Popular Posts

Friday, February 7, 2020

THE JOKER: Reading Through Zizek's The Reality of the Virtual

The Moment When The Joker Sits Down
Near the End

And he whispers out loud to himself,
It is exactly the way I imagined it.

This is the moment when he exhibits
what Zizek has described as
The Reality of the Virtual Imaginary
He is sitting there and this time he is in control.
All IDEOLOGY has evaporated
and its veil has been shredded
That's not funny says DeNiro.
No it's not funny says The Joker.
You decide what's funny, Murray.

Or to say it differently, the MEDIA decides what is funny and manufactures laughter. 
The audience laughs at their own manufactured humor.
The audience does not know what they desire or what is funny.
It is this manufacturing that Arthur Fleck intuits and verbalizes.
And in shooting and killing DeNiro as Host
The Joker kills manufactured humor
At least right now.

Virtual Reality as THE SCREEN seen by Baudrillard tells us that we are now in Simulated Reality hurrying as fast as we can to Virtual Reality as it seems no one wants Reality. Once we are in the Virtual there is no escape. It is easy to talk about this with Gamers as they understand it very well. In a game you cant get out.

you unplug your computer. But in the world once you are fully in Virtual Reality, there is no escape. Baudrillard offers SEDUCTION which cannot be manufactured.

Deleuze puts down Baudrillard offering instead a REAL that is more Real than Real, a Nietzschean solution. In my opinion Kristen Stewart as an actress - I prefer the feminine as the French do in a synthetic language rather than the agglutinative English - as she is not a method actress but one who intends to be more real that the character she portrays as real. Elizabeth Taylor was another one.

Zizek however is fully Zizek in this, - reading through Lacan and Hegel as always.  
He assuredly asserts in this documentary 
that we have always been in 
And it is Arthur as The Joker who visualizes and exemplifies Zizek.

We will see when he escapes the police car and dances on the top of it 
just as he enters the court where he is being charged with child sexual abuse. 
Or was it just after. 

And there are many other celebratory footnotes to other films embedded in this reading of 
The Joker.

He has entered the stage and planted a kiss on the middle aged woman guest reminiscent of that great moment when Adrian Brody kisses Halle Berry before presenting her with her Oscar


And it begins. 


There is so much more of ZIZEK in this film that can be exhumed from the gap it has fallen into covered by all the reviews using interpretive Freudian theology - and Lacanian mish-mash -  that I felt I must dig it out before it gets buried for decades.


Monday, November 4, 2019


This film has been reviewed by many so this is not a review. From its opening in Siberia on Lake Baikal we are seeing something never seen on the screen before.
The entire movie shows us the violent will of water in so many manifestations all over the world so please watch the trailer. 

This is Puryear's paper on Schopenhauer's discussion of animal rights. By extension if will can be thwarted, dammed up, stopped then Schopenhauer argues that the animal can be harmed. IF and since the animal can be harmed then the animal has rights. Schopenhauer has inverted the concept of rights in this way. But let me post Puryear's Summary for you:

Schopenhauer on the Rights of Animals

Stephen Puryear 
North Carolina State University


I argue that Schopenhauer’s ascription of (moral) rights to animals flowsnaturally from his distinctive analysis of the concept of a right. In contrastto those who regard rights as fundamental and then cast wrongdoing as amatter of violating rights, he takes wrong (Unrecht) to be the morefundamental notion and defines the concept of a right (Recht) in its terms.He then offers an account of wrongdoing which makes it plausible tosuppose that at least many animals can be wronged and thus, byextension, have rights. The result, I argue, is a perspective on the natureof moral rights in general, and the idea of animal rights in particular, thatconstitutes an important and plausible alternative to the more familiarviews advanced by philosophers in recent decades. 

MORE that are beautiful and violent

And after seeing Aquarela I am extending it to WATER. In this film the WILL of water in all its violence is a visual experience of the violence of the will of water. Greek mythology worshiped Poseidon, the God of the oceans and seas and all waters and dominion of all sea animals: dolphins, whales, seals, fishes, ALL of them were HIS. For any sea journey Poseidon had to be ritualistically worshiped, honored with gifts, sacrifices, poems and words to ensure a safe journey. None of his sea animals could be killed unless Poseidon gave his blessing. He was a great and powerful God whose orders had to be obeyed. Once in the Odyssey Odysseus's sailors did not honor him and he raged with a storm that destroyed their ships and sent them to a watery grave. His terrible rage was feared and all tried to appease him. It was DEATH to go against him or to forget to honor him.

Were pagans with multiple gods less advanced than our fake Christian values today?

City dump polluted stream Dubuque IOWA
The Will of Water has been attenuated by humans. If the will has been thwarted, stopped, from flowing, then the river has been harmed!  Therefore the river has RIGHTS! 

There is no ancient Greek who could have done this as his terror of Poseidon would have forbid it. Is modern man more civilized because he has superior technology? If values are not transferred along with technology then human regression occurs and unfolds.
Colorado River Flowing, Stopping
If the flow of water is being stopped, the will of the water is being stopped and any stopping of the will in a specie or entity is 

If it can be harmed then by extension that entity has 

And we must enter the Courts of Law to plead the case of 
The Colorado River. 
Not on the basis of its being a person as a corporation, but as an entity 
that cannot be infringed.
Because it can be harmed.

A sea once so huge all of Ireland could have fit into it.
A Sea of 1000 islands.
Beautiful, rich with fish and sea animals
Ruined by USSR dams blocking the water for industrial use.

The ARAL Sea
In 44 years less than 10% is left.It is saline.All life is gone or dying


Thursday, August 22, 2019

NOT a Review:Once Upon a time....In Hollywood

10050 Cielo Drive - Manson Murders

Just go see it. Anything by Tarantino is worth more than you can imagine.

This film by the great MASTER is not great for what it says BUT FOR WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY. Tarantino has given us the INVISIBLE in this film.

So why do I say that? Let's take the ending first. Since this is not a review do I need to remind you of spoilers. I hope not. 

The Manson Murders are not in it. The murders are in the house next door as the murderers are so hyped up on WEED they dont even know which house is the one Manson wanted.

BUT. IF the murders had not been committed against the BRAND names of Hollywood and their BRAND name friends, would Manson have ever been implicated in his cult? It would have been just a two bit cowboy star on his way down down down and his stunt double. Not a big deal. Or someone just like him next door?

But the MANSON MURDERS performed by CULT members was fleshed out by the media, Polanski, his pregnant wife the beautiful new starlet Sharon Tate, and the Folger coffee heiress certainly got their attention. So Tarantino has given us a murder attempt that failed, but did not really fail as the murderers were brutally murdered. AND I MEAN BRUTALLY. 

I read this as an escalation fantasy. IF the Manson Murders were committed today, the horror would be far greater in brutality and visual imagery than the original I am thinking. Our idea of horror has escalated, so Hollywood has ordained, and we have obediently identified with the new. 

The Manson Murders were a Debordian SPECTACLE concealing the REAL. That it is not the murders the STATE is concerned with, BUT WHO IS MURDERED!  This is what Tarantino is telling you INVISIBLY.

Tarantino is also telling you that the ante on HOW a murder may be staged has been upped. We see a performance by Brad Pitt of great violence. He will be criticized by every PC Feminist in the country and the world. In personal life he has had a reputation of well...... not being quite non-violent. As we have learned in reading murder mysteries, murders are often PERFORMED to deliver a MESSAGE as well as delivering the CONTENT, which is the murder itself. But it is the MESSAGE that is the most relevant, not the murder. The HOW. NOT THE WHY.

There are so many very observant and subtle images of telling that can be easily overlooked.

How about the beautiful boy at the Spahn Ranch who rides the horse so perfectly. A cowboy within the Hollywood Cowboy genre at the Spahn Ranch, a set for early cowboy movies. He is lovely to look at. Take him off the horse, put him behind the wheel of a car and his aggressiveness to the women partners in crime announces his insecurity. As soon as he is walking on Ceilo Drive he is so insecure we would not notice him much, the way we did the beautiful boy with the beautiful body riding the horse. What is invisible is the real cowboy, who is being portrayed in the movies, and what life he is living. It will be Cormac McCarthy who will give us that story in his Border Trilogy. Three book that are McCarthy's way of giving us the history of the southwest from the 1930's to the present. And it is a loss we can never recover from. A history not in our school history books.

Tarantino layers and unlayers Hollywood for us. We have his dead eye on Beefcake with Brad Pitt, so often filmed that way in his earlier movies after Thelma and Louis with his shattering James Dean spectacle of a performance. Pitt is on the roof doing repairs and takes off his shirt as it is hot. We see this older Brad Pitt with a different body build from Achilles in Troy, a more adolescent slim sinewy look to him rather than middle aged beefy. And Pitt's performance is incredibly nuanced. Sometimes glimmers of the young Brad emerge and still the older man is there with this truly great performance of his age. He is one of the finest actors of his generation. DiCaprio is stunning in his insecurity. And the two play off each other in a way not seen so often. Especially in Hollywood. Tarantino's film is also a becoming extinct kind of movie in tinsel town. One without CGI, a throwback to what we loved in movies. The past is a memorial in this movie. Something unlikely to be seen much again. Hollywood has departed from this kind of quality.

There is not even a mediocre performance anywhere in this fine film. All are trustingly directed by Tarantino. 

Brad Pitt's Beefcake is filmed with such irony of the cliched way Hollywood does Beefcake. Tarantino includes it and makes fun of it simultaneously. That is what a great filmmaker doess.

Skipping ahead to the young women at the Spahn Ranch under the influence of Manson and their WEED addiction the car ride to the murder is punctuated by a typical high conversation by young women with meaningless words in their heads. Fast forward to our recent de-criminalizing of this substance will mean you will hear much more of this kind of stupid talk from stupid people. It merges into the word salad of the insane. Get ready for it.

What is still invisible is that these young women under Manson's influence, are going to grow up, get older, and BREED. Tarantino places the pre-feminist in front of our eyes and ears and if you are perceiving them from the future they will be in you will shudder because you know them now in their old age. It is not pretty.

Tuesday, June 11, 2019

Once Upon A Time In.... Hollywood - Esquire Interview with Tarantino,DiCaprio, Pitt By Michael Hainey

What An Interview!
Reading this interview with The Three through Leslie Fiedler's critical essays, Le Carre's character Leiser in Looking Glass War, Roberto Bolano's 2666 and of course Luce Irigaray's SPECULUM of the Other Woman. 

Leiser smiled. It was the best ever, that week, John. It's funny, isn't it: we spend all our time chasing girls, and it's the men that matter; just the men. From 


The beginning of the interview

Pitt settles in, looks into a small...rise. He looks up and says, "There's nothing I can do about boner pants, is there?" 

Tarantino looks at him confused.

"Remember that Curb Your Enthusiasm episode?" Pitt says. "Where the woman thinks he popped one in the movie theater?" Tarantino laughs.

I offer Pitt a pillow. For his lap. He tries it for a minute and then flips it to the side.

Brad Pitt refers to his unintentional erection attributing it to his pants? Too tight? Hainey refers to women as CHICKS and that completes this good ol boy group sealing him the writer into its seams. 

Any woman is aware that in these days, if she were present, they would not be speaking this way. It would not be a Male Discourse only which is what we are reading.

This is the way men speak when women are not present.

In Bolano's 2666 it will be constantly  brought to your attention, especially during The Part About the Crimes - 300 plus pages of autopsies -  as the officers discuss the bodies, the crime scene, of the murdered women or their dumping as road kill in the desert,  as if they are commodities rather than victims of men. The only exception is the murdered bodies of the two kidnapped girls ages 14 and 9 is it? One of them weeps.

This is the way they talk about us when we are not present. Margot Robbie is in this film but she is not present at this Esquire Interview. 

Bolano will tell us that in these crimes in St. Teresa - exact copy of the real ones in Cuidad Juarez  - conceals

The Secret of the World.

Luce Irigaray will be more direct:

The world is ruled by male homosexual, homoerotic collusion that they know but do not know they know. Heterosexuality is the MASK that conceals this. 
Men hate openly gay men because then they have made themselves into commodities just like women. 
To be accumulated and exchanged.

And anyone familiar with the reviews, essays and writings of Leslie Fiedler will already know that ALL his work was directed at this undetected homoerotic homosexuality permeating all group activities where men gather together. He hones in on the great American novels: Moby Dick; Huckleberry Finn; and those of James Fenimore Cooper. Nor does Hemingway escape. He takes on football and the men who arbitrated the Treaty of Versailles to end up giving us Hitler and World war II. My rude awakening when I read Come Back To The Raft Ag'in, Huck Honey! (LINK is pdf for you) led to associations of my own that I had felt, but never uttered and hardly even dared to think I might have intuitively grasped something universal in the world until I was validated. Now of course I see it everywhere so here is a recent recognition in this Esquire interview which I am sharing here. 

As things are changing in Hollywood in 1969 Michael Hainey summarizes: 

MH: What's fascinating __ there is the rise of the pretty leading man, but there is also the rise of the anti-leading man. Again, look at 1969. Dustin Hoffman plays Ratso Rizzo in a corrupted western, Midnight Cowboy. And then, who is the complete embodiment of the new anti-leading man? Charles Manson! He's hairy and charismatic and young. Plus, he gets the chicks. And he literally steals the old dream factories from these guys; he's living on an old movie set. Manson usurps it all! Even the headlines. He becomes more famous than all of them.

BP : Right! Well put, well put.

Here Pitt comments on what Hainey has said. He does not say Wow! Nor does he just nod his head in agreement or say yes. The subtext I am reading here is the misogynist male automatic comment of placing a judgement on what Hainey has said. Right! Well put. well put. Pitt has assumed dominance here in the masculine DISCOURSE of this  conversation where Hainey is not asking questions but commenting on what the Three are saying, often to each other. Sort of like women tend to do in this situation.

Or is Pitt assuming the femme position of agreeing and praising? Is this becoming trans now?

But above Hainey has done the same thing:

QT: But the thing is, Rick was sold a bill of goods everyone else was sold. To be a young leading man is to be macho and masculine and sexy and handsome and chiseled.

MH: Well, for his generation, that's the epitome of manhood, of male identity. And here Hainey is agreeing and rephrasing Tarantino. He is not the journalist asking questions that can be labeled "interrogative" forcing their replies into the Binary Discourse. This interview is free association. That makes it different.


LD: As I'm thinking about it, I've had these relationships in the industry too. You need your support system. You need that guy you can sit there and watch TV with and not say a fucking word with for five hours. You need to know somebody is "there." When we were doing the movie, my relationship with Brad clicked. It was very early on where he improvised a line and it changed everything. In the scene, as it was written, I'm coming to set hungover and I am basically getting my fate handed to me, discovering what my future is going to be in this industry. And I'm really down. And in the scene, Brad ad-libs. He just comes out with this line: He looks at me and says, "Hey you're Rick fucking Dalton. Don't you forget that."

I find this use of another guy to just be there very like the guy who wants the woman - eye candy type? - to just be there, chilling. This is exactly a description of rapprochement from psychoanalysis telling about that early pre specking stage of development when the young child plays in the room where the mother is. Mother does not have to be interacting with her child, she just has to be there. If she gets up and goes to check the oven the spell is broken and the child follows her rather than continue playing. Mother's presence is a necessary part of this tiny world the child requires to play creatively. Mahler's work on Separation and Individuation. clearly Leo has not completed this stage and the fact that he talks about it means that he wants to understand it.


They are talking together about how the movie industry is changing now. That we are in a moment in time where it is shifting just as it did in 1969. And yes it is. I have felt it for a long time.

BP What I always loved about going to a cinema was letting something slowly unfold, and to luxuriate in that story and watch and see where it goes. I'm curious to see if that whole form of movie watching is just out the window with the younger generations. I don't think so completely. 

Walter Benjamin has written beautifully on this understanding. Time is slower. There is time for contemplation, for memory. Today's young people are mostly ADD - medicated or not - and they want FAST. They want to be entertained, amused. They are not looking for contemplation, associations with their memories or connecting dots with other films. 

The classic BP must read

QT: It requires the right kind of movie - one that hits the right kind of nerve where it becomes a conversation.  "Get Out" achieved that. Everyone was talking about it, and the whole metaphor of the Sunken Place was something everyone started to use. It sparked genuine conversation. It used to be movies were the pop-culture conversation and it was much rarer for a TV show to break into that place. But now that's where it is.

For me in the early 1960's while teaching in an elementary school the topic in the teachers's room was always TV and rarely movies. I dont think these three know that.

Leo goes on to say that there is always that chance to do something really fine with your part. Yes there are those wonderful moments when a mediocre film comes alive when that great moment comes. Who can ever forget James Dean in Giant when his oil well hits and he is telling the group all covered in oil and happiness. It was a rare moment then in those times and we all felt it. The same is true in that moment in Thelma and Louise when Brad is caught and being dragged away and shouting to Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon. It was a WOW moment and I just knew, sitting in Singapore watching it, that Brad was going to be the new big star. It was his time to take a small part and make it great.



MH: One of the crazy facts about Manson:He was not an outsider in Hollywood. He crosseed paths with many famous people in town. Like Brian Wilson. Or like doris Day's son, Terry Melcher, the record producer. you guys have lived in this town a long time.what six degrees of weirdness do you have?

BP: I remember back in the early days I hung out with Brandon Lee.....We went out one night and everyone else had peeled off, and we ended up back at his place and it was like six in the morning. A real, you know, drunk and stony night, and he proceeded that night to tell me how he thought he was going to die young like his dad. And I just chalked it up to, you know, stony 6:00 A.M. talk. Then he got The Crow next year.

LD: I have one. One of the most ominous and sad ones. I grew up revering River Phoenix as the great actor of my generation, and all I ever wanted was to have just an opportunity to shake his hand. And one night, at a party in Silver Lake, I saw him walk up a flight of stairs. It was almost like something you would see in Vertigo, because I saw there was something in his face, and I'd never met him - always wanted to meet him, always wanted to just have an encounter with him  - and he was walking toward me and I kind of froze. And then the crowd got in my way, and I looked back and he was gone.  I walked back up the stairs and back down, and I was like, "Where did he go?" And he was ...on his way to the Viper Room.  It was almost as if - I don't know how to describe it, but it's this existential thing where I felt like ...he disappeared in front of my very eyes, and the tragedy that I felt afterward of having lost this great influence for me and all of my friends. The actor we all talked about. Just to be able to have that, always wanting to just - and I remember extending my hand out, and then ...Two people came in front and then I looked back, and then he wasn't there.

BP: I'll tell you one of the greatest moments  I've had in this town: getting to spend two days with Burt Reynolds on this film. 

QT: Yeah.

LD: Yeah.

MH: He was originally cast to play George Spahn, correct?

QT Yeah. The last performance Burt Reynolds gave was when he came down and did a rehearsal day for that sequence, and then the script reading. And that was really amazing.

BP: It was a fucking pleasure.

QT: I found out from three different people that the last thing he did just before he died was run lines with his assistant. Then he went to the bathroom, and that's when he had his heart attack.


Did anyone notice that all these "moments" were about other men? 

Tarantino is an original and accomplished writer and director of unique films. Leo and Brad have been the objects of desire for many women. Yet none of these three have ever been able to sustain a mature emotional relationship with a mature emotional woman, have they. Brad comes close with Joli but they have a public breakdown on an airplane! Over the eldest son's public argument with his adopted father. so Maddox and Brad go at it and it seems Brad is abusive. This is a very normal occurrence between teen sons and fathers. The old Oedipal who owns the mother, the son or the father? Evidently that was never addressed in the family dynamics. Why? IDK. 

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Reading Blade Runner 2049 with Unemployed Negativity

For a deep dark reading of Blade Runner 2049 by one of the finest minds in philosophy still in academia. If you can get to the University of Southern Maine to study with him  then kill if you have to to get there. Or ask him if you can just audit if you  are not after credits.

Reading Wind River from TheM0vieBlog Or Why Try to Argue With Perfection

Please just go to Darren Mooney at  themovieblog for a superlative review of  

Tuesday, May 9, 2017


Official Trailer

The review at Rogerebert is exceptionally good so below is the link.

"It’s a mystery to me why he trusts me, because I don’t think he likes me." Laura Poitras

Assange has already told her about his feelings when she films him with Lady Gaga's interview with him. Gaga's first question is "How do you feel?"

Assange tells her, Why do you ask how I feel? How I feel doesn't matter."

So whether he likes Poitras or not has nothing to do with why he gives her unprecedented access. He trusts her.

Why he doesn't like the film is why he doesn't like seeing himself in this film. His vulnerability is palpable. I would not like to see myself on film like that either. I would hate it, feel shamed. And yet it has made me love and admire him even more.

So much criticism of Assange himself and interpretations of his presence and performative mode for the camera. When will critics heed Baudrillard and understand that WHENEVER the camera is filming, those being filmed are performing. The subject and the object cannot be divorced, separated, perceived separately. Forget it. This is true of the animal abuses on youtube DONE FOR THE CAMERA to torture the viewers, to force them to click and accuse them and try to ban them, apprehend them, stop them, shame them and all that happens is that the notoriety they desire has been bestowed on them.

Assange is absolutely aware of the camera. It has been noted that he and his associates hate this film. Well if I were Assange I would hate it after watching myself in it. Poitras has captured Assange in so many big screen close ups that he is revealed. But only if you yourself can read him.The critics have distanced themselves from him to critique him, then accused him of egotism, manipulation, etc. Denounced him for his outburst at PC Feminists for the accusations of rape in Sweden at him. It has since been leaked that these women were pretty much forced to bear witness against him. One can imagine the consequences if they refused. So they caved.When the US government couldn't get anything serious on a member of the Mafia they always resorted to Income Tax Evasion to put them behind bars. Nowadays the go to crime is raping a woman, sexual misconduct, and or pedophile activities somewhere in the present or past. I imagine sometimes it is true, but WHEN YOU CRY WOLF you wear out your accusations.

As Poitras focuses her camera on Assange blown up to full screen, all I can see is his tender mouth. It has a slight tremor to it, like a child holding back tears displays. When questioned he answers as he thinks out the reply he wishes to make considering the camera will record it forever. He does not use cliches, sound bites, rhetoric, but tries to be clear, unemotional while feeling very emotional,and yes, this is a performance. But how could it be otherwise?

And as the time sequence follows from 2010 to the 2016 election, sometimes out of joint to me, we see the early Assange in a lovely home in the UK answering a question by using the metaphor of a personal garden. Has he read Kosinski's Being There with Chauncey Gardiner's aphoristic garden replies?

You have a garden and when there are weeds you want to get rid of them so your garden can be healthy and grow. That is your perception of your garden. My perception is the world. 

And that is his tragedy and any of us who feel the same about our world, our planet. The refugees, starving children, the sickening fate of animals being tortured, brutally slaughtered willfully or for food as it really doesn't matter what reason they are made to suffer so by the brutality of humans who have been so brutalized themselves they know not what they do. All this is inscribed on the face of Julian Assange. And this is my reading of Poitras's film. 

There is a major difference between Assange and Snowden and Chelsea Manning in how their revelations were meant to be revealed. Manning just sent them to wikileaks.Snowden wanted Greenwald to handle their "careful" dissemination. To protect us? In other words Snowden wished some sort of control on how they would surface, be read, be understood. Greenwald has controlled the careful and rather slow publishing of them. Still there is a treasure trove we have not seen and at this point in time does anyone really care? 

Assange trusts the public. He DUMPS them in a heap on us. We read them out of sequence, each one as an EVENT, the way the world is accoring to Foucault and the Continental Philosophers. The impact of the Podesta, Hillary, Campaign manager leaks were far more violent on us than Snowden's. We knew we were being under surveillance, we just got the proof. But those emails were so violent, so unbelievable that political leaders of the US could stoop to such sickening high school pernicious, destructive antics that they never seemed real to me. And yet I did not doubt them for a minute. How is it possible that adults are so unconsciously corrupt they can play at this in a real game for control of the world.  And how is it possible so many can deny their validity and blame Russia for interfering in our election when we have interfered in elections for decades and decades? 

This cannot be fixed.  Sadly so many critics wish to focus on the psychological personality of Assange. Why don't they know that interpretation is over, dead, finished along with the Dominating Discourse of the Dialectic of Thesis and Antithesis..