But lately, whatever I’m thinking about, wondering about, shows up as a movie on my TV! My husband loves old movies and 9 out 10 times our TV is on TCM (Turner Classic Movies). I’ll be in the bedroom getting ready for work, tossing around some idea in my mind, let’s say reincarnation. And lo and behold I suddenly notice that a movie dealing with this exact subject is playing. Now was it that the background noise of the TV influenced me to think of reincarnation. Or crazy as it sounds is the TV/movie occurring because I’m thinking of reincarnation.
It has been happening over and over.

Then I got to wondering about why did all the old original TV stations pick as their logos - occultic, magical symbols. Never realized that or even crossed my mind until the internet. But is this just a coincidence?

ABC has always been “7″.
NBC has always been “Peacock”
CBS has always been “Eye of Horus” or “All Seeing Eye”.

I’m sure someone has discussed this before, but I find it hard to believe that this just happened my chance.

We aren’t looking thirty years into the future with a crystal ball my friends…

Haha. Yeah, we are, because in thirty years it won’t be Lee Harvey Oswald, it’ll be us.

o_0

And it will be done by our next door neibor with a program he downloaded for free because we crashed his barbecue.

Dogma-95 flicks as example…

In a sense, flipping a surveillance medium into a human medium.

Raoul Eshelman talks about this.

McLuhan says that the content of a medium (i.e., the plot!) is entirely irrelevant… what’s important is the medium. All films are peddling the same myth. A film on television or a DVD is telling a different story… they are appreciated differently by our senses. A film in 70mm Dolby digital at the cinema is a high-definition medium which requires little audience participation (brainwork) to appreciate… it slips in under the radar, as it were. A film on TV is a different matter.

And also, note that the word ‘intent’ can mean the same as ‘design’.

what then?

What then exactly? Did you ever see the movie JFK, where they doctor the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald to be holding the gun and newspaper? We aren’t looking thirty years into the future with a crystal ball my friends…

1) To re-edit the reality the original created. The Batman movies with George Cloony were horrible, so they made “Batman Begins” to undue the pollution of that reality. The same with the new James Bond; trying to undue the mistakes made in “Die Another Day”…. or to discredit the original… campy remakes can ruin a perfectly good reality.
2) Like Andrew said, to make it more real. How many Americans do you know who have no opinion on 9/11?
Zero.
Because everyone saw the horrific image of planes full of people being crashed into buildings full of even more people. Planes aren’t just vehicles anymore, planes are wepons; they’re missiles. They’ve changed what an image fundamentally is. But the wierd thing is, the news people aren’t thinking that, they’re thinking “Let’s show it over and over to get ratings up, this is the story of the decade” But that’s what they’re doing.
3) When 3D animation becomes quick, easy, and photo-realistic (which it will in the next 30 years) What if the government made totaly fake videos of you saying you were gonnah blow up the building that you walk by every day, and you planting the bomb. then they’d just blow up the building and hold you in gitmo untill you die, just cause you pissed them off, or voted wrong, or they needed a good terror attack to let them increase homeland security spending. what then?

But if you exclude adaptations of literary works, then many agree “The Most Dangerous Game” (1932), in which a big-game hunter targets human beings on his remote island, is the most borrowed-from film. (And even this was originally a short story.) Remakes and rip-offs (or “homages”) include “Run for the Sun,” “Bloodlust,” “Woman Hunt,” “Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity,” “Deadly Prey,” “Deadly Game,” “Final Rounds,” “Hard Target,” “Surviving the Game,” “Escape 2000,” “Star Hunter,” and “Predator.”

Kind of scary to think that The Most Dangerous Game needs to be constantly remade, and I imagine with each retelling it gets more and more grisly.

THEY ONLY HAVE POWER BECAUSE WE KEEP LOOKING

And as Jordan Maxwell would say, “They’re still weaving their magick on us today.”

= $$$

What kind of reality do you want to lend your energy and intention towards creating?

If a filmmaker (or songwriter, etc.) could answer this question for his or her audience, they’d be in clover.

1) To reframe the way we remember the original? Perhaps in the same way textbooks (and preachers) revise the original story in order to gloss over details that conflict with current standards and tastes. Maybe it’s an attempt to “fix” the original version. (The question could also be asked, “why make movies about actual events?”)

2) I think the intent may have been to “make the event more real.” I think they flattened the effect it had by replaying it over and over. Subtle reminders, using the Zeignarik effect — that sort of thing would have been more effective than continually showing the twin towers. “Remember Pearl Harbor!” has more of an effect than seeing video taped reality over and over and over.

3) We all move into Kafkaville. If we have our own certainty of events and are surrounded by others who have a different certainty of events … well, we’ve just stumbled into a definition of insanity, haven’t we?

This blog reminded me of the remake of Miracle on 34th Street. In the original, Kris Kringle was proven to be Santa Claus because of agreement. Hundreds and hundreds of letters delivered to Kris.

In the remake, Kris Kringle was proven to be Santa Claus because the government acknowledges the existence of god on our currency.

Strange how the most significant deviation from the original was replacing group agreement with money.

(Great blog, Tim. I read it frequently but this is only my second comment. Keep up the good work!)

One of the interesting things is I have totally reframed, recontextualized…whatever the correct word is, certain vacation events. People see them in a totally different light than they were originally made. They have a new significance.

Also, without going into details, a short time ago certain events took place as if this fiction was literally trying to intrude on my day to day reality. It is difficult to explain, and am hesitant to take this any further. It in part had to do with a stranger wanting to believe this was real, eventhough I made it clear it was a story. Things that I hadn’t posted were playing out in different context, but still oddly similar ways in real life. Kind of a hyperfiction event, but not one I willed. More than that, the process of reframing and combining various cuts of film have given me a chance to reflect on, evoke and process certain thoughts and emotions etc that have been lying underneath the surface. How I look at reality has been flipped.

This relates to question #3, except that the one editing and modulating the surveillnace footage is oneself. Unfortunately, I am out of steam and I have to get back to work, but I think there was a movie made recently by someone who retold and reframed his lifestory using video footage that he had collected since childhood. How healthy this is I won’t go into…lol

re #2, the more I saw the 9/11 footage the less real it became to me, while at the same time being drilled into my thick head, so that I will probably always recall it at will.