Wednesday, January 23, 2013

I had no idea how brilliant Donald Sutherland was!  Read his letter to Hunger Games director.


  1. How about this post from Business Insider, as it relates to Aaron Swartz:

    The Real Story Of How 'Untouchable' Wall Street Execs Avoided Prosecution
    Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian | Jan. 23, 2013, 11:11 AM
    Worst of all, Obama justice officials both shielded and feted these Wall Street oligarchs (who, just by the way, overwhelmingly supported Obama's 2008 presidential campaign) as they simultaneously prosecuted and imprisoned powerless Americans for far more trivial transgressions.

    As Harvard law professor Larry Lessig put it two weeks ago when expressing anger over the DOJ's persecution of Aaron Swartz: "we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House."

    1. According to the stupid statutes written by corporate lobbiest Aaron Swartz was guilty.

      According to the statutes cases for fraud on Wall Street are very hard to prove.

      The issues lie with the statutes and who wrote them.

      It's a mistake to blame enforcement arms too much.

    2. Yes, big money writes its own laws. But enforcement against The Powers That Be (TPTB) does not exist. You can't give them a free pass on their corruption.

      David Gregory, for example, got off scot free because he's David Gregory. HSBC got off because it's HSBC. Everyone knows the laws they broke. Everyone knows how to prosecute them. They got off because of who they are.

      I 100% blame the Department of Justice for not prosecuting criminals.

      Check this story on Zero Hedge:

      Assistant Attorney General Admits On TV That In The US Justice Does Not Apply To The Banks

    3. Remember when I said I needed to invest for safety, and my financial adviser put much of our money into Lehman Brothers and we were wiped out? See today's Naked Capitalism:

      Ian Fraser: Something Sinister About the Lack of Prosecutions at Lehman Brothers

  2. Thanks for that. It was a brilliant letter. It made my day.

  3. I reflected upon the Hunger Games movie from a completely different perspective when I read Cathy O'Brien's story in "Trance: Formation of America". Cathy was a mind controlled Presidential slave, sold into that slavery by her father. Unfortunately mind control is way more widespread in the US than most can imagine, and Cathy's story is extraordinary (you can find her and Arizona Wilder on YouTube).
    The thread I'm referring to is what she calls "A Most Dangerous Game", played by Bush Sr., Cheney and Clinton in her direct experience, and I'm sure others of their ilk, where she and her young daughter were released naked into a wooded area and hunted down by these men with dogs and guns - not to be killed in their case, but to be sexually abused after they were captured. The energy of "Hunger Games" was the same energy as the hunt in Cathy's book.
    So was "Hunger Games" another example of these very dark souls revealing to the public in this way a dark secret practice? It felt like it to me in hindsight.

    1. The Cathy O'Brien story is a hoax.

      Take it from one who knows [me] there is no network of mind controlled slaves.

  4. My first degree was from a film school. I used to think a lot about films, and have written and sold them.

    I think this letter is nonesense. The "Hunger Games" was a terrible film from a horrible director.

    Sutherland doesn't know what he's talking about. First he says his character is a nice guy who's been corrupted by power, and then he draws paraellels with a psychopath like Ted Bundy.

    Which is it? Is his character sadistic or just an "apperacheck" in a cruel system?

    He doesn't know.

    All the letter is rather is simply rambling, musing, etc.

    Actors need to know exactly who the characters they're playing are, and this is confused because the director and the script don't define it so Sutherland is left musing about it.

    1. MITmichael wrote: "Which is it? Is his character sadistic or just an 'apperacheck' in a cruel system?"

      Can't it be a combination of both?

      The system can promote both sadism and an "apperacheck" mentality. Or sadism is already present in the individual apperacheck.

      Certainly, a apperacheck can evolve upon coming closer to power via the various experiences one encounters climbing the greased pole of power.

      It seems you are the one who has a preference for simplicity and tends to frame a situation as either "this or that", when generally there is complexity & nuance to any given set of circumstances.

      Are there Black and White situations?

      Sure there are, but for each one, there are others of a more nuanced nature.

    2. No it can't be both.

      Either the guy's a person with a normal personality working in a corrupt culture OR he's a person with a personality which is outside the normal range of characteristics - i.e. a psychopath or sociopath.

      It makes all the difference in the world because on that issue of what kind of person he is and what motivates him hinges all other issues about the story such as how and why did this culture become so depraved.

      Read the letter carefully and you'll see that Sutherland can't make up his mind what he wants to do.

      He's really just chatting it up with the director, trying to form a personal bond, which is what some actors do.

    3. Psychopaths and sociopaths are not made.

      They are not the product of a culture or environment.

      The lack of ability to experience empathy and to develop exhileration at the suffering of others, constant deceit, etc., are innate traits in some persons.

  5. "Hunger Games" will be remembered with the same distain as franchises like "Twilight," and other garbage.

    1. MITmichael, not if the cruelty of those in power is exposed to the broad general public.

      If so, then Hunger Games will be on the same plane as The Matrix.

      A cinematic portrayal of an alternative universe, much closer to reality than those in power want the public to know.

      A cinematic fire bell in the middle of the night.

    2. Oh come on.

      The public is facinated with anything malevolent - vampires, werewolves, psychopathic serial killers, etc...

      "Hunger Games" appeals to the same goulish instincts but in order to make it interesting the villians must be "humanized," and this is what leads Sutherland to his dilemma. If he plays it like a psychopath the audience will be repulsed, so he can't make up his mind what he wants to do.

      This issue of "humanizing" villians has been a problem particular to English language fiction, and it was the genius Shakespeare who set the mold.

      By writing about "tragic" malevolent monarchs Shakespear had to "humanize" them in order to keep Queen Elizabeth from seeing herself criticized and killing him. Shakespeare was a Catholic, and had uncles and other family members tortured and killed for their Catholic dissents.

      Unfortunately this pattern has ruined fiction in the west because it glamourizes truely malevolent characters.

      You're reading too much in "Hunger Games." It's not social commentary but simply commercial pulp of the worst kind.

    3. When I say "the public," I mean a segment of the public.

      My mother never liked vampire movies.

  6. MITmichael, you are a consistent sower of bad vibes.

    Sutherland also played Fletcher Prouty in JFK... That role alone - presuming he did his homework and read The Secret Team - would've been an education in itself.

  7. Sutherland's performance as Prouty was terrible. He was totally unconvincing as a military man of any kind. He has neither the temperament, diction, gate, or any other characteristics of someone like Prouty.

    "JFK" is a largely accurate film, but if it's style was different and it's casting choices better it would have been a much better film.

    "JFK" moves so quickly that the audience can't keep up with what's happening, and the bickering between Kostner and his wife and Costner's staff is just stupid.