Yesterday I believe I was face to face with Sean Daniel, the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the college I attended. Sean is a good friend of Steven Spielberg and Paul McCartney, and has played an important role in my being a significant influence on both, and on many others as well (that is, from what I can tell Sean has been in this role, although he could be getting his instructions in these matters from McCartney or the Kremlin or the ghost of Abraham Lincoln or whoever). Sean is also one of the co-producers of the Mummy movies (Jim Jacks, one of my Facebook friends, being the other). Sean and I were in our cars and less than half a block from the "Mummies of the World" billboard in Hollywood, the proximity to this being something I discovered after I recognized him. He appeared extremely concerned about something, and I would have to wonder whether my previous blog article on Iran's president might have been a contributing factor. Depending on how much weight one attaches to it, that particular article could be quite a source of serious concern, therefore, you may want to make light of it for that reason alone, as life is too short, etc.
I also saw Jon Stewart yesterday. I may also have seen Rachel Maddow, however, I'm not sure on that. I have at various times been quite a significant influence on both. As a Facebook friend had just posted something about Maddow's MSNBC buddy Keith Olberman, my mentioning this Maddow moment could easily sound contrived to some for that reason alone (I'm sure no one has ever been out to make me sound contrived, and I must accept full responsibility for all the times my words have sounded contrived, it must be something I like to do!).
Relevant to this latest instance of my sounding contrived, I have recently found evidence that some person or persons behind the scenes has been coordinating certain actions of certain Facebook friends of mine, people who presumably have nothing to do with one another. This has on occasion become additionally complicated to the point where it has involved the coordinating of certain Facebook friends of certain Facebook friends to post things, which in turn provide my Facebook friends the opportunity to comment on or like certain postings that were actually made for me to see. For example, a Facebook friend of mine (someone I knew at CalArts) who is connected with Eric Clapton had the opportunity to like a posting his Facebook friend made, causing me to see his Facebook friend's posting. That Facebook friend of a Facebook friend posting happened to use words that are identical to words contained in a song I once did, and the timing of when they made their Facebook postings coincided perfectly with a matter going on in relation to my video for that song (I will not go into further detail, sorry). That Facebook friend of my Facebook friend is himself the Facebook friend of a woman (not my Facebook friend) who is herself the Facebook friend of another one of my Facebook friends (from when I was in high school in Princeon), and this woman did something similar in relation to that Princeton Facebook friend of mine (who is not in the least connected to the Facebook friend person I knew at CalArts). So, a situation involving two of my Facebook friends who aren't connected to one another, and one of each of their Facebook friends who themselves are Facebook friends with each other, all doing things aimed at me (again, I will not go into further detail, sorry again).
As I have mentioned before (e.g., my Sept. 6, 2008 blog article), this type of stuff is nothing new to me. The unfortunate thing for me in this Facebook instance is that, if I keep seeing postings people are aiming at me, I would nevertheless be seen as initiating things without invitation were I to react in any way, as if I'm someone who speaks when not spoken to (ooh, I must be imagining it all). Someday there will be two people, one who telephones the other but never emails him, and the other will be someone who always emails that other person but never telephones him. And a third person will be perfectly able to make the case that one is continuing to send emails to someone who has never sent an email back. And that the other is continuing to phone someone who has never phoned him back. Persona non gratis, I think it's called. A hell of a thing to do to the person in the middle of this U.S. entertainment industry/Iranian President stuff, that is, if you've been attaching any weight to the evidence.
Showing posts with label Spielberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spielberg. Show all posts
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
So I Says To Myself, Hey, I Don't Want The World Blowing Up, Right?
The Beginning
First of all, happy birthday to Ray Bradbury, author of "Farenheit 451", a book that tells the story of a government that burned books as part of its handle on how people should relate to things.
Think Of Adults Talking About Sex When They Don't Want The Child To Get It
I choose today to convey two things that the Iranian President secretly communicated to me, which I expect he did so that I might use my secret super-access to communicate them to pop culture's most super-important. His secret communications were accomplished by the employing of a lexicon of a generally secret nature, which he used in publicly made statements. This lexicon is used frequently by a certain set of people, and in this instance, was used in conjunction with an apparent awareness of my personal knowledge of certain events.
I certainly know how absurd this must sound to the general public, and I don't expect to win any new friends here (I would nevertheless appreciate the men in the white coats being kept at bay, thank you). This is written for those who have the advantage of already knowing that my powers of dissemination are keen in these matters, that I draw from vast experience (did I mention, it also helps to trust that I am sane). The value of this explanation regarding the Iranian President additionally requires that one already be aware of my singular, secret, super-importance over the years in relation to Steven Spielberg, the most internationally prominent Jewish man in the world today, my singular, secret, super-importance over the years in relation to Paul McCartney, and also my secret, super-importance over the years in relation to so many other super-important people in the world, who, through the massive effects of their creative inspiration, have so powerful an influence on the hearts and minds of so many people. Many share the belief that the current nature of things puts the power of certain major pop culture figures very much alongside tremendous political power, irrespective of whether these individuals would wish to exist in a political context (I am not so cynical as to believe their power is limited to occurring in a political context, and would appreciate not being lumped together with those who see everything through that prism).
I'm almost finished with my preface(s) - I hope it is understood that some things require more context-setting than others.
Though there may appear to be a path available to the reader for piecing together the specific basis for the conclusions I've drawn with regard to exactly what was communicated to me, i.e., though it may seem that you can figure out exactly what caused me to believe these specific things were communicated to me by the Iranian President, I am quite certain that, even at best, you would not know more than a part of the story, a part of the basis for my conclusions. You would not have enough facts in your possession to properly refute my conclusions, though you might think so (this statement is of course not meant to be taken as proof that I must therefore be right, I merely wish to state that you are not in a position to use deductive reasoning to determine whether I am right or wrong about having received these communications). Furthermore, the facts that some of you might possibly already have in your possession would likely mislead you into believing you have all the facts that led to my conclusions. This would be unfortunate, given the importance here and the consequential need for my words to be taken seriously. And so, the value of what I write here resides in your ability and inclination to trust in what I say. By now, there are some people who should. This is written for certain people within that set of people. There's a football of sorts here, and I'd like to see it reach the endzone, received by but one person if need be. An important investigation could perhaps be the upshot.
The Middle And The End
The Iranian President has pointed to two moments in two films. Through this, he has demonstrated the desire to solicit support for a position regarding nuclear power in his country. He has relied upon my proximity to the most influential as his means of carrying his message. I will carry his message here, but again, I must emphasize, I do not consider him a sincere person, and liken his approach more to that of the convoluted government in Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451", than to that of a world leader seeking a way to make his true and honest feelings known to those who are so influential in shaping popular culture.
The two moments are both contained in films by famed director Tim Burton. My dissemination of the references through the Iranian President's use of a lexicon was assured by his repeatedly drawing from the work of the same filmmaker, a fellow CalArts alumni who knew some of the same people as myself and who has himself made use of secret references known to few (as previously stated, there has come to be a lexicon that is used frequently by certain people). Some of the secret references made by the Iranian President are identical in both instances, further reinforcing my conviction with regard to how to read things. And though both of these secret statements by the Iranian President have an obvious political significance, I would have the same conviction that I had correctly read his secretly made statements even if they had turned out to be on the subject of the old woman who lived in a shoe rather than political matters. He did not have anything to say about the old woman who lived in a shoe, incidentally.
The first is the scene in "Mars Attacks!", where a dove of peace, a gift from our world to the Martians, triggers a massacre of those presenting the dove because it is supposedly misperceived as an act of aggression. The second is the scene in "Alice In Wonderland", where the Mad Hatter finds use of a weapon repugnant because it goes against his nature.
Why would the Iranian President prefer this avenue? He prefers to inject the poison of his propaganda into our reservoir (our most influential), than to be so clearly seen as engaged in propagandizing the world into seeing him as this innocent little lamb. He sees vulnerability/opportunity in the idealism of our most important creative artists.
First of all, happy birthday to Ray Bradbury, author of "Farenheit 451", a book that tells the story of a government that burned books as part of its handle on how people should relate to things.
Think Of Adults Talking About Sex When They Don't Want The Child To Get It
I choose today to convey two things that the Iranian President secretly communicated to me, which I expect he did so that I might use my secret super-access to communicate them to pop culture's most super-important. His secret communications were accomplished by the employing of a lexicon of a generally secret nature, which he used in publicly made statements. This lexicon is used frequently by a certain set of people, and in this instance, was used in conjunction with an apparent awareness of my personal knowledge of certain events.
I certainly know how absurd this must sound to the general public, and I don't expect to win any new friends here (I would nevertheless appreciate the men in the white coats being kept at bay, thank you). This is written for those who have the advantage of already knowing that my powers of dissemination are keen in these matters, that I draw from vast experience (did I mention, it also helps to trust that I am sane). The value of this explanation regarding the Iranian President additionally requires that one already be aware of my singular, secret, super-importance over the years in relation to Steven Spielberg, the most internationally prominent Jewish man in the world today, my singular, secret, super-importance over the years in relation to Paul McCartney, and also my secret, super-importance over the years in relation to so many other super-important people in the world, who, through the massive effects of their creative inspiration, have so powerful an influence on the hearts and minds of so many people. Many share the belief that the current nature of things puts the power of certain major pop culture figures very much alongside tremendous political power, irrespective of whether these individuals would wish to exist in a political context (I am not so cynical as to believe their power is limited to occurring in a political context, and would appreciate not being lumped together with those who see everything through that prism).
I'm almost finished with my preface(s) - I hope it is understood that some things require more context-setting than others.
Though there may appear to be a path available to the reader for piecing together the specific basis for the conclusions I've drawn with regard to exactly what was communicated to me, i.e., though it may seem that you can figure out exactly what caused me to believe these specific things were communicated to me by the Iranian President, I am quite certain that, even at best, you would not know more than a part of the story, a part of the basis for my conclusions. You would not have enough facts in your possession to properly refute my conclusions, though you might think so (this statement is of course not meant to be taken as proof that I must therefore be right, I merely wish to state that you are not in a position to use deductive reasoning to determine whether I am right or wrong about having received these communications). Furthermore, the facts that some of you might possibly already have in your possession would likely mislead you into believing you have all the facts that led to my conclusions. This would be unfortunate, given the importance here and the consequential need for my words to be taken seriously. And so, the value of what I write here resides in your ability and inclination to trust in what I say. By now, there are some people who should. This is written for certain people within that set of people. There's a football of sorts here, and I'd like to see it reach the endzone, received by but one person if need be. An important investigation could perhaps be the upshot.
The Middle And The End
The Iranian President has pointed to two moments in two films. Through this, he has demonstrated the desire to solicit support for a position regarding nuclear power in his country. He has relied upon my proximity to the most influential as his means of carrying his message. I will carry his message here, but again, I must emphasize, I do not consider him a sincere person, and liken his approach more to that of the convoluted government in Ray Bradbury's "Farenheit 451", than to that of a world leader seeking a way to make his true and honest feelings known to those who are so influential in shaping popular culture.
The two moments are both contained in films by famed director Tim Burton. My dissemination of the references through the Iranian President's use of a lexicon was assured by his repeatedly drawing from the work of the same filmmaker, a fellow CalArts alumni who knew some of the same people as myself and who has himself made use of secret references known to few (as previously stated, there has come to be a lexicon that is used frequently by certain people). Some of the secret references made by the Iranian President are identical in both instances, further reinforcing my conviction with regard to how to read things. And though both of these secret statements by the Iranian President have an obvious political significance, I would have the same conviction that I had correctly read his secretly made statements even if they had turned out to be on the subject of the old woman who lived in a shoe rather than political matters. He did not have anything to say about the old woman who lived in a shoe, incidentally.
The first is the scene in "Mars Attacks!", where a dove of peace, a gift from our world to the Martians, triggers a massacre of those presenting the dove because it is supposedly misperceived as an act of aggression. The second is the scene in "Alice In Wonderland", where the Mad Hatter finds use of a weapon repugnant because it goes against his nature.
Why would the Iranian President prefer this avenue? He prefers to inject the poison of his propaganda into our reservoir (our most influential), than to be so clearly seen as engaged in propagandizing the world into seeing him as this innocent little lamb. He sees vulnerability/opportunity in the idealism of our most important creative artists.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Maybe You Should First Explain To Me What Being The Ninth Beatle Will Entail
Hail, Hail, Chicago's All Here
I stated in my May 1st, 2010 blog (readable on this site, and also to be found in Volume 3 of my blogs published/copyrighted in May 2010 at Archive.Org):
"In The Future All My Troubles Seem So Far Away
"A new event has occurred in connection with my observations that someone behind-the-scenes at the Huffington Post website is very much 'on' to my secret super-importance (or partially on?)...."
Something not unrelated to this observation about Huffington Post occurred today. Ariana Huffington printed an article entitled, "'Third World America' Excerpt: Michigan Father Commutes To Chicago For Work". Here is what I find particularly interesting about that article (not counting the article itself) - just two days ago, in my August 8th blog, I stated:
How many movies are there where the guy with the private airplane shocks someone by saying, "Hey, let's have dinner in Chicago!"
So, if you put two days ago together with today, and sprinkle in some May 1st, you might have to see something, I would think. I wouldn't assume that the Mayor of Los Angeles, who is one of my few "fans" at Huffington Post (they have fans for when you comment on an article - I comment as either JonathanDS or JonathanDS2U), has a proper vantage point for putting these things together to see the composite whole I'm drawing, but that's the lot of those who are fans of my comments at Huffington Post without being fans of my own blog articles. I only regret that there is little or nothing I can do for these sad unfortunates. Maybe I should direct people to these blogs sometime when I'm commenting on a Huffington Post article. Let's see, how about, "I too am concerned about the economy, in fact, I'm the 9th Beatle, I believe, with no hope of ever becoming the 5th Beatle."
Yes I'm Gonna Be A Person Who Remembers Not To Run Out of Gas Next Time
Also possibly in relation to my blog article of two days ago, on my way to work today I saw an uninhabited car pulled over onto the shoulder of the road, and found the car seemed to very much resemble the car I saw that guy driving, that guy I mentioned in my two days ago blog article. I don't know if there was anything to read from that, though today's car did have some sort of very small sign, like a large post-it note, taped to a side window (I didn't stop to read it). If I were better at identifying fancy black sports cars I might have something more definite to offer here, however, ignorance about cars remains one of my few guilty pleasures and I don't see this changing much in the future.
I suspect this could be one of those bits where first Paul McCartney shows up somewhere for my benefit (as described in my August 8th blog article), then someone takes over from there - I'm supposed to attach something to whatever his assigned delegate puts in front of me. Oh look, let's put a car like the one Paul drove behind him when he's on his way to the mountains. Now let's put the car in front of him when he's on his way to the supermarket. Don't even need to put McCartney in the car. Gee, this is fun, are you keeping close track of the look on his face when he sees it's not a Beatle?
I once knew a girl who knew/knows Paul McCartney. Her photograph was "once" on the inside album sleeve of Clapton's "Slowhand" on account of me (I was the only one given in the CalArts dorm that year whose room that had a brown corkboard bulletin board, and the inside Clapton album sleeve featured photos apparently tacked to a brown corkboard bulletin board; the previous year I had the dorm room with the different looking carpet because Amy Wexler, the daughter of Jerry Wexler, the head of Clapton's record company, had destroyed the carpet the year it was her room, etc., etc. - I've explained all this before in earlier blogs). God forbid the "Slowhand" girl should be the McCartney assigned delegate who gets to leave cars on road shoulders for me to make things out of. A conversation I once had with her led to Tom Hanks' TV sitcom, "Bosom Buddies" (also something I've described before), and yet she has never come forward and vouched for my assertion that I'm secretly super-important, or done anything about it. Would Mary Tyler Moore behave this way? I wonder if this is the sort of thing McCartney and Spielberg laugh about together in the Hamptons, where they're reportedly next-door neighbors.
Earl Gray Area
Nothing happened in connection with me on tonight's "Memphis Beat", which in itself is worth noting. I do have an observation, nevertheless, just in case they thought they were doing something that I would find worth noticing. Can't leave them hanging if that was the case, but I emphasize, I expect it never happened, is just a coincidence if even that, yet just the same, I have to take into account the possibility:
In my August 4th blog, in the section entitled, "His World", I pointed out a moment in one of my major little videos, "Gosk 2" by including a videoclip excerpt, as it was in connection with something or another (read it/view it). In that same "Gosk 2" scene, one of the characters from the planet Klug finds that his girl is all taken by the music being played by an Earthling, and he is not delighted. One finds a certain correlation made in "Gosk" to racial tension vs. embracing racial differences. [If one takes the trouble to read my entire 1993 full-length screenplay that I've posted at Archive.Org, one will in fact find a very positive message on that subject, where things culminates in all the people of Earth and all the people of Klug feeling great love for one another. It's really heartwarming, someone should make this movie, though surprisingly it gets treated more like a car by the side of the road with parts worth stealing.]
And so in tonight's "Memphis Beat", a white character is not too delighted that his former girl is all taken by the music played to her by a black character. We suspect race might have contributed to his killing his former girl and framing the black guy, though thankfully they are always careful never to take us too far into the deep, underlying motivations of a killer, lest it transform us all into killers (some of us even feel the need to stay away from people who enjoy mimicking Jack Nicholson's "Here's Johnny!" from "The Shining", not to mention the Barney song, but I digress).
Also on tonight's "Memphis Beat" we find a snow globe. In the scene in "Gosk 2" that immediately precedes the "Gosk 2" scene to which I've just referred, one of the characters observes, with regard to little white flakes floating around, "I think I know where all these little white flakes come from". However, in truth, "Gosk 2" is not set inside a snow globe, which is only one of the places where the correlation falls apart.
I stated in my May 1st, 2010 blog (readable on this site, and also to be found in Volume 3 of my blogs published/copyrighted in May 2010 at Archive.Org):
"In The Future All My Troubles Seem So Far Away
"A new event has occurred in connection with my observations that someone behind-the-scenes at the Huffington Post website is very much 'on' to my secret super-importance (or partially on?)...."
Something not unrelated to this observation about Huffington Post occurred today. Ariana Huffington printed an article entitled, "'Third World America' Excerpt: Michigan Father Commutes To Chicago For Work". Here is what I find particularly interesting about that article (not counting the article itself) - just two days ago, in my August 8th blog, I stated:
How many movies are there where the guy with the private airplane shocks someone by saying, "Hey, let's have dinner in Chicago!"
So, if you put two days ago together with today, and sprinkle in some May 1st, you might have to see something, I would think. I wouldn't assume that the Mayor of Los Angeles, who is one of my few "fans" at Huffington Post (they have fans for when you comment on an article - I comment as either JonathanDS or JonathanDS2U), has a proper vantage point for putting these things together to see the composite whole I'm drawing, but that's the lot of those who are fans of my comments at Huffington Post without being fans of my own blog articles. I only regret that there is little or nothing I can do for these sad unfortunates. Maybe I should direct people to these blogs sometime when I'm commenting on a Huffington Post article. Let's see, how about, "I too am concerned about the economy, in fact, I'm the 9th Beatle, I believe, with no hope of ever becoming the 5th Beatle."
Yes I'm Gonna Be A Person Who Remembers Not To Run Out of Gas Next Time
Also possibly in relation to my blog article of two days ago, on my way to work today I saw an uninhabited car pulled over onto the shoulder of the road, and found the car seemed to very much resemble the car I saw that guy driving, that guy I mentioned in my two days ago blog article. I don't know if there was anything to read from that, though today's car did have some sort of very small sign, like a large post-it note, taped to a side window (I didn't stop to read it). If I were better at identifying fancy black sports cars I might have something more definite to offer here, however, ignorance about cars remains one of my few guilty pleasures and I don't see this changing much in the future.
I suspect this could be one of those bits where first Paul McCartney shows up somewhere for my benefit (as described in my August 8th blog article), then someone takes over from there - I'm supposed to attach something to whatever his assigned delegate puts in front of me. Oh look, let's put a car like the one Paul drove behind him when he's on his way to the mountains. Now let's put the car in front of him when he's on his way to the supermarket. Don't even need to put McCartney in the car. Gee, this is fun, are you keeping close track of the look on his face when he sees it's not a Beatle?
I once knew a girl who knew/knows Paul McCartney. Her photograph was "once" on the inside album sleeve of Clapton's "Slowhand" on account of me (I was the only one given in the CalArts dorm that year whose room that had a brown corkboard bulletin board, and the inside Clapton album sleeve featured photos apparently tacked to a brown corkboard bulletin board; the previous year I had the dorm room with the different looking carpet because Amy Wexler, the daughter of Jerry Wexler, the head of Clapton's record company, had destroyed the carpet the year it was her room, etc., etc. - I've explained all this before in earlier blogs). God forbid the "Slowhand" girl should be the McCartney assigned delegate who gets to leave cars on road shoulders for me to make things out of. A conversation I once had with her led to Tom Hanks' TV sitcom, "Bosom Buddies" (also something I've described before), and yet she has never come forward and vouched for my assertion that I'm secretly super-important, or done anything about it. Would Mary Tyler Moore behave this way? I wonder if this is the sort of thing McCartney and Spielberg laugh about together in the Hamptons, where they're reportedly next-door neighbors.
Earl Gray Area
Nothing happened in connection with me on tonight's "Memphis Beat", which in itself is worth noting. I do have an observation, nevertheless, just in case they thought they were doing something that I would find worth noticing. Can't leave them hanging if that was the case, but I emphasize, I expect it never happened, is just a coincidence if even that, yet just the same, I have to take into account the possibility:
In my August 4th blog, in the section entitled, "His World", I pointed out a moment in one of my major little videos, "Gosk 2" by including a videoclip excerpt, as it was in connection with something or another (read it/view it). In that same "Gosk 2" scene, one of the characters from the planet Klug finds that his girl is all taken by the music being played by an Earthling, and he is not delighted. One finds a certain correlation made in "Gosk" to racial tension vs. embracing racial differences. [If one takes the trouble to read my entire 1993 full-length screenplay that I've posted at Archive.Org, one will in fact find a very positive message on that subject, where things culminates in all the people of Earth and all the people of Klug feeling great love for one another. It's really heartwarming, someone should make this movie, though surprisingly it gets treated more like a car by the side of the road with parts worth stealing.]
And so in tonight's "Memphis Beat", a white character is not too delighted that his former girl is all taken by the music played to her by a black character. We suspect race might have contributed to his killing his former girl and framing the black guy, though thankfully they are always careful never to take us too far into the deep, underlying motivations of a killer, lest it transform us all into killers (some of us even feel the need to stay away from people who enjoy mimicking Jack Nicholson's "Here's Johnny!" from "The Shining", not to mention the Barney song, but I digress).
Also on tonight's "Memphis Beat" we find a snow globe. In the scene in "Gosk 2" that immediately precedes the "Gosk 2" scene to which I've just referred, one of the characters observes, with regard to little white flakes floating around, "I think I know where all these little white flakes come from". However, in truth, "Gosk 2" is not set inside a snow globe, which is only one of the places where the correlation falls apart.
Friday, July 23, 2010
It's A Matter Of Principle, Or Money, One Of Those
Two things to report which, together, may perhaps add up to five things, or ten things, or one thing, depending on your attitude (personally I think of them as two things that shouldn't be added together at all, but then I never combine the money I make on Tuesday with the money I make on Thursday, so what do I know):
What Does This Have To Do With Iran And Pakistan?
I just saw Barry Levinson's 2008 quite enjoyable movie, "What Just Happened", it being that it has just made its way to Showtime. It stars Bruce Willis, Stanley Tucci, Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn.
I have in the past been no small influence on works that involve them all, including Levinson. And I was an influence again here. The particularly interesting thing in this instance is that it ties in fairly directly with my influence on Spielberg, as related in my December 26, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor", which is posted at Archive.Org. I've also incorporated into the following videoclip, which primarily regards "What Just Happened", another videoclip that I featured with my January 30, 2010 blog ("May The Force Be Tested For Possible Negative Side Effects"), as both subjects share an addendum-like quality with relation to my aforementioned Dec. 26, 2009 video:
I do not consider this videoclip self-explanatory, but rather as something that should be seen in conjunction with "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor".
Money Needed For Bread And Thumbtacks
(I'll Worry About Buying Protein And A Bulletin Board Some Other Time)
On Wednesday, July 22nd I posted at Archive.Org a comedy concept I came up with, "Following The Money Ridiculously". Someday it could perhaps redefine everyone's very relationship to dramatic tension and thereby influence the lives of millions, if only the perfect inspiration were to somehow inhabit this concept.... Well, in any event, I don't think it's too bad an idea. I must admit, generally I consider it simplistic to lump all matters relating to money into one bag, but sometimes one just wants to momentarily shove things together into the same context for the hell of it. I'm sure that, whatever specific elements might someday get glued together through the development of this concept, those elements will eventually find some way to unglue themselves from it.
What Does This Have To Do With Iran And Pakistan?
I just saw Barry Levinson's 2008 quite enjoyable movie, "What Just Happened", it being that it has just made its way to Showtime. It stars Bruce Willis, Stanley Tucci, Robert DeNiro and Sean Penn.
I have in the past been no small influence on works that involve them all, including Levinson. And I was an influence again here. The particularly interesting thing in this instance is that it ties in fairly directly with my influence on Spielberg, as related in my December 26, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor", which is posted at Archive.Org. I've also incorporated into the following videoclip, which primarily regards "What Just Happened", another videoclip that I featured with my January 30, 2010 blog ("May The Force Be Tested For Possible Negative Side Effects"), as both subjects share an addendum-like quality with relation to my aforementioned Dec. 26, 2009 video:
I do not consider this videoclip self-explanatory, but rather as something that should be seen in conjunction with "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor".
Money Needed For Bread And Thumbtacks
(I'll Worry About Buying Protein And A Bulletin Board Some Other Time)
On Wednesday, July 22nd I posted at Archive.Org a comedy concept I came up with, "Following The Money Ridiculously". Someday it could perhaps redefine everyone's very relationship to dramatic tension and thereby influence the lives of millions, if only the perfect inspiration were to somehow inhabit this concept.... Well, in any event, I don't think it's too bad an idea. I must admit, generally I consider it simplistic to lump all matters relating to money into one bag, but sometimes one just wants to momentarily shove things together into the same context for the hell of it. I'm sure that, whatever specific elements might someday get glued together through the development of this concept, those elements will eventually find some way to unglue themselves from it.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Crazy Time
“Attempted” Bombing Of Times Square, 5/1/10 –
My Special Information That Would Take
You 30 Minutes To Get Through
You 30 Minutes To Get Through
This is where I ask you for 30 minutes of your time without even having the good manners to wear a vacuum cleaner salesman outfit. This is where I beseech you to follow-through on scrutinizing my evidence, so that you might see proof of something that has to be…. too extraordinary for you to believe, I give up. No. I will continue. This evidence will cause those among you who are truly honest, very intelligent, and completely non-dogmatic to see something that happened to me that is of huge concern to all (only in the sense that the Pakistani Taliban could win over the Pakistanis and take control of their nuclear arsenal). Unfortunately, I personally must doubt that anyone within the “sound of my voice” will give that 30 minutes. Or will even admit that, to have an opinion of the things I contend, should such an opinion be formed without following-through here, would thusly be formed out of willful ignorance. I tend towards expecting that you simply will not know how to hear what the evidence screams. And yet, here I go.
1. 14 minutes, 30 seconds of your time
See my video that establishes the extraordinary fact that I, a graduate of the CalArts School of Film/Video, having first learned of CalArts from a very big Steven Spielberg friend, producer Sean Daniel, have come to be a secret, super-major influence on Steven Spielberg to an unparalleled degree:
"Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor"
http://www.archive.org/details/StevenSpielbergAndThemallManFactor
(posted at Archive.Org 12/26/09)
2. 20 seconds of your time
Consider that Steven Spielberg is perhaps the single most prominent living Jewish person in the world today, and how that might relate to the crusade (jihad) of Arabic terrorists against Israel, a jihad that includes a hatred of the world assimilating Jewish people/accepting those who have become important “emissaries” of Jewish people in the world, emissaries such as Steven Spielberg.
3. 5 minutes, 56 seconds of your time
See my video that was ostensibly prompted by secret, significant usage of my material in the final episode of the TV sitcom, “3rd Rock From The Sun”, as it is part of the picture I am drawing, members of the jury. And whether or not you can believe this version of an important cause and effect regarding that TV show finale, the specifics of that contention can clearly be identified as having been implied at least as of the date of this video. The material specifically implied regards the investigation of an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street (see the following item, Item 4, below), a situation contained in both my material and in the “3rd Rock” finale (this assumes you have seen the "3rd Rock" finale; or find a way to view the "3rd Rock" finale; or read a synopsis of the "3rd Rock" finale).
"Come On, French Stewart, You Owe Me!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlH2Ln7GlmU
(posted at YouTube 4/29/10)
4. 1 minute of your time
The reference implied in the video in the preceding item (Item 3, above) can be found in my 1993 screenplay, “Gosk, The Screenplay”, which was posted at Archive.Org 7/3/07:
http://ia350641.us.archive.org/1/items/GoskTheScreenplay/
The New York City parking space is first referred to on screenplay page 53/pdf page 55. The investigation of the unoccupied vehicle parked on a busy New York City street develops on screenplay page 58/pdf page 60.
5. 30 seconds of your time
Consider that the text description that accompanied the 4/29/10 video posting referred to in Item 3 (above) included the following: “Meanwhile, the Iranian President has joined countless others in secretly intertwining their statements to things regarding me, while I'm supposed to sit there and not call in anything from anyone. Why doesn't he pick on Spielberg, or is that his secret idea to begin with.”
6. 10 seconds of your time
Consider that two days later, on 5/1/10, an unoccupied vehicle parked on a busy New York City street was investigated, the focus of a perceived attempt by the Pakistani Taliban to blow up Times Square. Or was it an attempt to have an unoccupied vehicle parked on a busy New York City street investigated?
7. 20 seconds of your time
Consider that the Pakistani Taliban alternated between asserting that the perpetrator acted at their instigation, or as someone who acted alone (according to various reports).
8. 5 minutes, 54 seconds of your time
In the one other work of mine also referred to in my video posted 4/29/10 (Item 3, above), the ending humorously focuses on the question of whether or not the perpetrator acted alone, or at the instigation of someone else.
“In Orders We Trust”
http://www.archive.org/details/InOrdersWeTrustvideo
(video posted at Archive.Org 4/7/10)
(initial screenplay posted at Archive.Org 8/11/09 –
http://www.archive.org/details/InOrdersWeTrust)
9. 1 minute, 20 seconds of your time
Deeply contemplate all of this, then fall back on the idea that Spielberg would never do something this far off your radar in the first place, not to mention the absurdity of the idea that the Pakistani Taliban would want to mix it up with a super high-profile Jewish man's secret super-major influence by working things out to where I would have to be shouting about this stuff.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
No Words For What WAS Set Off
A few things, each of identical significance (or perhaps not):
New Steinhoff Song
I'm pleased to announce my newest song, "Born Ahead", which can be experienced at archive.org. I hope everyone who hears it enjoys it in the identical way and to the identical degree as everyone else who hears it (whatever way and degree that may be).
Why Is Today Different From All Other Days
As my mother passed away in February 1991, I am unable to experience this holiday in the identical way as everyone else. However, as the person who first told me of CalArts, the college I attended, is Sean Daniel (Spielberg and McCartney friend, former Lennon friend), and Sean Daniel is the producer of the "Mummy" movies, I will take this opportunity to wish him a Happy Mummy's Day. (I am not in touch with Sean, but would appreciate it if someone could pass along my message.)
Fish Wearing Goggles
The writers of the TV show "Smallville" (who also wrote "Mummy 3") have once again included an inside-reference for my benefit. However, this one is identical to the way-off-the-radar ones they do in relation to me, as opposed to being identical to the ones they do where I can point to evidence (evidence for those who know how to add 2 plus 2.2, that is). I am flying so below the public's radar here that I expect to be making more ripples in the ocean than anywhere else. Yet somehow I feel obliged to describe it, lest the powers that be (them what done it) feel I'm no fun anymore, and then what would happen to me?
I've previously described how oftentimes the "Smallville" episodes containing inside-references to me are done in conjunction with episodes of the TV show "Medium" airing that same night, and this is true regarding Friday, May 7th. In fact, you may wish to reread my "Smallville" mention in my May 1st blog and the whole T-shirt example there. I'm getting the feeling they had their own personal T-shirt vendor this time around.
In the May 7th episode of "Smallville", Lois Lane pushes for Clark and her to go on a "break" from each other (this develops into a breakup). Everyone watching heard something in that moment that brought to mind the historic episode of "Friends", the one that led to endless discussions/consequences of what it meant for them to be on a break.
What I heard, being someone who receives frequent, secret nudges from the "Smallville" folk, was a reference to the main side-plot in that same "Friends" episode, where Monica can only date someone if his translator accompanies them everywhere. This side-plot was based on my 1996 story, "The Translator". Someone (Raphael Middleman) once published my story in their little magazine (the May 1996 premiere issue of "The Inspector"). There were numerous reasons back then for me to deduce that "Friends" would use my material, even though I had not yet starred a "Friends" insider in my (1998) "Gosk 2". One reason: one of my sister's oldest friends, Claire Josephson, is the sister of Nancy Josephson, International Creative Management VP, the woman who first brought the "Friends" writers to California, which directly led to the creation of "Friends".
In "The Translator", newlyweds who don't speak the same language receive a translator as a wedding gift. He accompanies them EVERYWHERE, which much displeases the wife, causing her to secretly murder him, though it means she and her husband will not understand each other. They didn't need to understand each other when they first met, so why now?
Because my story was included as part of the very important initial "Friends" "break" episode, the "Smallville" "break" set me looking to see if there was something I should connect to this. As has often been the case, I found the answer in that night's "Medium": a husband murders someone about to communicate to his wife the key to understanding him. In "The Translator", the murder of the translator by the wife means she does not want to have around the person with the key to their understanding each other.
What Were They Trying To Do
What was the real meaning behind the Pakistani Taliban's Times Square "incident"? It was announced by the White House today that it was in fact the Taliban who were involved in the Times Square "attempted" bombing. Are we to believe that they truly meant to succeed, based on what we've learned about the hard-to-fail-to-anticipate reasons behind why it failed? Might not this lead the discussion to the question of what possible Taliban objective WAS achieved by only succeeding in having people investigate an empty car parked on a busy New York City street on May 1st?
As I described in my May 1st and May 2nd blogs, my April 28th posting on YouTube regarded a scene where an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street is investigated. And my description accompanying that YouTube posting referred to the Iranian President.
I find that the degree to which there has been NO follow-up investigation regarding what I've been saying (shouting) for a while now looks VERY bad with this new terrorist occurrence, one that could have turned into the second 9/11. It suggests that there is a willful act of suppressing the investigation I seek. How close to the doorstep of Steven Spielberg must this suppression seem, as such an investigation would have to be based in part on my assertion that I am secretly super-important in relation to the work of Spielberg, the most prominent Jewish man, that therefore I am someone on the radar of those who act out of anti-Israeli/Jewish sentiment. What happens when my super-importance is secret - how can I instigate an investigation when that fact is unknown?
Does this Times Square bombing "attempt" light a fire under Spielberg and others? Is this all potentially damaging to key pillars/foundation stones of Hollywood Royalty? Extremely damaging? Fatally damaging? The suppression of such important investigations into terrorism, just to cover their astors?
Should we conjecture that the appeal of being able to generate this kind of issue in a big way became great enough to the Taliban/al Queda that it was chosen over an actual bombing - an alternative course? Especially if at heart they'd rather not kill in reality if they can poison the reputations of our "royalty", which would seriously undermine an important part of our moral foundation (yes, the product of Hollywood royalty portends to speak to the world's fundamental ethics).
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and etc. Would they poison our lives better by lighting this fire under us? Isn't it time to put aside this astor-covering of Hollywood Royalty's questionable behavior towards me, so that the truth about my secret super-importance can render plausible this basis for a real investigation of major terrorist acts? Or must we wait for something God awful to happen, when an investigation could have prevented it? I guess that's a chance some bastions of society are willing to take.
New Steinhoff Song
I'm pleased to announce my newest song, "Born Ahead", which can be experienced at archive.org. I hope everyone who hears it enjoys it in the identical way and to the identical degree as everyone else who hears it (whatever way and degree that may be).
Why Is Today Different From All Other Days
As my mother passed away in February 1991, I am unable to experience this holiday in the identical way as everyone else. However, as the person who first told me of CalArts, the college I attended, is Sean Daniel (Spielberg and McCartney friend, former Lennon friend), and Sean Daniel is the producer of the "Mummy" movies, I will take this opportunity to wish him a Happy Mummy's Day. (I am not in touch with Sean, but would appreciate it if someone could pass along my message.)
Fish Wearing Goggles
The writers of the TV show "Smallville" (who also wrote "Mummy 3") have once again included an inside-reference for my benefit. However, this one is identical to the way-off-the-radar ones they do in relation to me, as opposed to being identical to the ones they do where I can point to evidence (evidence for those who know how to add 2 plus 2.2, that is). I am flying so below the public's radar here that I expect to be making more ripples in the ocean than anywhere else. Yet somehow I feel obliged to describe it, lest the powers that be (them what done it) feel I'm no fun anymore, and then what would happen to me?
I've previously described how oftentimes the "Smallville" episodes containing inside-references to me are done in conjunction with episodes of the TV show "Medium" airing that same night, and this is true regarding Friday, May 7th. In fact, you may wish to reread my "Smallville" mention in my May 1st blog and the whole T-shirt example there. I'm getting the feeling they had their own personal T-shirt vendor this time around.
In the May 7th episode of "Smallville", Lois Lane pushes for Clark and her to go on a "break" from each other (this develops into a breakup). Everyone watching heard something in that moment that brought to mind the historic episode of "Friends", the one that led to endless discussions/consequences of what it meant for them to be on a break.
What I heard, being someone who receives frequent, secret nudges from the "Smallville" folk, was a reference to the main side-plot in that same "Friends" episode, where Monica can only date someone if his translator accompanies them everywhere. This side-plot was based on my 1996 story, "The Translator". Someone (Raphael Middleman) once published my story in their little magazine (the May 1996 premiere issue of "The Inspector"). There were numerous reasons back then for me to deduce that "Friends" would use my material, even though I had not yet starred a "Friends" insider in my (1998) "Gosk 2". One reason: one of my sister's oldest friends, Claire Josephson, is the sister of Nancy Josephson, International Creative Management VP, the woman who first brought the "Friends" writers to California, which directly led to the creation of "Friends".
In "The Translator", newlyweds who don't speak the same language receive a translator as a wedding gift. He accompanies them EVERYWHERE, which much displeases the wife, causing her to secretly murder him, though it means she and her husband will not understand each other. They didn't need to understand each other when they first met, so why now?
Because my story was included as part of the very important initial "Friends" "break" episode, the "Smallville" "break" set me looking to see if there was something I should connect to this. As has often been the case, I found the answer in that night's "Medium": a husband murders someone about to communicate to his wife the key to understanding him. In "The Translator", the murder of the translator by the wife means she does not want to have around the person with the key to their understanding each other.
What Were They Trying To Do
What was the real meaning behind the Pakistani Taliban's Times Square "incident"? It was announced by the White House today that it was in fact the Taliban who were involved in the Times Square "attempted" bombing. Are we to believe that they truly meant to succeed, based on what we've learned about the hard-to-fail-to-anticipate reasons behind why it failed? Might not this lead the discussion to the question of what possible Taliban objective WAS achieved by only succeeding in having people investigate an empty car parked on a busy New York City street on May 1st?
As I described in my May 1st and May 2nd blogs, my April 28th posting on YouTube regarded a scene where an empty vehicle parked on a busy New York City street is investigated. And my description accompanying that YouTube posting referred to the Iranian President.
I find that the degree to which there has been NO follow-up investigation regarding what I've been saying (shouting) for a while now looks VERY bad with this new terrorist occurrence, one that could have turned into the second 9/11. It suggests that there is a willful act of suppressing the investigation I seek. How close to the doorstep of Steven Spielberg must this suppression seem, as such an investigation would have to be based in part on my assertion that I am secretly super-important in relation to the work of Spielberg, the most prominent Jewish man, that therefore I am someone on the radar of those who act out of anti-Israeli/Jewish sentiment. What happens when my super-importance is secret - how can I instigate an investigation when that fact is unknown?
Does this Times Square bombing "attempt" light a fire under Spielberg and others? Is this all potentially damaging to key pillars/foundation stones of Hollywood Royalty? Extremely damaging? Fatally damaging? The suppression of such important investigations into terrorism, just to cover their astors?
Should we conjecture that the appeal of being able to generate this kind of issue in a big way became great enough to the Taliban/al Queda that it was chosen over an actual bombing - an alternative course? Especially if at heart they'd rather not kill in reality if they can poison the reputations of our "royalty", which would seriously undermine an important part of our moral foundation (yes, the product of Hollywood royalty portends to speak to the world's fundamental ethics).
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and etc. Would they poison our lives better by lighting this fire under us? Isn't it time to put aside this astor-covering of Hollywood Royalty's questionable behavior towards me, so that the truth about my secret super-importance can render plausible this basis for a real investigation of major terrorist acts? Or must we wait for something God awful to happen, when an investigation could have prevented it? I guess that's a chance some bastions of society are willing to take.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Titanic Importance
In my immediately preceding post (April 8th), I mentioned, among other things, my conclusion that Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" had "reflected a cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video". Why did I choose to word this so strangely, outside of the fact that I like to word things strangely?
I chose these words to get across the idea that they are willing to go so far as to acknowledge to me that they know the video was released, yet at the same time they do not seem to feel they actually need to see it. I beg to differ: it is from me, I am unbelievably important, they know this, it is an important release. What's this stuff about sweeping it under the rug? I don't get it. "Avatar" and "Alice In Wonderland" are currently showing major contributions from me, to those in on it. To say the least. It doesn't make sense to pass on my latest work.
Later in this blog I will tell a little Hollywood story I just made up, entitled, "The Covering Their Astors Squad". First though, I would like to attend to a little business, which is to say, present how last night's "Saturday Night Live" also "reflected a cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video".
In my "In Orders We Trust" (the video), which I completed April 6th and posted on/ copyrighted at Archive.Org April 7th (the comedy sketch itself having been written 5.15.06), I used at the beginning of the video the image of the famous sculpture, "Artemision Bronze", which according to Wikipedia is often called, "The God from the Sea," and "represents either Zeus or Poseidon" (my usage was intended to represent Zeus, and so if you were to see Poseidon in my usage of this image you would be.... well, I put the word Zeus under the image as well, so....). In the thumbnails at Archive.Org for my video, which one can view without viewing the actual video, one will also see my usage of this image ("Artemision Bronze").
I will give you a moment to go to Archive.Org and see for yourself (I provided the link in my April 8th blog, please don't expect me to do everything for you).
In my April 8th blog, wherein I announced the release of my video, I also reprinted the original 5.15.06 email from when I first sent the comedy sketch out to certain people. That email contained, among other things, something that my blogs have occasionally touched on - references to a few of the immense number of timely references to my material on "Saturday Night Live". And with that as the background information, last night's (April 10th) show was no exception - for in Tina Fey's Sarah Palin sketch (which, unfortunately, was only partially successful in erasing from my mind the image of Sarah Palin looking at me as we drove by each other in Santa Barbara last month), Fey ended the bit with an image of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a photoshopped pose quite identical to the Zeus thumbnail posted with my video at Archive.Org on April 7th:
Those who knew, as I did, the near-inevitability of some kind of SNL inside-reference to my newest release, will appreciate my interpretation of why they chose to show Michael Steele this way. And if you wish, I will even apologize for any responsibility I might have for any difficulty you might have in erasing this image from your mind.
I should also say something about tonight's "Simpsons" before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.
First, some are aware that the main opening montage of every "Simpsons" (sometimes they use variations so who can say what one will find on any given night), the latest regular opening montage (past two or so years), contains something that began as an ongoing inside-reference found on many "Simpsons" episodes. The inside-reference has to do with a scene from the CalArts film class student film, "Limbo" (1973-1974), wherein someone cannot remove a gorilla mask, while I stand in the background watching. One of the primary "Simpsons" directors, Mark Kirkland, used to live down the hall from me at CalArts, though we didn't know each other. This has not prevented him from joining the throngs of people in show-biz who make inside-references regarding me. These inside-references in certain "Simpsons" episodes to this "Limbo" moment would appear in conjunction with other Steinhoff-related stuff, producing a cumulative effect that made clear the inside-reference, at least to those "inside". So: nowadays their opening montage shows a statue head falling from a statue and landing over the head of someone beneath the statue, basically trapping the person inside the mask. Much like the previously recurring "Limbo" inside-references.
Tonight's "Simpsons" episode ended with Lisa and Bart forming a truce, until their dog commits some blunder, for which Lisa chooses to blame Bart, though there is no apparent basis for her to hold him responsible for what the dog does. And the truce ends as quickly as it was formed. Those familiar with the ending of "In Orders We Trust" (either the 2006 written version or the April 2010 video) need no further explanation to appreciate my conclusion regarding the origin of the "Simpsons" ending.
I seem to have one more thing to describe before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.
For somewhat complicated reasons, which I will not detail here, I found the ending of the April 9th "Smallville" to be in relation to me as well. Nor did I choose to detail in my April 8th blog exactly how something the Iranian President recently said was designed to intertwine with the April 2nd "Smallville" as it related to me.
What I will mention here is that it was something he said in relation to President Obama's nuclear treaty, something that was extracted from the rest of what he said and given the headline, because of it being such a from out of nowhere phrasing. I am the one who sees how it was not from out of nowhere, it was an inside-reference, it was from a wish to interconnect with something in relation to me/my material that has recently become relevant through recent doings.
My December 26th, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" (at Archive.Org) demonstrates how tremendously and singularly important I am in relation to Steven Spielberg. It does not take a genius to appreciate that, the way our world is put together, Spielberg is something of an ambassador for the Jewish people, being among the most prominent living Jewish persons in the world. I have previously mentioned in a blog that the Iranian President has endeavored to "intertwine" with me via a show that often references my material, "Smallville" (I mentioned this in a September 2009 blog). I have also mentioned/demonstrated in earlier blogs that the show "Medium" has intertwined with references to my material on the episodes of "Smallville" that aired the same night as certain "Medium" episodes.
Back when a number of inside-references to my several music videos all suddenly began occurring around the same time on various shows, as I mentioned/demonstrated at those times, I also noticed that "Medium" (in their fever episode, which was concurrent with the two-part "Monk" series finale - another show that made innumerable inside-references to my material) included the line, "Another Good Answer" - the title of one of my music videos. It was that same music video of mine wherein I get specific about the fact that, due to my secret importance, terrorists "leave things on my doorstep". That "Medium" episode had the antagonist exploiting people's fear of a cataclysmic (terrorist?) event for personal gain. I include that among the significant number of times when "Medium", or rather, someone with a pipeline to the writers of "Medium", seems to manifest an investment in undermining me with regard to certain concerns I have. My statement that terrorists leave things on doorstep/their statement that causing concern of this kind is a manipulative exploitation for monetary gain.
Once upon a time someone with a lot of money repeatedly used someone's creative material in the movies he made with famous actress Mary Astor. Mary Astor became very upset at the injustice that might be done to the person with a lot of money, who had been so kind to finance the movies she starred in, for she feared that this person might be thought to be a mean person when he was really just a nice person having fun with the person whose material he used. So Mary Astor became so upset, she came down with a cold. It was chilly outside, and she was playing the part of someone who was in a warm climate, so she had to wear short sleeves, which aggravated her cold, and it looked like the picture might have to be scrapped, and everyone would have to say goodbye to all that this picture would have meant for them. So the studio hired a squad of people to always have blankets on hand, and whenever the cameras weren't rolling, these people in this squad would immediately cover Mary Astor with a blanket. The same thing happened when Mary Astor's relatives appeared in the movie, Astors were everywhere, for these were all people who were found worthy of being in this important picture, though it meant wearing short sleeves in chilly weather. So the squad of people with the blankets became known as "The Covering Their Astors Squad". Unfortunately, the benches they sat on became drenched during a terrible thunderstorm, soaking in the water, and when people sat on the benches the water seeped through to their bottoms. Apparently, they could not cover their asses.
It's swell that people are demonstrating to me a "cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video", as I stated earlier. To fall short of manifesting that they've viewed the video, however, given the stage I've reached in the world of important releases, is, in certain respects, disturbing, and I do not say this as an artist. I say this because it has "my lawyer told me not to" written all over it.
At this moment in the history of humanity, in the history of the Earth, the Iranian President, perhaps the single individual posing the greatest threat to the world at this time, due to what his present actions could very easily lead to not so far down the road, is trying to intertwine with me/my work, because of my tremendous importance in relation to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg being an important "ambassador" for the Jewish people, for the reasons described earlier in this blog. This plays Spielberg and myself, on a certain level, directly into the matter created by the Iranian President, a matter that springs from the animosity the Iranian President has for the Jewish people, which is behind his efforts to unite the Arab world, through this sentiment, behind his "right" to "blow Israel off the map".
It would be complicated to explain how it has been made manifest to me that the Iranian President is doing this in relation to me, though it is nevertheless something I could explain, to an intelligent person. There are facts to support my explanation. What isn't complicated is the fact that I have earned enough credibility by now to be taken seriously on this to a substantial degree even during the withholding at this time of the complicated explanation.
I believe that my little made-up story about Mary Astor may help to explain to all of you boys and girls a few factors that have impeded the response I demand. Those interfering with following-up on what I've asserted regarding myself in this situation are committing acts that, due to their intended effect with relation to the larger situation, are beyond criminal, and beyond forgiveness, due to the enormity of this situation. I find it unfortunate that the situation requires that I be the heavy to this degree, by having to point this out, but this is scarcely a situation that can be ignored. I find it difficult to think of a matter more worthy of serious attention.
I chose these words to get across the idea that they are willing to go so far as to acknowledge to me that they know the video was released, yet at the same time they do not seem to feel they actually need to see it. I beg to differ: it is from me, I am unbelievably important, they know this, it is an important release. What's this stuff about sweeping it under the rug? I don't get it. "Avatar" and "Alice In Wonderland" are currently showing major contributions from me, to those in on it. To say the least. It doesn't make sense to pass on my latest work.
Later in this blog I will tell a little Hollywood story I just made up, entitled, "The Covering Their Astors Squad". First though, I would like to attend to a little business, which is to say, present how last night's "Saturday Night Live" also "reflected a cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video".
In my "In Orders We Trust" (the video), which I completed April 6th and posted on/ copyrighted at Archive.Org April 7th (the comedy sketch itself having been written 5.15.06), I used at the beginning of the video the image of the famous sculpture, "Artemision Bronze", which according to Wikipedia is often called, "The God from the Sea," and "represents either Zeus or Poseidon" (my usage was intended to represent Zeus, and so if you were to see Poseidon in my usage of this image you would be.... well, I put the word Zeus under the image as well, so....). In the thumbnails at Archive.Org for my video, which one can view without viewing the actual video, one will also see my usage of this image ("Artemision Bronze").
I will give you a moment to go to Archive.Org and see for yourself (I provided the link in my April 8th blog, please don't expect me to do everything for you).
In my April 8th blog, wherein I announced the release of my video, I also reprinted the original 5.15.06 email from when I first sent the comedy sketch out to certain people. That email contained, among other things, something that my blogs have occasionally touched on - references to a few of the immense number of timely references to my material on "Saturday Night Live". And with that as the background information, last night's (April 10th) show was no exception - for in Tina Fey's Sarah Palin sketch (which, unfortunately, was only partially successful in erasing from my mind the image of Sarah Palin looking at me as we drove by each other in Santa Barbara last month), Fey ended the bit with an image of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a photoshopped pose quite identical to the Zeus thumbnail posted with my video at Archive.Org on April 7th:
Those who knew, as I did, the near-inevitability of some kind of SNL inside-reference to my newest release, will appreciate my interpretation of why they chose to show Michael Steele this way. And if you wish, I will even apologize for any responsibility I might have for any difficulty you might have in erasing this image from your mind.
I should also say something about tonight's "Simpsons" before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.
First, some are aware that the main opening montage of every "Simpsons" (sometimes they use variations so who can say what one will find on any given night), the latest regular opening montage (past two or so years), contains something that began as an ongoing inside-reference found on many "Simpsons" episodes. The inside-reference has to do with a scene from the CalArts film class student film, "Limbo" (1973-1974), wherein someone cannot remove a gorilla mask, while I stand in the background watching. One of the primary "Simpsons" directors, Mark Kirkland, used to live down the hall from me at CalArts, though we didn't know each other. This has not prevented him from joining the throngs of people in show-biz who make inside-references regarding me. These inside-references in certain "Simpsons" episodes to this "Limbo" moment would appear in conjunction with other Steinhoff-related stuff, producing a cumulative effect that made clear the inside-reference, at least to those "inside". So: nowadays their opening montage shows a statue head falling from a statue and landing over the head of someone beneath the statue, basically trapping the person inside the mask. Much like the previously recurring "Limbo" inside-references.
Tonight's "Simpsons" episode ended with Lisa and Bart forming a truce, until their dog commits some blunder, for which Lisa chooses to blame Bart, though there is no apparent basis for her to hold him responsible for what the dog does. And the truce ends as quickly as it was formed. Those familiar with the ending of "In Orders We Trust" (either the 2006 written version or the April 2010 video) need no further explanation to appreciate my conclusion regarding the origin of the "Simpsons" ending.
I seem to have one more thing to describe before relating my "The Covering Their Astors Squad" story.
For somewhat complicated reasons, which I will not detail here, I found the ending of the April 9th "Smallville" to be in relation to me as well. Nor did I choose to detail in my April 8th blog exactly how something the Iranian President recently said was designed to intertwine with the April 2nd "Smallville" as it related to me.
What I will mention here is that it was something he said in relation to President Obama's nuclear treaty, something that was extracted from the rest of what he said and given the headline, because of it being such a from out of nowhere phrasing. I am the one who sees how it was not from out of nowhere, it was an inside-reference, it was from a wish to interconnect with something in relation to me/my material that has recently become relevant through recent doings.
My December 26th, 2009 video, "Steven Spielberg and the 'Mall Man' Factor" (at Archive.Org) demonstrates how tremendously and singularly important I am in relation to Steven Spielberg. It does not take a genius to appreciate that, the way our world is put together, Spielberg is something of an ambassador for the Jewish people, being among the most prominent living Jewish persons in the world. I have previously mentioned in a blog that the Iranian President has endeavored to "intertwine" with me via a show that often references my material, "Smallville" (I mentioned this in a September 2009 blog). I have also mentioned/demonstrated in earlier blogs that the show "Medium" has intertwined with references to my material on the episodes of "Smallville" that aired the same night as certain "Medium" episodes.
Back when a number of inside-references to my several music videos all suddenly began occurring around the same time on various shows, as I mentioned/demonstrated at those times, I also noticed that "Medium" (in their fever episode, which was concurrent with the two-part "Monk" series finale - another show that made innumerable inside-references to my material) included the line, "Another Good Answer" - the title of one of my music videos. It was that same music video of mine wherein I get specific about the fact that, due to my secret importance, terrorists "leave things on my doorstep". That "Medium" episode had the antagonist exploiting people's fear of a cataclysmic (terrorist?) event for personal gain. I include that among the significant number of times when "Medium", or rather, someone with a pipeline to the writers of "Medium", seems to manifest an investment in undermining me with regard to certain concerns I have. My statement that terrorists leave things on doorstep/their statement that causing concern of this kind is a manipulative exploitation for monetary gain.
"The Covering Their Astors Squad"
(a made-up story about a dead person)
(a made-up story about a dead person)
Once upon a time someone with a lot of money repeatedly used someone's creative material in the movies he made with famous actress Mary Astor. Mary Astor became very upset at the injustice that might be done to the person with a lot of money, who had been so kind to finance the movies she starred in, for she feared that this person might be thought to be a mean person when he was really just a nice person having fun with the person whose material he used. So Mary Astor became so upset, she came down with a cold. It was chilly outside, and she was playing the part of someone who was in a warm climate, so she had to wear short sleeves, which aggravated her cold, and it looked like the picture might have to be scrapped, and everyone would have to say goodbye to all that this picture would have meant for them. So the studio hired a squad of people to always have blankets on hand, and whenever the cameras weren't rolling, these people in this squad would immediately cover Mary Astor with a blanket. The same thing happened when Mary Astor's relatives appeared in the movie, Astors were everywhere, for these were all people who were found worthy of being in this important picture, though it meant wearing short sleeves in chilly weather. So the squad of people with the blankets became known as "The Covering Their Astors Squad". Unfortunately, the benches they sat on became drenched during a terrible thunderstorm, soaking in the water, and when people sat on the benches the water seeped through to their bottoms. Apparently, they could not cover their asses.
It's swell that people are demonstrating to me a "cognizance of the release of my 'Orders' video", as I stated earlier. To fall short of manifesting that they've viewed the video, however, given the stage I've reached in the world of important releases, is, in certain respects, disturbing, and I do not say this as an artist. I say this because it has "my lawyer told me not to" written all over it.
At this moment in the history of humanity, in the history of the Earth, the Iranian President, perhaps the single individual posing the greatest threat to the world at this time, due to what his present actions could very easily lead to not so far down the road, is trying to intertwine with me/my work, because of my tremendous importance in relation to Steven Spielberg. Spielberg being an important "ambassador" for the Jewish people, for the reasons described earlier in this blog. This plays Spielberg and myself, on a certain level, directly into the matter created by the Iranian President, a matter that springs from the animosity the Iranian President has for the Jewish people, which is behind his efforts to unite the Arab world, through this sentiment, behind his "right" to "blow Israel off the map".
It would be complicated to explain how it has been made manifest to me that the Iranian President is doing this in relation to me, though it is nevertheless something I could explain, to an intelligent person. There are facts to support my explanation. What isn't complicated is the fact that I have earned enough credibility by now to be taken seriously on this to a substantial degree even during the withholding at this time of the complicated explanation.
I believe that my little made-up story about Mary Astor may help to explain to all of you boys and girls a few factors that have impeded the response I demand. Those interfering with following-up on what I've asserted regarding myself in this situation are committing acts that, due to their intended effect with relation to the larger situation, are beyond criminal, and beyond forgiveness, due to the enormity of this situation. I find it unfortunate that the situation requires that I be the heavy to this degree, by having to point this out, but this is scarcely a situation that can be ignored. I find it difficult to think of a matter more worthy of serious attention.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
AS THE DECADE ROLLS TOWARDS STUFF
First the heavy, then the light:
KEEP ME POSTED
I am pleased to announce the completion of my video, "Steven Spielberg And The 'Mall Man' Factor", which I posted at Archive.Org yesterday, very early in the morning, December 26, 2009, the day after that big Christian holiday.
ROLL DOWN YOUR, I SAID ROLL, NEVERMIND
As if part of some kind of strange celebration taking place in my mind, yesterday, after the posting (go back to the previous paragraph, click on the link, watch the video, come back here and continue reading), at various times, I imagined I saw driving past me any number of people who exist in relation to the video (actually, I'm pretty sure they don't just exist in relation to the video).
I will list these people here, however, if I am mistaken, and did indeed only imagine our cars driving past each other, the solution would be for you to drive past me some other time (I can think of no other way to make this right):
WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL
Without going into detail, it appears to me that Colbert, on his last show of the year before going on vacation, made inside-references to the video (at that time the video was a work-in-progress posted on earlier blogs). Last year, Colbert's Christmas Special made serious usage of my material (described in an earlier blog).
Without going into detail, SNL continues to makes inside-references to me/my material, and has more clearly indicated that they have an information feed coming to them from what occurs at my 9-5, something that has generally been occurring over the years, and not just in relation to SNL.
Without going into detail, based on specific things known to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the recent death of the star of Amy Heckerling's "Clueless" (see earlier blog references to Heckerling and "Clueless") was murder, though it looks like an accident. What I've put together is too vague to be sure of anything at this point. All we know for sure is that SNL, in consequence of her death, will discontinue their just-begun take-offs on her.
Without going into detail, a star of Spielberg's "Shindler's List" referred to in earlier blogs may have driven past me a few days ago.
KEEP ME POSTED
I am pleased to announce the completion of my video, "Steven Spielberg And The 'Mall Man' Factor", which I posted at Archive.Org yesterday, very early in the morning, December 26, 2009, the day after that big Christian holiday.
ROLL DOWN YOUR, I SAID ROLL, NEVERMIND
As if part of some kind of strange celebration taking place in my mind, yesterday, after the posting (go back to the previous paragraph, click on the link, watch the video, come back here and continue reading), at various times, I imagined I saw driving past me any number of people who exist in relation to the video (actually, I'm pretty sure they don't just exist in relation to the video).
I will list these people here, however, if I am mistaken, and did indeed only imagine our cars driving past each other, the solution would be for you to drive past me some other time (I can think of no other way to make this right):
- Laura Dern ("Jurassic Park" star; attendee of a Jennifer Aniston party in Beverly Hills earlier this month according to "People")
- Jennifer Aniston (hostess of a party Laura Dern, star of "Jurassic Park", attended recently)
- Stanley Tucci ("The Terminal" star)
- Tom Cruise ("Minority Report" star)
- Sean Daniel (referenced in video)
- Steven Spielberg (Executive Producer, "Back To The Future")
- Bill Clinton (cropped from Spielberg image used in video)
- Candice Bergen (went by three times yesterday, recently of the TV show "Boston Legal," no connection to my legally inconsequential video - perhaps she went by somehow or another in connection with the fact that her answering service's phone number was on the letter Paul McCartney sent to me in 1978 right after Billy Joel sat next to me on a plane, and now Steven Spielberg runs Dreamworks with David Geffen, who was with John Lennon when Lennon was shot December 1980, Lennon and McCartney having been a popular songwriting team during the '60s)
WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL
Without going into detail, it appears to me that Colbert, on his last show of the year before going on vacation, made inside-references to the video (at that time the video was a work-in-progress posted on earlier blogs). Last year, Colbert's Christmas Special made serious usage of my material (described in an earlier blog).
Without going into detail, SNL continues to makes inside-references to me/my material, and has more clearly indicated that they have an information feed coming to them from what occurs at my 9-5, something that has generally been occurring over the years, and not just in relation to SNL.
Without going into detail, based on specific things known to me, I wouldn't be surprised if the recent death of the star of Amy Heckerling's "Clueless" (see earlier blog references to Heckerling and "Clueless") was murder, though it looks like an accident. What I've put together is too vague to be sure of anything at this point. All we know for sure is that SNL, in consequence of her death, will discontinue their just-begun take-offs on her.
Without going into detail, a star of Spielberg's "Shindler's List" referred to in earlier blogs may have driven past me a few days ago.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
JUSTICE IS BLIND AND SOMETIMES SMASHES INTO WALLS IT DOESN'T SEE
IF THESE SPIELBERG WALLS COULD TALK
I am still working on my Spielberg/Steinhoff/"Mall Man" video project. It is not easy to sink one's teeth into a project that must deliberately exist within a context narrower than the subject matter deserves. On the one hand, Spielberg has made it possible for me to prove (to any honest, intelligent person willing to spend the time and energy to study it), through my being able to make references to copyrighted postings and other elements, that my 1993 "Mall Man" video was important to varying degrees (ranging from tremendously important to pretty important) in relation to Spielberg's "Minority Report," "Terminal," and his most recent movie, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". On the other hand, however, I do not see how I can prove that my influence on his most recent movie ("Indiana Jones") goes far beyond being very significant, actually entering the realm of being key to the plot. I refer to the fact that, for this movie, Spielberg did not only use my "Mall Man" video, but in addition, my 1992 "Mall Man" film treatment was involved. It being that I cannot prove the "Mall Man" film treatment was created in 1992, it would seem that this is one "detail" I must omit. Sean Daniel and/or Steven Spielberg: my invitation for you to appear in this Spielberg/Mall Man video project of mine as my interviewees and/or my interviewers still stands!!!
LICENSE TO SKI
Having just had the chance to see for the first time the Liam Neeson movie, "Taken", which premiered yesterday on HBO, I am now more convinced than ever that the real answer to what was behind the death of Neeson's wife, Natasha Richardson, is intertwined with things I put forward in my blogs of 3.13.09 and 3.23.09. In those blogs I had found a basis for believing, for a set of reasons, that a specific tie-in had been constructed by Richardson's killers to something contained in Sean Daniel's and Bruce Willis' movie, "Jackal": the line, "You can't protect your women."
I feel certain now that it was the killers' intention to lead us back to the movie, "Jackal," thusly interconnecting our perception of their action with other things (as described in those blogs). According to what I have been able to surmise/deduce, generating this tie-in satisfied a certain (convoluted) aspect of their criteria, consistent with their "modus operandi". The fact that Neeson is currently starring in Spielberg's work-in-progress, "Lincoln," and is among the few actors to repeatedly star in Spielberg films, satisfied another part of the killers' criteria. Did I mention that I don't regard Natasha Richardson's death as an accident?
Anyone turning to me for closure with regard to the end of this show, personally I won't even really feel like there are no more episodes until next week or so. Or maybe in a year or two.
VERSION 1:
VERSION 2:
If I had all the time in the world to do justice to all things in the world, I might have created a Version 3, Version 4, etc. I will only add that, as has been true in general this season, the "Medium" episode airing the same night also tied in with things (we have to wonder about those Arquettes). I chose to give the night to "Monk".
WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED
For those who might generally be interested in roads not taken, perhaps it would be fun for me to list off sections and content I decided not to create for this edition of my blog:
I am still working on my Spielberg/Steinhoff/"Mall Man" video project. It is not easy to sink one's teeth into a project that must deliberately exist within a context narrower than the subject matter deserves. On the one hand, Spielberg has made it possible for me to prove (to any honest, intelligent person willing to spend the time and energy to study it), through my being able to make references to copyrighted postings and other elements, that my 1993 "Mall Man" video was important to varying degrees (ranging from tremendously important to pretty important) in relation to Spielberg's "Minority Report," "Terminal," and his most recent movie, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". On the other hand, however, I do not see how I can prove that my influence on his most recent movie ("Indiana Jones") goes far beyond being very significant, actually entering the realm of being key to the plot. I refer to the fact that, for this movie, Spielberg did not only use my "Mall Man" video, but in addition, my 1992 "Mall Man" film treatment was involved. It being that I cannot prove the "Mall Man" film treatment was created in 1992, it would seem that this is one "detail" I must omit. Sean Daniel and/or Steven Spielberg: my invitation for you to appear in this Spielberg/Mall Man video project of mine as my interviewees and/or my interviewers still stands!!!
LICENSE TO SKI
Having just had the chance to see for the first time the Liam Neeson movie, "Taken", which premiered yesterday on HBO, I am now more convinced than ever that the real answer to what was behind the death of Neeson's wife, Natasha Richardson, is intertwined with things I put forward in my blogs of 3.13.09 and 3.23.09. In those blogs I had found a basis for believing, for a set of reasons, that a specific tie-in had been constructed by Richardson's killers to something contained in Sean Daniel's and Bruce Willis' movie, "Jackal": the line, "You can't protect your women."
I feel certain now that it was the killers' intention to lead us back to the movie, "Jackal," thusly interconnecting our perception of their action with other things (as described in those blogs). According to what I have been able to surmise/deduce, generating this tie-in satisfied a certain (convoluted) aspect of their criteria, consistent with their "modus operandi". The fact that Neeson is currently starring in Spielberg's work-in-progress, "Lincoln," and is among the few actors to repeatedly star in Spielberg films, satisfied another part of the killers' criteria. Did I mention that I don't regard Natasha Richardson's death as an accident?
Weekly MONK/STEINHOFF VIDEOCLIP, 11.27.09/12.4.09
For this final Monk/Steinhoff weekly videoclip, I'm trying to keep it simple, however, I did find it necessary to create a "Version 1" and a "Version 2". The latter (Version 2) is clearly thinner than the former, and is not for those interested in material that solidly confirms that this 2-part "Monk" episode, as with nearly every other "Monk" episode ever made, makes reference to me and/or my material.Anyone turning to me for closure with regard to the end of this show, personally I won't even really feel like there are no more episodes until next week or so. Or maybe in a year or two.
VERSION 1:
VERSION 2:
If I had all the time in the world to do justice to all things in the world, I might have created a Version 3, Version 4, etc. I will only add that, as has been true in general this season, the "Medium" episode airing the same night also tied in with things (we have to wonder about those Arquettes). I chose to give the night to "Monk".
WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED
For those who might generally be interested in roads not taken, perhaps it would be fun for me to list off sections and content I decided not to create for this edition of my blog:
- What Can Happen When You Are Secretly Super-Important In Relation To People Who Individually Have Billions Of Dollars, And Collectively Have Billions And Billions And Billions Of Dollars
- Winning Your Case By Convoluting Things To Undermine The Testimony Of The Star Witness Against You Corner
- Dominating Someone’s Soul By Promoting The Theory That, If You Can Put Just One Word In Someone’s Mouth Without Their Knowing, Then Everything They Ever Said Or Will Say Is Thereby Tainted And Suspect
- Not Publishing Certain Things In Order To Avoid Making Your Readers Afraid Of You
Friday, May 22, 2009
The Undiluted Something
NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM WITH COFFEE
Today being the opening day of the sequel to the Ben Stiller movie about a security guard's first night in a museum, "Night At The Museum", which was the second biggest movie of 2006 I believe, I would like to describe something interesting in relation to it.
"Night At The Museum" is based on a story that was written in the 90s. During the following decade it was one among many screenplays kicking around Hollywood without a producer, director, star, etc.
Then I sent my sketch comedy idea about a security guard's first night in a museum, "The Museum Of Excellent Coffee", to two people: a longtime friend of Steven Spielberg (Sean Daniel, the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the college I attended); and the person who co-runs film production company Red Hour Films with Ben Stiller, Stuart Cornfeld (whom I half-knew during the '70s). Within one month's time, Ben Stiller had signed on to play the security guard character in "Night At The Museum", and Stephen Sommers left the Spielberg production of "When Worlds Collide to direct "Night At The Museum". This resulted in Spielberg becoming the replacement director on "When Worlds Collide" in order to fill the void left by Sommers. Sommers then relieved Spielberg of directorial duties by returning to "When Worlds Collide", and Shawn Levy became director of "Night At The Museum".
IS IT REALLY THAT TIME?
For those of you who have yet to go to the web posting of my sketch comedy idea, "Timeout" at archive.org, which I referred to in my March 22nd blog, I have concluded that the opening of the May 14th season finale of the TV show, "The Office" resulted from it. [idnctsbottaositd] (For a definition of those strange red letters, you will have to go back to my May 10th blog.) Not just the opening, but later when Michael's character uses advance knowledge of something important to others in his company picnic sketch. I know the concept of a person moving back someone's clocks to manipulate a situation is far from new. Yet I also know that "The Office" will occasionally do something apropos of my doing something, which I attribute to the involvement of Film Producer Stuart Cornfeld (someone to whom I refer periodically) with the actors on that show. One thing I do not understand is that, although the recorded time of posting on archive.org is unalterable, their counter of how many times something posted is opened fails to accurately reflect every time something is opened - I have put this to the test.
Two couples are sitting around a dinner table at the end of a meal, Steve and Mary, and Carol and Barney. Carol comes in from the kitchen carrying a coffee pot in one hand and a tray with pie in the other.
STEVEN:
My goodness, Barney, you’ve got one talented wife there!
BARNEY:
Oh, you mean the way she’s carrying all them things without dropping ’em? That’s nothing.
MARY:
See that, Carol? You’re making me look bad! Ha-ha-ha!
STEVEN:
Mary drops everything. I’m surprised she didn’t spill her wineglass yet! Ha-ha!
MARY:
You’d be in a lot of trouble for that remark, mister - if not for the fact that it’s true! Ha-ha-ha!
STEVEN:
Ha-ha-ha!
BARNEY:
Yeah, well, there’s something else Carol can do, too.
STEVEN:
I think I know where you’re going with this, Barney, and thank goodness, that’s one thing Mary’s not too bad at either.
MARY:
Thank you, Steve.
STEVEN:
You deserve it, Mary.
BARNEY:
No, I wasn’t - I’m talking about something else. Carol? Carol, isn’t it time we told Steve and Mary?
CAROL:
Oh my God, here we go again.
BARNEY:
Carol doesn’t like talking about it. But let me tell you, she is absolutely amazing.
CAROL:
I give up. Nothing I say sinks into that thick, stupid skull of yours.
STEVEN:
Whoa! Whoa! Wait a minute! Now let’s just, what’s all this about?
BARNEY:
I’ll tell you: Carol can travel back and forth in time!
STEVEN:
No!
MARY:
You can?
CAROL:
I cannot. But Barney here seems to think so. No matter how many times I tell him….
STEVEN:
Barney, what about it?
BARNEY:
Carol, you know you can. Carol actually proved it to me, she even admitted it. Now she says, “uh-uh, no I can’t.”
CAROL:
Alright (heaves a heavy sigh), I’ll tell you what happened.
MARY:
This is so exciting!
STEVEN:
I love this!
CAROL:
Barney was drinking beer and watching football. So he falls asleep in front of the television. So I say to myself, “I know how to play a good trick on Barney for drinking beer and falling asleep in front of the TV while watching football.” So I watched the rest of the football game, but first I put on the VCR and recorded it. I turned the clocks in the house back an hour. So he wakes up, doesn’t even realize he fell asleep, and I’m sitting there telling him everything that’s gonna happen in the football game before it happens! ‘Cause we’re watching the tape of it on the VCR! So Barney says to me, “How’d you do that?” So I turn all serious, you know, I pretend I’m making this big confession, and I say to him, “I did it by traveling back in time!” He passed out a minute later or I woulda said I was from Mars too.
BARNEY:
You know I never passed out. She just doesn’t want anyone to know the truth, d’ya, honey?
CAROL:
And no matter what I say, or how many times I say it, he just won’t believe me. He’s positive I can travel back in time. Keeps telling me I should go back in time and prevent the Lincoln assassination.
MARY:
You can travel back in time?
CAROL:
Mary, weren’t you listening to what I just said?
STEVEN:
Barney, maybe she was just playing a trick on you.
BARNEY:
Look, the pretzel bowl! It was just empty and now it’s full! Carol must have gone back in time and filled it up!
STEVEN:
This is incredible!
CAROL:
Oh, you! I filled it up, yes, without going back in time. Doesn’t anybody remember? While Steve and Mary were talking about how long the line was at the liquor store? Nobody remembers? (Steve, Barney and Mary look fixedly at Carol. There is a tense silence)
MARY:
Well it was a pretty long line.
STEVEN:
I’ll say. It’s like everybody suddenly decided to, to get drunk all at the same time! I’ve never seen the liquor store do so much business.
BARNEY:
Maybe there’s some big holiday coming. Does anybody know if there’s a big holiday coming?
CAROL:
It’s not gonna be the 4th of July for a while.
MARY:
Carol, this pie is absolutely delicious! Did you caramelize the walnuts or….
CAROL:
I’ll tell you my secret recipe, but then I’ll have to shoot you!
(All laugh, and continue discussing anything.)
Today being the opening day of the sequel to the Ben Stiller movie about a security guard's first night in a museum, "Night At The Museum", which was the second biggest movie of 2006 I believe, I would like to describe something interesting in relation to it.
"Night At The Museum" is based on a story that was written in the 90s. During the following decade it was one among many screenplays kicking around Hollywood without a producer, director, star, etc.
Then I sent my sketch comedy idea about a security guard's first night in a museum, "The Museum Of Excellent Coffee", to two people: a longtime friend of Steven Spielberg (Sean Daniel, the first person from whom I learned of CalArts, the college I attended); and the person who co-runs film production company Red Hour Films with Ben Stiller, Stuart Cornfeld (whom I half-knew during the '70s). Within one month's time, Ben Stiller had signed on to play the security guard character in "Night At The Museum", and Stephen Sommers left the Spielberg production of "When Worlds Collide to direct "Night At The Museum". This resulted in Spielberg becoming the replacement director on "When Worlds Collide" in order to fill the void left by Sommers. Sommers then relieved Spielberg of directorial duties by returning to "When Worlds Collide", and Shawn Levy became director of "Night At The Museum".
IS IT REALLY THAT TIME?
For those of you who have yet to go to the web posting of my sketch comedy idea, "Timeout" at archive.org, which I referred to in my March 22nd blog, I have concluded that the opening of the May 14th season finale of the TV show, "The Office" resulted from it. [idnctsbottaositd] (For a definition of those strange red letters, you will have to go back to my May 10th blog.) Not just the opening, but later when Michael's character uses advance knowledge of something important to others in his company picnic sketch. I know the concept of a person moving back someone's clocks to manipulate a situation is far from new. Yet I also know that "The Office" will occasionally do something apropos of my doing something, which I attribute to the involvement of Film Producer Stuart Cornfeld (someone to whom I refer periodically) with the actors on that show. One thing I do not understand is that, although the recorded time of posting on archive.org is unalterable, their counter of how many times something posted is opened fails to accurately reflect every time something is opened - I have put this to the test.
TIMEOUT
A sketch comedy idea by
Jonathan D. Steinhoff, ©3.22.09
A sketch comedy idea by
Jonathan D. Steinhoff, ©3.22.09
Two couples are sitting around a dinner table at the end of a meal, Steve and Mary, and Carol and Barney. Carol comes in from the kitchen carrying a coffee pot in one hand and a tray with pie in the other.
STEVEN:
My goodness, Barney, you’ve got one talented wife there!
BARNEY:
Oh, you mean the way she’s carrying all them things without dropping ’em? That’s nothing.
MARY:
See that, Carol? You’re making me look bad! Ha-ha-ha!
STEVEN:
Mary drops everything. I’m surprised she didn’t spill her wineglass yet! Ha-ha!
MARY:
You’d be in a lot of trouble for that remark, mister - if not for the fact that it’s true! Ha-ha-ha!
STEVEN:
Ha-ha-ha!
BARNEY:
Yeah, well, there’s something else Carol can do, too.
STEVEN:
I think I know where you’re going with this, Barney, and thank goodness, that’s one thing Mary’s not too bad at either.
MARY:
Thank you, Steve.
STEVEN:
You deserve it, Mary.
BARNEY:
No, I wasn’t - I’m talking about something else. Carol? Carol, isn’t it time we told Steve and Mary?
CAROL:
Oh my God, here we go again.
BARNEY:
Carol doesn’t like talking about it. But let me tell you, she is absolutely amazing.
CAROL:
I give up. Nothing I say sinks into that thick, stupid skull of yours.
STEVEN:
Whoa! Whoa! Wait a minute! Now let’s just, what’s all this about?
BARNEY:
I’ll tell you: Carol can travel back and forth in time!
STEVEN:
No!
MARY:
You can?
CAROL:
I cannot. But Barney here seems to think so. No matter how many times I tell him….
STEVEN:
Barney, what about it?
BARNEY:
Carol, you know you can. Carol actually proved it to me, she even admitted it. Now she says, “uh-uh, no I can’t.”
CAROL:
Alright (heaves a heavy sigh), I’ll tell you what happened.
MARY:
This is so exciting!
STEVEN:
I love this!
CAROL:
Barney was drinking beer and watching football. So he falls asleep in front of the television. So I say to myself, “I know how to play a good trick on Barney for drinking beer and falling asleep in front of the TV while watching football.” So I watched the rest of the football game, but first I put on the VCR and recorded it. I turned the clocks in the house back an hour. So he wakes up, doesn’t even realize he fell asleep, and I’m sitting there telling him everything that’s gonna happen in the football game before it happens! ‘Cause we’re watching the tape of it on the VCR! So Barney says to me, “How’d you do that?” So I turn all serious, you know, I pretend I’m making this big confession, and I say to him, “I did it by traveling back in time!” He passed out a minute later or I woulda said I was from Mars too.
BARNEY:
You know I never passed out. She just doesn’t want anyone to know the truth, d’ya, honey?
CAROL:
And no matter what I say, or how many times I say it, he just won’t believe me. He’s positive I can travel back in time. Keeps telling me I should go back in time and prevent the Lincoln assassination.
MARY:
You can travel back in time?
CAROL:
Mary, weren’t you listening to what I just said?
STEVEN:
Barney, maybe she was just playing a trick on you.
BARNEY:
Look, the pretzel bowl! It was just empty and now it’s full! Carol must have gone back in time and filled it up!
STEVEN:
This is incredible!
CAROL:
Oh, you! I filled it up, yes, without going back in time. Doesn’t anybody remember? While Steve and Mary were talking about how long the line was at the liquor store? Nobody remembers? (Steve, Barney and Mary look fixedly at Carol. There is a tense silence)
MARY:
Well it was a pretty long line.
STEVEN:
I’ll say. It’s like everybody suddenly decided to, to get drunk all at the same time! I’ve never seen the liquor store do so much business.
BARNEY:
Maybe there’s some big holiday coming. Does anybody know if there’s a big holiday coming?
CAROL:
It’s not gonna be the 4th of July for a while.
MARY:
Carol, this pie is absolutely delicious! Did you caramelize the walnuts or….
CAROL:
I’ll tell you my secret recipe, but then I’ll have to shoot you!
(All laugh, and continue discussing anything.)
THE END
Monday, March 23, 2009
I Read The Clues Today
When I saw the following bit on the March 16th Daily Show I immediately thought of Mind Helmets:
While I was attending my last two years of high school in New York City from 1971 to 1973 at a small school called Elisabeth Irwin High School, I wrote something for a creative writing assignment. It was a make-believe newspaper editorial, addressing a future world where superstition/paganism had taken over. In this world, technology was as sophisticated as could be imagined, but most people called it magic. The editorial defended the unpopular idea that, though some called it magic, those new things everyone was talking about, Mind Helmets, might actually be a product of science.
Over time I have accumulated good reason to believe that, contrary to the official version of how it came about, this story of mine had a lot to do with the creation of “Mind Games,” the title song of the John Lennon album that followed “Imagine”. Both this story and “Steinhoff’s Monster”, a 16mm film I started on at CalArts in 1973. There were people at my very small (25 boys, 25 girls in my grade) high school who would go to Lennon's secret Bank Street home after school, having met Lennon through a mutual friend of Lennon's, David Peel (in 1974 I would work for Howard Smith, the person who introduced Lennon to Peel). I was actually told that this story of mine would appear in the 1973 school yearbook, though it was pulled at the last minute.
Two things happened during the afternoon of March 16th prior to the Daily Show videoclip included here:
What might have been prevented, what can still be prevented, what exactly is at stake, I feel very much in the dark here. What is it that someone wants us to see, what guilt would they wish to assign, that may be more apparent. Oh, if only I hadn't printed the words, "Zig Ski". And oh, do no such thing again. Perhaps this is like some poker game, where a player would seek to bluff us into believing that "Zig Ski" is/remains a great clue, when it is in fact an easy opportunity to mislead. The driver of the "Zig Ski" car may have innocently done nothing more than drive from Point A to Point B on cue, expecting he was enroute to seeing the Martians land or Ringo Starr dancing the cha-cha-cha. But who cued him? Can it lead back to a more genuine clue?
Could this be an effort to guilt Spielberg for the death of Richardson, because I had to divulge the clue in a blog instead of being able to provide it directly to someone who would follow-up? Someone who would follow-up, because they would accept that I am secretly important and would thusly be more likely to receive such a clue "on my doorstep"? Could dumping guilt on people like Spielberg and McCartney be the kind of thing an enemy of the Western world would endeavor to accomplish, with me as their pawn? As for me, I recognize how complex issues might surround matters of this kind in ways beyond that which I presently know of, thus justifying a decision by Spielberg and McCartney to avoid publicizing my importance. As I lead a far more reclusive existence than most, it could seem to people like Spielberg and McCartney that I am far more vulnerable.
I do not let the kind of sick people who would kill Princess Diana and Natasha Richardson direct my mind in how to look at these things. I read the news today, but I did not see the same thing as everyone else in so doing.
And finally, I've written another sketch comedy idea, "Timeout", available at archive.org. I hope you see something good in it.
While I was attending my last two years of high school in New York City from 1971 to 1973 at a small school called Elisabeth Irwin High School, I wrote something for a creative writing assignment. It was a make-believe newspaper editorial, addressing a future world where superstition/paganism had taken over. In this world, technology was as sophisticated as could be imagined, but most people called it magic. The editorial defended the unpopular idea that, though some called it magic, those new things everyone was talking about, Mind Helmets, might actually be a product of science.
Over time I have accumulated good reason to believe that, contrary to the official version of how it came about, this story of mine had a lot to do with the creation of “Mind Games,” the title song of the John Lennon album that followed “Imagine”. Both this story and “Steinhoff’s Monster”, a 16mm film I started on at CalArts in 1973. There were people at my very small (25 boys, 25 girls in my grade) high school who would go to Lennon's secret Bank Street home after school, having met Lennon through a mutual friend of Lennon's, David Peel (in 1974 I would work for Howard Smith, the person who introduced Lennon to Peel). I was actually told that this story of mine would appear in the 1973 school yearbook, though it was pulled at the last minute.
Two things happened during the afternoon of March 16th prior to the Daily Show videoclip included here:
- I received an emailed Facebook communication from someone I hadn’t heard from since the early ‘70s, a person I knew at Elisabeth Irwin
- The Mind of Natasha Richardson, whose husband, Liam Neeson, is working with Steven Spielberg on a movie about Lincoln, was damaged, presumably because she skied without a Helmet.
What might have been prevented, what can still be prevented, what exactly is at stake, I feel very much in the dark here. What is it that someone wants us to see, what guilt would they wish to assign, that may be more apparent. Oh, if only I hadn't printed the words, "Zig Ski". And oh, do no such thing again. Perhaps this is like some poker game, where a player would seek to bluff us into believing that "Zig Ski" is/remains a great clue, when it is in fact an easy opportunity to mislead. The driver of the "Zig Ski" car may have innocently done nothing more than drive from Point A to Point B on cue, expecting he was enroute to seeing the Martians land or Ringo Starr dancing the cha-cha-cha. But who cued him? Can it lead back to a more genuine clue?
Could this be an effort to guilt Spielberg for the death of Richardson, because I had to divulge the clue in a blog instead of being able to provide it directly to someone who would follow-up? Someone who would follow-up, because they would accept that I am secretly important and would thusly be more likely to receive such a clue "on my doorstep"? Could dumping guilt on people like Spielberg and McCartney be the kind of thing an enemy of the Western world would endeavor to accomplish, with me as their pawn? As for me, I recognize how complex issues might surround matters of this kind in ways beyond that which I presently know of, thus justifying a decision by Spielberg and McCartney to avoid publicizing my importance. As I lead a far more reclusive existence than most, it could seem to people like Spielberg and McCartney that I am far more vulnerable.
I do not let the kind of sick people who would kill Princess Diana and Natasha Richardson direct my mind in how to look at these things. I read the news today, but I did not see the same thing as everyone else in so doing.
And finally, I've written another sketch comedy idea, "Timeout", available at archive.org. I hope you see something good in it.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Indoor Table
Brief Note:
In my January 19, 2009 blog I stated, "I will leave these Spielberg - Sutherland - Shaloub - Pitt - et-al connections for you to interconnect...."
Tonight, less than one week later during the SAG Awards, we were shown Sutherland and Shaloub (as well as Shaloub's wife, Brooke Adams) sitting together at the same table having a conversation. Prior to this, has anyone ever mentioned these two in the same breath? I might also add that Mr. Sutherland had the honor of being the first presenter of the night.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Anybody Wanna Hire One Of The Secretly Most Important People (or keep an eye on the people who did)?
I'll begin by mentioning that something extremely ugly happened to me where I work at Kaiser Permanente, Walnut Center, Pasadena, California. Let's leave it there.
I don't know precisely how good an idea it is to detail how Spielberg did something related to me at the Golden Globe Awards last Sunday. Any intelligent person who closely followed what I've already put forward in the past, and who saw the Golden Globes and the 4-hour season premier of "24", could already have pieced it together themselves anyway. Why show favoritism to those organized in a way that permits them to figure these things out? Because by definition such people are more ethical? Might as well share it with the world, or at least, with those able to follow this. Before you read this, I should also add that Jill Clayburgh, daughter of my former NYC next-door neighbor (the late Bill Clayburgh), co-starred in "Dirty Sexy Money" with Donald Sutherland (father of Kiefer Sutherland, star of "24"). Oh, and Jill may or may not have driven by me today. So now the Steven Spielberg thing:
1. Clearly Steven Spielberg’s moment about a train crash upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes Sunday could be related to the “24” moment that same night about a plane crash.
2. Based on my own experience, I had reason to view the manner in which the Tony Olmedo character on “24” was filmed Sunday, surrounded in black with pretty much only his face lit, as a possible tip-off that a Steinhoff's “Mall Man” reference could be expected.
3. Monday's “24” contained a scene that struck one as resembling the scene in Spielberg’s “Minority Report” that was based on “Mall Man”, specifically, when Tony and Jack were escaping from the FBI while Chloe’s multi-monitor vantage point allowed her to provide split-second, all-knowing guidance.
4. From what happened Sunday, I was already on the alert for something on "24" that would intertwine with both Spielberg and “Mall Man”. This was confirmed Monday, and so confirms that I was on the right track.
If this provides me with any kind of "coin of the realm" (I have yet to see anything actually monetary from all these things, ever, by the way), I'd like to use it to point those that value it towards my new SNL comedy sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers", published at archive.org. It's the little things that can get in there and save the world, so I am anxious to see at least particles of this idea utilized. SNL has found ways to include either my material or things related to me personally in every one of their shows for years, and this sketch idea happens to be something I particularly wish to point my finger at. I'd been kicking around for months an idea it contains, of a way to adapt to those tiny keyboards on handheld devices, but after trying to perfect a prototype (gloves with sawed down golf tees sticking out), I'm thinking this sketch idea is as far as that concept will go (unless you count last week's SNL sketch about the female air traffic controllers whose long fingernails practically deprived them of the ability to properly use their fingers).
And lastly for now, this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, which, as occurs frequently with these weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclips, draws from two of my three main live action videos:
I don't know precisely how good an idea it is to detail how Spielberg did something related to me at the Golden Globe Awards last Sunday. Any intelligent person who closely followed what I've already put forward in the past, and who saw the Golden Globes and the 4-hour season premier of "24", could already have pieced it together themselves anyway. Why show favoritism to those organized in a way that permits them to figure these things out? Because by definition such people are more ethical? Might as well share it with the world, or at least, with those able to follow this. Before you read this, I should also add that Jill Clayburgh, daughter of my former NYC next-door neighbor (the late Bill Clayburgh), co-starred in "Dirty Sexy Money" with Donald Sutherland (father of Kiefer Sutherland, star of "24"). Oh, and Jill may or may not have driven by me today. So now the Steven Spielberg thing:
1. Clearly Steven Spielberg’s moment about a train crash upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes Sunday could be related to the “24” moment that same night about a plane crash.
2. Based on my own experience, I had reason to view the manner in which the Tony Olmedo character on “24” was filmed Sunday, surrounded in black with pretty much only his face lit, as a possible tip-off that a Steinhoff's “Mall Man” reference could be expected.
3. Monday's “24” contained a scene that struck one as resembling the scene in Spielberg’s “Minority Report” that was based on “Mall Man”, specifically, when Tony and Jack were escaping from the FBI while Chloe’s multi-monitor vantage point allowed her to provide split-second, all-knowing guidance.
4. From what happened Sunday, I was already on the alert for something on "24" that would intertwine with both Spielberg and “Mall Man”. This was confirmed Monday, and so confirms that I was on the right track.
If this provides me with any kind of "coin of the realm" (I have yet to see anything actually monetary from all these things, ever, by the way), I'd like to use it to point those that value it towards my new SNL comedy sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers", published at archive.org. It's the little things that can get in there and save the world, so I am anxious to see at least particles of this idea utilized. SNL has found ways to include either my material or things related to me personally in every one of their shows for years, and this sketch idea happens to be something I particularly wish to point my finger at. I'd been kicking around for months an idea it contains, of a way to adapt to those tiny keyboards on handheld devices, but after trying to perfect a prototype (gloves with sawed down golf tees sticking out), I'm thinking this sketch idea is as far as that concept will go (unless you count last week's SNL sketch about the female air traffic controllers whose long fingernails practically deprived them of the ability to properly use their fingers).
And lastly for now, this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, which, as occurs frequently with these weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclips, draws from two of my three main live action videos:
Thursday, September 18, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
