There's a funny scene in the 1994 film "Sleep with Me," in which Quentin Tarantino appears briefly. He's at a party talking to another guy about how the 1980s film "Top Gun" is all about a [seemingly] heterosexual man struggling with homosexuality. At first, it all sounds very absurd and hilarious. But when you go back and re-watch Top Gun, it turns out to be shockingly plausible - you might even wonder how you ever missed it to begin with!
Someone was so amused by this observation, they put together a compilation of scenes from the film [titled "Top Gay" on youtube] which undisputably demonstrates how "homoerotic" the film really is.
Now just before Tarantino's character launches into his "Top Gay" monologue, he's finishing a thought on the previous topic being discussed - which also seems to be film related. He's basically "schooling" the other guy on what makes a film great, exclaiming with cocaine infused confidence, "No! What is REALLY being said?...because the whole idea is subversion! You want subversion on a massive level!"
subversion: especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within - merriam-webster
The very next thing he says is, "you know what one of the greatest fucking scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood is? Top Gun."
So if Top Gun is so great, Tarantino's character must believe that it is subversive in some profound way - since that seems to be his barometer of greatness in a movie. Following that line of thought, it must be that the film shoves masculine, testosterone fueled, hyper-heterosexuality into our faces to the point of irony - subverting the very stereotype nearly into it's opposite. A subtle, homoerotic fantasy that would probably never be detected by the naive young audience the film was aimed at.
I don't know about you, but I think there is a profound truth being revealed here, within a fictional context, regarding the motives behind Hollywood entertainment.
A
B
In Steven Spielberg's 1977 science fiction film "Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind," the big climax involves the E.T.'s mothership landing at the end. First "alien" that comes out of it is of a tall/slender variety. It crouches down into a spider-like position [image "A" above] in order to exit, emphesizing his height in proportion to the exit hatch - which a group of humans had just walked out of in full upright position. The being then stands at full stature with arms out [image "B"], as if saying to the crowd "behold my tall, naked, alien physique!"
You'd think these "advanced beings" woulda built their entry/exit hatch to accomidate the height of this important looking Alien. But if we assume that SYMBOLISM is more important to the writers of these films than continuity and plot, the "sloppy" aspects of many blockbuster films we see often reveal covert messages, deliberately designed to be missed by your conscious mind. While your conscious mind is focused on the plot making sense, your subconscious mind takes in all the symbolism indescriminately.
After the tall, naked alien disappears, a large group of short naked aliens come streaming out of the ship like children. In fact, these appear to be nothing more than human children with LONG fingers and BULGING heads.
The contrast between the taller/slender/adult alien which appeared moments ago and this shorter "child-like" variety hints at the idea of "full grown adult" vs "child," in the sense that adults are tall and children are short. When we remember that they are all naked, suddenly this scene takes on an entirely different character. Just who or what are these "Aliens" supposed to represent in a metaphorical sense? Do they represent something much more literral than we might expect?
The film puts effort into showing the facial expressions in the crowd of people present. Lots of shock and awe. But nobody looks more excited than Richard Dreyfuss' character, Roy.
The nåked chi1dren - er uh, I mean "short naked Aliens" abruptly crowd around Roy and beckon him towards their ship. Roy enthusiastically goes along with them - like a groupie who just got invited backstage at a concert and can't believe his luck! He gets on the ship with them, leaving his family and friends behind. The film ends with this ship taking off into outer space. Is this a metaphor for a man abandoning his family and normal society in order to persue his sick, unlawful, ped0phi1iåc desires?
We tend to assume any deeper "symbolic meanings" found within blockbuster films are generally benevolent in intent. After all, if these films had such hidden filth contained within them, surely they wouldn't win oscars and get all of this critical acclaim, right?
One of the more iconic posters from Spielberg's 1982 film "E.T. The Extra Terrestrial" features an image obviously inspired by Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam," one of the most classic paintings in European history and the Christian world.
God is in heaven, which is up in the sky. That is why he appears to be flying down to touch Adam's finger in the painting. E.T. is a space alien, also from the sky. So does this mean he represents God in the promotional poster? Elliot Taylor [E.T.?] is a human. Adam is a human. So Elliot must represent Adam here - who's depicted as more or less full grown in Michelangelo's painting, somewhat sensual in his pose, ding dong hanging out in full view. Elliot is supposed to be 10 years old in the film. That's kind of a wierd message, isn't it? Are we not supposed to try and interpret such heavy handed symbolism, or are we just supposed to see it and not talk about it?
E.T.'s finger is long and fat at the end. The fat end glows/pulses as he touches/heals Elliot's bleeding finger in one scene, where E.T.'s presence is being kept secret in the boy's house. E.T. says "ouch" when he heals. This scene directly correlates symbolically with the 2 fingers touching in the promotional poster, and ultimately Michelangelo's masterpiece. When you factor in the blood, the physical contact, the pulsing phallic [finger] symbology, the biblical reference, and the word "ouch," well you've got all the ingredients of a violent, sexual act of the most diabolically blasphemous nature! We just overlook it all because aspects are presented out of order and within the context of a heart warming plot and a comforting soundtrack. "It's all about subversion!"
In Speilberg's "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," a man [Indy] befriends an orphaned street child whom he calls "Short Round." What is a short round, a cut of meat? Perhaps a certain body part that has not yet developed fully? They go on a quest for a sacred relic, which leads them directly into the lair of a demonic mind control death cult. This cult keeps children as slaves.
"Maybe he likes older woman?" - Short Round, in reference to Maharaja's decidedly young appearance...
Apparantly this Maharaja character [played by Raj Singh] is supposed to be a 13 year old boy. Yet, he looks and sounds like a young girl in most of the scenes. Short Round comically suggests that he perhaps likes older women. This subtle comment specifically conjures the image of the young boy with an adult female. Also known as ped0phi1ia.
[Maharaja Sir Duleep Singh in 1875, aged 37]
If you look at old illustrations and actual pictures, the Maharajas are typically depicted as decidedly macho, often with facial hair. But when they inherit their roles at such a young age, they might look more boyish in certain depictions, even feminine.
[A young Duleep Singh]
As we can see, the child Maharajas look far more feminine, by today's western standards. The writers of "Temple of Doom" decided to include a boy Maharaja in this film for whatever reason, but also used an uncredited FEMALE for his voice-over. Was this done to exagerrate the feminine aspects of his character?
The film's use of child actors is often endearing, but at other times genuinely disturbing. Considering what we've been looking at so far, this all may be far more disturbing than we ever dared consider. Maybe we should consider it. Maybe we need to acknowledge the poison we've been fed over the years by the entertainment industry?
In "the Goonies," a bunch of kids go on a secret quest underground to find the treasure of "One Eyed Willie." The word "Willie" is slang for penis. The writers of this film made sure the innuendo was enforced by calling him ONE-EYED Willie. A penis has "one-eye." Get it?
Ke Huy Quan [Short Round] returns in this film, along with Corey Feldman, who recently blew the whistle on child m01estati0n in Hollywood - mainly via his self produced film "(My) Truth: The ®ape 0f tw0 C0reys." Although I want to believe Corey's intent was genuine with regard to that film, the fact he doesn't call out his "friend" Michael Jackson in it makes me suspicious. In fact, he seems to go out of his way to defend MJ. [Go watch "Leaving Neverland."] Feldman's also still breathing, which tells me he might be a "false whistleblower," put out there to deliberately mislead people and provide a "release valve" to those wanting justice for unpunished crimes against children year after year. But that's the problem with actors. How do you know when they AREN'T acting?
In "Back to the Future" Michael J Fox goes back in time, hangs out with his dad, and bumps into his mother - who has a mad crush on him. Now obviously, his mother doesn't know that "Marty" is her future child, and it's all very comedic. But at it's root, it's really just a clever way to titillate the audience with a little mother/son 1nçest fantasy.
In "Back to the Future 3" there is a very strange scene where Marty and "Doc" are parting ways, and in the background one of the 2 children literally beckons the viewer toward his crotch with a very clear hand gesture. The same boy then immediately POINTS at his crotch! I've showed this to several people, and almost everyone misses it the first few times. But once you see it, you've got to wonder why it's in there at all. Details like that are no accident! But for some reason you are considered a "conspiracy theorist nut" if you dare trust your own eyes and brain in pointing these things out...
“Every time I had a movie that made a lot of money, or somebody else had a movie that made a lot of money, Stanley would call and say ‘Gee, did you see the grosses of that--wow!’ He would ask you questions about why I thought a nerve might have been hit in America. I would say, ‘Darn if I know.’ And I don’t,” says the director, although he later admits he superstitiously avoids trying to know. “That’s the witchcraft of movies. You have to not ask those questions.” - Steven Spielberg, LA Times
The last Speilberg film we'll look at is A.I. [Artificial Intelligence.] This actually started off as a Stanley Kubrick film - something he wanted to do as far back as 1970, but felt the technology to depict robot characters was too primitive to be done convincingly at the time. If one spends a little time researching this, it's clear that A.I. almost seemed destined to be the climax of Kubrick's entire career - a lifelong passion even! So how the hell did Spielberg end up with it? The simple answer seems to be: Kubrick died.
"Spielberg had flown from New York, and was sitting at Kubrick’s kitchen table at St. Albans, when Kubrick announced, “Why don’t you direct ‘A.I.,’ and I’ll produce it for you?”’ recalls Spielberg. “He said, ‘The card will read great. It’ll say, “A Stanley Kubrick production of a Steven Spielberg film.” Don’t you think people will come to see that?”’ - LA Times 5.6.2001
Honestly, I hate the idea that Kubrick may have legitimately offered the director's chair of his lifelong film passion to someone like Spielberg. Although there are plenty of people backing the claim, I've yet to find an interview where Stanley confirms this himself. Being that he was not fond of the press and rarely did interviews, not so surprising. Still, it would be nice to have total confirmation of this presumed "fact" straight from the horse's mouth - especially considering what we have covered so far in this blog.
Setting aside my hesitance to believe Kubrick would put one of his potential masterpieces in the hands of Spielberg, it is fairly easy to believe the stories about how he was impressed with the special effects Spielberg achieved in Jurassic Park. After all, if an inability to achieve convincing special effects is what held back A.I. for so many years, it's quite logical that Kubrick would be in touch with those achieving the most cutting edge effects in film. And if it was Kubrick's intention to make sure A.I. reached a huge audience, well Spielberg obviously had a "knack" for that too.
H.A.L. was probably the first A.I. character ever included in a major motion picture, and Stanley Kubrick's 1968 Sci-Fi classic "2001: a Space Odyssey" is where it first appeared. If you take the letters H-A-L and look at the letters in the alphabet directly following them, you get I-B-M. IBM [International Business Machines] computers were used by the Nazis and developed some of the most widely used PCs in the 80s and 90s. I even read that IBM was involved with the production of the film! Not sure what they are up to these days, but Kubrick was obviously making a statement, perhaps issuing a warning, about the dangers of A.I. and computers at the time. Apparently Arthur C Clark disagreed with this theory, despite acknowledging the near mathematical impossibility that the HAL/IBM thing was a mere "coincidence."
Notice how phallic the above image is.
This is the story of a boy robot programmed to love his mother, who apparently never fully returns his affections. The boy is depicted in the above film logo, clearly made to resemble an outline of a phallus, forming the .I. in "A.I." An association is then made between the word "intelligence" and "phallus." The "A" has an outline of the boy/phallus image inserted inside of it, which could symbolically be represented as the female sex organ recieving a phallus. This is augmented in the promotional poster shown earlier by a large female head in the background, mouth open, to form a tunnel which cars drive through. This mixes mother/son relations with sexual symbolism in ways that are questionable, at the very least! What is the purpose of all of this sexual symbolism and why does it go completely unexamined by film critics and viewers?
The statement from Warner Bros. was released during pre-production for 'Eyes Wide Shut' and states:
"...Kubrick's previously announced sci-fi film, 'A.I.', believed to be one of the most technically challenging and innovative special effects films yet attempted, is in the final stages of set design and special effects development, and will follow Eyes Wide Shut". - http://www.visual-memory.co.uk
"Jan Harlan Kubrick brother in law said to Steve Rose of the Guardian "He and Spielberg spoke all the time," he continues. "I have six or seven years' worth of correspondence between them over AI, which I recently passed over to Spielberg along with over 1,000 drawings." Harlan told Paul Joyce, "He said on more than one case - "I think the ideal director for this may be Steven Spielberg. If I do it, it may be too stark. I may emphasise too much the philosophical side."
"Harlan maintains that Kubrick would certainly have returned to AI after Eyes Wide Shut. "He had no intention of dying, I assure you. But at one point, Stanley actually said to Spielberg: 'You would be the best guy to direct this film, I'll be the producer.' I can't tell you whether he would have directed it himself or given it to Spielberg. That was still very much a possibility." - http://www.visual-memory.co.uk
Again, everything we find regarding key details to do with Kubrick's development of A.I. comes from everyone BUT Kubrick himself! So I think it is important to take all of this with a grain of salt. Jan Harlan Kubrick at least has the distinction of being related to Stanley, so when he makes statements confirming that Stanley was at least INTERESTED in Spielberg directing A.I., I'd say that carries some weight. However, that last sentence in the last quote above reads "I can't tell you whether he would have directed it himself or given it to Spielberg." Given that, I don't see any reason to assume Stanley ever officially designated Spielberg as the film's director. But notice how that basic assumption was repeatedly re-enforced in the media coverage surrounding A.I. - as if it was cut and dry.
"After shooting had been completed, Kubrick entered a prolonged post-production process and on March 1, 1999, Kubrick showed a cut to Cruise, Kidman and the Warner Bros. executives. The director died six days later" - wiki entry for Kubrick's final film "Eyes Wide Shut."
Much mystery surrounds the death of Stanley Kubrick, and many believe he was murdered for what he attempted to reveal in the film "Eyes Wide Shut," [perhaps even what he planned to release in the film "A.I."] Among other things, E.W.S. deals with the upper elite in society and their secret sex cults - which is an aspect of the film the media interestingly avoids almost unilaterally, choosing to interpret the film as being about relationships and the psychological issues that can arise - which is a level that is legitimately there. But the occult/ritualistic secret society element plays a huge role in the plot as well. Why gloss over it? This was Kubrick's last film, you'd think critics would be putting a microscope over every aspect of it!
Perhaps Kubrick was "blowing the whistle" in a way with his film. Could this be related to the alleged heavy re-editing of it by Warner Bros previous to it's release and just after the sudden, unexpected death of Kubrick? These are just interesting details contributing to the idea that Kubrick simply went too far with the film, and those in power of Hollywood needed to reign things in. If they couldn't prevent it from being released, at least they could edit out the most incriminating aspects. Many people have cited this as the reason the film was not as good as it should have been. And yet, it remains too powerful to be ignored or forgotten.
Kubrick allegedly died on March 7th, 1999. Looking at a 1999 calandar, we find some interesting numbers...January had 30 days, February had 28 days. Total = 58. March 1-7th = 7 days. Ad 58 to 7 and you get 65. There are 365 days in a year, so if we subtract the 65 days that's 300. There were 365 days in the year 2000, so add that to 300 and you get 665. January 1st, 2001 is 1 day after the last day in 2000. Add that 1 day to 665 and you get 666. Stanley Kubrick died exactly 666 days before the year 2001. "2001: The Space Odyssey" was the name of one of his most famous films, and one which some believe was the precurser to his filming of the FAKE moon landing in 1969. [see Jay Weidner's "Kubrick's Odyssey" series]
Is this 666 number a message from the very elite satanic cult Kubrick was attempting to expose through film? Was this a sort of "pre crime" judgement, ala Speilberg's "Minority Report," [which came out the following year after A.I.] punishing Kubrick for what he had planned for his last film?
Stanley Kubrick was clearly a very smart and perceptive man. Given his lifelong love for films, and the study of them - he had to have noticed the symbolism in Spielberg's stuff that I have pointed out here. So why on earth would he even consider Spielberg for A.I.? Perhaps it wasn't just his "knack" for creating blockbuster successes that Kubrick was after, but his diabolical talent in creating films sexua1izing children in ways that go largely undetected. Perhaps Kubrick was going to use Spielberg as an unwitting participant in some sort of self incriminating "whistle blowing" production. How diabolically brilliant, and yet, madly ambitious!
This blog was researched, written, and continues to be maintained by 1 person. If you enjoyed it and would like to encourage more of them, donations can be made by clicking the button below.
