I don’t wish to subject my readers’ to more than they can handle in terms of ‘psychic distress,’ but if there is anyone out there who — having experienced the Friedkin/Letts collaboration, Bug, which I have been so highly recommending (for reasons other than entertainment value) figures he/she can ‘handle’ another example of… well, of what I’m getting at in this series of posts, I would suggest he/she take in their other collaboration, a ‘family drama’ called Killer Joe.
In my analysis I’ll only be touching on this one briefly, but it’s still worth a look… if you can take it.
The scare quotes above are an indication of irony: Hypothetically speaking, thematically speaking, if the destruction of the family were the goal of the collaborating storytellers behind Killer Joe, they could not have done a more memorable, more powerful, deep-rooted job. These are talented people. And as with Bug, Killer Joe is a marvel of storytelling craft.
I know there is at least one of you who refuses to experience Bug for fear of what I interpret to be psychic damage (of the mind control variety). I must say that this reaction to my challenge of ‘dueling analyses’ is, in its own odd and indirect way, the most insightful I’ve so far seen. What I mean to say is that my upcoming ‘storytelling’ analysis at the rock bottom, deepest of deep layers, is that Bug (and now Killer Joe) are as good examples of PTB attempts to damage or (best case) disintegrate what is left of what we can call ‘American culture’ as you’ll find on what we used to refer to as ‘The Silver Screen.’
If you blink you might miss this image from Bug, but (and this is a hint of what I’ll be driving at) it tells us something very important about the story. In comments, give me your best shot at what this image tells us. (It flashes at the climax of the sex scene.)
I’m recommending both of these works because they do their jobs in very different ways; in a sense, in opposite ways, although this is only apparent after deep analysis.
There’s a line in Bug, and I believe it’s uttered by the Peter character (although it would work just as well coming from Agnes), that goes thusly: ‘It’s better to know,’ referring to… for lack of a less abused (on this forum) term… how the world really works… a sentiment that I’ve sought to stimulate, encourage even these past few years.
Sitting up here in the mountains of the ‘old west’ with my dog and my accomplishments and my regrets and failures and with all I’ve learned and not learned… now more than ever I’m sure this is the only way to live, and indeed is the only hope for us all. So yes, the reader’s refusal to be exposed to art-as-mind-control is insightful, but only in its labeling of said ‘artwork’ as purposefully, successfully harmful.
But keep in mind that this sort of mind control, the sort we are subjected to daily, constantly, from all directions, is of the NLP/subconscious sort, i.e., in order to do its job must be covert. If the victim/subject is aware what is being done, not only does it not work, but a reverse effect kicks in, along with a deep scorn that the PTB could think we’re that stupid. To refuse to be subjected to it — a movie like Bug, say — for reasons of fear is in-effect giving up. (If you aren’t interested in it, fine, but find another reason to refrain. And self-reflect in doing so: Don’t fool yourself!)
Another hint: For our purposes of story analysis, why is this guy the most important character in the film?
If we assume all popular entertainment to one extent or another is a part of a mind control agenda (and this is close to being the truth) we can train ourselves to be immune from its harmful effects. The sort of damage done by storytellers like Friedkin/Letts (and yes, this is a bit of a spoiler re my upcoming post) is not like damage from vaccines or environmental poisoning; the ‘defense muscle’ in our brain — our awareness of their agenda plus critical thinking — like any muscle grows strong with active use.
The post I’m still struggling with is significant, I think, because my conclusions are so inarguable, so stark and obvious, yet so completely unperceived by everyone (and likewise this observation is inarguable, stark and obvious) that those who didn’t see it all coming may be ‘shocked awake.’
Addendum: On the other hand, I felt that way about my video interview with my Montauk crony, Walter Iooss, the famed photographer, only to realize that the load of thumbs up and encouraging comments merely equaled the preaching to the choir effect: As far as I know, not one mind has been changed by that effort, the latest example being ‘JC on a Bike,’ an obviously awake guy (in some ways) whose reaction was, ‘I’ll have to let this settle in’ — which it never did.
In Killer Joe, Friedkin/Letts use character (in its deepest meaning) in diametrically opposite ways to plant their message.
I am somewhat disappointed by the response to my suggestion that viewers of Bug supply their own analysis, as both a learning tool (for all of us) and to accrue more anecdotal data on how successful the PTB mind control op (the big one, the ‘Hollywood Project’) really is. So far, I only count about 10 attempts. Hey, we’re in lockdown! There’s time to do your homework!
Plus, there are a bunch of you who use comments as a forum for your views, then take advantage of it by going on and on. Here I’m asking you to do so, and suddenly you’re reticent? You know who you are. What gives?
As you’ll see if I ever finish this goddamn thing, I’m trying to enlighten you — plus myself, as I’m being forced to dig deeper than ever before on this subject — using a specific example (one movie, but on many levels/implications) to elicit an epiphany about how storytelling (of any sort but especially film) is used as a powerful mind control tool by the power structures that seek to do us harm.
Allan
47 comments for “Some Killer Hints”