A brief note regarding "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince." Harry Potter movies generally make inside-references regarding me/my material, like so many other movies, TV shows, etc., and so, when I am watching a Harry Potter movie and it triggers an association, I know to see it in terms of that context. In this 2009 movie, which just had its HBO premier, I found something connected to my 1978 video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly."
To identify this inside-reference, one need never have acquired the education provided by English boarding schools (though I imagine an English boarding school experience would provide the knowledge needed to know one's place with regard to upperclassmen, or perhaps if one were to have been a less-important member of The Beatles). All you need is experience with the secret shorthand Hollywood has specially reserved for me.
In my May 24th blog ("The Secret Is Out There"), I observed that the final episode of "24" included this same inside-reference to my "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly":
It was very close to the way the star of my video, Henry Golas (who was once Groucho Marx' right hand), intoned the words, "Take your grubby hands off of me," as they were leading him away to be tortured.
In the Harry Potter movie, a character is similarly captured and taken away, causing him to say, "Take your hands off of me, you filthy Squibb." Again intoning his words in a manner identical to what one finds in the referenced "24" episode and "Monopoly". And again, the question of finding some way to get someone to divulge a most-important secret is a key issue regarding the larger story.
Showing posts with label 24. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 24. Show all posts
Monday, June 21, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Make That Period A Comma
I seem to be at the part of the wheel where I can only faintly-sorta-kinda point to verifiable references by others to me/my material, as opposed to, say, my references to the "Simpsons" season finale (my blogs of May 18th and 23rd), where you would have to be partially stupid to feel no real evidence of Steinhoff inside-references was offered.
Oil Painting Leak
In the very beginning of my May 23rd blog ("Can't Say For Certain Whether Or Not Oliver Twist Would Have Wanted More Of This"), I build upon what I construed as a possible inside-reference by Paul McCartney to the Beatles song "Paperback Writer", a song which I was an influence on. Evidence that I was reacting to the idea of the song "Paperback Writer" on May 23rd may be found by going to my YouTube posting of May 23rd, "Notes From The". The video there relates to too many pages to read in connection with McCartney. As we all know, "Paperback Writer" contains the line, "It's a thousand pages," meant to express the idea of too many pages.
We then see that just three days later on May 26th Paul McCartney gave an interview to the Telegraph, wherein he discusses well known artists in connection with his purchase of their works. Should you at this point take the trouble to go to my January 10, 2010 blog (also posted/copyrighted at archive.org in Volume 3 of the collected texts of my blogs), in the section entitled, "The President, Terrorism and Baby Oil?", you will see that I bring up "Paperback Writer" specifically in connection to Paul McCartney's purchase of the works of artist Francis Bacon. I should or should not perhaps add that the May 26th McCartney interview includes someone saying that, in telling anecdotes, McCartney isn't good at self-editing, which I believe could possibly be there to bring to mind endless pages/a thousand pages.
His Master's Void
This one is for those who recall evidence presented in previous blogs that Russell Crowe movies are sometimes found to contain inside-references to me/my material. On this basis, I consider it legitimate to ask people to take my word on something difficult to prove to the public-at-large. And by "difficult to prove to the public-at-large," what I mean is, people only started posting videos in 2005 (evidencing in 2005 at least something regarding how long ago such videos were made), so videos I made before 2005 cannot be proven to the public-at-large as having been made before that, as I didn't post them until 2005, and they received no theatrical release. (As for those who saw my videos prior to 2005, you do have proof of their being made before 2005 - perhaps someone needs to give you a calculator?)
Specifically, my "Gosk 1" video (1994), which can be found at archive.org, has Clerp all excited about a threat to the spacecraft that he sees on the monitor, a meteor in the distance. After dramatically steering around the perceived (by Clerp) threat, Jerp expresses that he didn't see anything at all, but Clerp replies with, "Oh yeah, it was coming right at us." In the 2003 Russell Crowe movie, "Master and Commander," someone sees a threatening ship through a telescope, however, the Russell Crowe character sees nothing through the telescope, and expresses this to the person who said he saw it. The person who said he saw the threatening ship reaffirms his assertion, he is sure he saw something.
In and of itself one would not have to regard this as a reference to "Gosk 1", however, one's perspective should be informed by the context: there are a number of significant references to my material in Russell Crowe movies (particularly the ones he made with Ridley Scott, and also Ridley Scott movies that don't have Russell Crowe acting in them, though this Russell Crowe movie was not directed by Scott).
Am I Read
Without going into endless detail, I believe that, following my making a reference to Don Rickles in a comment to a Huffington Post article (as JonathanDS), he in turn made an inside-reference for my benefit in his Letterman appearance several days ago. It tied in with the inside-references for my benefit whenever Philbin is on Letterman in relation to a woman I knew to whom Philbin once introduced himself. Further on this same subject, while eating lobster today in a restaurant, I saw someone who brought a certain JH to mind, which is someone I think of in connection with a certain LW, which connects back to the whole Philbin and Letterman thing, and to lobster.
Hickery Dickery Tusk
I seriously do not know if that was Kiefer Sutherland who drove by me today, wearing sunglasses in an expensive silver car. This could be most significant, it being that my May 26th blog suggests, at least to those who have been paying me serious attention, that the final seven or so "24" episodes, which were about Jack Bauer's emotional involvement with a woman possibly causing him to cease to be the ultra-responsible Jack Bauer, began with my Jack Bauer suggestion for "SNL". As mentioned, I cannot say it was necessarily he, however, if it was and I were to make no acknowledgment here of any kind of having possibly noticed him, it would be an act of omission, or whatever that form of irresponsibility is called.
Real Time Is On My Side
And finally, I believe Bill Maher has on his past several "Real Time" shows been making little references to little things I've included in HuffPost comments. It is nothing new for Bill Maher to include me in some way, but I don't know if I need to go into detail each time.
Oil Painting Leak
In the very beginning of my May 23rd blog ("Can't Say For Certain Whether Or Not Oliver Twist Would Have Wanted More Of This"), I build upon what I construed as a possible inside-reference by Paul McCartney to the Beatles song "Paperback Writer", a song which I was an influence on. Evidence that I was reacting to the idea of the song "Paperback Writer" on May 23rd may be found by going to my YouTube posting of May 23rd, "Notes From The". The video there relates to too many pages to read in connection with McCartney. As we all know, "Paperback Writer" contains the line, "It's a thousand pages," meant to express the idea of too many pages.
We then see that just three days later on May 26th Paul McCartney gave an interview to the Telegraph, wherein he discusses well known artists in connection with his purchase of their works. Should you at this point take the trouble to go to my January 10, 2010 blog (also posted/copyrighted at archive.org in Volume 3 of the collected texts of my blogs), in the section entitled, "The President, Terrorism and Baby Oil?", you will see that I bring up "Paperback Writer" specifically in connection to Paul McCartney's purchase of the works of artist Francis Bacon. I should or should not perhaps add that the May 26th McCartney interview includes someone saying that, in telling anecdotes, McCartney isn't good at self-editing, which I believe could possibly be there to bring to mind endless pages/a thousand pages.
His Master's Void
This one is for those who recall evidence presented in previous blogs that Russell Crowe movies are sometimes found to contain inside-references to me/my material. On this basis, I consider it legitimate to ask people to take my word on something difficult to prove to the public-at-large. And by "difficult to prove to the public-at-large," what I mean is, people only started posting videos in 2005 (evidencing in 2005 at least something regarding how long ago such videos were made), so videos I made before 2005 cannot be proven to the public-at-large as having been made before that, as I didn't post them until 2005, and they received no theatrical release. (As for those who saw my videos prior to 2005, you do have proof of their being made before 2005 - perhaps someone needs to give you a calculator?)
Specifically, my "Gosk 1" video (1994), which can be found at archive.org, has Clerp all excited about a threat to the spacecraft that he sees on the monitor, a meteor in the distance. After dramatically steering around the perceived (by Clerp) threat, Jerp expresses that he didn't see anything at all, but Clerp replies with, "Oh yeah, it was coming right at us." In the 2003 Russell Crowe movie, "Master and Commander," someone sees a threatening ship through a telescope, however, the Russell Crowe character sees nothing through the telescope, and expresses this to the person who said he saw it. The person who said he saw the threatening ship reaffirms his assertion, he is sure he saw something.
In and of itself one would not have to regard this as a reference to "Gosk 1", however, one's perspective should be informed by the context: there are a number of significant references to my material in Russell Crowe movies (particularly the ones he made with Ridley Scott, and also Ridley Scott movies that don't have Russell Crowe acting in them, though this Russell Crowe movie was not directed by Scott).
Am I Read
Without going into endless detail, I believe that, following my making a reference to Don Rickles in a comment to a Huffington Post article (as JonathanDS), he in turn made an inside-reference for my benefit in his Letterman appearance several days ago. It tied in with the inside-references for my benefit whenever Philbin is on Letterman in relation to a woman I knew to whom Philbin once introduced himself. Further on this same subject, while eating lobster today in a restaurant, I saw someone who brought a certain JH to mind, which is someone I think of in connection with a certain LW, which connects back to the whole Philbin and Letterman thing, and to lobster.
Hickery Dickery Tusk
I seriously do not know if that was Kiefer Sutherland who drove by me today, wearing sunglasses in an expensive silver car. This could be most significant, it being that my May 26th blog suggests, at least to those who have been paying me serious attention, that the final seven or so "24" episodes, which were about Jack Bauer's emotional involvement with a woman possibly causing him to cease to be the ultra-responsible Jack Bauer, began with my Jack Bauer suggestion for "SNL". As mentioned, I cannot say it was necessarily he, however, if it was and I were to make no acknowledgment here of any kind of having possibly noticed him, it would be an act of omission, or whatever that form of irresponsibility is called.
Real Time Is On My Side
And finally, I believe Bill Maher has on his past several "Real Time" shows been making little references to little things I've included in HuffPost comments. It is nothing new for Bill Maher to include me in some way, but I don't know if I need to go into detail each time.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tusk
I'm beginning to think they chose last Friday to release "MacGruber" just so that people have something to contrast against the intensity of a character like Jack Bauer in "24". I personally am no fan of SNL's "MacGruber" sketches, though am open to the possibility that the movie will have something stronger going for it. I will wait until it shows up on TV, which, who knows, could be in several months?
It's been two days and 18 minutes since "24" ended, and unlike my blog posting six minutes after it ended, I have now truly allowed enough time for all the wisdom of the ages to seep in and inform my perspective on what else they might have included for my benefit. Yes, there is more than I told you of last time.
If you research various blog postings of mine (try volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the collected postings of my blogs - text only - at archive.org, do word searches, try to keep up), you will find that I've made a certain number of references to a former CalArts classmate of mine who was a friend of Senator Ted Kennedy. You will not get me to divulge this person's identity, I shall regard it as a certain kind of secret. However, I will mention here that they named the Hart Building in Washington D.C. after his father, who co-sponsored innumerable bills with Kennedy.
When they brought the Hart Building from Washington D.C. to New York City for the "24" series finale, it did make me think of this person. There were no visible senators in the building as there would have been had it remained in D.C., yet I recognized the reference just the same, as I'm sure every Senator did as well, not to mention every Congressman, and also, I imagine, my former classmate's brother, cousins, etc. Perhaps others as well. One often hears of the Hart Building, and as no building with that name actually exists in New York City, one is confronted with the fact that "24" is entitling itself to copy and paste a little, or maybe cut and paste, not that actual Congressmen had to go along for the ride. It's the thought that counts.
In my previous blog I observed how the series finale of "24" brought to mind (my mind) another former CalArts classmate of mine, Henry Golas. I therefore had to stop for a moment and think. What did Henry ever have to do with this other person, if anything? Is there some well known project they both worked on together, and am I meant to go there? Something that will sooner or later surface in my thoughts "of itself" as a result of "24" bringing both of them to mind on this most important episode? Yes. Several years ago, two of the three CalArts Alumni heading the CalArts Alumni Association were these two people. Okay, where exactly does that lead, if anywhere? (Nowhere, at least, not if you can't believe me, despite all the things I am able to prove in my blogs, because, here we have something that requires the average reader to take my word.)
Alumni Association spells reunion (by the way, I do not plan on attending the upcoming CalArts reunion, so worry not, all ye who fear elephants in the room who are secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg and McCartney yet go unacknowledged and therefore might fit the profile of dangerous malcontents demanding justice from those in a position to take action). That's kind of what alumni associations generally bring to mind: reunions.
And it so happens that "24" therefore brought something very specific to mind (my mind) - a "Saturday Night Live" contribution I had sent in (to my secret SNL sorta kinda connections). The email went to Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel, it was dated 9/28/07, and the subject line was, "How I Learned To Stop Worrying". SNL always seems to find something to do with what I send in, which tended to compel me to keep sending in stuff. In those days I felt more compelled than now, in fact, it helped me work on stuff that I later did stuff with on my own.
"A man goes to his high school reunion. Everyone is instantly put in mind of his legendary romantic drama of many years before, wherein he and his high school sweetheart had a big falling out, leading to all kinds of romantic and dramatic stuff. But he is not going to his high school reunion because of this, he is on a mission to save the world from blowing up. It is very complicated and impossible for anyone to believe that his going to this high school reunion can exist in relation to something larger than a romantic experience, and so he has no shortage of obstacles to overcome in making his circumstance understood. Then the band plays 'their song', he succombs, dances with his high school sweetheart, and the world blows up."
Detecting a reason to believe that this did not go unnoticed (as I always do with these things), on October 8, 2007 I responded to SNL's response to this idea with another email to the same two people (whom I had sorta known at certain times during the '70s before they were among the world's biggest film producers and Spielberg inner circle folk), and provide here the following excerpt:
"I actually pre-anticipated that this would get translated by SNL into a 'McGruber' sketch. On the second SNL episode of the season there were a set of 'McGruber' sketches, and so I immediately anticipated one would feature McGruber getting sidetracked by a high school romance-type concern. Sure enough, in one of the 'McGruber' sketches McGruber insists he be referred to as extremely young, that his team pretend to be his parents, and then a high school-type girlfriend is all excited about getting tickets for Dave Matthews, which is enough to sidetrack McGruber and the place blows up."
In other words, the secret agent character's return to his younger self caused his older self to take its eyes off the ball.
It was a more obvious use of my "suggestion" when a week or two before the opening sketch of the first SNL of the season was about an auction, after I had sent in an auction sketch just weeks before. The masking of the reunion idea was nevertheless obvious enough to me, even with Jack Bauer turned into MacGruber.
It's been two days and 18 minutes since "24" ended, and unlike my blog posting six minutes after it ended, I have now truly allowed enough time for all the wisdom of the ages to seep in and inform my perspective on what else they might have included for my benefit. Yes, there is more than I told you of last time.
If you research various blog postings of mine (try volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the collected postings of my blogs - text only - at archive.org, do word searches, try to keep up), you will find that I've made a certain number of references to a former CalArts classmate of mine who was a friend of Senator Ted Kennedy. You will not get me to divulge this person's identity, I shall regard it as a certain kind of secret. However, I will mention here that they named the Hart Building in Washington D.C. after his father, who co-sponsored innumerable bills with Kennedy.
When they brought the Hart Building from Washington D.C. to New York City for the "24" series finale, it did make me think of this person. There were no visible senators in the building as there would have been had it remained in D.C., yet I recognized the reference just the same, as I'm sure every Senator did as well, not to mention every Congressman, and also, I imagine, my former classmate's brother, cousins, etc. Perhaps others as well. One often hears of the Hart Building, and as no building with that name actually exists in New York City, one is confronted with the fact that "24" is entitling itself to copy and paste a little, or maybe cut and paste, not that actual Congressmen had to go along for the ride. It's the thought that counts.
In my previous blog I observed how the series finale of "24" brought to mind (my mind) another former CalArts classmate of mine, Henry Golas. I therefore had to stop for a moment and think. What did Henry ever have to do with this other person, if anything? Is there some well known project they both worked on together, and am I meant to go there? Something that will sooner or later surface in my thoughts "of itself" as a result of "24" bringing both of them to mind on this most important episode? Yes. Several years ago, two of the three CalArts Alumni heading the CalArts Alumni Association were these two people. Okay, where exactly does that lead, if anywhere? (Nowhere, at least, not if you can't believe me, despite all the things I am able to prove in my blogs, because, here we have something that requires the average reader to take my word.)
Alumni Association spells reunion (by the way, I do not plan on attending the upcoming CalArts reunion, so worry not, all ye who fear elephants in the room who are secretly super-important in relation to Spielberg and McCartney yet go unacknowledged and therefore might fit the profile of dangerous malcontents demanding justice from those in a position to take action). That's kind of what alumni associations generally bring to mind: reunions.
And it so happens that "24" therefore brought something very specific to mind (my mind) - a "Saturday Night Live" contribution I had sent in (to my secret SNL sorta kinda connections). The email went to Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel, it was dated 9/28/07, and the subject line was, "How I Learned To Stop Worrying". SNL always seems to find something to do with what I send in, which tended to compel me to keep sending in stuff. In those days I felt more compelled than now, in fact, it helped me work on stuff that I later did stuff with on my own.
"'Jack Bauer Ditches His High School Sweetheart'"
"a comedy sketch idea, copyright 9/28/07, Jonathan D. Steinhoff"
"a comedy sketch idea, copyright 9/28/07, Jonathan D. Steinhoff"
"A man goes to his high school reunion. Everyone is instantly put in mind of his legendary romantic drama of many years before, wherein he and his high school sweetheart had a big falling out, leading to all kinds of romantic and dramatic stuff. But he is not going to his high school reunion because of this, he is on a mission to save the world from blowing up. It is very complicated and impossible for anyone to believe that his going to this high school reunion can exist in relation to something larger than a romantic experience, and so he has no shortage of obstacles to overcome in making his circumstance understood. Then the band plays 'their song', he succombs, dances with his high school sweetheart, and the world blows up."
Detecting a reason to believe that this did not go unnoticed (as I always do with these things), on October 8, 2007 I responded to SNL's response to this idea with another email to the same two people (whom I had sorta known at certain times during the '70s before they were among the world's biggest film producers and Spielberg inner circle folk), and provide here the following excerpt:
"I actually pre-anticipated that this would get translated by SNL into a 'McGruber' sketch. On the second SNL episode of the season there were a set of 'McGruber' sketches, and so I immediately anticipated one would feature McGruber getting sidetracked by a high school romance-type concern. Sure enough, in one of the 'McGruber' sketches McGruber insists he be referred to as extremely young, that his team pretend to be his parents, and then a high school-type girlfriend is all excited about getting tickets for Dave Matthews, which is enough to sidetrack McGruber and the place blows up."
In other words, the secret agent character's return to his younger self caused his older self to take its eyes off the ball.
It was a more obvious use of my "suggestion" when a week or two before the opening sketch of the first SNL of the season was about an auction, after I had sent in an auction sketch just weeks before. The masking of the reunion idea was nevertheless obvious enough to me, even with Jack Bauer turned into MacGruber.
Monday, May 24, 2010
The Secret Is Out There
One Man's Poison Is Another Man's Historical TV Show Episode
Now that "24" is in the past, about six minutes in the past, I feel I've let enough time go by to share something that happened on the show 12 minutes before it was over.
You may first want to bear in mind that, unless my eyes deceived me, Kiefer Sutherland drove by me the day they announced the show was over (see my blog of that day); and the star of "House" drove by me a hundred miles from L.A. the day a USA Today article on "24" described one of the reasons given for ending the show was to have a better lead-in for "House" (see my blog of that day). Also, I've occasionally mentioned "24" in my blogs at various other times - to research, go to archive.org and find where I've posted several volumes of my collected blogs ("Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog, Volume 1", etc.), and do a word search - or just rummage around here at Blogspot for the original blog postings.
It had recently occurred to me that, with this somewhat special "24" attention I was getting, it seemed a little out of the ordinary that so much time had gone by since they had made an inside-reference to my material. This made it seem more likely that they were waiting for the final episode. And sure enough, I have come to the objective conclusion that this is exactly what happened.
Twelve minutes before the end, as they were taking away that woman who was at CTU working on behalf of that former president who reminds me of Nixon, she said something that immediately brought to mind my 1978 CalArts video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," which I've also mentioned here and there in a few blogs. "Take your hands off of me," she shouted as they were leading her away in handcuffs. It was very close to the way the star of my video, Henry Golas (who was once Groucho Marx' right hand), intoned the words, "Take your grubby hands off of me," as they were leading him away to be tortured.
So I started to think. Because this is the exact kind of short-hand used to put my mind on track with something, which then leads me to something else, which they had waiting for me. It would not count as a reference in and of itself, that would be way too thin. Unless there was some other thing that belonged alongside it, so that, cumulatively, they would be revealed as having deliberately brought something in particular to mind.
But what? And then it became obvious, and clearly the point, and clearly one I had discovered through objective thought, rather than by some stretch.
In "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," we find a future scenario in which only one person alive still knows how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.). And so they must make him talk, they have to make him talk. They have the Monopoly board, the Monopoly pieces - it must be made to work. But he doesn't want to talk. In his words, "It's a terrible game! A horrible game!" He did not want the seed of the precepts of capitalism to reenter this future world through the gate of knowledge that was the rules of how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.), - at least, that is one take on the significance of his resolve not to release the secret. So they take him to a room and begin chanting over and over, "We wanna play Monopoly! We wanna play Monopoly!" Until finally, he cracks. "Alright! I'll teach you! Just stop torturing me!" he shouts. This is the one work of mine that contains an unmistakable parallel (semi-parallel) to the thing about "24" that has made that show so controversial.
That's My Story And They're Sticking To Something That's Not Entirely Different, At Least In Terms Of The Idea For The Title
In 1978 I gave a copy of "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly" to then non-producer Sean Daniel, who was the first person who told me of the school I had just graduated from, CalArts. At the time he was Universal's spokesman for the first Robert Zemeckis movie, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". When Zemeckis later made "Back To The Future," wherein the movie title camps up confusion of past and present tenses owing to "future" being in the title, I knew why it reminded me of, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly." But that's another story.
Now that "24" is in the past, about six minutes in the past, I feel I've let enough time go by to share something that happened on the show 12 minutes before it was over.
You may first want to bear in mind that, unless my eyes deceived me, Kiefer Sutherland drove by me the day they announced the show was over (see my blog of that day); and the star of "House" drove by me a hundred miles from L.A. the day a USA Today article on "24" described one of the reasons given for ending the show was to have a better lead-in for "House" (see my blog of that day). Also, I've occasionally mentioned "24" in my blogs at various other times - to research, go to archive.org and find where I've posted several volumes of my collected blogs ("Jonathan D. Steinhoff's Sometimes Blog, Volume 1", etc.), and do a word search - or just rummage around here at Blogspot for the original blog postings.
It had recently occurred to me that, with this somewhat special "24" attention I was getting, it seemed a little out of the ordinary that so much time had gone by since they had made an inside-reference to my material. This made it seem more likely that they were waiting for the final episode. And sure enough, I have come to the objective conclusion that this is exactly what happened.
Twelve minutes before the end, as they were taking away that woman who was at CTU working on behalf of that former president who reminds me of Nixon, she said something that immediately brought to mind my 1978 CalArts video, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," which I've also mentioned here and there in a few blogs. "Take your hands off of me," she shouted as they were leading her away in handcuffs. It was very close to the way the star of my video, Henry Golas (who was once Groucho Marx' right hand), intoned the words, "Take your grubby hands off of me," as they were leading him away to be tortured.
So I started to think. Because this is the exact kind of short-hand used to put my mind on track with something, which then leads me to something else, which they had waiting for me. It would not count as a reference in and of itself, that would be way too thin. Unless there was some other thing that belonged alongside it, so that, cumulatively, they would be revealed as having deliberately brought something in particular to mind.
But what? And then it became obvious, and clearly the point, and clearly one I had discovered through objective thought, rather than by some stretch.
In "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly," we find a future scenario in which only one person alive still knows how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.). And so they must make him talk, they have to make him talk. They have the Monopoly board, the Monopoly pieces - it must be made to work. But he doesn't want to talk. In his words, "It's a terrible game! A horrible game!" He did not want the seed of the precepts of capitalism to reenter this future world through the gate of knowledge that was the rules of how to play Monopoly (trademark Parker Bros.), - at least, that is one take on the significance of his resolve not to release the secret. So they take him to a room and begin chanting over and over, "We wanna play Monopoly! We wanna play Monopoly!" Until finally, he cracks. "Alright! I'll teach you! Just stop torturing me!" he shouts. This is the one work of mine that contains an unmistakable parallel (semi-parallel) to the thing about "24" that has made that show so controversial.
That's My Story And They're Sticking To Something That's Not Entirely Different, At Least In Terms Of The Idea For The Title
In 1978 I gave a copy of "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly" to then non-producer Sean Daniel, who was the first person who told me of the school I had just graduated from, CalArts. At the time he was Universal's spokesman for the first Robert Zemeckis movie, "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". When Zemeckis later made "Back To The Future," wherein the movie title camps up confusion of past and present tenses owing to "future" being in the title, I knew why it reminded me of, "How Did The Future Learn To Play Monopoly." But that's another story.
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....
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Simmer, Cool, Simmer Again, Whatever
Julie, Julia, Clerp, Jerp, and Amy
The following videoclip, which includes our first introduction to Amy Adams' Julie character in the 2009 movie, "Julie and Julia" (now available on TV for the first time on "Starz On Demand-Early Premieres"), should be filed under my March 21st blog (two blogs ago), in the section, "Pavlov's Chef":
Out Of The Frying Pan, Into The Fire
A person I've referred to here and there in previous blogs, Kiefer Sutherland, again drove past me. It was while I was on my way to work Friday, March 26th. I am nearly certain it was he, despite the sunglasses and semi-upbeat expression.
His face divulged nothing about a bombshell that was about to be dropped on the world later that day, not that the explosion would have been preventable even if I had foreknowledge: "24" has been canceled. Jack Bauer will not live forever - at least in terms of new episodes of "24" (after this season). I also read that there may be a movie. I think back to the expression on his face for some indication of exactly how dead Bauer might be for Sutherland, but as I find myself unable to visualize ketchup splattered about, it is difficult for me to envision death and Jack Bauer next to each other to the extent that it is now so.
We have been left with a serious void on the landscape of our shared, common focus on matters related to terrorism against the U.S. Do not underestimate the value of a singularly iconic fictitious character of this variety at this point in the history of the world, particularly when one considers the degree to which we as a society have come to use the medium of theater to digest events that would otherwise be too difficult, perhaps even impossible to wrap our hearts and minds around.
We can come together over nobody in particular when we say here comes the sun, we may never need a sun king to say "here comes the" about, but we are not so good at not having a human to focus on when real events turn us towards this side of reality, and occurrences that could conceivably lead to the end of reality itself. I don't see anyone coming close to a Jack Bauer, just a whole lot of James Bonds, Sherlock Holmeses and what not.
On the bright side, Sutherland is now free to do a sequel to "Dark City" - though I have the feeling I'm alone in thinking along those lines.
It's Just Another Vote
Several days ago on my way home from work, at about 5:30pm, about 30 minutes before the final reconciliation vote on healthcare reform (after the House passed the healthcare legislation and after the Senate then passed the agreed-to reconciliation amendments and then the amendments went back to the House - I believe this was Thursday, March 25th), "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart may or may not have driven past me. The show has been on vacation this past week, so it was definitely possible for him to be in Southern California. Also, as occasionally referred to in previous blogs, over the years I have occasionally been an influence on his and Colbert's show, sometimes to no small degree. He appeared very serious. And his hair was not slicked down as one normally expects when looking at Jon Stewart. I don't think his was searching his mind for a punchline just then. Then again, it could have just been someone whose job it is to bring Jon Stewart to someone's mind at the precise right moment. I get a lot of that.
One On One
Ben Stiller, whose appearance at the recent Oscars was largely in relation to my "Gosk 2" video (see my March 13th blog), drove by me yesterday (March 27th), while his two recent late-night talk show appearances made no inside-references for my benefit (of which I am aware). I think that puts things where I'm supposed to.... no, can't say I know exactly.
The late-night talk show appearance in February by Helena Bonham Carter, Tim Burton's wife, on Craig Ferguson's show did make inside "Gosk" references for my benefit. These references to "Gosk" were not even close to being as clearly delineated as Burton's "Gosk" references in "Alice In Wonderland" (see my my March 16th and March 21st blogs). I do not feel that husbands and wives should be considered contractually obligated to be identical in the degree to which they make references to "Gosk", nevertheless, I will not permit Carter's references to dilute the intensity of Burton's references, and will therefore confine myself here to this general a description of her action.
Regis Philbin's recent late-night talk show appearance on Ferguson made absolutely no inside-reference for my benefit of the variety I have come to expect, though Ferguson isn't Letterman, which is where/who this normally can be relied upon. Is this non-relationship over? If so, I do not yet feel the void, and for now will make no assumptions.
Face To Face
Immediately after I emailed someone (a fellow CalArts alumni, aka a "CalArtian") asking what gives with Tim Burton and his Steinhoff references in "Alice In Wonderland", where's my $11.23 (I did the math and decided I was at least entitled to enough money to purchase 9.2 chocolate bars), I received an invitation to be the Facebook friend of someone else, someone I hadn't spoken with in about 30 or more years, and a non-CalArtian. Adding this person as a Facebook friend required that I logon to my Facebook page for the first time in about half-a-year. This caused me to see that another CalArtian I knew (different CalArtian) had visited my Facebook page, indicated to me by way of that privacy-violating way Facebook has of showing Facebook users this like it or not. This led me to feeling inclined to look up that particular CalArtian on Facebook and the listing of her Facebook friends - which included Tim Burton. I suppose it is a given that when Tim Burton uses your material in a big way in "Alice In Wonderland", trails of breadcrumbs are headed your way. Now send me a trail of breadcrumbs I would want to follow more directly, please.
The following videoclip, which includes our first introduction to Amy Adams' Julie character in the 2009 movie, "Julie and Julia" (now available on TV for the first time on "Starz On Demand-Early Premieres"), should be filed under my March 21st blog (two blogs ago), in the section, "Pavlov's Chef":
Out Of The Frying Pan, Into The Fire
A person I've referred to here and there in previous blogs, Kiefer Sutherland, again drove past me. It was while I was on my way to work Friday, March 26th. I am nearly certain it was he, despite the sunglasses and semi-upbeat expression.
His face divulged nothing about a bombshell that was about to be dropped on the world later that day, not that the explosion would have been preventable even if I had foreknowledge: "24" has been canceled. Jack Bauer will not live forever - at least in terms of new episodes of "24" (after this season). I also read that there may be a movie. I think back to the expression on his face for some indication of exactly how dead Bauer might be for Sutherland, but as I find myself unable to visualize ketchup splattered about, it is difficult for me to envision death and Jack Bauer next to each other to the extent that it is now so.
We have been left with a serious void on the landscape of our shared, common focus on matters related to terrorism against the U.S. Do not underestimate the value of a singularly iconic fictitious character of this variety at this point in the history of the world, particularly when one considers the degree to which we as a society have come to use the medium of theater to digest events that would otherwise be too difficult, perhaps even impossible to wrap our hearts and minds around.
We can come together over nobody in particular when we say here comes the sun, we may never need a sun king to say "here comes the" about, but we are not so good at not having a human to focus on when real events turn us towards this side of reality, and occurrences that could conceivably lead to the end of reality itself. I don't see anyone coming close to a Jack Bauer, just a whole lot of James Bonds, Sherlock Holmeses and what not.
On the bright side, Sutherland is now free to do a sequel to "Dark City" - though I have the feeling I'm alone in thinking along those lines.
It's Just Another Vote
Several days ago on my way home from work, at about 5:30pm, about 30 minutes before the final reconciliation vote on healthcare reform (after the House passed the healthcare legislation and after the Senate then passed the agreed-to reconciliation amendments and then the amendments went back to the House - I believe this was Thursday, March 25th), "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart may or may not have driven past me. The show has been on vacation this past week, so it was definitely possible for him to be in Southern California. Also, as occasionally referred to in previous blogs, over the years I have occasionally been an influence on his and Colbert's show, sometimes to no small degree. He appeared very serious. And his hair was not slicked down as one normally expects when looking at Jon Stewart. I don't think his was searching his mind for a punchline just then. Then again, it could have just been someone whose job it is to bring Jon Stewart to someone's mind at the precise right moment. I get a lot of that.
One On One
Ben Stiller, whose appearance at the recent Oscars was largely in relation to my "Gosk 2" video (see my March 13th blog), drove by me yesterday (March 27th), while his two recent late-night talk show appearances made no inside-references for my benefit (of which I am aware). I think that puts things where I'm supposed to.... no, can't say I know exactly.
The late-night talk show appearance in February by Helena Bonham Carter, Tim Burton's wife, on Craig Ferguson's show did make inside "Gosk" references for my benefit. These references to "Gosk" were not even close to being as clearly delineated as Burton's "Gosk" references in "Alice In Wonderland" (see my my March 16th and March 21st blogs). I do not feel that husbands and wives should be considered contractually obligated to be identical in the degree to which they make references to "Gosk", nevertheless, I will not permit Carter's references to dilute the intensity of Burton's references, and will therefore confine myself here to this general a description of her action.
Regis Philbin's recent late-night talk show appearance on Ferguson made absolutely no inside-reference for my benefit of the variety I have come to expect, though Ferguson isn't Letterman, which is where/who this normally can be relied upon. Is this non-relationship over? If so, I do not yet feel the void, and for now will make no assumptions.
Face To Face
Immediately after I emailed someone (a fellow CalArts alumni, aka a "CalArtian") asking what gives with Tim Burton and his Steinhoff references in "Alice In Wonderland", where's my $11.23 (I did the math and decided I was at least entitled to enough money to purchase 9.2 chocolate bars), I received an invitation to be the Facebook friend of someone else, someone I hadn't spoken with in about 30 or more years, and a non-CalArtian. Adding this person as a Facebook friend required that I logon to my Facebook page for the first time in about half-a-year. This caused me to see that another CalArtian I knew (different CalArtian) had visited my Facebook page, indicated to me by way of that privacy-violating way Facebook has of showing Facebook users this like it or not. This led me to feeling inclined to look up that particular CalArtian on Facebook and the listing of her Facebook friends - which included Tim Burton. I suppose it is a given that when Tim Burton uses your material in a big way in "Alice In Wonderland", trails of breadcrumbs are headed your way. Now send me a trail of breadcrumbs I would want to follow more directly, please.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
