GROTH Isn't there a difference between what they do on television, which is basically to move the camera as frenetically as possible, and what Welles did which could be considered a legitimate artistic advance.?
BECK It was because things were frozen at that time and he kind of jogged them loose. But then the imitators came along and just ran hog wild. And they pushed Welles aside. He's never had a decent job since.
GROTH Do you think highly of Citizen Kane.?
BECK Well, I can't remember it anymore, except it was known for his moving the camera and getting special effects..
.. GROTH ..what would you say are the wrong things about Eisner's work?
BECK .. they just picked up the superficial angles, that he always draws a lot of wrinkles, and it always has a lot of action. He uses the same method I did of suggesting action..old age and stereotypes and so on and not actually doing it. But then they go one step farther and show everything, and end up with just the frosting on the cake, and there's no cake inside.. (TCJ #95, 1985)
In terms of film, the use of camera 'extravagance' is what could correspond to the psyche the director chooses to impose.
"I have always wanted basically to carry out investigation in the form of spectacle. Producers say, 'Godard talks about anything he pleases, Joyce, metaphysics or painting, but he always has his commercial side ' I don't feel that atall; I see not two things, but one." (Godard on Godard, Preface page X)
'Investigation' is the subjective or psyche, while 'spectacle' is the narrative flow. Godard is seemingly able to integrate the two to create something larger. The camera represents physical reality combined with a psychic overlay of ideas.
Without the psychic content, the extraneous use of camera is arbitrary, but with the psyche there is added content to the story.
If psyche is content, how is it possible for a material world to have content? It can only be false or very partial. This is the Apollonian area of sterile logic we inhabit (see prev, the false Apollo.)
If the fertile universe imbues the psyche (HB208/209), the psyche is clearly outside of the modern order.
This makes sense because a universe based on measurement is pure order (see Korvac) and zero in terms of psychic content. Does the modern 'story' then have no meaning, for all its emotive flow?
First of all, measurement creates inconsistencies in the physical universe; instead of the Earth spinning as a top, time becomes variable (HB209).
So, how is it that measurement - the unassailable indicator and most fundamental axiom of logical space - produces inconsistencies?
It has to be because the physical universe is not only physical; it has a psychic component. But this component is imbued by a fertile universe. The sterile order cannot possibly have a fertile component by definition, and so is devoid of psyche. This is actually the parallel reality we are entering through measurement!
The logical space is devoid of fertility and psyche. You could easily say it's the one pictured in Godard's 1965 sci-fi film
The material reality causes confusion because it's not actually reality; reality is two-pronged, but the two come together somewhat like Godard has it.
Psyche, as in Madam Blavatsky's Theosophy, emanates from the planets and the mighty physical presence of the cosmos.
This is now approaching what could be called fantasy, and it strikes me that in Godard's films there is almost no difference between his depictions of fantasy and realism. Alphaville is a sci-fi dystopia set in a fuzzed-out Paris. There are no spaceships or anything of that order, just a lot of lights and dark architectural ambience.
By combining physical and psyche, Godard is being accurate to the fertile universe. Exactly the same could be said of other creators. Bilal's sci-fi opus The Nikopol Trilogy, with its superb flair for decadent architecture and fashion (again set in Paris). Probably the same holds for BWS' Monsters though I've not read it.
The point is, a non-fertile universe has no meaning (epistemology), only measurement. This creates real confusion amongst the egotistical types; how can something hyper-real be an illusion?
For that exact reason. The hyper-reality and neutralising news (desexed as per JK Rowling) could easily be represented by a fire-breathing dragon, as previously noted.
I happened to notice Zendaya is playing Michelle Jones-('MJ')-Watson in the Spider-Man films. What reason could there possibly be for the name-shift from Mary-Jane? All I can think of is it neuters the vibe of street-hip lingo that characterized the 60s Marvel revolution.
It's not even that clear; CC Beck back in '85 fforeshadows this.
Now the latest thing they've come out with is a revised reading of the Bible.. "In the name of God, our Father and Mother, and the only child." And they've even taken out all references to darkness, because of the dark people and so on. They (liberals) want more stereotypes instead of less, they want everything a sexless robot, or a wax figure. Same as in Bernini's day when all the angels had to be sexless, ethereal creatures, you couldn't tell they were boys or girls.. And that's what I hate to see go by the board, because it's a sign of a declining civilization.. (TCJ #95)
It's not just the liberals though; it's more to do with the fact we are now inside a gigantic (if profitable) mistake, that we should aim for sameness as opposed to differences.
We're not brains, nor are we bodies. Brain and body are separate but integrated; chemicals course through the blood that alter behaviour and calm the psyche. The mistake is to separate the two entirely for ideological ends (not simply liberal diktat.)
The spine is strong and connects us to reptilian ancestors of the primordial jungle. In the jungle, opposite tendencies are apparent - mates and prey - and that is the fertile universe (of myth and classical allusion, Diana.)
We can't switch off from the body - the sexual differences that are preordained - because the head is a neutral zone. Children used to get dirty and thereby stay healthy. Social media aims at the head and the inert, neutral, sterile zone of sameness.
You can't view the brain simply as a separate organ; children who play and get dirty are healthy in their heads as well as their bodies. The end-result of the social-media indoctrination of kids is Alzheimer's further on. It's inevitable in the polarization of head from body (I noticed in the darklordbob interview of a gamer, mention was made of outdoor pursuits such as archery.) Similar arguments go for vaxx: what's the 'control', to use a scientific term? In a sterile system the only fucking control is the voice of expertise! That exists outside the fertile universe of oppositional activity (that is youthful health or gaiety.)
Going back to Darkchilde (P136); Limbo could be said to represent the neutraised, sterile setting inhabited by the egotistical 'dragon' (actually demon) N'Astirh and his cohorts.
Darkchilde represents revival from the bestial, bloody and decaying interior of her feminine soul - represented by her sword. Feminine revivalism is a combination of a fiery psyche with the bloody sexuality inherent in femininity.
To deny that is to live inside the neutralised head - neutraised by the fire-breathing dragon of a sterile order. N'Astirh loves the Darkchilde, and that is his redeeming feature.
New Mutants#71
There can be no revival without a dark descent, of body and mind combined (see Noto "Red Lace", prev.). The cosmos emanates psyche only because of the great physical masses that were in past ages represented by Ymir (by the planets in Theosophy.)
The mirror of illusions attracts the ego, lulling it into abandoning the combined revivalism of myth (or the 60s.) Anna Karina - the once wife of (Swiss dual-citizen) Godard - said in an interview he was more than just a brainbox; a champion skier and fine swimmer.
This is what reality is ('film is truth 27 times a second'); the peaks of a Swiss mountain; the depths of Lake Geneva. That is the cosmos we inherit from our ancestors. It is (or was) fully integrated while we are dissociated (CERN is a symbol for that.).
The cosmos is great and we are but a
