Product Placement

Nobody reviews film in terms of their most important function, i.e., as funded propaganda.

Each show title (below) links to orthodox website descriptor. My reinterpretation follows below each title.

I'm all for drugs. I would take them routinely if the payback weren't so steep, like paying 200% monthly interest on a loan. Drugs are devastating and sold under false pretense. Knowing that drug companies are acutely interested in films and theater and our cultural perceptions that influence film making, can make even bad movies interesting.

Many films, plays, news, and educational documents contain medical propaganda, promoting paradigms that lack peer review, lack independent substantiation, and which suffer from conflict of interest. They aggressively promote medical industrial products and concepts. Being aware of such propaganda makes watching bad movies fun. Propaganda can be detected, dissected, and understood. Films can be understood and enjoyed for their true merits. One realization though, is that the audience should be paid to attend the theatrics.

Product Placement

An article in the LA Times (which comes via Scott Kirsner at CinemaTech) reports on how specific corporations have ponied up money for films whose subject matter fits their market demographic. In "Advertiser cash flows to indie film projects," Lorenza Muñoz writes:

...Unilever brand Dove has agreed to invest $3 million — about one-fifth of the budget — into "The Women," the first theatrical movie by Diane English, the creative force behind the hit television series "Murphy Brown." Gatorade, the sports drink maker, quietly put up $3 million for the production of "Gracie," a story about a girls soccer team that is coming out this weekend.

www.filmmakermagazine.com/blog/

I disagree with the term, "Brand Integration". "Product Placement" is more accurate. "Brand Integration" is a method of product placement, unless of course there is no such thing as a movie, or a plot, separate from product placement. Oops. Looks like that's the case, there is apparently nothing more to films than brand integration.

On Michael Moore: The drug gov is helping Moore publicize his film, which like other 'tell all' films about the drug industry, complain about the price of drugs, not so much their actual health value, which in reality would be an extremely negative number. Moore's agent is the brother of Obama's Chief of Staff, who is, believe it or not, an Israeli military guy. He left that position in 2012.

The following reviews focus on the subplot. They do not always describe the main orthodox version of the plot or characters. For a link to a mainstream review click on a film title. For me, the subplots of product placement are the primary plot, though those plots are unmentioned by orthodox reviewers. Films are as important as legislation, and thus, those who lobby and fund films should be publicized to clear up suspicions which the audience may have. Reviews should focus, at least somewhat, on movie funding.

Twitter, Los Angeles, South Beach Miami, Austin, and New Orleans are advertised. This is a well-funded, well-connected factory-made movie, yet pleasant and humorous.

Two actors are portrayed. Woody Allen is witty, cute, harmless and wonderful. He pimps his friend and plays baseball with disadvantaged children. The viewer is introduced to overtly clannish Jewish court and police systems within New York, funded by New York City. John Turturro is the silent, humble, handsome stud. Allen is run through these justice systems and perhaps the movie's theme is to show the reader that Woody's well-known moral and legal questions are to be resolved internally, kept within the powerful family.

A narcissistic white couple disastrously screw up the inevitable entry of the high-tech world of artificial intelligence and nano-tech as applied to miraculous medicine. The rainbow coalition, supported by the FBI, take over, and finally, the industrial future looks bright.

Two lower-class Jewish men, cousins, in the 1921 era, Manhattan, struggle for survival. One manages a theater troupe of prostitutes, and the other is a magician. They fall in love with a naive and beautiful Polish Catholic female immigrant, and sacrifice themselves for her in an attempt to help her in her struggles with the corrupt Ellis Island immigration authorities, shown as English descent, and the corrupt New York City police force, as Irish descent. The corruption of the tuberculosis quarantine system is portrayed.

An intelligent, handsome, cool, hard working, and very ethical man, is stuck in his car for many hours.

With his cell phone, he succeeds in resolving his responsibilities by unquestioningly delegating his work to two types of trustworthy people.

1) Manual laborers with whom he has worked for many years, who are financially indebted to him

2) An anonymous doctor who, with a knife, extracts his infant child from his fearful pregnant mate.

This is a fine film during the first half, it actually has a plot, but during the second half, it is BS action to the end.

The movie is about agents who "enhance" their abilities with drugs called "chems". If they cannot acquire the chems, they become disabled relative to their competitors and thus risk being killed. That's the sales message.

A comical part, worth seeing, is where the hero-agent bluffs his way into a high-security pharmaceutical plant by pretending to be a doctor in order to acquire his chems. The hero fakes the perfect doctor-face, that patented look of pseudo-superiority-confidence. The guards crumble and allow him past security gates.

Wiki: "Jodie Foster portrays the film's protagonist, Dr. Eleanor "Ellie" Arroway, a SETI scientist who finds strong evidence of extraterrestrial life and is chosen to make first contact."

The loud emotional apex of the entire film is when Jodie is inside a machine that is to take her to visit the superior aliens. She becomes inspired, yelling "electomagnetic fields... transparent...". Earth leaders doubt her glorious experience, but the common people are with her, as the entire scientific "trip" is publicized on mainstream headlines. The film promotes EMF (electromagnetic fields) as wonders, not the toxicities they are. The film is an exercise in mass hypnosis, and features, Bill Clinton (ex-pres) and other big names. Get the message?

Wiki: "[The protagonista] leaves her life of comparative luxury and moves into a small dingy London flat with Freddie. [Her] new lover has awakened her sexuality, but [he] can never give her the love and stability that her husband gave. Yet to return to a life without passion would be unbearable. The film takes its title from her dilemma."

Remove that standard depressing romantic narcissim and what's left is merely one simple lesson that the film constantly promotes: A stove can be used to commit suicide if the gas is on but not lit, yet when burning, the stove is warmth, and a symbol of hope and joy. That is the lie, as well burned stove exhaust too is poison. The film is UK gov [industry] funded.

Wiki: "It tells the story of the young Limburgish cattle farmer Jacky Vanmarsenille who is approached by an unscrupulous veterinarian to make a shady deal with a notorious West-Flemish beef trader. But the assassination of a federal policeman, and an unexpected confrontation with a mysterious secret from Jacky's past, set in motion a chain of events with far-reaching consequences."

This movie has one purpose, which is to sell male-enhancing drugs, synthetic testosterones, etc. It appears to be a tragedy, which is just a mask for the trash it is. The protagonist is an intelligent, handsome, muscular, atheletic he-man, who became such due to, apparently, his steady diet of pharmaceuticals. It couldn't be for any other reason because his testicles were crushed when he was a child. Being a pharmaceutical sales film, it got nominated for an Oscar, and other awards, due likely to the influence of the drug cartel. Most people will be "stunned" and "impressed" yet this movie is trash.

Wiki: "Largely a tale of a peaceful situation between local Christians and Muslims before becoming a lethal one due to external forces, the screenplay focuses on the preceding chain of events in decay of government, expansion of terrorism and the monks' confrontation with both the terrorists and the government authorities that led up to their deaths."

This portrays pharmaceutical distributors as fervantly religious monks willing to die for their supposed belief in a Christian God.

IBDB: "A documentary about branding, advertising and product placement that is financed and made possible by brands, advertising and product placement."

Though this concerns product placement, the major products (of medical industry) are not even hinted at. There is no mention of anything remotely pharmaceutical. The film hypes pasteurized pomegranite juice ("POM") in plastic bottles as healthy.

IBDB: "A veterinary student abandons his studies after his parents are killed and joins a traveling circus as their vet."

The student then meets a blond, wife of the tyrannical circus owner. Stuggles, violence, etc. with happy ending. Note that a circus worker drinks "Ginger Jake" and is paralysed.

Barney goes through three marriages. Each marriage is a better marriage, a more beautiful and more intelligent woman. His third, the most intelligent and beautiful insists that cancer is caused by personal sorrow.

This film lists Clint Eastwood as the director, however, Spielberg is listed as the executive producer. The movie demonstrates that Spielberg wields heavy influence over Eastwood, who has done excellently previously in the absence of Spielberg. This is a Spielberg film, with Eastwood doing the director work. Spielberg's product placement techniques are evident. There is an manipulative ethical sickness to the entire film that is Spielbergian.

The film promotes pharmaceuticals in the first scenes, just before the "talkative" twin boy dies, hit by a van.

The film mainly takes down the reputation of "psychics", by showing that the only good psychic is the psychic who doesn't want to be a psychic. Like the saying, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Possibly this is because "psychic" is an unlicensed anarchic position, taking work from the medical professionals.

This comic play is fresh and wonderful, the product of playwright, Elizabeth Meriwether. The set is a trashy apartment. The four actors were so skillfully real that I had to restrain myself from walking up onto the stage and interacting, to discuss their dismal situations.

Agency product placement is there. HIV/AIDS, child abuse, and male abuse of women and children. Somehow, Meriwether wove those themes with so much skill, that her spirit rose above those required themes.

A great play, reminiscent of Tom DiCillo's work, much insight, modern personality solutions, and consistent laughs. A must see. Meriwether is being hired quite a lot now, and should hit mainstream soon. She's a character! See
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/theater/09meriwether.html

This is medical propaganda, cast as a travelogue through five cities. There are at least two products being sold. a) Behavior, as, people who advocate natural lifestyle can be treated violently, without guilt. b) Attitude, as, missing a parent (due to death, etc) is not that important. Big name actors are given short exposure throughout the film.

A young hetero common-law married couple (Burt and Verona) are portrayed as hip, charming, and sensible. We are told Verona's mother died when she was 20. Verona is six-months pregnant. They visit five cities and settle down in number five. In each of the first four cities they visit a couple, friends, who are raising their children. Each couple is portrayed as weird, and the protagonists endure theses characters with great patience and humor.

The exception is the Earth Couple, featuring a young professor and her mate, who eschew the stroller for their child, advocate breast-feeding and one big bed for the family. The Earth Couple invite Burt and Verona to stay and invite them to dinner, where the Earth Couple's enthusiastically talk of their lifestyle.

Suddenly, Burt acts entirely out of character, sharply demanding, "No more parental advice!" Verona then says something bland, and the Earth Mother responds motheringly, expressing sympathy for Verona's isolation due to her mother's death. Burt and Verona then both act out of character, take great offense, stand up, and yell insults at the Earth Couple. They storm out of the house, then smile, and long for "French fries with gravy, mmmm!" Audience laughs.

Later they visit a friend, a father in Montreal. His wife left and he finds it difficult to raise his young daughter without the mother. Burt is sympathetic, but Verona says, "They'll get over it. It will be OK."

The audience is ushered back to middle-America, though with a twist -- Mom is not essential. My editorial: After be told for the last 30 years that Dad was not important, what's left? Simple lab tests have shown that mammals raised without breastfeeding, or without the parent, become hard-wired to low self-confidence, and are nervous, incapacitated.

The film's intent obviously is to have the audience side with the hip common-law couple. The technique is rubberstamped in Junebug, Knocked Up, and various other social engineering films. Fortunately this film got lots of bad reviews, though no reviewer mentions product placement or funding sources, as usual.

Bill Maher is a bad critique of institutional religion, if indeed that is what he was trying to accomplish.

Maher used the standard technique of cutting scenes whenever his opposition paused or made a facial expression, moments of silence he wanted his audience to interpret as some kind of Maher-victory. He cut very short an interview with Francis Collins, the scientist who was led the Human Genome Project. He then selectively edited and presented a small part of that interview.(1)

Maher grossly misquotes John Adams (2nd President), "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." Adams actually said such a statement would be "fanatical", and that, "Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite society..."(2)

Often, after Maher cut a scene or jumped off topic, he would run back to his hotel room or van and splice in his version of the "truth".

Maher pretends to be "scientific" and "logical" but avoids mentioning that our physical world is almost entirely perceived (in scientific terms) through the writings of Isaac Newton, whose stated purpose in his research was to understand God. Maher omits that the foremost cosmic scientist of our times, Stephen Hawking, employs the word "God" frequently to convey his ideas about quantum theory, etc.

Maher claims that the military horrors of this world were brought to us by religion. However, it is obvious that militant institutional religion works with, or is a tool of, the state, which is itself controlled largely by militant powers.

Maher sought the easiest targets, and barely survived his confrontations by editing and playing practical jokes on his interviewees.

Oddly, Bill Maher is religious, being raised as a Catholic, and now a fervent believer in the Orthodox Church of 9-11 and the Church of Modern Medicine.

"I thought my interview with him was going to be about the so-called controversy between science and faith, and whether someone could both believe in God and evolution. I was willing to discourse on that."

"But in a rambling discussion, Maher migrated into other territory where I am hardly an expert (like the historicity of the Gospels). As you could see, that was the part he chose to include, though he presented a very limited excerpt."

"If Maher were seriously interested in hearing a discussion on this topic, he might have lined up an interview with someone like N.T. Wright."

"So yes, I felt a bit misused. But I guess no one would claim this was an attempt to find the truth."

Another movie that provides not so subtle hints to women that killing a man is no problem, can be exciting and highly profitable. Plot: An ex-wild-girl (Jessie) settles down and marries a church-going, "hardware store owner who has a train set in his basement" (her husband, played well by Woody Harrelson). On vacation, she finds herself alone in the country with a handsome Spaniard and as they play around sexually, she has an apparent paranoid flash-back and then kills him, smashing a board several times on his head. She feels guilty and after returning to the hotel begins to cover herself with lies. She lies to her husband, the Spaniard's girlfriend, and the police.

After all kinds of absurd 'action adventure', the film finally reveals that the Spaniard was actually a drug-runner and abuser of women. Jessie never admits the murder, and escapes detection, however, she does tell the Spaniard's girlfriend where to find the body. It turns out, only in retrospect, that Jessie's violence was apparently the result of her intuitive insight, possibly gained through her wild past experiences.

Though the relationship between the drug-dealer and his girlfriend is never explicitly revised, the audience is apparently urged to believed that the girlfriend is an abused fellow-traveler of the Spaniard (in this movie, as she is described as abused in her youth, at home, apparently by the Spaniard, and by rogue police/gang members).

The girlfriend then digs up the dead Spaniard and extracts a small fortune in cash, the Happy Hollywood ending. The lesson: Being an abused victim can really pay off. I have no doubt that some "non-profit" organizations helped produce this mess, to ensure continued business.

If one closely observes the sequence of events in this film, one will see that I'm describing the actual, essential plot. All else, no matter how dramatic, improbable, exotic, and stupid -- is smoke.

Won an Oscar. A version of Che Guevara's life. Guevara, as a recent medical school graduate, tours South America on a motorcycle with a friend. He describes his asthma condition as "I was born with weak lungs... it is something you must fight... adrenaline injections are the treatment."

Wonderful, intelligent, very funny film. Certainly should be a candidate for best comedy. Borders on corny, but stays unpredictable and witty -- skillful craft, photography, acting, writing, directing. Few if any medical products sold. This film was not mentioned at Golden Globe Awards 2008, nor was anyone mentioned, as being associated with this film. The film is not optimally politically correct.

Its main plot device equates "Bob Marley, social martyr" with "hero-virologist", like "Jonas Salk", with the nutcase that actor Will Smith portrays in this film.

I thought this might be fun to see -- hi-tech digital sci-fi craft and state-of-the-art propaganda -- but it is just more trash in the massive Hollywood river-sewer.

The Plot: A virologist hero tries to save the world from a virus epidemic (extending the theme of the previous movies, "28 Days...").

The hero-virologist is black, he is saved by a Latin-like woman, and the hordes of infected mutants are (you guessed it) raging white men.

At the film's climax, near the end, the virologist gives his life while destroying the last "infecteds" with a grenade and fire.

Before that moment, however, he offers to save them, because he has developed the magical VACCINE. The infecteds don't listen! They insanely rage against him, the doctor, the voice of reason, and thus, he pulls the grenade pin. The film ends with songs by Bob Marley. Puke!

Marley's passionate work against the dark side has been crudely and thoroughly co-opted.

Many in the audience were gasping with sympathy, while I was laughing with disgust. Two different planets. I tried to comment on a movie blog and was censored.

A fake 'great film', slow tempo, etc. Great craftsmanship, but otherwise boring. Wear ear plugs as high db sound is not predictable. Exploits audience, especially those, like me, who once admired the Coen brothers.

I always stay to the very last frame, watching all credits, etc. This film actually ended with a giant HORSE'S ANUS, which then resolved to a HORSE'S ASS, which then to confirm what you are looking at, revealing a horse head turning around and whinnying. Really. This film got scores of 100 from many moronic critics. But a few smart ones (remember their names) correctly trashed this film.

Praise for critic Rosenbaum, of the Chicago Reader! He trashes this film, and also, as a bonus, he trashes "Lars and the Real Girl".

The first thing we demand of a wall is that it shall stand up. If it stands up, it is a good wall, and the question of what purpose it serves is separable from that. And yet even the best wall in the world deserves to be pulled down if it surrounds a concentration camp. —George Orwell

In the past, the Coens have gotten a lot of mileage out of ridiculing most country folk for their stupidity...

Extremely boring and stupid. One of the worst chick flicks. A man (actor) describes the movie accurately during the first section, "This is insane, this is crazy." The man is quickly suppressed by 'caring' women and he and the entire town then join to humor Lars for (in audience time) the next two hours. To date, this film has garnered to 2 awards and 9 nominations. Barf!

This film spends most of its celluloid demonstrating Dr. Mudd's honest and brave character and his unjust imprisonment. Then it has Mudd saving "hundreds" from Yellow Fever, and proving that disease paradigm true by acquiring Yellow Fever himself, via an inadvertent mosquito bite. Mudd was then pardoned by the U.S. President and glorified as a medical hero (like Jonas Salk).

'Fine performance by Warren Baxter as Dr. Samuel Mudd. There's John Carradine as the vicious Sgt. Rankin who after treating Dr. Mudd with sadistic brutality he in the end repents from what he did to the good doctor after Dr. Mudd saved his life as well as over a thousand others on the mosquito infected isle from Yellow Fever. Dr. Mudd himself got infected by what he called the "Yellow-jacket" that almost ended up killing him as well.'

Tom DiCillo wrote and directed this great comedy film. (See also his "Double Whammy" below). As usual he pokes fun at society and Hollywood.

Plot: Les Galantine, photographer (paparazzi), lets a young homeless guy (Toby) stay at his apartment in exchange for assistance. Eventually Toby and a casting director hit it off, and Toby also falls in love with a star singer -- Toby makes the big time. Toby stays behind. Drama and humor and touching moments are left out of this synopsis.

The audience file out as soon as the credits were listed at the end of the film, however, if they stayed they would have seen the film continue with an interview of Les Galantine, for having taken a great photo "shot seen 'round the world" of Toby and his singer girlfriend:

One great scene spoofs (as comical parody) "AIDS fund raising": Les and Toby venture into a convention, "Soap Stars against STD". The question is asked, "What's rule number one?" Les answers, "Don't let a hooker slip you the tongue!"

This is a biography of Edith Piaf the famous singer, who died at an early age of drug addiction. The film ennobles and rationalizes the life of druggie street waif, though Wikipedia writes that her addiction of morphine was the result of hospital procedures following a car accident ("In 1951 she was involved in a car accident, and thereafter had difficulty breaking a serious morphine addiction.").

A fun film, though often too bluntly constructed. I gave it an overall 65. All Moviefone reviews gave it 100, indicating tremendous industrial support for its hidden medical messages. Contrast with the fine quality film, "Running with Scissors", which critiqued psychiatry -- and was voted "Worst film of the year" by high profile reviewers. www.imdb.com/title/tt0439289

"Knocked Up" is a virtuosic display of propaganda technique. The writer/director is listed as Hollywood veteran, Judd Apatow, though his tasks were likely coordinated with a team of medical industry advisors, writers, and other consultants. Apatow's roots are advertising.

Plot, Summarized In Two Sentences

Natural drug (marijuana) bum grows up to become pharmaceutical industrial hero. The audience sympathetically follows his journey because of his charming wisdom. He always gets the last word.

Beginning: Characters Established

Three iconic tensions are established.

Tension #1 (Cultural and genetic contrast, at gender level):

The protagonist is portrayed as a slovenly, irresponsible, bong-toting, Jewish youth ("Ben Stone", played by Seth Rogen). During a one-night-stand, Ben accidentally impregnates his iconic opposite, i.e., a nice, successful, career-minded Teutonic blonde beauty ("Alison", played by Katherine Heigl). How will this resolve?

Tension #2 (Family ethics)

The gifted Alison has options. With advice from her mother, Alison doesn't want an abortion. She decides to have the baby while continuing her career as news anchor. Alison remembers during her night in the sack with Ben, that he was good-hearted, socially adept and witty, though obviously rough-cut. She hardly remembers him generally, but phones him to determine if he would be of any help. She has various possibilities for him.

Alison's sister, Debbie, advocates against drugs and vaccination, and Alison agrees. The two woman distrust medicine. These attitudes will evolve.

Tension #3 (Mideast conflict)

Among Ben's four immature roommates, his one non-Jewish roommate, though not Arab, is bearded in a way that he is a caricature of a dumb, Mid-Eastern terrorist, and is at odds with his clean-shaven Jewish roommates. Ben tells him, "There is a reason you were not chosen." The dumb terrorist roommate, contrasts and highlights Ben's innate wit and wisdom.

The plot unfolds...

Middle: Character Evolution

Characters evolve towards the climax, which will be the childbirth scene. The cool Alison becomes traumatic, demanding, loud, argumentative, apparently due to her fearful anticipation of childbirth pain. During Ben's attempt to reason by discussion, she throws him out of her car in a dangerous neighborhood, providing by role model, the technique of abandonment as manipulation. Ben evolves towards supportive responsibility and intelligent behavior. He obtains employment. "Best job I've ever had", he tells his boss. He refrains from marijuana, and moves away from his immature roommates.

Sister Debbie's husband labels Debbie, "over-protective", citing Debbie's anti-vaccination position. She responds, calling her husband "dipshit". The audience laughs. At this point, I was surprised to see anti-vaccination mentioned in a Hollywood film. However, the film increasingly portrays Alison as unstable, small-minded, over-controlling, and humorless.

Alison spends much time carefully selecting a doctor who seems sympathetic to natural childbirth. However, at the critical moment, when her water breaks, that doctor, without notice, is unavailable. Alison goes to a hospital and is randomly assigned a doctor. A threatening image is thus established for those who might consider natural childbirth. (Note, Alison should have joined a natural childbirth group or anti-vaccine group.)

Apex: Childbirth

A clever joke scene: All of Ben's ex-roommates have "pink-eye" disease, which, as they try to explain, is an infection acquired from feces particles -- caused by -- the 'terrorist' roommate who had farted on a pillow (suggestion of bio-warfare?). This odd scene appears unrelated to the plot except as humor, yet this scene is a clear setup, as it asserts by description, potential pathogen vectors of the groin region, and asserts by inference, that in the female, these pathogens could effect childbirth. Eye disease, reminds and justifies the routine toxic eye treatment for newborns.

In the delivery room, with birth imminent, Alison objects to drugs. The doctor insists on "pain-killers" and forces Alison's compliance by (illegally?) abandoning her, "Be your own doctor, I'm leaving", and he walks out.

Ben follows the doctor into the hallway and quietly, skillfully, patiently urges the doctor to be diplomatic with Alison, though not in terms of Alison's natural interests. The doctor returns, and the desperately fearful Alison agrees to any and all medication, however, the doctor now expands his pharmaceutical terminology, from "pain killers" to "antibiotics to fight infection". That statement, along with the "pink-eye" episode (from infective microbes at the groin region) reinforce pertinent germ paradigms. Thereby, infant vaccination and related pharmaceutical procedures are reinforced logically to the audience. The delivery continues with the doctor in command, and he states, "We're too late for an episiotomy", as if they missed their chance for some wonderful surgical procedure, due to the previous 'frivolous' arguments related to natural childbirth.

Emotional Climax: Ben becomes a full-fledged macho man (he too is birthed). At a moment when the doctor again (though briefly) leaves the room (to fetch a nurse), Debbie (sister and natural childbirth advocate) moves close to Alison to support her. Ben then takes Debbie into the hallway and with tremendous physical dominance, as the protecting father, verbally blasts Debbie, "Back the fuck off! This is my room! Your place is in the waiting room! If you don't leave I'll call security and tell them a nut-case woman is trying to steal our child!" The audio track is at peak volume, with Ben portrayed as a valiant roaring lion (earplugs are necessary). Aside: The DVD version does not show the loudness at this point, perhaps because of audio compression, or due to strategy. I've noticed generally that DVD versions can be different from theater versions, even in the dialogue, and these clearly manipulative differences may be one reason that recording equipment is outlawed in theaters (in addition to the piracy issues). The theater audience is getting a single pass/view, whereas the DVD audience can replay after thinking did they really say that? So the necessity for different versions.

Debbie attempts to reason civilly, however, Ben verbally blasts her out of the hallway. Ben's attitude towards Debbie (physical attack) and his attitude towards the doctor (quiet respect) are distinguished. Manhood is defined by role model. Additionally, the audience is programmed to expect the usual ad hominem attack against the unorthodox.

Ending: Happy Resolution

Debbie obediently returns to the waiting room, sits down and quietly tells her husband that she actually "enjoyed" being reprimanded. The audience predictably and unfortunately erupts in laughter, with the trite scene of the over-controlling shrew (natural advocate) put in her place.

All is well with the world. Tension #3 is resolved, that is, the 'terrorist' roommate appears shaven, no longer at odds with his shaven roommates. Social harmony reigns.

Omitted images

1) The very real hazards of tragically spending one's life with a damaged child due to mainstream technology. 2) suffering permanent maternal health damage. Both hazards are due to medical procedures developed out of a conflict of interest between the chemical industry and medicine, such as, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, unnecessary surgery.

A fun film, not a great film, somewhat crude and stupid, put together; I'd give it a Metacritic rating of 65. Reviewers gave it 100 across the board, ostensibly for its entertainment value, though obviously there is underlying pharmaceutical political power being flexed to promote this film, or else everyone is really already brain-washed, and they fell for it. For propaganda craft I'd give it 99. For message conveyed, I'd give it minus 100,000. Every element, device, and action, in this film is portrayed on-screen as 'humor'.

This film is the best example of propaganda technique I've ever seen. Writer/director is listed as Judd Apatow, though his tasks were likely coordinated with a team of medical industry advisors and propagandists, either during the film, or during his education. They must have made a bundle from product placement.

All-time horrible stupid boring film, funded by the Irish Film Board. Whining, stinking, repetitive, simple-minded, garbage pop songs, plot and acting, with a whining naive cast. All song melodies are based on a descending chromatic scale. I shudder at the memory.

An excellent, entertaining and skillful argument for the blue pill (reality avoidance, pharmaceutical, as described in "The Matrix"), directed by William Friedkin, the former director of "The Exorcist", and written by Mr. Tracy Letts.

Politically timely; the film coincides with CCD (Colony Collapse Disorder, bee epidemic of 2006/2007). Humans, instead of bees, have horrific lice burrowing into their skin. The 'bug' concept is nebulous. The 'bug' may be a paranoid illusion, and the illusion, not the bug is infectious.

"Bug", however, focuses on one couple and a few intimates that wander into their space.

Some illogic. Example: A visiting shrink who worked with the male human vector (carrier) in the Army, claims to know the situation well, but naively puts himself in fatal danger.

Extremely well done horror film. Acting is very convincing, intense, focused, the result of great directing. Essentially, this is the film "Conspiracy Theory" gone mad, and has the audience picking their scalp for lice.

Starts with wit and humor. Funny discussion of lice, thrips, and termites. La protagonista is impressed with el protagonisto's intelligence, recognized by his use of the word "matriarchal". Resolution of bug problem is by murder and self-immolation in high-test gasoline.

Sold products: Insect-fear, pest-control, the blue pill, and definitely misandry (male hatred),

A corporate teambuilding vacation turns into a horrific mass murder scene. Style is comedy/horror/drama.

Sales products: Pharmaceuticals. Those addicted to pharmaceuticals will survive horror, escorted to safety by young beautiful nude women. Abstainers die a fate worse than death.

Exciting action movie, well done, a blend of "Epidemic" and "Return of the Dead". It is based on a BS virus theme, very much like mad-cow-disease for humans.

Sales product: Virus paradigm. The movie effectively has the audience hating stupid children who don't realize just how dangerous viruses really are!

In the Land of Women (2007)
Cast: Meg Ryan, Adam Brody, Kristen Stewart, Olympia Dukakis
Director: Jonathan Kasdan, Screenwriter: Jonathan Kasdan

This film is a mumbling heap of garbage, filled with suburban women crying their problems to a sophisticated young porrrn author from LA. The film seems to have a huge conflict of interest with the medical industry, over women's health (cancer, social, senior problems, psychology). Example, Meg Ryan confesses to Adam Brody that she's going to have her breasts removed, cancer surgery. His answer is a big dramatic wet kiss, and "It's going to be alright." If I were Adam I'd say, "You'd better spend the night researching the cancer industry on Google."

This film's primary propaganda topic is abortion. Yes, that's right, absolutely for sure.

Sigourney Weaver, the protagonista, is a brave, stoic heroine on a space ship. She is a sexy intelligent woman who contains in her evolutionary makeup (though unseen) some monstrous alien DNA.

She gives birth to a monster son who resembles a freakish 8-foot tall monster fetus, with big teeth and a long tongue. To save the world, during the final scenes, she hugs her son and then breaks a window in the space ship, as a strategy against this monster. The scene is agonizingly emotional because she obviously has strong motherly instinctive love for the son and the son for her. Yet she has her son sucked out of the space ship piece by piece, to save the world.

The parallel to modern abortion techniques is obvious, since the suction method is numero-uno for abortions. The space-ship is the womb.

Summary: The CARROT: Women must have abortions to save the world. They can be heroines by having abortions. Intelligent, beautiful, brave women have abortions. That is the carrot. The STICK: Humans contain original sin, evil DNA, and women must be willing to abort to save the planet. A lot of mothers probably woke up the next morning (after seeing this film), looked at their beloved infant and thought, "Oh my God! What did I do?"

She loves him, she loves him not. Good film, irreverent comedy, no drug promotion that I caught while laughing so much.

Harry uses a powerful sea herb which gives him gills and web feet for one hour so he can win an underwater contest.

Throughout the film, Harry's professor-advisor is taking swigs of some powerful drug to stabilize himself. At one point he is taken over by an evil entity, and just before that happens, he stumbles through empty bottles, unable to get his fix.

I told a friend of my observations and his reply was: "There is no pharmaceutical association there! Potions and spirits are often found in children's books and films!" My reply: "So? That's exactly my point. There are drugs, with no realistic portrayal of drugs. Drugs are associated with magic."

John Le Carre's novel "The Constant Gardener" has been transformed into a Hollywood movie. I saw this in August, 2005.

The movie tells us that

1) Powerful, effective drugs are released to the market before their formula is tweaked to perfection.

2) Middlemen take too much profit, and divert effective pharmaceuticals from the desperately diseased.

3) The international pharmaceutical mega-corporations manipulate prices high, and thereby those who need the drugs are denied life-saving drugs.

4) Those who obstruct the flow of profits may be assassinated.

In essence, the movie dramatizes the infectious disease paradigms (HIV, TB, etc) the efficacy of related pharmaceuticals. Suspension of disbelief is powered by conspiracy drama, e.g., the steady threat of death upon the female activist-heroine.

This commercial ploy for HIV is old. Since the early 1980s, pharma-funded 'activist' groups have been given media space to successfully demonstrate for greater access to AZT, etc. This movie is a continuation of the same promotional procedure.

The movie ostensibly 'reveals' the surreptitious politics of the pharmaceutical industry, but actually it merely enhances the orthodox thesis, which is that pharmaceuticals are powerful benefits for patients.

Missing is the real conspiracy, that pharmaceuticals are often well-promoted poisons that do not cure disease, and are a major form of disease causation, as they appear on www.virusmyth.com

From Anthony Brink, lawyer and HIV dissident who conversed with Le Carre, Le Carre wrote to Anthony that Le Carre was admittedly a fool, initially taken in by the AIDS industry. [Braced comments] are mine

In view of John le Carré’s depiction of the criminal amorality of the pharmaceutical industry in his novel The Constant Gardener, I sent him a copy of my book Debating AZT: Mbeki and the AIDS drug controversy in mid-2001. The nub of his warmly encouraging two-page, handwritten response was: ‘I agree with (the alas late) Donald Woods: [AZT] needs much more serious debate than Big Pharma and the usual club of fringe beneficiaries are permitting. There is simply too big a case to answer, and it’s not being answered. [¶] Having said that, I suppose I look a bit of a fool because I’m one of the numberless well-intentioned people who have been championing cheap antiretrovirals for the Third World’s afflicted etc. But the book worries me deeply, and, until the debate has been properly joined and fought, will continue to do so [worry me].’

Le Carré suggested I use the last sentence as a pull-quote. Quoting him more extensively (as above) on the back cover of the manuscript of my forthcoming book The trouble with nevirapine, I sent him a copy late last year, expecting he’d like it equally. This time he responded furiously, the true reason for which I discovered afterwards. He was evidently concerned that I was about to compromise him publicly in the most awkward way.

Around the time his novel was published in January 2001, le Carré promoted it in the media by aptly denouncing pharmaceutical corporations as ‘the criminals of capitalism’. The industry, he said, was ‘spending a fortune on influencing, hiring and purchasing academic judgment to a point where, in a few years’ time, if Big Pharma continues unchecked on its present happy path, unbought medical opinion will be hard to find’.

Unbought literary opinion too:

Imagine my surprise to see a ‘product placement’ in The Constant Gardener movie of a certain pharmaceutical drug, not mentioned in the novel. For punting nevirapine, not once but twice, Boehringer Ingelheim would have paid the film producers a fortune, some of which drug money would have been recycled to le Carré for the purchase of the film rights.

As for John Pilger: on receiving The trouble with nevirapine he indeed emailed me a magnificent compliment about my political writing – which he later asked me not to quote. So I shan’t.

ANTHONY BRINK

Junebug (2005)

The film, Junebug, was viewed at Angelica Theater in Manhattan, September, 11, 2005. The title is the name of the infant that died at birth, near the climatic end section of the movie. The mother, Ashley is shown as a naive country woman.

Ostensibly, the movie is a typical 'independent' film, written by Angus MacLachlan, who happens to be a friend of the director. But the film has the odor of gov/industrial social propaganda. Why would any film be made anyway? To 'entertain' people as audiences think? What does that mean?

This film is a great refinement of the propaganda techniques I've become aware of within this arena of independent films, for now about a decade.

The movie appears to be a tragicomedy about a sexy, sophisticated young woman, through whom, or in contrast to whom, the audience views a strange (but not uncommon) country Protestant family and culture, in North Carolina. The city audience laughs throughout at, or with, the neurotic ignorance of this small town culture. Shown are the quiet, socially unsophisticated males, the repressive and manipulating mother, the silly, babbling, pregnant daughter-in-law.

The city woman is sexy, intelligent, business-like, sociable and proper. She gracefully handles an anti-semitic comment from a mentally deficient artist (a Forest Gump character) whom she is visiting in order to gain his work for her art gallery in Chicago.

The crux of the film is obvious to those who are aware of medical propaganda.

2) A few scenes later, Ashley is shown in her hospital bed, shaking her head in agony, yelling, "Why would God allow this to happen to a baby?!" Clearly, this urges the audience to think of step one, forming an image of causation, e.g., Ashley's non-acceptance of an authorized medical product.

3) Ashley, shortly later, is shown yelling again, in her hospital bed, "Doctors think they know everything, but they know nothing!" The audience is motivated to reflect, "ignorant woman."

From my discussions with audience personnel, there is no awareness of this medical crux. The film is to them an insightful and humorous ride through country life. I don't disagree with that view, however, I am certain that the climactic crux, Junebug's death is a medical ad, evidenced by the title "Junebug", and the three steps described above.

Summary of form: The form is a pastiche of folksy interaction, with cause, effect and blame unstated. The characters obviously lend themselves to criticism. Within this pastiche, at the 'climax', the birthing of the infant Junebug, there is to be found a triple punch of medical propaganda.

This technique of blending traditional folksy "ignorance" to promote medical products, is not unusual.

Extended research for this review -- I recently found that a drug company financed the film:

No online review could be found that mentions the obvious conflict of interest. Here is what they claim they think:

"Junebug is a movie about the faces people show to the outside..." Cinematical

eFilmCritic provides a review by Aaron Ducat that nearly touches the truth, "Sadly, writer Angus MacLachlan provides us with too many stereotypes: the ... It’s as if Morrison’s film was backed by a pharmaceutical company who was handing out tranquilizers on the set." Hey Aaron, you almost woke up! It was backed by a pharmaceutical company... you missed the primary motive. Yet, you are suggesting product placement, that is, the movie is about social futility, which could drive one to drink... and drugs.

A great comedy by Tom DiCillo. This film promotes the alternative, questioning culture as perfectly normal, where by example, la protagonista throws food at a smoker in a restaurant and everyone laughs. Gratuitous violence is parodied excellently.

DiCillo's films are subverted by the distribution industry, as it seems to me and clearly to Tom DiCillo, per these interviews: www.indieking.com/doublewhammy.html. His films have great pop appeal (but are not promoted properly), are witty, funny, and poke fun at mainstream Hollywood, as did "Cable Guy" (starring Jim Carrey), which was subverted by New York Times critics leading the dog pack.

'One Night Stand' (11/24/97) Directed by Mike Figgis. Starring Wesley Snipes, Nastassja Kinski.

This is similar to Tom DiCillo's fine comedy, "Double Whammy", in that this film promotes the alternative, questioning culture as normal.

Snipes, as advertisement director Max Carlyle, is married to a vacuous 'California' wife. Max's middle-class minded male friend is married to a sexy blond, who happens to be a brainy rocket scientist.

Throughout the movie Max is 'too serious', and says party spoilers like, "The mud slides in Los Angeles were purposefully done."

The movie ends up with Max sighing relief as he and the intelligent blond go off together, and Max's wife happily goes off with the other guy. Cool suspense all the way to the end.

The film is humorous, realistic, conversational, a wonderful film. Oddly though, Max doesn't critic the AIDS paradigm, while visiting his dying HIV-infected friend at the hospital. There, however, is the advertising crux, a silent and effective propaganda technique which confirms the orthodox AIDS thesis. (The orthodox view is contradicted by www.virusmyth.com)

The film has an insightful, conspiracy theorist (Max) endorsing the HIV paradigm.

The movie is slammed routinely by critics who don't understand, or pretend not to understand the plot.

Jim Carrey plays a lawyer, Fletcher Reede, who for 24 hours is obsessed with truth telling. When his four-year old son find out Reede's condition, he sits down with his father and asks a few critical questions:

2) Son: "Is fluoride really dangerous?" Father: (Laughs condescendingly) "Of course not, son."

In this biographical movie of Jerry Seinfeld, comedians were required to submit their jokes for censoring, before going on the air (David Letterman show). The word "Lupus" was censored.

This movie appears to be the worst movie ever made. Yet it is so bad, that I suspect this was purposeful, and thus I began to enjoy the film. It has a fresh, irregular approach to plot line, reminiscent of "The Forty-Year-Old Virgin", film. There are NO medical advertisements, and thus so rare an item that it deserves mention here. There is a plug (if one can construe it as such) for the more expensive tampons.

A superb film, based on a graphic novel. Every frame is carefully crafted. This will be a classic. No simple medical propaganda detected, however, the film can be summed up in terms of typical gender politics, which has been reduced to simple biochemistry: Testosterone is bad. Man's original sin can be met, his redemption, his readmission into society, can only be found by killing other testosterone producers.

The Constant Gardener (2005)	One Night Stand (Snipes, 1997)	Away We Go (2009)
Junebug (2005)	Liar, Liar (1992)	Oliver Parker (2010)
Comedian (2002)	Double Whammy (2001)	Hereafter (2010)
Dirty Love (2005)	A History of Violence (2005)	Solitary Man (2010)
Harry Potter And The Goblet (2005)	Just Friends (2005)	Barney's Version (2011)
Alien Resurrection (1997)	In The Land of Women (2007)	Of Gods and Men (2011)
28 Days Later (2007)	Severance (2007)	The Greatest Movie Ever Sold (2011)
Bug (2007)	Once (2007)	Water For Elephants (2011)
Knocked Up (2007)	La Vie En Rose (2007)	Bullhead (2012)
Delirious (2007)	The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936)	The Deep Blue Sea (2012)
Lars and the Real Girl (2007)	No Country For Old Men (2007)	Contact (1997)
I Am Legend (2007)	Dan In Real Life (2007)	Bourne Legacy (2012)
Motorcycle Diaries (2004)	Transsiberian (2008)	The Chef (2014)
Fading Gigolo (2013)	Transcendence (2014)	Lunch Box (2013)
The Immigrant (2013)	The Driver (2013)