Gotta Be A Superman

It's "Smallville" time again - the Superman show, for those not up on things. And if you've been following my blogs over the years, you'll know how that often means it's also time once again for me to describe how I have been incorporated into things over there - how this is something I attribute, in part at least, to the fact that Sean Daniel's "Mummy 3" was written by the "Smallville" writer/producers. Yes, I am there once again, if you know how to put a few things together, and feel like bearing with me until it all makes sense. At the VERY least, don't you have to wonder how it is that I so often have something to give pause, and from the exact same place as where I so often find something to give pause? Or.... perhaps you profess to believe it's all pulled straight out of the air?

Check This
In the final paragraph of my immediately preceding blog (Sept. 28th, "Politics for Dummies"), I observed how, for some reason I didn't particularly get, there were several shows that had recently incorporated references to Sean Daniel movies ("Animal House" and "The Jackal"). These were objective observations anyone might have made, anyone familiar with certain public knowledge:

1. The Bishop scene in "Animal House" (John Belushi smashes Stephen Bishop's guitar as he sits playing on a staircase) showed up via a scene on Leno featuring Sheryl Crow and Ed Helms (which I was bound to watch, as I had shortly before that mentioned in my blogs some Sheryl Crow stuff in relation to me).
2. On Saturday Night Live's season premiere almost a week ago, a reference to the Jack Black scene in Sean Daniel's "The Jackal" (in their takeoff on the recent Stallone movie).

It had crossed my mind, regarding the Sean Daniel connection in the above-referenced Sheryl Crow bit, that, as the word "Bishop" had come up there (Stephen Bishop being in the "Animal House" scene), and then "Smallville" shortly thereafter (last week) made inside-reference to my "Bishop And Pawn Forfeit Rule" (see my Sept. 26th blog), there could be a connection in that for my benefit, but there wasn't enough for me to go on until tonight's "Smallville".

Before you have enough to go on, I would have to ask that you look at my August 13, 2008 blog, "A Piece of the Mask" (also at Archive.Org as part of Volume 1 of my collected blog articles, therefore a matter of record that I couldn't have written it after the date Volume 1 was published). In Item 2 of that blog article, I note special inside-reference significance to someone, in the role of rescuer, standing over a person who had just been knocked to the ground. Specifically, the blog article describes this action with regard to scenes involving Jack Black, including reference to the movie, "Tenancious D And The Pick Of DESTINY".

And so, I now give you this videoclip of moments from tonight's "Smallville," which include

• Someone, in the role of rescuer, standing over someone who had just been knocked to the ground
  

• A situation that brings the movie "The Jackal" to mind

• A discussion of Destiny

Also of interest is that this same DESTINY discussion scene in "Smallville" ends with the introduction of the word "superman" to "Smallville" (I end the above videoclip right before Lois Lane provides the translation for the German version of this word). Whatever you wish to attach to the appearance of "superman" here.

You Don't Owe Me A Thing, Jason Lee

Having seen the premiere episode of the new Jason Lee show, "Memphis Beat," I see where it falls to me to respond, or not respond, to their "secret" shout-out to me. As I am the person responsible for Jason Lee's other TV show, "My Name Is Earl" (see my posting, "The Fun Guy", at Archive.Org), as well as the title of the first movie to star Jason Lee, "Mallrats," I do not take lightly the inclusion, on his new show's important first episode, of inside-references to my 1990/1992 video, "Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's 'Uncle's Dream'".

I admit that at first it all seemed like I was being made the recipient of some sort of obligatory pat on the head. But having allowed a few days to pass since the show aired (as all wisemen do!), I have decided not to sidestep this call to have some sort of involvement, if only via this blogged response to the "secret" shout-out.

I am not pleased at being beckoned out onto this all-too familiar limb, that is to say, being made to appear like I am imagining things, at least to those unfamiliar with my frequent "role" in popular culture. On the other hand, given the weight of other things that come my way (such as that related in my previous blog of yesterday, "Crazy Time"), I am developing a strange appreciation of things that diffuse the overbearing seriousness of it all. It's a shot in the arm.

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.

James Cameron And The Steinhoff Factor (non-3D version)

Preface
I promised in my February 15th blog that, upcoming in the near future, there would be a blog wherein I would take on the subject of the influence I have had on filmmaker James Cameron. Today's blog will not be the place where I cover this in what I regard as a thorough manner, it being that clips from Cameron's movie, "Avatar", are among the tools I would need to do justice to this subject. I trust I will be able to access and thereby include such clips in the future (when "Avatar" comes to TV). However, I can at least provide enough here for you to see the basic substance of my February 15th assertion that Cameron has been significantly influenced by me. And by you, I mean those reading this who have the inclination to put a few facts together, and the intelligence to appreciate what those facts say.

You may be skeptical of certain things I will be including here that, in order to be appreciated, require a degree of background knowledge of myself and my other influences on various rather substantial works by certain very important people, as documented in previous blogs through references to facts. And by you, I mean those reading this who are not inclined to put a larger number of facts together, yet would put the onus on me for failing to have facts that condense into a mere paragraph to complete their context.

And I will not even begin to address you who have ulterior motives for indicating skepticism. Who, as one might guess, tend to "visit" (and more) themselves upon situations that involve very, very powerful people and companies. I wish I had people at my disposal to address them for me.


If A Tree Falls In The Woods And Nobody Films The Person Who Heard It
In 1998, when James Cameron was the guest star on the season finale of the sixth season of the NBC sitcom, "Mad About You," I recognized that episode's use of the main idea of my 1978 16mm film (now a video posted at Archive.Org), "Log of a Log Log" (in which the Paul Reiser character is doing a documentary about a documentary about "Titanic"). In addition to the obvious fact that the idea in both "Log" and "Mad" are the same, a documentary about a documentary (admittedly, one appreciates that there could be occasions when someone else might also come up with this same idea without my help), I was already aware that "Mad About You" was aware of me, as they had in previous episodes made inside-references to me/my material.

Without going into detail, a certain number of those inside-references related to a girl I was friends with when I attended CalArts during the '70s (and with whom I haven't spoken since the '70s). This same girl worked for James Cameron on "True Lies" and "Titanic". Additionally, an important part of "Titanic" also included such inside-references. It seems that my secret importance is of such a degree and nature that, almost invariably, when this girl works on a movie, that same movie includes inside-references to myself that bring this girl to mind. [I have to look forward to the release of "Alice In Wonderland" in several weeks.]

Still from "Mad About You"
(6th Season Finale, 1998)







Excerpt from "Log of a Log Log" (1978)


If you have seen both "Avatar" and "Log of a Log Log", the connection between myself and Cameron is considerably more intense than the afore-described. The subject of the documentary that "Log" is a documentary about (again, "Log" is a documentary of a documentary) regards giant tree roots made into furniture by a company called Cricket Roots. Tom Garber, who was making that documentary, informed me that Cricket Roots got into trouble because of the fact that their destruction of the giant tree roots was being seen as some sort of violation. This clearly has "Avatar" written all over it.

Excerpt from "Log of a Log Log" (1978)


Although "Log of a Log Log" was posted on the Internet in 2006 (prior to which people generally had no opportunity to post videos for free on the Internet), this video/16mm film was made by me in 1978. In "Log" one sees documentary filmmaker Tom Garber, who one can also see on his website - he appears approximately 30 years younger in "Log" than he does on his website. If you wish to do further fact-checking, it is a matter of record that both Tom and I graduated from the CalArts School of Film/Video in 1978. One might also wish to look up on the Internet recent photographs of filmmaker Terry Sanders, also seen in my 1978 work as approximately 30 years younger.


Something In The Air
People with blue skin are not entirely unknown, in movies. This is something my videos, "Gosk 1" and "Gosk 2" (1994 and 1998, respectively, though posted on the Internet in 2005) have in common with "Avatar" - in and of itself, not enough to connect the two. Alright, but how about special significance given to white, non-snowflakes floating around? How many movies do you find this in, combined with there being blue-skinned characters? The "Woodsprite" in "Avatar" (described in this link as "like dandelion seeds") are key to the story, in that they are singularly responsible for the perception that Jake Sully (protagonist) should be considered for initiation as a Navi, a key storyline in "Avatar. In my video, "Gosk 2", the little white non-snowflakes are, as seen in the following excerpt, also given significance. They are not presented as merely being a benign part of the landscape, but as a special aspect of a foreign world.

Excerpt from "Gosk 2" (1998)



Some Things In The Air
Up next, something that may seem comparatively less pronounced, in that the similarity cited becomes more significant when seen in the cumulative sense, i.e., when seen alongside other Steinhoff/Cameron connections.

In movies it is rarely seen, when we find "visitors" with the special advantage of flying around in spacecrafts, for those with nothing even remotely approaching like-technology to endeavor to engage them in like-manner. Again, you are asked to call upon your memory of "Avatar":

Excerpt from "Gosk 2" (1998)



Something On Your Nose
Again, we've seen close to this sort of thing in movies before, however, the cumulative significance causes me to consider this worth citing: a blue-skinned face with a tan (Caucasian-looking) spot on the nose. I believe this hits it on the nose, even though a different part of the nose.

Excerpt from "Gosk 2" (1998)



Still of Jake Sully
"Avatar" (2009)

















Plain As The Moon On Your Face
Those who remember back to my blog regarding "The Wolfman" (February 12th), and then edit that memory together with numerous other references in my blogs to Sean Daniel, producer of "The Wolfman", may appreciate this.

It is my assessment that there exists a "shorthand" (for lack of a better, less-syllabic word), whereby certain inside-references can be clearly determined in spite of the absence of their being clearly delineated/self-apparent. In my February 12th blog, which was created prior to my seeing "Avatar", I suggested the possibility of a future Spielberg film that might bridge things in "The Wolfman" to me/my material, as occurred with the 2008 "Indiana Jones" sequel (Spielberg) with relation to the 2008 "Mummy" sequel (Daniel) with relation to myself.

When I saw "The Wolfman", I noticed that a flashback scene showing Benicio Del Toro's character as a boy contained imagery that brought to mind the above clip from my "Gosk 2" video regarding white flakes. At the time I saw it, having not yet seen "Avatar", there was not enough for me to feel there was a basis for me to cite it as an inside-reference regarding me/my material. Now that I see that same exact moment brought to mind in the movie "Avatar", in theatrical release at the same time as "The Wolfman", I have to feel that there now is enough for me to cite it as an inside-reference.

Additionally, the flying bird POV shots in "Avatar" also relate to what I previously assessed (Feb. 12th blog) as inside-references in "The Wolfman" to me/my material. I recognize that flying bird POV shots are not unique to the three of us (Cameron, Daniel, Steinhoff), however, in conjunction with other factors, the significance changes.

You Actually Believe The Light From The Moon Originates From The Sun?

Having just seen "The Wolfman", the new movie produced by Sean Daniel, a person I've referenced many times in the past, I was disappointed only by the fact that I saw nothing that I could point to as clearly having anything to do with me, something I'm generally able to do with Sean Daniel movies.

Sean Daniel's previous movie, "Mummy 3", contained elements that were very clearly intertwined with a movie that came out around the same time, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", which was directed by Daniel's old friend, Steven Spielberg. And that same "Indiana Jones" movie was very clearly intertwined with my 1993 "Mall Man" video (as I document in my 12.26.09 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor"). Thus, significant interconnectivity. And usually the interconnectivity in Sean Daniel's work to my work is considerably more direct, such as the fact that Daniel produced "Mallrats" two years after I made "Mall Man", two clearly similar movie titles.

In addition to being the first person from whom I learned of the school I attended, CalArts, Sean Daniel has also "been there" numerous times when my work has made its way to the public through others. Including when I sent him a demo of my song about "breaking the spell" to forward to his friend Paul McCartney to work with me on it (McCartney being another person whom I have frequently influenced), which clearly led to a song on McCartney's then next album that contained the line, "I would never break the spell" (my song, "Different" can be found on my "Enough To Eclipse", a CD I posted at CD Baby in 2005 prior to McCartney's album, my song included there in both its demo and finished form - which tends to reinforce the idea that I attached special significance to the demo part of that song's process).

So did Sean Daniel "break the spell", and allow some form of authorship on some author's part to "eclipse" the idea of throwing into "The Wolfman" this or that reference to my work? (Something I would consider totally valid, authors certainly shouldn't be made to compromise the integrity of their work for the sake of having to make references, unless of course their work possesses that kind of flexibility and they should feel so inclined.)

Though I did happen to notice two or so things in "The Wolfman". No, I cannot authenticate these things for those out there who were not eyewitnesses to that of which I speak, I cannot prove to non-eyewitnesses that I am not making these things up. But if you believe I make things up you haven't bothered to study the evidence I often do have the opportunity to present regarding other matters of equal consequence. I also recognize that the similarities I am about to note do not necessarily signify anything - however, as the context is that I do have cumulative, similar experience of this variety, I do not consider it too bold to entitle myself to see something that others would miss or have difficulty accepting.

The following two things notwithstanding, who knows, perhaps when the next Steven Spielberg movie comes out, couldn't it wind up bridging me to "The Wolfman" in the same way that the 2008 "Indiana Jones" movie bridged me to Sean Daniel's 2008 "Mummy" movie?

Thing Number One
There was a moment in "The Wolfman" when a wolfman finds himself alongside of a statue while atop a building, at which point he stands there. Statues on rooftops are rare enough, to me anyway, that it struck me as something one might legitimately associate with the idea of one of the gargoyles atop the Cathedral of Notre Dame. There is also a very strong significance in this movie to a particular father-son relationship, which I am not saying merely because this is among the countless movies that feature fathers and sons - and that is all the spoiling I intend to do absent the words "spoiler alert". I point these things out because, back in 1971 when Sean Daniel was the silkscreen counselor at Buck's Rock camp and I was a happy camper, Mr. Daniel assisted me, on the day my parents and sister came up for a visit, in making a photo silkscreen from a photograph my father took of gargoyles atop the Cathedral of Notre Dame. So therefore, when I flashed on gargoyles at that point in the Sean Daniel father-son movie, my father was momentarily brought to mind, as was Sean Daniel, for the reasons just-described. This same sense also happened to me a little bit during Sean Daniel's previous movie, "Mummy 3", which had very much to do with ancient Oriental culture - as another photo silkscreen we did was from a photograph my father took of a Buddha statue in Japan during the late 40s/early 50s.

Thing Number Two
The opening shot of "The Wolfman" features tree branches with the moon in the background, from which we pull back. This gives off a sense of being pulled out of a feeling of "not seeing the forest for the trees". This is the exact reverse of something contained in something I did in 2004 - I once made a 30-second TV spot in the hope that it might interest the company enough to air it. The VP had said to keep working on it, maybe they would (at which time I would get paid!!!). I involved someone I knew at CalArts, Richard Greene, aka the "That Was Easy" (Staples) voice, aka lots of other voices on lots of other TV spots. He knew there would be no money unless the company took it to the next level. I did everything but the voice in the TV spot, including write the copy.

As always happens with everything I touch, pieces of it were immediately used by others for this and that, with no credit or money to me. Progressive Insurance used something from an earlier version, for example. TCM (Turner Classic Movies Channel), which often makes use of my material in their little segue montages, was also among those who used it (another time they used something from my "Whatever Happened" music video; as well as other stuff I've done).

In addition to my never-aired TV spot having that tree branch thing that's the reverse idea of the opening shot of "The Wolfman", it's also the only thing I ever did that brings you up close to the image of a vicious lion, in fact, you even get to hear him roar, which is very close in spirit to "The Wolfman". Actually, for the lion's roar I used the sound of the roar of thunder, though most in the audience don't notice such things. I'll even bet I'm the only one in the audience who noticed the correlation between my May 2004 TV spot and the opening shot of "The Wolfman" - unless Sean Daniel also happened to notice it?



My other reason for seriously weighing the possibility that "The Wolfman" used this spot is that, far more often than not, when my stuff is used, it is used in a prominent place. Such as the opening shot of a Sean Daniel movie. Or the opening logo on every DreamWorks movie of a bob on a water surface, which correlates to the opening shot of my 1994 "Gosk 1" video after the opening credits - something I would overlook if not for my generally being super-important in relation to Steven Spielberg's work.

Balls Rolling, Wheels On Fire

I had hoped that my blog entry to follow my previous blog entry might somehow keep the ball rolling, significance-wise, as that blog contained the ball-rolling announcement that I had completed my video, "Steven Spielberg And The 'Mall Man' Factor". Unfortunately, it does not. And yet for some the things I will be reporting this time around are no less significant:

YESTERDAY
We all know of the interesting situation at NBC involving Jay and Conan, and their dream of recapturing the days of "Must See TV", which was mainly their "Friends" and "Seinfeld" sitcom lineup on Thursdays when you get right down to it. And a few of us know that the NBC show that took over the timeslot of "Friends", "My Name Is Earl," which starred Jason Lee, grew out of an idea, "The Fun Guy", which I sent to Sean Daniel, the producer of the movie that featured Jason Lee's first big role, "Mallrats". Sean Daniel was the first person from whom I had learned of the college I attended, CalArts. He produced "Mallrats" two years after my "Mall Man" video, it being that Sean Daniel movies tend to contain things regarding my work, in this case the title.

So I naturally felt totally responsible personally for the problem Conan is now experiencing, as all things in the NBC universe are interconnected (though of course the NBC universe has been disconnected from the actual universe, in order to insulate their important energy). I therefore phoned Sean Daniel, not in connection with my just-released Spielberg video (which includes a reference to Daniel of no small significance), but with an idea for a new NBC show. Sean could not come to the phone because he was busy driving past someone in an automobile or truck (I may be wildly conjecturing here), but someone representing himself as his Director of Development who decided to pick up the phone himself did speak to me.

I explained how it was I who had given to Sean that which led to "My Name Is Earl," through Sean's involvement. I mentioned the significance of this fact in light of the current NBC situation, and then described how to find my idea for a new NBC show: it is called "Time Colonies" and posted at Archive.Org, just search for it there.

The next day (aka Saturday, aka yesterday) someone who looked enough like Sean Daniel to actually be Sean Daniel drove by me as I drove down some random-enough Los Angeles boulevard.

What happened next is something nobody in the world could have seen coming! I turned my car around! My strange, bizarre thinking was that, if Sean had arranged to drive by me, he might have someone watching my reaction to this (as the producer of the "Mummy" movies, I figure Sean must make about $11.30 an hour, and so if he went without dessert for a few months he could probably save up enough money to pay someone to occupy the position of a "report-his-reaction-to-me" person, an important position in Hollywood to which many aspire).

Though I had turned my car around, I knew that it would be impossible for me to actually catch up with him to ask about his wife and kids and Spielberg and Earl and the weather. An instant later I came upon a strip mall, and this strip mall had a store called, "Timeland". Who could have seen this coming when Sean Daniel drove by me? It would have been better if Sean had arranged to drive past me nearby to a store called "My Name Is" or "Time Colonies", but under the circumstances.... of course, who could have guessed that I would have turned my car around? Nobody! Why would I?

At the strip mall, someone who looked enough like Rosanna Arquette to actually be Rosanna Arquette walked by. I now refer you to my November 22, 2008 blog entry with relation to its Rosanna Arquette reference.

I then left the strip mall and continued on, and eventually Courteney Cox Arquette almost definitely drove by me. Possibly also David Arquette. Possibly also CCA's BFF, Jennifer Aniston. Definitely Lisa Kudrow drove by at some point.

Also the guy who plays Ryan on "The Office". Also, a car from out of state with the word "Ryan" in the license plate drove in front of me for blocks and blocks. Out of state plates are often called upon by people who do these types of things, to expand the options when available California plates don't serve the purpose.

The Ryan stuff was likely in relation to Stuart Cornfeld (like Sean, Stuart is often referred to in my blogs), as I had just left a message for Stuart regarding Steven Spielberg. In my previous blog I state that "The Colbert Report" referenced my Spielberg video when it was a mere work-in-progress (they join in on Steinhoff things over there at Colbert from time to time, see previous blogs). This time it was "The Daily Show" (companion to "The Colbert Report") that came into it: the night following the message to Stuart, Jon Stewart (who I hope never has children or grandchildren given the first name of Stuart, out of concern that future generations will already have their hands full) interviewed Maggie Gyllenhaal, during which I recognized inside-reference to something specifically contained in my message. I occasionally encounter such cross-pollination between Cornfeld/"The Office"/"The Daily Show"-"The Colbert Report". One would tend to ascribe this to the fact that two "Office" cast members are "Daily Show" alum; Cornfeld starred "Office" star Jenna Fischer in "Blades of Glory"; other stuff.


DECEMBER 31
On December 31st I believe I drove by Jennifer Aniston, and then David Arquette, and then Jennifer Aniston, and Tim Robbins. Robbins was in "War of the Worlds," a movie I refer to in my Spielberg video. I certainly do not mention him here in relation to his role in "The Player", at least not at this time, and hopefully never in relation to my situation, Stuart and Sean love me, haven't spoken to either in years and years and years, but, well anyway, one sees how I might feel called upon to address "The Player" here.... Robbins was in "IQ" as well, which also contained something put there because of its relation to me. However, now I am clearly and stupidly deviating from any train of thought, or any that I am anywhere near to at the moment).


THE PRESIDENT, TERRORISM AND BABY OIL?
(or The Intersection Of Robert Johnson And Johnson & Johnson)

THE PRESIDENT
As is not unusual for me, Obama has lately been including things in speeches within 24 hours from when I put them forward. Huffington Post is back to not printing my comments from time to time but then something in the same comment shows up coming from someone on TV such as Bill Maher or the president within 24 hours, which says to me that they are guarding against the liability that would have resulted from my being able to point at it. Yes, I am aware that sometimes people do naturally have the same idea at the same time, especially if it's a likely and relevant surmisal. No, my experience and intelligence tells me this ain't that.

BABY OIL
On January 4th, I found on my desk an article of mail from Johnson & Johnson that was postmarked December 30th. Mail from Johnson & Johnson in my area is akin to the idea of a big bright red envelope amidst nothing but grey envelopes - it sticks out, a lot. The article of mail was meant for someone named "Jill Uhle" (pronounced "Yule", as in Christmas, as in Underpants Bomber), however, they had put "Jill Bacon" as her last name. The media-grabbing death of the Johnson & Johnson heiress occurred between December 30th and January 4th, i.e., between when the article of mail was posted and when it was received.

TERRORISM?
In my blog of 9.13.09, I refer to this how-could-they-have-known postmarking as something that happened in relation to a 911 clue I received. In my experience, which is not anything you're likely to find in the experience of most other people, this is potential reason for concern.

Perhaps: Obama, following what I described in my 9.13.09 blog, wanted to see my reaction to receiving an apparently similar clue - he could have used his authority to gain the December 30th postmark illegitimately after-the-fact. "Let's test him" might just be the kind of phrase they say from time to time out there where the president sits. Or: perhaps some sickos in organized crime wanted to kill a super rich woman (and by so doing intimidate other rich people) while threading my desk into it, through also copying an MO (modus operandi) I had described. Or: perhaps terrorists are doing something, suggested by the Yule/911 MO references? Can one totally ignore that possibility, after all that one has experienced from one being secretly super-important?

If so, what would Bacon, the last name they chose to use, mean here? Six degrees of Kevin Bacon? There is only one thing in the lexicon of all things Steinhoff (a lexicon that has frequently come into these matters, leading to the assumption of a database somewhere) that Bacon brings to mind: the famous artist, Francis Bacon, was very much in connection with Hugh Davies, the brother of a good friend of mine was I was growing up in Princeton, New Jersey, Phil. Hugh was practically his agent, did a book about him, did art shows starring him. As things first began happening between The Beatles and myself around when I first met Hugh's brother, Phil, in 1966 when I was ten, and as Phil's family is English, I have subsequently conjectured that there is a possibility of a connection to be made, that I have been led to think this in view of Phil's English background. There also exists a connection, from an earlier day, between Paul McCartney and Francis Bacon.

A few years ago, I sent something to Hugh to pass along to his brother Phil, which included a reference to the Beatles song, "Paperback Writer". Two days later McCartney discussed "Paperback Writer" with an interviewer. This is not the song that normally comes up every time McCartney does an interview.

Also Princeton-related is the fact that Johnson & Johnson's headquarters was in Princeton, as was conspicuous to those of us who lived there - one would periodically drive by their enormous, fenced off grounds, upon which one saw the giant "Johnson & Johnson" sign on the lawn, on Rosedale (which always brings to mind the Cream song, only not in this instance).

Business As Usual-ing The World To Death

Weight Of Part Of The World Time Again
Before I present the latest, 12.13.09 version of my work-in-progress video, "Spielberg and the Mall Man Factor," a little perspective:

(1) If through this video I can prove my singularly incredible, important influence on Spielberg, and

(2) It is widely known that Spielberg is among the most high profile, prominent Jewish people alive today, and

(3) Much of the world situation has to do with reacting to Arabic terrorists intent on going beyond blaming the State of Israel in their quest for somewhere to channel all their hatred, and in truth are motivated to a large degree by a hatred of all Jewish people, then

(4) My previous assertions that terrorist clues of potentially great significance have landed on my doorstep, that my name is on that kind of radar because of my significance, must truly demand action/investigation. In light of certain things, can rationales to the contrary be anything other than grotesquely self-serving in nature, and/or a reflection of stupidity, and/or a reflection of a tremendously corrupt nature?

I have no personal inclination to come within ten miles of this subject on this personal level. However, I recognize that it is unthinkable to bury what I know. I also recognize that it makes no sense that important terrorist clues would ever land on my doorstep, until one appreciates the degree of my importance in relation to Spielberg. This is why the following work-in-progress is so important.

So I guess I'm just saying have fun with it:




Talk And Silence Are Not Cheap
I sent the following email to an assistant of Sean Daniel's several days ago regarding this work-in-progress, and my email technology indicates he never even opened the email. So let's just put that into the category of something non-serious, such as junk mail problems, instead of seeing it as potentially impacting on more than one cares to think about:

I am writing to inquire as to whether Sean Daniel would be interested in appearing in "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man Factor'", my unconventional "video docu story" in which his involvement would unquestionably be instrumental. I know that if you mention my name to Sean in the same breath as the words "Mall Man", he would understand more than I could describe to you in ten pages, and be pleased to have the opportunity to consider my request. I recognize that, if Sean does choose to allow himself to engage in an on-camera discussion on this subject, it would likely only be out of his feeling for the truth, as this project has not the kind of official credential that is generally regarded as a prerequisite in the making of such a request. This project exists in relation to the secret (and admittedly unlikely-sounding) fact that, through Sean's involvement with both myself and his friend, Steven Spielberg, the latter has made my "Mall Man" video (and other things I have created) an important foundation point in a number of his works. And so, I offer you the beginning of this work-in-progress of mine: here I inserted the web address of where this work-in-progress was, however, the work-in-progress version included with this blog replaces it Thank you for your consideration,

Was 1993 Too Long Ago To Count?
Need I remind everyone that in February 1993, five days after my referenced video "Mall Man" was filmed at NYC's World Financial Center (the main part of the shoot), the World Trade Center, an overpass away, was attacked by terrorists. That time, they only made a dent. And that was after Spielberg was already underway with "Jurassic Park," a movie that originated from something I sent to Sean Daniel with a note that he forward it to Steven Spielberg (the first communication I ever asked be directed in this manner). My claim here is irrespective of who technically ending up penning that movie, or the "Jurassic Park" book, etc. I do not say I wrote it, I say that what I sent is what led to its creation. But why listen to me.

Let's Do Documentary

I am posting this blog as a sort of open letter/open invitation to both Sean Daniel and Steven Spielberg. This is my way of offering them a chance to appear in “Steven Spielberg And The ‘Mall Man’ Factor” (this being at present a work-in-progress). I am inviting them to appear as my interviewees (or interviewers of me, I am totally flexible). This offer expires when the video is completed.



And finally, a Happy Dostoyevsky’s Birthday to all!

Snow And Slush

I recently came up with a most funny concept, I believe, and dutifully sent it off to the two producers who I once knew and who used to always open my emails, Stuart Cornfeld and Sean Daniel. According to Didtheyreadit.com, technology I sometimes use so I know if my emails are possibly being read. Problem with Didtheyreadit.com is that, when received on some computers, I cannot detect whether my emails are being read. I know this because I've received emails in response to emails I've sent that presumably were never opened, according to Didtheyreadit.com. I suppose if you're rich enough and organized enough, you might even know which of your computers is on this "radar" or not, and then determine whether you wish to be picked up on the "radar", depending on the email content (which you could first learn by first opening the email off the radar). Nowadays, sometimes the emails sent to these producers are opened, sometimes not. According to Didtheyreadit.com.

But I digress, that is, if this is about the funny concept itself (and not about someone doing something with it), and so without further digression or ado or whatever that was:

Someone visiting at a friend's house finds that his friend has purchased a "DoggyBarkBark" device. This is a speaker you strap to your dog's neck that produces the bark of a ferocious dog, triggered by the sound of your dog barking. If your little lapdog is barking because it senses an intruder, the intruder imagines that scurrying around somewhere is a ferocious dog. The big problem is that whenever the lapdog hears the ferocious barking, he barks back, thus creating an endless barking situation. Initially the lapdog responds to the friend's visit with a little bark, thus triggering the situation and a shouted explanation from the dog owner. The dog owner explains also that the video that comes with the "DoggyBarkBark" device reassures the owner that their dog will eventually become accustomed to the sound of a ferocious dog barking and not respond. This may not occur for a few months.

That's the version of the idea I sent out to two people who in the past have channeled a huge number of my ideas to people who then make use of them (Daily Show, Colbert Report, SNL, movies, other TV shows, people who create new TV shows, CNN Presidential Election Night Coverage producers, etc.). I simply wish to add to the above version, that perhaps at some point the dog's owner might plug his lapdog's ears with his fingers to stop the vicious cycle. Which succeeds in creating a momentary cessation of barking. Eventually, numerous stops and starts of the vicious cycle of barking puts looks of very serious apprehension into the facial expression of the guest at any occurrence that might potentially set off the lapdog into letting loose with a tiny yelp. Accompanied by deep sighs of relief, too soon, a yelp was coming afterall. I imagine an idea this funny is worthy of, I don't know, at least 45 minutes of screen time. It's very symbolic too, I think, you know, big guns (ferocious dog barking sound) always at the ready to turn things upside down on behalf of seemingly innocuous imbeciles (the yelping lapdog).

Speaking of big guns at the ready to turn things upside down, I have to see the recent news item about Bruce Willis' ski resort burning down as being in relation to my "reopening the investigation" into the death of Princess Diana in several of my recent blogs, "Word To The Wise" and "I Read The Clues Today". While my experience in these matters makes the connection particularly clear to me, I do find there to be one element built into it that has written all over it, "if there's that coincidence then it's all coincidence issue closed no need for investigation all logical deductions are tainted by there being a coincidence in the mix". Sometimes one must even conjecture whether certain apparent coincidences haven't been planted for those stupid enough to regard coincidence as the answer to everything, sure to win an acquittal every time, no matter the crime, no matter the other evidence. The coincidence to which I refer here is that (and by the way to follow this you would need to actually read my blogs referenced here that regard all this): on the one hand I've previously connected Steve Holland with Bruce Willis, and put the "Zig Ski" license plate spotted in 1997 in relation to this due to context (without my knowing at the time of making the connection that Willis owned a ski lodge); and then you have the fact that Bruce Willis owns a ski lodge (according to my research, Willis purchased it in 1996). The big bad coincidence is that Steve Holland's first movie, "Better Off Dead", which I refer to in my blogs on this subject, uses skiing as a significant element. The explanation may be that a mutual interest in skiing is part of Holland in relation to Willis - I don't know.

I would also like to add, as I've stated before, that whoever committed one crime (eg., the assassination of Diana Spencer) was not necessarily involved in any of the others. However, it is clear to me that there was a consciousness on the part of the perpetrator(s) that there would be an apparent connection to be made between the various acts discussed. For all I know, Bruce Willis read my blog and then set fire to his own ski lodge. The perpetrator(s) in Diana's death were trying to create a trail leading to McCartney and/or Harrison from what they left on my doorstep ahead of time - this could increase the likelihood of a few Spartacuses standing up at this point in "our story".

Bits and Pieces Strike Back

Today I'm offering a few bits and pieces that cannot possibly be worthy of significance, unless you have already familiarized yourself with lots of other bits and pieces. The significance of this videoclip regarding Kevin Smith, Will Ferrell and Jason Lee is connected to several prime facts:

1. Jason Lee's first big movie, "Mallrats" (1995), which was made by Kevin Smith (aka Silent Bob) and produced by Sean Daniel, who was the first person from whom I learned of the college I attended, CalArts, was named after my video, "Mall Man" (1993). I have been pointing out well before "Mallrats" that every time Sean Daniel produces a movie one can find things derived from my work.
2. Ever since "Mallrats", Jason Lee, like Sean Daniel, always appears in projects that contain things derived from my work, or related to me in other ways. This includes "Underdog" (for which Jason Lee is the voice of Underdog) and "Alvin and the Chipmunks" (which stars Jason Lee as Dave), among other Jason Lee roles. The NBC TV sitcom in which Jason stars, "My Name Is Earl", began with my idea.
   
3. Will Ferrell is among a number of celebrities whose work invariably contains references to my work (though there have been a few Will Ferrell projects that do not).

As I said, these are mere bits and pieces, and require familiarity with other bits and pieces before they (cumulatively) contain recognizable significance in relation to me.

Another movie that includes a reference to my work, one I just had the opportunity to see yesterday for the first time when it made its premium TV channel (Showtime) premier, is "1408", which stars John Cusack and Tony Shaloub. Owing to Tony Shaloub being involved, I was immediately aware that I should be on the lookout (see the second-to-last paragraph of my 12.25.08 blog), based on my experiences. I then found this movie to make very pronounced use of the identical section of a Mozart piece that I use for the opening of Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's "Uncle's Dream" (one of my three more important live action videos). Though I would never say that anyone using this section of this Mozart piece was therefore doing so in relation to me, the Tony Shaloub connection had tipped me off in advance. Shorthand indicators are things an intelligent person appreciates. I then found this movie to share something further with this video work of mine, the recurring question of whether one is witnessing a reality or a dream. Again, I would not say that every time such a component contains significance in a work it is therefore being done in relation to my work. However, with the cumulative and shorthand aspects, I must conclude the Mozart was there for me. I should add that it often happens that John Cusack movies also include things for me. On this subject, Cusack's first big movie, "Better Off Dead," was written and directed by Steve Holland, who I knew at CalArts and who was the roommate of someone who was at that time a friend of mine.

They've Got Me Surrounded They Think

Here is the story of a camp counselor I met in 1971 named Sean, who once headed the film company David Geffen had before DreamWorks. I've edited it down to focus on the part of his story that connects to me and my first 29 billion trillion dollars:



And of course it doesn't end here.

The Opposite Of Socks

For those interested in a somewhat spelled-out version of Steven Spielberg in relation to me, I recommend reading my PDF-formatted "Mall Man, Spielberg, Steinhoff: Interesting Mall Man Facts". And yet the answers would not all leap out at one simply by doing this, one would have to go yet further, and view my "Mall Man" video. And even then the research would have to continue. You'd have to force yourself to see the Spielberg films referred to in the aforementioned PDF.

After that, I might just begin to think you're getting a little bit up to speed. But here the road gets tricky. You've come a long way (I almost hate myself for what I put you through!), but afterall, the route has been clearly mapped out for you, hasn't it, and that made it pretty easy, to be honest. Found it in yourself to want to continue? Okay, go see the August 2008 "Mummy 3", produced by Sean Daniel, someone you should by now feel acquainted with, or at least introduced to. In "Mummy 3" the treasure we are looking for is a tie-in back to me in relation to Spielberg, if you've been paying attention.

Well, one thing that's clearly put before anyone who sees both the return of the Mummy ("Mummy 3: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor", released 8/1/08, after a 7-year hiatus) and the return of Indiana Jones ("Indiana Jones And The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", released 5/22/08, approximately two months earlier, after a 19-year hiatus), is how both films emphasize father-mother-son as the fellow adventurers, the father and mother coming out of some kind of retirement. It seems highly unlikely that this is coincidence, especially because these two “serials” have always been placed side-by-side by film audiences, due to their both being sagas of the same genre and period, and both having been granted the status of being legendary due to their great popularity.

You’ve already read what I picked up on in the return of Indiana Jones as specifically being in continuity with Spielberg doing stuff in relation to me: the moment at the end when the hat of Indiana is picked up and returned to him (a moment to which the movie assigns special significance). And sure enough, I found something related to pick up on in the return of the Mummy – when a soldier in an army of resurrected dead (the army fighting for the good guys) picks up someone’s head and returns it to him. Although the film attaches absolutely no real significance to that moment, it was time-stopping in that it was the only direct moment of humor (outside of the characters’ self-aware humor contained in their banter), and as such, a knowing wink, a deliberate, momentary break in the suspension of disbelief.

Tonight was the season premier of “Smallville”, written by the same writing team responsible for the third Mummy (Gough and Millar). “Smallville” from time to time has been “known” to make inside references to my work. I watched tonight in anticipation of something in continuity with what I saw done for my benefit in the third Mummy film - and there it was: the handing to Clark Kent of a jacket, a moment expanded in the dialog as something to be seen in relation to the idea of his finally having a costume/Superman identity. Thus, a hat handed to Indiana moment, a head handed to the dead soldier moment, an anti-socks left behind on the bench moment.

"How To Endorse Obama If You Are Paul McCartney" Instruction Guide

In my previous blog I introduced an idea that may need no real introduction: that Paul McCartney should endorse Obama as an appropriate rechanneling of the optimism about the world generated by "The Beatles Movement" (Or was the term "Beatlemania"? I recall the adult establishment back then, via the media, found the term "Beatlemania" the acceptable way of framing things, as much for its non-authenticating of the seriousness of The Beatles as for any other reason). This time, a blog in which I will provide a "How To Endorse Obama If You Are Paul McCartney" Instruction Guide. A few related things first.

It is worth making note here of the fact that I was personally responsible the last time Paul McCartney made a (surprise) appearance on Saturday Night Live. Eight days before that "surprise" sketch about poison in which Paul McCartney appeared with Martin Short and Steve Martin, I emailed my Paul McCartney intermediary that Paul should do a comedy sketch based on my "Recipe For Fun". And so, an SNL sketch about poison featuring Paul McCartney was born. Without going into too many details about what prompted me to make that suggestion, I will say that it had something to do with a matter related to John Kerry (incidentally, it was Kerry who chose Obama to deliver the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which was the moment credited with bringing Obama onto the national "stage").

When I made that suggestion to Paul McCartney, I seriously expected something to result, based on previous experience. In this case, however, I appreciate that I am not asking of Paul the same kind of thing, and I have never let my power to make suggestions that are given serious consideration turn me into a bossy "now stand on your head" kind of person. I do not even know if Paul McCartney knows how to stand on his head. There are innumerable photos of McCartney doing different things, yet I do not recall seeing even one in which he stands on his head. By the way, I do not believe asking him to endorse Obama is in any way like asking him to stand on his head. Yet perhaps I digress.

During last year's SNL TV season, as well as during the TV season the year before, every single Saturday Night Live included references to sketch ideas I had submitted for each show. I submitted my ideas to two very SNL-connected movie producers, who I had first met well before they were big producers, Sean Daniel and Stuart Cornfeld, and each idea found its way, in some miniscule form, to the show for which it was intended. The exception was the show for which I intended my sketch idea, "In Orders We Trust":

http://www.angelfire.com/blog2/jonathandsteinhoff/page15.html

I later found what I consider to be the explanation: someone later wrote a book based on that sketch idea of mine, then sold it to Stuart Cornfeld's company, Red Hour, for development as a TV show. My surmisal is that a few extra steps were taken to bury Red Hour's association with my idea, by not forwarding my idea to SNL. I also wonder if an inclination to bury this trail is responsible for their having ceased to open my emails (according to my email opening detection technology, they stopped reading my emails in May, although there are also ways to avoid detection with this particular technology).

The season premier of SNL on September 13, 2008 reinforces what is indicated by the email opening detection technology: they did not include in any form my sketch idea for a show for the first time in two years (not counting the exception I've noted here).

The comedy sketch idea I submitted for September 13th, entitled "Beaver And Wally, The Flying Invisible Time Travelers", can be read at:

http://www.archive.org/details/BeaverAndWallyTheFlyingInvisibleTimeTravelers

And so, now my idea for how Paul McCartney can go about making known his suport of Obama. Obama was initially going to appear on the September 13th season premier of SNL, however, he changed his mind because Hurricane Ike was going on, and so it was deemed inappropriate for him to make an appearance on SNL at this time. When he does appear on SNL, Paul McCartney can make a surprise appearance on the same show. He can play Ward Cleaver in my above-referenced sketch idea - the role would work because it is so opposite to how one sees Paul McCartney, unless one imagines that aging has transformed him into a calm, pipe-smoking, paternal figure (that reminds me of the time I provided him with something he used on the opening track on "Flaming Pie", but that's another story).

At the end of the show in which Paul and Barrack appear, as everyone who appeared that night stands together on the stage, Paul uses hand gestures we've seen him use before with perfect finesse: Paul pats Barrack on the back, smiles at the audience, and while pointing at Barrack, does a "thumbs up" and head nod. It will unmistakably communicate an endorsement; it will avoid doing so in a stiff, excessively self-important manner; it will be rebroadcast on news shows everywhere so it won't matter how many people stay up to watch the last moment of the show. The coolness of the manner of endorsement will electrify it. The only thing wrong with the idea is that it could be traced back to this blog. Well, that's life when you're trying to save the world.