Happy Late Night, Sweet Baby,
Tonight we saw the second film in the Robert Bresson retrospective at the CSUN Cinematheque : "Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne" (1945). I had seen it before, about a year ago, but this is my first time seeing any of the Bresson films in a theater, and it hit me tonight that "Les Dames" is a perfect film. Every scene means something, every bit of dialogue and plot leads to the next bit, everything connects and nothing is wasted. Every shot connects to the next one like an unfolding puzzle. Every actor nails his or her role. It's perfection.
It also looks beautiful, with shimmering black & white photography (the final scene looks positively spiritual), and the story is both tragic and redemptive. To describe it would take too long (a tale of vengeful love), but it is a 10 out of 10 on all counts, and one of the stars is an actress named Maria Casares, who was also in what many consider to be the greatest French film ever made, "Children Of Paradise" by director Marcel Carne (made also in 1945). I have that one on dvd and it is epic. Well, I could go on and on about Robert Bresson. He's certainly in my Top 5 filmmakers, and possibly #1, though just as with music it's a tough call to put 'em in order. If I had to roughly list my Top 5 filmmakers, I'd have to put Bresson in there, and Ozu, and Tarkovsky, and David Lynch (who may also be my #1), and for the fifth choice.......hmmm........ maybe Antonioni, or Satyajit Ray, or Orson Welles.
But those first four are definitely in there. Next week, we are gonna see "Diary Of A Country Priest" which I've seen multiple times. It might just be the greatest film I've ever seen, so I'm looking forward to seeing it on the big screen. :)
I hope your day was good, and that all projects are proceeding according to schedule, and to your satisfaction.
I am still writing about 1989 and will keep doing so until I am "all written out" I suppose. When I wrote my book in 2006, the effort was all about telling the story. There was quite a bit of evidence analysis even then, but in the ten years that have passed I have kind of boiled things down, and I've also had new questions pop up that I hadn't initially thought of, some of which I've looked at in these recent blogs.
Every day of my life, to some degree, I wonder what happened to me. I think I probably remember about 70% of it, but I wonder about the parts I don't remember, and most of all I wonder why it happened.
Why did it happen?
And the only way I can even try to answer that question is to start at the beginning and go step by step and look at every action forensically, and then run that evidence back and forth through the wringer, as we have discussed before. I've learned that it's never enough just to come to a conclusion about a bit of evidence by passing over it a single time. While it's true that one's first impressions are usually the ones leading in the right direction, it is still very important to look at all possible angles of any given action in a situation that one is examining.
Also, in reading about the philosophy of dialectics in Dr. Joe's books, which boils down to a comparison of opposites, which are then reduced to a final "truth", I find that philosophy somewhat helpful in reducing the massive amount of details of the 1989 Experience so that I can focus on the most important ones.
When I start at the beginning, I say to myself, "well, how did it start"? The answer : "it started by me, going down to the apartment building".
Then, using the dialectical method of opposites, I say to myself. "what if I had never gone down to the apartment building"? Remember that what I am looking for is an answer as to why things got so weird.
I answer my question by saying, "well, I imagine that if I never went down to the apartment building that evening, several things would not have happened".
There would have been no confrontation, so...
I would not have been injured, so...
I would not have been taken to the hospital, so...
Howard Schaller would not have attacked our car at the hospital. Nor would he have attacked a person who got out of the car. He would not have even been at the hospital.
Finally, at least as far as the first night is concerned, I would not have been taken back to the apartment building to spend the night alone in an empty apartment, as directed by a government agent already on the scene. On the scene less than perhaps three hours before I went down to the apartment building in the first place.
Keep in mind how huge that is. Sorry, but I have to capitalise it.
THAT IS HUGE.
So let's use dialectics again. Let's say I don't go down to the apartment building that night. That's the opposite, or the dialectic, of what I did do.
But if I don't go down to the apartment building, then what happens to the government agent(s)?
We know what happens to everybody else, including the violent Howard Schaller. And that is that nothing happens to them. If I don't go down, and raise a ruckus, they don't react. They stay at home and go about whatever they were gonna do that night.
But we are now examining the government agents. Remember, as far as I saw that night, police were not present. The only authority was Federal.
So my question is : if I had not gone down to the apartment building that night, where would the Federal agents have been? Would they have been back at their office? This was nighttime, so probably not. Would they have been "off duty"? Perhaps, to whatever extent Federal agents are ever off duty. They are probably on call all the time, I imagine, although like anybody else they must go home for dinner and to sleep, etc.
So that's my question : If I had not gone down to the apartment building that night, on September 1st 1989, and had just stayed home instead, then where would the Federal agents have been?
They couldn't have been "at the office" going about their work, because the time was about 10pm on a Friday. And it is doubtful they were simply "called in from home", because their response time was very fast indeed.
So where were they?
Probably surveilling the situation to begin with.
I walked into a situation that was already being surveilled.
And THAT IS HUGE. HUGE, I TELL YOU. (sorry about the caps, but I gotta use 'em).
Now, it is very, very important that I remind you that what was being surveilled was much more than any criminal enterprise or action. They certainly weren't using Federal government resources to surveil some young people in an apartment house, or if they were, it was part of some much larger program that had nothing to do with drugs, the inference of which is concluded by Howard Schaller's appearance at the hospital that evening. On the surface, one would think drugs was the reason for the survellance.
But it couldn't have been the sole reason because too many other things happened during the 12 Day Period, including some that were supernatural and some that were otherworldly.
But when I use dialectics (a comparison of opposites) I see that the Federal government had surveillance in place before I ever went down to that apartment building. Had I stayed at home, their surveillance would have remained quiet, unseen.
I don't know exactly what they were surveilling, but because of the secrecy that resulted, it could not possibly have been a mere drug deal.
I think it was something much, much bigger......../////
That's all for tonight. See you in the morn, SB. I Love You. xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment