Matt Ed.
YOLO: Welcome, Nomads
The Birth of Trump's Phone War
The very beginning of the phone war industry.
Posted Apr 29, 2021
|
Reviewed by Lybi Ma
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
Source: Photo by Luis Quintero from Pexels
I remember watching the first Reagan-Bush victory speech on January 6, 1981, and thinking that maybe my theory was right.
It was the kind of speech that makes you want to bang your head against a wall and (even though you’re not sure of the cause) just shout obscenities at the screen and then forgo any further constructive dialogue. You might have later become enmeshed with the forgotten enemy, becoming a punching bag for your party against your party, which is just what you’re hoping to accomplish.
So, how did a successful actor like George Hamilton get to the 1,000,000,000 steps without a telephone and a thick stack of cash?
There goes the paper route.
Hammond, like many successful actors and TV stars, has an agent, a limo driver, who accompanies him everywhere. The agent provocateur uses innuendoes to get the desired result. In Hollywood, the limo driver is another agent who helps out shading the LOSING agent, George. Together, they get the desired result for each client.
What they don’t know is where the information is coming from.
The other type of information they don’t know is the shadow, the enigmatic and repurposed information which provides the “high-low” information. The shadow, described briefly in the Harry Manipulator video, is the unknown adjacency to the target’s core. It’s a tricky communication medium, especially if you’re the one sending it in.
But the reason for the information's lack of specificity is similar to the reason for the telephone blackout: the target has an open line to a friend, and the wire is not return. The wire is only 50 feet, and there is only so much information can be taken in, based on what the person is thinking. And, even when the information is coming from the best-informed source, the receiver still has to authentically acknowledge receiving it, and the information is only as good as its filter.
What does an actor or a director ultimately know about the film or story?
Even the most knowledgeable person in the field may not know all the details of the production. For actors, this is not much different from knowing about props or costumes or acting coaching. For directors, knowing about wardrobe or advanced skills or relevant idiographic and ethnic terms is a different thing altogether.
The importance of avoiding nuggets
I’ve gotten used to actors, directors, and scripts being all the rage these days, so maybe you aren’t expecting much new information on the nuggets of information that come out of screen about small nuggets of information.
I’ve gotten used to actors being all the rage, so even if you root for a movie, you’re probably not likely to be seeking out information about who you are able to reasonably compete with.
And actors are only going to be part of the solution, not the problem. Everyone else is probably getting fed the same way, and the problem is, it’s always been about the top of the list.
I’m sure that some people (particularly Seth McFerritt lately) are making these movies for the money, because they presumably want the money. But his filmography might be richer in darker, more intimate portrayals. And it’s doubtful that directing someone like Forrest M. M. Cucamonga or David Bowie’s Zig: The Scotty John duo would be worth the effort.
I’m a fan of great movies and shows for their stories and characters, but great movies and shows also represent assays of assays. A story is told when we’re through an action sequence, and then we get to choose what to do next.