Welcome Caribbean Rhythms, episode 90, and if you are new to show, I have many new subscribers from Moldbag Showtime Maybe you are his friends, or maybe you saw link on Revolver But I put this episode a bit later as in the usual because I'm being terrorized by pigeons Verminous flying importune bantoid. It's a flying thing from hell You know, the cockroach of the birds, and I refuse to call it a bird because the birds are my friends But these things that pigeons for past week have camped on window ledge and air conditioners they come and I can't Do anything to chase them away? I try to spray them with vinegar or this they awaken me at dawn With you know, they fight over turf I think like Congo ghetto bangers and I hear now I hear from people they hate vinegar mixed with cinnamon and

capsicum and I'm looking for toy water gun I will fill it with this mixture maybe at work and by the way as I am recording right now it's already almost dawn here them the nice birds are awake I hear their song it's very possible these Congoid birds will land and start make fight of while I record I apologize if any extraneous such sound but you know a lemongrass family in general are amazing herbs, you can grow it easily yourself sometime and it makes nice tea. But don't use citronella, citronella is a spray you use against mosquito, it's from lemongrass family and yesterday I sprayed it on the pigeons and at least I made them fly away temporarily, but lemongrass itself, if you ingest this in nice tea, you can mix

with lemon and other things, it gives you a feeling of calm and it also kills many fungus, lemongrass, excellent antifungal. And so anyway, I managed to scare them with this spray, you know, I hope a pack of Serbs rapes you if you disagree with me on this, you know, but all city building regulation must henceforth call for some kind of anti-pigeon thing. It's very easy. not put some kind of thing on window ledges or building walls to stop them from terrorizing people this way and I think actually where I am right now storm is coming too so they've been very agitated for past week but anyway if you hear them in background or you know they're banging window while they record I have to apologize but I try keep only highest recording standards on this show

Did you like quality sound on last episode, a new introduction? My Barbados sound man, he fixed this show, make excellent sound. You know, I'm told this is best recording quality podcast, although it's not really a podcast. I don't like podcasts with meandering, low intensity, low focus discussion. This is more schizophrenia radio show. And if you are a new subscriber, I welcome you, but also be warned, this show is not, you know, what you might be used to, let me put it this way. If you come from conservative talk radio world, this might be a bit different. Michael Savage is an amazing performer. He is the only talk radio show I listen to lately. He was a big inspiration for me years ago. man mixes energy of Spanish Civil War psychotic broadcast with Catskill comedian type, you

know, but otherwise opinions on this show that you might find unusual and I don't usually talk just politic of day. So today this especially will be my first movie review show and I will review Bridge On the River Kwai from 1957, and two movies from 1980s that take place in Paris. One is Roman Polanski Frantic from 1988, I think, starring Harrison Ford, and the other is a movie very few know, but one of my all-time favorite films, Mouve Sainte or Bad Blood by Leos Carax, which is from 1986, and this is French, maybe unusual movie, but all three Three choices come approved, I tell you this special news, all my film choices come approved by John Milius, the legendary maker of Conan the Barbarian, many other movies of power, Red Dawn and this.

His daughter, Amanda, he liked all of my movie choices for you today and he has similar taste and you think I joke but this is completely true. You can see the tweet where Amanda Milius, his daughter, referred to both of us as patriarchs. This is great honor. She says this and he likes these movies. So only the best for my audience. Now on the opening segment, I will tell you something about movies, what I consider good movie and this. Let me start with the bad, which is what I hear from friends in Hollywood, and yes, there are frauds inside Hollywood also, as anywhere else in America, by the way. It's just that they don't have power or decision-making authority. But I have informations and they tell me Hollywood are very much set on their not being allowed another John Milius ever again.

And in fact, Voight men who are younger and who are aspiring directors are told quite explicitly that basically they have no future in studio system. It's all going to be woke BIPOC from now on. And yes, in this case, BIPOC does mean gay niggers and the decline in quality and possibly the continuing fall in revenue will not mean anything for the movie makers because just like North Korea, you have state funded media entertainment in North Korea. You can see it's very entertaining when they have rocket launch, they have an all women band and high production event, actually look much better than many American movie show. But Hollywood also is similar as state media and it will be rescued by bailouts as a heritage

all-American institution no matter how much money they happen to lose on crappy movie they make. Look, there is a reason they do this, okay, which is that movies, and they don't realize that the movies they make now are not effective, it doesn't matter. Movies as such are in many ways, I say this in my book, movies are in many ways the holy grail of modern culture, and if we could get people on our side to make movies that can be seen by many people, and series and this, but state organs know this, they will not let it happen, and they will run highly weird and other regime outlets at a loss if they have to, as well as shut down anyone like us, anyone who smells like us, and if they cannot stop our movies from being made, because let's say maybe we turn to methods outside studio system.

You can do a movie with your friends now. I mean, David Lynch, Inland Empire, I think is masterpiece movie and he shoot all on digital camera which can be very high quality now. You can make this yourself, but let's say you make such good movies and state will step in and they will stop outlets, they will stop distribution, in other words, forget about theaters and all this. This is what I'm told. And in some way America has always done this. I talked this weekend with a very interesting man, I never revealed name, but he is a very interesting scholar, I will just say this. I cannot say who, but he reminded me in late 1930s publishers and movie makers and so forth who were not on board with the New Deal and with FDR's warmongering, they were censored, they were blacklisted.

And you only hear now of course about McCarthy times in the 1950s, but no, this was original blacklist of Americans against involvement in stupid wars. The America First movement and at the beginning of World War II, for example, Disney Studios was occupied, requisitioned by military. It was the only studio that was occupied, you know, they were all in Hollywood, only this one. Why? Because Walt Disney was not, you know, he was not a tribesman, the only one who was not, the only studio owner who was not a tribesman, and he was also staunchly America First. And for these political ideological reasons, his studio was occupied. So do not pretend that America doesn't have state repression of speech and thought. They will shut down your studio, occupy its military, do IRS investigation on you.

It's had this for many decades, although there is a benefit, I think, in making regime go mask off and heavy-handed and provoking them to do this even more. Because when you push them into that corner, they become wild, a rabid dog lashing out. It makes things clearer for more people. So anyway, Ron Unz, if you are interested, the famous white nationalist Ron Unz who grew up speaking Yiddish, the Yiddish white nationalist Ron Unz. But he documents many things I just tell you, the late 1930s blacklist and these Disney Disney story is interesting, unrelated by the way, but Walt Disney, the name, it's a Norman name. I don't know if you've ever had Disney Dairy Products, D apostrophe I-S-I-G-N-Y. This is said to be some of the best dairy products in the world.

You can often find their butter now or their brie sometime in some supermarket now in America. But Disney is the village still in Normandy, that's the name, and the name Disney comes from that. It's an anglification or whatever you want to say, a Saxonification of the name, but he's of Norman stock. He's American, anti-Norman conspiracy, who knows. So anyways, this is what I hear, and very bad news from film world that the plain, how to put it, the plain truth of it is any movies like John Milius made are henceforth going to be impossible. the decision at top levels, this is order being given down, and really any movies like what I discuss on this show will be impossible going forward, which is not as if Milius makes political movies, by the way.

And the three choices I talk on this show, the three movies, are not political either, really. But that's the point. They only want political propaganda that beats you on the head, that promotes their new woke America, that new woke American man, the hammock-handed thing that would be used as billy club to harangue and hit over the head with this. So what would be needed, of course, from our side, would be the very opposite. Meaning artistic, exciting movie that subtly and indirectly promote the health and vitality and freedom that this tyrannical school-mart regime wants to smother out. You know, not that there isn't a place for political movies also, I mean explicitly political movies are fine too. Amanda Milius herself made a movie, I think it's called Plot Against the President in

Cernovich. He made a movie called Hoaxed and these are, I recommend both to you and I, you know, you should see them and promote them, they are very useful, good movie, documentary style. But I prefer a different approach, something indirect, based not on documentary or explicit the recall of a political program or this, but appealing to a pre-rational, and I think in my pre-rationalist superior, its instinctual base in human spirit, where tastes and passions and visions can be reformed without argument. Effective discourse today, if you can call it discourse, look, there are still essays and debates in this, if you're good at that then do that, but I'm saying effective communication today really takes place at pre-rational, emotional, and often visual levels through

mass art like movies, and if you do books, maybe books and words of energy, I try to do some of this in my book, or images of power of various kinds, videos and this, and I think movies must be somehow, if we can create and disseminate the right movies, which is the most important form of possible popular communication now, and why do I say possible, because I I think actually when you look at the revenue and what attract the most popular energy, music is still number one. Music stars, music songs are still number one pop culture product, but I think today is far harder to spread any political content in popular music, even indirectly. That is its own big discussion. Maybe I do another time, because from Plato to Nietzsche, and later you have profound

reflection on how music is the queen of arts, and close connection between music style and social and political state, indirect but close connection. But that should be its own show, and in modern context, our time right now, I mean, is not really possible, I think, to try to affect culture in any relevant way through pop musics. You know, or Zoomers, for example, they listen to a lot of hip-hops, and I know some of you think by the way that that is political content type music, but it really isn't, and its spiritual effects are ultimately no better or worse than other kinds of pop music that have been disseminated over the last few decades. They are all bad, by the way, but their effects on political and social life are independent

really of the lyrics and of whether it's blacks or Jews or Irish or WASP who make it. So it's a bit of indirect problem here as well, but regardless it's hard to reform music, whereas with movie, quite different. When it comes to movie, you take for example Mel Gibson, you take just two of them, The Passion and Apocalypto, and the last one in particular, Apocalypto, because it's indirect and when it's indirect it doesn't trigger the self-defense ideological mechanisms. But Apocalypto is probably the most powerful pro-Christian movie of last twenty or thirty years and it affects our audience on a vital, pre-rational, aesthetic level that is more profound and long-lasting than, let's say, a logical argument which can be swayed and

which puts someone actually in antagonistic frame where they resist. So this is what I mean. If we could make movies like Apocalypto, not necessarily Christian like that in message, But for our side in general, we are a broad alliance. Some of us are religious, others have other priorities, but we are a broad alliance on the, let's say, loosely called the right. But if we could make movies like Apocalyptos, this could be very effective. This is my hope. And through, you know, how can I tell you this? Look, there are obstacles, okay? There are many obstacles with this, but what I tell you right now, really, you can forget conservative, Republican, whatever, but just a straight-of-white male, or I imagine even

a virtuous mulatto who wants to make great movies that are not laden with woke crap or securing moralism. This is main obstacle. They will be shut out of New Hollywood and even out of any distribution platform, possibly. So this main obstacle. But while I recognize this, I still hope maybe some of us can make movie because there might There might be ways around it, either let's say an independent platform gets developed some Netflix type platform either for movie or virtual reality or this or if not, then for a time maybe we can still sneak in some things through their own channels in some way because maybe they will not, if you can camouflage yourself, maybe they will not spell you out yet. I don't know.

There was recently a series called The Last Kingdom, it's about the fight of Danes, Vikings, and Saxons during the reign of Alfred the Great in England, which I'm surprised this movie series got made, I'm surprised it got made, but then again people forget this got made in 2016, and in 2016 there was a brief and genuine opening around that time for very new such things. So anyways, the practical problem of how we make and promote our own movies, this is something for us to consider because, like I say, it's holy grail of modulating the culture and thereby the political passions of the people over the long run. Which in modern time, the long run right now does not need to be very long. You give me a movie studio and let me broadcast my psychosis in brains of millions and without

censorship and I promise you in five to ten years I can turn America into fertile estuary for someone like Gabriele D'Annunzio to arise, you see, I promise you this, but now I go to break. I will be right back. If I ask you to remember your most significant night dream, what would it be like? For me, always dream that is entirely impersonal, is most attractive. These are some of my most dear memories in general, actually, of dreams I had at night, things I've seen, very magnificent scenes during dreams where no one I knew was in it, no personal affair, and often I was not in the dream either. It was like movie about other and strange men with unusual visions and plans of their adventures in demonic dream state world. I say like a movie, but it should be another way around.

It is a movie that is like dream or should be. And Camille Paglia is right on this much, that cinema was the creation of dream state explicitly was in some way inherent in Western artistic traditions from the beginning. And it may be its crowning peak and the transfigured visionary materialism that she believed was born in ancient Egypt, and then it was much extended and made to blossom by the ancient Greeks, this visionary materialism, she calls it. And yes, she say the Western Eye is born in ancient Egypt. And the beginning of her book, Sexual Personae, where she explains how this work and the first two chapters or so I think of that book, will stand time, will be remembered maybe as book of one of the greatest Nietzschean estates, at least the first two chapters of that.

She calls it visionary materialism and she sees cinema dream state inherent in Apollonian right and in some way even in philosophical tradition. I believe she connected to Plato as well. And I believe in this, although she doesn't go as far as she should with it because if you understand movie as dream state, you must abandon I think also the pretense to literary or theatrical dramatic development. And so in some way, yes, technically you can say cinema is extension or outgrowth of theater, but in that leap I think theater is changed into something entirely different qualitatively, because how you experience image from screen into the brain directly is different from how you would see it on stage, let alone in a book. In other words, cinema is not just a film theater.

It accesses emotion and impulse of audience by very different path and it's misunderstood by filmmaker when he tries to ape theatricality or opera or worst of all when a movie maker tries to be a novelist or a psychological novelist worst of all. And I myself when I watch movies made right now or series made now, I feel a lot of stress And I think because the writers are trying to follow a formulaic scheme of so-called narrative tension and they introduce all kind of tension and they're following this badly understood Aristotle, they're trying to model movie and visual writing, they're trying to model it on theatre and drama, which their notions by the way don't even come from Aristotle of course, it comes from a theatrical and novelistic tradition that is then popularized

for mass effect. And what comes out the other end of this by our time is for me at least it's a feeling of stress and I just find it annoying. It's always about, oh here is protagonist and here are obstacles he has to overcome and here are the problems and he's getting his own way and finally he changes, you know. And this is considered the height of dramatic writing for them to show how main characters change or learn something often with a moral lesson. But even when there's no, let's say, heavy-handed moral lesson, I find this whole formula annoying and again it's stressful for me to see it over and over again. So you might say now, well, Bep, this is because you watch too many movies, and this is something

often thrown at critics that they watch too many movies and so they lose the thrill or innocence with which a popular audience, and a popular audience maybe only watches a movie once in a while, much less, therefore might even have a more direct, naive experience of this art. But they're not as jaded. And I think this is generally a correct attack on the film critic who, you know, as literary critics go, the film critic is usually the lowest, the lowest IQ, the least educated in matters of literary or art history, the most conventional, really militant conformist type of intellectual serf, usually. And even when they're not this way, they're prevented from doing any kind of good job because they can't do spoilers.

And so when such usually very status conscious and dumb person of no aesthetic preference, when they review movies, they grow jaded after seeing too many. And like porn addicts, they always need something new. So it is like internet addict. I could tell you some stories, some of them about online characters that you like or that you used to like, who are really catty homotypes, and I've seen them complain before. They would say things like, Bronze Age Pervert and Wrath of None, I don't like these accounts because they're always the same thing, but I always want to see something new. And that's a kind of internet addict talking. Someone who doesn't believe in anything really, has no real preferences besides he needs his fix of fake novelty. But you know the truth always stays the same.

Okay so now maybe you hear the pigeons have already arrived, they terrorized me, this is out of horror movie, god they're in front of window, okay listen, I'm not telling you this for dramatic effect, I have to genuinely apologize for any extraneous noise you might hear. But so this, what I'm telling you, there are these critics and other internet type addict and porn addicts, they always need their fix of something new. But as I tell you, the truth always stays the same, so it's better to repeat the truth. I prefer to repeat the truth in variation. The truth always actually has a beauty about it, even if it's a stark beauty. And to repeat an old and true idea in a new way I think is a higher task than to throw some irrelevant fashionable novelty for the sake of novelty.

And in this sense, the attack on film critics and on their disdain for popular taste is justified if you can disdain them for their fake taste for novelty. But this is not what I talk about. I think in some way, most movies I show today are actually unpleasant even to a popular audience, even someone who only occasionally watches for entertainment. The movie writer is actually not an innocent type, giving the people the entertainment they want, what tickles their aesthetic fancy, you know, the movie writer is actually somewhat often always look over their shoulder, they're hoping for a pat on the head from intellectuals and from just these critics I mentioned now. And this corrupt moviemaking, especially in the sense that I'm talking, it has a bad conscience

because they think that drama, the literature, the novel are a higher form of art, and they to make movies that conform to literary formulas, and the worst of such movies are the West Wing type shows, I think, you know, and that movie about Facebook, actually I think West Wing and the Facebook movie, what is it called, Social Dilemma, I don't know, I think it's made by the same person, they have this chatty, self-consciously witty dialogue contrived to flatter the intellectual aspirations of the mid-width striver audience, Billions is like this too. If you saw a recent episode of Billions, it kept getting worse and worse, this series. And the dialogue is this kind of choppy Reddit men talk, very heavy also with stupid allusions to what passes for culture in those parts.

You know, obscure pop culture and obscure sports allusions and this as if that has any meaning to try to intimidate really audience with false learning and also to flatter a portion of the audience that, so you know, they feel in and this. And then there are those movies that are purely intellectual exercises that are just basically film experimental theater pieces. If you've ever heard of this, My Dinner with Andre is one of the worst of them if you've ever heard of this movie. You know, if you want to do philosophy, it's basically just two men talking in a coffee house. I'm saying if you want to do philosopher-fastering, just write something. You don't need to film people with constipated face talking back and forth like this. I've never liked so-called theater movies.

Almost none of them work. And the worst praise I've seen a critic give a movie is word-loving, or word-loving, okay. Word-loving for people who cannot keep attention to read or write something important. It's like a purvoid with a big plastic dick sticking out of small panties and a skirt. People who go on Twitter to drop names and pretend they're great philosophy mind and complain about a raucous atmosphere on, you know what, Twitter is really a mass communication populist platform geared for humor. So you shouldn't go on there and complain about this and say, oh, I'm a high-minded intellectual or I look down on you. By the way, radio is similar, which is why I think many intellectual podcasts, and I have friends who do them, maybe sometimes they're good.

In my opinion, radio is a mass communication populist medium. It's meant for short segments and humor when you can do it. So anyway, with Stillman, you know this movie maker, he is a little bit different even though he's dialogue-centric movie maker. But his films are also visually interesting, so they're saved by that. He's the one, by the way, who made trilogy, Metropolitan, Last Days of Disco, and Barcelona. And he's always funny because dialogue is so self-consciously earnest sometimes. You see, he doesn't take himself too seriously. But that said, I think also what he does is fundamentally a misuse of a movie medium. And this, look, just my personal preference, what I'm about to say, maybe goes too far in other direction.

But what do you say about movie or shows that shamelessly tries to please you visually, and just that? What wrong with this? Why it even need a plausible storyline and narrative development, why? What about film that does away entirely with pretense to narrative tension and overcoming obstacle character arcs and all this pseudo Aristotelian or should I call it Aristototelian drama school nerd formula in a way. What about movie that simply present a good and fortunate funny scenes for enjoyment for example I would like to see movie without any obstacle which made me feel stressed out when I see the oh here is a danger I don't like that I don't I want to see a a movie or a show where a magnificent main character moves from one victory to the next with no resistance or almost none.

What wrong with this? The so-called narrative tension, I keep telling you, stresses me out, does it not stress? If you don't feel anything in your daily life but boredom or humdrum, maybe you want some kind of so-called catharsis or feeling emotional drama or whatever, but I don't like that. You know, my day-to-day life in my own mind is psychosis and drama already. I don't need that when I watch movie, you know. To me the most unwatchable parts of these shows are conflict scenes. I don't know if you, when you get basically BPD woman, it's always BPD, a woman is crying or emoting, they're having a fight with their lover and this, there is always this attempt to evoke emotion from audience and contrive Ham Hand away with just depicting hysteria.

But I'm going a step beyond that here and asking you what would be wrong with showing a movie or series just good looking people having light adventure and beautiful visuals and this. What is purpose of introducing problems in a script? I know you think the purpose is that without it you wouldn't be able to maintain interest, but I'm not sure on this. movie The Beach with Leonardo DiCaprio. Many of you have seen this. I enjoy this movie, but the best part of it is the beginning, the first half. The first half is pure escapist adventure when you have Leonardo DiCaprio and he's young and good looking and he's adventurous and he's looking for a secret island beach and meeting people and then he finds it.

But after that it becomes stressful and the resolution of this stress at the end, it didn't leave me pleased or edified or anything. By the way, this is an excellent movie, I recommend you watch, and actually it's one of a few movies where I agree with its politics and its moral message at the end because it's an all-out attack on the hippies and on the hippie mindset, but I could have done without that. I wish the whole movie would have been like the beginning and I would have not gotten bored with ... Quentin Tarantino did a similar kind of similar recent thing, a movie, Once Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I think it's called, and I think this is his best movie because he's having fun and it's a pure fun movie. The problems presented are absurd so they don't affect you.

Really it's an excuse for him to show cool white men being cool and awesome and doing awesome things. What wrong was that? You know, it's his best, you know, similar movie, Crazy Rich Asians, okay? And it's almost perfect idea for a movie because it was an excuse just to revel in opulence and showing luxury lifestyle of Singapore rich and, you know, they live this very Trump-like way of life that upsets, that kind of way of life upsets the IKEA upper middle class that runs the United States with their fake modesty and this. But the rich Asians of Singapore live very much like Trump in this opulent new rich way. And they should have just shamelessly shown that and enjoyed it. But the makers of this movie didn't have the courage just to show crazy rich Asians.

there to introduce some stupid plot about overcoming obstacles and difficulty and poverty and this, which really adds nothing. It was an annoyance to the movie. Similar to this, also a series I liked quite a bit, I talked on show before about the original Gossip Girl is again almost perfect show. It's funny, it's light, revelling similar in the high class life of Upper East Side old society, New York, and of the youth of this class, which leads very irresponsible, fun lifestyle. I repeat to those of you who think that this is the elite, which is actually a real elite, but if you think this elite is the problem in America, you're very wrong. The problem is not this, but the fake elite, the usurper occupational elite, the upper

middle class and all its striver faggot moralism, which is represented in this show Gossip Girl by the atrocious character of poor man Dan, right? So he's the one the audience is expected to identify with, and he's the one who introduces all the problem in the show, and he's presumably there to teach these shallow socialites a thing or two about being a decent person, you know? Actually the show's quite smart in a way because although this is the surface pretense, it actually is a writer of this show who is an aristocratic woman who grew up in that Upper East Side world. She's of German background, I think. And I don't know if she wrote the show, but whoever did it did a good job even in this sense because under this pretense, it actually does show the upper middle class to be the

double-faced, backstabbing strivers they are, and really they're the source of all the fake self-righteous morality running America right now. Remember, it's not the rich characters from Gossip Girl. It's not the Waldorf types, it's not even the new rich, the Trump types even. It's not the Augerspergs or the von Billows. Watch reversal of fortune for this, if you want to see the royal Austrian Augersperg family and they married into American money and this, and many of the Augersperg family also fled to Uruguay and Argentina after World War I with some of their wealth. But it's not these people, the real elite, who are running America now, but the likes of, let's say, Dan in the show Gossip Girl, in other words, people like Zukerface, right? It's Zukerface class.

I'm not saying it's Zuckerberg himself, but it's the Zukerface type of smarmy people, West Wing enjoyers, Reddit enjoyers. And that's very much a middle-class striver and upper-middle-class pathology, not an elite one. I'm sorry to tell you, Meti Iglesias and these people, you know, you are not elite, okay? If your name isn't something like Aursperg or in American context, if you're not one of the three named people and so forth, you know what I mean? You're not elite. Anyway, I went on tangent here, but Gossip Girl approximates what I talk about and also a movie Fletch, if you've seen Fletch, about a Los Angeles investigative reporter detective played by Chevy Chase. It's pure enjoyment of humor and weird scenes, you know, with very little pretense for narrative development and so forth.

But why not make crazy rich Aryans, okay, you don't need to call it that. But let's say you make a movie or let's say miniseries show about Southern California youth in the 1950s to 1970s just winning and enjoying themselves with beautiful scenery. Do you know what rage this would inspire by the way? quite rage, and not that this is why you should make such show, but you should make it because it would be aesthetically enjoyable, and if you can make it visually powerful, where you have pure immersion and pleasure, dream state, I repeat to you, I have already enough drama in my head. I don't want also to have this when enjoying movie, which is different from novel. In a novel or theater piece, where even if you don't, let's say, read the theater piece

and you watch it on a stage, the visual aspects of that stage piece hit you in a very different way from cinema, okay, or when you're reading it's mediated. But when you watch a movie, it hits you very much direct on a pre-rational level as if it's actually happening. So the experience of stress and tension can very rarely be made pleasurable. I'm not saying never, but very rarely can be actually made pleasurable. So you have to first be able to induce in the audience some kind of immersive mood trans state. So I don't like to be stressed and it really bothered me also to see outputting of emoting on screen and this to be spun into a BPD state by a hysterical crying woman. I think also maybe of athletics movie and I think athletics movie could be very good.

There are many sports movies, right? Sport epic movies, you know what they are, they run by a formula and the athlete has rivals and he loses many times until he finally wins. But I find that process, first of all, I'm tired of it and it's stressful and it doesn't really tell you the truth of anything. You know what? What about a movie where the athlete just wins throughout every competition, where he never loses? I would like to see this. And no, it would not be boring, not if you do it right. Think of, I could make maybe, or someone, I ask Mel Gibson to do this, I ask David Lynch to do this make movie ancient Greek movie about athlete ancient Greek athlete about a runner or a martial arts athlete who goes from one victory to the

next and all suffused with dream trance state and Apollonian religious aura and gravity okay you understand how much of aristocratic religiosity centered around athletic competitions well this is okay this what I've told you just now is you You could say my unusual taste, maybe I watch too many movies, but I would like to see more such movie where there is at least this total immersion in the moment, in the scene, in the visual aspect and the focus is on drawing you into a dream state and a mood, an atmosphere where if you remember some strange dreams that are sometimes extreme emotions actually involved but they are sudden and transfigured and they do not carry the weight of daily life and stresses. They are usually about very obscure things. They are demonic emotions

in some sense, not everyday emotions. In cinema, I think it's meant to evoke this and not to try to ape what literature and drama do. Anyway, Mulholland Drive, by the way, is similar such movie, but I will devote a show to it just to Mulholland Drive in future. I will not talk on this show. Anyway, I will be right back to discuss particular movies today. Thank Thank you. Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Shri Mataji, Bridge on River Kwai from 1957 by David Lean, not to be confused with David Lane, the scene director who made Lawrence of Arabia is a powerful Quaker man, and his all-time favorite

movie of many frogs and other friends is a movie that wins both as a visual dream and as a dramatic narrative, but ultimately I think visual aspect and the humor style is what makes it. And there's a scene made me laugh with a Japanese camp commander with American calendar with pinup girl. It's just this understated humor absurd makes you giggle. So look, I cannot give you a plot summary or again, I'm not into much breakdown of story as if it was literary book report project. So you must watch movie or self or look up synopsis if you want, but this is well known. It's English prisoner in a Japanese POW camp and they have to build bridge under forced labor and there is a rescue attempt in this. But really the movie is about something else, is about clash of very strong uncompromising

character driven by one thing each, single minded men driven by a kind of inner engine higher purpose, to a time driven to absurd measure in the name of a cause, no matter what the consequences, and colliding with each other in a monster of will at the end. It pulls no punches for major normie movie in this way. It's the kind of collision of wills type movie that Quentin Tarantino wishes he could make, but he's a baby compared to David Lean. And it's also a good study of a national character. You see national characters best in conflict situations like this, when it is elevated in the middle of wilderness, it becomes very sharp and clear. With Alec Guinness, he's playing a British Colonel POW, who enters the Battle of Willow

Japanese Colonel Camp Commander, and each of them is Avatar, a pure version of English and Japanese ideal officer soldier. It's a duel by men of the same soul. But there is also an American prisoner who escapes, and he also is made to show the American character, irreverent, pleasure-loving, rational. He is maybe who audience likes most of all, and he sees through the absurdity of these other men's single-mindedness, what it leads them to, to madness, which he repeats again and again. So you could make a facile review about how this is in fact an anti-war movie, and the futility of war, and of conflict, and of action. about putting men in these surreal situations, but I think it's wrong. It's not really a war movie.

The war is the backdrop or setting, but the war isn't even the point of the movie. It's not a pro or anti-war one way or another, because the absurdity of their resolve is also their greatness. The war is just a setting for them to exhibit that, and the English taking fair play and gentlemanly principle of rule-following and the Japanese taking honor and they're both ready to take this to suicidal extreme. All right, so this is refreshing. It takes you out of everydayness whereas in many modern movies when the motives are revealed it reduces everything to greed or at best to sex or at worst to their so-called higher cause of the modern day which is some opinion like social justice or humanitarian idiocy

or this, but imagine a movie that shows without condemnation the willful pursuit of a higher cause like honor or perfection. If this movie was made today, it would be a retarded Nike commercial, unbearably sentimental, with lingering extreme Spielberg-type shots of the horror of camp life, or lingering performative emotionalism hem-handed, the kind of shtetlbilly manipulative propaganda, with Tom Hanks weeping over a photo of his daughter while the, you know, it'd just be very different because in Bridge Quai there's nothing like this, it's actually a very funny movie, it's understated throughout in narrative and explicit emotionalism is very little of this, which is why it's so powerful, it achieves much with understatement, dry British humor, and the funniest and most

absurd part of it is the English Colonel's determination after he wins the initial battle of Willows, the camp commander, he has these determinations that, yes, by God, now this is going to be a British bridge and the best bridge, the best bridge that will ever be built. And so, although as a soldier, it would have been his duty to sabotage the project, or at least to make it as crappy as possible, or to build it as slow as possible, no, no, he undertakes the building of this project under forced labor. He undertakes it. It's no longer forced labor. going to be the legacy of his career, and he will build the best bridge in Burma in a short time. So you know, the absurd irony of when he volunteers himself, and not only the officers, but also

many of the men in Sikh hospital, to build the bridge faster, when the initial dispute with camp commander was his unwillingness to have the officers do manual labor. You know, we will not be reduced to coolies, you know, it's both the rule-following, Because that's a Geneva rule that officers will not be made to work. But also, you know, the aristocratic gentlemanly British contempt for labor, manual laborers. But in his determination to prove these yellow savages, to prove to them that the Brits are the best and to distinguish his own leadership and competence, he builds the best wartime bridge ever. So, you know, maybe in future, maybe you can remake this movie about FEMA camps, you know, smart white male American engineers at FEMA Camp Gulag run by mulatta lesbian commissar

and the lead character could be, you know, maybe Ed Harris died but could be played by someone like that, you know, an all-American engineer. He intends to build the best bridge to show competence in a kind of country that has become leftoid, schumer, mulatta, lesboid, co-op, Ameriqua, with otherwise crumbling infrastructure. And maybe this movie will be called The Bridge on the River Qua, for Ameriqua, get it? But so anyway, David Lean film actually is a comedy, that's why it works. So it's all presented with English frivolity and humor in what is otherwise supposed to be a dark, you know, prisoner camp in war. But you never get this overwrought Anne Frank heaviness you get in war movies now with shots. Don't watch Stalingrad crap, Enemy at the Gates.

I walked out of that contrived propaganda. And that movie, Enemy at the Gates, is even good for contemporary World War II movie, but it's all this kind of self-conscious sentimental hysteria. And if I take literary frame for a moment, this movie Bridge on River Kwai reminds me very much a Conrad book like Lord Jim and Nostromo because they're a similar built around this conflict in the tropics between strong single-minded personality, titanic collision of willers and the single-minded purpose of a man for perfection. Lord Jim is all about this drive for honor and perfection but Nostromo too, very much like Bridge on River Kwai, this movie very much in some way Nostromo, at the center of Nostromo there is an uncompromising Englishman

also, Charles Gould, who he seeks to redeem his family's fortunes and to rebuild this dilapidated ruined mine in third world country, Costa Guano, of which he is bonded, he is a citizen, but again he seeks to apply European civilization and rules and ingenuity and superior competence and rebuild this mine and remakes this country and he displays the same stubbornness, the same love of principle, and he's set in conflict with character of corrupt locals and then alongside the titanic will of another man, the Italian soldier-protector Nostromo, mercenary, whatever you want to call him, who again he's driven by single-minded pursuit of perfection, which explains why he disappears at the end and so forth.

But Conrad is the best at showing this character of Western man, or let's just call it what Conrad did, the destiny of the white man, since that's what the Western or European is called in the tropics and in the colonies, and on the world frontier of exploration is just called the white man because that's how he looked to outsiders. And so Conrad believes this character of the white man showed itself most sharply among strangers far away from home, in tropics, on edge of frontier, and in collision alongside native character. So it's always a kind of semi-tragic story about pursuit of perfection and the pushing of frontier boundaries and really this kind of white man's hunting of the infinite on edge of horizon, on exploration and frontier.

Ignore the fools who tell you that Conrad is about evils of colonialism and all this. But there's a lot of this feel, the Conrad feel I just mentioned in this movie, quiet. It's beautifully shot also, and much better than CGI cape shit made now. And you know, they did it all with celluloid and rulers and razors, okay? And you can't beat that with techniques made now. The tropical light, the vegetation, the photography, the animal, it draws you into a dream state from beginning. And there's a striking, absurd visual contrast. It makes almost a surreal Lynchian atmosphere. For example, the American, after he escapes and he ends up first with these natives, they take care of him, then he ends up in English care and meets a certain major warden, a Cambridge

Don who now runs a club Tropical Excellent basically in Ceylon, a commando resort by the sea and the mountains, commando school resort. And so the movie has this break in the middle, that kind of tropical serene ideal, and it follows this beautiful dreamy breakup with the first kills by knife in the jungle, and with lingering shots of swarm of giant fruit bats in forest. And these kinds of scenes in succession after that tropical ideal resort, it has a surreal feel that puts you in a kind of Kubrick mood. And what I mean is this kind of dreamlike visual dissonance that draw you out of everydayness and put you in, you could call it higher trance. If you can compare to other movies, maybe to Japanese Seven Samurai by Kurosawa, because

there also you have middle-aged main character who look back at his life and wonders whether his service as a warrior was worth it, and he contrives to put himself in a situation in the middle of nowhere in an almost futile, irrelevant kind of micro-situation with very little possible payoff other than the private honor of knowing a job well done, and maybe showcasing this to some peasants. But this movie, Seven Samurai, also has a sense of humor, but not British, of course. But both of them are light-hearted, humorous movies in a heavy setting with ambiguous endings, really happy ending, right? So this is from a time when major normal fag movie and success movie could be uncompromising and tough in this way as high art. So very good. Maybe

you watch and see this if you like. I don't want to say too much about this. See if you could make this movie today. And I mean not just the political stupidity of today that would prevent this movie being made, but the artistic privatization of all sensibility where you have the moralistic dumbing down of the human of Hollywood with his dramatic narrative formulas. In any case, I will be right back. One of Roman Polanski's most normal fag movie, it's attempt, maybe Hollywood-style thriller even, I mean compared to his others, but he mostly ends up never compromising. It's as weird, paranoid, atmospheric as his other good ones. And the plot of this 1988 is a mystery movie. The best kind of mystery is a missing woman, a woman in

trouble. You know, a doctor goes to Paris with his wife and she disappears, so he looks for her. Very simple, but effective plot, by the way, of a kind that, when you're looking for missing woman, this has haunted, obsessed my dream for a long time. And I can tell you now, special reveal, maybe, is that my second book is is going to be a novel that center just on this, a man's search for his mistress who disappear, but will be very special and some unusual thing. I think you will be very happy. But so anyway, Harrison Ford, who you might know from other movies, is very good at scenes like where he, someone say, listen, and he responds, no, you listen. And this type of intensity, he does very well. And is a good title because, you know, the mystery is the resolution of the mysteries

always a disappointment, and in this case not even the point, because the movie is not about the resolution of the mystery, but the thrill of the pursuit itself, and it's just really an excuse to show this atmosphere of frantic search, of paranoia and mystery and the excitement of it, and it's just about this mood, okay, which can be very seductive. And finally, the movie is an excuse for Polanski to exhibit two things he loves. One is his city, Paris, where he was living at the time, and the other is Emmanuel Senier, the main actress in this movie, who he ended up marrying her the year after, but he's obviously entranced with her. She has aura of mystery and threatening intensity, and it's this what I mean.

There's the atmosphere of menace and of searching in the movie, and what better backdrop can there'd be for incipient paranoid schizophrenic to showcase the things you loved and this atmosphere of menacing mystery. And Emmanuel Senier plays this rogue girl, a friend just say that if Antigone was born today she'd be her character Michelle in this movie. She has no regard for any human lore or opinion, this is true. She's charmingly thievish, roguish, she's punk style. And the movie itself is a comedy in that sense of she's the counter to Harrison Ford who plays the normal fag doctor. So this is story of a square who gets lost in the underworld, which makes for many comedic episodes in this way, similar to other good movies from 1980s, Scorsese's After Hours,

which I think in that case it's an accountant or whatever, but he gets lost in New York Soho of that time, and lead to many funny surreal encounter with underworld artsy character when part of New York was still wild, and a kind of persistent atmosphere also of menace, like in Dream. But After Hours is much more obviously a comedy than Frantic. But in Frantic, again, you can ignore the plot, which is mostly ridiculous. Its opportunity to create succession of thrilling scenes, like Harrison Ford on Parisian rooftops almost sliding off, trying to sneak into Emmanuel Senier's apartment, where she's interrogated by two guerrillas, or he's running from Mossad and Adams in a parking lot, or he's arguing with condescending French service industry, and this, by the way, is a persistent

obsession of Polanski in other movies, I think, because his other ode to Paris, The Tenant, which is one of the most fucked up movies you can watch, but Zerto in The Tenant he plays main character himself, and he's oppressed and ultimately sissified by overbearing French waiters and staff and so forth, the service industry wins. But the funniest scene in Frantic is one of funniest scenes in maybe any movie and most memorable in this film where he's at a club frequented by rich Arabs and Greeks, a lame Club for Squares, as Sainière's character calls it. And the two of them dance to Grace Jones' cover of Astor Piazzolla Libertango, a song from the 80s. I've seen that face before, a seductive song.

And you know, they're dancing around, these literous Arab men touches you, you know, awkward-looking darkoids who are dressed up in suits. And the contrast then also between Harrison Ford, the way he tries to dance in his square and the way she dances, Michel, the Emmanuel Senier character. I will post this scene maybe on Twitter, but like I keep telling you, this is just an excuse for Polanski. This whole movie is just an excuse to have scenes like this, and that's not a complaint. That's good because this visual excitement and not the dramatic arc or the narrative or whatever, this visual whimsy and thrill and humor makes the movie Hitchcock had similar For example, Hitchcock has opposite also. I don't like his movie Rope, with kind of cerebral philosophizing, and Rope is really

just a theater piece set in movie form. But I love North by Northwest, which, again, it says rather ridiculous plot line, and at its core it's driven by some other mystery and a sense of menace. But the great joy he take in wild cinematic scene, the famous one where airplane is shooting on him in a wheat field and he gets chased by airplane. But I'm telling you, I would not mind a two-hour fashion commercial if you managed to pull it off and to draw in viewer. And I suppose maybe a pretense that a narrative line can work this way also same as in dreams, because if you remember the good impersonal kind of dream, for me always there is some kind of absurd storyline, but it's never about that, right? It's about the odd images, the mood above all, and the trance punctuated by quite extreme

and absurd bursts of schizo-emotion. And this movie capture, this movie frantic capture, I can put it in some short formula, it captures excitement of first steps in underworld and nightlife, which is where this charming rogue character, Emmanuel Seigneur, resides, and he glorifies her. his maybe roguish spirit of free nightlife, where the key to finding his lost wife is. But obviously Polanski takes joy in showing you this under-seam of city life as he should, because look, like I say in my book, it's not that nightclubs and zis are wonderful or good because you can score drugs or girls or what a traditionalist might look down on as hedonism or zis, but because even controlled as these places are from the outside and circumscribed

as these places are limited, they still formed these holes in the fabric of modern regime where possibility of freedom from surveillance still glimmered, at least. And you can see this is true now from worldwide reaction to Wuhan grids and how concerned authorities are to shut it down. You know, so right, the Wuhan grids with nothing to do with health measures, the lockdowns and everything to do with entrenching various pet causes of various establishments and sometimes Sometimes it varies from countries to countries. So I see on previous show there is tension here, but you will see why I make it. Hold on. So in Iceland, in government there is a whole network of ex-alcoholics. The Northman has poor ability to process liquor. This is well-known HBD fact.

Peoples around Mediterranean have been imbibing liquor, wine for thousands of years, but the the Northman, it's a relative novelty for him, and he's somewhat, not as badly off, but somewhat badly off like the Native American because he's prone to fall to alcoholism and this is well known. So in Iceland you have these ex-alcoholics and they've always wanted to completely ban alcohol again. Alcohol was banned in Iceland I think until 1980s and now it's expensive. It's a government monopoly. So what do these people do? They're quite influential in government. This network, they use Wuhan Grid's pandemic excuse to shut down nightlife, try to ban public consumption of alcohol of any kind or in bars and so forth, so they've always

wanted this, had nothing to do with the pandemic, they've always wanted this because the Icelandic elite is this kind of priggish Lutheran type, they've always wanted to shut this down anyway, but you have this alcoholic group that's a lobby, okay? Now why I say this, because that is a relatively innocent and well-meaning if callow Nordic reason to put restrictions on and one that it's very well documented and it's what I'm telling you here. This is why they did it. There's nothing to do with the pandemic. But in much of the rest of the world, for example, Argentina, which has been under very severe lockdown, almost like Australia since the beginning, but in many places, they shut down all known and legal nightlife completely, okay, which is, this is a big underseam in

Argentina an uncontrolled part of society. Why? Because I'm telling you modern governments have always hated this. Whatever so-called traditionalists and let's say stiff people who use religion to hide behind or insolence may think, no, actually modern governments do not want you engaging in so-called hedonism, okay? They want you engaging in controlled pleasures that they approve. They want you to go to work in office building surveilled, then go home to your dormitory or excuse me, you call it a residential neighborhood and to sleep then go to work and everything in sections and surveilled and controlled, all the flow of money surveilled. They don't like cash and no talking to each other outside of the view of authorities or

of a woman who's their lackey and no building of common camaraderie, no building up of social energy. You know, the pros, they meet in bars and nightlife, they build social energy and solidarity together having fun, you know. So they've always hated this. They had to allow it because, you know, they pretended a free society and that not like the Soviet Union or the evil Islamic world or what they pretend Nazism was, which by the way, at least in East Bloc, you definitely had parties and nightlife and discos and all of this. And quite aside from this, when I grew up as a small boy, I grew up, I won't say exactly where, okay, some part Russia, I will not say where, but I grew up in a city in East Bloc and I had a lot more freedom than any of you who grew up in a suburb, also known

as dormitory neighborhoods. But we were basically allowed to run wild in the city and I was always plotting some mischief with a small group of friends. I had a lot less regimented upbringing in a totalitarian tyranny, supposedly, than kids did in the West, even of that time, let alone now. So why I say this is because it's easy for all of us, you know, we're all high-minded intellectuals, right, and serious thinkers, so it's easy to turn nose up at the idea of bars and nightclubs and to say, no, that's stupid, that's for druggies and meatheads and it's just hedonism and most it's a place to score a sloot or whatever, but actually it is really a place like Japanese floating world, one of only, you know, Japan also,

Tokugawa Japan was a controlled society, but in their pleasure quarters there was a break from that control, and night life was one of the only entries of space of freedom in this regimented modern life after 1950. Polanski in this movie captures, you could say, normal things or squares, first footsteps in this freedom of night life and the underworld that existed in the 1980s much more than now, And this beautiful character, Emmanuel Senier, she is the avatar of this world. This world, this wild nightlife was partly ended by the way in the 1980s toward the end of the 1980s by Fauci and company by their first forays into panic-mongering with the AIDS thing and the scare and when Fauci was running around telling everyone that you'd

likely get AIDS at some point, everyone would get AIDS at some point from fucking your girlfriend or that it was airborne in homes or this and he said all of these things, look it up, okay. He should have been fired a long time ago. So Polanski captures the opposite of that. He captures some of the freedom of space in this nightlife world that was preserved after 1950 but actually they've always wanted to shut it down and so I want to recommend for you a wonderful article written by young author Benjamin Roberts in IM 1776, which is a magazine you should all read, and if you can, you should support it. But he wrote about me and my hero Danunzio article, I will repost again, it's called Numos of the Nightclub.

And so now, look, you should all read, but I want to say just something brief on it now. I'm aware some friends read it, they said it was a great article, but they complained about the nightclub aspect of it. And they said, oh, it's a nightclub, how shallow, how can you say that it's a solution to anything? My quick answer now is I never said, and I don't think Benjamin, I think he's a radical Benjamin on Twitter, I think that's his act, I don't think, I never said at least it's a solution exactly to anything, but it's just as a sociological fact, it's a territory, if you take a territory that can shut down nightlife, that can shut down revelry, which is not surveilled, okay, it's not surveilled in every detail, this is a fact.

They do not have, whatever you may think about their surveillance capabilities, they could not and did not surveil nightlife and bars and so forth, not to any significant extent. So I'm telling you, you don't have to glorify nightclubs, but a territory, I don't want to say a country or a society, a territory that can shut down nightlife, that can shut down this revelry, that can shut down places where people are not surveilled in every aspect. Such a place is the beginning of a suffocating tyranny, a mammy tyranny, more total than any that has existed in known history without exaggeration, okay? So the Soviet Union had nightclubs, okay? There were wild parties in Germany and Hungary, even in 1945 during total war and total collapse, right?

So the tyranny ushered in now is more total than that, okay? And they don't mean to make it temporary, and even so, even if it is temporary, the The revelation that all life and freedom was conditional on government decree is a catastrophe. It's a catastrophe no one yet has begun to even think about. Mankind human, it's not mankind, it's humans with a H-U-E, humans failed now in some major way on this crisis. They showed themselves not to love liberty. That's putting it mildly and this article I think I just mentioned to you, Nomos of the Night Club by Benjamin Roberts, I think it points to this profound truth that is revealed even in something you might look down your nose, like night life. But it makes many other good points besides, and well-written, very good. This is a long segment.

I need to go for a Cohiba break. I'll be right back. Yes, welcome back to the show. And I watched these movies all a long time ago, many times, but I rewatched them this weekend with two frog friends. One is Yama Payne. Some of you may know him, he is Hegel and Deleuze's expert annihilationist, he believes in annihilation of entire world. And then I also watch with Sosso, some of you may know, he's cybernetic small black cat, he was guest on show before we talked Clausewitz. But yes, they both enjoy all three movies and they give me many good insight talking to them, but if you want a movie that is pure thrill of youth and speed, you must watch Movei Sang or Bad Blood by Leos Carax, the final movie I review tonight from 1986. And this is one of my all-time three favorite movies.

My other two favorite movies are Mulholland Drive and Persona, Ingmar Bergman. They're all kind of artsy movies, but I explain why maybe on future movie show. I saw this movie sang by chance some years ago in arthouse-type cinema, and maybe without my suggestion you would never watch it. This movie is very French, it's very stylish, the cinematography, very interesting work of art, perfect scenes, frantic too by the way, there is an early bar scene, Yama pointed this out, it's a slow fixed scene but of a bar with a lot happening in it, it's perfect scenery. I mean this movie Bad Blood is artsy, is you could think a successful update of New Wave. Is not New Wave 2.0 as my friend Yama say, but is its own thing.

Mostly attempt to recreate New Wave end up very precious, very irritating like Sofia Crapola or Tarantino or Wes Anderson at their worst with this whimsy. Please do not talk, did Wes Anderson or some other Anderson do Grand Budapest Hotel is horrible movie, don't watch, but Carex does not do this. He makes a new wave with science fiction and yes, by the way, I never just impose my taste on you arbitrarily the way Dugin does when he says, oh, he doesn't like surfing and he has then comes up with theory about why. There is precise reason I will get to on future show why Grand Budapest Hotel is crapola movie. It does not capture anything true about central Europe and so So why pretend to adjust for swipple audience who like, they think they like Budapest cake

and Hungarian tea houses, please. But anyway, so Carex does not, he makes, he doesn't do this kind of sentimentalism or this. He makes new wave with science fiction and this kind of a punk vibe. It's a rough energy, sparkling outbursts of emotion which burst out of sometimes very long, slow, languorous scenes of romance and intense emotional introspection which are not shown in language or dialogue or anything like this, narratives, but for example there's a scene where the main character asks the Juliette Binoche character about whether she's trying not to cry and you see her and this is consummate acting. For a few minutes she's holding back crying and it's very subtle, understated, whereas In drama now, of course, tendency would be to show tedious crying and screaming and performative

declaiming. But this movie, Mauve is saying, is dreamy conversation, artificial beauty of slow scenes and Mondrian-type visuals. And again, you see Léos Carax very deep in love with sort of Paris underworld. But I hope you never feel that this is too artsy when you watch this movie. Blood is not pretentious because it's very sincere, raw emotion, and it's really just movie about thrill of romantic love and of unrequited love even. And if you've ever watched Girl from Window and she come out on balcony and look at you and you flip over a car, it's about that, okay? And now there's a plot too, it's technically a heist movie, but there's barely any pretense, even less than in Frantic, there's barely any pretense to cater to the plot or to traditional

narrative in that way, all the action takes place in visual style, in beautiful subtle way, documenting the main characters, and he is quite ugly from traditional point of view as a main actor, but he has a kind of rough physiognomy. What kind of physiognomy is it? I don't know, some lost mountain tribe maybe, but the movie is really just documenting the the main characters longing for the girl played by Juliette Binoche and the plot itself, which is three thieves are trying to steal from a foreboding skyscraper American company, a recently isolated virus culture of a virus, a disease that this is funny but not too cutesy take, maybe it's too cutesy, I don't know, but it's a new sexually transmitted disease.

Now this is 1986, okay, so you know what they're talking about, but this new sexually transmitted disease that if even one partner doesn't feel love for the other, they both get this new disease and die in terrible ways. So basically, sex without love becomes poisoned. And what do you think of this steak? I like it quite a bit. Someone I forget who told me this long ago, it shows the French disdain and hatred of the gays, right, because this is the interpretation of AIDS they have. But whichever way, in a movie the actual heist is maybe 20 minutes, and instead actually the two hours of the movie is just excuse for scenes of intense passion and longing and contemplative languor from these people's lives. And whether it's running away from a girl who you don't love, but you feel sorry to

abandon and you're running from her in subway, or whether it's being struck by great passionate first view of a girl, which main character believes in this completely and without doubt. And in that sense, it's a melancholic and nostalgic movie because you have to think of lengths film have to go to now to show romantic love. It's almost impossible to make it convincing. Basically only Asian movies now, like Wong Kar-Wai, Hido in the Mood for Love, and 2046, and these are effective romance movies, they can still do genuine romantic story because on one hand social restrictions in their customs, but on the other hand you have to believe in love or romance without this fake self-awareness and self-psychologizing, and that's what's

also missing from this 1980s ode to youth and spirit of speed, Bove Sankt, is the total absence of so-called self-knowledge, which of course no one right now actually has, but just the fake second-hand version of self-knowledge sold to you by chatty Jewish psychiatry and self-referential intellectuals and medical establishment in this, but the young people in this movie, as friends also said, they don't know anything. And that's great. They are free to abandon themselves to great passion and longing without second-guessing themselves or their instincts. He says, I fully agree with this. You get this thrilling and ephemeral feeling of youth and freedom from this movie. And that's what it is. It's all this movie is. It successfully captures this mood, I think.

And it's also nostalgic in the sense that if you live in a big city in 1980s, there was still possibility for motion that you see main character in this movie has to leave everything behind, to go a different part of city, to hide, to find a gig, find a new waifu. Whereas today this is basically impossible in much of the West and it isn't just because of phones and social media surveillance and people keeping in touch in this. But even before iPhone, excuse me, the economic and social life somehow is hard to describe, but it became a lot more regimented, restricted. You became, even before 2010, a lot more locked into your small social sphere and possibilities and radius in life. And the great feeling of freedom this movie shows, it's another Paris movie, although

Carex here shows you night punk Paris again, and none of the typical Paris known by most, but the only place in the world where I found this feeling of full possibility and freedom, that I could go across town and enter a completely different social world and not be known, and this is, for example, Buenos Aires, which not coincidentally is somehow mostly still stuck in in the European 1980s, in style and many other things, but it's the only place where I fully found this rush of freedom depicted in a movie, where you have an unrestricted, uncontrolled nightlife that spans different classes in different parts of the city. And I haven't thought through, by the way, why and how this freedom became restricted.

In some sense, I do think mass immigration had something to do with it, because before The service industry and so forth, in other words the working class quarters of the city, they were culturally different from you maybe, but they looked like you, they were white, so you could interlope among them more easily, you could become accepted even temporarily and there was more fluid motion the other way, also between classes, between different parts of the city, different social spheres and so on, whereas now a Viet guy is not going to go to a Hispanic bar, a black hood is not going to go to a white bar or a swivel bar, whatever mixed, whatever, and so forth, or vice versa, but I think this is only part of it. Maybe also the law has become more onerous.

People have become culturally more cocooned, less willing to go outside their own groups or to talk to strangers, and many such things, but whatever reason, this great feeling of freedom of possibility from movie is mostly lost in cities today, regardless of where you are. By the way, Hong Kong, I hear, used to be great, but now it's also a work camp and dormitory with, you know, it has select cultural and culinary activities available, right, so where you can go and have things in a regimented way as if you were old woman out for acculturation for the afternoon. this how most modern social life feels, in this movie Mauvaisang you see a difference before the heavy regimentation set in, but where to find what is shown throughout this movie Mauvaisang?

There is scene on motorbike, boy and girl are running from the wall on bike in forest at night. Where to find this? And at end where Juliette Binoche's character finally understands what it means to be kissed by spirit of speed, where you find this? Maybe we make such thing, resurrect spirit, romance and speed, or maybe some other companion spirit besides. Until next time, Bap out.