - or - another.
The instant I walked into the Rock and Roll Emporium, I experienced what I expect anyone who goes there experiences. I was descended upon by someone who worked there, who was anxious to accommodate me by trying to ascertain my interests. However, the particular salesman I encountered went even further than this. He engaged me in a detailed discussion of The Beatles, asserting that these photos clearly showed great animosity between Lennon and McCartney, they had only one more live concert after the photos were taken and after that The Beatles essentially disbanded by limiting themselves to things like making "Sgt. Peppers" and only creating music in recording studios. I basically disagreed on every point. However, it all reminded me a little bit of something.
It reminded me of the time someone played the devil's advocate with me by demanding to know why John Lennon should make another album, hadn't he already done enough. A transparent effort to provoke my response. On that occasion, I was conscious that my words would likely be taken directly back to John Lennon, that this possibility was scarcely a secret. And so I put something into it, and came up with what would become the opening of the song, "Starting Over". Minus Lennon's insertion on that song/album opening of a subtly cynical twist, buried close to the surface of his intonation, on the question of whether our life together really is so special, together, is it really so precious. There may also perhaps have been a grain of this same cynicism in the answer I initially gave, but if there was, it was only my way of expressing that I possessed the ability to support, if necessary, the position, "hadn't he done enough already (is more really necessary)?"
So when I responded to the Rock and Roll Emporium salesman, while at the same time looking at the photos of The Beatles facing the world for the first time on the subject of "Revolver", I again sensed that here I might not be speaking directly with the person who in actuality was at the other end of the real conversation.
The salesman made it very difficult for me to sound nice about Paul McCartney. He mentioned how McCartney presumably made George Harrison storm out of the studio at some point, perhaps while recording The White Album, due to wanting to play Harrison's guitar part. A similar problem between McCartney and Starr. "Oh well, he just likes to provoke a certain kind of reaction, he enjoys getting in people's face," I said in McCartney's defense. It was not unlike the symbolic inference I intended when I said to a (different) Lennon intermediary that Lennon must feel he has to shout about something. Lennon found a place for that one on his "Double Fantasy" song, "Losing You".
While speaking to the Huntington Beach salesman, who represented that period in Beatles history as a battle between Lennon and McCartney, I found it important to state my view that Lennon was the genius of the group, that he had the cosmic oneness, but needed help bringing that into the world. It stands to reason that it would have been too much of a coincidence for there to have been more than one genius in The Beatles, so if you have to pick one, I say Lennon. I believe the depth of Lennon's part in "Double Fantasy" establishes once and for all that, though his genius took form in what in many ways is a simplistic medium, Rock and Roll, he was able to be more artistically profound than anyone since.... perhaps Dostoyevsky. Perhaps that is an apples and oranges comparison. Which isn't to say McCartney isn't great as well.
Afterwards I was concerned that I may have said things that, on some level, might strike McCartney as deliberately hurtful. This was not my intent, and my concern on this partly influenced me to title the blog I wrote yesterday in relation to a McCartney song I was a major influence on. I am not one who wishes to generate animosity. Though I don't mind offending Republicans.
Today it was announced that Paul McCartney, in an upcoming Q Magazine interview, confesses he was a failure at writing protest songs. To hear him say this must surely bring to mind how he measures up, in this regard, against John Lennon. John Lennon, who gave us "Give Peace A Chance", clearly beats McCartney in the protest song game. Okay, in the peace song game, same thing. Doesn't this subject instantly provoke a Lennon vs. McCartney comparison, Lennon emerging the victor?
At one point, as a major influence on John Lennon, it occurred to me that it might serve if I were to make a deliberate, conscious effort to wear Lennon's shoes in the area of peace / protest songs. Lennon was gone, perhaps something fell to me, even if none but a few might consider this the situation. And so I set to work on the only song I've ever done that was inspired by the possibility of an obligation to destiny.
In so doing, I believe I came to one of the same places Lennon must surely have come to in creating "Starting Over". The problem: generating an innocent feeling that could be shared by the masses, a common push, yet a feeling that does not devolve into the kind of false start that makes it ever-impossible for the masses to try again someday. The powerful, inner resource of humanity to come together and do something could transform into stale chewing gum from an overly insistent leader trying to force the matter. So dangerous a possibility that the leader shouldn't even try, but instead just turn around and walk away, let's keep the good memories intact? "Starting Over" has Lennon in the persona of an older-ish man trying to resurrect a '50s-ish sound to give rebirth to a dying relationship. A man for whom the '50s still sort of live, so why can't he simply summon this and make it all happen again as it did before. My song, "(Build It All Up Into A) Brand New River of Love" (copyright January 1999) was turned by Sting into "(Building Up A) Brand New Day". The spirit of the new millenium on New Year's Eve, 1999, midnight, NBC; the spirit of the Obama Inauguration Party, at the climax of the night, performed for the new president, accompanied by Stevie Wonder, whose harmonica began as my saxophone, if the truth be told. But who am I, just someone who can't even afford a photograph of the Beatles press conference on the subject of "Revolver".
Monday, April 26, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
See It In A Different Light
Something I consider noteworthy took place on "Saturday Night Live" last night. I described in my October 4, 2009 blog how a particular sketch they did October 3, 2009 bore a striking similarity to a comedy idea I posted on youtube and archive.org a month earlier (September 1st), "An Irishman Visits Ralph Kramden's Brooklyn".
It being that SNL is always doing things based on my material, it was and is obvious to me where their idea came from in that instance, the time proximity of the two also being a factor.
The latest noteworthy news is that this Oct. 3rd SNL sketch has now graduated to the realm of being a recurring SNL sketch concept, as evidenced by last night's sketch about Frank Sinatra as seen through the eyes of a Danish acting troupe. This would not be the first time a recurring SNL sketch started with me, you might even say that I'm used to it - yet I would be awfully jaded to let it go by without a mention. As usual, they've landed on "Free Parking".
It being that SNL is always doing things based on my material, it was and is obvious to me where their idea came from in that instance, the time proximity of the two also being a factor.
The latest noteworthy news is that this Oct. 3rd SNL sketch has now graduated to the realm of being a recurring SNL sketch concept, as evidenced by last night's sketch about Frank Sinatra as seen through the eyes of a Danish acting troupe. This would not be the first time a recurring SNL sketch started with me, you might even say that I'm used to it - yet I would be awfully jaded to let it go by without a mention. As usual, they've landed on "Free Parking".
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Lose Sleep Over It
Do you believe there exist certain crimes that, if they could be solved, there would then be other crimes, previously unsolved, that would thereby come into a new set of clues and ipso facto become solved as well? This is an obvious statement. It is elementary.
In recent blogs (4.8.10; 4.11.10; 4.18.10) I have discussed a connection I made between certain recent television inside-references to my few music videos, in relation to inside-references to me/my material contained in a recent statement by the Iranian President, about President Obama and with regard to nuclear weapons. The gravity of his involving me in this way is enormous. And he has done this before.
The following still is from my music video, "Dream", posted at archive.org in 2005:
Next is an excerpt from a news story that was on TV today (this incident was also described in an article in today's LA Times, though at the time the article was written it did not yet include the part about sleeping on train tracks):
I have often acknowledged in my blogs how the timestamp on this blog site can be manipulated, which is one reason why I periodically post the text of my blogs at archive.org so as to copyright them/prove they were created prior to certain points in time. I have not yet done that with regard to the above-referenced April blogs. However, the easily demonstrable significance of why I brought up in those blogs my few music videos transends whatever date I chose to write about it. The connection I made in those blogs shows that it was relevant, prior to this April 24th sleeping-on-the-train-tracks news story, for me to bring up in April my few music videos.
Thus, this news story happening to so unmistakably bring to mind yet another one of my few music videos during this same period demands serious attention - it relates to what I said regarding an action by the Iranian President. Consider where an investigation might lead, if one follows my theory. Theories are essential to investigations, they suggest where one should look. What the significance of what one finds might be.
Now someone who doesn't appear to be the non-entity that I appear to me (due to people having ulterior motives to bury my importance) had better step up to the plate. Because on the strength of a long-winded, detailed explanation from me of a theory of what this could be connected to - well, who would begin to listen, if they don't already accept that I am of sufficient influence to have caught the attention of the Iranian President? Burying the truth about my importance has long become the same thing as burying important clues in a matter that may prove most serious of all.
In recent blogs (4.8.10; 4.11.10; 4.18.10) I have discussed a connection I made between certain recent television inside-references to my few music videos, in relation to inside-references to me/my material contained in a recent statement by the Iranian President, about President Obama and with regard to nuclear weapons. The gravity of his involving me in this way is enormous. And he has done this before.
The following still is from my music video, "Dream", posted at archive.org in 2005:
Next is an excerpt from a news story that was on TV today (this incident was also described in an article in today's LA Times, though at the time the article was written it did not yet include the part about sleeping on train tracks):
I have often acknowledged in my blogs how the timestamp on this blog site can be manipulated, which is one reason why I periodically post the text of my blogs at archive.org so as to copyright them/prove they were created prior to certain points in time. I have not yet done that with regard to the above-referenced April blogs. However, the easily demonstrable significance of why I brought up in those blogs my few music videos transends whatever date I chose to write about it. The connection I made in those blogs shows that it was relevant, prior to this April 24th sleeping-on-the-train-tracks news story, for me to bring up in April my few music videos.
Thus, this news story happening to so unmistakably bring to mind yet another one of my few music videos during this same period demands serious attention - it relates to what I said regarding an action by the Iranian President. Consider where an investigation might lead, if one follows my theory. Theories are essential to investigations, they suggest where one should look. What the significance of what one finds might be.
Now someone who doesn't appear to be the non-entity that I appear to me (due to people having ulterior motives to bury my importance) had better step up to the plate. Because on the strength of a long-winded, detailed explanation from me of a theory of what this could be connected to - well, who would begin to listen, if they don't already accept that I am of sufficient influence to have caught the attention of the Iranian President? Burying the truth about my importance has long become the same thing as burying important clues in a matter that may prove most serious of all.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Hey Buddy, Can You Spare A Coffee Cup?
For those seeking proof that we need another Jonathan David Steinhoff comedy sketch idea, I am pleased to announce my brand new comedy sketch idea, "Hey Buddy, Can You Spare A Coffee Cup?", which can be accessed at Archive.Org.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
We Don't Need Another Hiro
Dewey Defeats Zeus
I'll begin today with something that I have scarcely ever found it necessary to do: print a retraction. Apparently I should have seen the newly released "Clash of the Titans" prior to my April 11th blog. The subjects of both that movie and my newly released "In Orders We Trust" video relate to the gods of Ancient Greece. I first announced in my August 22, 2009 blog that I was making my May 2006 "In Orders We Trust" comedy sketch into a video, and seem to have complicated matters by releasing my video around the same time as that movie's release. Therefore, as the result of what must have been a coincidence (how could it have been otherwise?), my drawing of a parallel in my April 11th blog between SNL's photo-shopped image of Michael Steele with a posted thumbnail showing the image of a Zeus statue accompanying my posted video was erroneous. SNL was referring to the way a Zeus statue depicted the Greek god in "Clash of the Titans", and therefore they could not have known the misinterpretation this might generate.
It's All Partly Greek and Partly Steinhoff To Me
I went to see "Clash of the Titans" in part out of recognition of the possibility that it might include something or another in relation to my above-referenced May 2006 comedy sketch. Many, many, many movies include Steinhoff references, and as their subject connected with one I also worked on, there was a greater likelihood that this would be the case. And pending a review of the original "Clash of the Titans" movie from the '80s (which may be the origin of more things in this new movie than what I recall from the last time I saw it), there were in fact one or two things I observed that may come back to my May 2006 comedy sketch (posted on my website when created, and at archive.org in August 2009; the video posted April 7, 2010):
In my immediately preceding (April 11th) blog I mentioned (as I have also done in earlier blogs) how inside-references to my material on episodes of "Smallville" have connected with inside-references to my material on episodes of "Medium" aired the same night. On April 11th I specifically referred to an earlier episode of "Medium" making inside-reference to one of my few music videos, "Another Good Answer", and I alluded (without being specific) that the ending of the April 9th "Smallville" episode made another inside-reference. The thing I was drawing attention to, though hard to appreciate if not seen in the context of cumulative moments, was the fact that this "Smallville" episode ended with the words, "New Game", which is also the title of another one of my few music videos. In this context, I bring you this excerpt from the April 16th "Smallville":
This fits into the context of my above-referenced music video, "Another Good Answer", where a recurring lyric is, "How much of an answer do you want."
Don't Insult The Messenger
I'll let this one speak for itself:
You Say Wordy And I Say Goodbye
Back in the days when McCartney (let's not leave out Lennon, though it involves using more words) were doing funny connections between the A and B sides of their 45 single releases, such as "She's A Woman" saying, "My love don't bring me presents" and the flipside's "I Feel Fine" saying, "Her baby buys her things you know", I think there was one we missed: Lennon (let's not leave out McCartney, though it involves using more words), with "Paperback Writer", says, "It's a thousand pages, will you take a look?", while the flipside's "Rain" says, "The weather's fine." The phrase, "the weather's fine" is part of weather conversation, which is the essence of brief, non-thousand pages conversation. Up until, "Rain", discussion of the weather was as non-thousand pages as you could get. We're looking at elaborating, over-elaborating, confining ourselves to small talk. By the way, I consider myself to have been an influence on all four of these Beatles songs (let's not leave out Harrison and Starr).
Oh Yeah
In the spirit of my references to Maggie Gyllenhaal (see my January 10th and 16th blogs), it recently became time once again for me to look through the words of a "The Daily Show" guest for my verification that a secret message from me to Stuart Cornfeld had reached someone. And sure enough, out of the mouths of Tracy Morgan.
My belief that I received verification is not based on any information that I have made available to my readers, there is nothing for you to put together and say, "so that's why Steinhoff says this". Yes, they did bring up on that show the whole idea of making a point of not going to see someone's work, which connects to when I blogged my opinion that Jon Stewart's lawyer seemed to have told him to come as close as possible to viewing my "Orders" video without actually viewing it, that Stewart seemed to have been told he should make a point of not seeing that work. And yes, Morgan nicknamed Stewart "Beef Stew", and Stewart bemoaned being tagged with that, while "Orders" has people having phrases painted on each other. However, these were NOT factors in my surmisal that my secret message had been read by someone.
And while Spielberg's on the phone to Cornfeld, and Cornfeld's on the phone to Stewart, and Stewart's on the phone to Morgan, and Morgan's on the phone to Fey, and Fey's on the phone to Baldwin, and Baldwin's on the phone to McCartney, I must ask that the Iranian President, to whom I have referred in my past several blogs, please stay out of it. Do you have any idea what a sticky situation is?
I'll begin today with something that I have scarcely ever found it necessary to do: print a retraction. Apparently I should have seen the newly released "Clash of the Titans" prior to my April 11th blog. The subjects of both that movie and my newly released "In Orders We Trust" video relate to the gods of Ancient Greece. I first announced in my August 22, 2009 blog that I was making my May 2006 "In Orders We Trust" comedy sketch into a video, and seem to have complicated matters by releasing my video around the same time as that movie's release. Therefore, as the result of what must have been a coincidence (how could it have been otherwise?), my drawing of a parallel in my April 11th blog between SNL's photo-shopped image of Michael Steele with a posted thumbnail showing the image of a Zeus statue accompanying my posted video was erroneous. SNL was referring to the way a Zeus statue depicted the Greek god in "Clash of the Titans", and therefore they could not have known the misinterpretation this might generate.
It's All Partly Greek and Partly Steinhoff To Me
I went to see "Clash of the Titans" in part out of recognition of the possibility that it might include something or another in relation to my above-referenced May 2006 comedy sketch. Many, many, many movies include Steinhoff references, and as their subject connected with one I also worked on, there was a greater likelihood that this would be the case. And pending a review of the original "Clash of the Titans" movie from the '80s (which may be the origin of more things in this new movie than what I recall from the last time I saw it), there were in fact one or two things I observed that may come back to my May 2006 comedy sketch (posted on my website when created, and at archive.org in August 2009; the video posted April 7, 2010):
- Both "Clash" ("Clash of the Titans" 2010) and "In Orders We Trust" have a lead character insisting another character perform an action by shouting, "Do it!" (I was also struck by the similarity in the exact intonation, however they could only have known my intonation by tapping into my computer prior to my video's release, and so the intonation must have been a coincidence (how could it have been otherwise?).
- Both "Clash" and "Orders" have Zeus' use of the word "truce".
- "Clash" made at least one overt reference to "Avatar" - the idea of someone learning that the flying animal they would ride had never been ridden before. As described / demonstrated in previous blogs (particularly Feb. 21, 2010), a significant connection between my blue-skinned alien movie ("Gosk") and "Avatar" is the little white flakes floating around. Therefore, the black dust in "Clash" could possibly be in connection with that connection.
In my immediately preceding (April 11th) blog I mentioned (as I have also done in earlier blogs) how inside-references to my material on episodes of "Smallville" have connected with inside-references to my material on episodes of "Medium" aired the same night. On April 11th I specifically referred to an earlier episode of "Medium" making inside-reference to one of my few music videos, "Another Good Answer", and I alluded (without being specific) that the ending of the April 9th "Smallville" episode made another inside-reference. The thing I was drawing attention to, though hard to appreciate if not seen in the context of cumulative moments, was the fact that this "Smallville" episode ended with the words, "New Game", which is also the title of another one of my few music videos. In this context, I bring you this excerpt from the April 16th "Smallville":
This fits into the context of my above-referenced music video, "Another Good Answer", where a recurring lyric is, "How much of an answer do you want."
Don't Insult The Messenger
I'll let this one speak for itself:
You Say Wordy And I Say Goodbye
Back in the days when McCartney (let's not leave out Lennon, though it involves using more words) were doing funny connections between the A and B sides of their 45 single releases, such as "She's A Woman" saying, "My love don't bring me presents" and the flipside's "I Feel Fine" saying, "Her baby buys her things you know", I think there was one we missed: Lennon (let's not leave out McCartney, though it involves using more words), with "Paperback Writer", says, "It's a thousand pages, will you take a look?", while the flipside's "Rain" says, "The weather's fine." The phrase, "the weather's fine" is part of weather conversation, which is the essence of brief, non-thousand pages conversation. Up until, "Rain", discussion of the weather was as non-thousand pages as you could get. We're looking at elaborating, over-elaborating, confining ourselves to small talk. By the way, I consider myself to have been an influence on all four of these Beatles songs (let's not leave out Harrison and Starr).
Oh Yeah
In the spirit of my references to Maggie Gyllenhaal (see my January 10th and 16th blogs), it recently became time once again for me to look through the words of a "The Daily Show" guest for my verification that a secret message from me to Stuart Cornfeld had reached someone. And sure enough, out of the mouths of Tracy Morgan.
My belief that I received verification is not based on any information that I have made available to my readers, there is nothing for you to put together and say, "so that's why Steinhoff says this". Yes, they did bring up on that show the whole idea of making a point of not going to see someone's work, which connects to when I blogged my opinion that Jon Stewart's lawyer seemed to have told him to come as close as possible to viewing my "Orders" video without actually viewing it, that Stewart seemed to have been told he should make a point of not seeing that work. And yes, Morgan nicknamed Stewart "Beef Stew", and Stewart bemoaned being tagged with that, while "Orders" has people having phrases painted on each other. However, these were NOT factors in my surmisal that my secret message had been read by someone.
And while Spielberg's on the phone to Cornfeld, and Cornfeld's on the phone to Stewart, and Stewart's on the phone to Morgan, and Morgan's on the phone to Fey, and Fey's on the phone to Baldwin, and Baldwin's on the phone to McCartney, I must ask that the Iranian President, to whom I have referred in my past several blogs, please stay out of it. Do you have any idea what a sticky situation is?
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Titanic Importance
In my immediately preceding post (April 8th), I mentioned, among other things, my conclusion that Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" had "reflected a cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video". Why did I choose to word this so strangely, outside of the fact that I like to word things strangely?
I chose these words to get across the idea that they are willing to go so far as to acknowledge to me that they know the video was released, yet at the same time they do not seem to feel they actually need to see it. I beg to differ: it is from me, I am unbelievably important, they know this, it is an important release. What's this stuff about sweeping it under the rug? I don't get it. "Avatar" and "Alice In Wonderland" are currently showing major contributions from me, to those in on it. To say the least. It doesn't make sense to pass on my latest work.
Later in this blog I will tell a little Hollywood story I just made up, entitled, "The Covering Their Astors Squad". First though, I would like to attend to a little business, which is to say, present how last night's "Saturday Night Live" also "reflected a cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video".
In my "In Orders We Trust" (the video), which I completed April 6th and posted on/ copyrighted at Archive.Org April 7th (the comedy sketch itself having been written 5.15.06), I used at the beginning of the video the image of the famous sculpture, "Artemision Bronze", which according to Wikipedia is often called, "The God from the Sea," and "represents either Zeus or Poseidon" (my usage was intended to represent Zeus, and so if you were to see Poseidon in my usage of this image you would be.... well, I put the word Zeus under the image as well, so....). In the thumbnails at Archive.Org for my video, which one can view without viewing the actual video, one will also see my usage of this image ("Artemision Bronze").
I will give you a moment to go to Archive.Org and see for yourself (I provided the link in my April 8th blog, please don't expect me to do everything for you).
In my April 8th blog, wherein I announced the release of my video, I also reprinted the original 5.15.06 email from when I first sent the comedy sketch out to certain people. That email contained, among other things, something that my blogs have occasionally touched on - references to a few of the immense number of timely references to my material on "Saturday Night Live". And with that as the background information, last night's (April 10th) show was no exception - for in Tina Fey's Sarah Palin sketch (which, unfortunately, was only partially successful in erasing from my mind the image of Sarah Palin looking at me as we drove by each other in Santa Barbara last month), Fey ended the bit with an image of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a photoshopped pose quite identical to the Zeus thumbnail posted with my video at Archive.Org on April 7th:
Those who knew, as I did, the near-inevitability of some kind of SNL inside-reference to my newest release, will appreciate my interpretation of why they chose to show Michael Steele this way. And if you wish, I will even apologize for any responsibility I might have for any difficulty you might have in erasing this image from your mind.
I should also say something about tonight's "Simpsons" before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.
First, some are aware that the main opening montage of every "Simpsons" (sometimes they use variations so who can say what one will find on any given night), the latest regular opening montage (past two or so years), contains something that began as an ongoing inside-reference found on many "Simpsons" episodes. The inside-reference has to do with a scene from the CalArts film class student film, "Limbo" (1973-1974), wherein someone cannot remove a gorilla mask, while I stand in the background watching. One of the primary "Simpsons" directors, Mark Kirkland, used to live down the hall from me at CalArts, though we didn't know each other. This has not prevented him from joining the throngs of people in show-biz who make inside-references regarding me. These inside-references in certain "Simpsons" episodes to this "Limbo" moment would appear in conjunction with other Steinhoff-related stuff, producing a cumulative effect that made clear the inside-reference, at least to those "inside". So: nowadays their opening montage shows a statue head falling from a statue and landing over the head of someone beneath the statue, basically trapping the person inside the mask. Much like the previously recurring "Limbo" inside-references.
Tonight's "Simpsons" episode ended with Lisa and Bart forming a truce, until their dog commits some blunder, for which Lisa chooses to blame Bart, though there is no apparent basis for her to hold him responsible for what the dog does. And the truce ends as quickly as it was formed. Those familiar with the ending of "In Orders We Trust" (either the 2006 written version or the April 2010 video) need no further explanation to appreciate my conclusion regarding the origin of the "Simpsons" ending.
I seem to have one more thing to describe before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.
For somewhat complicated reasons, which I will not detail here, I found the ending of the April 9th "Smallville" to be in relation to me as well. Nor did I choose to detail in my April 8th blog exactly how something the Iranian President recently said was designed to intertwine with the April 2nd "Smallville" as it related to me.
What I will mention here is that it was something he said in relation to President Obama's nuclear treaty, something that was extracted from the rest of what he said and given the headline, because of it being such a from out of nowhere phrasing. I am the one who sees how it was not from out of nowhere, it was an inside-reference, it was from a wish to interconnect with something in relation to me/my material that has recently become relevant through recent doings.
My December 26th, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" (at Archive.Org) demonstrates how tremendously and singularly important I am in relation to Steven Spielberg. It does not take a genius to appreciate that, the way our world is put together, Spielberg is something of an ambassador for the Jewish people, being among the most prominent living Jewish persons in the world. I have previously mentioned in a blog that the Iranian President has endeavored to "intertwine" with me via a show that often references my material, "Smallville" (I mentioned this in a September 2009 blog). I have also mentioned/demonstrated in earlier blogs that the show "Medium" has intertwined with references to my material on the episodes of "Smallville" that aired the same night as certain "Medium" episodes.
Back when a number of inside-references to my several music videos all suddenly began occurring around the same time on various shows, as I mentioned/demonstrated at those times, I also noticed that "Medium" (in their fever episode, which was concurrent with the two-part "Monk" series finale - another show that made innumerable inside-references to my material) included the line, "Another Good Answer" - the title of one of my music videos. It was that same music video of mine wherein I get specific about the fact that, due to my secret importance, terrorists "leave things on my doorstep". That "Medium" episode had the antagonist exploiting people's fear of a cataclysmic (terrorist?) event for personal gain. I include that among the significant number of times when "Medium", or rather, someone with a pipeline to the writers of "Medium", seems to manifest an investment in undermining me with regard to certain concerns I have. My statement that terrorists leave things on doorstep/their statement that causing concern of this kind is a manipulative exploitation for monetary gain.
Once upon a time someone with a lot of money repeatedly used someone's creative material in the movies he made with famous actress Mary Astor. Mary Astor became very upset at the injustice that might be done to the person with a lot of money, who had been so kind to finance the movies she starred in, for she feared that this person might be thought to be a mean person when he was really just a nice person having fun with the person whose material he used. So Mary Astor became so upset, she came down with a cold. It was chilly outside, and she was playing the part of someone who was in a warm climate, so she had to wear short sleeves, which aggravated her cold, and it looked like the picture might have to be scrapped, and everyone would have to say goodbye to all that this picture would have meant for them. So the studio hired a squad of people to always have blankets on hand, and whenever the cameras weren't rolling, these people in this squad would immediately cover Mary Astor with a blanket. The same thing happened when Mary Astor's relatives appeared in the movie, Astors were everywhere, for these were all people who were found worthy of being in this important picture, though it meant wearing short sleeves in chilly weather. So the squad of people with the blankets became known as "The Covering Their Astors Squad". Unfortunately, the benches they sat on became drenched during a terrible thunderstorm, soaking in the water, and when people sat on the benches the water seeped through to their bottoms. Apparently, they could not cover their asses.
It's swell that people are demonstrating to me a "cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video", as I stated earlier. To fall short of manifesting that they've viewed the video, however, given the stage I've reached in the world of important releases, is, in certain respects, disturbing, and I do not say this as an artist. I say this because it has "my lawyer told me not to" written all over it.
At this moment in the history of humanity, in the history of the Earth, the Iranian President, perhaps the single individual posing the greatest threat to the world at this time, due to what his present actions could very easily lead to not so far down the road, is trying to intertwine with me/my work, because of my tremendous importance in relation to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg being an important "ambassador" for the Jewish people, for the reasons described earlier in this blog. This plays Spielberg and myself, on a certain level, directly into the matter created by the Iranian President, a matter that springs from the animosity the Iranian President has for the Jewish people, which is behind his efforts to unite the Arab world, through this sentiment, behind his "right" to "blow Israel off the map".
It would be complicated to explain how it has been made manifest to me that the Iranian President is doing this in relation to me, though it is nevertheless something I could explain, to an intelligent person. There are facts to support my explanation. What isn't complicated is the fact that I have earned enough credibility by now to be taken seriously on this to a substantial degree even during the withholding at this time of the complicated explanation.
I believe that my little made-up story about Mary Astor may help to explain to all of you boys and girls a few factors that have impeded the response I demand. Those interfering with following-up on what I've asserted regarding myself in this situation are committing acts that, due to their intended effect with relation to the larger situation, are beyond criminal, and beyond forgiveness, due to the enormity of this situation. I find it unfortunate that the situation requires that I be the heavy to this degree, by having to point this out, but this is scarcely a situation that can be ignored. I find it difficult to think of a matter more worthy of serious attention.
I chose these words to get across the idea that they are willing to go so far as to acknowledge to me that they know the video was released, yet at the same time they do not seem to feel they actually need to see it. I beg to differ: it is from me, I am unbelievably important, they know this, it is an important release. What's this stuff about sweeping it under the rug? I don't get it. "Avatar" and "Alice In Wonderland" are currently showing major contributions from me, to those in on it. To say the least. It doesn't make sense to pass on my latest work.
Later in this blog I will tell a little Hollywood story I just made up, entitled, "The Covering Their Astors Squad". First though, I would like to attend to a little business, which is to say, present how last night's "Saturday Night Live" also "reflected a cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video".
In my "In Orders We Trust" (the video), which I completed April 6th and posted on/ copyrighted at Archive.Org April 7th (the comedy sketch itself having been written 5.15.06), I used at the beginning of the video the image of the famous sculpture, "Artemision Bronze", which according to Wikipedia is often called, "The God from the Sea," and "represents either Zeus or Poseidon" (my usage was intended to represent Zeus, and so if you were to see Poseidon in my usage of this image you would be.... well, I put the word Zeus under the image as well, so....). In the thumbnails at Archive.Org for my video, which one can view without viewing the actual video, one will also see my usage of this image ("Artemision Bronze").
I will give you a moment to go to Archive.Org and see for yourself (I provided the link in my April 8th blog, please don't expect me to do everything for you).
In my April 8th blog, wherein I announced the release of my video, I also reprinted the original 5.15.06 email from when I first sent the comedy sketch out to certain people. That email contained, among other things, something that my blogs have occasionally touched on - references to a few of the immense number of timely references to my material on "Saturday Night Live". And with that as the background information, last night's (April 10th) show was no exception - for in Tina Fey's Sarah Palin sketch (which, unfortunately, was only partially successful in erasing from my mind the image of Sarah Palin looking at me as we drove by each other in Santa Barbara last month), Fey ended the bit with an image of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a photoshopped pose quite identical to the Zeus thumbnail posted with my video at Archive.Org on April 7th:
Those who knew, as I did, the near-inevitability of some kind of SNL inside-reference to my newest release, will appreciate my interpretation of why they chose to show Michael Steele this way. And if you wish, I will even apologize for any responsibility I might have for any difficulty you might have in erasing this image from your mind.
I should also say something about tonight's "Simpsons" before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.
First, some are aware that the main opening montage of every "Simpsons" (sometimes they use variations so who can say what one will find on any given night), the latest regular opening montage (past two or so years), contains something that began as an ongoing inside-reference found on many "Simpsons" episodes. The inside-reference has to do with a scene from the CalArts film class student film, "Limbo" (1973-1974), wherein someone cannot remove a gorilla mask, while I stand in the background watching. One of the primary "Simpsons" directors, Mark Kirkland, used to live down the hall from me at CalArts, though we didn't know each other. This has not prevented him from joining the throngs of people in show-biz who make inside-references regarding me. These inside-references in certain "Simpsons" episodes to this "Limbo" moment would appear in conjunction with other Steinhoff-related stuff, producing a cumulative effect that made clear the inside-reference, at least to those "inside". So: nowadays their opening montage shows a statue head falling from a statue and landing over the head of someone beneath the statue, basically trapping the person inside the mask. Much like the previously recurring "Limbo" inside-references.
Tonight's "Simpsons" episode ended with Lisa and Bart forming a truce, until their dog commits some blunder, for which Lisa chooses to blame Bart, though there is no apparent basis for her to hold him responsible for what the dog does. And the truce ends as quickly as it was formed. Those familiar with the ending of "In Orders We Trust" (either the 2006 written version or the April 2010 video) need no further explanation to appreciate my conclusion regarding the origin of the "Simpsons" ending.
I seem to have one more thing to describe before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.
For somewhat complicated reasons, which I will not detail here, I found the ending of the April 9th "Smallville" to be in relation to me as well. Nor did I choose to detail in my April 8th blog exactly how something the Iranian President recently said was designed to intertwine with the April 2nd "Smallville" as it related to me.
What I will mention here is that it was something he said in relation to President Obama's nuclear treaty, something that was extracted from the rest of what he said and given the headline, because of it being such a from out of nowhere phrasing. I am the one who sees how it was not from out of nowhere, it was an inside-reference, it was from a wish to interconnect with something in relation to me/my material that has recently become relevant through recent doings.
My December 26th, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" (at Archive.Org) demonstrates how tremendously and singularly important I am in relation to Steven Spielberg. It does not take a genius to appreciate that, the way our world is put together, Spielberg is something of an ambassador for the Jewish people, being among the most prominent living Jewish persons in the world. I have previously mentioned in a blog that the Iranian President has endeavored to "intertwine" with me via a show that often references my material, "Smallville" (I mentioned this in a September 2009 blog). I have also mentioned/demonstrated in earlier blogs that the show "Medium" has intertwined with references to my material on the episodes of "Smallville" that aired the same night as certain "Medium" episodes.
Back when a number of inside-references to my several music videos all suddenly began occurring around the same time on various shows, as I mentioned/demonstrated at those times, I also noticed that "Medium" (in their fever episode, which was concurrent with the two-part "Monk" series finale - another show that made innumerable inside-references to my material) included the line, "Another Good Answer" - the title of one of my music videos. It was that same music video of mine wherein I get specific about the fact that, due to my secret importance, terrorists "leave things on my doorstep". That "Medium" episode had the antagonist exploiting people's fear of a cataclysmic (terrorist?) event for personal gain. I include that among the significant number of times when "Medium", or rather, someone with a pipeline to the writers of "Medium", seems to manifest an investment in undermining me with regard to certain concerns I have. My statement that terrorists leave things on doorstep/their statement that causing concern of this kind is a manipulative exploitation for monetary gain.
"The Covering Their Astors Squad"
(a made-up story about a dead person)
(a made-up story about a dead person)
Once upon a time someone with a lot of money repeatedly used someone's creative material in the movies he made with famous actress Mary Astor. Mary Astor became very upset at the injustice that might be done to the person with a lot of money, who had been so kind to finance the movies she starred in, for she feared that this person might be thought to be a mean person when he was really just a nice person having fun with the person whose material he used. So Mary Astor became so upset, she came down with a cold. It was chilly outside, and she was playing the part of someone who was in a warm climate, so she had to wear short sleeves, which aggravated her cold, and it looked like the picture might have to be scrapped, and everyone would have to say goodbye to all that this picture would have meant for them. So the studio hired a squad of people to always have blankets on hand, and whenever the cameras weren't rolling, these people in this squad would immediately cover Mary Astor with a blanket. The same thing happened when Mary Astor's relatives appeared in the movie, Astors were everywhere, for these were all people who were found worthy of being in this important picture, though it meant wearing short sleeves in chilly weather. So the squad of people with the blankets became known as "The Covering Their Astors Squad". Unfortunately, the benches they sat on became drenched during a terrible thunderstorm, soaking in the water, and when people sat on the benches the water seeped through to their bottoms. Apparently, they could not cover their asses.
It's swell that people are demonstrating to me a "cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video", as I stated earlier. To fall short of manifesting that they've viewed the video, however, given the stage I've reached in the world of important releases, is, in certain respects, disturbing, and I do not say this as an artist. I say this because it has "my lawyer told me not to" written all over it.
At this moment in the history of humanity, in the history of the Earth, the Iranian President, perhaps the single individual posing the greatest threat to the world at this time, due to what his present actions could very easily lead to not so far down the road, is trying to intertwine with me/my work, because of my tremendous importance in relation to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg being an important "ambassador" for the Jewish people, for the reasons described earlier in this blog. This plays Spielberg and myself, on a certain level, directly into the matter created by the Iranian President, a matter that springs from the animosity the Iranian President has for the Jewish people, which is behind his efforts to unite the Arab world, through this sentiment, behind his "right" to "blow Israel off the map".
It would be complicated to explain how it has been made manifest to me that the Iranian President is doing this in relation to me, though it is nevertheless something I could explain, to an intelligent person. There are facts to support my explanation. What isn't complicated is the fact that I have earned enough credibility by now to be taken seriously on this to a substantial degree even during the withholding at this time of the complicated explanation.
I believe that my little made-up story about Mary Astor may help to explain to all of you boys and girls a few factors that have impeded the response I demand. Those interfering with following-up on what I've asserted regarding myself in this situation are committing acts that, due to their intended effect with relation to the larger situation, are beyond criminal, and beyond forgiveness, due to the enormity of this situation. I find it unfortunate that the situation requires that I be the heavy to this degree, by having to point this out, but this is scarcely a situation that can be ignored. I find it difficult to think of a matter more worthy of serious attention.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Goodbye Old Paint
I am pleased to announce the release of my newest video, "In Orders We Trust", viewable at Archive.Org! Not to be confused with the strikingly similar non-video, written form of same!
To generate great excitement and buzz about this wonderful event, I shall include in this blog a reprint of the original email wherein "In Orders We Trust" was first released as a comedy sketch idea. I will not reprint here the entire comedy sketch idea itself as it appeared in that email, however - that can be found on my website and at Archive.Org. Besides, now that the video is here, the written sketch is more of an artifact than the true representative of the work itself. A curiosity at best.
WHAT WON'T BE SAID HERE
Not included in this edition of my blog:
I will not mention the specific non-Kiefer Sutherland cast member of "24" who drove by me on Saturday, which clearly was an occurrence belonging in the context of my references in my recent blogs to other "24" occurrences in relation to myself.
I will not go into detail on how the beginning of the new TV Guide Hugh Laurie piece is in direct connection with my description of coming upon Hugh Laurie or his look-alike recently, as described in my preceding blog (March 30th).
I will steer clear of describing exactly how the latest "Smallville" followed suit with many previous episodes by making inside-references to yours truly - even though the Iranian President subsequently did something, once again, to tie in with "Smallville" in relation to myself (Iranian President behavior initially alluded to in my Sept. 27, 2009 blog). Maybe someday it will be worth someone's while for me to describe this latest incident. For now, I don't see the point in having so many words fall on so many deaf ears.
Nor will I explain why I have concluded that Jon Stewart on last night's "Daily Show" reflected a cognizance of the release of my "Orders" video earlier that day.
To do any of these things would be to allow a trail of breadcrumbs to lead me and my credibility quite far out on a limb, where I would only be making sense to those responsible for my observations in the first place. And to those who appreciate that conclusions based on cumulative information can radically differ from those that result from a piecemeal approach. I would lose credibility with those unable or unwilling to make the somewhat substantial investment of of time and energy that a comprehension of my statements would require. And those unable or unwilling people can be the biggest pain in the long run, let me tell you. Not to mention those looking for an excuse to undermine me, for whatever ulterior purposes they might have.
REPRINT OF "IN ORDERS WE TRUST" EMAIL
Sent: Mon 5/15/06 11:06 PM
To: jim@frelaine.com; lara@redhourfilms.com
IN ORDERS WE TRUST
STUART/SEAN,
First, I ought to acknowledge that the last two Saturday Night Lives both used in their final sketches of the night significant references to my "Down The Hatch" sketch idea (sent to you two the morning of Saturday May 6th), as follows:
On the May 6th SNL, the last sketch had people who were freakish in the sense that they had more than two arms. In "Down The Hatch", Penny freakishly has two heads.
On the May 13th SNL, the last sketch had one person going through a bad hallucinogenic drug experience, while the other person was pulled into that person's perception. In "Down The Hatch", one tends to observe a strong similarity to bad hallucinogenic drug experience, as Penny goes from having an eye appear in her elbow, then a second head grows on her, eventually there's the impression that her feet have suddenly shrunk to the size of walnuts, and so on. Her friend is pulled into the horribleness of it to a degree, but it all seems strangely less than actual, and Penny is convinced to go to a restaurant and not let it get to her.
Secondly, thirdly, whatever, I ought also to acknowledge a bunch of other stuff, such as wood blocks music for Tom Hanks on Leno following my email about wood blocks music in relation to Tom Hanks. And the debate on SNL News on May 6th that used parts from "Little Darling" by The Diamonds, following my sketch idea for Tom Hanks ("You Said It", emailed April 27th), which specifically refers to this song. And the subtle "Limbo" movie references on the May 6th SNL inasmuch as "Limbo" related to me (CalArts student film, '73-'74). Then there's the references on the "Smallville" and "Earl" season finales that cumulatively refer to the Alec Baldwin movie "The Shadow" to the extent that that movie referred to my original "Mall Man" story outline.
So finally, my stupid sketch idea for this week's season finale of Saturday Night Live - but please bear in mind that I've come to expect that, while something of value may be found in it, the entirety of it would be rejected for legal reasons anyway no matter what its merits, an unfortunate realization which may be seeping into the quality of my writing:
"IN ORDERS WE TRUST" Comedy sketch idea by Jonathan David Steinhoff
[A sculpture garden with what appear to be life-size statues of different Greek gods (but turn out to be the Greek gods themselves), and a park bench.]
ZEUS: Yeah, well it wasn’t my fault, you’re the one who got her angry.
HERCULES: I got her angry, but thank you for not even warning me. Thank all of you for that....
To generate great excitement and buzz about this wonderful event, I shall include in this blog a reprint of the original email wherein "In Orders We Trust" was first released as a comedy sketch idea. I will not reprint here the entire comedy sketch idea itself as it appeared in that email, however - that can be found on my website and at Archive.Org. Besides, now that the video is here, the written sketch is more of an artifact than the true representative of the work itself. A curiosity at best.
WHAT WON'T BE SAID HERE
Not included in this edition of my blog:
I will not mention the specific non-Kiefer Sutherland cast member of "24" who drove by me on Saturday, which clearly was an occurrence belonging in the context of my references in my recent blogs to other "24" occurrences in relation to myself.
I will not go into detail on how the beginning of the new TV Guide Hugh Laurie piece is in direct connection with my description of coming upon Hugh Laurie or his look-alike recently, as described in my preceding blog (March 30th).
I will steer clear of describing exactly how the latest "Smallville" followed suit with many previous episodes by making inside-references to yours truly - even though the Iranian President subsequently did something, once again, to tie in with "Smallville" in relation to myself (Iranian President behavior initially alluded to in my Sept. 27, 2009 blog). Maybe someday it will be worth someone's while for me to describe this latest incident. For now, I don't see the point in having so many words fall on so many deaf ears.
Nor will I explain why I have concluded that Jon Stewart on last night's "Daily Show" reflected a cognizance of the release of my "Orders" video earlier that day.
To do any of these things would be to allow a trail of breadcrumbs to lead me and my credibility quite far out on a limb, where I would only be making sense to those responsible for my observations in the first place. And to those who appreciate that conclusions based on cumulative information can radically differ from those that result from a piecemeal approach. I would lose credibility with those unable or unwilling to make the somewhat substantial investment of of time and energy that a comprehension of my statements would require. And those unable or unwilling people can be the biggest pain in the long run, let me tell you. Not to mention those looking for an excuse to undermine me, for whatever ulterior purposes they might have.
REPRINT OF "IN ORDERS WE TRUST" EMAIL
Sent: Mon 5/15/06 11:06 PM
To: jim@frelaine.com; lara@redhourfilms.com
IN ORDERS WE TRUST
STUART/SEAN,
First, I ought to acknowledge that the last two Saturday Night Lives both used in their final sketches of the night significant references to my "Down The Hatch" sketch idea (sent to you two the morning of Saturday May 6th), as follows:
On the May 6th SNL, the last sketch had people who were freakish in the sense that they had more than two arms. In "Down The Hatch", Penny freakishly has two heads.
On the May 13th SNL, the last sketch had one person going through a bad hallucinogenic drug experience, while the other person was pulled into that person's perception. In "Down The Hatch", one tends to observe a strong similarity to bad hallucinogenic drug experience, as Penny goes from having an eye appear in her elbow, then a second head grows on her, eventually there's the impression that her feet have suddenly shrunk to the size of walnuts, and so on. Her friend is pulled into the horribleness of it to a degree, but it all seems strangely less than actual, and Penny is convinced to go to a restaurant and not let it get to her.
Secondly, thirdly, whatever, I ought also to acknowledge a bunch of other stuff, such as wood blocks music for Tom Hanks on Leno following my email about wood blocks music in relation to Tom Hanks. And the debate on SNL News on May 6th that used parts from "Little Darling" by The Diamonds, following my sketch idea for Tom Hanks ("You Said It", emailed April 27th), which specifically refers to this song. And the subtle "Limbo" movie references on the May 6th SNL inasmuch as "Limbo" related to me (CalArts student film, '73-'74). Then there's the references on the "Smallville" and "Earl" season finales that cumulatively refer to the Alec Baldwin movie "The Shadow" to the extent that that movie referred to my original "Mall Man" story outline.
So finally, my stupid sketch idea for this week's season finale of Saturday Night Live - but please bear in mind that I've come to expect that, while something of value may be found in it, the entirety of it would be rejected for legal reasons anyway no matter what its merits, an unfortunate realization which may be seeping into the quality of my writing:
"IN ORDERS WE TRUST" Comedy sketch idea by Jonathan David Steinhoff
[A sculpture garden with what appear to be life-size statues of different Greek gods (but turn out to be the Greek gods themselves), and a park bench.]
ZEUS: Yeah, well it wasn’t my fault, you’re the one who got her angry.
HERCULES: I got her angry, but thank you for not even warning me. Thank all of you for that....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
