Trump and the Unspeakable? Part II

[Robert Harper]

20 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Robert, how many letters involved W. Averell Harriman or Robert Lovett?

None that I recall. The file was mostly a report on who he was--partner (with 1 share) at Brown Brothers Harriman and relates that he closed out his association when he entered the Senate. He seems to be the example of the water-carrier for the big boys; like Goldman Sachs today, they make sure they have people walk through the revolving door of politics so that their interests are protected. In his letters, he'd brag how he was a trustee of Yale which made me think of his son's George easy entrance into adulthood. Without putting up a dime, his father arranged a partnership after he likely arranged his entrance into Yale. Neither father nor son (nor grandson) seem capable of writing a complex thought and the tone is one of a sycophant.

 

[Joe Bauer]

It's courageously inspiring how much JFK conspiracy researchers and writers have accomplished from 1963 through today despite being up against the never ending and hugely encompassing MSM "unspeakable" silencing machine.

As powerful and effecting as that machine is and has been, it's fabrication has not always been well put together enough to keep substantial elements of the JFK truth from regularly breaking through some of it's weaker parts.

Since 1965 and every year through today the majority of Americans polled have expressed their doubt about the WC "Lone Nut" finding. After 53 years, that fact makes it laughably clear that our ominous MSM "unspeakable" machine never succeeded more than a gambler's "push" in their goal of blocking the full truth of the JFK event.

But all credit goes to our unrelenting JFK truth seeking researchers, writers, publishers and so many citizens who may have had some truth revealing knowledge and courageously came forward to share it through these past 55 years.

The tenacity of the truth blockers has been more than matched by the less powerful but equally motivated truth seekers. Again, so inspiring.

Can we ever fully out the "unspeakable" regards JFK, RFK and MLK?

Not in my lifetime I feel.

However, we have recently totally outed the unspeakable regards the decades of rampant sexual harassment and abuse of women by men of power such as Weinstein, Cosby, O'Reilly and so many others.

The "unspeakable" can be revealed if the effort to do this is dedicated enough, even through generations.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Robert:

Concerning your reference to Doctor Zhivago, in my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I devote the whole last part of the book, about 75 pages, to the MIC and its influence on films and the broadcast media.    In The Afterword, which I think is one of the best things I ever wrote, I sum up how this control threatens democracy through invisible censorship.  A censorship that almost no one is aware of in the audience that is watching.

I especially go after Tom Hanks, and to a lesser degree, Speilberg. To me, those two guys typify what is wrong with the Democratic Party today.  I specifically attack three films Hanks was responsible for: Charlie Wilson's War, Parkland, and The Post.  How can one guy go zero for three on Afghanistan, the Kennedy assassination, and the Pentagon Papers?   But he did, and Spielberg helped him on the last.

IMO, it is a really important issue which almost no one is talking about today.  

[Paul Brancato]

The point of assassinating a president in broad daylight and covering up the horrendous crime, of state secrets and hidden files, is to instill fear in a populace. We think as a body politic that we are immune from things that third world citizens face daily. But we are not. I think the hidden hand is an old trick. Human societies have throughout history mostly been ruled by sociopaths and psychopaths. Incremental gains in personal freedom, achieved in the past few centuries in the first world, mask the underlying truth. 

[Robert Harper]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

IMO, it is a really important issue which almost no one is talking about today.  

Absolutely agree, and  I found your pages on the topic in your latest book, illuminating.If Spielberg really wants to honestly broach any Jewish issue, he ought to film the book Breaking the Silence instead of an obvious "crowd pleaser" like Schindler's List. During the closing portions of Armistad and Saving Private Ryan, he bombards the audience with John Williams music which is supposed to make it "important" instead of evoking what is important -- as he does in the opening of Private Ryan for instance. The Color Purple seemed to be more out of Disney than out of Alice Walker, and although he has made good and popular films, he is no Oliver Stone as far as tackling something controversial.

Although retired now and living in Europe, I was an active member of the Motion Picture Academy for 20 years (as well as the TV Academy for a decade). Gradually, I found that what I thought would be an organization that focused on aesthetics,  slowly became an extension of the publicity apparatus of the industry. When an animated film was particularly noteworthy (Beauty and the Beast) and was one of 5 BP nominees,  it had an influence. The Board's solution to what was not broken? Add an animation category. There goes dilution. Although the organization has some of the premiere graphic designers working in the world, who have provided engaging illustrative material for decades, the poster for one year's Award show, had a picture of the daytime TV host who was going to host the show. I finally gave up when the Board announced - without any polling of members - that up to 10 films can be in the BP category. Talk about dilution.

Simultaneously, they  added categories of "casting director"- which is a version of corporate Human Resources - and "executives" - which can be anything - and gave each group the same Board representation as directors, actors, writers, and cinematographers. Perhaps the final insult  came when the president of the academy (chosen by the Board) was from the Public Relations Branch and - when the nominees in two categories--actor and director - did not include "people of color" the president of this alleged artistic organization announced that she was "disheartened" by the members choices. To add insult to injury, at the Award show,  she quoted MLK Jr--who famously said he wanted all judgement based NOT on the color of the skin, but on the "content" of the character" of an individual.  Hanks and Spielberg are on the Board; that should tell you enough.

[David Andrews]

I think Spielberg should go out with a remake of Davy Crockett, using CGI to reanimate Fess Parker and Buddy Ebsen, so they could play against quality modern actors such as Shia LaBeouf and Alden Ehrenreich.  Throw in Tom Hanks as Col. Travis and Harrison Ford as Jim Bowie, and you've got box office gold!

P. S. - John Goodman as Mike Fink, King of the River!

Edited June 23, 2018 by David Andrews

[James DiEugenio]

Really interesting observations Robert.

Spielberg and Hanks are not only big contributors to the Democratic Party and were close to the Clintons and Obama, but they also have a strong influence on the Hollywood establishment. As you noted they are on the board of the Academy Awards.  Spielberg is also a prime mover with the AFI.  Spielberg and Hanks are also influential through Doug Brinkley to various historical projects Brinkley does.  And we know that Brinkley was very close to Steve Ambrose, who Hanks and Spielberg really liked e.g. Band of Brothers.

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw the Academy expanded the Best Picture category to as many as ten films.  I mean oh really?  Most years they could not find five worthy pictures to place in that category, let alone ten.  I didn't know casting directors and executives were allowed to vote as equals with actors and directors.  That is just silly.

I gave up believing in the Oscars, back in 1968.  Even at that young age, I knew something was awry when In the Heat of the Night won not just Best Picture but got more Oscars than Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate put together!  I mean anyone who was interested could see that those two films, especially the former, were doing some aesthetically daring and revolutionary things that had not been done before in American films.  That is, they were pushing the envelope and paving the way for others. But because of the racial element in the winning film, that made the academy feel topical and relevant.

The capper of course was when Ellen Burstyn got nominated for a best supporting actress Emmy for being in a TV movie for fourteen seconds!  If anything showed you that these things were really popularity contests, that did.  As did that weird moment when Michelle Obama showed up on a gigantic screen at the Oscars hovering above the crowd like a spiritual entity.  Or David Belin being able to buy an ad in Variety against Stone's JFK for Best Picture under a false name.  What a disgrace.

Anyway, I am glad you read those pages in my book.  As I said, it is really an important subject that I think is dangerously ignored.   And I guess now there are three people here who have read my stuff.

Edited June 21, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Joe Bauer]

Yes Robert, as Jim Di says... "Really interesting observations."

With your rich and varied theatrical/Hollywood background and contributions here combined with our noted film historian Joseph McBride and noted film critic Jim Di we really have been gifted with a trifecta of valuable knowledge sharing regards revealing the "real truth" of this powerful medium and it's hidden agendas and the effect of these ( unknown to most ) on us all in so many ways.

I think most everyone has always known that the Academy Awards was, is and always will be first and foremost simply a promotional/marketing prop for the film industry.

However, it's been crafted into a celebrity star studded spectacle so successfully that it is watched around the world by what...1 BILLION viewers?

Millions of family get-togethers and social parties are planned around it's showing.

My own film obsessed wife bans me from speaking while the Awards show is on and even offers to bribe me to leave the house ( a drive around the beach, visit friends, a full meal at Wendys ) anything to ensure her of an interruption free viewing.

It's viewership attraction is bigger than the Super Bowl and every other famous national broadcast events combined!  It's a super powerful venue of communicating messages and agendas to 1/7th of the world at one three hour time.

A propagandist's dream.

Add me to the list of people who do read Jim Di's reviews. At least many of them.

A minor Hollywood name dropping here. 

I was in the same high school art class as the late John Alvin. The artist behind many of the top movie posters of the biggest films of the last 30+ years. Mostly Spielberg ( E T, INDIANA JONES ) and Disney films.

Check him out.

I was a freshman when he was a senior. His work in that class was already so phenomenal the entire rest of our class all too often crowded around him to watch him do his magic.  He never once complained about our invading his space.

And thank goodness we don't have to see Harvey Weinstein's scruffy, smug smiling face nor hear the obsequious praises ( "God" - Meryl Streep ) at the Awards show anymore.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

From what I have read, that figure of one billion viewers is part of the illusion.  Not nearly that many people watch the awards each year.  And its not as high rated as the Super Bowl. (See this chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts_in_the_United_States) 

This is part of the phony marketing aspect that Hollywood does to promote itself as some kind of real potent force abroad.

I really miss the days when American films did not dominate the world market as they do today.  Or when you had more exhibitors showing good foreign films in America. Kenneth Turan wrote a book partly about this subject called Never Coming to a Theater Near You.

 I mean who would have thought, twenty years ago, that DC and Marvel comics would take over Hollywood? The late Laura Ziskin has a lot to answer for in my opinion.  I mean today, Black Panther is supposed to be a model for African American women and Wonder Woman (one of the worst movies I have seen in a decade) is supposed to support women's liberation!  Maybe that is why you had so much sexual discrimination and abuse cases in the movie business.

And no one notes that paradox.

 

[Joe Bauer]

Jim Di...hmmm, some facts and numbers that I must ponder.

[Robert Harper]

On 6/21/2018 at 10:13 PM, James DiEugenio said:

This is part of the phony marketing aspect t

 

On 6/21/2018 at 8:57 PM, Joe Bauer said:

of this powerful medium a

J & J: Thanks for thoughts. Before it get's lost in the shuffle, I wanted to share with you a comment I left as a subscriber of the Washington Post. This was a bit of time after "the Academy"  Board had announced that Mr Weinstein was booted out and, shortly thereafter, that Mr. Polanski and Mr Cosby were also booted out ( I think Kevin Spacey avoided this Salem-like water-dunking of disgrace). These Dantesque  expulsions were apparently based on the philosophy that anyone that brings bad news, should be denied and erased. . The NCAA tried that with Joe Paterno and Penn State -- I mean, all of a sudden, they LOST the games they WON. There! That's how to fix a problem!! (SBT anyone?)

Anyway this was my comment to the story headlined  NYPD probing  sex allegations against Mario Batali:

 

FLASH- The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has just released a press comment following an emergency, all night meeting of the Board. It announced in a unanimous vote, " that although Mr Batali is not now, nor has ever been, a member of this exclusive group, if he were a member, he would be expelled."

[Robert Harper]

On 6/21/2018 at 8:57 PM, Joe Bauer said:

he late John Alvin. The artist behind many of the top movie posters o

Thanks for a lovely link to such an accomplished  artist, His poster of  E.T  alone, will stand the test of time.

[James DiEugenio]

Robert:

Were you in the movie business?  Is that how you got in the Academy?  Were you actually a voting member?

If so I hope you voted for JFK as best picture.

[Robert Harper]

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 Is that how you got in the Academy?

I had a professional stage and screen career over a 34 year period;it's described at: www.RobertHarper.net

 I was sponsored by Norman Lloyd and Rosemary Murphy for membership in the Academy actor branch, and was active there from 1994 to 2013. To qualify in that Branch, one had to appear in up-front credits at least 3 times in 5 years in A level films( or something like that), be reviewed by the committee of peers (about 20), and then usually confirmed by the Board.The other way to get invited is to be nominated. RFK's sister, Rory, is now a Board member of the Documentary Branch. 

 I enjoyed voting and being part of the Documentary and Foreign Language Groups for a few years (you have to show up for x number to vote) and manged to see 50 or so films a year during that span. You can view them at their excellent film showcase on Wiltshire or now on DVD in many cases. I qualified for invitation to the Television Academy in 1988 and was involved a but before stepping away as I have from films. Frankly, I rather read 50 books a year at this point in time so I have been freely able to setp aside from active engagement.

Since the "qualification" for Oscar consideration means presently by definition, that it has to play at a commercial theater for one week in either New York or Los Angeles(or both),  it's "exclusivity" must eventually merge with those of the unions( who basically copied what they did anyway). IMHO, in the future, performances like those of Gandolfini and Cranston, will be evaluated and honored by as the "main" performances in a year and not be constrained by the location of where its shown first or the size of the screen on which it appears.

[Paz Marverde]

3 minutes ago, Robert Harper said:

I had a professional stage and screen career over a 34 year period;it's described at: www.RobertHarper.net

 I was sponsored by Norman Lloyd and Rosemary Murphy for membership in the Academy actor branch, and was active there from 1994 to 2013. To qualify in that Branch, one had to appear in up-front credits at least 3 times in 5 years in A level films( or something like that), be reviewed by the committee of peers (about 20), and then usually confirmed by the Board.The other way to get invited is to be nominated. RFK's sister, Rory, is now a Board member of the Documentary Branch. 

 I enjoyed voting and being part of the Documentary and Foreign Language Groups for a few years (you have to show up for x number to vote) and manged to see 50 or so films a year during that span. You can view them at their excellent film showcase on Wiltshire or now on DVD in many cases. I qualified for invitation to the Television Academy in 1988 and was involved a but before stepping away as I have from films. Frankly, I rather read 50 books a year at this point in time so I have been freely able to setp aside from active engagement.

Since the "qualification" for Oscar consideration means presently by definition, that it has to play at a commercial theater for one week in either New York or Los Angeles(or both),  it's "exclusivity" must eventually merge with those of the unions( who basically copied what they did anyway). IMHO, in the future, performances like those of Gandolfini and Cranston, will be evaluated and honored by as the "main" performances in a year and not be constrained by the location of where its shown first or the size of the screen on which it appears.

Very interesting, Robert. Thank you